Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 Next
Comments 62501 to 62550:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:39 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
RonManley "Can natural oscillations explain the climate...". Yes they can to some extent if by Climate we mean just what happens to air temperatures, and just shorter term 0 the oceans are 90%) changes like a decade or so. However if we work with all the components that make up the climate system - Air, Land, Cryosphere, Oceans - then any variations in the sum of all of these has to come from variations in something else. But there is no other something else apart from the Earths radiative energy balance with the Sun & Space. Arguments like Roys are based on just looking at a small part of the climate system (the Air accounts for only 3% of the added heat due to AGW) and not asking whether the other internal parts of the climate are changing to cause the Air to warm, or whether all the components are changing together due to an external source of heating. -
Composer99 at 09:36 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Albatross: I emailed the Dean's office and received a very brief reply from the Dean. I can't get at my email at the moment but will paste the text once I can. Dr Patterson's message appears to confirm my assumption of routine contractual/curriculum changes resulting in the class not being on offer this year and Tom Harris not being at Carleton. IMO if Dr Patterson is teaching ERTH 2402 next winter semester he is, of course, free to present his opinions to the students. However, if he, as Tom Harris did, systematically misrepresents the evidence to the students I think there is a responsibility to let them know they are being misinformed. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:25 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Just made a post over at Roy's blog and spotted this priceless gem. There really are some opinionated ignorant people out there: "The physical principle behind the analysis lies in the Kirchhoff’s law of 19th century radiation physics, which can be restated in plain English as: an object that absorbs emits and an object that emits absorbs. Absorption and emission are two inseparable equivalent identities of the same physical essence. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, THEREFORE DO NOT EMIT(my emphasis). CO2 approaches 0 K because of its emission if there is no radiation source; absorption of the thermal radiation from the earth ground surface rises CO2 temperature from -273.15°C to -78°C only. CO2 gains heat by colliding with warmer nitrogen and oxygen to rise its temperature further, which can be measured by spectroscopy. " Also this article would be worth a read. It really does look like Roy's option #3 is the biggest culprit. -
Albatross at 09:17 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Composer 99 @7, Did your response from Carleton read like this? Can you say conflict of interest. "Dear colleagues As you may be aware a 97 page report entitled "Climate Denial in Canada's Classrooms" has been prepared by Chris Hassall, an insect ecologist post doc in the biology department, and three consultant friends (technical writers and former biologists) that is highly critical of the delivery of ERTH 2402 as taught by sessional lecturer Tom Harris. They apparently acquired video copies of the lectures and have dissected them line by line. Their criticism of statements made by Tom make up the bulk of the report. The tone of the report is, as one might expect from the title, that of strident activists. It is not terribly scholarly. They even had issues with Tom remarking that "the only constant about climate is change", a statement remarkably bland to geologists. As you know Tom last taught the course in 2010-2011 and is no longer a sessional lecturer with us. As an institution and department we firmly respect academic freedom in the classroom but are vigilant that the highest academic standards be maintained in the delivery of our courses. ERTH 2402 was not offered this year as part of the natural rotation of courses within the department. The course will next be offered in winter 2013 by Tim Patterson, a senior faculty member with considerable expertise in climate change research. Tom's services in teaching this course will therefore no longer be required. The report is spreading through the blogishere generating comments from supporters and detractors, but has only resulted in a single real media article thus far-- in the UKs left leaning Guardian newspaper. It will be interesting to see whether sufficient interest can be garnered before the story becomes stale amongst North American media outlets. If queried by media you may wish to refer them to the departmental chairman. If interested I can send you a link to download a copy of the report. Tim R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. (Acting Chairman) Department of Earth Sciences Carleton University Tel: (613) 520-2600 ex 4425" Note who wrote the letter ;) The bolded text (my highlighting) is IMHO wholly inappropriate language for the chair of a department to be using. People can write to the Dean of Science here. -
muoncounter at 09:15 AM on 6 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
Fires may be transients, but they do provide an interesting opportunity to trace the atmospheric flow of gases from known surface sources. McMillan et al 2005 did so with satellite tracking of carbon monoxide from South American fires: The presented AIRS daily global CO maps from 22 – 29 September 2002 show large-scale, long-range transport of CO from anthropogenic and natural sources, most notably from biomass burning. The sequence of daily maps reveal CO advection from Brazil to the South Atlantic in qualitative agreement with previous observations. Forward trajectory analysis confirms this scenario and indicates much longer range transport into the southern Indian Ocean. Fisher et al 2010 tracked carbon monoxide to the Arctic. As if it wasn't complicated enough, ENSO gets in on the act: AIRS shows lower than average CO columns over Alaska during April 2008, despite the Russian fires, due to a weakened Aleutian Low hindering transport from Asia and associated with the moderate 2007–2008 La Ni˜na. This suggests that Asian pollution influence over the Arctic may be particularly large under strong El Ni˜no conditions. Based on these kinds of studies, it is astounding that anyone can still pretend anthropogenic sources are insignificant. -
r.pauli at 08:49 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Toon-of-the-Week comment on Fox viewers: rather than calling them the least informed - rather they are most mis-informed. Deliberately so. -
Dennis at 08:29 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Excellent video. In the US, of course, we have had the not so humorous real world situation where the Attorney General of Virginia went on a witchhunt against Michael Mann. Ken Cucinelli never offered a shred of evidence for his investigation beyond the talking points of the deniers. Thankfully, on Friday the state Supreme Court threw his action out. -
DMCarey at 08:20 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Brilliant video in Mercer's fashion, but it honestly shows the pitiful trend Canada is on Rob Painting @5, between Harper's seeming war on science, the hush-hush extensive role of the military during the G8 (a friend of mine was a member of the unknown-to-public sniper teams on the roofs) & his proposed omnibus crime bill, Canada honestly seems to be taking steps towards a more fascist state, something that saddens me greatly. I am pleased to see the number of Canadians donating money to CFCAS to keep PEARL open (I donated this morning) P.S. owl905, I burst out laughing at that joke. I loved when Trudeau threw that in his face. Kent as minister of environment is likely the single most embarassing aspect of Canadian politics today -
Composer99 at 08:15 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
I emailed Carleton University about the CASS-CFI report linked by owl905. I was advised that the course wasn't on offer this year and Tom Harris was no longer on staff, which is all I was told. Since the CASS report was issued just last week and decisions about courses/staffing for this academic year would have been made long ago, I'm assuming that routine contractual/curriculum decisions were made resulting in the above situation. -
owl905 at 06:50 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
The cdn joke-of-the-day - "How do you get (Environment Minister) Peter Kent to shut up?" "Ask him to explain 'ozone'." Kent Oh-knows Ozone @Rob Painting - re: armed force - there's a simmering leftover controversy about the Billion-dollar 'ring-of-steel' showdown at the 2011 G8 in Toronto. The role of the undercover agents who infiltrated the demonstrator ranks was never explained (security reasons). The threat to the democratic laws is now on the table with the "Robocall" elections scandal. It's starting to read like the 'what went wrong' chapter in a sci-fi paperback. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 06:32 AM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Just out of interest, has Lindzen published many papers on Climate Change recently? -
Andy Skuce at 06:31 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
On anonymity: My full name can be found on the Team Page. If I were embarking on a scientific career in Canada, I would probably prefer to maintain anonymity on matters like this. I tip my hat to people like Robert who are willing to stand up and speak out on important issues such as this one. -
robert way at 06:06 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
The oddest thing is that Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment) was the one who hosted a documentary on the dangers of global warming and the science behind it back in the early 1980s... -
Rob Painting at 06:02 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Rob Way - sounds very much like a totalitarian government regime. The only thing missing is the use of violence to control the masses. Hard to believe we live in the 21st century. And a big pat on the back for having the courage to stand up to these bullies. Sadly we know that the Harper government cannot bully the physical laws of nature - there are inevitable consequences for delusional thinking. -
John Hartz at 05:47 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
@Tom Curtis #80: Do you have any information about the individuals comprising the group who produced the forecasts? Did the group include economists? Did they use an economentric model and forecasts developed by another global organization such as the World Bank? -
robert way at 05:47 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
"It's a sign of the times when there's a sense of gratitude here for not publishing the authors' names (there's too much downside)." Certainly that is true. There was discussion about publishing any of our full names because of potential ramifications. However I felt obliged to share mine since right from the beginning on SKS I have shared my name, and also I have already criticized the Harper Government vigorously in the past, so it's nothing new. I suppose my applications for government funding may complicate things from time to time though. -
Doc Snow at 05:06 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
"Environment" Minister Peter Kent responded to critical questioning about the decisions to close down PEARL by saying "I don't have a million and a half dollars in my back pocket." However, it appears possible that ordinary Canadians of good will just might: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/04/arctic-research-station.html It should be noted that this is not due to extreme financial pressure; Canada's net debt ratio is lowest in the G-7, and the last deficit was a very manageable $33 billion. http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2011/report-rapport-eng.asp Sadly, the video does seem to accurately encapsulate the true attitude of the Harper government toward science--and especially science that is in some way environment-related. -
owl905 at 04:49 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
It's a sign of the times when there's a sense of gratitude here for not publishing the authors' names (there's too much downside). The Conservative Party is a relabelled tea-party revolt called The Alliance. It sabotaged the Canadian response to Kyoto - and turned the pollution problem first into 'we don't need a tax or a foreign solution', and then into 'Green Shift is just expensive, job-costing greenwash'. Add: 2009 - 500 Scientists submit a protest document to the PM. Scientists Protest 2012 - Tar Sand players form an environmental response common front - Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. COSIAll 2009-29011 - The teaching of the pro-pollutionist case at Carlton U is the latest inroad by anti-Science Syndrome. CASS Report-1.7meg PDF (special notes - p.7 connection to Heartland; and a very disturbing note about fast-food science - pp. 10ff Student Feedback). To any American that wants to consider what a Tea Party in power could do to the USA ... look north, and add tar. -
Biophilia at 04:23 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
From robo-calling to stymie democracy, to censoring scientific research, the Harper government is the worst thing that has happened to Canada recently. I for one, think it's time we start electing scientists to office. Instead of these goons with a cheer-leading degree in free-market economics, and a penchant for profits before people. -
owl905 at 03:53 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
@JH - suggested SKS wanted to follow up on it. SKS rebuttal topics are one of the main reference sources in the report. Your response has an implication that you didn't look at the report.Moderator Response: [JH] You are making a false assumption. I did read the report and did see the multiple references to SkS. I still don't know what specific "follow-up" action you want SkS to take in this matter. -
Tom Curtis at 03:52 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
John Hartz @79, thank you for the question. Prompted by it, I looked at the annexe of the IPCC FAR, and found the graph of the concentrations of key GHG in the scenarios in figure 4.3. Using those graphs, and the graphs of actual concentrations from NOAA above, I made a comparison of 2010 concentrations. The first figure is the IPCC FAR BAU scenario concentration, while the figure in brackets is the actual figure. The final figure is the percentage of the projected concentration which was actually achieved: CO2: 400 ppmv (394 ppmv) 98.5% CH4: 2250 ppbv (1800 ppbv) 80% NO2: 328 ppbv (323 ppbv) 98.5% CFC 11: 417 ppbv (246 ppbv) 40% CFC 12: 734 ppbv (534 ppbv) 73% So stated, this underestimates the impact of the relatively low emissions in the 1990s. Because of thermal lag, the reduced forcings in the 1990s will result in reduced temperatures in the following decades. For comparison, in 2000 the projected BAU CO2 concentration was 384 ppmv, while in real life the concentration was only 368 ppmv, or 96% of the projected value. -
John Hartz at 01:31 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
@Tom Curtis #76: The first sentence of the PDF document you quote from reads: "The Steering Group of the Response Strategies Working Group (Working Group III) requested the USA and The Netherlands to develop emissions scenarios for evaluation by the IPCC Working Group I." Is there another document that details how the USA and the Netherlands developed the four scenarios? -
CBDunkerson at 00:14 AM on 6 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
DMarshall, smoke and soot in the air block incoming sunlight and cause cooling, while dark soot on the ground absorbs more sunlight and causes warming. That being said, smoke and soot are transient effects. Ten years after the event their impact is effectively non-existent. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of a fire smoke and soot are a net cooling forcing, then as the soot settles to Earth it is a net warming forcing for a few years, until the soot is washed away and it becomes a net zero forcing. In the long run smoke and soot don't matter. On the other hand, the carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning may stay there contributing to warming for centuries. -
Tristan at 23:52 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Fran Barlow++ -
Fran Barlow2 at 23:01 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
A jscipt text-tip-based glossary would probably work best, especially if there were a link to a dBase with fuller explanationModerator Response: [JH] For the benefit of our non-tech-savy readers, please explain what a "jscipt text-tip-based glossary" is and how it would work. Thank you. -
Martin Lack at 22:29 PM on 5 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
UPDATE: Frustrated by my failure to hitherto get the British media to take up this story - and realising I had made a reply from Professor Lindzen very unlikely by making unsubstantiated "contentious assertions" - I have now apologised for the latter. However, I would still like - indeed I think the World deserves - an explanation for all of the things Dana and I (and no doubt many others) have noticed about Professor Lindzen's talk that were, to say the least, "strange"... No cause for alarm? – You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012). -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:17 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
A glossary would be very useful to me, as I am not familiar with the terms used and references are often made in places where I cannot work out meaning from context. -
Rob Painting at 18:28 PM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Owl905 - "The PETM was an epochal event featuring the effect of the Indian subcontinent grinding into the southern borders of the Eurasian continent. It produced repeated stress fracturing all around the Eurasian continent. The result was oceanic-driven toxic acidity over millennia." That doesn't seem very likely. The PETM carbon isotope excursion happened in less than 20,000 years, there is no plausible volcanic/tectonic mechanism that could have caused such an abrupt event. I know James Hansen has made the same claim, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. It is, however, probable that the exposure of new rock, through India smashing into Asia, helped in rapid draw-down of atmospheric CO2 through the process of chemical (silicate/carbonate) weathering. "The KT boundary featured oceans.......... The Great Dying of the Permian" An interesting feature of the very latest research emerging from these extinctions events is that ocean acidification may have been a common 'kill mechanism". It's likely that other factors, such as ocean anoxia, played a part, but it's remarkable that so many different researchers are zeroing in on ocean acidification. SkS will cover many of these studies in the not-too-distant future. -
RonManley at 18:14 PM on 5 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Thanks for the comments - most of which I accept - which is why my description of the 'model' is littered with caveats. For example, I state explicitly that the use of “natural climatic oscillations” as independent variables is “questionable”. Such a simple ‘model’ cannot of course trace the transfer of heat and, for that matter, CO2, into and out of the oceans. It cannot handle water vapour feedback. All I claim to have done is to show that temperature variations for the last 150 years can be easily simulated if you included GHGs; if you exclude them you have to postulate some other undefined alternative forcing mechanism. When Kevin Trenberth suggested that the null hypothesis should be that humans are changing the climate I did not agree with him; now I am starting think that he might be right. -
dana1981 at 17:27 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
We also discussed the role of CFC emissions reductions in Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1 and the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong". As also discussed in those posts, climate scientists are not in the business of predicting how GHG emissions will change. That is primarily a policy question, decided by policymakers and the public. That's why climate scientists create so many potential emissions scenarios, and create climate projections for those scenarios. -
owl905 at 17:07 PM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
The PETM was an epochal event featuring the effect of the Indian subcontinent grinding into the southern borders of the Eurasian continent. It produced repeated stress fracturing all around the Eurasian continent. The result was oceanic-driven toxic acidity over millennia. The KT boundary featured oceans drenched in the downpour of atmospheric dust from the Chicxulub impact. Ocean poisoning was a key feature. The Great Dying of the Permian sea-featured one of three extinction processes - a massive oceanic die-off from ubiquitous dead-zones. Now industrial civilization beats the rate of disruption from any of those events ... and it won't have much effect. Okay, not much other than reef collapse, shell dissolution, reproductive cycle inhibition, and weakened resistance to disease and predation. Congrats, the winning ticket in the Great Bonehead Lottery is 'collapse due to pollution'. Best supporting perp award goes to - 'did nothing with the knowledge for half a century'. -
owl905 at 16:33 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Pity SKS didn't think my e-mail forward was worth a topic - the CASS report is a pretty comprehensive reubattal to Tom Harris's pro-pollution sludge at the University of Carlton. This was the e-mail: "Skeptical Science just moved up the charts to front and centre. The debate about Tom Harris teaching at Carlton has produced a scathing report response from CASS. Their report extensively quotes from Skeptical Science. It starts here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/01/environment-climate-change-carleton-course.html The organization: http://www.scientificskepticism.ca/ The report about Tom Harris and honest science: That's a "Wow" signal, eh?" Anyone else can catch up and join the dots from Heartland's supposedly 'phony 2012 memo' and seeing it in the viewfinder.Response: [JH] What specific action had you requested SkS to underatake? -
DMarshall at 16:31 PM on 5 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
Question to the knowledgeable here: Is there any negative feedback from extensive fires? Does the smoke and soot act as positive or negative? -
KR at 15:47 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Tom Curtis and GreenCooling - Thank you for that very relevant data. We are perhaps quite fortunate that the economy and the Montreal Protocol have acted to reduce warming as much as they have. This does point to some shorter term mitigation strategies, I will note: CHC/HCFC reductions, soot reductions, and other short-lived GH influences. Those are the low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings, and may have a strong effect as we address over a longer term the baseline issue of CO2 emissions. -
Tom Curtis at 15:14 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Further to GreenCooling @73, this is what the IPCC FAR had to say about their emissions scenarios:"The scenarios cover the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorolluorocarbons (CFCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from present up to the year 2100. Growth of the economy and population was taken as common for all scenarios. Population was assumed to approach 10.5 billion in the second half of the next century Economic growth was assumed to be 2-3% annually in the coming decade in the OECD countries and 3-5 % in the Eastern Euiopean and developing countries. The economic growth levels were assumed to decrease thereafter. In order to reach the requued targets, levels of technological development and environmental controls were varied."
(Note: The PDF is obviously a scanned document, and scanning has introduced minor spelling and grammatical errors which I have corrected in this and following quotes.) They go on:"In the Business-as-Usual Scenario (Scenario A) the energy supply is coal intensive and on the demand side only modest efficiency increases are achieved. Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled. For CFCs the Montreal Protocol is implemented albeit with only partial participation. Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025."
Unfortunately, they do not provide either graphs or tables of expected GHG concentrations. It is, however, possible to infer that they expected CO2, CH4 and NOx emissions to increase in line with economic activity based on the fact that they assume no measures to counteract that trend. That is, they expected an annual increase of CO2 (and other GHG)emissions of 2% per annum through the 1990s. That, however, is not what happened:
The very sharp reduction in CO2 emissions in Eastern Europe (light blue on the graph) contrasts starkly with the expected 3% plus economic growth, and presumably emissions growth assumed in the IPCC FAR model. That greatly reduced emissions growth in the 1990's has been followed by above expected emissions growth in the 2000s due to the rapid growth in India and (especially) China. The net effect, however, has been a near linear growth over the two full decades rather than the exponentially increasing growth expected by the IPCC FAR Business As Usual scenario.
A similar pattern is found with NOx, but Methane (CH4) has not only failed to grow as expected, but has flat lined. CFCs are a special case. The IPCC FAR clearly expects some reduction in CFC concentration based on the "partial" implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Implementation of that protocol has been far from partial, however. The resulting reduction in CFC-11 concentrations, and flat lining of CFC-12 concentrations would be a far greater reduction than projected by the IPCC FAR.
The relevant GHG concentrations are shown by NOAA:
The net effect of all these emission reductions has been a significant decrease in GHG forcings relative to 1990 expectations. Total forcings have not even maintained the linear trend from 1978-1990, let alone the ongoing growth expected by the IPCC FAR in the Business As Usual model:
(Radiative Forcing relative to NOAA, modified to show continuation of 1978-1990 trend for comparison. Original image is found here.)
-
hank at 14:56 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
P.S. -- want a prediction? ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pub/pietropaolo.bertagnolio/o3/shindell98-o3climchange.pdf "... increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations alter planetary-wave propagation in our model, reducing the frequency of sudden stratospheric warmings in the Northern Hemisphere4. This results in a more stable Arctic polar vortex, with significantly colder temperatures in the lower stratosphere and concomitantly increased ozone depletion. Increased concentrations of green- house gases might therefore be at least partly responsible for the very large Arctic ozone losses observed in recent winters6–9. Arctic losses reach a maximum in the decade 2010 to 2019 in our model, roughly a decade after the maximum in stratospheric chlorine abundance. The mean losses are about the same as those over the Antarctic during the early 1990s, with geographically localized losses of up to two-thirds of the Arctic ozone column in the worst years. The severity and the duration of the Antarctic ozone hole are also predicted to increase because of greenhouse-gas-induced stratospheric cooling over the coming decades." _________ Right on schedule: Scientists Detect First-Ever Arctic Ozone Hole October 3, 2011 It marks the first time that ozone loss in the Arctic region has matched ozone loss above Antarctica, both they and Postmedia News are reporting. According to LiveScience Senior Writer Wynne Parry, the researchers discussed their finding in this Sunday’s edition of the journal Nature, writing, “”For the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as an Arctic ozone hole.” -
hank at 14:52 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
> "few or no steps were taken to limit the emission of GHG's". Nonsense. 7(h) The Greenhouse Effect www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html May 7, 2009 – Artificially created chlorofluorocarbons are the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule. -
Bernard J. at 14:22 PM on 5 March 2012Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
Tom Curtis.Bernard J. @9, Fairoakien explicitly asked about the costs "to Canada".
Fair point. I always have my ecologist hat on and thus I tend to think across national borders, but yes, Canada's overall agricultural range may increase. Having said that, I have a few references tucked away from years ago that note that Canada's agricultural output might not necessarily increase with a doubling of CO2, and especially so in non-irrigated regions - if I have a few spare minutes I'll dig them up. Further, optimistic forecasts are predicated on a future industrial approach to agriculture in continuation of the current style, and the small issue of Peak Oil will make such an assumption rather dubious... If humans do not come up with a viable (and sustainable) alternative to fossil fueled agriculture, the optimism of increased production is somewhat misplaced. There's another fly in the ointment too, which I usually tend to skirt around as it's somewhat politically sensitive... During my PhD fieldwork I had the pleasure of spending some time with a Canadian senior staff member of a well-known international NGO. His expertise was in water resources, and he noted that amongst certain government circles the US was projecting future water shortages as a consequence of human-caused global warming. The expectation apparently is that such a shortfall will be in part made up by water sourced from over the border. I'm not sure that the Canadians have been/are to be consulted on the matter, but it seems that there is a south-of-the-border expectation (by some officals, at least) that such will happen. I'm sure that Canada would be thrilled to export water to the States, but doing so might affect their own agricultural productivity... -
GreenCooling at 12:15 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Keith, (I hope this is not too off topic, and more interesting than debating Anteros) I just wanted to say many thanks for your highlighting of the contribution of the CFC phase out to reducing emissions, it's very poorly recognised that the Montreal Protocol has been around 5 times more effective at reducing radiative forcing emissions than the Kyoto Protocol ( Velders et. al. PNAS, 2007), and every bit of attention to this is most welcomed. Lamentably the climate benefits achieved by the Montreal Protocol to date are in dire threat of being eroded by the continued growth in the use and emissions of HFCs (and HCFCs - although these are being phased out atmospheric concentrations are still growing). This is entirely avoidable as genuinely climate friendly future proof natural refrigerant solutions exist, and are becoming more widely available and used, but face stiff resistance from some sectors of industry. Additionally the need for transition in developing countries in particular is lacking in support, training and awareness. A recent paper by Velders et.al. 2012 in Science reinforces the 'world avoided' by phasing out CFCs and calls further attention to the need to address HFCs by including them in the Montreal Protocol. Although very useful in setting the scene for 25th anniversary negotiations (of 1987 Vienna Convention) in Bangkok in July and in Geneva in November, far more attention to the HFC threat is required to move the intransigent Parties towards consensus on the now much-debated HFC amendment proposals. Here's the new graph:
"Projected radiative forcing by ODSs, HFCs, low-GWP substitutes, and CO2 (12). The blue hatched region indicates what would have occurred in the absence of the Montreal Protocol, with 2 to 3% annual production increases in ODSs [data taken from (5)]. Added to the radiative forcing from ODSs [data from (9)] are the contributions from HFCs from the upper-range scenario [data from (11)]. Also shown are the radiative forcing from alternative sce- narios in which substitution is made with chemicals having shorter lifetimes (lower GWPs); their contri- bution is calculated using methods described in (11) with the parameters from (16). Under the Montreal Protocol, use reductions started in 1989 for CFCs and in 1996 for HCFCs."
The 2011 UNEP report "HFCs: A Critical Link In Protecting Climate and the
Ozone Layer" published in time for but overlooked by Durban is another useful resource, as is the paper by
Molina M., Zaelke D., Sarma K., Anderson S., Ramanthan V., & Kaniaru D., Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci. (2009). Recovery and destruction of the bank of old CFCs and HCFCs is another useful contribution the Montreal Protocol could make if much more effective measures could be agreed and acted on.
PS - my favourite T-shirt: "Is that the truth, or was your News Limited?"
-
funglestrumpet at 11:52 AM on 5 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
Regardless of whether the global warming that is currently in play is due to human beings and is thus AGW or not due to human beings and is thus just plain old GW, can there be any argument that we as a species absolutely must do whatever we can to reduce our contribution to the greenhouse effect? Anyone who thinks that there is an argument for not taking action needs to re-read the above post and if they still feel the same, they need to find out what is meant by the term ‘tipping point’. We know what the greenhouse gases are and how much of them we are releasing into the atmosphere. We also know how to minimize that release. Surely it is a crime against humanity to deliberately hinder any action towards their reduction. (Cue some smartarse to say that I am calling for a cull in the population of human beings, seeing as we emit greenhouse gases. Some more than others in my experience.) Future generations are going to look back at what we knew as a species and wonder why on earth we did not take the action the scientists are screaming for. Mind you, five minutes spent looking at archive material of the WUWT website and they will get some idea as to where the problem lies. It is not all WUWT’s fault, of course; in the U.K. we have Lord Monckton, the well known >snipping< >snip<, Lord “We can adapt to global warming” Lawson, columnists such as Peter “The greenhouse effect probably doesn't exist” Hitchins and Melanie “Climatology is a global fraud” Philips, among many others who seem to speak from positions of appalling ignorance, yet deliberately try to stop action that is intended to combat global warming and thus their children’s suffering and that of their grandchildren. The comments policy prohibits my giving an opinion of such people. As for America’s contribution to the issue, well ...! -
Doug Mackie at 11:46 AM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
The Feely article linked by JosHag is OK but there is a better one (also by Feely and written for a general audience) here. It is part of a special issue devoted to ocean acidification. Closer to home, if you mean 'recent' = 'last few years' then we gave a plot here at SkS based on the same data as the Feely plot. The plot, (second figure in the post, labelled Figure 6) shows (as do the Feely papers) measured and 'calculated' pH for the Hawaii Ocean Time Series (HOTS). (We just thought their figure was a bit ugly and we wanted to check their calculations using our own program). It is important to note that 'calculated' pH does not mean a guess. As we explained in the post, the marine carbonate system can be completely described with any two of the 4 marine carbonate parameters. The parameters are 'total carbon', 'total alkalinity', 'total pH', and pCO2 (or fCO2). (see note 1, note 2) These carbonate parameters are a bit like using trigonometry to solve a right angle triangle. Sometimes you might measure the hypotenuse and other times you might calculate it using the sine of an angle. But it would be foolish to say that because you had not directly measured the hypotenuse that any calculation was dodgy. Similarly, pH can be calculated from other measured carbonate parameters. (see note 3) pH for other definitions of 'recent' will be discussed in our next series (I know, I know, it is taking a while). Note 1: 'total pH' (pHT) refers to one of several pH scales – kind of like oF and oC are different scales for temperature (interconversion is possible between pH scales but is not as simple as temperature conversions). Note 2: alkalinity has a complex definition but it is not the opposite of 'acidity' – see our OA series for details. Note 3: There are several sets of internally consistent constants used in the calculations. The different sets perform better or worse depending on the input parameters (e.g. pH or alkalinity)and other environment describing factors (like salinity and temperature). -
Trent1492 at 11:13 AM on 5 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
I just came across this Science Daily article that found a minimum impact of land cover change on the glaciers of Kilimanjaro. Here is the original article from Nature Climate . -
chriskoz at 10:26 AM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Glossary is absolute necessity. For example I remember having hard time understanding Dana's articles when I was newbie. I was even repulsed from them, because they were loaded with strange acronyms like TSI, OA, GSS, etc. Now I'm used to it and appreciate Dana's skills as one of the most accomplished SkS authors. However, I still find that Dana uses those acronyms without explanation. That must be hard for new readers. -
JosHagelaars at 10:25 AM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
The paper can be found at: http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt/reprints/hoenischscience12.pdf The supporting online material here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058/suppl/DC1 I found the figure 3 very illuminating, it tells the story of the response time of the oceans. The end conclusion of the article: "However, in additionally driving a strong decline in calcium carbonate saturation alongside pH, the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.". Is there a warm and maybe sour future that lies ahead of us? @TheNucleus For a graph look here: http://www.mcbi.org/publications/pub_pdfs/feely_etal_2008_pices.pdf -
TheNucleus at 10:06 AM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
I read the paper and I understand the implications, but it doesn't include a graph showing the recent, rapid change in ocean pH. The graph of ocean pH that it does show (figure 3) is on the scale of millions of years. Figure 2 shows their model of how the time course of atmospheric CO2 influences ocean pH. Does anyone know where I can find a graph showing recent ocean pH measures on the a finer time scale? -
william5331 at 06:38 AM on 5 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
As holes are melted here and there through permafrost, surface water from the boggy northern areas drains through the holes, drying out the bogs. The peat exposed becomes very vulnerable to burning. -
bbickmore at 05:53 AM on 5 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Ron, Your method of estimating sensitivity assumes the system was always in equilibrium. -
michael sweet at 05:52 AM on 5 March 2012It's the ocean
hjm, You need to think it through before you talk. If you phrase your statements as a question you will not look like someone who is not serious about answers. The ocean loses heat to the atmosphere above it since it is warmer (as you point out). When the atmosphere warms, the ocean loses heat more slowly (according to the theory of thermodynamics as you referred to). When the ocean loses heat more slowly it warms. This is obvious to people who do not have an agenda to to discount the real problems caused by AGW. Summary: the ocean loses heat more slowly to a warmer atmosphere so the ocean increases in temperature. -
WheelsOC at 05:33 AM on 5 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
I posted this comment at Bickmore's blog too, but I thought I'd run it by everyone here to get more opinions and feedback about it: "Yet the IPCC refuses to accept that the global warming (or cooling) on time scales of thirty years or more can also be caused by Mother Nature. ...The IPCC has taken for granted that there are no natural variations in global average temperatures once one gets beyond a time scale of ten years or so." I think Dr. Spencer might need to learn the difference between "refusing to acknowledge" something and "having no good evidence" that something is real. Perhaps the IPCC "has taken for granted" that natural variability has little to no impact on longer timescales because there isn't any reason in the literature to assume otherwise, and their process merely reflects that reality. The IPCC can't very well take into account the vague notion of unquantified long-term noise that hasn't been established to exist at all. Given the lack of support for such things in the literature, even if we take Spencer's papers at face value, it's unlikely that his conclusions would be well-vetted, tested, and supported enough to make it into the IPCC's considerations. As I understand it these kind of things that are inconsistent with the existing literature would need more than one or two papers to be considered strong enough evidence. Spencer himself said that such alternatives have received relatively little research. Even if Spencer thinks he has uncovered such long-term natural variability (and so far it doesn't seem likely), it's not a fair criticism because his papers claiming it were first published after the last IPCC report. I think that counts as missing the deadline for inclusion. What exactly does he expect the IPCC to do? Invent a time machine to include papers published after their report, and credulously promote the very little bit of his research that claims to have found something to the status of other, better-supported conclusions that say the opposite? -
dhogaza at 05:26 AM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
funglestrumpet: Oh, I totally agree that Murdoch is evil. I was just pointing out that the editorial policy of the WSJ was to blatantly misrepresent or lie about science long before Murdoch bought it. He's certainly done nothing to improve the accuracy or reduce the ideological pandering of the editorial board of the paper ...
Prev 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 Next
