Recent Comments

Prev  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  Next

Comments 113251 to 113300:

113251. Berényi Péter at 01:31 AM on 7 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        #188 KR at 00:42 AM on 7 August, 2010 where GHG's are fully saturated the IR at that wavelength is half the black-body value What do you mean by "fully saturated"? As pressure decreases steadily as you go up, there is always a height from where radiation can escape to space, that is, above it air gets "transparent". With current CO₂ levels at 15 μm it is about 22 km above the surface. At that altitude the higher you go the higher temperature gets. Therefore putting more carbon dioxide into the system increases the effective radiation temperature at that frequency. I can't understand your "half the black-body value" allusion either. Half the black body value for what temperature?
113252. LewisC at 01:11 AM on 7 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        It's a real pity that there's so little recognition of the actual complexities of the jeopardy we face, as it means that widespread mal-assumptions obstruct appropriate strategy. This greatly reduces the chance of avoiding catastrophic outcomes. For example, how many people posting here factor in the 30 to 40-year timelag on emissions' warming potential coming into effect ? This timelag not only means that present warming is from around 330ppmv in the mid '70s, and that we'll see what 350ppmv does in about 12 years time, and that we'll see the effects of 390ppmv in about 2045. It also means that a radical cut of global GHG outputs - say 98% by 2040, would be similarly timelagged in effect, which is anyway merely to stop adding to the problem. Entirely necessary, but grossly insufficient. Meanwhile, the interactive feedbacks of forest combustion, permafrost melt, cryosphere decline, etc, are now evidently already accelerating at very damaging rates. Addressing the actual problem of excess airborne stocks of GHGs is a very different matter to merely ending additions to them. Those who urge that we leave it to nature are patently unaware of the practicalities. Nature, in the form of carbon sinks, has been removing around 1.0ppmv/yr of CO2, but with ocean acidification and warming even this small service is forecast to decline. Meaning that even with a rapid end to anthro emissions, airborne GHG stocks would not decline significantly for many decades. That period would be greatly extended by marine stocks of anthro-CO2 being returned to the atmosphere, with the timelag then still further delaying the effect of those changes. Meanwhile, the feedbacks would have had well over a century of acceleration and of potentially massive release of additional GHGs, and the oceans would be dead. In short, the problem of excess airborne anthro GHGs is way beyond nature's capacity to handle in a manner we can survive. We dropped the spanner in the works – we have to get it out. Unwelcome as it may be to received wisdom, under the NAS definition, this means applying geo-engineering techniques [Geo-E]. It has nothing whatever to do with the genocidal corruption that seeks Geo-E as a means to maintain its emissions and thus shareholder profits. The primary form of Geo-E is carbon recovery, which attracts little opposition in principle. If it is done via sustainable forestry optimised for biochar, fuels and biodiversity (using around a gigahectare of non-farm land) together with biomass wastes, it is estimated that over 4ppmv/yr of CO2 could be recovered. In addition, it would not only greatly raise farm yields (as is already becoming critically necessary) and provide liquid & gas fuels in rural areas, but also provide vast additional habitat for hard-pressed biodiversity. There are also various proposed techno options for carbon recovery, but none as yet are self-funding, nor socially or ecologically constructive, nor demonstrably practical on the required scale of handling gigatonnes of carbon per year. The limitation of carbon recovery is that it cannot be done fast enough to keep ahead of the feedbacks’ acceleration. It would certainly take over half a century to recover sufficient airborne stocks, which would then be replenished with the marine stocks seeking equilibrium, and thus needing further decades for their recovery. In short, to avoid the feedbacks swamping the atmosphere with their emissions while carbon recovery is under way, they must be decelerated back to an insignificant level of output. That imperative demands the use of Geo-E in the form of albido restoration for the period of carbon recovery needed to restore 280ppmv of airborne CO2. Nothing else, so far as I can see, will prevent the feedbacks from imposing utterly catastrophic change. As to which of the many albido restoration techniques should be applied, there is great and urgent need of both discussion and research. Personally I see little prospect of sulphur aerosols being viable due to their dubious net benefits affecting negotiations. My own (far fetched) favourite would be large orbiting facilities robotically producing and releasing massive tonnages of cloned sterile thistledown into the stratosphere. (Max albido for minimal impact). The most promising option appears to be the Jetspray vessels that Professor Salter has been working on for some years. In being wind-powered and in putting up spray to generate additional bright clouds where and when appropriate it avoids both the pollution and control problems of sulphates. But given that is has yet to reach protototype stage, its eventual function is far from proven. However, until there is public recognition of the need for appropriate Geo-E, we are still just wasting more precious time. For this reason it seems a real shame that all three of the studies posted above should fail to seek the most viable formats for a practical program to meet the indisputable need of Geo-E. Regards, Lewis
113253. KR at 01:00 AM on 7 August 2010
        It's the sun
        Actually, I think GnDoty has a good question, one which has occurred to me. What caused such high levels of CO2 in the past?" I believe the answer is a "DaisyWorld" scenario, described in the CO2 was higher in the past thread - with a lower solar output, glaciers cover the world, and block weathering absorption of CO2 by rocks. Over geologic time, CO2 from continuing volcanos accumulate, until enough ice melts to allow weathering to catch up again. It's a slow feedback cycle. I could be wrong, though; I'm certainly not a geologist - I invite corrections if I'm just making things up here :)
113254. muoncounter at 00:43 AM on 7 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        "Fire seasons are starting earlier, last longer and are harder to control" This year's fire season is already ugly. Alaska Siberia Canada And there's satellite evidence that an NWP is soon to open up ... despite the good "news" reported by Watts and co.
113255. KR at 00:42 AM on 7 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - Aha! I believe I see the (perceived) issue. First of all, the presence of GHG's reduce the surface emission of IR where they absorb. This is partially replaced by thermal emission of the GHG's, but only partially - only half the IR emitted by the GHG's will escape to space - the rest heads back down to the surface. You can see that in thermal spectra for the Earth from space - where GHG's are fully saturated the IR at that wavelength is half the black-body value. So the rate of Earth's energy loss at a particular temperature (integrated spectrum of IR) DECREASES with increasing GHG concentration. This is crucial to the discussion. I will therefore completely disagree with on your statement: GHG DO NOT imply overall energy accumulation from the Sun, but yes, a change in energy storage distribution. No! GHG's directly cause energy accumulation! An analogy: You have a water tank with an open top (Earth/water/atmosphere energy in joules). You pour water in at a steady rate (Sunlight, waste heat, internet discussion, whatever). At the bottom of the tank is a drainpipe (radiation to space). The water level (temperature) is set by the pressure required to push as much water out through the drainpipe as is pouring in the top - if the water level rises, it drains faster, if it drops, it drains slower, but that tank will reach equilibrium with output flow = input flow. For fun we can set the output rate to scale with the 4th power of water level. Now throw in some leaves (GHG's blocking IR) partially clogging the drainpipe, reducing the outgoing flow. What happens? Water doesn't leave as fast as it's entering. And guess what - the water level in the tank rises (accumulating). It rises until the output rate equals the (unchanged) input rate; the temperature rises. Rising GHG's induce an energy accumulation - Output energy at a particular temperature decreases, output is less than input, energy accumulates, temps rise causing more output energy, until we're back at equilibrium with the output energy at the new temperature equals what's coming in. Warmer Earth, warmer water, warmer atmosphere, more energy present.
113256. Berényi Péter at 00:38 AM on 7 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        #38 scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 5 August, 2010 I would say GHG increase should increase entropy - the earth has become more efficient at converting high entropy photons to low entropy photons. I see. But what do models say?
113257. GnDoty at 00:37 AM on 7 August 2010
        It's the sun
        "Response: The difference between the past and now is the sun was much cooler in past periods of high CO2. Currently, we're heading towards high CO2 and high solar output. As it gets hotter, drought severity increases (it's been increasing over the last century). This has a significant impact on plant growth and agriculture." I am still working towards my geophysics degree so I apologize for the continued questions. In a period with a "much cooler" sun, other than increased volcanic activity, what would be another source that could contribute global increases in CO2 to the point of global warming?I could see ice melting releasing methane and CO2, but wouldn't solar influence be the cause for this to happen? If so, would the origin of of all global warming or cooling be the sun? I understand the complexity of climate changes, but I'm trying to simplify the process to find the origin.
        Response: "what would be another source that could contribute global increases in CO2 to the point of global warming?"
        
        If I understand you correctly, you're asking what could be causing the rise in CO2 levels other than human activity? We actually have many lines of evidence that clearly point to the burning of fossil fuels causing rising CO2. Firstly, the simple numbers that we're emitting around 28 billion tonnes of CO2 per year while the actual amount of CO2 in the air is going up by around 15 billion tonnes per year. Secondly, the type of carbon in the air matches the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels - a distinct human fingerprint. Thirdly, we see the same pattern in carbon isotopes in corals - another fossil fuel fingerprint. So there is really only one explanation for the sharp rise in CO2 and it's the common sense explanation - much of the CO2 we're throwing into the air is staying there.
        
113258. Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 7 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Chris #44 Of course the climate 'sensitivity' refers to surface warming. The crux of the AGW theory is that CO2GHG forcing and positive WV feedbacks will cause an enhanced T1-T2 differential across the atmospheric column from the surface to the level in the atmosphere where the temperature averages around 255degK. This is approx the S-B radiating temperature of the earth.
113259. Ken Lambert at 00:08 AM on 7 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Ned#42, #43 It seems to me that the +2.1W/sq.m of WV and ice albedo feedback, and the aerosol, cloud and direct albedo currently showing in Dr Trenberth's balance are the places to illuminate with Eqans we can all understand.
113260. omnologos at 23:31 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        doug_bostrom (#46): not really indicative of any problem w/scientific understanding I used to believe that, but then I have seen the f-word used so often by otherwise knowledgeable people, I am now inclined to think those using it have really lost its real-world meaning. chris (#50): No, nobody thinks they have a crystal ball, but (too) many people talk to the general public as if they did! I confess I am always amazed at how much I agree with Schmidt on this point. And especially about society’s expectations. Perish the thought there would be a +3C increase by the year 20XX apart from a 1C drop due to a series of volcanic eruptions, with the resulting 2C hailed a victory for humanity's efforts and politicians' especially (come to think, if you look at the Copenhagen Accord cloosely, it's worded ambiguously enough...) And for the record, yes, I am all for the use of climate models, even if like with string theory, I do think there's been too much focus on them and them alone. Like secret dossiers for journalists, climate models make a climatologist's life easier, maybe too much so.
113261. Rob Painting at 22:15 PM on 6 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        What about global trends in the frequency of extreme precipitation events?. I'm aware of a number of regional analyses, that show an increasing frequency of these, but globally?.
113262. John Mason at 22:10 PM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Tim, that's a fascinating read. My take on the situation is broadly similar in that in the most technologically-advanced societies today a great disconnect has occurred between humanity and the environment - so that people perceive the environment as somewhere "out there" - somewhere they perhaps go on vacation, for example. This is a very dangerous mindset to get into, given that without a functioning environment there is no breathable air, potable water or food, and any environmental malfunction can have severe effects on humanity - as the Russians are finding out. Muscovites are now well aware of the environment as it continues to give them a hard time. Cheers - John
113263. Rob Painting at 22:05 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Argus @ 49 "As proven by angusmac (#20), these climate 'forecasts' over-predict global temperatures when compared with observed temperatures. I am guessing there is a purpose behind this." Actually Angusmac provided a graph without sufficient explanation, which was provided by Chris @ 27 - I expect climate science has moved on a bit since 1988. Still pretty good work by Jim Hansen, considering what was known at that time. And I hardly think we know for a fact that models "over predict" global temperatures.
113264. dorlomin at 22:03 PM on 6 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        In my post yesterday, I reported that fourteen countries had set their all-time hottest temperature record this year. I neglected to mention that one country has also set its coldest temperature in recorded history mark in 2010. Guinea had its coldest temperature in its history on January 9, 2010, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region. Of the 229 countries with extreme coldest temperature records, 14 of these records have occurred in the past ten years (6% of all countries). There have been five times as many (74) extreme hottest temperature records in the past ten years (33% of all countries.) My source for extreme weather records is Chris Burt, author of Extreme Weather. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1560
113265. Peter Hogarth at 22:00 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        angusmac at 02:43 AM on 5 August, 2010 I agree with the comments (27) made by Chris on the Hansen 2006 paper about the 1988 model. Hansen points out the original model used a higher climate sensitivity than the currently accepted estimates, and therefore the original model is likely to slightly overestimate temperature trends. Even so, your “update” seems a little biased in that you omit the station data which Hansen includes, (and justifies inclusion) based on what the model is actually modeling. I have updated again with rolling 12 month values for the latest GISS data. As others have pointed out we should not be misled (either way) by short term variations (eg 1993 or 1997). We should also remember that adding appropriate error bars will make the question of divergence academic, at least for the moment.
113266. chris at 21:42 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Argus at 21:21 PM on 6 August, 2010 I don't think there's much merit in your argument Argus, and if Kevin's top post is a little simplistic (but note that the communication of science at varying levels of "simplicity" is a current topic of discussion here), then your's is unhelpfully simplistic (not to mention wrong) in the other direction! For your description of how models are constructed and used is quite incorrect. Models are parameterized according to known physics, and isn't adjusted to fit reality in the manner you suggest. It would be foolish indeed to do so (although on consideration, there might be good reasons for testing this under some circumstances). The value of doing good quality models and comparing these to reality is they increase our understanding and really help to focus on specific empirical measurements. So, for example, when ideas of water vapour response to atmospheric warming conflicted with models, one could focus on addressing real world water vapour data to assess the discrepencies. Now we know that water vapor is behaving pretty much as expected from models. Likewise a long-standing discrepancy between models and satellite measures of tropospheric warming stimulated a focus on addressing real world measurements and the apparent confusions were resolved pretty much in favour of the models. Computational models are astonishingly useful in most areas of science.
113267. CBDunkerson at 21:41 PM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        mothincarnate, plenty of people reject evolution even today... that has not prevented it from transforming the biological sciences and resulting in many advancements which benefit even those who disbelieve the science. I think it will be the same with advances going forward. Just as some religious groups reject modern medicine now others in the future will reject gene therapy, performance improving implants, cloned organs, and many other things... and just like the groups that reject modern medicine this will lead inevitably to those groups becoming marginalized minorities. When a new advancement gives the ability to save their life or their child's life most people are going to take it. GM foods are stigmatized without much justification now... but not so much in places where they are the only way of stopping starvation. If food availability becomes scarce people WILL change their tune on GM foods VERY quickly. Religions get re-written on a regular basis... the survival instinct does not.
113268. dorlomin at 21:32 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        I am just thinking and I realised that sea level rise may hit esturine cities much harder than either sea level or up river cities. Basically when a river gets to the sea is slows down and spreads out, this is the estuary. However as sea level rises the estuary will move back but it will have no where to spread out as it starts getting to the city parts that have been built on, so the total volume of water in those segments of the river will increase much quicker than sea level. It will be effectively squeezing the wide estury into a narrow river channel, probibly with build up river walls to try prevent flooding. Looks like some major engineering to keep the water flowing past the cities built up limits.....
113269. chris at 21:23 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        omnologos at 10:52 AM on 6 August, 2010 Yes you have a point Omnologous, although I think we might recognise that much of what you say is implicit in the sort of arguments used here. So when the term "prediction" is made, we should recognise that we really mean projection, and that this projection is being made to test a particular scenario (e.g. emission scenario). Likewise it's implicit that we recognise the inherent uncertainty about the future and that stochastic and contingent events are unpredictable (even if we can model some of these pseudo-stochastically - e.g. we can parameterize ocean current changes that give ENSO-like behaviour). I don't think anyone thinks they're "crystal balls" (I agree there is lots of confusion about this), and I personally don't think they tell us very much about future global warming over and above what we know from the seperate assessment of the forcings and their projected increases and so on that are themselves used to parameterize the models. The value of models (of the sophisticated computational variety) is that they allow us to assemble and incorporate our understanding into a representation of natural phenomena, which allows testing of future projections. They may also give insight into smaller scale phenomena (e.g. regional variability of distribution of thermal energy in a warming world), and provide reasons for more focussed investigation of experimental/empirical observations (e.g. to address apparent differences in tropical tropospheric temperatures between models and real world observations). So extraordinarily useful tools.....but not crystal balls!
113270. Argus at 21:21 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        For whom was this propaganda post written? For the average 10-year old? It is full of oversimplifications and half-truths. I agree with Einstein, as quoted by omnologos in an excellent comment (#45). An example: "Perhaps you have seen, or even had a ride, on one of those model stream-trains. These are miniature working replicas of real steam-engines. Climate models are the same; they are a working replica of the earth, only instead being made of rock and water and other materials, they are made from mathematical equations." There is no likeness other than the name 'model'. A model of a locomotive is a small-scale replica of a physical object already existing and well-known in every minute detail. You know exactly what the original object is like, and you can make the replica as precise as you like. On the other hand, a climate modelling program is a total artefact, a computer program fed with parameters and variables that are a mixture of basic physical laws, empirical data, and guesswork. You can not take a ride on it. All you can do is look at the diagrams it produces, and see if they agree with what you expected. If not, you change something and make a second run, etc. Change one parameter (for instance something to do with cloud production), and (hep!) you have a 'model' where the earth's average temperature is going to fall 2 to 3 degrees over the next 50 to 100 years. As proven by angusmac (#20), these climate 'forecasts' over-predict global temperatures when compared with observed temperatures. I am guessing there is a purpose behind this.
113271. Rob Painting at 20:01 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Omnologous @45 - I can predict that summer will be generally much warmer than winter. Or is that unknowable?.
113272. jenikhollan at 19:57 PM on 6 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        The proper Fig 3 is this one.
113273. Berényi Péter at 19:55 PM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        #38 John Russell at 18:09 PM on 6 August, 2010 See where the UK comes on this list. If I were you I would not use the list of the Optimum Population Trust. It is absolutely bogus. It says "All source data from The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2009 (Global Footprint Network), based on 2006 figures". They also say actual population of EUROPE (EU) is 731.28 million. Now, in fact actual population of EU was 493,226,936 in 2006.
113274. Rob Painting at 19:54 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Chriscanaris @ 36 - "With respect, you missed the point. I have no overwhelming desire to get on the plane. I'd just like to make sure the models are right." Yes, what I wrote earlier wasn't quite on point. The analogy itself isn't a valid fit, but a better extension would be: We're already on the plane, we didn't know there was a problem when we took off, but we do now - the models predict a crash if we continue much longer. Bits and pieces seem to be falling off the plane, which suggest the models might be on to something. I think we should try to land before we crash, we can't afford to wait for the models to be perfect. But you seem to be saying, "hang on a minute, about these models, only 90%?.......".
113275. tobyjoyce at 18:46 PM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        "Malthus was wrong. He believed the Isles of Britain could not support more than 7 million people." Malthus may have had an adjacent country in mind when he was writing: Ireland, where the population was exploding in his time, millions of those dependent on a single crop: potatoes. Ireland was place with many poor, and early, fecund marriages. Malthus' critics argued that birth rates would adjust to circumstances, but many thought the Irish Famine of 1845-1852 was his vindication. All in all, 1 million Irish died of starvation and disease, a further million fled overseas. Yet, the aftermath to an extent vindicated Malthus' critics - Ireland became a country of late marriages with small numbers of children. Sexual repression and clerical control became notorious. The birthrate only began to rise again, and emigration reverse, in the 1960s. Today, demographic historians see these trends beginning BEFORE the famine, but they were too late to mitigate the catastrophe of the potato blight, which no one foresaw. So Malthus was possibly only half right - the Irish were cognisant of there situation and the population was adjusting - families were getting smaller, marriages later, the safety valve of emigration was coming into use. But with the onset of blight these adjustments were insufficient in the short time abvailable & a terrible tragedy ensued. As an Irishman, I would be loath to write off old Malthus as totally "wrong". Contingencies can happen that drive an already precarious situation past a tipping point. It is tempting to see 21st century civilization dependent on a limited supply of carbon-based fuels as similar to the 19th century Irish poor, dependent on a single food crop. Is that too simplistic?
113276. RSVP at 18:11 PM on 6 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Ann #18 Well put.
113277. John Russell at 18:09 PM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        HumanityRules at 09:50 AM on 6 August, 2010: I can't agree with the bald statement that 'Malthus was wrong'. Malthus was right in principle, but couldn't take everything into account. Most notably he didn't foresee the massive increase in carrying capacity cheap fossil energy would provide. That's a perfect example of why scientists should avoid making predictions. They can be essentially correct but if they gamble on occasional 'best guesses' in order to create their equations it will often be those weak links that let them down. You say, "Malthus was wrong. He believed the Isles of Britain could not support more than 7 million people." That's a bit like seeing a field full of cows and saying, "see how many cows that field can support". There's current population and there's sustainable population. The difference is quite dramatic. See where the UK comes on this list .
113278. Berényi Péter at 18:04 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        #39 doug_bostrom at 16:05 PM on 6 August, 2010 Allowing economists to decide whether or not particular sets of physical facts should be addressed or acknowledged is arguably quite bizarre, actually seems like something lifted from anachronisms like Soviet Russia. There used to be a joke about a mythic soviet paper clip factory that was required to produce 100 tons of paper clip in a month. They have solved the problem by producing just ten pieces, 10 tons each.
113279. RSVP at 17:58 PM on 6 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        KR #184 (...et. all) "You end up with more radiation from the top of the atmosphere, less from the surface, but a total of less energy radiated overall." It is not clear to me why the atmosphere's vertical temperature profile should affect the overall energy discharge. In my mind, there is on the one hand a) an energy discharge associated with surface-to-space flux, and on the other hand b) (generally independent of this statistically) flux associated with GHGs-to-space. If the profile of temperature changes slightly raising temperatures in the lower atmosphere (i.e., the green house effect), how does this affect net upward flux of a or b? Unless there is a particular reason, to me it seems, the overall net energy released is the same. There is no accumulation of energy. If however, you add heat (i.e., waste heat), now you have something very tangibly added to the system. (i.e., energy cannot be created or destroyed etc.). And it is being added day in, day out... even at night. I think KRs sentence is inaccurately expressed, and it is not a big deal, we all make mistakes. In fact, it has been helpful to point out... 1) GHG DO increase temperatures in the lower atmosphere. 2) GHG DO NOT imply overall energy accumulation from the Sun, but yes, a change in energy storage distribution. 3) Waste heat DOES imply an increase in the net energy being stored and therefore is a big environmental problem. The outward flux never changes, so waste energy can only accumulate. 4) Perhaps the only solution is increasing the Earths albedo. PS This is only my humble opinion.
113280. tobyjoyce at 17:48 PM on 6 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        Poast #2 is by country - data taken from Wikipedia. List of Weather Records Record Highs in the 1990s - Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Spain, Macedonia Record Highs in the 2000s - UK, Switzerland, Serbia, Slovakia, Portugal, Moldova, Italy, Iceland, France
113281. tobyjoyce at 17:42 PM on 6 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        I did a little exercise with European highs and lows - up to 1990, there was a median of 1.5 record highs and 3 record lows set per decade. Then in the 1990s, there were 5 record highs and 2 records lows. In the 2000s, there were 9 record highs and 1 record low. I think more record highs are being set this summer - while last January's cold snap produced no record lows as far as I am aware.
113282. David Horton at 16:58 PM on 6 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        But but but but ... I can hear the chorus now, trying to separately attack each point. Your question about record highs is a good one. Surely this is a simple enough figure to be readily available from most European countries, Canada, at least some South American countries, China and Japan? It is an important piece of analysis because it gets away from the denier cry that "High temps are just weather, we've always had them". Yes indeed, but the point of records is that you haven't had them.
113283. Cornelius Breadbasket at 16:25 PM on 6 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        the leader of the opposition, who is a few marginal seats away from becoming leader of our country in a few weeks, states that "climate change is absolute crap" I am speechless. But then we have Nigel Lawson, UKIP and Monckton, over half of the Conservative party... I often think what a backlash would look like. Will it be driven by extreme weather events? The recent flooding in Pakistan is an interesting example. OK - I keep hearing that you can't attribute a single event to climate change, but I wonder if that is a little like saying you can't attribute a single cancer cell to smoking. Globally this year (so far) there has been unprecedented flooding in Southern France, Poland, Brazil, China, Tennessee and Arkansas. Here in the UK flood risks have increased so significantly that insurers are saying that some parts of the country will become uninsurable. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/28/house-insurance-premiums-flooding). The backlash against smoking happened slowly - but has ended in bans and lawsuits for compensation. Will it be the same with climate change?
113284. Doug Bostrom at 16:05 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        GC we might nonetheless be able to entertain a fine argument on freedoms as they pertain to physical things, come to think of it, but this is probably not the place. However I think I can provide an example that is related to my article in the sense of abstractions invading physical reality. I have a problem w/the North American Free Trade Act for because it has features that force signatories to ignore certain physical things and live in the world of economic abstractions which are prone to arbitrary synthetic alterations. NAFTA allows corporations to autonomously reach past national governments and attack environmental protections, watering down local environmental regulations that may produce effects deemed "protectionist" by economists not concerned with actual physical realities. Not only is this undemocratic in a pretty fundamental way but it's also strikingly divorced from factual realities. Allowing economists to decide whether or not particular sets of physical facts should be addressed or acknowledged is arguably quite bizarre, actually seems like something lifted from anachronisms like Soviet Russia. "We don't care if you only have 20 lathes, you must produce as though you have 40," that sort of thing.
113285. Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        GC ignoring for a moment that I don't really buy into the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal editorial pages I don't think we'll find agreement between ourselves on that particular issue. For one thing it's solidly in the realm of economics and political science which together have never come up with a generally reliable answer to their equivalents of "what's 2+2?" At least with climate science we can agree on the boiling and freezing point of water, etc. This country (the one I'm in) is facing a really serious challenge right now concerning how our system is being exposed as running on good faith, vulnerable to things such as exponentially increasing invocation of the filibuster rules. Under the present day behavior we'd have never gone to the Moon, never ended segregation, never joined in beating back Hitler, on and on. Regardless of where folks fall on particular issues, they should realize there's no way forward by filibuster. Getting back to good faith is bigger than any particular piece of legislation, more important. Seriously.
113286. scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        Strange perspective. I'm from NZ in that list. We have ETS (though I would judge it as pretty useless) so, nope that doesnt restrict freedom. Both left and right are anti-subsidy so no fossil subsidies in sight. Now would ditching your subsidies be a great start in your road to "freedom" (whatever that is)? I would have thought the greatest problem the US government had would be lack of any commitment by either side (but especially post-war Republicans) to balance a budget.
113287. Darv at 14:02 PM on 6 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Re Doug's various posts. I routinely get into discussions with very open minded folk who have NO conection to the science, or even any awareness that blogs like this exist. The proposed app would not only allow me to mount coherent & referenced arguments in pubs, but would also let me spread the general awareness of the availability of the information.
113288. gallopingcamel at 13:36 PM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        doug_bostrom (#35), You introduced a new topic when you started criticising the US government for entirely the wrong reasons. From my perspective the greatest problem with the US government is its assault on freedom in general and economic freedom in particular. Only seven economies out of ~180 worldwide are ranked as "FREE" by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation in 2010. Sadly the USA is now ranked "MOSTLY FREE". Which countries achieved the top ranking? See The list below: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. Australia 4. New Zealand 5. Ireland 6. Switzerland 7. Canada
113289. muoncounter at 13:33 PM on 6 August 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        In images now available from Canadian and Danish sources, the beginnings of an ice free Northwest Passage can be seen. 7/22/2010 Denmark DMI/COI 8/3/2010 Canada 7/22/2010 Book your passage now!
113290. Doug Bostrom at 12:02 PM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        I am appalled at the level of scientific misunderstanding... Uh-huh, or the less-than-ideal use of a word which does after all include "judge to be probable" among its meanings yet can't be used in this context because somebody will inevitably pipe up about weather forecasts. Rhetoric is important. So good point, it's a favorite talking-point of contrarians but not really indicative of any problem w/scientific understanding.
113291. scaddenp at 11:22 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's cooling
        TomJones - the thermohaline circulation perhaps? If you watch the ENSO forecasts you will see cross-sections of the tropical ocean showing the downwelling. It doesnt escape detection.
113292. johnd at 10:58 AM on 6 August 2010
        1934 - hottest year on record
        doug_bostrom at 08:39 AM, I agree that it is the frequency of excursions, rather than the magnitude of individual excursions that are more relevant. For that reason I feel the Quinn reconstruction of El-Nino events is important to put more recent excursions into perspective.
113293. omnologos at 10:52 AM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        I am appalled at the level of scientific misunderstanding shown here by Kevin Judd (and, presumably, John Cook). There is no such a thing as a "climate forecast". What climate models do is run “scenarios”, “what-ifs”, computations in which some parameters get changed, and everything else remains equal. That is a normal way of conducting risk analysis, but only if everybody keeps in mind that OF COURSE in the real world everything changes, and nothing remains equal. The surface temperature, for example, is also affected by unknown variables such as future volcanic eruptions and solar activity. Hence, the actual temperature difference between 2010 and, say, 2050, is pretty much unknowable. Climate models are therefore tools to probe risks and sensitivities, not crystal balls. As a matter of fact, they can’t, won’t and never will tell us anything precise about future weather, weeks, months, years or centuries in the future: just as no donkey will ever win the Kentucky Derby. That doesn’t mean climate models (or donkeys) are useless: rather, they should be used for what they are worth using. And yes, you can ask Gavin Schmidt if you don't believe me ;-) ps some will say that the difference between "forecast" and "scenario" is lost among the general public. Well, as Einstein would have it, scientific communication should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. And why is this so important? Schmidt again: "there is a real danger for society’s expectations to get completely out of line with what eventually will prove possible, and it’s important that policies don’t get put in place that are not robust to the real uncertainty in such predictions".
113294. mothincarnate at 10:29 AM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Humanity Rules #34 "Contained in this article is the sense that we're on a doomed trajectory ATM. That underlying assumption is wrong." No, contained in this article is the argument that our practices are unsustainable and our impact is exacerbating the problem. "...the sort of thing that this article is against, such as industrialised, modern farming techniques, is the method that most effiently cycles nutrients through the system and generates great yields." The article is not against industrial improvement at all - in fact I make many points that we have achieved amazing things. We need to remain mindful, however, of the ecological services on which we rely. "The problem of limited resourses today is not a natural one but socially imposed." Baseless... Look at peak oil (within the next decade) for an excellent example, however, you should also look into whatever local natural resource management processes you have - almost all will have some form of depletion, largely the using up of resources quicker than they can be regenerated. In other cases, it's that we're changing the process (such as watercourse and landscape use changes) thereby diverting typical ecological pathways. Also, I make no point about population size here. It not a question of the amount of people, but how we manage, how we exploit and how we live. We could, I believe, have 9 billion people and be sustainable - but we cannot live as we currently are. Space,sprawl alone demonstrates this.
113295. adelady at 10:23 AM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        HR But recycling all locally available nutrients is *exactly* what subsistence farmers need to do. The people who currently have the least resources are the ones who most benefit from getting the most out of what they do have. Those of us in wealthier cities would do well to have a good hard look at approaching peak oil. If the price goes the way it looks that it might, then being a bit more frugal with what goes into landfill may be obligatory if the price of oil-based fertilisers rises as far as it could. Anyone who thinks that consuming less means choosing to have fewer handbags or gadgets should bear in mind it's more likely to mean spending so much on food and transport that those luxuries are unaffordable. There won't be a choice. Either way, sensible use of what we have, whoever we are, makes a better life for ourselves and our neighbours.
113296. Doug Bostrom at 10:05 AM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        "1 or 2 dollars a day" means we could increase their income with direct support by an order of magnitude without lifting a finger. We don't choose to do that. We can debate why that may be but it's not a case for some sort of hard physical limit we're up against w/regard to lifting the poor out of poverty.
113297. muoncounter at 10:03 AM on 6 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Have you seen the format used by ESPERE? Hard to beat the simplicity of 'Basics' and 'Read more'.
113298. Doug Bostrom at 10:01 AM on 6 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Thingadonta, what's interesting (to me) about thermal processes of the sort you refer to is their neat fit with sometimes fickle sunshine. It would not really matter exactly when C02 was extracted from the air, just that the average amount over time fit the requirements. If a solar thermal extractor were idle for a week because of inclement weather nobody would be inconvenienced.
113299. thingadonta at 09:52 AM on 6 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Why can't C02 be removed from the atmosphere in a manner something like the Haber process? The Haber process removes nitrogen from the air for use as fertiliser. It wasn't an easy process to perfect, and won Haber the noble prize. If huge amounts of energy are required, well, there is- for example in Australia's outback-we have some of the largest uranium deposits in the world, one of the most politically and geologically stable areas, and hardly anyone lives there. Nuclear reactors could be used to drive the removal of c02 from the air. Possible?
113300. HumanityRules at 09:50 AM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        16 Ned Contained in this article is the sense that we're on a doomed trajectory ATM. That underlying assumption is wrong. 17.adelady at 01:14 AM on 6 August, 2010 "I'm not against doing that in a more enlightened way but we need to be clear that we still have to consume more." I don't understand this. If you need clarification on this I suggest you go speak to a few people living on 1 or 2 dollars a day. The problem I see with the rest of your argument is that the sort of thing that this article is against, such as industrialised, modern farming techniques, is the method that most effiently cycles nutrients through the system and generates great yields. While organic farming may fed the paranoid middle classes, industrialised farming will feed the 6 billion other souls on this planet. 19.John Russell Yep very funny, but I guess you understand that Malthus believed in absolute natural limits. I'm more arrogant in the belief that our huge brains will never allow that to happen. The problem of limited resourses today is not a natural one but socially imposed. 22.Chris G Yep Malthus was wrong. He believed the Isles of Britain could not support more than 7 million people. He was wrong.

Prev  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  Next