Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 Next
Comments 61601 to 61650:
-
Doc Snow at 23:06 PM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
I must say, that's a version I hadn't heard of! Very ingenious--it makes me want to 'try it at home.' I suppose that in 'throwing away the energy,' the important point is that you are locally decreasing entropy. -
CBDunkerson at 22:04 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 wrote: "...the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all" So from this we must conclude either that: all research in the field of chemistry has ceased or you are making a blatantly irrational argument. I wonder which it could be. -
JMurphy at 21:02 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 wrote : "...the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all, and why do the predictions become revised or outdated so fast?" Could you substantiate that a bit further by telling how old you think "climate science" is, and how old it would have to 'become' before you would accept it in the same you can accept Evolution or the prevailing Cosmological Model, for example ? (That's assuming you do actually accept them in some way ?) By the way, neither of the latter can or have actually been 'proved' - that is not how science works, as explained by the letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences : For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. What are your arguments against that statement ? West129 also wrote : "...I pointed at the two factions of the present while you point at the scientific battle between two camps in the past. That past battle isn't over. As you well know, the center of the universe was or is the earth. But that merely depended what point one picked as a reference. Believe it or not, now science tells us we are wrong again and our universe isn't the center either. Also, may I remind you, by “scientific consensus” the earth was declared to be flat much like what climatologists attempt with AGW-CO2. History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself." Historical arguments/controversies about the Earth's place in the universe or its shape had/have nothing to do with science (if you can even call it that) and everything to do with religion. When rational investigation had taken place into those questions, they came to the conclusions that later scientific investigations 'proved'. See the 'battle' between Geocentrism and Heliocentric at the Wikipedia page, where you will see that both systems had merits and had been debated for many centuries even up to the 17th/18th Centuries. You can read about the Myth of the Flat Earth at another Wikipedia page. Ultimately, in both cases it was science which prevailed, as it does with regard to the Theory of AGW - unless, of course, you know of any science which says otherwise ? And do you have any further information about your belief about "a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself" ? What does that mean ? -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:55 PM on 20 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
I guess I could have indicated more on the content of the classic but I thought I'd surprise you. :) -
Dick Veldkamp at 20:41 PM on 20 March 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Excellent summary of the issue! I found a typo you may want to fix: "there is a there is a" (under 'There are legitimate unsolved questions"). -
andylee at 20:21 PM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks Doc, I enjoyed this, particularly where he described what I know as a "Cold Collector". I didn't know that the idea was so old. I made one once about 15 years ago, out of a large metal wok and 5-sided cubic polystyrene box with thick walls open to the sky. I put the wok in the bottom of the box, and suspended a jar of water roughly where the wok focus was and left it overnight in the garden away from any overlooking objects. The outside temp was around 8C, but the water inside had frozen solid by morning. Most impressive. Free ice without a fridge! The International Space Station uses something similar to regulate heat, but I'm wondering if a cold collector could be scaled up and used to radiate Earth's excess heat. Use a heat exchanger to concentrate energy at a focus to radiate. The scale required would be quite unimaginable though. It could perhaps replace powerstation cooling towers that affect climate, and also be used for radio astronomy at the same time. Still seems such a shame to throw away energy! -
Doug Hutcheson at 20:12 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 @ 35, you say:History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom
Surely, history tells us not to accept anything uncritically, but to confirm our theories with evidence, evidence, evidence. Then you say:or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself.
I take this to mean that you would reject a science which gave you answers you didn't like? Clearly, science is not destructive in and of itself: it is merely enquiry and understanding. CO2 is not destructive in and of itself, but the result of adding too much to our atmosphere looks like being destructive of ecosystems we value. Thus, it would be correct to say that failing to act upon the warnings science is giving us is what would result in destruction, not the science itself. What we know (scientific learning) does not matter; what matters is what we do (public policy) with what we know. You may be willing to proceed through life ignoring the best available advice, but I hope our political leaders will follow a more prudent course. For the same reason, I buy insurance for my home and my car, even though I consider the risk of loss to be low. The future cost of governments acting as though there is no problem and being wrong is unimaginable. -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:41 PM on 20 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Bernard J. @ 1, I am currently in "discussion" with a similar person on a site I visit regularly. This classic reference is a real gem, which I will drop into the "conversation" at a suitable moment. Thank you for pointing it out - I probably would not have followed the link! My bad. -
jatufin at 19:21 PM on 20 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
@1 Bernard J. No, they are not behind. They are just returning to the roots. The grand plan behind right wing climate skeptic ideology is to throw out all scientific and technical achievements made during last two hundred years. They want us to give up our cars and cell phones, and return to pre-industrial golden age. You know: Horse carriages, blood letting and men in tights. They promote pure naturalistic life style, where corrupted liberal science will be substituted by the Wisdom of the Ancients. So Aristotle it will be, not Newton. Four humors teached in medicine schools, and our brightest minds concentrating to the number of angels dancing on pinhead. Some entertaining witch burning for masses, of course. -
adelady at 19:16 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 You cite "There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change." from an overview of climate science. I'd suggest that a very similar statement could be published from any number of medical science overviews. "There is still an incomplete understanding of the many interactions of the dozens of hormones and their precursors and their role in fertility, psychiatry, obesity, allergies, arthritis, cancer and other instances of physical health or ill-health." And they'd be right. But we still go to doctors and specialist endocrinologists or oncologists or rheumatologists or allergists and send blood samples off for pathology tests of various kinds. The view of experts in these fields is exactly that. The view of experts. Their job is to identify areas of further research which might or might not apply to us personally nor to the daily practice of clinics and hospitals. But they would never say 'we have no idea why the spleen is where it is let alone what it can and can't do'. And the same thing goes for climate science. The UN happens not to have established an overview group for endocrinology in the same way as it has for climate. But you can be absolutely sure that if they did produce such reports, non-experts would wonder when they read them how anyone ever got diagnosed with diabetes let alone geto prescribed an accurate dose of insulin. Medical science has a lot still on its plate. As does climate science and every other area of scientific endeavour. They all suffer the same fate. The more you know, the more you find questions that need answers. This indicates neither ignorance nor immaturity. It's just science. -
andylee at 18:56 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
owl, you said it "science-fiction" - the future is compartmentalized, walled off, too much to deal with, but it comes all the same, and far too quickly. It's also uncomfortable, imagining a future world without being in it. These thoughts preoccupy me as I seek to achieve some significance and a new mission in my unusual life. It would however be nice to leave the world in a better place than I found it, and be remembered for a positive contribution to it. Maintaining a strong education and cultural system is a very high priority as we are not born with knowledge, wisdom and morality. Each new generation of humans need constant "programming" to avoid reverting to cave people. Electronic storage may be too volatile to survive, though Google and Facebook are doing a good job of archiving humanity and individuals. I hope they store the information in EMP proof shelters in at least 5 locations around the world, in case of nuclear war, or medium asteroid strike. Also consider that we are on the cusp of designing our own evolution, and traits - I think that whatever society may be around in 5000 years time will be humanoid hunter-gatherers or immortal silicon/carbon hybrid electronic lifeforms based on novel DNA, or a mixture of both, as the gaps between rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, intelligent and stupid and improved mate selection systems (dating sites) continue to increase. As our population multiplies and forms an inverted pyramid increasingly reliant on its support system being ever more efficient with fossil fuels, skills, science, optimized agriculture and transport, when something fails, it will fail catastrophically. Especially more likely if the anti-science backlash continues. I don't think the general population has any real idea of how close to the brink we are. Yes, it would be good to leave a message saying sorry - carved in stone or titanium, or encoded in our DNA... Perhaps the seed bank in Svalbard or in Yucca Mountain may be a good place to start. That's enough for now! -
Rob Painting at 18:49 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Ron Manley - the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2 means the Earth will probably not experience another 'ice age' for tens of thousands of years. See work by David Archer & Victor Brovkin for instance. 25% of fossil fuel emissions stay around effectively 'forever' on human timescales. -
West129 at 18:18 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
29, Sphaerica ….the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all, and why do the predictions become revised or outdated so fast? I pointed at the two factions of the present while you point at the scientific battle between two camps in the past. That past battle isn't over. As you well know, the center of the universe was or is the earth. But that merely depended what point one picked as a reference. Believe it or not, now science tells us we are wrong again and our universe isn't the center either. Also, may I remind you, by “scientific consensus” the earth was declared to be flat much like what climatologists attempt with AGW-CO2. History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself. Yes, I was quoting from IPCC AR3... 2001, more than 11 years old. But not much has changed since then except the computing power. It might have increased by a magnitude making the simulations run faster but not much better. Let's understand what the computers are used for: To simulate the past (back-cast) and if it seems to fit to be able to project into the future. Nowhere in the ICPP AR4 (2007) report do I read that those calculations are forecasts. There is talk about more models and capabilities to run several scenarios or “What ifs” very fast. The models are still manipulated with assumptions, corrections compensation or amplification factors. Therefore, those computers are like any other computer: depending on the inputs they will provide outputs with multiple adjustments to produce the desired results. The limitation remains that at the current time we are dealing with an rather infantile science. Not all parameters of the climate are known nor are their actions and interactions. E.g. it may appear that it should be a simple task to use a computer as a random number generator. Does anyone have a computer yet that can produce true random-numbers? No. Why would one assume that by running a scenario on high powered computers would produces a climate forecast? Scenario, after all, is a fancy term for a “what if calculation”, a very useful research tool for the scientist but dangerous in the hands of politicians. ICPP is aware of its limitation an has never retracted its position: “... we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”. AR4 looks to be a bit closer by harping on the term “forcing”, which is to say by considering another factor for the models but there is still a long journey ahead for them. My recommendation is not to overestimate the capability of models but to appreciate the distinction between scenario and forecast to avoid conclusions base on a misconception. IPCC, AR4 reports re-confirms that they don't have all the answers. And let's be realistic, if they would claim to know it all we are in deep trouble because we would know that they are not scientists. One most interesting admission appears to be an attempt to re-introduce solar radiation: “.... However, the relationship between the isotopic records indicative of the Sun’s open magnetic field, sunspot numbers and the Sun’s closed magnetic field or energy output are not fully understood ...” This is in conjunction with Fig. 6.13. This figure shows that +0.5 C of the Hockey stick is the direct result of the sun's solar irradiance forcing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6-3.html ). What is one to make of that? It says that the sun influenced past climates but for some reason IPCC claims the sun is “extremely unlikely” to influence future climates. The reports serve their purpose of not being truly scientific material but means to aid those removed from the science valuable information and aid in rendering an optimum public policy decisions. At the same time the reports are more than outdated and still have that famous disclaimer everyone likes to overlook: “...the complexity of the climate system and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the future course of Earth’s global climate. There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-1.htmlResponse:[DB] Please note that this is a website which discusses the scientific evidence for & against climate change and debunks skeptic memes about the science. As such, it is implicit on all parties to back up assertions with citations and links to the peer-reviewed papers appearing in reputable journals that support their assertions. Additionally, all comments made must be on-topic to the thread on which they are placed and also be constructed to comply with the Comments Policy.
The portions of your comment in conflict with the above were struck out. An earlier comment of yours pretty much containing the same issues was judged to be trolling and was deleted as such. Future comments such as this will be deleted in their entirety, as will responses to it.
Note that nearly 5,000 comments threads exist here at SkS on pretty much everything there is related to climate science. None are closed for discussion. Find the most appropriate thread (via the Search function in the Upper Left of every page) and place the relevant portions of your intended thoughts there.
FYI.
-
RonManley at 17:25 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
While Kate's concern is understandable, the situation 5000 years from now will be very different to how she pictures it; the earth will be well into the next ice age. Large parts of Canada, northern Europe and Russia will be under metres of ice. Ice core data suggest that ice ages are arid times and climate refugees will be fighting to get closer to the equator and the remaining agricultural land. Global temperatures will be lower but we will have squeezed every drop of warming fossil fuel out of earth. Those who are alive in 5000 years time will look back on our period as the age of profligacy. -
owl905 at 17:22 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Where did anyone get the idea that there's no thought about thousands of years ahead? It's been a mainline theme in science-fiction for over a century. From the Time Machine to Foundation, connections of the human present to far-future consequences has been fertile ground - for everything, from archaeology missions to find out what happened, all the way to utopian fulfillment. So what's the want - an encyclopaedia message sent out (done that); a survival ark of species' DNA (got one)? Deep Thought? It it's time, effort, and money, to gain the gratitude of the future ... it's a non-starter. It's royal emotion and good conscience. The Greeks paid no attention to environmental concerns - if they could exploit, they did exploit. So did the Romans. So did everyone throughout history (the noble-savage Indian romance is someone else's storybook). The focus on the pollution problem today - affecting up to a century from now - is, and should be, the focus of everyone demanding a response. -
John Mason at 16:41 PM on 20 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Thanks for that, Neven. -
owl905 at 16:41 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Interesting follow-up on the Nisbet study - one of the co-authors, Robert Brulle, considered the report trash, and apparently returned the money as he walked away from it. Check the comments out:- Christain Shorey comment -
Bernard J. at 16:28 PM on 20 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Let's pause and think on that classic reference for a moment:As compared with the data for the earth’s surface near Stockholm, published by Palmqvist, and those for Wexholni, published by Selanders, the Andrée results, as shown in a table arranged according to the altitudes of the respective layers of air do not prove any diminution of carbonic acid gas with altitude up to the highest point, 4,300 meters, attained in these balloon ascensions. On the other hand the percentages of carbonic acid gas by volume throughout the different strata of air are very much the same as those observed at the surface of the earth. On the average we find in 10,000 volumes at the earth’s surface from 3.03 to 3.20 volumes of carbonic acid gas; at altitiides of 1,000 to 3,000 meters, 3.23 volumes; at altitudes of 3,000 to 4,000 meters, 3.24 volumes.
So, more than a hundred years ago it was demonstrated in the scientific literature that CO2 is effectively homogeneously mixed in the atmosphere - certainly where the bulk of mass occurs. And yet we still have denialists who insist that it forms a layer at the surface because it is "heavier than air". Tim Curtin is one who comes to mind - back on a classic Deltoid thread he really didn't want to let go of his attachment to this false idea. Some folk are more than a little behind the times... -
Phil L at 15:05 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Kate, Thanks for a thought-provoking article. Unfortunately governments have difficulty thinking beyond the next election. GaryB, Regarding your remark about "the Canadian prairies ... the heart of Canadian conservatism and anti-science" - you might want to do a bit of research on Saskatchewan, birthplace of public medical insurance. Alberta it ain't. -
dunc461 at 15:02 PM on 20 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I am convinced that we are experiencing global warming and that it is caused by greenhouse gases. But I have two concerns. The first is the estimated of the cost of the reducing the use of fossil fuels. I am not an economist, but I am a chemical engineer with over 30 years in the approval, design and construction of chemical plants. I have developed a program to compare the costs between using the current mix of energy sources and limiting the use of fossil fuels between now and 2100. This program and sources for the data can be found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Alb0IxaBZzT8dEE4a2tOQW1OdEZYQW02blk5RlhRQUE I am sure that some of my data and assumptions may be obsolete or incorrect. You can play around with it by changing the inputs on Sheet 2 and I would appreciate any feedback on more correct information For the case shown I assumed a population in 2050 and 2100 of 10 billion and a world per capita energy usage of ½ US current in 2100 and half way there in 2050; a fossil fuel reduction from current levels of 25% by 2050 and 50% by 2100; no increase in Nuclear or Hydro; a 50/50 split between wind and solar energy to make up for the reduction in fossil fuels and I adjusted the fossil fuel cost from $0.02 sited in the source to $0.05 and the cost per KWH generated by fossil fuels from $0.087 to $0.117. In the above case the program calculates the cost of limiting fossil fuels to be $308 Trillion between now and 2050 and $1,394 Trillion between now and 2100. That equates to an average annual per capita cost of $788 between now and 2050 and $1,565 between now and 2100. All these cost are in today’s dollars. Actual numbers will be much higher. The second concern has to with land usage The IPPC says that there is currently 0.6 acres of cropland per person, but if you subtract out non-food or minimum calorie acreage (cotton, wool, tobacco, coffee and tea etc.) it is closer to 0.5 and if you add 3 billion more people it drops to under 0.4. In the US it takes 0.37 acres of wheat to supply one person with 2000 calories a day for a year. With the world average wheat yield it takes 0.75 acres. As can be seen by the previous sentences there is room for improvement in yield but there are also reports that climate change is reducing yields. A 2000 calorie/day diet based on the US food pyramid takes in the neighborhood of 1.25 acres. As developing countries become more affluent their citizens will want to improve their diet. I do not know what the total amount energy required to produce the world’s food supply is but one site said that 2% of our total energy usage is required to make the fertilizer currently consumed. I apologize for not providing references for this portion. I hope to rectify that situation in the near future. I just think it would be a real shame if the carbon dioxide we eliminate by limiting fossil fuels is replaced with carbon dioxide from changes in land used to feed the world. -
Bernard J. at 15:02 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
On a number of occasions I've made the point that humans are able to think back in history to past events, and to care about the morality/ethics of these same events, but that they are completely intellectually/culturally unequipped to project a similar analysis (and caring) into the future. The emerging sea level rise hockey stick thread is one example on Skeptical Science. The thing is, most humans seem to be as unable to perceive the significance of having such a concept pointed out, as they are of perceiving the importance of forward thinking in the first place. Is this a genetic or a cultural limitation? I don't know. Perhaps it's both. As Westerners we should be ashamed that other, non-technological cultures such as the Native American Nations - who were at the time of the peaks of their nations hunter-gatherer societies - neverthelsss had the sophistication of thought to enshrine ecological sustainability into their decision-making with a dictum to think back over seven generations of their ancestors, and forward to seven generations of their decendants. If a hunter-gatherer society can look forward seven generations, why should a global technological society not look forward to at least the time span of 70 generations, or even of 700? If we are able to (pipe) dream of one day reaching the stars, we should be simultaneously thinking about what we need to consider in order to arrive there... On the matter of the duration of a Western society remaining sufficiently intact to read a letter to the future I, along with many others, am as pessimistic as Doug H and R. Gates are above, about the chances... Combining climate change with: 1) ocean acidification 2) deforestation and habitat destruction 3) over-fishing, over-hunting, and general species loss 4) topsoil depletion 5) water depletion 5) pollution 6) other environmental/ecological destruction and there's not a lot of wiggle room left to keep an organised human society going, especially at the global level. It's only if a critcial mass of humans can very quickly start caring about what life might be like for their decendants in 3 000 years time, that there might be more than a forlorn hope for the integrity of our societies. -
mikeh1 at 14:55 PM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
"was posted online on Mar 14, 2912" And I just read Kate's article which starts with "To the citizens of the world in the year 5000: It’s 2012, and nobody is thinking about you" You are a third of the way there.Moderator Response: [JH] Unforced error corrected. -
mohyla103 at 14:49 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Daniel Bailey, thanks for your detailed explanation and links. I learned, among other things, that snow cover in the accumulation zone throughout the summer and not just snowfall in the winter is necessary to maintain the glacier's mass balance. The thing I don't understand is from post 178 from Tom Curtis. Since I'm not sure if he will answer me or not, perhaps you could help clarify this? He said that glaciers "help prevent floods, and prevent seasonal water shortages". I understand how they prevent seasonal water shortages, but how do they help prevent floods? -
actually thoughtful at 14:29 PM on 20 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
John - I am glad you did this and that it went so well. I am not sure what your skill set/career path was when you started SkS, but you are becoming a world-class expert in the psychology of educating hostile minds. I hope you find a way to make money doing that. -
Old Mole at 14:06 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
JMurphy @23 What is really astounding about the statement you cite is "I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee ... " ... a larger load of balderdash would be hard to find anywhere. He didn't become committee chairman until (albeit very briefly) 2001, and actually got to sit there for a while in 2003. Prior to that, he was best known for calling the Environmental Protection Agency "the Gestapo" and comparing the EPA administrator to Tokyo Rose. Calling the Torygraph a 'left-wing paper' seems like a mischaracterization, but he is actually so far to the political right that from his standpoint it is accurate. The scary thing is that there are actually seven sitting Republican Senators even farther to the right than he is. -
Byron Smith at 12:43 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
@5&6 - Though this is ostensibly "a letter to the future", it is, of course, first and foremost, a letter to the present, through the rhetorical device of addressing the future. @1. The ancient Greeks deforested Greece and caused the local extinction of various megafauna (including the lion). Plato was already musing on the causes and effects of deforestation. Greece has never really recovered ecologically from this, and the soil erosion it suffered as a result has been one of the sources of its subsequent poverty. @Kate. Thank you. An excellent and moving letter. -
actually thoughtful at 12:30 PM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Thanks Michael Sweet - I am not advocating a deep ocean strategy, but I do think if we had another 100 years we would have an even easier technical solution that we have now. The fact is, we could solve global warming within 20 years - if we ever decide we want to. The technology exists now. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:22 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
@ mohyla103 Precipitation falling on a glacier is a case-dependent thing. Remember that the mass-balance of a glacier is a dynamic output of gains in the accumulation zone factored against losses in the ablation zone. Other variables are temperature, insolation, form of the precipitation, etc. That precipitation falling in the accumulation as snow typically gets compacted over time and eventually is converted into ice. During the summer melt, even the accumulation zone may contain melt pools or even melt lakes. These are drained via moulins into the body of the ice mass into the internal plumbing drainwork of the glacier. That precipitation falling as rain will largely be carried off via runoff of the outside of the glacier or into the interior plumbing. Glaciers not at their terminal extent often have a lake that forms at the terminal end of the glacier, impounded between the icy tongue of the glacier and the terminal moraine of rock, silt and soil that serves the function of a dam. These glacial dam-formed lakes can empty and fill according to the mass-balance of the glacier. High melt seasons can fill the lake beyond capacity, sometimes resulting into a catastrophic collapse and flood. When these occur, many thousands of people living in the flood plains below can perish in the massive walls of water and mud that ensue. How warming is affecting alpine glaciers is the reduction of the accumulation zones and the increases of the ablation zones. The result is a tilting of the vast majority of the mass-balances of the alpine glaciers of the world. Even those of the Himalayas (a post on this is in the works). HTH. Some resources for you: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/global%20glacier%20mass%20balance.htm http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/glacier%20survival.html http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/ http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/ -
John Hartz at 12:03 PM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Please note that I have amended the OP by adding the name of the source paper and a link to its Abstract. -
mohyla103 at 11:48 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
I still don't understand how a glacier can absorb a large precipitation event (of snow) and help prevent flooding. A large dump of snow would not come rushing down the mountain all at once anyway, since it's not liquid. Presumably this large dump would melt slowly throughout the spring, and possibly into the summer. This seems like pretty good flood control. Obviously I'm missing something here... what is it? "Please note that large precipitation events on glaciers will generally be snow - being on the tops of mountains, and all that." Certainly rain is possible on some glaciers during summer days. The temperature can be warmer and even above freezing, it being summer, and all that. I'll take your sentence to mean that discussion of rain events is not relevant here, though. -
John Hartz at 11:27 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Suggested reading: “Sinking land shows East Antarctic ice sheet is stable”, by Sara Reardon, New Scientist, Mar 19, 2012 This article sheds more light on the significance of the findings discussed in the OP. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:52 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Hey, Kate!!!! Very well written! I love this (both the style and the sentiment). Kudos. -
Zen69 at 10:20 AM on 20 March 2012Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Thanks for the link. From the discussion at Nevens its clear that Ms Slingos comments seem to be odds at what other scientists are saying. But I should imagine that her comments will be used by 'skeptics' to justify their exclusion of ice volume measurements and, in this case, they can point to a credible source to back up their argument. -
R. Gates at 10:16 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Very nice sentiment, and actually, is a bit optimistic in thinking that there would be an educated and organized enough human civilization around in the year 5000 to be able to read and understand this electronically posted comment. Even if you printed in out on paper in several of the major languages of today, and hid it away in some vault, it is still a bit of a stretch to imagine that there would be an educated person able to read a language from 3000 years prior. Such an education to read ancient languages would require an advanced civilization, and an advanced civilization requires a fairly stable climate and robust food supply. -
scaddenp at 10:03 AM on 20 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
yocta - this is an open question as far as I know. Figuring out how (or if) GW will affect ENSO would greatly enhance regional predictions but I dont think there is a strong position on this available yet. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:57 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
A timely post, which raises our sights above the immediate crisis we are facing. When we bury our 'letter to the future' in a time capsule, perhaps we should also include a modern equivalent to the Rosetta Stone, providing keys to translation across as many languages as we can, for there is no guarantee that our generations in 3000 years will have the dubious benefits of our language, or level of education, or analogues to our technologies. IMHO, due to the destruction of much of our habitat, there is no guarantee that Homo sapiens sapiens will be recognisable as the dominant species in 3000 years, in spite of Senator Inhofe's assurance that God is in control and everything will work out fine. Will anyone be around in 3000 years, to dig up our time capsule? Perhaps we had better make it strong enough to endure burial for a much longer time, or shoot it out beyond Pluto on a NASA mission, ready to be collected like post restante mail addressed to the next hi-tech civilisation that arises. Perhaps our letter should begin "Dear Intelligent Species, ..." -
yocta at 09:07 AM on 20 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Looking at figure 2 with the ENSO graph it appeared on my first glance that since about 2004 it looked that it is starting to get more extreme in both directions for longer amounts of time. I.e the Amplitude is increasing and the frequency is decreasing. My impression was that human induced climate change was effecting it. I decided to look over a longer time period and found an image with the ENSO index since 1950 here and it would appear that there is no such trend. But my question is, can human induced climate change (I.E a steadily raising baseline in temperatures, sea level changes, and changes in sea temperatures) have an effect on the ENSO cycle, intensity or induce feedbacks etc? ENSO is related to sea temperatures after all and sea temperatures are changing. I read here that predicting when the climate shifts to an El of La period is difficult but can people expect that say by 2050 the ENSO index will be similar to the image I linked to? Sorry if this is OT but I am referring to the image on this blog post. -
michael sweet at 08:52 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Actually Thoughtful, The heat transferred into the abyss is already considered in the models. Recently, Hansen has argued that the aerosol dimming is greater than modeled and the amount of heat transferred into the deep ocean less. If the aerosol dimming is greater that means more heating when the Chinese finally clean up their act. There is not consensus on this issue and a lot of data needs to be collected to determine exactly what is happening. The abyssal ocean is not a free pass to transfer the heat out 1000 years in the future. In any case, most of the heat is shallow enough to interact with the surface in the near term. -
It's not bad
mohyla103 - Please note that large precipitation events on glaciers will generally be snow - being on the tops of mountains, and all that. Rate of flow from a glacier is dependent upon melt at the base end of the glacier, not recent precipitation at the top (which affects available glacial melt mass years to multiple decades later). Snowpack, on the other hand, melts yearly. You won't see a lot of rain on glacial origin locations... -
mohyla103 at 07:13 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
KR Thank you for the direct answer. Sorry to all for cluttering the board with this but it truly was a misunderstanding. Yes, moving on then I do have one final question. Tom Curtis said that glaciers can absorb large precipitation events and thus help prevent floods. How does this happen? If it's snow, I understand a glacier can absorb it. However, wouldn't this snow still be available for later use downstream upon melting, regardless of whether it lands on a glacier or the ground? How does snow's absorption by a glacier confer an advantage or help prevent flooding? If it's rain, I don't understand how a glacier absorbs it at all. Logicman in post 176 said that rainwater just runs off glaciers and does not add to its mass. This seems reasonable and nobody corrected this but was he oversimplifying? -
actually thoughtful at 07:10 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Rob, Thanks, I get the high level, but what I am asking is, is this a change in the general notion of +2-9C by century's end with BAU? Is this a revision of our understanding of the climate, or is it merely highlighting something that the models and climate scientists are well aware of, and it is therefore already baked into our general understanding of our climate? -
CBDunkerson at 06:56 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Phil wrote: "...here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record" Cue 'skeptic' cries of 'conspiracy and fraud!' in 3, 2, 1... -
Phil at 06:46 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
I'm sure you'll do a blog entry on this in due course, but in the meantime here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record, rather than 1998, bringing it into line with NASA and NOAA -
It's not bad
mohyla103 - That's clearly what Tom Curtis meant, it certainly was my interpretation when I read his original post, and at this point I should think the issue is clarified. Both snowpacks and glaciers (as, essentially, snowpack compressed to ice, undergoing flow through internal deformation under their own weight) are reservoirs of winter precipitation, feeding freshwater supplies down hill. Perhaps we could move on, now??? -
funglestrumpet at 06:16 AM on 20 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
The Week in Review should include all posts (Monckton 2 and 3 did not appear on the daily posts announcements and neither did Lindzen's Junk Science. I don't think any post should appear on the 'Latest Posts' sidebar until they have been notified on the daily listing as having actually been posted.) The Week in Review should have the additional information of the number of comments each has attracted to date, which would give some idea of the interest it has generated. Perhaps a new feature could be a rolling hit parade of the posts that have attracted the most attention in the previous 12 months, in terms of comments, of course. That might give an indication of which topics press the most buttons in the eyes of those attracted to this site. Just a thought starter - admittedly not too deeply considered on my part - would be to have a each commenter's number of posts in the previous 12 months after their name. If on each comment, commenters had to rate out of 10 the factual quality of the post being commented on, it would enable a rating of commenters to be developed in terms of being deniers or genuine skeptics, or somewhere in between, also put after their name. That would be useful in pre-judging the value of the comment. Some people will automatically find fault with anything that doesn't support their pre-conceived ideas on climate change and quite frankly it is not worth even reading what they have to say in any depth, just a skim will often surfice. If I want stupidity, I have an over-supply of it in Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4, especially Prime Minister's Questions (try it for size and then you will see why it is so difficult to get action from them). -
mohyla103 at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @217 Correction: could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural frozen reservoirs"? -
scaddenp at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
I'll look forward to reading the paper, but frankly its nice to get some good news from the climate front for a change. -
mohyla103 at 05:52 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @215 It seems I can't convince you of my sincerity, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt anyway and continue the discussion. A simple direct answer from you would be more helpful in avoiding misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I think I understand now that you originally meant (2), but I interpreted it as (1), as (2) is a simile and (1) is the literal description. (?) You had originally said in 178 that these natural dams can absorb large precipitation events. I thought this meant it helped the watershed absorb the precipitation (rain) by holding the water behind it, like a dam. I wasn't sure I understood this correctly at the time so I searched online about glaciers as natural dams and all I found were articles about glacial ice or moraine dams, glacial lakes and outburst floods. I invite you to try this search yourself, and hopefully you will understand that me interpreting "natural dams" literally was not "typically ridiculous" but a natural misunderstanding of the phrase. Since your intended meaning seems to be like (2) could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural reservoirs" since you seem to be referring to precipitation held in the glacier itself, not blocked up behind it in a glacial lake? Or am I still way off? -
funglestrumpet at 05:20 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Doc Snow @ 1 My! I wish I had 20/20 hindsight. It would be really useful to appear clever by being able to state the flipping obvious. But there again, appearances can be deceptive. -
Rob Painting at 05:14 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
AT@ 59 - heat going into the deep ocean will not affect the surface for a very long time - most likely around a thousand years according to multiple studies. However, that overlooks the very obvious fact that the surface layers of the ocean are warming too, as one would logically expect. That heat in the surface layers will affect global surface temperatures - perhaps as soon as the next 3-5 years. See SkS posts: NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future.
Prev 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 Next
