Recent Comments

Prev  1200  1201  1202  1203  1204  1205  1206  1207  1208  1209  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  Next

Comments 60351 to 60400:

60351. skywatcher at 15:37 PM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       #1 lurgee - I'd agree, it appears to be an emerging tactic of some sort, but little different to the playground bullies who have run out of taunts and say they're not interested anymore. I think the claim is running in parallel with a trend in which there are progressively fewer and fewer skeptic arguments that even deserve more than about five seconds to debunk (especially if you have SkepticalScience to hand!). More and more people are aware of the vacuity and mutual incoherence and fundamental incorrectness of various skeptic arguments, so they have to resort to claiming that nobody's interested anymore. I doubt we'll have the luxury of them just disappearing off, but it's an interesting possible trend nonetheless. Another angle is that media only tend to report something that's 'different', such as today's example of the Karakorum glaciers on BBC, and tend not to report on the continuations of warming, melting, acidification and so on. Merely confirmatory research does not make such a good 'story', even though it makes up the bulk of research on climate-related issues. The result is that the consensus views get a poor airing even from unbiased news outlets - expanded on in Freudenberg's Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge. I wonder if this effect is furthering, to some people, an impression that the issue is less prominent? There's precious little 'skeptic' research, and so we see that the research that WUWT and co pick up on, such as the recent ones about Antarctic ikaites, deglacial CO2 and Karakorum glaciers, is actually research that confirms the overall scientific consensus. Desperate times for those in denial! As for the issue of what is most difficult to explain to the average person - not so sure, but perhaps the concept that it is something we need to act upon now, and we can't wait/put it off like our parents did. Actually, rather like DSL's comment even if that one was in response to lurgee! - namely that this is stunningly rapid in the context of geological or vegetational change, and so represents a very real threat to large-scale agriculture. Very hard for the average person to realise this as they are not accustomed to thinking on timescales of thousands or millions of years. Has SkS got it covered? - largely in skeptic argument #3, It's Not Bad, and #8,Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
60352. Tom Curtis at 15:34 PM on 16 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       William Haas @104, I made a major error in my post 73, which I corrected in my post 87. The effect of the error was to overestimate the difference in the GHE between the LGM and the late 20th century by 60-70 W/m^2. In consequence, the unexplained change in GHE is around 30 W/m^2. As noted in my post 73, even that is an over estimate because it does not allow for the effect changes in albedo, nor from minor Greenhouse gases like methane, nor the effect of the increased temperature difference between equator and pole, which allows larger IR emissions from the surface for a given global temperature. Consequently the increase in contribution to the total GHE from water vapour is almost certainly less than 30 W/m^2, but also very likely to be greater than 15 W/m^2.
60353. William Haas at 15:00 PM on 16 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       79 danieic 82 Skywatcher most likely answered your question but let me add something. At lower temperatures the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to H2O will be higher so according to green house gas theory the relative contribution to heat trapping of CO2 compared to H2O will be much higher. At temperatures less than -22 degrees f, H2O vapor disappears from the atmosphere but the level of CO2 does not change. I do not believe that changes in green house gasses are considerd to be the trigger that started the climate change at the LGM but they may have added to the effect.
60354. scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 16 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       William - reiterating earlier commentators: H2O is important feedback - it cannot be a driver. A driver (forcing) is something changes the energy flow independent of temperature. You cannot vary H2O independently of temperature so is feedback only. CO2 is both.
       Moderator Response: TC: html tags fixed.
60355. Chris G at 14:21 PM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       WRT: "...which is colder than the average surface temperature because some of the infrared emission comes from clouds at colder levels in the atmosphere." Mmm, while it is true that the tops of clouds are generally colder than the areas without clouds, I don't think it is necessary to invoke clouds. It might be more accurate to say that the percentage of longwave not absorbed by the GHGs above any point of emission, and therefore actually escaping to space, increases as the altitude increases. Absorption is a function of density, and density drops rapidly with altitude. Near the surface, very few of the photons which could be absorbed by a GHG make it to space without interacting with a GHG. As the density drops, a higher percentage of the photons emitted reach space (and GHGs both absorb and emit). Temperature drops with altitude, up to the tropopause. The mean emission altitude is around 6km; this is below the mean tropopause height (which varies). So, an instrument measuring outbound photons sees a distribution of photons that represents a temperature that is less that what the surface actually is. More of any GHG effectively raises the distribution of outbound photons a little higher in the atmosphere. Using an environmental lapse rate of 6.5 K/km, and not counting albedo changes, you only need to raise the mean altitude of emission by about 300m in order to cause a 2 K warming at the surface. OK, at this point I think that all I've done is demonstrate that more accurate is sometimes less clear. My longer description is still a simplification, and I suspect I've left some readers behind. Or, maybe I've demonstrated that when things are simplified, you can have more than one seemingly different explanation for the same effect, that might appear to be, but are not really at odds with each other. I suspect that some bloggers take advantage of this kind of inconsistency-that-isn't scenario in order to imply doubt where really none exists.
60356. William Haas at 14:16 PM on 16 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       Sorry for being behind in my comments. I may get caught up eventually. 78 Tom Curtis. Thank you for the good work. According to you the change in CO2 forcing from LGM to the year 2000 was 3.7 watts per square meter. The change in the GHE you say from LGM to the Holocene is somewhere between 50 and 100 watts per square meter. Since H2O is the domanant green house gas then it must be the driver. The effects of H2O really overwhelm that of CO2. This is according to the data that you have presented. We are talking about cimate here and not weather. H2O is in many ways the big weather maker with relative humidity varying quite a bit from day to day. As water precipitates out more is added through vaporazation and or sublimation. What matters is the average amount of H20 in the atmosphere and as average temperatures increase so does the average amount of water vapor. This is commonly used in modeling an increase in retained heat caused by more water vapor that is in turn caused by a warmer atmosphere that in turn is caused by an increase in CO2. It is modeled as a CO2 related feedback mechanism. We live in a water world which was especially true during the first 2,500 years after the LGM. H2O will not only evaporate from liquid water exposed to the atmosphere but it will sublime directly from ice. I assume that, for temperatures less than -22 degrees f, water vapour content will drop to zero but even at the LGM it was not less than -22 degrees f over the entire earth's surface. So far I have been talking about the first 2,500 years after the LGM when according to the article the CO2 levels did not change so there was no CO2 change to effect average temperatures. We are talking about climate change that occoured gradually over a period of 2,500 years. Remember that 2,500 years ago was before the rise of the Roman empire. It is a very long time, and a long enough time for local varinng weather effects to average out.
60357. scaddenp at 14:13 PM on 16 April 2012
       Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
       I think Manny's comment implies that he/she thinks that there could be unknown natural forcings that effect climate only on century wide scales. "Proof" is a concept for mathematics not science, so it is better to say that there is no evidence for such forcings. There is a very strong believe among scientists in the conservation of energy which would require this natural forcing to manifest as a energy flow that so far has evaded detection. This is possible but highly unlikely.
60358. skywatcher at 13:55 PM on 16 April 2012
       Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
       #17 Manny, you're comparing apples to oranges. The article is not a parody of a model 'hindcast', it is a parody of amateurs thinking they can predict future temperatures based on drawing a line through a tiny subset of current temperatures. The above article demonstrated that doing a regression over a short timescale (seven weeks, not three months) is insufficient to distinguish the forced winter-summer trend in San Jose, even when we clearly understand the forcing and the result. This is the same argument as someone drawing a trend line through temperature data for a decade or less (they usually start in 1998, 2002 or some other such high point), and thus claiming that they can say something about the long-term trend or the nature of its forcing. Climate models on the other hand are not based on wiggle-matching, or simple correlations / linear / multiple regressions. They are based on the fundamental physical properties of the atmosphere, land and ocean including the energy flows to, from and through each. Validation of a GCM over the past century is to confirm that the model of the Earth system (and the physics defined therein) behaves in a manner similar to that of the observed Earth system. That they do so is a powerful validation of that fundamental physics. The basic physics has to be right to replicate not only the overall warming trend, but key wiggles such as mid-century cooling or volcanic eruptions. The basic physics is then used to make projections given a furture evolution of key parameters like CO2 emissions, volcanoes, ENSO and the Sun. Do you see the difference? While some elements of the system have behaviours dominant over longer timescales (including sea level rise, ice sheet disintegration, natural carbon sequestration), most of the other dominant behaviours can be characterised by the models on the century or sub-century scale. There is no reason to think that the forces that have controlled our climate over the past millennium, and even further back through the ice ages, should have changed in their modes of operation. Do you have a reason why those forces might have changed?
60359. Manny at 13:29 PM on 16 April 2012
       Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
       Moderator has removed one comment I added after my last where I stated that the above discussion about the temperature of the past 6,000 years pulls us away from my initial criticism of this article. Allow me to restate it: With this article you have proven that three months of hindcast is too short to support accurate climate predictions. The IPCC GCM climate models are validated using data from 1900 onward. Where is the proof that one century of hindcast is strong enough to support climate predictions for the next century?
60360. Michael Whittemore at 13:25 PM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       @ lurgee 1 "Has any thought been given to what seems to be the emerging denier tactic of claiming interest in Climate change is 'dying out'?" Here is a fine example of Andrew Bolt getting a real scientist on his show and getting put in his place when it comes to the truth The youtube video. These money making deniers can not afford the truth are playing the "climate change is dying card".
60361. Steve L at 13:05 PM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       In response to issue of the week, the following is about those who accept the GW part of AGW, but not the 'anthropogenic' part. I've kind of made a resolution to engage more regular people regarding climate change (i.e., not just on internet fora). Today I sat down and scraped up a general 'gameplan': 1. CO2 in the air blocks infra-red (show this youtube video on smartphone), and we've increased CO2 a lot (explain enormity of change in atmosphere and ocean). 2. Greenhouse effect of CO2 is not a radical new-age idea (very brief listing of Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, video from 1958, Hansen, George Bush Sr and formation of the IPCC). 3. CO2 and climate throughout the ages (faint young sun, natural CO2 sequestration, Milankovic cycles). 4. Predictions for recent and near future temperature measurements (ask them what they think will happen, ask them what they think has been predicted by climatologists). 5. Ask them for either their favoured explanation of recent temperature increase or for their favorite arguments against the consensus explanation. 6. Compare their predictions (for their favored warming mechanism) to those of climate change. Okay, so here I get to the relevant part for the issue of the week. I imagine the myths most needing to be dislodged will be about solar influences. In that case, under item 6 above, I say that a simple solar explanation (increased irradiance) would predict: daytime, summer, tropics would show warming first; stratosphere should warm; satellites should detect increasing radiation (from the sun); more visible radiation should be detected at the Earth's surface; current solar minimum should result in cooling temperatures. AGW on the other hand predicts nights, winters, poles warming faster; stratosphere should cool; satellites should detect decreasing radiation (from the Earth); more infra-red should be detected at the Earth's surface; warming of the planet should continue. Two of these are taken from the 10 indicators post (see 5 & 6 at this SkS fave ). There are citations provided, but I'm lacking a competent layperson's explanation for what is being compared. Satellites detect 'less' infra-red in the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum leaving Earth, but less than what? Less than when? Ground-based monitors detect 'more' infra-red bouncing back down toward them in the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum. More than what? More than when? I should look this up, but there may be other SkS visitors who would benefit from a more complete treatment of the topic here, at this excellent web resource. Thanks.
60362. DSL at 13:03 PM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       TOP, if the Arctic is ice-free within 20 years, Nos. 2 and 3 won't really be a factor, because polar bears will begin to seek out new sources of food, and that will bring No. 4 into play. Unless the ice loss flattens for a few years, polar bears are going to have to evolve flippers and a snorkel. DB: if by "denier" you mean someone who has become psychologically invested in maintaining a position, and any threat to that position is seen as a potential attack on confidence or self-esteem (as if SkS were a game board)--ala Doug Cotton. There are plenty of people, though, who post "sciency" unevidenced stuff because they've been misled by opinion-makers; many of those may be called "deniers" but might actually be willing to engage the science and "come unstuck." TOP I have no opinion on--still weighing the evidence.
60363. DSL at 12:49 PM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       Lurgee @ 1 -- "Has any thought been given to what seems to be the emerging denier tactic of claiming interest in Climate change is 'dying out'?" This is precisely why so many scientists are willing to 'get all political'. AGW is incredibly rapid on the geologic timescale, but it is slow on the timescale of a human life. When living under an economic mode that, even according to its most steadfast defenders, encourages people to focus on the next month rather than the next hundred years, it's fairly clear that unless the message is strong and delivered by a united front of really smart and/or well-respected and/or well-trusted people, concern will be set aside in favor of short-term economic and political goals. The occasional local manifestation of AGW will produce brief bursts of public concern, but it will take government (the only institution whose purpose it is to think long range in the general human interest . . . well, ideally anyway) to actually do something about it. This is all especially true if institutions (and the humans that populate them) designed to cast doubt on science, such as Heartland, continue to be given a free pass in mainstream media. Given those conditions, is it any wonder why scientists and other concerned citizens do things that allow the unconcerned to shout "alarmists!"
60364. TOP at 12:46 PM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       You might look here for information on what is known to be going on and why.
60365. Michael Whittemore at 12:10 PM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       @ Issue of the week: "Based on your personal experiences, what is the most difficult aspect of manmade climate change to explain to the average person?" Connecting events to anthropogenic climate change seems to be a hard argument. We are only in the beginning of a climate shift, and trying to make people understand that everything is not normal, isn't easy. I have heard it said before, but its going to take some serious natural disasters before people are going to get angry at the likes of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones for their nit picking of climate science.
60366. TOP at 12:08 PM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       There are four main threats to polar bears in the article. 1) Loss of habitat, sea ice (potential threat) 2) Ingestion of seals rich in pollutants (currently going on) 3) Oil spills (potential threat, but likely to happen in a limited time over a limited area) 4) Harvesting in an unregulated manner (current threat) I would have to ask whether #2 will do them in before #1 or #4? There is not much control over #2.
60367. Doug Hutcheson at 11:47 AM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       

       Based on your personal experinces, what is the most difficult aspect of manamde climate change to explain to the average person? from your pserpsective, has SkS adequately addressed this particular issue?

       Apart from how to use a spell checker? [/sarc] The area most often misunderstood seems to be the difference between weather and climate. When someone is objecting to AGW on the grounds that "locals reckon it was hotter here 50 years ago", it can be hard to get them to see that one local phenomenon is not representative of the Earth over time, or that anecdote is not the same as accurate observation. I find that referring to the melting Arctic is a good way to guide the conversation onto topics related to global effects. I use SkS references extensively, because SkS provides plenty of science to counter misunderstandings.
       Moderator Response: [JH] Typos fixed. Thanks for pointing them out. "Haste makes waste."
60368. Michael Whittemore at 11:45 AM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       @ lurgee 1 "Has any thought been given to what seems to be the emerging denier tactic of claiming interest in Climate change is 'dying out'?" This is a point that is being made here in Australia too, I have not looked into it but tend to think people are becoming more educated on the subject of climate change and are not prepared to disregard it, so tv/news networks have to play the card that its "dying out". @ Issue of the week: "Based on your personal experiences, what is the most difficult aspect of manmade climate change to explain to the average person?"
60369. chriskoz at 11:28 AM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       What is the difference between "denier" and "denialist"? And similarly, between "denial" and "denialism"? I've seen people (including climate scientists) using both terms. The latter term is not explained by any dictionary (and is marked with squiggles in my spell-checking software) so it must be neologism. I wonder if that neologism has some peculiar meaning among climate scientists or if it is just a fashionable contortion of the established term. If the distinction exists, I'd like it to be added to the SkS dictionary of terms and acronyms, which is in the making according to the long heard rumours. Thanks! I think the difficulties of explaining AGW to the average person largely depends on who this person is: truly "average" and easy to convince, "skeptic", "denier" or "denialist"? :)
60370. RyanG at 11:27 AM on 16 April 2012
       NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
       It's too bad that this letter to NASA couldn't be construed as advertising, it would have run afoul of the US FTC's Endorsement Guides. The most recent FTC Endorsement Guides, has the following relevant example: Page 8 of the PDF file: § 255.3 (b) Example 1: An endorsement of a particular automobile by one described as an “engineer” implies that the endorser’s professional training and experience are such that he is well acquainted with the design and performance of automobiles. If the endorser’s field is, for example, chemical engineering, the endorsement would be deceptive.
60371. william5331 at 11:22 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       Coral islands may well be destroyed by climate change but probably not because of sea level rise. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html It is important to get the reason right because if you don't and your argument is discredited, it is hard to convince anyone that your new argument is correct.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
60372. Chris G at 11:21 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       I was thinking it might be useful to put together a list of links where most, if not all, of Steve Case's talking points have already been hashed out. But, the list of good refutations is long, and perhaps people are more convinced by things they find for themselves than what they've been pointed toward. Simple searches on just this site alone yield multiple pages per topic, nevermind if you go off-site. Steve's arguments sound simple, and simple sounds good; to refute them you have to get more technical, but if your target audience doesn't even know what a Hadley cell is, how do you convince them about changes in rain bands and expanding deserts? In the end it comes down to an appeal to authority, unless you happen to actually be an authority, a publishing researcher in the area. So, I can only ask that any newcomers verify the information in the article independently, and ask themselves questions like (on just one topic): Ice sheet mass loss is measurably accelerating; where will this water end up? Why does Steve think that the sea level rise will not accelerate? Looking at the geologic record, has the sea level transition between one glacial state and another ever been slow and steady over the whole transition? What makes Steve think it will be this time? Is the habitable land area potentially gained from underneath ice masses more or less that the habitable land lost from a coinciding rise in sea level? Look at pictures of land exposed by receding ice; does it look very habitable to you? OK, here is as good a start link for that one topic as any: Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick
60373. william5331 at 11:18 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       The real danger of Natural Gas is that it will be a glut and hence cheap. This will force down the price of all fossil fuel and cause us to use far more energy than otherwise. Instead of replacing coal and hence giving us a small respite from our carbon emissions, the use of Natural gas will simply mean we have further to fall when the gas runs out as it certainly will. Worse, it will trash the initiative to switch to renewable energy.
60374. Bob Loblaw at 11:14 AM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       Issue of the week: "Based on your personal experiences, what is the most difficult aspect of manmade climate change to explain to the average person? The magical "natural variability" or "unknown factor" that the person seems to believe exists, but can't name or describe, that just has to be the real explanation to the warming [that isn't actually happening, because of the unknown factor that's causing errors in anything that "shows" warming], not CO2... ...and if I ever figure out what that is, I'll let you know if SkS has it covered!
60375. Doug Hutcheson at 11:13 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       Excellent introductory to the topic, which I will glady point people to when they ask for information. For the sake of people reading these comments and wondering about the so-called debate on climate change, note that Steve Case @ 2 made a number of claims, but did not stick around to discuss them in a real debate. This type of activity is known as a 'drive by' and is a common tactic by those whose purpose is to spread confusion and misinformation. His list of points is known as a Gish Gallop, where there are so many things wrong that it is difficult to know where to start in addressing them. To be clear: there is no debate, amongst scientists who are actively researching and publishing peer-reviewed papers in the relevant fields, that anthropological global warming (AGW) is real, is happening now and is dangerous.
       Moderator Response: TC: To be fair to Steve Case, he is still actively discussing issues arising from one of his claims on a more appropriate thread as requested by the moderators. Therefore his actions cannot be characterized as a 'drive by'. As the moderator who explicitly made the request, I would like to thank Steve Case for his cooperation.
60376. lurgee at 10:40 AM on 16 April 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       Has any thought been given to what seems to be the emerging denier tactic of claiming interest in Climate change is 'dying out'? This claim was advanced in the Telegraph the other day ("the fading belief that the world is in the grip of runaway man-made global warming"), and soemthing similar was regurgitated on the radio here in New Zealand by a rightwing propagandist, Matthew Hooton. There have been couple of other recent examples as well. Sounds like a meme that denier propagandists are trying to plant in people's minds, hoping it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think we'll hear a lot more of this "old story, last years problem" in the future, as Climategate2 failed so miserably. Funny how the Other Side (pokes Daniel Bailey in the ribs) act in unison like this - while we're tearing big chunks out of each other over ice cores. Almost like we have real, if occasionally divergent opinions, whereas they all read from scripts. Surely not?!
60377. lurgee at 10:29 AM on 16 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       I was inspired by the estimable Albatross, in another discussion: "The last thing I want is to be responsible for sending someone to the 'dark side'." Some people seem to be drinking too much coffee.
60378. muoncounter at 10:16 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       sky, Seems this story has been around. Here's Nature Climate Change in March 2010: Karakoram glaciers seem to buck the trend, however. Several studies of a handful of glaciers in Pakistan have found that many glaciers there are steady at their snouts, and some have even advanced. ... But it makes sense that the Karakoram glaciers would respond differently from those in the Himalayas, says Armstrong. “It's colder. It's higher latitude,” up to ten degrees latitude farther north than Nepal. This figure accompanies the article, but doesn't separate out Karakoram: --source The marginal increase in a small area clearly cancels this more widespread downtrend.
60379. Daniel Bailey at 10:07 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       "When a non-monsoon season comes along, how do we release the water from these great storage depots?" They take in snow in the accumulation zone and rain in the ablation zone. They emit water from the lower reaches via the internal plumbing all glaciers have. This goes on for as long as the glacier has mass in the ablation zone (even in the non-monsoon season).
60380. Steve Case at 10:02 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       "These glaciers serve as storage depots for a great portion of the world's populations, buffering them against the lack of rainfall during the non-monsoon seasons." And the obvious question is: When a non-monsoon season comes along, how do we release the water from these great storage depots?
60381. skywatcher at 09:59 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Dead right mc - but as it would appear, the skeptic echochamber is desperate to twist any research these days, be it about Antarctic ikaites or CO2 during deglaciation. Their discomfort with the truth grows all the time, and they have no coherent explanations...
60382. muoncounter at 09:57 AM on 16 April 2012
       Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
       sky, All those US news outlets get the same feed from the NWS. Thank goodness the Daily Mail wasn't fooled: But the photos of the one-off event are so unbelievable that an army of online sceptics have cast doubt on their authenticity, suggesting that instead they may simply show large rocks. These must be the usual 'sceptics,' who rarely bother checking their facts. But the last time I was in the UK, even they didn't have rocks that could melt.
60383. muoncounter at 09:43 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       skyw, Nor should this new report be a surprise. Scherler et al 2011: More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, ... In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable. Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover 'No uniform response' ... that's a subtlety that won't play well in the echo-chamber, where all the answers are simple. Nuance need not apply.
60384. Daniel Bailey at 09:39 AM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       @ Tom

       "TOP's reference to the terms of use are a deliberate distraction."

       Absolutely spot-on. And part-and-parcel of the usual TOP agenda to distort & misinform with due deliberation and intent. Any future comments made by TOP should heretofore be viewed as being suspect until proven otherwise. For his credibility-meter has flatlined. I would submit that it is impossible for a denier to admit to error, as that would be anathema to the denier worldview.
60385. skywatcher at 09:29 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       You know what's particularly annoying about that piece in the BBC - it's the headline that's on the front page of BBC "Asian glaciers 'putting on mass' " Now, what message do you take from such a headline? 1: That the mass balance of some glaciers in part of the Himalayas (one small region of Asia), measured over just nine years, slightly increased, contrary to the overall regional trend. 2: Or if you're casually browsing the intertubes, do you think that those darn scientists were wrong again about the glaciers, as it looks like Asia's glaciers (a big area) are all gaining mass, contradicting all earlier research? [This of course assumes you don't read the article] I don't know if the short headline is Richard Black's (the article author's) doing, but as so often happens on BBC climate articles, they can't quite manage to escape throwing a bone to contrarians, despite their very own Jones Report on impartiality. Here, the main article is also a decidedly mixed bag, notably failing to mention the context of worldwide accelerating loss of glacier/ice sheet ice mass.
60386. skywatcher at 09:13 AM on 16 April 2012
       Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
       mc, while the hailstorm and consequences were dramatic, I have a few doubts about the reports of 2-4 or 4-8 feet of hail actually falling (is there a better source than news media?) - I suspect those measurements were mostly from drifts where the flash floods piled the ice up. I don't doubt that there were large rainfall and hail totals however! And I don't want to take away too much from the weirdness of that weather - the video of the flash flood loaded up with ice is scary, the power, shape and destructiveness of the flood has more in common with a volcanic lahar than even a typical flash flood!
60387. muoncounter at 09:13 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Get ready for another onslaught from the echo chamber: Some Asian glaciers 'putting on mass' Prediction: The use of models to reach this conclusion will be ignored. And this tidbit will also be under-reported: ... between 1999 and 2008 the mass of the glaciers in this 5,615 sq km (2,168 sq miles) region of the Karakoram increased marginally, although there were wide variations between individual glaciers. See the Nature article here.
60388. Tom Curtis at 09:05 AM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       TOP @36 and DB inline comment, TOP's reference to the terms of use are a deliberate distraction. I will not be distracted - but see below. The important point that TOP is trying to distract from is that he is trying to represent a report that says polar bears are at risk as not saying that polar bears are at risk. Indeed he continues to do so, saying that "it is the habitat and not the bears that are at risk according to the article" (my emphasis). TOP is entitled to form and put forward any view he likes about the risk to polar bears. He is not entitled to misrepresent the opinions of others about that risk, and he is certainly not entitled to put forward those misrepresentations as evidence for his own opinions. As TOP's attention has been drawn to the misrepresentation, and as he persists in it regardless, the only reasonable supposition is that the misrepresentation is deliberate. Lest there be any doubt about this, the article says in its lead section: "Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable A3c ver 3.1" Where "Vulnerable" means: "A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild:"(my emphasis) So the article directly states that polar bears are "facing a high risk of extinction in the wild", which TOP represents as saying that it is "... not the bears that are at risk according to the article." The numbers after the classification indicate that polar bears are facing ...

       "A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following: ... 3. A population size reduction of ≥ 30%, projected or suspected to be met within ... three generations, ..., based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1."

       ... where A1 (c) specifies the reason for the risk as ...

       "(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat"

       . So, contrary to TOP, it is habitat degredation, specified as being due to global warming in the article, which is claimed as the reason why the polar bears are facing "a high risk of extinction". The only reasonable conclusion at this point is that TOP is willing to straightforwardly misquote and misrepresent articles as saying the exact opposite of what they do so to further his cause. Everything he says should be understood in that light. Returning to TOP's attempted distraction, I note that terms and conditions do not apply to publicly accessible portions of the website, but only to those sections requiring login. What is more, limited quoting such as I have done constitutes fair use under copyright law, and the resulting product (my post) would constitute a "derivative work" under the terms and conditions even if they did directly apply. If TOP disagrees with my assessment, he is quite welcome to contact the IUCN, and I will modify my comment to comply with their directions. Indeed I would look forward to his doing so, for I would like to see their public comment on TOP's use of the material from their site.
60389. muoncounter at 08:48 AM on 16 April 2012
       Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
       Weather records, indeed. April 11, Amarillo Texas: 4-8 feet of hail, followed by flash flooding as it melted. Quoting the anchorman, "I have never, ever, ever seen what you're about to show us."
60390. muoncounter at 08:30 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve Case#16: "the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation." Indeed. But there's no prediction of the sort you made that precipitation will fall where you'd like it to. See "The wet get wetter, the dry get drier." Precipitation is projected to increase in the near-equatorial regions, which tend to be wet in the present climate. In subtropical land areas — places that are already relatively dry — precipitation is projected to decrease during the 21st century.
60391. Daniel Bailey at 07:04 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve, you make a specious point. It is quite possible for glaciers to gain mass in a warming world (even though the majority of the world's glaciers are in retreat). Glaciers can put on mass as long as the gains made in their accumulation zone outweigh the losses from their ablation zone. In the case of many of the Himalayan glaciers, increased precipitation in the accumulation zones is causing some to gain mass, despite increased losses in their ablation zones. These glaciers serve as storage depots for a great portion of the world's populations, buffering them against the lack of rainfall during the non-monsoon seasons. Despite the hand-waving to the contrary, this is all well-understood and well-documented. And non-controversial, despite the best efforts at denialists to manufacture controversy.
60392. Steve Case at 06:58 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Rob Honeycutt "Warming is anticipated to enhance the hydrological cycle. That means both wetter and drier conditions" No comment. Muoncounter So are glaciers disappearing due to a lack of precipitation or a warming climate? If it's a lack of precipitation then you have to deal with the fact as I pointed out earlier in the other thread, the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation. If they're disappearing due to warming, and precipitation is at least the same, then you have deal with the question of what happens to the water. The claim was that fresh water supplies would disappear.
60393. funglestrumpet at 06:16 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       I would like to see a link to this article a prominent feature of the home page. If that is not possible, perhaps it could be linked to from the 'Newcomers Start Here' section. Unfortunately, if it were to form such a feature, then it would be necessary to either delete the comments, or preferably take the second comment’s string of unsubstantiated opinion and rebut each point raised. I would imagine anyone who would find the article a significant source of information on the topic may well hold the same opinions (it is after all what the mainstream media would have us believe) and thus the rebuttals would be of added value to them. Who knows, a certain member of the British aristocracy might learn something, seeing as said peer seems to hold many of the same misguided views on the topic and is even proud to parade his ignorance to all who will listen (and run away when challenged with the facts of the matter).
60394. dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 16 April 2012
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Thanks Larry, link fixed.
60395. muoncounter at 05:03 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve Case#13: There are sufficient data to show without question that diminishing snowpack results in decreased river flow. See this SciAm article about the western US: Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years, according to a new study. ... the plummeting snowpack could have serious consequences for more than 70 million people who depend on water from the runoff-fed Columbia, Colorado and Missouri rivers. So no, your "If a glacier disappears, it will still rain and snow in the watershed where the glacier was and the rivers in such watersheds will still flow" is wishful thinking at best.
60396. TOP at 04:27 AM on 16 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       @Tom I take it you have read and agree to Section 4 here. I read the article. I pointed out that it is the habitat and not the bears that are at risk according to the article. There were a plethora of possible events that could or are putting them directly at risk and that are currently responsible for their reduced numbers the chief of which is human/bear interaction. The last two assessments of their status flip-flopped which suggests they are borderline vulnerable right now. It would seem that limiting or changing human/bear interactions would have a far greater effect on their current survival. Hunting bears just for the fun of it is just sick.
       Moderator Response: [DB] The materiel cited earlier complies to the IUCN policies per these terms.
60397. Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       Steve @ 13... "This discussion will eventually boil down the difference in melt rates between ice and snow." Don't you think this is exactly the problem? Warming is anticipated to enhance the hydrological cycle. That means both wetter and drier conditions. Glaciers, as I understand it, act to buffer the normal variation in wet/dry cycles of weather. This would act to keep the water supplies downstream more consistent, and is why large populations have developed in these regions. If we deplete that source of fresh water then those downstream populations will be subject to greater extremes. Times of extreme flooding and times of extreme low water conditions. Being that many of these populations are also poor their capacity to adapt to the extremes is very limited, which brings on a whole host of other problems.
60398. Chris G at 02:23 AM on 16 April 2012
       Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
       Bob. All very real possibilities, no doubt. FWIW, I don't see integrity a boolean, all or nothing; it's more of a real number.
60399. climate rainbow at 02:14 AM on 16 April 2012
       Global Warming in a Nutshell
       Just thought it's worth mentioning, that there is up-to-date information for all of these subjects available. Best summary sheet that I've found for up-to-date records of the temperature data set providers is here:- http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html The temperature graphs it plots also show the CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. Arctic sea ice extent (as well as Antarctic sea ice extent) can be found here:- http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The problems with determining ice volume are discussed in a RealClimate.org article here:- link Sea level information is collated here:- http://sealevel.colorado.edu
       Moderator Response: [RH] Added hot link to fix broke page formatting.
60400. Steve Case at 02:11 AM on 16 April 2012
       Return to the Himalayas
       At the moderator's request, I am posting here.

       On this thread: Global Warming in a Nutshell

       Gary M writes:

       What happens when the planet gets warmer? ...receding glaciers have consequences, such as ... disappearing fresh water supplies for billions of people.

       I replied:

       If a glacier disappears, it will still rain and snow in the watershed where the glacier was and the rivers in such watersheds will still flow.

       This answer followed:

       Alpinist at 12:40 PM on 15 April, 2012

       No, Steve, actually they might not….

       The amount of water that flows in a river is a function of the precipitation that falls in the water shed minus evaporation and plus or minus the contribution of receding or advancing glaciers if there are any.

       Currently many glaciers are receding, and as such more water flows in the rivers than is falling as rain or snow. When the glaciers either stop receding, or disappear, flow of water in the rivers will decrease.

       If "Global Warming" schemes actually prove out to be successful in stopping the recession of the world's glaciers, the reduction of water flow in these areas will occur sooner.

       This discussion will eventually boil down the difference in melt rates between ice and snow.

Prev  1200  1201  1202  1203  1204  1205  1206  1207  1208  1209  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  Next