Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
Comments 9051 to 9100:
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @12, you are worried about the level of antagonism in the email? I have worked for several organisations and companies, and disagreements are common enough. The one you quote is polite so nothing to be concerned about. In this case someone is being picked up for letting personal views allegedly intrude, and shows the organisation is self correcting and thus avoiding group think. However like MS says Elven was ultimately proven correct, ironically. Your email is not a smoking gun, its not even a damp fire cracker, its a nothingburger.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub at 13 " manly tree rings"
That is at best a misrepresentation. I looked through the 47 pages of data listed by PAGES 2K here. I think you should do the same, count how many data series come from trees vs the total number of series, and give a percentage that will subtantiate the word "mainly", which is rather vague. In addition to trees, it includes lake sediments, marine sediments, boreholes, gacier ice, coral, bivalve, sclerosponge, speleothem and documents. The specific proxies for these sources vary. They are compared and correlated to verify validity. The publications explain calibration and validation methods. There are papers exclusively devoted to calibration and validation.
Following the link in the OP to the PAGES 2k paper leads to these other papers:
No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
The aberrant global synchrony of present-day warming
As always, the overall weight of the evidence is what matters.
-
Eclectic at 01:48 AM on 30 November 2019There is no consensus
Klmartinson @846 ,
thank you for your "less wordy" reply ;-)
Brevity is truly the soul of wit ~ but not always the soul of precision !
#0. My comment of "low quality" applies to the AMS survey as a whole, not just to the 30% reply rate. Indeed, 30% is poor in itself, because of the dangers of self-selection and unrepresentativeness [oh, what a wordy word! ] . . . as I am sure you are very well aware yourself. As you have scrutinised the report, you will have noticed that the authors were slightly uncomfortable with the over-representation of student members and elderly/retired members (among other selection criticisms).
Best if the survey were repeated nowadays, and done more carefully, so that the survey could be of high enough quality to achieve a worthy comparison to other surveys of Consensus.
I agree the 30% is still rather poor, for the widely cited Doran survey ~ but Doran gains in strength because it closely fits with other surveys. And "your" AMS survey also loses points, because of the lamentable extent of incompletion of those forms actually returned.
And the fact that your quoted 52% was such an outlier , should have raised your suspicion that you had misinterpreted the figure or its context (or that the survey itself was faulty).
#1. Yes, there is such a thing as a "mandatory" survey.
They are far and away the best sort of survey, in assessing the Consensus accurately. [see part A of the Cook et al., 2013 survey]
#2. 50 years vs 150 years in the questions, should have produced the same answers. That it didn't do so, reflects rather poorly on the AMS members themselves (rather than on the survey itself!)
#3. Now you are adducing one winter in CONUS ?! And you "don't understand how we can have record heat and yet have record cold seasons" ?!
Hmmm ~ move another tenth of an inch in that direction . . . and some of the readers here will begin to feel you are being a tad disingenuous ;-)
#4. As I pointed out above, the survey was by definition limited to Americans. Is that a bias? It is only a bias, if the survey is falsely represented as worldwide (misrepresenting through omission).
Though I hear that a percentage of AMS members are "furriners" . . . but only a small percentage.
No, I am not shocked at such (11%) a proportion of "Flat-Earther-type" opinions in some alleged scientists. I myself know a PhD (in biological sciences) who is a proud member of his local Flat Earth Society . . . indeed, it's even worse , because he was born outside the USA !
Klmartinson, the historic record is so clear on the fact of modern global warming ~ that it takes an absolute willful blindness for any meteorologist to deny it, even back in 2012 or 2002.
#5. (which really deserves to be #6.) Klmartinson, if you read a dozen or two of the upthread comments, and if you truly think it through, then you will come to see that a survey of published scientific articles is the far superior method of determining the real consensus.
The analogy might be political surveys (examples: the Dewey/Truman 1948 election and the Clinton/Trump 2016 election) ~ inadequate survey size plus the tendency for "coyness" of replies to the vox-pop microphone or other polling method . . . results in an invalid "figure". In reality, the accurate figure is the totality of the "on-paper" survey. ;-)
-
michael sweet at 01:43 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood,
You have chosen an interesting email to post.
Scientists always challenge each others findings. Your email is a clear demonstration of the fact that scientists challenge each other. In private communitcations these arguments are heated. After they are privately discussed the scientists with the best arguments publish them. After they are published they are challenged again. Only the very best proposed answers survive this constant challenge. Even then they can be later challenged if new information turns up.
It is also interesting that you pick an email where Tom Wigley is challenging Eleven and says Eleven is being too alarmist!! Are you arguing that scientists are exaggerating warming by telling other scientists to dial back their assertions??
Further, today in 2019, the scientific consensus is clearly that Eleven was correct and that the problem is critical and must be immediately addressed. So are you arguing that someone who was correctly arguing that we needed to take inmediate steps to avoid catastrophie, perhaps before it was a clear consensus, needs to be silenced??
My read of your email is that Tom Wigley was clearly completely incorrect. His approach has threatened civilization because it has led to delay in implementing required pollution control. The denier argument that somehow this email shows that scientists are exaggerating warming and the dangers it presents is the opposite of what this email clearly shows.
-
blub at 23:28 PM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I have a couple of comments to add regarding the part: The most recent and robust such reconstruction was completed by a team of over 5,000...which produced the following chart of global temperatures over the past 2,000 years. It shows temperatures today rapidly rising above the historical record like the blade of a hockey stick.
This study is based on proxy and some real measurements, manly tree rings. Proxy measurements are not significant due to meassurment errors. Nobody has actually measured the temperature on earth with sufficient little error before about 200 years ago, therefore causality of a proxy and a model is just impossible. A statistically based study based on proxy is unsuitable because every single conclusion is insignificant by definition.
Nobody is questioning global warming, but the methods and conclusions drawn are highly questionable. Way to less data and physical understanding. Apart from high energy physics, about every physical and chemical processes possible (probably billions) are happening on earth, which may influence climate. It is just that simple, no conclusions have to be made without sound understanding. This field of study is extremly complex and statistically averaging data will only add confusion.
The authors of this study mention:"Our inferences on the multidecadal GMST variability for the Common Era are robust to all these permutations (Supplementary Figs. 17–20). Nevertheless, we cannot rule out biases due to errors in the individual proxy records and the unequal spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data (Supplementary Fig. 1). Warm-season-sensitive records from the Northern Hemisphere high and mid latitudes dominate the collection of proxy records21 , thus our results may be biased towards this region and season,..."
In science or in humans in general there is something as confirmation bias, which seems to be advancing due to the internet and social media...
-
nyood at 22:29 PM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Thank you for your view nigelj, it is confirming how polarized the debate is.
However, with the leaked emails that you quote in advance, you mention those which I agree on to be unproblematic with my sentence: "Climategate is not about scientific fraud to me, I am aware of the quotes taken out of context as a cheap trick on the far skeptical side.."
This email here by Tom Wigley might be a good quote that shows that there is concern about the antagonism amongst themselves:
"Dear Eleven,I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you
9say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” ...This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject....When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics .... I find this extremely disturbing" -
michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 29 November 2019Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Ritchie,
Good luck pinning down warming in the pipeline. This is a much discussed topic.
One problem is different scientists use different definitions of the term. Make sure you are comparing apples and apples.
Hansen has estimated a long term Whole Earth Equilibrium. That used to be double other estimates but it may have been changed. As the ice sheets melt (over hundreds of years) albedo goes down, causing more warming. Sea ice melt has started this change already. Do you care about the pipeline for the next 50 years or the final temperature in 1000 years?
Sea level rise is the same. Recent estimates of 600 million refugees by 2100 (for a moderate rise estimate) do not discuss equilibrium sea level rise (the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was 23 meters higher!!!).
You did not mention the delay caused by deep ocean warming. The ocean is a gigantic heat sink that will take hundreds of years to come to equilibrium. Sometimes 40 years is used for just the upper layers to warm.
-
richieb1234 at 20:04 PM on 29 November 2019Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Rob Painting
"Warming in the pipeline"
As a newcomer to the AGW, I realize that global warming "in the pipeline" is an important topic. Your post of February, 2012 is an excellent reference. The debate that ensued among commenters was interesting to read, with many interesting points annd counterpoints. In the final analysis, I felt that the bottom line on this topic was still up in the air.
One confusing aspect of the debate was whether the warming in the pipeline was purely from reemergence of carbon sequestered in the ocean, or did one have to include the effect of future reductions in particulates to see the effect.
Have you continued to work on this topic over the past 8 years? Do we now have more complete data and better analyses? Have the objections of "Neil" and other commenters been resolved? I would very much appreciate learning where this issue stands today. Could you point me to a source?
Thank you in advance. --richieb1234
-
klmartinson at 19:50 PM on 29 November 2019There is no consensus
Eclectic, Well, thanks for your wordy reply.
0. re: "low quality". At 30% reply rate, I don't think that it is valid to just dismiss it as "low quality". Read the paper and you will know where I get the 52% from. I did read it.
1. Is there such a thing as a mandatory survey?
2. 50 years vs 150 years. A fair point. The questions could have been better.
3. I'm sure there have been some record high temperatures in the last few years. And last winter in continental USA was the coldest in 110 years. I don't understand how we can have "record heat" and yet have "record cold seasons".
4. Yes, limited to Americans. You seem to show your bias here. Yes, it seems a shock to some that 11% of climate scientists (=200 people) in the USA do not accept or don't know that there is any warming at all. Maybe they should explain those opinions in detail, and inform us better. Maybe it has to do with the global cooling period from 1940s to 1979, or something else. I would call it anti-science to call these Science professionals Flat Earthers.
5. I don't think it is fair to equally compare a direct survey of scientists and a survey of published articles that seem to indicate an opinion. A comparison of the surveys seems to indicate that there is a correlation between a scientist's opinion and their ability to publish.
Moderator Response:[DB] "And last winter in continental USA was the coldest in 110 years"
Making things up is unhelpful. Temperatures last winter in the continental US were well-above the long-term average for winters in the continental US. These things are easily looked up.
Please comport future response to more fully comply with this site's Comments Policy (making things up falls under the category of sloganeering).
-
nigelj at 05:59 AM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @10
"However, as an every man lay when you come in contact with these leaked emails for the first time, it makes you really wonder why there is such a severe hostility towards skeptics"
The reasons for the hostility towards sceptics include the following:
1) the sceptics relentlessly mislead and cherry pick. Dont ask me for examples - read this website regularly.
2) the sceptics tie up working scientists with endless pointless information requests.
3) the sceptics verbally abuse scientists and have made death threats, particularly with M Mann, and naturally this in turn makes all climate scientists hostile towards sceptics. Why wouldn't it?
4) the sceptics relentless junk science.
This is more than enough to explain the scientists hostility towards sceptics, and if anything scientists have been very restrained and patient. As far as I'm concerned some of the sceptics should be in jail.
"The language used in these emails is concerning, they are very political and extremely polarized to a point where it makes one wonder if it is still possible for the authors to keep a scientific neutrality. As I am not sure if quoting emails is allowed here..."
Oh I'm happy to post a few from an article in Forbes, and that will be enough. We don't need too many silly lists distracting us all. I don't know if they are genuine. They are indicative of normal people dealing appropriately with difficult issues as anyone does. If they are political, its no more than any other organisation on this fine planet. There is nothing criminal, unethical or sinister, and numerous official investigations found no corruption of science.
You denialists make me laugh. You are the people with obvious political motives, mostly right wing, and with lashings of paranoia. But people with nasty suspicious minds and bad motives assume everyone is the same. News flash - we aren't all the same.
The emails:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."
This is meaningless without background context. Its a selective quote. And professional people decide content all the time, theres no indication of wrong doing.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email."
It helps to actually know something about Judith Curry then you would understand and commiserate with the scientists in question.
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email."
Oh dear oh dear. Given M Mann has received death threats and packets of white powder in the mail, and endless abusive emails. I'm going to "cut him some slack".
-
nyood at 05:12 AM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
To me Climategate is about the psychology and about the casual conversation within East Anglia, nothing more but nothing less.
Climategate is not about scientific fraud to me, I am aware of the quotes taken out of context as a cheap trick on the far skeptical side and I am aware that there is in general, some ferocity in the operating language of such an institute. I can also follow the antagonistic attitude to an extent, since the attacks by skeptics are not always fair and go on for decades now.However, as an every man lay when you come in contact with these leaked emails for the first time, it makes you really wonder why there is such a severe hostility towards skeptics. And other sentences make you wonder why a cooling or hiatus is considered to be a problem, instead of a relief when it comes towards warming as a threat.
The language used in these emails is concerning, they are very political and extremely polarized to a point where it makes one wonder if it is still possible for the authors to keep a scientific neutrality.
As I am not sure if quoting emails is allowed here, I will not risk to quote any, if it is within the policy of SkepticalScience please tell me, then we could talk about some examples which highlight political thinking and involuntary confessions.
-
BaerbelW at 03:10 AM on 29 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Jeff T @11
Thanks! The crowdfunding campaign starts next week on Dec. 3. If you‘d like to get immediately notified once the website goes live, please subscribe at crankyuncle.com
-
Jeff T at 01:54 AM on 29 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
I would like to donate to cranky uncle, but can't find a way at crankyuncle.com.
-
Doug_C at 17:02 PM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
nigelj I think so, there is very little in the way of emotional intelligence being applied to climate denial. Ironically it depends on a hostile emotional reaction on the part of the target audience of the denial campaign. They have to be motivated to oppose any policies that may impact the financial interests of the people and companies central to this.
There's no question that this decades long campaign of denial of basic reality itself has been highly effective and understands the weaknesses in the scientific method. Which would follow because it was designed by some fairly well versed scientists like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer with others like Richard Lindzen picking up the ball later.
With virtually no concern at all for the catastrophic impacts that with business as usual will likely include mass extinction on Earth that could include us humans. Sociopathic behavior of a fundamental nature I'd say.
-
nigelj at 12:36 PM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Doug_C, yes, and your description suggests the sociopathic personality type. Perhaps not every denier, but plenty of the hard core professional ones.
-
Hi18763 at 11:02 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
How can land ice be decreasing, while sea ice is increasing at the same time?
Moderator Response:[PS] Several commentators have already answered. See above.
-
scaddenp at 10:38 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
If you are in disagreement with Sweet and articles here, it would be best if you clearly stated what your disagreement is rather than have others try to guess.
-
Doug_C at 10:33 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
nigelj @7
I look at it as a them playing a zero sum game where any issue is simply just one more gambit for a total win. Wealth disparity really isn't a concern for people in that position, it is simply one more gambit to achieve greater control in the game.
It's clear this is a game for the people behind this, just as it was a game for the people behind the disinformation camapign to protect the tobacco industry for decades. It's the same methods and in some early cases like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer the same people formulating this.
It's just happening on a far greater scale because the fossil fuel sector reaches into far more aspects of our economies and our lives than the tobacco lobby ever did.
-
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"S Could you please point out that I have stated it?"
It is entirely possible that we are misunderstanding each other. Michael Sweet was pointing out what was wrong with the idea that an ozone hole was going to lead to global cooling.
You replied:
Mr sweet,
This may enlighten you
Cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Stratospheres due to Ozone Depletion
Which correctly shows that loss of ozone leads to stratigraphic cooling (but not to climatic cooling). Your manner of comment suggested that you were trying to contradict Michael Sweet. If you were trying to support his argument, then indeed, we are cross-purposes. You seemed somewhat confused between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and so I thought it might clarify matters if you explained how you thought it worked.
My understanding is this:
In the stratosphere, O3 reduces the energy reaching the surface because it traps incoming UV. (ie unlike N2, O2, and for that matter CO2, it is NOT transparent to incoming solar radiation). This warms the stratosphere but it is a cooling effect on surface climate. On the other hand, O3 is also a greenhouse gas so traps outgoing IR causing some warming. I believe the balance is towards a very small warming effect.
In the troposphere by comparison, UV is mostly absent and so the greenhouse effect is more important (but O3 levels are very low).
Reducing the O3 cools the stratosphere alright but it means there is more energy (UV) warming the surface and so no, the O3 hole is not a climate cooling mechanism.
-
barry17781 at 10:22 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.
I never stated that.
please locate the phrase that you purport to this comes from
you cannot because it is your invention.
but I do suggest that you think about what you are posting
-
barry17781 at 10:17 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas. " sweet #76
Moderator
this is an absolute falsehood, please could you ensure that it is removed.
Sweet has no knowledge of my thoughts but he may think he does! and if everybody knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas why are there so many climate deniers?
Please could sweet supply citations for both of his postulates?
-
barry17781 at 10:12 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere)." scaddemp #75
S Could you please point out that I have stated it? No you cannot because it is an invention of your imagination!
-
scaddenp at 09:30 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere,"
ie the troposphere. You appear to continue to get confused about difference between O3 in stratosphere versus effect in troposphere. Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.
In the stratosphere, ozone causes warming of the surrounding air through its interaction with incoming UV.
-
barry17781 at 09:24 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
michael sweet states
I have never heard of significant heat being let out. #70
"As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone. These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry." #76
No it does not Again Sweet comments in #76
"According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling. The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties. Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface" Sweet
Actually ozone accounts for up to 0.6 W m-2
"We all know that ozone in the stratosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet sunlight, and perhaps some people know that ozone at the Earth's surface is itself harmful, damaging people's lungs and contributing to smog.
But did you know that ozone also acts as a potent greenhouse gas? At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere, ozone captures heat much as carbon dioxide does.
"In fact, pound for pound, ozone is about 3000 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So even though there's much less ozone at middle altitudes than CO2, it still packs a considerable punch. Ozone traps up to one-third as much heat as the better known culprit in climate change. "
http://www.aoas.org/article.php?story=20080522125225466
I think that a third of that of CO2 is significant --others have it as high as 40% but sweet
#70 sweet states Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts. Neither are secondary teachers Those that ca do those that can't teach
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
scaddenp at 08:26 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I would also add that glaciers take time to come into equilibrium. Our longest glacier, the Tasman is in rapid retreat. However, even if warming stopped now (temperatures stayed about same), you can see that many more kilometers of the glaciar are basically deadmeat. The lake will continue extending up the valley but it will take a decade or so for that to happen.
-
nigelj at 08:21 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
In my experience the climate denialists who claim on internet forums that mitigating climate change will increase poverty are often the same people who downplay poverty on other forums, and who oppose government level solutions to poverty. People with inconsistent views generally aren't that bright, or they have an undisclosed personal agenda.
-
scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I would be wary of the claim "if the Earth is hotter then ever before ". Where did you find this claim? I think we can say with very strong certainty that the earth has been hotter before. Just going back to the Pliocene would be hotter but potentially other interglacials may have been warmer than now. (But note that it can take near a thousand years for earth to come into equilibrium with forcings - ocean mixing rate).
Reconstructions of past climate would suggest that it is likely we are warmer globally than any time in the holocene - the last 12000 years. It is less certain whether the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than past times in the holocene (esp NH Holocene climatic optimum).
The real concern about climate change is not what the temperature is, but how fast it is changing compared to any other time in the past. Rapid change creates adaptation stress for both the natural world and our manmade infrastructure like cities and agricultural systems.
-
michael sweet at 06:47 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi,
This myth is a little old now. Five or more years ago for a few years there was relatively high sea ice in the Antarctic. The record is not very long, only since 1979. Deniers claimed that since sea ice in the Antarctic was high, warming could not be occuring. In the past four or five years the ice area in the Antarctic has collapsed to the lowest in the record. This myth has gone out of fashion since now Antarctic sea ice is low. Land ice is also melting in the Antarctic.
To answer your question: It is believed that sea ice area in the Antarctic is strongly affected by winds. If there are a lot of offshore winds then new ice freezes near shore as existing ice is blown out to sea. Strong winds thus increase sea ice area. Around 2010 the winds in the Antarctic were stronger offshore than they had been before that time. It is not completely clear why the winds were stronger. It may have been due to natural variation or it may have been due to some climate change affect or the result of the ozone hole affecting wind. Now the winds are more similar to what they used to be and warmer ocean temperatures are melting more sea ice.
The land ice in the Antarctic is most strongly affected by the temperature of the ocean. As AGW warms the ocean the land ice melts faster where it enters the sea. This affect is slow to start because the ocean is warmed in the Tropics and then currents slowly move the warm water all the way to the Antarctic. Currently, especially in West Antarctica, the ocean is warming and melting the great ice sheet. The warmer ocean does not affect the sea ice as much as the wind did.
So if you have strong offshore winds the sea ice increases while increasing ocean temperatures melt the ice sheet. In general, the ice sheet is more important since if it melts hundreds of millions of people will be flooded, including much of Florida and other coastal states. Sea ice does not affect sea level.
There are more complications if you look more in depth. Warmer air causes snowfall to increase. If snowfall increases enough the East Antarctic ice sheet (which is much bigger than the West Antarctic ice sheet) may increase in size even as the edges melt faster from the warmer ocean. It is difficult to measure the exact balance of the East Ice sheet because it is so remote and cold and big. An error of a few centimeters per year would be significant.
Wunderground (weather blog) has had a series of blogs on measuring the snowfall in East Antarctic here is the last one. Currently it is believed that the East Ice Sheet is very slowly losing mass but that could change (either up or down) depending on how much CO2 is eventually emitted.
-
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi. While the current situation has seaice decreasing, it is entirely possibly to have increased melt from ice sheet and increasing sea ice. This was the situation a few years ago. Drivers for both sea and land ice are different between Antarctica and Arctic due to the major geogeographic difference - Antarctica is a continent, 2000m high at pole, surrounded entirely by ocean whereas the arctic is a landlocked sea. Sea ice in the Antarctic responds to a complex set of factors which have quite a lot variability. See this post for more detail. We could easily have a return to increasing seaice. However, the very long term trend is likely to be reduction as the warming sea temperature dominate, over wind-driven dispersal and decreased saliinity. The decrease in ozone loss should also reduce wind dispersal.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:22 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi,
How did you get the impression that sea ice is increasing?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:20 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
Hi,
your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with paleoclimate data and what the science shows for the the more recent times. The moderator's suggestions are good places to start.
-
Hi18763 at 03:49 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I have a question, if the Earth is hotter then ever before, then how come there are tree stumps underneath the Juneau icefield? For the tree stumps to be there, the icefield couldn't been there since trees don't grow in ice. And for the trees to grow there, the Juneau ice field must have formed after the trees grew, then left the trees stumps there after freezing the area. So back then it was hot enough, then the Earth cooled forming the Juneau ice fied. Meaning that this is NOT the hottest period in the Earth's history. Right?
Moderator Response:[DB] The Earth is not in radiative balance with forcings and will continue to warm for some time yet until that balance is reached. Beyond that, warming is uneven. Further, current levels of the warming of the globe likely exceed those found both in the Holocene and in the previous interglacial, the Eemian.
Alaska glaciers have only been recently declining, reversing a 8,000 year period of growth and expansion:
Per McKay et al 2018 - The Onset and Rate of Holocene Neoglacial Cooling in the Arctic
"Arctic summer temperatures have decreased for the past 8,000 years, before rapidly warming over the past century. As temperatures cooled, glaciers that had melted began to regrow throughout the Arctic, a phenomenon and a time interval known as Neoglaciation.
This study seeks to understand the nature of this cooling and whether or not this indicates a tipping point in the climate system. Specifically, we use a large database of records from ice cores, lakes, ocean sediment, and more paleoclimate archives to detect patterns of cooling. We investigate these patterns, and climate model simulations, to determine what parts of the Arctic experienced Neoglaciation at the same time, how rapidly it cooled, and what climate models indicate about the causes of cooling.
We find that the Arctic did not cool simultaneously, but different regions cooled at different times and that the climate models perform well when simulating both the timing and amount of Arctic cooling."
Further, recent climate warming in the central Yukon region has surpassed the warmest temperatures experienced in the previous 13,600 years.
Porter et al 2019 - Recent summer warming in northwestern Canada exceeds the Holocene thermal maximum
Warming to match forcings takes time. Be patient.
[TD] See also this post. And then this one. And finally this one. Note that some of those posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes.
-
Hi18763 at 03:36 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
How can sea ice increase and land ice decrease at the same time?
Moderator Response:[DB] Both Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice daily extents are currently well-below the long term average of all decades prior since 1979. Land-based ice continues to be lost with losses increasing in recent decades. See here, here, here, here and here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:22 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
To be even clearer regarding my comment @5,
Every action that increases the acceptance and support for expanding awareness and improvement of understanding among the general population is helpful.
This particular course of action is brilliant, but it needs to be understood to ultimately be limited when it comes to getting the required corrections of developed economic activity and the related corrections of developed attitudes in the population.
It is becoming clearer that it will be necessary for Government intervention in the economy, especially limiting and correcting misleading marketing, especially political marketing. A focus on achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals can highlight the problem by exposing how many Leadership Contender actions are contrary to achieving those essential objectives, and highlight which groups and individuals are the worst offenders.
What needs to be understood is that the requirement is to develop enough support, a tipping point of support, for Leadership that is willing to disappoint a significant very vocal, easily angered, and very 'sure to vote' portion of the population.
A significant number of people have been tempted to develop a powerful liking for winning by behaving in an understandably incorrect and ultimately unsustainable way. Competing for status based on impressions of popularity and wealth will develop those harmful ways of thinking and acting.
Critical thinking skills and expanded awareness will not change those type of minds (as examples, think of the people with relevant scientific credentials who still gleefully play on the side of the delayers). Their lack of interest in responsibly self-governing their behaviour means that they will need to be Governed in ways that Limit their ability to do what they would like to do.
Significant Government Intervention in the economy is required, particularly significant corrective actions regarding misleading marketing, especially political marketing, even if those actions may be claimed to be harmful restrictions on Freedom of Action or Freedom of Belief.
Leadership is the challenge of deciding who to please and who to disappoint. It is harder to properly Lead when a significant portion of the population have been easily tempted into benefiting by believing what they want to excuse doing what they like. They will readily claim that anything contrary to their interests is an unjustified restriction of Freedom, even if they have developed critical thinking skills and are exposed to expanded awareness and improved understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:35 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Efforts to reduce the ability of people to be misled regarding climate science are helpful. But the influence is limited and may not solve the problem.
A significant reason that people do not accept the expanded awareness and improving understanding of climate science is that they have developed a powerful desire to personally benefit from being incorrect. As I mentioned, even engineers who make a living through critical thinking and pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding can be powerfully resistant to learning about climate science.
That harmful selfishness is so powerful that the deniers of climate science have moved on to claiming that forcing the reduction of fossil fuel use, rather than just letting the economy do what it will do with minimal external governing interference, will cripple the reduction of poverty or social improvements and cripple environmental protection actions.
Those arguments about the 'Good being Done' make the incorrect claim that it can only happen because of fossil fuel use. And since it is simple to know that fossil fuel use will have to end, and that poverty reduction can occur in regions where there is very little fossil fuel use, there is a large percentage of the population who appear to be willing to benefit from getting away with being wrong.
The developed socioeconomic-political environment is what is developing those powerful desires to benefit from being wrong. People who will not helpfully self-limit their behaviour, people who will not willingly be less harmful to Others, require external governing contrary to their desires.
Correction of the developed socioeconomic-political systems will be hard work, but it is really what is required in order to accomplish the degree of climate action that is now required because of the success of selfishness through the past 30 years. Leaders will have to be very unpopular in a Helpful Corrective Way, like the Australian Leadership that put a significant Helpful Corrective dent in Gun Culture in Australia.
-
Nick Palmer at 01:10 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Of course, the denialosphere have been using cartoons for years, in particular those of 'Josh'.
-
Eclectic at 22:46 PM on 27 November 2019There is no consensus
Klmartinson @844 ,
Unfortunately the study you mention (of the AMS/ametsoc) is of a much lower quality than other "consensus" studies . . . so it is difficult to draw much of a conclusion from it.
I am not sure where you got the 52 (versus 97%) figure from. From the chart of stated results, "52" is simply not an accurate representation of the views of the AMS members who participated in the electronic survey.
## Did you yourself read the report ~ or are you only passing on a hearsay version of the survey?
The other failings of the survey are many :-
#1. Only a voluntary survey, and with only a 30% return (Doran, for example, had only a 30% return . . . but the AMS survey returns contained a considerable number where only part of the survey was answered).
#2. The authors admitted a blunder, in that they had asked about causation of global warming over 150 years . . . and a significant number of respondents later made contact to say they would have upgraded their answer if the question had been for the most recent 50 years.
#3. The survey was taken in 2012 . . . and a great amount of change has happened in the 7 years since then e.g. the so-called Pause has disappeared, and record high temperatures have followed.
#4. The survey was (per definition) limited largely to Americans ~ a nation where there is strange & bizarre percentage of the population who are so influenced by Motivated Reasoning, that they reject plain evidence about AGW, evolution, age of the Earth, etcetera. So is rather far from representative of meteorologists or scientists worldwide. You will also notice that only 89% of respondents acknowledged any global warming at all . . . in other words for 11% their beliefs were at the Flat Earth level of science denial.
#5. The authors themselves pondered the observation that controversy (at the political/partisan level) had caused a percentage of AMS members to "disengage" with the AGW issue during the (then) recent years, and to express themselves less definitely about the scientific facts. Sad to see such a defense mechanism!! ~ but it did seem to "tone down" the definitiveness of answers given to the survey. One would like to think that the meteorologists of the AMS are more courageous in 2019 ~ and I have heard hints that is so . . . but of course that won't show up in the 2012 survey !
In all, it was an overly-simple survey of 4 main points. Even so, it was like the other "consensus" surveys, in that it showed that the greater the climate scientific expertise (of the meteorologists) the greater the agreement with the scientific mainstream.
Klmartinson, you will find much more reliability from consensus surveys such as the contemporaneous Cook et al. 2013 survey, where the "return rate" was in effect about 100% ~ and the clever design of Cook eliminated the influence of bias (bias from personal and social factors) . . . and giving a robust 97%. (Actually more than 99% consensus, based on recent years' evidence).
-
Wibblefish at 22:30 PM on 27 November 2019It's the sun
Reading though the comments, there are mentions of the cooling/warming effects of El Nina/Nino. Looking at this from a marine biologist perspective, I'd like to bring up the effects of climate change on tropical coral, particulary in the indian ocean and south pacific and how examining coral biodiversity records could be used to support AGW. Coral live between a fairly narrow temperature range. Extreme rises in temperature lead to bleaching and usually coincide with el nino events where vast bodies of warmer become trapped in the indian ocean and southern pacific. What we are seeing is a decline in biodiversity and massive bleaching events in the last 30 years, notable events in 1998, 2005 and 2017. Studying in the Maldives, there was evidence of coral recovery but ONLY for a few species compared to what can be found in historical records. Then the whole system got hit again in 2017 so back to square 1. To me, it is apparent that such a delicate ecosystem can be thriving for thousands of years and then hammered by prolonged, frequent, intense el nino events in a short space of time is a smoking gun. The reversal of trade winds seems to hinge on a delicate energetic balance in the atmosphere. I don't know why it's difficult to comprehend that insulating energy would change the dynamics of a system.
-
klmartinson at 18:09 PM on 27 November 2019There is no consensus
I would like to know how this survey of Climate Scientists in the USA , which says that 52% think that human activity is warming the planet, relates with the 97% study. Surely, this is a big difference.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
-
Doug_C at 15:29 PM on 27 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
My experience with climate deniers both directly in my life and others I've met in impersonal formats like online forums is they attach the climate change issue to emotion and personal identity. It is hard to reason with someone when first of all what you are saying causes an emotional reaction, it doesn't stimulate a critical thought process. And secondly when what you are presenting threatens their personal identity.
Something like this would seem to open a back door into the discussion where people stop reacting with emotion and feel like they are being threatened. Instead of a cold analytical description of a complex crisis we have a game designed to allow a much freer flow of accurate information on multiple issues.
Something like this offers multiple benefits as it is effective across a broad spectrum of groups especially younger people. And it will be almost impossible to counter by the climate denial campaign as more and more users become skilled in identifying the denial techniques.
Impressive, I'd say.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:37 PM on 27 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
nigelj,
I share your concern about the repetition of Fictional claims being a significant mechanism for developing and strengthening the popularity of the belief.
Learning critical-thinking to spot misinformation will help, but it requires more of the non-Fiction details to be readily available. It also requires a person to want to seek out the non-fiction and use it to more quickly spot misinformation on an issue.
That desire to expand awareness and improve understanding appears to be lacking in the populations of the supposedly most advanced nations. I even found it lacking among fellow engineers when it came to climate science, even though an engineer can only properly perform their job by expanding awareness and improving understanding and applying critical thinking - no gut reactions allowed.
What I see as a bigger problem is that the general population is not exposed to the Non-Fiction more than the Fictions.
If the Non-Fiction was seen more often it would be harder for the Fictions to stay standing.
Many things probably keep the Non-Fiction from being seen more than the Fiction including:
- the damaging belief by media owners and reporters that they need to present Balance and avoid 'appearing to be biased'. That leads to reluctance to do what needs to be done.
- The social shift towards Quicker: It takes longer to properly present the Non-Fiction.
- The social shift towards Image/Impression rather than Reasoned Substance: An incorrect but passionate gut response can win over a detailed evaluation of the evidence.
- The dominance of Self Interest: It negates concern for Others, especially Others in the future generations.
- The social technological shift to 'not have to see or hear what you don't care to see or hear'.
- The pursuit of status being measured by popularity or profitability. How harmful the pursuit is will be irrelevant if it succeeds, even just regionally, temporarily, on election day.
-
nigelj at 08:18 AM on 27 November 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
Excellent video on climate economics. From economist Professor Steve Keen.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 27 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Imho this critical thinking and teaching awareness of logical fallacies is such important work if we want people, especially young people to be informed and make good decisions. I was lucky enough to stumble across a book on logical fallacies while quite young. It's sad that more people weren't talking about all this in the early years of the climate issue, but better late than never, and it will help with many issues beyond the climate issue.
The denialists are in many cases a core group of professional hired guns with no ethical scruples about what they say. It all radiates from there to member's of the public who repeat what they say, all well documented in books like Dark Money and Merchants of doubt.
However there's another perplexing problem discussed in this article. " Repetition is what makes fake news work, too, as researchers at Central Washington University pointed out in a study way back in 2012 before the term was everywhere. It's also a staple of political propaganda. It's why flacks feed politicians and CEOs sound bites that they can say over and over again. Not to go all Godwin's Law on you, but even Adolf Hitler knew about the technique. "Slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea," he wrote in Mein Kampf."
This seems like a difficult problem for people to expose and unwind, because every time we discuss some fake statement it repeats the fake statement. Yet its also important to expose falsehoods or they gain traction. It's a perplexing issue.
-
michael sweet at 05:40 AM on 27 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Barry,
As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone. These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry.
I will address your comment at 71 on stratospheric ozone first. According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling. The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties. Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface.
The total warming caused by CO2 pollution is much larger (about 1.7 W/m2 in 2011). Larger amounts of CFC pollution would result in more warming, not cooling as you suggest. Dr. Hansen's 1989 projections, especially the high emission pathway, overestimated warming somewhat because the Montreal protocol resulted in CFC emissions being lower than he projected (more emissions mean more heating).
Your comment at 72 addresses tropospheric ozone. Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas. It causes warming when increases in trophospheric ozone occur. Ozone is not even on the table in my reference above. The contribution of CO2 is much greater because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over time while ozone is destroyed and does not accumulate.
I stand by my comment that " I have never heard of significant heat being let out." The Realclimate post I linked starts out "One of the most common mistakes that we have observed in discussions of climate and atmospheric change is confusion between the rather separate concepts of ozone depletion and global warming." When I taught High School students often confused climate change and ozone depletion. As Realclimate states, they are different problems, although they are tangentially related.
The original question from post 69 was "They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs". The answer is scientists have never said that CFC's would cause an ice age to occur. The person who asked the question was either misinformed or attempting to mislead others with a false question.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 27 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
In my final edit of my comment @24, made while re-watching the video, I failed to pick up that the following bullet does not apply.
"And it is further out of bounds to to say that the uncorrected data is “... the chart that the BOM used previously ...”."
That bullet does not apply since the comment was an accurate reference to the chart of adjusted data before the latest adjustments were made. It was one of the few 'correct statements made'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:45 AM on 27 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
To be clear, my comment @24 is regarding the video clip link in prove we are smart's comment @21.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:40 AM on 27 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
I drafted this earlier, but then had errands to run, and MA Rogers has provided a great reply.
However, applying the advice of other wise commentators at this site I had a little fun making fun of this. So I am sharing it.
Also, the parts at the end of my original draft (still there) about the guy needing to get a new job leads me to suggest a possible action that could be helpful.
In Canada every business with a broadcasting licence can have complaints about inappropriate content result in regulatory actions from the CRTC, the Licence Governing body. In addition, the Advertising Standards Council acts on complaints about misleading advertising. If similar Institutions exist in Australia, you could submit parallel complaints to the Licence Governing body and the Advertising Standards Council about this specific episode being inappropriate content that is also misleading advertising.
You could also use MA Rogers points to help your friends improve their awareness and understanding by pointing out the many gross errors made by this Guy in this episode.
No Copyright on this comment. Like any comment I make here, it is offered for all to improve, correct, and use as they see fit.
Here are the Key Points presented sort of as they come up during this entertaining, though admittedly annoyingly incorrect, presentation (unlike some entertainment, even vaguely educational, except as a Bad Example). Think of it as similar to a Sportscaster's Play-by-play, or Game Bloopers bit.
The entire game played was a Massive Miss regarding Global Warming evaluation. The global warming trend is best seen in the global average of surface temperature data, not selected local data sets. And that data needs to be reviewed and adjusted for things like changes of conditions at the monitoring locations that affect the temperature measurement at that specific location, including improvements to the monitoring equipment set-up or the local relocation of the monitoring equipment.
The reasons for adjusting the raw data is explained by Australia's BoM here.But let's play along anyway:
- Melbourne is not 'the hot spot of Australia'. And even though Adelaide, or other locations, may be thought of as a similar location, the history of data for Melbourne would be the only relevant data set to review when discussing the hot day in Melbourne (why are other locations like Glen Innes and Lismore near Brisbane not Melbourne, brought up later instead of Melbourne).
- That makes it a clear offside to then leap to talk about data for all of Australia.
- And it is further out of bounds to to say that the uncorrected data is “... the chart that the BOM used previously ...”.
- The guy then attempts to fool the fans by claiming that the previous adjusted data chart, before the more recent better understood and applied correction, indicates more very warm days earlier compared to current years. It actually appears to have more hot days in the recent years, yet he says the opposite, without any explanation. Then he brings up the totally unadjusted data presentation as if it is relevant.
- The item by item descriptions of the 'corrections made to the raw data' are essential. This fiction pitcher dismisses the importance of detailed understanding, because it would shatter the illusion he is trying to create.
Then there is More:
- Another Big Miss in understanding is the importance of presenting how much warmer than 40 C each of the days noted as warmer than 40 C actually was. 40.1 C is incorrectly counted as being the same as 45 C. So, the entire babble about how difficult it is to figure out the number of days warmer than 40 C is another attempt to fool the fans that JoNova happily plays along with. The truth is that such an exercise in an exercise in irrelevance, and someone like JoNova probably knows that.
- Then, on top of the pile of mistakes so far, he makes the massive leap to questioning the legitimacy of a politician who says they understand that global climate change is happening because of the science.
- He then cherry picks 2 location data sets, and makes claims about them, without rigorous proof of the claims (as MA Rogers covers), or any consideration of what may have been regionally going on in Australia's past compared to what was going on globally (like the much warmer than global average 1930s and 1940s in the USA).
- He then makes a Blind Leap of Faith that Fails to Land, by jumping to assertions that unusually cold snowy weather, climate change, cannot be the result of global warming. He appears unaware that the global average has only increased by 1.0 C since the 1800s and that most of that warming was in the Arctic. And an added blindness of his is that the nights are warming ore than the daytime (the minimums that MA Rogers mentions) everywhere. That means that the increase in average daytime highs everywhere other than the Arctic is less than 1.0 C, which questions the legitimacy of the argument that some cherry-picked regional data shows very little sign of increased daytime highs.
- He also fails to compare the frequency of record highs being set vs. record lows being set.
- So, on top of all the other inaccuracies and misleading claims, the evaluation should be done on the average of day and night temperatures, not the maximum day temperature.
His presentation shoots and missed on so many counts. So much Missing. Someone should be 'changing his career' (his team manager needs to do that because this guy appears to be clueless). Maybe a letter could be sent to his bosses questioning his ability to correctly interpret and report information. It appears he lacks the ability to properly Report evidence-based understanding. Maybe Sports would be 'his thing' (sportscasters are the Entertainers of Information Reporters, even more so than Entertainment Reporters).
The Sportscasters might welcome him, but I doubt that. Even a Sportscaster has to get the scores and statistics correct, and know what game they are talking about.
Most important, anyone trying to claim they won based on this guy's reporting would be in serious trouble. Claiming to win of a bet with a friend based on this guy's reporting should seriously affect the friendship, hopefully by the friend having pity and trying to help educate the fooled one. Trying to get paid by a bookie based on this guy's reporting would be worse. Bookies are not interested in Helping Others, and bookies base their actions on a detailed understanding of the facts.
-
scaddenp at 12:14 PM on 26 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere).
-
scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 26 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas in the troposphere.
However, your paper was on stratospheric cooling and looking at the effect of stratospheric ozone. It did not seem pertinent in any way to Michael sweet point. ie the wierd idea that hole in ozone layer was going to cool the earth. I am asking what you think the relevance of your quoted paper on stratospheric cooling is to this question. The ozone in the stratosphere is generated by UV interactions in the stratosphere. It is not a pollutant coming up from the troposphere.
-
barry17781 at 11:06 AM on 26 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
scaddamp,
It is often quoted that many gases such as carbon dioxide , methane and water heat up the eath by allowing visible light to enter and block the infrared radiation coming out.
Amongst these gases ozone is often included for it too is purportedly acting in a similar way.
Are you therefore suggesting that Ozone in the troposphere does not have such an effect? I think the Climate Kids would dissagree with you.
"Close to the ground, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas and can be formed by burning gas in cars and factories" Re The climate kids!
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-cards/
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
