Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Next
Comments 95501 to 95550:
-
Albatross at 13:38 PM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Muoncounter @53, I just signed on to post the very same image ;) Does it perhaps suggest that the southward extending "limb" of the ice sheet is vulnerable in the coming century or so? If so, any idea how much that would contribute to GSL? The NASA article says 0.6 m by 2100, but does not say where the greatest ice loss will be from. -
Albatross at 13:24 PM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
I am quite familiar with this subject, yet I have no idea what BP is driving at. I see a lot of text but very little substance or coherence. -
muoncounter at 13:17 PM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
New image of the day at Earth Observatory.
2010 was an exceptional year for Greenland’s ice cap. Melting started early and stretched later in the year than usual. Little snow fell to replenish the losses. By the end of the season, much of southern Greenland had set a new record, with melting that lasted 50 days longer than average.
Also a shout out to Marco Tedesco cryocity website at CCNY, where this gem is shown:
The figure above shows the standardized melting index anomaly for the period 1979 – 2010. In simple words, each bar tells us by how many standard deviations melting in a particular year was above the average. ... Over the past 30 years, the area subject to melting in Greenland has been increasing at a rate of ~ 17,000 Km2/year.
This is equivalent to adding a melt-region the size of Washington State every ten years. Or, in alternative, this means that an area of the size of France melted in 2010 which was not melting in 1979.
Au revoir, Paris.
-
Marcus at 13:14 PM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"ncorrect, what I have shown is that I readily admit that a small margin of error may exist within the list (1%) and I have taken steps to deal with this by actually having more papers than the actual number." As I've said, PT, claiming something is incorrect doesn't make it so-no matter how much you repeat the claim. The fact that your list consists of so many papers from E&E; that it contains so many papers that deal with Paleo-climate, not current climate (& so only speak to past drivers of climate change, not current ones); that many of the papers are opinion-based, not evidence-based; that many are published in obscure journals that have nothing to do with Climate Science or even the Environment; that you readily admit that you don't bother to check whether all the papers on your list are peer-reviewed; that many of the papers have since been debunked (not merely criticized, but outright proven *wrong*); that many of the papers clearly don't even support your "thesis" & that many of the papers are mutually contradictory *prove* that you're not low-balling at all, but are just casting as wide a net as possible to pad out the numbers (&, clearly, the size of that number is massively important to you-no matter your claims to the contrary). If the skeptic argument were so strong, then you'd be able to reach those same numbers purely from pure-science papers, from ISI listed journals, & without having to rely on mutually contradictory positions. That you've failed to do so proves, as I've said before, that your list is *junk*-& saying otherwise won't change a thing. -
David Horton at 13:10 PM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Ah yes Berenyi, the "seen it all before" approach. -
Marcus at 13:06 PM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Beck's paper was peer-reviewed and supports skepticism of AGW, thus is meets the criteria for inclusion on the list." Oh dear, your skepticism really is highly selective-isn't it? Just because E&E claims papers are peer-reviewed, doesn't make it so. If it were, it would have a far better reputation in the scientific community (it doesn't, btw) & would be listed on the ISI (which is the Gold Standard in scientific circles). If I tried to submit the "quality" of data that Beck tried to pass off, I'd be lucky to keep my job-let alone get published in a genuinely peer reviewed paper. So please spare me your "all-knowing BS", 'cause you don't know *diddley* about peer-review. You're just displaying an extremely bad case of D-K syndrome. -
Berényi Péter at 13:04 PM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
"the paper finds most of the Western Hemisphere (along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia) may be at threat of extreme drought this century" What kind of language is that? I have read the paper and still can't figure out what's that supposed to mean. I can see (e.g. Fig. 1. & 2.) during the last thousand years not only threat of extreme drought was present over the Western Hemisphere (along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia), but such events actually occurred multiple times over various regions. (-Off-topic snipped-). (-Inflammatory snipped-). Not even a much stronger version like "There will be extreme drought events in most of the Western Hemisphere (along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia) this century" can be refuted. (-Off-topic snipped-) Extreme drought events in the historical record seem to cluster around cold spells while warm periods are generally wetter. (-Off-topic snipped-). (-Off-topic snipped-). (-Very off-topic soliloquy snipped-)Response:[DB] Off-topic unsupported assertions snipped.
-
Riduna at 12:29 PM on 18 February 2011The Climate Show Episode 7: Cryosphere special
Well done John Cook! -
Torleif at 12:26 PM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Bern. I'm scaring myself here but, we're closer than you think. Russia is banning wheat exports due to low harvest caused by record drought. As 4th largest worldwide grower of wheat this has pushed global prices up. Australia's (9th globally and globally largest exporter) wheat harvest is adversely affected by recent flooding after years of drought. Ukrain (8th globally) is affected by the same drought as Russia. This is just wheat. Considering that globally, intense and destructive weather events are likely to become more frequent and more intense we face a likely scenario where staple grain production cannot meet demand sometime in the near future. Population reduction will probably happen in the least affluent countries first and therefore have a minimal ipmact on emissions. I was just interested to see if anyone had factored it in. Having said all of that, you're probably right. -
actually thoughtful at 12:14 PM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Torleif, the thrashing for survival will use more fossil fuel, not less. These are the best of times to fight climate change. We will never be richer or less panicked about food and water then right... right... NOW. -
Marcus at 12:13 PM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Which is irrelevant as I have added 15 more papers in it's place and the list already had an additional 25 papers beyond the 850." Hope you bothered to make certain that they claim what you say they claim-because you've shown a pretty bad habit so far of just putting anything on the list that even *sounds* like it supports your position-which is another great example of bad scientific method-gee, no wonder you're so quick to defend Beck's piece of garbage, you're like kindred spirits. -
Bern at 11:50 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
@Torleif - if it gets to that, it'll be too late - the amount of CO2 already emitted will 'lock in' the warming for centuries to come. -
Bern at 11:49 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Looks like it'll be much worse in other parts of the world than in Australia... One other thing to remember, is that while there may be increased rainfall, it may fall in shorter, more intense downfalls, with long, dry periods in between. The drought conditions lead to dry soils & little vegetation, so much of the rainfall will just run off, potentially causing flooding and enormous soil erosion problems. Those would compound soil erosion by 'dust bowl' type events, where dry soils are picked up by the wind and just blown away. It'll take very careful land management to keep soils productive in those sorts of conditions. It will almost certainly mean significantly reduced crop yields, which, when you combine it with projected world population of around 10 billion, is a recipe for disaster. -
Torleif at 11:49 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
This is a bit heartless, but I'm wondering if anyone has factored in the reduction of emissions as the population declines in line with lack of water and reduced crops? -
muoncounter at 11:36 AM on 18 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Koy: The EIA has data for annual worldwide carbon emissions, with country breakdown if you are so inclined. 1980: 18.4 Gtons; 2009: 30.4 Gtons. Net= +12.0 Gtons/yr. Over 30 years, that is actually an average growth rate of 1.7% per year. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:36 AM on 18 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Re: koyaanisqatsi (31) This graphic shows the rise in emissions as well as the attribution:
Data through 2003, so it's a bit dated.
The Yooper
-
Daniel Bailey at 11:32 AM on 18 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
IIRC, 52 PPM by itself. Coupla beers ago I'd have actually looked it up. ;) The Yooper -
PT_Goodman at 11:14 AM on 18 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Regarding my own comment 28. I'll look at my "analysis" again. But as I was lying in bed last night, and again this morning, I concluded that I was being overly-simplistic. I implicitly assumed/ was provided a constant rate of Carbon emissions increase (1%) from 1960 to 2010, and that probably is not the case. The 1% figure is no doubt an average rate of increase. -
muoncounter at 11:14 AM on 18 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
This can't be good. Thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming in decades to come, says new study One- to two-thirds of Earth’s permafrost will disappear by 2200, unleashing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, says a study by researchers at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). “The amount of carbon released is equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age,” said NSIDC scientist Kevin Schaefer. “That is a lot of carbon.” -
Ken Lambert at 11:14 AM on 18 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Bibliovermis #79 The Ceres TOA imbalance measurement was +6.4W/sq.m last time I checked. This was 'corrected' down to 0.9W/sq.m to match Hansen's 2005 models. So the imbalance is based on models - not measurement. -
Marcus at 11:14 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
FWIW, I really couldn't give two hoots about his precious list, 'cause its so obviously a pile of garbage. His own words-whether he admits it or not-actually confirm that fact. What got my back up was his deliberate misrepresentation of how the scientific method works, & how peer-review works. Having worked in science for the better part of 16 years, it always irks me when those with no knowledge run off at the mouth-like he was. Still, as Rob says, regardless of what his ego is telling him, his audience actually sounds pretty limited. -
Marcus at 11:01 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"We've probably all given PT more time and energy than he's worth." Amen to that ;-). -
Bob Lacatena at 10:43 AM on 18 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
21, Xplain, I think you have to put it in context. The first IPCC report, in which this was included, was completed in 1990. There wasn't a whole lot of research to base the report on (in comparison), or even warming (in relation to noise) to give the issue any weight, there was no huge denial movement, a fraction of an Internet by today's standards, and so on. It might look a little silly now, but that shows how much momentum the science has gained in 20 years, and more importantly, how much higher the level of inspection and attention to detail needs to be in an IPCC report. In 1990, I'm not sure if anyone I knew had even heard of the IPCC. And certainly, who knew that the Managerial Wall Period was going to become a rallying cry for an ignorance driven contrarian machine? But by the second report in 1992 this was dropped. I'd venture a guess that, since it was the first report, the authors were simply scrambling for something, anything simple for non-science types to be able to look at without their eyes glazing over. -
HumanityRules at 10:37 AM on 18 February 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
FYI, the full Clement paper can be read here . -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
pbjamm and Philippe... When I go to Alexa and check the reach his site gets, it's really very limited. The list does get bandied about here and there, but, in my experience, not nearly as much as the Oregon Petition (which got a lot of play on FoxNews). We've probably all given PT more time and energy than he's worth. -
pbjamm at 08:20 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Eric(skeptic) 's plan 1a seems best to me. Ignoring it only leaves The List out there unchallenged to be used as a bludgeon by people with an ax to grind. Philippe Chantreau: "Frankly, if I was just starting to enquire about climate change and I ran into this kind of BS, it would be quite helpful to determine what exactly is there on the "skeptic" side." After Climategate a skeptic/denier I know waved the emails around as definitive proof that AGW theory was bunk. I decided that it was time I seriously reexamine my stance on the subject. What i found was mostly (but not entirely) Scientific Theory vs Conspiracy Thoeory. Even without any scientific qualifications it was pretty easy to see who was on the side of reason. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:49 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
For those of us who can think, option 2) is the best, Eric. It is obvious that PopTech is so ignorant of how review works that he confused appearing in a peer-reviewed publication with being reviewed. Hence the conference proceedings, editorials and other opinion pieces. It is also obvious that he barely read the title of some papers before including them in the list, so some papers have no reason to be there at all. I asked him 3 or 4 times about one specific paper (Mavromichalaki), he still has no answer. This is produced by the guy who calls it "my work" and will rant on and on about objectivity but can not even abide by his own objective, self defined standards when doing "his work." Frankly, if I was just starting to enquire about climate change and I ran into this kind of BS, it would be quite helpful to determine what exactly is there on the "skeptic" side. Not pretty. The 850 number is overinflated but PopTech can't bear to admit it. Either that or it was so hard to come up with that measly number that he does not want to take out even the flimsiest non reviewed opinion piece. After pages and pages of revealing PT's strange thought process, we're left with what was also obvious to start with: the silly list is meaningless. It is unfortunate that there are people out there with such low critical thinking skills that they'll be impressed by it, but we can't remake poeple's education over the internet. -
David Horton at 07:08 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Interesting and frightening for Australia. One puzzling aspect, given recent events, is why the lack of wet conditions in the far north of Australia in the future? I thought earlier predictions had suggested this, and intuitively you would expect, with warmer seas, more rainfall events of the kind Darwin has just seen But elsewhere in Australia - not only not much room for agriculture, but not much room for people at all! -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:06 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
My view of the options, FWIW. 1a) Use part of the list as a museum of invalidated theory, clearly stating the theory (where possible) and the reason why it is invalid : outdated, incoherent, illogical, falsified. 1b) categorize the remaining papers where they may rebut arguments in particular cases (e.g. hurricane trends and many other examples). 2) Just ignore the list. Option 1a has the advantage of giving a resource to people on the internet faced with the real threat to understanding that these papers represent. Option 1b is properly the job of skeptics in each speciality. -
Utahn at 06:57 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "Choosing the denominator would be subjective." Agreed, but could probably be made less subjective than how you've described your numerator. In sum: Your subjective opinion is that 850 papers is strong evidence. Objectively, though, you can have no idea how strong, without numerical context. Subjectively, my suspicion is that 850 is a trivial number. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:53 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
I covered the Dai study as well as another on the decline in the evapotranspiration rate over land here for IPS along with some comments from Kevin Trenberth and implications. (for those looking for an easy intro to the topic). -
Rob Painting at 06:18 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil - By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surfaceand therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem Yes, precisely. Scores of scientific papers say the same thing. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. Good so far. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more. Doh!. You're just repeating the assertions you made above. Again look at the graph you provided at post 10.
Note the first and second figures. See those values down deep?. They are unchanged. If the deepwater upwelling is causing a change in ocean surface pH, why isn't the deep ocean DIC value changing?. Remember we are talking about a massive change in ocean pH, 0.1 units or almost a 30% increase in acidity since pre-industrial times.
Here's an analogy: take a jug of water from out of a swimming pool. Walk to the other end of the pool and pour the water back into it. You are claiming that the water level in the pool has now risen. I say it has remained the same.
I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts.
Sorry but rhetoric doesn't hide the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Just to be clear; the pulse of CO2 that humans have injected into the atmosphere is likely unprecedented in 300 million years. We know that ocean acidification events in the deep past, have pretty much decimated life in the oceans, the Permian extinction eliminated over 95% of marine life. There are genuine reasons to be concerned for the future. Invoking some incoherent mystery mechanism doesn't cut it.
-
muoncounter at 05:49 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"editorials can be peer-reviewed depending on the journal." Come on. An editorial is an opinion piece. Just because the editorial is in a peer-reviewed journal, do not claim that makes the editorial itself peer-reviewed. Or have you redefined 'editorial' to suit your needs? But wait a bit: You include papers that have nothing to do with your so-called skeptic arguments just because you like something in their title or abstract. You admit you do not read or even have access to full content. You admit you don't really care if the paper is valid or not, because the list is 'a resource.' Why do you even care if they are peer-reviewed? Even a toxic waste dump can be considered a resource. -
mspelto at 05:48 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Dan Bailey poses " 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?". The accelerations observed for the Ice sheet from meltwater lubrication have mostly been inland, not at the ice edge. It not the amount of meltwater that is key but the basal water pressure. Near the margin there has always been plenty of meltwater, increasing this by a percentage means little. The accleration from meltwater on all glaciers tends to be highest early in melt season or when a glacial lake drains in either case the meltwater exceeds the ability of the basal plumbing system to drain the water. After the drainage system develops added meltwater no longer lubricates motion. This is why Shephard (2011) noted the potential of added meltwater to reduce GIS flow. It also is why the acceleration is short lived, spatially limited and often is followed by a slower than usual flow some weeks after. We also must remember that there are alpine glaciers in warm environments of New Zealand, Chile and Alaska for example where melting occurs most of the year at the terminus and this bountiful meltwater does not lead to their collapse. Instead they just develop effective sub-glacial conduit systems.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, Mauri! -
RickG at 05:45 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: RickG, "You conveniently excluded the next sentence of that statement (in 558) which states: Now, [you] seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW." Poptech: "Because it is a strawman argument". Sure Pop. You "quote mine" me and when I call you on it, you say "I" created a strawman. Well, that's enough for me. As someone previously stated, "You are the gift that just keeps giving". -
Gordon1368 at 05:42 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@48 GFW One meter is a disaster in Oregon, where we have a coastal mountain range that crowds our fishing and tourism towns close to the Pacific, as well as the single road that links all coastal towns north and south, and that provides sole access to most of them. One meter rise will cut that road in many places, requiring expensive roadwork, higher up existing slopes, many new bridges, and will destroy countless buildings, and will require huge coastal engineering projects to maintain access to fisheries. We can hardly pay for schools as it is, the additional burden may be impossible to meet. We may see coastal towns, and north south road travel abandoned on our coast. @ #40, Peter, you claim people here refuse to do calculations. "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." Why do you ignore post #8, which suggests we may see a doubling of ice mass loss every 5-6 years? That means a rate of loss 1,000 times as great as now in 60 years, or equal to 1/40 of existing ice at that time, if I did my calculations correctly. -
muoncounter at 05:39 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil: I appreciate your giving me credit for these graphs, however undeserved. To label a graph as 'insidious,' however, is a tad strong. "to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time" Assumption? Not at all. Quay et al 1992 showed by isotopic measurement (delta C13/C12) that from 1970-90, ocean uptake of CO2 amounted to approximately 40% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. They also account for biospheric uptake of anthropogenic CO2. This is not the normal carbon cycle; this is the excess CO2 from anthropogenic emissions. A number of studies have shown that land CO2 sinks are losing their capacity to take up as much CO2 as atmospheric composition increases. As ocean pH drops, the ability of the ocean to absorb atmospheric CO2 may likewise suffer. And so shall we all. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
For everyone trying to nail down sea level rise based on ice melt, it should be remembered that thermal expansion of the oceans is contributing a factor roughly equal to that of ice loss. The best one could say is that at least, for the moment, that factor is not accelerating. But for the foreseeable near future, one must double the ice-loss-caused sea-level rise estimates, to account for accompanying thermal expansion. -
pbjamm at 05:25 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@576 You keep saying it but it does not make it so. This seriously feels like the Argument Clinic. -
les at 05:09 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
574 pbjamm You summary of the state of play so far is good, but I'm not sure about your remedy. If it's not possible to reach a conclusion on what's subjective and what's objective, it's not possible to do any science... which is the essence of how this whole thing produces a message with no meaning. I mean, for gods sake, it's from on a site claiming to be about popular technology - which isn't! lost cause, lost interest... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:00 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
mclamb6... Heck, even I admit that the first pass contained inapplicable papers. But the point was that you can throw out literally half the papers that I pulled up and it would barely put a dent in the resulting percentage. But if you apply more rigorous methods to the denominator you need to do the same for the numerator. Then we get back down to similar numbers again. As I stated in the original article, people can quibble the numbers all day long (and PT seems more than willing to engage in prodigious quibbling), but the overall results are not going to significantly change. As I said many pages back, this would be a very interesting detailed study. How many peer reviewed papers genuinely do challenge AGW? I know they are out there. But my general sense is the results are going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of what my shoot-from-the-hip method has produced. -
mclamb6 at 04:45 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Fine. I will admit that Rob's first cut at creating the "denominator" contained inapplicable papers. You cannot, however, use that to argue that the denominator is "meaningless". The denominator is particularly relevant in relation to your claims that your list consitutes strong evidence in support of a skeptical position towards climate change. -
pbjamm at 04:31 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
This thread has been going in circles for about 10 pages. Poptech makes the claim that Rob's original denominator number is not well researched and so not useful. I have to agree, it is guesstimation and not a hard number. Sorry Rob. Everyone else has made very valid points (despite Poptech's protests) that his list is entirely subjective and riddled with poorly reviewed, rebutted, and irrelevant papers. Since Poptech is not interested in defending the science in the papers and dismissive of any criticism I think there is nowhere left to go with this discussion. In my opinion the only constructive things to do at this point are compile a proper Denominator List and perhaps a list of rebuttals to the papers on PT' list. Otherwise we will just continue arguing in circles. It has been entertaining but for me it is over. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:27 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@571 wrote: "I would be interested in someone who worked with him and would be able to argue his position well. " [emphasis mine] That is exactly what I implied, namely that you are only interested in discussing the validity of Beck's paper with someone someone able to argue his position (and not the opposing position). If you only want to hear from people that already agree with you it is neither science nor skepticism. [as your earlier post was deleted] -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@568 Sorry, you have made it clear that you are not interested in defending the validity of your selections. Sadly the scientific validity of your list is the only thing worth discussing, and I have no interest in arguing just for the sake of it. If you want to discuss the science, let me know and "I'll be back". -
muoncounter at 04:02 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Rob: "The number of citations by other papers." That wouldn't work; junk science papers just cite each other. One laborious test might be how many times an author cites his/her own work vs. citing the work of others. An obvious example of this is Landscheidt, who almost exclusively cites his prior papers. Either he was a true unrecognized genius or nobody else believed his work enough to use it as a reference. -
RickG at 04:01 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech 563: RickG, "No, I am drawing attention to that specific paper because you specifically pointed that paper out as an argument against AGW." Poptech 563: I did no such thing, I pointed it out as an argument against AGW Alarm in relation to Hurricanes. I did state in relation to hurricanes. You conveniently excluded the next sentence of that statement (in 558) which states: "Now, [you] seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW. " -
michael sweet at 04:01 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Guinganbresil, The Feely paper you reference shows by direct measurement that anthropogenic CO2 is lowering the aragonite saturation level of the North Pacific ocean. They do not use a model. They measure undersaturation of the surface water on one transect. They state that it was not expected to measure surface undersaturation until 2050. They calculate that without the anthropogenic carbon put into the water 60 years ago it would not be undersaturated now. You suggest that the profesional scientists you have cited are wrong and overlooked other possible mechanisms of increase of CO2. Setting aside the fact that you have not read everything the scientists wrote about this subject in the past, can you suggest where the CO2 is coming from that you propose is now upwelling and changing the surface composition? Why is it different from what was measured in the past? If it was just coming up from deeper water, the deep water would be deficient in CO2 now compared to the past. That is not consistent with what has been measured, so the CO2 cannot come from deeper water. The scientists have considered the alternatives you have suggested and ruled them out. You have just not read those discussions in the past. You hand waving and saying the professionals are wrong is not a convincing argument.. -
mclamb6 at 03:58 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
@565: I don't see the Poptech post that is excerpted by DM. But I would like to know if that means that Poptech believes he is capable of arguing for Pielke, Jr.Moderator Response: [DB] Cf. comment number 562 here. -
GFW at 03:55 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
One meter is a disaster if you're Bangladeshi. Two meters is a disaster in a lot of the world. I wonder what the over/under is on the date Venice is abandoned.
Prev 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Next
