Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 Next
Comments 113351 to 113400:
-
tobyjoyce at 22:42 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
1077 at 22:42 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:38 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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 ..." -
johnd at 22:08 PM on 5 August 2010Waste 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. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:42 PM on 5 August 2010On 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.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:37 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:08 PM on 5 August 2010On Consensus
Sorry to be references - instead: "Surfaces"; I read about the changes of SST hence the confusion ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:04 PM on 5 August 2010On 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.”
-
JMurphy at 21:00 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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 -
rmp at 20:58 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
Berényi, what mothincarnate said. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk. -
DarkSkywise at 20:52 PM on 5 August 2010Why 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. -
DarkSkywise at 20:44 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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. -
DarkSkywise at 20:39 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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* ;) -
mothincarnate at 20:34 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
dorlomin at 19:52 PM on 5 August 2010Grappling 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)? -
thingadonta at 19:36 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
Bern at 18:38 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
kdkd at 18:33 PM on 5 August 2010Why I care about climate change
macoles: actually as a lapsed discordian I embrace extremism :) -
macoles at 18:29 PM on 5 August 2010Why 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 :) -
SNRatio at 18:21 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
kdkd at 18:18 PM on 5 August 2010Why 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? -
Doug Bostrom at 18:16 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
Berényi Péter at 17:57 PM on 5 August 2010Remember, 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. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:53 PM on 5 August 2010Grappling 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! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:40 PM on 5 August 2010Why 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. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:40 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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 -
Doug Bostrom at 17:33 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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? :-) -
Kevin Hood at 17:28 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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. -
Ann at 17:05 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
Jesús Rosino at 16:55 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:32 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
perseus at 16:30 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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! -
macoles at 15:43 PM on 5 August 2010Why 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! -
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. -
Berényi Péter at 15:37 PM on 5 August 2010Confidence 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? -
Tom Dayton at 15:26 PM on 5 August 2010Waste 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. -
gallopingcamel at 15:14 PM on 5 August 2010Confidence 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). -
gallopingcamel at 14:49 PM on 5 August 2010Grappling 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! -
scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 5 August 2010Confidence 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? -
RSVP at 14:40 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
RSVP at 14:21 PM on 5 August 2010Waste 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. " -
Doug Bostrom at 14:05 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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... -
Bern at 14:04 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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). -
Daniel Bailey at 14:02 PM on 5 August 2010Communicating 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 -
angliss at 13:42 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
mothincarnate at 13:36 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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!" -
sailrick at 13:30 PM on 5 August 2010Visually 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 -
Doug Bostrom at 13:12 PM on 5 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
I forgot to say "thank you" for a very helpful article. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:08 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:56 PM on 5 August 2010Three 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?
Prev 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 Next
