Recent Comments

Prev  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  Next

Comments 113301 to 113350:

113301. 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.
113302. kdkd at 18:33 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        macoles: actually as a lapsed discordian I embrace extremism :)
113303. 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 :)
113304. 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.
113305. 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?
113306. 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.
113307. 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.
113308. 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!
113309. 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.
113310. 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
113311. 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? :-)
113312. Kevin Hood at 17:28 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        For what it is worth, I like Andre's aforementioned idea of using ski symbols: Green circle Blue square Black diamond especially due to the irony of using ski symbols to denote Global Warming technicalities. More importantly, aren't these symbols universal? (chime in all continents) While Doug Bostrom makes valid points for the mature/set-in-their-ways (stubborn) audience, I would pose that this level of classification will be beneficial to youth seeking to learn more on the topic. They can start where they are comfortable and delve in as deep as they'd like. And the importance of reaching youth cannot be overstated.
113313. Ann at 17:05 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        One other consideration: We have 2 options, basically. - try to create a self-sustaining climate, a system that in the long run won’t need any human ‘help’ (rather cynical that) to maintain equilibrium.Removing the superfluous CO2 from the atmosphere as a one-time action and switching to renewable energy falls into that category. - try to control the climate, starting from now, and ending … never. Geo-engineering firmly falls into this second category. If we choose for this option, we will have to keep monitoring and steering to stabilize our climate. But this also presupposes that our current technological civilization will never break down. Which is not realistic. Every human civilization in history – the egyptian, the roman, the aztec – has collapsed at some point in time. We must take into account a possible future human society that may not have the technical means or knowledge to continue this work.
113314. Jesús Rosino at 16:55 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        You're really admirable, John. From the very beginning your site was great, but you're just endlessly improving it! Arguments, blog, apps, papers database, translations, difficulty levels... There are so many things here I almost get lost even without working on it. If there is a forum for translators, it would be interesting to have a specific sub-forum for each language. Regarding the terminology, I'm not a native English speaker, but I would choose "Basic/Intermediate/Advanced" (I also prefer tabs rather than a slider). Cheers!
        Response: I'm getting the hint that tabs over sliders are the way to go. I'm a bit grumpy about it, I like the look of the slider, but I recognise tabs are more appropriate.
        
        Re the translator forum, yes, will probably have one for each language.
        
        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.
        
113315. Doug Bostrom at 16:32 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        RSVP, even the Sherwin Williams approach might not be enough when it comes to white paint. Actually, I suppose it might be but we'd all be glued down like hapless insects once the paint dried. The benefit of white roofing is a lot about reducing cooling loads though apparently more broadly applied lighter colored pavement etc. can also help reduce the dreaded UHI effect thus leading to further cooling load reductions. The net global albedo effect is insignificant. Leading to the inevitable discussion of what latitude suggests going to a darker roof but that's even farther off-topic.
113316. perseus at 16:30 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Something which is often forgotten is that we are already unintentionally using geo-engineering through industrial SO2 emissions and through CO2 sequestering and albedo changes through forestry. Even if we reduce industrial emissions to pre-industrial levels these may have unforeseen consequences on the climate since the level of greenhouse gases is now higher and polar ice area reduced, so we simply create more new climate scenarios. So geoengineering is here to stay, its just whether we choose to try and manage it or not. This poses an interesting legal situation as well. Will a nation be held more culpable if they intentionally rather than unintentionally geoengineer change, and if something goes horribly wrong? Sorry for opening a can of worms!
113317. macoles at 15:43 PM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        RSVP @ 88 Heh, you're just like my beloved wife with her desire to rid the world of lexicon abuse :) I used the word Atheist with a capital simply because I see disbelief in God as just as valid a belief system (and just as unprovable) as all the other religions that get to use a capital letter. Pardon if I caused any offense the english language, as an engineer it is hardly my strongpoint!
113318. KR at 15:39 PM on 5 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - quite true, given that GHG's radiate well in IR, you would think they cool things. However, if you consider that GHG's intercept IR quite well in their absorption bands, and half the IR radiation from the GHG's is back to the ground, the sum effect is to decrease the emissivity of the planet to space. GHG's are decent IR radiators, but not as good (i.e., broadband) as dirt and water, and bounce half the energy back. You end up with more radiation from the top of the atmosphere, less from the surface, but a total of less energy radiated overall. Given a fixed energy input, an object with low emissivity (radiating poorly) will stabilize to a higher temperature than an object with high emissivity (radiates easily). It will stabilize at a temperature where the emitted energy equals the absorbed (input) energy. I remember many years ago reading about radiant heaters - electric panels to heat rooms of your house. One of the manufacturers did a sand painting on the surface of the panel to make it look prettier. The increased surface area increased the emissivity/sq. ft. of panel, and the heater was much more efficient - more surface area/sq. ft. better chance to emit IR. Changes in total emissivity can have a big effect.
113319. Berényi Péter at 15:37 PM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        #38 scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 5 August, 2010 By the way, as "heat engine", what is the Work that the working fluid is doing? Weather?
113320. Tom Dayton at 15:26 PM on 5 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP, the GHG molecules radiate spherically, not just up. So half of the radiation goes down, thereby not cooling whatever is below, because the "cooling" that is the sole point of this discussion is cooling of the entire Earth, which can happen only by radiation going up all the way to space. Of the half of the radiation that goes up from a GHG molecule, nearly all of it fails to get straight to space, because it runs into other GHG molecules. And so on. So the "greater pathway for IR" is not a straight pathway up to space. Instead it is a convoluted pathway that has far more segments pointing down and sideways than up.
113321. gallopingcamel at 15:14 PM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        doug_bostrom (#35), Like you, I am impressed by the accuracy of TOPEX and other satellite measurements of sea level rise. However, tide gauges need to be reconciled with the satellite measurements before we can have full confidence in the 3.2 mm/year rate of rise for the mean sea level. Tide gauges show sea levels rising at the same rate as during the 20th century (1.7 mm/year).
113322. gallopingcamel at 14:49 PM on 5 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        doug_bostrom, You wrote a really interesting paper and then defended it superbly. While I have some minor reservations it would be churlish to spoil a really good exchange of views. I await your next guest post with bated breath!
113323. scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        BP - I'll bite on entropy. I would say GHG increase should increase entropy - the earth has become more efficient at converting high entropy photons to low entropy photons. I am not sure what point you are aiming at. By the way, as "heat engine", what is the Work that the working fluid is doing?
113324. RSVP at 14:40 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        doug_bostrom #14 Interesting article. In commenting about these "options", it includes the following... "launching mirrors into space to deflect the sun’s energy away from Earth — could have far more unpredictable and potentially destabilizing effects." Funny how the opposite, the proliferation of "black asphalt highways" arent considered "destabilizing". Just think how much white paint would be needed to neutralize the extra heat coming off our roads.
113325. RSVP at 14:21 PM on 5 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        180, 181 Strange. Given the model as described in 180 and 181, it would seem the more GHG, the greater the pathway for IR. Such that the more GHG, the more cooling. However, it doesnt work like that, at least as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Wikipedia "The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. "
113326. Doug Bostrom at 14:05 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        I'm trying to think of a way to get C02 out of air with a reasonably small energy input and nothing's coming to mind. There are some hills to ascend even if scrubbers are very efficient. More on atmospheric scrubbing tech here: Pulling CO2 from the Air: Promising Idea, Big Price Tag Also some helpful background at RealClimate which mentions off-grid thermal air capture, something promising-sounding. It's all probably worth another post!
        Response: Someone tweeted me this new solar powered carbon scrubbing technology which makes some pretty big calls re it's potential. Still, interesting technology...
        
113327. Bern at 14:04 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        angliss: your comment prompted a quick google search, and I came up with this article, which (along with the referenced comment) suggests that CO2 removal will cost 933kWh per ton of CO2 extracted with that method. There may be others, but that's a whole lotta energy (granted, the bulk is thermal energy that may be provided readily by solar concentrator systems).
113328. Daniel Bailey at 14:02 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Great discussion. Observations:

        1. Tabs seem to make more sense than a slider 2. One comment section linked to the 3 tabs, if doable, would minimize confusion while accentuating the discussion. Not everyone on each of the 3 levels of understanding will have a question needing answering. One comment thread should do. 3. There will still be a need for an in-depth as possible level, even for those who have a deeper level of knowledge and understanding than most. How many times is it in these discussions that the ones who have the background and training to know better are the ones most confirmed in their "skepticism"? Plus, some have a near-terminal case of D-K Syndrome. 4. No matter how foolproof and complete you make this site (love all the hyperlinked sections), you can't make it damnfoolproof, as those types are so ingenious. Plus, the intractable ones never RTFM anyway.

        The Yooper
113329. angliss at 13:42 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        John Chapman - The SO2 is readily available from the exhaust of coal power plans. doug bostrom - Scientific American had an article on a free-atmosphere CO2 removal system that's being developed that is the size of a shipping container. IIRC, initial testing indicates that it's reasonably energy efficient, but I don't recall the details. Tony O - I'm all for these studies, as well as limited real world experiments, as they prove concepts and help discover those "unintended and unexpected consequences." For example, there was a test of iron fertilizing in the Southern Ocean which discovered that the unintended consequence of an algal bloom was a population spike in algae-eating shrimp that ate the algae before it could die and sink to the bottom. I'd love to read the report on the tests to see if they think the test still sequestered any carbon.
113330. mothincarnate at 13:36 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Great post. A lot of talk like this reminds me of the RAMA series by Clark and Lee, where there was a human population had an enclosure which had an alien super-computer running the weather algorithms. They were told not to use wood fires (they didn't really need them, as the weather was quite pleasant anyway) but decided to cut the trees down anyway and even when a big screen in the sky lit up to tell them to stop, they didn't. In the end they broke out, hacked into the super-computer (and could barely control the weather still) and took over another enclosure. It seems Clark had picked the current events as well.. I liked how you summed it up, it's a bit like a line from the Simpsons, "Dig UP stupid!"
113331. sailrick at 13:30 PM on 5 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        John Chapman @32 The figure I've seen is 12,944,000 scientists in the U.S., if you use the same criteria to define scientist as they use to get 32,000 skeptics. The 32,000 skeptics amount to 0.24 percent of the total. Maybe 150 are actually climate scientists. which is 0.3% of the 50,000 members of the AGU in Europe and the U.S., "Scrutinizing the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project" http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
113332. Doug Bostrom at 13:12 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        I forgot to say "thank you" for a very helpful article.
113333. Doug Bostrom at 13:08 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Another interesting thing about all of these schemes is the impact they'll have on energy requirements. It's darkly amusing to note, the same ideas that would allow us to continue using coal would also require burning yet more of the stuff. "Laughing all the way to the bank" is the phrase that comes to mind.
113334. Doug Bostrom at 12:56 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Worth highlighting the need to continue pumping S02 into the air for centuries. If a science fiction author wrote a story about a civilization that had doomed itself to pumping S02 into its planetary atmosphere for hundreds of years, we might say, "That's not plausible; if they could do that, they wouldn't have gotten themselves into such a jam in the first place." Truth is stranger than fiction?
113335. chris1204 at 12:46 PM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        There's a whole parallel debate about deep sea carbon sequestration including sequestration in deep ocean sediments which might be worth a post one day.
113336. chris1204 at 12:34 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        I've heard it said that you don't really understand your subject if you can't give a broad explanation to an intelligent twelve year old (I think I've been in a steady cognitive decline from age 12 onwards!!!!). I think the greatest strength of this site is its engagement of folks variously placed on the 'alarmist-warmist-sceptical-denialist' spectrum in respectful dialogue. Keeping the language simple and accessible is in fact a major intellectual challenge not to be underrated.
113337. macoles at 12:13 PM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Hi John, You might want to reassess the "need" for an advanced highly technical section. People who are interested in the "in depth" stuff should be following the links to the peer reviewed papers themselves (rather than just taking our word for it). I suspect the "need" for higher detail is more of a "want" belonging to the author and a small group of regular commentators. There is however a definate need for easy and medium levels of explanation, as this site is an excellent gateway for regular people to understand climate science.
113338. Doug Bostrom at 11:45 AM on 5 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        I'm not assessing the reasons for closure of the barriers, HR, I found the latest source I could and reported that. Experts (which group does not include either of us) take the closure trend to be consistent with climate change projections and something to be taken into consideration when looking for confirmatory evidence. Research tells us it's very important for some of us to find paralytic uncertainty and thus some kind of psychological comfort in any and all sources of information on the matter of climate change. If you have to construct a world of doubt to feel happy, that's your personal choice and of course I cannot and will not stop you. If truncating the record and producing a graph makes you feel better that's also a matter of personal choice. Publicly reporting that result and disagreeing with people who are notably more informed on this topic than either of us is sort of like assertively evangelizing your religion to people who are not interested in conversion, arguably rude. Your need for doubt should remain largely a private matter. As to the strawman of "a justification for doubling based on the past 2 decsdes," that figurine exists in your own mind. Cherish it if you must.
113339. michael wood at 11:45 AM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        John, I'm grateful for your honesty and transparency in making clear some of your underlying motivations. As a Christian and Anglican priest, I resonate deeply with your reflections. As a parent of two teenagers, your comments as a parent also resonate deeply - in fact it was the '50 year' question posed by Al Gore, which really provoked my passion for action on Climate Change. Whilst your site rightfully continues to be 'science based' and that is it's powerful contribution to the world, it adds a lovely humanity to hear some of the 'story' behind it. Science and Theology need not, in fact, should not be in conflict.
113340. adelady at 11:34 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Ocean acidification, yes. That was my first reaction too. It wouldn't much matter if the temperatures were livable if the food supply is crashing around us. (I'm ignoring the intrinsic value of maintaining a rich biosphere here.)
113341. KR at 11:25 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Wouldn't pumping SO2, while not reducing CO2, continue ocean acidification?
113342. adelady at 11:20 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        I'm not all that enamoured of the bright blinding white roof, but what's wrong with the softer creams and greys? Who decided that black and chocolate brown are a good look on a roof! - they're a neat accent on doors and window frames, but more is just plain depressing. I think a lot of people have yet to learn the "less is more" principle in exterior decoration.
113343. scaddenp at 11:17 AM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        "After IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray pointed out that no model had ever been validated and could not predict global climates the title of the relevant WG1 chapter was renamed “Model evaluation” and the word “predict” was replaced with “project”. Just in case people think "ipcc reviewer" is stamp of authority, note that you can become a reviewer by requesting the draft and signing an NDA. Gray's contribution to the review process can be followed by searching for "Gray" at ipcc collection. He claimed (8-76) "There is no evidence for this statement. No model has ever been tested successfully against its future prediction." The editors responded in rejecting the review. "Disagree Decades ago, climate models predicted warming in the late 20th century, strongest near the poles, and this has been observed. As a second example, a climate model predicted the cooling due the Pinatubo before it occurred." If Hansen 2006 paper isnt a validation of the 1988 model against the actual data, then what is? JohnD - GCMs do not "weight inputs" - they are not statistical models. They calculate the response to input from the physics. Different kind of model completely. If you want a statistical model with physical basis, then better to try and predict temp from forcings of solar, aerosol, GHG. For an example, try Benestad and Schmidt
113344. John Chapman at 11:15 AM on 5 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        brief / more info / detail ?
113345. John Chapman at 11:08 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        Where would one find giga tonnes p.a. of sulphur dioxide to pump into the atmosphere anyway?
113346. Tony O at 10:56 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        There will come a time to panic. We should study geoengineering now so when that time comes we might avoid the worst side effects of whatever geoengineering systems we use. Maybe a little bit of this and a little bit of that will not be as bad as a lot of one. The climates where you live and I live are hot, white roofs make so much sense. If all new houses in Australia had a white roof that alone would make a significant difference. Yet I am told again and again that black looks good. We are getting so close to brownouts how cool will the black be with no air conditioning when it is century plus in the water bottle. What hope is there when we will not even use the no cost options?
113347. MattJ at 10:50 AM on 5 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        The first and 2nd study have conclusions that should surprise no one. The idea of geoengineering by dumping huge amounts of SO2 into the air has always been a bad one. This should have been obvious. It is the third study that interests me most. For it shows that even the best case scenario of geoengineering is nowhere near as good as emission reduction. That, of course, is the conclusion we need to get people to realize must be accepted: we must reduce emissions ASAP, we really should have done it two or more decades ago. There can be no excuse for continuing at current levels, far less for increasing it more. Yet we still have lemmings bent on pushing us all over the cliff by digging up fossil fuels even more furiously, fighting over oil reserves around the North Pole!
113348. HumanityRules at 10:47 AM on 5 August 2010
        Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
        Doug I'm still curious why you think the Thames Barrier closures have doubled in a decade (30 in 1990's, 74 in 2000's)? Doubled is a lot! From what I have read there was an increase in storms from 1950-1990 followed by a decrease in recent decades, i.e. the years covered by this graph.Which maybe fits well with the link between NAO and UK storminess. Closing the barrier is based on a complex model with multiple data sourses. How this model has changed over the years is unclear but it certainly has changed. A curious aspect of the decision to close the barriers comes after the model spits out its result. There is ultimately a subjective call made by the barrier controller, she/he makes a final decision about whether to close in cases of marginal forecasts. Which suggests a model cutoff for closure isn't quite a cut off. There is a list of closure events which include data for each event. I graphed the High Water Level and surge numbers. Both have a downward trend. When it comes to tidal events it seems that the decision to close is being made for less and less severe events rather than severe events becoming more common. This seems to make sense in our more risk averse, precautionary principle kind of world. It looks difficult to believe that the Thames barrier is being closed more often because of real climate events. It looks more likely that the methods used to make the decision and/or the more risk averse world we live in leads to more closures. I'd like to read a justification for doubling based on climate change over the past 2 decades.
113349. chris1204 at 10:46 AM on 5 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Dappled water: You say: Continuing with your analogy - the models demonstrate a 90% probability of the aircraft crashing, but because of the remaining uncertainty you want to board the plane and fly anyway. With respect, you missed the point. I have no overwhelming desire to get onthe plane. I'd just like to make sure the models are right.
113350. adelady at 10:45 AM on 5 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        If you're thinking about values and you've got a science bias, try Sam Harris. Michael Tobis has put up a link to his talk on the 'scientific basis for values'. Really interesting stuff - I watched the whole 23 mins. Apparently his anti-religious stuff would *not* be recommended for John or other christians. I might track some down. I find Hitchens intolerably superior and creepy or something unappealing, and Dawkins is just plain irritating. This bloke could be better.

Prev  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  Next