Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 Next
Comments 78251 to 78300:
-
Berényi Péter at 11:14 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
As for the Von Schuckmann & Le Traon paper itself. It would be much easier if the authors broke down their estimates at least above/below 700 m depth. That way their results were directly comparable to online data based on Levitus 2009. Of course it would also help if their results were expressed in Joules (or 1022 J) as it is standard in the literature (instead of W/m2). While we are at it. This 0.55 ± 0.1 W/m2 is actually only 0.39 ± 0.07 W/m2 globally, because they have chosen to project their results to the ocean surface, not the entire planetary surface, as it would be appropriate if one is talking about planetary imbalance. For the six year period between 2005-2010 the Levitus data give 0.14 ± 0.06 W/m2 imbalance for the upper 700 m. It means Von Schuckmann & Le Traon calculates 0.25 ± 0.09 W/m2 (almost twice as much) for the layer between 700 & 2000 m (for the entire surface). One can hardly evaluate how realistic it is with no supplementary material whatsoever. What is more, choosing 2005 as the starting year is kind of cherry picking. For 2004-2010 Levitus data give 0.055 ± 0.047 W/m2 for the upper 700 m, which is essentially zero. Please note that by about mid-2003 ARGO coverage got global (the huge gap previously open in the southern ocean was filled by that time). Between 2004-2007 only density of the network improved further, not its coverage. Therefore dismissing 2004 altogether is not justified. It should be taken into account, with somewhat larger error bars perhaps.
-
Composer99 at 11:10 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
ptbrown31, it seems to be that you are engaged in cherry-picking the Braganza et al 2004 paper. First, you claim that "none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect." Yet, the abstract of Braganza et al states:The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. On decadal timescales, modelled and observed intrinsic variability of DTR compare well and are independent of variations in global mean temperature. Observed reductions in DTR over the last century are large and unlikely to be due to natural variability alone. [Emphasis mine.]
Assuming Braganza et al take climate change to mean anthropogenic climate change, I do not see how it can be seen as a useful index of change & variability unless the authors expect a reduction in DTR to be a result of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. From the conclusion, we find:Diurnal temperature range appears to be a suitable index of climate variability and change, in the context of similar simple global indices outlined by Braganza et al. [2003]. While changes in maximum and minimum temperature are strongly associated with changes in global mean temperature, DTR provides additional information for the attribution of recent observed climate change. [Emphasis mine.]
Again, unless Braganza et al attribute global warming to non-anthropogenic sources, their suggestion that the change in DTR is a useful index of climate change certainly implies that it is indeed an outcome of the human acceleration of emissions. The statement you cite, from the abstract, suggests a qualification of the model runs, indicating that DTR diverged more in the models than in empirical observations because of a factor that was not included in the models used. They are pointing out a quibble with the climate models, which seems to me to be a rather different thing than what you claim they are saying. -
Camburn at 10:34 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
SNRatio@27: I would suggest you read the published paper. Reading and understanding it explains a lot and answers a lot of here to fo, unanswered questions. -
ptbrown31 at 10:26 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
35, Sphaerica You are only proving my point. All you have to do is read some of these papers to see that none of them back up the claim being made about DTR. Comparison of observed and anthropogenic-forced model changes in DTR over the last 50 years show much less reduction in DTR in the model simulations due to greater warming of maximum temperatures in the models than observed. This difference is likely attributed to increases in cloud cover that are observed over the same period and areabsent in model simulations. -- Braganza, DJ Karoly… - Geophys. Res. Lett, 2004 The cause(s) of the asymmetric diurnal changes are uncertain, but there is some evidence to suggest that changes in cloud cover plays a direct role. -TR Karl, G Kukla, VN Razuvayev… - Geophysical Research …, 1991 - agu.org Because the daily minimum has increased relative to the daily maximum, the diurnal temperature range (DTR, the difference between the two) has declined (Fig. 2a). The negative trend implies increasing cloudiness, which lowers daytime temperatures by blocking solar radiation and raises night-time temperatures by reducing radiative heat losses -- JA Pounds, MPL Fogden… - Nature, 1999 - cct.or.cr The other references you cite don't really address the question. But as you can see, none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:08 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
34, ptbrown31, I have no idea why you'd think such a thing. From this post:As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days.
From google scholar, searching for papers that reference "Diurnal Temperature Range" and "Climate Change": Google Scholar... 74,200 papers Including: Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century -- Braganza, DJ Karoly… - Geophys. Res. Lett, 2004 Global warming: Evidence for asymmetric diurnal temperature change TR Karl, G Kukla, VN Razuvayev… - Geophysical Research …, 1991 - agu.org Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain -- JA Pounds, MPL Fogden… - Nature, 1999 - cct.or.cr An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high‐resolution grids -- TD Mitchell… - International journal of climatology, 2005 - Wiley Online Library Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies -- DS Wilks - Climatic Change, 1992 - Springer And a bazillion others. -
SNRatio at 10:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP: "Come on, I am talking about facts, you know, events that happened in the recent past (last 19 years or so) and were measured by actual instruments. No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be." No, you are talking about estimates. And the quality of those are to be checked by their predictive power. And I think you demonstrate your thinking quite well when you refuse to produce estimates. Estimates will of course have to be qualified by uncertainties, and your whole reasoning breaks down when those are taken into consideration. I tend to stay a bit Popperian: If you are not willing to assert something than can get refuted, you stay outside of natural science. And for scientists of Roy Spencer's caliber: How often and thoroughly will you be refuted, and still consider yourself a significant scientist? -
muoncounter at 09:59 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
pirate#122: "Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet." Whoa! That science isn't settled. Which planet would we go to? Planets would have to be 'rated' by an independent authority, preferably someone with no actual expertise in planetary science. And the cost of leaving the planet would destroy our economy. 'Scientists' involved in space flight would get rich on the free-flowing government money. Anyone who questioned leaving the planet would lose their job. It all sounds like a c--spiracy to me. -
ptbrown31 at 09:50 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I am referring to it as SkS's model because: 1) They make the same claim in many posts 2) It is NOT a part of both literature and established theory. That is the whole point. Again, the references do not support the claim being made (that we would expect DTR to decrease as the greenhouse effect is enhanced). -
muoncounter at 09:49 AM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp#29: "who do you propose pays for the adaption?" Last time someone prescribed 'adaptation' to sea level rise, we had China building cities out of nothing and Egypt building a seawall from Alexandria to Port Said. It was said to be no problem, they have lots of folks looking for work. Send the bill to the authors of such comments. I'd love to hear someone offer a serious counter to the quote in my prior comment. Until then, there's no strategy for this. -
SNRatio at 09:44 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I think it is a bit funny to see this line of "skeptical reasoning" unfolding. At the most basic level, talking about inconsistency in a situation with so much fluctuation and so large error margins in the estimates, has little logical foundation. When the sea level rise due to GrL+AntA ice sheets was 1.3+-0.4 mm in 2006, there is in fact a fair chance it was only 0.5 mm - nobody can say for sure, and it may certainly not be used for anything but the most tentative reasoning. Acceleration is even worse, when you can't even differentiate once, you can surely not do it twice. As an exercise to develop some intuition on this, BP may take the raw data and carry out the acceleration calculations back through the 90es. It has varied a lot, and so far has had little predictive value. BP's graphing is extremely misleading in that the running average values say nothing about the actual spread in the observations, and convey the impression of a kind of determinism that simply is not there in the raw data. Furthermore, the fluctuations are far from entirely random, which makes identification/attribution of short time trends even more problematic. Even with a consistent measurement regime in place, it would be problematic to quantify short time trends with any precision, as Rob points out. It may well be that BP's estimates for rise and deceleration turn out to be correct, it's just that it will take several years to get enough data to tell. And the profession of predicting longer term trend shifts from short-time fluctuations over periods where the fluctuations may be an order of magnitude larger than the trend, has a terrible track record. I really can't believe technically adept people will use it for anything unless they are deeply emotionallly invested in the causes they try to prove. For example, the UColorado 60-days moving average was almost flat from 2006 to 2008. Which of course "proved" that sea level rise had virtually halted. Only to suddenly start again 2009-2010. Surprise! Because so many different factors play a significant role, we must be very careful to extrapolate or conclude from the data we have so far. When a system is far from equilibrium, which the radiation imbalance indicates that the earth is now, we may get all sorts of quasi-periodic phenomena. Such phenomena lend themselves to diverse types of pattern matching, and disregarding the basic physics, all sorts of "laws" may be "proved" by the extremely good matches of the ad hoc models. An example here: BP tries to fit the sea level rise almost exclusively by melting, and that would then "prove" than oceans are not heating, that we are, rather in zero or negative radiative balance, which, in turn "proves" that the climate sensitivity must be very low etc etc. But when you build your reasoning on data, zoomed in so that they are overwhelmed by noise, and don't take the noise fully into consideration, the results also become overwhelmed by noise. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
32, ptbrown, Why do you keep referring to SkS's model? What do you think here is conjured by the people behind SkS, instead of part of the actual science? The OP is riddled with references to papers, and it's long been part of both the literature and established theory. It's admittedly an area, compared to others, that's a little thin... but what makes you think that it was somehow invented by SkS? -
scaddenp at 09:41 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I dont see how you can call V&T an "outlier" unless you have other published analyses of the Argo data that give different answers. The paper was primarily about how accurately could measures could be made from the Argo data so have you got a criticism of their conclusions? What there seems to be is a broad consensus that Argo is a better instrument than satellites. -
Tom Curtis at 09:20 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
norandroids @5, that sort of suggestion is never welcome, and never appropriate. wingding @6, perfect analogy. -
Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#21 Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July, 2011 So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. Come on, I am talking about facts, you know, events that happened in the recent past (last 19 years or so) and were measured by actual instruments. No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be. -snip- So by your reckoning, what will the polar ice sheet melt rate be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on it? -snip-Moderator Response: Please refrain from making inflammatory comments. Thank you. -
KR at 09:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - From Von Schuckmann 2011: "Our revised estimation of GOIs indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends)." (emphasis added) Do you have a peer reviewed refutation of this? Because your post here is quite unconvincing considering your short term trend analysis. -
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
apirate - who do you propose pays for the adaption? Those that created the problem I hope? Where does my city send the bill to? -
KR at 08:50 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - I find it curious that you are arguing against increasing ocean heat content from sea rise numbers, when actual thermometers are measuring said increasing OHC. Curious, and unconvincing. As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011? Because I think that direct temperature evidence from the ARGO floats is more rather convincing than your indirect arguments (contradicted by direct measurement data). Especially given the error ranges on melt scales, and your quite frankly cherry-picked short term slope estimate. -
Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, "What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow." I see also that you are here to try and attribute words and opinions to me that I never uttered. Stop it, I am not here not play word games BP. I do see a lot pontification and hand waving by you, with no published papers provided by you to support your assertions concerning OHC. Do you have any substantive facts to make to challenge Von Schuckmann & Le Traon's (2011) finding that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm...? Yes or no? "By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible." So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. -
JonnyT at 08:25 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
It would help in these 'debates' if the opposition would point out the blatantly obvious inconsistencies in Monckton's polemic. At the start he says that you can't predict the climate because it is too chaotic and in the middle he says that it is immensely stable before then heading back to it being chaotic again at the end. "There is no physical basis in science for any such sudden lurch in what has proven to be an immensely stable climate." Also there was the classic idiotic statement he made in his spiel about the MWP, where he brazenly stated that the central England temperature series was "a good proxy for the global climate, it's at about the right latitude" ... wtf? These things stick out like a sore thumb, and they need to be hammered every time they do. -
Albatross at 08:22 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, I see. You are ignoring the fact that you are curve sitting the GSL data. Can we deal with one thing at a time please. -
Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#18 Albatross at 03:47 AM on 29 July, 2011 All of these papers note the importance of abyssal and deep oceans. I see. What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow. That is, land based ice (GIC + polar ice sheets) are in fact melting at a much slower, possibly decelerating rate. Is that your opinion? By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible. Its absolute value is about the same as the 36 Gt/yr2 acceleration due to polar ice sheet melt according to Rignot. As for basic physics: Heat of fusion for water is 334 kJ/kg. To raise sea level by 1 mm by adding water to it you need to add 3.6×1014 kg, and to melt that much land based ice 1.2×1020 J is needed. On the other hand from data published on the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat Content page you can easily derive that in the upper 700 m of oceans you need to add 7×1021 J to produce the same 1 mm rise by thermal expansion. That is, the same amount of heat is 58 times more efficient in rising sea level if it is expended for melting land based ice than for warming the upper ocean. Specific heat and volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of seawater depends on both temperature and pressure. The former not so much, but the latter one tremendously. It increases with both temperature and pressure. However, while pressure increases with depth linearly, temperature of oceans decreases fast in the upper several hundred meters, but as one goes deeper, this rate of cooling converges to zero. Therefore, although heat content changes below 700 m may be somewhat less effective in changing sea water volume than in the upper 700 m, but not immensely so, and beyond about 1000 m they start to grow increasingly efficient once again (due to pressure). Anyway, you can't put more heat in the abyss and expect its volume to shrink at the same time. Seawater (unlike fresh water) is the most dense at the point of freezing, provided its salinity is greater than about 30 PSU, which is obviously true for all major basins. -
ptbrown31 at 07:38 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
30, Sphaerica - The first item of your post that set me off was any requirement that DTR not merely be expected and detected, but that some level of attribution be made. To me, the latter is a ridiculous and unattainable requirement at this point in time, or in the near future. I don't really understand your complaint here. I am not the one who said that the DTR change needs to be attributed to anything. I am criticizing the fact that the OP attributed it to an enhanced greenhouse effect when the papers that are cited do not corroborate that conclusion. As far as your actual grasp of the factors involved, I was bothered by the "simple model" approach of your logic. This very, very often fails. It fails to include all of the variables, as well as to properly quantify those variables. The latter is very often a problem. I agree. All I was doing was giving a counter example to the conceptual model that SkS presents to argue for DTR changes being due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Both of our models are ultimately wrong on some level. You state that the earth "should radiate more heat to space during the day," and then conclude that "it does not seem obvious why an enhanced greenhouse effect should cause more warming at night." I see absolutely no tie between these two points, or why they should appear together in an argument. My only point here is that the greenhouse effect suppresses radiative cooling at all times, not just at night. When the earth is warmer (during the day) it is radiating more (to the 4th power of temperature) and therefore there is more radiative cooling to suppress. They seem to completely miss the actual reason why a GHE would expand the DTR... the simple fact that during the day, solar radiation dominates temperatures, while at night, only the GHE has an influence. I understand SkS's conceptual model. That point is exactly what I articulated in the quotes. The end result is not that your premise is wrong, but rather that the system is clearly more complex than this, so it is a dangerous premise to make without considering far more factors, and actually running the numbers or doing observations. I totally agree. I was not trying to say "SkS's conceptual model is wrong and my conceptual model is right". Instead I was trying to say that it is not obvious that SkS's model is correct. Therefore, it is not obvious that an enhanced greenhouse effect should decrease DTR. This would be fine if SkS had cited articles that went into a rigorous treatment of whether or not we would "expect" to see a decrees in DTR with an enhanced greenhouse effect. But the articles cited to not do this. None of them say anything to the effect of "an enhanced greenhouse should decrease DTR because....". This bothers me slightly because I would prefer if SkS's missions was to DEFEND the established science against bad skeptical arguments not make up its own physical arguments and cite sources that don't back up those arguments. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:22 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
adelady... I wouldn't expect Peter would do that. Literally it's just a no-win to debate with someone who is so willing to tell such bald-faced lies. That's what Monckton does for a living. He is a master of telling lies with such zeal and confidence that people who don't know better just believe him. It's easy to battle this when you have the time to pull up the actual research and read through it to see where he gets it wrong. That's been a very effective tool at dealing with Monckton. John Abraham did a great job. Peter's Hatfield and Sinclair have both done excellent video series. There are lots of other articles online which Dana has now added to. The only really effect moment in a debate against Monckton was when Tim Lambert caught him out on Dr Pinker's work. And that was mostly effective just because Monckton clearly didn't even realize that Pinker was a woman. While Denniss did a good job of getting his own message out, generally I think it's not a good idea to give Monckton any kind of microphone. It's just allows him one more opportunity to project his lies. -
Chris G at 06:56 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
#13 scaddenp, An excellent point Phil. The cost of shifting can be managed by gradually replacing the infrastructure that goes offline anyway. I didn't rush out and buy a ground-source heat pump as soon as they became available, but I did make the investment when my AC died. A shift to a new energy infrastructure is bound to cause an increase in energy costs in the short term. The reason we use so much fossil fuels now is there is very little that can compete with the internal costs of getting energy from them. We have learned, and our knowledge is increasing, that the external costs are going to be difficult to live with. I very much like the idea of a phased-in carbon tax (+dividend) to give utilities incentive, and time, to shift from FF plants to alternatives. Let the market sort out which alternatives work better in different places. Any time you get more energy out of a system than you put into it, energy becomes cheap. So, there will be a increase in costs in the near term, but in the long run it will be fine. I believe that from now on, fossil fuels are going to be increasingly expensive, especially petroleum-based forms. So, we can use some of that energy now to shift to alternate ways of generating energy, or we can wait until fossil fuels are even more expensive, and we find our situation is even more dire and that we have to make the shift even quicker. -
adelady at 06:47 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Me? I'd like to see Monckton debate Potholer. Two reasons. Firstly, audiences who are superficial enough to find Monckton's accent and speaking style impressive will have to listen to both sides presented by apparently similar voices and accents. (Let's leave aside discussion about the Australian and American propensity to favour any British accent as classy and, therefore, persuasive.) Secondly, potholer is, like a few other people, expert on Monckton's version of science rather than being a scientist himself. And this is the crucial thing in this sort of endeavour. Never ever presume that he will respond appropriately, or even acknowledge, the reality of another's point. Behave as though you're a schoolteacher dealing with a smart aleck 14 year old full of self-righteous justifications for shoddy work and you're on the right track. -
wingding at 06:31 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monckton is fast becoming a kind of Kent Hovind of climate figure -
muoncounter at 05:32 AM on 29 July 2011Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
Pirate#20: "in an area that is melting sooner or faster than normal, then that is most likely a sign of climate change. " Agreed at last! That was the point of comment 6: So in late July of 2011, it is already melting back beyond the mean September sea ice extent for 1979 to 2011. -
JonnyT at 05:28 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
I'm only 20 mins through the film but did I just hear a former (and points it out all the bloody time) member of the Thatcher government praise the 'heroic miners' of a country. Seriously? A proud member of the regime that totally destroyed the UK's mining industry has the gaul to make himself sound like the champion of mining and miners? Even by Monkton's standards that is mendacity of utterly breathtaking proportions. Good grief! -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:13 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
Chris G @ 121 Nicely written. I am not callous. Just realistic. Human history is rife with events that reduced our population size on regional and global levels whether it be plagues or natural disasters. And, we should absolutely be good stewards of the earth. I think it is smart for you to teach your kids to be strong and independent. I do the same with mine and I am trying to teach them survival skills. I am sorry your sister has decided NOT to have kids. The Earth is a dynamic planet. Changes are always occurring. We have the capacity to adapt and will. Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet. -
Chris G at 05:09 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate, DSL, I would hazard a guess that even though Pirate knows that a lot of starfish are doomed, he still wants to save some. Personally, my main disagreement with Pirate is in that he treats global warming like the inevitable storm, and I still think there are things we can to do mitigate the severity of the storm. The Star Thrower -
Chris G at 04:53 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate, Sally, et al, For the sake of discussion, I put some thoughts down, but though there are ties to this thread, I found they fit better under the 'It's not bad' topic per MounCounter's suggestion. -
Chris G at 04:52 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
Pirate, Sally Moore, et al, I think Malthus will eventually be proven correct, simply because energy available to the human species is finite. (With infinite energy, we could terraform Mars, but let's not get fanciful.) In a broad sense, the agricultural revolution was possible because we leveraged fossil energy to produce more food. Now we are bumping into other limits: a reduction in the availability of fossil fuels to produce fertilizers and pesticides and drive tractors, arable land, and changes or exhaustion of supplies of water for irrigation. At the same time there is a shifting of climate zones and general disturbances in weather patterns which can only hurt the yields of industrial agriculture. How much we degrade our food supply depends a lot on how much climate change we induce. It is not going to be just agriculture, we are already severely stressing oceanic fish, and acidification represents a threat of food web destabilization. Whatever numbers you project, an increase in population at the same time as a reduction in food supply is some uncomfortable math. Given the current state of things, and the lack of any progress in the last decade, my guess is that a bottleneck in human population is inevitable. In that light, I understand Pirate's attitude. However, how much of a bottleneck remains to be seen, world war level, black plaque, something less, or something more. If we can avoid an anoxic ocean event, the species will likely survive. But, just because you believe you can not avoid a car wreck is no reason not to shift your foot from the gas to the brake. It might make the difference between minor injury at one end of the range of possibilities and death at the other. Since we have no record of changes to the climate as rapid as the one we are causing, we only have educated guesses as to what will happen. Skeptics decry the uncertainty of climate models, but I don't know of any credible ones that paint a rosy picture. As has been said before, uncertainty is not our friend. How many of us survive is still important. Thinking of yourself, your friends, and family, is it better that 1 of 20 die, or 3 of 10? Continued BAU for too long increases the likelihood of that first number becoming zero. So, Sally, I'm not a scientist, but I also worry, a lot. My sister has decided not to have kids. I'm more optimistic, or maybe I just don't want to give up, or maybe it was a biological urge I could not resist, or maybe I'm egotistical enough to think the world is better off with more people like me. I raise my own kids to be as strong and independent minded as I know how, with as broad an experience and educational background as I can give them. Parents have always done this, but I think the coming generations will suffer more than most past generations have from living sheltered lives. -
DSL at 04:31 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate: "Still, human populations will one day outpace the ability of the earth to provide those 3 basic needs. At that point, there is only one result. It's simple biology." Why did you install wells in Africa? Why not let "simple biology" take over? -
dana1981 at 04:16 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Thanks Daneel, correction made. I transcribed the quotes myself while listening to the video of the debate, so there may be some typos in there like the one you caught. It's certainly a lot of work to respond to these Gish Gallops. -
DaneelOlivaw at 04:04 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Where it says "in the London inurance market" it should say "in the London insurance" ;). Nice series of articles. I cannot even imagine the pain of going through this horrific Gish Gallop of nonsense! -
Scott at 03:57 AM on 29 July 2011Models are unreliable
Does anyone have any comments on the following paper? R. Fildes and N. Kourentzes, Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change, Working Paper -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:52 AM on 29 July 2011Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
TC @ 6 Sea ice melting and refreezing is a normal cycle. If Buoy #2 is in an area that is melting sooner or faster than normal, then that is most likely a sign of climate change. -
Albatross at 03:47 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @16, "Accelerating ice melt and increasing heat storage in the abyss are inconsistent if sea level trend is measured correctly by satellites." So much hand waving (mis-)attributed to "basic physics". Actually, BP you are talking through your hat. Here is why. Have you read Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011)? Probably not. I draw your attention to their section 3.2, "3.2. "Deep ocean warming", in which they say: "In addition, at times when the 8-yr anomalous trend in UOHC [Upper-oceanic heat content, 0 - 700 m] is negative, the deep ocean heat content (DOHC, defined as the integral over 700–3000 m) displays a positive trend that on average compensates 35% of the upper ocean changes (Fig. 4a). In part, this appears to be a response to a decreased Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation(AMOC)." And from their section 4: "Long timeseries of DOHC trends that have been corrected for instrumentation problems [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007; Wijffels et al., 2008; Willis et al., 2009] are not available, but the observation that the OHC over 0–2000 m has risen substantially over 2003–2008 [von Schuckmann et al., 2009; Song and Colberg, 2011] while it has reached a plateau in the upper ocean [Lyman et al., 2010] supports the view that part of the ‘missing heat’ is to be found deeper in the ocean. The uncertainty in the trend over 0–2000 m [von Schuckmann et al., 2009] can easily accommodate the ‘missing’ anomalous DOHC trend of about 35%×0.3 · 1022J yr−1 deduced from the model analysis (Fig. 4a)." Now how about Palmer et al. (2011)? In which they note: "Surprisingly, we find that one must integrate OHC to depths in excess of 4000 m before the gain in information with depth becomes saturated. We note that the upper 4000 m in these models represents about 90% of the total ocean volume." Song and Colbert (2011) find that: "Adding a GRACE-estimated mass trend, the data-model combination explains not only the altimetry global mean SLR but also its regional trends fairly well. The deep ocean warming is mostly prevalent in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, suggesting a strong relation to the oceanic circulation and dynamics. Its comparison with available bottom water measurements shows reasonably good agreement, indicating that deep ocean warming below 700 m might have contributed 1.1 mm/yr to the global mean SLR or one-third of the altimeter-observed rate of 3.11 ± 0.6 mm/yr over 1993–2008." These findings are consistent with the analysis of 0-1500 m OHC data presented by Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) above. All of these papers note the importance of abyssal and deep oceans. "Skeptics" wishing for the planet's oceans to be only 700 m deep is a fine example of cherry-picking and confirmation bias.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed /bold tag. -
Eric the Red at 03:29 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
As BP has shown, the numbers obviously do not add up. According to Rignot, et. al., 2011, the accelerated mass loss of mountain GIC and the combinded Greenland / Antarctic ice sheets is 48.1 gT / yr., and therefore, the combined mass loss of 877 gT in 2006 would increase to ~1118 gT in 2011, equating to 3.1 mm in sea level rise. That would equate to the entire sea level rise using the higher value posted by KR and Albatross. If the glacial loss is accelerating at the stated rate, then the sea level rise should be acclerating similarly, unless the ocean has cooled. Clearly, accelerated glacial loss and warming oceans should not yield the sea level plot in #10. -
Berényi Péter at 03:08 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#12 KR at 02:17 AM on 29 July, 2011 My pardon, but I cannot find the logic in this statement. Increasing heat storage in the climate system should both raise sea levels and accelerate ice melt. There is no mutual exclusion there. Can you explain what you mean? Yes. Accelerating ice melt and increasing heat storage in the abyss are inconsistent if sea level trend is measured correctly by satellites. Latent heat required to melt that much ice which would increase sea level by the same amount as thermosteric expansion is negligible indeed in comparision. Therefore you can match sea level rise that way without sequestering much heat. It is basic physics. -
Albatross at 03:04 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @13, Now that gave me a good laugh-- no idea what the goodness of fit is or what the heck that grey line is mean to represent. Good scinetists provide those pertinent and important details. And of course you seem to be under the misguided impression that you know better than eminent scientists studying GSL rise have all got it wrong. Please inform UofC that their trend is incorrect. Try again.....seriously please try again and up your game. -
Berényi Péter at 02:57 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#11 Tom Curtis at 01:47 AM on 29 July, 2011 So how does the sum go if you do not totally misunderstand the paper you are quoting You forget about contribution of mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC) along with acceleration. Think again. -
Berényi Péter at 02:51 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#10 Albatross at 01:41 AM on 29 July, 2011 you are not accurately reporting the satellite estimates of GSL rise I am. Sea level rise is clearly decelerating (linear fit is not appropriate). Current rate is 2.3 mm/yr, deceleration is 0.1 mm/yr2.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 02:39 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
DSL @ 21 This is OT and will probably be deleted. I am a parent of 2 and a teacher of about 180 this year. I volunteer at my local YMCA. I've been to Africa as part of a not-for-profit group installing wells and water filtration units in remote villages. Don't mistake my large scale pragmatism for an inhumane attitude. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:35 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
20 - 22 Please don't misunderstand me. I think as stewards of the earth, humans should be doing everything possible (within reason) to make the world a better place. That includes preserving nature, conserving natural resources, developing alternative forms of energy, etc... I teach my students that humans (animals) have 3 basic requirements: food, shelter and water. With the advent of the agricultural revolution human populations exploded. Every year we find better ways to coax even more food out of the same areas of land. Better living conditions are becoming more available around the world including shelter. Clean water resources have also become more available. That improved quality of life requires one important factor: energy. Right now we can't supply most of that energy without FF resources. Hopefully, one day we can. Still, human populations will one day outpace the ability of the earth to provide those 3 basic needs. At that point, there is only one result. It's simple biology. And, since humans have survived climate change before, we will survive whatever is in the pipeline. Populations do shrink and grow naturally. -
John Hartz at 02:35 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
@pirate #17: You state, "That doesn't mean times won't necessarily be difficult, but we (the human race) will adapt and survive." What if you are wrong? The Earth is littered with the fossils of life forms that have gone extinct. For the human race, there is no Planet B! -
KR at 02:17 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "Note that melting ice requires almost two orders of magnitude less heat than thermostreic expansion of water, so talk about recent heat storage in the climate system is inconsistent with claims of accelerating melt of ice sheets and glaciers." My pardon, but I cannot find the logic in this statement. Increasing heat storage in the climate system should both raise sea levels and accelerate ice melt. There is no mutual exclusion there. Can you explain what you mean? Secondly, as Albatross (and your own link!) point out, sea level rise is currently 3.2+/- 0.4 mm/year, not 2.3 mm/year. Where did you get the 2.3 value? -
Dave123 at 02:09 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
The Gish Gallop can be used in reverse.... In a verbal debate you present a list of statements, from being a member of the house of lords, to misquoting and interpreting the scientific literature and hammer on one point: Monckton makes things up and has no credibility, either personally or scientifically. He has no right to be on the podium because he's a serial liar. You stick to message- and if he stumbles and brings up a case where he's been damned by the authors of the paper he quotes, you pounce....and if he doesn't you keep repeating. You take it from he said/he said- because you're citing sources. Better go in with a handout with the references and a press packet. It can be done. Oh..don't use the word liar. I'm sure he'd love to sue. And you rehearse. You have someone play Monckton. and practice, practice, practice. -
shoyemore at 02:08 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Debunking Lord Monckton is becoming a Whack-a-Moley enterprise. Boring and repetitive it is at its worst, as he has not come up with new arguments for years. However, I think the key to progress is not to back down but to persistently maintain one's ground. Many thanks to Skeptical Science for doing that, for for being such a valuable repository of information. -
muoncounter at 01:58 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
pirate#19: "Too much or not enough food." See this comment and use It's not bad for replies. "That may sound callous, but that is life. Always been like that and always will. " Yes, it's a jungle out there. But for those who are top-of-the-food-chain, it's all good?
Prev 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 Next
