Recent Comments

Prev  1901  1902  1903  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  Next

Comments 95401 to 95450:

95401. Daniel Bailey at 15:27 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Re: Ice sheets and floating This is probably a good time to add some clarity to the mechanisms behind what happens at the transition between a "stable" grounded ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice. The reality is that ice is a viscous fluid and "flows" from higher to lower altitudes. James describes ice shelves and sea ice in the post at top. When a "grounded" ice sheet meets the sea it will either unground and become an ice tongue/ice shelf, or it will calve. Ice tongues/shelves act as buttresses, slowing the advance of the ice sheet towards the sea. When an ice sheet no longer has this protective formation, gravity (because gravity is a you-know-what) is able to exert its full effects and the speed of flow nearest the sea increases. This downhill delta/vector is then propagated "upglacier" until a new dynamic equilibrium (in terms of rate of loss) is reached. The ice edge at the sea:ice junction calves, sometimes steadily, sometimes catastrophically (see video at bottom of this comment). The faster the ice sheet moves downhill, the faster the calving rate. This is the Jakobshavn Effect. Enough basal lubrication (the Zwally Effect) can increase this rate of downhill flow somewhat, but the primary mechanism of transport is the Jacobshavn Effect. At this point it's the sheer scale of the ice sheet that makes it difficult to understand why, if the basal melt causes an ungrounding of the ice sheet leading edge, why the whole sucker doesn't just pop up like a cork? Unlike a floating iceberg, where 90% of the berg is below the water line, on the ice sheets the majority of the ice is above sea level, especially at the 20th Century terminus points. If the calving front retreats landward enough, the basal edge is in much deeper water. So eventually you might see big bergs bobbing up, but in the interim (at least the next 20 years or so, even for the WAIS) thinning & outlet transport will rule the day. This doesn't mean that existing & future calving events are not and will not be spectacular, because they are. Check this out (pay special attention to the 12:45-13:05, 15:20-16:00 and 16:05-17:00 segments): Hope this is more clear than mud, The Yooper
95402. Philippe Chantreau at 15:08 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       It is actually that simple. How is a reviewer determined to be qualified? by having demonstrated the ability to advance knowledge in the field under study. That is done through intimate familiarity with the technical aspects, solid reasoning abilities, etc, all demonstrated by their track record of publications. How is it determined they publish regularly? They have a track record of publications. Why is someone who publishes in the field irregularly not considered an expert? Because if they do not publish regularly, they're less likely to have kept up some of the qualities mentioned above. Although Eisntein did understand Quantum theory, he was not an expert in it. The go-to guys were Bohr or Von Neuman. It does not change that Einstein understood it well. He also published in it but not so regularly. Nothing wrong with that. But he wouldn't have been the top choice as a reviewer of Quantum Theory papers. How is someone's reputation determined? By their track record of publications. By the relative importance of their publications, or how much they advance knowledge in their field. Breakthroughs are a good reputation builder. For instance, even if Einstein had published only the Special and General Relativity papers, he would have got quite a reputation.
95403. Philippe Chantreau at 14:49 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       You don't understand neither the cosmic ray theory nor the Mavromichalaki paper. This is the subject of the Mavromichalaki paper, summarized in the last sentence of the abstract: "This interpretation is explained in terms of different contributions of convection, diffusion and drift mechanisms to the whole modulation process influencing cosmic-ray transport in the heliosphere." Convection, diffusion and drift all apply to solar processes. The paper treats of how variations in the Sun's magnetic field influence the cosmic ray flux. The interrelation between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known and not in dispute. This paper studies it from the point of view of magnetic activity (Hale cycle). It has absolutely nothing to do with any hypothesis on the effect of cosmic rays on Earth' weather. Nothing. Find one quote in that paper that can support skepticism of AGW alarm and I'll be glad to acknowledge it. If you can't you should take the paper out of the list. Hint: it has to be something that is actually said in the paper, by the authors. You know, just like the conclusion of a paper should be supported by the data and anaysis presented. The hypothesis of cosmic ray induced cloud formation is discussed elsewhere and further mention should be brought to the appropriate thread. Nonetheless, this hypothesis (callig it a theory is a stretch since it has no plausible physical mechanism) relies on dubious correlation. Everyone who has examined that correlation closely enough has seen it behave in quantum ways: when you look too close, it disppears. No physical mechanism for growing the ionized particles to CCN size has yet been postulated. The CERN CLOUD experiment has yielded nothing truly substantial, except revelations on the shortcomings of the experimental design.
95404. Acorn1 at 14:47 PM on 17 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Sir: Homo s. has had his brain cage increase from 500cc to 1700cc over the short period of 3million years. He will be able to endure just about anything nature throws at him at the year 2100. Why link temperature and atmos CO2 and end there? We know plants and animals can cope better at "high" temperatures, and we know higher CO2 is supportive of more plants. (World food sources have increased, relative to all else,in the last 60 years) Homo S. died down to (near extinction?) about a mear 2000 during the last ice age. So why not get this discussion around to what's the best of both? Instead of they're both bad...which seems to be the thread. acorn1
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're relatively new here, so let me take a moment to welcome you & to give you a quick tour and idea of how things work best here. We encourage you to read the Newcomers-Start-Here post, followed by the Big-Picture post, so you can get a synopsis of what's going on. I also recommend you watch this video on why CO₂ is the Control Knob of temperatures. When you have questions, use the Search function in the upper left corner of every page to find out if there's an answer ready-made for you in the form of a blog post investigating that (chances are there is). Questions are to be posed on those threaded posts. If you still have questions, find the most appropriate post & ask it there. Someone will get back to you. Lastly, keep the Comments Policy in mind when formulating your questions (remember to use the Preview function to ensure readability). Thanks!
95405. muoncounter at 14:39 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech "these support the galactic and cosmic ray theories of climate change," So the proof: You really either don't read the papers, don't know what it is you read or simply don't care. The first two papers deal only with change on the scale of millions of years due to solar system motion through the galaxy. That is NOT any known form of 'skepticism' of recent anthropogenic climate change. "If you understood the cosmic ray theory," You're the away team on that turf (perhaps you don't know what muons are and why they are counted). Fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field and the resultant modulation of earth surface CR flux are well-researched. However, this paper does not link this with clouds or climate in any way, nor does it support any skeptical argument regarding such unproven hypotheses. So Poptech admits his hypocrisy: game, set and match. We're done here (except I just found a few more on the list that don't do what you say).
       Moderator Response: [DB] He don't know you very well, do he?
95406. Marcus at 14:38 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "f you understood the cosmic ray theory, it is that the fluctuating of suns magnetic field relates to the fluctuation in cosmic ray intensity that controls cloud cover on earth. This paper supports his theory." Yep, we've done Cosmic Rays to death here PT, & the suggestion is that-if anything-current interactions between solar activity & Cosmic Rays should be causing a cooling trend right now-i.e. increasing cloud cover due to increasing exposure to cosmic rays. As has already been pointed out, a paper that shows factors *other* than CO2 have caused climate change in the deep dark past do *not* strengthen the case for CO2 not playing a role in current climate change. That's the worst, weakest kind of circumstantial evidence imaginable &-were to to present that in a court of law-would see your case summarily thrown out. Once again, PT, you prove that *science* is not your strong suit- ( -Snip- ).
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please, keep it civil.
95407. kdkd at 14:17 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech #518 Woah dude - those are some tenuous lines of evidence you've got going there. Certainly not enough to falsify the large coherent body of knowledge that's amassed showing the important role of CO2 in anthropogenic climate change. In fact I would imagine that the authors of these publications would be horrified to see that you're misusing their work in this way. In your own mind this material may support your view. From a more objective position, and with more scientific training than you appear to have they certainly do not.
95408. Riduna at 13:52 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Bern @ 42 ... We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating That is exactly the point I make at 39. It seems to me that the real threat to sea level is the potential for WAIS to loose its footing on the seabed.
95409. Marcus at 13:43 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science." I think we've established that fact multiple times over Phillipe. Indeed, his pseudo-religious approach to science makes me think that he's not overly qualified to work in IT either. I mean, does he think the quality of computer code can be "subjective"-tell that to the guy whose software crashes because he put a colon where a comma should have been!
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Poptech's qualifications in his day job are not to be considered as "fair game" for discussion and are off-topic.
95410. Bern at 13:40 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       I think also a few people have tried to point out that we don't have to melt all the ice before we see significant sea level rise. We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating, where it's presently sitting on the seabed. It can do this by dynamically thinning to the point where it starts floating, which can also happen a long, long time before it actually melts. That Hansen paper Daniel Bailey referenced way back at comment #8 also makes the point that, once sea level rise reaches a rate of about a metre per decade, that we will start to see significant negative feedback from all those chunks of ice floating around in the oceans. That's pretty cold comfort, though (no pun intended!) - 1 metre per decade will be disastrous, as will the cumulative rise before we get to that point. BTW, for some sea level rise maps of selected areas of Australia, check out this site. It only has 0.5, 0.8, and 1.1m scenarios, but it's a starting point.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] fixed link
95411. Marcus at 13:39 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Also, going back to an earlier matter. MacLeans paper didn't just receive *criticism*, it was shown to complete & total *junk*. I mean, come on, the guy spliced together the temp. anomalies for weather balloons & satellites, without telling readers he'd done it, & using the same anomaly values-even though said values were based off completely different baselines-all in order to *hide* the increase in temperatures. By having that trick exposed, it rendered the rest of his entire paper totally null & void (his attempt to link ENSO to recent global warming relied entirely on that temperature graph). Now, if a Climate Scientist were to do that in order to advance the AGW theory, denialists like yourself would be screaming in faux outrage, yet you not only have no criticism for MacLean's dodgy work, you're quite happy to retain it in your list-simply because it pads it out that little bit more.
95412. Philippe Chantreau at 13:38 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       E&E is listed as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal in some databases. It also does have an agenda. That agenda has been claimed vigorously by Sonia Boehmer- Christansen, who is intimately involved in the development of that "publication." That you deny this fact does not make it go away, it only indicates how ready you are to twist reality in order to fit your strange world view. The quality of the work in E&E is miserable. Quality in science publication is not subjective. It is dependent on the rigor in analysis, the care in choice of data and their treatment, the coherence in the reasoning, and how the conclusion is supported. If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science. Peer-review in science is meant to guarantee a minimumn level of quality. If a publication can not achieve that minimum level, it has a serious problem. When the editorial board headed by Von Storch understood how much of a problem they had with the Soon&Baliunas paper, they all resigned. That was the right thing to do and indicates that they all had an idea of what objective level of quality should be present in their journal. You can deny that all you want, it will only demonstrate how delusional you are willing to be. The Beck piece was so flawed that it did not deserve any consideration. E&E decided to publish it. Other pieces with very low quality have appeared there. It makes it a low quality journal that does not deserve attention. We're not just talking about somebody who is wrong here; the Beck piece was so bad that it wasn't even wrong, it was a travesty. Anyone peering through that paper will realize as much, that is not subjective. You have not irrefutably deomstrated anything except a somewhat unique perception of reality. The denominator can be estimated with a range, the lower end of which, for science papers only, still dwarfs your ridiculous little list, which is loaded with law articles, obscure policy publications, think tank papers and all sorts of junk. Everyone can see why you are trying so hard to argue about the subjectivity of quality. As for CATO, it is a political think tank. Their journal's only function is to foster the organization's idelology. That makes it worthless as a source of information, regardless of how it is listed in databases. I repeat my question: How does the Mavromichalaki et al paper support AGW alarm skepticism? If it does not, it must be removed from the list. And how are conference proceedings peer-reviewed?
95413. Marcus at 13:34 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Incorrect, Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)" Yes, & that makes them experts in global warming how exactly? You see, PT, you do a better job than we do of showing just how worthless your list really is-by showing that many of these skeptic viewpoints are published in obscure journals whose reviewers don't know the subject matter well enough to decide whether it has actual merit (indeed, it reads more like a page filler for the journal). The same goes for Journals of Law-I might go to them for peer-reviewed opinion on purely legal matters, but I do *not* expect them to know about Global Warming. Of course, if the science of the skeptics was so strong-*objectively speaking*-then the authors of these papers wouldn't need to seek out such obscure journals just to get their work published (oh, & please spare us another rant about some kind of "conspiracy" to keep skeptics out of mainstream journals, 'cause that won't wash here).
95414. Marcus at 13:29 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Since it is subjective I can choose whether I consider it "strong evidence" or not. Just like you have with my list." No matter how often you make this false claim, PT, "belief" & "subjectivity" don't cut it in the world of science. In that world, nothing but objective evidence & facts will do the trick. I'd suggest you'd do better in Philosophy or even Religion with that approach-& we all know that Denialism is pretty much a religion-with Monckton, Plimer & Inhofe as its High Priests. Clearly, though, Poptech sees himself as an aspirant for the top job.
95415. Marcus at 13:19 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current climate." That is the biggest load of ignorant hokum I've ever heard. That claim is as ludicrous as saying "forest fires have largely been caused by lightening strikes in the past, therefore it supports skepticism of arson". Total & utter *hogwash*-but still pretty much what I've come to expect of Denialists like yourself. To claim that such things *strengthen* your argument just prove how utterly deluded you are!
95416. Marcus at 13:16 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Incorrect, I have irrefutably demonstrated that his denominator is based on erroneous results." Nope, only in your own mind-& in the Denialist Universe you inhabit. Out here in the real world, you've still largely missed the point "That is because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal." Cato Journal, like E&E, has *proven* low standards when it comes to the publication of papers that "tow the party line"-due to their funding links with the Coal & Oil industries (you don't bite the hand that feeds you). Good & Bad are definitely *not* a subjective terms either-as many fail the basic evidence test that should be the foundation of any published paper. Many papers published in E&E fail Science 101, yet still get published as long as they say "Climate Change isn't real". If you're going to rely on relatively obscure journals-with poor Peer Review Standards & a clear ideological agenda-just so you can pad the list out a little bit more, then it doesn't say much for the strength of your list.
95417. muoncounter at 13:13 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Peter: "ask how long the ice will last. Please." We have, several times. See the thread on Ice free Arctic, among others. I don't understand why you seem to be insisting that Arctic ice isn't in jeopardy. You've agreed that the Arctic is warming precipitously and that Arctic ice melt is increasing. There's no need for any specific heat calculation; the figures in the ice-free thread -- and several other threads on the same topic -- show very clearly how long the ice will last. The Flanner thread and papers linked on that thread amplify this topic with the increase in heat absorption of open Arctic waters vs. ice.
95418. Peter Offenhartz at 13:08 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Please, please, no more doomesday scenarios! Here's the math that no one will do: The total ice volume is about 40 x 10^6 GT. The rate of melting is currently well under 1000 GT per year, or 0.001 x 10^6 GT/yr. (I hope this time I've done the math correctly!)
95419. angliss at 13:03 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Wow. 509 comments. I personally recommend to everyone still debating Poptech take leave of the argument - you have better things to do with your time, and Poptech simply isn't worth your effort any more. If he ever was.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Worthy advice all should heed.
95420. muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PT: "Papers are not included or removed from the list based on .. if they ... support skepticism of AGW alarm." Then by your own words, you must remove the three papers discussed here, as they do not support 'skepticism' in any way whatsoever. Failure to do this is admission of total and complete hypocrisy.
95421. RickG at 12:50 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech @ 501: Please provide the objective method to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Its very simple. A qualified peer reviewer is one who publishes regularly in the field he is reviewing (climate science) with a reputation of scholarly works to his/her credit that stand the test of time. Most of the journals you list do not meet that criteria.
95422. mclamb6 at 12:39 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech at 503: The authors of the papers in question have the scientific background and disagree. Except when they don't, such as Pielke, in which case you ignore them in favor of your own "context".
95423. mclamb6 at 12:38 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       You do realize that with your ridiculous mantra that nearly everything is "subjective", you are basically arguing for scientific nihilism. And why should anyone respond to any of your inquiries, when your response will simply be "I disagree" or "Incorrect"?
95424. Riduna at 12:36 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       It is important to distinguish between the East (EAIS) and West (WAIS) ice sheets, the latter lying to the west of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. The EAIS is a land based ice sheet loosing mass in a similar way to the Greenland ice sheet. The WAIS covers the land of a far-flung archipelago but is predominantly a marine ice sheet resting on the seabed. The WAIS is therefore far more susceptible to melting by coming into contact with the warming waters of the Southern Ocean and warmer currents flowing directly on to the ice from equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean. This is why it is now loosing ice at a rate almost three times greater (132 Gt/annum) than the much larger EAIS (54 Gt/annum). Contact of warmer seawater with the WAIS face rising from the seabed makes it particularly vulnerable (far more so than EAIS or Greenland) to erosion of its footing. Were this to occur, large areas of the marine ice shelf could, in a relatively short time, loose contact with the seabed and become floating ice. This would result in more rapid sea level rise than present levels of ice loss from land based ice sheets. Sorry if this sounds nit-picking.
95425. Berényi Péter at 12:34 PM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
       OK, let's have a look at it. First of all Stefan–Boltzmann law is I = ε·σ·T₀⁴ (1) where I is power flux (W/m²), ε is emissivity (a number between 0 and 1), σ = 5.67×10^-8 Wm^-2K^-4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and T₀ is surface temperature. Now, effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (-18°C) while its average surface temperature is 288 K (15°C). I = σ·T_eff⁴ (2) From (1) and (2) for its equilibrium effective emissivity we get ε₀ = (T_eff/T₀)⁴ ~ 0.61 (3) If some more CO₂ is put into the atmosphere, effective emissivity is decreasing, so it should be compensated for increasing surface temperature to preserve radiative balance. I₀ = ε₀·σ·T₀⁴ = (ε₀-Δε)·σ·(T₀+ΔT)⁴ (4) From (4) we get Δε = 4·ε₀/T₀·ΔT (5) whenever ΔT is small compared to T₀. On the other hand we have ΔT = λ·5.35·log(C/C₀) (6) as above, where λ is the equilibrium climate sensitivity while C and C₀ are the current and preindustrial CO₂ concentrations (measured in ppmv) respectively. From (5) and (6) we have the effective emissivity anomaly as a function of climate sensitivity and CO₂ concentration. Δε = λ·21.4·ε₀/T₀·log(C/C₀) (7) Forcing (relative to preindustrial CO₂ level) due to CO₂ induced effective emissivity anomaly is ΔF = λ·21.4·ε₀·σ·T₀³·log(C/C₀) (8) As a 1 W/m² radiative imbalance implies a monthly heat accumulation of 0.134×10²² J in the climate system, monthly heat accumulation due to CO₂ forcing is ΔQ_month = λ·2.87×10²²·ε₀·σ·T₀³·log(C_month/C₀) (9) We have monthly data (some interpolated) for atmospheric CO₂ concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii since March, 1958. In (9) λ is unknown, but all the other terms are given. Therefore it makes sense to define D_month = 2.87×10²²·ε₀·σ·T₀³·log(C_month/C₀) (10) ΔQ_month = λ·D_month (11) As vector D is given (λ is an unknown constant), we can write ΔQ = λ·D (12) Of course actual heat gain is less than that. The surface is also warming and radiative losses increase with the fourth power of temperature. It's easy to verify that heat flux anomaly due to a temperature anomaly ΔT is ΔI = 4·ε₀·σ·T₀³·ΔT (13) Fortunately we also have average surface temperature anomalies at NASA GISS (from January, 1880). Using the same conversion as above, we can define R, monthly heat loss due to a temperature anomaly as ΔR_month = 0.536×10²²·ε₀·σ·T₀³·ΔT_month (14) Heat retained by the greenhouse effect either goes to space or is sequestered into the ocean. Fortunately we also have some data regarding OHC (Ocean Heat Content). It is only the heat content of the upper 700 m, but as it is reasonably sure change of heat content of the entire climate system is proportional to this quantity, let the coefficient be μ. Therefore we have vector S, although this one is only with a quarter year resolution. Of course we can resample D and R to match it. Due to unknown offsets the balance is still not perfect, there is also an unknown linear function of time, so we can write λ·D - R - μ·S = α·t + β (15) where t is time, α and β constants. It is only true as far as ASR (absorbed Shortwave Radiation) is constant. Of course it is not, but if it has no trend, it has no influence on climate sensitivity calculations. So the next task is to choose λ, μ, α and β that minimizes (λD-μS-αt-β-R)². It is basically a system of linear equations with four unknowns and if solved, it comes out as λ = 0.64. This climate sensitivity corresponds to 2.37°C equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO₂ concentration. However, μ = 0.08 is deep below 1, which is impossible. It would mean all the heat stored in the climate system is only 8% of what is found in the upper 700 m of oceans. Not only there is no missing heat, but a lot of excess heat is measured. Therefore OHC before mid 2003 (large scale deployment of ARGO floats) is almost certainly mismeasured and the flat curve seen since is typical of the entire epoch. It means heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is either very slow or the surface warming is actually much less than measured. λ is sensitive to surface temperatures (not so much to OHC), so if there is an UHI effect of about 0.25/doubling of local population density even in rural areas, equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 0.5. It would mean the pipeline is practically empty, which is consistent with the low effective heat capacity or very long response time of oceans found above (I mean long, compared to the half century for which we have reliable CO₂ data). If soot is also considered, it leaves even less room for a high value of λ, as it increases ASR and does have a trend.
95426. PT_Goodman at 12:21 PM on 17 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Isn't the percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere increasing. I took the NOAA MLO CO2 annual increments from 1959 to 2010, calculated the percentage change for each year from 1960 to 2010, graphed that, and found that percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere (given here as 43%) is generally increasing during that period. Does this mean that the ocean and land CO2 sinks are becoming less effective?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not seen anything conclusive yet (there is some natural variability in the uptakes). It is indeed being studied closely, for that event is what some models have indicated in a Business-As-Usual situation.
95427. michael sweet at 12:18 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Peter, It is not necessary for all the ice to melt (that would raise sea level about 75 meters) for it to be a disaster. If Greenland alone melted it would raise sea level 7 meters and put millions of people out of their homes. If half the ice in Greenland melted much of the sea level rise would occur since the bowl in the middle of the island would need to still be full of ice. That would require 0.1C of ocean heat, which has already occured. If you assume a 10 year doubling time for ice melt it is 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100. That would put Miami and 8 million other people out of their homes in Florida alone. For me that is a disaster. How much sea level rise do you need for it to count as a disaster? Of course the data indicates a doubling time of around 6 years at present. How do you feel about that for the next 50 years?
95428. RickG at 12:16 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       497 Poptech: Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication. With that definition perhaps your tally of 850 should go to zero. How many of those papers are peer reviewed by actual publishing climate scientists? You know, actual experts in the field.
95429. Rob Honeycutt at 11:50 AM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Interesting to note that in Poptech's first post on this article he states... " Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. " I tested this. Searching the phrase "climate change" turns up: NYT... Zero articles Newsweek... Seven articles Guardian.... Three articles The only way you get the numbers he states is to leave word or phrase field blank. What were his words? Oh yeah... "Epic fail."
95430. Alex C at 11:45 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       Huh, not sure why I said 0.8W/m^2. Perhaps I was thinking of the temperature rise realized currently, or mixed up the forcing expected from modern CO2 levels which is 1.8W/m^2..... From the "CO2 Effect is Weak" argument the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3.7 W/m^2. dF = 5.35ln(C/C_i); 5.35ln(2) = 3.7 The forcing during the MWP was, again, much lower. Sorry about the confusion, hope that clarified some.
95431. Alex C at 11:37 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       Not to imply that the MWP was due to CO2 - just trying to provide something to compare the forcing of that time period to. If I'm not mistaken, the climate sensitivity would be about 0.8 W/m^2, and the forcing during the MWP was about 0.3 W/m^2. In other words, it does not measure up to the customary representation of climate sensitivity.
95432. Alex C at 11:35 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       pbjamm: mozart is referring to Figures 1 and 2, which are not labeled in-figure for the temperature scale (though it is stated below that the tick marks are separated by a degree Celsius, in the Figure 2 description - I think mozart was aware of this). There are no intermediate ticks, so it's hard to quantify very accurately just by looking at it. But to explain the point he brought up, sort of repeating Dana's response, the climate sensitivity is usually represented as a temperature response to a doubling of CO2. CO2 levels were most certainly not double 280ppmv for any extended period of time during the MWP, so the temperature rise would not have gone up because of them - also, now more along the lines of what Dana said, the overall forcing change during that time period was not particularly high, when compared with the amount expected from a doubling of CO2.
95433. adelady at 10:39 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Resources running out? Long before they 'run out' there would be clear signals of problems. All you need to do is look at birthrate changes during the great depression. The birthrate dropped below replacement rate in the USA and several other developed countries. I'm very much afraid that my preferred population strategy - education of girls and women - may well be overtaken by events. The nastier economic and social issues, the famines that Ann referred to combined with the dislocations from advancing high tides and salinity of groundwaters will severely impact family formation and birthrates. Education of women and girls is still a good strategy, but it may not be the peaceful, gradual effect that I'd prefer on population numbers.
95434. Bibliovermis at 10:24 AM on 17 February 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment Ceteris paribus. ("All other things being equal or held constant.") Solar activity was not identical so such a direct comparison is not applicable. Solar activity was decreasing during the period 1975-2005 and increasing during the period 1910-1940, except 1920-1930 (roughly rounded). Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
95435. WSteven at 10:12 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       @dana1981: Okay, point 1 I think I did pick up on somewhat. Points 2 and 3 I should have picked up on as on rereading the article they were actually fairly explicit. That's what I get for trying to carefully read an article when I'm busy. :-) Thanks for clarifying. @NewYorkJ: I've actually read that article. I'll probably make a point or reading it again plus the links in Dana's article.
95436. Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Perhaps we should take a closer at that list after all, seems like there is a lot of stuff that does not even meet PT's declared criteria. This could be amusing.
95437. Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Interesting. Poptech, how does the 1996 Mavromichalai et al. paper cited above support skepticism of AGW alarm?
95438. dana1981 at 09:47 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       mozart - you can't determine sensitivity without knowing what the radiative forcing over the period in question was. If the forcing was small, a small temperature change doesn't tell you that sensitivity is small. I recommend you click the final link in the article and read the associated article.
95439. bigbols at 09:32 AM on 17 February 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       While Monckton's statement is not precise, is it worth noting that between the three warming rate periods described in the graph, the largest change is between the first two? The warming rate from 1975 to 2005 is 0.34°C higher than the period 1910 to 1940. Maybe we caused that, maybe we didn't. How can we explain the much higher rate increase of 0.55°C between the first and second periods, if not caused by us? I'd expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment, but the biggest change comes between the period we had no influence on...or am I wrong?
95440. pbjamm at 09:24 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       Mozart@13 I do not understand to what you are referring. The axes are clearly labeled with year and Temperature Anomaly (DegC wrt 1961-1990.
95441. Peter Offenhartz at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       @michael sweet(34) Whoops! My error. You are right about the 2 degrees. 2.4, actually. Still a lot more than the current <0.1. But in any case look at the melt rate vs volume.
95442. mozart at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       Hard to tell because of the non labelling of the axes, but it would appear from the current( black line) data....that we are looking at a 1000 year record with variability of less than one degree centigrade. Calling climate sensitivity low, hardly seems like a leap.
95443. Peter Offenhartz at 09:06 AM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       @michael sweet (34) You did the math but you incorrectly assumed the Antarctic is ten times the size of Greenland. Nope. Total ice volume is about 3% of total water volume. Multiply 1.3 billion gigatonnes by .03. Now take the 334 kJ and the 4 kJ. See what I mean? Takes a lot more than 2C. But that wasn't my main point. Look at the annual melt rate. Look at the total volume. Ask how long the ice will last. Assume any melt acceleration you like. Yes,yes, the increasing melt rate is a symptom of global warming. No argument. But ask how long the ice will last. Please. @muoncounter(35) The trouble with the "house on fire" analogy is the rate of heat transfer. But I think you know that. Heat transfer along the earth's surface is relatively efficient.
95444. dana1981 at 08:40 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       WSteven, this article is about the myth that the IPCC 'disappeared' the MWP, as the introduction states. I would summarize the article thusly: 1) The IPCC never said that the average global temperature was hotter during the MWP than today. 2) As more temperature reconstruction studies were done, the IPCC incorporated their results, which showed that today's global temperature is higher than the MWP peak. The IPCC has been very clear and explicit about this. 3) Arguing for a hotter MWP is also arguing for higher climate sensitivity. There are some other minor points I touched on, like the fact that the MWP was mostly hot at high latitudes, but to learn more about that you'll have to click the links (there's a reason I provide links!). MattJ - I suggest you work on making your criticisms more constructive.
95445. muoncounter at 08:19 AM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Peter: "the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back." I can see that working for Antarctica, as perhaps a reason the southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the northern. I liken it to a house with the attic on fire; it's still pretty cool in the basement. And I think we agree that once the Arctic goes to minimal ice, things will be much worse. But the increasing melt rate of Arctic ice is a symptom of global warming, so I don't think one can say the ice is 'holding things back'.
95446. NewYorkJ at 08:15 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       WSteven, I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. There's some evidence for MWP in other regions, with most areas warmer than the LIA, but with varying degrees of magnitude. The north Atlantic and southern Greenland were particularly warm. There's also evidence of a la Nina-like pattern, with relatively cooler waters in the tropical Pacific. Was There a Medieval Warm Period
95447. muoncounter at 07:49 AM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Here are two papers from the list's 'cosmic rays' section that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change; the phrase does not even appear in the text. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel The ice age epochs in question in each paper are on the million year (Myr) time scale. That's why they're called 'epochs,' a word specifically used in geology to denote a longer period of time than what we normally refer to as an 'ice age'. Another: Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri This paper is about cosmic ray dynamics in the heliosphere; the abstract makes no mention of earth climate. None of these papers support any form of AGW skepticism, 'alarm' or phobia. It is not sufficient to simply gather papers with the words 'cosmic rays' in their titles and assume that they support the unsubstantiated Svensmark-style hypotheses. We now see concrete proof that '850 papers supporting skepticism' is another one of those malleable phrases that must have an alternate PopTechian definition.
95448. JMurphy at 07:40 AM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Another charming paper that gives the game away by its very title : The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming, (Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989) by Patrick J. Michaels (again !) Again, no wonder he had to go to the Journal of Forestry... Now, how many of the many thousands of papers that agree with the consensus view, have the word 'alarm' in the title ? It's not even worth checking, is it ?
95449. BillyJoe at 07:35 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
       fydijkstra: "My prediction for 2030: 1.5 degree below the 2010 level, and all years from 2030 to 2040 will be cooler than the past ten years." What was that saying about those who do not know that they do not know? Charitably we might say that they have an over confidence in their abilities. Less charitably, we might say that they exhibit an arrogance of ignorance.
95450. MattJ at 07:34 AM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       @WSteven- I couldn't figure out the answers to all those on a first read, either. The article is in serious need of a rewrite, as this lack of clarity illustrates. Remember people: our target audience does NOT have the patience to work hard to learn what they do not want to know in the first place. Monckton is very skillful at exploiting this factor, we are not being so skilled. That, BTW: is why Monckton doesn't have to care that he is contradicting another of his 'skeptic' arguments. He knows his target audience neither knows nor cares.

Prev  1901  1902  1903  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  Next