Recent Comments

Prev  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  Next

Comments 76201 to 76250:

76201. Steve Case at 03:10 AM on 31 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       In an earlier post I said I was having trouble downloading the data from the link provided by "Here’s some sea level data" in the "What the Science Says" lead at the top of this page. If you follow that link you will come to a page with a table at the bottom. The links in that table aren't accessable to the average user. My son is an IT professional and he told me it was very difficult and stopped before he got any useful information. The links that do download on that page are buried and barely recognizable as links in the text near the top. Well anyway I've got the data now (-: So I ran the obvious comparison against the analysis I had done of the PSMSL data and got the following result: And indeed, the Church and White data obviously shows an increase in the rate in sea level rise over the last century. I don't need an analysis from Tamino to tell me that. The difference in the two timelines has to come from the decisions Church and White made as to what data to include, and what data to omit. All of the data used is available at the PSMSL site, it's just a matter of figuring out what Church and White omitted. ( -Snip- ) We are told in the paper that "Careful selection and editing criteria, as given by Church et al. (2004) were used." And the 2004 opus, a pay per view link, provides an abstract that doesn't touch on editing criteria. So as far as I'm concerned, it's essentially a "Black Box" that decided what data to omit. I will probably do some sort of sampling as the downloaded data tells us what years were included and I will have to determine what the omitted data is and what that does to the slope. For example, at random I chose the first station I found where the available data was truncated: Station ID 1234 Station Name SIROS Data available 1969 - 2009 Data used 1974.042 - 2009.958 Omissions 1969; 1971; 1972 Change in slope +1.8 mm/yr. A random sample of 30 would give me a good idea, but as I say, I know what I'm going to find, it's a question of what was the criteria for data selection? And why does that criteria tend to skew the results one way?
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Speculations into motive snipped. Either formulate a comment that doesn't cast aspersions into other's integrity or don't post here.

       Future comments containing such speculations and aspersion will be deleted outright.

76202. apiratelooksat50 at 03:04 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       AT @ 10 I appreciate the support you have for my teaching career. Would you be willing to write a lesson plan for me that I can present to my classes? We have 90 minute block classes, but the lesson plan would not have to be that long.
76203. Joseph at 02:45 AM on 31 August 2011
       It's not bad
       That is correct Eric #139, and I apologize for using words like "tipping point" and "catastrophic". I didn't realize they were so inflammatory. Muoncounter #131,"no job creation? Etc..." the studies for the economic cost outlined in this website's article "economic impact of carbon pricing" which I was referring to, already takes into account all the benefits you mention and they still came out with a *net cost* of anywhere from 0.2% of GDP up to an outlier of 3.5% of GDP. And I don't appreciate being stereotyped, FYI, I have never read the national review. Scadenpp #132 I agree that killing subsidies for all FF would be a good thing. Rob #133 taxation IS bad economically speaking, and DOES "suck value out of the economy" no matter how you look at it. Outside forces should not as a general rule be used to "promote more desired market behavior" every time government wants to accomplish a political goal, as implied in your post. Having said that I do agree that there is a role for government for regulating market behavior, and that role should be used sparingly. But we are going off topic now. Rob #134. "The real question is, are you willing to bet your children and grand children's well being on the chance that nearly every scientist who does research in this field is somehow getting it wrong?". Again I am not saying that scientists are getting it wrong. I just see that the predictions they are making have a wide range of positives like "Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006)" as well as negatives. So the way I would phrase the question is "would I be willing to bet my children's well being (because of the GDP cost to remediation) to *maybe* saving my grand children's well being? The GDP cost is a tangible to my kids' well being, if it causes me to be out of work, I can't send them to college. My kids will win this argument over my unborn grand-children any day of the week. The point that I am trying to make is that the cost associated with the proposed solutions for global warming, when compared to an uncertain benefit (as Eric said there is "a disconnect between the current trends and the predictions") makes global warming solutions a tough sell. Wouldn't be better to wait 1-2 decades to have free market forces drive the solutions at no cost to taxpayers instead of forcing a 1-2% GDP cost on the economy, especially at a time when the economy is growing at about....the same rate?! Again, I am not saying that I don't believe that GHG (whether it is amount or rate) aren't causing global warming, so Mr. Moderator please don't refer me to more CO2 studies, this website has already won me over as a convert in that regard.
76204. Rob Honeycutt at 02:35 AM on 31 August 2011
       It's not bad
       Eric... There is actually a strong likelihood that the market force of actually mitigating the impacts of CO2 will be an economic boom! There is virtually no correlation for the notion that carbon taxes would encumber the economy. It would certainly encumber fossil fuel producers, and I think that is the rub that has this issue at the fever pitch that it's at. But the notion that shifting to sustainable sources of energy would be a drain on economic resources (over the cost of doing nothing) is just not justified in any way. We have the potential - the technology, the know-how and the time - to eventually be producing more abundant energy to more people while not destroying the climate. It's something that isn't just desirable, it's imperative. And it is something that FFs can not possibly accomplish.
76205. Bob Lacatena at 02:33 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       15, MA Rodger, A good point, and a good argument... just watch out for the denial point of view that they'll use to twist your logic to fit with their belief system, which is to say that the human race is too insignificant to possibly affect the climate of the earth.
76206. DSL at 02:28 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       We might think up a few "removal" analogies as well. What happens when 300 ppm of X is removed from system Y? We know what would happen in the case of the Earth atmosphere. Unpleasant.
76207. muoncounter at 02:27 AM on 31 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       criticalm#38: "far from the efforts of a fringe scientist." No one suggested Dr. Curry is a fringer. "Climategate and Copehnhagen were gamechangers for the interested members of the lay public." We're not talking about the lay public; we're discussing a myth created by someone qualified to know better. Climategate did not change the underlying science; for someone like Dr. Curry, any 'crisis of confidence' would be with the messengers, not the message. "differences between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the measured energy imbalances in recent years adds further uncertainty" Nonsense. They do not differ on the extent and causes of warming. How the energy balance is resolved does not add uncertainty to either of those questions. "weaken the case for an overwhelming concensus which is required for effective action on climate change. " This is an entirely artificial standard, created by the denial industry. Did we have 'overwhelming consensus' on the technologies needed to go to the moon? To build an atomic bomb? No, we saw an imperative and acted in the best way we could at the time. The fact that we have been lulled into inaction by the combination of this 'need for consensus' and disinformation specialists should outrage those who understand the magnitude of the problem. If that outrage manifests as participation in a demonstration, so be it.
76208. muoncounter at 02:11 AM on 31 August 2011
       It's the sun
       EtR#900: "does that negate the fact that an increase has occurred?" The recent divergence between solar activity (decreasing, as measured by ssn) and rising temperature anomaly in this graph is obvious. That ssn 'increase' is over - and yet we're still warming. That's what the data show - what you 'believe' cannot negate that fact. That observation alone should cause you to question those beliefs; to cling to beliefs that so utterly conflict with data is a sign of one who is in denial. EtR#901: "too early to tell if the recent flattening will be a top" What recent flattening? Not seeing it here: Not seeing any flattening here either. Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2011 was the seventh warmest July since records began in 1880, with an anomaly of 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average. I suppose if you buy into the 'global warming stopped in ___' meme, you should see one of those threads.
76209. John Hartz at 01:51 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       @MA Rodger #15: Excellent post! Would you be interested in fleshing it out into a guest-post article for SkS?
76210. MA Rodger at 01:19 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       (Rats! As I tap this comment in, SocialBlunder @ 12 steals my idea - although I make it 2.2Gt Carbon per 1ppm. That's times 3.67 for Gt CO2, or 8Gt Co2 per 1 ppm.) At 390 parts per million by volume, there is still a lot more CO2 floating about than there is of other significant stuff. There is about 3,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. We complaint of this poor old planet being over-crowded by today's human population yet the total mass of all us humans is way less than a single billion tons. It's probably still less than 1 billion tons if you count everybody who ever lived since we first evolved as homo sapiens 200,000 years ago. Still, that billion ton's worth of humans has proved enough to convert a third of the planet's land area (indeed the majority of the fertile bits)into monocultures of pasture & arable crop. And just for good measure we've kick off the sixth mass extinction event in the planet's entire 4.6 billion year history. So no one should be dismissing us as some insignificant trace substance!
76211. John Hartz at 01:16 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Many readers of articles like the one above would benefit from the addition of two tabs: 1. "Related SkS Articles" 2. "Further Reading" The first tab would be the titles/links for stuff posted on SkS. The second for stuff posted and/or published elsewhere, especially chapters of currently used climate science textbooks.
76212. John Hartz at 01:08 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       If you want to delve into the nitty-gritty details of this topic, check out: "CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas?" an 8-part series posted on the Science of Doom website. To access part 1, click here.
76213. Dikran Marsupial at 00:51 AM on 31 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       critical mass - you are essentially saying that scientists should not involve themselves in politics - which would a breach of their human rights (in most countries anyway). Science SHOULD affect your political views, it is only politcal views influencing the science that is a problem. It is not correct thats science should be apolitical, it is just you neeed to keep the causal arrow in the correct direction. Prof. Hansen getting arrested for protesting is evidence of science affecting his politics more than the other way around. Of course if the likes of Hansen did not lobby politicians you would get the denialists questioning his commitment to the science. E.g. "If climate change is such a big problem, why aren't you protesting outside the whitehouse and getting arrested?". Complete BS of course, but that is what you will be faced with as soon as you step out of the scientific domain. You can't win in a PR battle between science and politics, whatevery you do is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Having read Dr Curry's paper it looks to me very much like an attempt at obfuscation, there is very little in her paper that could actually be put into practice, and there are obvious errors, such as saying that scenario uncertainty has an effect on estimates of climate sensitivity (which are based on hindcasts not forecasts so there is no scenario uncertainty).
76214. SocialBlunder at 00:48 AM on 31 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       A little bit of the atmosphere is quite a lot! Using Hydrogen NOW! Journal's method of calculating the weight of the atmosphere, it is 4,410,000,000,000 tons. 1 CO2 ppm of that is 4,410,000 tons.

       Level	PPM	Tons
       	1	4,410,000
       Pre-Industrial	280	1,230,000,000
       Safe	350	1,540,000,000
       Current	392	1,730,000,000
       2020	408	1,800,000,000

76215. critical mass at 00:37 AM on 31 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       muoncounter #various Not being familiar with Dr Curry, I had a look at her publications. They seem far from the efforts of a fringe scientist. To say that her conversion from warmist to 'luke warmer' - to chronicler of the crisis of confidence in the 'standard theory of AGW' is somehow invalid is to miss the point. Climategate and Copehnhagen were gamechangers for the interested members of the lay public. Recent differences between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the measured energy imbalances in recent years adds further uncertainty to the debate. "Motivated reasoning" is another term for 'advocacy science'. Cool rational apolitical thought and expression is the ideal to which a scientist should aspire - but such sights as Dr Hansen being arrested in a demo outside the White House would moreso read 'advocacy scientist' in the public mind and weaken the case for an overwhelming concensus which is required for effective action on climate change.
76216. Bob Lacatena at 00:31 AM on 31 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Skeptical Wombat, Apologies. Re-reading your words, I realized that I misinterpreted them, and you were stating that an additional source (beyond anthropogenic) was not possible. I was, I think, confused by your later use of the term "negative feedback" "soaking up" vast amounts of anthropogenic CO2. Again, apologies. I must have been in cranky-old-man mode.
76217. Daniel Bailey at 00:07 AM on 31 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       Despite the agendas evident, the climate obviously responds to forcings, of which that due to the CO2 bolus mankind has injected into the atmosphere over the past 40 years is paramount. As the planet's climate changes towards a new equilibria with the new CO2 levels, the floating ice cap that is the Arctic Sea Ice has been responding as if the proverbial "canary in the coal mine". Since 2001 alone, median ice thicknesses in the Central Arctic Basin, including the ice at the North Pole, have dwindled from approximately 2.0 meters thickness to about 0.9 meters thickness currently (from the Polarstern press release, also well-discussed here). For a good visual of what that looks like, here's a graphical depiction of ice melt and regrowth from 7 mass-balance buoys monitoring sea ice conditions in the Arctic over a recent 2-year period: [Source] So don't be taken in by our resident merchants of doubt and the hand-waving "There's no problem! The climates changed before!" routine that they do. The Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration system is failing in response to the forcing initiated by mankind. Despite the obvious dissembling of some.
76218. Craig5216 at 23:40 PM on 30 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       There is approximately 1 kilogram per square centimeter of atmosphere sitting above us. In comparison to that, a minuscule smear of sunburn cream is remarkably effective at stopping the UV light that was not stopped by all that gas.
76219. Eric the Red at 23:21 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's the sun
       The 0.2 - 0.3C drop that occurred from 1880 - 1910. Sorry if I should have said late 19th / early 20th century, but I thought it would have been evident to anyone reading. See Tom's post of 899.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The point is that you need to show the data that demonstrates your point, in this case how solar forcing affects temperature. At the moment your comments are too vague to convince or to refute effectively. The comment about decadal scale trends also applies to the present time, can you demonstrate that the current levelling off is forced or just the result of internal climate variability. If not you shouldn't be making arguments about what it means.
76220. Eric the Red at 23:01 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's the sun
       Yes Tom, If solar activity has a sginificant impact, then if sunspot numbers remain low, we should expect to see a temperature decrease similar to that observed during the early 20th century. It is too early to tell if the recent flattening will be a top similar to the previous two.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] What temperature decrease in the early 20th century?

       

       You do understand that decadal trends are not robust and signify very little?
76221. Eric the Red at 22:55 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's the sun
       Muon, Yes, solar cycle 19 was definitely the highest of the 20th century. However, cycles 21 and 22, in the 1980s and 1990s, were the next two highest, significantly surpassing anything during the early 20th century. The point is that sunspot activity was still high during the last portion of the 20th century. To expect temperatures to decrease based on the drop from a very high to just a high value would be comparable to expecting temperatures to drop because we added less CO2 to the atmosphere this year than last. A straight line fit does not capture the temperature profile of the 20th century, but does that negate the fact that an increase has occurred?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Re your second paragraph, it is well know that there are multiple forcings that affect climate, hence nobody would expect a straight line fit. Please be less opaque in your posts as such obfuscation gives the impression of trolling.
76222. Tom Curtis at 22:50 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's the sun
       To illustrate Muoncounter's point @898:
76223. muoncounter at 22:36 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       EtR#36: Eric, Nice to see you replying with at least some form of sourced information rather than pure opinion. But you'll have to try much harder. Reply to 'those who feel that solar activity declined.' Small point: whether one feels that solar activity has declined is irrelevant; this is about measurement, not feelings.
76224. muoncounter at 22:35 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's the sun
       Continuing from here. EtR's sunspot graph clearly shows the 1950s solar maximum; since then solar activity has in fact declined (hence the descriptive term maximum). A simple straight lines fit doesn't capture that important detail and is therefore irrelevant.
76225. Eric the Red at 22:33 PM on 30 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       No. My contention was that Arctic sea ice has not been constant throughout the previous 5000 years. See the following: http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf That is not to say that todays extent is not as low or lower than that claimed to have existed 7000 years ago.
76226. barry1487 at 22:13 PM on 30 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       I was all gung-ho for Eunice Foote to get a bit of recognition, but there haven't been many takers. Spencer Weart emailed that he'd include her in his history of science website when he next updates it.
76227. Eric the Red at 22:01 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Muon, About half the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, and roughly one-fifth is absorbed by the atmosphere. The rest is reflected. While it is more, it is only two and half times higher. http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar+radiation Also, Here is the response to those who feel that solar activity declined: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SIFs9m3EmII/AAAAAAAAADM/q1Zk0U-n0YI/s1600-h/Sun+Spots.bmp Or that ENSO contributions were negative: http://i33.tinypic.com/2cmp7ck.jpg
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take this discussion to a more appropriate thread.
76228. FloydAlsbach at 21:50 PM on 30 August 2011
       One Confusedi Bastardi
       I am an artist, not a scientist. So I will speak to the problem of communication. Bastardi is clearly a gifted speaker. He is able to roll complex ideas into 'hooks' to use a song writers term, or 'verbal archetypes' if you prefer, memes might work but... ah well. My point is that Scientists on each side of an issue must find Phd's who are able to communicate with convincing clarity to people outside their personal sandbox. Communicate without bias or condescension (just because someone is not a scientist who also agrees with you does not make them stupid). If the [ - namecalling snipped - ] best Science can come up with... the Climate debate will continue to be debatable for a long, long time. FOR EXAMPLE: Einstein, a man who apparently became coldly cruel to his own rather gifted first wife, was a master at presenting himself as a loveable old duffer to the public. Anyhow, I love reading your debates, they are fascinating. I very much wish that artists could debate as civilly and intelligently as Scientists. Even at your worse you are far finer examples of human civility and respectful disagreement.
       Moderator Response: [mc] Please avoid gratuitous name-calling; it adds nothing to the civil and intelligent discussion we try to maintain.
76229. Joe Lalonde at 21:41 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Sorry about the all caps! They were used for emphasis and NOT shouting.
76230. Joe Lalonde at 21:40 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       muoncounter, What is NOT considered is that the atmosphere rotates which means that the solar energy is NEVER direct to the planets surface. A lens effect is also produced since the planet is smaller at the poles and rotates slower due to the circumference size.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The first claim is obvious nonsense; climate models reproduce features of atmospheric circulation that would not exist without the Earth's rotation. Secondly if the lensing effect is not built into the models, it is just possible that it is because its effects are negligible. Please before you post any further, read the responses to the arguments you are posting, or possibly go and read Ray Pierrehumbert's excellent book on planetary climate so that you have at least some idea of the basics of climate models.
76231. muoncounter at 21:26 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Joe Lalonde#32: "solar radiation from the sun collides with molecules in the atmosphere" Not so much. Far more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface than by the atmosphere. Please see It's the sun and any of the various threads on the mechanics of the greenhouse effect. Use the Search function or search arguments by taxonomy. Note too the Newcomers Guide and the Comments Policy; we generally see the use of allcaps as the online form of shouting, which is not necessary in any way in this forum.
76232. Eric the Red at 21:25 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's not bad
       Yes, Tipping points are quite speculative, and unless one is talking about species extinxtion, really have no place in this discussion. Whether one is using the term "catastrophic" or "worst case" is really immaterial. Let's face it, if the worst case scenario comes true, it will be catastrophic. Those one feel that the IPCC was conservative, must then believe that the worst case scenario will come true. After all, there "business as usual" scenario shows a further 3.5C temperature increase. It appears to me that Joseph has a firm understanding of the science behind global warming. His concern, which is shared by many of us, is the long term consequences. I believe that he is correct in that many here are focusing on the worst cases possible, and ignoring everything else. Namely, minimizing the economic impact of CO2 mitigation, accelerated sea level rise beyond the current trend, and destructive future agriculture impacts when recent trends have been favorable. There is a rather large disconnect between the current trends and future predictions. Joseph is not the only one with these concerns.
76233. Joe Lalonde at 21:17 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       There are a great deal of confusion is the area of climate science and many areas do not make sense to the public. Science has still yet to dissect AGW deeper into the heat generated by BTU's to the CO2 created by SOME processes, NOT ALL processes. Friction and chemical reactions can produce different results. Yet heat and CO2 are bound by current theories but NOT recreated evenly in laboratories. CO2 is studied but what happened to the heat that produced it? There are many examples of these type of mistakes in science from understanding that solar radiation from the sun collides with molecules in the atmosphere(NOT RECREATED) but the laboratories study the direct line of NO atmosphere. Many Examples!!!
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is not the case, the contribution from waste heat is negligible, further discussion belongs on the appropriate article. Please note that just because a "skeptical" website say that climatologists don't consider some particular issue, does not mean that it is true. Please take time to read the responses to common skeptic arguments listed to the left of the page.
76234. Kevin C at 20:12 PM on 30 August 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Here's another new paper on Antarctic ice (h/t Ari). A multivariate analysis of Antarctic sea ice since 1979.

       The work presented here indicates that Antarctic sea ice variability is a multivariate phenomenon and that the minimum, maximum, and mean SIE may respond to a different set of climatic/geochemical parameters. ... For Antarctica, similarities were found for the minimum sea ice extent, O3 minimum, and total solar irradiance, while the mean sea ice extent was associated with the global sea surface temperature, the global air surface temperature, the CO2 concentration, and the O3 depletion area. Near similar patterns were found among the maximum sea ice extent, the SOI, and the SAM.

76235. Eric (skeptic) at 19:40 PM on 30 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       scaddenp I am not "extremely" concerned about fossil fuel rights holders. In your hypothetical (CO2 warming is an immediate threat0 I am not concerned at all. I am concerned in my worldview of science and politics of a cavalier dismissal of property rights. What I am truly extremely concerned about in your hypothetical is that you would not gain the political traction needed for drastic action without the changes in commercial, industrial and residential incentives I've outlined. It really is a government problem, not a government conspiracy. The local governments approve anything that gives them more tax revenue and that's where the problem starts. It continues with government-run or regulated centralized services which are notoriously inefficient. I'll explain what would work so you can see the difference. If my HOA were responsible for all CO2 efficiency we could get a big start on the 200 to 60 reduction. The one thing that would be difficult would be jobs and commute. We'd need to immediately invest in residential efficiency and build a small scale power plant (luckily we are right beside a large river which would only need some partial damming). We have some great small farmers who sell near our major intersection. For the rest of the year we would need our local chickens and canning. Right now there a couple families that I know of with enough to meet their needs. We maintain 8 miles of roads for about 50k / year. Some nearby HOAs have community water for far less money than the municipal water closer to the city (their total road and water bill is much less than the city water bill alone). Money spent is good proxy for energy efficiency. Allow me a crude characterization of your proposal: crank up carbon taxes and see what happens. What happens is economic armageddon, and the political likelihood of that policy is zero. If you add the Hansen rebate you will pick up a fait amount of support but that won't dislodge the vested interests. Those are not just corporate as you seem to assume but government. Then if we add the federal boondoggles that politicians want for their interests, the political support for the overall goal gets fractured. I believe my proposal is bottom up. A Hansen tax would also result in bottom up changes that I would support. But the transition is difficult especially politically, probably impossible.
76236. jyushchyshyn at 17:52 PM on 30 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       re Moderator Response,#52 I somehow doubt the environmental impact of gas flaring approaches the total enviornmental cost of oil sand extraction. So the flaring enough gas to supply the needs of Germany and France is insignificant. I don't think so. In addition, there are cannons to prevent birds from landing on tailings ponds at the oil sands. If we import oil rather than use the oil sands, we will have to put such cannons along our entire coast lines.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I didn't say that the gas flaring was insignificant, just that it was not enough to compensate for the environmental damage caused by exploitation of oil sand deposits.
76237. Dikran Marsupial at 17:32 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Stephen Baines wrote: "The only way for Salby's interpretation to be right is if we have missed a net flux term to the atmosphere that is temperature dependent and is very large (20x?) relative to anthro inputs. That also implies a much faster return time than we have assumed (otherwise the net change would have been larger), and that has operated in the past. ... Could we have missed such a thing?" No, we know the net environmental flux with good accuracy via the mass balance argument, so there is no way in which we could have missed such a thing (unless the carbon cycle is not a closed system and conservation of mass does not apply, but that is somewhat unlikely). The fluxes in Fig 7.3 of the recent IPCC WG1 do a good job in explaining the observed behaviour of the carbon cycle. Salby is either wrong or conducting a hoax.
76238. Dikran Marsupial at 17:27 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Sceptical Wombat wrote: "The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2 that Salby appears to require so IF he is right there must be some very big ones still to be found. This is not correct, as I said the known fluxes are sufficient to explain the 5% figure, it is well known by carbon cycle modellers, but it is in no way an indication that the rise is non-anthropogenic. See figure 7.3 from the most recent IPCC WG1 report: This shows a natural flux into the atmosphere of 210.2 GtC per year and a net natural efflux from the atmosphere of 212.4 GtC per year. These are very large compared to fossil fuel emissions of 6.4 GtC per year, and it is this large natural exchange flux of approx 20% of the atmospheric reservoir each year that confuses many into thinking our emissions don't matter. However the rise is governed by the difference between total emissions and total uptake, which is small compared with anthropogenic emissions. The only interpretation of Salbys talk that is correct is completely uncontraversial. I am hoping that Salby is conducting a hoax to see how many "skeptics" will swallow it hook, line and sinker. If he isn't then it will be hugely embarassing for him to have published something either wrong, or making a big fuss about something entirely uncontraversial, when he has a new book about atmospheric physics about to appear. He won't be the first person to have tarnished a good academic career in this way, so I hope that is not the case.
76239. actually thoughtful at 16:15 PM on 30 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       More great ideas for a pirate to use to actually teach his students the science, and why it matters (as opposed to sort of kind of glossing it over - especially as these students will be the ones to pay the price for our current profligacy).
76240. Watson at 15:44 PM on 30 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       I have used a very effective demonstration of the significance of the trace concentration of 0.03%. Take 2 x 500ml beakers of water, add 3 drops of blue food colouring dye to one of the beakers. (each drop is approximately 0.05ml or 0.01%) This makes a 0.03% solution of the blue food dye. Shine a low power red laser pointer through the clear water, then the 0.03% solution. The reduction in the emergent beam is quite extraordinary. The final killer demonstration is to add another 'insignificant' drop (0.01%) to the blue solution, increasing the concentration to 0.04%, similar to current levels of atmospheric CO2. The attenuation is now almost complete!
76241. Stephen Baines at 15:00 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       i think you're right skywatcher. Sphaerica, you are misinterpreting swombats intention. He/she is correct. The only way for Salby's interpretation to be right is if we have missed a net flux term to the atmosphere that is temperature dependent and is very large (20x?) relative to anthro inputs. That also implies a much faster return time than we have assumed (otherwise the net change would have been larger), and that has operated in the past. Could we have missed such a thing? does it makes sense that it operates only during the post industrial era and not previously? Highly unlikely. But that's not all. This flux must have a delC13 like plants, no C-14 (old) and it must preferentially increase CO2 in ocean surface layers (must be terrestrial). Swombat is making the case that Salby's interpretation predicts the existence of a previously unknown flux with a particular location, behavior, composition and size. Finding that flux is the obvious next step Salby should have taken before going public, if he were a real scientist. It would be interesting seeing him try to pose some viable possibilities that meet these criteria. I thnk he would find it hard.
76242. skywatcher at 14:36 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Am I right in assuming Sceptical Wombat was merely trying to find a way in which Salby's interpretation of a 5% increase could be fitted to the CO2 data? I don't think SW believes Salby for a moment, assuming the final statement in #55 was heavy on the irony?
76243. Enginerd at 13:53 PM on 30 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Thanks for this post. When talking to scientists, I typically use ozone in the stratosphere to deflate this argument, as it is also a case where "trace" amounts of a chemical in the atmosphere plays a vital role to life on Earth, and not due to direct exposure. The example works really well, though it is perhaps not as familiar to the general public. Also, I'm astounded by the argument that an increase of "only 100 ppm" cannot possibly be harmful. Having studied outdoor air quality for 20+ years, my experience has been that it's highly unusual to find part per *billion* level statistically significant changes in *local* outdoor air quality for many pollutants. But, a 100+ part per *million* increase in *global* pollution levels over this time frame? That's actually an astounding increase, in my experience. I usually remind people that those 100 ppm result from many billions of tons of cumulative CO2 emissions. Of course, all of this is important not due to the large magnitude of the increased concentrations, but due to the forcing that it represents.
76244. Bob Lacatena at 13:51 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       55, Skeptical Wombat,

       If we assume that 97.5% of the CO2 we emitted has been soaked up by negative feed back...

       This is wrong. You need to understand this better so that you know why.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below.
76245. Bob Lacatena at 13:46 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       57, Skeptical Wombat,

       The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2

       This is wrong. Until you correct this misconception, you cannot properly evaluate the problem, or Salby's mistakes.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below.
76246. Sceptical Wombat at 13:37 PM on 30 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Dikran I am not for a moment saying that Salby is right but I do believe that my interpretation is the only one consistent with the content of his talk and the way it is being interpreted by his followers. The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2 that Salby appears to require so IF he is right there must be some very big ones still to be found. Maybe some enthusiastic "skeptic" could pick up a Nobel Prize or something. I look forward to your rebuttal. I think I can manage differential equations.
76247. Stevo at 13:20 PM on 30 August 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Good article, Sarah. I noticed recently another writer used the blood alcohol analogy against the 'tragedy of the commons' argument (our county's emissions are so small a percentage of the total that our stopping them would not change the overall result). It went that I may as well drink as much as I like before I drive because any people I killed as a result of my driving would make no significant difference to the national road fatality statistics.
76248. scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's not bad
       muon, fair enough but I was trying to encourage Joseph to read and talk about what the science actually says with some confidence, whereas "tipping points" are more speculative and feature more in environmentalist tracts with varying degrees of accuracy.
76249. skywatcher at 12:30 PM on 30 August 2011
       It's not bad
       "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them." Ah, the dream that if we leave things alone, they'll all return to some pre-designed 'normal' point that happens to be very comfortable for us. As Rob says, what if the 'normalizing' point is one at which you cannot grow as much grain in the great grain belts of the world, because it is too hot/dry/variable moisture? What if the 'normalizing' point makes it uncomfortable/difficult/dangerous to live in many parts of the world. With a new planetary energy balance driven by high CO2, these things are possible. Do you think Nature will care? Nature can be in balance and yet we might really not enjoy it very much... The IPCC is conservative, and does not make 'catastrophic' claims, see for example Freudenberg and Muselli.
76250. skywatcher at 12:19 PM on 30 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       #31 mc - agreed. But we know that so-called 'sceptics' of the theory of climate and greenhouse gases are never very sceptical of any opposing claims, pretty much however bizarre they are. Or even checking if the papers support the headline claims they read... To support my last point on IPCC conservatism - William Freudenberg's presentation last year on 'The Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge' is relevant.

Prev  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  Next