Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Next
Comments 95701 to 95750:
-
muoncounter at 00:45 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter Offenhartz: "much more informative if the change in polar ice were ratioed " Look at the Arctic ice extent graph; values have declined from a more-or-less steady ~8 to approaching 4. That's approaching a -50% change. "understand the role polar ice plays in stabilizing climate" It seems to be failing at that role; are you implying that as Arctic ice continues declining, things will get worse at an increasing rate? -
Bern at 00:30 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
re Daniel Bailey @ 8 - yes, that's the paper I was thinking of - it's compelling reading. I was taking the 10-year period as a 'conservative' approach (and that thought is scary all by itself!) Some people in many wealthy nations complain about the refugee problems we have today. What's it going to be like when sea levels rise by 5 metres? I saw one estimate (can't recall where) that that much rise puts half of Bangladesh (and most of it's arable land) under water - there's about 80 *million* potential refugees. How are developed economies going to deal with that, while also trying to move trillions of dollars worth of cities & infrastructure to higher ground? The federal gov't estimates from 2009 suggest Queensland alone faces losing between $10-16 billion worth of residential buildings if sea level rises 1.1 metres. That doesn't include the cost of the real estate (potentially as much again), the cost of infrastructure (roads, power, water, comms) to supply those residences, or commercial/industrial property. Or losses due to economic disruption. Clearly, the ice mass loss described in this article is of concern. The 5m plus increase Hansen is suggesting would be catastrophic, even just from an economic point of view. From a humanitarian point of view, it almost doesn't bear thinking about. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:29 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Re: Gordon (10) Fair questions, all. Given the non-linearity of the ice sheet mass losses that have occurred in the paleo record & the anticipated warming "in the pipeline" (even if emissions are magically capped at zero indefinitely), we are clearly past the point of no return with our current shorelines. Whether it's 5 meters by 2100 or 10: the all-important first 2 meters of SLR is what matters. 2 meters will be enough to destabilize the 3rd world coastal nations & most of the developing world as well. If it occurs with the anticipated increase in droughts worldwide (a forthcoming blog post here details that), then the impact on today's society passes reliable calculation. Getting pretty far off-topic here, but I'll close with this: the focus on Greenland is a red-herring. What matters is the impending summer loss of Arctic sea ice cover followed by what happens with the WAIS. Those are the things to monitor. The Yooper -
Ann at 00:29 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
IMHO, I don't think we'll ever see 9 billion people on this planet. The world's resources are finite; there is a limit to the earth's carrying capacity; Malthus will be proven right in time. I just hope that we reach that limit softly. The world population, when it grew at it’s fasted rate, increased with 2% each year. Now we are down to 1% per year but compared with the rest of human history it is still a very fast relative growth rate. In the past decade the world population has increased with one billion people. Going from 6 billion to 7 billion (give or take a few …) The fastest addition of one billion people to the world population yet. I think it’s terrifying. The scenarios of the IPCC project a moderate population growth, to even a stabilization of the world population after 2200 (a stabilization will supposedly not be caused by lack of resources, but by improving living standards around the globe which will cause families to have less children). This assumption is taken as is from a study by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and no further dependencies between population/global warming/resources/etc. are taken into account in the IPCC scenarios. I wonder how well founded this assumption is, because so much is dependent on it. Is it just an extrapolation of the demographic evolution in the developed countries ? This would be insufficient evidence for me. Cultures differ, for instance in muslim countries no decrease of the average number of children per family is observed. The only conclusion you can come to when looking at the current graph is that the global population is still rising steeply. But even if the assumption is correct (which basically means: in a world with endless resources the human population would spontaneously stabilize after reaching a certain level of development), will the world population stabilize in time before resources run out ? If not, the world population will stabilize or even decrease by lack of resources e.g. famines. -
Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 17 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Bibliovermis #76 Where are we observing the forcing imbalance? -
Ken Lambert at 00:02 AM on 17 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Rob Painting #42 "Do you see your lack of internal consistency?." Err No!! The OHC 5 year period is in reference to an OHC graph touted on this website which covers the period 1993-2010 - a 17 year period. Is not 5 years a significant part of a 17 year period?; Especially when that period has seen the full deployment of Argo which (by the sheer number of measurements from 3000+ buoys) should bring much greater accuracy to same. -
Ken Lambert at 23:56 PM on 16 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Don9000 #41 The piece was from the Weekend Australian Jan22-23 pp10 reported by Tony Koch. The hydrologist quoted was Neal Ashkanasy. The 180 years was no doubt a cursory expression -a pedant would have said '187 years ago'. So no Don9000 - the hydrologist did not say this in 2004 - he said it in response to the 2011 flood. When I get time I will look up the exact reference in the John Oxley library in Brisbane. An old school book on my shelf records that Oxley 'discovered' the site for Brisbane city on 20th September 1824. Is that date close enough?? -
fydijkstra at 23:09 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
It makes no sense to describe the present warming as 6.3 degrees per century, because this will not continue for a century. Figure 1 shows a warming of 1.3 degrees per century, with oscillations of plus or minus 1.5 degrees. The period 1980-2010 was not the period with the fastest warming, because 1920-1945 had a faster warming (8 degrees per century, I guess). The present warming can be expected to reverse, as the NAO goes into its negative phase and solar activity is extremely low. 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. -
Marcus at 22:49 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Just curious, though-how does the warming per *decade* for 1979-2010 compare to, say, 1900-1931 or 1930-1961? -
les at 22:48 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
15: RSVP As you say, I missed one - or two? - or a few. Still clearly we agree there is no coherent view of this from the "contrarian" world. My version of your "so many other problems" one is: - Whether or not it's warming, money is better spent on X. where X = any example of human misery that the author is prepared to make political capital out of. Which has been argued well and badly but is certainly off topic as the ice does not give a fig whether or not it's cost effective to tackle CO2 emissions and such like. As for your last comment "And frankly, if your only concern is Global Warming, you must not have "real" problems." What can I say but get a grip. -
Marcus at 22:44 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Ah, RSVP, you're once again proving that you have nothing worthwhile to add to this conversation. You want to provide the basis for your belief that change is slight "compared to other problems"? Given how many other problems warming will either create or exacerbate, I think you're on very "thin ice" (pardon the pun). When all the refugees created by global warming start muscling into your neighborhood-in the *millions*-then you'll know what *real* problems are. Of course, some of us are not so self centered, as you are, to only be interested in our own problems. Many of us are very concerned about the plight of those living in poverty-& how those people will be impacted by global warming-all because some of us can't be bothered using fuel efficient vehicles or catching public transport more often. -
Marcus at 22:34 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
One last point I'd like to make though. There is no faith-based arguments at this site, PT-almost all of the contributions to this site have their origin in properly sourced scientific research, & many responses cite other scientific papers that strongly back the assertions made in the original contribution. Of course, science & evidence are a novelty to the members of the Denialist Cult who-as PT has shown-still believe that science can be "subjective", "belief-based" & decided by public relations campaigns. Also, though, what's faith based about the physical proof of the relationship between CO2 & IR radiation absorption? Or the measured decline in Stratosphere temperatures? Or the rapid rise in tropospheric temperatures over the last 30 years? Or the measured decline in Arctic Ice cover & glaciers? Or the measured decline in outgoing IR radiation to space? None of this has its basis in *faith*, but in *hard evidence*. When you & your Denialist mates can provide something more compelling than "AGW isn't happening because Lord Monckton tells me so" or "AGW isn't happening because 'insert left-wing conspiracy theory here'", then I'll be very interested to hear it. -
Marcus at 22:27 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
As much as PT keeps trying to convince himself otherwise (& sounding more dubious with each attempt), all of this claims to date have been patently *wrong*. -He accused Rob of "Google Scholar Illiteracy", yet many posters here-including Rob himself-have successfully debunked this claim. They've shown that, no matter how stringent the criteria you apply to the search, you can find many times more *pure science* papers-supporting AGW-than all of PT's papers (which are not limited to pure science). -he claims that there has been no successful attack on his list, yet that is just more delusion on his part. Posters here have shown that (a) many papers are from Journals with a vested interest (i.e. Money from the Fossil Fuel Industry) in lowering the bar of "Peer Review" to let more skeptic papers get published. (b) that many of the papers are not merely old, have not merely been refuted, but have been utterly debunked-like MacLean's travesty, where he "hides the incline", or the Papers claiming current warming is the result of some as yet unknown=& highly variable-natural cycle (yet unable to provide proof); (c) that many of the papers are not science based at all, but are legal & policy papers based entirely on the author's *opinion*; (d) that most of the science-based papers are written by the same half a dozen people (Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, Christy & Singer)-often using the very mathematical models that PT claims to deride; (e) that in many cases he is using what is essentially the same paper, but published in multiple journals & (f) that some of the papers don't actually back skepticism as he claims, or are at best lukewarm. That seems a very successful, multi-pronged attack on "the list" to me. When the padding is stripped away, you're really just left with what we already knew-that there is a hard-core group of scientists & policy-makers who cannot, & will not, ever accept the possibility of dangerous AGW. Hardly a revelation. However, as I don't expect PT to *ever* give up his delusions, then I think its best we just leave this IT guy with delusions of grandeur to crawl back to Denialist Central, where he isn't required to defend his position. -
RSVP at 21:26 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
The Ville 12 "Most large companies, organisations, authorities etc, have been required to produce climate adaptation plans. " "have been required" sounds a lot different from enthusiastic support, which basically supports my micro thesis. les 14 You missed one.. -It's warming, and at this point, a colder climate might cause just as much havoc as a warmer one. or -Yes, yes, yes its warming, but the change is so slight compared to so many other problems. And frankly, if your only concern is Global Warming, you must not have "real" problems. -
Utahn at 20:42 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Neglected to mention, the above exchange is of course from the "documentary", "This is Spinal Tap". -
scaddenp at 20:34 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
That is the problem, it is not so simple as you reach data point A. It is whether we can adapt to point A. so far I have seen no evidence that we cannot. But how do you know whether you are right or not? Can your believe be falsified? So far you are carefully avoiding any way in which your beliefs can be shown to be false. By contrast, climate science throws up a large no. of predictions by which falsification is possible. It seems your beliefs appear to be routed in something other data and constructed to avoid falsification. I've finished wasting my time. -
Utahn at 20:31 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT: "This is a value judgment so what someone considers 'strong' or 'weak' is going to be subjective. In regards to my list, yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm." So in your view, the fact that one can find 850 papers that can be construed to support the skeptical position constitutes strong evidence. Good to know, I'll get you some smoking and lung cancer links tomorrow and expect you to go on the attack against the unfairly declared lung cancer-smoking "consensus." Never mind the context of the orders of magnitude more articles supporting the consensus, 850 is strong evidence! Somehow your logic reminds of a certain superstar: Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Marty DiBergi: I don't know. Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven. Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder. -
scaddenp at 20:24 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
The small group of alarmist scientists is not the "scientific community". Sorry, but the lack of take-up of "science" in those journals (not to mention the relative readership) is the judgement of the science community. The tiny group of non-science reality-deniers publishing in E&E is the minority group. This is not the definition of peer-review, I am perfectly aware of the definition. I was telling you what is meant by peer-review in science. You can quote dictionary definitions till you are blue in the face, but that is what is the "peer-review" is short-hand for in science whether you like or not. Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Citations are the indication that a paper has been worthwhile and more science has been built on it. Nonsense papers are just forgotten. Its not a perfect measure but its light-years ahead of your list.Moderator Response: [DB] Phil, to close an html tag, the slash must precede the letter. Thanks! -
les at 20:04 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
11: RSVP: "What makes you think "contrarians" aren't in favor of global warming?" Clearly no one can assert or deny that either way. For "contrarians" point of view, we always have the choice of: - Nothing's happening - It's warming (not due to human action), but not by enough to worry about. - It's warming (not due to human action), but it's good - It's warming (due to human action), but not by enough to worry about. - It's warming (due to human action), but it's good - It's cooling (not due to human action), etc. etc. (That's not to say that all projections from the real world are in total agreement, of course not, but they vary by degree and technical detail) -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
RSVP@11 wrote "I am sure deep down there are "hundreds of millions of people" who wouldnt mind seeing some changes in their lives,... and more likely than not, the well-to-do who do not." That is very unlikely to be correct. The well-to-do are unlikely to be substantially bothered by the direct effects of warming - they have the resources to adapt. However, there are billions living at subsistence level around the world who have difficulty providing enough food for themselves; any disruption to food supply as existing agricultural methods become unviable will cause a big problem, as they don't have the resources to adapt. You have it entirely the wrong way round. If you were a Bangladeshi, I suspect you might not be that keen on a bit of warming and an increase in sea level. "Why are we just gawking at the ice melt, and not spending money on preparing for "the worst"? " In short because of politics. Science can demonstrate there is a problem that needs attention, and suggest solutions. Action however depends on politics, and when was raising taxes ever a vote winner with the electorate? However, this is not the thread (or perhaps the site) for that discussion -
Paul D at 19:28 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
RSVP: I don't know where you live, but in the UK there are plans being drawn up to cope with initial changes (unless emissions are cut then long term changes are not defendable against). Most large companies, organisations, authorities etc, have been required to produce climate adaptation plans. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12302555 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12384389 -
RSVP at 19:04 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Contrarians claim Arctic sea ice has “recovered” What makes you think "contrarians" aren't in favor of global warming? ...as if one must not only believe warming is real, but that it can only bring negative consequences. I am sure deep down there are "hundreds of millions of people" who wouldnt mind seeing some changes in their lives,... and more likely than not, the well-to-do who do not. In any event, since we seem to have fair warning here, (out to 50 years or so), when exactly should society begin backing away for coast lines and building dikes? Supposedly, even if we stop burning fossil fuels the warming is suppose to continue since "equilibrium" hasnt been reached yet. Why are we just gawking at the ice melt, and not spending money on preparing for "the worst"? -
Stu at 18:58 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
^ Ron, not Rob. Sorry. -
Stu at 18:57 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"I would find alarming something we are unable to adapt to that would result in the loss of innocent life." I don't think that's exactly what Rob was asking? Anyway, that's quite a leap from the way you defined 'alarming' in relation to your list, in which case any remotely bad consequence of AGW was considered alarming. -
Rob Painting at 18:33 PM on 16 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Rick G @16 - not really the same argument, although the logical fallacy is similar. -
Rob Painting at 18:26 PM on 16 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil - "On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008" Yup, marine scientists are well aware that ocean pH is not homogeneous, and that there are regions of upwelling. Note the flux of CO2 to and from the ocean surface from this NOAA PMEL graph:
You still haven't explained your novel mechanism, in fact you continue to evade the question, dancing around the issue . How does the ocean become acidified if not from fossil fuel emissions?. Remember those graphs of total DIC in the ocean you posted at comment Nos.7 & 10.?. Where's that extra carbon coming from?. You understand it has to be coming from outside the oceans right?. See what I mean about coherence?.
guinganbresil - .....are playing fast and loose with the facts.
Typed, no doubt, without the slightest inkling of self-awareness.
-
Gordon1368 at 18:15 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
So, Daniel, does a doubling of Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss every 5 years mean 4x current rate of loss in a decade? 16x in 20 years? 64 times the current rate of loss in 30 years? (I'll be dead then, my grandchildren should be at the start of their life careers then) 256 times in 2 score years? What would that do to the "small" ratio of loss in a mere two score years, Peter? -
Ron Crouch at 17:28 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Just out of personal interest PT (I assume this is Andrew), and perhaps you'll think it an odd question, but just what exactly would it take to change your mind? What would really convince you? I gotta ask here cause I'm sure you wouldn't let me ask you on your blog. -
Ron Crouch at 17:15 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#423 PT "I have made not made any comments to that topic." Both!! -
Stu at 16:55 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Well I cannot find the comment policy on your site so I'll have to take your word for it. I thought my unpublished comment characterised the two best challenges to your objection to Rob's post that have been made in the previous 400 and whatever posts: Firstly, that if one were sufficiently patient one could break down the search in google scholar into well-organised chunks of fewer than 1000 papers, and thereby be able to exhaustively search all relevant entries to see if they support AGW 'alarm' by your broadbrush definition. Secondly, that that would not actually be necessary in order to put your 850 into proper context because one could analyse a sample of google scholar results to come up with a reliable estimate. If you disagree, I suggest you take a statistics course. -
Peter Offenhartz at 16:52 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
It would be much more informative if the change in polar ice were ratioed to the total ice content. This is important for two reasons: (1) The ratio is in fact small and (2) It is the polar ice that puts a brake on global warming. The total heat capacity of polar ice is huge, greater than the heat capacity of the world's oceans. It important to understand the role polar ice plays in stabilizing climate over the course of scores of years, and possibly hundreds of years. -
Ron Crouch at 16:52 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#410 PT "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started." Then you have violated your own policy by allowing your post on your site to be subject to comments. Why? Because you have included substance that comes from the comments section of this post. In other words you are soliciting comments on your site that directly relate to comments on this site. A blatant violation of your own policy. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:49 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Re: Bern (7) Hansen 2011 (p. 17) makes the case for a best-fit 5-6 year doubling time for mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica due to non-linear ice sheet losses, and that we have already equaled the temperature levels of the Holocene Altithermal (Holocene Maximum). Pass the popcorn. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 16:39 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Re: koyaanisqatsi (31) I suspect an issue exists in terminology (see here for discussion). D Kelly O'Day has an excellent post on CO2 here. Quality posts on the subject at SkS can be found here and here. The Yooper -
Bern at 16:34 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
And that's assuming that Hansen's estimate of a 10-year doubling period for ice mass loss isn't correct... 5m by the end of the century? 25m sea level rise in the next few centuries? Nasty stuff! Will it be amazing? Yes, absolutely. In the same sense that a plane crash, or a train wreck, or a massive pile-up on a freeway is amazing. Some forms of amazement I can do without. Watching those ice mass loss charts get steeper by the year is just scary! -
PT_Goodman at 16:23 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
@muoncounter I've been to NOAA, downloaded and spread-sheeted annual CO2 ppmvs and increments for 1950 to 1020. I've calculated increments for each year from consecutive annual ppmv averages (kinda agree with NOAA's). I've calculated % ∆ppmv change for each year. I've calculated average ∆ppmv and %∆ppmv for 1959 to 1020 and 1970 to 2010. I get an average %∆ppmv of 0.45 from 1970 to 2010. That's good. I still don't know where NASA's 1% annual ppmv increase (average) comes from. What is that number? I've emailed NASA and OCO--no answer yet. My NASA OCO link above works..I just double checked. If I can't defend my number I'm on no more firm ground than a skeptic, and that's a very uncomfortable place to be. -
Marcus at 16:08 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm". Which is what differentiates the Denialist Cult from the rest of us. The Denialist Cult rely a lot on personal belief-without the need for strong evidence to back it up-which is very Faith based. Indeed, the ability to accept mutually contradictory positions is also another typical trait of those who base their views on Faith, rather than Fact. The scientific evidence, over the space of more than 100 years, show a strong relationship between the rise in CO2 & the rise in global temperatures over the last 30-60 years-with other past forcings trending in the opposite directions. This same evidence suggests, very strongly, that further CO2 emissions will lead to yet more temperature rises over the coming century. Even the best case scenario for future Global Warming (which assumes low sensitivity) could cause enormous societal & environmental damage-& based on the impacts of climate change events in the past. That view is not the product of Faith or Personal Belief, it is the basis of more than 100 years of very strong evidence established via the best principles of the scientific method, evidence which no attempt by the skeptic community has managed to undermine. By comparison, Poptech, your much vaunted list represents nothing more than a patchwork quilt of unsubstantiated nonsense-which does more to weaken your case than to strengthen it. -
Stu at 16:06 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started. " Your site has a post on this exact topic and it is by definition a continuation of this topic. You would evidently prefer it to remain unchallenged on your site, given that I reckon the majority of your readers will not come over here and see what else the sks regulars have to say. Skeptical Science could just as easily not approve any submissions from you in this thread, even though your list is the major topic of discussion (just as sks is the topic of your post). Please correct me if I am wrong, but you would consider it a trifle unfair if they did that, no? Anyway, you approved one (completely content-free) comment on it, so why not mine? -
guinganbresil at 16:02 PM on 16 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008. The salient measurements were made in May and July of 2007: "The central and southern coastal region off western North America is strongly influenced by seasonal upwelling, which typically begins in early spring when the Aleutian low-pressure system moves to the northwest and the Pacific Highmoves northward, resulting in a strengthening of the northwesterly winds (Hickey, 1998; Pennington and Chavez, 2000). These winds drive net surface-water Ekman transport offshore, which induces the upwelling of CO2-rich, intermediate depth (100 to 200 m) offshore waters onto the continental shelf. The upwelling lasts until late summer or fall, when winter storms return." I should point out that although this paper alleges to show exacerbation of low ph due to anthropogenic sources: "Although seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." This was not done through time series measurements showing the increase in affected area. It was shown by applying a model that assumes increasing pH to their essentially single temporal data point taken in May-July 2007. This is a classic case of 'begging the question' - applying a model that assumes increasing pH to essentially a single temporal data point to show that pH increases. This paper does, however, show that the coastal regions are subject to upwelling of low pH water which would result in pH stressed organisms. Here is an excellent example of sad shellfish studied in an area of documented upwelling. I hope this provides some coherence for Rob Painting... not so novel... Does all this disprove the assertion that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risk to ocean health through increasing pH? No. On the other hand, it shows that there are more factors than just atmospheric CO2 at play here and some in the popular press (back to Sigorney Weaver) are playing fast and loose with the facts. -
muoncounter at 15:32 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Koy: Go to NOAA for CO2 data; skip this NASA site question altogether. -
PT_Goodman at 15:19 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
I get the right number by not using the NASA supplied 1% increase in annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But is my reasoning correct???? That is the big question for me. If I can't defend the reasoning, I don't stand much of a chance in converting the skeptic who thinks NASA lied. Not that I've ever converted a skeptic. -
John Cook at 15:04 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
"What wonderful times we live in, in that we can see and monitor these changes." I'm not sure the hundreds of millions of people who depend on glacier melt for drinking water consider glacial retreat so wonderful, nor the other hundreds of millions who will be displaced by the one to two metres sea level rise predicted over the next century. -
Marcus at 14:52 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Got to love Poptech's earlier comment that supposedly Cato Journal & E&E are not guilty of bad Peer Review processes. Yet both "Journals" have a clearly articulated political/ideological agenda which are the absolute *antithesis* of good, neutral peer review. Hence why papers from said sources must be treated with heaping pillar of salt. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:47 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The OCO site won't load for me. Anyway, NASA isn't involved with tracking CO2 at Mauna Loa; NOAA is in charge of that. So I'd stick with the experts. As far as CO2 measurements & their reliability, SkS has a post on that -
Bern at 14:39 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
HuggyPopsBear: You're right, we're going to see some amazing things over the next few decades / centuries, sights that humans have never seen before. However, it puts me in mind of the Chinese saying: "May you live in interesting times." Remember, that's a curse, not a blessing... -
muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
The rate of warming you obtain is consistent with graphs shown by Peter Hogarth in the post on northern hemisphere warming rates. Arctic amplification, we are here. -
muoncounter at 14:31 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The OCO site Koy links is indeed misleading. One percent annually, starting at 326 ppm, means a >3ppm increase in year one. That didn't happen. It's now (391) increasing at ~2.5 ppm per year, which is still less than 1% per year. The real increase is bad enough, why the fuzzy math? -
K T at 14:30 PM on 16 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
To Ann: I think there's another critical choice we all need to make -- that between INDEFINITE EXPONENTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH and a STEADY STATE system. If we choose the former, no amount of 'green' technology will help. Let's say we use 'green' technology to cut down by half the amount of pollution cars generate. If we then merrily proceed to double the number of cars around, what happens? We'll go back to square one. That's what the arithmetic dictates -- you can't get around it. Are any of us prepared to abandon the ideology of indefinite growth, though? Can we reasonably expect Asians to abandon it first? By the way, the traditional philosophies of Asia, such as Buddhism, have been found to contain much that is ecologically insightful. But of course Asians have (largely) been brainwashed by their former colonial masters from the West into thinking that their traditions were obsolete. -
PT_Goodman at 14:05 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. First, I have patience and no virtues. Second, you don't have to convince me. But, the numbers do not add up in the NASA OCO article. Clearly, a 1% annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppmv from 1970 to 2010 (with a 1970 value of 326 ppmv) would result in a in 326*1.01**40=485 ppmv in 2010. But the CO2 concentration in 2010 is 389 ppmv. The best I could do was assume that only 43% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, so that the math becomes 326*1.0043**40=387. That is the right number, but I'm not convinced. It strikes me that NASA has been a little sloppy here, even if I am right. The deniers go nuts over stuff like this--they think it's a proof that AGW advocates are lying. It becomes a real problem when we shoot *ourselves* in the foot. koyModerator Response: I don't understand. You get the right number, so why are you unconvinced? -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:01 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"No, my site is not for a continuation of comment discussions at other locations." Got a good chuckle out of this one. In other words: My site is for me to comment on other discussions that I find relevant but not for others to challenge or question anything that I might choose to say in any form. You are, I have to say, very consistent in your application of absurd logic.
Prev 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Next
