Recent Comments

Prev  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  Next

Comments 68051 to 68100:

68051. Rob Painting at 15:48 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arrett - Find a respective thread to which your assertion relates, and post there. My fault for responding and not ensuring this was done earlier.
68052. muoncounter at 15:45 PM on 15 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Eric#110: "we are in a relatively low GCR period so the decreases may not be as effective" May I remind you, in 2009: Cosmic rays hit space age high And that was measured by the ACE satellite at the L1 point, where no atmospheric ionization gets in the way. FDs would be plenty noticeable. The problem for GCR adherents is that there just aren't enough of them. That's no doubt why the CLOUD experiment design straddled the energy line between solar cosmic rays and GCRs. But if you say solar cosmic ray flux modulates clouds, then you're still stuck in the high solar activity-> fewer clouds -> warming trap. Picking that warming signal out from the high solar activity warming is a tiny needle in a very large haystack.
68053. skept.fr at 15:38 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       #89 Tom Are you suggesting, perhaps, that we should adopt Hansen's scientifically supported target of 350 ppmv? No, of course not. A caveat that Hansen may be right goes in the wrong direction for you, and is consequently ignored. If you had paid any attention to it, you would not be so sarcastic about a 450 ppmv target. Your sarcasm, however, captures perfectly how one sided your skepticism is. I haven’t seen this point. Again, we can choose a 350ppm, a 450ppm, a 550ppm target... this is ultimately a policy choice of what we, humans, define as a level of climate change we can tolerate when we're correctly informed by science. If my neighbor decides that 650ppm target is its ideal, he has the fundamental right to do so and to try to convince policymakers that he's correct. The same of another neighbor that would prefer 250ppm as the correct level. That is not relativism, that is democracy, as far as a policy goal which impacts everyday life is subjet to the citizens' evaluation in a democratic system. If Hansen et al consider in their 2008 paper that, concerning climate, the 350ppm target would be a good one, they’ve their scientific reasons. And this will be normally discussed by their pairs, as it is the case in climate sciences for decades, and all sciences for centuries. IPCC AR5 will integrate and evaluate this work among others; I've not the competence to judge if James Hansen is right or wrong, that is a scientific debate among specialists, and notably modelers. But when it comes to policy, I can observe that Hansen and co-authors are not specialists of energy, economy, health, sociology, agronomy, and many domains of expertise that are concerned by the energy supply and use in human societies (eg WG3 job). I suppose you’ll agree that we cannot choose a CO2 target for humanity on the sole basis of one paper concerning one aspect (climatic) of the consequences of such a target. All that is just a variation on the points 2 and 3 of the previous message. Beside this point, I was sarcastic in this deleted (and poorly inspired by irritation) sentence, but I'm opposed to the 'sacrosanctification' of the 450 ppm target for rational reasons I developed previously in the thread. And I profit to suggest fellow readers the interesting Andy Revkin recent article about COP Durban, with all its link, notably the William R. Moomaw and Mihaela Papa op-ed. #90 John : He not she. And he is not 'disciple' (horror) of Lomborg (but critical reader of some of his books).
68054. Richard Arrett at 15:34 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       KR @41: So I take it that you agree with me that the post in general, and the portion I quoted in particular do put the burden of proof onto the skeptic? You seem to agree that the burden does belong on the skeptic anyway (which I disagree with). By the way - the great mass of data you refer to merely show that it has warmed - not what has caused the warming. What caused the warming from 1700 to 1850? Whatever it was, it was not the rise in CO2 level - right? For that matter, it has been warming since 12,000 years ago. Sea level has risen 120 meters since then. What caused that warming? How do you know that what caused that warming isn't continuing to cause the latest .8C rise?
       Response:

       [DB] Those who respond to these various, unsupported assertions...please take it to a more appropriate thread than here.  This is OT here.

68055. muoncounter at 15:31 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arrett#40: "This was the portion of the post which suggested that skeptics have ... to "falsify" the human-caused global warming theory." Apparently you do not have the data/facts/science to do this, so you're playing the 'argue the argument' card. #42: "data show that CO2 lags temperature. " Old news. Things have changed: somebody's putting a lot of CO2 into the air, which wasn't there back in those days. What was a feedback is now a forcing, according to physics. "suggest that this argument supports the notion that increased warming can cause GHG's to increase?" No, its chicken and egg boring. See: CO2 is the biggest control knob. Use the Search function, read and learn. But this thread was about a case in the peer-reviewed literature against AGW. Got any worth talking about?
68056. Bob Lacatena at 15:26 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       30, 42, Richard Arrett, Concerning CO₂, temperature, and the transition from a glacial to an interglacial period, please see my recent post here. That should clarify for you what you are misunderstanding about the way the components of the system interact.
68057. Richard Arrett at 15:16 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Dave123 @36: "It's positively insulting to the people who've put this site together for you to suggest that warming has caused the CO2 levels to increase" The data show that CO2 lags temperature. I thought one of the arguments for increased GHG's was that as the permafrost melted, it released methane gas. Is it insulting to suggest that this argument supports the notion that increased warming can cause GHG's to increase? I wonder if increasing temperature increases the risk of wildfires, leading to additional CO2 being put into the atmosphere? I doubt the people that run this blog find my mild mannered dialog as insulting as you do - but perhaps they will chime in and let me know.
       Response:

       [DB] "I doubt the people that run this blog find my mild mannered dialog as insulting as you do - but perhaps they will chime in and let me know."

       Can we all dial back the emotions a bit?

       "The data show that CO2 lags temperature."

       You have been pointed out as to the fallacy of this position.  Use the Search function.  Read, learn more.  Comment/question after.  Repeat as necessary.

       "I thought one of the arguments for increased GHG's was that as the permafrost melted, it released methane gas.
       
       Is it insulting to suggest that this argument supports the notion that increased warming can cause GHG's to increase?"

       It is well-understood that under non-anthropogenically-forced conditions, CO2 is generally a feedback.  Similarly, it is well-understood that under today's injection of long-sequestered fossil-fuel derived GHGs that CO2 is now acting like a forcing.  And will continue to do so for decades after all fossil fuel emissions cease.

       And yes, CO2 forcings raising temperatures also cause feedbacks which release even more greenhouse gases.  Hence the imperative to cease with the hand-waving of delay and act.

68058. KR at 15:13 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arrett - "This was the portion of the post which suggested that skeptics have the burden of proof (we have to "falsify" the human-caused global warming theory). " Given that the vast preponderance of the data supports human influences on global warming, yes. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And refuting the great mass of data supporting the consensus view is a very extraordinary claim indeed...
68059. KR at 15:08 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       skept.fr - "And so, why we do not implement immediately a global carbon tax, that is what I called "pricing carbon externalities"? It is very easy to implement (directly on coal, gas and oil producers, or deforesters) and quite easy to adapt (part of the tax will help specifically low and medium GDP countries that will be more affected by higher prices)." (emphasis added) I would, and do, support that. It's unfortunate that conservative ideologies (anti-tax) refuse to even consider this as a possibility. Hence (as an important note) my concern for informing such folks of the consequences of their (in)actions...
68060. Richard Arrett at 15:07 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Utahn @39: "None of the papers provides the “killer argument,” the one devastating fact that would falsify human-caused global warming." This was the portion of the post which suggested that skeptics have the burden of proof (we have to "falsify" the human-caused global warming theory).
68061. KR at 15:02 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 - You continue to mix TOA forcings with surface flux. Please note that an effective TOA emissivity of ~0.612, as measured and calculated, means that a TOA forcing of ~10 W/m^2 leads to 1/0.612 = ~1.64, or a required ~16.4 W/m^2 increase at the surface to increase emissions by ~10 W/m^2 at TOA to eliminate the imbalance. And that is strictly due to the emissivity of the Earth wrt. a blackbody. Your posts continue to interchange TOA with surface forcings, neglecting the effective emissivity to space (as per multiple threads), continue to invoke inappropriate "halving" of absorptions, and IMO represent errors. Nonsense statements such as "+6 W/m^2 (+1.1C) from 2xCO2 (3.7 W/m^2 directly from the CO2 'forcing' and the remaining 2.3 W/m^2 from the current average opacity of the atmosphere" do not aid your position (I have absolutely no idea where you got 2.3 from, for example). Your insistence on these issues demonstrate either (a) a lack of comprehension, or (b) an unwillingness to let data influence your position. Enough said. You have repeatedly demonstrated either a lack of knowledge or unwillingness to examine the evidence. Readers - if you wish to follow these conversations further, I would suggest the Climate Sensitivity or Lindzen and Choi threads, where this issue is discussed at great length. Personally, I feel no desire to rehash these topics...
68062. Utahn at 14:59 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       #13 Richard Arrett "The part which requires that skeptics have the burden of disproving AGW." I guess I still don't see that part of the conclusion, can you quote from the post what suggests skeptics have the burden of proof?
68063. RW1 at 14:41 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       KR, "Your numbers are wrong." Are you trying to say the surface does not have to receive +16.6 W/m^2 in order to warm by 3C?
68064. skept.fr at 14:03 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       #88 Tom, please to read you here. 1) Although a layman, I myself always question my own skepticism, because I know our judgements (including mine) are so easily biased by poor information, prejudices, emotions, beliefs, etc. And I’m happy your critics drive me to such a questioning. But that is critics, not strawman about my supposed hidden goals. I hope you make the difference and you understand why, for my part, I doubt the bona fides of some of my interlocutors. 2) I do not neglect the caveat that climate sensitivity may be high, I’ve strictly no idea about that and I believe what models produce. We’re obliged to do so, AOGCMs and tomorrow Earth System Models are our sole instrument for such projections. Paleoclimates do not guarantee that CS in past conditions is the same that CS in current conditions, as it has been acknowledged in Schmittner et al discussion (for example on Real Climate). We are obliged to take decision under uncertainty : I consider the best choice is to rely on what models consider as their best estimate (eg 3 K). Of course, you can choose a lower or higher estimate. It depends on the perception of risk. If the choice of the higher sensitivity was cost-free and risk-free, it would be the most rational solution. But it is not, so the higher you choose a sensitivity, the more rigourous and precise you must be to estimate and justify the cost / risk that are the consequences of your choice. 3) I consider all level of warming as potentially ‘dangerous’, I’ve no reason to invent a treshold that would separate a dangerous and a non-dangerous warming (the same would be true for cooling, by the way). I don’t think the 2 K value has a sense, it’s purely conventional and IPCC never defined this value (it is recognized as a political choice, as the definition of 'dangerous' is not a scientific task). So, the less we warm the atmosphere, the ocean and the surface, the better it is. But I add : as long as the effort to lessen warming doesn’t produce more harm than it prevents. And here is the Gordian knot of our discussion : I don’t want a vague description of what is ‘dangerous’, I want a costs-benefits analysis of climate change compared to energy-economy change. My demand has nothing to do with denialism, and by no way it should be considered as particularly strange : Stern, Nordhaus, Tol and many other scholars are working on this question, in these terms. Maybe you dislike CB analysis, but as you know I’m a consequentialist, you won’t be surprised by this kind of request. 4) I dislike analogies and try to avoid them. But yours is interesting. You speak of a car (neutral) and a wall (harm). Your analogy is uncorrect as there is no cost to avoid the wall : the motorist is just stupid. In fact, a correct analogy would be something like : I’ve a house and I’m very attached to it, but there are floods threatening it and some suggest there could even be a tsunami. At which conditions must I leave my house for another one ? Here you have a real choice with costs on the two sides. And in real life, if you're obliged to leave your house, I bet you'll very strictly examine the details of the assertion about floods and tsunami, and the possibility to protect your house without leaving it. 5) I do not lack at all your second caveat concerning the fact that our current policies are not coherent (and in retreat) with the goal they defined themselves (remember the 2K/450 is a policy goal, not scientific one, point 3). In fact, it is precisely what I show : we clearly act as if the fossil benefits far outweigh the climate costs. Some say we do so because of lobbies, of conservatives, etc. I don’t agree with these kind of explanation, as I explained and illustrated by some examples. I suggest we act in this sense for many reasons, some bad (eg incapacity to project in the future, discount rate favorable to short term, 'know-nothing' and denialism of AGW, etc.) and some good (eg produce the material condition of decent life, create and trasmit wealth to future generations, etc.) 6) The rising price of fossil fuel is not a particular caveat of my position and it is a strange argument for those who want to increase by a mean or another the carbon price (by tax or by cap-and-trade like Kyoto). In fact, rising price of fossil fuels is a caveat of most SRES or RCP pathways, because none of them consider there could be a massive shortage in fossil supply during all the 21th century. It is a well-known critics of IPCC from Peak Oil defenders (like Jean Laherrère). This argument (I suppose against my position) is all the more so strange that a) I do not specially favor an inertial position on RE energy, because it is already competitive and would be more with a carbon price, and b) the example I gave for fossil fuels mainly concerned the ethical choices for less developed countries that have fossil fuel as a national ressource (India, South Africa, China, etc.). There are immune to great changes in fossil price if they exploit their own reserves. 7) The relative importance of energy to well being is not a sacrosanct point for me. It is an empirical observation we alreday discuss here on SkS and I’m totally open to a debate about that. If you show me a low energy period or country that could be reasonably considered as a model of welfare and a desirable example for policymakers and citizens, I would be happy to examine this case. Precision : the period or country in question should be on an enough long term to judge the diverse aspect and evolution of the quality of life. (For example, Cuba since the end of Soviet oil is a too short period, that is a classically bad example because all infrastructures of Cuba had been fossil-fuelled and we don’t know if the post-fossil Cuba will manage the replacement and modernization). 8) I think you have not the orders of magnitude in mind when you speak of the 1950’s USA standard as a universal goal. I’ve not the precise number for 1950 but as you can see on this graph , 1960 energy per capita was 5,5 tep. To be conservative, let’s imagine 3 tep in 1950, ten years before (in fact, the form of the curve suggest it should be more, probably 5 tep). 3 tep equals 126 GJ/c/y. A globalization of that condition would imply, for 8 billion persons (2030-2050), a 1008 EJ/y production. Of course, no energy scenario imagine such a high production, twice more than now. And certainly not without a huge part of fossil.
68065. KR at 13:59 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 - Two items. First: The appropriate numbers for TOA forcing with feedbacks given a 3°C climate sensitivity is ~10 W/m^2, resulting in the aforementioned 3°C rise in surface temperatures due to changes in total Earth emissivity and the surface temperature required to emit another 10 W/m^2 at TOA. Your numbers are wrong. Second: I wrote my most recent post for the general public, the readers of this thread. You have not shown any indications that you recognize evidence contrary to your preconceptions. As per the Debunking Handbook, Worldview Backfire , "...outreaches should be directed towards the undecided majority rather than the unswayable minority."
68066. KR at 13:48 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arrett - I would take other posters comments even a bit further. The theory (not hypothesis) of forcings and climate change fully explains current conditions and changes within acknowledged uncertainties - uncertainties which are constantly reducing with ongoing research. "Skeptical" hypotheses fail to explain the data, and tend to add up to kettle logic: a mass of contradictory partial explanations, a logical fallacy at best, deception or self-delusion at worst. They certainly do not represent a functional description of the world around us, a useful handle on what is happening, let alone a description of what influences are present (or accessible to us). As such they are, quite frankly, a waste of time.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed link.

68067. Eric (skeptic) at 13:46 PM on 15 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       scaddenp, I have biases (what I consider intuition) like you say in 105 towards (among other things) low sensitivity, but that's another thread. I also realize that I'm not going to make the perfect case for any of these skeptic arguments, there are people with more knowledge about the topics. But I'll accept your complement for this topic.
68068. Stevo at 13:41 PM on 15 December 2011
       Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
       Glenn @ 36 A good point, well made, sir. I must admit to seeing myself in the group of people who did not regard book learning as relevant to real life, until the day I was working to find the best power transmission solution for a client and found that if I'd paid closer attention in school to quadradics I'd have saved myself half a day's work and instead would have managed with just couple of minutes of calculations. For me that was a character building experience and led to a rethink about many of my old opinions. Certainly a reading of Howard's biography reveals an individaul who is primarily driven by ideology rather than altering his views in the face of emergent evidence. There again, rigidly adhering to one's policy is seen as political strength. Anything else will attract terms like back-fliper and flip-floper.
68069. Doug Hutcheson at 13:31 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard, I am not a scientist, but I flatter myself that I am a true sceptic who forms a view based on evidence, not opinion. I read and understand as much as I can, but there is a great deal which is inaccessible to me because I don't know the math, or physics, or chemistry, or whatever. When I strike that problem, I have to decide whether the reported results are plausible and often that involves me deciding if previous results from the same source have been plausible. The problem with the climate denier camp is that they are not offering me any plausible alternative to the science I have been able to digest. If you want to convince people like me, you need to do more than say "I do not need to come up with an alternative theory": on the contrary, for people like me, you need to come up with a weight of plausible evidence demonstrating where the AGW evidence is flawed.
68070. scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 - I don't think anyone knows how to help you. People go so far and then you seem to point blank refuse to get it. "I dont understand". Left to a 14 year girl to do your homework IIRC at one point. It seems you believe one thing and when an argument takes you to the point when that belief is challenged, then you shut down. It still seems to me that you are stuck in the "back radiation cant warm the surface" mindset, and discussion cant go forward till you get that.
68071. scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 15 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Okay, Eric, and you once again impress as being the honest skeptic.
68072. John Hartz at 12:57 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       Tom Curtis: Having followed this comment thread from the get-go, I believe skept fr ‘s posts suggest that he/she is a disciple of Bjorn Lomberg.
68073. Eric (skeptic) at 12:56 PM on 15 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Thanks for the replies. Sphaerica, GCR can't be easily modeled but like you say that's not permanent. Other factors like solar UV will eventually get better modeling too. Perhaps after that we will start to understand weather variations better (though not likely predict). Muoncounter those Forbush decreases are minimal in number but we are in a relatively low GCR period so the decreases may not be as effective since we in an interglacial with relatively less GCR to begin with. Skywatcher, I agree that Mercurio's paper has a lot to be undesired. I thought the 140k year chart (fig 13) was sufficient for a study, but instead of analyzing that in depth, he put in enough ideas for 10 more studies. I think muoncounteri is right that the effects are too minimal to be of consequence to climate over short time periods, certainly including temperatures in 2100. The remaining issue IMO is glacial (mostly high GCR) to interglacial (consistently low GCR) differences since those affect studies that require knowing how each quasi-stable state is produced. It seems to me that Mercurio section 13 was a good start to that, then he goes on in section 14 to talk about global warming "hysteria" and I am forced to toss the whole paper.
68074. Rob Painting at 12:49 PM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       No worries John, any constructive criticism to improve my writing can only be a good thing. Duly noted and taken on-board.
68075. John Hartz at 12:46 PM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Rob Painting: I also believe that an introductory paragraph to a technical document such as your article should include the major take-away point(s) of the article.
68076. John Hartz at 12:40 PM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Rob Painting: Your initial paragraph includes the following sentence: "Well, this is one of three blog posts that continue in that vein." I did not know this sentence meant this article is the first of a three part series until I read the bottom tag. You might have been referring to two other existing blog posts in the above sentence. This matter is insignificant in the scheme of things, but I just wanted to explain my rationale for my comment.
68077. Tom Curtis at 12:35 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       skept.fr @87:

       "But here it is, we have the faaaaamous 2K/450ppm target, at least 9 years of bureaucratic diplomacy open to all the lobby influences. Bravo!"

       Are you suggesting, perhaps, that we should adopt Hansen's scientifically supported target of 350 ppmv? No, of course not. A caveat that Hansen may be right goes in the wrong direction for you, and is consequently ignored. If you had paid any attention to it, you would not be so sarcastic about a 450 ppmv target. Your sarcasm, however, captures perfectly how one sided your skepticism is.
68078. John Hartz at 12:26 PM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       For information about three additional specific impacts of ocean acidification, check out: “AGU Fall Meeting: the (pH) lowdown on ocean acidification” posted on Environmental Research Letter’s Environmental Research Web. To access this informative article, click here.
68079. Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       skept.fr @83, I am very disturbed by your repeated attempt to position the various authors and comentors at Skeptical Science as being insufficiently skeptical. It calls into question the bona fides of your entire discussion. It seems to me that what is missing from your discussion is two crucial perspectives. The first is simply time. It takes time to transition from a high carbon to a low or zero carbon economy. With the best will in the world it could not be done in less than twenty years, and ideally it would be phased in over 40 to 50 years (ie, through the natural cycle of replacement of obsolete power plants). Anything faster incurs significant increased costs. Given that a thirty year transition to a low carbon economy already commits us to around a trillion tonnes of cumulative emissions, and hence to a 50% probability of a 2 degree C rise over the preindustrial average, that already represents a problem. There are of course, caveats. We may get lucky and climate sensitivity may be in the lower half of the IPCC range, in which case we may have 40 rather than 30 years to make that transition. Of course, an equally important caveat which you neglect entirely is that the climate sensitivity may be in the upper half of the IPCC range, meaning that even with our best efforts we are looking at 2.5 to 3 degree increases. In other words, the risk we face with determined action against climate change is that we are already to late to stop a change in climate which will significantly reduce future agricultural productivity. As it happens, we are not making our best efforts. The world as a whole has reluctantly agreed that they should talk about making an agreement that they will consider signing in 6 years and which will come into effect in 9 years. In the meantime several major emitters (including the second, third and fourth largest) will accept no significant reduction targets, nor even significant carbon intensity targets. That means we are facing 10 years of increasing growth of emissions, which means that by 2020, to meet the 2 degree C target that is considered safe, we will not have 20 years in which to act, but 10 or less. What that means in practical terms is that instead of a 1-3 degree probable warming range, we are now looking at a 2 to 4 degree warming range if an effective agreement is implemented in 2020, an assumption that requires rampant optimism. In other words we are already on target for probable levels of warming that even you acknowledge as dangerous. If you like analogies, we are in a car approaching a solid looking wall. We do not know if the wall is far enough away for us to break in time or not. Nor do we know if it is solid enough that our car will be completely destroyed, or merely severely damaged. Our response, in the face of this uncertainty has been to step on the accelerator. The second perspective you appear to lack is that the current policy response is well below that recommended by all the various balanced studies that look at exactly this issue and which show that on balance, mitigation preserves a higher proportion of future economic growth than does adaption alone. Current policy response is behind the curve of recommended action, based on all the caveats. It is not ahead of it. So while you can glibly quote Schneider about the nature of scientific skepticism, it is you who are ignoring the caveats that should be on your position, rather than we that are ignoring those on ours. I have not seen any caveats from you about the likely effects of rising fossil fuel prices (especially petroleum products)in the near future. On your logic, which with I agree, that represents a massive risk to the welfare of future generations. It is, however, a risk that is significantly reduced by a transition to a low carbon economy. Nor have I seen your caveats about the relative importance of energy to well being (or is that thesis sacrosanct for you, and beyond disputation). I agree that energy is important for development, but that is not a tautology. Finally, your "caveats" on renewable energy have a catastrophic strain that is unsupportable. The standard of economic well being in 1950's USA was very high even by current world standards. Yet it was sustained at an energy cost far below that of the current economy. Given known economics of commercial solar and wind power stations, that standard of living could certainly be maintain that 1950's standard of living. Remember, the dispute about renewables is not whether they can produce commercial power, but whether they can produce enough to maintain current, Western standards of living. If they fail at that, they do not maintain nothing, but a standard 5 or 10% lower than current Western standards. While not ideal, an increase of third world standards of living only to the level of 1950's USA, and a (slow) retreat of Western standards to that level is no catastrophe. In light of this, you are failing to see the caveats implicit in the positions of your debating partners only because you have not placed appropriate caveats on your own objections.
68080. RW1 at 12:23 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       KR, You're very good at 'explaining' things to me and making declarations I'm wrong, but this is not offering anything to the discussion here or on the other thread.
       Response:

       [DB] Actually, KR and others have more than amply explained things to you, including the specific points where you stray from accepted understandings into error. 

       Thus, it is your intransigence (amounting to agenda) that is standing in the way of the discussions.

68081. Rob Painting at 12:22 PM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       John Hartz - thanks. I only include the bullet-points for too-long posts, otherwise the takeaway points may be lost on readers. I don't think mentioning that this is one of 3 posts in the opening paragraph qualifies as oblique, but YMMV. Agnostic - "An interesting warning of the dangers to the fishing industry posed by Ocean Acidification – though arguably understated." Perhaps, but I'm kind of constrained by what the science has to say on this. The next post on ocean acidification (not one of the 3-part series), will hopefully shatter a bit of complacency on this topic. Ocean acidfication is fatal to (some) fish larvae.
68082. KR at 12:14 PM on 15 December 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1 - I have responded to your post on the far more appropriate Climate Sensitivity thread. Moderators - Might I suggest that discussions of total climate sensitivity are (while related) off-topic in a thread on the specific subject of cloud feedback?
68083. Dave123 at 12:11 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard@31... You are clearly setting up strawman standards for things. There is a vast amount of medical evidence that people are unique and that statistical studies are inadequate for treating individuals....they predict population outcomes, not individuals. That's why we treat people with 5%$ odds or 1% odds or hopeless cases: because each individual is a cohort of 1. So no different that the earth. So much for "only one earth". But beyond that, you seem to think that there is something out there overriding the basic physics of the system. You seem to be operating in ignorance of all the work that has been done to exclude alternative possibilities...and even in a court of law, when we've ruled everything else out...the burden falls on skeptics to provide alternative hypotheses....not just imagine that there might be some. It's positively insulting to the people who've put this site together for you to suggest that warming has caused the CO2 levels to increase: You demonstrate you are seriously uninformed and uninterested in informing yourself. Prowl around this site- you'll find the explanations and original papers showing that the origins of atmospheric CO2 increases come from fossil fuel burning. You'll need to show where else CO2 could be coming from if NOT fossil fuels. You'll need to refute the mass balance requirement, once you read what that bit of logic is. Not to mention that once you hypothesize that the earth has warmed from something other than CO2 since 1850 you have assumed the burden of providing a physical mechanism for said warming. But that's why the burden is on the so-called skeptics. But then, were you denying warming has taken place?
68084. KR at 12:11 PM on 15 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       (Redirected from the Cloud Feedback thread here) RW1 - Quite frankly, this issue on total sensitivity has been explained to you, at length, in multiple threads here. You have yet to demonstrate any tendencies to incorporate the science you have been shown. For new readers: A doubling of CO2 would add 3.7 W/m^2 to the top of atmosphere (TOA) forcing of the climate. This should by all measures (and by that, I mean spectroscopic effects as integrated through the depth of the atmosphere - very basic physics) result in ~1.1°C warming directly. That works out to ~0.3°C/W/m^2. The 3°C warming estimated from numerous estimates is in the range of roughly 2-4.5°C, most likely estimate of 3°C, indicating a TOA forcing of roughly 10 W/m^2. That's an additional 6.3 W/m^2 forcing from feedbacks. CO2 represents roughly 1/3 of the current greenhouse effect - increases in water vapor will easily (well within the uncertainty ranges) account for the additional 2/3. In regards to cloud feedback (the change in forcing with temperature, not the initial value as RW1 emphasises), please read the opening post on that thread. The best estimates, best data, on that topic indicate that cloud feedback with temperature is slightly positive, with a range of uncertainty that does include (at low probability given the data) very slightly negative. Certainly not enough to overwhelm the increase in CO2 and temperature dependent absolute humidity.
68085. scaddenp at 12:07 PM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard, please see the detailed explanation on Co2 lags temperature. (In short CO2 is both feedback (which further amplifies warming) and a forcing). This article is about whether there is a case against AGW in the peer-reviewed literature. It is best to discuss in the appropriate place (see the Arguments button on the top left.) If you dont, moderators will delete your posts for being off-topic. "So - what caused the .8 - .9 C warming since 1850, if not natural variability." GHGs mostly - (see here for actual breakdown) -it just takes time for full amount of warming to be realised but warming is immediate. If you want to argue for natural causes, then tell us what the natural forcing over that period was. Also, we can tell that the increased CO2 in atmosphere is not from warming - it has isotope signature of fossil fuel, not the signature you see in the ice bubbles. I strongly recommend you look over the arguments list to fix some misconceptions.
68086. skept.fr at 12:00 PM on 15 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       #84 KR But currently the 10 largest emitters (here, pg. 13) are in order China, the US, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, Canada, Korea, and the UK - together accounting for >65% of world emissions. Your count adds apple (USA, Japan) and orange (India, China), not all these countries have the same real GDP per capita! Look at Peters et al 2011 figure for a comparison of developed and developing country. And above all, loo at the curve, one linear and flat, the other exponential and up. By the way, here in Europe we accept our historical responsibility and we're committed to GHG cuts, even if there is no international agreement in this sense. Considering fossil fuel 'cheap' power depends on ignoring the real, total costs of fossil fuels - including the external costs. That is exactly what I say. And so, why we do not implement immediately a global carbon tax, that is what I called "pricing carbon externalities"? It is very easy to implement (directly on coal, gas and oil producers, or deforesters) and quite easy to adapt (part of the tax will help specifically low and medium GDP countries that will be more affected by higher prices). (-Snip-) Rather than throwing ones hands in the air, claiming (as you have) that limiting fossil fuel usage will crush developing nations? When South Africa open a mega coal plant in 2010, the point of its policymakers is clear : “To sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity — relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal.” What you call "my" claim is just what South-African, Indian, Chinese and other climate-energy plans are claiming, the escape of poverty will not be sacrificed. For example in the Chinese's National Climate Change Program, you can read : In the development history of human beings, there is no precedent where a high per capita GDP is achieved with low per capita energy consumption. With its ongoing economic development, China will inevitably be confronted with growing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. (…) To place equal emphasis on both mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation and adaptation are integral components of the strategy to cope with climate change. For developing countries, mitigation is a long and arduous challenge while adaptation to climate change is a more present and imminent task. China will strengthen its policy guidance for energy conservation and energy structure optimization to make efforts to control its greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, China will take practical measures to enhance its capacity to adapt to climate change via key projects for ecosystem protection, disaster prevention and reduction and other key infrastructure construction » So if you understand the diplomatic language, beside the fuzzy promises of future effort for decarbonization, it means : mitigation is not our priority. (-Snip-) I think renewable energy development can be a definite win-win scenario I already gave above the numbers from IPCC SRREN 2011 concerning real capacities of RE in 2050 according to the median estimate of energy-economy scenarios. So you have to be specific : in a 450 ppm target in 2050, RE are planned to likely produce something like 250EJ/y, half of what we need now for 7 billion (500 EJ), not to say what we will need tomorrow for 9 billion. If you personally think that RE will produce 500 EJ or 750 EJ in 2050, you’ve to explain why the majority of 164 IPPC scenarios does not produce at all such a quantity. (-Snip-) #85 Sphaerica Some people disagree with you, and say that you have failed to make a coherent point, therefore this entire web site dedicated to presenting and clarifying the science is disingenuous. You're right. I clearly doubt your skepticism.
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory, political and argumentative snipped.  Please acquaint yourself with the Comments Policy of this venue.  And do also please attempt to ameliorate the inflammatory tone. 

       Modeling that which you seek others to emulate is best (good advice to all).

68087. Rob Painting at 11:59 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arrett - no amount of scrambling and 'blimp-pointing' will hide the rather humongous self-contradiction of the fake-skeptics. One can't trundle out 'low sensitvity' and 'the climates always changing' and expect to be taken seriously. Can you explain to me how both these memes can be true? With reference to the relevant peer-reviewed literature would be nice. Otherwise it's just an assertion, like say......"Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie came to my house for dinner last night"
68088. DrTsk at 11:59 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard, You are almost correct. Given all the natural processes, initial CO2 response _USED_ to be to temperature. Feedbacks and other mechanisms muddle the waters after the initial response. Since the industrial revolution, unnatural causes (humans burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2/CH4 through farming and herding) have caused CO2 to lead this cycle by causing temperature rise. There is no evidence anywhere in the empirical and computational data that there is a "natural" forcing in play that causes the current warming. Search SKS and you will find multiple references, articles, explanations supporting what I just explained.
68089. Richard Arrett at 11:46 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Sorry - I meant Dave123 #21.
68090. Richard Arrett at 11:42 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Dave123 #23: Only if you have as many Earth's as people have moles. To bad we only have one data point.
68091. Richard Arrett at 11:42 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Rob Painting @26: I thought that CO2 followed temperature by around 700 years. It seems to me that the ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, that temperature rise causes the CO2 to rise. Based on past evidence therefore, the natural warming which may have occurred since 1850 could be the cause of the higher CO2 levels.
68092. Richard Arrett at 11:35 AM on 15 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Chris @20: I don't understand your reasoning. Are you not double counting the .8 - .9C? On the one hand we have warmed .8 to .9C, but you then add the .87C equilibrium warming on top of that "since it takes the earth many decades to come to equilibrium with the current forcing resulting from raised greenhouse gases". So - what caused the .8 - .9 C warming since 1850, if not natural variability. Is it not possible that we are at equilibrium warming, and that it just happened much faster than you assume is possible. Therefore the .87C is the .8 - .9C of warming since 1850. What that means is that we will only experience 1.3C of direct warming due to C02 by 2100 - and there is no indirect amplification feedback additional warming. Isn't that also consistent with the evidence?
68093. scaddenp at 11:33 AM on 15 December 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Well that is the physics whether you can understand it or not.
68094. Riduna at 11:30 AM on 15 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       An interesting warning of the dangers to the fishing industry posed by Ocean Acidification – though arguably understated. Analysis of ice cores shows that alkalinity is now lower than it has been for 600,000 years and is continuing to fall. The average pH of ocean surface water has fallen by 0.1 of a unit since the industrial revolution and by the end of this century is predicted to have fallen by 0.35 - 0.5 units. The rate at which pH is now falling is estimated to be over 100 times greater than at any time during the past 100,000 year. The problems are both the reduction of alkalinity (falling pH) and the speed with which it is happening. The former damages calcifying marine life, the latter gives it no time to adapt. The result: Serious damage the marine environment and adverse affects on the ability of crustaceans and fish to survive. As CO2 entering the atmosphere continues to rise, increasing amounts of the gas are dissolved by seawater. In colder waters CO2 is dissolved more readily and reacts with water to form carbonic acid. In both cases, rising quantities of CO2 pose serious and growing problems for calcifying marine animals such as algae, corals, plankton and molluscs, by reducing the concentration of calcites present in seawater. Pteropods (Thecosomata), a small snail form of plankton are particularly vulnerable to this change since they make their shells from Arogonite which is 50% more soluble in water than other calcites. Reduced presence of this material makes it more difficult for juvenile pteropods to secrete and maintain robust protective shells. This greatly increases their vulnerability. So serious is this problem that marine scientists predict that Pteropods are likely to become extinct within 40 years. Pteropods are present in all the oceans. Such a wide variety of fish depend on them as their main source of nourishment and consume them in such vast numbers that they have been appropriately described by Dr. Hoffmann (University of California) as ‘chips of the sea’. The danger (and it is a very real one) is that loss of pteropods will have an effect so adverse as to create a significant break in the marine food chain. Millions of humans depend on these fish, or other fish which prey on them, as their main, often their only source of protein. At the very least, extinction of the Pteropod will result in major depletion of commercial fish stocks and growing scarcity, even their total loss to those who depend on them most.
68095. Rob Painting at 11:25 AM on 15 December 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Phil/Tom, there's also this paper: Effect of the potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet on the Meridional Overturning Circulation and global climate in the future - Hu (2011). I always save copies of papers that interest me when I'm trawling the internet, and your discussion rang a few bells. The modelling shows that even high rates of Greenland icesheet melt over the coming centuries will only slow global warming by a few tenths of a degree. Hardly enough to start a new ice age. If only eh?
68096. RW1 at 11:21 AM on 15 December 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       scaddenp, "That additional flux on the surface comes from increase in backradiation due to increased GHGs. It is that simple. This is not sloppy; it directly calculated from the RTEs." You disappoint me with your answer.
68097. scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 15 December 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       Well, many people have tried to educate on the physics without success, but as to this one: "There are really only two possible sources for this required energy flux into the surface, and that is either from the Sun via a reduced albedo or from increased atomspheric absorption (like from water vapor)." That additional flux on the surface comes from increase in backradiation due to increased GHGs. It is that simple. This is not sloppy; it directly calculated from the RTEs.
68098. Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 15 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       John Hartz @1185, I do not think merely presenting a view, however flawed, should be grounds for banning or deletion of posts. Continuous and repetitive presentation of the same point again and again should be grounds for deletion of further repetitions as of topic, but I do not believe TOP has reached that point, yet.
68099. Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 15 December 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Randy Subers @248, you are missing the obvious point that well before the 50 K years the Greenland Ice Sheet will have melted away, as will the Arctic Sea Ice (much earlier). Therefore in 50 K years there will not be massive charges of melt water to slow the conveyor because there will be no melt water remaining from our entry into the anthropocene. Whether we could return to an ice age in 50,000 years depends critically on how much CO2 we emit in the coming 100 to 200 years. If we keep it below 1000 tonnes of carbon, then in 10,000 years CO2 levels may have declined enough so that Milankovitch cycles can restart the recent pattern of glacials and interglacials. Should we continue at business as usual, however, even 50 thousand years from now, CO2 levels may still be too high for that process to recommence.
68100. scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 15 December 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Tom, this seems to back my view - current melting isnt going to do anything dramatic, especially not another ice age. From the release: "No one is predicting another ice age as a result of changes in the Atlantic overturning," said Willis. In short, worry about warming, not a coming ice age.

Prev  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  Next