Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Next
Comments 86551 to 86600:
-
muoncounter at 22:39 PM on 5 May 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Don9000#238: But it's back within the two sd gray bars, so it must all be a natural cycle. For now. -
muoncounter at 22:37 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM#40: "Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do." True enough. But many learn in childhood that's the way of the world. We drive on the correct side of the road, stop at red lights and don't get to throw our waste products out into the street. Oh, sorry, exception for the last one of those: we've been throwing our fossil fuel waste into the collective street for years. -
Don9000 at 22:35 PM on 5 May 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
The Arctic seems poised on the brink of another record melting season. The May 4 update on the National Snow and Ice Data Center website explains that after a slow April melt, the melting trend has recently accelerated, and the trend line, as seen in the daily image update, is poised to drop well below the 2006 record. National Snow and Ice Data Center website
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 22:34 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
# 22 Jesús Rosino - more than + 1 meter not supported by a physical model? Are you thinking of a linear model? -
Marcus at 22:23 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Wow Tim, you really have *no clue* about the carbon sequestration potential of soil biomass, if you don't think that putting organic carbon into the ground isn't sequestering it. The initial point of bio-sequestration, though, is to significantly *reduce* the trajectory at which CO2 emissions are rising-& both bio-char & algal biomass represent a relatively cheap & easy way to do that-certainly much cheaper & easier than building dams & massive pipelines, or moving tens of millions of people to higher ground. It is also much cheaper & more effective than liquefying CO2 & burying it under ground. The reality is that pilot projects have shown that algal biomass can absorb between 55% to 80% of the CO2 released by a 1000MW coal power station. As I said above, once you've tied up that CO2 in biomass, you can use it to make petroleum substitutes (thus displacing the CO2 emissions produced by burning petroleum products directly), you can use it as a fertilizer or high protein feed (again, displacing the emissions that would normally be generated from manufacturing these products), you can use it to make bio-plastics (again, displacing the CO2 emissions that would be generated if you made those plastics directly from fossil fuels), you can also gasify it & burn it for heat & electricity (again, displacing the CO2 that would normally be generated if you mined the coal or natural gas & used that for electricity). Heck, you can shove some of it down into a empty mine-shaft for all I care. The point is that you're effectively *re-using* the CO2 emissions generated from the burning of fossil fuels, thus significantly reducing the rate at which CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise. Now, if you couple that with greater energy efficiency (Demand Management), greater use of non-carbon based energy sources, greater use of bio-gas for base-load energy(from landfill, sewerage plants, forestry sites & farm residues) & reforestation, you could get the trajectory of CO2 emissions to flatten out completely, even *fall* slightly. It can be done, & at a fraction of the total cost of your extremely lame, & hideously expensive "adaptation" approach. -
SNRatio at 22:16 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
#23, newscrusader "Now the AMAP assessment finds that Greenland was losing ice in the 2004-2009 period four times faster than in 1995-2000." There are conflicting data on the rate of Greenland ice loss, and if the ice sheet was closer to balance in 1990-95, a fourfold increase does not have to be very significant towards very rapid meltdown. Four times very small is still very small. It is only when we have reached a much higher rate of ice loss than today, and it keeps on multiplying, that we can start talking about a rapid meltdown. And we are definitely not there yet. But I can't see how anyone can be so sure we won't get there, in some not too distant future.Response:[DB] As an FYI, the dangers to changes in SLR from Green Ice Sheet mass loss lie less in surface melt, which is still considerable, than they are due to increases in calving and ice stream transport in marine terminating glaciers like Jacobshavn, Petermann and Zacharaie.
The latter, Zacharaie, is the one with the most potential to change from its current transport and calving dynamic into a different dynamic/phase state of greatly increased transport and calving.
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 22:15 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
How safe is 450 ppm CO2? Think of sea level. How high was it the last time CO2 went above 440? How high can the sea rise by 2100? Given that the great, massive ice sheets will slip into the sea faster as they warm, and that the process can hardly be expected to be merely linear, + 5 meters can not be ruled out even if it is the high end of predictions. Anything over + 1.5 meters is a very large problem. How quickly can you move a large city? Where would you put a whole bunch of them in a hurry? Policy implications: first note that we are on course to far exceed 450 ppm by 2100, and time does not stop then. To sanely set policy, one must first bound the risk, or in other words determine a worst case scenario. Then set policy to allow virtually no chance for that case. Conclusion: stop burning carbon. We have other energy sources, we only lack a decision to use them.Moderator Response: [DB] 1.5 meters is a fraction of Miami, but about 90% of its high-end real estate. -
witsendnj at 21:47 PM on 5 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
"Climate change can be solved – but only when we cease to deny that it exists. This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis." Really? Is that what the science says? I think this website is fantastic, and I appreciate all the work that you do to debunk the deniers. But that assessment seems fatuous. The climate change already in the pipeline is nothing short of catastrophic for humans and most other species. To say we should "accept reality" and "thus solve the climate crisis" is surely a contradiction in terms. Or maybe just marketing. -
TimTheToolMan at 20:59 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
So if I have this right Tom would tie up vast tracts of land for the purposes of growing trees to be buried in mines. Is that really your plan? Where would we do this, Tom? Ploughing charcoal into fields isn't sequestering it. And why are you now worrying about a runaway greenhouse effect? Surely if the earth could runaway then it would already have done so when we had thousands of ppm and no permanent icecaps in the past.Moderator Response: (DB) Read up on the faint young sun hypothesis for a correction to your last statement. -
chris1204 at 20:44 PM on 5 May 2011Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
Congratulations John! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:31 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
It is worth noting that with Lindzen does not agree well, and some skeptics - as noted Sk.S. and behind them other blogs Well, the climate sensitivity is a problem " in itself". Uncertainties are large - -
funglestrumpet at 20:27 PM on 5 May 2011Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
Congratulations! I am reminded of two quotes: 'A journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step' (Lau Tzu) and 'If you are not on the road to Utopia, you are not on the right road.' (Unknown) I am sure that you are headed towards Utopia, I only hope that for the sake of all of us you get at least half-way there. -
nealjking at 20:02 PM on 5 May 2011Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
Congratulations, good show! But you need to work a bit on your stance for photos: Arms behind your back? No way. -
scaddenp at 19:26 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
A model is something which take a inputs "scenario" and get the outputs. You can model say a cannonball, and construct scenarios for elevations of 10,30, and 45 degrees. However, if you actually experiment with an elevation of 30 degrees, why would you be interested in comparison with the 10 and 45 predictions? Comparing with Scenario C is like noting that your 10 degree elevation prediction matched it better because your model overestimated the powder. Simple is useful for education, not real world. By that logic you should love Wally Broecker's pretty spot on prediction of 2010 temperature that he made in the 1970's. However the model used, while actually an amazing thing, makes Hansen's model look seriously sophisticated. A wet sphere (no ocean) dry part on 2/3 of upper hemisphere from memory. Wally overestimated the CO2 (thought we would be at 400) while the model only had a sensitivity of 2.3 from memory. (I'm away from papers). You want real airplanes to be designed from a high school flight model, because it's simple? No. Hansen did what he could within the limitations of the day. You want as much real world physics in there as possible for a good prediction. -
wanyden at 19:08 PM on 5 May 2011Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
Congratulations. -
newcrusader at 19:08 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
From the AP article: (From a Post at CP) Now the AMAP assessment finds that Greenland was losing ice in the 2004-2009 period four times faster than in 1995-2000. That’s a doubling time of about five years, a continuation of which terminates the ice sheet by about the 2060s. This is exactly what Hansen was worried about in his recent paper. It’s true that there’s no paleo-analog for such a rapid collapse, but similarly there’s no paleo-analog for the unnatural forcing we’re applying. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet would disappear at least as quickly, and if both go that’s about 13 meters sea level rise. Continued thermal expansion, a relatively modest contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and minor sources would likely push things into the 20 meter range. -
Tom Curtis at 19:04 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM believes that sequestering carbon is an unproven technology. However, the simplest method of sequestering carbon is to turn plantation timber into charcoal. The technology to to that was in wide spread use several thousand years ago. The charcoal can be buried in abandoned mines (if ploughing it into fields is considered unwise. Other technologies are available if less proven. In fact, so long as we actually achieve zero emissions, the increase in CO2 levels will reduce to a quarter of its highest value just as a result of the natural "sequestration" in the ocean abyss. That process will take one to two centuries, so waiting for it my be a bit reckless. However, given sufficient time, this process will reduce 560 ppm to 350 ppm, ignoring the risk of triggering a runaway effect. (It takes around ten thousand years for the remainder of the CO2 to be eliminated by natural means.) The key point is, the sooner we stop emitting Carbon, the more time we will have to evaluate the risk of our then current CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and to take extra steps to reduce it if necessary. The alternative of following a path of adaption only is an experiment in seeing how well humans can survive in the face of massive ecosystem collapse and (if continued long enough) anoxic oceans. -
kampmannpeine at 18:43 PM on 5 May 2011Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
Congratulations John, if you need somebody to help translating the book into German, give me a shout ... Jörg -
Chris S at 18:25 PM on 5 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Apologies for the poor formatting above - copying & pasting from a pdf is fraught with danger! -
Chris S at 18:10 PM on 5 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
"I worked 10 years (including: for the Department of Agriculture - the U.S.) on the influence of climate on aphids - and their "enemies” (10 years I taught the students of agriculture, what you should know about: pest control - climate). The most interesting - to my - "paradox" here was that after every cold winter - usually - there were more aphids (unlike the “warm” winter). "Enemies" of aphids, they are simply being reduced more strongly - by frost - during the cold winters - more strongly than aphids." Interesting that you neglect to note the fact that warm winter temperatures are also beneficial to aphid phenology (see e.g. Zhou et al (1995) Global Change Biology; Bale et al (2002) ibid; Harrington et al (2007) ibid). From the first of those references: "...A 1 °C increase in average winter temperature advanced the migration phenology by 4–19 days depending on species...". From the second: "...even with global warming the threshold temperatures for ¯ight are rarely exceeded and apterous aphids are more fecund than alatae. Anholocyclic aphids, unlike the overwintering eggs of holocyclic species, do not have a winter diapausing stage and are not required to pass through one or more wingless generations on the winter host prior to host alternation. The former can therefore colonize crops more quickly when spring conditions become favourable..." From the third: "...The extent to which any changes in aphid phenology will translate into changes in the pest status of aphids will depend partly on how the phenologies of their crop hosts change. In the case of annual spring planted crops, planting dates depend greatly on soil condition in spring, and this is affected particularly by winter and spring rainfall, less so by temperature. With aphids, it is probably the other way around. There is much more uncertainty over future patterns of rainfall than there is over temperature, and it is hence difficult to predict how crop phenology will change. In the case of potatoes and sugar beet in the United Kingdom, unpublished data suggest that planting dates are not advancing as fast as aphid first flight dates. If this is the case, aphids may arrive when crops are at an earlier and more susceptible growth stage..." Takehome message - Arkadiusz should know this research if he has worked on aphids for as long as he claims. The final sentence of the final paper I reference is the clincher - "aphids may arrive when crops are at an earlier and more susceptible growth stage". As Arkadiusz should know there is a lag between aphid arrival in crops and their detection by predators it is this period that is most important to the effect of aphid pests on the crops, as virus transmission and feeding damage will occur then. It is known that if aphids are particularly abundant in the early season then they are less so later on in the year (due to predator action - and the opposite is also true, if aphids are less common in the early season predators are less successful and there is a flush of late aphids at the end of the season) but it is in the early stages of crop development that virus transmission and feeding damage are most important. -
Jesús Rosino at 17:41 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
When Hansen and Sato 2011 get trough peer review (which I think it won't), I'll take it seriously. 5 m. sea level rise caused by 450-ppm CO2 concentration is far from being not only consensus but taken seriously by thier colleagues. I don't even think that "more than 1 m." can be regarded as consensus, given that it's not suppoted by physical models. -
TimTheToolMan at 17:15 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Why not? As long as the carbon is taken out of the air and kept out of it." Because "high protein feed & fertiliser" doesn't keep it out of the air. It returns quickly. Same for plastics albeit over a longer period. A tree that dies and rots returns its carbon back too... Compare these to oil and coal stored deep underground for millions of years. Now thats sequestering. The carbon is removed from the carbon cycle. Growing stuff is simply having a larger portion temporarily out of the atmosphere but still in the Carbon cycle. It helps but its not sequestering. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:08 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Thats not sequestering is it" Why not? As long as the carbon is taken out of the air and kept out of it. Any solid using atmospheric carbon as building blocks is a mean of sequestering. What is done with it does not matter the least, provided it is not oxydized in a way returning the carbon to the atmosphere. "And at any rate, there is a WORLD of difference between a trial and reducing global CO2 levels by 40+ ppm." And of course, "skeptics" are working as hard as they can for that difference to never be reduced. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:48 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"These micro-organisms are highly useful for the production of bio-plastics, high protein feed & fertilizer." Thats not sequestering is it. "Yet though the technology exists" No it doesn't. The "technology to grow stuff" isn't technology. The sequestering bit is doing something effective with it afterwards to lock the Carbon up. And at any rate, there is a WORLD of difference between a trial and reducing global CO2 levels by 40+ ppm. -
Marcus at 16:41 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Sequestering is a whole other ballgame for which we currently have no technology." Shows how little you know, TTTM. There are already a number of highly successful trials where they are able to sequester carbon dioxide in various kinds of biomass (mostly algae & bacteria). These micro-organisms are highly useful for the production of bio-plastics, high protein feed & fertilizer. Yet though the technology exists, its not being adopted because the Deniers still insist that there isn't a problem with CO2 or they still insist that the highly inefficient Geo-Sequestration technique is the way to go. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:23 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"TTTM, please work on your reading comprehension. I don't like having to repeat myself." I would prefer it if you didn't attack me like that. Afterall my posts are censored for far less. Somehow I dont think your post has a snowball's chance in hell of being removed. I dont have a problem understanding. Emissions haven't stopped by 2050 under your ideal global scenario. We wont be stabilised at 450ppm we'll still be increasing at 50% the rate in 1990. Thats hardly stabilised is it. Sequestering is a whole other ballgame for which we currently have no technology. I would prefer to invest heavily in fusion rather than sequestering technology. -
Marcus at 16:17 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"'Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do.' And sadly, noone likes paying for the mess they have created either." TTTM's response is a complete straw-man. By his perverted logic, I could say that no-one should have to pay for destroying someone else's personal property, or pay the price for physical assault, or murder, or rape....you get the picture. Yes, people don't like to be told what to do but, in a civil society, people also recognize that they have certain Rights & Responsibilities. We know we live in a land of laws & that sometimes we're required to make recompense for the the messes we make-except, apparently, in Denial land-where everyone just does as they please without any responsibility, & apparently where magical fairies maintain the infrastructure of their entire society. -
owl905 at 16:09 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
CB Dunkerson quoted & wrote:- "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." No it isn't; not in the least. The article is pointing at the 450 mark for CO2 and adding subjective inclusions from the rest of the pollution problem. "As the article notes in the second paragraph, CO2 ppm alone is often used" No it isn't. That's the point of my objection - the 'often used' is CO2e - and that's the correct framework. "... on the grounds that aerosol cooling offsets warming from other greenhouse gases." There's no such grounds, no such basis, and no science claiming a past equilibrium that extrapolates to a 'CO2/450ppm.' The statement appears to be a misinterpretation of the Radiative Forcing historical chart used by the IPCC (AR4-WG1-Ch2, p.136). From the article: "At present we use the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as the indicative measure of future temperature." Untrue. CO2e is used literally everywhere. The CO2 focus isn't because of a preeminence in temperature rise, it's because of the long residency in the source/sink cycle. -
dana1981 at 15:53 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - I still don't see your point. Yes, scenario C coincidentally fits observed temperatures pretty well. We know it's coincidental because that scenario in no way matches reality. The forcing is lower and the sensitivity is higher. Those two opposite inaccuracies just happen to cancel eachother out. If we bump our adjusted Scenario B up to a sensitivity of 3.4°C, it would match observations better. But I decided it would make more sense to use the IPCC most likely value (3°C). So it seems like if we boil it down, you're arguing that real-world climate sensitivity is on the high side. -
dana1981 at 15:48 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, please work on your reading comprehension. I don't like having to repeat myself."Plus rather than blowing past the danger limit with CO2 levels continuing to rise rapidly, we'll have set up the technologies and infrastructure necessary to continue reducing emissions to safe levels."
450ppm likely isn't immediately disastrous. It's dangerous if we remain at that level for many decades, allowing ice to continue melting. We first need to stabilize at 450ppm before we can work on reducing CO2 below that level. -
angusmac at 15:01 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana@65, I describe Lindzen's as the worst of all the scenarios presented by you; even the massive overestimate that is Hansen’s Scenario A performs better. Scaddenp@64, my Figure@63 does show Dana's adjusted Scenario B with a sensitivity at 3. However, Scenario C with a sensitivity of 4.2 still gives a better fit with actual temperatures. I agree that the models use comparatively simple physics but this is also why they are extremely useful. There would appear to be something missing in the post-2000 behaviour of Scenario B that is (coincidentally?) captured very well in the excellent empirical performance of Scenario C.Moderator Response: [DB] And you base this on what model of EyecrometerTM...? -
scaddenp at 14:54 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, nature soaks up half of our emissions at moment. We dont have to go to zero. But you do have to start! The kill the subsidies, proposed at moment would be something. Extend it coal would be even more important. Real leadership in my opinion would be kill all subsidies on anything industrial, ban construction of new FF power unless emission sequestered and then let market figure out the best solution going forward. However, so far any attempt to wean off subsidied energy (which obviously means a hike in FF price) gets strenuously opposed. Let anyone pay (especially non-westerners and grandchildren) except us is catch-cry. -
TimTheToolMan at 14:43 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Dana1981 writes "seems to also have missed this part of the article: ...Instead of committing ourselves to 2.9°C warming above pre-industrial levels as in business as usual, we're only committed to 2°C, which keeps us right at the cusp of the global warming "danger limit." Apparently you missed the ENTIRE following article that suggested that "goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster" And that Hansen says that even 350ppm is too much. Well we missed the boat on that one. And then Tom Cook believes, not in your article dana1981, but instead that we can effectivel reduce emissions to zero AND sequester ourselves back to 350ppm. And you think I'M ignorant of whats real? -
scaddenp at 14:18 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do." And sadly, noone likes paying for the mess they have created either. -
scaddenp at 14:14 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM - when in human civilisation have we dealt with 1m in hundred years? Its already an expensive problem. Nightmare going forward. Chances of us getting in adaption money from polluters? nil. So far "my perspective" doesnt cut it for me. Can I go to city hall for that? Care to back that with proper analysis or is your perspective based on betting there won't be 1m in 100 years? Now if we weaned off CO2 emissions so that we could be confident that ONLY 1m sealevel was going to happen and that sealevel would stablise again, then I think we could live with it. Otherwise,1.5-2m in the next century means abandoning my city. -
dana1981 at 13:55 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
I thought it went without saying that a bad result is better than a catastrophic result. But apparently some people need it said. TTTM seems to also have missed this part of the article:"Instead of committing ourselves to 2.9°C warming above pre-industrial levels as in business as usual, we're only committed to 2°C, which keeps us right at the cusp of the global warming "danger limit." Plus rather than blowing past the danger limit with CO2 levels continuing to rise rapidly, we'll have set up the technologies and infrastructure necessary to continue reducing emissions to safe levels."
It's also worth noting that economic studies consistently show that TTTM is wrong, and mitigation costs far less than adaption. -
Marcus at 13:30 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
So tell us Tim, who is going to pay for those pipelines, dam walls & relocation of people impacted by climate change? The fossil fuel industry has contributed the most to the problem, so I think they should be contributing to the *solution*-be it mitigation or adaption, or both-but hark at the outrage from Denialist Camp when you suggest that. -
Marcus at 13:28 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"The irony is that as an AGWer this is your job, not mine." Sorry, but what is an AGWer exactly? Do you mean someone who has a very realistic idea of how bad things will get if we don't start adopting some key CO2 mitigation strategies ASAP? Now contrast that with the Denialists, who would seem to suggest that even 1kw-h of electricity *not* derived from fossil fuels somehow represents the end of civilization as we know it-which is about as panicky & alarmist as you can possibly get. -
Marcus at 13:24 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Because I believe I have a better sense of perspective than most people." Ah, & like a true Denialist, TTTM believes he knows better than everyone else-how *typical*. Also, it is the Denier Camp who keep moaning & whining about how "Rooned" our economy will be if we adopt a more efficient, zero-carbon economy. Of course, what the Denialists are *really* saying is "better tax payers be forced to pony up the cost of adapting to climate change than the fossil fuel industry should lose even a single dollar of profits". I'd say that pretty much sums up your entire attitude TTTM. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:22 PM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I'd like to thank Chip for taking the time to come here and discuss the paper that is the subject of this thread (FKM 2011). I'd also like to thank each of the contributors for their interest displayed and for their zeal displayed in the furtherance of science. Participants displayed keen interest and depth of knowledge; even when things got heated, restraint and decorum ruled. The passion for learning on display was gratifying to see. For that is why science is done: to learn things and to then share that learning. (I wish I could have participated more, but an ill-timed multi-day bout of BSOD kept me busy recovering from repeated system crashes. Fingers crossed...) It is that passion for learning and zeal for knowledge that finds it's embodiment in the advancement of the science through the formulation of hypothesis' and studies and experiments designed to test them. In the case of climate science and global warming in general, and the Greenland Ice Sheet in particular, glaciologists like Dr. Jason Box and Dr. Mauri Pelto (and many others over the generations) have built our knowledge of ice sheet dynamics based on observational data (what the various forces acting on the ice sheet are and how the ice sheet has then responded to them) which has then led to a robust understanding of the underlying physics of the ice sheet response. The meta-analysis of existing GIS data undertaken by Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels was an interesting method of using existing data to draw various insights into past modeled GIS response to temperatures at various times in the past. A shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of context into the manifold forces acting on the GIS that help then determine the response of the sheet (for example: the effects of the loss of ice shelf buffering and reduced sea ice and landfast ice along the Greenland perimeter, the effect of each is to reduce backpressure along the calving/ice-egdge front, leading then to thinning of the ice streams due to increased basal melt resulting in ice also then moving more quickly along the glacial bed of the streams; this vector change then propagates upglacier, etc). This lack of context reduces the overall value of the FKM methodology to one of evaluating the impact of the new method itself, which (given the above mentioned limitations in this comment and others) is of little interest to those already aware of the state of knowledge of the GIS, such as working glaciologists and other interested parties. Why? Because to them, FKM 2011 adds nothing to the science and is thus obsolete. Where the authors truly missed on an opportunity to both add impact and also advance the state of the science was the record melt of 2010. By September of 2010, the melt season which was the focus of the FKM study (June, July and August, or JJA) was "in the can". Not only were glaciologists everywhere aware of the record melt, but the news had already penetrated the lay news outlets. Had the authors then obtained this data (which surely would have been available upon request even if in rough form only), incorporating it into the FKM study would have pushed the study to the forefront of the field. No, the data would not have been in the proper format the authors were accustomed to dealing with. But that is merely a technical limitation and could have been dealt with. After all, the Muir Russell Commission was able to replicate the entire "hockey stick" from original data in a mere two days (something the auditors still have not yet completed themselves), pronouncing it something easily accomplished (cf page 48 of the report) by a competent researcher. Given the providential opportunity to make a meaningful, lasting contribution to the science by stepping up and making the most of the opportunity, the FKM authors instead took the opposite tack, and further themselves relegated their study to the dustbin of science; of interest to statistics mavens only. That zeal for learning, the desire to increase the state of the science in a specific area, was critically missing in the final form of the FKM study: a 2010-shaped void left its mark by its absence. On the whole I'd say that most of what else I'd planned on saying already got said. Those of who said it must know who you are, so thanks for that. :) A few general observations, then. The regional warming notable in GIS data in the early-to-mid 20th Century certainly could only add little contribution to SLR due to the confining limitations of both the buttressing ice shelves, thick landfast ice and the widespread existence of heavy pack ice. A few illuminating historical charts of Arctic Sea Ice edges, courtesy of Patrick Lockerby's Chatter Box blog:
[Source: Philips' Handy Volume Atlas 1930 Arctic map]
[Source: Russian map of Arctic, 1955]
Compare and contrast the ice edges defined in those images to this recent image:
[Source: September/March ice edge(1995-2009 mean)]
Left unexplored, and a topic of a future comment by me: The editorial and decision making process at the heart of the publication of an obsolete paper.
Best,
The Yooper
-
Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM @36, I believe the two articles are quite clear that a 450 ppm plus world is likely to be two degrees or more hotter than preindustrial levels, while a 350 ppm world will not be. If we reduce CO2 emission levels fast enough, we can stabilize between the two values; and with various carbon sequestration techniques (biochar or similar) can reduce the levels below current values. So my approach can avoid the train wreck. In contrast, with your approach CO2 levels will continue to rise in perpetuity, or at least until the breakdown of civilization puts a stop to the madness. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:11 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"the deniers oppose them because it they smell of 'carbon tax." Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do. Ultimately price will bring the US back into line with regards their fuel usage, car sizes and associated efficiencies but they've got a long way to go to get down to say, Europe's fuel prices. -
muoncounter at 12:56 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM#40: "We're better off building infrastructure to manage those events than to pretend we can make them go away" Unfortunately for that hypothesis, rampant denialism has turned even the most minimal attempts into political punching bags. Look at the controversy over US EPA mileage reduction proposals -- even as watered down as they are, even though they will save consumers money in the long run, the deniers oppose them because it they smell of 'carbon tax.' Thanks for that result. -
sgmuller at 12:49 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Skywatcher, It is unfortunate that what Lindzen says is important simply because he so often quoted by skeptics and denialists in the mainstream radio and press. In Monktons article in the Australian he exclusively referred to Lindzen (effectively denying that anybody else has any expertise in CO2 sensitivity). In the latest edition of Quadrant (a right-winger favourite) there is an article that refers to Lindzen as THE expert on CO2 sensitivity. Essentially these publications deny the existence of the other scientists who have published on CO2 sensitivity, and they wonder why they get called denialists rather than skeptics. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:47 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Your problem, I think, is that like many contrarians you adopt an unrealistically panicked and alarmist approach." The irony is that as an AGWer this is your job, not mine. I also agree we should move away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy sources but notice I said "sustainable" rather than "polluting" which is your mantra. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:38 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, Your problem, I think, is that like many contrarians you adopt an unrealistically panicked and alarmist approach. You equate simple, effective action now (to replace fossil fuels) with some sort of crazy, anarchist surge to completely wipe civilization and our modern economies from the face of the earth. That sort of cartoon view of the actions that we should be taking hamstrings your ability to consider mitigation from a rational perspective. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:38 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, why do you believe that this is a better use of money than CO2 reduction? Because I believe I have a better sense of perspective than most people. The cities of today are radically different to those of 100 years ago. And the same will be true in 100 years time. We dont need to change it all at once, we do it over many generations and we wont even notice the costs. Do you think we've been hit with exorbitant costs over the last 100 years from sea level rise? I mean it rose and we dealt with it didn't we? I doubt you've even thought about previous rise and the associated costs because its not a worry to you. Floods happen. Droughts happen. We're better off building infrastructure to manage those events than to pretend we can make them go away by reducing CO2 emissions. I am 100% correct in saying building better infrastructure will help protect us from future weather events. Your probability is much lower by focussing on the reduction of CO2 emissions. -
barry1487 at 12:34 PM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Then leaving it out there to dangle for the “skeptical” echo-chamber to morph it into another “aluminum tubes into nuclear weapons” distortion, then blast the soundbite through their media machine.
It's not Chip's business to second guess the 'skeptical' blogosphere. Comments implying or directly accusing the authors of dodginess are combative and counter-productive, particularly when Chip has engaged so fulsomely and with good spirit. Please let's stick to facts and figures. Chip has said: "Granted, incorporating the melt extent for the summer of 2010 into the methodology as described in our papes may have required a few minor tweaks to some of the wording (and a few specific numbers). But, by and large, as I have said many times, I strongly believe (although I have not done the analysis) that the changes would not have altered the general nature of our conclusions (as we explained to the JGR editor)." I realize there are issues with the methodology amongst some, but getting a fix on inclusion of 2010 data with the methods used in the paper would be a good next step, no? Can this be done by the good people here questioning the paper? Quantitative analysis beats speculation every time. -
scaddenp at 12:31 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Eric, I would also have to agree with you. Also note that article at realclimate and the papers referenced therein. While I recognize that methane is a risk(think PETM), so far there isnt that much evidence for getting seriously worried. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:27 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
36, TimTheToolMan,So my approach actually helps whereas yours doesn't.
Actually, no, I think your approach fails, in that you will ultimately find that there are many things to which you simply can't adapt (like massive famine, if temperatures are allowed to rise to a point that dangerously impacts food production), and more importantly that the cost of such adaptation (or alternately minimalistic, hope-for-the-best mitigation) is far in excess of what it would cost to simply carefully and conservatively but efficiently and deliberately retool our energy infrastructure, starting as soon as possible.
Prev 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Next
