Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 Next
Comments 93101 to 93150:
-
muoncounter at 13:08 PM on 10 March 2011It's too hard
Gilles, "if you really think that the influence of fossil fuel consumption on the standard of living is less obvious... " I most certainly did not say that; I simply said that your attempt at substantiating your point failed dismally. It would be far more beneficial for the conversation at large if you tempered your opinions with actual facts. That is really what this website is all about. Facts can be discussed and evaluated; opinions just hang in the breeze. -
Marcus at 13:06 PM on 10 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
"But there is a real place in the debate for those people, those with dirt under their fingernails, who are in the unique position to be able see whether the way the climate performs in theory is how it actually manifests itself on the ground." Yep, like the people I & my fellow employees talk to on a pretty regular basis-& you want to guess what their feeling is about Global Warming John? They're even more nervous about it than the scientists are-because they're seeing first hand the negative impacts that warming temperatures & more extreme hydrological cycles are having on their crop yields. -
Marcus at 13:01 PM on 10 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
"•Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels." Well perhaps-*if* the plants in question are getting sufficient nitrogen, water & trace elements, & are not also being subjected to abnormally warm weather. Also, recent FACE trial results (from Horsham in Victoria) suggest that-even in ideal conditions-any such gains are short-term only, as the plants quickly become acclimatized to the higher CO2 levels. -
ProfMandia at 12:21 PM on 10 March 2011Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Timothy Chase: Please contact me ASAP. mandias-at-sunysuffolk.edu -
GaryB at 12:14 PM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
I am so tired of the right's penchant for equating predictions with prophecies. There are always conditions inherent in predictions that if changed outside the assumed or stated limits nullifies the prediction. It becomes neither right nor wrong. -
scaddenp at 11:51 AM on 10 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
I asked about the OLR "trend" in NOOA data. Gavin Schmidt's response: "it's almost certainly from the NCEP reanalysis. The trends are corrupted by changes in the observing network and uncorrected biases in obs make these trends not robust and untrustworthy. If you look at the ERA interim, I'm sure it would look very different." Note exactly the first time there has been issues with NCEP reanalysis trends that arent. While I note papers using the OLR from ERA-interim (eg Claudio Belotti, Richard Bantges and John Harries), I cant actually find the data so maybe not released yet. Anyone know better? -
Bob Tisdale at 11:45 AM on 10 March 2011Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
DB: Since you believe Tamino's use of the wrong SST dataset in an analysis is "de facto standard in climate data analysis", there's no reason for me to continue to discuss this matter. -
scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Further to what RickG said. Fred, thought experiment - you could set up temperature monitoring network over say a small region, measure for a couple of years to get some averages, then start comparing anomaly temperatures from these stations to see how well they are spatially correlated. If the temperature anomalies are highly spatially correlated, then could reduce no. of station. If not, then you need to increase network to get better estimate of region temperature. Seem like a reasonable experiment to you? You would accept its results? -
scaddenp at 11:27 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Agnostic - google for their "contributions" over at realclimate. See what you think (same old, same old despite helpful responses obviously ignored). Perhaps comments policy needs an extra clause: claims in responses must be substantiated by data and/or papers.Moderator Response: [DB] Indeed, some have a knack for saying less with more. As for the comments policy, repetitive unsubstantiated claims can and have gotten deleted in the past; that can also happen in the future. :) -
michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 10 March 2011It's too hard
Gilles: According to this Wiki page almost all European countries and Hong Kong produce about 25% of the CO2 per capita as the USA. My observation is that their living standards are about the same as the USA. Can you provide data to support your extraordinary claim of standard of living depending on fossil fuel consumption, or would you rather continue to assert this claim without data? Obviously it is possible to live well with 25% of USA emissions, Europe is doing it now. You have provided little or no data to support your claims. Why should I believe your hand waving? -
Craig Cogger at 11:23 AM on 10 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
The Penn State model is a useful educational tool for visualizing projected big picture impacts of climate change on agricultural production. Stockle et al. at Washington State University (USA) recently published the results of a similar modeling project focused on climate impacts on rainfed wheat, irrigated potatoes, and irrigated apples, three major crops eastern Washington, which has a cool semi-arid to sub-humid climate. They compared four climate models over using the IPCC A1B scenario (middle of the road CO2 emissions), linking them to a well-tested crop growth model. For each crop they ran 4 scenarios, 1) climate effect alone, 2) climate + adaptation (variety and planting date shifts), 3) climate and CO2 effect, and 4) climate + CO2 + adaptation. Modeled temperature increases by late century were around 3 C (compared with 1975-2005 baseline) and precipitation increases were projected. Only winter wheat showed yield increases from climate alone (at some locations), while spring wheat, apples and potatoes declined. Including CO2 effects and adaptation resulted in projected yield increases for apples and potatoes, but decline in quality could be an issue. In some ways this study approaches a best case scenario. The simulations assumed adequate nutrients (likely to be true) and sufficient irrigation water (more problematic given that snowpack is a major local irrigation source), and did not account for extreme weather events, or changes in weed, insect or disease pressure. The authors also noted uncertainty of the extent beneficial effects of CO2 as another caveat. -
Marcus at 11:16 AM on 10 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"And I repeat : I do not take as granted the speculations about 2020. I'm just looking at ordinary people around me." I do so love how some people turn anecdotal evidence into general *fact*. This claim is as utterly pointless, Gilles, as your earlier question to me. Though I do know several people who own either an EV or an HEV, even if they didn't it wouldn't change the basic fact that an both classes of vehicle generate only an average of 13kg of CO2/100km (even if powered entirely from coal) compared to around 25kg of CO2/100km in a standard car run by a reciprocating engine. Of course, even if you ignore the benefits of the reduced CO2 emissions, there is the obvious reduction of benzene, ozone & particulate emissions at the source-which is good for the health of pedestrians & bike-riders who have the share the road with car drivers. -
Marcus at 11:11 AM on 10 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Gilles, even an HEV has a lower CO2 footprint than a regular vehicle-a fact you seem utterly determined to ignore. If you use an HEV solely for the daily commute, then you probably won't even need to use the petrol-burning component-yet even if you do need to burn petrol, it will still be several times more efficient than in a reciprocating engine-which gets less than 20% thermal efficiency. Why don't you just come clean, Gilles, & admit that your dislike of HEV's & EV's is because you see them as a threat to your Oil Industry shares.Moderator Response: [DB] Please dial back the rhetoric a bit. Whether or not someone has, or hasn't, "oil industry shares" isn't germane to the topic of this post. Thanks! -
RickG at 11:10 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred, I think you are wrong about comparing temperatures of different areas of a plant to the planet. For measuring the average temperature of the planet, NASA/GISS uses a grid system consisting of some 8,000 grid boxes of which there are many measuring sites within each. Regions do vary greatly but that is what gives the global average. What happens in one region can affect another. But in your plant setting the average temperature of the building is not an issue as there are probably many areas with separate thermostats that are set and controlled specifically for those areas. They do not affect the rest of the plant. As for you reactor temperature that is very important to control. If it starts getting too high that is a serious problem. The Earth as well has critical temperatures that seriously affect the many environments. -
Riduna at 11:09 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
There are times when I wonder if Gilles and Fred intend making a genuine contribution to the debate – in this case the need to limit atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350ppm by 2100 and how this might be done – or, in the tradition of the best denialists, simply make misleading, unsubstantiated, or untrue statements? If the latter, it seems so pointless, particularly on SkS. -
Tom Dayton at 11:03 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Also false, Fred, is your claim "The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the 'New Glaciation.'" See the Argument "Ice age predicted in the 70s" about climate science predictions. What the tabloids published is entirely irrelevant. -
Tom Dayton at 10:52 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred Staples, you wrote: "1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the 'New Glaciation'. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown." Your claim of unknown cause is false, as explained in the Argument "It cooled mid-century." -
Fred Staples at 10:44 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
I will respond to all the comments, but I should first say something to muoncounter (55) so that he can sleep more soundly. I was writing about the measurement of ambient temperatures which related to working conditions, not core temperatures which related to nuclear safety. The problem was that, with relatively few measurement sites, and measurements which were neither continuous nor simultaneous, it was impossible to know the average temperature of the building. All that we could measure was trends at the measurement sites, and even these would be distorted by ventilation changes, doors opening and closing, etc. The parallels to global temperatures are obvious, which is why I made the point. However, think about the core temperatures, which are seriously important. We had (in my day) fixed points inside the core recording temperatures continuously. The maximum permitted core output depended on the average temperature, and the safety of the reactor depended on the highest temperature of an individual fuel element. Both these temperatures were strictly limited, but, by definition, not measured. Inevitably, we had to use a combination of statistics, probability, and sound theory backed up by laboratory based measurements. I hope that helps, but I am not sure that it will.Moderator Response: Respond to each point on the appropriate thread as the responders have pointed you to. A general thread such as this one is okay for starting conversations, but getting into more detail must be done on more relevantly narrow threads. Feel free to post comments here, simply linking to your responses on the relevant, narrow threads. -
Gilles at 10:34 AM on 10 March 2011It's too hard
Muoncounter : if you really think that the influence of fossil fuel consumption on the standard of living is less obvious than that of the average temperature, I'm afraid I can't argue further with you. We are obviously not living on the same planet. -
Albatross at 09:44 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred says @70, "Since the UAH data shows no warming of the mid-troposhere since 1979 (the only significant warming period) this data alone would be sufficient to destroy the CO2 theory." SkS Readers, this statement is demonstrably false. Consider these data from RSS derived from satellites for the mid troposphere (TMT):
Also, consider these data from the GUAN:
From NCDC:
"[radiosonde] Data collected and averaged between the 850–300 mb levels (approximately 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the surface) indicate that 1958–2010 global temperature trends in the middle troposphere are similar to trends in surface temperature; 0.13°C/decade (0.23°F/decade) for surface and 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) for mid-troposphere. Since 1976, mid-troposphere temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.18°C/decade (0.32°F/decade). For 2010, global mid-troposphere temperatures were 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 1971–2000 mean—the warmest on record."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:43 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred @ 70... Wow. You've cataloged quite a body of misinformation there. I take note that none of what you've stated is substantiated by research. One thing I always appreciate here at SkS is the fact that everyone (most) people link to actual peer reviewed literature to back up what they say. Anything less is hand waving. -
Tom Dayton at 09:40 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred Staples, you wrote: "1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown." Your claim of unknown cause is false, as explained in the Argument "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low." -
RickG at 09:39 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred: The association with rising CO2 since 1977 might, of course, be a classic case of the correlation-causation statistical fallacy: A is happening, B is happening, therefore A causes B. Except the physics of CO2 is well known and tested. Joseph Fourier demonstrated the greenhouse effect in 1827. John Tyndall discovered that CO2, water vapor and NH4 were greenhouse gases while O2 and N2 were not in 1858. Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by 4-6 deg C in 1896. The over whelming majority of climate scientists today agree that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of about 3 to 3.5 deg. C. I think your correlation-causation statistical fallacy is wishful thinking on your part. -
Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
A follow-up on my previous post - global temperature decrease in the year with out summer was 0.4-0.7°C, with rather larger local effects in the NorthEastern US and Northern Europe. Again, compare this one or two year event - that trashed agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere - with a 2°C rise that persists for centuries. And then try to convince anyone that it's not going to be a problem for us... -
Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred Staples - "1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown." (Emphasis added) That would be, to put it mildly, incorrect. There was a combination of a serious low in solar activity tied with multiple high end volcanic eruptions, including Mount Tambora in 1815, which injected volcanic dust into the stratosphere (aerosol forcing). Note the Northern European temperatures, relative to 1971-2000:
This was a severe event, but limited to about a years duration, with temperature changes of about -3C in the worst areas. Makes you wonder what +2C temperatures persisting for decades or centuries will do to us, eh?
As to the rest of your post - I suggest you look at (and comment upon) the tropospheric hot spot thread. Your claims on that topic are not supported. As to CO2 and your claims that it doesn't cause warming, I suggest you look at one of the (many) CO2 threads and comment appropriately.
-
scaddenp at 09:25 AM on 10 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
That does not mean CO2 forcing doesn't exist, just that we cannot measure it. Pardon? For a CO2 forcing, you certainly can - but you have to look at the spectral data. See the papers at There's no empirical evidence. As to average OLR - that's interesting enough to ask the modellers, but as Huang and Ramanswamy show, there is not a straightforward relationship expected by the models. As to albedo - come on. We know albedo within limits of uncertainty and how variation in albedo operates in W/m2 as forcing is covered in IPCC report. These argument sound like excuses for no action rather a response to the science. -
Fred Staples at 09:10 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
The temperature record may not be accurate, but it is not necessarily rubbish, moderator, 49. The following is a fair summary of recent global temperatures. 4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids (and this blog) notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation. We can say with certainty that CO2 could have had nothing to do with any of these episodes, except, perhaps, the last. The association with rising CO2 since 1977 might, of course, be a classic case of the correlation-causation statistical fallacy: A is happening, B is happening, therefore A causes B. You extend the fallacy by suggesting that if C, D, E and F are also happening, these are also caused by A if we cannot provide an alternative explanation. Einstein said, quite rightly, that "10,000 observations could confirm a theory, it only takes one to refute it." At RC you will find that the crucial "fingerprint" of AGW is the simultaneous warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. Since the UAH data shows no warming of the mid-troposhere since 1979 (the only significant warming period) this data alone would be sufficient to destroy the CO2 theory. Gavin Schmidts (of RC fame) response to me on this point is interesting: [Response: The MT (mid-troposhere) data has a very significant contribution from the stratosphere (which is cooling) and so is not expected to be rising very substantially. This is the whole reason why MSU-LT and the Fu and Johnson approaches were developed. - gavin] So, assuming that the UAH luminaries have not understood this argument, and are consequently publishing misleading data, is the stratosphere really cooling?. You can see the data in the Hadley centre radio-sonde records for the lower stratosphere. From 1958 to 1974 there was a fall of 1.0 degree centigrade, with a major volcanic eruption in 1964. Thereafter there are three distinct periods of level temperatures separated by the two volcanic eruptions marked on the chart. From 1974 to 1983, the beginning of the troposheric warming period, stratosheric temeratures did not fall. The El Chicon eruption was accomapnied by a step fall of about half a degree. Temperatures did not fall again until 1993, when a further drop of half a degree accompanied the Pintaubo eruption. Thereafte the temperatures have remained constant for 17 years. The overall fall from 1974 was (from the Hadley charts), about 1 degree, but in the years immediately following the volcanic eruptions temperatures rose by about 1 degree. It is a very big stretch to suggest that these step-wise stratospheric coolings (accompanied, as they are, by a reduction in ozone) explain the absence of warming in the troposhere. Nevertheless, it is on that stretch that AGW theory depends. As to "why isn't the rising CO2 having any effect", we would first have to ask why it should, which is where the burden of proof must lie. I have collected six different explanations from RC, of which only one is even plausible. We could perhaps discuss these in another post. -
RickG at 08:38 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
JR, I think its pretty well understood when climatologists talk about a doubling of CO2 they are referencing a doubling of the pre-industrial amount of 280 to 560. -
Jesús Rosino at 08:25 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
According to the quotes above, they just said "with doubled CO2" or "assuming CO2 doubled in amount". They didn't say "from pre-industrial levels". Thus it could be even taken as doubling from 1988 levels. -
Albatross at 07:58 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Regarding model predictions, I think this is what the "skeptics" is trying to distract people from:
[Source here]
Time to start applying the breaks.
-
chrisd3 at 07:50 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
@NewYorkJ #6: I'm not sure how prone this particular highway is to flooding. Didn't Hansen's conversation in 1988 precede a major reconstruction of the West Side Highway? I had heard that at least part of the reason for this was that it was flood-prone. But I haven't lived in NY since the 60s, so maybe I heard wrong. -
chrisd3 at 07:46 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Don't we have to wait 40 years after a doubling of CO2? -
Phila at 07:42 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts Is there a climate myth found on the Internet that isn't propagated by Anthony Watts? -
Chris G at 07:40 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
RSVP, I don't know about everyone, but what I see is that humans are facing a triple threat of overpopulation, climate change, and peak oil. For instance, if there were only a couple million of us on the planet, we could consume several times as much fossil fuel energy as the average American and it would have little impact on the planet's climate. And, we could eat whatever we wanted and it would make little difference as well. My guess is that food production is pretty well optimized according to the average temperature and rain patterns that have existed for several thousand years. So, I'm guessing that if they change, and especially if there is no stabilization, and the change continues, there will be a drop in production. The earth's carrying capacity for the human population will be lowered. Looking at the trend lines, our need for food, as the population grows, is gaining on our capacity to produce food. A lot of our food production is heavily dependent on petroleum products including not just the gas to drive the tractors, but also fertilizers and pesticides. The three factors will combine to cause rises in food costs and shortages. As the price of food increases, at some point there will be an awful lot of angry, hungry people in the world, and they will blame their misery on someone else. At first it will be their own leaders, but will expand to include the ones who aren't hungry, most likely the Americans, Australians, and Russians since they most often have food surpluses. (Although there is an obvious counter-example to that this year.) Anyway, what was the quote I read, historically, when humans are faced with starvation or raiding, they raid every time. If some of the raiders have large armies or nukes, there could be a bit of an over-correction of the population versus carrying capacity ratio. It all comes down to how well a species can take energy from its environment. I should probably explain that I don't just mean energy that we use on the electric grid. To a predator, the prey is energy; to an herbivore, plants are energy; to plants, sunlight is energy. All species compete for energy. If a species is more adept at gathering energy than its competition, it has more offspring than its competition. Humans are the most successful invasive species I know of because they are so adept at consuming whatever is available. It would seem that our need to reproduce combined with our skill at utilizing whatever resources are available would lead to extinctions of many other species regardless of our impact on the climate, simply because we take to ourselves the energy resources that other species need. I am not saying we should be complacent about it, but I don't see how we can go from a few million to over 6 billion and counting without knocking off a few other species. I see climate change as a contributing factor to species extinctions as well as overpopulation, but I can make no claim is to which is more significant. I suppose what we are haggling over is the quantity of human life versus the quality of the lives that are. -
Paul D at 07:32 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
You need to take into account tides, atmospheric pressure, storms etc. Hence occasionally a small sea level rise, combined with tides etc, will result in flooding. The other point is that by not dealing with emissions now, you are offloading the cost of flood adaptation onto future generations. Increased warming means that sea levels will continue to rise, they won't stop once they reach a 'magic' number quoted in the press/media. -
actually thoughtful at 07:31 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Gilles - 34 "Chinese and Indians don't get it" Both of the countries mentioned are investing very heavily in renewables. The point you seem unwilling to get is that renewable energy is the economic driver of this century. The policy in the US of letting other countries take the lead is dooming the US to losing its status as the dominant power in the world. And the saddest thing is it really, truly, isn't that hard to shift policy towards innovation and leadership. Even with our perverse governmental approach towards climate change (which continues to funnel billions into the system that are causing the problem (fossil fuel industries, transportation, sub-standard (from an energy efficiency point of view (see Energy Star for a list of standards that covers 20% of what is necessary)) AND starving the innovators of the funds necessary to develop, install and profit from renewable energy technologies) some innovation still survives. If the US wants to have economic dominance in the 21st century, it must lead in renewable fuels. There is no way out of that. And so far, the government has chosen to deal with other issues: wars in far off lands, healthcare, budget deficits and a host of other short term, minor concerns, while the world continues to heat up. -
Rob Painting at 06:59 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Bern @ 19The thing is, as I saw it put recently: Evolution works by death
Well there's that, but also when environmental conditions change enough to induce a die-off, extinction isn't an instantaneous event. Oblivion for species can take a handful of generations to manifest itself. See discussion of extinction debt in the scientific literature. Even if species manage to survive, for extreme changes very few individuals will possess the necessary traits/genes for survival, so what we would expect to see is populations crash, and a very long recovery period. How any of this is of any use to a global society trying to feed (or not) 7 billion people, the AGW skeptics have yet to explain. -
Albatross at 06:58 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Angus @66, The moderator has directed you to go read where the misinformation that you are perpetuating here has been addressed. And the format of your post looks like portions of it may have been cut and pasted from somewhere else. Might I ask where? To stay on topic, research by James Annan and Hargreaves have demonstrated that the 95% confidence interval for climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is +2 to +4 K, with a most likely value of +3 K. And we will easily double CO2 come 2100 under BAU. Hansen and others suggest that long-term climate sensitivity may be even higher than the +3 K estimate. But I suspect that you and other 'skeptics' believe that you know better than the overwhelming body of science....Moderator Response: Responses to this comment also need to be on that thread "Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong." I encourage everyone responding to then post a comment here, directing readers to your comment there. It's fine to post responses on this thread as long as they are attempting to pull the conversation back on the topic of this thread. (As Albatross has done here.) -
angusmac at 06:10 AM on 10 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
James perhaps you worry too much under, re "Under business as usual, we are heading for up to 1,000 ppm by 2100, or nearly two doublings (and that's not including possible carbon feedbacks). This would surely be an unimaginable catastrophe on any timescale…The lowest CO2 target being considered is 450 ppm, which Hansen concluded would eventually melt all ice on the planet, raising sea level by 75 metres."This appears to be extremely alarming. However, Hansen's predictions have not always been proved to be close to reality as I describe below.
The global warming models presented by Hansen (2006) are shown in Figure 1. I have added the GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data up to January 2011 and I have also added the Mauna Loa CO2 data.
Figure 1: Scenarios A, B and C Compared with Measured GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (after Hansen, 2006)
The blue line in Figure 1 denotes the GISS LOTI data and the black line is the Mauna Loa CO2 data. Scenarios A, B and C describe various CO2 emission outcomes presented by Hansen (2006).
Scenario A is "on the high side of reality" with an exponential increase in emissions. Scenario C has "a drastic curtailment of emissions", with no increase in emissions after 2000. Scenario B is described as "most plausible" which is expected to be closest to reality.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that in his testimony to US Congress, Hansen (1988) describes Scenario A as "business as usual." This somewhat contradicts "on the high side of reality" in Hansen (2006) in which Scenario B is described as "most plausible." Don't we all have 20-20 vision with hindsight?
It is evident from Figure 1 that CO2 emissions are following Hansen's Scenario A temperatures (forcings) whilst real-world temperatures are following the "zero increase in emissions" Scenario C. What temperature do you get by doubling CO2? It would appear that we would get a lot less than predicted by Hansen (2006).
James perhaps you worry too much. "Facts are chiels that winnae ding." The real-world currently does not seem inclined to follow Hansen's (2006) predictions.Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that time period for the comparison of actual temperature/CO2 measurements with those predicted is still relatively short. Hansen (2006) suggests that we could expect reasonable results for distinction between the scenarios and useful comparison with the real world by 2015.
Moderator Response: Responses to this comment are better placed on the thread "Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong." Best to read the Advanced tabbed page there first, to learn why it makes no sense to write "It is evident from Figure 1 that CO2 emissions are following Hansen's Scenario A temperatures (forcings)." -
NewYorkJ at 05:40 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
I'm not sure how prone this particular highway is to flooding. Maps of sea level rise indicate that 1 meter would put parts of the road underwater. A doubling of CO2 gets us there, but the timeframe for when we get to 560 ppm and when this occurs is probably longer than another 20 years from now. The timeframe isn't Hansen's prediction though. He was asked what a doubling of CO2 scenario would look like. It's the reporter that threw out 40 years. -
hank at 05:38 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Videos: http://baykeeper.org/blog/video-king-tides-bay -
hank at 05:36 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Related links: http://www.flickr.com/groups/bayareakingtides/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/bayareakingtides/discuss/72157625923761895/ (Is there a similar effort being made for New York and other coastal locations?) -
hank at 05:33 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
If the hypothetical doesn't scare you, try reality. Here's on example from San Francisco Bay, looking at real high tides that reach the levels that will be average tides as sea level rises: http://baykeeper.org/featured/king-tides-show-possible-climate-change-impacts -
NewYorkJ at 05:26 AM on 10 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
I won't hold my breath waiting for Watts or others to make a correction. Perhaps it will be done as an opportunity to make some other bogus politically-motivated criticism of Hansen. -
muoncounter at 05:12 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Reply to Gilles' comment here on Its too hard. -
muoncounter at 05:11 AM on 10 March 2011It's too hard
Continuing reply to Gilles' comment here. "This knowledge is not difficult to get." I asked how you knew that reducing fossil fuel use more destructive to hundreds of millions of people than global warming; you provided the above retort with a link to the World Bank's page on China's rural development. The linked page does not mention fossil fuels at all; rather, it speaks of changing land use policy, agricultural modernization and natural resource management. In addition, note this: Bank-funded projects have also increased forest plantation areas by hundreds of thousands of hectares, and improved the State Forestry Administration’s and provincial forest bureaus’ capacity to plan, develop, manage and protect forest resources. Planning is also underway for China’s first use of bio-carbon funds sequestering carbon through forest plantations ... -- emphasis added The reference you provide thus demonstrates an instance of exactly the sort of action you feel is unnecessary. So your point remains unsubstantiated; your argument weakened by your own evidence. Once again illustrating the poverty of the denialist position, wherein all arguments devolve to some variant of 'I think' or 'Everyone knows' or 'No, its not.' -
Alexandre at 05:10 AM on 10 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
ClimateWatcher Again there's the stretching of "known uncertainties" into "we don't know anything". I'm no expert, but I'm willing to go on with the debate - I can learn in the process, too. But I don't think it makes sense to continue it here. Now it's more a "it's the albedo" argument than anything about Trenberth's interview. -
Phila at 04:34 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
it means that everybody is in favor of some kind of compromise between burning fossil fuels, but not too much. I'm not so sure about that. Certain people — small in number, but with a significant public influence - seem to reject any environmentally based limitation on burning fossil fuels. some think that 550 ppm or even 700 ppm maybe not that bad after all? There's virtually no belief so dangerous, silly or unsupported by evidence that you can't find "some" who accept it. However, we're really not interested in the full range of idle speculation here. We're interested in what's plausible. If you can present plausible scientific support for the view that 700 ppm is "not that bad," please do so. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke. Because who can the hell say how mankind will live in 50 or 100 years? Another strawman. If AGW will cause droughts in a given region, we can say that people in those regions will tend to live in conditions of drought, with the suffering and food insecurity that entails. If a species vanishes, we can say that people will have to do without the benefits of that species (and this would of course include species whose benefits are currently unknown). If intense heat waves will occur more regularly, we can say that this is a serious problem people will have to deal with. Appealing to ignorance in this way strikes me as a typical attempt to cling to the pleasures of irresponsibility. -
Albatross at 04:25 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
"It was during the HCO that human civilization advanced!" This statement missing the mark on so many counts. So the old, warming equals diversity argument? If so, deserts should be teaming with life, more so than other more temperate eco zones. Also, we are warmer than the HCO and will continue to warm well beyond that. It is not so much what is happening now, but what is very likely to happen down the road that is an issue. also, during the HCO there were not 7 billion plus bi-pedaled primates walking around to feed. -
Albatross at 04:20 AM on 10 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
phila@32, Have you read "Extinction" by Dr. Michael Boulter? If not, I recommend it. "It seems that the largest genomes, the most complex physiology and neurology don't guarantee a permanent place on the throne of biodiversity. What we naively saw as an evolving hierarchy does not have ourselves, the human race, in its upper branches."
Prev 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 Next
