Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Next
Comments 6801 to 6850:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:35 AM on 17 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Sorry, looks like I should have been more diligent. Someone at Tamino's relayed this from NSIDC:
"On Tuesday, July 14th and Wednesday, July 15th, the following data collections may not be available due to planned system maintenance: AMSR-E, Aquarius, ASO, High Mountain Asia, IceBridge, ICESat/GLAS, ICESat-2, MEaSUREs, MODIS, NISE, SMAP, SnowEx, and VIIRS."
Hopefully will update later today or tomorrow.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:30 AM on 17 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Talking about that, anyone knows why NSIDC has been unable to update the sea ice extent and concentration maps? Showing no data for the past 2 days. This happened early a few days ago then was corrected but now it has been 2 days in a row. I think the extent graph has also not been updated.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:20 AM on 15 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
William's description of the terminology is in agreement with my understanding.
- Ice ages are times when there is long-term ice ice in some locations on the planet, and we currently have such ice in mountainous regions as well as Greenland and Antarctica. We are in an ice age.
- During an ice age, periods with extensive ice are "glacial periods", and periods will relatively little ice are "interglacials". We have much less ice now than during the last glacial maximum; we are in an interglacial.
The mis-use of the term "ice age" is pretty common.
-
william5331 at 07:00 AM on 15 July 2020Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change
Just a wee quibble. The last icy period wasn't an ice age. It was an glacial or glacial period and we are now in an interglacial. I have no problem with calling that period from the Eemian to the Holocene an ice age but we then need a different term for the ice age that we are in the middle of, which started some 2.75m years ago. Is this just quibbling. Well no. A great TV program by Nat Geo suggested that the extinction of the fauna of North America was caused by the change in climate coming out of the "Ice Age". What they should of said was coming out of a glacial period. They ignored the fact that through multiple cycles of glacial and interglacial, those same members of the mega-fauna survived quite well, thank you very much. Using ambiguous, poorly defined terms leads to mis-conceptions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:34 AM on 14 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
Also known as the Galileo Gambit, there are a few good resources on the fallacy:
At Wikipedia, where it is one side of the Association Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
At Rational Wiki, where they have it mentioned as part of the Arumentum Ad Martyrdom fallacy:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_martyrdom
and also have a specific entry for the Galileo Gambit:
-
scaddenp at 08:59 AM on 14 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
The "Galileo strategy" is a strange one. Someone posits (without evidence, unlike Galileo) something that goes against mainstream science. Their reasoning is a joke which is clear to those who understand the science ( but not the wilfully ignorant) and so get rubbished by mainstream science. Ergo, this person must be a Galileo. Pretty hard to discuss critical thinking with someone who makes leaps of logic like this. To quote Carl Sagan. "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-
nigelj at 07:35 AM on 14 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
"Cases of child malnutrition in England double in last six months"
Useful article from the Guardian, but this is not a problem with the food supply chain as such. The article plainly states families are struggling to afford food due to the lockdown situation (job losses, and reduced wages etcetera).
-
Postkey at 20:29 PM on 13 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
"Cases of child malnutrition in England double in last six months
Almost 2,500 children admitted to hospitals in England suffering malnutrition in 2020"www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/12/cases-of-child-malnutrition-double-in-last-six-months
-
nigelj at 08:03 AM on 13 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Just to clarify things, I definitely don't advocate rock weathering as a stand alone answer to drawing down atmospheric CO2. There is definitely space for multiple approaches including rock weathering, regenerative agriculture, growing forests where feasible, and possibly carbon capture and storage. I dont think we know enough yet to put all our eggs in one basket, other than to say ideas like BECCS do not seem viable to me.
That said, we know soils can sequester vast quantities of carbon from historical evidence in places like Asia. If all it takes is changing how we farm, and this can be done without big problems and has a range of other benefits, it seems a question of why wouldn't we? But those deep soils took a long time to build up, so soil carbon is unlikely to be a quick fix.
-
nigelj at 07:47 AM on 13 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Useful article on covid 19, but I actually thought the global food supply chain generally held up quite well during the covid 19 problem. Nobody went hungry in New Zealand, although some imported foods were off the shelves for a short period. The main problem appeared to be panic buying. Yes America has more infections than us on a per capita basis and closed some meat works due to illness, but I'm not aware of anyone going seriously hungry specifically due to supply issues?
It's true that the globalised system with a lot of imported food might create dependence and problems in a crisis, but if you tried to make your country totally self sufficient in food, and you own internal supply chain failed you would be in an equally problematic situation, and reliant on begging from the globalised system. I'm just saying we shouldn't knock globalisation, and there are certainly ways to ensure countries help each other if we want.
Climate change is arguably a lot worse than Covid 19, because it is an absolute threat to food production and much longer term. Yeah sure genetic engineering may increase food production, and counter some of this but we don't really know, and we are expending effort to fix a climate induced food production problem, effort that could be better directed at other issues.
-
MA Rodger at 07:04 AM on 13 July 2020Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
Edwin Drake @6,
Your reference to educational courses mirrors that of a differently-named commenter of recent days and this leads me to speculate as to whether you adopt the name of the pioneer of oil drilling rather than post with your true name. But let me address the substance of your post.
The evidence you present, which is pretty-much identically sourced to that raised by that differently-named commenter, rests solely on the bold assertions of climate contrarian Judy Curry and also a band of 500 climate change deniers who send a petition to the UN disputing the science which has established AGW (their reasons being generously adjudged as having "very low" scientific credibility. If you look even Judy Curry did not consider it worthy of her support).
Perhaps I should be so bold as to suggest a glaring difference between climate change deniers and Galileo.
The climate change deniers have been bashing on about AGW being somehow based on flawed science since the 1980s but over the following four decades have entirely failed to produce any convincing reason to support their contrarian belief.
Galileo was confronted by dogmatic refusal to accept certain scientific findings yet within the decade this science was being widely published and presented to the world (eg Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae) and readily accepted as being correct by all those free from the dogma that attempted to gag that science.
Moderator Response:[TD] Indeed, another sockpuppet. Thanks for noticing. Their account has been suspended again. Apparently this person lacks any other hobbies.
-
Ger at 22:17 PM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
This research lifecycle assessment research located in the region of Sao Paulo gives a good base. As usual transport is a large element in the effect. Perfectly usable provided you have enough rock available close by. I wouldn't startmining to obtain the rock though.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619320578
Moderator Response:[DB] Activated link.
-
RedBaron at 15:22 PM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
@Michael Sweet,
I am aware that you are unconvince, as are many who do not understand the significant difference regenerative agriculture can make. It is why I tried to fund a peer reviewed experiment at experiment.com.
Unfortunately the site closed all new launches indefinitly due to the corona virus outbreak just 3 days before mine was to launch.
Without funding, my personal attempt to add to the evidence is just anecdotal evidence and not enough to convince a skeptic from another field of expertise.
So I hesitantly agree with your criticisms. Not that I believe you are correct, but that I agree for a skeptic it is not enough published evidence on most crops. (excepting possibly SRI rice and grazing management which have far more published evidence)
I also agree with the statement "I doubt that you can even begin to get most farmers to utilize the strategies you espouse.", again tentively. Because it wont be from convincing that accomplishes this goal. Only economics can make this happen. This is why I am also working at putting together a "proof of concept" hub using “modular autarky” for a demonstration farm to fork. If it is profitable, people will change.
Ultimately much like solar and wind, the changes will come from market forces when the economics beats the current antiquated systems. In this case it is doable even without subsidies. And with a properly designed carbon market adding to those profits, I believe it can change even faster.
Unfortunately only about 2-3% of the money going to solving AGW is earmarked for these natural sorts of environmental solutions. So far I haven't been able to capture either the research or the business side of these funds to prove my synthesis to skeptics. But the evidense continues to roll in year by year as more and more people begin to seriously consider the evidence that is available.
At some point I am confident the scale will tip, with or without me. Too many others have begun to see it for it to be only in my head. Case in point, William's post above.
-
william5331 at 06:50 AM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
No argument about the use of rock dust but combine this with so called regenerative Agriculture. The best exposition of this way of farming that I have read is in a book by David R Montgomery, called Growing A Revolution. Drawing down Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere is just one amongst many benefits of this type of agriculture. In a previous book, Dirt, he describes what previous civilizations did to their soil and the results of their mismanagement. It sets the scene for Growing a Revolution.
-
michael sweet at 02:35 AM on 12 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Red Baron,
Pacala and Socolow at Princeton describe attempting to control AGW using climate "wedges." Each wedge reduces the problem a little and together they amount to enough. You have not provided enough data to support your claims that agriculture alone can provide enough to remove all the carbon released by the soil from poor agricultural practices and all the fossil carbon.
While I am skeptical that enhanced weathering alone can control AGW, It seems to me that perhaps a wedge or two can be tackled with weathering. Than there will be a little less of a problem for the other approaches to solve.
Considering the very long history world wide of farmers destroying the soil they farm, I doubt that you can even begin to get most farmers to utilize the strategies you espouse. Even if you did I doubt agriculture alone can accompplish what you claim. You do not need to provide another copy of your papers, I have read most of them and am not convinced.
-
JWRebel at 21:13 PM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
NigelJ @2, one of the grand daddies of this approach was R.D. Schuiling, now 88, at the University of Utrecht (fairly close to the earth cone I occupy). He has been at it for a while, e.g., ENHANCED WEATHERING: AN EFFECTIVE AND CHEAP TOOL TO SEQUESTER CO2 (2004).
-
RedBaron at 09:21 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
The fail of this scheme, and quite frankly even in the comments, is in not realising 80% of weathering is biological. Sure you can do some good, but not nearly enough. A far better solution would be to restore ecosystem services over vast acreage currently degraded by agriculture.
You don't do that by physically grinding rock dust or spreading olivine on some beaches.
You do that by restoring biodiversity in the soil, where there are multiple species evolved over hundreds of millions of years all working in symbiosis with each other to a self regulating complex system that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
-
michael sweet at 07:53 AM on 11 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Looking for something else I found this post at RealClimate about Shellenburger's OP-Ad (they describe Shellenburger's article as an advertisement for his book).
One scientist summarizes Shellenburger's OP-Ad as:
"Is this the problem, then? Half-truths, incoherent cases, sound-good arguments that in total don't add up to a coherent case against environmentalism except seemingly on 4-minute between-commercial segments on conservative talk radio but not in thought-out rational discourse?"
— David Appell (@davidappell)
Sounds to me like they don't agree with Shellenburger. The RealClimate post goes into great detail discussing Shellenburger's main points (I didn't read them all).
-
michael sweet at 07:44 AM on 11 July 2020It's only a few degrees
Jasper,
I am surprised that students in the Netherlands are not concerned about sea level rise. In the last ice age the temperatures were about 5C less than the current temeperatures. The sea level was 125 meters lower than it is today! From "only" 5C temeprature change!!! The current IPCC estimate for 2100 is a little over 1 meter sea level rise. Dutch engineers think they can manage 1 meter sea level rise. The high estimates of sea level rise by 2100 are well over 2 meters. That would overwhelm the Dutch dykes! What do farm boys think of that?
Have the students check the estimates for sea level rise from all 5 IPCC reports. Every report the sea level estimate is increased! Currently the temperature response of the great ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic is not well understood. Some sea level experts think that 6 meters of rise by 2100 is possible if the ice sheets respond rapidly. (To my students I emphasize the high end of the IPCC. The IPCC estimates are low compared to other scientific estimates). If you post again I can look for other estimates for you.
I had my students (the same age as yours) write me a report on the Arctic sea ice minimum in September. The NSIDC web site is easy to read (unfortunately in English). The summary of the yearly low in sea ice will be posted about October 7. The retreat of sea ice does not raise sea level. On the other hand, it is right next to Greenland which does raise sea level. My students were invariably shocked at the rate of sea ice loss.
I had my students write another report on global temperature using the NOAA web site. This is also easily read in English. The summary of yearly temperature will be posted about January 15 2021 for the year 2020. There is probably a web site in Dutch (any readers know of a Dutch site?) but I like the NOAA web site a lot.
Post again if we can help you.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
JW Rebel @1, yes I wondered much the same. Came across another similar scheme here for spreading olivine on beaches, where the motion of tides helps tumble the material round and speed up the process of weathering.
-
JWRebel at 05:09 AM on 11 July 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Always felt that speeding up weathering is one of the more promising initiatives. Scalable, simple technology that simply speeds up the process that nature uses to draw down CO². There are other approaches than this farmland approach, but many of the others show the same mix of positive economies of use, scalable implementations, available to large swathes of the globe/population without gigantic capital investments, and well within present technical capabilities
-
Tom Dayton at 04:03 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon, I will simplify Bob Loblaw's response to you. Here is a set of numbers: 8, 15, 3, 9, 4. Here is a "descriptive statistic" that summarizes the central tendency of that set of numbers, thereby making the set as a whole easier to understand for some purposes, by subsuming its details: The mean of that set is 7.8.
Now look at my second sentence written above. Those five numbers still are there. They did not magically disappear merely because I typed their mean as "7.8." That ability is called "object permanence."Moderator Response:[DB] The user in question has recused themselves from further participation in this venue.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:14 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1270:
You mean where Lacis et al use the phrase "If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall as low as TS=TE..."
Clearly, you have no idea what Lacis et al are saying when they use the symbols TS and TE, even though they explain it in the second paragraph of the paper: "...mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K)...
That they describe a three-dimensional system by using mean values does not indicate they used a zero-dimensional model.
Frankly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-
ClimateDemon at 00:09 AM on 11 July 2020Models are unreliable
MA Rodger @1268
All right, so scrap the entire 1265 posting. I never was very good at guessing games anyway. If you go to the paragraph that starts near the top of the third column on page 357, however, you will see that the authors of the Lacis et. al. (2010) paper do in fact use that zero dimensional model with a single temperature earth to make some prediction on the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor in the example they were showing. Their ModelE runs were for something else.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:50 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon:
Since you seen keen on the concept, why don't you explain, in complete and unambigous terms, just exactly what you think you mean by "global thermal equlibrium".
Unless you have a working definition of that phrase, you're just playing games, not doing science.
-
MA Rodger at 21:03 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1265,
Bar moderator intervention, you are of course at liberty to parade your ignorance here.What do you not understand about "GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of ModelE"? Presumably all of it. (You might find this CarbonBrief article on GCMs useful in raising your understanding of GCMs to a less embarassing level.) And why would the values presented in the paper's Fig 2 throw any light on the complexity of the model used to generate them when, as the Fig 2 clearly states, they present "Global Annual Mean" data? Without there being more than one "globe", such a graph will only have "a single-value global temperature for each time point".
As for your little speech about "inital conditions", perhaps you can give an example of which of these "inital conditions" could be "tweeked" to alter the fundamental finding of Lacis et (2010). (Remember this simple experiment is removing some 30Wm^-2 of greenhouse effect. Such a climate forcing, even without feedbacks, is enough to drop global average temperatures by far more that the last ice age achieved.)
ClimateDemon @1266,
I assume your cunningly crafted question is intended to show that a model of an Earth-like planet's climate in which "the temperature is everywhere uniform" would not capture the topological complexity of such a planet. As Lacis et al did not use such a model, your question is entirely misplaced. -
Eclectic at 20:09 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1266 , your question must necessarily include a pre-condition ~ How long can this planet maintain equilibrium?
You propose an interesting hypothetical planet. To have a uniform surface temperature, that would require it be evenly surrounded by a sphere of identical suns numbering 40 (better, 100 or more). Unfortunately, the planet's central location would not be gravitically stable, and the planet would drift into one of the suns. So the planet's evenly-distributed temperature would persist until shortly before impact.
The unpleasant scenario would have to include the 40 (or 100) suns gravitically attracting each other, and converging to the original central location including the planet (unless the planet had moved some distance ~ owing to the chaotic & nonlinear wing-flapping of an especially powerful gravitic butterfly).
The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation indicates that the planet's beautiful lakes rivers & oceans would rapidly enter a state of very low relative humidity . . . until reaching the plasma state [a state not describe by the C-C Equation, if I understand your earlier comments].
(Moderators may care to remove this slightly Off-Topic post. )
-
ClimateDemon at 18:15 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
I would like to post this fun question to all of you AGW folks and anyone else interested in participating. And who knows? It may just resolve some confusion about the concept of thermal equilibrium.
Suppose we have a planet similar to Earth, except that the temperature is everywhere uniform. But like Earth, much of the surface is covered with water and the terrain outside of the water has varying elevations. At the lower elevations the air is generally moist and there are lots of lakes and rivers, and at the higher elevations, the air is much dryer and the climate is much more desert-like.
Question: Is this planet in global thermal equilibrium?
-
ClimateDemon at 17:21 PM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
MA Rodger @1259
In Lacis et. al. (2010) the authors state:
A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. To this end, we performed a simple climate experiment with the GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean with a mixed-layer depth of 250 m, zeroing out all the noncondensing GHGs and aerosols.
Now, the authors did not provide the input data they used, but they did say they performed a simple demonstration. Of course, I don’t know their definition of “simple”, but I believe it most likely would include a uniform temperature and zero fluid velocity and pressure gradients. Also, examining Figure 2, I see that one of the results of their ModelE runs is a single-value global temperature for each time point, which we already know is unrealistic. Although I am not familiar with ModelE, I do know a few things about GCMs in general, including the fact that the results of any such number crunching is highly dependent upon the initial conditions, many of which are unknown. This is what makes these models “tweakable” for purposes of hindcasting, but even that process is far from perfect. Although the ModelE demonstrations may well have produced valid results for the particular set of initial conditions chosen, they should not be regarded as “typical” output from the model.
Therefore, my claim that the CO2 “control knob” has not been proven still stands. -
Jasper at 15:47 PM on 10 July 2020It's only a few degrees
Thank you for your help. English is not my native tongue so please forgive me if I make any language mistakes.
I am a chemistry teacher in the Netherlands and I teach 14 till 18 year old students. On a regular basis I encounter young sceptics that are difficult to win over with the normal arguments because they live in a social environment where everybody thinks climate change is not a problem. You can think of them as the Dutch republicans (to put it in an American perspective).
A few months ago a student said to me that an increase in 3, or 5 degrees C will not mean much because in winter in can be below 0 C and in summer it can be 40 C. It was a new argument for me. I thought about the average temperatures in the ice age, but that is for a 14 year old too abstract.
I teach in an agricultural area and the arguments about droughts (The Netherlands was famous for its rains, but recent summers meant long hot dry spells, which means something to these farmer kids...) and the fact that because of temperature change crops might not be able to grow anymore or (more importantly) will give a lower yield might also mean something to them.
Hopefully with this I will be able to start some students of mine on the track of re-evaluating their believes in climate change.
-
scaddenp at 09:18 AM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
BaerbelW, I rather think that Climatedemon is like our old friend cosmowarrior/coolearth et al. He/she struggles to comprehend information that is at odds with prior beliefs so would struggle in the course.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:51 AM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
Yes, Baerbel, ClimateDemon is a good example of denial because he's such a bad example. Even in his most recent post:
- "...most of which I have never heard about..."
...but he still knows
- "In most of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, existence of the control knob is simply assumed ..."
...and he concludes
- "...all of those references you sent me are rendered meaningless."
So, he isn't aware of of much of what we pointed to, but knows that the entire field of climatology assumes things that they don't, and dismisses an entire field of science as "meaningless" even though he isn't aware of what it contains. Rinse, Repeat.
It doesn't matter what is presented to him - without reading it, he knows it is all wrong.
The Morton's Demon is strong in ClimateDemon.
-
JohnSeers at 06:46 AM on 10 July 2020Models are unreliable
Climate Demon @1258
You have gone from "the control knob is easily debunked" to "absolutely essential" (for AGW) to "never been proven" to "simply assumed" to some waffle about zero-dimensional models to some mumbo-jumbo about Claudius Clapeyron to there is "no valid proof".
You finish with a flourish. Everything is "rendered meaningless".
It's a bit of a cop-out on your part, isn't it? Just make a list of random assertions, assert it is all meaningless and pat yourself on the back.
Sorry, you have to put more effort into it than that. -
BaerbelW at 21:24 PM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1257
Well, judging from your comments here, you'd provide ample examples for the students in our MOOC of how science denial can look like! Your contributions in the forum might therefore end up as actual case studies for them of what they'll encounter in real life! And who knows, you might still learn something - at least if you are prepared to really engage with the material and watch the expert interviews included in the course.
-
Postkey at 19:56 PM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
" Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
Moderator Response:(BW) re-formatted the link
-
MA Rodger at 19:19 PM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1258,
It appears you require your feed of information served up to you in the most readily consumable form.
Lacis et al 2010 use a model. You say that model is "a zero-dimensional model which assumes a single-temperature earth."
The model used was GISS ModelE. This model is a full-blown GCM. What you say about GISS ModelE is complete and utter nonsense.
-
ClimateDemon at 18:23 PM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
Well, I must thank you all for sending me such an impressive stack of references covering various aspects of arguing for AGW, most of which I have never heard about, and I will agree that as scientists, we must consider all available evidence on any issue before coming to a conclusion. I must also point out, however, that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and with AGW, the CO2 “control knob” is absolutely essential, yet it has never been proven. Without such a control knob, H2O vapor becomes the controlling as well as the strongest GHG, and in this case human contributions to temperature changes would be insignificant.
In most of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, existence of the control knob is simply assumed without references or supporting arguments. If references are given, I find they don’t explain the justification for the control knob either. The only paper I have found that even pretends to address this issue is the Lacis et. al. 2010 paper that I cited in a few earlier postings, although I have heard that other authors have made similar arguments. The problem, however, is that they make two false assumptions in setting up their model. First, they use a zero-dimensional model which assumes a single-temperature earth whereas temperatures on the real earth can vary by 50-60 degrees C over the surface. Second, they apply the Clausius Clapeyron equation to obtain the water vapor concentration. This equation assumes constant thermal equilibrium when in fact the earth is never in thermal equilibrium. Thus, there is no valid proof of the CO2 control knob effect.
Unfortunately, since we cannot establish the existence of a CO2 control knob, all of those references you sent me are rendered meaningless.Moderator Response:[DB] Continuing to make things up is unhelpful. Sloganeering snipped.
-
ClimateDemon at 11:54 AM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
BaerbelW @1254
I have seen some of the videos and other materials used in this course, and I highly doubt that you and the other faculty/staff members would want me in it.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:27 AM on 9 July 2020Models are unreliable
I'm trying to make sense of Climate Demon post at 1252 and it's difficult.
This "they used their models to conclude there is global warming" is rather strange. The real situation is: the models suggest that global temperatures would rise under an increase in non-precipitable GHG scenario, accompanied by other phenomena like some decrease in stratospheric temp and changes in tropopause height, etc. Independently of models, multiple observations (tropospheric temps, sea surface temps, stratospheric temps, sea level, species movement upward and poleward, Arctic sea ice loss, etc) show without a doubt that there is global warming. These observations are what leads to the conclusion that there is global warming, not the models. They are, however, consistent with the expectations obtained from models when increased forcing from non-precipitable GHG are introduced. All this is in the original post.
-
wilddouglascounty at 23:31 PM on 8 July 2020Saharan dust cloud was most intense in decades, and more, though milder, are coming
There were several things that were notable from my vantage point in Kansas:
1) The dust cloud was also accompanied by a very humid tropical air mass, making it almost intolerably uncomfortable to be outside because of the accompanying humidity. In fact I wasn't sure for a while whether the haziness was due to the dust or the extreme humidity. I suppose it was a combination of both. So I don't know which part of the situation contributed the most to the situation: the dust or the humidity. I guess it doesn't really matter as both can make breathing more difficult.
2) What made it unmistakebly certain that it was the dust was, well, the dust. It laid down a very fine layer that coated everything, very noticeably on cars. I've seen it happen in dry years when March winds can bring dust in from the western parts of the state, but to come all the way over from the Sahara is pretty impressive.
-
scaddenp at 12:39 PM on 8 July 2020Climate sensitivity is low
leehoe - do you understand the difference between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (often just climate sensitivity) and Transient Climate sensitivity? The box on pg 1110 of the IPCC WG1 has some explanation.
Discussions around estimates of climate sensitivity from the instrument record here especially the Marvel et al paper. And also here for earlier work by Otto, Curry, Lewis
-
Eclectic at 11:30 AM on 8 July 2020Climate sensitivity is low
Leehoe @383 ,
please, the word is Sensitivity. Remember the humorous old saying :-
"Typo me once, error me twice".
Yes, the past 6 decades have been a moderately good time for doing a back-of-envelope calculation of sensitivity, because of the fairly flat level of insolation ( around 1360 w/m2 ). And with only a rather small change in non-CO2 / non-H2O greenhouse gas levels.
Unfortunately, the last part of of your post was so abrupt, that your meaning is ambiguous. Please expand your wording, to give a clear indication of your meaning. Readers may be confused on your intention regarding ECS versus TCS. And it is entirely unclear whether you were alluding to the industrial aerosols and volcanic aerosols during this 6 decade period.
Please clarify !
-
JohnSeers at 10:37 AM on 8 July 2020Models are unreliable
Climate Demon @ 1252
For you to say you have asked a question and "nothing more, nothing less" is disingenuous. Comments like "the control knob is easy to debunk" say a whole lot more.
Others more knowledgeable than me have attempted to signpost you to more enlightening information but you think you are too informed to be bothered with that.
I will give a partial answer to your no more, no less question. The question iteself shows you are not really clued up enough. Climate models do not provide proof humans are causing global warming. Climate models are a consequence of the scientists testing their theories against the data and evidence. They prove nothing in themselves. They are confirmation of what we think we know and help us feel we are on the right track. If we trust them enough we can use them for projections. Our trust grows over time as they are developed and used. (And as our computers get faster!)
Models are one piece of evidence (not proof) of the consilience of evidences that add up to proof of AGW. That is evidence from many sources and lines of enquiry all point in the direction of AGW.
So, how much more specific can you be? A suggestion is you look through the references supplied (I recommend the Richard Alley lectures and his course) and then, (as you can simply debunk them Ha Ha), form a very specific question and work through it with the refutations you will get. You might learn something if you do it diligently.
-
leehoe at 09:15 AM on 8 July 2020Climate sensitivity is low
Interesting math, but it doesn't appear to be consistent with NASA, Berkeley, Hadley, World Meteriorlogic Organization, and Cowtan and Way global temperature datasets--every international real-time and long-term dataset for Global Temperature.
Please bear with me as I focus on real data generated by hard working climate scientists over the past 6+ decades.
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) began recording CO2 in Mar1958 and continues to be the longest real-time record of atmospheric CO2.
The average temperature change of the above internationally highly acclaimed datasets for global temperature (Mar1958 through May2020), is 0.85 C {1.00, 0.92, 0.78, 0.72, 0.83} respectively.
CO2, per MLO, rose from 315.71 to 417.07.
If climate sensetivity for CO2 was 2 C (.85 C / ln[417.07/315.71] x ln(2 or a double) = 2 C), CO2 alone would explain 100% of all climate change!
1) The Sensetivity of all GHG combined > 2 C is not supported by real-time climate for the past 6+ decades.
2) CO2 is not the only GHG and GHG is not the only thing causing climate change.
Moderator Response:[TD] It appears that you did not read the Advanced tabbed pane of this post. Please do.
-
BaerbelW at 05:59 AM on 8 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon - here is a challenge for you: register for our MOOC "Denial101x - Making sense of climate science denial" and work through the six weeks worth of lectures. You'll get a good understanding of the basics of climate science - including about models - and how/why these basics get regularly distorted. Once done, come back to the comment threads here with any clarifying questions you might still have. But frankly, there shouldn't really be (m)any as what you keep asking here has been answered more than enough already - it's up to you to put in the effort to learn and understand.
Here is the link to the MOOC: https://sks.to/denial101x
-
MA Rodger at 05:18 AM on 8 July 2020Models are unreliable
ClimateDemon @1252,
Are you familiar with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? I ask because your comment @1252 only makes sense if you are not familiar with this organisation and its work. I would draw your attention to IPCC AR5 WG1 which reviews the science showing both that "there is global warming" and that "humans are causing it." I would draw your attention to Chapter 10 'Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:from Global to Regional' and, as you have show interest specifically in the role of CO2 in the global warming, also Chapter 5 'Information from Paleoclimate
-
ClimateDemon at 04:48 AM on 8 July 2020Models are unreliable
John Seers @1251
I only asked how the current climate models show that humans are causing global warming — nothing more, nothing less. How much more "specific" am I supposed to be? It is these "sources" that are vague and not answering my question. Frankly, I am very much disturbed by the fact that the climate science "experts" are using every scare tactic available to get nations to drastically cut CO2 emissions at a great economic sacrifice, yet none can give a straight answer as to how they used their models to conclude there is global warming and that humans are causing it. Making your studies clear and traceable is an important part of doing good science, and it is not happening in the AGW community.
Moderator Response:[TD] At the top of the home page there is a big image labeled "Newcomers, start here." In the resulting "Welcome to Skeptical Science" page, look for the section "Good starting points for newbies." Click the links in that section.
-
JohnSeers at 23:54 PM on 7 July 2020Models are unreliable
"What makes you think I haven't looked at those sources ..."
If you had looked at them properly and with an open mind then you would have formed more specific and meaningful questions. That is why I think you have not looked at them.
The "control knob is easily debunked" is not a statement that is easy to engage with.
-
RedBaron at 19:07 PM on 6 July 2020Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
@ Nylo
You said, " to my knowledge no effort has been made to reduce CH4 emissions. Lots of talking but zero measures. There is no reason to believe that we are emitting less methane than in the 80s, despite it is increasing at about half the rate that Lacis said that it was increasing in the 80s (8ppbv/year instead of 15ppbv/year)."
This is not true at all. There have been significant changes in agricultural practises that have partially restore methane absorption and metabolism by methanotrophs in the soil over vast acreages.
Namely the widespread use of no-til combined with multispecies cover crops.
“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice
And also there is significant acreage that has been converted from set stock acreage to holistic managed acreage, even though there is huge active resistance campaigns to prevent this. That reduces atmospheric methane even more.
I have written about that here before, but was asked to consolidate that information and use it like a reference. So I wrote about it here:
What reaction can you do to remove methane?
There is actually more though. Several major gas pipeline leaks have been documented and repaired too. Those apparently were a major source of the increased methane. Some say the major source.
preindustrial CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions.
There are multiple reasons and the issue is at least as complex as the CO2 cycle. So while there is certainly a huge degree of uncertainty, claiming there is nothing being done is just wrong.
A lot is being done, we are just not entirely sure how efficacious it is yet.
-
Nylo at 16:11 PM on 6 July 2020Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
MA Rodger @63
You are right again, the errata by Hansen could be writting 1.4ppbv instead of 1.4ppmv. Given the very low number I though he had missed the per year part, but he actually probably meant total concentration and just gave it in parts per million instead of per billion and that would lead to your numbers. So while for every other gas he is talking about the progression of the concentration change (the delta), here he was talking about the progression of the concentration itself.
Isn't it fantastic that, despite ZERO efforts to reduce our methane emissions and despite the alleged existance of a methane bomb in the arctic that is releasing more and more methane each day, the actual increase in the atmosphere in the last decade is 5 times smaller than predicted? And this is after accelerating, because the previous decade saw almost no increase at all.
You write:
A quick back-of-fag-packet calculation suggests to me that adding all the forcings from the different GHGs shows the 1988-2019 projections of Scenario A to be 200% of 'actual'.
I think that what you have just written there means that Hansen expected the forcings from Methane and CFCs together to be bigger than the forcing of CO2 in that scenario. Because if they are smaller but not zero today, and CO2 is like scenario A, but we are getting half the warming that he expected, then the missing part of CH4+CFCs must be not-having an impact as big as the current CO2+CH4+CFCs. Interestingly though, the focus to avoid a climate catastrophe due to warming has always been the CO2 emissions, never the other 2. The reasons for the CFCs reduction have always been the ozone hole, and to my knowledge no effort has been made to reduce CH4 emissions. Lots of talking but zero measures. There is no reason to believe that we are emitting less methane than in the 80s, despite it is increasing at about half the rate that Lacis said that it was increasing in the 80s (8ppbv/year instead of 15ppbv/year). The reduction must come fundamentally from natural sources, or else, it is disappearing now faster from the atmosphere than it was then.
I think I will leave the discussion here.
Best,
Nylo.
Prev 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Next
