Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 Next
Comments 79451 to 79500:
-
r.pauli at 08:06 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
I agree that we should be civil and respectful in our discourse. But the respect goes to those who are serious about facing the future. While we are polite and deferential - there are real and horrific global warming events has been unfolding - changes that are unmitigated by much of any adjustment to CO2 emissions. For more than the last decade the world has suffered delay and distraction from making changes that could have helped. In this way, deniers like Monkton have done real harm. He does not deserve our respect. While it is kind of you to carefully evaluate what he saying. And it is professional of you to dissect his presentations. But Monkton is a dangerous buffoon, lacking rational logic and devoid of ethics. In a civil and just world, he would be politely ignored. I fault various organizations for promoting his brand of tinfoil-hat psudo-infotainment. And following those who deliberately mislead is itself crazy. -
Doug Mackie at 07:43 AM on 15 July 2011OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs
@JosHag"One would also expect that a lower uptake of CO2 (very) slowly would get visible in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, at least when the emission rates don't change".
Perhaps. The short answer is that temperature is just one of several variables that control the transfer of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean. While general trends can be predicted, it is not at all clear how the fine detail of other variables such as ocean circulation and biological activity will or will not change. -
cynicus at 07:27 AM on 15 July 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
How is the pauze consistent with e.g. Hansen's GISS that finds that the 2000s warmed as rapidly as the decades before that? Hansen: [..], we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15°C–0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s. Or with Jones' BBC ordeal with 1995-2011 now showing warming at the 0.05 confidence level, which imho means you can't really tell (in HadCRUT) how real any linear trend is over the last decade. Is this Kaufmann paper trying to answer a question that wasn't there to begin with (regarding a pauze in warming, I'm not disputing the increase in aerosols)? -
KR at 07:11 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
Non-scientists interpret the works of scientists every day. But deliberately misrepresenting those works (as Monckton does, demonstrably and repeatably) is the act of a denier. actually thoughtful - Abraham has spent quite some effort cross-checking Monckton's claims. No-one he has contacted has supported them. You yourself could check this - pick a few references at complete random (statistical sampling), read the papers, and see if they actually support Monckton. They do not. -
dana1981 at 06:51 AM on 15 July 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
Nice post, Rob. jg made a great cartoon on this subject:
-
les at 06:25 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
I kind of agree with A. Thoughtful, but IMHO the issue isn't scientist .v. Non-scientsis; but that one should be cairfully depending on someone for whom there is either no cost to being wrong (mostly professionally, but there are of course other reputations) or, even more, someone whos value is in holding a firm [wrong]position. The tragedy for TVMOB - not to mention McInT, Watts etc. is that they get to be considerably less significant as soon as they stop pleasing the mob. -
scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 15 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Eric, I did not doubt for a moment that glacier would retreat when it was warm. I also noted that the warming not synchronous across the planet like warming is today. What I was countering in the post, was the idea that MCA was globally warmer. Most glaciers have retreated further than did in medieval times and sealevel is higher. -
actually thoughtful at 06:13 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
I take issue with this statement :"Second, it is very dangerous to rely upon the interpretation of a non-scientist to real science work." If the interpretation is divergent to the scientists, sure, no problem. But I personally, as a non-scientist, interpret the work of scientists every day. And I am reasonably good at it. Science is not some rarefied, elite process that we mere mortals are incapable of understanding. Indeed, the best scientists find ways to make their research accessible to the masses. I can't follow all of Einstein's math, but I get the concept of relativity. Also, you list 6 responses. Rob Honeycutt tells us there are 312 in total. Did you omit any of the other responses? What happened to the other 306? How many did you contact? How many responded? Mind you I completely agree with you that Monckton is not credible on issues of climate science, and appears to give deniers a bad name, I just read this article skeptically and found plenty of places where missing information makes it much weaker than I suspect it is (ie answer my questions in the actual article and you will have a powerful commentary on Monckton). -
Andy Skuce at 05:42 AM on 15 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Humanracesurvival @ 52 It may be true that rapid removal of glaciers from volcanoes may provoke eruptions to occur earlier than they otherwise would have. It's also conceivable that sudden reductions in ice sheet thicknesses could cause earthquakes. However, these would temporarily and slightly increase the amount of energy coming out of the Earth. What we are looking for are hidden sinks and not extra hidden sources for the energy budget. Anyway, the total amount of energy emitted from the Earth's interior is only about 1/10,0000 of the amount of solar radiation (not even big enough to be worth showing on Kevin Trenberth's Figure 1) and any small increases in this quantity due to climate-tectonic interactions would be entirely inconsequential in terms of the planet's energy budget. -
Albatross at 04:46 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Composer @40, "Certainly, from the perspective of public policy, it seems to me that we have enough knowledge to comfortably demand action on the matter." Agreed! -
Eric the Red at 04:39 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Not quite sure what you mean by the strawman argument. But if you mean that those trying to show exponential CO2 growth have been demonstrably wrong, then I agree. In June, CO2 was 1.66 ppm higher than in 2010, and is averaging 1.62 ppm higher than 2010 throughtout the first six months of 2011. Most likely due to the strong La Nina and lower SST. http://co2now.org/Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Eric, we are by now aware of your hypothesis that there has been a shift from exponential to linear growth in CO2. Now unless you can demonstrate that it isn't merely an artifact of the noise (i.e. a test of statistical significance) then there is nothing more that remains to be usefully said. The moderators have been very lenient with you so far, but this issue is now off-topic and it is unfair on other readers of SkS to allow the discussion to be derailed any further. Ironically, from the link you provide "What is the current trend? The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing at an accelerating rate from decade to decade. accelerating from decade to decade. The latest atmospheric CO2 data is consistent with a continuation of this long-standing trend." -
Composer99 at 04:33 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
For a layman such as myself, I see the 'take home' message of this post being that, thanks to the tireless research performed by climatologists and a wide variety of other [take your pick]-ologists, we know an awful lot about the Earth climate system, and we know increasingly more with each passing year. It may well be the case that there is more left to learn than there is learned about the behaviour of the Earth climate system. This does not diminish the sheer amount of accumulated knowledge already gathered. Certainly, from the perspective of public policy, it seems to me that we have enough knowledge to comfortably demand action on the matter. -
Albatross at 04:31 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Sorry Daniel, we cross-posted; only saw your post after I submitted #48.Response:[DB] No problem, Albatross. Your conclusions are spot-on.
I just played Lizzie Borden (a whack-whack here, a whack-whack there) to clean up the debris on this thread.
-
Albatross at 04:26 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Readers following this sad thread, Nothing new here, to play on the title of the OP, this is what we know about this attempt to create faux debate-- the contrarians and 'skeptics' have no tenable or credible scientific case to make, so they resort to conspiracy theories, attempts to derail threads, and attempts to detract form the science. Repeat ad nauseum-- you know what contrarians, these antics are so transparent and only further undermine your credibility, not to mention being intellectually numbing. I interpret this behavior as implicit agreement with the salient points made in the points above. The only points that has been challenged by 'skeptics' (and it was a strawman argument at that) here is the rate of increase in CO2, and on that they have been shown repeatedly to be demonstrably wrong. -
KR at 04:11 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Camburn - You present links for a reason, kindly state why when you post them. That's part of the Comments Policy for all participants here - when you fail to do so, you are in violation of that policy. Quite frankly, with some of the 'links only' posts (including yours) it's extremely difficult to determine what possible relevance they might have.Response:[DB] Please refrain from further discussion of the Comments Policy and moderation. A return to the topic of this post, What we know and what we don't know, is appreciated. What I know (and what veteran habitues of SkS know as well) is that future off-topic conversation on this thread will be deleted, as will those already posted. Thanks to all for your compliance in this matter.
-
JosHagelaars at 03:17 AM on 15 July 2011OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs
@Doug Mackie 18 Thanks for your answer. One would also expect that a lower uptake of CO2 (very) slowly would get visible in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, at least when the emission rates don't change. The oceans contain a lot of water so I probably will be old when these effects will be better quantifiable. -
Eric the Red at 02:53 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Tom, I found the link interesting and informative, even though it is old. Yes, he probably should have included more details about the relevance of the cloud data in the link, but it is definitely useful and on topic for this thread. -
Humanracesurvival at 02:44 AM on 15 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Though in post #52 the first link should be fixed to this: Climate Change and the Geosphere Thanks for the detailed explanation David. Could anyone point me to a good explanation "break-down" of how the models incorporate climate forcings? -
Tom Curtis at 02:40 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
DSL, as if to illustrate my point, we have Camburn @30. I quote from the comments policy:"No link or pic only. Links to useful resources are welcome (see HTML tips below). However, comments containing only a link will be deleted. At least provide a short summary of the content of the webpage to facilitate discussion (and show you understand the page you're linking to). Similarly, images are very welcome as they can be very useful in explaining the science. But comments with pictures in isolation without explanation will be deleted."
Clearly Camburn's post is in violation of the spirit of the policy if not the letter. Yet he would be the first to scream censorship if his inane and pointless post were deleted. And he also has been on Skeptical Science for a long time so their is no excuse for his casual disregard of comments policy.Response:[DB] Please refrain from further discussion of the Comments Policy and moderation. A return to the topic of this post is appreciated; thanks!
-
Eric the Red at 02:38 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Yes Kevin, I should not have used the term "decelerate" to indicate a slowdown in the rate of increase. Once again, I am not using Tamino's graph because he is comparing recent measurements to those from 10 years prior. His value for 2010 is the average rate of increase for the past decade. In the post @8, you will see that the highest annual increase occurred in 1998, but in Tamino's graph, 1998 is the low point in the dip. The actual CO2 increase rate fell from 1987-1992, but in Tamino's graph, the change did not occur until 1992. When plotting a 10-year average, the most common practice is to center the average around the midpoint (2001-2010 would be plotting in 2005). Tamino is plotting them at the endpoint. The recent linearity will not become apparant by Tamino's method for several years. I am not saying that it will continue, possibly due to explanations presented by Tom @21, but you average over long timeframes, it takes similarly long timeframes for changes to occur.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Eric, can you show that the "linearisation" of the exponetial rise is statistically significant, i.e. that you can be sure it is not just an artifact of the noise. If you can't do that, then your argument is just an unupported hypothesis, and you are distracting from the discussion of more substantive issues. -
Riccardo at 02:28 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Camburn it refers to an old paper. Are you aware of any improvement since 15 years ago? -
kevin s at 02:15 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Further to Eric: When you don't use the word "deceleration" your posts sound somewhat more reasonable, and when you say the rate has been "deviating from exponential" or "approaching linear" it's clear that even you don't *actually believe it's been decelerating (which would be a curve on the other side of linear on a CO2 concentration graph). But even in the more reasonable mode, I still think you come to wrong conclusions by ignoring statistical significance. You say the last 13 years has been linear...can you show how you come to that conclusion? Because looking at the error bars on Tamino's graph, I see acceleration with non-overlapping error bars--i.e. *statistically significant* non-linearity--within the last 13 years. -
CBDunkerson at 02:13 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Camburn - Understanding of cloud impacts has come a long way in the fourteen years since that was published. -
Camburn at 02:07 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
I think this adds to the what we don't know. Confirmation of an important unkown This also has an effect on Prof Trenbeths analysis.Response:[DB] Please characterize and quantify what effect you believe that will have.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:51 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
Went back and made an accurate count. Thompson et al 2003 actually shows up 6 times in the full list of citations. -
Eric the Red at 01:45 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Kevin, There appears to be a slight confusion between graphs, and that may be partly my fault. The graph that Tom showed @16 does show accelerated warming. What must be understood is that this graph is a change in the rate of the 10-year moving average for growth rate, i.e. the rate for 2001-2010 is higher than the rate for 1991-2000. In an exponention growth curve, the CO2 increase rate would be rising linearly. Greater than exponential would be depicted as rising more rapidly, less than exponential as less rapidly. My statement about the previous 13 years concerns the actual CO2 data listed in @8, not the change in Taminos analysis. ut do not take my word for it, do the analysis yourself. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:23 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
That's so bizarre that Monckton says there are 1000 papers in the CO2Sc's Medieval warming project. I recently cut and pasted every paper citation they list and the total was 312. And that included 20+ duplicated references, or references to different sections of the same paper. For instance, this paper is cited no less than 8 times: Thompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E., Lin, P.-N., Henderson, K. and Mashiotta, T.A. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales. And ironically Peter Sinclair did a video on Ellen Mosley-Thompson discussing in an AGU lecture showing how on the Tibetan plateau there clearly was no MWP at all. I don't know how the MWP was supposed to be global if it was clearly non-existent in some places. -
Nicholas Berini at 00:59 AM on 15 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
Dr. Abraham you are quickly becoming one of my favorite people on this planet. Your expertise in both climate science and communications is invaluable. Thanks. -
kevin s at 00:58 AM on 15 July 2011What we know and what we don't know
Eric @ 25, Tom did not say you are not misreading the graph. He said you are not misreading it in the way I suggested (i.e. innocently). You most definitely are misreading the graph. (I'm referring here specifically to the graph from Tamino posted in comment 16 and your subsequent claim that CO2 increase is decelerating in recent years). That graph shows rate of increase of CO2. Any value larger than the one to its left indicates and *increase in rate of increase*, i.e. acceleration. Twelve of the most recent thirteen points on that graph are higher than those to their left. (also the trend across the whole data set is obviously positive, but that's beside the point for now) So there's no question at all that you're misreading the graph. I was suggesting that you might be doing so innocently, by accidentally mistaking the seemingly declining "jerk" (i.e. rate of change of acceleration)near the end of the record for deceleration. Tom simply told me he doubts you made this innocent mistake. -
David Lewis at 00:13 AM on 15 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Rob Painting @50 and 51 - I haven't studied some of the papers you point to yet. Hansen addressed Trenberth's "missing energy" in a talk which is on Youtube Here he is around minute 41:00:
Hansen: “There’s been discussions about this in the literature the last couple of years, where Kevin Trenberth had pointed out that there’s some discrepancy between what he thought the energy imbalance should be, and what the ocean data was telling [him]. And this is kind of a smooth curve, which I don’t know quite how he constructed this. But he thought there’s some imbalance, some missing energy [Hansen points to a projection of the chart that originally appeared in Trenberth’s Science magazine “Perspectives” piece]. I think that’s not actually the case. It actually agrees very well [pauses, stares at the chart], provided that you use this intermediate response function.” [he indicates the chart below Trenberth’s in the screenshot above]. [Discussion of this “intermediate response function" appears around page 20-21 in Hansen et.al., Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications. It’s an educated guess Hansen makes about what the actual climate response function is, given his suspicion that models may be looking good in the do they tend to reproduce climate changes we know about department because offsetting errors in assumptions compensate to allow them to simulate past reality pretty well. He’s doing some educated speculating about what if compensating changes are made to common assumptions underlying models along lines he suspects may be correct, what do things look like then? He warns, again, that aerosols are still so poorly understood he’s on as sound ground about their effect in models as any scientist, if he asks his grandchildren what number he should use to represent their overall net effect.
He displays a picture of the very knowledgeable grandchildren he claims he consulted as he prepared his input to the IPCC AR4 in the above screenshot. He commented on this grandchildren joke (which he also presented in his Bjerknes lecture at the AGU) at around the 8:20 mark saying: “Now if that doesn’t seem like very good scientific method, you should see what the other guys do”. That Hansen paper also contains more discussion of the Trenberth "missing energy" chart on page 35.]
-
Yvan Dutil at 23:50 PM on 14 July 2011Thinning on top and bulging at the waist: symptoms of an ailing planet
Earth rotation period does not seam to have such a nice signature: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html Or, the pole coordinate: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/products/combined/C01plot.php?date=2&graphe=2&deb=1846&fin=2011&SUBMIT2=Soumettre+la+requ%EAte -
Slioch at 23:23 PM on 14 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
Monckton has made false statements concerning published material before. In an article written by Monckton and published via the UK Daily Telegraph newspaper, 5th Nov. 2006, entitled "Apocalypse Cancelled", which paid particular attention to the MWP, Monckton claimed that: "According to ... Soon & Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C." But if you actually bother to scrutinise the Soon & Baliunas (2003) paper you find that they make no such claim, nor anything like it. -
Eric the Red at 23:23 PM on 14 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
True, But some glaciers are advancing today also, but I would not conclude that the world is cooling. There is enough glacial evidence to support the assertion that the planet warmed during the MWP.Response:[DB] It is not a question of "some". The majority of the world's glaciers today are embarked on a decades-long retreat:
[Source]
There is enough glacial evidence to support the assertion that the planet periodically cooled or did not warm uniformly during the MWP.
Again, not a metric to rely upon to prosecute your narrative.
-
Eric the Red at 23:11 PM on 14 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Scaddenp, Are you satisfied now that glaciers did recede during the MWP? Your posts seem to indicate that.Response:[DB] Some glaciers retreated, some advanced at the same time. Not a "silver bullet" marker to hang one's positional hat on.
-
Eric the Red at 22:20 PM on 14 July 2011Visions of the Arctic
So true Paul. We Americans have set aside large tracts of land for native wild areas because we can. Other nations are not so fortunate. In fact, those species most threatened come from the areas of greatest human density, and therefore, human contact and abuse. All species are interconnected; some in positive ways, some in negative, and some more closely than others. The majority of wildlife has been negatively influenced by human action, although there are those who have benefited. Similarly, every time the climate has changed in the past, the have been losers, but also some winners. The polar bears and manatees mentioned above have no direct interaction, and live in extremely different environments. Therefore, one would expect changes to affect each much differently. -
Rob Painting at 22:06 PM on 14 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
Take issue all you like DLB, but do you have any evidence that GBR coral reefs can do what you claim? I've just read the above post by one of the world's foremost coral reef scientists and he says otherwise. Remember we are talking about the reef eco-system, not just coral larvae. In human terms you're suggesting that just because an individual human can move from point A to point B, moving a city from point A to point B is likewise as simple. The reality is somewhat more complex. -
Humanracesurvival at 21:44 PM on 14 July 2011Thinning on top and bulging at the waist: symptoms of an ailing planet
[snipped] The data is exactly tied to this topic and based on hard scientific findings. Repost with content: Today the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica is quickly melting downward from the surface – dropping in altitude at nearly 16 meters per year. With an area over 5 thousand square kilometers, this glacier holds a lot of cubic meters of ice and means that a lot of weight is now getting shifted into the ocean. Similarly, the melting of glaciers in Greenland and elsewhere will trigger seismically elastic reactions that should be noted for their frequency, intensity and novel locations. Connecting the Dots: Climate Change drives Earthquake / Seismic activityModerator Response: (Rob P) Note the commenting rules. No links only. Provide some discussion or context, or risk the comment being deleted. Thanks for your future co-operation. -
Camburn at 21:31 PM on 14 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
That would be up to Mr. Mann to rerun his analysis with the proxy data included. -
DLB at 21:19 PM on 14 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
I can't comment on acidification as I don't know enough yet. But I do take issue with the perceived slow rate of coral migration. We are not dealing with land snails here, the coral and many of its associated organisms have a free floating larval stage which could easy travel 25km in a day on ocean currents. Given warm clean shallow seawater with suitable substrate the polyps would be in like Errol. Many don't seem to realise how opportunistic nature is, it would put our capitalistic economies to shame for exploiting any suitable niche. Just think of the money that is spent trying to keep the hulls of boats clean. -
Humanracesurvival at 21:12 PM on 14 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
In my first post i tried to bring attention to the "Pedosphere", maybe a more explicit point into geomorphological implications helps to understand the connections of the climate system. > Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Something real, something hard, fast, and impossible to ignore. Increasing evidence and statistical analysis links increased seismic activity to global warming. Royal Society Stunner: “Observations suggest that the ongoing rise in global average temperatures may already be eliciting a hazardous response from the geosphere.” Climate Change and the Geosphere So if there is energy missing, my guess it's transfered into seismic energy. Even if the timescales are huge, prone tectonics could literally "wake up" in a much faster time then previously thought (we emitting carbon 10.000 times faster + accelerating the process, then during the PETM!). Monsoons spinning the Earth's plates: study -
Svatli at 20:22 PM on 14 July 2011Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
John: Thanks for the good work of debunking Christopher Monckton, a necessary job. I would also like to refer to a good debunking of the CO2Science medieval project by Hoskibui here on SkS, Medieval project gone wrong. Dr. Craig Idso's website doesn't seem to check the sources either and his website is filled with flaw work and misrepresentations. -
Doug Mackie at 19:27 PM on 14 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Yes. The concept of alkalinity is more useful that simply considering H3O+ and OH-. -
Doug Mackie at 19:13 PM on 14 July 2011OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs
You have an open mind? What doubts remain (one way or the other)? Your question is not in any way difficult. I asked because that other DLB that is, as you say, not you, has a rather closed mind and I would not have wished to spend time answering questions for one who would not listen. As I wrote above for TorB: "If you put a pH electrode in a solution today you are measuring pH by proxy. Different proxies are used to determine past ocean conditions. Posts 11 &12." -
DLB at 19:01 PM on 14 July 2011OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs
Thinking some more about how they might have measured pH of the ocean say 150 years ago. Were alkalinity titrations with a strong acid involved? I'm certainly no chemist, but I have a feeling this may be part of the answer? -
Rob Painting at 18:06 PM on 14 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
David Lewis @ 49 - I like to think of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current as the 'lungs of the deep ocean' in the way it transports oxygen, CO2, salinity and heat into the deep ocean. There's little doubt the deep ocean has warmed over the last two decades, as seen in Purkey & Johnson (2010) & Kouketsu (2011) - but the measurements are sparse and the uncertainties large. -
Paul D at 18:04 PM on 14 July 2011Visions of the Arctic
I would like to point out to Americans that comment here, that along with other large nations. You can get a misleading view of human capacity to do damage to the environment. Having plenty of land and lower density populations can give the impression that humans have a long way to go before doing any significant damage. That unfortunately is not true in nations where land available is less and population growth has resulted in higher densities. The UK for instance has no significant native wild areas. It is all managed and manipulated. It is an example of what can happen with unrestrained human development. It is incapable of feeding itself and humans desperately try and protect species in small patches of land sometimes on no more than an acre. If that is replicated across the world, then you are talking about large numbers of deaths. Here in the UK we only support a population of 60 million (and growing), because we are dependent on land elsewhere, including America, Europe, Russia etc. If land is messed up elsewhere due to climate change or other abuses by humans. Then many nations, will have a lot of problems, because there is a high levels of interdependency. -
Paul D at 17:47 PM on 14 July 2011Visions of the Arctic
Apirate said: "I am also a recommended consultant by my state Department of Natural Resources for nuisance wildlife control." Sounds very American! 'Department of Natural Resources' - We control nature it's a useful resource to exploit. 'Nuisance wildlife control' - Humans are expanding and using more land, those pesky animals keep coming into our cities, we need to control them. It's all in the language. And you really do emphasise the core of my comment@34. -
villabolo at 16:58 PM on 14 July 2011The e-mail scandal 'trick' to hide the real meaning of 'hide the decline'
JohnC; please have this post replace the one in the rebuttal argument list, basic level. The rebuttal in the argument list, with my name on it, isn't the one I wrote. -
Rob Painting at 16:56 PM on 14 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
David Lewis & Ken Lambert - the 'decadal-long mystery mechanism' for deep ocean heat sequestration is indeed intriguing. It also shows up in the Max Planck Institute coupled climate model simulations too. Katsman & Oldenburgh (2011) (-snip-) Note how the warming trend continues, with the 'slowdown' compensated for by large upswings. If that's a reflection of how the climate really operates, it doesn't bode well for the next decade.Response:[DB] Graphic removed at author's request.
-
David Lewis at 16:31 PM on 14 July 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
I'd like to see Dr. Trenberth answer the question of how heat gets to the deep ocean and back again to "haunt us" in a matter of decades. Is this a new process his model shows now that the planetary system is this warm? Dr. Joellen Russell was interviewed by Robyn Williams on The Science Show about her theory that the interaction of ozone depletion and global warming, by affecting the location and power of the Southern Westerlies, will affect the power of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which will drive more heat and CO2 into the deep ocean for many decades then shut off this primary driver of global ocean circulation. Her models suggest that as the Westerlies move south and locate themselves more directly over the Antarctic Circumpolar Current they will drive it more intensely. Since this current is 4 times more poweful than the Gulf Stream and is the major driver of the exchange of water between the deep ocean and the rest of the global ocean, more heat and CO2 thus will go into the deep ocean, at least until it all stops. I'm not clear on why she says it all stops after a while. On the other hand, Boning et.al. studied the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and found no evidence that it had strengthened although the Southern Westerlies have changed their location quite a bit already - they seem to think that the ACC might be as strong as it can get already and all additional energy will be dispersed as eddy currents. But at this year's AGU Martinson described his observations of increased heat in the ACC and accelerated glacial melt in the Antarctic Peninsula. Russell in her Science Show interview states that observations like what Martinson is making confirm her theory that the ACC is increasing in power. I became interested in trying to understand all this but as you can see I didn't get that far. If more heat and CO2 go into the ocean it will affect the average global surface temperature chart which so many seem to think is the prime indicator as to whether climate change is happening or not. I.e one of the big effects may be political. I think we've got to make the point more often that almost all heat is going into the ocean anyway, so this story of global warming is mostly about global ocean warming. It wouldn't take that great of a percentage increase in the amount of heat going into the ocean, because so much is going in already, especially if somehow what increased was only the heat going into the deep ocean, to make that global average surface temperature chart everyone thinks indicates whether the system is warming or not flatline, which would tend to cause even more political inertia than we are observing already. One of many things I'd like to ask Hansen is does Russell's work affect his suspicion that current models overestimate how much heat goes into the deep ocean? Russell seems to be saying we've underestimated what is going on, and even if Boning hasn't observed it, Martinson's melting ice must have a cause. One thing I'd like to ask Trenberth is what is his opinion of Russell's work. The NOAA pix of ENSO I posted in a comment above are representations of TAO data, not ARGO, which go much deeper. I don't know if someone has come up with a graphic like that of what is going on using ARGO data for ENSO or for other ocean events. I put them up to illustrate the potential new data like ARGO represents, and also because those graphics helped me understand what ENSO is.
Prev 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 Next
