Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 Next
Comments 76301 to 76350:
-
muoncounter at 06:04 AM on 28 August 2011CO2 was higher in the past
Carbonado#41 Presumably you are referring to the graph posted in comment #6 and at larger scale in #27? This graph is a cartoon; it is not from an authoritative source and is not taken very seriously. -
Steve Case at 05:13 AM on 28 August 2011Sea level rise is decelerating
Tom, It's not the data, it's the method. Piling 130 years worth of data into a data point from 1880 and comparing it to a data point from 1990 made up of only 20 years worth of data and then omitting the plot for the last 20 points in the time series, does not make any sense. The graph from such a scheme leads one to believe that sea level rise during earlier periods showed no variation from year to year. That is not the case. At the moment I have no way of downloading the data from the link above. Otherwise I would have used that data to create the plot. I have run the Peltier GIA adjustments on the GLOSS sites from the PSMSL and all it does is increase the slope by about 0.5 mm/yr. -
Kooiti Masuda at 05:04 AM on 28 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
There are different views about what the climate system is. And what can be considered as an external forcing to it depends on the definition of system. The terminology that equates "climate sensitivity" with equilibrium response of the climate system to atmospheric CO2 concentration implies such a definition of the climate system that excludes CO2 concentration from variable components of the climate system. If we also treat ice sheets and vegetation as fixed (rather than variable), we can say that we exclude them from the active components of the climate system. We can construct a coupled system of the physical (but not biogeochemical) atmosphere-ocean system (including part of the cryosphere such as seasonal snow cover and sea ice). Then, the sensitivity of this climate system to CO2 concentration as an external forcing, i.e. "fast-feedback sensitivity" in James Wight's text, is meaningful both within science and as a piece of information to be referenced in real-world applications. In the glacial cycles, however, atmospheric CO2 concentration varied, apparently in response to temperature (as well as theoretically certainly forcing to it), and it responded apparently faster than the ice sheet did. So if we include the ice sheet as a variable component of the climate system, it is awkward to treat CO2 concentration as if an external forcing and to discuss the sensitivity. It seems interesting and meaningful as an exercise internal to climate system science to discuss the equilibrium response of the climate system to the change of one of the internal component of the system hypothetically held constant for an indefinitely long time. I doubt that it can be evaluated by simply comparing the values of alleged forcing and alleged response in the paleoclimatic reconstructions. I think that more careful discussion is needed both in theoretical considerations and in interpretations of observational data. Even then, I do not think that such scientific exercise is directly very useful to real-world application. Just insights gained by such exercise will be useful. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:59 AM on 28 August 2011CO2 was higher in the past
carbonado wrote "In the past Nature 'regulated' the concentration of CO2 by extinction of species." Care to give a reference to back up that assertion? On a timescale of thousands of years CO2 levels are regulated by ocean-atmosphere transfers, over timescales of tens of thousands of years plus by the chemical weathering thermostat. See e.g. David Archers global carbon cycle primer published by Princeton University Press. -
Carbonado at 03:52 AM on 28 August 2011CO2 was higher in the past
RE: CO2/AveTemp - mya Diagram This diagram could not prove anything. 1. It is a moving average - and of how many values, nobody knows. 2. The values themselves used in the Moving Average are also averaged values. 3. It is not even accurately calculated. Does anyone have any vague idea why the temperature saturation in the Jurassic and Cretaceous in the upper version of the Diagram is 22°C and in the lower version is 23° C, and how does this average temperature look like as distinct values. 3. This trend in the end of the diagram (in the last 10 million years, for example) is a masterpiece of misrepresentation: - What part of this period is with Homo sapiens and what without it (how much is 200 000 of 10 mln)? - What part of this period is with use of fossil fuels and what without? This 'prediction' is for another system and for another world (without humans and vehicles, and their fresh ideas of how to control the world). The guys that put back into the air the carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) should have any idea of what they are doing and how they will clean up the air and the ocean back in case of 'emergency'. In the past Nature 'regulated' the concentration of CO2 by extinction of species. Who, how, and when will regulate the CO2 produced by the vehicles, for example and which species will extinct first - humans or their cars. The dinosaurs 'ruled over' the Earth for 160 mln years by virtually doing nothing 'as regulation'. We, with our fresh ideas of wasting natural resources, mania to control everything, and dealing with things that we don't fully understand will hardly make a million - seriously. -
John Hartz at 03:13 AM on 28 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Suggested reading: "Why Business-as-Usual Coal Consumption Could Mean Dramatic Changes" by Emily Grubert, Guest Blog, Scientific America, Aug 23, 2011 To access the article, click here. -
dana1981 at 02:47 AM on 28 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
jyushchyshyn - I refer you to the fact that the Canadian government is slashing funding and jobs from its environment ministry. -
Tom Curtis at 02:20 AM on 28 August 2011Sea level rise is decelerating
Steve Case @1, the PMSL site warns that its data has not been adjusted for Glacial Isostatic Rebound, a caution you should have taken to heart. As it happens, the data set not only has very few stations predating about 1930, but they are not geographically representative. Rather, they are taken almost entirely from the East Coast of the United States, and northern Europe. The East Coast of the US and the southern shore of the Baltic are both experiencing strong local rises in sea level due to the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, significantly biasing your sample. Indeed, even as late as 1980, there are just 5 stations in South America, and 2 in Africa (both in Morrocco). So at no time interval of your data set is a simple mean geographically representative, and through out the time period trends are as much a function of increases in station numbers in various areas as they are a feature of the actual record. If you where to apply your analysis to the Domingues et al data set, and come up with a similar result, you may then have a valid criticism. As it stands you do not even raise an interesting question. -
Steve Case at 00:07 AM on 28 August 2011Sea level rise is decelerating
From above: Here’s some sea level data , in fact two data sets. One is a global combination of tide gauge records by Domingues et al. (2008, Nature, 453, 1090-1094, doi:10.1038/nature07080). Using around 500 tide gauge records globally, it’s the latest version of the “Church & White” dataset. The other is satellite data: ... If we compute the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present, we get this:
The above chart, as I understand it, uses data from 1880 all the way up to the present, but the plot only covers 1880 to 1990. The last 20 years have been left off. If the plot were to continue right up to the present the time line would become very erratic as the sample size approaches unity and becomes meaningless. Essentially large sample sizes early in the time line are compared with numerically smaller samples of more recent data. In everyday language, it's comparing apples and oranges. The cutoff at 1990 would indicate that a 20 sample size is appropriate.
So why not look at 20 year slices of trend rate back through time and see how they compare? And lets use all of the data all the way to the present.
So if we compute the linear trend rate for all possible 20 year periods starting with 1807 - 1827 then 1808 - 1828 and so on up to the present, we get this:
An entirely different picture is painted when each data point represents an equal sample size. The early years are erratic because of a small number of tide gage records.
The above link "some sea level data" didn't work for me, I used data from the PSMSL that dates from 1807 from over 1200 tide gages. The data is grouped and averaged by coastlines and the median value take for each year in the time line.
I assume that the Church & White/satellite data would plot out in a similar fashion as above.
-
R. Gates at 00:07 AM on 28 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Though the wealthy nations may not feel the full brunt of the earliest effects of climate change, it is not as though they will not feel any. From severe drought to flooding--- if climate change impacts the food supply and prices, I think the economics of increased scarcity will unfortunately lead to resource related conflicts, and ethical considerations will take a back seat to the deeper instincts of protecting ones own resources. -
John Hartz at 23:51 PM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
More on the bad news front... "A pipeline that would greatly expand imports of oil sands crude from Canada won't significantly threaten water in the Great Plains or have much impact on climate change, the State Department argued in a final environmental impact statement it made public Friday. "While not the final go-ahead, the environmental assessment offered a preview of the Obama administration's pro-pipeline arguments in the face of efforts by environmental groups to get the United States to take action to reduce carbon emissions. The tarlike form of oil in the sands requires more energy to extract and process, and therefore produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil." Source: "State Dept. signs off on controversial oil sands pipeline" by Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers, Aug 26, 2011 To access the entire article, click here -
muoncounter at 21:05 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
RickG#14: How many full-throated deniers read even a short press release all the way to the last sentence? Headlines tell you everything you need to know, don't they? -
RickG at 20:21 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
I think the last sentence of the CLOUD press release puts everything into perspective. "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.? My emphasis in bold. -
scaddenp at 18:21 PM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
In case I am sounding hyper-critical, then let me explain my wish for effective solutions. Firstly, it's no good to say "I support" without explaining the political action to make that solution happen. Second, effective is hard. A Kyoto-type solution would require reducing GHG emissions by at least 25%. However, an equitable distribution (same emissions per capita for whole world) of GHG emissions would require reducing US emissions eventually from around 200khw/p/d of FF energy to around 60. (MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" has figures for other countries). This does not take into account energy imported embodied in goods. If you demanded historical equity, then emissions would need to drop to around zero. Figuring out how to do that means looking at exactly how FF is used currently and proposing a means to change that. MacKay's book is good resource for physical limits to efficiency. Rising fuel prices are likely to deal to transport FF but at the expense of greater demand for electricity. This cannot come from coal. Ending the building of any more coal-fired generation is fundimental. -
jyushchyshyn at 17:16 PM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Dana @ 48 [snip] but please do not make claims that just because Canadian governments are not out to shut down the oil sands, they do not "give a damn about the environment." Alberta is a world leader in reducing natural gas flaring and venting.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please keep the discussion impersonal and free of rhetoric. I somehow doubt the environmental impact of gas flaring approaches the total enviornmental cost of oil sand extraction, so the assertion is reasonable. -
jyushchyshyn at 16:56 PM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Interesting article Badgersouth. I noted some comments at the end which point out that the Keystone Pipeline could be to export bitumen to Europe. I don't know if that is true, but if it were true, I would not approve. -
Marcus at 16:29 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Hang on though-even if cosmic rays are significantly linked to cloud formation-then shouldn't we be seeing a *cooling* effect right now? After all, decreasing sunspots also means increased GCR's. Increasing GCR's means increased cloud formation (or so the "skeptics" tell us) & increased cloud formation means increased albedo-hence an overall *cooling* effect. If I were a "skeptic", I'd be trying to *disprove* the link between GCR's & clouds ;-). -
scaddenp at 12:59 PM on 27 August 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Not sure what your point is, but the fossil carbon is millions of years of sequestered carbon. We are releasing it over few hundred years. Does this imply CO2 was higher in past? Yes, it was but sun was weaker and the issue is the rate of change not the absolute temperature. -
scaddenp at 12:16 PM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
For further resource on US energy use, the Wikipedia article has useful data and diagram too. -
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Further thought on US energy use - coal powered electricity doesnt support much industry, but then it appears that is because most manufacturing and industry happens in Asia using coal there. The ideals of consumerism creating a vibrant economy with abundant jobs (eg as in Landon's "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence") are doing wonders for creating wealth there. Got a plan for changing that? -
scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Another Bee. Interesting comment. Some thoughts. Some thoughts and possible approaches:- The other problem with micro-generation is that it is expensive. There are real economies of scale in energy conversion. Does a zeal for independence from government and foreign power extend to paying higher prices? "In general, the Right has a philosophical dislike for state subsidies." I would have thought so, but you wouldn't think so looking at the actions of the right when in power. Subsidy involves the governments picking winners. I have no problem with subsidies on health and education but I think they are almost always bad when applied to industry apart from supporting research. -
scaddenp at 11:32 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Eric (skeptic). Delighted to see you on the thread. First off - I doff my hat to Cato. I didnt think they had it in them but it certainly allays my feats that they were simply a political ploy to support Koch. Coal is cheap - but subsidies dont help and clearly arent necessary. The crux of the problem for getting off coal is a way to make other options cheaper. Subsidy removal is just a start. What else? Your comment about the Hansen carbon tax idea suggests you would be in favour of pigovian taxes. Our government has a Fiscal Responsibility Act, which basically requires a government to balance the books in the medium term. Has any US government done this since 1900? Sounds a good idea, but dont see how it would reduce carbon emissions. most fuel is wasted driving to pointless service and paperwork jobs. I frankly do not believe this to by true. Please show some figures to back this assertion or withdraw it. After manufacture, transport is the most expensive. US Energy use can be found here. More electricity from coal goes to residential and commercial where it is spent largely on heating/cooling and lighting. You really think the only barrier to alternative energy and localized manufacture is zoning laws? I find that surprising to say the least. How else would you encourage local small-scale, low energy manufacturing? (I do actually like this idea but I think rising fuel prices will do this more effectively than anything else). I understand most US citizens live in urban environment, and it seems 36% of total housing is flat/apartments. Their self-sufficiency options are somewhat limited I would think, but you know your country better than me. -
Doug Mackie at 10:30 AM on 27 August 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The comment from Dr Jim refers to the last few lines of post 15. No. I am sorry, but you have made a common mistake. In freshwater the Ksp values for calcite and aragonite are indeed on the order of 10-9. but in SEAWATER the values are, as given, on the order of 10-7. Though the currently accepted values are little different, this paper explains things quite well. I like this paper because it has 3 of the biggest names (though I confess that in my opinion Wally's star has shined the brightest) in the business on one paper – sort of like the αβγ paper. -
muoncounter at 10:15 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
davidkirtley#11: "claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. " The prediction here didn't have to wait long. Multiple choice: a. The deniers are reading too much into the new study b. The new study doesn't reach a firm conclusion c. The new study doesn't deal with climate models d. The deniers have read the news release and not the paper; the two do not say the same thing e. All of the above See comments above, the RC analysis and the prior It's cosmic rays thread. -
David Kirtley at 10:07 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
It seems like a lot of the deniers are claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. For instance here And here Could someone please explain the connection and if they are right or are they reading way too much into the findings of the CLOUD study? thanks -
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 27 August 2011It's not bad
Continuing from here. ClimateWatcher: "our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate" Tell that to the Anasazi: Climate change is thought to have led to the emigration of Chacoans and the eventual abandonment of the canyon, beginning with a 50-year drought in 1130. Tell that to the Akkadians: Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse, implicating a sudden shift to more arid conditions as a key factor contributing to the collapse of the Akkadian empire. Tell that to the Mayans: A seasonally resolved record of titanium shows that the collapse of Maya civilization in the Terminal Classic Period occurred during an extended regional dry period, punctuated by more intense multiyear droughts centered at approximately 810, 860, and 910 A.D. And tell it to whoever these folks were. A severe drought in parts of low-latitude northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia ~4200 yr ago caused major disruption to ancient civilizations. Seems like drought is a common theme in these 'troubles'. This drought forecast should be troubling:
Or as one Texan put it more succinctly,
-
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
CW#3: "not troubled by natural variations in climate" Off-topic; take it to 'It's not bad'. -
PCB at 09:23 AM on 27 August 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Please explain how carbon in fossil fuels becomes 'newer' than the fossils it came from by using it. . -
Dr. Jim at 08:03 AM on 27 August 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Your solubility product for calcite is wrong. You are off by a factor of 100. Solubility product of calcite is 10-9 not 10-7. Hope that its a typo. -
John Hartz at 07:02 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Speaking of the areas of the world being impacted by climate change... "The severe drought in the Horn of Africa, which has caused the death of at least 30,000 children and is affecting some 12 million people, especially in Somalia, is a direct consequence of weather phenomena associated with climate change and global warming, environmental scientists say." Source: "Global Warming Behind Somali Drought" by Julio Godoy, IPS, Aug 26, 2011 To access this in-depth article, click here -
John Hartz at 06:31 AM on 27 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Reinforcing the central thesis of the above article ... "Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening" by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Aug 23, 2011 To access this article, click here -
Bob Lacatena at 06:29 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
3, ClimateWatcher, That's pretty funny. Yeah. It's pretty nice that their tribal, hunter-gatherer lifestyles were able to survive dramatic climate change, often by physically up and moving, when there were probably a total of 100,000 people on the planet. And it's too bad that so many less developed and less-than-technological civilizations were destroyed by repeated regional droughts that simulate but do not reach the magnitude of the climate change that we are wreaking on the entire planet. But enough civilizations survived, to get us here. I wonder how our particular civilization will do, though? With seven billion people? I guess that's not important, though. I mean, if you're going to be happy hunting, and gethering, and killing anyone else who gets in your way (assuming you're one of the lucky ones who survives), then why worry? -
John Hartz at 06:28 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
On the good news front... "Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening" by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Aug 23, 2011 To access this article, click here -
ClimateWatcher at 04:34 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
I'm so glad our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate and proceeded to establish civilization in spite of the environment. -
John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
More bad news from the USA… “House Republicans Seek to Remove U.S. Funding for UN Climate Efforts: Their primary targets are the IPCC and UNFCCC, key programs designed to educate policymakers about climate science and slow warming worldwide.” by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011 To access this in-depth article by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011, click here -
Andy Skuce at 03:58 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
As grypo demonstrates, the largest contributors to the problem are often also those who suffer least from the consequences. Even if (a big if) cost benefit analysis were to show that mitigating CO2 was not economic on a global basis, this would not be sufficient to recommend inaction because this is not a problem where we all share equally in the causes and consequences. Ultimately, climate change is a question of the disproportionate violation of certain people's rights by the disproportionate actions of others. Imagine if I were to build a fence that, by mistake, encroached a little onto my neighbor's land. I could argue that the encroachment impinges only slightly on his property value and that this marginal amount is less than the cost of me moving the fence, so the cost-benefit analysis indicates that doing nothing is the only rational course of action. I can only guess what his response might be... -
Eric the Red at 03:56 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Be careful. Don't get burned. -
actually thoughtful at 03:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Actually thoughtful: "...Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons." EtR": "...Your last quote could actually come true." Dragons! This sounds very interesting! I want one. -
pauls at 03:07 AM on 27 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
However, as noted above, the actual GHG increase and radiative forcing has been lower than the IPCC BAU, perhaps because of steps taken to reduce emissions like the Kyoto Protocol, or perhaps because their BAU was too pessimistic. Global carbon emissions have actually accelerated since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. Over the 90s emissions growth was relatively slow, partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. That would explain some of the difference. I think large factors in the lower GHG forcing have been the Montreal Protocol, which wasn't fully in place when the FAR was released, and the abrupt slowdown of methane growth (with various proposed causes). Current concentrations of CFCs are below even the Scenario D projections. Could you do a version of Figure 5 with an overlaid comparison to the original post-1990 BAU projection? That would show the importance of forcing differences. -
John Hartz at 02:31 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Suggested reading: "Why Rick Perry Would Put the World on a Fast Track to Total Meltdown: From calling the BP disaster an "act of god" to responding to his state's drought with prayer, Perry's anti-environmental resume is extensive." To access this informative article by Tara Lohan posted (Aug 25)on Alternet, click here. -
Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Muon, That was the first report in 2008; it had 400 signers. The second in 209 had 700. The most recent had 1000. Just a possibility. As I said previously, this is not the best way to do science, although there are many here who seem to think so. -
John Hartz at 02:03 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
If you are interested in exploring the issue of climate ethices further, you will want to peruse the postings on the Climate Ethics section of the website of the Rock Ethics Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. -
muoncounter at 01:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#68: "Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports" Growing numbers, signing reports; sounds like a groundswell of opinion is building. However, EtR fails to mention that the date of this report is December, 2008. Old, irrelevant biased 'news' (it was written by Marc Morano). Badgersouth: This particular tree had no roots in reality; hence it made no sound at all. -
noble_serf at 01:42 AM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Thanks to Stephen Leahy and Badgersouth for the links and terminology correction. I've also been reading over at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ where they have a collection of great reports. Like this one Preparing for the public health challenges of climate change (PDF) -
John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Sphaerica et al: Re Eric the Red's baiting posts... "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" -
DSL at 01:14 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Muon: "DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups." Neither do I, as they discover in the feedback they receive on their first drafts. And these are college freshmen (essentially high school students at that point). The comment was lightly ironed. I agree. It's more than disappointing that Nature would cave to market forces and publish that report with that title. -
muoncounter at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
#6/#7: I'm sorry, I find that kind of reporting to be misleading in the extreme. The paper talks about ammonia in parts per trillion as providing nucleation enhancement; this introduces an entirely new independent variable. The news release barely mention this; it is nothing more than a restatement of the premise of the original experiment. The RC analysis (mentioned on the original It's cosmic rays thread) takes this apart even further: ... despite going to a lot of trouble to make sure the chamber was ultra-free of contaminants, the researchers found that within most of the aerosols that formed, there were traces of organic nitrogen compounds that must have been present in almost undetectably low concentrations. So there are uncontrolled contaminants in the experiment. Oops. And then there's the energy question: From the news release, high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. Great, that's what they were looking to find (although the use of 'seemed' makes it a tad ambiguous). However, as reported earlier here, a similar experiment ... found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays. So which is it? High energy GCRs, simulated by a particle beam in a contaminated chamber? Low energy naturally occurring gamma rays? They may as well have written a news release that it could all be caused by LGM rather than GCR. Yeah, it could be. That's crappy science reporting; no doubt the deniersphere will run with it. DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups. -
Michael Le Page at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Reading some of the responses to the story I wrote on these results for New Scientist made me realise there is a major misunderstanding on the part of those hailing these results as “proof” that climate rays affect climate. Gavin did explain this in his RealClimate post, but it might be worth restating here in plainer terms: The CLOUD team did find cosmic rays produced a relatively large increase in the aerosol nucleation rate. However, they were comparing no cosmic rays with having cosmic rays (the chamber was shielded). That does not reflect what actually happens in reality: our atmosphere is always being struck cosmic rays, there is never a time when there are no cosmic rays. Changes in the sun's activity produce only tiny changes in the average number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, which means changes in the nucleation rates in the atmosphere due to changes in cosmic rays intensities are going to be much smaller than the 2 to 10 times factor reported in the study. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html -
Bob Lacatena at 00:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
68, Eric the Red, Signings like this are a complete joke. They are the equivalent of a commercial for toothpaste saying4 out of 5 housewives, midwifes, little children, college graduates and trash collectors surveyed prefer Zango toothpaste over the leading brand for adequate thermal reduction of invasive oral compounds.
From Eric's link (as if this is a positive):The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Being a scientist, even being intelligent, doesn't qualify one to lead the world on an issue they do not understand. Quite honestly, I find extreme competence in one field to be the first and leading cause of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted. Honestly, this amounts to an appeal to non-authority. It amounts to saying "trust me, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I should, because I know about something entirely different." [And I'll bet they all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.] -
Charlie A at 00:43 AM on 27 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
I note that figures 3 and 4 have different "projections" for years such as 1940 and 1960. Did the "actual" forcings prior to 1990 change between FAR and AR4 ? I assume that the 3 blue lines in Fig 4 are for climate sensitivities of 1.5C, 2.5C and 4.5C per CO2 doubling. Correct? dana1981 says "It's a GHG forcing model, so I took observed GHG changes into account." --- please explain how you took the changes into account in a way to change the plot before 1990.
Prev 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 Next
