Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 Next
Comments 82151 to 82200:
-
JMurphy at 02:38 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric the Red wrote : "What happens next is that someone will reference the paper from that site (oftentimes because they do not have access to the original work, or refuse to pay), and be accused of misuse of the author's work because it was referenced from a site which they oppose." Some examples would be nice. Not more of your suspicions, is it ? -
Eric the Red at 02:34 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
OK, with one caveat: where you say consistent, I would add but not exclusive. -
Eric the Red at 02:30 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
CB, It happens all the time. Denier sites reference alarmist papers and alarmist sites reference denier papers. Mostly to do just as you propose. Most of the time, the sites will reference the original work. What happens next is that someone will reference the paper from that site (oftentimes because they do not have access to the original work, or refuse to pay), and be accused of misuse of the author's work because it was referenced from a site which they oppose. I have seen that happen repeatedly here. -
Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 21 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
I am curious as to what you think are the core areas. I agree about the physics concerning the relationship between CO2 and temperature. I agree that warming temperatures will result in higher water vapor. After that, I will admit that I do not agree with many of the other feedbacks (I may not disagree with them, but have not found enough evidence to allow for an agreement). Yes, I will admit that I do not agree that the evidence is as strong as you do. -
Michele at 02:17 AM on 21 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Let’s maintain apart the radiative transfer trying to explain the behavior of the atmosphere only from a point of view of the thermo kinetics and fluid dynamics. Of course if this wouldn’t be sufficient then we will see what to do. Viewing the Earth’s and Venus’ temperature profiles ”(see here for example)” we read that there are some convective layers (the troposphere and the mesosphere for Earth, the sole troposphere for Venus) where the atmospheric gases rise by buoyancy. The spectra of brightness temperature ”(see here for example)” point up that the minimal values of the temperatures, which occur at the top of the convective layers having their bottom closer to ground, are due to CO2 (By the way, notice that Earth without oxygen would be Venus-like also if its pressure is circa one hundredth). Really, we can think the CO2 molecules behave as heat engines which, colliding with the surrounding molecules, absorb thermal energy from them, and transform it to EM energy. The thermal energy density (J/m³) of the rising air particles changes continuously according to δT/δz and, above all, their EM energy density (J/m³) varies according to T³δT/δz. Both the gradients are negative because the continuous growth of the geo-gravitational energy that phagocytizes them. So, the rising CO2 molecules never are in LTE, the thermal energy (needed to excite them until the resonance) is used for other different purposes (the rising of the entire air particle), and there can’t occur any radiative emission. In other words, the gases of the convecting troposphere rise until they aren’t trapped by the thermosphere and stratosphere, and they can emit heat radiation only at least at its top, within the isothermal layer above. It seem that the temperature profiles of the atmospheric gases are fully explained by the thermo kinetics and by fluid dynamics. The surface temperature is determined by the lapse rate and above all be the altitude where the rising air particles are stopped by the inverted slope due to the external radiative heating of a layer of the atmosphere above it. Of course, also the surface radiation around 15μm forces and excites the CO2 molecules which could scatter it. I think this isn’t the case, otherwise, the brightness temperature around 15μm should be higher. The CO2 fully wastes the EM energy to heat close the ground and this can be partially converted back and emitted to space only at the top of the first convective layer above the ground. -
dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
I do not think anyone could convince that greenpeace would be a reliable entity to reference about future energy, any more than Exxon would be, which I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark.
Not really. The paper involved was peer-reviewed, not part of the "grey literature" as claimed by Lynas (he actually pointed it that it's a peer-reviewed journal but, as arbiter of all that's Right and Good decided on his own authority that it's "grey", which is crap). The greenpeace employee was only one author of the paper. He was one of several lead authors for the IPCC chapter - another worked for a petroleum institute but Lynas and you haven't twisted your panties in a knot over that, strangely. There are people from Exxon and other fossil fuel companies and organizations involved in the IPCC process, and actually you don't see the reaction that would lend Lynas' analogy credibility ... And, of course, the IPCC report in question took four scenarios from the literature, ranging from the most optimistic (the one that so upset's McI and Lynas) to the most pessimistic. Lynas is most upset, it appears, because someone dared publish research that shows significant decarbonization that doesn't include his pet tech solution, nuclear power ... -
Bob Lacatena at 01:55 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
99, Eric the Red,It has always been clear. I am not having a hard time undersatanding you.
Hmmm. I'm not sure why you previously said "You seem to be backpedalling rather rapidly. I have not been able to determine if you are making any correlation between temperature and snowfall at all." Oh, well. I apparently misunderstood you.I stated that snowfall in individual winters cannot be predicted based on global warming, but that several other factors are involved.
Excellent. We agree on that point 100%. Many factors are involved, some of which will be greatly influenced by global warming, and so it is an important problem that must be studied, and deserves both attention and deep concern.I understand that you are relying more on models in your analyses, whereas I am using data.
This is not the case at all, and I have no idea where you got this idea (unless by "models" you mean "an understanding of the mechanics that define the system"). I never once used the word "models," or referenced them in any way. I merely feel that the scatter shot way in which you are trying to use the data combined with an overly simplistic "model" of the system is incorrect.Granted, we do not have any data at temperatures of 2-3C higher than today, so a comparison cannot be made between the two.
Excellent. Then you will agree that an evaluation of what will happen based merely on what has happened to date is not feasible. Which leaves us to instead try to understand the system in detail, and to avoid trying to draw inferences from an overly simplistic approach to the problem. So, in the end, you agree with all of my points, that observations to date are no security against precipitation changes and extreme weather events, that increased snowfall in winter is not of itself a contradiction in climate theory, and that an increase in both droughts and extreme precipitation in different areas, or even the same area, at different times of year (be it spring, summer, fall or winter) are consistent with climate change. Now we can move on. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:53 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Having worked among scientists for quite some time I know it takes a lot to get them to take collective action. Something weird is going on in society these days. It's as if people are oblivious to the world we live in - the natural world and the scientific advances that have made modern living possible. I bet a lot of the anti-science crowd take their vitamins and blood pressure pills every morning, pick up their mobile phone, log into their computer - check their mining and pharma shares, listen to the radio - for the world news (arriving via satellite or undersea fibre optic cable) - and the local weather forecast (using satellites), get their pasteurised milk - from the refrigerator, cook an egg in a teflon pan, jump in their car, and don't even think of the irony of their contempt for science. There have always been people who are afraid of knowledge and learning, mostly those who've never tried it. I applaud the action scientists are taking. I am hopeful it will make every one wake up a bit more and do their bit to stop anti-science in its tracks and make sure we lower carbon emissions enough soon enough. -
CBDunkerson at 01:52 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric the Red wrote: "I have a similar problem with people who dismiss the merits of a scientific paper just because it is referenced on a particular website which they disdain." Frankly, that formulation seems implausible. Many of the worst denial sites reference valid peer-reviewed papers all the time... to deny them. I don't see people running around saying that suddenly makes those papers incorrect. In my experience, denial sites most commonly provide made up nonsense rather than material from scientific papers and thus it is indeed common for things appearing on these sites to be dismissed based on their track record. The few scientific papers touted on denial sites tend to be misrepresented or dismissed for being really really bad science, rather than because of where they were mentioned. -
Eric the Red at 01:47 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
KR, I am not arguing that the theory is invalid, but the details. Most scientists will argue that the feedbacks in AGW theory are the most critical, as the direct warming of a doubling of CO2 is only ~1C. That is where the bulk of the differences occur, and why such a wide range of scenarios exist. The problems with these surveys is that the arrive at a number; 80%, 90%, 98% believe that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming, but then tie that response to a particular statement about climate sensitivity, future warming, etc. In reality, these scientists believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it has caused an increase in global temperatures. However, there is a very wide range about what individual scientists believe will result from the increasxe in CO2. I do not believe these are the edges of the theory, but the crux of the argument. DO you feel differently? -
Bob Lacatena at 01:44 AM on 21 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
58, Arkadiusz, It's unclear if you have a particular point that you are trying to make, or if you are merely providing what you consider to be a variety of useful information on the subject. Without any dialogue to explain the segments that you choose to include, there's nothing coherent about the information. Could you state your point or purpose more directly? -
Eric the Red at 01:37 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Tom, Agreed. I have a similar problem with people who dismiss the merits of a scientific paper just because it is referenced on a particular website which they disdain. I will admit that I am not particularly fond of greenpeace either, but is largely due to their tactics rather than their stances. I do not think anyone could convince that greenpeace would be a reliable entity to reference about future energy, any more than Exxon would be, which I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark. I know some people do not like Lynas because of his unorthodox environmentalism, but sometimes I feel he says things that need to be said. -
KR at 01:26 AM on 21 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Eric the Red - I have replied on the far more appropriate 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming. This discussion of consensus is very much off topic here on the Solar Minimum thread. -
KR at 01:24 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red - Your arguments about 90 vs. 97 percent of actively publishing climate experts are really just dancing around the margins. The great majority of people who work in this field find that the evidence supports anthropogenic causes for recent warming, with solid evidence for the interactions of CO2 and consequences thereof. There are plenty of areas where there is active dissent over aspects of this (ocean heat content profiles, cloud feedback, pinning down the climate sensitivity, etc.), but the core of the theory is solidly supported. Pointing loudly to the edges of the theory where details are being argued does not invalidate the larger theory. -
Eric the Red at 01:24 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Sphaerica, It has always been clear. I am not having a hard time undersatanding you. We simply disagree. I stated that snowfall in individual winters cannot be predicted based on global warming, but that several other factors are involved. I do not know why you cannot get past that. I understand that you are relying more on models in your analyses, whereas I am using data. Granted, we do not have any data at temperatures of 2-3C higher than today, so a comparison cannot be made between the two. Models are a tool used to comprehend complex systems. However, that model must be able to reasonably correspond to the system data, otherwise it is as useful as a left-handed oil filter remover. -
Eric the Red at 01:13 AM on 21 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
I have read the survey many times, do not be so snide. If you have read it carfeully, you would see how ridiculous it is also. If you are going to quote 97%, then you better be ready to quote 96% believe the planet as warmed. Conversely, you can state your claim that 75 climatologists believe that humans are responsible. I suspect you do not use these numbers, because they would appear very low, whereas 97% sounds convincing. So, while 88% of climatologists believe that human activity is a significant contributor to changing temperatures, you continue to quote a cherry-picked higher value. The responders did not say they were actively publishing, nor did they respond how many papers they have written, that was added by the author. Nowhere in the survey does it ask to what extent the respondants though CO2 was responsible for rising temperatures, or about any other contributing factors. Although Anderegg was more direct in his question, and found that 90% support ACC (not 97%), his definition of someone being convinced or unconvinced based on signing a petition hardly qualifies as good surveying technique. -
Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric the Red @7, I have read Lynas' ill informed rant. It turns out that he has a hate on for Greenpeace. Fair enough, I'm not that fond of them myself. What I don't accept, however, is that their scientific work should be rejected simply because I or anyone else dislike their politics. In this case the critique has been entirely centred on the fact of Greenpeace involvement (just one person) in an IPCC panel. It turns out that those aggrieved by this don't want to have anything to do with discussing the actual scientific merits of the report, or of the "controversial paper". So while in this case I agree with you that somebody is putting themselves above the science, it is those like Lynas and McIntyre who want to censure a report without discussing the merits, and who want to permanently disbar some people from scientific contribution because Lynas and McIntyre happen to dislike their politics. -
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 21 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Eric the Red @99, science by press release would not be a problem at all if journalists would actually do the job they are supposed to. If, when they get a juicy quote from a scientist, they first checked what NOAA or the CSIRO or the IPCC AR4 say on the subject, and report the institutional view as the main body of scientific opinion, and the scientist with the juicy quote as being a scientist who disagreed, they would accurately inform rather than consistently misinforming the public. As to the 90%, I suspect 100% of climate scientists would for some aspect of the AR4 WG1 report, disagree with the likelihood assigned to the statement in the report. Indeed, for some aspects of the report, I can prove that in 2007 around 80% of climate scientists disagreed with the likelihood assigned. But the areas of substantial disagreement all come from topics in which WG1 assigned low likelihoods; and in the core areas where WG1 assigned high likelihoods, agreement among scientists is very high - exceeding 90% and approaching 100% for some issues. Further, there is a trend in the agreement among scientists. In 1996 just 60% of climate scientists thought that the Earth was warming, and 40% that humans were responsible. Now the figure is close to 97% for both issues. Where there have been significant advances in knowledge (which covers quite a few areas), agreement among climate scientists will, therefore, probably be greater in 2011 than in 2007 (the date of the last detailed survey). The problem for you is that you disagree in core areas - areas where climate scientists have almost universal agreement. Consequently the pattern of agreement and disagreement among scientists should be no consolation to you. On the contrary, that pattern shows that the scientists are actually following evidence rather than an agenda; and hence that where they almost universally agree the evidence is much stronger than you will give it credit for. -
Eric the Red at 00:46 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Sometimes when scientists take to the streets they put themselves above the science. Mark Lynas as an interesting thread going about conflicts of interest: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/ -
Tom Curtis at 00:21 AM on 21 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Eric the Red @70:"Are you referring to the ridiculous Doran report, ..."
In the Doran survey, 76 out of 79 actively publishing climate scientists indicated that they thought the Earth wasn't warming. 75 of 77 indicated that humans where responsible. So, contrary to your suggestion, there was no scientist who bizarrely believed both that the Earth was not warming, but that humans where responsible for the warming. Rather, two less scientists answered the second question, one from each opinion. This did not require deep analysis to discover. It only required looking at the actual data with an open mind. Perhaps next time you are inclined to take a cheap shot, you should try looking at the data instead of quoting statistic you plainly don't understand. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:07 AM on 21 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
„PETM changes in the carbon isotopic composition of carbonate”, and ”... carbon isotope excursion as recorded in marine organic matter ...” - may be saddled with significant error - incorrect ( Baczyński et al. 2011.). Dickens (2009) in his paper - quoted here - but interesting, writes: “A 2000 Gt input of carbon to the exogenic carbon cycle cannot explain the 6°C warming, unless earth surfaces temperatures increase by more than 5°C per doubling of pCO2 (Pagani et al., 2006a). Such climate sensitivity is more extreme than that in most climate models. Complicating matters, however, is the relative timing of environmental change and massive carbon addition at the start of the PETM. In several sediment sequences, changes in temperature and biota begin before the start of the CIE (Sluijs et al., 2007b). With available data, massive carbon addition during the PETM appears to have been a positive feedback to environmental change initiated by some process that remains highly speculative.” The most extensive - from this year - general study: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future, McInerney and Wing, 2011.; have interesting conclusions: 5. Although there was a major extinction of benthic foraminifera, most groups of organisms did not suffer mass extinction. 7. Rapid morphological change occurred in bothmarine and terrestrial lineages, suggesting that organisms adjusted to climate change through evolution as well as dispersal and local extirpation. Where best understood, these evolutionary changes appear to be responses to nutrient and/or food limitation.Response:[DB] And your point is...?
-
skywatcher at 00:06 AM on 21 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
You'll have to do a lot better than that Eric, you're still providing no evidence for your baseless claims in the first two paragraphs. The UHI canard has been shot down so much that surely you do not hold any serious sway by it anymore - see Menne et al 2010, or any temperature record that cannot be affected by UHI, like lower tropospheric temps or ocean temps. And no, I was referring to Anderegg et al 2010. Once again you're accusing climate scientists of thinking in a simple manner without providing any evidence that they do. -
JMurphy at 23:58 PM on 20 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Eric the Red wrote : "I would suspect that 90% of scientists could find some aspect of global warming to dispute, especially since many aspects have a wide range of results. I also feel that too many of this category are lumped in with the term denier, just because they dispute some aspect of AGW theory." Instead of relying on vague suspicions, could you back up that claim ? I presume it's based on something more tangible than suspicion ? -
Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Eric (skeptic) @96, the simplest method would be by using a decadal mean of proxies for sea surface temperature outside the central pacific region most strongly effected by ENSO. -
Eric the Red at 23:45 PM on 20 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Sky, The other potential influence that has been repeatedly dismissed is the effect of land management; urbanization and deforestation. The IPCC did a very poor job of dismissing this aspect in teh AR4 report, and too many people are using their explanation to dismiss any consideration. While most scientists will agree that the UHI is real, they then try to diminish its effect on temperature with arcan reasoning. Granted scientists in different fields will attribute different levels of forcing to different agents, oftentimes attributing much higher values to those forcings which they are studying (the sun, oceans, cities, etc.). The same goes for those study CO2 effects on temperature. I am not referring to bloggers, but scientists. Are you referring to the ridiculous Doran report, where a higher number of a subset of climatologists (there is no evidence that they are "actively publishing") believed that humans have caused the warming than believed that the planet has actually warmed. Then again, maybe these are the climatologists who think the climate is simple. -
Tom Curtis at 23:29 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
ClimateWatcher @3 appears to make some bizarre assumptions. He describes science as an exercise in cold rationality. Personally, from what I know of the scientists that have impressed me most - Darwin, Einstein, and so on - it has been an exercise of passionate rationality, but never mind that. He also describes taking to the streets as an emotional exercise. Again I disagree. The protester in Egypt, despite the risks they took, where acting rationally and it was rationality that gave them reason to be their, even though it was emotion that gave them the courage to do so. So, like science, protesting can be an act of passionate rationality. But never mind that. What I object to is ClimateWatcher's assumption that a scientist is only ever a scientist. That is of course nonsense. Scientists are brothers and sisters, friends, and parents. Some are footballers, or debaters, or concert goers. Above all, they are citizens. And being a citizen must be a passionate thing, and a rational thing, if you are to truly be a citizen. Further, to the extent that ClimateWatcher allows that scientists are more than just automata in laboratories, he assumes that they cannot bring the rationality of their science into their public life. ClimateWatcher has to make these assumptions because if he did not, he would have to acknowledge that something is happening to make a large group of very intelligent, very rational people who are better informed on the topic than anyone else to become passionate as citizens about global warming. Because when scientists march, it is because their science is telling them something they cannot ignore as citizens. Something, indeed, that will be a matter of life and death for future generations. And who, in the world knows better than they? -
Eric the Red at 23:28 PM on 20 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Good post Tom, although I do not know how many others will get a chance to read it. The attribution of every little weather event (not to mentiona the Japaneses earthquake) to gloabl warming has been a very thorny issue. The media reporting is less the issue as is the statement by a reputable (?) scientist who made the claim. The media will always try to sensationalize anything to sell. These claims have gone beyond the media, as recent novels have used the "blame it on global warming excuse" to write off any unexplained event (i.e. J. K. Rowlings and Michael Scott). As far as the numbers go, I tend to dismiss anything that gives a specific number as it seems that anyone can claim to be a "climate scientist" these days. Then there is the question of exactly what is being disputed. I would suspect that 90% of scientists could find some aspect of global warming to dispute, especially since many aspects have a wide range of results. I also feel that too many of this category are lumped in with the term denier, just because they dispute some aspect of AGW theory. -
DSL at 23:23 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
CW, it's an exercise of political will, just as the social production of scientific knowledge is an exercise of political will. There's not much difference between writing on a blog and taking it to the streets. The action in the streets is just a different type of expression, a type designed to put human faces and figures on the act of solidarity. Your appearance on this blog is also an "emotional exercise." What's the point, after all? Note that you use the word "cold" with "rationality." The idea of "coldness" here is not simply "without emotion." Rather, its connotation is "with intentional disregard for the human condition." There is a suggestion of perverse pleasure in the disregard, as in "cold-blooded killer." Yet the social production of scientific knowledge is not an exercise in rationality--cold or otherwise. It certainly incorporates rationality, but what we choose to study, what we choose to focus on, what we choose to fund--those are questions that come from the answer to "What is important?" Upon what basis do you determine what is important? Propagation of the species? Whatever God(s) will? Social justice? Individual liberty? Why do we study global climate? If science were privatized, think about how science would change. How many areas of study would be abandoned? Parts of the scientific process (methodology/falsifiability, analysis) are intended to be strictly factual, but every scientific report begins with at least a hint of justification and ends with at least a hint of "this is why what we've done is important." Cold rationality . . . from a human? As someone once said of Ayn Rand, "she was perfectly rational, as long as you agreed with her understanding of the world." -
Bob Lacatena at 23:22 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
86, Eric the Red, You seem to have a hard time following what I'm saying, so let me try to break it down, and keep it simple. My most basic position, all along, is that the logic that you are trying to apply to the problem is over-simplified, and as such grossly flawed. You must look at the details (as I said, "the devil is in the details") and understand things at a deeper level. If you don't do this, then you will perceive self-contradictions in my position, because you are only understanding what you think, instead of what I am saying. Main Point [And I've stated this clearly several times now]: The impacts of climate change are complex and varied. You cannot use oversimplified logic to draw vast, sweeping, winner-take-all conclusions. Specifically: a) Just because global warming will increase the mean global temperature of the planet does not mean that all areas of the globe will experience warming at all times of the year. The specific example that I gave you from the NY Times article is a prime example of this, where a weakening of the polar vortex may allow the frequent intrusion of frigid air into the North American continent. For deniers, they must realize that evidence of cooling, even consistent cooling, or uneven warming, is not evidence against climate change. b)> Just because global warming will increase the overall moisture content of the atmosphere, this does not mean that every part of the globe must experience increased precipitation, year round. The specific example that I gave you of how Hadley Cells function to distribute moisture, and how they will be altered due to climate change, is a prime example of this, where an expansion of the Hadley Cells will widen arid areas, and move areas of major precipitation to new locales. Denier claims that major changes in precipitation patterns must mean more droughts or more storms, everywhere, year round, is clearly flawed logic and a simplistic distraction from the truth of the matter. c) Your presumption that increased temperatures must amount to less snowfall is similarly flawed. The temperatures will shorten the winter season, delaying the onset of meaningful snowfall, and quickening the onset of spring (and snow loss). This does not, however, preclude the possibility that there can actually be greater snow accumulations during the winter months, due to the increase in overall moisture content in the atmosphere. The specific example I gave you of the total snow extent in the northern hemisphere, from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, is a prime example of this, where spring snow extent has decreased dramatically, while winter snow extent has shown a slight positive trend. d) Your attempts to prove that global warming will not affect winter snow accumulations is flawed in three respects. i) The first is that the time periods involved are too short, and cover to small a degree of warming to have any statistical significance relative to the idea of major climate change. ii) The second is that your studies all involve very specific locations. Trying to cobble together enough of these is much like the effort to define the MWP, but you're trying to do it with one here and one there. Unless you are ready to find hundreds of studies, and to "homogenize" them into something coherent, then it's a pointless effort. iii) The third and most important point is that we are talking about the effects on precipitation of a 3+˚C global mean temperature change. We have not yet seen enough of this change in climate to prove, one way or the other, what the total, global effects will be. No accumulation of papers that you can compile, covering the period from 1900-2000, is going to solidify your position on this (especially when many of those papers only run from about 1950-2000). Is this clear enough for you? Please try to read and comprehend this. There are no contradictions in my position. There is no backpedaling. The system is quite simply more complex than you seem willing to consider, and when you think that you see contradictions in my position, it is because your view of things is too simple. Dig deeper. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:18 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
ClimateWatcher Taking to the streets is not necessarily an emotional exercise, raising awareness of an issue by public demonstration is perfectly rational behaviour. Science is not the exercise of cold rationality, it has a large imaginative and creative component; oddly enough very few scientists are like Spock from Start Trek. When scientists take to the streets to raise awareness of an important issue, then ignoring it would be irrational. Who better to raise awareness of scientiffic issues in the general public than those who actually know something about the science. Apart from that, I am in complete agreement. ;o) -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:05 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom, your null hypothesis is very reasonable but I have a quibble. How are we going to estimate mean tropical Pacific OHC for the past (i.e. before the 50's) while accounting for ENSO itself? Do you know of studies that do that (my quick search didn't turn up any)? -
ClimateWatcher at 22:48 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Taking to the streets is an emotional exercise. Science is an exercise of cold rationality. When scientists take to the streets, it is the activity ( which is not science ) to ignore. -
Rob Painting at 22:47 PM on 20 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
Phil Scadden - whoa.......15 million gigatonnes of organic carbon! Crikey! Are you able to access a copy of the paper? Jerryd - A tutorial would be cool. Maybe you can tee-up with John and we could get something underway? -
skywatcher at 22:37 PM on 20 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
#68: Eric. Can you provide evidence that climate scientists dismiss other potential influences in the way you disparagingly suggest? Because overwhelmingly the science attributes different levels of forcing to different forcing agents, not just CO2. Levels of forcing are strongly discussed, with values and uncertainties gradually converged upon for a wide variety of forcing agents. Maybe some bloggers / internet commentators do, or suggest, otherwise? You'd certainly not find any of the >97% of actively publishing climate scientists, who agree with the consilience of evidence, disagreeing with your statement that "There is nothing simple about changes in the climate." Of course there isn't. -
Riccardo at 22:20 PM on 20 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
BC it is known as polar amplification. You may want to start with this post at RealClimate.Response:[DB] And also this post here at SkS:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-Arctic-amplification.html
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:11 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
John Russel Looks a sound approach to me. The Svensmark hypothesis is a good example in that Svensmark has been well funded to investigate his hypotheis (e.g. CLOUD project at CERN), and nobody was ridiculing Svensmarks basic hypothesis, the major critcism was of his lack of self-skepticism and tendancy to overstatement. This shows that the scientific community (who would have reviewed his grant proposals) are not afraid of having their paradigm overthrown, but they would require compelling evidence. -
John Russell at 22:00 PM on 20 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
I've just written the following on a thread on Carbon Brief. [I reference 'Svensmark' only because the commenter to whom I was replying brought up the name.] I'd be interested to know whether I could have expressed anything any better -- bearing in mind that the comment is aimed at the lay person rather than someone who understands the scientific process. I'm just trying to improve my ability to get across the message encapsulated above in the 'Conversation' article. "Please understand that I am not a climate scientist, so rather than come up with my own ideas I rely on the climate scientists to explain what's happening. I've read a lot of what they tell us and it pretty much all makes good sense. The sums stack up and it fits in with my understanding of science. Sure there are uncertainties, occasional errors and ideas will change over time, but the proper way the consensus is modified is by scientists discovering or recording new data which then persuades the mainstream to modify their views. This has been happening for the past 40 years or more as our understanding of Earth's climate has evolved. Whenever a 'maverick scientist' comes along and offers an alternative explanation for what is being observed, then other scientists will study it, test and then it will modify our collective understanding -- or not. I, personally, would be mad to go along with outlying ideas until scientists working in appropriate fields have processed and filtered them and as a result they have changed the consensus view. That's how science works. Believe me, if the Svensmark team come up with something valuable it will change ideas. But it seems to me that you are too anxious to prove that the consensus is wrong and are clutching at contrarian straws. The consensus accommodates the scientifically-strongest theories/beliefs that exist at any point in time. Rest assured; if the consensus proves to be wrong, it will change. Since science began, it always has and it always will. As they say, the truth will out. As non-scientists we have to believe that the consensus as it is at this moment is correct for this moment and behave accordingly. To do otherwise is just crazy. Surely you must see the logic in that? -
Eric the Red at 21:37 PM on 20 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
scaddenp, Here is one article of many. http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf There is nothing simple about changes in the climate. This is not to say that I believe that CO2 has not infuenced our climate. However, I have read too many people who readily dismiss any other potential influence simply because they cannot attribute the entire warming to it. No one factor has been able to thus far. -
BC at 21:27 PM on 20 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Can anyone explain why the Artic always seems to consistently have such a high temperature anomaly in the world maps, more so than anywhere else? Or maybe there's an article in SkS that explains why? -
Eric the Red at 21:20 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Paul, Why would we expect an increase in extreme events under global warming? Granted, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water and lead to overall increases in rainfall. Conversely, global warming is expected to lead to lower temperature gradients (this has been observed during the last century). Can we say with any degree of certainty that the increasing water content will outweigh the decreasing temperature differences? -
Eric the Red at 21:13 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom, Nice post. I have also read were places like Mexico and the Sahara were driest during the coldest periods also. With regards to snowfall, the general rule is that the closer to freezing, the more snowfall. This is true for both places that are above and below freezing. In places like Antarctica, the temperatures are always below freezing, so any rise will bring the temperature closer to freezing, and subsequently more snowfall (still very little). The areas of Greenland which average slightly below freezing will also see more snowfall as the temperatures rise. Those regions where temperatures are above freezing for most of the year, will experience mroe snowfall as temperatures fall towards freezing. Single winter snowfall is indeed a crap shoot, depending on the temperature, jet stream, oceans, etc. Unfortunately, some of these single-year events have been used by many people (believers and non-believers like) to attempt to prove their position. One (or two) years does not a trend make. However, over a period of years or decades, subtle changes can be observed, like Antarctica. Thanks. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:53 PM on 20 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
The amount of papers on the PETM is actually “huge”, but the latest should not be overlooked. So I am surprised by the lack of work cited by scaddenp. There are interesting observations: “The mass of organic carbon in sedimentary basins amounts to a staggering 1016 t, dwarfing the mass contained in coal, oil, gas and all living systems by ten thousand-fold.” “... only a tiny change in the degree of leakage, particularly if focused through the hydrate cycle, can result in globally significant greenhouse gas emissions.” “Methane degassing from sedimentary basins may be a mechanism to explain increases of atmospheric CO2 to values as much as 20 times higher than pre-industrial values.” But these processes can take place quickly? “As geologic sources may have contributed over one third of global atmospheric methane in pre-industrial time, variability in methane flux from sedimentary basins may have driven global climate not only at time scales of millions of years, but also over geologically short periods of time.” How “short”? Most - perhaps - a "complete" - new - from this year - work on the PETM is a paper: Methane and environmental change during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM): Modeling the PETM onset as a two-stage event, Carozza, Mysak, and Schmidt, 2011. - A corresponding well with the observations and conclusions of the work cited by scaddenp. So it describes the most likely “the course of events”: “To explain the observations, the carbon must have been released over at most 500 years. The first stage results cannot be associated with any known PETM hypothesis. However, the second stage results are consistent with a methane hydrate source. More than a single source of carbon is required to explain the PETM onset.” “... second stage (stage 2) ...” is therefore particularly interesting. “In particular, for DT = 3°C [Winguth et al., 2010], a mixed emission of 900 to 1400 Pg C consisting of 400 to 500 Pg C CO2 to the ocean and 400 to 900 Pg C CH4 to the atmosphere simulates stage 2. Durations of 50 and 250 years are data‐compatible (Figure 2c); however, only a duration of 50 years is compatible with 3°C of warming.” “Therefore, the emission of 400 to 900 Pg C CH4 to the atmosphere and 400 to 500 Pg C CO2 to the ocean, with a duration of 50 years and d13C ranging from −50 to −60‰, best simulates stage 2 ...” So we have 50 years - the same as for the period 1950 to 2000 AD. During this period the volume of our emissions are on average 5 - 6 Pg C - with the 2.5 - 3 Pg C „to the atmosphere”. For PETM - „stage 2” we have: 400 to 900 Pg C „to the atmosphere” during 50 years = 8 - 18 Pg C year - 1 ... Where else could take on carbon? Rob Painting writes about the permafrost - and His rightly - the organic carbon stocks in permafrost (poor in13C) (and the content changes over time) may be many times greater than we currently estimate. Example of arctic permafrost (not only Antarctic) - the Pleistocene - writes Zech et al., 2011. ( High carbon sequestration in Siberian permafrost loess-paleosols during glacials.): “Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been greatly underestimated.” -
Paul D at 20:39 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
A new paper to add to the SkS database? Reconstruction of false spring occurrences over the southeastern United States, 1901–2007: an increasing risk of spring freeze damage? Garrett P Marino1, Dale P Kaiser, Lianhong Gu and Daniel M Ricciuto http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/2/024015/fulltext -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 19:29 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Couple of interesting letters in Nature from this year: Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000 Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:34 PM on 20 June 2011The Climate Show 14: volcanoes, black carbon and Christy crocks
Whats your problem with Borg's? I personally feel that 7 of 9 brought a distinct gravitas to the Star Trek franchise. Ooops, sorry, I meant gravity. Well actually a sort of gravity defying uplift, a definite sort of uplifted, pointed, firmness to the exploration of unknown regions where....I might just stop there... -
Paul D at 17:24 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman: "Why is it that looking at history of weather and climate you cannot find any examples that we are entering uncharted territory and things will get much worse." Because when you look to the past, you find individual events from history that were caused by regional inputs rather than global inputs. It's easy to pick events that are hundreds or thousands of years apart and say that they were not a result of rising greenhouse gases. It's more difficult to find events that occurred within a few years or months across the globe and attribute them to local and/or unconnected inputs. -
Paul D at 17:05 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman: "I am "questioning" but not denying the possibility that global warming is leading to more extreme weather events." The issue isn't that extreme weather events are being observed and that they are caused by global warming. The issue is that global warming will cause extreme weather and the frequency will increase, if the science of warming is established and it is accepted that warming is taking place, then extreme weather is likely to be attributed to those changes because that is what we would expect. -
Paul D at 16:57 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman: "When you say that US Spring weather is going to be the most extreme to date what are you defining?" It's not me that is defining it: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NSVHGO0.htm -
guinganbresil at 16:13 PM on 20 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Patrick 027 - That is a good scenerio. If the atmosphere below the cloud deck is initially transparent to IR - say Argon or something like that, then the bottom of the clouds would absorb the upward radiation. Since the cloud bottom is in a saturated state, its altitude would be determined by those conditions. By adding and absorbing gas below the cloud deck you would block that radiation lower in the atmosphere. Convection in the troposphere should keep the lapse rate essentially the same. Since the cloud bottom is no longer exposed to the long wave radiation from the surface I would expect its altitude to lower a bit since it is no longer being 'burned off' by the radiation. As viewed from the space there is no change in the outgoing radiation spectrum since the cloud tops have not been affected by what is going on below. Therefore, the planetary heat balance is as it was before - no change... Granted this is a thought experiment only - Earth is quite a bit more complicated - spotty cloud deck, etc... But it does show an example of increasing GHG w/o an impact on the planetary heat balance. -
Tom Curtis at 14:38 PM on 20 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman, I assume your post was deleted for being off topic. I have therefore responded here where I believe it to be on topic. If you think I have mischaracterized your point, please respond there.
Prev 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 Next
