Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 Next
Comments 90201 to 90250:
-
Gilles at 23:20 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
"ln(450/280) * FF = 2.05C Your '540 ppm is safe' view would instead put us at about 2.8C over pre-industrial levels... which most projections indicate would cause changes in sea level, freshwater supplies, and cultivatable land at a pace many nations would not be able to handle" could you please find me a reference showing that any of these things would be manageable with 2 °C and not with 2.8 °C ? is the 2°C some magic limit - it's fortunate that the Celsius scale gives suche an easily rememberable figure ! -
Gilles at 23:17 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
CBD If you ignore the amount of carbon we're burning each year, I think you'd better refresh somewhat your readings. Actually it is a little bit less than 10 with FF only, a bit more including deforestation, but i'm only doing back-of-the-envelope calculations. 2000Gt/30 = 67 years approximately (not 200), giving 133 ppm more at the current rate, so it's more 520 ppm - I took 540 for a conservative estimate including methane, deforestation, and so on - CO2 is always the main driver. I don't expect runaway methane emissions with such a level- please correct me if you know a valid reference that says the opposite. Now I took only the transient response in 2100 , that's why I didn't take the full 0.8 °C - 0.5 °C is an order of magnitude. For slow feedbacks, you have to take into account that the CO2 will also decrease with time with the slow reabsorption by the wells after the production has decreased - the whole temperature curve must be numerically integrated but I don't expect it will vary much after that. and as everybody knows, in 2100, we'll have found a lot of solutions to compensate for the loss of FF - which means in theory no limit for developing the whole mankind since finite stock resources won't be a problem anymore. I don't see why, if all mankind has become rich , it couldn't mitigate the impact of CC just as rich countries can do it currently. -
JMurphy at 23:06 PM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Lawson was at it again recently, in the Spectator 'debate' in London. As usual it was non-scientific so-called skeptics (Lawson and Peiser from the GWPF, plus a Labour MP), arguing against scientists (Tim Palmer, David King, Simon Singh). Although the audience was mainly Spectator types, it would appear that more people were convinced of the dangers of AGW after the debate than before. -
CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 1 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Gilles: "Fine : if they are, the we can deduce with a great confidence from Fig 3 that most of the XXth century temperature rise has occurred before 1970, so it must be perfectly natural." Actually Fig 3 shows that unicorns are real and that therefor we no longer have to worry about cancer. No, I can't really back that up... but it bears about as much resemblance to reality as your description of the graph. -
CBDunkerson at 22:42 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles, actually the '10 Gt/yr' value was yours too. Like I said, I didn't check your numbers... just pointed out that the math doesn't work. At that, if we change 10 to 30 it still doesn't come out to 540 ppm. You don't give the calculations for how you get to 540 ppm only causing a 0.5 C increase over 450 ppm, but >my< 'back of the envelope' calcs would go something like this; At best estimates of climate sensitivity a doubling of CO2 is expected to cause 3C warming from fast feedbacks (FF) and 6C warming from slow feedbacks (SF). Ergo; FF * ln(2) = 3 -> FF = 4.33 SF * ln(2) = 6 -> SF = 8.66 ln(540/450) * FF = 0.79 C ln(540/450) * SF = 1.58 C So again, your 'abbreviated math' doesn't seem to match up. I was actually able to 'follow' your conclusion that 700 * 3 = 2000, but from there it seems to get progressively less accurate. For the record, the 450 ppm figure was derived based on a goal of limiting fast feedback warming to 2C over the pre-industrial level. We can use this to validate my formulas above; ln(450/280) * FF = 2.05C Your '540 ppm is safe' view would instead put us at about 2.8C over pre-industrial levels... which most projections indicate would cause changes in sea level, freshwater supplies, and cultivatable land at a pace many nations would not be able to handle. -
CBDunkerson at 22:09 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Yeah, that 'rate of atmospheric CO2 change' graph ought to be added to the 'CO2 increases are natural' rebuttal. I knew that CO2 increases of about 100 ppm took thousands of years throughout the interglacial cycle as opposed to mere decades now, but seeing that represented visually really drives the point home. The only 'problem' with the graph is that natural rates of change have always been so small in comparison that they are practically invisible at this scale. It might be worth having a 'blowout' at a more detailed scale to show that there were natural variations going on... they were just insignificant compared to the current human driven change. -
pkm at 20:55 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
@9 RSVP, that graph shows the rate of change rather than the CO2 levels themselves... It is indeed a stunning perspective, that I will incidentally use in a few weeks in a presentation on CO2. I calculated the other day that current CO2 increase is about 2 ppm per year, whereas the increase rate during the last deglaciation was in the order of 0.007 ppm per year. More than 2 orders of magnitude smaller! -
Gilles at 19:49 PM on 1 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
"There's an entire research field devoted to dedrochronology, and there's strong evidence that in most cases, tree rings are a good temperature proxy." Fine : if they are, the we can deduce with a great confidence from Fig 3 that most of the XXth century temperature rise has occurred before 1970, so it must be perfectly natural. -
RSVP at 19:06 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
To Rob Honeycutt as per graph posted in pbellin 3 For all practical purposes, the CO2 level is completely flat in your graph. Should'nt it contain oscillations that reflect past ice ages? What the graphs seems to transmit is either we never had any ice ages, or if we did, CO2 ppm has no bearing on temperature. The great spike at the right also suggests this even more when you consider how little temperature has changed in recent years.Moderator Response: [DB] The graph of which you speak is clearly labelled as depicting the rate of change per century. As such it is a direct, apples-to-apples comparison between time periods. Apologies to the Bard, but "Context is the thing." -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:37 PM on 1 April 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Daniel. If we have a supervolcano, then we can take AGW of the table as an agenda item for a while. And I will probably stop saving for my retirement. How can I spend my (very limited) wealth in a way that gives me the most fun before I croak?Moderator Response: [DB] Given the effects, if that supervolcano is Yellowstone here in the US, I might only have a few months. But the likelihood is far less than the temperature forcing from CO2. :) -
Stu at 18:05 PM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
"I believe Mr. Sarkozy is technically correct." The best kind of correct! Cheers Futurama. However, that doesn't mean he's not also wrong, sort of, cos it misses the point. Colder stratospheric temps would have only a small effect on ozone concentrations were it not for all the halogenated compounds we put there. I've been struggling for a decent analogy... maybe it's like leaving you freezer open and worrying that your kitchen is now a bit chilly, ignoring that all your food has gone off and the floor's just about flooded. Erm... yes? -
Rob Painting at 17:55 PM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
Agnostic @ 26 - Steve Baines may be referring to this paper Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton. I don't have a copy, but it is discussed in sufficient depth here. -
Gilles at 17:34 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
" Given Gilles' persistence in posting here, and the content of the messages, I feel we're seeing one of two things: a sock-puppet, or someone who really believes what they're posting, a la this XKCD comic. Personally, I hope it's the latter. :-)" just a question for moderation : does this belong to the class of "ad hominem comments" , or not ? -
Gilles at 17:33 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
scaddenp, you asked me to answer your question, i did. CBD has obviously confused CO2 and toe or C when he wrote 2,000 Gt CO2 / 10 Gt/yr = 200 years since we produce around 30 GtCO2 and not 10 (this is the energy consumption). everybody can do mistakes, but it is extraordinary that it requires an explanation PLUS another justification for people claiming I'm not acting like a scientist. Mucounter : there is no mistake, I said 0.5 °C with respect to the the lowest reasonable value expected in 2100, not with respect to now. Please read me more carefully. The problem in saying "the threshold of 2°C is dangerous and we must keep below it" is that even then natural variability of a few tenths of degrees corresponds to dozens of Gt of C, if not hundreds ; so you cannot define with precision the moment when you're supposed to stop. In the Ecofys scenario, they just offer a possible (probably unrealistic) future production, but they are totally silent about how insuring it for sure in the future : who will tell whom that it's enough and that he should stop now using FF ? this is just the product of sim-city formatted brains who believe the world is in their computers (I'm afraid many climate scientists suffer from this disease) . The peak in FF production is always governed by the offer, not the demand. No company stop drilling and extracting oil when the well is drilled, before it is exhausted. The only fact that will limit the extraction (and is acting just now for the oil) , is just that the resource becomes so expensive that the number of customers decreases : you're just seeing it's happening, but you don't seem to understand it. Please, again, come back in the real world. -
Bern at 16:32 PM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
If you're doing back-of-the-envelope calculations, don't forget the methane from clathrates & permafrost... from memory, the permafrost component alone is supposed to add another 1,500 Gt of carbon all by itself - but in the form of methane, which is ~77 times worse than CO2 over 20 years, and 25 times worse over a century. Add that to the 2,000 Gt of CO2 from humans, plus methane from clathrates, plus increasing temperatures turning sinks like rainforests & the oceans into net sources (and releasing significant amounts of the previously-absorbed human emissions) and we could be looking at some serious increases in greenhouse forcing. Having just read the last 70-odd posts on this thread, it is clear that Gilles is arguing for continued use of fossil fuels, primarily because we don't currently price the externalities, and as a result it's currently the cheapest source of energy. Spoken like a true economist who doesn't believe global warming poses any threat whatsoever to human civilisation. Actually, I'd go further, to say it sounds more like what you'd hear from an accountant, rather than an economist. Given Gilles' persistence in posting here, and the content of the messages, I feel we're seeing one of two things: a sock-puppet, or someone who really believes what they're posting, a la this XKCD comic. Personally, I hope it's the latter. :-) -
WheelsOC at 15:53 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Funny how a few visual aids can help put things in perspective. Figure 3 was a nice touch. -
ginckgo at 15:49 PM on 1 April 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
Regarding the cap carbonates, there's an article by Greg Retallack (Neoproterozoic loess and limits to snowball Earth), in which he argues that at least the Aussie Nuccaleena Formation is actually a subaerial loess deposit, and therefor nothing to do with the termination of Snowball Earth, and by extension don't support CO2 as a major player in terminating these ice ages. I asked my old Lecturers at Adelaide Uni who worked on these formations for comment, and they were less than complimentary about the science - apparently it had been previously roundly rejected by peer review. So, just in case someone brings this article up to 'debunk' CO2's role, the article is apparently not very solid. -
CBDunkerson at 15:38 PM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
MidwestHES wrote: "The exact same thing that is happening with the debate on AGCD happened with the debate on the Ozone hole, starting in the early 1970's...The same groups and people that are denying this denied that as well." My favorite example of this is Will Happer's constant complaint that 'Al Gore fired me for disagreeing with him on global warming'.... but if you go back to news articles at the time his claim was, 'Al Gore fired me for disagreeing with him on ozone depletion'. It's not just the same people using the same sort of misinformation campaigns... it's even the same events (if it ever happened at all) retroactively re-written for a new topic. -
Tom Curtis at 15:20 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
I am unsure if this is the best place for this comment. However: One piece of data that Dr Humlum presents is the correlation between global temperatures and the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation (or the inverse of the length of the day).
Humlum comments:
"The length of day (LOD) as shown above are subject to variations due to variations in oceanic tides (smaller than 0.03 ms in absolute value), variations in the atmospheric circulation, and to internal effects and to transfer of angular momentum to the Moon orbital motion. Also the dynamical influence of the liquid core of the earth may account for slow variations, but then generally expressed as overall long-term trends (Akoi et al. 1982). The above diagrams show that periods with relatively high planetary rotation velocity (and low LOD) tend to be associated with relatively warm periods, and vice versa. Good examples are the peak of LOD in the early 20th century, concurrent with the last cold spell of The Little Ice Age and the loss of Titanic. Also the cold period 1965-1977 was associated with long day length (high LOD) and low planetary angular velocity. The generally increasing rotation velocity of Earth (and decreasing LOD) since then has taken place along with the period of late 20th century warming. Variations in LOD has also been associated with the Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI) and variations in commercial catches of different fish species. Some of these associations are thoroughly described and discussed by Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2007)."
Given the fact that some deniers claim there is a causal connection between the Length of the Day and global temperatures, with changes in the LOD causing changes in global temperatures, it is questionable that there is no discussion of (or mention of) glacial mass balance in the same context. Looking closely at the LOD signal, it is very plain that there is a seasonal signal. The Earth has a longer day (ie, it spins slower) in the Northern Hemisphere winter. The cause of this is easy to attribute - snow. In the NH winter, large areas of the Earth are covered by a thick blanket of snow. The snow is, in the summer, found in the oceans, but in the winter it is found on land, and hence (on average) at several hundred meters greater altitude. Because of conservation of momentum, this shift of mass slows the Earth's spin, and hence lengthens the day. The annual trend in changes of the LOD have similar magnitude to the seasonal variations. (The change in the 37 month mean of the LOD from 1972 to 2009 was approximately 0.003 seconds, while the seasonal variation has a range of about 0.0015 seconds.) It is also not a monotonic trend. Therefore whatever the cause, we do not expect the Earth to shed and regain angular momentum, but rather only to shed and regain angular velocity. This means the cause must involve changes in the relative locations of significant masses. As hinted at above, the larges temperature correlated change in distribution of masses at the Earth's surface is the change in glacial mass balances. As glaciers melt, the melt water finds itself either directly or indirectly in the sea, thus redistributing the mass by up to 10,000 km towards the Earths axis. Because tropical glaciers can be involved in this mass redistribution, the relative size of the effect for a given mass moved should be larger than the seasonal snowfall effect as tropical and subtropical glaciers are further from the Earth's axis of rotation. Following are the changes in mass balance for non-polar glaciers, and for Greenland. Clearly it would be very difficult to predict the change in the LOD from known changes in glacial mass balance, but it appears to me that the pattern in those changes can be seen as a long term trend driven by loss of mountain glaciers, modulated by the changes in Greenland's mass balance. The changes in Greenland's mass balance are, of course larger than the changes in mountain glaciers in absolute terms, but Greenland is much closer to the axis of rotation.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:46 PM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Rob Honeycutt @5, I am uncertain about the effects of snowdrifts on GISP2. The reason I object to using GISP2 (or any Greenland ice core) as a global proxy (above and beyond my more general objections against using any local proxy as a global proxy) is that Greenland dO18 is known to be unusually variable because of the North Atlantic Oscillation. In one mode of the NAO, the prevailing winds carry warm air onto Greenland from the Atlantic. In the other mode, it carries cold wind from the arctic. As I understand it, the O18 concentrations in precipitation are a function of the temperature of the water from which the water vapour originally evaporated, and the intervening atmospheric temperatures, and the temperature at the location of precipitation, the upshot is that dO18 gives a record of a regional temperature rather than a site specific temperature. This means that in one mode of the NAO, Greenland ice cores give a record of the temperature across the northern Atlantic and Greenland, while in the other mode, they give a record of temperatures across the Arctic and Greenland. Thus they will exhibit a greater variability than the actual local Greenland temperatures themselves; and a far greater variability than most other local temperature records. -
muoncounter at 13:33 PM on 1 April 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
The mighty Tamino strikes again, with an excellent debunk of a new paper that touts no acceleration in sea level rise. An eye-grabber is this figure:
According to this, the recent rate of sea level rise is greater than its average value since 1930. Significantly so (in the statistical sense), even using a conservative estimate of autocorrelation. But the increase itself hasn’t been steady, so the sea level curve hasn’t followed a parabola, most of the increase has been since about 1980.
Once again, a long term uptrend, with a noticeable change in the late 70's-early 80's. The rate of increase increases. Kind of a deja vu all over again.
-
Marcus at 13:26 PM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
That's correct SoundOff, that's why there was an Ozone hole over Antarctica. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:21 PM on 1 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
garythompson @155 The station list you present looks like it is from a point in the northern Norwegian Sea. Don't forget this map is for land & ocean index, not just land. the predominant data for that region would be ocean SST data. GISTEMP uses ocean data in preference to land data when the land area is very small - look at the Chatham Islands in the South Pacific as a good example of this. Do runs for Land only, Ocean only and Land & Ocean. Look at the tabulated data for each run. The land data isn't used at all in the combined series. Also the use of data out to 1200 km is part of the standard algorithm for GISTEMP. However temps frpm 1200 k's out only have a small weighting at the centre. The basis for this 1200 range is the original research behind GISTEMP showing strong correlation between anomaly changes out to 1200 kms. Currently I am working on a post on another subject. Following that I plan a series of posts on surface temperature measurement that I hope will clarify some of these things. -
SoundOff at 13:09 PM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
I believe Mr. Sarkozy is technically correct. Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling. A colder stratosphere is more conducive to ozone depletion (which is why we see ozone holes over the poles). The ban on the primary cause of the holes, CFCs, is intended to promote the recovery of the ozone layer. The net effect is probably a longer recovery period. I would agree that ozone depletion is not a first order consequence of greenhouse gas emissions. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:07 PM on 1 April 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Nice graph Daniel. Even shows up the lesser peak from the Agung eruption of 1963/64 Another speculation using that precise scientific instrument, a Mark I eyeball. All three eruptions spike back up to a similar level then drop back down to the old trend. Is that coincidence, a function of the size of the eruptions? Or an underlying property of the impact of any major eruption on the stratosphere?Moderator Response: [DB] Based on my understanding, the graph highlights the transient impact that volcanic eruptions typically have on climate. All bets are off on supervolcanic eruptions, tho. -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 1 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
Well a great many people have managed to use this data. eg look at this and you will guides to understanding the odd numbers and how to process if you look. What exactly were you trying to download from CISL? (their data, their rules - oil companies certainly cant download government data here without telling us who they are). While its great that you are looking at the data, you also should satisfy yourself about the methodology. (ie neither GISS, Hadcrut, nor noaa are trying to calculate a global mean temperature and that the anomaly data really is stable and spatially highly correlated). -
muoncounter at 12:06 PM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
johnd#56: "The major factor standing between the incoming solar radiation and the ice will be clouds," Indeed. From Kay 2007: Reduced cloudiness and enhanced downwelling radiation are associated with the unprecedented 2007 Arctic sea ice loss. Over the Western Arctic Ocean, total summertime cloud cover estimated from spaceborne radar and lidar data decreased by 16% from 2006 to 2007. The clearer skies led to downwelling shortwave (longwave) radiative fluxes increases of +32 W/m2 (-4 W/m2) from 2006 to 2007 ... ... we suggest that in a warmer Arctic with thinner ice, cloud and shortwave radiation anomalies will play an increasingly important role in modulating summertime sea ice extent. So a warmer Arctic summer has decreasing cloud cover, leading to more energy input to the surface. Better hope those Spencer magic clouds are coming to the rescue soon. -
muoncounter at 11:41 AM on 1 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
cloa "The US Government site provides no data or garbage numbers" What are you talking about? Data downloadable for free here, zipped here and graphics here. "its all our tax dollars." Ah ha: 'I can't find what I'm looking for, so they're wasting our tax dollars.' Anyone for tea? -
cloa513 at 11:06 AM on 1 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
I looked at the links through RealClimate.org The US Government site provides no data or garbage numbers like 4000 lots of -1936. Someone should complain about their garbage. Some useful data in the rest. CISL- its none of your business or your parent organisation- who I am nor should you restrict data access in any way. Needing the request data is a scientific disgrace- its all our tax dollars. -
Stephen Baines at 11:05 AM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
@Agnostic...The Southern Ocean is Fe limited because it gets most of it's nutrients from upwelling of very old deep water. Fe is not very soluble in the ocean under current pHs - it tends to complex with particles and gets removed to sediments over time. As deep water ages, Fe is slowly stripped from water by this process. When it rises to the surface there is consequently a definict of Fe rlative to nitrate, phosphate and silicate. The Fe gets used up by algae before the other nutrients, leading to Fe limitation and what are called High Nutrient Low chlorophyll (HNLC) conditions. In other regions that receive river water, release of Fe from sediments or dust, Fe is not so limiting and thos conditions don't ocur. I think that general picture is unlikely to change until pH drops quite a bit, and then it could take quite a while for any effect to be observed as you'd have to see that pH change at depth and aloow time for the slow processes I referred to respond. I know someone has recently done a calculation on the effect of pH on Fe availability. I'll see if I can find it. I'm sure it comes with a lot of caveats. -
muoncounter at 10:48 AM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles#129 "giving 2 000 Gt of CO2" Excellent. The same Gilles who scoffed at 650ppm under an IEA oil forecast now reveals back-of-the-envelope numbers that take us well past even that horrifying level. But no worries, Gilles says it's OK because he can twist a near-doubling of CO2 (from pre-industrial) into only another 0.5C. We've already seen +0.5C just since 1970, when CO2 was 325ppm; now its 390, a 20% increase. Gilles predicts: going to 540ppm, another 40% higher than today will result in just another 0.5C. Anyone (except Gilles) can see that's fuzzy math. This is from the same Gilles who believes that doubling the energy consumption of the planet won't be a problem. Anybody feel all better now? -
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 1 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
I think there may be some confusion about what links are being referred to. Not the data links to chris shaker. To cloa513, moderator pointed to useful links in response to post here I pointed to other useful data (eg Hansen agreeing that mean global temperature isnt useful so dont us it) and actual methodology in posts 143 and 144. Both work. In essence, the arguments about mean global temperature are a strawman. The arguments against it are quite valid but the methodology being rebutted is not the methodology used for examining global temperature trends. The actual methodology (average anomaly) is pointed to by link and the papers that support it reveal decades of testing of the method validity. What cloa513 hasnt done is presented a contrary argument against this. Cloa513 - a debate of substance would include a statement about what you thought was excuses and particularly why you thought it was lame. The question really at hand is whether the globe is warming or not. You seem to contending that we dont know about method is flawed (but you havent examined the real method) plus some speculative FUD. You are also noting that other evidence of warming is provided by satellites tropospheric measurement (which is independent of ground measurement), sealevel rise and glacial retreat. If you are of one opinion now, you need to ask yourself what data would make you change you mind. -
adelady at 10:35 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
chrisd@27 I'm starting to think there might be a business opportunity - skincare for climate bloggers. With all the face-palming, head-desking and jaw-dropping, a soothing concoction to take away redness and soften callouses should be a runaway success.Response: [John] Well, 4 years of climate blogging have ravaged my once youthful good looks so you might have stumbled upon a lucrative niche industry there! -
Stu at 10:35 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Ooh yes Goddard did provide plenty of entertainment. When you're so consistently, persistently and embarrassingly wrong that even Anthony Watts 'fires' you, well really you should take a good long look at yourself. Some took SG's departure from WUWT as a sign that perhaps Watts was going to clean up his act... but the avalanche of truly appalling 'guest posts' that have come since certainly dispove that notion. Oh well! -
Riduna at 10:33 AM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
What effect, if any, does carbonic acid have on the presence of iron in a form which can be utilized by plankton and promote their bloom? Is low iron concentration in the Southern Ocean due to carbonic acid (presumably stronger in cooler waters), lack of upwelling of water from the seabed, or some other reason? -
johnd at 10:28 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM, I agree it's no big deal, for those who are aware of what they are being presented. However such visual depictions can create first impressions for those who are not so circumspect and readily accept what they see at face value. Your note about area is completely relevant. As the graphics indicate, they depict the energy received at the TOA and clearly acknowledge a dominating role to incoming solar radiation. The major factor standing between the incoming solar radiation and the ice will be clouds, and it is not only the nominal 2/3rds total global coverage, but the distribution pattern that controls what is your real concern of areas being open to receive incoming energy. This is drifting into other topics, but historical deforestation and seaboard human habitation have likely changed cloud distribution patterns 100's, even 1000's of km inland as some studies of factors affecting precipitation patterns indicate, meaning changes must have also occurred over adjacent ocean areas. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:17 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@ Stu (34) Compared to our American politicians Sarkozy did get it right. If you were to cast Inhofe and Sarkozy in a movie as rival bloggers, Sarkozy would be Romm and Inhofe would be Watts. And that's in no way intended as a slam on Romm, as I have great respect for Sarkozy. For those who fails to appreciate me sense of humor...go read some of SG's fine work, like his opus on CO2 snow... The Yooper -
bill4344 at 10:06 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
If we're doing getting it right, Gillard has to get a guernsey for -The scientific consensus is stronger than ever. Given these realities, I ask: who would I rather have on my side? Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt, or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration and every reputable climate scientist in the world.
Spot on, names the worst offenders, and no embarrassing mentions of the ozone layer! and Phil @33; two word summation of the general attitude in the antipodes; 'Clive who'? Feel free to hang on to him... -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Tom Curtis... I don't disagree. Humlum has been very nice in my exchanges with him so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. You're right, though, I think it's silly to use GISP2 as a definitive proxy for the Holocene. Even as a local measure of temperature I think it's dicy at many points. I seem to remember Dr Alley saying that there are parts of the record that are reflective of other things like snow drifts, and I believe Grootes 1993 (pointed out in Crux of a Core 2) states "The small Holocene O18 fluctuations of 1-2 occur too frequently to allow an unambiguous correlation between the cores." In other words, as far as I understand it, GISP2 is a fantastic record to study events like the Young Dryas but trying to infer Holocene temperature is more of a stretch. And that's pretty much my objection to almost every use of GISP2 that I see out there in the blogosphere. People, Dr Humlum included, are using GISP2 in an inappropriate manner. -
Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Rob Honeycutt @2, having read some of the site, I think you are bing to kind. Anyone who can give as detailed a comparison of "global" temperature indices as he does without mentioning that only one of them is truly global is being very selective in the data they present to the public. Specifically in the case in question, any comparison between a local temperature record alone, and the global CO2 record is obviously invalid. What is more, I would suggest that any such comparison that fails to mention the host of factors causing additional variability in local temperatures compared to global temperatures (something entirely missing from his commentary) is inevitably misleading, and obviously so. Given that there are a significant number of reconstructions and/or proxies available that would give a better approximation of the global temperature record over that period, his choice of the very variable Greenland record is tendentious. Further, it is well known that CO2 levels have been rising in the atmosphere since the invention of agriculture due to changes in land use, mostly in the form of deforestation and the extension of wetland methane emission due to rice cultivation. This, clearly is something that should be discussed in any comparison of the Holocene CO2 record with temperatures, and is entirely missing from Dr Humlum's commentary. At the same time, any comparison of CO2 and temperature from before the Holocene, ie, when human activity is in fact irrelevant, is entirely missing from his page. That cannot be accidental. -
Stephen Baines at 09:28 AM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
I think Michael nailed where the confusion comes from. We often hear this weak acid/strong acid argument as if the pH doesn't matter to dissociation of carbonic acid. At pH 8, carbon acid might as well be HCl as it dissociates almost completely. I've been caught out several times by this fallacy as well. I have also heard this argument about CO2 and carbonic acid before as well and I couldn't figure out where it came from. Fact is, we can't usually discriminate between dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid by measurement. Empirical pKas are determined assuming CO2(aq) and carbonic acid are essentially the same thing. I know Gobler pretty well. If you guys have questions about setup of this experiment I can probably get him or Talmage to respond. -
Sean A at 09:06 AM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
More energy would* enable humans to do more while using fewer resources. More recycling, less mining. More high-tech cities, less suburban sprawl. Lower transportation costs (all-electric vehicles and trains) without air pollution. Cheap desalination. Industry complains about the costs of implementing environmental regulations, but if the energy required is cheap and abundant, they have less to complain about. So I think the more energy we have, the better we can protect the environment. Even now, developed nations can afford to set aside and protect vast wilderness areas, while in the developing world, energy poorness promotes continuing damage to ecosystems, and contributes to the population problem. *We do need strong regulations and protections to go along with it though. -
Stu at 08:28 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
DB, if Sarkozy said: "The world goes to its destruction if we keep emitting carbon that creates a hole in the ozone layer and breaks all the planet equilibria, this is a fact" Well, it can't go in a list of policians-who-get-it-right (I don't know if you were implying that it would). We can applaud his acknowledgement that something has to be done, but I reckon his chief science advisor cringed at that statement! -
Phil at 08:08 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Nigel Lawson is another prominent UK climate change contrarian politician (with his hands now reassuring far from the levers of power). Wasn't Monckton was once deputy leader of UKIP ? It has struck me just how few mainstream UK Politicians are sceptical. We seem to specialise in washed-up celebrities: People like Clive James (who may be familiar to Australian readers), David Bellamy and Johnny Ball. -
MidwestHES at 07:15 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
The exact same thing that is happening with the debate on AGCD happened with the debate on the Ozone hole, starting in the early 1970's...The same groups and people that are denying this denied that as well...but for some reason, no one seems to remember and we are unfortunately repeating our history, having not learned anything from the previous fiasco. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp I read something the other day, not sure if it was someone "important" that suggested it, but either way, it was a great idea. Someone needs to erect a huge monument somewhere here in the U.S. The monument would garner a giant plaque, with the names of every prominent politician, political party, corporation, scientist, journalist, state government, etc. that denies Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption. We'll leave the title plate on the monument blank so that in 15-20 years, when this "debate" has FINALLY gone the way of the dodo, there will be empirical evidence of whom was right, and who was wrong. If they are correct, the title would read something like "Saved us from the alarmist environmental wackos, and made a lot of money doing it!". If they are wrong, as we suspect, it will say "These people are NEVER to be trusted again, with anything". I'm fairly sure that our side would be willing to take that gamble...is theirs? -
Paul D at 07:06 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
I recommend Graham Stringer (Labour and mentioned @20) and John Redwood (Conservative) as UK entries. Probably the whole of the UK Independence Party as well (Monckton joined them). I don't have time to find quotes and rebuttals. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:03 AM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
Shorter H.Pierce: "It is quite possible things will be OK." I'm trying to compare that to my mindset when, say, boarding an airplane. Hmmm -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Johnd I don't see why the scale would have to "acknowledge" anything, it is not its function. It is not a scale of total energy received over the entire area. The insolation being given on w/sq.m it would be quite easy to estimate the total incoming energy by applying that to the surface area. Big deal. Talking about area, the real concern here is how much area of ocean is open to receive that many w/sq.m A real concern indeed. -
scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles - CBD is doing no such thing, he is using YOUR figure 2000Gt of CO2, but noting the proven reserves give you enough CO2 for 790, not 540. But even 540 is takes us to levels of Pliocene and older in the blink of the geological eye. You might feel safe about that but I certainly dont. And that assumes that rate of CO2 production stays constant at todays level (the conservative SRES scenario) despite increasing population and affluence. Hmm. I would frankly be very happy to if we managed to hold CO2 increase. What are you expecting to replace oil for transport as petrol dwindles? I'm guessing increasing electric and if we are not careful that will be produced from coal. "most SRES scenario assume much more than the proved reserves" Show me where? The ZJ values seemed to fit pretty well with the coal reserves. Also, as someone who spent first 15 years of working life in coal resource estimation, I would say "proven" coal IS a conservative estimate. When you have a lot of proven reserve, there is little incentive to spend exploration dollars lifting the inferred reserves into proven, especially when costs of exploration are decreasing. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:16 AM on 1 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
DSL and KR @ 918, 919. ROFL Thus the troll is reduced to its initial insignificance. Reality and the reality-based have prevailed. Yeah!
Prev 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 Next
