Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 Next
Comments 73151 to 73200:
-
_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. -
John Hartz at 03:04 AM on 7 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Suggested reading: “Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits Second-Lowest Level,” Science Daily, Oct 4, 2011 To access this article, click here -
John Hartz at 02:57 AM on 7 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
Suggested reading: “Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits Second-Lowest Level,” Science Daily, Oct 4, 2011 To access this article, click here -
Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Norman - "...but I have experienced no changes on notice as the weather in Omaha is already more extreme than many other locations. As I stated the purpose of the data I posted was not an attempt to prove or disprove the content of James Powell ebook." Then the question is: Why are you posting it? Why post iteration after iteration (and so on) of anecdotal evidence? Because it certainly looks like you are arguing that increasing extreme weather cannot be proven - with lots of cherry-picked incidents, but no statistical or trend analysis. You have repeatedly denied making such an argument - but you repeatedly keep on doing so. If you aren't seeing changes in extremes in your locale, That's great, and I wish you continued good fortune in that as long as possible. I would not, however, have high confidence in such luck. Local weather is not a good prognosticator. Do rates of extreme events show statistically significant changes? Powell seems to feel so, based upon a great deal of experience and extended global data, which he carefully examines. You seem not to, based upon personal experience and some limited, selected data (which appear, quite frankly, to show confirmation bias on your part). Personally, I think Powell's case is a heck of a lot stronger than yours. You can certainly continue to hold to your position. But until and unless you address the limits of the data you are selecting from, you're not proving anything. If you are arguing against evidence for increased extreme events, you are doing a poor job of it. If you are not, you are giving a strangely consistent impression of someone arguing just that... --- As a Nebraska resident, you might be interested in this 1998 EPA paper (a bit dated, but...) on Climate Change and Nebraska: "...based on projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the United Kingdom Hadley Centre’s climate model (HadCM2), a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100 temperatures in Nebraska could increase by 3°F in spring and summer (with a range of 1-6°F) and 4°F in fall and winter (with a range of 2-7°F). Precipitation is estimated to increase by 10% (with a range of 5-20%) in spring, summer, and fall, and 15% in winter (with a range of 5-30%). The amount of precipitation on extreme wet or snowy days in winter is likely to increase." -
DSL at 02:27 AM on 7 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Lloyd Flack: "Conservatives should value such things as responsibility, prudence and a sense of proportion. They should seek to ensure the survival and stability of their societies. They are supposed to be anti-utopian, willing to face up to unpleasant facts. Willfully ignoring the dangers of climate change is to go against these values. So why are so many conservatives engaging in willful blindness?" I know many liberals and leftists who fit that description. Marx was not a utopian, as Engels points out in "Socialism: Scientific and Utopian." The problem is that conservatism also describes the beliefs/actions of anyone who wants to conserve a particular way of life or (and this can be quite different) the fundamental elements of a way of life. Capitalism was quite a radical notion--quite liberal--at one point in history (and people believe in spreading the relations of capital under the guise of 'democracy' are still called 'neo-liberals'). People who support capitalism are now called "economic conservatives." The Christian socialist movement in the 19th century was huge, and that seems like an unbelievable paradox to many (certainly not all) Christians today. Environmental conservatives are not religious conservatives are not economic conservatives are not social conservatives are not political conservatives. Environmental conservatives may have religious, economic, and/or political reasons for rejecting the theory of AGW. I've never actually met a political, social, environmental, economic, and religious conservative. If one wants to address conservatives, each type of conservatism must be addressed. I would argue that we are not currently creating a human-centered world. We are creating a world in the interests of the current economic mode, a mode that has no built-in concern for human or environmental interests. -
damorbel at 02:24 AM on 7 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Sorry, #310 should have read "Re #308" not "Re #309" Now as regards #309 Tom Dayton you wrote :- "For this portion of the thought experiment, focus on only a single photon emitted by Object A and absorbed by Object B. That situation is a completely sensible, logical, and reasonable isolation of a portion of the total situation of objects A and B" What energy of photon did you have in mind?Did you consider that, because of the limited speed of light, it might not be possible to make a measurement for only one photon? You refer to a "situation". Fair enough, but what kind of situation, wold this be a cosmic ray photon with perhaps KE of 50J? I am having difficulty in imagining just what is the point of departure of the thought experiment and what kind result it will deliver in terms of energy transfer. Can you help? Perhaps I'm just being a bit thick today, trying to imagine the effect of a single photon.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The energy of the photon is entirely irrelevant, likewise this is a thought experiment, so there is no difficulty in "measuring" the energy of the photon. This is blatant trolling. -
damorbel at 02:10 AM on 7 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #309 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- " The reason we are having this discussion is precisely because you don't know of any other kind of energy transfer than net transfer and I am trying to explain how there can be a bidirectional transfer" I really do think there is no problem here. Let us try it this way:- I believe that there is a bidirectional photon transfer; from A to B simultaneously with photon transfer from B to A. (As long as both A and B are above 0 Kelvin) OK?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There certainly is a problem as the issue of bidirectional flow of energy has repeatedly been a sticking point in your contribution to the discussion on these threads. Starting up your own step by step discussion is merely prevarication and strongly suggests that your interest on this thread is trolling rather than legitimate discussion. It is only sensible to have one step-by-step discussion, so please stick to the one already in progress. -
DSL at 01:53 AM on 7 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
FundME, if I ask you what Earth's gravitational force will be 10,000 years from now, will you answer with a precise measurement, or will you answer with a likely range? Your argument can be made about sociology and economics as well, and the same criticisms can be leveled against it. Can studying the European economy of the 19th century tell us anything useful about the European economy of the 21st century? The two periods are quite different. However, there are fundamental elements that are effectively the same in both situations. By recognizing the fundamental elements and carefully analyzing how they played out in their historical and material contexts, we can determine the likely outcome of those elements placed in some future historical and material context (model). A "likely range" is all you're going to get if you or anyone else uses the past in any way to make a prediction for complex phenomena, and that includes your own life from week to week and year to year (and yet, despite the uncertainty, you still plan your life based what has happened in the past, and most of this planning is intuitive rather than scientific, and it all gives at best a "likely range"). You make the determination of when the past is no longer useful for understanding the future. That determination is not an absolute. And it's not the paleo record that tells us that a "runaway greenhouse" effect is unlikely. See the "Positive feedback means runaway warming" argument thread. I also note that you, FundME, have not yet taken your lack of concern to the "It's not bad" thread. -
muoncounter at 01:51 AM on 7 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
Fundme#22: "If we used terms such as "likely range" for the speed of light or to describe the earths gravitational force we would be back in the 17th or 18th century." So your conclusion is 'we can't know exactly, so we know nothing.' Based on that kind of thinking, the 17th and 18th centuries look like a time of terrific enlightenment. Oh wait, they were. "I will stick with the Past is another planet at least for now." Terrific: You came in with a preconceived idea based on factual error, you rejected all science contradicting you and now you are sticking to your original, unsupported (and unsupportable) claim. There are words to describe that thinking process, but I won't list them here. Hint: They are not read, listen, learn, understand.
Prev 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 Next
