Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 Next
Comments 68701 to 68750:
-
RW1 at 13:28 PM on 6 December 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Still no response from Hugo?Response:[DB] Not yet. Another message sent just now.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:25 PM on 6 December 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Attn Steve Case, the correct topic for your comment was here. Learning to stay on topic at Skeptical Science can require a sharp learning curve for those used to a more laizez faire moderation style. The correct procedure is to find an appropriate topic and make your comment. You then link back to your comment in the comments of the original post for your discussion. Although following the correct procedure can be a pain, it pays of in terms of far more orderly discussions which can focus on genuine scientific points of interest or misunderstanding. It can also help you understand, as in this case, why certain comments might be considered cherry picking. You are of course welcome to argue the "no-acceleration" hypothesis for the full period of 1880- current above, but on the face of it, that period shows acceleration. Choosing a shorter period to dispute the claim on the Morner thread which is linked to this topic, is therefore cherry picking. -
Steve Case at 12:27 PM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
There was nothing in my comment that broke the Comments Policy.Response:[DB] Not quite. This post is on Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise, not on your predilection for ignoring the totality of the data by focusing on cherry-picked periods of time too short to rise to the level of statistical significance. As such, your comment was OT.
-
muoncounter at 11:51 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemlose#5: "sea level is affected by the speed of rotation of the earth." This one has to be filed under 'junk.' With that in mind, here is the 'Bad Astronomy' page: the Earth's rotation is decelerating at a rate of about 0.002 seconds per day per century. It's been about a century since the atomic clocks' standard time, so the Earth is slowing relative to an atomic clock by about 0.002 seconds per day, or about 0.7 seconds per year. It is stunning how any scrap of nonsense will fuel a denier, but the hurdle for fact-based science just keeps getting higher. -
John Brookes at 11:18 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
John Byatt, you have to be a little careful with local observations of sea level. In Perth the Swan River is tidal, and I ride around it at least twice a week. For the summer of 2010 the river was consistently low. If you'd been a skeptic, you'd have sworn that sea levels were falling. The tides had returned to normal by the summer of 2011. -
Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 10:44 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Mörner doesn't just deny that sea levels are currently rising; he also denies graphs showing the rise in sea level after the end of the last ice age. I showed him such a graph during a meeting by the Norwegian denier group Klimarealistene, and asked for his opinion on it. He recognised the graph, but then flat out denied its message. During the same meeting he claimed no sea level rise, not only by tilting the graph above, but also by cherrypicking data from carefully selected locations where the sea level happended to be unchanged or in decline. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:22 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, I'd be interested in some response to my response to you at 160 RE the greenhouse effect and how it relates to altitude. Let's start by doing what this site is for, and discussing the science. Do you have any questions or does this now correct your original misconception? Do you now have questions about other aspects of the science about which you may be confused, and you'd like to understand properly? If so, as KR pointed out, please look for an appropriate thread on which to post your question, and I and others will do our best to address your scientific concerns in a straightforward and factual way. -
john byatt at 10:04 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I have a friend living at Funafuti, "In the three years that i have lived here the high tide is now one metre closer to the front door (5 metres) The tide gauges are mostly on the coral that has been growing and to date, keeping up with SLR, Japanese scientists have been here trying to reactivate coral growth. At the HAT's sea water comes up through the coral, it is quite scary and appears that the island is sinking"Moderator Response: (Rob P) HAT = Highest Astronomical Tide -
Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse @5, a shortened Length of Day (LOD), ie, a faster rotation speed, will result in water moving from polar regions to equatorial regions. This will increase sea level at the equator, but decrease it at the poles. Satellite measurement of sea level is restricted at the poles, so the net effect will be a measured increase in sea level. Likewise, lengthening of the LOD has the reverse effect. Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, discuss the issue and cite Stephenson and Morrison 1995:"The nontidal acceleration of Earth’s rotation (or, equivalently, the secular decrease of the length of day (LOD)), based on eclipse observations during antiquity (from 500 B.C.) and historical period up to the present day [Stephenson and Morrison, 1995], amounts to an LOD change of 0.6 ms/century."
(My emphasis) As can be seen in the graph provided by Riccardo, the LOD has continued to increase over the twentieth century, resulting in a slight fall in sea level over that period. -
Riccardo at 09:03 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse I can't quantify the effect but looking at the variation of the length of the day it doesn't look like it is the leading effect.
-
Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse - Indeed. And what is the quantitative effect of the green cheese in the moon, as well? Mörner is really something. It says a lot that 'skeptics' are so desperate for talking points that Mörner gets cover story status with them - rather than handed a tin foil hat. -
Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, other newcomers - I've often seen the first few newcomer posts on SkS come in more than a bit over the top. What folks need to recognize is that the emphasis here on peer-reviewed papers, science, and you know, facts in general - that focus makes pontificating or ranting just not a viable means of making a point. Unless the point is that you have no facts to discuss, which would be unfortunate. Questions on the science? Wondering how some 'skeptic' point actually holds up? Ask away. But start ranting? Meet the moderators...Moderator Response: [DB] Kind of a "pay me now or pay me later" situation. -
Klaus Flemløse at 08:49 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Mörner claims that sea level is affected by the speed of rotation of the earth. I will be pleased if someone might quantify this effect. Are we talking about 1 mm pr 100 years, 1 cm pr 100 years,... ? -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon @166, it is not a "poke" or a "nudge" to point out that somebody has completely misrepresented the IPCC reports. Nor is that something to which you should "not respond". The correct response to to admit the error, apologize for it and explain how it occurred. Something along the lines of: "I am sorry that I completely misrepresented the IPCC AR4 report, which I have not read. In future I will not assume knowledge of that report without reading its contents first." Failure to apologize and correct the genuine offense (misrepresentation) suggest only that such misrepresentation will continue into the future. -
Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 6 December 2011It's the sun
Don Gaddes @952, as there are editorial comments for 1977, and for 1982, the forecast date is almost certainly after those two years. What was the date of publication of the book so that I can know the true date before which all is hindcast? As an aside, I note that your father considers 1813 to be somehow equivalent to 1982. The two years are separated by 13^2 = 169 years. As neither 13 nor 169 figures on your list of significant periods (post 914), either you have misinterpreted your father's theory, or your father indulged in ad hoc modification of this theory to avoid the appearance of being falsified. -
imthedragn at 08:14 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
again I must apologize for rants. I will refrain from responding the pokes and nudges others have included in their responses. I am after all looking for clarification on things of which I adminttedly do not have a firm understanding. Much has been helpful and I appreciate the time many have taken to present relevant material. -
Tom Curtis at 08:02 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon @162, just yesterday I had reason to link to section 8.6.3.2 of the IPCC AR4, which among other statements of uncertainty, says:"Therefore, understanding of the physical processes that control the response of boundary-layer clouds and their radiative properties to a change in climate remains very limited."
That is not the language of a report which claims to "have all the answers". Clearly you are demonstrated to either be in complete ignorance of that on which you pontificate, or to be deliberately (and stupidly) lying. Newcomers here should certainly take note of this tendency of yours, and discount your claims accordingly. The regulars certainly will. -
DSL at 07:53 AM on 6 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
What do you mean by "skeptical," Karl? Genuine skepticism is equivalent to critical thinking. It is a mode of thought, and it can be taught. Practice and consistent application in all areas of life are essential to becoming a genuine skeptic. I think you mean "concerned" or "does trigger one's skeptical apparatus, doesn't it?". Are you implying anything beyond agreement with Doug H, Karl? If so, have out with it (well-evidenced, of course, and on the appropriate thread), or remain comfortably surrounded by your illusions. If you're not implying anything, then, yes, I agree as well. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:29 AM on 6 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Doug H @45 "Hiding raw data" does make one skeptical, doesn't it? -
DSL at 06:13 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
One more note, imthedragon: if you're serious about engaging the science and operating with a truly skeptical approach, you might ask questions instead of presenting assumptions (even light elbows and subtle finger-pokes). If you present assumptions, responses naturally seem antagonistic. Another way to present your understanding without making it seem like an unquestionable absolute is to couch it in relative phrasing: "As I understand it, _____________." Finally, if you make a substantive claim about physics, models, or data, expect to be ignored or ridiculed unless you provide references. -
Don Gaddes at 06:11 AM on 6 December 2011It's the sun
For Tom Curtis (950) The date you seek is 1976. -
jimb at 05:31 AM on 6 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
re posts 1-4- a bit late, but the local paper printed two 'letters to the editor' pointing out that CERN did not in fact say what the author of the op-ed piece said it did (and thanks for the link) Unfortunately I expect that a lot more people read the op-ed piece than the letters. Also in the news was the story that Canada was withdrawing from Kyoto, something that had been rumoured for some time, but confirmed today. This seems to be continuing a pattern. -
Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon - I would strongly suggest you take a look at the various Global Warming & Climate Change Myths - those links will take you to discussions on many of the snipped items you brought up. Note that there are a lot of threads here - if you could place comments relevant to particular threads on those threads, it will keep discussions relevant. Most regular readers follow the Recent Comments page, so don't worry that your posts will be missed. Climate 'skeptics', or more correctly 'deniers', have thrown a lot of junk around - apparently in order to prevent changes they disagree with. If you really wish to separate fact from flummery I would suggest you look at the collected science, such as this web site contains references/links to, and discussion of said science - rather than political or ideological statements such as from Spencer and Singer.Moderator Response: Indeed, the moderators quickly lose patience with off-topic comments after just one warning, and so often just delete without further warning. -
william5331 at 05:20 AM on 6 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
Even if the climate was not changing and in danger of trashing human society, there are many other reasons to break our dependence on fossil fuels http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html -
imthedragn at 05:14 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
I apologize for the previous post which was more just a rant. Al Gore was the climatologist that has all the answers, or alternately the IPCC xth report of 20xx. (-snip-)Response:[DB] For the record:
- Rants are not necessarily proscribed here. But they must comply with the Comments Policy and be on-topic to the post on which they are placed.
- Gore is not a climatologist. However, for a politician, he was remarkably correct.
- Future off-topic and/or ideological remarks will be deleted rather than snipped, as this comment has.
-
John Russell at 04:59 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
@imthedragn #158 I applaud your dedication to keeping an open mind and am sure that if you do, you'll eventually sort out the genuine science from the opinions. With regard to natural variability, you might find this article about some new research, together with its links, useful in helping you arrive at the facts. And if you need to learn about any particular aspect of climate science you can do no better than putting the word or phrase into the search tool at the top left of this page, which will provide links to the research, together with discussion aplenty. -
CBDunkerson at 04:37 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Had Mörner published his 'tilted graph' or 'spliced photos' in a research paper it would be cut and dry scientific misconduct. The fact that he can do just as much damage on topics of popular interest by instead pushing his misrepresentations in the mainstream press is a loop-hole which ought to be closed... and ignored. Call him out for misconduct and let him explain that it 'does not count' because he was trying to deceive everyone rather than just other scientists. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
So he's the one who came up with the tilted graph first. Well Monckton has been downgraded to the subservient role of mere propagator of that fine piece of visual representation. I think even less of him now. What a joke! How can Morner expect to be taken seriously by anyone able to think when he comes up with such grotesque idiocy? This is beyond stupid. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:34 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
157, imthedragn,The greenhouse effect in the upper atmosphere (and this is merely a belief) is pretty much negligable when compared with what takes place in the lower atmosphere.
This statement is false. I suspect you believe it because thought-without-math suggests it will be the case, but the reality is that when you work through the radiative transfers, line by line (as done by MODTRAN), you find that in fact an important aspect of GHG theory is that ultimate radiation takes place from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This, in fact, is the real cause of the warming. A simplistic way (by analogy) to look at it is to think of the earth as covered by layers of blankets. Adding more CO2 does not add a new, thinner blanket to the top. It instead adds a new, thickest blanket to the bottom, and pushes all of the other blankets up one level. You are now losing heat from that topmost blanket, but with more layers underneath. Another (more correct) way to look at it is that the layer from which emissions occur unobstructed into space before increasing CO2 levels is warmer and lower. By increasing CO2 across the board that same altitude is even warmer and radiates more, but in all directions. The amount of radiation going up towards space is increased, but so is other radiation heading back down to warm the surface further. More importantly, the layer above that one now has more opportunity to absorb radiation (more CO2), but it is cooler than the original level of spacebound emission and so radiates less. The end result is that a basic tenet of GHG theory is exactly what you claim defeats it... the idea that increased CO2 levels raise the altitude and lower the temperature of the point at which emissions effectively escape, and this in fact forces the entire planet to warm both below and at that level in order to restore the balance (i.e. to allow the planet to radiate energy away at a brightness temperature of 255K). -
Composer99 at 03:30 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I'd love to say nobody could possibly interpret Mörner's tilted graph as anything but evidence of his creativity in propagating incorrect information, but someone brought up Mörner's claims on Deltoid's December open thread and proved me wrong. -
Martin at 03:17 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
What was Mörner's position on sea level rise while he was INQUA's president? -
CBDunkerson at 03:12 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, you rely on demonstrably false beliefs and assumptions. That isn't skepticism. Examples; "I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when." Who are these mythical beings who claim to have all the answers? I'm only familiar with scientists who have said, 'it will be in roughly this range and over roughly this time period'. "30 years worth of observations" Actually, Joseph Fourier first observed the existence of the 'greenhouse effect' in 1824. A bit more than 30 years ago. Even the satellite record is (slightly) more than 30 years... and hardly the only data we have to go on. "they have screamed that NONE of the warming could possibly be natural variability" Pure nonsense. Cite one example of this claim. It doesn't exist. Made up denialist fiction. "But when there was a cooling trend for a few years" The terms 'trend' and 'a few years' are mutually exclusive for any sort of scientifically robust result on global temperatures. Your argument here is the same as saying that if the second day of Summer is cooler than the first then clearly Summer has a cooling temperature trend. Et cetera. You seem to be using a 'gish gallop' of blatantly false arguments. Pick one and follow it to the end. If it turns out to be false that might be a clue that you should be getting your information from someone other than Singer and/or Spencer... both of whom also say that smoking doesn't cause cancer BTW. -
imthedragn at 02:39 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Although I am not sold on the whole "global warming" thing, I don't consider myself a "denier". I value the opinion of crebible sources from both sides; those being the "alrmist" and "denier" camps. If I am a skeptic, then I am a skeptic of arguments from both sides. I take everyhitng with a grain of salt. I started my quest for knowledge when Fred Singer and Roy Spencer provided me with their arguments. I have been using information from many sources to try to wrap my head around the whole thing. I concede that rising CO2 has and will cause warming. I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when. 30 years worth of observations and they have screamed that NONE of the warming could possibly be natural variability (I mean c'mon have you seen that hockey stick). But when there was a cooling trend for a few years, that was (and I almost fell out of my seat when I read the opinion) just natural variability.Response:[DB] "I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when."
Your use of the term alarmist is revealatory. That you yourself do not know something should preclude you from then deciding how much or how little other people know.
Skeptical Science is about discussing the science of climate science. It is not about opinions, innuendo or anecdotal recollection. Please thoroughly familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy and ensure that ALL future comments you make both comply with it and are on-topic to the thread you post them on.
-
John Russell at 02:36 AM on 6 December 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
@kellybrook #21 The post is about sea level rise around Tuvalu. It is probably the case that the things you mention tend to make the outcome of sea level rise worse, but they won't affect the rate of the rise. As you rightly say, Coral islands depend on living coral to grow; however both ocean acidification and bleaching mean that in the long term the ability of coral to grow will cease. From then onwards the islands will be vulnerable to erosion from the action of wind and waves until a point when it becomes uninhabitable. Clearly the rate of sea rise will influence the timing of this event. -
What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
kellybrook - Have you read the topic post? Tuvalu has been experiencing (Becker 2011) 5.1 (±0.7) mm sea level rise per year for the last 60 years, only 10% of which is due to subsidence (from, for example, being "full of holes"). Coral growth cannot keep up with that, and since the 'island' it self (as Tom Curtis points out) is sand on top of dead coral, it won't. That's over 1/4 meter rise in 60 years, on an island that is mostly less than 3 meters above sea level. Of course, if Tuvalu was uninhabited, this particular example would be less interesting. But it is inhabited, and does seem to be suffering some effects from sea level rise. The current and predicted sea level rise will wipe out most of the Pacific atoll islands over the next 100-150 years or so - and Tuvalu has (for better or worse) become an example of that. -
imthedragn at 02:27 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Getting back to the Mars thing. The amount of sunlight received decreases proportionally to the square of the distance.(reasonable assumptoin?) Mars would receive enough sunlight to make its massive amount of CO2 cause more of a greenhouse effect than it exhibits if there were more atmposhpere for that greenhouse gas to heat through emission of thermal radiation. That further emphasizes my point that the lack of atmosphere diminishes the ability of the CO2 in the upper atmposphere to have much of an effect.Moderator Response: I cannot parse your third sentence. -
Tom Curtis at 02:23 AM on 6 December 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Kellybrook @21: 1) Tuvalu consists of several coral atolls. However, people do not live on the coral, but on the islands that form when sand and reef debris form a layer over the top of the coral, killing it. The islands are more or less stable over time, with new reef debris replacing older sediment washed away by waves. However, with rising sea levels, more sediment is washed away with each storm, and the sediment that forms the island starts to be eroded. So, although the environment minister did lament that the Island was "full of holes", that was a consequence of rising sea levels, not a cause of land subsidence. 2) Below is a photo of the main island of Funafuti atoll (Tuvalu's capital):
As you can see, the entire idea that the population has been pushed into low lying areas by over population is rather specious. True, areas 1 meter above sea level which were not previously occupied are not occupied, because the other areas 1 meter above sea level which where previously occupied are now full. Can you really think that is the main problem.
More importantly, it is not the policy of the Tuvalu government to lower its tide level gauges by 1 mm per 1,000 head of population increase, nor is there a Tuvalu population adjustment in satellite altimetry. Both tide gauges and satellites show rising sea levels at Tuvalu, so without question this is an example of inundation.
-
imthedragn at 02:22 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
#142 skywatcher; The fact that one (H2O) precipitates and evaporates and the other (CO2) does not is irrelevant. The infrared is absorbed by any and all GHGs regardless of the mixture of them at any particular point in the atmosphere. The fact that the uppper atmosphere is thinner and dryer is much more important. I concur. CO2 Does indeed dominate in the upper atmosphere. Higher concentrations would indeed make a difference in the absorbtion and re-emition of thermal radiation taking place at a lower point in the atomosphere. The greenhouse effect in the upper atmosphere (and this is merely a belief) is pretty much negligable when compared with what takes place in the lower atmosphere. -
kellybrook at 01:49 AM on 6 December 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
I have a few questions about this post: 1. I don't see any mention of what I understood about Tuvalu, namely, that it is a coral atoll and the coral is growing. I understood one of the main reasons Tuvalu was under threat was actually due to the fact the islands are "full of holes" to quote a Tuvaluan environmental official, due to sand being extracted for building. 2. Leading on from point 1, the population of the island has risen by a third since 1985. If the population had not exploded would the island be in trouble? Would it still be "full of holes", would its people be crammed onto lower lying area's previously uninhabited? Is this not a case of over-population rather than inundation? -
Tom Curtis at 00:28 AM on 6 December 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
SC1 @238, there are multiple ways in which clouds can interact to produce feedbacks, both positive and negative. For example, the strength of incoming Short Wave radiation varies in (approximate) proportion to the cosine of latitude. Meanwhile the greenhouse effect of clouds varies in proportion to the surface temperature. Because surface temperature declines only slightly (about 15%-20%) from equator to Arctic, while the cosine of latitude varies from 1 to 0, clouds have a net positive effect in polar regions. Because greenhouse gases reduce the temperature range from equator to pole, that increases the strength of polar cloud greenhouse effect relative to cloud albedo effect, and hence acts as a positive feedback if all else remains equal. The point here is not that this is a major effect (it probably is not), but that the interaction between clouds and radiation is subtle. Another effect, significant in the tropics is the increase in strength of convection cells, resulting in more anvil head clouds. It is not the height of the cloud base, but the cloud tops which determines the greenhouse effect of clouds, so stronger convection in the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone would probably result in a positive cloud feedback. Further, if temperature increases in a region and/or altitude faster than water vapour so that relative humidity falls, the result will be reduced cloud in that region and/or altitude. This effect can result in more high cloud and less low cloud (or the reverse) which depending on the distribution of these phenomena can result in a positive or negative net cloud feedback. Other physical mechanisms exist. So, the problem in answering your question does not lie in deducing physical mechanisms. It lies, firstly in the fact that models do not agree on the properties of clouds, so we cannot look at the models to deduce exactly which physical mechanisms will dominate with regards to clouds. Further, observations are limited in number so that it is difficult to distinguish signal from noise in this instance. While substantial mystery remains about the behaviour of clouds in a warming environment, what can be said is that both the balance of models (see graph in 237), and the balance of physical evidence (see main article) suggest a net positive feedback. That means that summed over a variety of possible cloud reactions, more possible combinations of cloud responses result in warming (models), and physical evidence suggests the actual response is a positive feedback. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:08 PM on 5 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
TMac57 How long does CO2 last in the atmosphere. Simple answer. Some doesn't last very long, some lasts a bit longer, some lasts longer still, some lasts even longer. Another way of looking at it is that the main place CO2 can go is into the oceans. So CO2 can go into the surface layers of the oceans fairly quickly - decades. Then how fast it can go into the oceans more than that depends on how quickly the surface layers of the oceans mix with the deep oceans - centuries, up to a few millenia. Once the atmosphere and oceans, with all their mixing, are in balance after a millenium or two things stay static until additional processes kick in. Mainly carbonates dropping out ofthe ocean to the sea floor to ultimately be sequestered in subduction zones. And also a slower pump based on the formation of Carbonic Acid in the atmosphere from the reaction between CO2 and water slowly rains out of the atmosphere, reacts with rocks and adds to the carbonate cycle in the oceans. This has a typical time constant of around 100,000 years. So we are looking at processes that remove some CO2 on decade timescales, some on century to millenial scales and some on scales of 100's of 1000's of years. If H Sapiens stops emitting CO2 within a century, 500,000 years from now you will barely even know we were here. Apart from the geological evidence. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:50 PM on 5 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
On the subject of reversing CO2 emissions, one thought I sometimes fixate on is this: If we put aerosols up into the atmosphere they might shield us from some of the warming for a period. We also need to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere which ultimately needs to involve some aspect of the Calcium Carbonate chemistry cycle. And this needs a power source to fuel the reversal of chemical reactions. So... Could we create a nano-something that we inject into the atmosphere. Its short term impact is to act as an aerosol and have a cooling effect. But its other effect is to use solar anergy to drive chemical reactions in the atmosphere, on the surface of the nano-particle, that grab some CO2 and push it down into the surface carbon cycle, ultimately to be sequestered. If we just keep pumping this nano-something-or-other up there, ultimately we achieve the balance we need. I leave it as a simple exercise for all you chemistry typpes to work out the technicalities. -
SC1 at 22:32 PM on 5 December 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
Dear Tom, thanks very much for your quick and informative answer. Indeed I hadn't been aware that lapse-rate forcing had been treated already. -
SC1 at 22:20 PM on 5 December 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
Dear All, it would be very informative if Dessler (2010) identified the mechanism by which fewer low-lying clouds would be generated if the water vapour content of the air (plus air temperature) increases. Is anyone aware of such a mechanism being mentioned in a peer-reviewed pulblication? -
Tom Curtis at 22:15 PM on 5 December 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
SC1 @236, what you are describing is the Lapse Rate Feedback, a well known negative feedback. Because it is a product of increased specific humidity, it tends to correspond inversely to the Water Vapour feedback, which is positive. That is, if there is a strong water vapour feedback, then the lapse rate feedback is also expected to be strong. Correspondingly, if there is a weak water vapour feedback, the lapse rate feedback is correspondingly weak. As can be seen below, the Water Vapour feedback is stronger than the Lapse Rate feedback, so that the net effect is a positive feedback.
Please note that though the tropopause does increase in altitude with a warming atmosphere, this is not due to the change in lapse rate. Water vapour, unlike CO2, is not well mixed so that it is largely confined to the lower half of the troposphere. As such, the lapse rate feedback is negligible, or even slightly positive at higher altitudes (see first link, to the IPCC AR4, for discussion).
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:56 PM on 5 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Although a completely ice free Arctic may be some ways off, unless there is a significant change in what is happening, or PIOMass has got really wrong somehow (unlikely) a substantially ice free Arctic looks on the cards for 2015/16 Certainly an ice free North Pole. Could make for a great 'photo-op'. Imagine. Cunard schedule all three of their Queens so that in late August they all start a cruise, in 'convoy', from Southhampton, to Iceland, Svarlbad then on to 90N on Sept 15. Picture it: The Queen Mary, Qheen Elizabeth & Queen Victoria, side by side at the North Pole, with footage from a chopper going out to the worlds media and youtube. Now that might put a fox amongst some denialist chickens! -
perseus at 21:49 PM on 5 December 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
Here is a link to the full article of Economic Growth and Climate Change on my website. This addresses a wider range of issues, such as if economic growth provides any benefits to society, if we should be focusing on other methods, and how these affect GHG emissions. Note the disclaimer at the start though! -
SC1 at 21:41 PM on 5 December 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
Dear all, I wanted to make another observation regarding water-vapour feedback that might not have already been discussed. If the amount of water vapour increases in the troposhere so will the specific heat capacity of the air. The change in temperature of the air as a function of altitude is governed by the adiabatic lapse rate. For dry air this turns out to be about -9.8 Kelvin per kilometre. For air of "average moisture content" (I forget what value this is) the lapse rate turns out be be around -7 Kelvin per kilometre. So I expect this value to decrease. Now, the minimum temperature found in the lower atmosphere occurs at the tropopause. This minimum temperature is a kind of compromise between heating at the Stratospheric ozone layer and the troposheric lapse rate. Any change in the latter will imply that the tropopause occurs at a higher altitude and at a greater (minimum) temperature. This will affect the amount of radiation that can be emitted from the Tropopause in a positive way. A second influence will be that, if a greater rate of condensation occurs due to increased water vapour content this will also increase the temperature of the upper troposphere, thus further enhancing the emission rate there. These effects may not have already been considered in the models. On a different matter: sometimes it is not useful to talk about radiation as though this is the main mechanism of energy exchange within the troposphere. The only radiation that is essentially transferred in the atmosphere is incoming solar radiation and up to 40 W m-2 emitted directly from the near the Earth's to clouds and back again. All other energy is transferred by thermal conduction enhanced by convection (or just convection in the case of vaporization/condensation). This does not make any difference to most of the arguments presented but one can get a clear picture of the situation.Response:[DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.
I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
All pages are live at SkS; many may be currently inactive, however. Posting a question or comment on any will not be missed as regulars here follow the Recent Comments threads, which allows them to see every new comment that gets posted here.
Comments primarily dealing with ideologies are frowned upon here. SkS is on online climate science Forum in which participants can freely discuss the science of climate change and the myths promulgated by those seeking to dissemble. All science is presented in context with links to primary sources so that the active, engaging mind can review any claims made.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
"These effects may not have already been considered in the models."
Please use the search function to find a page on models. Likely any question you may have on climate science has already been addressed on one of the 4,700+ pages here. Thus, the search function is your friend; use it and the coppers of your pocket [your questions]...and it will line your mind with gold.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:09 PM on 5 December 2011Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
skepticsince1988 @99 1) The Earth's climate has a significant annual variability based on a number of factors including the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the 22 year solar cycle which is visible as an 11 year sunspot cycle (among others). As it happens, many of those factors favoured a warm Earth 5 to 10 years ago, but currently favour a cool Earth. In the absence of an over all warming trend, we would therefore expect current temperatures to be significantly lower than they where in the period 2002-2007, and even lower than during the years 1999,2000. As it stands, current temperatures are significantly above those of 1999,2000 and comparable to those of 2002-2007. That is very hard to explain in the absence of an overall warming trend. What Curry is trying to do, by all appearances, is to use the short term variability, which is well known, to get us to ignore the long term trend. What is more, apparently, she is happy to use dodgy data which she should know (as she was on the project that gathered it) was only drawn from Antarctica and treat it as though it was representative of the whole world. That is the sort of behaviour you expect from used care sales men, not scientists. 2) The temperature quoted in Rolling Stone (a US magazine) is probably in degrees Farenheight, and as such only represents about 5 degrees Celsius, ie, the probable temperature difference between temperatures in the nineteenth century and the harshest period of the last "ice age". That is an unprecedented increase in temperature for a couple of centuries, and it is unlikely that such an increase in temperature will be any easier to adapt to then an equivalent decrease, with the difference being we only have a century or so to adapt. Current statistically significant trends are on track with the model based predictions which lead us to expect those temperatures if we do not drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3) (i) For almost the entirety of my 50 plus years, researchers into fusion power have predicted viable fusion power in 50 years time. That is a clear sign of the folly in predicting future technological development. In the future, research may bring down the cost of renewables so rapidly that fossil fuels become obsolete in very short order. But research may also bring down the cost of extraction of fossil fuels so that price wise, it always has an advantage of RE. We just do not know. Therefore the wise thing to do is to load the dice in favour of renewables with a carbon price. If we get lucky and renewables become cheap very quickly, the carbon price costs us very little. On the other hand, if we are not so lucky, the carbon price will prevent us from making a disasterous mistake. (ii) Eliminating fossil fuels at the end of the century will not save us from the 5 degree temperature increase that we may be heading for. For that, we need to effectively eliminate their use by 2050, and start rapidly decreasing the growth in their use immediately. 4) The short answer is no. It is not true that we are heading for an 80,000 degree decline in temperature. Indeed, even absent fossil fuel emissions we may well have avoided an "ice age" at this stage of the Holocene. As it stands, CO2 levels are rapidly heading towards levels such that the Earth has never had ice at either pole with levels that high. That means the prospect of a future ice age are permanently on hold. Finally, all but your first question where of topic for this thread. If you wish to respond further, please find the appropriate thread or the moderator is likely to delete your further posts as being off topic. The comments policy is your friend. Read it and take it to heart and you will enjoy many discussions on this site. From experience, however, people who think they are above the comments policy are quickly disabused of that notion on this site. -
skepticsince1988 at 18:55 PM on 5 December 2011Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
Hi, nice blog. I have a few questions, if anyone could please comment on, thanks. 1. The point to the warming (or lack thereof) in the 21st century, is that we are constantly reminded that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in a very long time. And CO2 level INCREASES are also at a high point. If CO2 truly controls temp, shouldn't there be MORE warming now, not less? Isn't this the point Curry was trying to make? 2. There are daily global warming TEOTWAWKI articles, r.e. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003 The above quotes 9 degrees of warming this century, etc. How in the world do you get there with current or past temp trendlines? 3. RE has already exceeded nuclear in the US. PV could reach grid parity in 3 years. Crude production has peaked since 2005. Why does anyone think we will still be burning coal, and running cars on gasoline 90 years from now? 4. Isn't it true that we are in a declining temp trend point of the current Holocene period? A decline that will last for another 80,000 years? Isn't this a much bigger problem than a few degrees of CO2 induced warming?
Prev 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 Next
