Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 Next
Comments 11001 to 11050:
-
MA Rodger at 02:34 AM on 30 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
gsmakin @111,
You say:-
"In total these findings appear to cover the Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea and Eastern Labrador Sea and to be fair do seem to detail periods of the last 10k years when these areas had far less ice than today."
The graph set out data from a single location in the Chukchi Sea (73N,166W), the ARA2B-1A bore hole (labelled A1 on the maps set out in the paper). This is a location that was marked in Atlases as being permanently frozen, but not any more.
But note that the paper (Stein et al 2017) does set out that their findings of increased ice in the Chukchi Sea over the last 2ky are reflected by results from elsewhere in the Arctic.
But the assertion @115 which you attribute to "opposing arguments", that "although current ice loss looks huge to us it is actually a mere nothing when looked at over centuries and millenia", such an assertion seems to be saying that the Arctic had entirely ice-free summers during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. This was not so. Arctic summer ice was not greatly different to the situation of the early 21st century and probably more icy that we will be seeing in coming decades.
-
gsmakin at 00:29 AM on 30 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
Daniel Bailey - Those were indeed the findings i was familiar with and i do not doubt them but it's always worth examining the arguments of others to see if they hold any credence and if not, understand their weakness so others don't fall prey to them.
In this case the opposing arguments seem to be that although current ice loss looks huge to us it is actually a mere nothing when looked at over centuries and millenia. There are then displayed a variety of graphs depicting great hillocks from the past to little bumps in the present with a little arrow saying "you are here."
All this can get a bit confusing to a layman such as myself and although I try to educate myself I'm very grateful i can come to a site like this and be able to have my questions answered.
-
gsmakin at 00:07 AM on 30 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
Eclectic: Sure. Basically you have the NOAA graph posted in response to 103 which quite clearly depicts the terrific drop in the amount of Arctic sea iice over the past century and then you have Lowisss13's blogger pointing to various regional studies he claims contradict that finding. Since I figured some sort of sleight of hand was afoot i nosied around the studies themselves, found the original figures and found not one of them displayed the great cliff shown at the end of the NOAA graph. I then wondered why this should be the case.
I guess you've sufficiently answered my query by pointing out what the blogger didn't - that these studies end in 1950, thus missing the great bulk of the current warming trend.
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:05 AM on 30 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
For perspective, Arctic sea ice extent, from NOAA's 2017 Arctic Report Card, shows recent extents to be the lowest in the past 1,500 years. Not a surprise, as it also shows recent temperatures there to be the wamest in the past 1,500 years:
Interestingly, it also shows that the development of sea ice in the Arctic over 40 million years ago to be closely coupled with the fall in global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures (unsurprising, given that both are tightly intercorrelated over geologic time):
Given that actually reading Stein 2017 shows it to be in support of the anthropogenic nature of the current warming and the ongoing losses from the Cryosphere, especially WRT the Arctic and its diminishing sea ice, it's hard to give any credence to skeptics that misquote it.
-
Eclectic at 21:34 PM on 29 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
Gsmakin @111 , readers such as myself would be grateful if you clarified the point that you are interested in.
The graph you posted ( of Holocene Sea-Ice Cover Variations ) is very broad-brush indeed. It runs up to 1950 A.D. [the paleo definition of "the Present" or Time Zero ] . . . and the last 500 years have such minimal detail, that it seems close to useless for assessing what is happening in modern times.
I am completely unsure of what the validity of its proxy estimate of sea-ice cover would be ~ but, assuming it is of some value, I do think it is interesting in that it demonstrates a lower level of cover during the warm period of the Holocene Maximum (roughly 5-10 thousand years Before Present). And that the known gradual global cooling since then (i.e. over the most recent 5 thousand years) is also reflected in a gradual increase in sea-ice cover. But that is entirely as might be expected. However, the relevant question (for this thread) is ~ what is the cover doing during the last 50-100 years, and especially in recent decades, during which the global surface temperature has soared upwards enormously [and is now higher than the Holocene Maximum].
It would be "passing strange" if the modern high temperatures were not causing more ice-melt, as a definite strong trend. (Doubtless you will also be aware that the arctic ice summer volume has decreased by about 70% in the past 40 years.)
-
gsmakin at 20:05 PM on 29 March 2019Arctic sea ice has recovered
Philippe Chantreau: The graph in the blogpost Lowisss13 linked to:
seems to be derived from this graph from the Stein study (figure 6, rightmost):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jqs.2929
That blog also references two other studies which it claims contradict the NOAA finding: Yamamoto et al (2017) and Moffa-Sanchez & Hall(2017). The graphs the blogger uses are derived from Yamamoto (figure 8, pg 1121) and Moffa-Sanchez (figure 2) respectively.
In total these findings appear to cover the Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea and Eastern Labrador Sea and to be fair do seem to detail periods of the last 10k years when these areas had far less ice than today.
My question is rather simple: do these studies contradict the NOAA findings or are they easily explainable as regional variations consumed by a much greater overall trend?
I ask not as a skeptic but as someone who lacks the necessary expertise to interpret such studies with any degree of confidence.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image widths to 450.
-
TVC15 at 03:06 AM on 29 March 2019Climate's changed before
@680 & @681
Thank you both and all points well taken and understood by me.I greatly appreciate the feedback of how I handled this denier and the angle I took.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:58 AM on 29 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
micheal sweet @10,
From "The New Lexicon - Webster's Encycopedic Dictionary of the English Language - Canadian Edition, 1988"
Velocity: Rate of motion.
From "The Concise Oxford Dictionary - 1985"
Velocity: Quickness or rate of motion or action usu. of inanimate things.
I do understand that velocity can be speed in a given direction. But if that was the intent then there is no need to include speed as one of the measurements being collected.
-
David Kirtley at 23:06 PM on 28 March 2019Climate's changed before
MA Rodger @677: I stand corrected. I went too far back in time.
TVC15, the reason I am belaboring this is because if I were one of your friends watching this conversation from the sidelines and I saw you merely declare: "False" in response to the denier's statement which contains at least a nugget of factual information, I would not have been impressed. Most people have a basic understanding that the material in their body comes from the food they eat and that this ultimately comes from plants which get their material from CO2 and water. So most people would have recognized that the denier had made some true statements when he said: "Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2? That is the carbon cycle; CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen". Your denier then makes a false conclusion from these basic facts that CO2 can't be a pollutant: "yet the left has labeled it a 'pollutant'." You should have shown that this conclusion is false, and doesn't follow from the previous factual information. Instead you attacked the other end of his argument, spinning out irrelevant information about the ultimate origin of elements, or the fact that not ALL (every single atom of carbon) in lifeforms comes from CO2.
Does any of that information about the origins of carbon or other sources of carbon in lifeforms say anything about the denier's false conclusion about CO2 as a pollutant? No.
I'm sorry if all of this seems like I'm attacking you. I'm sure you mean well and want to communicate the science well. But too often these online conversations with deniers devolve into shouting matches which don't do any good for the ones listening in on the sidelines.
All I'm really saying is, ignore the denier and aim past him to get the correct information to those on the sidelines.
-
michael sweet at 21:58 PM on 28 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC:
All carbon in life is fixed by plants via photosynthesis. A miniscule amount of methane might be incoporated into life but the methane came from carbon dioxide fixed by plants. This is well known.
I suggest you hang your arguments on another point. There are many clear points where your denier is incorrect.
-
michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 28 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
OPOF:
From Google:
ve·loc·i·ty
/vəˈläsədē/Submit
noun
the speed of something in a given direction. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:39 AM on 28 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
William @ 7:
You do kow that you can google these things, don't you?
e.g., for "Sea ice brine exclusion", About 621,000 results (0.52 seconds)
Second hit on my results is to wikipedia, which I think answers your question:
-
John Hartz at 08:59 AM on 28 March 2019The Green New Deal debate is in part about the absence of details
Suggested supplemental readings:
How the Green New Deal Is Forcing Politicians to Finally Address Climate Change by Justin Worland, Time Magazine, Mar 21, 2019
Mitch McConnell wants a Green New Deal vote. Democrats should take him up on it. by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Mar 25, 2019
Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know by Marianne Lavelle, InsideClimate News, Mar 26, 2019
Senate defeats Green New Deal, as Democrats call vote a ‘sham’ by Dino Grandoni & Felicia Sonmez, PowerPost, Washington Post, Mar 26, 2019
The Green New Deal vote shows Republicans would rather mock climate change than challenge big lobbying groups, Opinion by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse & Rep. Jared Huffman, Think, NBC News, Mar 26, 2019
-
nigelj at 07:53 AM on 28 March 2019The Green New Deal debate is in part about the absence of details
The GND has certainly gained some attention and caused a stir. This suggests it might be broadly on the right track, or is at least it is forcing people to confront the issues. It's a shame the article had to start on such a negative note about it.
There's been much discussion about whether the GND should have included socioeconomic policies, and my initial impression was it was unhelpful to include those. However on second thoughts I'm changing my mind. Perhaps it's not of huge concern whether they are in or out of the GND. They will be attacked by some quarters whether they are in or out of the GND. The democrats stand for various things environmentally and socially, and should obviously promote them.
What is likely to be more important is to consider 1) do the GND policies make sense? and 2) are they likely to get enough public support and 3) Are they likely to get enough support from elected politicians? Because we obviouslly all want polices that are good legislation, and work to solve problems, and which are sustainable, and the policies also have to get enough votes or they are pointless.
A couple of things stand out. The environmental provisions in the GND make sense on the whole and so do the social provisions. None of the social provisions are particularly revolutionary. The fact that some in America think anything that is even remotely like universal healthcare or publicly provided is bad is beyond my comprehension. The rest of the developed world has grasped the need to have the sorts of socio economic provisions in the GND. Watering such policies down to nothing is pointless.
Polling shows the majority of the public in America broadly want more done about climate change, and support the social goals in the GND. Although some tweaking of the provisions is probably required.
The GND plan is for a government infrastructure spend based on deficit financing or creation of additional credit or some such. I think carbon fee and dividend is preferable technically, however a government infrastructure spend might actually be more attractive to the public and politicians for obvious reasons, because people just don't love taxes. The GOP have no problem with deficit financing when it suits. But if there was no carbon tax, the GND would lack an obvious price on carbon so this is a problem.
The sticking point is probably politicians rather than the public. Politicians are generally well intended, I don't think criticism of them is always that helpful, but it's a fact they sometimes become captured by various ideologies, lobby groups, marketing and so on. We all are at times. A lot is dependent on politicans (and everyone else) finding some courage and doing what is right (and helpful to others) rather than being overly influenced by such groups.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:36 AM on 28 March 2019The Green New Deal debate is in part about the absence of details
Pushing for the separate/isolated pursuit of climate action is unlikely to be effective. It's promotion needs to be paired with related corrective actions. And the ultimate result will be a significant correction of the developed socioeconomic-political systems (and related corrections of perceptions of status, prosperity and opportunity).
In Canada, climate action has been pursued as a stand-alone issue. The Federal proposed action is Carbon Fee and Rebate. It is imposed on any Province that has not implemented a comparably effective action. And the playbook of those trying to win power by resisting the 'actions that can be understood to help correct what has incorrectly become popular and profitable' is on display. They oppose the climate action by making-up poor excuses that actually are popular.
The successful misleading marketing attacks on Carbon Fee and Rebate in Canada (and in each Province) include claims that the actions to reduce the burning of fossil fuels are:
- Job-killing (in spite of the larger amount of job-creation)
- Harming the Poor (even though the rebate more than covers the fees for a poorer person)
- Reducing public funding for health care and education (a claim successfully made by a party that openly declares they will reduce tax collection from the richest, their fans do not see the inconsistency. They also do not get challenged on what future generations will have to do when the non-renewable resource can no longer be benefited from).
- Not going to change anything (that gem poor excuse that people who want to believe it can claim cannot be dis-proven to their satisfaction)
- Pointless. Others are required to behave better (like the 1997 “Byrd-Hagel” resolution that demands that the largest contributors to the current problem, and biggest beneficiaries of the harmful unsustainable development, are not to be required to 'do anything' unless all others who are trying to improve their circumstances 'have to behave better than the already harmfully over-developed in the incorrect direction did'.
Those claims can be made-up to attack any effective climate action policy proposal. Having those easy criticisms addressed up-front in the Green New Deal should not be criticized by proponents of climate action. That is complaining about the unpopularity of having climate action associated with the issues that it will be associated with by the misleading critics of climate action.
Many people who may be inclined to support climate action, including elected representatives, will unfortunately allow the popularity of those misleading marketing efforts to lead them to support the political tribe that is actually resisting the correction. They will allow poor excuses to motivate them to vote United in support of each other's understandably harmful developed beliefs and activities (you cannot remain part of the group if you vote against part of the group).
Recent news is the pronouncement by VP Pence that NASA must put people on the Moon within 5 years. That will likely mean a refocusing of NASA funding, likely away from anything climate related. But it also highlights the 'pursuit of perception of status problem' that is fatally affecting thoughts and actions in the USA. The mission to the moon 'will be popular' because it will unjustifiably, yet undeniably, boost perceptions of status of many people in the USA who desire perceptions/impressions of superior status relative to Others.
Improving awareness and understanding and application of that improving knowledge to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity 'on this planet which is the only place we are certain that humanity can have a future on' (pursuit of local helpful actions that are not harmful to Others, especially not harmful to future generations), must govern the thoughts and actions of everyone, especially leaders. Leaders should not be pushing for the harmful or distracting development of unjustified perceptions of superiority relative to Others.
The best summary of what is helpful that has been developed to date is the Sustainable Development Goals (along with a few other related helpful UN developed understandings like the requirement for nuclear disarmament).
Achieving and improving on all of the Sustainable Development Goals (and the other helpful UN developed understandings), is undeniably required to govern the thoughts and actions of everyone, especially leaders. And based on that understanding, the USA landing astronauts on the Moon cannot be a priority over climate action and the other Sustainable Development Goals (sending people to Mars, which is a very challenging and interesting pursuit, is also not a current day urgent priority). And those types of pursuits should not re-direct funding away from climate science related activity by NASA/NOAA.
A developed lack of interest in that improving awareness and understanding, and the development of resistance to it, is a fundamental part of the incorrect development that has occurred in the USA. And it also can be seen to be happening in many other supposedly more-advanced developed nations. And it is the root of the following statement in the OP:
"In addressing a wide and critically important range of social and economic issues – higher education for all Americans, pay inequities, job guarantees, secure retirements, housing – the sweeping GND (remember it’s only an RFP) likely is written to enlist some supporters whose motivations aren’t primarily the sustainability of a livable planet."
The fundamental problem is the promotion of the following unhelpful characteristics in people: One-ism, Me-ism, My Tribe-ism, anti-All Others-ism.
People who grow up heavily immersed in the competition for perceptions of status relative to Others in 'environments flooded with misleading marketing promoting beliefs and actions that are understandably harmful to Others and are able to be gotten away with' can be expected to over-develop harmful unhelpful Self-Interest.
An attempt to pursue something like climate action in isolation from the other understood goals to be achieved for development to be sustainable is unlikely to be successful. The SDGs are what is required for humanity to have a sustainable future. Climate Action is a key Goal, but it is harmful to pursue it to the detriment of achieving the other required corrections. The implementation of a Carbon Tax in France without related measures to correct developed inequities in France produced a damaging result.
The real problem is a serious developed flaw in the system of competition for popularity and profit that has naturally developed. The current day developed reality clearly indicates that without addressing that serious developed flaw, the resistance to correction will further delay effective correction of the harmful unsustainable things that have developed. Those opposed to climate action are indeed partnering with anyone else who is opposed to any other understandably required correction of what has developed in the USA in order to develop sustainable improvements within the USA. But that is not a Good Reason to fracture the collective of people pursuing the diversity of corrections required to achieve the SDGs.
Developing a sustainable solution to the developed problem requires open and frequent public admission of what the real problem is, especially by all leaders and wanna-be-leaders. The 1997 “Byrd-Hagel” resolution is a clear example of the results of harmful over-developed "Self-Interest". And its unanimous support is evidence of how incorrectly over-developed in a harmful direction the the leadership of the USA was in 1997. It seems clear that that problem is not being effectively addressed in the USA. In fact, the evidence indicates that misleading marketing appeals to resist admitting and addressing the real problem have developed even further in the USA.
What is required is the correction of governance to ensure improving awareness and understanding is valued and that only helpful actions are rewarded (and harmful actions, including misleading political marketing, are penalized). Every person needs to be held accountable to be helpful rather than harmful, to improve awareness and understanding and the application of that improved knowledge to develop sustainable improvements locally that do no harm to any Others. And leaders need to be seen to be setting the highest examples rather than pandering to a united diversity of harmful self-interest motivated popularity and profitability promoted by misleading marketing as was clearly done in 1997 and continues to be done today.
The cycle of development of harmful attitudes and actions and the development of resistance to correction of those developed popular and profitable things needs to be broken. Pursuing 'All of the Sustainable Development Goals', including the pursuit of improvement of those goals, is clearly what is required.
The Green New Deal is a step in the right direction for new development, and for the correct correction of what has developed. A One-ism driven focus on climate action that dismisses the importance of the other required corrections is not helpful. Climate action is unlikely to be sustainably supported without all of the other sustainable development goals being connected to it.
There is a fundamental resistance to admission of what the real problem is because it is understood that the required corrections will likely result in a reduction of developed perception of status for many people. The resistance to any action that would 'negatively affect developed perceptions of superiority, prosperity and opportunity no matter how unacceptably and ultimately unsustainably those perceptions were developed' continues to be loudly, proudly, harmfully successful. That is what needs to be changed/corrected, because the future of humanity cannot benefit from (is actually harmed by), people who are able to continue 'living and winning like that'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:58 AM on 28 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
bozzza,
The original posting at Climate Brief was 2 months ago. Commenting on that article has been closed.
I had not looked at it before posting my comments here (I am so used to having to go to a link to finish reading a re-posting of an article from another source that I assumed this was not a re-post - I didn't read the words in the green box below the title.)
My comment @1 was one of the two comments made on the Carbon Brief article, yet the original article was not corrected.
william's comment@7 was also asked on the Carbon Brief site but there was no response made there.
-
william5331 at 05:14 AM on 28 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
Does the creation of brine as sea water freezes further north make a significant contribution to the circulation?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:12 AM on 28 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
bozzza,
I am not the author. I am just pointing out the corrections/questions that came to mind as I read the post.
-
TVC15 at 04:57 AM on 28 March 2019Climate's changed before
David@676
I forgot to link the discovery.
-
TVC15 at 04:45 AM on 28 March 2019Climate's changed before
David@ 676
No I don't accept that all the Carbon atoms in Carbon based life were once CO2.
The Carbon in carbon based life could also come from methane.
A German-British team led by researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz and the University of Heidelberg, recently discovered that methane in plants is produced from the amino acid methionine, which all living organisms need for the building of proteins.
-
John Hartz at 04:19 AM on 28 March 2019Glaciers are growing
Supplemental reading:
Preliminary data reported from the reference glaciers of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in 2018 from Argentina, Austria, China, France, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and United States indicate that 2018 will be the 30th consecutive year of significant negative annual balance (> -200mm); with a mean balance of -1247 mm for the 25 reporting reference glaciers, with only one glacier reporting a positive mass balance (WGMS, 2018).
Alpine glaciers: Another decade of loss, Guest Commentary by Mauri Pelto, RealClimate, Mar 25, 2019
-
MA Rodger at 01:28 AM on 28 March 2019Climate's changed before
David Kirtley @676,
You say of carbon, "Why not say it originated in the Big Bang. That, too, would be true." Actually it wouldn't. Atoms did not form until the universe cooled enough and that would have been at the time the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation appeared. This is some 400,000 years after the big bang. And surely those first atoms were hydrogen and would need to be converted into carbon by nuclear processes within stars, a process requiring a good deal further time.
As for "ALL of the carbon atoms in your body" being converted from CO2 by plant photosyntheses and then consumed by the animal as food, this would quite a recent process as C3 photosynthesis (the oldest form) didn't begin creating an oxygen atmosphere until perhaps 2 billion years ago. (That a plant does not rely solely on photosynthesis to obtain carbon is a bit too big a pedantic step but worthy of noting.) In the "here & now," that the vast majority of higher animal carbon content is the result of photosynthesis and thus derives from CO2. But ALL the carbon? And if it were, why would that prevent a surplus of CO2 being labelled a "pollutant"? - that being the point the denialist troll was making.
-
David Kirtley at 22:19 PM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @675, "From space. :)"
Heh.
But why stop there? Why not say it originated in the Big Bang. That, too, would be true. But is such a statement in any way meaningful? Not really.
Your denier used a true statement about the world and then used it to obfuscate about our current problem with CO2 increasing in the atmosphere.
You are using similar obfuscation by jumping back to the primordial origin of life to talk about the elemental building blocks of all life.
But the denier wasn't talking about that, he was talking about how life operates here and now: "Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2?"
Do you not accept that the carbon in your body came from the CO2 in the atmosphere?
-
MA Rodger at 19:39 PM on 27 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Molsen @37,
You talk of "poorly drafted statements" and ask whether GRACE data showed "accelerated" ice loss in 2009 and then "slowed down" in 2013.
Looking at the data, the 2009 net ice loss decelerated from the previous year's average of 266Gt/yr to 199Gt/yr. And the 2013 net ice loss also decelerated relative to the previous year, from 428Gt/yr to 327Gt/yr (although, as the graph of the data shows, the data for these later years is missing a few months).
The rate of net ice loss is highly variable. I'm sure you could pedantically cherry-pick some of the data to demonstrate that the net ice loss is decelerating throughout the entire period. It is likewise with the ice loss from glaciers like the Jacobshavn glacier although I think you rather underestimate the knowledge of scientists. A very recent comment on the Jacobshavn glacier is HERE.
-
SirCharles at 18:31 PM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thanks for the two responses above. Another aspect of nuclear is its long lasting legacy. We’re arrogant enough to claim that we could manage a toxic waste problem which is radiating for hundreds of thousands of years.
A Google search for “Asse Germany radioactive waste catastrophe” will tell you the story about a nuclear repository which in the 1980s was alleged to be “safe for hundreds of thousands of years”, but ground water started leaking into this old salt mine just a few years later. Nobody knows now what to do. And we're not even talking about high level radioactive waste with significant heat generation. Recovering the 120,000 barrels seems to be too expensive if not impossible. German engineering suffering borderline. A legacy for many generations to come.
Here an article in the New Scientist => Radioactive waste dogs Germany despite abandoning nuclear power
-
TVC15 at 16:12 PM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
David @674
From space. :)
Delivery of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur to the silicate Earth by a giant impact
-
bozzza at 15:16 PM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
One Planet Only Forever, are you perhaps the "Guest Author"?
-
scaddenp at 11:18 AM on 27 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Molsen, if you are hoping against hope that suddenly melt is going into reverse, then you are choosing to ignore much of the science published on Greenland by not looking at the drivers for is happening in the system. I sure know which way I would bet! This is like people starting the "warming stopped in 1998 2016" refrain. Hope springs eternal but you are going to be disappointed. Weather does not equal climate. Come back again and give us your opinion when, say, NAO flips again.
-
Molsen at 10:56 AM on 27 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
The GRACE data show that ice loss accelerated in 2009 and then slowed down in 2013. Are you suggesting otherwise, Daniel Bailey? The underlying data are invalidated by a poorly drafted statement?
And, scaddenp, let's see what happens in the future; as articles on the growing Jacobshavn glacier note, scientists do not understand the processes behind the Greenland ice melt as well as they thought a few years ago. Who knows what they'll know in a few year?
-
nigelj at 10:43 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
Thinkingman, Foster and Rhamstorf did an exercise depicted here removing el nino / la nina, the solar cycle and volcanic activity from the temperature record and the so called 'pause' after 1998 completely disappears. So why would you need to consider some new and questionable 60 year cycle?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:42 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
ThinkingMan,
Since you claim to be interested in 30+ year data trends please evaluate any of the surface temperature data sets (the 1880 to present day monthly NASA-GISS data is easy to get here) as folows: Look at the value of the 30 year rolling averages. Each new monthly average creates a new 30 year average with the 359 months before it (or every new yearly average creates a new one with the 29 years before it).
I know it can be done because I have done it. It is not complicated. And the 30 year averages do indeed 'not just go consistently upward' when you look at all the data this way starting from 1880.
What I found is that the 30 year averages ending in 1994 (the set from 1965 through 1994) were increasing or decreasing (yes there is a period when the 30 year averages notably decline).
The extremes of the 'rates of change per decade' in that range of the data set are from -0.03 C/decade to +0.10C/decade.
All of the 30 year averages since 1994 have been at rates of change greater than +0.10 C/decade. And the rate rapidly increased to 0.17 C/decade by the 30 years ending in 2004. And all the more recent values have rates that exceed 0.17 C/decade.
So the 30+ year evaluation does not show what you are hoping to see.
-
David Kirtley at 09:56 AM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @673 So, where does the carbon in all life forms come from?
-
scaddenp at 09:17 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
Good point Eclectic. Surface temperatures have wide natural variation but ocean heat (where most of the warming ends up after all) have far less. Some wiggles are oceans exchanges heat with atmosphere but on far less scale than surface temperatures.
-
Eclectic at 08:43 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
ThinkingMan , the other "denier trick" is to completely ignore ocean warming.
Global surface temperature is easy to measure on an annual, or indeed monthly, basis. The ocean, less easy to measure at fine scale over short periods ~ but the ocean trend is upwards, because the basic physical process of Greenhouse warming is continuing unabated. That is the crux of the matter.
-
TVC15 at 07:48 AM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
David @672
I think you must have misread what I posted. The denier I battle is the one who keeps trying to claim the CO2 is a basic building block of life. Thus why I pointed out to him the 6 known elements that are the building blocks of life. Recall I asked him if he's ever heard of CHNOPS?
-
scaddenp at 07:18 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
Thinkingman, you are falling for a number of deniers tricks here.
1998-2000 "commonly cited" by pseudo-skeptics trying to claim the science has got it wrong and it is a cherry-pick because it only considers part of the record, and to make it work, you have to start the period with an exemptional El nino. Do the the arguments still make sense if you start with 1996?
This post here goes in a proper statistical analysis of what is going on. You also seem to bought the idea that something has gone wrong with model predictions. This is nonsense. No scientist expects the actual temperature time series to evolve along the model mean. The science (everything we know about ENSO) says that is impossible. Please read again my earlier reply. A good expectation is that the 30-year trend in temperature series will be close to the 30-year trend in the model mean. However, there is still a wide uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
Finally, I do not accept that you can take two cooling periods (1910-) and (1940-) caused by two different changes in climate forcing and propose a natural cycle for them. This is not evidence, it is misinformation.
-
ThinkingMan at 06:22 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
scaddenp, TY for clarifying. Your commitment to basing explanations on identifiable natural and man made factors is respected.
Let me clarify my frame of reference. 30+ year temperature trends are my focus.
1998-2000 were not cherry picked. They may begin a break in the temperature trend that began 1970-1975. 1998-2000 is also commonly cited as a starting point for reality departing, by a wider & wider margin, from climate model temperature forecasts. Finally, the bottom half of the 1st graph in the previously mentioned Shaun Lovejoy critique draws attention to 1998-2000.
The bottom half is also consistent with a possible 60-80 yr temperature cycle. Pls note the three cooling trends in the "residues". One ends 1910-1915. The next ends 1975 or so. The third spans the charts final dozen or so years, and it starts "on schedule".
FYI, the 60-80 yr cycle is mentioned because it may explain in part or fully why actual temperatures are so far below climate model projections / estimates. Solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural forces not adequately simulated by models may also explain the departure. Finding and describing the force or forces is important to the AGW concept.
nigelj, will read the myth buster pointed out above when time allows.
TY to all others who have commented. Very informative & thought provoking.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
I recall reading an article (cant find it now) that said that it had been thought the AMOC overturning process was to the west of Greenland, and this is where most of greenlands meltwater discharged, thus leading to the possibility of the AMOC slowing right down or even stopping causing a mini ice age in europe. The article said that given the AMOC overturning process is now known to be more easterly, this risk is reduced and replaced with the possibility of huge warming and heatwave potential in Europe. However the article was pretty conditional that we don't know enough about how sources of meltwater may change in Greenland over time.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 27 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
Both OPOC and William are right. It's obviously not just one thing operating here. There is another issue, namely political lobby groups. I have lost count of the times politicians have had sensible positions on issues on entering politics then changed their minds after talking to lobby groups. Policies get watered down to nothing.
Political lobbying is a huge industry particularly in America. The theory is enough lobby groups should cancel each other out, but industry lobby groups have vastly more expertise and funding than public interest lobby groups, environmental groups etc. I dont believe that its a level playing field. The issue is all magnified further by campaign financing coming from the same corporates.
It's all become toxic and lopsided in favour of corporate and right wing economic agendas. Too much of this lobbying is in private. It could be changed with rules favouring transparency and some form of limitation on lobbying.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
There is another aspect to the wind farm argument. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that a wind turbine only returns an amount of energy equal to what is used in it's construction before it has to be replaced. (not true but bear with me). The country where you are building these turbines creates all it's energy from fossil fuel. You build wind turbines sufficient to generage 10% of the nations electricity, replacing that amount of coal. Now the next tranch of wind turbines are build with 90% fossil fuel energy and 10% renewable energy. you see where this is going. We eventually get to a point where the wind turbines are being made entirly with renewable energy. Since, in fact, wind turbines return far more energy that is needed in their manufacture, the argument is far stronger.
-
michael sweet at 03:31 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
SIr Charles,
In your comparison of wind and nuclear you did not consider the opportunity cost of nuclear versus wind. Jacobson 2009 (cited over 1200 times) calculates opportunity cost of various plants. Because of the very long lead times to build a nuclear plant much more fossil power is generated during the building of the plant compared to a renewable plant.
For example, let us imagine you want to build a 1 megawatt (delivered power) wind energy plant. It takes about 2 years to get approval and 2 years to build. Then you get your energy.
If I want to builld a nuclear plant it takes 5 years to get approval and about 10 years to build. Your wind plant has been generating power 11 years before my plant is comissioned. That 11 years of missed power has to be supplied by fossil fuel plants until the nuclear plant is finished.
This makes nuclear a very high emitter of CO2 compared to renewable plants which are much faster to build (and produce partial power when partly completed). Many analysis of nuclear leave out the opportunity cost CO2.
-
michael sweet at 02:43 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Sir Charles:
We agree. Nuclear requires at least a gigawatt of spinning reserve at all times in case of an incident as you describe. These incidents happen about once every two years in the USA. For renewables the biggest incident is losing a transmission line which can be countered with an adequate grid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:07 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
This result also intuitively makes sense if you look at the average annual maximum extent of Arctic Sea Ice. The Acrtic Sea Ice advances far down into the Labrador Sea, while a large area of open water remains North of Norway.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:55 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
The following quote in the OP appears to double describe what is being meaured (the part I show in italics).
“It consists of a whole load of moorings, which are ways in which we string instruments between the seafloor and the sea surface in the deep ocean. So there’s an anchor at the bottom and along that wire we string instruments that can measure various things like the speed of the water, the velocity of the water, temperature and the salinity.”
Is the direction of flow being measured? Is that what one of the two 'speed/velocity' points should have been?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
Minor correction required:
"To do this, it has deployed two arms: “OSNAP West East”, which extends from the Labrador Sea off the north-east coast of Canada to south-west Greenland, and “OSNAP East West”, which reaches from south-east Greenland to the coast of Scotland."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 27 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
william,
I agree that elected representatives 'dedicated to appealing to rich supporters/promoters' can be problem. And limiting the influence of rich people is part of the solution.
But wealth influencing an election is only a problem if those rich supporters/promoters are the type of people who have developed a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others.
A related problem is the pressure on elected representatives who would rather not appeal to those type of supporters/promoters. The power of misleading marketing can make elected representatives vote against their better judgment on some issues. They will do that because they believe, likely correctly, that they the need to vote that harmful way on that issue to continue to win the power to vote the helpful way they want to on other issues.
The real problem is not money influencing politics. The real problem is the ability of misleading political marketing to be done without penalty.
Setting up rules to limit who spends how much money does not address the real problem. Setting up laws that can be enforced to remove a candidate who benefited form misleading marketing is also not an easy answer. Offensive opponents can simply create misleading marketing that would then be the basis for removal of the non-offending candidate.
The real problem is the socioeconomic-political system that has developed. Systems that encourage people to 'develop a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others' will also develop resistance to correction. The fundamentals of the system causing the harmful developments is what needs to be corrected. Without the Errors in the System being corrected (more fundamental than money in politics), any attempted 'fixes' will struggle to be popular and profitable enough to be successful.
-
SirCharles at 23:05 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@9.michael sweet
French nuclear has an overall capacity factor of 75%. Not much more than offshore wind. Whereby, when a nuke has in incident you're loosing a gigawatt or more in just a few seconds. Meanwhile, wind is predictable for many hours in advance and the grid can easily be adjusted accordingly.
-
SirCharles at 22:59 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@14nigelj
I think that Project Drawdown list needs to be revamped. Offshore wind energy can play a much bigger role today. There are turbines now which produce 20-40 times the electricity than an onshore wind turbine.
Good source of info here => https://www.windpowermonthly.com
-
SirCharles at 22:43 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
120 of these offshore wind turbines are delivering as much electricity as a new nuclear reactor (capacity factor incorporated)
https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine
-
SirCharles at 22:37 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Carbon footprint nuclear vs wind
Prev 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 Next
