Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 Next
Comments 73051 to 73100:
-
Bart at 18:50 PM on 7 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
On september 22 the Platform Communication on Climate Change posted a (Dutch) message on this topic on their website I wrote this message (as an employee of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL). I also reported the decline in volume, but I could not find the value of the uncertainty range. The message above indicates it is 1.35 m3 km. Where can I find this number on the PIOMAS website and what it the meaning of this interval? (one sigma, 2 sigma?) -
Paul D at 18:43 PM on 7 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
I think some economists (may be many) are ahead of politicians in including externalities. I hope eventually some of these economics memes will move from academia into governments. It may be as simple as waiting for the old school to retire, but that might not be soon enough. -
chriskoz at 18:30 PM on 7 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
Actually, free market mechanisms should work once we include the environment polution and climate change into it, i.e. emmission trading scheme. Once the incentives for SO2,CO2-less energy sources (photovoltaic, windmills, geothermal, tidals) kick in, they will be more competitive with coal and the more they are developed, the more their prices drop, until tipping point is reached when coal becomes more expensive and dies. The main trouble is: it's hard to put a correct price on environment and enforce it. Wide discrepancy in numbers above (50-300%) means we really don't know how to do it. Or we don't understand the consequences to put the right price. The next trouble is: biggest CO2 pollutters (like US) are usually not the nations who pay the consequences of climate change. AGW has the worst consequences for the poorest nations in Africa or Pacific Islanders. So trying to set the price off CO2 pollution within the context of a single economy is not correct. That must be set within the context of global economy. -
Dave123 at 17:50 PM on 7 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
We'll have to keep repeating this until it's common knowledge at every local bar: Spencer and McKitrick are signatories to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration: Signatories which has as two of its statements of faith: 1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. and 1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming. Spencer places his faith before science. He's not a scientist....he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. -
Tom Curtis at 17:39 PM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
rand 15 @28, good call and my bad. I used similarly sloppy (ie, downright wrong) language regarding area where the decline is 5.7%. Mea culpa, and I hope no-one was confused. -
adelady at 17:31 PM on 7 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
Not so sure, alan. Roy's also been known to make some pretty out there statements on political orientation as well. I'd be more inclined to see him as picking and choosing which (kinds of) organisations to align with given his personal propensities. (Whatever they may be.) There are plenty of conservative religious and political organisations. It's a personal matter which ones to accept, acknowledge, agree with or espouse. And, once chosen, also a personal matter whether to be one of the crowd or to put yourself out there. Which got us very quickly into realms best left to sociologists or psychologists or whatever. -
Harald Korneliussen at 17:29 PM on 7 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
It's a right-wing doctrine that markets are absolutely necessary to set a fair price for something. From a bottom-up analysis, you estimate the fair price of pollution to be 50-300% higher than the current cost of power, and that may be true - but it's also a very broad range! And the cost would have to be estimated and imposed politically. Right wingers hate that, and they hate to admit that there are prices that can't be easily estimated with markets, so they prefer to believe the price is 0! Or more precisely: polluters assert the price should be 0, and right-wingers are deeply uncomfortable contesting it, since it would mean abandoning a core right wing belief, trust in markets over political control. -
GEP at 17:23 PM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
No politics?Moderator Response: [DB] Please review the Comments Policy which clearly spells these things out. -
_rand15_ at 17:22 PM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Curtis@25: No, that is *NOT* a decline of 89.9%. 4.007/4.455 = 0.899. It is a decline to 89.9% of the previous year, for a decline *of* about 10%. -
alan_marshall at 16:57 PM on 7 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
Spencer & the Christian Right Spencer: There is a bust-gut effort going on to make sure that either (1) no scientific papers get published which could get in the way of the IPCC’s politically-motivated goals, or ... I need to be careful and respectful here, but that reference to IPCC politically-motivated goals rang alarm bells for me. It is this sort of comment that is precisely the kind of code language that sections of the Christian right use for their one-world government bogey. These people are the Sarah Palin types who embrace rapture theology and conspiracy theories. Following my suspicions I Googled "Roy Spencer", and came up with this disturbing article, which states: Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. As a proAGW Christian, I identify with the Evangelical Climate Initiative, rather than the anti-science Interfaith Stewardship Alliance which Spencer supports. It is not my purpose here to debate theology (those who may wish to can find me at www.climatechangeanswers.org). Roy Spencer apparently is a committed Christian. That is no crime, and I cannot say what his specific religious beliefs may or may not be. But it is food for thought, isn’t it? Is it possible that Spencer’s (-snip-) science is driven by dodgy theology?Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
adelady at 16:47 PM on 7 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
The 2 most recent items at arctic.io are worth a good look. The animation of 23 years of the Beaufort gyre is fan-tas-tic and the commentary raises some issues in a new light. The one on ice thickness and how to calculate it from ice freeboard is also handy. -
dana1981 at 15:33 PM on 7 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
Yes, unfortunately many people don't understand that accounting for externalities allows the free market to work properly. All they see is "carbon tax," and in the USA, "tax" is a four letter word. But nothing is free, and we have to pay for those emissions one way or another. Either it's efficiently with the free market, or inefficiently as external costs. -
actually thoughtful at 15:28 PM on 7 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
What continues to amaze me is that this huge problem has such a simple solution! Use the free market to reduce the use of greenhouse gases. It really, truly isn't that hard. -
Clouds Over Peer Review
A very well written article - which covers a history well worth reading. -
Norman at 14:54 PM on 7 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Albatros @193 and Eric (skeptic) @202 Thanks to both of you for the links to the various papers. I am still reading through them. They are informative. -
Norman at 14:51 PM on 7 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Sphaerica @200 and KR @203 I hear the both of you loud and clear. I am not wanting to be considered a troll on SkS. I do believe sufficient information is already available to determine if there is a noticeable trend in extreme weather. Increasing average temperature and precipitaion does not necessarily have to increase the number of extreme events, it certainly may, but it also may not. Good science can determine the actual frequency of extreme weather events. A warmer earth would increase the overall average temperatures and also likely increase the overall precipitation. I do not agrue these points. The thesis of the OP is that extreme weather is on the increase and global warming is the cause. The task of compiling enough data to determine this would take one individual a very long time and be prone to errors and mistakes in data entry. NOAA has extreme temperature and precipitation data on a daily basis for cities. If these cities are broken into regions and the data compiled one could have a strong degree of confidence as to what the situation is for extreme weather events, are they increasing? Staying the same? Decreasing? At least it can be done with extreme temps and precipitation. Others have already complied hurricanes and tornadoes at least in the US. I would like to see this study done on a global basis (as muoncounter has pointed out that one should do more than look out their own window) but I am not sure where the data for global locations is stored. The US would be a good start to see it there is a signal in the data. I would suggest adding an extreme event to the year it took place and plotting the total in bar graph fashion. If a few hundred people on SkS chose one city to compile and then at the end give a report on the trends for the city, a sound scientific empirical study would answer the question of this thread. This type of study would be qualitative. Another study can be quantitative. Order the month's most extreme precipitation events and temperature readings in fashion that 1 is most extreme followed down the line. Then you can get a date for the most extreme weather as well. Link to NOAA page that has daily records for both precipitation and temperature. -
Understanding climate denial
DSL - I would much prefer dealing with an honest man (all credit to Doonesbury) than a professional dissembler. But we have to deal with what we get... -
scaddenp at 14:47 PM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
DSL - I dont. However, the rhetoric of "Capitalism has failed and time to replace with (Utopia_of_choice)" isn't helping the right wing come to grips the science. That kind of talk is what I understood Lloyd was alluding to. For certain political elements, climate change issues is just another weapon with which to push their agenda. I personally don't see how climate change can effectively handled without some kind of market intervention but that is long way from "capitalism is dead". -
DSL at 14:11 PM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
I agree, even though the process is nightmarishly messy and time consuming. It's the kind of effort Kim Stanley Robinson describes in the Mars trilogy. Scaddenp, to claim that the mode of capitalism does not hinder in any way efforts to mitigate is just as bad as claiming it is the root of all evil. The mode and its relation to the historical development of climate change must be understood critically, and there is very strong evidence for a link between the mode itself (not simply industrialism) and the ability to effectively change ecological relations. However, there is also nothing in the basic mechanism of socialism that requires a stable climate. An economic mode that features democratic control of the means of production is not necessarily one that seeks to stabilize the climate. Such stabilization might be more likely under socialism, but that's an argument for another day. The basic need is to identify long-range human interests and realize a realistic path from here to there, given current material conditions and the force of history that resides in our myriad ideologies. I think that fits Lloyd's perspective, but I do have the same reservation that KR has: what of those who willfully refuse to engage the science? And what of those who use the banner of "conservatism" to mask an indifference to the long-range human interests that many conservatives uphold? -
Tom Curtis at 13:46 PM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
I'm not pixel counting the map. I'm pixel counting the graph. Assuming the graph is accurate, my pixel count should give accurate ratios to within 5% for the extent counts, and within 2% for the area count. I would, of course rather do the calculations direct from digital data by could not find a link for the extents of multi-year ice at NSIDC. -
scaddenp at 13:37 PM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Tom, pixel counting has its hazards (ask Steve Goddard!) - is the map you are counting from drawn on polar equal area projection? -
Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Further to my post 14, I have redone my pixel count on sea ice area, and downloaded the daily figures for sea ice volume from Piomass. As a result I can now correct my calculations. Based on a pixel count of the graph of arctic ice area from cyrosphere today, ice area has decreased by 94.3% from 2010 to 2011 (minimum area). According to Piomas daily figures, the 2011 ice volume minimum was 4.007 on day 253. In 2010 the minimum was 4.455 on day 251. That is a decline in volume from minimum to minimum of 89.9% Contrary to my claims in 14, that indicates a decline in sea ice thickness of approximately 5%. That sea ice thickness should decline in a year when multi-year ice increased is very disturbing, IMO. -
muoncounter at 12:51 PM on 7 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
NASA videos here. -
scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Good points Lloyd. The screams that climate change shows capitalism past its use-by date would be one common example. There are many times when I think the requirements of adjusting to climate change are being used to push other agendas. -
Understanding climate denial
Lloyd Flack - Agreed, it's important to not drop to the gutter when arguing with the denialists (but the gutter is so warm and inviting!). And the best motivator is self-interest - the challenge is in framing the issues so that those blocking action see reasonable change is in their interests too. Still, how can one treat with respect those who post several completely bogus arguments per day (I can think of several candidates there), who flatly lie to Congress, who repeat the same canards over and over after being presented with the data, all with complete disregard for logic, evidence, or anything aside from rhetorical distortions to support their ideology? I wish I had an answer to that... -
Lloyd Flack at 12:06 PM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
People on all sides of politics tend to attribute to opponents motives that they find comfortable to oppose. And there is a tendency to see any perceived harm from opponents policies as something intended rather than as a result of different priorities and values. I'm trying to get people here to watch out for such tendencies in themselves as well as in denialists. I'm trying to you to try to see what the denialists are seeing when they look at you. And ask yourselves whether there is a grain of truth in the denialist's picture or whether there are errors that you have contributed to. This is not letting denialists off the hook. The vast majority of their irresponsibility is their fault. But cavalier dismissal of their values is not the way to deal with them. We do face an emergency. It is counterproductive to let yourselves be seen as trying to use the emergency to gain other goals. Engage those conservative values that support doing something effective. And identify what their fears are and try to avoid unnecessarily triggering them. -
muoncounter at 11:49 AM on 7 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee#124: The paper you linked (Lockwood et al) is from 1999, prior to these measurements: In 2008, the sun set the following records: A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. In addition, there's this report: "The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," says McComas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays." In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more." Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%. So, no, the sun is not more magnetically active; shielding from the dreaded GCRs is down, not up. This is not a mechanism to explain most of the observed warming. Further comments specific to the sun should go to the thread 'its the sun.' -
adelady at 11:19 AM on 7 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
Young and thin instead of old and bulky is Science Daily's report from the return of the Polarstern after its summer expedition. Basically, the central Arctic is now covered in thin, 1 year-old floes. They found bulky multiyear ice only in the Canadian Basin and the Severnaya Zemlya areas had any of the 2-5 metre thick ice. We'll probably have to wait a fair while for any papers or detailed analyses. -
Utahn at 10:57 AM on 7 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Thanks Rob, that's pretty much what I was thinking you were saying, my expression of it may be lacking though. It will be very interesting to see how our understanding evolves of how these moderately shallow to deep shifts might occur. Thanks for your great work in these posts! -
Bob Loblaw at 10:42 AM on 7 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Jonathon: I can see how you would read that into it (wanting change in costs as percent), but my brain doesn't look at my bank balance and think in %, I think in $. You appear to be mis-reading what I've said about things being misleading: the dollar values are clear, but keeping the % part in just adds confusion. I explicitly said that at the start of comment 38: "The part that isn't clear is why you keep putting percentages in." Your scenario of different people spending different amounts and having different percentage changes is why using percentages in this case causes problems. When you ask the question of whether the average Canadian is spending more or less on energy in a warmer world, those people will be spending dollars, not percent. Re: moderators comment. Jonathon's 90%/10% heating/cooling costs ratio doesn't even explicitly say "% of what?". I think we can safely assume that he means "% of total heating/cooling costs", as that would be a difficult phrase to interpret otherwise. I assume that you are questioning Jonathon's dollar values ($900/$100), and those would certainly be too high on a per person basis, but are more reasonable on a per household basis. Even so, I think Jonathon just took those as easy numbers to work with, not an indication of real average household costs. They might actually be right in a ballpark-ish sort of way (per household), but I expect that would be a coincidence. Still, if Jonathon has a link to the report he has mentioned, it would be polite to provide it. -
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Same old story - the risks associated with climate change might require a market intervention, ergo, climate change is not happening or its not bad. -
tblakeslee at 10:09 AM on 7 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
KR " there has been no appreciable change in cosmic ray amounts over the last 100 years" That is not true. Please look at this paper in Nature: "The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field 7, 24. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood 15, 16. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change 17. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. Using surrogate interplanetary measurements, we find that the rise since 1901 is by a factor of 2.3. This change may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field."
By changing cloud formation this field can account for most of the observed global warming.
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
-
John Hartz at 09:51 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Suggested reading: “Attention climate wonks: you can’t take the politics out of politics,” by David Roberts, Grist, Oct 6, 2011 To access this thought provoking article, click here. -
Jonathon at 09:47 AM on 7 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Bob, I only used percentage because I thought that was what you wanted when you requested change in costs. In my last post, I used dollar values for change in costs, but you still say that is not clear. I can think of all sorts of individual scenarios, whereby some people will be spending more or less than others (and hence will have different percentage changes). That is why I used an average value. Isn't that the ultimate question, will the average Canadian be spending more or less on energy in a warmer world? John, Bob mentioned in his last post that the numbers came from the Ontario Ministry on Energy as referenced in #26. Other publications use the same 90:10 ratio.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Is the percentage per person or per household? -
John Hartz at 09:22 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
As detailed in this informative article, not all Republicans have gone over the cliff of climate change denial. “Retired Republicans Quietly Try to Shift GOP Climate-Change Focus,” National Journal, Oct 3, 2011-10-06 To access this article, click here. -
Jonathon at 08:42 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
A few excerpts from the article: "It's a political thing." Liberal white males are more accepting of government regulations and challenges to the status quo because it fits in their political ideology," "the study also found that conservative white men who self-report a high understanding of global warming -- dubbed "confident" conservative males -- are even more likely to express climate change denial." The original paper can be found here: http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Challenging%20Global%20Warming.pdf -
Bob Loblaw at 08:37 AM on 7 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Jonathon@37: Clear?
The part that isn't clear is why you keep putting percentages in. To me, they are misleading. Although saying "saves 10% on heating" may be convenient in your mind, the issue is "saves $90". Likewise "90% summertime increase" doesn't mean a lot, but "pays $90 more" is. The part that needs communicating is the -$90/+$90, and putting percentages in does not help. Let's take your numbers, and vary them slightly. The person next door likes a slightly warmer house (winter and summer), and spends $950 on heating, and $50 on cooling. The same shift in climate reduces heating costs and increases cooling costs by $90 each way. If focused on percentages, this new homeowner is only saving 9.5% in heating costs, but her cooling costs have gone up by 180%, almost tripling! Compared to the first homeowner, this person doesn't save as much on heating, and is looking at skyrocketing costs for cooling, if you are looking at the percentage change in each. Yet each person's bank manager sees an identical change in payments to utility companies. ...and let's think of a third neighbour, who really likes a warm house. Spends $1000 on heating, and doesn't run the AC (although it is installed). Climate warms up. Spends $90 less on heating - saves only 9%. Turns on AC and spends $90 running it. What is the percent increase in this person's cooling costs? OMG! Small increases in temperature lead to infinitely large increases in cooling costs! Off the scale! What a catastrophe! So, I repeat my question from before: is there a reason why you thought that percentages was a better measurement? There are times where percentages are useful, but I don't think this is one of them. P.S. to John Hartz. Jonathon did refer to an Ontario Ministry of Energy comaprison in #26, but didn't give a link. The 9:1 ratio is probably not unreasonable, although the $900:$100 costs are higher than I pay to heat/cool a house in the (cold) prairies. But, these $ numbers are arbitrary, as Jonathon said. And, more importantly, they are irrelevant. Even if it were 1:9, so that $100 was spent on heating, and $900 on cooling, if a warmer climate reduces heating costs and increases warming costs, it is the absolute changes that matter (-$90/+$90), not the original values, the ratio of the original values, or the percentage of the original values.Moderator Response: I'd still like to see the source of Jonathan's statement. I find it hard to believe that the measure is per person rather than per household. -
dana1981 at 08:28 AM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Neven - yes, I'm glad you saved the video too. Thanks! Djon - I changed the section heading to simply "Ice Age/Thickness/Volume". -
John Hartz at 07:58 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Suggested reading: “Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics: Sociologists attempt to pin down what causes some to question the science behind global warming” by Julia Pyper, ClimateWire/Scientific American, Oct 5, 2011 To access this timely article, click here. -
Djon at 07:49 AM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Tom Curtis, Your pixel measuring agrees with mine, though you appear to have gone for more precision in your measurements than I did. For the rest, my "defend Goddard" was a poor choice of words. My objection is not that he's being done an injustice but that he's being handed an opportunity to say "Skeptical Science said I was wrong but the data from NSIDC backs me up". Goddard doesn't deserve even so minor a propaganda victory as that so I'd like to see the necessary level of care taken not to hand it to him. -
Neven at 06:46 AM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
I did well to save that Bastardi video to my hard drive last year, as AccuWeather has removed all his video blogs. :-) Like I said in my post: "One down, zero to go. Extent didn't set a new record low, but the credibility of pseudo-skeptics did." They're a lot more quiet now, but haven't given up yet. Maybe next melting season will give them another 'recovery'. -
Rob Painting at 06:21 AM on 7 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Utahn - once heat is buried into the very deep ocean it stays there for hundreds to thousands of years, before it can be recycled back to the surface. Think of those orange-coloured ocean areas in figure 4 acting as funnels taking heat down to the deep. Once the heat is way down deep, it isn't coming back out anytime soon. Meehl (2011) suggest that natural variability, which affects the ocean surface layers especially, is what causes the hiatus periods. During the La Nina-like phase (or negative Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) more cool water upwells to the surface (particularly in the tropical Eastern Pacific), and because the ocean surface is so large and responsible for much of the heating of the atmosphere, this cools the surface temperature on a global scale. At the same time, because the ocean is heated by sunlight and, due to the funneling of heat down to the depths in those mid-latitude regions, the oceans as a whole accumulate heat during these La Nina-like hiatus phases. Although Meehl (2011) doesn't dwell on the opposing phase of this natural cycle, figure 2 shows that they are times of sharp rises in global surface temperature - which suggests a more El Nino-like response from the ocean. Just for clarification: during El Nino the upwelling of cold water in the tropical Eastern Pacific shuts off and the surface layers warm. It's this shuffling of heat between the surface and subsurface ocean layers (in the top 500 metres of ocean) which directly affects global surface temperatures, not heat from the deep ocean. As for OHC and climate sensitivity, that's a discussion for another day. I'll get around to that. In the meantime, I hope this is all a little bit clearer. We'll have to wait and see if the climate modeling-based mechanism in this paper is supported by the observations. -
pbjamm at 05:41 AM on 7 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I am a Certified College Dropout and I don't find this concept all that hard to grasp. It goes something like this: All objects above 0K radiate energy (photons) in all directions. When one of these photons intercepts another another object that photon's energy is transferred to the object regardless of the objects temperature. The fact that more photons might be moving in the other direction has no bearing on this initial interaction. Are there any important points I am missing?Moderator Response: [Not Dikran] If I were the Wizard of Oz, I would bestow upon you your Bachelor of Science degree! -
Bob Lacatena at 05:24 AM on 7 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Dikran, thank you for your patience. This has been the most entertaining, easy to follow, and ultimately hilarious and educational thread in ages. It's been so hard to avoid interjecting, but the step-by-step flow was so undeniable and relentlessly predictable that it was perfect. It's particularly educational not in terms of the science (which is pretty trivially simple, and should never have required this), but rather of being able to actually watch cognitive dissonance in action, down to identifying the exact point at which logic and reality break down into a swarm of conflicting, illogical thoughts. If you put your ear up to the computer monitor, you can almost hear the limbs thrashing, the teeth gnashing and the gears grinding on the other end. -
Albatross at 04:14 AM on 7 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
As if there are not enough papers on extremes already, here are some more: Christidis et al. (2011) Anderson (2011) With apologies to Walt Kelly: "We have met the enemy and he is us" -
John Hartz at 04:09 AM on 7 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
Suggested reading: “Stamp out anti-science in US politics,” Op-ed by Paul Nurse, New Scientist, Sep 14, 2011 To access this thought provoking essay, click here. -
John Hartz at 03:37 AM on 7 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton. He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign. Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here. -
damorbel at 03:21 AM on 7 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #311 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] you wrote:- "so there is no difficulty in "measuring" the energy of the photon." Well, please explain the significance of a single photon. What has a single photon to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy and temeprature? My problem is that all thermal science such as the '2nd Law' is based on statistical analysis, photons included. I do not know of any thermal science that deals with single photons. [snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Blatant trolling deleted. The remainder is merely prevarication to avoid answering the question posed to you. Please DNFTT. -
Albatross at 03:13 AM on 7 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
Hi Kevin, No worries, sorry about the dud link. Tks for fixing it. -
muoncounter at 03:11 AM on 7 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Albatross#198: "decline in net primary production between 2000 and 2009 on account of an increase in droughts" This is a trend, confirmed by Potter et al 2011: Results indicated that net primary production in Amazon forest areas declined by an average of 7% in 2010 compared to 2008. This represented a loss of vegetation CO2 uptake and potential Amazon rainforest growth of nearly 0.5 Pg C in 2010. If I calculate correctly, 0.5 Pg C = half a gigaton (metric); that's 1.8 Gtons CO2 or roughly the 2008 annual emissions of Russia or India. And that was the result of a single drought season. You know what they say: Half a petagram here, half a petagram there, pretty soon you're talking some serious carbon.
Prev 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 Next
