Recent Comments

Prev  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  Next

Comments 78601 to 78650:

78601. Dave123 at 06:54 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Kevin, exactly. One can go back in the the recent historical data and find many periods of "flatness" comparable to what is claimed now. Yet, mysteriously (not so mysteriously) the longer term trend is stili inexorably upwards.
78602. Doug Mackie at 06:37 AM on 26 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       @Byron, we are getting a little ahead of the rest of the series. Hold on for a few more posts and then we can go over any gaps.
78603. Doug Mackie at 06:35 AM on 26 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       @jyyh: Not for the first time your comment seems to be missing words. Can you clarify what your point is (or if there is one)? Are you asserting that volcanic emissions are a major source of CO₂ in either the atmosphere or the ocean? If so it is plain you have not read (or understood) the post.
78604. kevin s at 05:58 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       It looks like Rob Honeycutt already made this point using UAH monthly data, but here's a simple illustration that anyone can check out for themselves: Take a look at a graph of a good global temperature record--I used the GISS land/ocean index, but any good record should work. While looking at the graph, imagine using the "compare the most recent data to the trend" method in various years. For example, imagine it's 1986, and you want to compare the past few years of data--let's say five--to the trend. Did that give you any useful information about the future? Do the same exercise again, only pretend it's 1999, so your "most recent data" is 1993-1998. Did that give you any useful information about the future? I think that the only thing you get from comparing a short segment of noisy data to the statistically significant trend...is a first-hand appreciation of how useless it is to do such a thing. That's more obvious when you use it on archival data--where you can see right away that the fluctuations turned out to be noise--than it is when you're doing it on current data, hot off the presses. But it's every bit as true regarding the current data, and even more important to be aware of, lest you get carried away with all sorts of wrong ideas.
78605. Byron Smith at 05:31 AM on 26 July 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #8
       Just wondering whether the cartoon in this post falls foul of the comments policy stating no rants about politics. There are plenty of very funny and insightful political cartoons out there, do we need this one here?
       Response:

       [DB]  Don't believe it fits the definition of a rant.  A lament, sure.

       The logo splash at the start is kinda cool.

78606. kevin s at 05:30 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       "When you use such short time frames, all sorts of crazy statistics can appear." - Yes! Using of too-short time frames with noisy data can lead to misleading conclusions. "Selective use of statistics to bolster ones view is not a good scientific approach." - Yes! Absolutely correct! The light has been seen! "Best is to use a long term trend (with good statistics), and then compare the most recent data to that trend." - Oh...oh, never mind. Eric the Red, your whole comment up until the last half of the last sentence demonstrates the problem with what you advocate in the last half of the last sentence. Try to "compare the most recent data to the trend," and unless your "most recent data" includes enough for a test of statistical significance, you have EXACTLY the problem of "all sorts of crazy statistics can appear" with "such short time frames."
78607. Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Eric... You still get into trouble comparing recent data with the long term trend because the variation in the data exceeds the trend by such a large amount. Even just look at UAH monthly variation. Just in the past couple of years it's ranged from -0.4 to +0.5 (approx) while the long term trend is still in the range of 0.15C/decade. Variation exceeds the trend by a factor of something like 6 (rough guess). What I always find more compelling is the fact that we have still yet to see any statistically significant cooling. The skeptics go on and on about no apparent warming but neglect to point out that they also don't see any cooling anywhere even at the end of a long 30 year warming trend.
78608. CBDunkerson at 03:50 AM on 26 July 2011
       Wakening the Kraken
       Seriously? It isn't bad enough that we might accidentally release carbon long sequestered in methane clathrates into the atmosphere. Now we're going out and doing it deliberately.
78609. Eric the Red at 03:38 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       When you use such short time frames, all sorts of crazy statistics can appear. Adjust your starting date forwards or backwards one year, and the CRU trend changes from 0.11C / decade to 0.00C / decade. Selective use of statistics to bolster ones view is not a good scientific approach. Best is to use a long term trend (with good statistics), and then compare the most recent data to that trend.
78610. caerbannog at 03:22 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       If Michaels weren't so disingenuous, he'd acknowledge that you don't need *any* of the CRU's supposedly "destroyed" raw data to confirm that the global-warming trend is very real and is quite in line with the CRU's (and NASA's, and NOAA's) results. I know that I've put up a number of posts here pounding on this basic theme, but it's important enough for new visitors/lurkers to see this that I don't think that the "old timers" here will mind too much if I pound on it yet again. 1) All of the publicly-available *raw* temperature data needed to do perform your own verification of the NASA/NOAA/CRU global-average temperature results are available at the NOAA/GHCN data repository. 2) The basic algorithm used to compute global-average anomalies is straightforward and well-documented. There are many variations on this basic procedure, but just the basic procedure (without any of the extra fancy stuff that the NASA/NOAA/CRU folks do) will still produce global-average temperature estimates very much in-line with the pros' results. 3) All of the software-development tools needed to put together your own "hand rolled" global-average anomaly program are freely available for anyone to download and use. Some time ago, I wrote up a program that implements the simplest, most basic version of the global-average temperature anomaly algorithm, and then ran GHCN *raw* data through it. And once again (for those who haven't already seen this), here is a plot showing how my results compare with NASA's official "Meteorological Stations" results. The bottom line is, it does not matter how you slice and dice the global temperature data -- if you don't completely screw things up, you'll get results very similar to the results that the "pros" get, whether or not you have access to the CRU's supposedly "destroyed" raw data. The deniers who have been attacking the climate-science community's global-temperature work know (or should know) this. The fact that they have continued with attacks like this indicates to me that they are incompetent or dishonest (that's an inclusive "or" btw...).
       Moderator Response: [RH] Readjusted width. Please keep images down to 450 so that it doesn't break the page formatting. Thx.
78611. Robert Murphy at 03:19 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       "Robert - no, according to HadCRUT the trend is 0.08°C per decade since 1996" OK. I was thinking of Phil Jones who said the trend was .12C/decade from 1995 thru 2009, so I assumed the trend didn't change much from 1996 through present. Just another example of how changing the start year can make a big difference when dealing with small sample sizes.
78612. KR at 03:13 AM on 26 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Philippe - This has been a pattern with damorbel from the beginning. When a bit of nonsense is firmly refuted, he skips to the next argument in a Gish Gallop. The original bit of nonsense will then re-emerge weeks later, perhaps to a different visitor, in a sort of never-ending zombie manner. And damorbel has shown no compunctions against contradicting himself, if it continues the argument. I've yet to see actual discussions of science with this poster - just arguments. DNFTT.
78613. Eric the Red at 03:04 AM on 26 July 2011
       It's the sun
       gcdem, The solar cycle has nothing to do with the Southern (especially Texan) drought. The main culpret has been the strong La Nina. Areas to the north experienced above normal precipitation (rain and snow), whereas southern areas were rain-starved. Similar occurrances accompanied past strong La Ninas, many of which were more severe than the current situation, particularly the mid 1950s. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html
78614. dorlomin at 02:41 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       An aerosol spreading confusion? Sounds like Michaels.
78615. dana1981 at 02:40 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Robert - no, according to HadCRUT the trend is 0.08°C per decade since 1996 (0.12°C total). It's nearly twice that (0.15°C per decade) according to GISTEMP though. Paul - the Forbes family (specifically Steve Forbes, I believe) own the magazine.
78616. Paul Magnus at 02:33 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Forbes is well know for its anti GW bias. Is it owned by Murdoch?
78617. Byron Smith at 02:28 AM on 26 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       Thanks Doug, that is very helpful. A further question: If the ocean as a whole remains a carbon sink but some areas are a carbon source, what are the local conditions that contribute to the latter? Is it more common in certain parts of the globe? Do these areas shift significantly over time or are there long term patterns certain areas being sources?
78618. gcdem at 02:23 AM on 26 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Great Post! It's 2011, and we in the US are in the middle of another Summer heat wave and severe drought. I used a few arguments from this post to totally debunk someone in my office who was trying to use the "11-year solar cycle" argument to explain this drought.
78619. Robert Murphy at 02:10 AM on 26 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       "the average surface temperature has warmed 0.12°C since 1996" Shouldn't that be .12C/decade?
78620. jyyh at 01:56 AM on 26 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       the resident 'skeptic' asks of the volcanos present somewhere them earth scientists haven't looked and points to http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
78621. muoncounter at 01:51 AM on 26 July 2011
       The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
       More bad news from the Sargasso Sea: The graph shown in the source cited in #28 (Bluemle), attributed as 'modified' from Keigwin's original work, is really the misrepresentation done by Art Robinson, Sallie Balliunas and Willie Soon (originally published in 1998 by that prestigious climate source, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons; apparently they liked it so much they published it again, under the same title, in 2007). The lower panel in this composite is the version in Bluemle; the upper is Robinson. Neither contain all of the data published by Keigwin 1996. This is clear-cut scientific dishonesty, yet the meme lives on. Olson's work is a must-read.
78622. Philippe Chantreau at 01:15 AM on 26 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel, your attempts at distracting from your poor comprehension of the subjects on which you would pretend to comment, and even lecture, are amusing. I note that you fail to defend your IR photon thermometer/temperature of the source idea; not suprising, since it is not defensible. "thermodynamics is rather complicated" Well, it's not so bad, really. Reflect on the following long and deep and you will eliminate a lot of the confusion that has been plaguing you during this astoundingly tedious exchange: You have to play. You can't win. You can't break even. That's enough for anyone to understand thermodynamics better than what transpires from your comments.
78623. muoncounter at 01:10 AM on 26 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Ger#23: "What will be the effect of the rising pressure of the sea on the lower agricultural grounds?" Some chilling pictures of the effect on agriculture in Kiribati, on the front lines of sea level rise, are available here. Some chilling words from coastal Germany, Sterr 2008: Although additional investment in flood and erosion protection will be considerable (estimated at more than 500 million US$) this seems manageable for the national and regional economies. On the other hand, hard coastline defence and accelerated sea-level rise will increase “coastal squeeze” on the seaward side, endangering important coastal ecosystems such as tidal flats (Wadden Sea), saltmarshes, and dunes. Currently there is no strategy to remedy this increasing ecological vulnerability. --emphasis added Isn't it good to hear that there's no strategy?
78624. muoncounter at 00:55 AM on 26 July 2011
       Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
       Badgersouth#15: "The negative consequences that melting Artctic sea ice is having, and will continue to have, on the ecology of the Earth are many" And this can't be good. A single-celled alga that went extinct in the North Atlantic Ocean about 800,000 years ago has returned after drifting from the Pacific through the Arctic thanks to melting polar ice. And while its appearance marks the first trans-Arctic migration in modern times, scientists say it signals something potentially bigger.
78625. DSL at 23:43 PM on 25 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Ianash, if I extend the trend in the historical data, my best guess is "no." However, we can't rule out an anomalous response (hope, of course, being required for despair).
78626. Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 25 July 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Dear Dr Trenberth Very good of you to respond to comments on this thread. Could I draw your attention of a very detailed discussion from a SKS thread entitled "Robust Warming of the Global Upper Ocean" found here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=78&&n=202 Posts by Berényi Péter at #6, #30, #40, #45, #72 are of interest as well of a few of my lesser efforts at #24, #43, #60, #67. Berényi Péter at #30 in the above says: "TOA imbalance is extremely important. Below is satellite measurement for the last ten years: (see chart) These measurements have low accuracy but reasonable precision. It means that the curves above have an arbitrary offset (within several Wm-2), but would show a marked level change whenever accumulation rate of thermal energy changes in the climate system. Nothing like that is seen between 2002-2004. Therefore either satellite data are absolutely useless or the 6-8×1022 J heat accumulation in the oceans after 2000 followed by a more or less level plateau from 2004 on is an artifact due to transition to ARGO. There is no other possibility. Net TOA radiative imbalance should be very nearly identical to the temporal derivative of OHC, because there is no heat storage capacity in the climate system comparable to the oceans and all energy exchange between Earth and its environment is mediated by electromagnetic radiation (any other forms of energy transfer, e.g. tidal breaking are many orders of magnitude smaller)." What I call the 'step jump' in OHC in the 2002-04 period is not reflected in satellite measurements of TOA imbalance and this strongly suggests that the 6-8E22 Joules of increase in OHC is an artifact of the XBT-Argo transition. Linearizing the OHC charts including this step jump from 1993 to 2010 giving the equal of 0.5-0.6W/sq.m TOA imbalance is therefore invalid. Could you comment on this issue?
78627. CBDunkerson at 22:12 PM on 25 July 2011
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       On another thread Ken wrote: "When Water Vapor is included as a GHG, it represents 95% of the GHGs." Water vapor represents about 0.4% (or 4000 ppm) of the total atmosphere. CO2 is at about 395 ppm currently. The other greenhouse gases are all measured in parts per BILLION or less and thus disappear in the rounding. Based on these numbers water vapor molecules would account for about 91% of all greenhouse gas molecules. The warming impact of water vapor obviously varies by location (i.e. not much in deserts, rather alot in humid areas), but on average it represents 36% (if we exclude water vapor impacts which would also be caused by other GHGs) or 72% (if we exclude impacts by other GHGs which would also be caused by water vapor) of the total greenhouse effect. Thus, I'm not clear where your figure of "95% of the GHGs" comes from. The closest is the 91% of total molecules figure... but that value has no direct relevance to the warming impact you were referring to in your post.
78628. Tom Curtis at 21:59 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @1109, it is rather more important to keep clear about the content of the physical laws you are appealing to, something you continually fail to do. But your just keep on plugging away drawing attention to the use of a metaphor as a substitute for actually learning the topic on which you expound so frequently.
78629. Bob Lacatena at 21:57 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1107, damorbel, Your obsession with semantics and word choice is crippling you. The rest of us understand exactly what is meant by "diffusion," "transfer" and "flow" without the need to apply only certain terms to gases, solids or fluids... as do the learned men who wrote the referenced papers and used those terms to begin with. You have a whole lot of studying to do before you can contribute to a discussion like this. In particular, I suggest that you try to get away from what you think you know and understand (traditional thermodynamics) and begin to study more modern quantum and molecular level physics and radiative transfer (or diffusion or flow or emission/absorption for whatever term you'd like to use). Until you do, you're trying to both understand and argue from a too limited perspective. You're like one of the blind men trying to describe an elephant.

       So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!

78630. damorbel at 21:55 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1108 Dikran Marsupial, you wrote:- "Speaking of heat flow does not necessarily imply adherence to caloric thory" I know that too. But thermodynamics is rather complicated so it is essential to be quite certain of the meaning of words. There is all the difference in the world between processes involving transport of fluids and diffusion in solids. The 'flow' problem is not the only one. Frequently diagrams are drawn shoing the GHE where the authors do not distinguish betwen the reflection (as with a mirror) and the absorption/emission of radiation. These two processes are completely different, it isn't possible to even think of a CO2 GH effect unless the two processes are clearly separated.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] In that case, as you know that nobody in the discussion is talking about caloric theory when they speak of "flow", any further mention of "caloric" on this thread is off-topic and will be deleted, likewise any further general discussion on the meaning of the word "flow". As you apparently recognise that "flow [of heat]" is being used as a metaphor for "transfer [of energy]" this should be no hurdle to communication.
78631. Dikran Marsupial at 21:40 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel Speaking of heat flow does not necessarily imply adherence to caloric thory. One can talk metaphorically about there being a flow without the supposed existence of a fluid. For instance in information theory it is perfectly reasonable to talk of the flow of information through a channel, but information isn't carried by a fluid. It is just a metaphor.
78632. Tom Curtis at 21:37 PM on 25 July 2011
       Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
       Dan Olner @16, personally I enjoyed seeing the sun "bounce" without going below the horizon.
78633. Christina McGraw at 21:28 PM on 25 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       Hi Alan, We simplified as we didn't think people would understand if we wrote where ∂ is the partial derivative. Thanks for noticing.
78634. damorbel at 21:00 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1105 Tom Curtis, you cited a very nice article on Victorian Science which I intend to read fully. But it is quite clear that the author is not entirely clear about the diffusion equations that Fourier famously derived. Your citation has:- "Fourier focused on heat flow, using differential equations to express how much heat diffused from a substance over time" This is exactly the kind of confused thinking one finds today (and in history). Fourier is justly famous for his diffusion equations, I was taught them in my thermal physics course too. But his equations are about diffusion, a process found in solids not 'flow' which requires fluids. Flow is covered by Fluid dynamics which is also a relevant subject to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics but it is quite separate from diffusion.
78635. Dan Olner at 20:49 PM on 25 July 2011
       Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
       A slightly cheerier thing I got from that: a real sense of sitting on top of a spinning planet as the sun whizzed past.
78636. damorbel at 20:39 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1103 Tom Curtis, you give a link - http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node119.html This link is about heat tranfer in solids with various shapes - hollow shells, cylinders etc. under the general title "16.5 Steady Quasi-One-Dimensional Heat Flow" The explanation seems quite good to me but the title, as so ften is the case, is not really correct. What the author is describing is diffusion. Later in the article (perhaps an editor chose the title) he writes:- "The heat transfer rate per unit length is given by...." and give a formula that I can't copy here. The article is rather strange because further down it has :- "The steady-flow energy equation (no fluid flow, no work) tells us that....." Yet further it has:- "The heat transfer rate per unit length is given by... " with another formula that doesn't copy All very confusing and not really helpful for understanding the fundamental physics. You can check what Wikipedia has on this here :- Derivation in one dimension In your link the equation (16..25) corresponds to the last one in the 'one dimensional section' of the Wiki article where it adds helpfully :- "which is the heat equation. The coefficient k/(cpρ) is called thermal diffusivity and is often denoted α." You will also notice that the article refers to these equations as 'Fourier's law'.
78637. Tom Curtis at 20:16 PM on 25 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel, it turns out that your history of science is almost as bad as your science:

       By 1800, alternatives to the caloric hypothesis appeared and, in 1811, Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) published a mathematical theory of heat conduction that was entirely independent of the caloric hypothesis. Fourier's first step was to avoid speculation about "caloric." In this way, Fourier set the study of the theory of heat in the tradition of rational mechanics, basing it on differential equations that characterized the transmission of heat, equations that were independent of all physical hypotheses. In contrast to Poisson (who was, as mentioned above, a devoted Laplacian, committed to physical mechanics and to the existence of caloric), Fourier focused on heat flow, using differential equations to express how much heat diffused from a substance over time. The heat transmitted between two molecules was proportional to the difference in their temperature and a function of the distance between them, which of course varied with the nature of the intervening substance. Though formally (that is, mathematically) equivalent to Poisson's model, Fourier did not rely upon any speculation about the nature of heat. For Fourier, what was important was not what heat was, but what it did, in a given experimental setting."

       (source, emphasis added) So, Fourier made not commitment to calorific theory, for which there where alternatives at his time. What is more he directly declared his agnosticism on the issue:

       "Of the nature of heat uncertain hypotheses only could be formed, but the knowledge of the mathematical laws to which its effects are subject is independent of all hypothesis; it requires only an attentive examination of the chief facts which common observations have indicated, and which have been confirmed by exact experiments."

       (Joseph Fourier, Theory of Heat, p 26) Further, if the the independence of mathematical theory of heat flow was not independent of calorific theory, then calorific theory would be established as true, for certainly his mathematical treatment of heat flow is. As it stands, his theory is independent of calorific theory (contrary to your claims) but consistent with the metaphor of heat flow (again contrary to your claims) as is established by his use of that very metaphor. What is more, as is established by the actual practice at MIT, that metaphor is alive and well in physics today, and causes no confusion. Except, perhaps to small minded pedants.
78638. Tom Curtis at 19:36 PM on 25 July 2011
       Milankovitch Cycles
       Glenn Tamblyn @31, just speaking of the top of my head but, wouldn't the first response by by early snow melts in as yet unglaciated land areas. Because of the preponderance of land in the Northern Hemisphere, this would lead to greater sensitivity in the NH which is necessary to explain the asymmetric response between the hemispheres. If sea ice is the first element to respond to the Milankovitch cycle, that would suggest a significantly stronger SH response than NH. Further, my understanding is that the sparse land masses north of 60 degrees South in the SH prevent the build up of continental ice sheets, and hence prevent the lapse into an ice age. On that basis I would suggest that if the SH had a similar land distribution to the NH, that would lock the Earth into permanent glacial conditions rather than prevent glacial conditions from forming.
78639. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:23 PM on 25 July 2011
       Milankovitch Cycles
       Let me suggest several contributing factors to what happens over a glacial/interglacial cycle. Starting at the bottom of a glacial. Milankovitch triggers some warming. Sea ice responds faster than land ice so more warming. Oceans respond with CO2 outgassing. Slowly the land starts to respond which is primarily northern hemisphere. Moderate ice sheet retreat starts to produce more melting permafrost, more methane. Later in the cycle, land ice sheets start to respond - it takes a fair old while to remove ice sheets kilometers thick. So albedo change and more warming, but only late in the cycle. Also, as ice sheets retreat polewards, geography and trigonometry come into play - more change early, declining change later. As ice sheets retreat they leave bare rock. Over 100's and 1000's of years this bare rock is slowly converted to soil and biomass. A carbon store. Then Milankovitch starts to tip things the other way. A bit of cooling. First impact of cooling is to extend snow ranges towards the equator. A snowfall can have as much effect on albedo as a huge ice sheet, but it can happen much quicker. so albedo change can have a bigger impact earlier in the cooling phase. Cooling triggers CO2 uptake by the oceans. More cooling. However, all that new biomass on the colonised rock is still there. How long does it take to kill off those recent forests and return their CO2 to the oceans or the atmosphere. In the intervening period, will they hold CO2 levels up even as Milankovitch and Albedo are cooling things. This surely makes for a nice complicated cycle over 1 glacial period. And all of this is probably due to the assymetric configuration of the continents between morth & south. If the Earth's continents were arranged symetrically, we may not see ice ages. And past arrangements of the continents probably had a huge impact on the Earth's predisposition to Ice Age behaviour or not.
78640. alan_marshall at 18:57 PM on 25 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       Thus the temperature change required to sufficiently change the Henry's Law coefficient is 140/200 × 16 = 11oC Doug, I am enjoying the series so forgive me for being picky. I read you as saying the quantity of outgassed CO₂ is an exponential function of temperature. As this function is by definition non-linear, are you justified in using linear interpolation to get 11oC? I suggest this value should be a little higher.
78641. Tom Curtis at 17:27 PM on 25 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Agnostic @87, I can clearly see the point you are making. I can also clearly see the fallacy involved. I think you come to the position from shoddy thinking rather than racism, but at its root your position comes down to the assumption that one US citizen is worth four Chinese citizens, is worth twenty Indian citizens. It is further premised on the idea that the US (and other Western nations) because they have profited greatly from the exploitation of fossil fuels, should be absolved of any responsibility for any harm that exploitation will do; and indeed that they have only one quarter of the responsibility for future action to prevent harm from it than is born by any Chinese citizen. Such an idea may fly well on fox news, but it won't fly in China or India. Nor to China or India have self interest gulling them into accepting transparent nonsense. So as long as the West sticks to that premise as a basis of negotiation, for that long they guarantee that China and India will not sign up to any substantive cuts in emissions on any time table.
78642. ianash at 16:16 PM on 25 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       so pirate, you've been given at least three separate sources that show that you are incorrect. Will you have the good grace to admit that your statements were wrong?
78643. Riduna at 15:34 PM on 25 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Tom Curtis @86 Again, the right to energy is conflated with an assumed necessity to emit CO2-e. Energy can and will be (already is) produced from clean sources and I certainly accept that the R&D into best achieving this outcome is largely the responsibility of the developed world. Likewise it is responsible for making that technology affordable for poor nations. Lovely column chart though of course it does rather ignore, at least not disclose the difference between the differing numbers of per-capita’s in each country and so avoids disclosing any national emission totals or the extent to which they contribute to global warming. Shorry you can not or do not want to see the point I making.
78644. Tom Curtis at 15:00 PM on 25 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       Agnostic @85, in that case at what rate do you suggest the west subsidize China to reduce its emissions then? Absent such a subsidy, you are asking the poor to pay for the emissions reductions and at a far higher utility cost than the rich are prepared to pay.
78645. Ger at 14:34 PM on 25 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       What will be the effect of the rising pressure of the sea on the lower agricultural grounds? Will the salt water level rise to an extend that it is not usable any-more? Seems to me especially a problem from Zeeland and Noord-Holland provinces in the Netherlands AND for large delta areas. It can be that rising water levels in rivers will counter the effect. For rivers already locked in by dykes that effect will be less.
78646. Doug Mackie at 13:44 PM on 25 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Thanks Sarah, though overall weathering actually produces mainly bicarbonate HCO₃^- (Eq. 4) We discuss alkalinity in post 12. Seawater alkalinity is a more complex expression than that for freshwater and also includes species like B(OH)₄^-, SiO(OH)₃^-, and HF.
78647. Doug Mackie at 13:34 PM on 25 July 2011
       OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?
       Byron, your question has some subtleties that mean it is hard to give a soundbite answer so bear with me and I will answer what I think you mean. I think you mean: "Under the current regime of increasing retention of heat energy and of increasing atmospheric CO₂, then how much would the oceans have to warm for the oceans to become a net source of CO₂?" In a closed system in a laboratory water reaches an equilibrium with the gases above it. That equilibrium is described by a Henry's law coefficient. So the first point to clarify is that the atmospheric doubling per 16^oC warming we noted refers to a system with constant atmospheric CO₂ and is useful to describe what happens when water moves between the poles and the tropics. The second point to note is that unlike a closed system in a test tube the ocean is an open and dynamic system. In most areas the ocean is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere. See this plot of Hawaii ocean data (HOTS) and Mauna Loa atmospheric data. The disequilibrium has several causes, including biological uptake and export to deep water. Some areas of the ocean are a source of CO₂, though overall the ocean is a strong sink. With biological processes taking up carbon then equilibrium is not reached and so long as the atmospheric pCO₂ is greater than that of the surface ocean then (for realistic warming)the oceans will take up CO₂. (Though the rate of uptake may change).
78648. Sarah at 13:25 PM on 25 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff, You are correct that a mixture of only CO2 and water won't make pH 8 (I did not mean to suggest that). Pure water in equilibrium with air is about pH 5.7. Weathering has added CaCO₃ to the oceans over millions of years, which dissolves to the base CO₃^2-. Alkalinity (AT) is a measure of how much "excess" base is in the system, for example, how much CO₃^2- came in with Ca²⁺ instead of with H⁺ as the counter ion (to balance the charges, you can't add negative charge without adding + charges too). The charge balance in the system provides another constraining equation. The sum of charges of all the species present must add up to zero. The pH is determined by how much of the charge ends up being H₃O⁺ after all the equilibrium equations are satisfied.
78649. John Hartz at 13:22 PM on 25 July 2011
       Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
       What the video doesn't show is described in Melting Arctic ice releasing banned toxins, warn scientists an article posted (July 24) on Guardian.co.uk. The negative consequences that melting Artctic sea ice is having, and will continue to have, on the ecology of the Earth are many, and they are severe.
78650. scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 25 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       There was a public meeting here about sealevel rise and it's threat to the city (which has some immediate issues) with contributions from surveyors, engineers, town planners etc. One very good point that an engineer made was that scope and affordability of engineering solutions was inversely proportional to total expected sea level rise. If the rise is around 1m, then engineering is possible and effective. If it is 2-3m then retreat is only realistic option.

Prev  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  Next