Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 Next
Comments 92801 to 92850:
-
RSVP at 07:00 AM on 12 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
michael sweet 26 The job of a teacher is to teach people how to think, not "having things explained".Moderator Response: [DB] There are those that regrettably force us to do the latter because they refuse to do the former. -
perseus at 06:50 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Chemware Be aware that Answers.com (the non-user edited part of the same site) actually uses direct copies of Wikipedia articles as well as other sources. This was their original business model. Contributors on wiki.answers are advised to research their answer using this tool. However, without rigorous supervision by a scientifically literate supervisory board it quickly degenerates into a political opinion board A serious problem with the wiki.answers part of the site is their policy on AGW: "… On the site, we consider Global Warming to be as debatable a topic as Politics or Religion. This is why we allow for multiple viewpoints and opinions…." we have attempted to change this without success -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 12 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
TIS @ 31... But you can quite easily look at the radiative forcing associated with insolation and see how that relates to the radiative forcing of GHG's. If you compare those figures I believe you're going to see that an enhanced greenhouse effect is going to overwhelm any orbitally forced cooling. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Camburn - are you listening to anything? Firstly, the concern about climate is what the future will bring. If climate modelling predicted particularly bad things happening to US now that arent, then you would have a point. The concern is that climate models are doing well at predicting climate and those future consequences look ugly. Secondly, your also seem to be saying that no matter if US emissions are causing a problem for rest of planet, so long as they dont trouble the US, then no reason to take action. You expect us to respect this view? You arent convinced there is a problem, and your posting history suggests you search out reasons for believing that. Okay, but assuming that you are prepared to have your decision-making informed by data, what is the data that cause you to change your mind in the future? What indicators would look at 20 years down the track where you would think, "whoops, got it wrong". On the other foot, for me climate science is putting out a lot of predictions. If they turn out wrong beyond the levels of uncertainty, then I would accept (with great pleasure as an oil and coal man) that science was wrong. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 06:22 AM on 12 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
#27 Chem, That has been discussed here and here. #29 Ark, One frustrating aspect of the debate to me is that I would prefer that CO2 cause warming because the alternative is cooling. Despite arguments that the Holocene is comparable to the Hoxnian Interglacial, the insolation curves are very different. I am not convinced (no need to link to the papers, I have read them) that CO2 will cause warming, but I am convinced that the orbital cycle will cause cooling. So preparing for warming when cooling is more probable is a very bad response. -
dana1981 at 05:53 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Yes, there's the psychological aspect that people will tend to find ways to believe what they want to believe. However, for open-minded people who simply aren't sure which "side" to believe, the appeal to the authority of the scientific consensus is a valid approach. -
dana1981 at 05:51 AM on 12 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
FYI, this aritcle has been re-posted on TreeHugger. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:36 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
I've seen many deniers accusing Tamino of cherry picking 1975 as the start of the modern global warming period. The accusation has no merit. That year is the pivotal point where the behavior of the temperature time series changes in a totally unambiguous fashion, thus the choice is perfectly legitimate. It is justified by statistical analysis, not other considerations. Tamino has explained this a number of times and even showed the mathematical details. -
Chris G at 05:28 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Dana, I agree; though Dunning-Kruger effects come into play. I guess that in those situations, the appeal to authority (consensus) is still about the only option. Of course that leads directly to the "There is no consensus." "Yes, there is." that we see play out so many times. Or, "Science by consensus isn't science." "The consensus was reached after the science, not before." Which leads to conspiracy theories, etc., which often degrade to something like, "So, your position is that Al Gore created the concept of global warming in order to increase taxes and create a world government more than 50 years before he was born? Hmmm." -
dana1981 at 05:11 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
protestant #38 a) Tamino didn't subtract the AMO because there's no reason to. Christy didn't subtract it either. Like ENSO, it's just another oscillation which has no impact on the long-term global temperature trend. You provided no evidence to support your "cherrypicking" accusation, so I'm just going to ignore it. b) As Rob said in #39, if you want us to consider specific papers, you'll have to reference specific papers rather than just throwing out random "skeptic" names. c) Yes, I wrote an article on Dessler (2010) which is linked in this post. d) I didn't dismiss anything. I responded to Christy's testimony, which specifically talked about cloud feedbacks. Moreover, Spencer's 'internal forcing' hypothesis is based on nothing more than correlations. e) Christy was the one who brought up the consensus. If you don't like it, take it up with him. -
muoncounter at 05:08 AM on 12 March 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Here's a link to the original GISS statement about the summer 2010 heat wave from the extreme weather thread. Add in the fact that there were severe European heat waves in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010; it's hard to shrug that off as 'natural variation.' -
dana1981 at 05:00 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Chris G - that's certainly a challenge, and why the climate disinformation campaign has been so successful. It can be very difficult to figure out who to believe when being told two opposite things. At the Congressional hearing, it would be difficult to know if Christy was right or if Sommerville was right, without first having some basic understanding of climate science. That's where the consensus comes in. Sure, unless you actually learn about the science first, it's an appeal to authority. But we appeal to authority all the time. There are "skeptics" like Christy telling us that global warming is nothing to worry about, but reality is that they're in the vast minority. For people who are unwilling or unable to learn basic climate science, I think it's hard to justify rejecting the consensus expert conclusion on the subject. If 9 out of 10 doctors say you need surgery, you'd probably be smart to get the surgery. -
RickG at 04:59 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Protestant, None of what you posted. appears to have anything to do with this topic. However, I will comment one of your notes. e) Science isn't about the so called "consensus". It is about testing hypothesis. Consensus is related to politics, not science. The consensus in science is what the majority of published peer review literature supports. It has nothing to do with politics. -
Albatross at 04:58 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Protestant, So to detract from inconvenient truths and defend Christy's misconduct you start making a long list of accusations against others. I can only assume that means that you agree with Christy misleading congress and lying by omission. I'll let Dana address your red herrings and strawmen. AGW is supported by consilience, which goes way beyond consensus. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:58 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
protestant... Regarding"b", you need to point out which papers from these people. What about which papers were not accounted for. Just dropping names is pretty meaningless. -
Albatross at 04:52 AM on 12 March 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
TOP @29, Sigh, please carefully read my post again @2. Note that I conclude by saying "It is a little too soon to speak to the role of AGW in the Russian heat wave that killed an estimated 40-50 thousand , but early indications are that it too was exacerbated by AGW." And that bolded part is where Monckton misleads people and gets it wrong. For goodness' sakes meteorologists have known for a long time that there is a relationship between strong ridging and blocking events and heat waves (and drought) in the mid-latitudes (see for example Lyon and Dole 1995, J. Climate). What Monckton claims is nothing new. Also, the 2003 heat-wave event that I referred to was associated with blocking, for at least a portion of its duration. Yet, you and Monckton forget the findings made by Stott et al. (2004) which I link to in my post @2. Blocking events superimposed on an underlying warming trend will be worse than otherwise, and there was an anthro signal/contribution in the 2003 European heat wave. Again, please read Stott et al. (2004). I'm pretty certain that journal papers published on the Russian heat wave will find an anthropogenic contribution, albeit it (probably) of secondary importance to the blocking. And as muoncounter showed, you misrepresented the preliminary NOAA report. As muoncounter mentioned, research has found that as the planet as warmed, so too has the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events in Europe (e.g., Klein Tank and Konnen, 2003, J. Climate). Monckton (and you TOP) are trying to play (way you think) is a very clever sleigh of hand to confuse lay people and muddy the waters, but it is not going to fool those in the know. A far more interesting scientific question than Monckton's uninformed musings is how the warming and associated changes in precipitation etc. might affect the location, frequency, intensity and blocking events in the future. -
protestant at 04:36 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Some notes: a) Tamino didnt substract AMO (but made straw men against it), and cherry picked the trend which is most positive. b) The "hot spot" rebuttal you have linked into doesn't account several papers, which it should have (like Christy et al, Klotzbach et al, McKitrick et al). c) Have you actually taken a careful look in the Dessler paper? His R^2 is 0,02 which means either that the relationship is not linear or there is not enough observations (propably both). He had nothing to publish. d) You dismissed Spencers arguments about forcing vs feedback with pure arm-waving (Clement et al also suffers from this spesific point), S&B 2008 and 2010 not cited and not accounted for. e) Science isn't about the so called "consensus". It is about testing hypothesis. Consensus is related to politics, not science. -
Chris G at 04:29 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
I was at a talk given by Dr. Jack Kaye of NASA not long ago and one of the questions afterward was something like, "Some people tell us one thing, and others tell us something else; how do we know which is right?" I've been thinking about that question off and on ever since. If you don't have a pretty good understanding of the physical sciences, how do you know? It all comes down to an appeal to authority, doesn't it? And the majority doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what makes a good authority and what doesn't. They've no idea of the difference between a research article published in Nature and someone's blog. Sometimes I dismay at people's inability to see through someone's argument when they make some assertion, someone else counters it with evidence, and they change the assertion and carry on. How do you convince someone of something they don't want to believe if they don't have any understanding of the subject, don't recognise what makes a good authority, and don't even have reasonably good skills at judging debates? I don't know that it is possible. -
Albatross at 04:20 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
RickG @35, Hmm, I could only find two papers (out of the 15), which to my knowledge were written by actively-publishing scientists and did not include Christy. And only one of those was by reputable climate scientists. By my count, Christy was an author in 8of the 14 peer-reviewed papers he cites. There is an Energy and Environment paper in there which I included being as peer-reviewed, but we know the debate surrounding that particularly dubious "journal". Christy did not reference Spencer and Braswell properly, it is incomplete. -
Albatross at 04:10 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
RickG @35, Good question. I will have a look-- I suspect fellow contrarians and "skeptics". -
RickG at 03:49 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Albatross: "Also interesting is that Christy was a co-author on 60% of the references in his written testimony." Wonder who the other 40% were by. -
Albatross at 03:32 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Dana @33, "Also interesting is that Christy was a co-author on 60% of the references in his written testimony." Interesting,so much for considering all opinions and all of the scientific understanding. It really irks me that "skeptics" (falsely) point the finger at the IPCC for allegedly excluding "dissenting" views and then go and do stuff like this. -
dana1981 at 03:31 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
logicman #7 - actually the link you provide is a good example of what I'm talking about. Yes, there were several terrible answers to that misleading question, including the "best answer" chosen by the asker. But there were also several very good answers which can still be read. On Answers.com, only one answer would have survived the process. Anne-Marie - indeed, due to the sheer volume of questions on Answers.com, and the site's flawed system in answering them, many are never fact-checked. That's exactly the problem. Plus the systematic abuse by the Supervisors, and the fact that they treat climate science the same as religion and politics, so frankly they seem to think facts don't really matter. WSteven - thanks. All we can do is highlight and debunk some of the misinformation that's out there and hope people will listen. -
dana1981 at 03:24 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Albatross - yes, see comments #13 and #14 regarding Santer's take on Christy's testimony. I agree it's very misleading to present the flawed findings of the Douglass paper without even mentioning the fact that the paper has been refuted. Also interesting is that Christy was a co-author on 60% of the references in his written testimony. -
Albatross at 03:20 AM on 12 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Angus, As shown by the moderator's comment, your post in itself is misinformation Angus. The intended message of your post--that Hansen was wrong then and therefore whatever he does now too will be wrong or inaccurate. That is disingenuous, because the reasons for the discrepancies with Hansen's forecast (made way back then in 1988) have been discussed on the relevant thread-- so repeating it here without context and without a discussion of the reasons is misleading and amounts to perpetuating misinformation. You also fail to mention Hansen's more recent work which has superseded those early efforts = misinformation. You are living in the past and it is misleading (and misinformation) to suggest to readers here that the current generation of AOGCMs have not improved in leaps and bounds since those early days of climate modeling, as evidenced by the impressive figure shown in my post @63. The models will never be perfect, but as you see @63 they are doing very well considering the complexity of the climate system. Further, observations show that the IPCC estimates for sea-level rise and Arctic ice loss (amongst other metrics) have been too conservative. You paint a picture of alarmism by omission-- that is misinforming readers here. It is time to start applying the breaks. -
Albatross at 02:56 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Dikran @31, Camburn seems to be trying very hard to derail this thread-- so I do not want to entertain his attempts to do so. But, if you look at the CEI (Climate Extremes Index) that I link to a 22, it shows a distinct increasing trend since the early 70s. Now what I am more concerned with is the fact that Christy deliberately, knowingly mislead congress. Funny how that fact is ignored by the 'skeptics'. These findings are troubling and do not reflect at all well on the tactics, ethics and science of a prominent 'skeptic', so I can understand that the 'skeptics' want to distract form that very real problem too. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:31 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
"I have shown by link from NOAA that precip patterns in the US have not really changed." ah well, that is O.K. then! ;o) "This is not denial, this is accepting what the data is showing." No, it is accepting what some of the data is showing, which is consistent with denial. Is there any reason to prefer the FSU study over any of the others? -
Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
johnd - The 30 year period was chosen based on the data; a period long enough to cover several cycles of variations such the ENSO, in order to filter out observed variability and look for long term trends. Since the inherent variability time-scale of the climate appears not to have changed much in the last century (although there is some evidence that the amplitude of weather extremes may be increasing, variation times have not), 30 years is still an entirely reasonable trend averaging. It's just simple statistics. What justification do you have for proposing changing that averaging length? I don't see that it could be shortened (after all, you want to average a couple of ENSO events to see trends outside the variation) - do you have any evidence showing that it should be longer? -
JMurphy at 01:40 AM on 12 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
True enough, RickG, but the so-called skeptics would like to extend that to hundreds, thousands, etc. so that they can then say that we won't know, until that amount of time is over, whether AGW is happening or not. However, from the WMO link I gave previously, they do state that less than 30 years can be used to determine certain trends, but that is even worse news for the so-called skeptics : first, because it means we know now how AGW is affecting the globe, and secondly, because they will get very confused from year to year to decade - proclaiming global cooling one year/decade; 'flattening' temperatures the next year/decade; uncertaintly the next year/decade, etc. as they try to use whatever time-period they can to try to make different claims depending on what they think they can get away with. Oh, they already do that... Anyway, perhaps we should leave it to the particular experts in that particular field (i.e. those at the 'coal-face', so to speak, who know what they are talking about) to determine what they consider the best time period to use. It won't please the minority in other fields, who like to claim some sort of right or self-proclaimed expertise but who are on the outside looking in, but such is life. -
WSteven at 01:18 AM on 12 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Dana, I applaud your efforts. Denialists can't be allowed to carry on unchallenged with their misinformation campaign. The few people undecided on the issue must be disgusted by the whole "Debate", but at least you give the scientific facts a fighting chance. As I discuss Climate Change with more and more people it's becoming apparent, at least to me, that most people are polarized on the issue. There's no point trying to convert a denialist or vis-a-vis for them as it just ends in a shouting match. I think that it's more important that laypeople and scientists alike try to make our voices heard to our political representatives. The work that you and others do on sites like SkS will be important in carrying our message to our political representatives. Continue the good fight and maybe we will be able to give the up-and-coming generations a fighting chance. -
muoncounter at 00:52 AM on 12 March 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
TOP, "Monckton was apparently right." Not so much. Let's look at the rest of the NOAA report: While a contribution to the heat wave from climate change could not be entirely ruled out, if it was present, it played a much smaller role than naturally occurring meteorological processes in explaining this heat wave's intensity. The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region’s future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Prior analysis showed that climate change increases the probability of these extreme events; as this report conflicts, why do you arbitrarily buy this one? -
RickG at 00:46 AM on 12 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
johnd: "I was hoping for some genuine comments on whether 30 years was still relevant or not...... I think the important thing to understand about the 30 year period is that it is a minimum period of time needed in order to establish a recognizable trend which filters out the noise, especially those of oscillations which are known not to be drivers of overall trends. -
muoncounter at 00:43 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Camburn, "This is not about denial. This is about solutions." How can the folks who believe there's no problem be suddenly interested in solutions? "cyclones/hurricanes have decreased in number and intensity." The ACE index used by FSU is wind speed-duration only. By omitting precipitation events, it is highly biased. "precip patterns in the US have not really changed." There's data to show they have in fact become more intense - not necessarily frequent, but more rain in short time periods. In my part of the world, we have weeks and weeks of no rain, followed by a gully-washer. The intense rain in a short period doesn't soak into the ground. Ask around parts of the US right now, where all that snow is in the process of melting -- and there was just a late winter rainstorm. "winters are not unusual" Tell this to your denial-blog buddies, who were screaming 'worst winter in 1000 years' not all that long ago. Which side seems to now be arguing out of both sides of their mouths? SkS threads for all of these topics, with links to supporting documents, can be found using Search, but you already know that. -
johnd at 00:23 AM on 12 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
JMurphy at 20:04 PM, I was hoping for some genuine comments on whether 30 years was still relevant or not, not a paranoid search for hidden agendas. As for the remark about, "about 100 years", rather than being a generalities, "about 100 years" rather precisely dates the time frame in which "after much international discussion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, 30 years was settled on as a suitable averaging period." -
Camburn at 00:11 AM on 12 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
scaddenp: This is not about denial. This is about solutions. I have shown by the link to Florida State University that cyclones/hurricanes have decreased in number and intensity. I have shown by link from NOAA that precip patterns in the US have not really changed. I have shown by link that the winters are not unusual, contrary to some folks who think so. This is not denial, this is accepting what the data is showing. I have proposed a solution to a high percentage of carbon that is feasable and acceptable to the general public. More regulations/taxes are not the answer. -
TOP at 00:08 AM on 12 March 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
@2 Albatross Actually, GW would suggest the blocking highs move farther north and these extremes would become less severe. Monckton was apparently right. Quote: "The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found." NOAA NEWS 3/9/2011 If you look at the region's anomaly for 2010 it is colder in winter and hotter in summer suggesting a local, not global phenomenon.Moderator Response: [mc] Fixed open link. -
TOP at 00:00 AM on 12 March 2011NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
NOAA NEWS Quote: “Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia,” said lead author Randall Dole, deputy director of research at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). “Nor did ocean temperatures or sea ice status in early summer of 2010 suggest what was to come in Russia.” Quote: "The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found." Now the authors do pay obeisance to GW by stating that this event gives us a glimpse at what the effects of GW might be in the future. It is just that this wasn't it. The GW hypothesis did not help in predicting this event. It is not that they are denying GW, just pointing out that it is meaningless in the context of the Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed broken link. And if you're going to quote chapter & verse, cease with your cherry-picking & provide relevant context:"The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region’s future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Climate models evaluated for the new study show a rapidly increasing risk of such heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century.
“It appears that parts of Russia are on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.
Dole called the intensity of this heat wave a “climate surprise,” expected to occur only very rarely in Russia’s current climate. With the possibility of more such events in the future, studying the Russian event better prepares scientists to understand climate phenomena that will affect the U.S. and other parts of the globe."
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:44 PM on 11 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
@Marcus I recommend Wikipedia especially this subparagraph: Theory incomplete “The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages ... “ -
johnd at 23:44 PM on 11 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
Marcus at 22:06 PM, all very interesting. As someone who demands of others that they provide something tangible to support their assertions, perhaps you can do the same. Have you had anything published, the results of those field trials for example, that illustrate the work you have been involved in? Generally the results of such work, even small trials end up published in one form or another to allow the information to be disseminated to interested parties such as those in the industry, either in trade journals, newspapers or newsletters. As you should know much information transfers informally with the only "peer review process" being the number of people who adopt the practice and recommend it to others. The use of CO2 fertilisation in the tomato and other hot house enterprises being a prime example. Even now, decades later, there are experts doubting the effectiveness of the practice. IIRC you are one such person, am I right? Given that your meetings with real farmers has apparently only come about through your work, that more or less confirms the impression left that you are not from an agricultural background. If you had been then it would also not have been necessary for me to illustrate just how different the conditions have been between the present generation of farmers and their grandparents. It's things like this that are taken for granted as being understood by anyone involved in agriculture at a practical level. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:34 PM on 11 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
More and more, moreover, the work - paper (not just Lindzen) draws attention to the possible advantages of negative feedback - over positive (a doubling of CO2). 'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming, Lynch - NASA, 2010.: “A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters . Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled. “ 1.34 degrees C over the land ... instead of 3-4.5 degrees C ... Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation, Jaramillo et al. (28 coauthors !), 2010.: “We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora.“ “The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.” If someone wants invoke on the paper: Fossil soils constrain ancient climate sensitivity, Royer, 2010., and Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100, Breecker, Sharp & Mc Fadden 2010., the paper suggesting that the data from the Phanerozoic prove a significant advantage of positive feedback - over negative (up to 6 degrees C in response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere), I noted here that the former terrestrial plants was significantly different than now ..., and propose to work: Does burial diagenesis reset pristine isotopic compositions in paleosol carbonates? Bera et al., 2010.: “... it is inappropriate, as proposed recently, to reject the paleoclimatic potential of all paleosol carbonates affected by burial diagenesis. Based on pristine δ13C value of − 8.8 ± 0.2‰ in soil carbonates an atmospheric CO2 concentration between ~ 764 and ~ 306 ppmv is estimated for the early Oligocene (~ 31 Ma) Dagshai time. These data show excellent agreement between two independent proxy records (viz. soil carbonate and marine alkenone) and support early Oligocene survival of the Antarctic ice sheet.” Paleosol carbonates, however, probably tell us more (and more precisely) about the old CO2 - than even the stomata - their density on a leaf, or their size (moss). -
Marcus at 23:15 PM on 11 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
“Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect.” If that were true, then how does one explain the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg I could be mistaken, but this image seems to suggest that changes in insolation-as caused by Milankovitch Cycles-precede the large-scale changes in temperature. -
Chemware at 22:46 PM on 11 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned our sister planetoid: the Moon. The simple fact is that the Moon has no CO2 - and as a consequence, has an average surface temperature about 33° C lower than the Earth, despite having exactly the same insolation. Even a congressman could understand that argument. -
Wibble at 22:43 PM on 11 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Moral: Don't believe anything you read on the innerwebz. -
Marcus at 22:09 PM on 11 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
Oh, & lets not forget the impacts of CO2 & related climate change on soil-borne pathogens, insect pathogens & weeds-all of which can significantly offset any marginal benefits of CO2-induced biomass increases. -
Marcus at 22:06 PM on 11 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
"It is easy to see that you don't understand agriculture as it is presently practiced." That's quite a hilarious accusation, Camburn, given that I've been working as an Agricultural Scientists for around the last 11 years-dealing with everything from molecular biology & physiology, right up to & including full-scale field trials (which is where I've met with *real* farmers-across Southern & Eastern Australia). So in spite of your snarky claims, I'm guessing I probably understand present-& future-agriculture a lot better than you do. As to acclimation, it has a very basic, physiological basis-namely that the plant won't continue to expend the extra energy needed to fix the additional carbon dioxide unless there is some long-term benefit to the plant-which is especially the case when plants are grown in soils relatively low in moisture, nitrogen, phosphorous or trace elements. This acclimation is exactly what is being seen in long-term FACE trials across the world. Here's another thing to consider, though-at higher temperature, the amount of CO2 dissolved in the moisture of the leaf tissue is decreased, meaning less CO2 to enter the Calvin Cycle & be fixed as carbohydrate. So CO2 induced warming-all by itself-can actually undermine even the short-term benefits of higher CO2, by making less CO2 available to the plant in the first place. So, when coupled with the climate change impacts on water & senescence, this represents yet another nail in the coffin of the "CO2 is plant food meme".Moderator Response: How about asking John Cook if you could put some of those great details into either the It's Not Bad or CO2 is Not a Pollutant arguments? -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:05 PM on 11 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Thanks for highlighting this, Dana. I wasn't aware how bad things were on answers.com - almost as if they were making the answers up without bothering with fact checking. Climate change denialism like a never-ending stream of rubbish, or a Lernaean Hydra-type monster. It's a bit disheartening at times. -
Alexandre at 21:00 PM on 11 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Most of the "skeptics" I usually talk to first "learned" about the scientific process reading denialist articles. They're usually guys from the social sciences, for whom peer review means just that "someone else has read it". With this background, there is really not much difference between religion and physics. There is no measurable, verifiable answer because they don't really grasp what's being measured or why. Apparently, that's the case of the answers.com staff. -
scaddenp at 20:46 PM on 11 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Camburn - evidence would suggest otherwise - more that people uncritically accept disinformation than taxes. So you dont like taxes? Fine, choose other solutions, go nuclear, find something that matches your political philosophy. How about ending all subsidies on fossil fuel for starters? Denial is no way to approach problems however, -
daisym at 20:30 PM on 11 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
dana1981: You claimed (in #69) that “Californians use less per capita energy than most of the rest of the USA, but our rates aren’t significantly higher than the average.” The U.S. Bureau of labor statistics Report #BLS 11-18, February 17, 2011, says that electricity rates in the Los Angeles area have exceeded the national average for the past 10 years. The report says that electricity rate comparisons for December, 2010, showed that rates in Los Angeles were 62% higher than the national average. Unless Los Angeles is atypical of California as a whole, my original contention that energy conservation causes rates to increase seems valid. Energy conservation causes rates to go up. muoncounter: You astutely pointed out (in #93) an excellent reason why government search for replacement fuel is so slow… that there’s a massively funded lobby against that initiative. The reason industry lobbies for wind, solar, etc. is because “the free (taxpayer) money is too good.” Perhaps the problem with finding the perfect full time energy to replace carbon fuels is that it would vest too much power in one corporation (at the expense of today’s energy cartels and their thousands of carbon fuel jobs). Many people are OK with renewable energy technologies that will only reduce the rate at which mankind emits CO2 into the air. But how do we know whether these reductions will be enough to save humanity? Saving humanity is still the reason for reducing CO2, right? Is there a scientific consensus on what the ideal global temperature should be? Have scientists calculated the maximum amount of USA-made CO2 we can emit without raising global temperatures above the ideal (based on, say, our prorata share of the world’s GDP)? It’s generally conceded that the government has no coherent national energy policy or goal. Neither does it have a plan which shows where wind, solar, etc. will take us toward reaching the maximum CO2 emission target, (the “goal,” whatever that may be). Government throws $billions at companies which produce part time energy devices, creates a few new jobs in the process, and yet has no clue where this will take us toward reducing global temperatures. In the meantime, you guys are OK with wind, solar, etc. You (and the Moderator) cite “studies” which conclude that part time renewables can (one day) replace our need for full time carbon fuels… studies that also say that millions of retired electric car batteries could be hooked to the grid to augment power on cloudy or windless days (I'm skeptical about this). I cannot understand why you guys always shout down anyone willing to “throw the skunk on the table” by asking where we need to go, how we’ll get there, and when we can expect to arrive at our destination… if saving humanity is still what this is all about. -
michael sweet at 20:29 PM on 11 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
RSVP, It has been explained to you many times that CO2 can lose energy in many ways besides emitting it as IR. Molecular collisions rapidly exchange energy in the atmosphere. The CO2 does not carry its energy around forever. I teach this to my High School students, it is basic science. Since you do not understand the basic science you should not make statements like "shouldnt these regions now be cooler in the winter". As you have been told numerous times, AGW predicts that winters will warm more than summers and nights will warm more than days. We all see your suggestion that your "waste heat" explaination needs to be considered again. Give it up. Hundreds of posts have tried to explain the basics to you, read what they say.
Prev 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 Next
