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. chris at 03:38 AM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Ken Lambert at 23:55 PM on 5 August, 2010 "Put all that together and you get a climate sensitivity of between 0.75 and 4.5 degC for doubling of CO2 to 560ppmv, depending on whether you read Lindzen or Hansen." Ken, it sounds a little like you consider the climate sensitivity is a matter of choice! In fact the science is a far better source for understanding the likely degree of surface warming in response to massively enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. This indicates that the range of likelihood is between 2 - 4.5 oC (per doubling of [CO2]), which is quite well constrained at the low end (little likelihood of climate sensitivity below 2 oC[*]), but poorly constrained at the high end (poor basis for rejecting higher climate sensitivities). See for example Knutti and Hegerl’s recent review. R. Knutti and G. C. Hegerl (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes Nature Geoscience 1, 735-743 In reality it is very difficult to envisage that the climate sensitivity (equilibrium surface warming from a radiative forcing equivalent to doubling of atmospheric [CO2]) can be below 2 oC (e.g. [*]). Lindzen's efforts to insinuate a low climate sensitivity are dismally flawed [**] (if not worse [***]) and one really does need to play at disregarding a huge body of science, to consider that his analyses have scientific merit. [**] Murphy, D. M. (2010), Constraining climate sensitivity with linear fits to outgoing radiation Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L09704 Chung, E.-S., B. J. Soden, and B.-J. Sohn (2010), Revisiting the determination of climate sensitivity from relationships between surface temperature and radiative fluxes Geophys. Res. Lett., 37 L10703 [***] Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong (2010) Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702 ”…particularly OHC which is the least best measured, looking dodgy and will be the final arbiter of warming extent.” The “final arbiter of warming extent “ is surely the warming extent Ken. We live at the Earth surface and it is the surface warming that is of interest. The climate sensitivity is explicitly defined in relation to Earth surface warming. Most of our understanding of past climatology that informs us on the relationships between enhanced greenhouse forcing and Earth response relates to earth surface responses. We can play the game of selecting arenas of uncertainty (OHC) in order to attempt to ramp up the impression of uncertainties, but one wonders why anyone would think that sort of game fruitful! Not so distant history warns us of the dangers of that sort of misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. ------------------------------------------------------- [*] For example, the Earth has warmed by around 0.8-0.9 oC since the middle of the 19th century, while [CO2] has risen from around 286 ppm then to 388 ppm now. A climate sensitivity of 2 oC should then give an equilibrium warming of: ln(388/286)*2/ln(2) = 0.86 oC We know that we haven’t had the full warming from this enhancement of greenhouse gases, since it takes the earth many decades to come to equilibrium with the current forcing resulting from raised greenhouse gases. Likewise we know that a significant part of the warming from this enhancement of greenhouse gas levels has been offset by manmade atmospheric aerosols. On the other hand some of the warming is due to non-CO2 sources (man-made methane, nitrous oxides, tropospheric ozone, black carbon). Non greenhouse gas contributions to this warming (solar, volcanic) are known to be small. Overall, it’s rather unlikely, given the warming since the mid-19th century, that climate sensitivity is less than 2 oC. This is expanded on in more detail in Knutti and Hegerl (see above), in Murphy et al. (2009), in Rind and Lean, 2008, in Hansen et al (2005), etc. etc.
113252. TomJones at 03:01 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's cooling
        Can anyone suggest a mechanism by which greenhouse warming bypasses the atmosphere, bypasses the upper 700 m of ocean, and warms the ocean between 700 and 2000 m? This seems like it will be required for the earth to continue warming.
113253. gallopingcamel at 02:56 AM on 6 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        doug_bostrom, My reservations have to do with the various statements made about the rate of sea level rise. For example those made by the IPCC, Rahmsdorf, Rohling et al. This was not the central theme of your presentation and we are already discussing it elsewhere: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Confidence-in-climate-forecasts.html#20509
113254. TomJones at 01:56 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's cooling
        Response: Levitus' data covers only the upper ocean heat which shows more variability than the total ocean heat. Measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep show that the oceans are still accumulating heat. Would you please cite a source for that statement? I am unable to find such a measurement and following the link only dumps you back at this site. The NODC data shows a suggestive resemblance to atmospheric temperature data, delayed a few years.
        Response: The source is von Schuckmann 2009:
        
        
        Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 10⁸ Joules per square metre.
113255. CBW at 01:51 AM on 6 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        I think the potential political fallout of these kinds of geoengineering are grossly underestimated. (To say nothing of the eventual political fallout of AGW, in general.) What happens if China decides to start pumping SO2 into the stratosphere and it dries out the US midwest? Or if the US starts doing it, and it causes massive flooding in China or India? There are a large number of destabilizing scenarios, and political leaders are always happy to blame someone else for the problems in their country. If the situation deteriorates, you get military strikes on the suspect facilities, and it escalates from there. Sure, a nuclear war would result in global cooling, and reduced carbon emissions from industry, but I don't think it would be in civilization's best interest.
113256. adelady at 01:14 AM on 6 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        "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 we take farming and gardening as models for other activities, we know that it's not a matter of taking stuff from the soil to make other stuff to consume. All the atoms, molecules, building blocks we will ever have are already in the system. Fertility is not a function of maximum extraction of nutrients and other substances. Fertility is a function of how rapidly we can get those atoms and molecules cycling through that system to benefit all who might feed from it. So we don't throw organic waste into landfill or elsewhere where it might be lost to the system for a long time. We put it where it will do the most good straight away - back into the system of reproducing more organic materials. And the same can be said for most economic and other processes. Money is most valuable when it is working - to enhance the material wellbeing of all who are involved in its various transactions through a society. Technology can always be used better and its use and development can create better technologies. I do not see where this fear of loss of some mysterious quality of life comes from. Unless the world is comprised entirely of elderly weirdos clinging to their mouldering stacks of 30 year old newspapers, the idea is just silly.
113257. Tom Dayton at 01:04 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's the sun
        GnDoty, that's a good question. The appropriate thread for it is It’s not bad.
113258. Dikran Marsupial at 00:59 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's the sun
        GnDoty The polar ice caps had melted in many of those warmer periods, which means that the oceans were several tens of meters higher than they are now. Of course that wouldn't be a problem would it? ;o) The point is that our agriculture and civilisation has adatped to suit a particular climate. If the climate changes then we have to adapt our agricultre, which can only be done at a cost; a cost that a large proportion of the Earth's population cannot afford (as they are already at subsitence level or worse). Even if overall productivity goes up, that doesn't mean that it will go up everywhere, so what happens to the countries that find because of first world use of fossil fuels their country can no longer support its population? That wouldn't be a bad scenario perhaps for someone who wanted a world government that oversaw the redistribution of wealth to make sure everyone got enough of that food to live on, but I don't think that would be everybodys cup of tea! In short, the change is a problem, regardless of the eventual destination. There is also a risk the destination will be bad in its own right, but it doesn't have to be for climate change to be a problem worth trying to avoid.
113259. GnDoty at 00:46 AM on 6 August 2010
        It's the sun
        Considering previous time periods with higher concentrations of CO2, I have a few questions. During these times (pick any period) we see larger, widespread plant life. This plethora of vegetation leads to larger animals (dinosaurs). Could someone explain how more plant life due to increased CO2 levels - which provides more food for animals - is a bad scenario? If animal life has benefitted from increased CO2 levels in the past, why is there a negative reaction to increases in CO2 in our current time period? It's assumed that common knowledge of ice age periods lead to a reduction in biological populations. Should this be the real fear instead of warming?
        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.
        
        As for the fear of an impending ice age, so long as you don't see a huge ice sheet creeping down over Canada, you can rest assured.
        
113260. Dikran Marsupial at 00:28 AM on 6 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Arkadiusz Semczyszak said "And what about the detritus Tundra?" Again, you are missing the point. The observations show beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment as a whole is a net carbon sink, and therefore is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2, not causing it. It is irrellevant if soil respiration is increasing if some sink elsewhere in the natural carbon cycle is strengthening sufficiently to take up the extra carbon from soil respiration (the observations show that this must be ocurring - even if we don't know the detail of exactly where the carbon is taken up). You have to look at the big picture. So, if the natural environment is the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, why is the observed rise smaller than anthropogenic emissions. If you can't answer that question, maybe it will help you to understand why increased soil respiration does not (by itself) imply doubt on whether the rise is of anthropogenic origin.
113261. Ned at 00:27 AM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        More broadly, Ken, my impression of your comments here is that you always raise the issue of uncertainty, and then use that to imply that it means that things might be better than the standard consensus. But they might also be worse! A very low climate sensitivity implies the existence of large negative feedbacks (planetary homeostasis, a la Daisyworld or Lindzen's "iris") that somehow keep the climate within a nice cosy range. It's hard to see how that squares with the existence of glacial/interglacial cycles!
113262. Ned at 00:19 AM on 6 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Let' stick with credible numbers, Ken. Climate sensitivity of 0.75C is not comparable to 4.5C on the credibility scale -- if you're going to include outliers on the low side of the range, you need to include outliers on the high side as well (i.e., > 6C), for the sake of intellectual honesty. Or, you can go with the most probable range based on the convergence of observational and modeling evidence (roughly 2 to 4.5C). Then there's the problems with this: Since we have already had 0.75degC warming since pre-industrial times, warming could have stopped, have about 0.75degC to go, or 3+ degC to go. Except that CO2 hasn't doubled yet, now has it? Plus CO2 (and other GHGs) don't account for 100% of the warming to date. Under anything remotely resembling a "business as usual" scenario there pretty much has to be quite a bit more warming in the 21st C than in the 20th C.
113263. Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 6 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Arkadiusz Semczyszak El-Nino is the likely cause of the annual fluctuations in the rise in CO2, IIRC largely becuase of the effect it has on the productivity of the terrestial biosphere. The correllation between temperature and the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is well known, and often the source of incorrect skeptic arguments, such as the one dealt with here.
113264. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:08 AM on 6 August 2010
        On Consensus
        And my "perennial" question: why these fluctuations year on year increase of CO2 at a dose? from 0.5 to 5 ppmv, even as there is no volcanic eruptions, what is changing so quickly?
113265. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:04 AM on 6 August 2010
        On Consensus
        “Whether soil respiration is giving out more carbon than it recieves in biomass from dead trees and animal dung etc. each year is irrellevant.” And what about the detritus Tundra? But there is often in arrears for more than 10 thousand. years, and the NPP is negligible. Arctic could upset the balance of CO2. “Thus, modest global change scenarios resulting in a 1 to 2 deg C increase in mean temperature would have the most significant effect on the 60 g C/m2 year respired by tundra.” “Soil respiration has been shown to be strongly influenced by temperature (Lloyd and Taylor 1994, Fang and Moncrieff 2001) - Duke Uniwersity Allison Thomson: “Previous climate change research shows that Arctic zones have a lot more carbon locked away than other regions. Using the complete set of data collected from the studies, the team estimated that the carbon released in northern -- also called boreal -- and Arctic regions rose by about 7 percent; in temperate regions by about 2 percent; and in tropical regions by about 3 percent, showing a trend consistent with other work.” “The increase in carbon dioxide given off by soils -- about 0.1 petagram (100 million metric tons) per year since 1989 -- won't contribute to the greenhouse effect unless it comes from carbon that HAD BEEN LOCKED AWAY OUT OF THE SYSTEM FOR A LONG TIME, such as in Arctic TUNDRA.” “In addition, removing only 10 percent of the boreal-Arctic data points was enough to invalidate the statistical significance of the boreal-Arctic result. Together, the results support the idea that more boreal data on regional climates is needed to reach statistical relevance.” “This analysis could not distinguish whether the carbon was coming from old stores or from vegetation growing faster due to a warmer climate. But other lines of evidence suggest warming is unlocking OLD CARBON, according to the researchers.” "We identified an area where WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK," said Thomson. But do not You, You already know ...
113266. Ned at 23:56 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        HumanityRules writes: Ever since we started thinking about that journey we've also had the idea that the journey will come to an end. [...] And I think you're wrong to suggest we might be in a similar position in our present uncertain times. What journey is "coming to an end" exactly? Not technological growth or social progress, both of which are necessary for addressing climate change. Perhaps the fossil fuel era is coming to an end, but that's been only a blip in human history. The human journey didn't end when we stopped burning whale oil for lighting. I don't see anything in the original post that suggests that human civilization is coming to an end. I see suggestions that our civilization has to change, just as it has done so many times in the past. Our civilization is better ever since we renounced chattel slavery. Ending the systematic oppression of women is likewise a good thing. Likewise, reshaping our social/technological infrastructure so that we can provide a high quality of life for future generations without turning the oceans, atmospere, and biosphere into one large garbage dump is also something we should see as positive.
113267. John Chapman at 23:55 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        The other point that tends to be overlooked is that there are just too many folk on the planet, all demanding natural resources and contributing to CO2. Generous maternity leave doesn't help. China at least has done something (the things one can do when voters don't have to be appeased!) Perhaps a cap and trade on offspring would be an idea?
113268. Ken Lambert at 23:55 PM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Ned #19 "Ken, I'm not sure you understand the distinction between (a) a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and (b) a climate forcing. The number you cite (0.9 W/m2) is the former. The AR4 figure to which you refer discusses the latter." No Ned, you missed the extra bit from Fig 4, of Dr Trenberth's paper: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:19­27 An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy Kevin E Trenberth Figure 4 is a composite of Fig 2.4 from AR4 PLUS the climate system responses which reconcile the total net anthropogenic to the TOA imbalance. The main component of the total net anthropogenic is +1.66W/sq.m from CO2GHG, plus other GHG; minus aerosol, cloud and surface albedo, and plus a little solar. The Fig 4 sum is : 1.6W/sq.m (total net anthropogenic) - 2.8W/sq.m (radiative feedback) + 2.1W/sq.m (WV and Ice Albedo feedbacks) = 0.9W/sq.m Figure 2 from the same paper shows the TOA balance as Incoming Solar radiation (341.3W/sq.m) minus Reflected Solar radiation (101.9W/sq.m) minus Outgoing Longwave Radiation (238.5W/sq.m) 341.3 - 101.9 - 238.5 = 0.9W/sq.m The issue of climate sensitivity for a doubling (or any increase) of CO2 is bound up with nearly all of the forcing components and the net responses. CO2GHG forcing is supposed to follow the Eqan F.CO2 = 5.35ln(CO2a/CO2b) where CO2b is 280ppmv. Total aerosol cooling forcing; nobody really knows what Eqan it follows. Radiative cooling feedback is proportional to T^4, and nobody really knows what Eqan WV and ice albedo feedbacks will follow. Put all that together and you get a climate sensitivity of between 0.75 and 4.5 degC for doubling of CO2 to 560ppmv, depending on whether you read Lindzen or Hansen. Since we have already had 0.75degC warming since pre-industrial times, warming could have stopped, have about 0.75degC to go, or 3+ degC to go. The theme of Dr Trenberth's paper is his lament that currently the measurement of the vital forcings directly is not sufficiently accurate to do better than these theoretical and model based numbers, particularly OHC which is the least best measured, looking dodgy and will be the final arbiter of warming extent.
113269. James Wight at 23:43 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        This thread sort of ties in with something I’ve been thinking about recently. Several recent posts have struck me as better and/or more accessible responses to an argument than the text on the relevant rebuttal pages. Here are a few ideas for posts that might be adapted to be alternate versions of existing rebuttal pages: • “Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public” could be an “easier” (more accessible) version of the “no consensus” rebuttal. I think infographics are always good at getting the important messages across. • “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” could be used as an “easier” version of the existing “It’s not us” page. • I definitely recommend doing the same thing with “10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable” and the “It’s not happening” rebuttal. • “Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions” could be a more in-depth version of the “Temp record is unreliable” page. This was actually a guest post by Ned, but I expect he and John can sort it out. (I also noticed the same page contains basic responses to “3 of 4 temperature datasets are interdependent”, “Airports inflate warming trend”, and “NASA GISS adjustments introduce warming bias” – none of which have a rebuttal page yet.) • “3 levels of cherry-picking in a single argument” could be an “easier” version of the 1998 page. (Also, from memory I think that the former might be slightly more up-to-date.) • “Return to the Himalayas” (another guest post from a few weeks back) might be an alternate version of “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers”. • I think that somewhere in the archives there is a simplified version of “Climate’s changed before”, but I can’t find it.
113270. Ned at 23:39 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        1077 writes: Why not just keep the research going and stay away from major changes. CBDunkerson addresses this, but I also want to point out the fallacy involved. You're placing all of the burden of the uncertainty and risk on one side of the argument. This isn't a choice between "acting" versus "not acting", it's a choice between "taking action A" versus "taking action B" ... unless you're planning on stopping all GHG emissions while we do the research and figure out whether it's safe to proceed! And while there is undoubtedly evidence pointing toward AWG, there is equally strong evidence that the cures proposed are worse than the ailment. Sources, please. Pacala and Socolow present a range of options for stabilizing CO2 emissions: Pacala, S and R Socolow. 2004. Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science, 305:968 - 972. All of the "wedges" would be challenging, although many of them would be good things to do even without the incentive of preventing a doubling of CO2. None of them require new technology, though presumably technological advances will make them easier to accomplish. The point is, we should have started years ago. Still, starting now would be much better than waiting until much more drastic action is needed!
113271. HumanityRules at 23:34 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        You do a good job in the first part of this article in describing the remarkable journey humanity has taken. Ever since we started thinking about that journey we've also had the idea that the journey will come to an end. The Greeks and Romans got it wrong 2000 years ago during periods of crisis for their society. Malthus got it wrong 300 years ago during a period of uncertainty in revoltutionary Europe. Huxley and Orwell got it wrong in their dytopian ideas that grew out of the carnage of WWI and WWII. And I think you're wrong to suggest we might be in a similar position in our present uncertain times. The unfortunate fact is that lack of resourses is still the greatest problem facing us all. We still have to continue to reshape our environment to satisfy those needs. I'm not against doing that in a more enlightened way but we need to be clear that we still have to consume more.
113272. John Russell at 23:22 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Thingadonta. Your comment and anthropomorphic view of nature both horrifies me and fills me with despair. The problem with the stance that you outline (at 19:36 PM on 5 August, 2010) is that it suggests a belief that human existence can operate independently of the natural world. It simply cannot. To operate the way you appear to believe it can, our civilisation would need to take over control and responsibility for all the complex and inter-related mechanisms that have evolved over the millennia to make life on Earth sustainable. Can we even begin to imagine the scale of that task? And to what end? Because we think we can do it better? What; when we cannot even agree on a course of action to deal with the current problems we are creating? I can only hope that -- for the survival of our species -- your point does not gain mainstream acceptance.
113273. CBDunkerson at 23:19 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        1077, you are arguing from a foundation of fiction; "Those who believe they have discovered all the mechanisms that control the mathematically chaotic workings of our climate" - Fiction. No one has made any such claim. Everyone acknowledges that there are many uncertainties in climate science. However, if you look at the history of estimates of warming from a doubling of CO2 over the past 40 years you will see that the uncertainty range has been shrinking... it used to be 1 to 6 C, then 1.5 to 5, and so on until now most estimates are in the narrow range of 2 to 3.5 C. We have had time to check and double check the climate feedbacks over that period and they are clearly enhancing the warming from CO2 and other GHGs. That's not 'arrogance'. That's observed reality. "Why not just keep the research going and stay away from major changes." - We are making 'major changes' to the entire planet RIGHT NOW. Yes, caution is good... but continuing with actions which have been observed to be throwing the entire global ecosystem out of balance is NOT 'caution'. "And while there is undoubtedly evidence pointing toward AWG, there is equally strong evidence that the cures proposed are worse than the ailment." - No, there isn't. All remotely balanced estimates (i.e. those that don't engage in nonsense like assuming immediate loss of 100% of fossil fuel economic input and 0% new economic input from renewable power) show that 'the cure' is easily achievable... on the order of 2% of GDP. Less than half what the US currently spends on the military.
113274. tobyjoyce at 22:42 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        While I do not agree with BP, he should still being to mind the concept of stewardship, which is espoused by Christians like Al Gore, and which is gaining ground among all faiths. If we are absolutely unique souls, then we were given a unique place to flourish in. God hardly wants us to screw it up. It seems to me that the concept of a finite world is not really considered in traditional religion, in economics or in political systems. Since the 17th century, when humans started to harness fossil fuels on a large scale, we have been living in a bubble generated by their easy availability.
113275. 1077 at 22:42 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Wonderful article. The key take-away should be the word "humility". Those who believe they have discovered all the mechanisms that control the mathematically chaotic workings of our climate should get a big helping of it. rmp @#6 is asking for evidence. If you want some, please read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit". It describes and explains the disasters produced by the foolish human lack of humility in economics. Hence it is not "proof" in the context of ecology, just "evidence"; which is all we can ask for in this context. Is it not thought provoking that the same type of political movers and shakers whose line of thinking produced demonstrable economic disasters are behind the climate change movement as well today? This of course does not mean disregard for the environment. But again, the same ones who thought they could control and plan the economy, produced the biggest man-made ecological disasters known to date. Why not just keep the research going and stay away from major changes. And while there is undoubtedly evidence pointing toward AWG, there is equally strong evidence that the cures proposed are worse than the ailment. And if you want to expand the argumentation from the world of economics, think of the wisdom of the Hippocratic Oath.
113276. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:38 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        “Climate change will hardly be beneficial to the biodiversity present on this planet.” “... as climate continues to change ...” Characteristics of cold–warm variation in the Hetao region and its surrounding areas in China during the past 5000 years, Li et al., 2010. Certainly this work relates to one region but (among others) because they correlate well with temperature changes not only the NH, but also around the world is not "cherry picking". From Figure 3 we see that approximately 4.5 B.P. (Abrolhos?) there were warmer than today, with circa 2 ° C. “This period was the end of the Holocene Megathermal Maximum Age.” “These facts are also corroborated by many worldwide studies.” Then we see the temperature fluctuations of 2 - 3 ° C during up to 100 (max. 200) years. (“2600-1450 cal yr BP: The temperature decreased rapidly and was lower than the mean value of the WHOLE series.”). “300 cal yr BP to present: The climate has been warming. Shen et al. (2002) found out that the water temperature in Daihai Lake had been rapidly warming since 300 yr BP, increasing from 16.2 deg. C to 17.5 deg. C.” 1.3 deg. C - excellent correlation with global data. Older Peron was even warmer than the Abrolhos - began to seven thousand years ago."It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies)." (Wikipedia). "The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth ..." "At least a few commentators — anthropologists, folklorists, and others — have linked era of the Older Peron transgression and the Neolithic Subpluvial with tales of a "time of plenty" (Golden Age ; GARDEN OF EDEN ) that occur in the legendary backgrounds of many cultures." (Wikipedia). "However, the ARROGANCE must be dropped and replaced again with a sense of humility for the ecological system ..."
113277. johnd at 22:08 PM on 5 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        When considering IR being intercepted by GHG's one should also consider IR being intercepted by clouds. Clouds are condensed droplets or frozen ice crystals formed after water vapour has liberated all heat energy carried from the surface aloft, and so given their state, and the fact that they provide about 2/3 coverage over the earths surface, are not only well placed to intercept IR, or waste heat, but that absorption provides the trigger and the means for that IR, or waste heat, to be returned to the earth's surface along with any more it absorbs on the way down.
113278. Dikran Marsupial at 21:42 PM on 5 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Arkadiusz Semczyszak You appear to be missing my point, the mass balance argument proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the natural environment (including soil respiration) is a net sink of carbon dioxide, and hence is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2, not causing it. If the natural environment were a net source, then the annual rise in atmopsheric CO2 would be greater than annual anthropogenic emissions, but that is not the case, we know that from the observations. Whether soil respiration is giving out more carbon than it recieves in biomass from dead trees and animal dung etc. each year is irrellevant. The point is we know the natural environment as a whole is a net sink, and hence the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. "The increase in our emissions is similar to the increase of soil respiration (0.1 Pg C yr-1). These so Dikran Marsupial sentence: “... but that is observed not to be the case ...” is false. " No, that is not correct, simply because soil respiration is not the only component of the natural carbon cycle. From Ferdinand's webpage: The blue is total anthropogenic emissions (land use and fossil fuel use), the red line is the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. For conservation of mass, we know that dC = E_a + E_n - U_n where dC is the annual change in atmospheric CO2, E_a is anthropogenic emissions, E_n is "natural" emissions and U_n is "natural" uptake. Of these, we can directly measure dC and E_a, so rearranging, we have E_n - U_n = dC - E_a This is the green line, which gives total net emissions into the atmosphere from all natural sources (including soil respiration). As you can see, it is always negative, demonstrating that the natural environment is a net sink, and is hence opposing the atmospheric rise, not causing it. The data is shown here it can all be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center CDIAC, the specific datasets you need are: anthropogenic emissionshere and Mauna Loa data here. Do feel free to check Ferdinand's plot checks out - as indeed I did.
113279. CBDunkerson at 21:37 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Ann, while human cultures have collapsed there have been few instances of technological back-treading... not even the religiously enforced ignorance of the 'Dark Ages' stopped technological progress. It caused some 'heathen' advances to be lost to PART of the world for a few centuries, but history shows that once technological breakthroughs are made they are seldom lost. Of course, while the internet is becoming a vast repository of human knowledge it is slowly trending towards being the ONLY such repository... suggesting that some future cataclysm which wiped out our computer networks could set humanity back in a way not previously experienced. Hopefully no such cataclysm will occur... or we'll have developed multiple localized backups of vast amounts of information by then. On geo-engineering... we're going to have to go there (even more than we already have) eventually. Yes, we can deal with AGW more effectively by reducing emissions. Yet somewhere several thousand years down the road we're looking at another ice age unless we change things. Sooner or later we're going to have to find a way to reverse the ongoing collapse of life in the oceans. Go way out and the Sun is going to become a problem as it gets hotter. Et cetera. The fact is humanity is going to need geo-engineering. Hopefully we'll be smart and buy ourselves enough time to understand the complexities rather than jumping in blindly... but we may not have a choice if we continue mucking things up the way we have been for another couple of decades.
113280. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:08 PM on 5 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Sorry to be references - instead: "Surfaces"; I read about the changes of SST hence the confusion ...
113281. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:04 PM on 5 August 2010
        On Consensus
        What you see in the proposed by Dikran Marsupial website (and what follows)? The figure of CO2 concentration on the former as an example d13C - sponges, we can see that from about 1820 years to the present rate of growth of pCO2 is very similar (slightly faster than the circa 1950). Furthermore, studies of sponges - presented here, include only the LIA (LIA began in 1315-1320 was not until 1550) and the last of CWA. Author proposed by Dikran Marsupial website writes: “There are only two fast main sources of CO2 to the atmosphere, besides the burning of fossil fuels: oceans and vegetation.“ “That is because every year about 150 GtC of CO2 (somewhat less than 20% of the CO2 content) is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans/vegetation.” “Over longer periods, humans continue to emit (currently about 8 GtC) CO2. The accumulation over the last years thus is 8 + 5.3 + 4.3 + 3.5 + 2.8 +... or about 40 GtC from the emissions over the past 30 years. That is only 5% of the current atmosphere... Some conclude from this that humans are only responsible for 5% of the CO2 increase and thus, as far as that influences temperature, also only for 5% of the temperature increase. But that is a wrong assumption...” “Thus at maximum, the influence of temperature on the current increase is 0.7 ºC x 8 ppmv/ºC = 5.6 ppmv of the about 100 ppmv increase since the start of the industrial revolution.” In theory, precisely, but ... the author writes nothing about the soil respiration. This is not surprising, even though the update 10.07.2010, the author is not based on all the major recent surfaces. This item: Bond-Lamberty, B. and Thomson, A.: A global database of soil respiration data, 2010, not in his surfaces. The authors write there, like this: “We find that the air temperature anomaly (the deviation from the 1961–1990 mean) is significantly and positively correlated with changes in RS. We estimate that the global RS in 2008 (that is, the flux integrated over the Earth’s land surface over 2008) was 98 ± 12 Pg C and that it increased by 0.1 Pg C yr-1 between 1989 and 2008, implying a global RS response to air temperature (Q10) of 1.5.”; The increase in our emissions is similar to the increase of soil respiration (0.1 Pg C yr-1). These so Dikran Marsupial sentence: “... but that is observed not to be the case ...” is false. It should be noted that the standard error of estimation of the current soil respiration is 12 GtC - it is about 4 GtC bigger than our “about 8 GtC”. If only for this example shows that is right Korhola, that: “reduction of scientific ambiguity is not realistic.”
113282. JMurphy at 21:00 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        thingadonta wrote : "There are so many other things wrong with your discussion I don't know where to start. But if you want to wake up from your dream, try The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Lomborg" Ah, the arrogant and (unconsciously) funny Lomborg. I wouldn't hold him out as an expert on climate change, ecology or biodiversity, if I was you : Skeptical About The Skeptical Environmentalist A skeptical look at The Skeptical Environmentalist Lomborg-errors
113283. rmp at 20:58 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Berényi, what mothincarnate said. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.
113284. DarkSkywise at 20:52 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        kdkd at 18:18 PM on 5 August, 2010: "I'm sort-of sorry if you're offended by this". I'm not, why should I? ;-) "Is there anyone else here with as convoluted a rationale for being interested in this topic as this?" I always like "Why are you here?" threads, because it can be very interesting to learn what brings people together. So, in short: yes, there is.
113285. DarkSkywise at 20:44 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        I also vote for tabs instead of a slider. (OK, I'll admit it, I even clicked on the tab image above.) :D Tabs are also slightly more RSI friendly.
113286. DarkSkywise at 20:39 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        John C: "Re the translator forum, yes, will probably have one for each language." I think we shouldn't do one for each language, but one large main forum (accessible to all) with subsections for each language (also accessible to all. Translators who don't know a certain language won't visit that particuar subsection anyway). So you'd get: - Forum --- General (in English): news, announcements, technical stuff (mostly by John C) --- Discussions (in English): things other SkS workers deem important --- Off Topic (in English): since even SkS workers need to goof off and blow off steam sometimes --- Chinese --- Czech --- Danish --- Dutch --- French --- Finnish --- German --- Icelandic --- Italian --- Japanese --- Polish --- Portuguese --- Slovak --- Spanish --- Thai *has some experience handling large forums* ;)
113287. mothincarnate at 20:34 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Berényi, that's your view, which you're entitled to - but the science doesn't say as much. Thingadonta... I reckon you're just out to disagree. I think the piece largely covers the difficulties of being an organism within the natural world and the wonders achieved through modern investigation that has improved our species life immensely. However, we still are subject to the services of many other species. The dreamer is the fool that believes that we can truly separate ourselves from ecology.
113288. dorlomin at 19:52 PM on 5 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        @doug_bostrom " Engineers suggest that feasible raising of the walls through central London may be limited to about 2m," Would it not be true to note that East London and especially the Isle of the Dogs is more vaulnrable than central London? And what of the fate of the city east of the barrier? Can the barrier be by passed by flooding in Greenwhich (which is very hilly) and Silvertown (up to Stratford that side of the city is quite flat)?
113289. thingadonta at 19:36 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Your general vision of nature is a dream that doesn't exist. It's essentially romantic idealism. Part of the reason we live in cities is because nature is cruel, unfair, dirty, disease ridden, dangerous, unsafe, murderous, extinction ridden, forever competing, destroying, dispensing, exploiting, etc. We have learned to reject that within nature which we deem inconsistent with our human values, and there are plenty of them. There are so many other things wrong with your discussion I don't know where to start. But if you want to wake up from your dream, try The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Lomborg.
113290. Bern at 18:38 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        Doug, it will be interesting indeed to see if that leads to action on CO2 emissions by Russia. Given their growing export income from gas & oil, I somewhat doubt it.
113291. kdkd at 18:33 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        macoles: actually as a lapsed discordian I embrace extremism :)
113292. macoles at 18:29 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        Hey kdkd, Perhaps you may wish to call yourself an "infinite pantheist" rather than an extreme one. Extremism is getting a lot of bad press these days :)
113293. SNRatio at 18:21 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Isn't the simplest and most sustainable way of CO2 sequestration increased production rate and decreased decomposition rate of organic material? Re rooftops: Solar cells or even better, combination of solar and thermal collectors seem to me a better alternative than white paint. Whenever there is a significant cooling need because of the sun, much of that can be covered by absorption type cooling, driven by excess heat from solar collectors. The most important thing with such measures is that they can directly replace fossil energy use.
113294. kdkd at 18:18 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        If we're having religious disclosures, here's mine (sincerely, I'm sort-of sorry if you're offended by this) : I'm what I would describe an extreme pantheist in that I believe that there are as many Gods as there are are particles in the universe, or possible combinations thereof. I vehemently reject the mainstream monotheisms, as I believe that they are a means of social control disguised as a belief system, although I also beleive they started as sincere social movements that were corrupted by politics. The gnostic versions of the mainstream monothesisms are interesting, but they're not for me™. Similarly, I'll reject a lot of the New Age crap that's around. If you engage me in a discussion of my religious beliefs, I will eventually start to talk about Discordianism, which I find to be a useful perspective from time to time. Discordianism is either a complicated joke disguised as a religion, or a religion disguised as a complicated joke. What's does this have to do with climate change? Well, speaking as God (strictly speaking, one of them: see above), I a strong attachment to a significant part of the infrastructure underpinning civilisation. As a scientist of the human sciences, with some background in human behaviour and complexity, as well as a failed attempt at a career in ecology, I can see that humans have the potential to overcome the ecological limitations that have caused most other species that have existed on Earth to become extinct. As well as my personal attachment, I'd like to see us overcome our hard evolutionary limitations, as kind of a collective intellectual exercise. Is there anyone else here with as convoluted a rationale for being interested in this topic as this?
113295. Doug Bostrom at 18:16 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        The President of the world's biggest oil & gas company finds guilty party behind heat wave: The abnormal heat wave, severe drought and massive forest fires that hit central Russia are the result of global climate changes, President Dmitry Medvedev told an expanded meeting of the national Security Council on Wednesday. Medvedev blames heat wave on global warming Consciousness, hopefully accompanied by conscience.
113296. Berényi Péter at 17:57 PM on 5 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        "We truly are a remarkable species, but we’re only one of millions. We must remember that." No, we are not just any remarkable species, one of millions, but spiritual and immortal souls, an absolutely unique kind, created in the image of God, given freedom and responsibility. We must remember that.
113297. Doug Bostrom at 17:53 PM on 5 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        You're very kind, GC, thanks. All the same I'd like to hear your reservations. For my part I'm unsatisfied with our picture of adaptation costs. They're certainly visible and significant at the level of Greater London but there are enormous gaps as we move up the food chain leading to impressive leaps of what economists would not want to call imagination at the national level. Adaptation costs may actually be an intractable problem without waiting for real data, which I suppose could be an argument for creating a devil we know in the form of mitigation costs. Along the lines of mitigation, the Stern Review had some valid criticisms leveled at it from people who actually know what they're talking about as opposed to newspaper columnists but still does have the marvelous virtue of existence. As well nobody has so far done better in terms of producing a substitute. I'm pretty sure a post exclusively focusing on mitigation versus adaptation costs would generate heat if no light, heh!
113298. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:40 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        Wow! A polite discussion about religion and philosophy. So here is my two-pennies worth of why it all matters. And boy, does it matter. Firstly religious beliefs. I would call myself an Agnostic, but not just in the narrower Christian sense. Rather I feel that while there may well be a supernatural aspect to existance, by its very nature it stands outside the physical Universe that we can explore through Science. So I feel the more strident forms of Atheism are wrong when they assert the definite non-existance of a supernatural. All that can be said is that there is no evidence for such extra domains. However, just as you can't use the principles of 2 Dimensional Geometry to prove or disprove the existance of 3 Dimensions, so all physical enquiry can not prove the non-existance of other domains. It can simply state that they see no evidence for them, but we wouldn't expect to see such evidence. Thus belief is a personal choice to think something. Those who think so call that Faith. Others who do not, do not. For myself all I can see is I dunno. Not knowable. Perhaps one religion is actually correct, perhaps another. May be it is a current religion. Or one that died out millenia ago. Perhaps we haven't discovered/invented the true religion yet; that may be awaiting us in the distant future. Perhaps all religions are true in some way; that might be fun, a universe were Yahweh, Thor the Thunderer, Uhuru Mazda and Aphrodite all exist (wait a minute, we already have that, its called Fantacy Role Playing Games). Or there may be no other domains, no higher principle, no Gods. All these speculations to me are moot. The question is simply not answerable. Thus Agnostic. Maybe. But Atheist in any day to day sense since I can't answer the question 'Maybe?' That does not mean however that there is not a powerful source of wonder and awe accessable to us right here in our physical Universe. The Numinous if you will. William Blake perhaps said it best: 'To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.' For quite simply we are all Witnesses to the Universe . While we spend so much of our lives trying to find meaning for ourselves, trying perhaps to answer the question 'Whats my part?', we often loose sight of the grandeur of a different perspective ; 'Forget what you part is, look at what you are a part of' Our sense of connectedness to the Universe, much of it revealed by Science is a source of awe inspiring richness right here in this life. The very atoms of my body have been dinosaurs and comets, magma flows and mastodons. I am made from the Birth of Time and the Death of Stars. And in my genes is an ancestry back to the dawn of time. Every human on the planet is part of my family (although somewhat removed). Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Gilgamesh, Utzi the snowman, Lucy the Austrolopithicus, Gorillas, fossil trilobytes, phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean. They are all relatives of mine. And our societies are descended from all the civilisations that have gone before us, all the people. The great names we remember and all the nameless billions who simply went before us. All the accomplishments, wonders and horrors that built our civilisation. And in a profound sense, we give meaning to their existance because we continue and know that they existed. We 'keep' them, we are The Keepers of the Dead. And so too we hope our descendents will also 'keep' us after we are gone. How much more meaning do you want in life? And so to motives for arguing for change on AGW Over the last 6 months I have come to realise that the threat of AGW unmet, combined with the looming water shortage crisis, declining soil quality, depleted marine environments, and a rising population as food supply doesn't keep pace means that the threat of major famine in several decades is now a major risk. Billion person famines unlike anything seen before. AGW is simply a compounding factor in this initially although later in the century it becomes more dominant. And large scale famine will bring social upheaval and wide scale civil disorder. The risk of major social collapse later this century is now real. Not certain but a significant possibility. And should a Nuclear exchange between any major powers under great stress from famine, water shortages, climate change and civil upheaval occur, everything will be that much worse. The actual collapse of civilisation by the end of the century now seems a real possibility. And in a world grown much vastly harsher due to climate change, perhaps even descending into something like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum , a collapsed human civilisation could all to easily descend into an almost stone age world again. Human intelligence and ingenuity alone may not be enough to support our descendents in this harsh world if they have lost the knowledge and skills we currently take for granted. So to add another, broader perspective, reason for fighting to prevent climate change to Johns powerful personal one of concern for our children, what of our duty to simply preserve civilisation itself. Will we be the generation to fail to preserve it, to Keep it? I believe the 21st Century is humanities great Crisis of Survival. Arguing that we should risk such a terrible outcome just to preserve the mere frippery of the Consumer Society seems outrageous.
113299. Doug Bostrom at 17:40 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Nicely put, Ann. "Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot." --Joni Mitchell
113300. Doug Bostrom at 17:33 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Re the many features, I'm getting lost too - it's really getting to the point where I can no longer put off adding drop downs to the navigation links. Oh, please, no, or at least make 'em require a click. Automatic drop-downs are the equivalent of cheesy embedded audio, spontaneous browser behavior almost invariably aggravating. I'm "Mr. Negative" today, looks like. How about a straw poll on drop-downs? Everybody agrees with me that the site should not pulse and shrink like a puffer fish as we move our mice around, right? :-)

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