Recent Comments

Prev  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  Next

Comments 10951 to 11000:

10951. RBFOLLETT at 12:41 PM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       nigelj

       As a sedimentary geologist, our entire field of study is centred around past climate change and changing depositional environments.  The changes are recorded by varying sedimentary rock types both transitionally and abruptly.  I don’t think there is a geologist on the planet that believes all these past changes were caused by changing greenhouse gas levels but that is our privilege.  The fact that some Climatologists believe that ALL past climate change events were caused by greenhouse gases scares the hell out of me.  My original question that came with a simple logical basic explanation that excluded greenhouse effects just confirmed to me just how narrow a focus your industry is taking, there are NO valid explanations that don’t include greenhouse gases.

10952. RBFOLLETT at 11:44 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       Scaddenp

       When I am talking about a radiator, I am talking about a conductive heat transfer device that uses an increased surface area to transfer heat to the air like a common house heater or furnace Or even a car radiator.   In the case of a desert, the sand is the solid medium with the increased surface area that goes below the surface because of the porosity of the sand.  The sun heats the sand grains and because of the huge surface area of the grains of sand, the transfer of heat to the air within the sand is significantly higher than a solid surface with no porosity.  That’s how a radiator works, the air within the sand is super heated as convection pulls the air out of the sand.  At night, when all heating of the sand stops with the setting of the sun the movement of the air through the sand cools it very very quickly, and very little residual heat is left into the night.  In the case of a solid surface, the cooling is much slower and heat is radiated out over a longer period into the night.  A large rock outcrop In the middle of a desert would absorb a lot more heat than the surrounding sand and give off some of that heat into the night.  The sand cannot retain the same amount of heat because of the rapid cooling by the air within the sand.

10953. nigelj at 09:41 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       RBFOLLETT

       What Scaddenp says. I would say the main reasons deserts are cold at night is the greenhouse effect from all I have read and it makes sense, and I would accept sand is going to amplify the cooling a bit, but given the extent of the sand is not changing much over time, I'm mystified what implications do you think it has for climate change?

       This is not to diminish the value of geology to the climate issue. I came close to doing a degree in geology.

10954. scaddenp at 09:24 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       Also, what would be your expectation for day/night variation of temperature on a solid rock outcrop compared to neighbouring dune? What is your expectation for nighttime temperature over a desert when cloud cover moves over it compared to clear sky?

10955. One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       RBFOLLETT,

       What part of the Climate Adam video prompted you to ask the question?

       More generally: What does the question have to do with improving the understanding of the potential harmful effects on the future of humanity produced by unsustainable activity like the rapid burning of buried ancient hydrocarbons (which also produces many other harmful consequences)?

10956. scaddenp at 08:39 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       This sounds somewhat handwavy without doing the maths. The ability of any surface to radiate is highly dependent on the radiative properties of the atmoshere above it. ie, no matter what the porosity, the thickness of the thermal blanket on top governs rate of temperature loss.

       What would be your intuition on how deep into the sand that a diurnal temperature change would persist? A quick look seems to suggest that it is quite shallow compared to a moist temperate soil - air being a poor conductor of heat compared to water

10957. RBFOLLETT at 08:01 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       Moderator

       Sorry, no peer-reviewed literature, just an old retired Geologist with an understanding of sand porosity and permeability and the basics of heat conduction from increased surface areas (radiators) and convection.  Want to cool a desert, seal the surface and prevent circulation.

10958. RBFOLLETT at 07:44 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       nigelj

       The general consensus of most Climate Scientists seems to be just that, everyone in the business is so focussed on the theoretical science of global warming that they have ignored the basics of actual physical science.  The greatest desert on earth, the Sahara, is also the greatest natural “RADIATOR “ on earth.  Sand has over 30% porosity and almost limitless permeability as well as a massive grain surface area thousands of times more than just the area of the desert.  The conductive transfer of heat from the sun by the sand to the air is huge and convection provides the circulation.  The reverse happens at night, with convection stealing the heat from the sand very quicklY because of the sand’s surface area and conduction.  

       The implications of desert radiators on global climates is undoubtedly significant yet I have not found a single climate scientist that truly understands the basic properties of sand and it’s effect on global temperatures.  Anyway, food for thought.

10959. RedBaron at 07:27 AM on 21 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       @nigelij,

       You could be right. All I was saying is that once we lose advanced civilization, we become at the mercy of nature in ways we haven't been for many thousands of years. This could reasonbly cause the remaining human population to start an ecosystem cascade that we would be unable to reverse, nor able to be immune from it's effects.

       Thus we could potentially be susceptible to the same extinction level events as any other species at that point. It may not be likely, but it is certainly a risk that needs included in any worst case scenario. We would not be virtually immune from this as we are now. 

       And it wouldn't be a direct result of AGW but rather a more traditional sort of world war mathusian collapse scenario.....but happening in a planet's biosphere already weakened by AGW and our impacts on biomes covering the entire surface. There could potentially be no "safe haven" to retreat to and recover if the entire biosphere collapses.

10960. nigelj at 06:57 AM on 21 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       Red Baron @7, I think you are looking at it the right way. Wars over declining resources is another thing that will make it worse.

       Extinction has a precise definition: every human dead. The term should not be thrown about lightly. I still think some people would survive, but serious population decine looks plausible. This is all more in the category of the collapse of civilisation I mentioned.

10961. nigelj at 06:50 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       RBFOLLETT

       "And NO, it has nothing to do with lack of moisture or any greenhouse effect."

       Why not?  

10962. bjchip at 06:37 AM on 21 May 2019
       Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
       

       Could this post be updated, particularly the prediction gif, to 2018?  2012 isn't as impressive as that would be. 

       Thanks

10963. RBFOLLETT at 06:27 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       Simple Question:  Why are sand deserts so hot during the day and so cold at night?  Again, simple question, but I have yet to find a Climate Scientist who correctly knows the answer.  And NO, it has nothing to do with lack of moisture or any greenhouse effect.  Can anyone help me out?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] And hopefully you are citing peer-reviewed literature in support of your answer.

10964. One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       BTW, I think the 20 minute John Oliver presentation on the Green New Deal and Carbon Pricing, including the other two Bill Nye video clips that set up this Grande Finale video clip that spectacularly wrapped up the entire segment, was and is brilliantly effective at presenting a proper understanding of the issue, including an understanding of how absurd the people resisting correction are.

10965. One Planet Only Forever at 03:43 AM on 21 May 2019
       Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
       

       The Bill Nye video clip is being taken out of context. Its context is the John Oliver segment that it was 'a Part of'.

       The question should be if the full context, the complete John Oliver segment including the Bill Nye bit, is helpful when viewed from start to finish.

10966. One Planet Only Forever at 03:04 AM on 21 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       nigelj,

       It is probably better to state that:

       Failure to rapidly correct the harmful unsustainable developed popular and profitable activities that are producing increased climate change impacts is a significant contribution to the future failure of Humanity to thrive, with homo sapiens carnage (including the people-on-people carnage RedBaron mentions), growing instead of improving Humanity. And many other harmful unsustainable developed popular and profitable activities also contribute to the future failure of Humanity to thrive, and the potential Extinction of Humanity.

       Humanity is a term that correlates with Beneficence. It a name for the pro-Altruistic ways of homo sapiens.

       And the lack of action to limit and reverse the climate changing impacts of developed activity of homo sapiens and powerfully resists correction is Anti-Humanity and, like all the other contributing impacts, is causing that future increased threat of failure of Humanity to thrive and survive.

       People who fail to improve their awareness and understanding and fail to help correct climate change impacting, over-consumptive, wasteful ways of living are as guilty of impeding the improvement of Humanity (and its potential extermination), as people who act in ways that impede the achievement and improvement of any of the other Sustainable Development Goals.

       And those ways of impeding improvement include attempting to mislead others about what is really going on and the required corrections. They also include defending harmful actions with the excuse that, although people have developed a liking for what undeniably is unacceptable and needs to be corrected, it is supposedly rude or inconsiderate to tell people they are wrong because everyone has the right to the freedom of their own opinion and choice of actions don't they? - Undeniably, No They Don't. Undeniably, very harmful results develop if people are not Governed by the Help/Harm principle objective.

10967. MA Rodger at 18:45 PM on 20 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Rovinpiper @29,

       The percentages are of the the 341Wm^-2 total solar input, so includes that 30% reflected sunlight.

       The 110% isn't because the radiation takes many steps to negotiate a path from the surface & out to space. It is because many such journeys don't make it to space but end up back on the surface. A gas emitting radiation does so in any direction, up, down or sideways. For a solid there is more directionality as it always has to be out and away from the solid surface.

       To add a couple of points (or to sharpen them) from #30&31, the radiation induces a waggle in GHG molecules and such induced-waggles can result in radiation being re-emitted but that is very unlikely. It is almost certain that a waggling GHG molecule will collide with another air molecule in which the waggle is converted into thermal gas energy.[ I'm not sure the 10^-6s & 10^-9s @30 is entirely correct. The values are usually very well buried within the literature but values I've seen are more 10^02s & 10^-6s, that's hundreths of seconds & milliseconds.]

       But importantly, such collisions between air mollecules can also induce those same waggles in GHG molecules. This is a far more common form of waggle-inducement and so it is the speed of the gas molecules, gas temperature, that determines how frequent such waggles are induced. These waggles too can emit radiation and being far more common are the mechanism which causes in the vast majority of GHG radiation. As it is temperature-dependent and atmospheric temperature drops up to the tropopause (12km up), the amount of such emitted radiation shooting round the atmosphere will reduce with altitude.

       Adding 50% to the CO2 in the atmosphere means a photon has a shorter length to go before it hits a GHG but this does not of itself affect temperature. What is of paramount importance is the extra 50% increases the altitude at which this radiation has a clear shot at space. As this is almost always an altitude below the tropopause, the exra GHG results in a the GHGs shooting out into space being at a lower temperature than previous and thus reduces the amount of radiation lost to space. And this loss of coolling warms the planet.

10968. RedBaron at 18:36 PM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       The issue it seems to me is that while climate change itself is very unlikely to cause human extinction, it is just the symptom of a much bigger problem.

       Ecosystem collapse caused by humans reacting to climate change could indeed cause humans to force human extinction. That's the one thing we humans do very very well. Better than any species. We can kill like none other. And while almost nothing short of a comet or similar can cause us to go extinct. We humans can do that in a number of ways, including the path we are on now that causes AGW.

       That's because all our efforts to make national parks and wilderness areas goes out the window when the hot areas of the planet no longer are capable of producing food. Starving humans struggling to survive will absolutely cut down the last tree or plow up the last prairie to feed themselves. The great untouched forests and permafrost areas of the north become warm enough for agriculture and sure enough we will be plowing and spraying biocides shortly after..... then the last few remaining biomes on the planet collapse and we humans are screwed when the whole biosphere collapses. Maybe a remnant few might survive on some well watered island somewhere. But certainly civilization as we know it would be impossible under those circumstances.

       That could happen. Some people believe that it is even the most likely result of a business as usual scenario.

10969. nigelj at 16:52 PM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       Regarding the idea climate change could cause human extinction.

       Of course climate change is very likely to be disastrous for humanity, rendering some regions uninhabitable and increased human mortality and extinction of many animal species. Much science attests to this. But would it cause human extinction? I found this material through a google search (when you want something done do it yourself)

       1) Arctic News has an informal study that argues rapid methane releases from arctic permafrost and the sea floor could cause 10 degrees above normal within about 10 years! And thus human extinction.

       However as far as I know(if Dan permits me to have an opinion) this is pure speculation and the vast weight of published science says this is impossible. Realclimate.org has reviewed this issue recentlyit should be easy to find the article.

       The last IPCC report has a worst case scenario of 10 degrees above normal by 2300, which is more solidly evidence based and very worrying. But even if warming was 10 degrees this would be a extinction level event for equitorial regions, but its hard for me to see how this would apply to a place like Russia. (However they will have plenty of problems due to climate change). So telling the public we face extinction might be hard to substantiate and could make us look stupid.

       2) This published study argues extinction of animal and plant species from climate change could cause a domino effect causing human extinction, but it assumes a runaway global warming effect which is not upheld by the IPCC and mainstream science.

10970. nigelj at 13:53 PM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       jef @3

       There is nothing wrong with saying what we think, because its perfectly normal conversation, and of course it matters, and ironically you do it yourself. When you say "We should insist that this be the #1 issue that human society discusses and yes TOTAL EXTENCTION needs to be a part of that discussion." You are really saying "I think we should insist...".

       What studies show climate change could cause human extinction? Are they peer reviewed or just articles on websites? Moderation policy requires we back up our assertions with specific references and / or details, which I mostly do. You never do.

10971. scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 20 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       "The amount of heat added to the atmosphere by energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is equal to 110% of the total solar radiation reaching the Earth?"  The diagram is not saying heat is added to the atmosphere. It is showing the flows of radiative energy. The re-radiation induced by the GHGs is creating the extra flow. Remember that the radiation is directly measured. Radiation hitting surface is higher than that at TOA. It would have been be a head-scratch if we hadnt discovered the GHE. The key give-away is the spectrum of the incoming radiation.

10972. One Planet Only Forever at 12:10 PM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       The “12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute them” is a great presentation of what is going wrong within human socioeconomic-political development.

       Pursuing improvement of awareness and understanding to develop sustainable new activities and correction of unsustainable and harmful activity is essential for the future of humanity and its advancement.
       The 12 Excuses and their responses are Good examples of what is going wrong. And they are not 12 substantially different problems. The 12 Excuses have a lot in common. They fit within a common understanding that human actions must be Governed by the requirement to Do No Harm (and the related aspiration of being Helpful to Others). The future generations of humanity are undeniably the largest pool of Other people. Therefore they deserve the greatest amount of consideration when evaluating the Help and Harm, the merit or acceptability, of actions in any current moment.

       Observations of what has developed in the current-moments (reality) of the World we all, as individual agents of action, share and act in response to in our series of moments (every person is an agent and the collective of the actions of all agents produces the future results), makes it pretty clear that in order for Humanity to have a better future, human actions need to be Governed as much as possible by the Encouragement of Helpfulness and the Discouragement of Harmfulness (related to the moral/ethical concept that many people, including myself, do not commonly encounter - Beneficence - which is well described in the following Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry “The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics”).

       That understanding has a lot in common with other understandings of moral requirements. Where it differs is that it makes one moral principle, the principle of Beneficence (which I present as Help and Harm), the governing consideration for any other principle that is 'thought to be moral'. Other Moral considerations presented by Jonathan Haidt (and others) include thoughts of Fairness, Loyalty, Subservience in Hierarchy, Liberty, or Perceptions of Tribal Sanctity/Purity. But it can be understood that in order to be 'Good for the Future of Humanity' those Other Principles need to be Governed by the Help/Harm principle. And the term Governing needs to understood to be Over-Ruling and Limiting.

       That Governing Help/Harm Principle can even be understood to be required to govern the making and enforcement of rules (including rules in Sports). The Rule of Law can be understood to only be Good if it is Governed, based on improving awareness and understanding, to be Helpful to the future of a diversity of Humanity sustainably fitting into a robust diversity of life on this, or any other, amazing planet. And developed Law that contradicts that objective needs to be corrected.

       Helpful actions need to be encouraged, desired and rewarded. Unsustainable actions need to be discouraged (limited). And Harmful actions need to be quickly identified and rapidly shut down before they can become powerful, especially before they become popular or profitable (Over-ruled and penalized as required).

       The Sustainable Development Goals are a very good presentation of the understanding of Helpful required developments and the requirements for correction of Harmful unsustainable things that have already regrettably developed.

       That understanding needs to be at the core of understanding of anyone who wants to be Helpful or Good. Powerful interests that develop due to a lack of awareness and understanding of how harmful their desires and pursuits were/are could choose, and are likely to choose, to powerfully resist correction rather than improve their awareness and understanding and increase their helpfulness and reduce their harmfulness.

       The pressures to excuse doing harm to future generations, and the related lack of interest in helping the future generations, are well described by Stephen M. Gardiner in "A Perfect Moral Storm-The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change" published in 2011 (it is referred to in this SkS post “Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London”). His earlier 2006 paper is referred to in this SkS post “The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen”.

       Gardiner's 2016 article in the Washington Post "Why climate change is an ethical problem", is a partial presentation of his ethical argument about the moral corruption that can be observed to be occurring in matters related to climate change.

       That perfect moral storm can be understood to be part of the reason for people wanting to believe each of the 12 misleading claims addressed in the Vox article, and many other claimed excused for harmful unsustainable behaviour. That moral storm has developed powers that fight against correction of the Biodiversity threat, Climate Change threat, and many other threats to the future of humanity.

       The powerful ability of harmful Status Seekers to abuse misleading marketing makes things worse (except for the Status Seekers who benefit). Particularly harmful are those misleading political marketers who understand how to directly appeal to moral principles in ways that by-pass the need for Helpfulness to Govern (and who abuse the Rules of Law).

       Similarly extremely harmful are the people who tempt people to believe that the benefit of 'some people today' can be claimed to excuse (justify) causing harm to others (including the largest group of others, the future generations, an unacceptable harm that even benefits for all of current day humans cannot justify/excuse).

       Discounting likely, or even potential, future harm then comparing it to perceptions of lost current day opportunity to justify continuing the harmful actions is morally reprehensible, if Do No Harm (aspire to be helpful to future generations) is the governing (over-ruling, limiting) moral principle.

       What is the One Easy Thing Everyone can do? Start pursuing improvement of awareness and understanding to develop sustainable new activities and correction of unsustainable and harmful activity. That starts with accepting the need to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals. All of them, not just a Favourite one to the detriment of achieving the other ones. And don't Hope for some new development to solve the problem. Be particularly skeptical of new artificial (technological) developments that are claimed to be 'solutions', especially the ones that are potentially popular and profitable. Pursuits of Status based on popularity and profit created the problem and the resistance to correction.

10973. KR at 11:30 AM on 20 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Rovinpiper - Some time ago I ran through the numbers on this. CO2 takes about 10^-6 seconds to emit excess energy as infrared radiation. At sea level each air molecule collides with another 10^9 times. This means than an excited GHG molecule will undergo 1000 collisions before it's statistially likely to emit, meaning that yes, the atmosphere as a whole is warmed by GHG absorption, and the emissions are due to the statistical emissions of the air mass as a whole. 

       And now a (very) brief explanation of how this works:

       The rest of the equation is tied to the lapse rate, the rate of which the air is cooler with rising altitude, and the statistical likelyhood of an IR emission escaping to the space. The absorption and emission of energy repeats throughout the atmosphere until GHGs decrease with pressure to the point that 50% or more of the IR escapes to space, which is where convection stops. This is the tropopause, the separation between the convective troposphere and the static stratosphere. 

       The emission rate is determined by temperature, and the lapse rate (about 6.5C/km, varies widely with humidity, temps, etc) means that the emitting gases at the tropopause are cooler than the earths surface. Very importantly, changing the GHG concentrations changes that altitude. And that change in altitude means that there is an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energies until the entire atmospheric column to the tropopause has warmed or cooled to match incoming energy. 

       Global Warming Linked To Increase In Tropopause Height

       So the surface is hotter than the tropopause, linearly by altitude, the tropopause emissions have to match incoming solar energy to stabilize, and our emissions have raised the tropopause. We're therefore warming. 

10974. jef12506 at 11:15 AM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       nig - please stop talking unless you have real info. No more "I think..." or "I believe..." because none of that matters a lick.

       There is absolutely a strong possibility of total extenction, not only of humans (as if thats all that matters) but of all life, and there an increasing number of studies that support that conclusion. And yes that is rather important and worth repeating loud and clear from the highest point.

       None of this is a belief system or something you get to choose to think about or not...it is real and it is now.

       We should insist that this be the #1 issue that human society discusses and yes TOTAL EXTENCTION  needs to be a part of that discussion.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Can you please cite the studies that support your conclusion? At the moment, you are making assertions without supporting evidence. (ie sloganeering).

10975. Rovinpiper at 11:10 AM on 20 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       I see. It is always a bit more complicated than I realize.
       
       You are right, of course. You didn't say that O₂, N₂, and Ar are transparent to visible light. That was the understanding that I brought to this discussion.
       
       I don't entirely follow what you are saying about the components of the heating of the atmosphere. 
       
       Conduction, I think, would just be heat transfer by contact between surface and atmosphere. That makes sense. 
       
       Heating by evaporation, I guess, water from the surface gets heated, vaporizes, and moves into the atmosphere carrying heat with it. Simple enough.
       
       We already discussed how GHGs absorb and reemit radiation of certain wavelengths, but you've cited a confusing figure for this component. The amount of heat added to the atmosphere by energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is equal to 110% of the total solar radiation reaching the Earth?
       
       How is that possible? Is it because energy can be absorbed and reemitted several times before finally escaping into space?
       
       Would that total solar radiation figure that we are comparing things to include the 30% that is reflected or not?
       
       Thanks for all of the answers. This is really interesting.
       
        

10976. william5331 at 06:04 AM on 20 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       And if none of your arguments stike a chord with your favorite climate change denier, tell him or her to "forget Climate Change"  https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html

10977. nigelj at 07:37 AM on 19 May 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
       

       I think Greta Thunberg has had impact because 1) she is telling the truth here and with clarity and 2) nobody is prepared to be too critical of a child, especially such a capable child. If it was an adult they would be flooded with excuses and strawman arguments and personally attacked.

       The 12 points seem really good on the whole except talking about human extinction seems like over playing the hand to me. Its easily refuted because even in horrendous conditions pockets of humans would almost certainly survive.

       The collapse of civilisation is a better position with robust evidence. Almost every climate impact puts considerable pressure on our socio economic systems and infrastructure and our system has fragility due to its complexity. We are already seeing problems for example in low lying pacific islands, with forest fires, and refugees from Syria that had a huge drought that has been linked to climate change.

       When societies have dire problems, money is always found. WW2 is the obvious example. The climate issue is challenging because the threats seem distant and we aren't hardwired to deal with those very well, and many business leaders want business as usual to contine so they can profit and put on status displays of wealth in a way they are used to. Don't reward such people when you vote and don't think you have to emulate them, there are many ways of living.

10978. BaerbelW at 04:44 AM on 19 May 2019
       Discussing climate change on the net
       

       The Promet issue #101, in which the article was published, has now been made available for download. The PDF (25MB) can be downloaded here and the article (in German) starts on page 41.

10979. Postkey at 01:55 AM on 19 May 2019
       Climate's changed before
       

       "Unless mankind changes immediately Man will be extinct before 2400"

       Probably earlier?

       “The IPCC report that the Paris agreement based its projections on considered over 1,000 possible scenarios. Of those, only 116 (about 10%) limited warming below 2C. Of those, only 6 kept global warming below 2C without using negative emissions. So roughly 1% of the IPCC’s projected scenarios kept warming below 2C without using negative emissions technology like BECCS. And Kevin Anderson, former head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has pointed out that those 6 lone scenarios showed global carbon emissions peaking in 2010. Which obviously hasn’t happened.
       So from the IPCC’s own report in 2014, we basically have a 1% chance of staying below 2C global warming if we now invent time travel and go back to 2010 to peak our global emissions. And again, you have to stop all growth and go into decline to do that. And long term feedbacks the IPCC largely blows off were ongoing back then too.”
       https://www.facebook.com/wxclimonews/posts/455366638536345

       “ The level of fossil fuel consumption globally is now roughly five times higher than in the 1950s, and one-and-half times higher than in the 1980s, when the science of global warming was confirmed and governments accepted the need to act on it. This is a central feature of the “great acceleration” of human impacts on the natural world. . . .
       CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, man made greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”

       piraniarchive.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/pirani-helsinki-wern2018-paper.pdf

10980. Peterbyrnie at 00:36 AM on 19 May 2019
       Climate's changed before
       

       All these arguments are irrelevant as mankind is destroying the wildlife and environments of earth.

       Unless mankind changes immediately Man will be extinct before 2400

       The earth does not need mankind!

       Stop polluting the land and seas, stop cutting down the trees, and stop and feed the poor!

       Educate the population so that the population falls. 

       You don't have a choice!

       PB

10981. MA Rodger at 18:16 PM on 18 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Rovinpiper @26,

       Just to be clear, @25 I was considering the transparency of the vast majority of the atmospheric content with respect solely to radiation from the Earth's surface. II made no mention of visible light or solar radiation.

       Through the 'visible spectrum', the major components of the atmosphere are not entirely transparent. N2 & O2 will cause Raleigh Scattering (which is why the sky is blue) and O2 does have absorption bands within red light (as does water vapour).

       If we consider 'solar radiation' rather than just the 'visible spectrum', the various Energy Balance diagrams show that 30% of 'solar radiation' is reflected back into space, 23% absorbed by the atmosphere and the remaining 47% absorbed by the surface. For comparison (so here measured as a percentage of total 'solar radiation'), the heating of the atmosphere by conduction is 5%, by evaporation 23% and by the absorption by GHGs 110% with just 6% of the Earth's radiation making it into space without spending time heating the atmosphere.

       In the absence of any GHGs or water, conduction from the surface would remain although an atmosphere that cannot absorb radiation also cannot emit it so the surface air temperature will not necessarily be colder relative to the surface (which will be colder). Also considering the continued Raleigh Scattering and O2 absorption (but not the O3 absorption) suggests the majority (perhaps three-quarters) of the 23% sunlight absorption in the atmosphere would also remain.

10982. Eclectic at 07:27 AM on 18 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Rovinpiper @26 , yes the atmosphere would still gain heat from physical contact with the planet's surface.

       The catch is, when you calculate out the effects of it all, you find you have an Earth surface which is well below freezing point of water.   Earth would be a complete iceball.   And that leads to the question: So what is the Goldilocks level for CO2 ?    ( CO2 being the critically important Greenhouse gas, in the long run. )

10983. Rovinpiper at 04:32 AM on 18 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Interesting. 
       
       So the major gases that make up our atmosphere are transparent to visible light. That means that light will not increase the temperature of those gases directly, doesn't it?  

       If visible light passes through a transparent atmosphere and reaches an opaque surface below, it can increase the temperature of that surface. In the absence of greenhouse gases, though, any energy reradiated out from the surface as infrared wouldn't do anything to raise the atmosphere's temperature either, right?
       
       

       The atmosphere would still be heated when its particles collided with the surface, though, wouldn't they?

10984. MA Rodger at 18:56 PM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 was higher in the past
       

       Warend @81,

       You state that published solar luminosities show "the solar intensity was 11% less during the start of the glaciation event." That seems very high. Are we talking about the same "glaciation event"? Perhaps you could point to the publications you cite. A simple Wikithing reference gives Fig 1 from Ribas (2009) below which suggests a reduction of slightly under 4% in solar intensity for the Late Ordovician.

       I also fail to follow your assessment of that 11% reduction of solar forcing. Perhaps you could set out a more detailed assessment.

10985. Warend at 17:15 PM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 was higher in the past
       

       I am not challanging the theory or formulations that compose stellar evolution models. But what are the degrees of uncertainty or variance between calculated model results and actual stellar luminosities over time. Because of the time scales this cannot be done directly with observations over time. Looking at published solar luminosities the solar intensity was 11% less during the start of the glaciation event...assuming a 25% forcing contribution due to solar radiation this yields a nominal forcing effect of ~3%. But again what's the uncertainty...I so far have not found a published value. This is understandable given the time frames and the current impossibility to conduct validating experiments. There was some mention of errors in the range of 10 to 15%. If that is the degree of uncertainty in the stellar model results, that would say that there is too much uncertainty relative to the nominal effect. Perhaps there are similar uncertainties, and effect level magnitudes, with the other coincidental conditions/effects?

10986. Sokrates Wonders at 15:05 PM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       You can look in Raymond Bradley's Paleoclimatology third edition about dating of ice cores. I think you cannot just compare time scales for different dating methods with one another without having some clear evidence for some time event like an volcanic eruption or similar which enables you to link the time scales together.

10987. Eclectic at 13:56 PM on 17 May 2019
       Climate's changed before
       

       Warend @711 ,

       over less than one hour, you have made 4 comments in 4 separate threads here at SkS.   Each comment was distinctly fatuous.   So the readers can only draw the conclusion you are not a bot.    ;-)

       Warend, you are posting on the wrong website.   This website here is for rational skeptics.   Your comments would have a much better fit at WhatsUpWithThat ~ a website where misery loves company.    ;-)   

10988. scaddenp at 13:53 PM on 17 May 2019
       There is no consensus
       

       As been stated many time here, the point of consensus studies is to counter myth that consensus doesnt exist.

       The Scientific consensus might be wrong but it is the only basis for rational policy especially when it is strong.

10989. nigelj at 13:36 PM on 17 May 2019
       Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
       

       Warend @10

       Thank's for the comments, they include some fair questions. I post comments on this website sometimes and I'm interested in climate change.

       "I thought this site was centered around scepticism."

       And it is. Read the mission statement at the top of the page: "This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism." !

       This website is not dedicated quite so much to scepticism about climate science because there are plenty of other forums for that. Having said that, none of the regulars here take the science at face value, we always look for flaws in it and this is sometimes discussed here when new papers come out. But we look for real flaws in the maths and physics, we do not make sweeping claims that climate scientists are dishonest or part of some imagined conspiracy or the data is faked, as many sceptics do, and we know when to move on. For example its been well and truly demonstrated that urban heat islands are not distorting the temperature record, so we don't understand why people remain sceptical about this.

       There is such a thing as rational scepticism, and just scepticism for the sake of it or to promote political agendas and vested interests. Not all sceptics do this but many do.

       "The notion that climate is changing at a rate that is creating an emergency, and that human activity is the primary cause of the changes can easily be doubted. Just look at the record of atmospheric temp verse CO2 concentrations. "

       A correlation doesn't have to be perfect to be statistically significant. Look at the 20th century and calculate a correlation coefficient and its still high even with the flat period of temperatures in the middle which are explained by industrial aerosols after the war. So there is no reason to doubt the relationship between CO2 and warming on the basis of this period of time, or any other period of time, because there is a decent correlation for the whole period and explanations for why the correlation breaks down in the middle: Particluate emissions masked but did not stop the greenhouse effect. 

       "Also looking at previous predictions illustrates that scientific understanding around climate change is still poor. "

       What predictions? Predictions of warming and sea level rise have been pretty good. Look up model data comparisons over at realclimate.org. Here is an amazing list of other good predictions and a few bad predictions from the sceptical "community". Of course there have been some failed predictions, but not many when you look at them honestly and objectively.

       "Similar to our understanding of the human genome we can see all the components but our understanding of how it completely works is still beyond us. "

       But climate scientists are the first to admit our understanding isn't perfect. We dont fully understand how cancer works but we certainly know what causes it and whats most likely to happen. We have a good but not perfect understanding of the climate.

       "But let's give up on reason, and blame Fox news, and use our kids instead of our own adult voices - very mature.

       Where specifically have we given up on reason? I dont think we have. This website seems very well reasoned.

       I certainly blame Fox news for induging in poor quality, misleading forms of scepticism. They should be called out over this.

       Adults didn't 'use' these kids. The 'kids' organised these protests largely on their own volition. It all came as a surprise to me.

10990. Warend at 13:03 PM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 was higher in the past
       

       How do you know for certain the sun was "weak" at this period of time? What level of uncertainty has been determined for these studies conclusions. I can assert that - we do not know for certain what happened so long ago, and we do not know what level of uncertainty we are working with. How do you suggest calculating the mathematical level of uncertainty for occurances so far in the past?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] bombing multiple comment threads with weak comments is verging on sloganeering. Stick to where you have the problem, engage with other commentators and move on when resolved please.

       The sun early output is from basic physics of its state as a main-line star. I am unaware of any serious doubt on the physics of stellar evolution that would challenge that conclusion.

10991. Warend at 12:32 PM on 17 May 2019
       Climate's changed before
       

       The assertion of the author can be countered with many examples. The subject of longterm climate patterns is so complex and beyond current human understanding that any assertions are highly suspect.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Argument from personal incredularity. I suggest you take time to inform yourself of the science and respond with research to back your assertion.

10992. Warend at 12:21 PM on 17 May 2019
       There is no consensus
       

       The truth is not found thru a vote, just ask Ptolemy ;-)

10993. Warend at 12:13 PM on 17 May 2019
       Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
       

       I thought this site was centered around scepticism. The notion that climate is changing at a rate that is creating an emergency, and that human activity is the primary cause of the changes can easily be doubted. Just look at the record of atmospheric temp verse CO2 concentrations. Also looking at previous predictions illustrates that scientific understanding around climate change is still poor. Similar to our understanding of the human genome we can see all the components but our understanding of how it completely works is still beyond us. But let's give up on reason, and blame Fox news, and use our kids instead of our own adult voices - very mature.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Pure sloganeering. This site is based around the results of peer-reviewed research. If you want to challenge science, then do so providing evidence to back your assertion. Also, strawman arguments and cherry-picking are norm for denial. If you want to claim science is wrong, then first  quote the source of science you believe at fault (eg an IPCC report), then the evidence that refutes it.  Claiming science says something that it does not (eg direct relationaship between temperatgure and CO2) is just denier ploy.

10994. scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       For more about problems with contamination of greenland CO2 by organic molecule reactions, see here. Antarctic cores have fewer issues.

10995. David Kirtley at 09:44 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Oops forgot to add link to previous post:

       https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/17878

10996. David Kirtley at 09:43 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       It's interesting that the CO2 readings from the Greenland cores don't match the readings from the Antarctic cores. One of the studies pointed to by scaddenp @595 says this in the abstract:

       Both Greenland cores show high CO2 values for rather mild climatic periods during the last glaciation, whereas CO2 records from Antarctica do not show such high CO2 variations during the glaciation and, furthermore, the CO2 values in the early Holocene are about 20-30 ppmv higher in the GRIP record than in Antarctic records. There is some evidence that the difference could be due to chemical reactions between impurities in the ice leading to an increase of the CO2 concentration under certain conditions. If in situ processes can change the CO2 concentration in the air bubbles, the question arises about how reliably do CO2 records from ice cores reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of ice formation. The discrepancies between the CO2 profiles from Greenland and Antarctica can be explained by in situ production of excess CO2 due to interactions between carbonate and acidic species. Since the carbonate concentration in Antarctic ice is much lower than in Greenland ice, CO2 records from Antarctica are much less affected by such in situ-produced CO2.

       Just shows how carefully the scientists look at these things. They really do try to think of everything.

10997. scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       A quick look at the paleoclimate archives shows CO2 data for GRIP and GISP2 though the records are nowhere near as long as those in Antarctica. I am not really sure that I understand the question about the end of the ice-age. The Milankovich forcings that control the broad timing ice ages are not synchronous between hemisphere. Furthermore the events mentioned are regional discursions thought to be driven by combinations of icesheet melting dynamics and oceanic processes. The processes are local not global. That said, the causes of D-O and Heinrich events is not settled science.

10998. knaugle at 06:27 AM on 17 May 2019
       Fox News made the US a hotbed of climate denial. Kids are the cure.
       

       #1

       Nigelj, your link also tells me that what was 40 years in the making will take more than the 2020 elections to fix.  This is a long haul decades task we face.  ... and yes, you may not know much about Fox News, but you certainly know something about Rupert Murdoch and his media presence in Great Britain and Australia.

10999. MA Rodger at 06:11 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       Rovinpiper @24,

       Answering your two questions, (1) yes non-GHG gases are transparent to the Earth's infrared and (2) O2, N2 & Ar which comprise 99.95% of the dry/clean atmosphere are non-GHG gases, so yes, presumably to infinity and beyond! But note that O3 (ozone) absorbs IR of 9.6micron wavelength and so oxygen in the form of O3 is a GHG.

11000. Rovinpiper at 05:40 AM on 17 May 2019
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       

       So are the non-greenhouse gases completely transparent to infrared? 
       
       Would an infrared photon go through an infinite amount of an oxygen, nitrogen, and argon atmosphere?
       
       If so, I guess adding GHGs would definitely have an effect, regardless of the size of the atmosphere in question. If not, then the non-GHGs present would have an effect, and the GHGs could prove redundant.

Prev  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  Next