Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 Next
Comments 107151 to 107200:
-
kdkd at 20:17 PM on 12 October 2010Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
adelady #22 But theoretically increasing urbanisation can cause an increase (or decrease) in the trend independent of the baseline value. I'd be interested in hearing of experimental work of the effect of concrete surfaces of different sizes on temperature maxima and minima. -
HumanityRules at 19:31 PM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
Riccardo, I like the caveat. There should be such caveats in all climate science papers. I'd encourage people to be sceptical about papers that don't know their limitations. Polemical point overwith I've got a question about the science. This paper seems to have implications that go beyond the upside down response you describe. I'm speculating below, do you know in what ways this may cause us to reassess some past work? For example all Hansen's model predictions in the IPCC docs rely on Lean 2000. Are we meant to conclude that Lean 2000 is plain wrong? Lean 2000 is cited by 200+ papers according to Google Scholar. This must have an impact on work that looks at change spectra given that these are generally based on snapshots comparing year X with year Y. It's not just the sign of these changes but the magnitudes at different wavelengths that seem important. If as this paper suggests the solar spectrum varies in completely unexpected ways there may be natural variance that are completely ignored in these papers conclusions. -
adelady at 18:19 PM on 12 October 2010Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
But we're only interested in the trends, not the raw temperatures. These analyses work whether the comparison is from tropical, polar, ocean, urban or rural areas. The trend is picked up regardless of the records averaging around -30C or +25C. If an urban area is always or usually a degree or two above a neighbouring rural area, that's fine. What matters is not whether one or the other is higher or lower, but whether the temperature increase or decrease is similar or wildly different. -
jadesmith at 17:39 PM on 12 October 2010Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
The increase in urban heat is not only by the natural causes in climate change but the Green house gases are the main cause of global warming. The gases like Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the main hazards to the global warming which are mainly found in the Urban atmosphere than in the less polluted rural areas. Effects of Global Warming -
kdkd at 17:31 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
KL #677 Pray please explain your interpretation of the phrase "There remains an unresolved 4.5 W/m^2 difference between the TIM and other space-borne radiometers, and this difference is being studied by the TSI and radiometry communities" from the link that you provided. Personally I feel more comfortable with the empirical surface data, which shows pretty clear anthropogenic warming from multiple angles. If you can explain the TIM/TSI issue in layman's terms (i.e. no jargon) without attempting to overlay your own preconceptions/interpretations on what's happening, that would be useful and valuable. The value will decrease if you use it to promulgate your sceptical agenda though - save that for a different post. -
Riccardo at 16:57 PM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
Agnostic I'm not in a position to answer to all of your questions properly. What I can say is that the SORCE spacecraft hosts new spectral and the total irradiance monitor instruments, which greatly improve the quality of the data. This, of course, by itself cannot rule out undetected issues with the instruments. The three years period is definitely too short, as Haigh herself says. If scientists have overestimated the solar contribution to warming, it's not just greenhouse gases contribution that need to be re-evaluated; it is the climate history of the last couple of millennia being involved. We are left with speculations. There is nothing wrong in thinking of the consequences of these new finding, albeit with a big "if" as a premise. -
Ken Lambert at 16:53 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
KR #674 Here is the link - have a look for yourself. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm Seems that the Monitoring community has been stumped over this -4.5W/sq.m discrepancy since 2005. -
ptbrown31 at 16:24 PM on 12 October 2010It's not us
Will somebody please post a link to a paper that concludes that an increased greenhouse effect should increase Tmin faster than Tmax. That claim is NOT supported by the papers that are posted here. Instead the papers that are used as references either A) Don't attempt to attribute DTR changes or B) They attribute DTR changes to clouds, aerosols, or land surface changes. e.g Paragraph 15 of the paper cited above Braganza, K., D. J. Karoly, and J. M. Arblaster (2004), Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31 -
kdkd at 16:09 PM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
GC #155 That's a rather odd comment. You are aware that the EPA has done a rather comprehensive review of the scientific information available, and responded to submissions? So the anti-scientific assertion seems to be incorrect. -
gallopingcamel at 16:05 PM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Given that this is supposed to be a science blog I find it depressing that so many of you use the "Clean Air Act" and anti-scientific nonsense published by the EPA in support of your arguments. -
kdkd at 14:30 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
KL #673 "Again the absolute values need to be used above a theoretical 'zero' equilibrium to quantify the energy gain or loss from each forcing." You appear to have the concept of a 'baseline' confused - it is not the same thing as a 'theoretical zero equilibrium' whatever that means. This is perhaps the root of the problems you are having with your illogical and confused argument. -
archiesteel at 14:20 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
@Ken: "What you don't get is those WMGG were not in theory 'forcing' (warming or cooling) the planet." Of course they were warming the planet, otherwise it would be much colder. The fact that it was relatively stable doesn't mean it had no effect, and in fact temperatures were far from stable pre-1750 (LIA, MWP, etc.) - they simply didn't go as high as the current trend is reaching. Furthermore, concentration wasn't stable at 280ppm, but varied between 180 and 280ppm. Again, the point is moot, as the graph does not show absolute values, but deltas. The fact you continue to claim otherwise shows that, despite using all the trappings of scientific discourse, you struggle to understand some vary basic concepts about the science. -
It's the sun
Ken Lambert - Are you certain of your numbers, 4.5W/m^2? Because looking at the graphed data (sorry, can't get to the original behind the paywall), the difference is on the order of 4-5 mW/m^2, not W/m^2! That's 0.0045W/m^2, just to make it clear. Again, that's several orders of magnitude too small to be the major issue with late 20th century warming. I could be mistaken - I don't have access to the original paper - but the effect appears to be very small. If I'm incorrect, please provide a link to the portion of the SORCE website (I spent some time, couldn't find it) that indicates such a major measurement error. It certainly doesn't appear to be visible in Haigh et al 2010. -
It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber - The topics of cloud feedback (including noctilucents) and of sudden regime changes in climate are both interesting, and it would be worthwhile to discuss those. I myself have suggested a thread on cloud feedback; unfortunately, I don't consider myself well enough informed on the topic to contribute that myself. Until we have a thread, though, I'm not going to ramble on regarding that topic on an unrelated thread. In regards to localized cold events, the data for the world shows 2010 tied for the hottest year on record. There will always be record highs and record lows occurring - that's the nature of variability. But the data indicates there are far more highs than lows (see this link, which I pointed you to before), showing that the mid-point, the climate, is moving up. Climate reversals: Perhaps there is some chance of a Younger Dryas type event, although that appears to have been a Northern Hemisphere occurrence, not a global one (perhaps a shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation?). But given that we don't know exactly why such events occurred, we don't have any evidence to suspect a climate reversal. What we do have is significant evidence and known risk factors for amplification of warming - methane release from permafrost and sea-floor clathrate accumulations, for example. Those would have global effects, not regional. Given what we know, those are significant risks down the line, not reversals. -
Ken Lambert at 12:35 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
KR #672 "You have presented exactly zero evidence for any mis-measure of TSI at any point in this discussion, and hence have no support for your apparent theory of TSI causing global warming." It is well established that Solar forcing in the range of 0.2 - 0.5W/sq.m was responsible for a a substantial portion of warming at least in the first half of the 20th century when theoretical CO2GHG forcing was much lower - by the equation I quoted in #672 above. Again the absolute values need to be used above a theoretical 'zero' equilibrium to quantify the energy gain or loss from each forcing. If you want a mis-measure of the current TSI - go to the SORCE website for the latest TIMS measurements - only out by a lazy -4.5W/sq.m. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:27 PM on 12 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Re: adelady (15)"I really do not want to see what might happen if there were no record cold temperatures showing up anywhere in the world."
Probably the most insightful comment I've read today (and there were many). Thank you. The Yooper -
chris1204 at 12:23 PM on 12 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
adelady @ 15 & Michael Sweet @ 16: all very valid points :-) -
Daniel Bailey at 12:15 PM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Re: Tom Loeber (33) I'm simply at a loss for words (and that almost never happens)... Twice now (here and here) I've offered up advice on how to be a positive contributor here so that we all can benefit from the knowledge you bring to this table. Other than that, I've tried to stay out of the discussion, to see the merits of your position from your point of view, free from being a direct part of the action. But time and again, you veer off into dissembling, blaming and impugning the integrity of the moderators here. Tell me, do you work at being difficult or does it just come naturally? Because, honestly, I can't tell the difference. Many of us are intimately aware of dysfunctionality. Either we've grown up with it, lived it or witnessed it close at hand. I'm certainly not perfect and I really try to make allowances for the imperfections of others. But frankly, I resent your implication that by being a commenter and frequenter of this place that I'm a party to this quasi-conspiracy against you. Grow up. Become a resource for us here. Or just ramble on. The Yooper -
Riduna at 12:09 PM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
My initial reaction to the results obtained by Haigh et al is that they are counterintuitive and puzzling. My second reaction is that their results raise a number of questions, the most obvious being: Is the satellite data producing their findings accurate and consistent? Is the model they are using reliable and properly tested? Is the three year period used sufficient to produce credible results? How do their results explain recent global warming? If, as suggested by Haigh, the findings suggest that hitherto we have overestimated the role of the sun in bringing about global warming, does this mean that we have underestimated the role of greenhouse gases as causing it? -
Ken Lambert at 12:08 PM on 12 October 2010It's the sun
archisteel #670 "In fact, by saying that "well-mixed greenhouse gases" is the same as "positive AGW forcing," you confirm the point I was making - and admit it's false to claim that it was a zero in 1750, because there *were* greenhouse gases in the atmosphere back then" Of course there were 'well mixed greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere back in AD1750. I never claimed otherwise. What you don't get is those WMGG were not in theory 'forcing' (warming or cooling) the planet. The 'forcing' equation for the main GHG - CO2 is quoted as 5.35ln(CO2a/CO2b)where CO2a is the (well mixed)concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any time and CO2b is 280ppmv - the pre-industrial concentration. You can see that that if CO2a = CO2b = 280ppmv there is no theoretical forcing from CO2. -
Bibliovermis at 11:52 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
2/3 of Peru under state of emergency for cold not widespread enough for you?
No. 0.17% (1,285,216 / 510,072,000 * 2/3) of the globe does not refute the other 99.83%. -
adelady at 11:45 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Sorry Tom. We are guests in someone's living or dining room. I take my shoes off if those are the rules when I visit some people. If I don't like what's been served for the meal I simply shift the unpalatable to the side of the plate - I don't tell the cook he's incompetent. I don't tell the other guests their enjoyment is all wrong. I use the bathroom in the hall, I don't wander through the host's bedroom to use their ensuite unless I'm invited to do so. The fact that a site like this is an 'open house' invitation doesn't alter the fact that there are always some rules about acceptable behaviour. -
DSL at 10:51 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Hey, Tom, I thought Hamaker said that the tropics would receive most of the warming, causing an intensification of the tropic-to-polar water cycle, increasing polar glaciers and ice caps. The reverse is happening. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than any other part of the planet. Maybe someone needs to write a Hamaker article. -
kdkd at 10:27 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom #33: Widespread cold records during the (tied) hottest year, globally on record is consistent with the ideas presented in the Nature paper Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Technically we would describe this as a signal showing increased variance of a complex system. -
Charlie A at 10:25 AM on 12 October 2010The human fingerprint in coral
@15 Stephen Baines -- thanks, it makes sense that the calcium carbonate formation has less isotopic fractionation. I had seen some papers regarding foraminafera and the problem of assuming stable isotopic ratios in samples from late paleocene. D'Hont et al '94 and Houston & Huber '98, and thought perhaps those processes of localized depletion of C12 might be at work as well as the change in atmospheric isotope ratios. -
newairly at 10:16 AM on 12 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
I consider myself reasonably scientifically literate, but not in the disciplines of climate science. My career was in measurement research. I have been watching (lurking)on this site for some months now and it has really helped my understanding of the subjects. I am rather overwhelmed by the expertise of some of the people who post here. I hope that I am typical of a large number of people who just look and gain from the discussions. The exposure to all the expert comment,has exposed the paucity of many arguments. I find it very regrettable the way some people post comments that seem to have no purpose than to obfuscate and to waste the time of others. I do really enjoy discussions where points of real uncertainty are brought up and thrown around. Science in action. I do not enjoy wading through refutations of tired old arguments that have long been comprehensively dismissed. Especially annoying are the plaintive requests to explain something which is thoroughly discussed elsewhere on the site. Pure time wasting. Thank you John. -
Tom Loeber at 09:58 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
2/3 of Peru under state of emergency for cold not widespread enough for you? Multiple SA countries experiencing record cold not widespread enough for you? There was more too but it only takes one to counter your claim. KR, I am not saying that individual weather events are climate. All I was saying is there is evidence that the weather could snap to cold conditions with little or no warning. As far as I can tell the Hamaker hypothesis holds more credibility than the Milankovitch theory which is what I was and am still addressing. This is not the proper thread for that but as long as the moderators disagree and they cater to the idea that might makes right, perhaps the major fallacy of epistemic relativism along with "what you don't know can't hurt you" and "ignoranc is bliss" and "killing the messenger invalidates the message" they will continue to practice dysfunction. As far as that last goes, the mods somehow got the posts I made to the other thread to show up days after they had been posted, more pointed critique of the paper Mr. Bostrom linked to discounting noctilucents as a possible sign of climate change. I was presenting a possibility that the noctilucents are the missing piece of Hamaker's hypothesis that suggests global warming leads to a rapid climate change eventually with little warning trend, to ice age conditions. The mods went back after getting those posts to show and deleted them unless that too was a bug. I posted other recent research that found solar insolation is not to blame but actually earth's albedo and carbon dioxide concentrations are complicit with ice age starts, right in keeping with the Hamaker hypothesis. This selective recall of yours does not help. I mean, give me a break, you are inferring I'm quite the total idiot and it might just be fine and dandy with the mods for ad hominem to predominate against a person who does not kiss ass. I am very much into being open and honest and many do not have a world model that incorporates the utility of that. As far as I can tell this message board is dysfunctional, the mods are exhibiting dysfunctional behavior and many of the participants keep on arguing apples to oranges to suggest the place caters to the dysfunctional. Well, as a Homo sap on planet earth the lack of wherewithal of my fellow human beings is my failing too so I too am dysfunctional as I do not exist in a vacuum. I have even been know to make mistakes and I have tried to correct them here and in the other thread. The "lets all gang up on the one who seeks to be logical" scenario I seem to be witnessing here is, again, a consequence of this idea that majority opinion determines truth. If anyone is truly interested in pursuing a better understanding of what is going on and what we should be trying to prepare for and avoid, those who disagree with the adopted stance, as long as they are not totally wacko, should be given lots of room, see past my frailties as a human being and see that quite possibly, the long term predictions for extreme cold and harsh winters ahead are not just a bunch of baloney. Maybe some of those are based on sound information that we shouldn't just ignore due to their not fitting in with the theory that lets the fossil fuel profiting companies off the hook. Did you see that Project Censored item that the US pentagon is the top polluter on the planet? The description of what the "Policy" is here seems to be a list of what the mods think is okay for them to do and for anyone else who plays into supporting their perspective. Like many laws they are used against those who attempt to speak truth to power while letting the powerful get away with breaking them continuously and often. So it goes.Moderator Response: The Comments policy defines what is and is not acceptable on this site. Avoid irrelevant personal attacks, stay on topic, and don't stray into politics and you'll be fine. -
Joe Blog at 09:15 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
I would be looking harder at the implications of the greater variation of UV, on climate, than direct forcing from variable TSI. Paper on modeled UV stratosphere/troposphere effects There is a fair bit o literature focused on it... and if the variations of UV are greater than what has been previously assumed, this will be quite an interesting lil discovery. -
wingding at 09:14 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
I think it's quite unlikely this would be true over all solar cycles, because there is a detectable solar cycle influence in global surface temperature and and it's the way round you'd expect. Perhaps this is unique to the current cycle, but my guess is that it's more likely to be just wrong. -
It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber - you were asked on that thread "Do you have any evidence for any of those claims of "wide spread record cold" ". You responded with multiple lists of individual locations that had experienced cold spells, not with anything indicating wide spread effects. As individual weather events are not climate (as was covered by several people responding to you), this thread on "Does cold weather disprove global warming" is entirely appropriate for that discussion. Your response to the question of evidence for "wide spread record cold" did not demonstrate what you wished - I'm just left wondering why that wasn't apparent from the multiple posts responding or the numerous moderator remarks directed to you. If you didn't note my response on extrema or the redirect, I can only presume you weren't reading the posts in the thread or the moderator notes to you. -
It's the sun
Ken Lambert - You incorrectly state that I "confuse Temperature trajectories with forcings". What I said was that non-zero temperature trajectories indicated non-equilibrium climate states (energy imbalance, to be more clear), and zero or non-zero, the state and trajectory of the climate include the effects of forcings at that time. Forcings are never zero (unless looking at some hypothetical object at 0°K). But when looking at how the climate has changed the we can compare changes in forcings (deltas). You have also yet to address the fact (shown in the data you've presented, as well as in mine) that changes (note: changes) in radiative forcings due to greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial era are an order of magnitude greater than changes of insolation. And that they correlate quite well with the heating since the 1970's. You have presented exactly zero evidence for any mis-measure of TSI at any point in this discussion, and hence have no support for your apparent theory of TSI causing global warming. Again - it's not the sun. -
Tom Loeber at 08:23 AM on 12 October 2010It's freaking cold!
This is not the appropriate thread. I was not posting that cold weather disproves global warming at all. It was not your post that alerted me as to where the conversation was happening, it was JMurphy's who started it out with my name. This place is too dysfunctional to facilitate understanding especially as the moderators appear to have a heavy hand with any one who does not adhere to their theories. -
muoncounter at 08:12 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
See Its the Sun, comment #646 from CBD: The bit about the magnitude of any solar change being "dwarfed" by the increase in CO2 forcing makes it somewhat of a minor issue Interesting development, nonetheless. -
johnd at 08:03 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
It will be interesting to see how well this correlates with some other indicators such as the AA magnetic index which have only been considered relevant by few researchers. How clouds respond or otherwise will be of considerable importance in determining the nett effect at the earth's surface both for present observations, and in trying to correlate it to past climate reconstructions. -
Riccardo at 07:57 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
Karamanski a few numbers to put the variations in context. The irradiance change at 200 nm of the order of 0.5 mW/(m2 nm) over a value of about 7.5 mW/(m2 nm); something like 6.7%. At 500 nm it's about 0.3 mW/(m2 nm) over 1955 mW/(m2 nm), i.e. 0.01%. In the visible range I would not call it a conspicuous change. You can look at these numbers yourself here -
Stephen Baines at 07:51 AM on 12 October 2010The human fingerprint in coral
@13 Charlie A Isotopic fractionation (the preference for C12 over C13) definitely occurs for endosymbionts in corals, as it does for all photosynthesizing organisms. The degree of fractionation can be less if CO2 becomes depleted in the local environment, since you can't prefer one isotope over another if you use all of the available CO2. That doesn't affect the stable isotopic composition of calcareous skeleton however. The processes associated with depositing calcium carbonate do not fractionate nearly to the degree that photosynthesis does. -
Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
BP - I have to completely agree with CoalGeologist's post. Anthropogenic CO2 is by the definitions used a pollutant as defined in the Clean Air Act. As to your concerns about legal attribution of pollution to polluters, given the known emissions from anthropogenic CO2, assigning CO2 pollution to those emitters is extremely simple - much simpler than dividing costs/fees/taxes/etc., mind you. But it's extremely easy to establish those causal links. Simple accounting of how much coal/oil/natural gas is burned in a power plant, of the CO2 emitted by concrete manufacture based on total amount of concrete, etc etc. As to who is being harmed? Well, all of us, quite frankly. Your argument reminded of the tobacco industries attempts to deny responsibility for cancer, since any one particular case couldn't be directly attributed to a singular cause - that didn't hold up in the end, as the statistical data demonstrated that they were responsible for the majority of those who suffered. Societal damage and significant impacts on groups are perfectly reasonable to attribute - even if individual cases can't be causally linked, if you can determine that 80% of the suffering are suffering due to pollution, that's attribution. -
CBDunkerson at 07:04 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
Karamanski #4: "Why did the satellites miss something this conspicuous?" A: It has not been established that they DID. The findings of this paper could be erroneous or anomalous to the short time frame studied. Odd that you missed those caveats from the authors of the paper. B: The magnitude of the changes in question is so small as to be easily overlooked unless being specifically checked for... which most satellites were not set up to do. So, not particularly "conspicuous". -
Karamanski at 06:48 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
What a revolutionary finding. I'm intrigued by the fact that the satellites which have tracked total solar irradiance for the past few decades did not detect the changes in the spectra of solar radiation that this study finally disclosed. Why did the satellites miss something this conspicuous? -
michael sweet at 06:44 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
BP: That is not what oil companies said. Lead was used in gasoline from 1923 until 1996 in the USA. Laws were started in 1973 (in the USA) to deter lead use, but lead was not banned until 1996. Lead is still used in gas in many countries- tell them lead is a known pollutant. If you don't like the lead argument try freon. The problem with the ozone layer was theoretical until after the agreement to ban freon was signed. In any case, the problem is your defination of pollution, see Coal Geologists post #149. -
michael sweet at 06:34 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Coal Geologist @149: your post was excellent and to the point. It is helpful to see the matter laid out so clerly. -
Berényi Péter at 06:28 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
#147 michael sweet at 01:44 AM on 12 October, 2010 Where is the causal link between lead in gasoline and a specific injury to children? Come on, lead is known to be toxic since antiquity. -
Riccardo at 06:03 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
Alexander you're right that we need extraordinary evidence. We apparently do not understand the sun spectral irradiance very well and it migt be related just to the solar cycle or even, say, the cycles after the early 20th century increase in overall activity. KR it is the 2004 to 2007 difference, not even half a cycle. As far as I know we do not have any reliable proxy for UV irradiance. -
Mike Palin at 05:50 AM on 12 October 2010The human fingerprint in coral
Roger A. Wehage @ 7, 8, 9 PDB is the standard for reporting the stable isotope ratio 13C/12C. Because it is many millions of years old, it contains no measurable 14C and so has nothing to do with dating. The use of PDB simply allows the 13C/12C ratio of a sample of carbon to be reported more conveniently - using d13C = -1.5 is much simpler than 13C/12C = 0.0112203. The 13C/12C ratio of dissolved carbonate in seawater varies from place to place in the modern ocean and has changed over geologic time as deduced from measurements of fossil carbonate. Because most of the carbon at Earth's surface is in sedimentary rocks, the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans at any time in the past gives geologists a snapshot of the proportions of this carbon that are stored as dead organic matter (lower 13C/12C) and carbonate (higher 13C/12C). Thus, during the so-called Carboniferous era (360-300 million years ago) when much organic matter was buried and evemtually turned into coal, oil and gas, the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans was shifted high (d13C = +4). Now that those 13-depleted hydrocarbons are being burned, the the 13C/12C of carbonate in the oceans is shifting downward. By the way, boron isotope ratios (11B/10B) are also reported in "delta" notation relative to the synthetic boric acid standard NIST 951. -
The sun upside down
As I understand this, the UV differences are over the 11-year solar cycle. Given that the Maunder Minimum seems to have been a different solar regime than we're currently in, is there any support for high UV levels during the Maunder Minimum? A 1000-fold difference in sunspots would likely have had other effects as well. -
muoncounter at 05:15 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
#149: "under this definition, anthropogenic CO2 unambiguously qualifies as a pollutant." CG, Brilliant statement, concise and to the point. The EPA's Technical Support Document (warning, big pdf) makes the case in detail: CO2 is a long-lived (or well mixed) GHG, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased due to anthropogenic emissions, other gases classified as such are already accepted as pollutants; thus anthropogenic CO2 is a pollutant. -
CBDunkerson at 05:04 AM on 12 October 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Heh. "Prince of Cherries". Meanwhile the ice volume remained far below previous record lows through the end of September. Ice volume is now only about 20% of what it was in 1979 while extent is about 60%. However, the two factors ultimately ARE linked... if volume hits 0% extent perforce will as well. Unless the volume trend suddenly levels off for some reason Goddard only has a few more years (at best) of being able to play games with extent data. -
Alexandre at 04:30 AM on 12 October 2010The sun upside down
RealClimate had a post about this too. The way I understood, if this turned out to be right, TSI would have the opposite influence in surface temperatures than previously thought. (did I understand right?) I think this is the kind of claim that will need extraordinary evidence to hold. The influence of TSI over temps seems quite well established and well supported by evidence, like the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age, or the rise in temps until the middle of the 20th century. -
CoalGeologist at 03:24 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I have a quibble with an ambiguity in the original blog posting here, which has partly contributed to some of the useless bickering that has followed. The definition of "air pollutant" specified in the original blog refers to atmospheric emissions. This does not describe the CO2 dissolved in bottle of Kőbányai Világos lager, but the anthropogenic CO2 being emitted from smoke stacks and automobile exhaust pipes. This is CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere (in massive quantities, I might add) by oxidation (i.e. combustion) of carbon in fossil fuels. Reference to CO2 in any other context is a 'red herring'. The original post above concludes:"CO2 is a Pollutant When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and [the] body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO2 meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare."
To be precise, this statement should have specified "anthropogenic CO2". The referenced definition for air pollutant is a factual statement of the language in the Clean Air Act, and under this definition, anthropogenic CO2 unambiguously qualifies as a pollutant. BP and others have contributed their own personal definitions of pollutant, where CO2 does not qualify. With due respect, these arguments are circular (in that they presume the conclusion), and irrelevant. More significantly, they ignore the scientific evidence regarding the global impact of anthropogenic CO2 on climate, and by extension, on global ecosystems, which has at least the potential to exceed the effects of any natural disaster, aside from an extremely large meteorite impact. Just because the effects of anthropogenic CO2 will occur over the course of decades, does not mean they are not real. -
Bibliovermis at 03:19 AM on 12 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
BP, Are you claiming that no gases should be considered pollutants?
Prev 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 Next
