Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 Next
Comments 62101 to 62150:
-
Flakmeister at 02:59 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
First time poster, long time lurker, and a veteran of "climate wars" in the blogosphere... Coincidentally, I made almost the exact same bet on a record in the next few years at Zerohedge.com, I did qualify with the caveat that there be no major volcanic eruptions... Anyway, I would like to thank the authors of this blog for my making my defense of AGW so much easier... If you would like to have real fun, try hanging out at an unmoderated financial website dominated by right wing libertarian types... Believe it or not, I feel that is the real frontline in the AGW debate...And the debate is not for the feint of heart...Over time there is a growing minority, even at such sites that knows AGW is real, but are actually afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of ridicule... The recent FR2011 and Hansen papers are exactly what is needed in this debate... They are clear irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing and my two biggest clubs in the battle against ideologically driven denial... Don't laugh, it is a war out there.... PS My background: Ph.D. physics, 20 years in academia followed by 5 years on Wall St....now semi-retired... -
Tom Curtis at 02:52 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
dana @8, the 0.017 C per annum is the residual trend in GISTEMP when the influence of MEI, TSI and AOD have been removed by Forster and Rahmstorf's method. Therefore it is the contribution of all other factors to that trend, including all GHG, Aerosols and any long term natural oscillation (if any). The Chinese have been cleaning up their aerosol emissions, so that may be a good reason to think the underlying trend will increase in the near future, but based on the evidence of the last 40 years, with all factors included it is just less than 0.02 C per annum. I am less skeptical that 2012 will break the record. My gut suggests that 2012 is more likely to be in the upper half of the uncertainty range, and 2013 in the lower half. But guts are notoriously bad predictors, so I'll stick with my tweaks on your prediction (for stated reasons). -
Alexandre at 02:40 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Makes sense, and it certainly got me curious enough to keep my eyes on GISS global temps to see how it turns out. -
pbjamm at 02:32 AM on 13 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Doc Snow@36 Very similar experience to mine. A contrarian acquaintance of mine was in the habit of posting long messages full of damning evidence on an IRC channel that we both frequented. At the time my acceptance of AGW was based mostly on my general acceptance of science and not on any particular strongly held conviction so his barrage of evidence forced me to really investigate what he was saying and what I believed. The first thing I discovered was that he was not performing the same level of investigation as his source often contradicted his premise. After a few months of him posting some nail-in-the-coffin-of-global-warming, me actually reading it and replying with facts, and him calling me a socialist stooge (no joke) I gave up arguing with him. -
Steve Metzler at 02:29 AM on 13 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Unfortunately, that interview was about 2 mins shorter than it needed to be to get an important point across about the Wegman Report. It's not the plagiarism in the WR that does the most damage to the layperson's viewpoint of the usefulness of paleoclimatology, but rather the fundamentally flawed statistics, as detailed here: Replication and due diligence, Wegman style Wegman accepted McIntyre's flawed and cherry-picked PCA analysis without doing the slightest bit of due diligence on it. In short, the WR was a colossal stitch-up of MBH98 using way over-persistent red noise to generate the random time series, then cherry-picking the top 100 most hockey stick-like PCs from the 10,000+ simulation runs. This Wegman/McIntyre stitch-up is described in Mann's book (which I just finished reading this morning), but alas, did not make it into that interview. -
dana1981 at 02:04 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom - yes, the CO2 influence should be closer to 0.017°C, but don't forget there are other GHGs as well which will add a small warming contribution, though they may be offset by aerosols. It's all just a rough estimate, and +/- 0.1°C looks to be a good estimate of the margin of error, which again suggests a very good chance that 2013 will break the record. Like Kevin, I'm skeptical that 2012 will break it, but we'll see. It mainly depends on that El Nino. -
Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Michael Sweet @5, you are correct, my bad. However, given the way Dana sets his prediction up in Table 2, the difference is 0.003 C in 2011, 0.006 C in 2012, and 0.009 C in 2013. That would suggest my predictions should be: 2012: 0.64 C (having rounded down) 2013: 0.76 C (- 0.01 C for the lower anthropogenic increase, plus 0.01 C for the expected understatement of the effect of the El Nino). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:50 PM on 12 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
Thanks John for the plaudit. But simply, poetry is one of those things that we should be focussing our attention on. Where Climate Change is concerned, one of the most important but least recognised impacts is the cultural losses that might ensue in a climate stressed world. The poems that might be lost. The old languages that vanish because a local indigenous population can no longer survive and still keep their culture intact. Not all culture originates in a Shopping Mall. And we are the custodians of all that has gone before us. The more we pass on to the next generation, that they may add to it, the richer our childrens lives are. And the richer our lives are. Civilisation is always about taking the past, adding to it and buiding upon it. But never throwing it away without VERY good cause! -
Kevin C at 23:16 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom: I tried adding an MEI squared coefficient. The coefficient is positive but very small: 6*10-3, std error almost as big, p~18%. Visually the result is indistinguishable from the original. 3rd and 4th powers are less significant still. -
michael sweet at 22:02 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom, I think you mislaid your decimal. Dana would only be .003C off with his rounding. That would not affect his 2012 projection and would only lower 2013 by .006C. Hansen had a prediction similar to this 5 or 6 years ago where he said he expected a new record within three years. The next two years were La Nina years, but the third set a new record. I like Dana's method. We will have to see what El Nino does in the next 18 months. It is surprising that 2012 comes out so warn after the relatively cool January. -
Kevin C at 21:51 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Tom: No idea, because my numbers aren't based on a model. I'm grafting together the aerosol correction from my model, which gets the solar term completely wrong, with the mean of Arthur's and Dana's which gets it right. In other words a guess based on my intuition and mangled data. Don't read anything more into it than that! Here's some brainstorming for your missing ENSO signal though: 1. See if the ENSO fit can be improved by doing the F&R correction as now, and then looking at the lagged correlation between the MEI and the residuals to look for any residual ENSO signal at differrent lags. 2. Try and handle non-linearity by adding a term which is quadratic or cubic in MEI. The latter is pretty easy. I might try that. -
anchr at 21:22 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Kevin C wrote: "It will be interesting to whether any 'skeptics' respond." Given that 2013 is the next sunspot maximum, I'm sure that the deniers will attribute record warmth to the sun if these predictions come through. If the temperature for a few years afterwards hover around 0.6-0.7C, we will have a new round of "look, it's stabilized". -
Alex C at 19:49 PM on 12 March 2012Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
funglestrumpet @16: Thank you for the notification - I was under the assumption that the daily email service had slightly changed (I for one am no longer getting emails, I think it is a something you select for?), but I'll pass on your comments. -
Tom Curtis at 19:01 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
For what its worth, I notice that Dana uses 0.02 C per year for the influence of CO2 (really the combination of anthropogenic factors). Based on Foster and Rhamstorf, however, the the global warming signal measured by GISS is 0.17 C per decade. Therefore I expect Dana has overstated the temperatures by 0.03 C degrees, leading to a prediction of 0.62 C for 2012, and 0.73 C for 2013. I have notice before that the Foster and Rhamstorf regression does not capture the full influence of ENSO, leaving a residual ENSO correlated signal after the regression. Therefore, allowing or this I would adjust the 2013 prediction up slightly, to 0.74 C. I notice that Dana's method has had errors of 0.07 C twice in a decade. Based on that, I doubt the accuracy of projection is much better than +/- 0.1 C. It would be significantly worse as a prediction because of the error in predicting ENSO and volcanic eruptions. I notice that both Dana and Kevin C mention the margin of error, but so far as I can see, they do not specify it. I would be interested in their specification of the margin of error on condition that their are no major tropical eruptions and that there is a moderate El Nino in 2013. -
Jose_X at 18:39 PM on 12 March 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Michele #94, it took me a while to read enough wikipedia thermodynamics to acquire a fair amount of (first approximation) confidence in your 3 primary equations; however, there were details I could not accept (as covered below). This comment is only on part 2 (no clouds). First, I'll briefly note my interpretation of the 3 equations. >> xTt^4 + (1-x)Ts^4 = Tef^4 The power .jkljkljkljk [I'll finish this answer later] >> Tt/Ts = (Pt/Ps)^(R/Cp) Assumption: the temperature up and down the atmosphere is the result we'd get if there was no vertical convection. I think this is the hydrostatic equilibrium, which can be described (I think) as: the temperature at all points exactly match the potential temperature of a single reference temperature, so I think this means the entire atmosphere in this region would be at the same temperature if we factor out the lapse rate ... or at least that is the assumption for the two points "surface" and "toa". >> Ht = (Ts-Tt)Cp/g Assumption: The hydrostatic equilibrium applies. This is just an application of the lapse rate. >> P=.2 bar Why? I'll assume for the moment that it is because the atmosphere above this point (@300ppm,Ht,Pt) absorbs radiation below some threshold value. Clearer insight into this would be welcomed. I expected appeal to data (like Hottel CO2 absorption) or to Beer Lambert. >> xTt^4 + (1-x)Ts^4 = Tef^4 >> ‘x’ is the % of radiation in the CO2 bandwidth, ‘(1-x)’ the remaining radiation in all the spectrum >> x=.04 What is x? Why .04? Doesn't CO2 absorb a much larger part of the spectrum? I would think x, as you define it (but not as used in the Stefan-Boltzmann based equation) is closer to .2 based on Hottel measurements and probably/hopefully agreeing with analysis of line spectra for CO2. And I heard that satellites measurements indicate that close to half of the IR radiation from the planet reaching the satellites is in the CO2 range, suggesting that maybe that x value should be closer to .5 as used in the equation. In any case, where is the derivation of x or where does its measurement come from? >> Tt/Ts = (0.2/90)^(299/1043) = 0.287 That math comes to something different: 0.1735 .. as can be easily verified by copy/pasting into google search bar. The 299, 1043, and 90 are in the right ball park (and I already wondered about the .2). >> If x << 1, then is Ts = (1+x/4)Tef Can you give me more insight into this simplification (we are dealing with almost insignificant digits perhaps, but I am curious where the approximation comes from)? I don't see why we need an approximation since we have 2 equations and 2 unknowns (Tt, Ts), and one equation is linear so one variable can easily be eliminated for substitution. Given Pt=.2, Ps=90, R=299, Cp=1043, and using your Tt/Ts=...=.287 which might be wrong, we get for the first equation: x(.287*Ts)^4 + (1-x)Ts^4 = Tef^4 or, after substituting x=.04 and Tef=240: Ts = (240^4/(.04*.287^4+.96))^.25 = 242.4 (as you got). So using your .287 (instead of .1735), I get the same thing you got but without having to invoke the alleged approximation. >> Ht = (1+x/4)(1-0.287)(1043/8.87)Tef/1000 = 0.0838(1-x/4)Tef kilometers. You did not pass on the (1+x/4) .. you changed it to (1-x/4). Ht = 0.0838(1+x/4)Tef >> Ht = 0.082Tef With the above fix, we get Ht = 0.0846Tef >> Ht = 0.082Tef ..= 15.6 Km 240 * .082 = 19.68 Km However, after the fix to the equation, Ht = 0.0846Tef = 20.31 Km This is the same thing we get without having to use the approximation. Ht= (Ts-Tt)*Cp/g = (242.4-69.6)*1043/8.87 = 20.32 Km although this does rely on the .287 ratio that might be wrong. All of the above rely on the x=.04 which appears wrong based on how I interpret your definition and/or use in the equation. If you get back to this thread, can you try to answer some of the above, as I think the model is probably decent but there appear to be mistakes? Thanks again for the detailed candidate solution to Venus with 300ppm CO2 (and presumably the rest of the atmosphere along similar percentages as Earth). I won't deal with "3) Clouds" right now since you reused x=.04; however, the model you used there is also interesting, so I will study it even if you don't return to the thread. -
Kevin C at 18:31 PM on 12 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
It's a bold prediction. I agree with the approach - having come round after arguing against it for a long time. I still think the uncertainties in the scale of the exogenous factors are understated. Here's my prediction: 0.61 (2012) and 0.70 (2013). Why? I'm betting on my own rerun of F&R's calculation with a response function to spread the effect of the exogenous factors over a longer period, and a ramp function from 2000 to simulate increase aerosol emissions. However, the fit on my model is poorer than Tamino's, and the p-value on the ramp function is only 18%, so I can't really claim any evidential support. It's also a coward's bet given that I am on the conservative side for both years, and even if I were to get it right the error bounds are sufficiently large that it wouldn't actually offer any support for my model. It will be interesting to whether any 'skeptics' respond. -
Bernard J. at 14:33 PM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
Today, a “100-year storm” means a surge flood of about two meters, on average, in New York. Roughly every 500 years, the region experiences towering, three-meter-high surge floods. Both scenarios, Lin notes, would easily top Manhattan’s seawalls, which stand 1.5 meters high. But with added greenhouse gas emissions, the models found that a two-meter surge flood would instead occur once every three to 20 years; a three-meter flood would occur every 25 to 240 years.
I raised an almost identical point at a local council public forum on climate change about six years ago. The engineers had prepared quite a good plan for future council policies and strategies to avoid or to ameliorate the consequences of sea level rise for low-lying suburbs. However, they presented their calculations, graphs and maps based on 1-in-100 year storm events. At the end of the presentation I stood and asked why they used a current 1-in-100 year storm event definition, rather than estimating current and future changes in frequency of flooding to various levels above the current Australian sea level datum, given that 1-in-100 year event frequencies would change over time, and given that such changes would impact on Council responses to sea level rise. The engineers stared at each other for a while, and then one of them admitted that they hadn't thought of that. The embarrassed silence that followed was palpable. -
Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
I arrived at SkS from, quite frankly, a fairly random web search a couple of years ago. I've always been convinced of the evidence for AGW - it simply makes sense to me that our actions have consequences, and I (personally) didn't need convincing of that. Once here, I was rather amazed at the logical perambulations required to deny the science - the posters who were just blowing smoke, so to speak. The lack of logic, the stacked fallacies (I have a background, among other things, in philosophy), the self-deception required to flatly deny the evidence - it's incredible, and horrifying, to me. And so I've begun to opine on the subject myself, in the hopes of a useful contribution. Since then I've also sought out some of the 'skeptic' blogs, pointing out facts where I can, where I feel I might have an impact. And (where I can) attempting to contribute to the discussion here. SkS has been an amazing resource in this regard; it's my hope that this information, when spread widely and clearly, may lead others to a more reasoned evaluation of the evidence. It's going to be a rough ride for our children, our descendants, due to our actions. I can only hope we can act, in a reasoned fashion, to minimize the problem... -
chriskoz at 14:13 PM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
No one totime has suggested SkS link in the process of "eye-opening" for many "lukewarmers" so I will do. Until I started reading SkS (middle of 2011) I was indifferent to the arguments for AGW, me opinion more or less formed by number of articles in popular press that I've heart to be "for" vs. "against". Even Al Gore movie, which should have "opened my eye", like in Dana's case, did not really convince me, because of its subsequent critisism by "skeptics". When I started reading SkS and checking their references/verifying with my knowledge in some subjects, I realised that popular press bias is bad choice for formulating one's opinion on AGW issue. Especially when I compared the clarity of SkS resources and obviousness of their arguments (as opposed to obscurity and complicated language of "skeptic equivalents such as WUWT) I started appreciating how good job SkS is doing at popularising climate science. Eurica price diplayed on the right margin is well deserved. -
Doc Snow at 14:00 PM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
I was 'converted' from a lazy, casual, lukewarmish acceptance of the mainstream science by denialists on a local chat group. They'd throw out one of the usual memes. I'd be amazed. I'd ask, "Can this possibly be true?" Then I'd diligently root around and find out that, no, it's not true. After a while the pattern became obvious... and it became obvious as a corollary that all this bunkum wasn't just spontaneously generating itself, like bacteria were once supposed to do. It was seeded and nourished by organized groups, in service of an agenda--or, I think now, a couple of interlinked agendas. Call it the Germ Theory of denialism, or call it a war on truth. Just don't call it coherent, because it always turns out not to be, if you look. -
Sarah at 13:58 PM on 12 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Thanks for the comments, and welcome to visitors from ClimateProgress. I've added a list of references which can answer many of the issues raised above. The temperature data on John's image can be found in the Hansen and Sato paper. I'll check with him about adding a T scale. -
Doc Snow at 13:32 PM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
muoncounter--most nations seem to have just a few; only a handful have double digits-worth of 'resilient cities.' The top five, if I'm not mistaken: 5) Serbia (49) 4) Lebanon (56) 3) Phillipines (107) 2) India (118) 1) Austria (272!) Seems the future may speak German. -
chriskoz at 13:05 PM on 12 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Agnostic @10, Does anyone disagree? Is it the rhetoric question, especially given the opinions of commenters 1-9 before yourself? I can perhaps say that James' suggestion of 5m of SLR in this century is a bit exaggerated. Technically, it will be less than a metre until 2100. But uncertainties of upper limit are huge. It may well be that we are already committed to 5m+ if not in 2100, certainly in equlibrium a few centuries later. That's still a moment on an athopogenic scale. So I don't blame him for that. -
muoncounter at 12:45 PM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
An interesting effort by the UN World Disaster Reduction Campaign is called 'Making cities resilient.' Their map shows the 982 local governments around the world that have signed on to this campaign. There are exactly 2 in the US (and neither of those are coastal cities). I seem to recall a fable about an ant and a grasshopper. The one that survived was the one that prepared for survival. Oh well. -
scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 12 March 2012CO2 lags temperature
The "5x" figure is talking about the relative strengths of forcing on the ice-caps (65N) which I agree (with the lag) rules out CO2 variation as "driving" the ice age. This isnt controversial - consensus would agree with Roe - Milankovitch does drive the cycle. However, CO2 is important on global scale. As Roe notes: "This certainly does not rule out CO2 as a primary cause of tropical or other climate variations, or of the apparent synchronization of the ice-age signal between hemispheres" ie CO2 is important in explaining how a forcing operating at 65N can overwhelm an opposite forcing in the SH and drive the cycle there too. From AR4 - the global GHG forcing for LGM cf today is -2.8W/m2. Albedo at -3.8, and vegetation change and aerosols estimated at -1W/m2 each. -
Riduna at 10:53 AM on 12 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
I agree with Hansen's conclusions Does anyone disagree - and if so, why? -
jzk at 10:46 AM on 12 March 2012CO2 lags temperature
scaddenp, Did you read Roe? Roe doesn't say that CO2 has no effect, just that it is not necessary to drive the glacial interglacial cycle. Roe states that the variations in insolation forcing exceed direct CO2 radiative forcing by a factor of five. When you say it is extremely difficult to explain from insolation alone, Roe does just that. Read the whole thing, if you haven't, and then I would like to hear what you think. Thanks. -
‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
There has been (in the US at least) an interesting redistribution of property over the last 30-40 years. A huge amount of investment has been made in litoral (coastline) areas, with a corresponding increase in damages when larger storms or surges occur. The insurance industry is starting to adjust: according to fairly recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) work, flood insurance rates may rise by 70% by 2100, greatly discouraging coastline development. -
mdenison at 10:18 AM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
# Michael Sweet. The paper indicates that part of the reason for increased frequency of high storm surges is due to rising sea level and part is due to the increasing frequency/intensity of the storms. Both effects have a similar impact. A 1 m sea level rise was used. Only when all these factors are included is the figure of 3 to 20 years arrived at. -
ManOfFireAndLight at 09:31 AM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
Coastal, estuarine and riverside conurbations are likely to become more scarce (or at least more sparsely populated) once insurers refuse to cover damage caused by such frequent events. -
Lazarus at 09:29 AM on 12 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Good vid, I have already done a post on it but concentrating on the 1981 paper he mentions; http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-hansen-et-al-got-right-decades-ago.html -
ManOfFireAndLight at 09:25 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
Link to the show here (you may need a proxy to hear it)- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01c7pqq -
ManOfFireAndLight at 09:24 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth covered London's sewers recently and reported that 2mm of rainfall is enough to inundate the sewers resulting in raw sewage flowing straight into the Thames. A parallel here could be that something that initially seems to be a perfect solution to tackle climate change could quite quickly become not much more than a sticking plaster on the gaping wound of extreme weather events, drought, famine and so on. -
michael sweet at 09:16 AM on 12 March 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
My local paper had an article on financing a nuclear power plant. It is only possible because the local ratepayers must pay 10 years in advance of receiving the power and the power company makes 15% even if the plant is never built. They stand to profit $150 million now and they have not even applied for a permit to build yet. If that is the only way to finance nuclear it is not economic. -
michael sweet at 09:12 AM on 12 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
If you include a meter (or two) of sea level rise the surge becomes even higher. How many times can a city be flooded before people abandon the low lying areas? Much of New Orleans has not been rebuilt, and seems unlikely to ever be rebuilt, because people are unwilling to take the risk. Parts of southern Florida have also not been rebuilt after the bad hurricanes 5 years ago. As the OP says, it is very expensive to repair the damage when the sea wall is overtopped. -
Doug Hutcheson at 08:50 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
I heard about Global Warming many years ago, in the 80's I think. At the time, I thought to myself "That's interesting, but nothing to worry about for now". I also heard about Peak Oil about the same time and had much the same reaction. After the global financial melt-down and as I was no longer in the ranks of the employed, I had the time to look at what had happened. Examining the GFC led me to links pointing to Peak Oil and I was slightly disturbed by the immediacy of that problem. It seemed to be a dagger to the heart of Civilisation As We Know It, which it is in fact, but links from there led me to the topic of Global Warming and suddenly the scales fell from my eyes. As has been mentioned in the comments on another thread, we seem to be worse off then cyanobacteria, in that we are set fair to totally consume the very resources which sustain us, with only one probable outcome. I have come to the conclusion that the Four Horsement of the New Apocalypse are:- AGW
- PO
- GFC MkII (MkIII etc)
- Overpopulation
-
adelady at 08:14 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
For me, I suppose there never was any doubt. My attitude was basically political/technical/environmental. I'd grown up through the cold war and watched the brilliant sunsets of the atom bomb testing era. We'd come through the fear of nuclear catastrophe with only a few childish nightmares as well as the real horror when the cold warriors came a bit too close to getting hot. The industrial pollution that darkened my city's skies had largely abated. I'd watched the international negotiations and general argy-bargy about acid rain and ozone take a good while, but eventually the agreements got done. We got rid of asbestos mining and manufacture. All very sensible and quite tedious if you look at the diplomacy involved. Like Glenn, I always read New Scientist back then. And I simply took it for granted that this problem would be just like the others we'd dealt with. Jimmy Carter had put solar panels on the White House roof and I presumed that in the natural order of things, everyone in Australia would have them in plenty of time to deal with the problem. When Reagan took them down, I dismissed that as him being foolish again, just like his claims that trees were more of an atmospheric problem than cars. Because when my own water heater needed replacing not long after, we got a solar system. And I seriously thought everyone else would be doing that too. I'd taken a little interest in the science. Just like acid rain and ozone, I'd look at reports and maps but I simply relied on the science as reported to be accurate. The Rio conference came up with a lot of grandly worded virtuous intentions and I thought they'd get down to the nitty-gritty sooner or later. And somehow or other, the wheels fell off without me even noticing. Now it's much, much later than I ever thought it would be. All my confidence that we'd notice we'd made a mess, just like all the other messes, and we'd get on with cleaning it up has gone. I'm worried sick about my children's children - and their grandchildren as well - and, far from dreamily wondering about how different their lives will be from ours, I'm horrified. It didn't have to turn out this way and it breaks my heart. -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 12 March 2012CO2 lags temperature
jzk - I cant quite see why you think that there is an inconsistency between CO2 acting as a feedback to amplify the milankovitch effect and the statements from Roe? 'CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone.' does not in anyway imply the CO2 was the driver - the milankovich insolution variation was clearing the dominant forcing. However, the magnitude of the effect (and change in SH to NH forcing) is extremely difficult to explain from insolution and albedo change alone. See the paleoclimate chapter of AR4 WG1 for details of the relative forcings. -
funglestrumpet at 07:27 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
This is a very honest piece of writing, thanks. However, personally, I don't give a monkey's about whether the current warming is anthropogenic in origin, or due to the excessive flatulence of the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal instead (or of my mate, Dave, but that another story). It seems to me that far too much of the debate, if such is what it is, centres on whether we humans are responsible for climate change or not. Unfortunately, all the public sees is scientists arguing the point between themselves to a very minor extent (think the usual suspects), if they see it at all, and the media arguing with the scientists to a major extent. They, therefore, see no point in supporting action on the issue, believing that genuine doubt exists. They don’t know that columnists such as Peter Hitchens and Melanie Philips haven’t a clue what they are talking about. The result is that the public takes a position along the lines: ‘If it ain’t quite broke, don’t quite fix it.’ Just for the record, I would be astounded if we humans are not responsible for the change in climate that we are experiencing. Unfortunately, I will also be astounded if we as a species make the changes that we need to make if we are to avoid a dire future. And one of the major reasons is the AGW vs. GW debate that the public sees in the media, not the one that is already as good as settled scientifically - the one that is screaming: “Hit the f***ing brake, NOW!” We know about greenhouse gases and how to cut our production of them. While we get on with doing that, we can send a team out to search for bugblatter beasts. It’ll keep the media happy, and make a change from their slipping the police a few bob for information about celebs. The public need to be made aware that by the time they see that the climate is broke, it will be far too late to be able to fix it. When they see just how much they have been deceived, the only solace will be seeing them turn on the deceivers: the media, Lindzen and the like, the WUWT kindergarten, and of course, Monckton. Perhaps Monckton will turn to that other toff, Lord Lucan, to give him some tips on disappearing. Monckton, more than most, will sure as hell need them, ‘Don’t you know?’ -
r.pauli at 07:16 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
Thanks Andy for your superb article, (and thnx for the correction #12) We might further discuss Richard Alley's sewage analogy - because human sewage outflow is (ahem) essentially linear. There is roughly the same amount per person. Population increases may make for an exponential increase - but it is still roughly the same per person. When you say: "e) The climate crisis is gradual, with the effects unfolding over generations." Starting gradually, but scanning charts of climate crisis data generally seem to appear exponential - possibly due to poopulation (oops!) or certainly exponential increases in industrial combustion. It may be alarmist -- but also may be correct -- to calculate a problem with climate tipping points that is hyperbolic. (Here the hyperbolic limit may be the limit of sustainability range rather than a mathematical singularity) While Superbowl commercials and food poisoning can temporarily trigger exponential sewage flow - it may be worth considering another metaphor for global warming - especially in scenarios past the year 2100. Hansen may explain it as like a Venus syndrome, but to me, multiple tipping points is insanely hyperbolic. On the geological time scale, these Parliamentary, alimentary plumbing engineering quick-fixes are not really enough. We are underestimating the danger Don't you think? -
Martin Lack at 07:06 AM on 12 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
#1 Composer99 As I have said elsewhere, Lindzen's talk was given to an audience comprised mainly of Repealtheact rentamob (i.e. members of the supposedly "sceptical" public) and scientifically-illiterate journalists. Apart from Lord Monckton and Sammy Wilson, the only other MP present (in the audience) was former Trade and Industry secretary Peter Lilley. The closest one could possibly get to celebrity status would be James Delingpole. When I last checked, the Repeal the Act ePetition had just over 1000 signatures so they are never going to change policy that way (100k required to trigger Debate) but what is more concerning is Monckton's claim that Lindzen was whisked away afterward to brief a Cabinet Minister. This is clear interference in UK politcs and I would love to know what MIT think about it. -
Joel_Huberman at 05:43 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Wow! An excellent primary article, followed by fascinating, informative discussion! I simply want to add another positive comment about Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It was seeing that movie that started the process of converting me from an interested spectator regarding environmental issues to what some call an "alarmist". Being a scientist (which means being a skeptic), I didn't immediately "believe" any of Al Gore's claims, but the movie motivated me to ask whether there was any scientific justification for his claims. With help from many sources, I found that Gore's claims were largely justified. My continuing investigations over the years since Gore's movie have convinced me that, in many ways, the perils we face are even worse than Gore described. I'm now in the process of retiring from my previous scientific work (in the area of molecular biology), and I'm trying to figure out how I can best utilize my new-found understanding of AGW to promote constructive responses in my home country (the USA). Any suggestions from readers of this message would be welcome (huberman@buffalo.edu). -
actually thoughtful at 05:35 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Lazarus - could you bold the change - I don't see a difference. Thanks. -
Andy Skuce at 05:13 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
Just over a year ago, Paul Krugman had a blog post "Stuff Happens" that refers to the Great Stink. He provided a link to a pdf of pages 58-76 of Halliday's book. I'll add this link also to the main article. In the "update" at the end of Krugman's post he urges his readers to be retentive when it comes to making jokes about this subject, for instance, his example: "the effluent society". I have to admit, it took a lot of self-restraint to keep scatological jokes out of my article. -
Lazarus at 04:53 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
I'm sure; "once it is understand that CO2 is a critical component of the greenhouse effect" Should read; "once it is understood that CO2 is a critical component of the greenhouse effect" Other than the typo, an excellent piece.Moderator Response: [AS] Thanks! (underline added to comment for emphasis) -
Andy Skuce at 04:51 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
On the subject of "plant food", Halliday has a whole chapter, Where there's Muck there's Brass? devoted to the subject. Indeed, some people did argue against the practice of flushing precious organic fertilizer into the river and the sea. Here's an example in a 1859 letter to The Times:...the gradual but sure exhaustion of the soil of Great Britain by our new sanitary arrangements, which permit the excrements (really the food) of fifteen million people, who inhabit our towns and cities, to flow wastefully into our rivers. The continuance of this suicidal practice must ultimately result in great calamities to our nation. (GSOL p. 109)
To be fair to the Victorian "plant food" promoters, they were for the most part honestly trying to find a way to recycle the human waste and to devise means of making solutions to the sewage crisis pay for themselves. Contrast this to today's "CO2 is plant food" advocates who, I suspect, raise this point as a specious argument to delay emission regulations or carbon pricing. -
dansat at 04:48 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Andy, That is the best piece of writing I've read in the last month. As a die hard fan of old London Town, I look forward to your next piece! Dan -
r.pauli at 04:43 AM on 12 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
There are endless stories of persistent folly and blunder. The progression of Dutch Elm disease and the Chestnut Blight were widely discussed and never acted upon. Also see Ehrenreich's book "The March of Folly" about how nations get stuck in political blunders - situations where all the prevailing wisdom was unable to change the human event. Vietnam was one - the momentum of history cemented inaction. All this may be a trait of our species. The aim then is to somehow evolve. ( Oh goody... a real challenge )Moderator Response: [AS]Thanks for the recommendation! A small correction: the author of that book is Barbara Tuchman, not Barbara Ehrenreich. -
Nick Palmer at 04:29 AM on 12 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
William @16 Some of them may be over-religious types, but I'm pretty sure, having argued with lots on Youtube etc, that libertarians, hardline right and left types and just sheer bloody minded contrarians make up the largest proportion of deniers/sceptics. -
Yvan Dutil at 03:14 AM on 12 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
@takver The problem with all those techniques is they need energy. Hence this increase the cost. In addition, you have to put the CO2 somewhere. When a train load of coal per day is used in a power station, this is not a trivial issue.
Prev 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 Next
