Recent Comments

Prev  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  Next

Comments 68951 to 69000:

68951. Don Gaddes at 23:32 PM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       See (921) for my answer to the queries on temperature readings (or lack of them.)The Ratios Principle predicts 'Dry Cycles' not Heat Fluctuations.I suspect the current predilection for temperature fixation is just an attempt to 'prop up' AGW. For the queries on Drift of Magnetic Field. It is my understanding that the Earth revolves around the Sun once every Earth/Solar Year, 360 degrees, 30 degrees/month. I believe we are accompanied on this journey by our Magnetic Field. Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above. I stand by the 'Ratios Principle' and the methods used to obtain it. Apart from my own observations it should be perfectly simple for anyone to check the veracity of the forecasts from 1976 (or before,)to 2011. KR(939) I appreciate your 'moderate approach' The Metonic cycle of the Moon's Nodes is an important 'Constant' in the Ratios Principle calculation. It appears to affect the severity and duration of 'Dry Cycles.' (see where the Metonic Cycle appears in the Forecast Tables, and accompanying comments.)Perhaps you can use Sphaerica's copy,(apparently he wont be using it any more.) It is now cold and dry in America, 'physically indicating' the predicted passage of the 'Dry Cycle' due to reach Australia in early January 2012.
       Response:

       [DB] "Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above."

       Now you resort to trolling by argumentarium.  If you honestly cannot understand what you are talking about in this point you must then also summon the intellectual honesty to admit it and then get more knowledge.

       "Apart from my own observations it should be perfectly simple for anyone to check the veracity of the forecasts from 1976 (or before,)to 2011."

       Eyecrometers do not cut it in science.  You must perform statistical significance tests to provide a scientific basis for your claims.  You still practition climastrology as a result.

       "It appears to affect the severity and duration of 'Dry Cycles.'"

       IBID.

       "It is now cold and dry in America"

       Winter approaches.  For many parts of America this means rain, not drought.  Or do include the seasons in your collection of semimythical cycles?

       Either step it up and provide real scientific evidence (via significance testing) to support your extraordinary claims (which bear the burden of proof of extraordinary evidence to support them) or take your agenda elsewhere.  Many "alternatives-to-science" blogs exist that will gladly welcome you.

       Evasion struck out.

68952. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:32 PM on 2 December 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       ... sorry: “... natural sinks removed 49? Gt C - 9?% ...” - of course ...
68953. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:24 PM on 2 December 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       Sorry to reply so late - too much work. #KR 1. Had Keeling began his research 10-20 years ago, probably would not be any doubt ... 2. Many conclusion given by you - as mine (for example, that currently only natural sources are responsible for the increase in concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere) are not mine. I only draw your attention to natural sources C - as it evolved in the twentieth century and now. I leave - The readers - conclusions. I think that we can not exclude the participation of natural resources - particularly permafrost - in the current increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - now - not only in the future. Abrupt Permafrost Thaw ...: "Abbott said [of carbon which is still "trapped" in the permafrost]: "There's more organic carbon in northern soils than there is in all living things combined; it's kind of mind boggling." “... around four times more than all the carbon ever emitted by modern human activity and twice as much as is now in the atmosphere, according to the latest estimate.” "... we don't yet know how to incorporate them into climate models," Abbott said." 3. “... a simple mass balance analysis ...” - may get too simple. Of course, accepting paleo - record can be concluded that up to 19? natural sources, the increase, was almost 100% balanced by sinks. According to paleo - record an increase of 1 degree C is maximum 6-7 ppmv of CO2 excess. With at least 500 Gt C of natural emissions - permafrost (years 1910-1950) natural sinks usuwałyby 49? Gt C - 9?%. But the atmosphere is a surplus equal to the size of 50% of our emissions - which shows that the abrupt increase in the size of the source, sinks always respond - but "grow" much slower than the source. In nature, the cases 100% of the balance - in response to the rapid growth of sources (eg, permafrost from 1910 to 1950) there are no ( Khatiwala (2009): “... terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s”). Usually it happens this way: this Of course You can say that now sinks remove: all growing sources of natural, and yet - additionally - 50% of our sources. The possibility absorbers of sinks, are therefore greater than the increase in natural sources. But what will be, but if we assume that the sinks remove only a percentage (determined by a mathematical function) increase in all sources - regardless - irrespective of the size of the sources increase? 4. Lower (than at present) the temperature - is a accumulation organic C in permafrost, in the form of practically undegraded. Thawing is rapid release of C. Later: the slow formation of permafrost biomes: wetlands and forests - the re-accumulation of C. That these "slowly" by Zimov (2006). The complicated reactions permafrost have best described here : Wisser ( 2011). We may “not like” NIPCC, but similar conclusion (“slowly” re-accumulation of C) follows from this very large study NIPCC - page 228-230(32-34). 5. Of course, the consequence of my position is to assume that the paleo-data have “drawbacks”: low accuracy in time, smoothing the results, the possibility of underestimation of the size of the former amount of C in the atmosphere. Last possibility is weakly proved (as yet) - I now, moreover discussion on this topic greatly exceed the “framework” of this post. 6. Salby and Spencer - They really confuse: variability with the trend; and draw attention only to the potentially large oceanic source C - completely incompatible to the current: C isotopic changes in the atmosphere and changes in oxygen content. Two months ago I sent - Salby, “few dozen pages” of my remarks ... P.S. I think I replied to most of the comments - by the way - also Sphaerica.
68954. les at 21:18 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Tjall - This is probably a good place to start Positives and negatives of global warming
68955. Tjall at 21:01 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Looking at the first graph I notice that in La Nina year 1989 compared to this La Nina year (2011) it has become around 0.3 degrees warmer (a little less actually). All this over more than 20 years. O my god!! Does this mean we are all gonna die?? No, but seriously, I'm new here. Can someone please explain what all the fuss is about? This can't really be a problem, right? I mean, even when this goes on it means that in 80 years- my son will be 84 then- it will be around 1.5 degrees warmer. In 80 years! I mean, 80 years ago we were using de gracht here in Utrecht as a toilet and riding around on horses. I don't mean to make fun of this, but I just don't get it. Please explain. Someone? regards Tjall
       Moderator 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.

68956. cynicus at 19:51 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       CW pontificates a lot but fails to do the legwork to support his pontification: compare actual temperature to TSI directly. And we'll see why: WoodForTrees allows this comparison nicely and shows -shock, horror-: since approx 1980 solar activity and temperature don't correlate at all. But, ofcourse, this has been noticed by mainstream science a long time ago. TSI vs Temp since 1975 Sunspot count vs Temperature since 1880:
68957. Tom Curtis at 18:25 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Michael Hauber @11, a better idea of mean of Total Solar IRradiance over recent times can be provided by Steinhilber et al's reconstruction of TSI over the Holocene: They show a 0.9 W/m^2 change between the Maunder Minimum and the solar minimum of 1986, and a 0.93 W/m^2 difference between 1986 and the lowest values in the record. The highest values are about half that greater than current values, with the mean slightly below late 20th century values. That represents a variation of less than 0.3 W/m^2 in solar forcing from grand maximum to minimum.
68958. DrTsk at 17:53 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Nice bifurcation. Non-linear stability analysis of the model anyone?? It will be interesting to see the dominant modes.
68959. muoncounter at 15:36 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Tom C: The point was this CW observation Also that solar irradiance appears to be at a century or more high doesn't look so apparent when the last 10 years of data is included. Nor here: --source
68960. Michael Hauber at 15:20 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       "A regression to the mean may be more likely". Certainly speculation, but I wouldn't call it completely unspported, but rather a speculation that is weakly supported by the common sense idea that the average for the last 150 years is the mostly likely true long term average. I see no reason why unsupported speculation is bad. I have a problem with speculation that is dressed up as fact. E.g. 'The IPCC is incompetent because they chose a continuing high solar value for their models' Personally if I was doing the models I'd probably have run models with both a high and low solar forcing to try and further explore the likely upper and lower range of future temperature change. As further speculation I would expect the upper limit would be unchanged, the most likely case would go down a small amount, and the lower limit would go down a bit more. Or perhaps the IPCC know something about the sun that I don't and continuing high solar levels over the next century are more likely than regression to the mean. Well actually I'm sure they know many things I don't about the sun, but rather something that applies specifically to this situation.
68961. KR at 14:49 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       ClimateWatcher - It would be worth your while to look at the How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming thread. Story in short: "The most likely impact of a Maunder Minimum by 2100 would be a decrease in global temperature of 0.1°C with a maximum reduction of warming by 0.3°C. Compare this to global warming between 3.7°C ... to 4.5°C". Solar variation is being hugely overwhelmed by greenhouse gas changes. You are, IMO and based upon your posting history, blowing smoke. Again. Why is it, considering what obviously represents considerable investment in searching out information such as these insolation values, that you keep hunting for reasons to reject the influences of greenhouse gases?
68962. Tom Curtis at 14:21 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Muoncounter @6, I assume you are aware that his second graph is the solar forcings as used for projections to 2100 in some group of climate models. Unfortunately ironic (or sarcastic) tone does not come through well on the internet.
68963. muoncounter at 14:17 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       DB#6: Ah yes, the picture is vastly different if your data stops in 2000. Based on the 2nd CW graph, it hasn't changed since then.
68964. Tom Curtis at 14:17 PM on 2 December 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       skept.fr @50, obviously a country by country target would be preferable to a group by group approach. However, I am realistic enough to recognize that a group by group approach is more likely to be negotiated due to political pragmatism (which I believe is best defined as forgetting what you are trying to achieve so that it won't interfere with the possibility of a "successful" outcome). While group 2 nations will require immediate mitigation efforts: 1) Much of that mitigation can be in the development of a small scale distributed energy network for domestic and light industrial needs, and which therefore are not troubled by intermittancy. In that context solar and wind power are already the cheapest options; 2) The west and China, if truly committed to these targets will be massively developing renewable energy infrastructure which will consequently drive down costs very fast (from scale of production if nothing else) making adoption of renewable energy for new infrastructure projects in group 2 nations a minor additional expense (if that). Finally, you keep on saying it is a gamble. Of course it is a gamble. Everything is a gamble because nothing is certain in life. More importantly, facing a world in which climate change has destroyed the Great Barrier Reef and the Amazon Rainforest is a gamble. Simply assuming that food production can keep pace with population growth in such a world is a gamble on a par with Russian Roulette. Unfortunately policy inaction to date has placed us in a position in which any policy response (including inaction) is a gamble. Whatever our policy response, delaying action will make our subsequent policies even more of a gamble. As it happens, pushing for a semi-targeted effort at decarbonization backed by a price on carbon so that we very rapidly decrease carbon intensity is the safest bet in this context. It avoids the excessive risks not to mention the political impossibility (as you will agree) of pushing the world into zero growth as a deliberate policy. It also avoids (or gives us a good chance of avoiding) the worst consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, any other alternative avoids neither the worst consequences of climate change (because their response is too slow) nor the negative growth (due to the consequences of climate change). If you have an alternative policy which avoids crashing through the 2 degree C safety barrier, by all means present it. Otherwise your policy seems like an absurd risk to me.
68965. scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       CW - so your position is that while obviously the sun hasnt been responsible for warming since 1950, we can nevertheless ignore the GHG problem because we can always hope that the sun will reduce output soon. However, how about you compute what the TOA forcing for a change in irradiance from 1650-1995 corresponds to compared to GHG forcing change since pre-industrial? Now suppose the sun suddenly goes quiet but GHG continue to go up. That would be a help, no question. But the GHG stay in the atmosphere so what do you think happens when solar activity returns?
68966. muoncounter at 13:52 PM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       Sphaerica#936: And strangely enough, there are 29 papers in G.Scholar for "ratios principle." Unfortunately, none of them have anything to do with climate, sun, moon or the price of tea.
68967. muoncounter at 13:47 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Watcher#5: Nice choice of scale for your solar irradiance graph. However, you miss the details evident in the graph in this post: last 50 years - solar down, warming up.
       Response:

       [DB] The paternity for that graphic is here.

68968. muoncounter at 13:44 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Watcher#21: And it is just a coincidence that global glacial mass continues decreasing? Does the self-same Beaufort Gyre extend to Patagonia? Or is it far more likely that the same mechanism - warming - melts both Arctic sea ice and glacial ice?
68969. skept.fr at 13:42 PM on 2 December 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Tom : thank you for the reference. I don't know if South Africa citizens and government would appreciate to be in the Group I (immediate cuts) or if Algeria is ready for stabilization and transition (Groupe II). The 45 poorest nations of the world, with less than 0,5 t CO2/capita/y, were not especially in my mind because it seems obvious we have no ethical basis for blocking their growth even if carbon-based. But the ~100 intermediate and emerging countries, often still far poorer than we (OECD) are and without all the basic infrastructures of a developed society, would have for most of them to stabilize their CO2 emissions around 2025 and then to keep their economic growth up while decarbonizing their energy mix… hmm, it's hard for me to imagine this could be done. Of course, a cap and trade CO2 market would favor massive investments transfer from North to South. But basic infrastructures need steel, cement, all sort of raw or transformed materials I don't know how to extract and produce without fossil fuel in such a short period (15 years!), or without high costs contradictory with the need for growth in these countries. And the same is true for transportation without oil (one basis of trade and growth is mobility). But these diverse and vague questions are summarized in Jackson's challenge, to mute very rapidly at a global scale from a 0,7% to a 7% annual carbon intensity gain —without creating social, economic or environmental drawbacks which would dislocate the consensus for climate reforms. A gamble, for sure.
68970. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Weatherwatcher @21, following your logic we would have to conclude that very cold conditions in the Arctic in the 1910's had nothing to do with the solar minimum of 1910, but rather was the cause of that minimum. Alternatively we could conclude that polar amplification did not start in 1975. With regard to the expected behaviour of sea ice under warming, part of the impact of warming is that currents bringing water into the Arctic are themselves warmer. Consequently we would expect regions sheltered from such currents to have less melting. We would also expect, in general, water adjacent to extent ice sheets, as in the Canadian Archipelago to melt slower. Not being adjacent to ice free water with its increased solar absorption, it itself will not warm as fast. Further, those ice sheets, though extent are still melting, and Canadian rivers further south are now flowing with the water deposited in a confined volume due to the Islands. Both factors contribute to the water in the Canadian Archipelago being fresher than elsewhere in the Arctic (except just North of Siberia). Fresh water freezes more easily than does salt. Finally, all ice in the Arctic melts to some extent in the summer, reducing its thickness. Whether it melts completely if in situ depends on its thickness, which in turn depends on its age. Because ice adjacent to the Canadian archipelago is effectively anchored by the local shore line, it is much older than ice (hence thicker) than ice elsewhere in the Arctic, and hence is not expected to melt away in a single season. Of course, because it does not shift, if it is not melted away in a single season it will be replenished in winter months. Your "testable hypothesis", therefore, is the product of a shallow and thoughtless analysis of the situation. If you believe otherwise, feel free to show us an AOGCM run of the Arctic melting to an ice free state in which the last surviving ice is at the North Pole rather than in the northern bays and straights of the Canadian Archipelago.
68971. ClimateWatcher at 13:26 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Available energy to earth, averaged over surface area is subject to: S * ( 1 - a ) / 4, where S is Solar Irradiance, a is albedo and 1/4 is the ratio of the area of the disc through which sunlight passes to irradiate the surface area of the (roughly spherical )earth. The amount of increased energy from any increase in insolation is considerably less than the reduced amount of energy modeled to leave earth. Still we should recall that ( neglecting ozone absorption for the moment ) sunshine is largely absorbed at the bottom of the atmosphere while GHG forcing is from a reduction of outgoing at the top of the atmosphere. Also that solar irradiance appears to be at a century or more high. Also that whatever the equilibrium energy level was 150 years ago, solar increase alone changed it. Is there a contribution from 150 years of increased sunshine coming back out of the oceans? Further still, we don't know albedo very well or how it varied in the past or how it varies from year to year. IPCC models, lacking anything else to go on, use persistence of the recent high levels for the value of insolation: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png A regression to the mean may be more likely. If that occurs, we will have a case study which should help in evaluating just how significant solar forcing is ( or isn't ).
       Response:

       [DB] "Also that whatever the equilibrium energy level was 150 years ago, solar increase alone changed it."

       Straw man.  Multiple factors (forcings and feedbacks) account for the changes in global temperatures over that timeframe.

       "Further still, we don't know albedo very well or how it varied in the past or how it varies from year to year."

       More straw men.  I suggest you research more, pontificate less.

       "IPCC models, lacking anything else to go on"

       IBID.  The models you reference are global circulation models, not something concocted by the IPCC.  Your statement reveals either a lack of knowledge about them or a willingness to deliberately impart false information.

       "A regression to the mean may be more likely."

       Unsupported speculation.  You have a protracted history on this forum of making unsubstantiated allegations and falsehoods.  Cease.

68972. ClimateWatcher at 12:52 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       "Maslowski's model, the only one actually tracking the observed demise of Arctic sea ice, predicts an initial loss of summer sea ice by 2016, ± 3 years. At this point, the resulting albedo flip induces further seasonal warming. Eisenman and Wettlaufer show that this further warming thus leads to the entire Arctic Ocean becoming perennially ice-free." This sounds like a testable hypothesis. One of the narratives about Arctic ice implies that warming is causing the decline. Were this the case, we would expect the maxima of multi-year ice to lie near the pole ( the place with the greatest annual energy deficit and thus, the place remaining most immune to increased global thermal energy ). Instead, we find the maxima of multi-year ice not at the pole, but wedged against the Canadian Archipelago further south. The same dynamic forces which moved the multi-year ice maxima south have 'flushed' ice out of the Arctic and into the Atlantic to the east of Greenland, where it is lost to the aggregate: http://www.youtube.com/embed/Co68_tod0dQ It is possible, then that Arctic sea ice loss leads to warming more than warming leads to Arctic sea ice loss. This may have happened in the record. Note the intense warming episodes in the Arctic which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s: There were no satellites then, but those episodes are consistent with sea ice declining ( and then accumulating ). This may be all wet. But here we have a pretty good test: If the Arctic is ice free in the summer of '16, we'll have to recognize the validity of the above model. If, on the other hand, the Beaufort Gyre strengthens and Arctic Sea Ice reverts to its mean accumulation in the next decade, this will indicate the significance that dynamics have played in the decline.
       Response:

       [DB] "One of the narratives about Arctic ice implies that warming is causing the decline."

       In the absence of any other "narrative" that survives both common sense and scientific scrutiny, warming melting ice is at present the best explanation for the demise of the Arctic sea ice being recorded.

       "Were this the case, we would expect the maxima of multi-year ice to lie near the pole ( the place with the greatest annual energy deficit and thus, the place remaining most immune to increased global thermal energy )."

       Straw man.  Arctic sea ice is thickest in the areas where weather conditions are most favorable to ice survival over time.  This is well-understood.

       "The same dynamic forces..."

       Any reason you position dynamic as if it represented some hitherto-unknown-mechanism?

       "It is possible, then that Arctic sea ice loss leads to warming more than warming leads to Arctic sea ice loss."

       Again, this is no surprise.  A thinner ice pack is more structurally fragile, easily fractured and splintered into rafted piles and slurry.  Also well-understood.  But more of a feedback than a forcing as you are setting it up to be.

       (skips over 30's and 40's diversionary tactic)

       "If, on the other hand, the Beaufort Gyre strengthens and Arctic Sea Ice reverts to its mean accumulation in the next decade, this will indicate the significance that dynamics have played in the decline."

       So you hang your hat on the Beaufort Gyre then as your previously hinted-at mystical mechanism?  That is like saying "If pigs could fly, there would be low-flying bacon."

68973. lloyd at 12:40 PM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       Does the IEA report CO2 levels with just CO2, or as a net CO2 amount that includes CO2 equivalents as well? If not, then methane and N2O are also important considerations for action in the short term. Perhaps, if we start with ways to reduce these GHG's we will have more success at delaying the necessity of mitigation efforts. My concern is a sudden surge of methane and CO2 from boreal stocks and offshore environments as sea and tundra temperatures continue to rise. Have these been included in their analysis?
68974. dana1981 at 12:39 PM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       skept.fr - there have been a few other studies (i.e. by Lean) that have put the TSI increase over the past 150 years in the 1 W/m2 ballpark. It's certainly no more than 2 W/m2, but I wanted to give an upper limit.
68975. Stevo at 12:21 PM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       oneiota @ 4 and adelady @ 6 Thanks for the Chalk and Cheese, Cats and Dogs link. Absolutely beautiful and easy to understand explantion for the uninitiated. A pleasure to read.
68976. Doug Hutcheson at 11:48 AM on 2 December 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       Karl_from_Wylie@7 et al. Just to clarify, I distinguish sceptic from denier as follows: Sceptic - one who bases their position upon all the available evidence. Denier - one who maintains their position in spite of all the available evidence. Rabid Denier - one who maintains their position in spite of all the available evidence and points to a selective subset, or blatant distortion, of that evidence to justify their position. Otherwise referred to above as a scoundrel.
68977. Lloyd Flack at 11:45 AM on 2 December 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       Spaerica #39, Look at Barry Bickmore's video to see why someone with a scientific background who has not looked at climate change in detail might be skeptical. Something like that has happened in this case. Sometimes someone's existing knowledge can lead them into traps. Remember the thread here on denialism in some geologists. A background in IT creates a different potential trap. They often confuse the fragility of programs with fragility in models and think there is likely to be one crucial mistake that will cause the whole thing to be invalid. I've seen this happen in quite a few people.
68978. Utahn at 11:39 AM on 2 December 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       "If the denialists weren't constantly contradicting themselves, then it would be encouraging. But tomorrow they'll be back to touting 1°C sensitivity". Sadly, I'm afraid you're right, but I allow myself slight hope.
68979. Tom Curtis at 11:34 AM on 2 December 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       skept.fr @61, Ray Pierrehumbert has directly adressed your question himself at RealClimate:

       "In the response by raypierre- I agree about the problems with simple energy balance model and its lack of spatial representation, but it’s tough to fault the authors for the lack of cloud detail, since the science is not up to the task of solving that problem (and doing so would be outside the scope of the paper; very few paleoclimate papers that tackle the sensitivity issue do much with clouds). [Response: I can't agree with this assessment. General circulation models do simulate clouds, and the clouds they simulate are a big part of the nature of their response to both doubled CO2 and to LGM forcing. However, because of the various unknowns in the cloud process, the models give quite different climate sensitivities, accounting for much of the IPCC spread. So, the key thing in evaluating climate sensitivity is to use the LGM as a test of how well the models are doing clouds, using the LGM, and then see what happens in the same model when you project to the future. You cannot do that in a model which doesn't have the dynamics needed to simulate changes in clouds. --raypierre]"

68980. Tom Curtis at 11:13 AM on 2 December 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       skept.fr @48, the notion that developing nations need to decarbonize at the same rate and the same time as first world nations is one that needs to by firmly disabused. The WGBU in a 2009 report has shown that, if each nation is given an emissions quota based on 2010 population, third world nations can continue to increase carbon emissions for several decades (in some cases) before it becomes necessary to reduce them while still keeping cumulative carbon emissions under the trillionth tonne, which on standard estimates is the benchmark for avoiding warming greater than 2 degrees C. That places an onerouse (though justified) burden of reduction on OECD nations. More likely would be differential targets with emissions trading which will require third world nations to reduce emissions faster, but fund that reduction with the purchase of carbon credits from OECD nations. Clearly with such an approach third world nations need only adopt low emissions energy generation where that it particularly suitable to current needs, or after the technology has been developed and massively deployed thereby reducing cost. Fig 5.35 of the report. The caption reads:

       "Examples of per-capita CO2 emissions trajectories from fossil sources for three country groups under the WBGU budget approach. The broken curves show theoretical per-capita CO2 emissions trajectories without emissions trading. These would allow compliance with the national budgets, but would be partly unrealistic in practice. The unbroken curves show emissions trajectories that could result from emissions trading. It is assumed that Group 1 countries increase their budget by 75% by purchasing emission allowances for 122 Gt CO2. Group 2 countries purchase emission allowances totalling 41 Gt CO2. The suppliers of the sum total, i.e. 163 Gt CO2, are the Group 3 countries, resulting in a decrease of around 43% in their own emissions budget. Towards the end of the budget period, convergence of real CO2 emissions occurs at around 1 t per capita per year (based on the population in 2010). The areas between the curves represent the traded quantities of emission allowances. As this is a per-capita presentation and the country groups have different populations, the total of the areas between the curves for the buying Groups 1 and 2 is not equal to the area between the curves of the selling Group 3. Country groups are organized according to CO2 emissions per capita per year from fossil sources, whereby CO2 emissions are estimates for 2008 and population figures are estimates for 2010. Red: country group 1 (>5.4 t CO2 per capita per year), mainly industrialized countries (e.g. EU, USA, Japan), but also oil-exporting countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela) and a small number of newly-industrializing countries (e.g. South Africa, Malaysia). Orange: country group 2 (2.7–5.4 t CO2 per capita per year), which includes many newly-industrializing countries (e.g. China, Mexico, Thailand). Green: country group 3 (<2.7 t CO2 per capita per year), above all developing countries (e.g. Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Vietnam), but also some large newly industrializing countries (e.g. India, Brazil). Source: WBGU"

68981. WyrdWays at 10:55 AM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       @19: Phil M : The PIOMAS graphs are certainly pointing to an imminent crashing into the zero-line (ie within a decade). But I have read that there are negative feedbacks that may come into play to 'rescue' the summer sea-ice free Arctic, for a while at least. One was outlined by Tietsche in a paper in AGU early this year: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045698.shtml Basically, without the insulating ice, the seawater loses much of its summer-gained heat to the atmosphere, in the Arctic autumn. That warming atmosphere then loses heat from its top, into space, increasing the cooling over winter. That could be enough to increase winter freezing, and slow down the summer-time loss; or to cause an ice-free Arctic to regrow some of its cap in a couple of years. Whether their modelled effect will appear in the real-world -- and whether or not its trumped by other unknown positive feedbacks from a near-ice free Arctic -- well only time will tell. Doesn't like we'll be waiting long though..
       Response:

       [DB] Please note that the results obtained in the Tietsche paper are predicated upon atmospheric CO2 levels having first attained a plateau level.  Since that is not happening anytime in the next 30-40 years (even if emissions were held at zero over that time) the results will be moot.

       Maslowski's model, the only one actually tracking the observed demise of Arctic sea ice, predicts an initial loss of summer sea ice by 2016, ± 3 years.  At this point, the resulting albedo flip induces further seasonal warming.  Eisenman and Wettlaufer show that this further warming thus leads to the entire Arctic Ocean becoming perennially ice-free.

       

       Thus, rising emissions/temperatures push the Arctic into a seasonal ice-free state (Maslowski, slide 12) and then into a perennially ice-free state (essentially, the Arctic supports only a full-ice or a no-ice solution for stable states).

68982. KR at 10:50 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       I might suggest a bit of care in posts - While D. Gaddes has pushed moderation limits in repeating ads for downloading his PDF, he has since attempted to put at least some of his theories up for consideration. That said, they (IMO) lack explanatory power, fall into the general category of 'curve-fitting' while bypassing physics, and are not going to provide predictive power. They have not been submitted to, nor evaluated by, any peer-reviewed journals (where peer-review acts as a filter for a minimal level of quality). And now, thanks to the discussion here, that should be clear to unbiased readers as well. Don Gaddes - I believe the objections raised here hold. Without a testable physical mechanism for these cycles to influence climate in some fashion, nor a clear set of testable predictions, these 'ratios' and cycles have little scientific value. With those (if you can for example supply some mechanism wherein the "Metonic Cycle of the Moon's Nodes" affects climate, and/or testable climate predictions), it can at least be evaluated. But that said - the posters on this site have very little patience for hand-waving.
68983. John Hartz at 10:29 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       Don Gaddes privilege to post comments on the SkS website should be revoked. SkS is under no obligation to provide him with a forum to publish his pseudo-science.
68984. les at 10:16 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       933 - Don Really! Sphaerica has clearly put substantial effort into looking at the work presented; unlike I who glibly dismissed it as gibberish based soley on your posts. You - I and others - should be thankful, show appreciation for the work, thought and time spent; You should let the work either rest where it is or progrss it as advised. to post faint thanks, then faint accusation and then just continue where you left off is not only impolite, but is failing to take advantage of the excellent assistance you have been offered. Neither polite nor scientific.
68985. Bob Lacatena at 09:47 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       933, Don, 21,400 peer reviewed papers on volcanic activity and climate change since 2000
68986. Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       933, Don, Your material has now been peer reviewed. You have been given specific areas wherein it fails. The next step in the peer review process is to do the hard part, accept and address those errors, and resubmit it to review.
68987. Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       933, Don, While I admitted from the start that I skimmed much of it, I missed nothing. The Ratios Principle is irrelevant to the stated applicability. It does not matter if he used super computers or fairy dust, alien calculus or a child's arithmetic. The bottom line is that he must demonstrate some ability to both mirror past and to predict future global temperature trends, and I see no effort whatsoever to do so, when it should in fact be the centerpiece of everything (not some "Ratios Principle"). I did see frequent reference to the ice cores and tree rings to create his tables (i.e. to identify the "cycles"), but he does not test his cycles against any temperature record of any sort (and, to some extent, testing the output against the input would be cheating and of no value -- I could do the exact same thing with any history of stock exchange records, but with no chance of making a future killing from the results). I did not say that his method depended on Australian Rainfall, I said that his method was used to correlate to it. Either way, it is useless in the climate debate if it is not in some way tied to global climate change, and it is not. If it is, please identify the pages, lines, tables and words that do so. As far as volcanic activity ("ignored and considered irrelevant"), you are simply wrong and you need to do more research. As far as the "forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle"... exactly where are they? They aren't in the book that I could see. That's my major complaint. Where is the testable prediction? Appendices 1 and 2 contain some bizarre and utterly vague forecasts of "dry cycles" in Australia. By what measure? Where are the real world observations that match the truth of the predictions? Where is the math that shows that the predictions are anything more than fabricated data to match some (unrevealed, unclear) observations? And who cares? How does this in any way presume to predict climate change, or the steady rise in temperatures since 1979?

       It took me many readings to 'understand' this work, I expect it will take those more astute and qualified than myself more than one reading.

       I have no intention of reading it again. There is nothing there of value. Again, you are doing your father a grave disservice by using his work to thwart true climate science and forestall action, rather than vice versa.
68988. skept.fr at 09:14 AM on 2 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       dana : "Solar irradiance hasn't increased by more than 1 to 2 W/m2 over the past 150 years" I guess it is less than these values. In IPCC AR4 , I read : "In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2), corresponding to an RF[11] of +0.1 W m–2. Krivova et al 2010 gave a higher estimate for 1610-present, 1,25 W/m2 in TSI. But remember the reference base is the great solar minimum of Maunder, so during the XXth century, TSI variance is far lower.
68989. adelady at 09:02 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       If we're talking about the carbon 'cycle' and referring to photosynthesis and the like, we're overlooking what burning fossil materials actually does. It doesn't disrupt the biological carbon cycle, it violates the geological carbon cycle. If we want to suck out CO2 released by internal combustion motors alone, then one year's worth equates to about 93 million years' worth of fossil deposition. Growing trees won't do it. What we need is a way to speed up geological weathering processes. So far, I've only come up with a process as crude and clumsy as our fossil fuel extraction processes. Blow things up. It's sort of equivalent in that we've been knocking off mountains and quarrying huge holes in the ground to get at fossils. We'll just need to do much the same thing with mountains and holes in different rock formations. The only saving grace is that the necessary rocks are abundant and easily accessible. The mental image I have is that instead of using small planes as crop dusters, those same small planes will become one of the prime targets for developing a carbon neutral fuel. Because we'll be needing to fly round the clock dusting operations over selected reef systems and their associated coasts to ward off the very worst ravages of acidification and species loss in just a few areas. We won't be able to save them all.
68990. Daniel Bailey at 08:58 AM on 2 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       The multi-year ice decline is very evident in this graphic from Distribution and trends in Arctic sea ice age through spring 2011, Maslanik et al 2011:

       "Extents of multiyear ice and 5+ ice for the third week of March and at the September minimum. Also shown are piecewise linear‐fit trend lines estimated following Tome and Miranda [2004] and a least‐squares regression line fit to data for March 2002–2006."

       [Source]
68991. Don Gaddes at 08:50 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       I thank Sphaerica for his indulgence (though he has missed quite a bit. I wont say 'cherry-picked' because I think he has made a genuine effort.)There is no mention of the development of the basic tenet of the book (ie. The Ratios Principle)or its subsequent and future application. The assertion that A S Gaddes only depended on Australian Rainfall records is erroneous.He very much used Deep Ice Core And Tree-ring data to generate his tables. His discussion of the importance of volcanic activity has not been 'nailed down' by current Climate Science, it is in fact ignored or considered irrelevant. What caused the so called 'La Nina' events in Southern Australia at the time of the eruption of Mt Pucon in Mexico 2011? Or the bitterly cold Northern Hemisphere winter at the time of the eruption of Eyjatjallajokull in Iceland? Finally,(for the moment,) are the forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle correct? If they are then the 'method' must have had something to do with it. It took me many readings to 'understand' this work, I expect it will take those more astute and qualified than myself more than one reading.
       Response:

       [DB] Again you continue to prosecute your agenda of curve-fitting without plausible, physical mechanisms for support nor do you provide testable references.  As such you are a practitioner of climastrology.

       As noted earlier, pick the element you feel strongest about & post on it on the most appropriate thread.  Further comments of this nature constitute Gish Gallop and will perforce be deleted.  Failure to follow this guidance is cause for a rescinding of posting privileges. 

       No further warnings shall be given.

68992. dana1981 at 08:46 AM on 2 December 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       If the denialists weren't constantly contradicting themselves, then it would be encouraging. But tomorrow they'll be back to touting 1°C sensitivity. However, it does seem there has been some movement from "it's not happening" to "it's not CO2" and "it's not bad", probably mostly as a result of the BEST study (which is ironic, since BEST's results were nothing new). There's still plenty of "it's not CO2" denial out there though.
68993. Bob Lacatena at 08:20 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       26, PhilMorris, I was probably a little too quick, flip and shooting from the hip in my post, although I would note that (a) your linked paper appears to be old, or at best references 1999 material and (b) most efforts are concerned with breaking even from some point forward (i.e. capture as much as you release), not scrubbing back what we've already let lose. Still, yes, maybe with enough, efficient renewable energy sources we could solve the problem. The sun should burn for long enough. The question is probably more of "can we draw it down quickly enough to keep civilization thriving long enough to develop and implement the technology on a large enough scale to have the necessary impact... or are we all just buzzard meat."
68994. funglestrumpet at 08:19 AM on 2 December 2011
       CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
       Try as hard as I might, I cannot see why proving that climate change is human in origin should have any bearing on the need to take action. We know that atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and we know how to reduce the amount of it we humans release into the atmosphere. So let's just get on with reducing it. Every time we argue about whether the change in the climate that we are experiencing is human in origin or not gives the politicians, who have an urgent need to protect their job in elections that come by every four or five years, an excuse to procrastinate. And heaven knows they have been excellent procrastinators when one looks at what has actually been achieved since Kyoto. It sickens me to think that Monckton and his ilk are winning hands down as things are. Though I doubt they will enjoy the prize they earn. I have given the example elsewhere on this site that you would not refuse to change direction or speed because the iceberg dead ahead is not human in origin.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You're wildly off-topic for this thread (which should have links to all of the existing it's not cosmic rays threads).
68995. Bob Loblaw at 08:17 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       PhilMorris @ 26: I'm going to guess that there is a huge difference between scrubbing CO₂ from from a highly-concentrated source of emission ad storing it as CO₂, and removing it as a trace element from the atmosphere-at-large. If removing it as a trace element involves splitting CO₂ back into C and O₂, then the thermodynamics is as Sphaerica states.
68996. Bob Lacatena at 08:12 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       24, william, I'm afraid forests won't make a dent in the problem. We've burned 337 Gt of carbon since 1751. I did some rough estimates, and it seems that planting giant sequoia redwoods would require using 75% of the arable land on the planet to allow those trees to grow large enough that in 100 years they absorbed all of the carbon released to date, and that assumes that we stop now, and that humanity abandons all of that land for use for living space and food production. At the same time, climate change is going to cause deserts to expand and so to shrink the amount of arable land available. I wouldn't count on natural sinks -- corals or trees -- to make any sort of dent in the problem.
68997. actually thoughtful at 08:10 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       PhilMorris - thank you. I like to think of myself as technologically literate, but occasionally reality intrudes....
68998. tmac57 at 08:08 AM on 2 December 2011
       Changing the Direction of the Climate
       PhilMorris-"What's needed is a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors. " Been done...just look up ;)
68999. skept.fr at 07:57 AM on 2 December 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       perseus : so, I read again Jackson's estimates and your summary was correct. For more details, in 2007, world produces 768 gCO2/$. In 2050, with 9 billion persons and 1,4% annual income growth, the objective of 36 gCO2/$ would imply a 7%/yr decrease in carbon intensity, whereas carbon intensity have decreased of only 0,7%/y since 1990. If we choose a higher population growth, or a higher income growth for the poorest nations, the rate of carbon intensity gain is even more irrealist. So, it seems to Jackson extremely unlikely that the decoupling of economic growth and fossil energy becomes a reality at a rate compatible with a 450 ppm CO2eq objective. Here on SkS , we can see how the IEA WEO scenario 450 plans this kind of reduction (figure 3) Jackson considers as very unlikely. IEA uses the Gt CO2 total emissions rather than gCO2/$, but prior assumption are nearly the same (except a more important income growth as I recall), and IEA stops in 2035 rather then 2050. Energy-economy models diverge in the detail of their choices. This Edenhorfer et al paper , for example, examines 5 models in their mitigation strategies and costs. Contrary to IEA WEO, gain in carbon intensity have a higher part in CO2 mitigation than gain in energy efficiency (see figure 5 and comment pp 28-29). But the problem is the same if we choose the Jackson description : a never seen rate of decarbonization either by specific carbon intensity gain or by general energy intensity gain. So clearly, as I've said when debating about these scenarios with Tom in an other thread, there are many gambles in the 450 scenarios: on nuclear progress, on CCS viability, on biofuel extension on energy efficiency, on decreasing ENR costs... and of course on political will. But have we another choice? According to IEA, ‘Non-OECD countries account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035’. Even with an OECD stagnation, emissions would continue to increase in a business as usual scenario for non-OECD. How could we defend a policy agenda whose main message to the poorer countries would inevitably be : ‘hey, please, do not develop now, or just use for that low-carbon technologies and nothing else ?’
69000. DSL at 07:30 AM on 2 December 2011
       It's the sun
       Well-said, Sphaerica.

Prev  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  Next