Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 Next
Comments 90401 to 90450:
-
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! -
dana1981 at 06:13 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Thanks chris. We need to get a hold of a transcript of the proceedings too though. That's where things got really bad in terms of myth propagation. -
pbellin at 05:24 AM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
A rolling stone gathers no moss. Here is a gem from the referenced web site: "According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher." This is based, I believe on a single ice core, the Vostok Ice core in Antartica. The figure discussed in this post is just below the gem above. I imagine Dr. Humlum forgot to update the Greenland temps to the most recent date, and forgot to mention that the forcing from changes in carbon dioxide have not all been realized. I imagine this web site would provide a treasure trove of topics for brave-hearted debunkers.Moderator Response: [DB] As an FYI, the highest CO2 levels in the Vostok core were 298.7 ppmv and occurred 323,546 years ago. Not that anyone's counting.
-
chrisd3 at 05:19 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@dana1981 #26 Here is the written testimony of the speakers (not a transcript). Click the speakers' names. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:18 AM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
i have to say, Dr. Humlum has been very gracious in my communication with him. I wouldn't lump him in with the denier crowd at all. He's closer to a true skeptic but definitely with a lean toward "it's not so bad" as far as I can tell. I've told Dr. Humlum about this post but he says he's off on another trip into the field with students and will be out of touch. He might pop in to comment once he's back from that trip. -
bibasir at 05:04 AM on 1 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Great post! It is a shame that the likes of Humlum couldn't be put at the bottom of the hill to await the return of the boulder. He would excape the boulder if he would update his chart with the 2010 number and the CO2 for the present. Even though the addition of 2010 does not make the chart more accurate, atleast it shows the spike up to past records in one year. -
otter17 at 04:39 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
This seems like a great idea. Keeping tabs on what politicians say and what their viewpoint on climate happens to be is important information for the public. I concur with some of the ideas already mentioned in the comments so far. I follow Skeptical Science, Climate Crocks, and Desmog blog occasionally, and I think having information that complements Desmogblog would be awesome. Maybe a joint venture? It would be nice for the layperson to be able to determine which sources of climate science information have been incorrect in the past, and why. In this way, one can more easily determine which sources have a poor record, and get a better picture of the overall reliability of that source. For example, my father believes that the Heartland Institute, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity are "good people with good morals and political views". Now, that is his overall opinion of them, which is fine, but he also gets a totally skewed view of climate change from them. This database already looks like a great resource to help me show to him that he can't always trust political persons with climate science facts. -
chrisd3 at 04:35 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@apsmith #25 It just makes you want to start banging your head on the desk, doesn't it? -
dana1981 at 04:35 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
apsmith - we will be doing an extensive response to today's House climate hearing. One aspect will be collecting all of the politician myth quotes. If somebody knows how to get a hold of a recording or transcript of the hearing, please let us know.Moderator Response: [DB] In days of yore, they were required to provide an official transcript of these. If they are made available online, let alone in a timely fashion, I no longer know. -
apsmith at 04:29 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
My notes from today's (March 31 in US) climate hearing in the House Science Committee, on arguments made. We'll need to put these into the quotes database when we have an online source for the actual quotes, hopefully in the congressional record? * Cravaack (MN) - global cooling in the 1970's * Hall (chairman) - IPCC predicts only 7-23 inches. * Brooks - global cooling * Rohrabacher - "case closed"?? and a variant on "it's the sun" * Hall again - closing comments that we've spent so much money and it's all still so uncertain... -
Chris Colose at 04:13 AM on 1 April 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
Another important point in the review article (also discussed in Hansen's Target CO2 paper) is that the CO2 inventory in the atmosphere is very small when compared to the Earth sources and sinks, so increased removal of CO2 with uncompensated output by volcanism after a Himalayan uplift would draw levels down to zero in a million years or so. This means a counterbalancing process is necessary, largely provided by a deceleration globally of weathering in regions un-impacted by the mountains due to temperature, which would help control the drawdown of CO2 in the Cenozoic. -
chrisd3 at 04:05 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@Michael Sweet #18:Berkely Physicist Richard Muller, who has been hired to disparage the surface temperature record.
That may be a problem for Dr Muller. Apparently his own forthcoming temperature study (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, or BEST) is going to say that the reconstructions by NOAA, NASA, etc., are right on the money.Moderator Response: [DB] Indeed. It is already a problem, for several parties:
-
Chris Colose at 03:52 AM on 1 April 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
Hi Bart, This review article back in 2000 is a good start http://www.essc.psu.edu/~brantley/publications/kump.pdf Since then, there's been a number of field studies (e.g., Dessert et al., 2001; Oliva et al., 2003; Gislason et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2010) that show weathering rates can go up with temperature and runoff, however there's also dependence on topographical factors, rock exposure and soil overlying that rock, etc which make for complications. There's also been debate when it comes to interpreting Strontium isotopes or other ways of diagnosing weathering rates in the past, but in general I don't sense much disagreement that this serves as an important negative feedback over sufficiently long timescales. I mentioned the Zeebe and Caldeira paper (see also David Archer's summary of that paper) simply because it was useful in testing an elusive (and largely theoretical) mechanism over the time-frame where ice cores exist. -
johnd at 03:49 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken Lambert at 00:45 AM, with the colouring on the graph representing W/m2, the Latitude scale being evenly divided does not acknowledge the effect of decreasing area per degree of latitude change and thus allow that to be visually appreciated. In the same way, a map of the world without some form of equal area projection would provide a distorted impression of the real world. -
Gilles at 03:38 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Nicolas Sarkozy, Président de la République Française (in French) http://www.rue89.com/2009/09/24/sarkozy-se-plante-encore-sur-le-trou-dans-la-couche-dozone?page=4#comment-1065723 "le monde va à sa perte si on continue à émettre du carbone qui crée un trou dans la couche d'ozone et qui brise les équilibres de la planète, ça c'est un constat" "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"Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for bringing this to our attention; you've just given us a great idea for a new post: Politicians-who-get-it-right. Understandably, a short post right now. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:27 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I'm unsure why Ken is so focused on the energy that goes into melting. That energy is simply released again when the ice freezes, so it's a zero sum game (and it's inconsequentially small, to boot). But as I said earlier, and as adelady just reiterated, what matters is not the energy that goes into melting ice, but rather the energy that goes into the ocean after the ice has melted (and which otherwise would have been reflected back into space). This is the problem with melting Arctic ice, that after it has melted, it is further warming the planet by changing the albedo in a part of the world that receives 24 hours of continuous sunlight at a fairly direct angle. That the ice refreezes when the days are instead 24 hours long is irrelevant. When the ice melts and the sun is up, the Earth warms. When the ice melts that much sooner in the spring, then the Earth warms for that much longer. Which then helps to melt the ice even sooner the following year if the planet is unable to shed the extra heat by then. -
Nicholas Berini at 03:07 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
I think you've really hit something with the format here. I think it would apply perfectly to: -climate scientists -news publications -climate bloggers -none of the above (though monkton already has his own page :) Wish I had more free time to contribute - vacation is just around the corner! -
pbjamm at 02:51 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
SkS should adopt a slogan similar to The Straight Dope. "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought)" Keep fighting the good fight. -
Paul D at 02:50 AM on 1 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Sean, how do you equate energy abundance with protection of the biosphere etc?? Energy enables humans to do more, which equates to using more resources. It may cut carbon emissions but I don't see how it would protect the biosphere in general. I don't think my footprint on the world would be improved by having 5 low carbon cars and abundant cheap low carbon energy to power them. -
lord_sidcup at 02:40 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Here is one from the UK - Labour MP Graham Stringer: Climate jiggery-pokery The whole article is packed with conspiracy theory, smears and innuendo, but the low-point is probably the assertion: "We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science" -
michael sweet at 02:05 AM on 1 April 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
H peirce I think your problem here is that in pure water only 1% of carbonic acid releases H+. This forms a solution about pH 5. The Ocean is about pH 8.2 so most of the new carbonic acid immediately dissociates an H+ ion. The dissociation is proportional to the pH (keeping in mind pH is a log function so 5-> 8 is 1000 times) and the Ocean is basic. Skeptics need to understand the background before they try to explain chemistry to other people. -
ejo60 at 01:58 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@michael sweet : More on Miller in my blog link I will add new information here because I saw various tweets relating to Miller. If you watch his lecture then you see he violates nearly every rule in the arguments database in an eloquent way. -
michael sweet at 01:44 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
The Koch's have hired a new physicist who is willing to say the climate problem does not exist. The Los Angeles Times had a story today about Berkely Physicist Richard Muller, who has been hired to disparage the surface temperature record. He will testify in congress next week, even though he has not yet published anything on climate science. Among his other claims is that "Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice." Apparently he has not read this article Record Polar bear swim where the cub drowned as the mother searched for food. It is certainly easier to find an expert when they do not have to publish a single paper or read the background information! Does he count as a scientist or a politician? -
adelady at 00:59 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken Which is sort of the other side of the coin I offered. With a huge caveat. The amount of heat "absorbed" in the Arctic whether tiny or not has been enough to wreck the ice, and it won't be long before there are much longer periods with much larger areas of open water. Wherein lies two problems. Firstly the heat (however tiny or large) which was formerly directed into melting ice that was many metres thick will no longer be absorbed that way, because the ice isn't there any more. It will be freer to circulate in oceans and atmosphere. Secondly, the Arctic is exposed to more sun than the tropics during summer because of the day length. So more and more open water with much lower albedo than ice or snow is exposed for longer and longer periods to radiation from sunlight. The Atlantic and Pacific waters which were previously cooled by their entry into the Arctic will not be cooled and could in some parts be warmed. This is entirely new territory. -
Nick Palmer at 00:57 AM on 1 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Thanks Chrisd3. I'm glad the actual figure was 10 mill, even though 2 mill is still a lot bigger than 31 k... I also see that I made my point above there too in comment 1! -
KR at 00:51 AM on 1 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Perhaps, then, DSL, 'the cool shall rule' by virtue of superior vision? -
Ken Lambert at 00:45 AM on 1 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DB #25 Adelady #27 I imagine the same graph can be applied to Antarctica in the southern summer. So what does the colour on the graph mean DB? Is there a scale? Does that mean that Antarctica absorbs more heat in the southern summer than the tropics too?? I assume you mean 10N to 10S for the tropics. Adelady - my point is that the amounts of energy absorbed in Arctic ice melt are tiny compared with the purported amounts being absorbed by the Earth system globally.Moderator Response:[DB] The scale is on the graph. Black=zero insolation, white=the most insolation. The Arctic in summer receives more daily energy from the sun, both at the surface and the TOA, than does the equator (Antarctic altitude and albedo effects there lessen the impact of its summer insolation surplus):
Prev 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 Next
