Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 Next
Comments 62451 to 62500:
-
angliss at 05:37 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Kevin C - yes it does. Thanks for the explanation. -
rustneversleeps at 05:22 AM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
@ Mark R, I certainly grok the logic of your speculation, but if there is one thing that the financial crisis of 2008-???? reinforced for me is that it not so easy to isolate "yourself" (be it an individual, corporation, nation) from global forces. Some dodgy mortgages go into default in Arkansas, and the next thing you know Google stock is down by 70% and Gordon Brown is suggesting that Britain take equity stakes in its banks. I am not so sure it plays out as neatly as our intuitions suggest. But if that were indeed the "planning" on The Harper Government(tm)'s part, it would be beyond cynical. The muzzling of our scientists is truly odious behaviour. This from a Harper who said while in opposition: "Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about Government policies and programs citizens and Parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and an incompetent or corrupt Government can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy." Putz. -
Trent1492 at 05:09 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
I am still at a loss on why the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are melting. I understand that temperatures at the summit have only risen a trivial amount. I know the loss has been blamed on increased sublimation but that leads to another question of why sublimation has increased in East Africa? I know that past researchers have minimized the role that AGW has played, yet I am still suspicious of why a glacier that has been around for at least 11,700 years would just start to melt at the same time as other mountain glaciers of the world. -
les at 05:01 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
5 - logicman I don't think so. Lord Lawson has a job to do. Lord Lawson's links to Europe's colossal coal polluter -
Dave123 at 04:58 AM on 7 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Ron, A question of methodology here: Did you divide your work so that you have a training data set (say prior to 1985) and a prediction set? If not then your comparison with IPCC on anything is meaningless, yes, no? Dave -
Tom Curtis at 03:51 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
ribwoods @84, my apologies. It should be 60%. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent @5 good find. As someone who has undertaken some work in this field, I never found the argument/hypothesis land use change on the lower slopes argument affecting the precipitation on the summit (almost 6000m) very compelling. However, the fake skeptics (e.g., WUWT and Marc Morano ) have been happily perpetuating this idea for some time now. Contrary to the what the fake skeptics claim, Mölg et al. conlcude: "Thus, for the moment, the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated." And "We therefore argue that attribution of glacier change and variability to large-scale climate dynamics is unlikely to be distorted by local LCC." I'm not sure what Pielke Senior has to say about this particular issue. Oddly enough, despite his very vocal critique of models, he was happy to endorse a modelling study on his blog by Fairman et al. (2011) which suggested that vegetation was affecting the precipitation at medium and low levels (not the summit) of Kilimanjaro. Interestingly Mölg was a co-author on the Fairman et al. (2011) paper. I have not yet seen Mölg et al. (2012) featured on Pielke's blog.... -
ribwoods at 03:35 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Tom Curtis @ 80 "CFC 11: 417 ppbv (246 ppbv) 40%" One of those figures (probably the "40%") is incorrect. -
Kevin C at 03:33 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
angliss: Estimating TCR doesn't require linearly increasing CO2, or more accurately linearly increasing forcing. You can (almost) always use a deconvolution to deduce the impulse response function from an arbitrary set of temperature and forcing data. From the impulse response function you can deduce TCR, EQS, or anything else. How much data you need depends on the noise level and the timescale of the response of course. However, doing it on the back of an envelope without doing a deconvolution does require a linearly increasing forcing which roughly mimics the definition of TCR in all but scale. Does that clarify the point? -
dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Hyperactive @2 - Lindzen published Lindzen & Choi 2009, and a slight revision to that (very flawed) paper in Lindzen & Choi 2011. angliss @11 - TCR is defined as the response to a linear forcing (see the link to the Monckton post above). -
Steve O at 03:23 AM on 7 March 2012It's cooling
If you are interested in an interesting analogy I discovered that contrasts a medium-term decline against a long-term trend (using sports), check out this post: http://ow.ly/9u8GZ
If one were to believe the latest trend, it would imply that we believe athletes are getting fatter and slower.
Check it out and tell me what you think.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:22 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent, based on the Mölg paper you reference, a more appropriate interpretation would be that modelling suggests that "the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated". And thus refuting two (here and here) of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr's papers on LCC (land-cover-change), as they might apply to Mount Kilimanjaro. -
angliss at 03:11 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Maybe a little off topic as it's a technical question (if there's a better place for this, please forward me there). You say that estimating TCR requires a linearly increasing CO2, but I don't understand why. The transient response of an electronic circuit can be measured by an impulse response, step response, linear response, or any other kind of response you want. In theory, there's no reason we couldn't derive a differential equation that represents the TCR as a result of an impulse response, which is much closer to what we see. For a given system, the equation you derive from the impulse response is identical for any other input (step, linear, exponential, et al), so once you've got the equation, you can get anything else you want too. As a matter of practicality, deriving such an equation is not viable given the number of terms and solving for it numerically in a GCM is the right way to do it, but even so, wouldn't the terms of the differential equation define the TCR, not the response to a particular input type (linear)? Is it because TCR is defined as the response to a linear increase, or something else? -
JMurphy at 02:15 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
myhyla103, could you provide the link to where you read the Singh, Bengtsson paper. -
mohyla103 at 01:55 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
KR: I see. Declining snow extent seems a natural result of a warming planet so I'm not surprised. My original post was not an argument that warming isn't happening, just that the figures presented there seemed exaggerated in reference to "melting glaciers". -
KR at 01:47 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 - Snowpack is right up there with the glaciers.
[Source]
Less snow, less summer storage, less runoff - hence impacts on drinking water and agriculture
-
mohyla103 at 01:42 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis: I do like your phrase "partially dependent". This seems a much more reasonable way to describe the situation. Do you know if there have been any studies in at-risk areas to determine how much meltwater actually comes from glaciers in the summer vs. remaining snowpack from the previous winter? It seems this would be valuable information. "Glaciers act as natural dams..." which can burst causing massive flooding events downstream. A retreating glacier would eliminate this possible threat, so it's not all bad news. "...absorbing large precipitation events..." I don't understand what you're referring to here: rain or snow? Does a glacier have a way of absorbing rainwater besides damming it up? logicman just told me rain cannot add to the mass of a glacier, so I'm confused now. If it's snow, why would a glacier need to absorb this? Is snow just accumulating on the ground more of a danger? "...while maintaining a relatively steady flow of melt water." Melting snow would also provide this, but in areas where the snow melts away quickly, glaciers would definitely provide a more permanent source of water. I agree with you on this point. I just wonder how significant this percentage is compared to snowmelt in those at-risk areas. -
mohyla103 at 01:17 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
logicman: Good point. However, I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't shrinking or won't continue to shrink. I'm just curious where the evidence is that *so many* people are dependent on the actual water melting off glaciers in the first place instead of other sources like snowmelt or rain runoff. -
mohyla103 at 01:08 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
JMurphy: Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the misleading part is that the paragraph title is "melting glaciers" but the 1/6 of the world's population figure seems to be referring to the number of people living in a "snowmelt-dominated, low-reservoir-storage" area. Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference. The Barnett paper says of the Himalaya–Hindu Kush region: "...there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers." After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading! Allow me to present the relevant sections of Barnett's sources: Singh, Bengtsson: "Reduction of water availability during the summer period, which contributes about 60% to the annual flow..." Careful reading reveals that this source does not say glaciers contribute 60% of the total water flow in the river, but rather that the water flowing in the summer period (a combination of rain, glacier melt and snow melt) is 60% of the annual total. From this we can deduce that glacier melt itself is only a fraction of 60% of annual flow, not a full 60%. Singh, Jain, Kumar: "The snow-covered area in the basin was determined using satellite imagery. It is observed that, on average, about 70% of the area of the basin is covered with snow in March/April and this is reduced to about 24% in September/October. The average snow and glacier runoff contribution to the annual flow of the Chenab River at Akhnoor is estimated to be about 49 percent." They do not claim 49% is from glaciers, but a combination of snow and glaciers, so for Barnett to use this figure when talking about glaciers alone is inaccurate. Also, it appears there is still snow cover in this basin into October, so presumably it would be there all year. The importance of this is that, in a glacierless basin, there would still be plenty of snow melting every year to replenish the river. The actual fraction by which river flow would be lowered without the glaciers is not explained here (?) but it certainly is not 50%. Singh, Kain: "It was found that the average contribution of snow and glacier runoff in the annual flow of the Satluj River at Bhakra Dam is about 59%..." Once again, snow and glacier runoff is lumped together. As snow is an annually replenished resource whereas a retreating glacier is a more irreversible change, it would be helpful to know the separate contributions of each. For Barnett to use the full 59% in his paper, he is actually talking about a scenario where not only are the glaciers gone, but it never snows anymore either! Sorry, I can't comment on the Immerzeel paper as I can only read the abstract and there is nothing specific to the Barnett paper in it. But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data. -
CBDunkerson at 23:45 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
nuclear_is_good: "Does anybody else see a pattern here..." My God! You've discovered a 'natural cycle' to denier arguments! :] -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:49 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@owl905 If you feel I am missing your point, then consider it is just possible that it is because you have not stated your point with adequate clarity. It also is not helpful for you on one hand to say that you are not trying to be abrasive while in the next post to accuse me of "pedantic doublespeak" and using emotive terms like "poison sink", whilst ignoring the scientific evidence that suggests your position was incorrect (e.g. the lack of unequivocal evidence for an increase in the airborne fraction, to which you could also add increasing ocean acidification). Now if you have substantive issues with what I have written, then do make detailed unambiguous criticisms, and I will try and answer them, but only if you give me enough information to understand the nature of your criticism and adopt a manner more appropriate for scientific discussion. You write: "And you carry on the assumption that the accounting is correct and that background measurement is globally representative." The accounting of anthropogenic emissions would have to be wrong by a factor of about 0.5 to change alter the conclusions. It is extremely unlikely for the error to be anything like as much as that. If nothing else, governments monitor fossil fuel use for the purposes of taxation, so there are very good records. Regarding background measurements being globally representative, well while I have used the Mauna Loa record, there is a global network of monitoring stations, which show that the background level that is pretty much the same, regardless of where you are. There is a difference of IIRC about 2ppm between the North and Southern hemisphere (because most anthropogenic emissions are from the Northern hemisphere and it takes time to equalise globally). Satellite data (AIRS) suggests that CO2 in the atmosphere is not completely well mixed, but the differences do not alter the conclusions of the mass balance argument. This is because the mass balance argument depends on the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, not on its absolute level at any particular location. As it happens the Mauna Loa observatory is in the tropical region where levels are comparatively stable.
-
Liam23 at 22:41 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
"Of course when the data are zoomed out to the fullest extent with the seasonal variations included, the long-term trend (Figure 3) is difficult to discern." I think that should read "not difficult to discern" if it's a reference to figure 3. -
Sceptical Wombat at 21:45 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A large part of Lindzen's paper is taken up rehashing Lindzen and Choi 2009. A good summary of the problems with LC09 can be found at RC - Lindzen and Choi Unraveled In brief: LC09 uses a technique which is extremely sensitive to changes in the end points chosen - moving an endpoint by a month or less makes a major difference to the outcome and there is no obvious reason why they chose the endpoints they did. LC09 compares energy entering and leaving the atmosphere above the tropics - ignoring sideways movement of heat within the troposphere LC09 ignores the impact of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. -
funglestrumpet at 21:02 PM on 6 March 2012Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
I don't know if old posts are reviewed, but I hope that this is read by someone at sks, because something is wrong with the way posts are notified to recipients of your daily updates. I did not receive notification of this being posted, and I assume by the low number of comments this post has attracted, I am not alone in this regard. It is all the more galling because I was waiting for it. Monckton's behaviour is an important example of the sort of behaviour that is stopping the world from taking the action necessary to thwart the worst effects of climate change. If only for the sake of posterity, it is necessary that posts such as this attract as many comments as possible so that future historians will have a clearer knowledge of the perverse human behaviour exhibited by Monckton and his ilk and seek to structure society in a manner that will stifle obnoxious individuals of a similar character. Please try to ensure that all posts are notified via your daily emails. -
Tom Curtis at 20:56 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 @174: (1) is definitely cringe worthy. On the other hand, the following rivers are all sourced in the Himalayas and are at least partially dependent on glacial melt water for steady flows: Ganges (India, Bangladesh)400 million plus Huang He [Yellow River] (Tibet, China) 150 million plus Indus (India, Pakistan) 170 million plus Irrawaddy (Burma) 30 million plus Mekong (China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam) 17 plus million (delta only) Yangtze (Tibet, China) 430 million plus Total: 1.2 billion plus This excludes several minor rivers flowing into arid regions with lower population density:
Glaciers act as natural dams, absorbing large precipitation events while maintaining a relatively steady flow of melt water. As such, they help prevent floods, and prevent seasonal water shortages. Consequently your skepticism is in this case at least unwarranted.
How dependent the various rivers are on melt water varies substantially, ranging from 60% for the Indus river to 10% for the Huang He and Yangtze. As such, loss of the water flow buffer from glacial melts would only effect people relying on the Yangtze or Huang He on very wet (flood) or very dry (drought years), whereas on the Indus, adverse impacts could be expected every year. Further, because glacial melt is not the only impact of global warming, the overall effects on different rivers can be quite different. The primarily rainfall dependent Chinese rivers, for example, are expected to increase average flows by about 10%, while the Brahmaputra (a major tributary of the Ganges) is expected to reduce average annual flows by about 20%. (Note these are annual figures, and do not address the issue of changes of timing of river flows.)
-
Rob Painting at 20:24 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla @174 - "reduced global precipitation hasn't been proven as a result of AGW yet. Has it?" No. Global precipitation is expected to increase with global warming - it appears to have done so in ancient "greenhouse" periods much warmer than today. So there is an observational basis to support the modeling too. The problem being that it (precipitation) won't fall in some areas where humans have set up large tracts of agriculture. A compounding problem is the precipitation is likely to fall in heavier, but less frequent, downpours. Again a significant problem for agriculture. See SkS post:The Dai After Tomorrow -
logicman at 20:20 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 it takes only a slight rise in temperature to make precipitation fall as rain instead of snow. Rain runs off glaciers and cannot add to their mass: that requires snow. -
JMurphy at 20:03 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, to find out more details, visit the Intermediate Version of this topic, have a look at the references used (Barnett 2005 and Immerzeel 2010), and then come back and state where you found the "misleading claims". -
logicman at 20:01 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Moderators: there is an error in my comment. Bob Carter is not a trustee. Please substitute the link below and delete this comment. Thanks. Bob Carter is an academic adviser to the GWPF -
nuclear_is_good at 19:57 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Does anybody else see a pattern here - during La Nina years the deniers all start talking about how "the warming has stopped" or "the warming is not relevant", while during El Nino years we get the crap on how is something else - the sun, the cosmic rays or the Leprechauns, or that "it will not be that bad"?!Moderator Response: [JH]No matter how often and how well refuted, climate denier memes are constantly regurgitated by climate denier drones. -
logicman at 19:56 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
The Heartland Institute, not widely know for accurate reporting, fell for the 'Lindzen addresses Parliament' hoax - hook, line and sinker. "Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen delivered a comprehensive presentation to the British House of Commons last week explaining why humans are not creating a global warming crisis." http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ Lindzen's pdf of his seminar talk commences with thanks to the organisers: the campaign to repeal the climate change act. One of their patrons, Bob Carter, is a trustee of the GWPF. The GWPF is an "educational" charity and as such is not permitted to engage mainly or entirely in political activities. Perhaps Lord Lawson will now drop Bob Carter from his panel of "scientific" advisers. Even better, perhaps the GWPF, an organisation which merely publishes biased opinion pieces and does nothing to promote education, will stop calling itself an educational charity. -
mohyla103 at 19:36 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
Did anyone else cringe reading this one: === Melting Glaciers The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail. === 1) One-sixth of the world's population is not just many millions but at least a billion. 2) While I could believe a billion people are dependent on rainwater runoff, or spring runoff from melting snow that fell during the winter, where exactly are there a billion people in the world depending on water from actual glaciers? If global warming was somehow able to stop rain, or prevent snow from falling every year, I could see that being a problem for a billion people or more. As far I know (though I'm admittedly quite ignorant on the subject) reduced global precipitation hasn't been proven as a result of AGW yet. Has it? This statement seems takes an easily observable phenomenon (glaciers shrinking) that the general public can understand, and associate it *incorrectly* with catastrophic results. It's this attitude of alarming the public with misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general. -
shoyemore at 19:28 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen's presentation got some publicity but not a lot. However, I did see comments about it on blogs here (Ireland) so this is very useful. Thanks. -
Tommi Kyntola at 19:06 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
How does the Canadian media handle all this? -
MarkR at 19:02 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
My speculation is that this is sensible long term planning on Harpur's part. Canada is going to do ok out of global warming. Whilst the USA will expect to struggle with large internal migration and potentially huge migration from Latin America, Canada can use the USA as a buffer with its oil, water and agricultural land as diplomatic bargaining chips. There's a good chance that other nations will be seeing their agriculture fail and when you decide whose population does or doesn't starve you have a lot of bargaining power. In the same way that oil and gas revenue supported Putin's government and diplomacy, Canada could become a hugely important breadbasket. This would be consistent with the actions of the Harpur government, which is showing a very intolerant streak. -
owl905 at 18:56 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@Hyperactive: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html 240 papers. That's exactly why it's 'mind your answers' when it comes to Ricky Mit. @Martin Lack - underestimating an opponent leads to defeat. Congrats to the progress of Ricky MIT. Never thought there would be a presentation (at $3500/hour plus expenses (/jealous)) that didn't mention his pet dog Iris. It's a magic illusion trick. Look for the signals - using SST to reduce positive feedbacks ... what's the trick? (hint - La Nina upwells cold water that he doesn't take into account). Ricky Mit claims correlation doesn't mean causation ... while he tries to sell the phony 'CO2 lags temp spike' as a causation sequence. His Arctic extent chart obscures the highs and low trends by playing seasonal slinky with the view. He mumbles through the equatorial 'hot spot' he was nailed for a few years ago, with an updated 'yea it was wrong but I was still right about the models'. He just forgot to explain the implication of the observation. -
Rob Painting at 17:25 PM on 6 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Owl905 - "@Rob Painting - it may not sound very likely to you..." Nor to experts on the PETM either. Note Jerry Dickens comments in the SkS post: CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event he states: "With all deference to Dr. Hansen, this idea makes no sense given the timing. The massive carbon injection at the onset of the PETM happened within a maximum of 60,000 years, and probably less." Dr Dickens is one of the most published scientists on the subject of the PETM, but it doesn't take a genius to appreciate his point. "As well, your unsupported claim about "rapid" CO2 draw-down relating to India "smashing" into Asia is just nonsense - the start to end collision was a 40million-year process." Internal consistency is not your forte is it? If the process occurred over 40 million years, how exactly did it cause an event lasting 20,000 years? Some citations of peer-reviewed literature would be useful here, otherwise it is just your unsupported inexpert opinion. It would also benefit you to read studies, or watch some videos, on the chemical weathering process. Work by James Kasting, Robert Berner or Lee Kump would be a good start. As too would the video lecture by Richard Alley: The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History -
angliss at 17:08 PM on 6 March 2012New research from last week 9/2012
That Greenland paper strikes me as potentially very interesting. It seems like it might just be trying to put some science into the whole "Greenland was warm enough that it was called GREENland when it was settled" thing. -
KR at 16:41 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
owl905 - Dikran stated that "If we cut emissions sharply enough that the net environmental sink outstrips anthropogenic emissions, then atmospheric levels will fall." This is entirely correct. You (in your post here, and IMO) appear to have overstated the case - "The claim of an intervening set of forces to return it to a previous state (after the GHG proportions are changed, the oceans warmed, and the biosphere disrupted) is nothing more than wishful fantasy." - this is not correct, the various feedbacks on the carbon cycle will act upon any disturbance. Just, unfortunately, over a rather long time period that will be very unpleasant for us. My post here was an attempt to point out those issues. Perhaps it was not stated very clearly (in which case mea cupla), but that was indeed the intent. "While not trying to be abrasive..." - While feel I agree with you on the basic issues of anthropogenic global warming, I would submit that you are not succeeding in this aim. You have a tendency to be harsh on anyone with a differing view, when it may well be a difference of emphasis or presentation - and that comes across as disdainful. -
owl905 at 15:52 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@Dirkan (my last response) i) the discussion abour runaway or not isn't part of the discussion ii) You still miss the point and try to argue both sides of the street - Dikran15's claim was that levels would start to fall at the point of anthro-cutoff. You said it will and it won't. It comes across as noise. iii) Same thing - iv) Yes it is true. It's a poison sink. Again, you don't appear to understand the issue. "The sink isn't a great mystery, we know that the carbon is taken up by the other reservoirs, but we don't know exactly how much is going into each reservoir." More pedantic double-speak. And you carry on the assumption that the accounting is correct and that background measurement is globally representative. @KR - Dikran15's statement was exactly that levels start falling when the AG CO2 stops: "If we cut emissions sharply enough that the net environmental sink outstrips anthropogenic emissions, then atmospheric levels will fall." Your response that turns a comment about 'inter-glacials' into a Milankovich dump about glacial cycles is off-topic. Go back and read Dikran's comment restated here. And then stop rephrasing it into something he didn't say as a rebuttal. -
owl905 at 15:36 PM on 6 March 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Patterson hired Harris to fill in for him while he was on sabbatical. Harris was the backfill lecturer for the years 2009-2011. -
owl905 at 14:33 PM on 6 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
@Rob Painting - it may not sound very likely to you, but the activity around the plates co-incides with the Indian plate interacting with the Asia plate, subduction/mountain raising, the closing of the Tethys Ocean, and a rearrangement of ocean currents. It co-incides with evolutionary jumps with species like the ancestors of the whale. It co-incides with a breakup of the South America connection to Antarctica to Australia. As well, your unsupported claim about "rapid" CO2 draw-down relating to India "smashing" into Asia is just nonsense - the start to end collision was a 40million-year process. (-Snip-). The ocean anoxia phenom is nothing new - Sciam was delivering article research about the food-chain collapse in the oceans for most, if not all extinctions, 15 to 20 years ago. The ocean-acidification isn't a new idea, but ... so what? Map of the world 50-60mya http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm A megatrend - India pushing into Asia and the rise of the Himalaya's. (-Snip-).Response:[DB] Please model the type of tone and comment you expect from others.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Composer99 at 14:03 PM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
The reply I received is as follows:Thank you for your concern on this. The course in question has not been offered this year, and Tom Harris is no longer teaching at Carleton University.
As you can see, it is quite brief (and leaves out the slight detail that the class will continue as per Dr Patterson's note). -
GreenCooling at 13:57 PM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Thanks KR@77 and Dana@78, very good to see the previous discussion of CFCs. We are indeed fortunate that the Montreal Protocol has reduced emissions, but it is very unfortunate this is not better recognised in the policy debate. The projections of the erosion of the significant climate benefits by the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010 are I think cause for alarm, but very few ENGOs are paying any attention, and even one of the biggest that has been working on this problem is scaling back their campaign. I don't for a second argue that CO2 is not the main game, but the ongoing neglect of the significance of short term, fast acting mitigation strategies like controlling HFCs & HCFCs (and recovering and destroying CFCs) is baffling. The implications of the bottom panel from the Executive Summary (linked above) are bad enough, but the effect of using the 100 year GWP figures for HFC gases significantly understates the forcing impact of gases that have an average atmospheric lifetime of 21.7 years. Use of 20 year GWP figures almost doubles the projections depicted below.
"Bottom panel: Global GWP-weighted emissions expressed as Gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. The emissions of individual gases are multiplied by their respective GWPs (direct, 100-year time horizon; CO2 = 1) to obtain aggregate, equivalent CO2 emissions. Shown for reference are emissions for the range of CO2 scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). The CO2 emissions for 1950–2007 are from global fossil fuel use and cement production. Beyond 2007, the shaded region for CO reflects the maximum (A1B) and minimum (B2) SRES scenarios. The dashed line marks 2010, the middle year of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Also shown is the magnitude of the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on a 1990– 2010 projection of global greenhouse gas emission increases and the reduction target for participating countries."
The full Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010 and associated Twenty Questions and Answers about the Ozone Layer 2010 Update contain a wealth of further information that may be of interest.
I'm sure there are better places to discuss the looming threat posed by HFCs, and to challenge the widely held notion that the work of the Montreal Protocol is done (and ignorance of its role in protecting climate in the past), and would welcome any suggestions?
-
Brian Purdue at 13:36 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
If James Powell does an updated edition of his book “The Inquisition of Science”, the Harper Government would fill a whole new chapter. When are politicians going to realise you can’t keep putting the national interest ahead of the interests of the planet? Climate change is a disaster without borders and we’re all in this together. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 12:26 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Pardon the grammar errors. I'm multi-tasking and as usual, doing it badly. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 12:22 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Cuts at the provincial level are also taking their toll. For example, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is mandated by law to monitor wildlife (aside from the ones monitored for hunting purposes). These include various forest birds, salamanders, small mammals, as well as larger mammals such as lynx. These are supposed to be monitored, by law, by the Wildlife Assessment Unit. However, they've not have any money to actually monitor* wildlife since the mid-2000s. Currently the biologists discuss what they could do if they were actually given money (they're using multiple species inventory and monitoring protocols, or MSIM for short). So nobody is actually monitoring these species, and as a result no-one really knows what is happening in vast areas of Ontario despite large-scale logging efforts in which MSIM is supposed to bring in information so forestry companies can more closely mimic 'natural' disturbances. *Thunder Bay district has had money to run a small pilot project for the past three or four years with the idea that this project would be expanded to all Ontario. Last year it became apparent they never would be given money so they proposed a team of four contract staff who, aided by summer students, would set up monitoring in just one region. The following year they'd move to another region. And so on. About as cheap as you can get (don't have to pay contract staff benefits, you lay them off for 2 or more months when not needed, you bring in university students who may or may not be trained well enough). Preliminary word this year is that there won't be funds for this either despite the mandate pushed by the government (who can tell everyone how forward thinking and environmentally friendly they are for mandating monitoring of non-game species). Politics. Sigh. It seems the bottom line is that if you work in any field where you may have to tell the politicians bad news from the nature, your funding is cut. -
Albatross at 11:27 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Dr. Bickmore, Re Spencer's comment that: "You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming." This is a very disingenuous statement for someone like Dr. Spencer to make. It seems to be designed to feed fodder to those who deny the theory of AGW or those who claim that climate sensitivity is low. He has to know that what he is claiming is misleading. Either that our he does not understand the physics as well as he claims or should. His argument seems to rely on the following assumptions: 1) CO2 is the only driver of global temperature. 2) The resultant warming will be montonic. 3) That trends calculated over a period of 10 years are statisically significant. Assumption 1 is of course false, need to elaborate on that. Assumption 2 is also false, and Dr. Spencer argues that intenal variability is real and important. Assumption 3 is critical, trends over periods of 10 years for such a noisy data series as global temprature do not yield statiscally significant trends. It is important to note that the interannual variability because of oscillations or volcanic eruptions can be as large as +/- 0.2 C. By comparison the long-term rate of warming of global temperature is about 0.15-0.20 C per decade. It is well-established that the interannual and even decadal variability affect global temperatures, and that decadal long slowdowns are real (e.g., Meehl et al) that is not under dispute. But as shown above, we have processes acting on very different time scales. It could be circa 2060 when CO2 values have doubled and the resultant radiative forcing is about +3.7 Wm-2 and a super El La Nina will still reduce global temperatures by ~0.2 C. But the global temperature that year will be much higher than an equivalent event occuring in the early 21st century. Similarly, when another slowdown happens down the road, say circa 2050, the plateau during that period will be substantially higher than the one being currently experienced. This process is already evident (see Figure below) and explains why 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record, and one of the warmest years on record rather than one of the coldest.
[Source]
Your observation that, "The bottom line is that Roy Spencer has been arguing all along that natural variation can cause the temperature to go up or down for a while no matter what the external forcing is doing, and no matter how long the time period, but now he suddenly can’t imagine that this could happen over a single decade!", beautifuly exposes the inanity of Dr. Spencer's claim.
-
Albatross at 10:26 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Thanks Composer, much appreciated. This is intriguing, because Harris claims that 95% of the course material was sourced from Patterson. If true, that means Patterson has been misleading students with misinformation, falsehoods and distortions for some time. The Carleton University Academic Staff Association states: "The common good of society depends upon the search for truth and its free exposition. Universities with academic freedom are essential to these purposes both in teaching and scholarship/research. Employees are entitled, therefore, to: (a) freedom in carrying out research and in publishing the results thereof, (b) freedom in carrying out teaching and in discussing his/her subject and, (c) freedom from institutional censorship. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for truth." I would contest that given Patterson's close affiliations with ideological astroturf groups ("Friends" of Science, Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition, Natural Resources Stewardship Project) he is not basing his teaching in an honest serach of truth, but rather using his position to promote and advance his belief that CO2 is not a primary driver of global climate. He may be free to state his opinions, but IIRC he must state beforehand that what he is about to say is his opinion only. -
Tom Curtis at 10:12 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
John Hartz @81: 1) At the beginning of the Annex, the authors are listed as:"Model calculations contributed by: C. Bruhl; E. Byutner; R.G. Derwent; I. Enting; J. Goudriaan; K. Hasselmann; M. Heimann; I. Isaksen; C. Johnson; I. Karol; D. Kinnison; A. Kiselev; K. Kutz; T-H. Peng; M. Prather; S.C.B. Raper; K.P. Shine; U. Siegenthaler; F. Stordal; A. Thompson; D. Tirpak; R.A. Warrick; T.M.L. Wigley; DJ. Wuebbles. Co-ordinators: G.J. Jenkins; R.G. Derwent."
2) Regarding the specific scenarios is says:"Modelling studies have been undertaken by a number of research groups to investigate the climate consequences of several man-made emission scenarios The first category of emission scenarios is that generated by IPCC Working Group III, which represents a broad range of possible controls to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, these we refer to as policy s c ena r ios."
Given that the scenarios originated from WG III I presume economists where heavily involved. 3) It further says:"Each scenario includes emi s s ions of the main greenhouse gases, and other gases (such as NOx and CO) which influence then concentrations The emissions of carbon dioxide and methane are shown in Figure A 2 as examples For further information on the background to and method of generation of, these policy scenarios, see Expert Group on Emissions Scenarios (1990)."
That report, so far as I can determine, is not available on the web, and certainly not available from the IPCC. Its full title is given by the IPCC TAR as:"University, Vancouver. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1990: Report of the Expert Group on Emission Scenarios. World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, New York"
The 1992 report, Emissions Scenarios for the IPCC - An Update report discusses the 1990 scenarios extensively. In the executive summary it says:"Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such. This becomes increasingly true as the time horizon increases, because the basis for the underlying assumptions becomes increasingly speculative. Considerable uncertainties surround the evolution of the types and levels of human activities (including economic growth and structure), technological advances, and human responses to possible environmental, economic and institutional constraints. Since completion of the 1990 Scenario A (SA90), events and new information have emerged which relate to that scenario's underlying assumptions. These developments include: the London Amendments to the Montreal Protocol; revision of population forecasts by the World Bank and the United Nations; publication of the IPCC Energy and Industry Sub-group scenario of greenhouse gas emissions to AD 2025; political events and economic changes in the former USSR, Eastern Europe and the Middle East; re-estimation of sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (reviewed in this Assessment); revision of preliminary FAO data on tropical deforestation; and new scientific studies on forest biomass. These factors have led to an update of SA90, the current exercise providing an interim view and laying a basis for a more complete study of future emissions. ..."
It seems to me that Anteros would do well to read the first and second paragraphs repeatedly until he understands the difference between a "prediction" and a "projection" as currently defined by the IPCC, and used at SkS (regardless of the looser use in the IPCC FAR), and thoroughly understands that emissions developments in the 1990s where not BAU as projected by the IPCC FAR. I presume that as the update relied on the World Bank for population projections, the original scenarios did as well, but that is just conjecture.
Prev 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 Next
