Recent Comments

Prev  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  Next

Comments 82951 to 83000:

82951. Dikran Marsupial at 01:35 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       trunkmonkey I don't think the proterozoic/ordovician/permian glaciations have been attributed to Milankovic cycles. Milankovich cycles are not the only thing that peturbs the carbon cycle. For example, the position of land masses affects the weathering thermostat. If the landmasses are concentrated at the equator, weathering increases because the equator is warmer than the extra-tropics and CO2 tends to fall. If you are genuinely interested, see the excellent book by David Archer, reviewed here.
82952. RickG at 01:31 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       @ trunkmonkey #82 Your comparison is not even as close as apples and oranges; more like bananas and elephants. Take all data and facts into consideration, especially continental drift. What was the continental configuration during those times? How did that affect ocean currents? How about shallow seas and mountain systems that existed then that do not exist now.
82953. skywatcher at 01:29 AM on 12 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       While soome of this discussion is indeed interesting, there has been a subtle shift in this thread away from the focus on ice loss. In particular, garethman's successful avoidance of accepting that there is a very clear downward trend, which has not in the least bit slowed in recent years. Dikran's point in #37 about the variability around the trend is worth noting again. It's also disingenuous for garethman to get a helpful answer on another thread pointing to additional factors affecting ice loss, and then post here pretending that wind and ocean temperatures are the only story. They are not, and if he has read the two threads in question, he would know this. Wind in particular causes much of the variability about the accelerating downward trend, with poor wind conditions in 2007, and favourable winds for ice retention in 2010 (still the 3rd lowest on record). But we can't blithely blame interannual variations for a downward trend in extent and thickness that is over 30 years old and accelerating.
82954. trunkmonkey at 01:18 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       scaddenp@119 Can We Trust... Sorry about the wild leap in good fun. Moved over here to be more on topic. The point is that once we reach the limit of certainty bestowed by the wonderful equasions we are blessed to have in fluid dynamics and are forced to describe apparently chaotic features with perameters, we become far more like the poor geologist out in the hot sun of uncertainty, picking at rocks that seem to indicate a wildly chaotic history for our planet. To the reasons geologists tend to be skeptical already well descried in this thread I would like to add Milankovitch. Before Shackleton and the fan club of foraminifera Milakovitch had been carefully studied by gologists for many years and found wanting because his orbital variations had little explanatory power in earth history. How do you get a proterozoic glaciation, an ordivician glaciaton, a permian glaciation, and our current glaciation, all separated by roughly 200 million year interludes of much higher temperatures and CO2 levels from Milankovitch? If Milakovitch explains why CO2 is the slave to temperature in the ice cores, where was he during the mesozoic?
82955. KR at 01:11 AM on 12 June 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       For completeness on the Lindzen and Choi papers: LC11 PNAS rejected submission here. LC11 APJAS (in print) here. Some small differences, an additional 3 pages in the APJAS version (it apparently hit the PNAS size limitations). IMO - Lacking in sensitivity analysis for start/end dates of their temperature changes (cf. Trenberth 2010), extratropical heat exchange armwaved and asserted to be unity, etc. It's essentially LC09 with some added (and IMO fairly weak) explanatory text, no accounting for how the critiques pointed out contradictions with actual observations.
82956. dana1981 at 01:03 AM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Badger - yes, we'll add the Christy Crocks button to the other Christy Crocks posts. In fact I'll do that now.
82957. John Hartz at 01:00 AM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       @Dana or John Cook: Will the "Christy Crock" button be inserted into all of the other articles in this series? How about adding a Note similar to the above to all of the other articles in the series?
82958. Bob Lacatena at 00:37 AM on 12 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       44, Dikran, Yes, I probably should have added that I believe that my observation almost always applies to skeptics (not meaning all skeptics, but rather, it rarely applies to people who do already understand the science, and far more often applies to skeptics, especially vocal skeptics who are so confident in their position that they feel they can openly and confidently recant a scientific position). Skeptics are the ones who tend to try to mold climate science to fit into their own boxes, and this is often what leads them astray. Because they are only seeing things from a very limited (and inaccurate) perspective, but it is also a perspective that they have spent years fine tuning, and through which have achieved a lifetime of personal success and achievement, it is very easy for a skeptic to Dunning-Kruger himself, and to believe that of all people, he has the tools to unravel the great climate mystery, and if not to find the solutions that have eluded the professionals, to at least understand it as well as he needs to make a final, authoritative (Dunning-Kruger) judgment. So, while my observation and advice was and is directed at everyone, it's particularly applicable to those who have already made up their minds that climate change is not an issue, and that look at every single aspect of climate change -- be it melting ice, drought, temperature records, climate sensitivity, the physics whatever -- but in every aspect, they feel they have achieved understanding but always through their own best avenues, tools, and limited perspective -- with their own, best hammer-- and so have convinced themselves that their position is valid. I think for many of these people, the simple recognition that they are one of the blind men describing an elephant is the starting point to getting out of the box which they have constructed that defines their skepticism, and prevents them from learning the science and finding the truth.
82959. Eric (skeptic) at 00:27 AM on 12 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       okatiniko #3, that is a worthwhile thought exercise. The simple answer comes from the history of the oil industry (wikipedia). Oil and gas were exploited relatively extensively in the far east 1000 or more years ago. That spread to Asia, particularly Russia. The U.S. took over in the 20th century but various countries that we once dominated have now nationalized their industries. We still have varying degrees of geopolitical influence in oil and energy although that is increasing challenged by China and other countries. The question you raise is not technological. You imply that we should not invent new techniques, but it is impossible to not invent or uninvent when the market demands the product. You also point out the great expense involved, but even with the government "subsidies" (which are mostly just a temporary alleviation of high taxes), the market has no problem providing the financing. I would point out that China has oodles of money, strong science and technology, and a large manufacturing sector to feed the energy to. The answer is therefore, geopolitical, but also very much dependent on the economic policies of various countries independent of the environmental considerations. My suggestion is to start here http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/climate_challenge_e.htm because it is in the context of trade agreements where your suggestions have the best chance of being implemented.
82960. Dikran Marsupial at 00:20 AM on 12 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Sphaerica There is a difference between garethmans brand of behavioural science and the way an electrical engineer or a chemist or a statistican would approach climate change, which is that the latter are constrained by the truth. Rhetoric isn't. There is plenty of scope for discussion of behavioural science in climate change (although perhaps not on this thread). There is no place for rhetoric in the scientific discussion of climate change. As a statistician/electronic engineer, I find the physics far more convincing, but my comments tend to be about statistics as that is my primary expertise. I generally read the discussions about physics and chemistry rather than participate. I suspect I am not alone in this, so on-line appearances can be deceptive. I have also pitched manure and written a sonnet ;o)
82961. J. Bob at 00:10 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Dirkran Marsupial @ 78, it's been a couple years since I last looked at the ABC, and have not looked at it from a drought perspective. My interest then, was looking at the thermal radiation & convective effects of the particulates. However, some time ago I noted the use of solar ovens instead of wood fires, for cooking, and their effect on saving trees, and reduced erosion. This report (Machine Design, if I recall) was about the high elevations of Northern India, Nepal, etc. It's simplicity and resultant effects was an engineer's delight.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem, I was just wondering if there was a genuine contradiction there, it seems perhaps not.
82962. Phil at 00:08 AM on 12 June 2011
       Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
       An update from Phil Jones
82963. Tom Curtis at 00:02 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Denier @77: Brief bio of professor V Ramathan:

       " V. Ramanathan Title: Professor/ Director Department: Scripps Institution of Oceanography Organization: California Space Institute La Jolla, CA United States Website: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/. Bio Dr. V. Ramanathan is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego. In the mid 1970s he discovered the greenhouse effect of CFCs and numerous other man-made trace gases. He correctly forecasted in 1980, along with R. Madden, that the global warming due to carbon dioxide would be detectable by the year 2000. He and his students also used satellite radiometers to detect the atmospheric greenhouse effect directly from observations and demonstrated using satellite and ground based observations that the coupling between atmospheric warming and water vapor greenhouse effect exerted a strong positive feedback effect, thus confirming earlier model predictions. Teaming up with NASA colleagues, he showed that clouds had a large natural cooling effect on the planet using direct measurements of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He, along with Dr. Paul Crutzen, led the Indian Ocean Experiment (INDOEX) that first discovered the widespread South Asian Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABCs). Using INDOEX, Dr. Ramanathan showed that the South Asian brown clouds led to large scale dimming of the ocean slowed down the monsoon circulation and decreased monsoon rainfall. He followed this with a path-breaking study with agricultural economists to show that ABCs and greenhouse gases were responsible for a 14% decrease in rice harvest in India. In 2006, he used miniaturized instruments on light weight unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, to show that black carbon in ABCs are causing a large heating of the atmosphere over Asia, linking ABCs to the melting of Himalayan and Tibetan glaciers. During the summer of 2008, he used these UAVs to track pollution from Beijing during the Olympics. His most recent publication suggests that human activities have likely committed the planet to exceed the threshold for several climate tipping points during the twenty first century. Dr. Ramanathan currently chairs the UNEP-sponsored ABC Project with science team members from the USA, Europe, India, China, Japan, Korea and other Asian countries. He is the recipient of many national and international awards such as: the American Meteorological Society's Rossby medal, the Buys Ballot medal by the Dutch Academy of Sciences, the Volvo environment prize in 1997 and the Zayed International prize for environment in 2008. He has been elected to the American Philosophical Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Pope John Paul II, the Academia Europea, the Third World Academy of Sciences and most recently to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He chairs the National Academy of Sciences panel that provides strategic advice to the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a $2 billion/year inter-agency research program. He is part of the Nobel Peace prize (2007) winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its inception, and for the 2007 report served as one of the lead editors in IPCC-AR4 (2007), WG-I. A more complete resume and bibliography can be seen at: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/."

       OK, he discovered the global warming effect of several trace gasses, predicted the GH warming of the atmosphere in the 1980's, has been a participant in the IPCC since 1990, and a lead author in AR4. But he is obviously not an "AGW scientist" because he is leading the effort to find out about the Indian Ocean Brown Clouds, which you tell us the AGW scientists are ignoring. A brief quote from Professor Paul Crutzen (and others):

       "Far more profound are the chemical and biological effects of global human activity. It may seem remarkable that changes to mere trace components of the Earth’s atmosphere—CO2, methane (CH4), and so on—can so fundamentally impact the Earth. Nevertheless, the concept of control of surface temperature by levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs), as originally worked out by Arrhenius (10) and Chamberlain (11), has been vindicated by subsequent work. Today, the rise in CO2 to over a third above preindustrial levels has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt: by systematic measurement since the 1950s (12); and by the record of atmospheric composition, now nearly a million years long, preserved in Antarctic ice (13). The rise in temperatures, that, at high latitudes, already exceed modeled predictions, has important consequences. The fringes of the great polar ice-sheets, once thought to react sluggishly to temperature rises, are now seen to respond quickly and dynamically (14). The ensuing sea level rise, scarcely begun, may ultimately be of the order of several meters (15) if temperatures rise by some 2−5 °C, as predicted (16). Global temperature rises will have far-reaching consequences for the biosphere. Species will migrate (if they are able to) to track their optimum climate belt, a phenomenon more pronounced in the oceans than on land (17): changes in, say, larval hatching times can cause cascade-like changes in entire ecosystems, when these larvae act as food for other animals."

       But again, he can't be one of those "AGW scientists" because he, like Ramathan is a Co-chief scientist of the INDOEX program, and as you inform us, this is an issue being ignored by AGW scientists.
82964. Bob Lacatena at 23:58 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman, and everyone, You said this, and things like it a number of times in the past:

       ...in my behavioural science you...

       I see this sort of thing a lot. Electrical engineers analyze climate using electrical engineering concepts and terms. Statisticians make everything revolve around statistics. Chemists look at the chemistry. I certainly flavor my own thoughts with systems thinking (being a software developer and systems analyst), but I think I have a slight advantage because the real key to success in my job is breaking that mold, and getting in tune with the real world and the real problem, from many angles, not just my own, narrow, computer-specialist perspective. In fact, a lot of computer systems fail because of this habit of people to look only from their own perspective, and so computer systems too often reflect the computer considerations, and not the realities of the problems they are trying to solve. Hammer/nail syndrome ("if all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail") is human nature. But I think climate is a particularly broad, varied, and complex problem. It includes systems, and feedback loops, and behavioral components, and statistics, and chemistry, physics, biology, politics, economics, everything. Everyone needs to make every effort they can to break the hammer-nail syndrome and expand their thinking in uncomfortable but necessary ways. If you ever find yourself falling into your comfort zone, realize that you are falling away from the answers and solutions, not closer to them. You feel more comfortable with your understanding, because it is familiar and fits into a complex box that you have spent a lifetime and a career constructing, but in fact that box is a prison, not a prism. It keeps you from seeing the whole picture and the truth, rather than helping you to do so (which is how it feels, but not how it is). This isn't a criticism of garethman, or anyone. It's just an observation. Avoid hammer-nail syndrome. The climate problem is far too complex to be handled by a single specialist, or even a team of specialists. To repeat a favorite quote of mine from Robert Heinlein:

       "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

82965. DSL at 23:54 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       By the way, Denier, I'd like to see the logic and evidence that differentiates your proposed hypothesis of "an identified physical cause of change totally destroys the greenhouse gas hypothesis" from "this means a significant change in the number of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in Argentina." In other words, why do you propose your final hypothesis? What does this alleged cloud of pollution have to do with the physics of radiative transfer? And AGW is not an hypothesis. It's a theory based on a broad range of already well-tested hypotheses.
82966. J. Bob at 23:39 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Here are a couple of references to the Asian Brown Cloud (ABC)& Ramanathan. A Google search on the "Asian Brown Cloud" will get a lot more. ABC-1 ABC-2
       Moderator Response:

       [Dikran Marsupial] I was wondering if there was a verifiable reference to ABC causing drought in Australia, rather than Asia (which would provide some support for Denier's speculation).

82967. garethman at 22:35 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Hi Skywatcher. Sadly I cannot give you any cause for hope, like you, I would like to see some good news. You will also note all my posts state I fully agree with the fact the ice is declining rapidly. My apparent sin was to ask why the ice declined at varying rates, and to show charts which demonstrated a temporary slowdown in melting rates. Obviously a very sensitive area which I was unaware of and which has upset many people. I’m still unsure why, but in my behavioural science you don’t ask why people behave in some ways, you just have to accept. So there we are, I will try and carefully avoid posting any material which is likely to offend or cause upset in the future.
       Response:

       [DB] This is a forum wherein like-minded people discuss the science of climate change from the perspective of what the science actually says, not what the media represents it as.  Participants took exception to some unscientific statements you made and attempted to make you aware of a more appropriate context and methodology to examine those situations.

82968. Denier at 22:33 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       The following was posted on ABC Environment. To ensure it is not lost and unanswered it is posted here, being mindful of your words - " Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding." The information provided below suggests AGW scientists have seriously failed your test. There is evidence of a dimming event, capable of affecting global hydrology from INDOEX; a very comprehensive field study conducted in equatorial Indian Ocean during 1999. Briefly, the 250 scientists of INDOEX discovered a massive atmospheric cloud of mostly man-made pollution from fossil burning, covering an area the size of Australia extending upwards 3 to 4 kms, was reducing the sun’s ability to create evaporation. Subsequent monitoring by Prof. V. Ramanathan of USC, determined this cloud remains stationary for 3 to 4 months yearly due to an inversion, with one of its adverse effects being regional drought. Those supporting the global warming case have long argued these clouds of pollution have aided in arresting temperature increases. INDOEX distinguishes the effect over this body of water has catastrophic consequences. The question is – why have Australian climate scientists pushing the CO2 warming barrow failed to acknowledge such a momentous climatic happening? Could the answer be - an identified physical cause of change totally destroys the greenhouse gas hypothesis?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Fixed URL (hopefully that is the one you intended). Can you supply a verifiable reference to the findings of Prof. Ramanathan?
82969. Dikran Marsupial at 22:33 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman I am not interested in a rhetorical debate with you. I have clearly stated why. If you want your posts to be better received, just drop the rhetoric as I advised, you will find you get your questions answered in a measured tone. I suspect the last few posts will be deleted as off-topic (I would do so myself were I not a participant), but hopefully you will get the message that your rhetorical tone is doing you no favours here. Note that my first response to one of your questions was perfectly reasonable. Note I said a denier would want to look only at a 3000 year trend, not a skeptic (there is a difference). A denier would want to use data that could not possibly reveal any anthropogenic influence on climate, whether it was there or not. That was not implying that you were a denier, just pointing out how useless a 3000 year trend would be for the discussion at hand (albeit obliquely).
82970. Dikran Marsupial at 21:56 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman It is rather arrogant of you to assume that I am in some way lacking in my understanding of human nature (a rhetorical trick I have seen before, a subtle ad-hominem). One of the purposes of scientific method and practice is to overcome some of the less helpful aspects of human nature, in doing so, it is helpful to have a good knowledge of those human failings actually are. Rhetoric on the other hand tends to appeal to them (especially our natural confirmation bias). I would avoid rhetoric if I were you, if you want to engage in scientific discussion; science looks for the truth, rhetoric looks for a victory in a debate, and truth or logical consistency are generally only secondary considerations (if that). I doesn't work as well in written communication as there is time to check for cherry picking and logical consistency etc. There was a good essay by Schopenhauer lampooning rhetoric ("the art of always being right" or something like that), well worth reading so you know the tricks to look out for in others and avoid using yourself. Rhetoric is a hallmark of denialism, it really isn't something to be proud of. If you think it is a good way of arriving at information, you are profoundly mistaken.
82971. skywatcher at 21:32 PM on 11 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       #3: Being a scientist and not a politician, I can't answer your last question, but I like the proposal otherwise! I suspect that there are savoury and unsavoury political reasons why this happens, as well as insufficient political pressure to move away from fossil fuels (see Obama's flip-flopping on it). As we move into the first significant decade of climate consequences, maybe those pressures will change. We're already seeing some renewables prices lower towards some FF prices, so maybe part of the solution is undeway.
82972. skywatcher at 21:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Garethman - the observation about favourable winds is in the literature, particularly for 2007's melt. But the winds are overprinted on the declining trend, such that, although winds in the latter half of the melting season last year (2010) were extremely unfavourable to ice export, the ice was so thin that it melted to the 3rd lowest extent on record. Heaven knows what'll happen to the remains of the Arctic ice when we get a repeat of 2007-like wind conditions (IIRC, it was about a 10-year return period for that wind pattern).
82973. garethman at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Thanks for the extra info Dikran it makes sense of what I am looking at, If I understand you correctly, the highs and lows even out into a trend, and this temporary slowing of decrease will be evened out by an increase at some point? Thats useful to know. However, that was not my question, my question was related to why it happened, what were the factors involved which caused the variations. Helpfully it has now been answered on another thread. Apparently it is variations in sea temps and wind direction. Warmers waters accelerate melt, winds break up and distribute ice, and these factors either enhance the rate of melting or slow it down. I know it may be pretty obvious to most of you, but it took a lot of queries to arrive at the info. By the way it’s a fair cop, I love rhetoric. It has great tradition dating from classical Greece. It’s a good way of arriving at information, especially when any question is met with a barrage of aggression or odd allegations. To me, coming from a qualitative or even phenomenological background, what I post is a scientific discussion. It just does not seem like that to many Scientists on this site who are schooled in the more quantitative philosophy of objectively measurable phenomenon. Sometimes your deductions are as perplexing to me as mine must be to yourselves. Nevertheless I appreciate your responses which wonderfully illustrate the variation in human responses to such critic issues and hope that maybe you are learning something about human nature in the same way as I am learning the details of anthropogenic effects on climate.
82974. skywatcher at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Clearly you're not here for rational discussion garethman, but by all means use ther Uni of Bremen chart - though it only shows the past eight years of data, it shows 2011 at the 'bottom of the pack' as it were, and also shows (which IJIS does not) the long-term mean, and how far below that, every single year in the Bremen graphs. It's not a graph for establishing trends, however, as it is not easy to see the pattern of how the extent on this year on this date compares to the ordered sequence of extents on previous years of the same date. But that is of course exactly the data you want to hide. Equally, the Cryosphere Today anomaly graph technically shows pretty much exactly the same data as in Tamino's graphs, the NSIDC graph or the IJIS/Bremen graphs, but in that one it is even harder to see the trends as you cannot visually pick, say which point represents 11th June 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and so on. If you could, you would of course see very clearly the declining trend. What is interesting is that although the rapid and accelerating decline is clearly going on, as shown by the relevant charts from NSIDC or Tamino's linked above (or you can generate them yourself from IJIS data), the CT chart shows the emergence of something like an annual cycle in the anomalies, as the September anomalies decline more rapidly than the March anomalies. But there's nothing much subjective about any of these graphs, you just need to understand clearly what it is you are looking at on the graph, and do the relevant analysis. If you have any proper data that gives us sound cause for hope in the Arctic, which the extent charts cerainly do not, I would like to see it. I'd like to see some good news about the Arctic.
82975. michael sweet at 20:27 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Garethman at 50: Does WUWT have a graphs page comparable to Nevin's daily graphs page(linked in the main article and also in the comments)? Can you provide a link to the WUWT page so we can check it out? When you say "unusually cold" do you mean compared to the past 20 years or compared to say 1900-1930?
82976. garethman at 19:25 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Dorlomin FWIW there are two trends that have strongly influenced the rate of sea ice melting in the NH, there is additional warm water moving into the area and the winds have been more in favour of exporting ice out of the arctic. A change in either of these may see the rate of decline slow or even briefly reverse the trend. Garethman Much appreciated, I’ve been looking for the reasons for these blips for a while .Thats the first sensible answer I’ve seen. Incidentally one of the things I have noticed ( entirely subjective of course) is that when it is unusually cold here in the North East Atlantic, it tends to be unusually warm in the Arctic. I suspect the influence of a melting Arctic is being felt in Europe in counterintuitive ways. These synoptic charts could be useful in looking at this process. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/surface_pressure.html
82977. garethman at 19:14 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Great sets of data. Many thanks. This also a useful one. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png Any chance you could do the same as WUWT and put all the links and graphs in one place for easy reference?
       Response:

       [DB] I have been considering the feasability of such a thing for a while now.  Right now it comes down to time/manpower.

82978. Dikran Marsupial at 19:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman O.K., so you aren't here for rational discussion of the science, just rhetoric (as your first sentence clearly demonstrates). I have explained why a 30 year timescale is relevant (any shorter it is dominated by weather noise and tells you nothing about forcings, much longer and it no longer has sufficient resolution to detect the effects of anthropogenic changes in forcing) and all you can manage is an inflamatory attack accusing those with a mainstream scientific view of scientific dishonesty (concentrating on only those datasets that suit their position). Not very persuiasive I'm afraid. Look further back in the data, you will find that after each record high or low, there will be a "recovery" towards more average conditions over the next year or two. This is called "regression to the mean", and is a well known statistical phenomenon. It doesn't mean anything now, just like it didn't signal a signficant recovery following any of the previous record minima.
82979. garethman at 18:59 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Thanks Dikran, that’s useful.I suppose reactionaries and the AGW community will always tend to focus on data that supports their side of the argument. So reactionaries or skeptics would tend to use the following: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png which show exactly the same thing, but against a different background giving a different feel. Again, it’s the subjective interpretation of objective observations. However, it just so happens that the vast majority of data supports the AGW side of things. Interestingly this data regarding ocean heat shows this similar blip in the relevant timescale. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png . I guess we could ignore the data as being far too short to be of any real significance, but both sets of data show something standing out against the general trend and any ideas as to why it is occurring would be great.
82980. Dikran Marsupial at 18:36 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman It is not correct to define a trend by drawing a line between two points, it would be a recipe for cherry picking. That is why climatologists use least squares trends. It is a logical fallacy to think that looking at a thirty year trend rather than a 3000 year trend means that looking at a three year trend rather than a thirty year trend is justifiable. Over short timespans, the data are dominated by chaotic variability, and thus tell you virtually nothing about climate. There is very little information about the effects of forcing in three years of data compared to a thirty year trend. Over timescales of 30+years, you are looking mostly at forced climate change, and that is true for 30 years ot 3000 years. Of course if you look at 3000 years the trend won't be sensitive to anthropogenic forcing as it has only been significant for the last 150 years or so of that 3000 years, so it has little effect on a least-squares trend. I can see why a denialist would want to concentrate on a 3000 year trend rather than a 30 year one.
82981. adelady at 18:02 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       The chart you linked to is pretty noisy - because it's a lot of readings over that period. For something to clearly show a trend try the daily graph at NSIDC. Most importantly, it shows the 2 sigma range as well as the simple trend line. When you look at this one, you see clearly that any apparent 'flattening' is much less important than the fact that the ice extent can't get itself anywhere near the outermost limit of the steeply declining trend.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] linked in pitcure (click to go to source)
82982. John Russell at 17:52 PM on 11 June 2011
       It's cooling
       Following Phil Jones' update yesterday (10th June 2011), this subject has become a hot potato in the comments over at Carbon Brief. Anyone fancy offering expert support?
82983. garethman at 17:46 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       It’s all downhill, I agree. But sometimes it’s steeper, sometimes less so. We could draw a straight graph from one point to one point showing a consistent slope which excluded say summer melt and winter freeze, It would be correct, it would show a decline. But it would miss out variations in the rate of decrease which I believe are important in an understanding of why those variations occur. You are right in that we can gloss over the detail of 3 years worth of data in a background of 31 years, but is that not what reactionaries and dissidents do when they place the last 30 years of data against 3000 years? Does the chart I linked to show a flattening? Is it wrong? If so we must not trust info from that source. If it is correct, but shows a timescale to short to be of significance I fully accept that, but then it begs the question, what is a reasonable timescale for significant data to be accumulated? The last 30 years has shown a drastic reduction in ice cover. What does data over the last 300 years, 3000 or even 30,000 years suggest? It may be felt that anything outside the 30 year period is irrelevant due to the advent of satellite technology etc, but could that also not be seen to be Cherry picking? If 3 years is irrelevant, saying 30 is OK, but not 300 is odd. Note I am not saying the ice has not melted, it obviously has, I am just suggesting that from the data it looks like there is variation in the melting rate, which appears to have slowed over the last 3 years, but not recovered. I’m sure you have a reasonable answer for non experts like myself. Here is the link again to save time searching. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
82984. Liam23 at 17:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
       Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this: "The higher quality data available since 1950 has allowed the team to calculate that since that time, the world has seen a phytoplankton decline of about 40%." If phytoplankton generate 50% of the oxygen, then a 40% decline would appear to imply a 20% decline in oxygen generation. Surely we would notice if the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere were falling? Is there a lag time before atmospheric concentration falls? How would reduced generation be reflected in overall concentration? How low would it go? Thanks in advance for any replies.
       Response:

       [DB]  IIRC, any reduction in seawater oxygen content due to the phytoplankton decline will be interspersed thoughout the various layers of the worlds oceans.  That's a lot of volume.  Given the volume of the atmosphere, any reductions in oxygen content due to that loss may have been offset by oxygen coming from melting ice sheets (Canadian Archipelago, Greenland, Antarctica as well as the global decline in alpince glaciation).  Speaking off-the-cuff, as I haven't studied that particular aspect.  Don't lose any sleep over it.

82985. okatiniko at 16:40 PM on 11 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       There is an extremely simple way of reaching the goals of a budget policy : it is to forbid the exploitation of all non-conventional resources, deep off-shore, tar sands , shale oils and gas, methane hydrates, liquefied coal, and so forth...., and even the search and exploitation of new conventional resources. There is absolutely nothing to do : just forbid companies to go there. No drilling, no administrative permits - just - forbidden, like in Antarctica. Don't go there . It is absolutely impossible to extract them without extremely sophisticated techniques , mastered only by western companies, and many of these resources are located in democratic, industrialized countries : US, Canada, Japan, Europe ... no real political difficulty in applying these interdictions. and there are only very weak economic consequences, since most of these resources have hardly begun to be exploited - and for most of them not at all. Only Athabasca tar sands are really extracted, with a modest rate (less than 2 Mbl/j) that does not really contribute to GHG emissions - not a problem to lower gradually their extraction and close them in some decades. Forbidding the extraction would avoid to do ANY effort to persuade people to lower their consumption. It is much more, infinitely more simple to control a handful of companies than billions of people. The law of supply and demand would assure a growing price of fossil fuels and a natural switch to other alternatives - quite naturally. There is no need for sequestration, carbon market, and other awful sophisticated things. And contrary to demand policies, the result is 100 % certain. The only question is : why does nobody claim for such a simple measure ?
82986. scaddenp at 15:40 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Actually if we were going to personal about this, then perhaps we should have look at the mathematical skills of some prominent denialist geologists.
82987. scaddenp at 15:35 PM on 11 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       I see your wink but I do not follow your comment at all. Care to explain?
82988. trunkmonkey at 15:29 PM on 11 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Scaddenp "Why you "separating the parameters from the physics"? They are physics too." (wink)perameritizations are actually geology.
82989. scaddenp at 15:10 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       J Bob. The point is proportion of them doing maths. I did maths papers to masters level, but the majority of my cohort only did maths in their first year. The point is that it is perfectly possible to do geology with only 1 year of maths. Its not possible to climate science with that. A fairer way to evaluate my comment would look at average maths skill in geologist versus physicists.
82990. Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Eric the Red @77, did you even read the abstract?

       "Biospheric coupling of terrestrial water and carbon fluxes: Implications for the climate system Jan Veizer, University of Ottawa (Canada) Paul R. Ferguson, University of Ottawa (Canada) Terrestrial water and carbon fluxes represent one of the largest movements of mass and energy in the Earth's outer spheres, yet the relative contributions of abiotic water vapour fluxes and those that are regulated solely by the physiology of plants remain poorly constrained. By interpreting differences in the oxygen-18 and deuterium content of precipitation and river water, it is possible to partition plant transpiration from the evaporative flux that occurs directly from soils, water bodies and plant surfaces. The methodology was applied to fifteen large watersheds in North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and New Guinea, and results show that approximately two thirds of the annual water flux from the water-limited ecosystems that are typical of higher-latitude regions can be attributed to plant transpiration. In contrast to water-limited watersheds, transpiration in high-rainfall, densely vegetated regions of the tropics represents a smaller proportion of precipitation and is relatively constant, defining a plateau in response to incident solar radiation. Estimates of water transpiration behave similar to net primary productivity, confirming that, in agreement with small-scale measurements, the terrestrial water and carbon cycles are inherently coupled via the biosphere, offering a conceptual perspective on the dynamics of energy exchange between terrestrial systems and the atmosphere, where the carbon cycle is essentially driven by solar energy via the water cycle intermediary. Ferguson, P.R. and Veizer, J. 2007. Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth's climate system. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, Vol. 112, D24S06, doi:10.1029/2007JD008431, 2007"

       Now, can you explain how a study of isotope rations of oxygen and hydrogen in modern river water "supercedes" a study of temperatures through out the phanerozoic?
82991. Ari Jokimäki at 14:41 PM on 11 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       The Skeptical Chymist #37: Actually, that paper seems to be peer-reviewed. It was published in this journal (paper is listed in volume 22, issue1). The "report" seems to be a reprint of the journal.
82992. skywatcher at 14:36 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       One should also note, with the greatest of delicacy, that Northern Ireland is not an independent country. The UK (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has an all-time low record of -27.2C set on three occasions, 1895, 1982 and 1995, all in the highlands of Scotland. So Masters is right, at least where the UK's national record is concerned. Masters also corrected a previous error - his earlier posting had suggested that there had been a single national low temperature record, in Guinea, but this was actually in 2009. That leaves no national cold records for 2010. I of course accept that blog posts are not necessarily the most reliable of sources, but to my knowledge Jeff Masters has proven a reasonably reliable source of information, and his post includes both original sources and caveats about the records so people can check up on them. If anyone has more up-to-date or accuarate information the please post it! Regional and local records are broken with greater frequency, due to the very variability I was describing, but national, regional and local records all show the same trend towards more extreme highs and fewer extreme lows.
82993. CoalGeologist at 14:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       This discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic, but I'll attempt to tie various issues together by observing that it has been my impression that many of my colleagues initially approached the issue of climate change from a skeptical perspective, but unwittingly slid down the slippery slope of "Denialism". In this regard, it's important to recognize the role Denialist web sites, and books such as Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth", have played in perpetuating misunderstanding of the scientific arguments. (One of my colleagues actually purchased numerous copies of Plimer's book to mail to his friends in an effort to convince us that AGW is a fraud. Unfortunately for him, the book taught me more about Denialism than it did about climate science.) Any sincere skeptic can potentially find out what science has to say on specific issues through web sites such as SkS. If they then remain doubtful of the validity of the prevailing view, this is what science is all about (assuming it is for legitimate reasons). At the same time, it's important to recognize the corrupting role that "cherry picking" and "affirmation of beliefs" plays in this process, and why bias is so difficult to avoid. If in an overly zealous effort to question the prevailing theory, one immerses one's self in "Denial World", and if this is all one sees day after day, it becomes easy to believe there's no valid scientific basis for AGW. There are reasonably well defined criteria to distinguish skepticism from Denialism, and continued arguments that "Denialist" is nothing but a meaningless insult become very tedious. Any sincere skeptic should acknowledge that AGW Denialism is real, and should distance themselves from it as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is a step few ardent Denialists are willing to take, as they quickly discover that outside of "Denialworld", the arguments against AGW are as thin as Arctic sea ice. I also would like to emphasize the important contributions geologists have made to science in general, and to climate science in particular.
82994. Albatross at 14:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Eric @63, Masters did not mislead anyone-- note the date stamp of his post: "Posted by: JeffMasters, 1:25 PM GMT on November 23, 2010" The year was not over when he posted those data. Dr. Masters is a reliable source of information. I noted the single all-time record low in my post @62. But yes, I agree that everyone should be cautious about citing information from blogs, including wikipedia ;)
82995. dhogaza at 14:00 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       

       Interesting how it ebbs and flows.

       Except, that, of course, human emissions of GHGs aren't going to ebb if you have your way. It's all "flow". At its most basic, you're arguing that since natural variation exists and has caused problems in the past, human contributions can't overwhelm natural variation, therefore there's nothing to worry about problems caused by anthropogenic GHGs. Which is a garbage argument ...
82996. Eric (skeptic) at 13:45 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       "Last year, Jeff Masters gave us this list of 19 countries that set national all-time high temperature records in 2010, while not one single country set an all-time low record, despite the headlines of snow in the UK, Europe and..." I see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010–2011_in_Europe Northern Ireland beating their all-time record low in 2010. Obviously does not affect your climate argument at all, but does suggest that one should not rely on blogs for detailed claims.
82997. Albatross at 13:19 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman @57 and 58, As I said before "You will disagree I'm sure, but your failure to recognize the err of your arguments and only further enforces the OP's point." And your posts have just affirmed that. One has to look at the body of evidence from around the globe when it comes to extremes, one also has to do some pretty sophisticated statistics. There are many studies by respected scientists (Dai, Trenberth, Zwiers, Allen, Stott, Santer and many more) that have quantitatively demonstrated that extreme events are on the increase. I am happy to provide links on another thread. You claims to consider yourself a researcher, but you have not cited any publications from reputable journals to back up your claims. That is not how science works. It is very easy to convince yourself that here is not a problem when you seek out extreme events at selected locations, but as I said earlier you have to consider the body of evidence form around the globe, it is called AGW after all. For example, last year 19 countries set all time record highs, compared to only one all-time record low, not surprisingly 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record, despite a prolonged solar minimum and the onset of a strong La Nina. "As I stated earlier I think it is on topic as it explains why I am not embracing the AGW view of future disaster." Sorry but that line of thinking is not only unscientific, but foolhardy. Do not forget that AGW is very much about where we are heading should we continue to be myopic and complacent regarding the consequences of doubling or trebling CO2. We have more than enough evidence now to know that we are facing some very difficult times ahead should we continue on this path. The prudent course of action is to not deny the facts and to take action in reducing GHG emissions. Bizarre that some would like to wait until it is too late to take action, just like in the video I showed @28. "Consensus views of "experts" in their field have been overturned and wrong." But nobody has overturned the theory of AGW. Regardless, your claims about consensus are moot; what we have now with the science is consilience, which is much stronger than consensus alone. You can continue to seek out events to convince yourself that AGW is not an issue, but doing so is just reinforcing your denial. "Historical data calls into question AGW climate change" No it doesn't.
82998. skywatcher at 13:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       #59 Norman: So you think cherry-picking individual heatwaves from history disproves the radiative forcing effects of CO2? Interesting logical process you have there... Observations of extremes in climate is all about loading the dice. The globe has shown a very well-verified warming of ~0.8C in the past century. It does not mean steady year-on-year increases in maximum recorded temperatures at individual locations. If a '12' on two dice is a heatwave, and a '2' is a severe cold spell, then climate change increases your chance of rolling 12's and reduces your chances of rolling a '2'. In fact, 13's become possible (e.g. Russia last year), and soon 14's will be on the cards, but they will not happen at every location in every year. Last year, Jeff Masters gave us this list of 19 countries that set national all-time high temperature records in 2010, while not one single country set an all-time low record, despite the headlines of snow in the UK, Europe and the USA. In the linked articles is a note that 33% of countries set record highs in the last decade, while only 6% set record lows. That's loading the dice. The record lows show that, given ideal weather, cold records can be still be achieved, it's just they need more 'ideal' conditions. Next time the weather conditions are favourable in your cherry-picked locations, those heat records will probably fall too, when the dice get their chance to roll a '12', or the shiny new '13' made possible by the extra heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
82999. Eric the Red at 12:45 PM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       This supercedes the Royer paper. http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1319779.html
83000. Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman @59, before I go any further into this, what where temperatures like in the United States in 1923-4? And what where temperatures like in Marble Bar in 1934-7?

Prev  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  Next