Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 Next
Comments 83251 to 83300:
-
ginckgo at 12:10 PM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
I'm a geologist/palaeontologist myself, and know many geologists here in Australia, and overseas. The majority of them accept that AGW theory correctly describes what's going on (a few are skeptical that we can do much about it anymore); Mike Sandiford, my lecturer in metamorphic geology, now at Melbourne Uni, is a strong advocate of AGW (Ian Plimer used to work at Melbourne Uni, but there is little respect for his academic prowess here, partly due to his very meagre publication recordl; and yet he is touted as Australia's most renowned geologist). I have actually collaborated closely with Bob Carter in the late 90s, and have respect for his work in marine geology, so it is disappointing that he is undermining another field of science, blatantly due to political convictions (Heartland Institute, srsly?). Geology is vitally important in understanding what's going on (I'm involved in organising a conference on the relevance of palaeoclimate on today's climate change in the next year), and geologists should be very involved in the whole thing. But scientists must understand that expertise in one subject does not automatically translate to others. And interestingly, the geologists more closely involved with climate (palaeontologists, palaeoclimatologists, etc) are much more likely to agree with AGW theory than those who are far removed: economic geologists can get a degree (or just go straight to a job) without ever doing any classes outside of ore formation or hard rock geology, which are as relevant to climate as inorganic chemistry is to evolution. Indeed, we see similar patterns in lists that supposedly show scientists denying evolution. -
Norman at 12:10 PM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
I do have some questions. Linking two articles together, the question is how come coral reefs and other shell creatures survived for several million years when CO2 levels were much higher than today? Why wouldn't a quadruple amount of CO2 cause more acidification than anything we can possibly reach this century? Yet Coral and other shell creatures were able to survive and thrive...why? Links: Graph of atmospheric CO2 a few million years ago to today. Source aticle for graph. Coral was alive during high atmospheric CO2 levels. -
actually thoughtful at 11:42 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Daniel Bailey - great video 350.org and Bill McKibben do great work. -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
CG - we both have to work from personal experience. I had not noticed any right wing bias in my colleagues. However, if they are into denial (none that I know of in my institute), then yes, I would expect that they get their info from right wing climate denial sites. And to GC as well, I am not saying that all geologist are mathematically challenged (my degree is in geology with maths minor). I am saying that you can hardly do climate physics (or physics period) without maths. In my experience, few geologists by way of contrast take maths beyond first year at uni. This does put them at a disadvantage in reading papers on climate physics or the intricacies of PCA. GC - your faith in McIntyre is touching. I would have more respect if he was publishing rather than taking cheap shots from the sideline. -
gallopingcamel at 11:10 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
( -Accusations of fraud and misconduct snipped- )Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
CoalGeologist at 10:50 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@51 scaddenp Sorry... But I know very well where many of my colleagues get the arguments they cite. They could NOT come up with these things on their own. Many just passively receive emails from other colleagues citing certain "factoids" and arguments that appear on the internet, and then proliferate through the right-wing blogosphere with almost unimaginable speed. (I've researched this phenomenon on many occasions. Do a Google search on a unique key phrase (in quotes) from the latest Denialist argument, and see where it shows up.) Many or most of these sites are overtly political in nature. You be the judge of the political orientation. I'm not saying that left-wing, or environmental activist sites are immune from exaggeration or misinformation. Far from it... but climate change evolved from a scientific issue into a political issue when it was embraced by right-wing groups. You can disagree if you wish, but the empirical evidence supports this observation. The mathematical skills of geologists span all possible levels of proficiency from minimal to extremely sophisticated. While it's possible to be a good geologist while having minimal math skills, your argument holds little merit in my opinion. -
YayYay at 10:18 AM on 10 June 2011It's not bad
In economics, it's all really a matter of perception. The following is how a typical, greedy corporate who- I mean dude, could see it. Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries Is positive for rich, high latitude countries. The poorer these countries stay, the less you have to pay for the workers in these countries. Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure Repairing this damage can be a great source of money for many companies. Reduced water supply in New Mexico Selling water to New Mexico can offer great amount of not only money, but political power. The less water they have, the better they can be ripped off. Increased risk of conflict (Zhang 2007) including increased risk of civil war in Africa (Burke 2009) If anything, then this is good for United States military complex and hence USA economy. As long as there are people who think like this, global warming, just like anything else, isn't going to go away. -
scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
To CG's list (which I would agree with except last one), I add: low mathematical skill level. Strong math isnt a perquisite for geology which leaves many geologist poorly equipped to follow papers where the skill is assumed. -
MattJ at 09:54 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@LazyTeenager at 22:12 PM on 9 June, 2011 >A point that is often overlooked by the deep time climate skeptic >geologists is that there was life back then but not human life. And >there was of course no human civilization and in particular no USA >as it looks at the moment. True, but the primitive life then present does remind us of denialists in certain political parties in the US;) -
MattJ at 09:51 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
@thingadonta, #6 Sorry, but you are just not making sense. You are talking about minerals in general, the article was talking SPECIFICALLY about minerals used as FUEL. Sure, Australia has more Al reserves than anyone knows what to do with, but the same is conspicuously NOT the case for coal and oil. So your post is completely ruined by this fallacy of treating all mineral extraction cases as the same, when your interlocutor clearly had in mind the special case of mineral extraction for FUEL. -
Rob Painting at 09:48 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
MattJ - I was referring to pondering the palatability of what's left in the oceans. That the oceans will be greatly depleted, seems a given on our current course. Bibasir - it's a concern alright, but other scientists have questioned the results of that study, so we'll have to see how that plays out in the end. As far as oxygen in the oceans, warming reduces the solubility of oxygen, and we're consequently seeing an expansion of 'dead zones'. There's actually a whole bunch of other stuff taking place in the oceans, that we'll get around to discussing in the future. -
YayYay at 09:38 AM on 10 June 2011It's too hard
Haha, of course we could fix global warming. Technically. The thing is, we could technically also fix poverty, starvation and aids. In this case, what really matters, isn't what the climate science says, but what the social sciences say. -
Rob Painting at 09:30 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
John Bruno - 1. valid points, and I don't know that I've seen them adequately addressed, however: see figure 1 d above - less than 5% of the measurements find pH drops as low as 7.09 at the most intense CO2 sites (avoiding the term percentiles here). Hopefully we'll see some further studies resolving these issues. 2. Slime?, seen the same term used by coral reef experts, and a lot of it feels pretty darned slimy to me too!. Macroalgae, although technically correct, doesn't mean much to Joe and Jane Public, but if you can came up with a better term......... 3. Me, I'd rather not eat slime nor coral, but different strokes (I can do facetious too!). I've amended the text to mention the loss of fish. -
Michael Hauber at 09:03 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Consider the wide swings of our climate caused by ENSO. This is caused by changing ocean temperatures over a portion of the Pacific by a couple degrees, and the effect of the changed temperature and moisture input into the atmosphere on global circulation patterns. Now consider that changing the Arctic from ice to water will probably have at least a profound impact on the temperature and moisture interactions between this area of the globe's surface and the atmosphere, and speculate on what this may do to atmospheric circulation patterns. We are already seeing small patches of ocean in the Arctic that are 5 degrees warmer than normal in late summer as they've spent a large portion of the summer absorbing solar radiation instead of sitting under a coating of ice. -
KR at 08:55 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
dana1981 - I suspect that E & E has a sufficiently bad reputation that they didn't consider it. -
okatiniko at 08:41 AM on 10 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
DM#35 : you write " As I have already pointed out, those different spatial repartitions have no effect on the equilibrium global average temperature, as the averaging averages them out." but of course they have an effect, since this is precisely the reason why the boreal summer is warmer than the austral one, despite a lower input flux ! spatial repartition of forcings must be taken into account for sure ! "Yes, but that is a statement about the absolute temperature, not the rate of change of temperature with a change in the forcing." rate of change ? you mean a time derivative dT/dt ? as far as I know there is nothing like a time derivative in the definition of sensitivity - it's just the equilibrium value. " Climate sensitivity appears to be exactly what yopu have in your notation when your write ∂T/∂F |x,y..., where x and y etc. describe the configuration of the planet independent of the forcings, which has not changed between the last ice age and the current interglacial, " why do you say it has not changed ? my point was precisely that it HAS changed, at least first because astronomical precessions and second because of the ice albedo that doesn't have the same spatial repartition as, for instance, the GHG forcing. May be I'm wrong, but you didn't really show me why. -
KR at 08:39 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Rob Honeycutt - I've also seen Chung 2010 and Murphy 2010 referred to in this context. Both are rather serious critiques of L&C 2009. -
dana1981 at 08:38 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Rob H - see here for references to all three KR - since you mentioned it, I'm surprised Lindzen didn't go for E&E! -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:36 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Welcome back CG. Nice to see you again. I think you're dead on target with #5 especially. I find it really sad that this issue has become such a political fight. It's so wrong and utterly pointless. It does nothing except prolong and exacerbate what is likely to turn into a major problem for coming generations. There was a great article on CP today about solar energy becoming cheaper than other sources of energy. My most sincere hope is that this transition to new and cheaper forms of energy happens quickly. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:30 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Funny. I was just in a battle with some guy on one of Peter Sinclair's videos and be brought up LC09 as proof of low climate sensitivity. He's been trying to change the subject ever since. The PNAS rejection is perfect. One reviewer mentions there are two other responses to LC09 but I've never seen those. I only know Trenberth 2010. -
CoalGeologist at 08:19 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Welcome back! (to myself!!) (I haven't posted anything here in a long time.) Basically, John Cook's observations are correct. I see five fundamental underlying causes for the high proportion of skeptics and AGW Denialists among my fellow geologists: 1) scientific skepticism. This springs from a recognition among geologists that earth processes are extremely complex, and our understanding of them is subject to various interpretation. Many geologists have been trained rigorously to consider multiple working hypotheses to avoid the pitfall of subscribing unquestioningly to any single interpretation. This leads to a healthy skepticism regarding the validity and accuracy of the prevailing view. 2) Awareness of past climate change. To a much greater extent than most groups, geologists are keenly aware that Earth's climate has changed substantially, repeatedly, and naturally in the geologic past. For this reason, geologists tend to see recent climate change in this context, and want to know what's so unique about contemporary climate change that makes it different from past, natural events. This is, of course, a question that climate science is well prepared to address. (By the way… This is the end of the justifiable reasons for skepticism among geologists. And frankly, in my opinion, these two are less important than factors #3, #4, and #5, which follow) 3) Fundamental ignorance of climate science, coupled with an insidious inability to recognize the degree to which this ignorance impedes valid understanding of contemporary climate change 4) parochial bias, especially among those of us working in the fossil energy industry. There tends to be a “circle the wagons” response that kicks in when we feel "under attack", especially on issues relating to the environment. Included under this heading would be a sense of “[self-] righteous indignation” that the contributions the fossil energy industry has made to quality and longevity of life worldwide is largely unrecognized and unappreciated. 5) Political and social ideology Unfortunately, I've seen many of my colleagues gravitate toward the insidious influences of the right wing media, which tends to portray AGW as some sort of international left-wing conspiracy. (Don’t ask me to explain further, as the entire notion is so fantastically absurd.) Nevertheless, it's had a huge impact on what geologists believe, especially considering the influence of the first four items listed. I have personally taken an active role in trying to promote a better understanding of climate science among my colleagues. An essential element of this is the ability to recognize the difference between valid skepticism and "Denialism". As a participant in an online discussion group on climate change which has many petroleum geologists as members, it's my impression that AGW Denialism is “running out of gas”, (to use a petroleum-related metaphor!) Skepticism will always play an essential role in the scientific method, but Denialist arguments are becoming hackneyed and tedious. Geologists have an important role to play, both in improving our understanding of climate change (both past and present), and effecting attainable remedies. -
Riccardo at 08:08 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Peer review working properly, judging by the consistency of the four reviewers comments. -
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 10 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Just to make it clearer, whatever innovative solution you propose for our issues, is something that costs the city residents either in losses due to abandonment of the city or in funding adaption. This cost is a harm inflicted largely by others. Such harms that are not from natural cause are not insurable. -
KR at 08:04 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
dana1981 - Yep, the reviewers (including #4, added when Lindzen complained about the others) really ripped it up. I have seen a pre-print of it from last year, and from the reviewer comments it hasn't changed much. Quite horrid, to tell the truth. Still using the x2 extension of tropical effects to global, ERBE data rather than CERES, no attention to extra-tropic heat transport, and high sensitivity to the apparently cherry-picked start/end dates. There's a thread on this at WUWT, which is where I found they had finally managed to get it published. In a Korean English language journal where it's off-topic. Sad... -
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 10 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, lets not get too hung up about airport. Dunedin would lose its function as city if it lost the rail/road link to south and airport is just part of that. We arent happy about losing substantial part of city either. The only viable solution really is dam at mouth of Taieri river to prevent incursion from sea and pump the river over it. Cost is enormous but it preserves the link and the airport not to mention the towns on the plain like Mosgiel. The philosophical point here is that this adaption measure is cost (harm) to us largely inflicted by people in other countries. The same goes for your suggestion about the reef preservation. For me to understand your philosophical stance, I need to know the answer to question about why you would consider it acceptable that say fishing/tourist to pay cost of reef protection rather than creators of the problem? You havent answered about way to protect people with respiratory problems from urban air pollution in an minimal government world either. As a matter of interest, does the freedom of the individual and property rights extend to say building a piggery/car-crusher/munitions factory in an suburban area and if not how is such a conflicts of rights resolved? I'm pushing for this, because I suspect that solutions to these conflicts in a libertarian world could be applied to CO2 emission as well. -
dana1981 at 07:48 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Those PNAS reviewer comments really tore Lindzen's paper apart. -
Mark-US at 07:35 AM on 10 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
(laughing, sort of) I don't trust the average nonscience member of the public to make the proper inferences even from the caption Dana. Human fossil fuel emissions, yes its there in B&W, but for dissemination of of this awesome figure to a nonscience global public, I think the text even in the caption should explicitly say there are other human sources and there are also indirect feedbacks, and TOTAL emissions are the sum of all three. We gotta educate non science folk, but trusting them to make the proper inferences might take too long. Thanks for your attention. -
Riccardo at 07:34 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Geo77 thanks for sharing your experience. I'd like to add, as a physicist, that similar problems are common to many, if not all, fields of science at times of more or less big paradigm shifts. And there's one more point. We all grow up in our field of science with very specific views and tend to approach interdisciplinary problems from our angle. It's a good thing if we put our (scientific) ego aside, a disaster otherwise. -
KR at 07:20 AM on 10 June 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Lindzen and Choi, after having been rejected by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has managed to get published in Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. I'll note that Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences has an impact factor of 0.355, as opposed to the only number I could find for Energy and Environment, 0.42 (4 citations a year). The reviewers comments from NAS are about what could have been expected; failure to perform sensitivity analysis on time periods used, failure to address extra-tropical heat transport, insufficient information to replicate the work, etc. -
Geo77 at 07:02 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
I've often wondered about this question. Aside from the economic angle which is pretty obvious, I think there is a component related to the "type" of science we find in geology. As a field geologist working for the USGS in the early 80s I was witness to a time when all the old paradigms were (rightfully) under assault. It was a wide open world for geologic interpretation out in the mountains of Alaska. You could have 4 different geologists look at the same critical and interesting rock outcrop and get four different views of what the rock meant in terms of the bigger picture. Often those different views depended on what big picture model each individual geologist was carrying around in their head. That kind of environment tended to be kindest (professionally)to the geologist who was the most colorful and the best arm waver. Short term, big egos with compelling stories that they would defend to the death tended to dominate. Over the following decades, the day to day work of science would sort out who was right and who was wrong, but short term that didn't much mater because the relevant data was so slow to accumulate. What I bring away from that experience is that field geology went through a period where big egos that were skilled at defending their positions at all costs came to the fore. Being a contrarian also didn't hurt at all because you were in a field where the whole model that had existed 20 years before was going out the window. I personally witnessed very good and careful scientists who had grown up with the old model, being blown away by a very poor scientist for whom I had very little professional respect. He had basically jumped on the bandwagon and was riding it full speed wherever it would take him. Turns out it was the right bandwagon though. Bottom line - a lot of geologists grew up professionally in an era where big egos, contrary opinions and vigorous defense of positions untethered by hard evidence were not "punished" so to speak. It therefore doesn't surprise me that a lot of the "big name" deniers are geologists. They are kind of taking a skill set that worked in the context of the geology plate tectonics revolution and applying it to a topic and a field where it doesn't work at all. I don't think, however, that they are necessarily representative of geologists on the whole. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:54 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Surprised the article doesn't touch on the impact on weather patterns...been some good stuff on how a warming Arctic is affecting mid-latitudes and storm tracks. Overland et al - my news article: http://stephenleahy.net/2010/09/13/arctic-melt-down-is-bringing-harder-winters-and-permanently-altering-weather-patterns/ -
J. Bob at 06:49 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
SteveBrown @ 19 says, "It may just be the same old duffers that still can't accept plate tectonics!". Like say, Charles Lyell? -
bibasir at 06:38 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Perhaps the most significant impact of ocean acidification is the decline of phytoplankton as discussed in the following paper. "Global phytoplankton decline over the past century Daniel G. Boyce, Marlon R. Lewis & Boris Worm Journal:Nature Volume:466,Pages:591–596 Date published: (April, 2011) In the oceans,ubiquitous microscopic phototrophs (phytoplankton) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century; this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries." “The data is good in the northern hemisphere and it gets better in recent times, but it’s more patchy in the southern hemisphere – the Southern Ocean, the southern Indian Ocean, and so on. 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%." In addition to being the basis of the ocean food chain, plankton generate half of the worlds oxygen. I don't know why these two facts don't put the world into a panic in view of a 40% decline in plankton. -
MattJ at 06:37 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
There is one point where I have to disagree: where the article says, "That is something future generations may have to to ponder" They don't have to ponder it -- we are not giving them any choice. We have already made sure that ocean acidification is here to stay, and can only get worse. We did this by failing to cut when we could, and dismantling the political/social structures that might have made cuts possible in the near future. War, pestilence and famine in a shrinking and degrading biosphere is the legacy we leave our descendants. Good thing their curses won't affect us. -
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
"I don't think it is a coincidence that if you want a profitable career in science a teenager would look at where the jobs are and notice that many geologists work in the fossil fuel industry." Now that is slander. I dont think I have ever met a single colleague who went into geology for the money. If you want to work in the field however, you have to take the jobs that are going. -
John Bruno at 06:19 AM on 10 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
Hi Rob, Thanks for covering this. Two questions. 1) What is the natural low pH value around the PNG bubblers? Ie, how high does acidity get? The common criticism in the field of this "natural experiment" approach is that when flow (current velocity) is low, pH gets to extremely low values (due to reduced mixing with ambient water), which is when the damage is likely done to nearby organisms. Yet what often gets reported in these papers is the mean pH, which isn't as relevant as the extreme values. IOW, are they an analogue for 750 ppm or 3000 ppm? 2) Why label macroalgae "slime"? Id rather eat algae than coral (being partly facetious) and lots of people love to eat urchins! [you might add that it is the inhabitant fish, which are dependent on corals, that would be lost from dinner plates] -
scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 10 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Why you "separating the parameters from the physics"? They are physics too. Read the RealClimate FAQ on parameterization? -
Alexandre at 05:57 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Albatross at 14:42 PM on 9 June, 2011 That Monty Python scene springs to my mind often too. -
dhogaza at 05:13 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
"In addition, how about L. Hamilton's research showing extent has declined in every month of the yea" Yes, the NSIDC trend graphs published in each monthly summary show this, too, though they're not gathered in one nice place like L Hamilton's graph. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:04 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
39, Daniel, That was awesome. It should be a post, not a comment. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:59 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
32, Glenn, Thanks for the offer. I'll keep it in mind, but for now I'd like to keep it between Pirate and I, to keep it focused, casual and non-confrontational (i.e. collaborative, rather than combative). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:58 AM on 10 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric the Red, I'm still waiting for evidence and citations for your statement about sensitivity at 34, however. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:57 AM on 10 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
40, Eric the Red, Your comment on volcanoes in recent times is certainly correct, but I'm talking about geologic time scales, and the full history of the earth. In that history, periods of extreme volcanic activity (far in excess of what we see today) have been responsible for boosting CO2 in the atmosphere (Precambrian). I've also seen theories (i.e not entirely substantiated) that great increases in volcanic activity have caused sustained climate change in recent times (a theory that it caused Neandertals to go extinct) and further back (that it was implicated in the extinction of dinosaurs, through climate change). Your points about time scales is certainly true, and I thought obvious, but not relevant. I wasn't making any statement about current climate change causes, only about the likelihood of variability in climate sensitivity due to configurations, and the fact that these are the only parameters that would affect sensitivity, since all other aspects are themselves temperature dependent. As such, my point was more that any variability in climate sensitivity would only come into play when using paleoclimate data from the very distant past (i.e. different configurations), and even then, any variation would I expect (my opinion, not fact) be slight. Your final statement that physics is not going to change, and that the sensitivity to CO2 has probably been fairly constant, is exactly the point I was trying to make. So we agree on something!!!! The next round's on me! -
Tor B at 04:53 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
MajorKoko @ 02:44 AM on 10 June, 2011 Walker and Hays (1981) describe A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature. Richard Alley describes this million year (+) weathering of silicates (rocks) process in his 2009 AGU lecture very nicely. My favorite book as a teen was Earth Abides. I’d like our descendants to abide with it (the Earth), and we humans don’t have a million years to get CO2 back down naturally in order for us to live in the pleasant Eden we've had these past ten thousand (or 2 million) years. We really need to 1) prevent greenhouse gas concentrations from skyrocketing they way they have been for 75 years and 2) figure out how to sequester CO2 in order to get us back to the proverbial 350. If we don't act individually, collectively, and soon, I fear Arctic region positive feedbacks (including methane release) will only exacerbate the weather extremes that seem to be on the increase and which modeling predicts will increase. -
Riccardo at 04:36 AM on 10 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
trunkmonkey I'm confused. What's the difference between the graph you show and the common notion of MOC? I can't see any atlantic-centrism here. It just describes a physical mechanism by which sea waters may sink and upwell, just Archimedes principle if you wish. -
dhogaza at 04:29 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
"just the normal progression of random variability around a declining trend." Even with his cherry-picking, the 2007-2010 minimum has been showing variability *under* the trend, in contrast to the years (eyeballing) 1995-2006. His "leveling off" simply doesn't exist, and if anything we're seeing a slight acceleration in the declining trend, as argued by tamino here. His fit with two std deviations is given in this graph, with the red dot endpoint being his fit's prediction for 2011:
Some "flattening" ...
Response:[DB] Nice. In addition, how about L. Hamilton's research showing extent has declined in every month of the year:
And the southern sea ice edge of the Arctic Sea Ice has retreated northward in every month of the year:
No flattening here.
-
NewYorkJ at 04:19 AM on 10 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Would be interesting to see the percentage of geologists who haven't worked in the fossil fuel industry who are contrarian vs those who have. Interestingly, Richard Alley has many years of experience in the oil industry, but is very knowledgeable on climate science, but he's also spent many years studying climate science. -
CBDunkerson at 04:06 AM on 10 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
garethman, the sharp drop in sea ice extent in 2007 was due to a confluence of rare weather events. The subsequent years have had more 'normal' weather yet still shown similarly low extents because of the ongoing decline in sea ice. Basically, at the time the 2007 extent was anomalously low (due to conducive weather) for the amount of ice in the Arctic ocean. However, since then the amount (i.e. volume) of ice has continued to decline and extents that low are now 'normal'. In another few years the same extent will be considered 'high'. Nothing particularly mysterious about it... just the normal progression of random variability around a declining trend. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:54 AM on 10 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Stay calm. Do not think. Do not adjust to reality - reality must adjust to you. Then you too can be a denier: [Source] H/T to Coby Beck and Tom Curtis (whom I shamelessly and brazenly quoted/stole this from) -
CBDunkerson at 03:51 AM on 10 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Badgersouth, no the earlier items in the series can be found here.
Prev 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 Next
