Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 Next
Comments 86501 to 86550:
-
Albatross at 10:19 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTT @29, Well, now we are both laughing. I'm sure Dana, and others, are going to have much fun with your post @29. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:14 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Had to laugh On the one hand you post that Lindzen and Christy are wrong about whether cutting emissions will make a difference. "...So Lindzen and Christy have a point here, right? Well, no. In particular, Lindzen claims that global emissions cuts "wouldn't make a lot of difference." But let's say international negotiations succeeded in convincing countries all around the world to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Now suddenly instead of 2,200 Gt CO2 emitted in the next four decades, it's only about 820 Gt. Now instead of 550 ppmv in 2050, we're looking at about 450 ppmv." Where you point out that if everything went right and everyone followed along , globally we might cut emissions to 450ppm And in your very next post you tell us that 450ppm means disaster. "Prior to these developments atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450ppm was equated as limiting average global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. This can no longer be maintained. Hansen and Sato (2011) using paleoclimate data rather than models of recent and expected climate change warn that “goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster”." It seems Lindzen and Christy were right afterall. Or 450ppm doesn't spell disaster. Pick one. -
Ken Lambert at 09:33 AM on 5 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Sphaerica #48 "This is probably the crux of Ken's problem, and why he gets so much wrong. His efforts to do so are clearly handicapped by his own preset desire to arrive at a chosen result. He even admits to this when he says: it might not be there.. He doesn't know. It's just a possibility, and one that he'll wager on because he hasn't considered the rather deep and detailed science which reasons that it should be there and almost certainly is... it will be shocking if it's not. But for him, it's only a short step to go from "it might not be there" to closing his eyes and insisting that it isn't there, even though all of the evidence says that it is. It's climate change denial in a well wrapped package, with a nice, shiny bow." I am glad that the package is presentable. Spare us the amateur psychoanalysis Sphaerica. This thread is about John Cook's efforts to deliver the planet from 'deniers'. When the scientists have found the 'missing heat', then reasonable persons like me will accept the facts. When facts change - so does my opinion - what do you do sir? Until then, "the quantity of belief is the difference between what we can measure and what we think is there." -
Marcus at 09:32 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Use of PV Solar panels with huge taxpayer subsidies is not one of them - and State Govts in Australia are winding back or abandoning such costly schemes." This claim is long on propaganda, but very short on fact. The subsidies for PV solar panels are actually quite small-compared to many other subsidies provided to Middle Class families in Australia. Also, the WA & NSW currently provide an overly generous solar energy subsidy for *all* electricity generated, & so these 2 governments are currently looking at bringing them in line with the schemes provided by most of the other States-namely a subsidy *only* for the energy fed into the grid-a move I happen to agree with. Also, wherever they are in place around the world, feed-in tariff subsidies were *never* designed to be permanent. As their goal of making renewable energy more cost competitive with fossil fuels is increasingly achieved, the feed-in tariff subsidies were always designed to be *phased out*-unlike the very generous subsidies that still remain for the fossil fuel industry. -
Marcus at 09:25 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ah, another textbook Denialist Argument from Ken-in 2 parts no less. Part 1 is to decry the "evil" subsidies enjoyed by the still relatively young renewable energy industry, whilst remaining deafeningly silent about the much larger direct & indirect subsidies still enjoyed by the *mature* fossil fuel industry. What's the matter, Ken, afraid of having to operate on a more *level* playing field? Part 2 is the claim that "some consumption is inelastic" because there are "no short term alternatives". Well if there is any truth to that, its because the fossil fuel industry-with the help of complicit governments-have worked very hard to make sure that there *aren't* any alternatives available. In strict technical terms, though, there are numerous options for reducing the current consumption of fossil fuels-be it switching to alternative fuels (algae derived bio-diesel, diesel-electric vehicles, blended fuels & transporting of freight via trains instead of by road). Price signals will definitely help put pressure on government agencies, vehicle & fuel suppliers to get off their collective *you-know-whats* & start making these alternatives more readily available. -
David Horton at 08:45 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
I may have missed it, or misunderstood something fundamental about the LIndzen approach, but has he ever been asked, or addressed voluntarily, the obvious question - if cloud negative feedback is so effective then how did climate change markedly in the past? Or does the iris effect only swing into action when the human release of CO2 causes an enhanced greenhouse effect? -
Albatross at 08:22 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I second Skywatcher's assessment @132 of Rob's excellent and astute post @130. As I mentioned yesterday, there are some other peculiarities in the curious statements made by Chip and Pat concerning the role of internal climate variability in modulating the melt over the GIS (Greenland Ice Sheet), as well as the "moderate" contribution of the recent GIS melt to global sea-level rise. A new report has just come out that challenges the aforementioned claims-- for example, it suggests that the contribution of ice mass loss from GIS to global se level rise may have been too conservative in the most recent IPCC report. More soon when I have some time to put everything together. -
Albatross at 08:07 AM on 5 May 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Bruce @92, The forecasts for 2010-2011 can be found here for IRI. Also see here for CPC. -
Bruce Frykman at 07:05 AM on 5 May 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
RE: #7 response: Response: The cool temperatures of Jan 2008 are due to an unusually strong La Nina effect (the strongest in a decade). Did the models predict this "strongest in a decade" La Nina and if so could you point us to the statement where this was predicted before it actually occurred -
dana1981 at 06:51 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - I'm failing to see your point. If Adjusted Scenaio B is "not so good answer" (looks pretty darn good to me), how would you describe Lindzen's projection? -
SNRatio at 06:37 AM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
By what we know now, we can neither consider the 450 ppm nor the 2 deg targets as acceptable, risk-management-wise. Let us by all means hope that Hansen is much more wrong this time than he has, on the average, been in the past, but we just can't count on that. I tend to agree with CBD (#9) that this time, changes may happen fast enough to make us react. Because of arctic amplification and weak negative feedbacks, arctic melting may enter an exponential phase, which soon enough will make itself felt world-wide. We are just in the beginning of such a phase (at worst), but when the process is established, forecasts bases on linear or polynomial extrapolations soon become short-lived. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:33 AM on 5 May 2011Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
If anyone's interested, the amsutemps applet at uah.edu is up and running again, although it looks like Dr. Spencer hasn't yet had time to update the numbers with the days since the tornadoes (or perhaps that will run automatically with the next day's updates). -
dana1981 at 06:32 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
thanks skywatcher -
skywatcher at 06:30 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Well said Rob, I could not agree more. The differences between Wake et al and FKM are stark, largely in how the results are discussed, the care with which conclusions are presented, and the clarity with which the context of discharge mass loss is appreciated in relation to surface runoff. Note how no reference is made to sea level rise, or to future climate based on these results, as appropriate for this type of study. The modelled historical records are comparable, as you might hope, but the inferences are dead wrong from FKM. Sadly, that won't stop them being used by some, time and again. -
scaddenp at 06:23 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Angusmac - close. Scenario C is "different reality", not wrong physics. Scenario B is closest to actual reality and yes, in Hansen's case physics was out. His incredibly primitive model had a sensitivity of 4.2. Better physics in current models estimate sensitivity at 3, and lo, that is what fits with the temperature record. "Adjust" the Hansen prediction to a sensitivity of 3 and that is what you get. -
skywatcher at 06:16 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Why do I get the feeling that Dana's demolition of Lindzen is akin to squashing a bug by dropping an aircraft carrier on it? The weight of evidence is almost horrifically one-sided, and it's sonewhat sad that Lindzen keeps publically pushing the meme, and frustrating that he is doing so very publically. Well done Dana for another excellent article, and yet another great resource for literature on climate sensitivity. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:28 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
And, of course, much of that 2 billion acres is already forested, so you can hardly plant trees on the trees. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:25 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Bernhard, Look at wikipedia and the US EPA for info on your question. But according to the EPA, for example, one study showed that pine in the SE USA sequesters roughly one metric ton of carbon per acre per year (Birdsey 1996). Since the USA alone generates 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon per year, you would need to plant 5.8 billion new acres to offset our emissions completely (understanding, too, that at a point the trees would stop growing, so their sequestration abilities would diminish over time, although you'd get at least 50-100 years out of the project). And then you have to hope no one changes their mind and cuts down (or nature burns down) the new forests. But since the total area of the USA is only 2.45 billion acres, if you succeeded in planting trees absolutely everywhere, leaving no stone unturned, you'd still get less than half way there. -
Bernhard at 04:49 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Bernhard I have a question, not for any solution, just out of being interested, or maybe to see there might be ways out if mankind was for once behaving sane. Maybe somebody has done a calculation on how many trees needed to be planted (considering they need a few years before they really accumulate) and/ or how much biomass had to be turned into charcoal to be added to the exhausted soils to improve soils and store carbon. Would an attempt like this be able to do any significant change to the mounting level of co2 in the atmosphere, considering there is limited space to plant, but on the other hand we could plant using all the "useless" back- and front yards and so on, most of them only a waste of fuel as they are mowed week by week. And using whatever space that is not needed for food. -
Chip Knappenberger at 03:33 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Dr. Pelto, I was not aware of the Wake et al. (2009) paper. So thanks for the link. Had I known about it, we most certainly would have made reference to it, for it seems, at first skim, to provide solid support for our results. It strikes me as a bit odd that Jason Box (an author of the Wake et al. (2009)) paper didn't mention it in his review. -Chip -
JMurphy at 03:01 AM on 5 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I can't believe that someone hasn't already posted this link and picture as a response to RW1 but, just in case : Staggering Drop In Global Temperature
The current temperature anomaly for March 2011 has just come in at -0.1C. That's MINUS 0.1C which is below the freezing point of water, so how can the arctic be melting?
(Thanks for the previous link-fix, muoncounter - I hope you don't have to do the same again with this...)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
All I can say is, based on this whole conversation and everything else I've read, it seems to me that FKM2011 required an extensive dancing and dodging in order to come to their conclusion. Though I always appreciate authors coming to SkS to discuss their work, Chip has done little to convince me that their paper will stand as an important work. I agree with Daniel's article here that this paper was obsolete by design. I don't begrudge scientists attempting to break the existing paradigm. It's a hallmark of good science. My frustration, and I believe the frustration with many, is that this paper was published in order to act as a tool for those who wish to instill doubt about the science of climate change. Whereas the fact that this paper is obsolete as of publication is another indicator of how sure the scientific community is about climate change, it will still get used as a public banner used against climate change in order to delay action. I can hardly count the number of times I've had Lindzen Choi 2009 thrown at me, and the number of times I've had to point people to the many responses that render LC09 invalid. Here stands another paper that will be used in the same manner. -
CruisesPerth at 02:26 AM on 5 May 2011Newcomers, Start Here
It is good to glean information from arguments of people with different stand on an issue. I just hope that there be a sort of compilation or summary of all threads as it will become a daunting task of reading through all 800+ comments with some arguments going back 360 degrees and coming up with our own conclusion.Moderator Response: (DB) A brief executive summary of climate science can be found on the SkS home page under the Big Picture button/link. -
mspelto at 02:19 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Nice discussion all participants. Now that we are all very familiar with the recent paper, it is time to see if there is much new compared to the Wake (2009) paper looking from 1866-2005. This paper is not referenced by FKM, but should be a key paper to be compared to. -
Phila at 02:06 AM on 5 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
HR: I'm not here to paint utopian visions just to counter unnecessary pessimism. Acknowledging the full seriousness of AGW, and believing that we can take intelligent steps to address it, is optimism. Denying that AGW exists is wishful thinking, at best. Believing that the people who are best equipped to understand AGW are liars, incompetents or dupes is pessimism. Your stance seems to me to be a combination of wishful thinking and pessimism. Human ingenuity is incredibly powerful, but it works best when people pull their heads out of the sand and face facts. -
KR at 02:02 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip - Thank you again for the interesting discussion. I am of the opinion that surface melt is only one factor in mass loss, and that hence this single study is insufficient to judge or predict (or for that matter to make statements about) such mass loss. The GRACE satellites, altimetry, and ice speed measurements provide a more complete picture of ice loss, and hence sea level contributions. While I feel it unfortunate that you did not include the 2010 data which should at the least have modified your summary and conclusion sections, the surface melt data and methodology should be useful going forward. -
dana1981 at 01:56 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Thanks KR. Indeed the revision was submitted over a year ago and was never published, likely for the reasons you describe. -
KR at 01:53 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Lindzen and Choi's 2010 paper, or at least an initial version of it (Feb. 2010), is available via this link. Upon reading it, they are still calculating strictly upon tropical data, using a simple geometric extension of tropical insolation to the rest of the globe, and still do not address heat transfer in/out of the tropics, which is considerably larger in magnitude than their feedbacks (one of the Trenberth criticisms). For example, "We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics and extend the effect of these feedbacks to the global climate." It appears to be a rehash of their 2009 paper, without any significant extensions, or for that matter, significant replies to the many criticisms. I can see why it hasn't been published yet. -
Chip Knappenberger at 01:49 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Whew, lots of questions this morning (my time)! First of all, thanks for all the interest in our paper. I think that I’ve already pretty much explained my side of things (most of the technical questions that are being raised are covered in the paper, so I would encourage folks to read it if they want specific answers to questions about the methodology). I think as we all can see, my answers/responses do not really satisfy anyone. So I think our useful time together is fast approaching an end. Instead on going through the questions one by one and rehashing everything that we’ve hashed through already, I’ll try this…. Our paper was designed to produce a longer temporal framework of the ups and downs of the extent of surface ice melt across Greenland. It was inspired by work published by Dr. Tom Mote in GRL back in 2007 in which Dr. Mote demonstrated a strong relationship between summer temperature from stations in southern Greenland and his determination of surface melt extent based on satellite emissivity observations (which began in 1979). We thought that perhaps such a relationship could be used to hindcast surface ice melt back as far as the temperature observations were available, which turned out to be back into the late 18th century. While researching the topic, we found that the winter NAO index also added useful information on surface ice melt the following summer, and we were able to make use of that information in our statistical model as well. Using a pretty straightforward technique of multiple linear regression, we produced a (near continuous) ‘reconstruction’ of an index of surface melt extent for Greenland from 1784 to 1978. That reconstruction was the guts of our paper. With that reconstruction in hand, we then went on to make some observations (based on a certain set of assumptions), that we thought were interesting about how the current observed period of high melt (and recent trends) fit into that framework. We then went on to speculate on what our results may tell us about the bigger picture, in this case, sea level rise—this speculation was based on a looser set of assumptions (that were also described in the paper). All of this is in the paper that was peer-reviewed and published by JGR. Now, as you all have expressed quite clearly, some of you have other ideas about how things should be interpreted and have made other observations (in some cases based on different assumptions). And when new data come in, even more observations will be able to be made (and assumptions tested). Hopefully our reconstruction provides the framework within which this can take place. It is not an end all and be all, but a tool in which to gauge new observations. The utility of the tool can be judged by the potential users. For those arguing that the tool (the reconstruction) is useless, then there is no reason to even contemplate how the melt during 2010 or any other subsequent year may compare to our determination of the past. For those arguing that the melt from 2010 may alter our observations about how individual and/or multiple year combinations compare to the past (you apparently find the tool to be useful), well, indeed they may. And so too may the years to come. In fact, our paper included this statement in the conclusions “Our reconstruction indicates that if the current trend toward increasing melt extent continues, total melt across the Greenland ice sheet will exceed historic values of the past two and a quarter centuries.” Doesn’t that pretty much fit squarely with what many of you are suggesting? Will the melt during 2010 exceed our melt extent index value for 2007? Possibly (not definitely), and if so, probably not by much. So I don’t anticipate that our conclusions made in the paper will be much impacted. Yes, 2010 may replace 2007 as the year with the greatest melt extent index, but I doubt much else will change substantially. But, I don’t know for sure, as I have stated several times, I have not done the necessary analysis. I think this pretty much sums up the situation from my end. For those of you who have not read the paper and have outstanding issues regarding the technical details, I encourage you to do so, for virtually everything that has been discussed is described in the paper—and, our responses to Jason Box’s review also shed some light on other background/technical issues. Thanks, again, for all your time and interest in our work, and for the discussions we have had. -Chip Knappenberger -
dorlomin at 01:48 AM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Also the graph shows a difference of around 10% in methane concentrations so not really enough to form a major part of arctic amplification which is abotut 2 to 3 times the warming rate of the rest of the world. -
dorlomin at 01:44 AM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
@muoncounter 5 Also is there any evidence that the imbalance in methane is unusual? With the bulk of the large continents on the Nothern Hemisphere that plus agriculture and industry we would expect a NH bias in concentrations of such a transient gas would we not? -
Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 5 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Because, Ken, Trenberth's figure is a figure for how energy is used, not for where it comes from. Therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot just pick out one heat sink and say that that determines the total energy flows into and out of a system and neglect the other five (at minimum) heat sinks in the system. Of course, when I say, "You cannot..." I assume I address a reasonable person. -
muoncounter at 00:47 AM on 5 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
This seems apropos (and a bit of humor can't hurt this discussion):
source
Before anyone objects, no doubt the bear means that NY's winter TOA insolation is less than that of the Arctic summer, which a quick glance at an insolation graphic verifies.
-
michael sweet at 00:34 AM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Martin, Hansen is at the upper level of scientific predictions. His is not a consensus view (yet). On the other hand, the consensus estimate for sea level rise has gone up about a meter in the last five years. Hansen has generally had high predictions in the past relative to the consensus view. He has often been correct. Hopefully he will be wrong this time. -
Ken Lambert at 23:55 PM on 4 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #148 Well this takes us full circle Tom. I started off my part in this thread asking why you were highlighting the change incoming energy from decreased albedo and ignoring the outgoing. The NET is what counts. I have quoted Dr Trenberth's numbers for the NET estimated energy uptake from melting Arctic ice plus all Greenland ice plus a 4.2% porion of the global ocean uptake at #143. With these generous totals - we get 4-5E20 Joules/year from Trenberth. Why would you not accept that and call it quits? -
The Skeptical Chymist at 23:49 PM on 4 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Hi Chip Thanks for responding to my questions @81 I’m not sure if I am understanding how you did your stats. I had assumed you would have tested if 2007 was within the 95% error range of your model but your comment @112 shows this is not correct. Could you briefly explain how you tested 2007 vs previous years and how these 20 years were chosen? Second I am still curious as to why the abstract of your paper emphasised the duration of the current high melt period vs that from the 20s-60s. Why did you consider duration to be important? Lastly I don’t see the relevance of your point @83, that you (the authors) felt that comparing Greenland melt level in recent years to the 20s-60s was important because the prior melting rate didn’t change sea level rise much. We already know that the current level of Greenland melting is not (yet) a major contributor to sea level rise. Ie: checking the IPCC AR4, they estimate total contribution of Greenland to sea level 1993-2003 as ~0.25mm/year. Ie: A small contribution, but one that is clearly increasing (see the GRACE data). Therefore we never would have expected a similar level of melt to have a big impact on sea level rise from the 20s-60s. So what's the relevance? What confuses me a little is what you then say @83 “This lead us to conclude that if the current melt extent stayed somewhat equivalent to what it was back then, we wouldn’t expect a big jump in the rate of sea level rise as a result of cryospheric processes” What evidence do you have to suggest that the current melt rate will stay somewhat equivalent? Because if it doesn’t then your conclusion becomes somewhat meaningless. And unfortunately for your conclusion, observational data tell us that temperatures and mass loss from Greenland are increasing. So unless you would like to go on the record and predict no future increases in temperature or mass loss/ surface melt from Greenland? I don’t see how your conclusion fits the reality on the ice. -
CBDunkerson at 23:43 PM on 4 May 2011Models are unreliable
trunkmonkey wrote: "The implication of DO/meltwater is profound, because if it is internally driven, we might not know anytinig at a centennial or millenial scale either." Again, this would be observed as a transfer of 'heat' from one hemisphere to the other. Yet all records (i.e. surface thermometers, ocean water temps, satellite readings, et cetera) show that both hemispheres have been warming. Ergo, the observed warming is unquestionably NOT D-O related. And ditto ENSO, PDO, et cetera. These are all examples of energy moving around within the climate system... whereas what we have observed over the past 100 years or so is an increase in energy throughout every part of the climate system. Essentially, your argument is the equivalent of saying that if you pour a gallon of water into multiple different containers it can turn into two gallons of water. In reality it doesn't matter how much you move the water (or heat) around... the amount doesn't change. -
Ken Lambert at 23:39 PM on 4 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Who is against energy efficiency? Not me. But any method of reducing usage must make economic sense. Use of PV Solar panels with huge taxpayer subsidies is not one of them - and State Govts in Australia are winding back or abandoning such costly schemes. Solar hot water, ground heat pumps, insulation, low energy bulbs all make some economic sense at current energy costs. Some consumption is inelastic - putting up the price won't reduce usage much because there are not any short term alternatives. Diesel or petrol for a transport operator to earn a living is a good example. -
Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 4 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
I had been preparing a response to Ken Lambert's 143. That response has been delayed primarily because I was trying to track down detailed information of oceanic heat transfer from the sub-arctic to the arctic, and from the surface to the depths in the arctic. However, in light of Lambert's unsavoury characteristic of claiming victory anytime a response delayed, in light of his incapability of admitting error coupled with a determination to score rhetorical points of the errors of others, and in light of his inability to keep even simple concepts straight (as for example the difference between change in incoming energy due to change in albedo (as discussed here) as distinct from the amount of energy used to melt a particular volume of ice (which he repeatedly treats as equivalent), no response will be forthcoming. I find arguments from obtuseness uninteresting - and evidently, that is all that Lambert has to offer this forum. As that is all he has to offer, the rebuttal of any current claim by Lambert can easily be found by perusing previous posts. (In this particular case, one might start by asking just how many heat sinks are their in the arctic. The answer is not three.) -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:20 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Melting permafrost - is obviously a source of methane. But also sink for around 25% CO2. We do not know what will be the balance sheet. ... However: Melting permafrost is an expanding area of “waterlogged habitats” - a wetlands. And wetlands ... Carbon accumulation in soils of forest and bog ecosystems of southern Valdai in the Holocene, Minaeva et al. 2011.: “The results show that carbon stocks in mineral soils are many times smaller than in waterlogged soils and an order of magnitude smaller than in bog soils. Mineral and bog soils are characterized by similar rates of carbon accumulation averaged over the entire period of their existence. The highest rate of carbon accumulation has been noted for the soils of waterlogged habitats, although this process may be periodically disturbed by fires and other stress influences.” Rising global temperature is contributing to a large number of trees and other vegetation being killed by insect and other pathogen such as Phytophthora, as well as drought and fire. That's not true - diseases and pests have a their enemies and they - usually - limited - strongly - cooling. Anyway ... - general conclusions from recent papers (2011) - for supporters of an environmental catastrophe - are more than “distressing”. The ecological role of climate extremes: current understanding and future prospects, Smith, 2011.: “Arnone et al. (2011) experimentally imposed an extremely warm year on intact tallgrass prairie monoliths from Oklahoma, USA, and found an immediate and large (~30%) reduction in above-ground productivity, driven primarily by the dominant C4 grass species in the system. However, the change in above-ground productivity was well within the range of interannual variability observed for tallgrass prairie, was not persistent over time, and was not accompanied by changes in plant community structure or composition. Similarly, for intact tallgrass prairie in north-eastern Kansas, USA, Smith (2011) shows that over a decade of experimentally imposing an extreme precipitation regime, whereby the number and timing of rainfall events were altered well beyond historical patterns, the resulting reduction in above-ground productivity, although ecologically significant, also fell within the natural range of variation for the system and was not accompanied by substantive changes in the plant community. Finally, with a long-term field experiment where statistically extreme drought events were applied to constructed European grassland communities for five consecutive years, (Jentsch et al. 2011) show a lack of large effects for the majority of the 32 response parameters measured. For example, above- and below-ground productivity remained unchanged across all years of the study ...” -
Martin at 23:05 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
I regularly read different climate blogs. Until now, I was under the impression that predictions for a sea level rise by the end of this century were between 0.5 and 2m. That Hansen should predict 5m and so soon (by 2095!! not 2195 or 3095) surprises me. Do you know what the reaction to Hansen is among climate experts (the kind that publish peer reviewed papers on climate change)? Is this a consensus view? -
SoundOff at 22:54 PM on 4 May 2011CO2 is heavier than air
“Pure CO2 is indeed heavier than air and there have even been suffocation deaths caused by volcanic emissions of CO2 many times in human history. The one word answer is wind. The atmosphere is very turbulent (windy) and this turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases in the atmosphere and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy [due to molecular weight differentials].” From http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/is_co2_well_mixed.php There’s a more detailed discussion of this topic at the source: Is CO2 well mixed? -
muoncounter at 22:45 PM on 4 May 2011Models are unreliable
trunkmonkey#364: "we know nothing at a decadal scale" We know this at a decadal scale: Global temperatures are increasing at ~0.15C/decade; northern hemisphere temperatures at 0.3-0.5C/decade. We know of no reasons why that will decrease anytime soon. -
angusmac at 22:28 PM on 4 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Moderator@53, "Real life follows physics". OK, for the sake of discussion let us assume that your physics is correct. I compare your adjusted Scenario B with Hansen's original scenarios in the figure below and the following points are evident:- Your adjusted Scenario B reduces the projected temperature anomaly for 2019 from 1.10°C to 0.69°C. Wow! This is very close to the Scenario C value of 0.61°C.
- Actual temperatures follow Scenario C much better for the whole period from 1958 to 2010 than your adjusted Scenario B. Your adjusted Scenario B only catches up with Scenario C in 2010. Thereafter it is slightly higher than Scenario C but follows a similar trajectory.
Moderator Response: [mc] Please restrict image width to 500. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:18 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
10, RAYJ, I suggest you repeat your "heavier than air" question on the CO2 is heavier than air thread. Repeat your question about carbon monoxide on the CO2 is not a pollutant thread. But since it's such a simple question, concerning CO2 being heavier than air... the speeds of molecules in a gas are so great that their relative masses are inconsequential when it comes to mixing. There are much more massive molecules in the atmosphere (Argon, atomic weight 40, Krypton, atomic weight 84) and you don't see them all sinking down and blanketing the surface. Concerning CO and CO2, CO is directly poisonous to most living things because it binds directly to hemoglobin and interferes with the absorption of oxygen the blood stream. CO2 is not a poison. It is, however, a greenhouse gas which affects climate. The fact that CO2 is not poisonous is not a rational argument for saying that it is therefore harmless. -
JMurphy at 22:16 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
RAYJ, to quickly answer the easiest part of your comment (the last line), Carbon Monoxide (CO) is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) Also Exposures at 100 ppm or greater can be dangerous to human health. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state. CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere. 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% [70-100,000 ppm] cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour. Big difference between the two compounds. -
skywatcher at 22:10 PM on 4 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Thankyou for responding, but sorry Chip, you've repeatedly avoided the questions regarding the very bold sea level statement made at the end of the conclusions of FKM 2011. I'll quote it here for those who do not have access to the full text: "However, there is no indication that the increased contribution from the Greenland melt in the early to mid 20th century, a roughly 40 year interval when average annual melt was more or less equivalent to the average of the most recent 10 years (2000–2009), resulted in a rate of total global sea level rise that exceeded ∼3 mm/yr. This suggests that Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise, even during multidecadal conditions as warm as during the past several years, is relatively modest." Surface melt from Greenland is a small part of the global sea level rise budget. The emboldened part above is a demand that global sea level rise should have exceeded 3mm p.a. half a century ago (!!) in order to satisfy claims about Greenland's sea level contribution, and this is very disingenuous. You were asking the impossible of the data, without assessing the global sea level budget, in order to support an unsupportable conclusion. I did read the justifying statement suggesting that the dynamics in the past 'should' be the same as the dynamics of the present, but that doesn't really cut it for the mass balance of an ice sheet which has been monitored at least in part since the 1950s. Many ice outlets have been observed to have substantially accelerated since then, as you are I'm sure aware, yet you avoid that entirely in the paper as it would render your conclusions invalid. By not considering mass loss by other means (see Philippe's comment as well as my earlier questions), you are not in a position to make statements such as your conclusions on Greenland's mass balance, let alone its contribution to global sea level. Sadly, it really does appear that this paper was indeed out of date before going to press, and, while contributing an interesting historical analysis of surface melt (but not mass balance), contributes nothing about present or future climate change. The shills, regrettably evidentially already including co-author Pat Michaels will claim that it means Greenland melting is nothing to worry about, despite the fact that this conclusion is blatantly not supported by evidence presented in the paper. -
RAYJ at 21:50 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
I don't know where to really post this, but, not being a scientist, can someone explain how CO2, being heavier than air, can be consoidered a greenhouse gas. Also much is said about CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. How is it then, if one decides to commit suicide in a car, that it is CO poisoning that is the cause of death. -
mspelto at 21:41 PM on 4 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip has noted the point that makes their paper irrelevant “The forces acting in concert with ice melt across Greenland to produce higher global sea levels currently, should also have been acting during the extended high‐melt conditions from the mid‐1920s to the early 1960s.” If this assumption is invalid, or is becoming invalid, then our suppositions following there from may need reassessment. This assumption has already been demonstrated to be invalid. The Greenland glaciers did not have this period of rapid acceleration from the mid-1920's to mid 1960's comparable to the current acceleration. We can go back and look at the velocity data in that interval from Carbonnell and Bauer for example, for Jakobshavn as published in a 1989 paper of mine , note Table 1. Note also the associated retreat from 1929-1964 is less than that of 2001-2009 for Jakobshavn and in the case of these large marine terminating outlet glaciers it has been shown retreat is related to velocity. -
CBDunkerson at 21:28 PM on 4 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
owl905 wrote: "Why have you written an article about 450ppm CO2 when the issue is 450ppm CO2e?" Which... is one of the points made by the article. As the article notes in the second paragraph, CO2 ppm alone is often used on the grounds that aerosol cooling offsets warming from other greenhouse gases. However, as the remainder of the article then explains, warming from other greenhouse gases is increasing while aerosol cooling is decreasing. It will be interesting to see what sort of limits IPCC 5 suggests. Given that ice loss and sea level rise are progressing much faster than previously estimated I have to wonder if the 2 C 'safe' increase itself isn't out the window... regardless of how we get there. newscrusader's post above makes the same point in greater detail. That said, this may actually be 'good' news in a way. Yes, we have probably already gone beyond the point where we are going to significantly raise sea levels and have planet-wide changes to weather patterns for thousands of years... but this is happening fast enough that it MAY help to wake people up to reality before we get to the point where we vastly decrease agricultural production and/or devastate the ocean ecosystem.
Prev 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 Next
