Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 Next
Comments 77751 to 77800:
-
Phila at 07:04 AM on 9 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Outsider#1: "One thing I would deny is that it is all simple." By an amazing coincidence, that's also something mainstream scientists deny, despite the words routinely put in their mouths by "skeptics." it is not denial to point out that every human emits CO2. If you point this out once, and then apologize after better-informed people explain that you've misunderstood the issues, it's ignorance. If you persist in saying it even after being corrected, it's denial. It'll be interesting to see which approach you favor. Also, every human being produces sewage, which we rightly treat as a pollutant. Although human respiration isn't the issue here, it's not inherently draconian or irrational to regulate substances produced by human beings, whether they result from metabolism or industry. To question AGW effectively, you actually have to do some hard work, beginning with understanding the consensus viewpoint. Attacking imaginary viewpoints is not helpful, unless your goal is to confuse people. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:53 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
205, Eric the Red,I find it rather interesting that plant life has adapted quite well up until now, but is forecast to face large scale extinction in the future.
Did you really type that? Evolution takes millions of years. For every evolutionary winner, there are losers. You see the winners, now, based on past conditions. We are going to abruptly change those conditions... and you think plants are going to instantly evolve/adapt to cope, because you don't recognize that we're changing not just one but almost all ecosystems at a pace that far outstrips almost everything that has ever happened (except in the case of extreme extinction events)? Wow.During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so.
This comment is so ridiculously simplistic and wrong as to be embarrassing to even read. -
muoncounter at 06:51 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#205: "During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so. " To what time in the past are you referring? And where I sit, the forecast is warm (make that hot) and dry. Sheffield and Wood 2008: ... decreases in soil moisture globally for all scenarios with a corresponding doubling of the spatial extent of severe soil moisture deficits and frequency of short-term (4–6-month duration) droughts from the mid-twentieth century to the end of the twenty-first. Long-term droughts become three times more common. It would help your arguments enormously if you cited some references. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:49 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
202, Eric the Red, To add to muoncounter's comment, Bark Beetle attacks Beetle attacks on drought- and heat-stressed trees are blamed for a massive die-off of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) in northern New Mexico in the early 2000s. Breshears et al. 2005 More importantly, why in the world would you assume that plants that are adapted to a particular climate will benefit from any change in the climate, just because you feel like "warm is good"? That is not the case for many plants. Some seeds need winter temperatures to stimulate dormancy. That's how they've evolved. A warm winter may break that evolutionary clock for them. For many plants, increased temperatures will cause them to go into dormancy, awaiting cooler, wetter weather. And nothing is predicting more precipitation everywhere. It's changes in precipitation, including too much at the wrong time, and too little other times when needed. It's the expansion of the deserts in the American Southwest and elsewhere. The temperature changes will not be uniform. Some areas will experience extreme heat for short periods (that are too long for the local plants). Your own desire to see everything through (dying/diseased) rose colored glasses is astonishing. Honestly, how can the facts of plant biology, and even the best case expectations for a changed climate, not scare the bejeezus out of you? -
Eric the Red at 06:36 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
And yet, they found, "an abundance of evidence demonstrating adaptation of many populations to their current conditions." Changing conditions "may" or "have the potential" to exhibit negative consequences. I find it rather interesting that plant life has adapted quite well up until now, but is forecast to face large scale extinction in the future. During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so. -
muoncounter at 05:29 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#202: "What if a temperature rise is beneficial?" Why speculate? From Jump and Penuelas 2005: We argue that in fragmented landscapes, rapid climate change has the potential to overwhelm the capacity for adaptation in many plant populations and dramatically alter their genetic composition. The consequences are likely to include unpredictable changes in the presence and abundance of species within communities and a reduction in their ability to resist and recover from further environmental perturbations, such as pest and disease outbreaks and extreme climatic events. Or from Colwell et al 2008 Based on new data for plants and insects on an elevational transect in Costa Rica, we assess the potential for lowland biotic attrition, range-shift gaps, and mountaintop extinctions under projected warming. We conclude that tropical lowland biotas may face a level of net lowland biotic attrition without parallel at higher latitudes ... Unpredictable change, more vulnerable to disease and pests, attrition, extinction. Are these how 'beneficial changes' are described? Sure is working out well for coral reef builders. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:16 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Eric thr Red wrote: "Granted, plants do not have the mobility of the animal world." Yes, which is a very good reason to expect the losers to outweigh the winners. -
Chris G at 04:50 AM on 9 August 2011Where have all the people gone?
MuonCounter, Doubt there is anything you can do about it, but FYI, "sealevelrise2010.org expired on 07/28/2011 and is pending renewal or deletion." is on your link to the presentations. -
Eric the Red at 04:45 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Sphaerica, You are focusing all the negatives. What if a temperature rise is beneficial? Not just reduced winter hard freezes, but how many plants will benefit from a general rise in temperature. Add to that the expected increase in precipitation expected with warming temperatures. I am not saying that all this is going to happen, but you seem to think that any change that occurs will be harmful. There will be winners and losers in any changing environment. How much of the Earth's environment will change enough to cause your previously described stresses? Granted, plants do not have the mobility of the animal world. -
muoncounter at 04:12 AM on 9 August 2011Where have all the people gone?
Yooper, I would say "chilling!" but that just doesn't seem appropriate. Here is a link to the presentations given last year in Corpus Christi about 'adaptations' and 'planning'. BTW, did you know that the US Coastal Zone Management Act has been in place since 1972? The program objectives are derived from the CZMA goal to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." Feel better now? -
barry1487 at 02:45 AM on 9 August 2011Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
Two undecideds? -
muoncounter at 01:42 AM on 9 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
DSL#111: That noted climatologist James Taylor had a July 27 editorial in Forbes touting Spencer's paper. Here's the system works: - Do bad science, get good press. Repeat. Ignore rebuttals. - Do good science, nobody pays attention. -
Albatross at 01:34 AM on 9 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @143, Last week you excused yourself from this forum. Please be a man of honour and keep your word, instead of coming back to make more fallacious allegations in a drive-bye style post. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:46 AM on 9 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
RichyRoo - changes in climate over such long timescales tend to be forced change, rather than unforced variability. To see that natural variability tends to even out, all you have to do is look at ENSO, which is the strongest source of naturl variability - it is quasi cyclical, and hence averages out to near zero for periods long enough to contain several cycles. That is why climatologists use windows of around 30 year mark. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:34 AM on 9 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
200, Eric the Red, In the short term, plants have various mechanisms for handling change (such as the way lawn grass browns and goes dormant in the peak summer months, but returns well when temperatures cool and more moisture arrives in fall). Over the longer term, however, this causes great stress and begins to kill off plants, and to make them more susceptible to disease. At the same time, invasive species that are better able to withstand the conditions will grow, reseed, and push out others (much in the way crabgrass takes over so many lawns by withstanding the summer heat and pushing out preferred grass species that are forced to go dormant). In the short term there are some mechanisms (although I question Camburn's increased root mass statement... if temperatures rise or moisture drops so that plants can't take advantage of increased CO2, then how do they have time to build root mass?) that will allow plants to withstand short term changes, but not long term. If the changes are continuous, eventually they are losers and others are winners. I can't imagine that evolution will occur to allow plant species to adapt as quickly as simple "migration" wherein plants that are already better suited to the new conditions re-seed and take over where others are failing. The end result is massive ecosystem changes (such as the transition of rainforests, like the Amazon, to savanna, or prairie to desert). -
muoncounter at 23:19 PM on 8 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
DSL#111: There's an echo 'faster than they can repackage and rebrand' that seems to start in an editorial in Investor's Business Daily on July 28. Based, of all things, on the Monnett investigation charade. I get all my climate science news from investment tip sheets, don't you? But FauxNews sure picked it right up. It was less than a week after the Monnett story broke that permits for drilling the Arctic started moving forward. Beneficiaries - Shell Oil. Here's one environmental blogger that sees this as more than a 'coincidence.' -
Yvan Dutil at 23:09 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Just to had on the trees issues. In boreal forest, half of the carbon is stored in the soil. Cutting trees tend to release the carbon is soil. Hence one must be careful when exploiting the forest. -
DSL at 22:38 PM on 8 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Interesting. Over the past week, I've noticed a pattern developing in 'denialist' language. It's some form of "AGW is falling apart." I've also seen "coming unraveled," "disintegrate," and something like "becoming full of holes." I wonder if this can be traced to a single mass media event. The regular causes of short-term variability (ENSO) do not cause long-term swings. The changes you're talking about "over millions of years" are not caused by short-term (11y or 25-50y) solar cycles. -
Dale at 22:25 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
DB #6, I didn't even think of those effects. Thanks for the added info! Also found a BBC article from 4th August where there's talk that an increase in temps stunts tree growth. So a rising temp would result in smaller trees, thus less effective carbon sink. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14250825 -
Tom Curtis at 22:20 PM on 8 August 2011There is no consensus
Eclipse @10, I just reviewed the Working Group III references, only to find that CBDunkerson has stolen my thunder with an excellent response. I will add to his points just three more: First, in order to get the "failing grade", the "No consensus" website has obviously had to include as "grey literature" sources as diverse as IPCC reports, the Stern Review, papers presented at academic conferences, and chapters of books by reputed academic publishing houses. While many of these sources have not been through a standard journal type peer review, there is no doubt that they have been extensively reviewed to a far more rigorous standard than would be implied by such peer review. In other words, their ideosyncratic standard of "peer reviewed" is artificially restricted, and exclude much material of the highest academic quality. Second, even with this highly artificial standard, the Working Group 1 chapters nearly all get an A, with only two falling below that standard to get a B. Based on that assessment, if they took their own measure seriously, they would not question the essential results of WG 1. Clearly they do not do that, which reveals what a hypocritical exercise they are indulging in. Three, what is entirely absent is any assessment using their standard of the work of deniers. That assessment would, of course, show the deniers work in a very poor light indeed. -
RichyRoo at 21:56 PM on 8 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Dikran Marsupial: What evidence can you present for your claim that natural variability 'has a tendency to average out over longer timescales'? Given that we have geophyiscal evidence of massive natural shifts over millions of years, your claim sounds spurious and without merit. -
Berényi Péter at 21:20 PM on 8 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#142 critical mass at 22:54 PM on 7 August, 2011 As a latecomer to this thread, KL and BP need to answer the criticisms of Albatross and Rob Painting. Otherwise their ability to argue a case must be in question. Tell them not to delete my posts indiscriminately and you'll have all the answers you could wish for. However, until such time you'll get nothing, sorry.Response:[DB] "Tell them not to delete my posts indiscriminately"
Then don't commit flagrant and willful violations of the Comments Policy.
Really, you bring it on yourself by putting yourself above a mandatory condition of participation that virtually everyone who ever posts in this Forum has no issues abiding by.
-
Eric the Red at 21:14 PM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Thank you Tom, By itself, it appears that increased level of CO2 will only benefit plant growth. However, if environmental conditions change for the worse as a result, then those changes could overwhelm the gains made by CO2 increases. Do we know how readily plantlife could adapt to changes in temperature and/or precipitation? Obviously, different plant species will respond differently. -
CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 8 August 2011There is no consensus
It is nonsense. Indeed, it is OBVIOUSLY nonsense. The first massive flaw in their methodology which I noticed is that they treated every reference in the IPCC reports as a 'scientific reference' with which to dispute the IPCC claim that its scientific findings were based solely on peer reviewed research. Thus, reports on progress of various countries towards meeting the Kyoto targets, economic impact estimates, and even citations of objections from 'skeptics' (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg's book 'Global Crises, Global Solutions') are counted against the IPCC's 'score'. In short, no effort whatsoever was made to review WHAT the citation referred to in the text or whether it had anything to do with the case for AGW. The second ridiculous flaw is that their determination of whether something was peer-reviewed or not was entirely based on whether an obvious scientific journal was cited in the reference. Thus, for instance, dozens of references citing "Cambridge University Press" were marked as NOT peer reviewed... demonstrating that no attempt whatsoever was made to track down any of these papers - which appeared in the multiple peer reviewed academic journals which Cambridge publishes. Ditto various other major universities. Ditto anything in the references which people with no apparent knowledge of academic publishing did not immediately recognize as a peer reviewed journal. In short, the 'grades' they present do NOT measure the accuracy of the IPCC's claim that its scientific findings are based on peer reviewed research. Rather, they are measuring the percentages of references on any subject in the IPCC reports which they could determine to be peer reviewed with a cursory inspection by people who don't know what they are doing. A meaningless statistic... which they get completely wrong. -
Rob Painting at 20:52 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Dw - a few studies have specifically addressed that issue (and no I don't have them at hand) and eventually, if the planet keeps warming, even more trees won't solve the issue because of a large die-back of the tropical forest and loss of carbon from soil microbes. Yes, forest expands into areas now covered by ice, but the net effect is a loss of carbon to the atmosphere and further warming. On the other hand, if we dramatically cut back human CO2 emissions (on a rapid global scale) and re-afforest, maybe, just maybe we can prevent catastrophic scenarios playing out. That'd be nice. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:38 PM on 8 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Norman, a simple explanation is that it is dry in Dallas and dry air expands the DTR. -
Dale at 20:32 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Dw, technically yes, planting a LOT of trees could do it. But you'd be talking in the order of many billions of trees (and have to continuously keep planting trees to cover China and India's expansion of emissions). It possible, but impractical. Another thing to consider with planting trees is that whilst trees absorb CO2 for photosynthesis, they also create CO2 in smaller amounts (dropped leaves and branches rot which expel CO2 and methane [from memory]). So it's like two steps forwards, one step back. Also, bushfires through the new forests will only release CO2 back into the system. There's other more efficient ways to absorb CO2, such as sprinkling a form of iron on the oceans (South Pacific has been labeled as the best spot for this) to promote protoplankton growth, which goes nuts for that compound. They'll absorb CO2 and end up on the bottom of the sea. Unfortunately there's side effects for all the methods proposed, such as protoplankton feeding off other marine organics and stripping the area bare. The best way to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere via combustion, is to stop it at the source. -
Eclipse at 20:07 PM on 8 August 2011There is no consensus
PS: It seems to be getting promoted out there in the Denialosphere, and has a 'score card' in which this photographer somehow rates the % of peer-review for each chapter of the IPCC report. -
Eclipse at 20:06 PM on 8 August 2011There is no consensus
Anyone reviewing this site that assigns a percentage for each chapter and working group of the IPCC? No Consensus.org -
Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Hi, great site. New here. Have a question, sorry if it's answered in another post: If the CO2 emissions by burning fuels are the causes of its disharmonic level in the atmosphere, couldn't this be leveled again growing more plants? all this in the context fuels burning cannot be low down, at least those we have today. Thank you.Response:[DB] Hey, thanks for taking the time to post a comment!
To add to Dales's comment below, Climatologist Ken Caldeira and others have extensively researched that question. Dr. Caldeira posts this Op-Ed on the subject:
"While preserving and restoring forests is unquestionably good for the natural environment, new scientific studies are concluding that preservation and restoration of forests outside the tropics will do little or nothing to help slow climate change. And some projects intended to slow the heating of the planet may be accelerating it instead.
Trees don't just absorb carbon dioxide, they soak up the sun's heating rays, too. Forests tend to be darker than farms and pastures and therefore tend to absorb more sunlight. This has a warming influence that appears to cancel, on average, the cooling influence of the forest's carbon storage. This effect is most pronounced in snowy areas: snow on bare ground reflects far more sunlight back to space than does a snowed-in forest, so forests in areas with seasonal snow cover can be strongly warming."Emphasis added. Essentially, planting trees outside the tropics either does not reduce global warming or adds to the problem. There's just not enough tropics to plant by an order of magnitude...
-
Paul D at 18:15 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Outsider@1 "how many climates exist on the surface of the planet?" You seem to deny that there is a global climate. That really isn't true. The definition is based on the desire or capabilities of understanding complexity. The Earth as a whole does have a climate, even the universe has a 'climate', the issue is how small or big a system we are willing or are capable of analysing. You are attempting to definine human capabilities, not whether something exists or not. -
Paul D at 18:08 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Actually Skeptical Science has a rebuttal for that: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm -
Paul D at 18:06 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Outsider@1 "Old TV documentaries spoke of the Big Freeze." I think you'll find the media in general jumped on the idea in the 1970s. Put yourself in the position of a typical journalist or TV reporter. If a number of scientists stated something that was different to what the majority of scientists were saying and you could publish some graphs and photos, would you ignore it? Maybe a future project for Skeptical Science is to produce a datavisualisation showing the research that predicted cooling and warming. The current visualisation doesn't doesn't show this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate_science_history.php -
Jeff T at 15:46 PM on 8 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
Andy, your foreign exchange analogy is brilliant. -
Norman at 14:49 PM on 8 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
muoncounter @ 95 "You present additional anecdotal evidence: The Dallas data link clearly shows that nightly lows are consistently well above the average. When nights are that much warmer than usual, I don't see how that's greater than normal cooling." I obtained that from the DTR of the current Dallas, Texas heatwave. Albatross pointed out that Accuweather data may be tainted (I can't find a monthly NWS listing of July, 2011 temps for Dallas Texas...I could see if the one bad data point could be an error entering the data). About AccuWeather data: "AccuWeather's forecasts and services are based on weather information derived from numerous sources, including weather observations and data gathered by the National Weather Service and meteorological organizations outside the United States, and from information provided by non-meteorological organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the armed forces." AccuWeather article. In my post above (from AccuWeather data) I took daily high temp minus daily low temp to get the daily DTR. I took the normal high temp minus the normal low temp to get a normal DTR for Dallas during this time frame. In the current heat wave in Dallas. The daily DTR averaged 21.97 F and the normal DTR is 19.27 F. This would be an example of what I am saying. On August 3rd the high in Dallas was 111 F, the low was 88 F. The normal high is 97 F and the normal low is 78. The DTR for the 3rd was 23 F, the normal is 19 F. If the air cooled at a normal rate of 19 F the low temp would be 92 F instead of 88. To get to 88 from 111 means the air is cooling more than normal. -
Norman at 14:14 PM on 8 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Sphaerica @102, There are actual physical processes that are taking place that would decrease the average high temperature (compared to normal) yet increase the average lows. That is why I linked to the Dai article. They explain that low clouds will lower daytime temperatures but not affect nighttime temps much except in winter months. There is always a reason for phenomena, finding that reason can be quite the challenge. How many data points are needed to be able to determine a condition? If 626 is too small, what is the magic number? How many temperature measuring devices are used to determine the global temp anomaly? How much of Antartic ice is actually bored to gain knowledge of ancient atmopheres? Shpareica, there would still be some underlying physical process that would explain why Omaha, Nebraska would have high temps average below normal while low temps averaged above normal. If too many processes can explain this pattern (fronts moving in, etc) then you would need to expand your time frame to eliminate some of the processes that are only short term. Regardless, something is causing this pattern. It could be a short term event and that really does not matter. What matters is what could cause this. I think clouds are a good candidate. More cloud cover the last few years as compared to the long term average. -
muoncounter at 12:08 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
OutsideO#1: "One thing I would deny is that it is all simple." That puts you one step ahead of many deniers, who try to reduce complex ideas to over-simplified sound bites. We hear those especially during the winter: 'it's cold out, where's your global warming now?' Most of the other points you've mentioned are amply addressed on SkS. Look through the topical threads under the Most Used Skeptic Arguments or use the Search function; you may find a few things to think about or use to modify your opinions. Checking the evidence; that's what skeptics do, isn't it? For example, "So where do you look for the warming, then? Try Central Asia, Siberia, the Sahara to begin with." No, look to the Arctic. Multiple threads deal with 'Arctic Amplification'; it's real, its happening now. Rather than a scattergun, comment on individual topics on the appropriate threads. -
Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Sphaerica @198, I think Camburn's point at 195 is a valid one. In an enhanced CO2, moisture restricted environment a plant can divert more of its resources from harvesting sunlight to harvesting water (increased root mass), thus partially compensating for the lack of the primary limiting factor (moisture) because of a superabundance of another factor (CO2). Therefore, if soil moisture remained constant, the plant could have enhanced growth as a result of enhanced CO2, even where water was the primary limiting factor. Another adaption of this type which is a common feature of high CO2 environments in the past is reduced stomata, evidenced in the fossil record. The reduction in stomata means the plant does not gain as much growth advantage from the elevated CO2, but does conserve water better. The problem glossed over by deniers is that: 1) The changes stimulated by higher CO2 content are not all advantageous under normal environmental conditions. For example, trees grown in enhanced CO2 atmospheres show reduced ability to close stomata in dry conditions, thus making them more, not less vulnerable to drought. 2) The environmental conditions themselves will also change, thus potentially overwhelming any gain made by the plants. Thus if increased temperatures result in a 10% loss of soil moisture, a 5% increase in root mass due to enhanced CO2 still leaves the plant stressed and possibly dying due to lack of water (where water was the limiting factor). 3) Large scale and rapid changes in climate, which are likely in the coming centuries will overwhelm the ability of plants, particularly native species, to adapt in the short term, as you point out. Most of the biology I have learnt comes from the study of evolution. Consequently I have no doubt that a warmer world will be a more productive world, ie, sustain a greater biomass in the long term. But the long term is 10 thousand to 10 million years, depending on the scale and pace of the initial perturbation. A ten thousand year recovery will be little consolation to our descendants in the next few centuries. -
OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 09:54 AM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Well, am I a skeptic or a denier? Actually, both. I am skeptical about some things, a denier of others. Also an acceptor. I do accept irrefutable science. One thing I would deny is that it is all simple. I observe that climate is a local phenomenon, and that the concept of some 'global climate' (spoken about in political fora) is ludicrous. I am skeptical about any precise forecasts of global temperature rises due in 2020. Time will tell. Now, a few points: 1. how many climates exist on the surface of the planet? 2. how do you know when a climate has changed? To ask those two questions is to uncover the fuzzy edges of climatology. Why is climatology so complex? One answer is that it deals with fluid flow and its consequences. Another is that there are numerous variables in it, defying algebraic models. The most incisive answer, though not so satisfying, is that it is dealing with essentially non-linear phenomena, and humans are not good at thinking in unfamiliar non-linear terms. Further points: global warming and climate change, though potentially linked, do not mean the same thing. Global warming refers to average surface temperatures, but the emphasis is on *average*. Global warming continues to confuse. Science tells us that the coolest and driest continental air masses should exhibit warming to the most pronounced degree, and that seems to be so. Moreover, much of the warming would occur in winter rather than in summer. So where do you look for the warming, then? Try Central Asia, Siberia, the Sahara to begin with. Do not be surprised to see temperatures rising by 2 or 3 degrees in those regions, as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So a heat-wave in Siberia drives up the minimum from minus fifty to minus 47. Bet that makes the yaks faint! More subtle is the effect of warming on glaciation. The earth's albedo increases with increasing ice, reflecting more solar radiation away, helping to keep the planet cool, and the ice forming. Conversely, melting ice reduces the albedo, increasing the warming that melts the ice. So positive feed-back can occur, either way. Prolonged glaciation is self-reinforcing, while prolonged melting keeps itself going. How long these trends can persist has never been fully established, but a few PhDs are yet to be earned on that account. One other matter I am a denier of " CO2 is a pollutant". CO2 is essential for life on earth (tobacco smoke ain't) and it is not denial to point out that every human emits CO2. I'd estimate that each adult exhales a kilogramme of CO2 daily. Collectively we exhale some 7 million tonnes a day! That amount exceeds the industrial emissions of most countries; comparable, in fact, to aggregated industrial emissions from South America. And it occurs just from breathing . (BTW, there is no chemical distinction between human CO2 and CO2 resulting form the combustion of coal. If you find some, please publish it!) Add to that what animals exhale, It is also science to mention that the thermal energy in the world's oceans is three orders of magnitude higher than the thermal energy of the atmosphere. For this reason, the oceans exert a profound influence on the climates. If the subject were simple, there would be no debate, but the complexity was noted decades ago by the Sierra Club. Some members believed there would be a cooling effect as a result of increased cloud formation. They also thought cloudier weather was causing glaciers to grow. Old TV documentaries spoke of the Big Freeze. This notion, prominent in the seventies, held that Canada and Siberia would remain permanently snow-bound, and even New York might be devoured by advancing ice-sheets. Phew! that was close! [disclaimer; this summary cannot be encyclopedic or comprehensive.Response: [JC] Note: some of your points are addressed elsewhere on SkS: -
Daniel Bailey at 09:50 AM on 8 August 2011Trouble Brewing in the North
Speaking of Neven, a participant at his blog, Seke Rob, has just posted this bit:
"The above chart shows when Sea Ice Extent fell first time below 10, 9, 8 and 7 million, and pulls this all together and adds also first date when the 11 million square km was passed. Far right a column shows the minimum reached, standing out, still, 2007, to think that the ice thickness then were considerable greater than in 2011, most amazing to get from 10 to 9 million extent in 8 days. Then, 2011 needed 8 days to get from 9M to 8M."\"
Looks like time's runnin' out... -
Bob Lacatena at 08:59 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
197, Eric the Red, I think you misunderstand. All of those factors are limiters. Which ever is in the least supply is the one that governs production. CO2 increase is meaningless if it is accompanied by temperature, light (clouds) or moisture changes which push things away from the optimums for those factors. Or, in other cases where other changes are needed but don't arise (like a desert, where moisture is already low) the increase in CO2 is meaningless. And all of these factors (precipitation patterns, temperatures, etc.) are going to change virtually everywhere with climate change. It doesn't even help if the change in temperature is better for most of the year, but out of the range for a particular crop for just three weeks (during the growing season). That will kill any benefits that might have been realized by CO2. My point is that hanging your hat on "more CO2 is good" is almost certainly so simplistic as to be beyond rational consideration. Your rephrasing to say "barring an unfavorable change" is trying to dismiss the importance of those other factors by implying that changes in them are unlikely, so we can all cheer for more CO2. That is, quite simply, absolutely not the case. -
Eric the Red at 07:06 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Was not aware of that Camburn. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a biologist. Are there other processes that might be affected by rising CO2 levels? Dikran, I think your environmental changes may fall under Sphaerica's list (191). If temperature, water, or some other factor is the limiter, then unfavorable changes in that factor would make conditions worse. Baring an unfavorable change, increases in atmospheric CO2 will enhance plant growth. See Tom's post @193. Change is not necessarily bad. It all depends on what change occurs. -
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Echoing muoncounter on that, but it is very hard to comment without knowing about what you refer to. Some references would help. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Eric, it isn't as simple as that. In general plant life is adapted to an environmental niche; climate change may well make conditions more optimal for photosynthesis in some location, but not for the species of plants that are currently growing there. If you are a tree living at the edge of your environmental niche, it will be of little consolation that your death will provide a useful habitat for some other species (forgive the anthropomorpisation). As with human civilisation, it is the change that is the problem, rather than the eventual environmental conditions. We (and especially our agricultural practices) are adapted to a particular climate. Any change means that our practices are suddenly sub-optimal. This is a problem if you can't adapt (for instance because you are a tree ;o). -
Camburn at 05:24 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Eric: Yes and no. An increase in co2 results in a plant becomeing more efficient as a rule. The increase in co2 will overcome some of the other limiting factors becauase of improved root mass and less respiration. -
WheelsOC at 05:20 AM on 8 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Thanks for the epic debunking, Dana. What is it with "skeptical" researchers and terrible models? It's as if they fundamentally don't understand what a model is, and then try to make their own models based on this misunderstanding. Roy Spencer once dismissed climate models and "curve fitting," and now we see him and others using exactly this in their own models. -
meghaljani at 05:09 AM on 8 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hmm, If it is not warming, it is because of natural causes. If it is warming it is because of dangerous carbon dioxide. Way to go!Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No, for example the rapid warming suggested by the decadal trend ending in the 1998/9 El-Nino was largely due to natural causes. The point is that short term trends are unstable because of natural variability, which has a tendency to average out over longer timescales. -
Eric the Red at 03:08 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I agree with Tom and Sphaerica, Plants growth will be determined by the limiting factor. If that factor is CO2, then plants will experience mroe growth in a CO2 rich environment. If that factor is anything else (as mentioned previously), then increased levels of CO2 will be immaterial. -
Andy Skuce at 02:39 AM on 8 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
Here's an analogy that WSJ readers and Matt Ridley might understand. The daily turnover on foreign exchange markets is about $4 trillion, of which about 85% involves US dollars. Therefore, about $3.5 trillion US dollars are traded every day, or approximately $700 trillion per year. The US annual budget deficit is about $1.4 trillion or about 0.2% of the amount of US dollars that changes hands on FOREX markets over the same time period. From this we can conclude that the US budget deficit is an insignificant problem that we can safely ignore. Either that, or we should acknowledge that specious arguments that confuse stocks with flows can lead to absurd conclusions. -
muoncounter at 01:48 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
trunkmonkey#96: There are many reasons for sea level rise/fall over the geologic past; Milankovitch cycles are just one of these. The continents were in a vastly different configuration; oceanic circulation must be a factor in any discussion of past era glacial cycles.
Prev 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 Next
