Recent Comments

Prev  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  Next

Comments 87651 to 87700:

87651. Bern at 09:50 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       Nick, I rather think that was BKsea's point. :-) Whereas the 'skeptic' approach is more "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Actually, for a lot of them, it's more like "It's not going to be a problem until after I'm dead, so what do I care? I'm making my millions now, whatever it takes!"
       Moderator Response: [DB] More like ramming speed.
87652. Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 21 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan @1007, I apologize for my description being confusing. Just to make sure we are on the same page: The plates are perfect thermal conductors, so therefore position and length of the heating elements is irrelevant; The heating elements are such that, plugged into mains power, each draws 480 Watts of power, and with no losses else where, ie, each receives 480 Watts heating (and please note, that is 480 Watts, not 480 Watts/meter^2). Given these clarifications, does your answer change, and if yes, to what? You asked why Surface radiation stops at 480 rather than a higher value. The simple answer is that if Surface radiation goes above 2*S, or AtmUp, or AtmDn goes above S, then the system losses more energy than it gains, and therefore cools. The easiest way to see this is with the spread sheet models discussed some 400 posts backs. Rather than try to find that discussion again, I have done up another spread sheet. Column A is the Step; Column B is S (energy in); Column C is Surf; Column D is AtmUp (energy out); and Column E is AtmDn (recirculated energy). Row three contains the initial values, which for S(Column B) is always 240 in three "experiments" that I conducted. In my three experiments, the initial value for Surf (Column C) was 0 for the first two experiments, and 1000 for the third. The initial values of AtmUp and AtmDn (Columns D and E) where 0 for the first and third experiments, and 500 for the second. The formulas for each of steps 2 to 100 where: In column B: =the value in column B for step minus 1 (=B3) In column C: = the value for column B and the value for column E for step minus 1 (=B3+E3) In column D: = (the value in column C in step minus 1)/2 (=C3/2) In column E: = the value in column D in the current step (=D5) The values in brackets are the actual formulas from my spread sheet for row 4 (the second step). The results for each of the three experiments above on step 60: Column A (Step) : 60 Column B (S) : 240 Column C (Surf) : 480 Column D (AtmUp): 240 Column E (AtmDn): 240 So, regardless of the initial conditions of the Surface or Atmosphere, in this model after a short number of steps the outgoing energy will equal the back radiation will equal the incoming energy; and the surface radiation will equal 2 times the incoming energy. You said equilibrium will be reached without back radiation being absorbed. Well, first note that in this model there must be back radiation because the "atmosphere" has an emissivity of 1 in IR wavelengths. Second, the back radiation must be absorbed because the surface has a blackbody. But even if the surface has an emissivity of less than 1 in the IR spectrum, the radiation from the surface to the atmosphere will be equal to the incoming solar radiation plus emissivity times the back radiation plus (1-emissivity) times the back radiation. That is, the radiation from the surface will equal the solar radiation plus the absorbed back radiation plus the reflected back radiation, which is to say the equilibrium point will be identical, although we may wish to relabel some components of the model. Of course, this result obtains only so long as the emissivity of the surface is not so low that the spectrum of its radiation is not forced into the range of the spectrum to which the atmosphere is transparent. Also obviously, the surface temperature will be higher with emissivity < 1. With respect to the idealized greenhouse model it is the next step in complexity of atmospheric models from a simple grey slab model. It is still inaccurate as a representation of reality, but useful for exploring concepts. I have not yet checked the maths on the Wiki page, and will comment on it as need in the discussion.
87653. Eric (skeptic) at 09:30 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Even if the floods in Pakistan were due to AGW, it is going to be problematic to "preemptively resettle" people at risk. It is far better to install flood prevention because floods also occur naturally, including really large floods A 5000-Year Record of Extreme Floods and Climate Change in the Southwestern United States
87654. Berényi Péter at 09:18 AM on 21 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       Just to make things clear for everyone. CMIP3 is neither a model nor a collection of models, it is Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. We are currently at Phase 5 (Phase 4 was skipped for some reason). There are modelling groups who participate in this joint project.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This seems somewhat pedantic. It is perfectly reasonable English usage to refer to the collection of models used to compile the CMIP3 simulation archive as the "CMIP3 models", even though the CMIP3 project only archives the results of model runs rather than the models themselves. The archive implicitly defines a collection of models.
87655. Nick Palmer at 09:05 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       BKsea @ #8 The slower you're going when you hit the wall, the less damage you'll do. I think any one in their right mind would take their foot off the accelerator, slam on the brakes and see if there's any anchors in the boot to throw overboard. Use whatever it takes to hit the wall as slowly as possible.
87656. Marcus at 09:03 AM on 21 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
       BillyJoe, if this site was *really* trying to create some kind of rigid conformity in viewpoint, then do you *honestly* think that the posts by people like BP, HumanityRules, RSVP, John D or Poptech would be allowed to stand? Heck, the moderators even allowed Poptech to rant about his beloved "list" for more than 10 pages-hardly the actions of people trying to silence dissent (though there was something quite hilarious in watching Poptech defend the indefensible-in an increasingly desperate manner). The fact, though, is that Gilles seems to be deliberately trying to sabotage threads by dragging every single discussion back to his beloved "the world can't survive without Fossil Fuels" meme.
87657. Marcus at 08:54 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       The thing I hate is the obvious *lie* in Tony Abbott's comment here: "To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years." Tim Flannery didn't claim it wouldn't make a scrap of difference in the next 1000 years-only that it wouldn't cool the planet for another 1000 years. It will make a huge difference over the next 100 years though-the difference between about another 1 degree of warming vs as much as 4 to 6 degrees of warming.
87658. michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Harry: James Hansen says that the floods in Pakistan would "almost certainly not" have occured if not for AGW. You need to provide evidence that these extraordinary floods are not caused by AGW. If floods caused by AGW destroyed their houses these refugees are climate refugees. Likewise farmers whose crops fail because of AGW who move are climate refugees. Katrina went over an abnormally warm batchof water just before it hie NEw Orleans. It is impossible to know how powerful it would have bee nwithout AGW. By claiming proof is required for attribution of weather events you are denying hte reality of what has been observed.
87659. ranyl at 07:51 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       "HadCM3LC simulates very low rates of decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Mean (regressed) rates of change for the following hundred years are predicted as −0.2 ppm y−1, −0.4 ppm y−1 and −0.75 ppm y−1" Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) 014012 (9pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012 How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? J A Lowe1, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014012/ And this is with a good carbon cycle model which includes loads, N ferilization effects, but not increased pests, fires, sea level rise vegetation loss, permafrost releases and eco-system loss effects from all human's other practices... Interesting times ahead.
87660. andthorne at 07:42 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       The Aussie is smart He knows that it is methane oxidation that is causing all the extra CO2, and methane emmissions come from enhanced oil recovery, which the Austrailain government has no intendtion of stopping it is also methane hydrates that are bring all the heat up to the surface of the earth, as well as kill sea life.
87661. scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Harry, all over the world there are cities, infrastructure that are vulnerable for a host of reasons, good and bad. Climate change will convert a higher proportion of these vulnerabilities into crisis every year than if we did not have climate change. I remain disappointed that you didn't answer the question at bottom of this post. I am genuinely interested in what your response would be. It would also give me some assurance that you don't belong the "climate science must be wrong because believing it would mean taxes/agreeing with Al Gore/environmentalists/world government" crowd.
87662. scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 21 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
       BillyJoe - John's site. John's rules. I like them. He stated that his intention for creating the site was a "one stop shop" for climate arguments. The discussions are supposed to illuminate the articles on the argument. Long diversions are useless to someone coming to the site to learn. Any number of places on the internet where you can have rambling discussions on climate.
87663. Albatross at 06:47 AM on 21 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       Alec @45, Good points-- more deception by omission by the 'skeptics', go figure. I think people need to remember that if the errors in albedo in the models were so horribly wrong as some are trying to suggest, there is simply no way that they would be performing so well at predicting and reproducing the temperature record, which is after all the net result of many processes, including the important role of albedo. Also, if one uses the ERBE data to reflect the planetary albedo in the bender paper, six the models actually do quite well. With that said, as far as I know, there is no obvious reason to choose ERBE over CERES, although there may be versions of each satellite dataset which include superior corrections than others. The marked difference between the two observation platforms is disconcerting though. That Bender paper sure is obscure. There are two new papers on this issue that may be of interest, one by Bender that that has been submitted to J. Climate and another hot off the press by Donohoe and Battisti (2011, J. Climate). Here is their abstract with my highlights: "The planetary albedo is partitioned into a component due to atmospheric reflection and a component due to surface reflection by using shortwave fluxes at the surface and top of the atmosphere in conjunction with a simple radiation model. The vast majority of the observed global average planetary albedo (88%) is due to atmospheric reflection. Surface reflection makes a relatively small contribution to planetary albedo because the atmosphere attenuates the surface contribution to planetary albedo by a factor of approximately three. The global average planetary albedo in the ensemble average of the CMIP3 pre-industrial simulations is also primarily (87%) due to atmospheric albedo. The inter-model spread in planetary albedo is relatively large and is found to be predominantly a consequence of inter-model differences in atmospheric albedo, with surface processes playing a much smaller role despite significant inter-model differences in surface albedo. The CMIP3 models show a decrease in planetary albedo under a doubling of carbon dioxide – also primarily due to changes in atmospheric reflection (which explains more than 90% of the inter-model spread). All models show a decrease in planetary albedo due to the lowered surface albedo associated with a contraction of the cryosphere in a warmer world, but this effect is small compared to the spread in planetary albedo due to model differences in the change in clouds." Two important take home points here: 1) The planetary albedo from the CMIP3 simulations agree very well with the observations. 2) The CMIP3 model simulations suggest a positive water vapour feedback fro doubling CO2, not a negative feedback.
87664. Dan Moutal at 06:36 AM on 21 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       There is some risk, but I am not convinced it is significant. There have been a few reports that claim we already have all the tech we need to move away from FFs. What we need then is a massive deployment effort. But even if I am wrong, it is hard to imagine that any risk management policy would state we should avoid the possible risks of moving off FFs and condemn ourselves to the massive risks of climate change.
87665. Albatross at 06:28 AM on 21 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       BP @43, First, and foremost I prefaced my comment with 'IIRC'. Perhaps you are not familiar with that jargon. It means "If I recall correctly", or "If I remember correctly". I think we can agree that your reference to 'basically the same' is an accurate reflection, although as Alec points out, it may be that some of the model configurations may have changed. Anyhow, I do not think it is worth deliberating this particular point further.
87666. Albatross at 06:20 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       Jay @3, Err, this is my first post on this thread.
87667. BKsea at 06:17 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       your car is shooting toward a wall at 100 kph and your foot is depressing the accelerator to the floor. Even if you slam on the brakes, you will not stop in time. Should you take your foot off of the accelerator?
87668. les at 06:02 AM on 21 April 2011
       It's aerosols
       Just in case anyone's still interested in this. A new video of Hansen discussing aerosols, models, sea rise etc. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/20/hansen-sea-level-rise-faustian-aerosol-bargain/ via ClimateProgress a good watch.
87669. Alec Cowan at 05:59 AM on 21 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       @Albatross #38 About the error bars, Bender et al showed first this graphic: where the objections are not applicable. And then they showed their figure which BP used as the basis of his/er prêt-à-porter objections about models. In that figure values are de-seasonalized. Here the same figure with some retouches for later use: The first time I read de-seasonalized in that paper my first instinct was thinking why is it de-seasonalized and later I saw the period (Feb 1985 - May 1989), but even then I thought why is it so much difference. The question is why is it de-seasonalized (not because "de-seasonalized is gooooood") and how is it de-seasonailized. I'll get back to this in a later post (of course BP's comments don't deserve such attention, but I have half a dozen of papers analyzed this way so I can provide fresh exercises to our students) On the other hand, in spite of BP's forgettable answer, I think that you could be talking about that group include a few models developed during the '90s, and probably used in the Third Assessment though included again in the Fourth one to show a connexion. I use to teach that what is absent is as important as what is in front of your eyes. Bender's uses hindcasts to that period -not including an exact number of years- but, what about the same analysis for a period closer to the time of the paper, as a hindcast or as a forecast? No mention of that in the paper.
87670. L.J. Ryan at 05:07 AM on 21 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis 1006 1) Assuming the constraints as outlined, the temperature for both plates is solely based on heating element. Your heating element description is a bit muddled. That is, power = current^2 x resistance...so "480 W current" is a bit confusing. Does the wire run the entire length of each plate? Or is the element the same for both, only the plate dimensions different. Going with the identical heating element scenario, and assuming plate surroundings are of lower temp then plates both plates radiate 480W/m^2...303K. 2) No violation, other then the fantastic assumptions. You said: "Specifically, you are assuming that Atmdn is not absorbed by the surface. If it were absorbed by the surface, then at equilibrium (when Atmup= S = 240 Watts/m^2), Surf = S plus Atmdn = 240 + 240 Watts/m^2 = 480 Watts/m^2." Then what would stop the surface from absorbing the next cycle of re-radiation and increase emissions further? Why does it stop at 480 and not 720 or 960 etc.? You said: "It follows that you have conservation of energy at equilibrium and, as shown a net gain in entropy. Only by ignoring Atmdn, or assuming that it is not absorbed by the surface can you escape this conclusion." But Tom, back radiation need not be absorbed for equilibrium. Nor for entropy to increase. As I demonstrated in 1004, system equilibrium is reached without back radiation. Let me try a different approach, do you agree with Idealized greenhouse model?
87671. grypo at 04:30 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       It's interesting to discuss, but, as RC notes, the scenario is not realistic and, as CB notes, not a choice that's on the table, nor will it be anytime soon.
87672. Charlie A at 04:18 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       In regards to floods,here is some interesting commentary on actual observations about floods and stream flows versus the perception. It has links to other technical presentations and peer reviewed literature. Per a recent presentation at the European Geosciences Union general assembly earlier this month, "Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis." ref: http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf Science works with observations. Politics works with perceptions.
87673. CBDunkerson at 04:16 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       Yes, as BBP notes there would be a relatively 'quick' (i.e. over the course of a few decades) decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels if we stopped emitting entirely. The amount of this 'draw back' is still subject to some debate, but the estimates I've seen have generally been less than 50 ppm (some much less). However, since we aren't anywhere near stopping all CO2 emissions and none of the major emitters have even begun programs which could eventually get them there... this doesn't seem likely to be relevant any time soon. Even the 'constant at 2000 levels' figure on the graph is now impossibly optimistic... we're already well past that and have no chance of returning to it soon.
87674. Lassesson at 04:00 AM on 21 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Lassesson #5, 15 Sphaerica #7 dana1981 #12, 16, 24, 36 Nick Palmer #23, 26 Surprice! The same skeptic argument that I thought Evans was making is now available with a rebuttal here at SkS - CO2 limits won’t cool the planet. Aparently, that was not what Evans was talking about (even if it can be misinterpreted that way - if that was intentional or not, I don't know). Instead he was referring to the same argument as Mr Monckton did in his myth #15 when he said that "CO2 limits will make little difference". This is often referred to as Tragedy of the commons where one individual can argue that his/her contribution will not matter, since there are too many others that will have to make the same contribution to have an effect. I propose that we continue this discussion in the blog post or the rebuttal connected to "CO2 limits won’t cool the planet", if we have anything more to say about it.
87675. BBP at 03:52 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       Actually, cutting all emissions would have a short term effects, see this at RealClimate Climate Change Commitment II . First, temperatures would rise as aerosols emissions would stop as well as well, then there would be a steady decline as CO2 began to get drawn out of the atmosphere. The graphic in this article assumes constant concentrations.
87676. Stephen Baines at 03:45 AM on 21 April 2011
       The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
       This is an interesting article. I am not inclined to believe that conservatives and liberals differ fundamentally (or at last not monolithically) in their ability to accept science. Conservatives were, for example, at one point very important in the US conservation movement, the EPA etc. What's clear is that climate science is currently caught in a larger political narrative at present that largely swamps the scientific narrative. That's one reason most scientists won't participate in this debate -- they don't have a clue what the script is and they're aware enough to realize it. It's like that nightmare when you find yourself on a stage acting in a play and you have no idea how to respond to the cue someone feeds you because suddenly the play has changed. It goes both ways, non-scientists exposed to the scientific narrative can't recognize the storyline and are immediately lost when confronted with the reams of literature out there. So they retreat into the narative they're comfortable with, which looks something like they see on ESPN...two teams banging it out. It does seem that the modern Republican Party (of the last couple decades) has shifted to an outright rejection of science as a mediating influence over policy. Personally, I think this shift is related to the adoption of PR mechanisms borrowed from marketing, which explicitly work on the native tendencies Chris Mooney is writing about. Such methods require messages that are simple to deliver and that target people's sense of identity. Nuance is not an advantage, so science becomes a hindrance really. Eventually, it's just been left out altogether so as to fashion efficient messages implying threat from some anonymous group or another. The circling of the wagons - the brand loyalty, if you will - that results is a real firewall against big losses politically. If those in the wagons have cash, all the better for the party in question - especially now that money is equated to speech in the US! It's a very rational to adopt such an approach from the point of view of politics. Of course, nature could care less what works in politics. I'd argue that undercutting science as the Republicans are doing is ultimately very bad for the very business interests they claim to support.
87677. Harry Seaward at 03:43 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Michael Sweet @ 8 You need to prove your statements. How did AGW create the climate refugees? Just sticking with New Orleans (and I assume you are talking about Katrina), that issue had nothing to do with AGW. It had everything to do with a city built below sealevel and protected by dikes and levees. The pumps and levees were not maintained properly due to a corrupt local and state government. They were also not designed to cope with a storm surge the size of what Katrina brought in. Now there is an environmental component and that is the loss of wetlands that served as a buffer and "sponge". The loss can be attributed to the creation of canals which accelerated water flow and did not allow the deposition of sediment.
87678. muoncounter at 03:41 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       Cadbury#3: "extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences."" What is the difference between the above quote and your rejoinder "gradually suck all of the co2 out of the atmosphere, although it took quite a long time"?
87679. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:36 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       @Albatross "for once in the atmosphere, they are extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences." I submit that this is false because the oceans did gradually suck all of the co2 out of the atmosphere, although it took quite a long time. I think it is more accurate to say that it is hard to get co2 out of the atmosphere over a short period of time.
87680. Bob Lacatena at 03:13 AM on 21 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       72, RW1,

       ...the climate is frequently perturbed by new 'forcings' - not all of which are due to temperature changes, yet the globally averaged temperature remains very, very stable.

       Can you provide examples of specific forcings that have occurred in the last century (or millenium), to which the climate has resisted change?
87681. Dan Olner at 03:09 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Hmm, slight cop-out answer on my part there... I think a) measuring the number of environmental refugees is entirely feasible (with whopping error bars, but useful numbers can be arrived at) b) that's more useful than trying to work out 'climate refugee' numbers, since that would involve the double whammy of attributing climate effects to environmental problems (OK in aggregate over large timescales, much more problematic for e.g. specific droughts) and then deciding who counted as a refugee. That doesn't change the fact that in aggregate, environmental refugee numbers will massively increase due to climate change - I just can't see how you can do anything but estimate crude aggregates over time. But that's an uninformed opinion, and it'd be good to hear from people more familiar with the attribution literature. I've only read Myer's original 1995 stuff and a few follow-ups: that was mainly about giving the environmental refugee problem international attention, AFAIK. I don't know what the state of the art is in estimation...
87682. Dan Olner at 02:49 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Charlie A: fair enough. Handily, I actually had a go at answering that in response to Michael Sweet - comment 10. Short answer: I don't know, and it seems like a steep proposition to me, but I'd like to know what more knowledgeable people than me have to say on the matter.
87683. Charlie A at 02:42 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Dan Olner says "Charlie A: I'm sorry - have you got a link to a UNEP article saying anything about "200 million climate change migrants by 2050"? I can't find one. And did you read my comment about the difference between 'environment' and 'climate?'" I didn't say that there is a UNEP article predicting "200 million climate change migrants by 2050". As I stated in my comment above, the phrase "200 million climate change migrants by 2050" is taken from the article by David Hodgkinson to which these comments are attached. My question is an attempt to clarify the meaning of what this Skeptical Science article intends to convey. One way of clarifying what the Skeptical Science articles reports is to ask whether the 20 million persons displaced by floods in Pakistan would be counted towards the 200 million climate change migrant count, if the floods had taken place in 2050. Michael Sweet states "20 million people in Pakistan had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by AGW". So it is clear that at least for Michael Sweet, they would be counted a refugees from anthropogenic global warming. -------------------------------- Dan --- let's step back and start over. These comments are attached to a Skeptical Science article by David Hodgkinson. A key section of that article reads "The existence and scope of such displacement are often established by reference to the likely numbers of displaced people. The most cited estimate is 200 million climate change migrants by 2050 or one person in every forty-five." My question is whether the 20 million displaced by the Pakistan floods, or the 4 million still homeless would, in your understanding of the claim, be included in the definition of "climate change migrants".
87684. CBDunkerson at 02:34 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       There is a section about halfway through which states, "...CO2 emissions go and and on...". Presumably this was meant to be 'on and on' rather than 'and and on'.
       Moderator Response: [grypo] fixed, thank you!
87685. dana1981 at 02:29 AM on 21 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
       Rob #50 I think gave a good explanation of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic may be swayed in one direction or the other, but continues to try and learn about the subject with an open mind. A denier on the other hand only seeks to defend his position. A bit off topic, but I thought that was worth highlighting. It gets back to the congressional hearing Muller testified at. Most congressmen sought to defend their position rather than learning from the testimony.
87686. MattJ at 02:25 AM on 21 April 2011
       CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
       The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (as shown by the small citation here) is worded accurately and faithful to the science, but in language that looks like it is designed NOT to persuade either policy makers of the public they answer to. How so? Because the language is still diffident, and relies on vocabulary the policy makers are not even likely to understand. Yes, sad to say, but I doubt the key policy makers in the US really understand what 'anthropogenic' even means. Those who understand it, continue to deny that the warming IS anthropogenic, preferring to believe what is convenient politically rather than what is true. How is it diffident? Where they would have been fully justified in using more forceful language, they did not do so. Instead of "further warming", they could have said "more, longer and worse warming", where they said "changes", they could have said "pernicious changes" or "ruinous changes", where they said "would continue", they could have said "will continue". Unfortunately, the best single words to describe what responding to climate change is all about are also words the public is not likely to understand: words like 'amelioration', 'palliation' or 'mitigation'. So whichever word we use to summarize what it is all about must be immediately followed or preceded by a vivid explanation of its meaning. Otherwise misquotes like Abbott's -- whether deliberately perverting the sense or not -- will continue to flourish. Indeed: just as climate mitigation is the only option we have left, with outright improvement out of the question, so pernicious misquote mitigation is the only option we really have, we cannot prevent it entirely.
87687. Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 21 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
       BillyJoe @ 47... I'm not so sure Gilles is an intentional troll as much as he is intransigent in his thinking. It gets very frustrating for people here when very clear and obvious errors are corrected but they go without being acknowledged and then get repeated over and over again. What is great about SkS is that I think most all of us come here to learn something. None of us have total knowledge of these issues and we all have the opportunity to learn from each other. I consider my positions on climate change to be very fluid as I learn more. And I think that's true of most people here. Others are here, not to learn, but to defend a position. That's where people come off as being trolls.
87688. Bob Lacatena at 02:20 AM on 21 April 2011
       The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
       156, KR, Interesting. The latest issue of Scientific American (a once reasonable bridge for the scientifically-literate-but-time-limited, now dumbed down to a cursory high school level) has a similar article (an opinion piece) titled Trust Me, I'm a Scientist. I just yesterday posted a whimsical contrasting view of my own: It's Magic.
87689. Dan Olner at 01:59 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Michael sweet: this draws attention to a problem I have with trying to define 'climate refugees'. It's hard enough attaching climate-change fingerprints to weather events, droughts etc, without then going a stage further and identifying who is a 'climate refugee'. Would it not be better to stick to the more measureable 'environmental refugee'? Which has enough of its own legal problems, i gather, from my very brief reading on it so far. Given climate change predictions, factors causing environmental refugee movements will get worse. But knowing that at an aggregate level seems quite a different problem to trying to be so specific. I mean: if we say the Pakistan floods were made y% worse due to climate change, do we then label y% of the environmental refugees as climate refugees? Of course, I have little idea what I'm talking about! There are doubtless some theories for coming up with these numbers. It would be good to hear about them, and the problems of measurement. (Normal demographics is hard enough!)
87690. Dan Olner at 01:52 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Charlie A: I'm sorry - have you got a link to a UNEP article saying anything about "200 million climate change migrants by 2050"? I can't find one. And did you read my comment about the difference between 'environment' and 'climate?' Happy to stand corrected, but you need to provide us with a source. I've already spent far too many hours trying to track down sources that turned out to be non-existent. Please link. I've been through the der Speigel article you linked to: there's nothing more than there was at WUWT. Their headline is wrong.
87691. michael sweet at 01:33 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       Charlie, 20 million people in Pakistan had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by AGW. If your home was destroyed and you had to move to a new city to live with relatives would you be a refugee? Perhaps you could not count people who moved back to their former homes. I would count all 20 million of them. We need to count the refugees from New Orleans also. Adelady lists several more groups. It adds up pretty quickly once you start to list all the climate related events. I would be suprised if it is not 50 million.
87692. Charlie A at 01:19 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
       adelady says "I'm not so sure they're all that wrong. Pakistan has 4 million people still homeless - officially - since the floods displaced 20 million." And the head article says "The existence and scope of such displacement are often established by reference to the likely numbers of displaced people. The most cited estimate is 200 million climate change migrants by 2050 or one person in every forty-five." Would the 20 million displaced by the recent flood in Pakistan count toward the 200 million number of the head article? Just 4 million? Or none at all? People are saying that the UNEP/UNU article of 6 years ago is being misinterpreted. Let's see if we can make more clear what the "200 million climate change migrants by 2050" is intended to convey.
87693. Tom Curtis at 01:12 AM on 21 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @89: First, the energy required for Arctic sea ice melt is not the only form in which energy has accumulated in the Arctic. Your persistence in treating it as though it were only underlines how desperate you are to deflate the figures beyond all reason. Second, the appropriate comparison for determining the significance of arctic sea ice melt as a forcing mechanism is between Flanner's calculated forcing which, adjusted for the relevant temperature increase, is NH forcing * temperature increase since 1979-1983 *0.5 (to average globally, or 0.63*0.43*0.5 = 0.135 W/m^2. Of that, just over half is due to snow melt, and just under half, say 0.06 W/m^2 is due to sea ice melt, or 6.7% of the total globally averaged forcing. Note, that is not the total arctic forcing, but only that due to sea ice melt. This comparison is particularly appropriate as both studies consider the same time frame. Third, even more informative is if you consider the rate at which the sea ice albedo is increasing. Over the 30 years from 1979 to 2008, the increase in incoming flux absorbed by the Arctic ocean due to additional sea melt has been increasing by 15% per year. If this continues, as seems likely, in ten years the arctic ice albedo feedback will add an additional 0.18 Watts/meter^2 or 20% to globally averaged energy imbalance. It is not likely to get much larger than that because it will run out of pole to melt. (Snow albedo will continue to drive increases in feedbacks for sometime, however.) However, that is a substantial effect and represents a substantial increase in warming rates above model predictions.
87694. KR at 00:58 AM on 21 April 2011
       The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
       I'm not entirely certain where to post this, but this thread seems like a reasonable spot. There's a very interesting article in Mother Jones, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, by Chris Mooney. This discusses studies on confirmation bias, differing evaluations of legitimate authorities to listen to, etc. Based upon world view and personal orientations: "... people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario." This holds for both left and right wing politics, individualists and hierarchical thinkers. World views are akin to religions - they form a framework into which people cast their self-image. Anything perceived as an attack on that world view is emotionally interpreted as a personal attack; only later do rationalizations and (possibly) reason enter into the picture once that's begun. One of the take home items from this article is: "If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction. ... You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance." Something to think about...
87695. JMurphy at 00:37 AM on 21 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Just been reading a piece from Tenney Naumer about a new paper (A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1784–2009) which was out of date (and therefore wrong) as soon as it was published. However, when you see the names involved (especially Knappenburger and Michaels), I suppose it isn't surprising but this is a disgraceful example of cherry-picking disinformation. Is it all a political game to these people, where reality doesn't count unless they can create it themselves ? Shameful.
87696. KR at 00:34 AM on 21 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1 - Let's stay with the standard definitions, OK? Variation: Periodic (seasons) or aperiodic (ENSO) internal variations in climate that when averaged do not demonstrate a trend. Forcing: Factor that change from causes external to the climate system, causing trends in temperature. This includes Milankovich orbital changes, insolation, volcanic aerosols, land usage, and anthropogenic CO2. Feedback: Amplifying or dampening response to climate changes, reactions to long term temperature trends, for example clouds, water vapor, ice coverage/albedo, and long term CO2/ocean/weathering interactions. --- Back to the thread topic, clouds. Both direct evidence and paleo records indicate that the climate sensitivity is around 3C for a CO2 doubling, and that the cloud feedback is most likely somewhat positive. Slightly negative has not been ruled out, but it's not the mean estimate, either. Strongly negative cloud feedback is extremely unlikely based upon the 3C sensitivity estimate. Several people (Lindzen, Spencer) have postulated that clouds might change independently from temperature, and can thus be considered a forcing - none of them have presented any physical mechanism whereby this might happen. Lacking that, clouds must be considered a feedback only, not a forcing.
87697. Alec Cowan at 00:05 AM on 21 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @Ken #144 "You don't even need..." Are you changing course yet again? So you are abandoning your previous mishapped argumentation (look #138 and previous posts from Ken Lambert) and now you have decided to play with Ocean Heat Content as if it is Total Ocean Heat Content and not 0-700m's. That is back to square one on your part because that was what you were saying on the very beginning -though you fully understand it just now-. So it takes us back to what "the travesty" in Trenberth's meaning might really be: aerial and spatial measurements with some error margins give us an accumulation of heat that we can partially account in different places with not discordant error margins. We have an important difference and some equally important parts of the system that can contain that difference have wider error margins or are monitored in a more sporadic or uncertain fashion. We can't account by the moment for the planetary energy budget in the way we should -nearly real time, coherent error margin-. That is a travesty. I'm going to translate it for you in an everyday's fashion: Johnny: I though I had 1,000$ in different places and I only found $600 and I can't find the key to access the place where I know there's more money Pseudo-skeptic: Johnny is lying, he has no money and they told me that in fact he has gambling debts. So the current post -and its comments- is all about what Johnny said. All your toing and froing is to prove that he has no money or he has gambling debts as a part of a wide group that behaves that way. You've failed so far in doing so.
87698. adelady at 23:49 PM on 20 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
       funglestrumpet, thank you. My view summarised quite neatly. It doesn't matter to me whether we are or aren't the cause of the warming we see. If warming were the result of a war between leprechauns and the fairies at the bottom of the garden, reducing CO2 output is the _only_ means we have available of influencing global temperature. And we should do it anyway because the alternatives in terms of energy use and production are more beneficial to our health and our pockets. (And this _is_ strictly a personal view, it's a move away from crude stone-age or Victorian or otherwise clumsy and primitive burn-any-flammable-stuff-you-can-find approach to heat and power. I have a strong bias towards elegance and simplicity in engineering to support a civilised civilisation.)
87699. Alec Cowan at 23:34 PM on 20 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @Berényi Péter #140 So we are sure now, because of your intervention, that the supposed Trenberth's mail that you posted -now deleted- was false in one content at the very least. Sure, the famous e-mail starts with "Hi all" in your version, "Hi (say Johny)" in Gilles' and so on. In your version Trenberth announces a paper of his and provide a link -with the absurd text I already commented- instead of doing what any of us do regarding a pdf, that is to attach it to the e-mail which is the educated way to do it. Also in your version he makes a specif reflexion and points to the actual version of a ppt made for the public without even bothering in pointing which slide contains the information he's commenting, as if he has no access to graphics and information -neither his addressees- in a way he should rely in the time and availability of figures in the web -yet without bothering to point to the proper content-. Also your version doesn't contain the same as Gilles' does neither both contains the words quoted by Rob Honeycutt. So which one is The Email? We are to trust the (thief/terrorist/hacker/pranker/superhero choose your word and it'd probably change the trustworthiness of his or her, wouldn't it?) who got it and the gentlemanly conduct of everyone in the chain that ends with you or Gilles? Why doesn't coincide the content is both are equally gentlemanly? Must it be "the other one"? Or are we to trust what Trenberth says the email is. Oh, yeah! the superhero got it right and now Trenberth continue to be to part of some kind of cover-up. Is that your theory?
87700. Ken Lambert at 23:29 PM on 20 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       You are getting closer to the Trenberth ice melt figure Tom, so that is a result of sorts. Good to see you multiplying yearly numbers by 30 to get a cumulative result. Trenberth's ice melt figure is 28E20 Joules of accumulated heat in the Arctic in 31 years. This gets somewhere near your number of ""cumulative additional energy flux for the 2004-2008 mean compared to 1979: 6.97*10^21 Joules."" ie 69.7E20 Joules. Let's average the two numbers to get some mean figure halfway between your and Trenberth's number ie: (28 + 70)/2 = 49E20 Joules in 31 years. The rough estimate of extra heat energy the Earth would have accumulated in 31 years of purported AGW is 31 x 112 = 3472E20 Joules. Therefore 49/3472 = 0.014 or 1.4% of the total warming from the Arctic which is 3% to 4.4% of the Earth's surface (depending on which latitude circle you wish - 75 deg or 66 deg). Even if you **double** the number to about 100E20 Joules for inside the Arctic circle at 66 degrees N, the proportion is still only 2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area. Seems like the warming problem is somewhere else.

Prev  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  Next