Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 Next
Comments 117701 to 117750:
-
Climate's changed before
Roger, Ok how about this: you are correct, technically speaking, no proof of AGW exists. However, this is true for any empirical scientific knowledge, including the theory of gravity or Newton's laws. So saying that AGW is not "proven", is somewhat of a meaningless statement. Here and here are a couple links that go into more detail about what "proof" means to science. Hopefully they will clarify why your usage of the word is somewhat off target. -
muoncounter at 12:36 PM on 9 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Not sure why this hasn’t occurred to me before now. Decline in ice extent looks linear to some, yet appears parabolically accelerating (concave downwards) to others. Unfortunately, neither curve shape is particularly realistic for the long term. A logistic curve provides a far more acceptable shape. With time on the horizontal axis, a logistic model makes physical sense: There must be both a maximum ice extent (we’re speaking of an interglacial period here) and there is an obvious minimum ice extent. The rate of change of a logistic is, by definition, a maximum somewhere in the middle (at the inflection point). As we approach either the lower or upper horizontal asymptote, the rate of change decreases to 0. All we need do is flip the curve around so that ice extent decreases over the long term.Since these images are not always showing up as embedded, here is the link. The data points shown are a composite of 1972-2009, as before. However, I also found a 2007 model study by Meier, Stroeve and Fetterer, which extends the time series for the September minima backwards to 1953. Those model points are included in this new graph, shown as open squares at the left. As before, each curve is accompanied with +/- 1 standard deviation. This curve shape is strongly suggested in a 2006 model study, especially Figure 1a and again in Stroeve, et al, 2007. Defining the logistic curve is straightforward: If we let y = A/(1 + B ek(t - Tm)), there are four parameters to vary: A sets the upper asymptote (max historic ice extent), Tm is the time of maximum slope. B and k determine the shape of the graph. The good news: When the slope of this curve type reaches its maximum negative rate of change (perhaps 2007 for the September data set??), it starts slowing down.
-
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 9 June 2010Climate's changed before
Actually Roger you could learn a lot by just shoving the lawyers' arguments through this site. How about something from a scientist that understand atmospheric physics instead? -
scaddenp at 10:21 AM on 9 June 2010Climate's changed before
"I reiterate that no such proof appears in any IPCC publications." This is dealt with exhaustively in chapter 9 of WG1. What you are looking for is called "attribution". Read the chapter then take up the argument piece at a time. (in the appropriate thread - this is about past climate change). See also an excellent article at On Attribution. "You are too proud to watch the video I suggested". I watched - more case of teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I frankly resent the implication that this contains lessons that scientists didnt know. "you don't actually understand my question." Of this I agree. In part because it keeps changing. You asked for empirical evidence but it seems there is trouble understanding why this is empirical evidence. Trouble understanding the nature of scientific proof, trouble understanding past climate change. We are trying to help. The reason climate science has confidence that anthropogenic gases is causing change is based on multiple supporting lines of evidence. See ch 9. Look, consider instead an alternative hypothesis. eg. the sun causes most of the warming. Run the model and make some predictions. These would include: There should be more energy from sun reaching TOA. Tropics (closer to sun) should be hotter Warming should be more pronounced in daytime rather than night. Stratospheric should be warming etc. Check this against reality - whoops. Next hypothesis. See how it works? Increasing GHGs is the one that matches our reality. As to your link. How about some skepticism of this to match that of your skepticism of scientists? As far as I can see, its motley collection of long-debunked denialist talking points without a look at the real evidence at all. -
yocta at 10:08 AM on 9 June 2010Climate's changed before
RE#97 Rogerthesurf That PDF is 82 pages of non-peer reviewed work. It comes from a non-scientist (legal professor) at the University and is uploaded freely to the SSRN (Social Science Research Network). The author does not appear to understand very much about climate science. It reads more like an essay than of anything with any scientific rigor and I don't think it adds any value to the discussion. I for one would not spend my time reading it unless it has passed a peer review. -
Berényi Péter at 09:53 AM on 9 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
What is the asymptotic wing shape of a single absorption line look like? -
Climate's changed before
Roger, As has already been explained, there is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence in support of or in contradiction to theories. Your request therefore is invalid and meaningless. If you have any issues with specific lines of evidence, please post them in the appropriate thread. -
Marcus at 09:32 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
John D, I think that-like many people-you massively overstate the potential for soils to absorb CO2. You're correct that the volume isn't great (only the top-most part of the soil is particularly good for sequestering CO2), but the Surface Area isn't that great either: remember that less than 1/3rd of our planet is "dry" land-& not all of that is actually good for sequestration. In order for sequestration to occur, you actually require sufficient soil moisture to support a reasonably high soil biomass-so desert & tundra soils are largely useless. As temperatures warm & rainfall declines, you could see a drop in soil biomass & a consequent drop in the CO2 sequestration ability of soils-which is *already* far less than that of our oceans. As to trees & other surface biomass-their CO2 sequestration ability is far outstripped by that of the biomass in the oceans-where about 70% of all oxygen generation occurs. Even if we were to replace 50% of the forests we've cut down in the last 2000 years, it would probably make only a minor, short-term dent in the rate at which CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will rise. As to the boost gained from increased CO2 to plants-all my reading suggests that a doubling of CO2 emissions achieves only a 33% increase in total biomass-with the bulk of that going into vegetative, not seed, biomass. So I'm really at a loss to see how you can push the idea that increasing CO2 will be good for the biosphere, when all the available evidence suggests an overall *negative* impact on the biosphere-especially the part which pertains to humans! -
Rogerthesurf at 09:11 AM on 9 June 2010Climate's changed before
Scaddenp Thanks for your comments, I have copied them to my page at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.com where I will comment on your answers for the benefit of my readers. I would remind you though that I have made no assertions of any sort in any part of this discussion, I have only asked for reasonable proof of the "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" hypothesis and explained why I believe a good standard proof is required. I reiterate that no such proof appears in any IPCC publications. Measurements of global warming of any sort do not constitute proof because we are looking for the cause of the warming. You are too proud to watch the video I suggested and your insistance that the proof is found in IPCC publications shows you don't actually understand my question. PS. Check out this report from the University of Pennsylvania. It appears their conclusions are similar to mine except they have taken a different route. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/upenncross.pdf I hope I will get a proper answer from the owner of this blog. Cheers Roger -
johnd at 07:26 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Ned at 02:46 AM, ned, just to clarify, I was actually referring to the soil moisture that is subject to variation not only over annual cycles, but longer decadal cycles where the soils can remain close to saturated for years or gradually reduce moisture content deeper down for similarly long periods. Whilst the volume of water is not that of the oceans, the surface area is vast, and the moisture is in close contact with both the soils and plants. -
Riccardo at 06:24 AM on 9 June 2010It's the sun
JSFarmer, yes if you you exclude the last half century. Problem is that no one says that the sun is irrelevant in general, scientists say it's not the only one. This is expecially true in the last fifty years, being the TSI flat or even slightly declining. -
nominallyXian at 06:20 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
If any are interested in "more accessible" information about this topic aimed at an educated lay audience, you might try: The Dangers of Ocean Acidification by Scott C. Doney Scientific American, vol 294, pp. 58-65. 2006 -
Doug Bostrom at 06:04 AM on 9 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
NSIDC posts their monthly update, here. In this post they mention PIOMAS which appears to have fallen off a cliff. PIOMAS uses observations and numerical models to make ongoing estimates of changes in sea ice volume. According to PIOMAS, the average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average. The May 2010 ice volume is also 2.5 standard deviations below the 1979 to 2010 linear trend for May (–3,400 cubic kilometers, or -816 cubic miles, per decade). Cold Canary. -
Stephen Baines at 05:35 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Sorry, that third ref on lakes as sources of CO2 should have been Tranvik et al 2009 -
Stephen Baines at 05:30 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Ned and johnd On the whole lakes (and rivers) tend to be supersaturated with CO2 because of respiration of organic matter derived from the terrestrial environment. Although CO2 fixation outstrips respiration in very productive lakes (as Ned stated), more often than not the pCO2 in water is >2 fold above saturated levels. As a consequence lakes and rivers are globally a large net source of CO2 to the atmosphere. In fact, estimates from the paper i just linked to suggest that emissions of CO2 from lakes and rivers is equivilent to the net movement of CO2 across the ocean surface and the C buried in ocean sediments. Much like saturated soils, they can also be a source of methane as well as CO2, especially if one considers small lakes. As this CO2 is ultimately derived from terrestrial ecosystems, it's hard to say whether lakes actually alter the net carbon balance of the "terrestrial" biosphere. If the lake wasn't there would that CO2 have been released anyway? What is certain is that increasing CO2 will not be absorbed by lakes or soil water. At best it will only slow emissions from surface waters. Further, while they are effective conduits of C,the amount of water in lakes, rivers and soil water is tiny compared to that in the ocean. So they couldn't accomodate the excess CO2 anyway. -
Dons at 04:32 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
A change in pH of 0.1 should be equal to Log10 of the difference between log10's of the two PHs. log10(7.0) - log10(7.1) / log10(7.0) equals about 0.26. Is this what you meant by about 30%? Or did I screw up? thanks, Don -
Albatross at 04:31 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Had the opportunity to hear Dr. Richard Freely (NOAA, PMEL) talk on ocean acidification (OA)last week. The science to which he spoke did not paint a terribly optimistic picture. They are expecting pH to decrease by another 0.4 to 0.5 points by 2100. For a more accessible review of the science there are two videos on YouTube which are well worth watching, here and here We need to keep in mind that the impact on marine ecosystems due to OA are already being observed with a lowering of "only" 0.1 on the pH scale. Additionally, OA is yet another stress on ecosystems which is already overtaxed. Cavalierly dismissing OA as a non-issue as Monckton and others are doing is both irresponsible and myopic, not to mention the absurdity of ignoring the science. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:49 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Johnd, not to be the slightest bit insulting or anything like that but rather as a polite request, would you mind inserting linefeeds between your paragraphs? I do want to read your comments but it's needlessly difficult without breaks between paras. Thanks! -
Doug Bostrom at 03:34 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Just clarify, I used the Iraq war simply as an example of a situation where political instability made the type of reactors we're using today an inappropriate choice. I also would like to emphasize that I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear power. The reactors we're using today are an engineering nightmare in terms of complexity and particularly performance demands on construction materials, a wretched lash-up, but they do have the marvelous virtue of existence. Probably the biggest liability of fission power is the disposal problem which is partly a matter of psychology and partly pragmatic. Sandia Labs has a promising solution to that, ironically born of the oil industry. Check out borehole disposal if you're interested. Barry Brooks' site is an example of finely wrought monomania, in my humble estimation. All roads of discussion though taking many reasonable and informative twists and turns lead back to a fissioning atom. -
Ned at 02:50 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Here's the Paul Hanson paper I was referring to re: lake metabolism. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096637 A google scholar search on "lake respiration" or "lake metabolism" will offer more: -
Ned at 02:46 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
johnd writes: One aspect that I'm not sure is being fully taken into account with the subject of CO2 being sequestered by the oceans, is that other reservoir of water, surface water. This is highly variable, but once soils are saturated the total amount of water in that reservoir is huge, but I am not sure if any role this water plays in sequestering CO2 and returning it to the soil is understood or even given consideration. By surface water are you referring to waterlogged soils, or lakes and rivers? The former are (or, can be) a big source of CH4; you'll typically see a shift in the ratio of CO2 to CH4 as the soil becomes more or less saturated. Lakes are pretty complicated; there are lots of papers studying "lake respiration" (e.g., work by Paul Hanson and others). The very short summary is that lakes with high nutrient loadings (esp P) may tend to be autotrophic while lakes with high DOC and low P tend to be heterotrophic. Essentially, lakes process carbon they receive either from their watershed or from the atmosphere, but it's hard to generalize about when a lake will be a net source or sink for carbon. -
JSFarmer at 02:40 AM on 9 June 2010Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
OK.... Thanks... -
johnd at 02:33 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Martin Hedberg at 00:56 AM, more CO2 is not only acceptable in the biosphere, but can be more than readily accommodated. New forests can sequester large amounts of CO2 but reach a saturation point, and the time it takes to significantly add any carbon to the soil is measured in generations of trees in a self replacing forest rather than years. Well managed farm land is more efficient than forests at returning carbon to the soil in a sustainable manner, but the limiting factor is that CO2 levels are below that required for optimum growth. Even so, the world is producing 3 times as much cereals from the same acreage as it did 50 years ago, so with improvements to plant varieties and soil management techniques, the ability to return large amounts of carbon back to the soil are possible. As the population grow and more land has to be utilised for food production, with the right management the ability to increase the amount of carbon being returned to the soil will increase further. Where economically feasible, food producing plants that are grown in CO2 enriched environments far outstrip the growth rates of the same plants grown under ambient CO2 levels. Even cereal crops such as barley that are sprouted in controlled environment sheds in order to provide green feed to livestock in dry conditions respond dramatically with CO2 enrichment. If only humans could reduce the wastage of all the food produced. A very high percentage (perhaps close to half) of all the food produced, that strips nutrients out of the soil and carries carbon within itself, never makes it to the stomachs of the city populations and ends up wasted and thrown out instead of being returned to the soil. The more affluent the population the worst the wastage. This significant wastage offsets much of the gains made by the food producers in becoming more effective at carbon capture. One aspect that I'm not sure is being fully taken into account with the subject of CO2 being sequestered by the oceans, is that other reservoir of water, surface water. This is highly variable, but once soils are saturated the total amount of water in that reservoir is huge, but I am not sure if any role this water plays in sequestering CO2 and returning it to the soil is understood or even given consideration. -
JMurphy at 02:17 AM on 9 June 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Ned wrote : If the "95.2" is in degrees celsius like the ".7-1C" range is, I think it's pretty clear why the lizards went extinct. Ah, well spotted. Over to you, nofreewind... -
hank at 01:50 AM on 9 June 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Just as an aside --- the Hockey Stick is the Maginot Line of climate science. Those attacking it and those defending it are both wasting their attention. It's the last war, folks. It's over. It's long ago. Look at what's really happening now in the real world. The people interested in wasting your time are very happy to sit on their assets in the dark typing madly into their computers refuting and rebutting and rebaloneying. Because why? Because they want you sitting at your computers replying to them. It's crap. It's nonsense. The world's changing fast outside. They don't want you to do anything. They want you to sit at your computer typing. Can you tell I'm about to go do fieldwork? Got a little soil restoration project I bought more than 20 years ago, that needs about 200 years of attention to put the skin back on the mountainside (loggers, goats, fires, loggers, fires, motorcycles, offroad 4wders -- everything people do strips soil off the mountains). Patience helps it grow back. Humble suggestion: go compost something and dig it into the yard. Look around. They don't want you to leave your computer. -
Ned at 01:45 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Er, before changing the topic, though, I just want to add -- Since gallopingcamel was so polite yesterday, I'd like to return the favor and thank GC for the link to Barry Brook's site ... which does have a lot to say about topics at the intersection of climate change & nuclear power. Any website that GC and I can both endorse has got to be good, right? -
Ned at 01:39 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
All of us (Doug, BP, gallopingcamel, and I) are offenders in this, but we should probably try not to wander any further afield here. A lot of this has gone off-topic and if we start getting into discussions of the Iraq war things could get ugly. -
Ned at 01:25 AM on 9 June 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
JMurphy writes: Where do you get your ".7-1C degree change in temperature, which is probably about .4C in the past 35 years" from ? [...] Where did you get the assertion of a "daytime temperature average going from 94.5 to 95.2" from ? If the "95.2" is in degrees celsius like the ".7-1C" range is, I think it's pretty clear why the lizards went extinct. :-) -
Berényi Péter at 00:59 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Just for reference. Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state Art 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. BTW, Iraq does have a site with a half finished then severely damaged nuclear plant, some cleanup job still to be done. -
Martin Hedberg at 00:56 AM on 9 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
When we burn carbon, the CO2 ends up, or is moved around, in roughly three reservoirs: The atmosphere, the sea water and the biosphere. Two of them we don’t want to have any extra carbon in. In the third, the biosphere, it might be acceptable. But on the other hand we have deforestation, so how much of the carbon will actually stay in the forest for long time? The sea water have since the beginning of anthropogenic CO2-emissions (both from biomass and fossil reservoirs) been hiding about half of our emission from increasing the level of atmospheric CO2. That was a good thing from the perspective of keeping CO2-levels not so high in the atmosphere. But on the other hand, when carbon is stored in water, the water gets more acidic. And above that, the dissolution of carbon dioxide in sea water had the side effect of delaying the insight of problems connected to emissions of carbon. And meanwhile we humans got more dependent upon the very same energy. If, as the sea water gets warmer, carbon is released, then it will further increase the CO2-level in the atmosphere. If not it will stay in the sea water, keeping an unwanted acidification. The carbon in the sea water will eventually be mixed to the deep sea water, but the turnover time of the oceans is measured in hundred to thousands of years, so it will take some time before it has any effect. We have a problem, or we have a problem. Actually we have them both. And no way around it. (Well, we can always deny it?) Whatever somebody bring up from the ground will eventually end up moving around in the carbon cycle. Most decision makers don’t realize the implications of this. /Martin Hedberg -
gallopingcamel at 00:55 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
doug_bostrom (#80), The fission technology we have today was born out of the "Cold War". The Uranium cycle fission was chosen precisely because it produced substantial quantities of Pu239 for bombs. If political realities had been different 60 years ago Thorium cycle fission would dominate today. Thorium fission creates only tiny quantities of Plutonium and the fissile material it does produce is U233, completely useless for bomb production because it emits gamma rays that are easy to detect and capable of destroying nearby electronics. What is being done with Thorium technology today? Not much! India is building a fairly primitive reactor; Oak Ridge National Laboratories is trying to drum up political support and projects are on the table in several countries. Here are a couple of links that will give you a glimpse of the advantages of Thorium: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor If you want to dig a little deeper I can highly recommend Barry Brook's "Brave New Climate" web site: http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/ -
JMurphy at 00:46 AM on 9 June 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
nofreewind, your comment is very simplistic, so perhaps you could expand on it a little by answering a few questions. Where do you get your ".7-1C degree change in temperature, which is probably about .4C in the past 35 years" from ? Where did you get your idea about lizards basking in the sun "all day" ? Do you know that the acquisition of vitamin D is as important in that respect and that lizards can overheat, as mentioned in the article above ? Where did you get the assertion of a "daytime temperature average going from 94.5 to 95.2" from ? It can't simply be a figure you've plucked out of thin air and added .7 to, can it ? Do you believe that temperatures all over the world will increase at the same rate ? What makes you think that the authors of the study didn't give any "consideration to ANY other factors" ? How do you know that scientists are "so obviously wrong" ? What evidence do you base that on ? Finally, the piece from Audubon magazine that I read online says "...there is a report from Hudson Bay of starving polar bears, stranded on shore and unable to hunt seals from the ice pack, resorting to cannibalism.". Why don't you believe that and which scientist do you believe actually said that ? -
Berényi Péter at 00:21 AM on 9 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#80 doug_bostrom at 16:53 PM on 8 June, 2010 I don't know of a single fission technology now available that would be reasonably safe to deploy in other than highly stable countries. There are reasonably safe and sustainable designs. F O R U M O N P H Y S I C S & S O C I E T Y of The American Physical Society April 2002 Advanced Fast Reactor: A Next-Generation Nuclear Energy Concept Yoon I. Chang Associate Laboratory Director for Engineering Research Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL 60439 Adapted from a talk delivered at Argonne National Laboratory on September 28, 2001 For instance, imagine if the Americans had decapitated Iraq and instead of fossil thermal generation plants the country had been equipped w/boiling water reactors? In cases like this of course the occupying power should take responsibility. See: The U.S. as Occupying Power Over Portions of Iraq and Relevant Responsibilities Under the Laws of War Jordan J. Paust Law Foundation Professor, University of Houston April 2003 -
Jim Powell at 23:07 PM on 8 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
It is heartening to know that a program like Skeptically Speaking exists in the first place. You did an excellent job, John, especially of sticking with science instead of being drawn into "teaching the controversy." -
Ned at 23:00 PM on 8 June 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
nofreewind, argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. It's far better to either point out an error in the paper or to suggest a specific alternative explanation that you think is better (which is what the post over at WUWT does ... it seems to suggest that poaching lizards for sale as pets is a more likely explanation for the observed local extinctions.) As noted above, the study involved developing a predictive model based on sites in Mexico, using the model to make predictions about lizard extinctions in other parts of the world, and then testing those predictions. This is how science is done. If Anthony Watts thinks that substituting "poaching" for "climate change" as an explanation would lead to better predictions (or to equally good predictions with a simpler model) then he should demonstrate that. He could well be right. But when the person you're criticizing has done a quantitative test of their predictions, and all you've done is handwaving ... -
nofreewind at 22:23 PM on 8 June 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Seriously, lots of smart balanced people on this forum, but I would be embarrassed at myself If I was most of you. I know that Watts isn't held in high regard around here. But what makes more "common sense", that a .7-1C degree change in temperature, which is probably about .4C the past 35 years, has caused lizard extinction, OR that overzealous illegal collection of the lizards for the pet trade and lizard skin trade has decimated their population. We are talking lizards here, you know, those heat loving creatures that bask in the sun all day. You folks really "believe" that that the daytime temperature average going from 94.5 to 95.2 is wiping this lizards out? You never even gave any consideration to ANY other factors. Seriously, if I was a scientist and took this position, I would be embarrassed for being so easily deceived! How can we possibly trust you, when you are obviously wrong on such a simple matter. Do you also believe that polar bears are now practicing cannibalism, as I just read in my Audubon magazine. (note: a scientist said so!!) -
Ned at 22:18 PM on 8 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Berényi Péter, you may already have seen this, but Science of Doom has a couple of recent posts on the radiative balance of the Moon and what the Earth's temperature would be in the absence of a greenhouse effect. * Lunar Madness and Physics Basics * The Hoover Incident And in light of the overall topic of this thread, there are a whole series of recent posts about Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) and the "question" of whether the existence of the greenhouse effect has been falsified. Plus, our host has nice things to say about Science of Doom, too. Check it out if you haven't already done so. -
Ned at 21:50 PM on 8 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Doug writes: The fact is, if we really want to transcend caveman combustion we're going to need a plethora of technologies. Didn't realize that we had started burning cavemen. Perhaps that's a branch of the mummy-fuel industry? More seriously, on the topic of subsidies for different fuel systems, the Financial Times has a story about a new IEA analysis that the world spends US$550 billion/year on subsidies for fossil fuels. Given all the many reasons we should be moving away from fossil fuels (not just climate change) surely we can all agree that subsidizing oil and coal is not what we should be doing? -
Ned at 21:19 PM on 8 June 2010It hasn't warmed since 1998
suibhne writes: "A number of people make comments about the Earth heating up without considering the massive thermal capacity of the Earth. [...] I have used a very simple model of the Earth made of uniform material with reasonable conductivity If the Earth absorbed all the Suns radiation that landed on it and absolutely no heat ever escaped. How long would it take for the temperature to rise by 1 degree centigrade." Aha! Perhaps this explains why you've found the concept of AGW so difficult to accept. If you were under the misapprehension that the entire mass of the earth had to change temperature at a uniform rate, then of course it would be impossible for humans to raise the planet's temperature by 2-6 degrees C. Of course, in that model, the glacial/interglacial cycles, and shorter-term temperature fluctuations like the Younger Dryas, MWP, and LIA would never have happened, either. The earth's temperature would have to be effectively constant over time. So that's an indication that you might be misunderstanding something, right? So, here's a question for you, suibhne: where do you think the error is in your assumptions? You might also want to think about what happens when you cook a turkey in your oven. Does it cook at a uniform rate all the way through, or does it cook more rapidly on the outside and more slowly on the inside? -
Ned at 21:07 PM on 8 June 2010It hasn't warmed since 1998
amymarshall95 asks "how many degrees has the ocean's surface temperature risen by since 1950? " The US agency NOAA has data on sea surface temperatures here. For the most recent 12 months (May 2009-April 2010) they averaged 0.54 C above normal. For the 12 months of 1950, they averaged -0.09 C below normal. So SST has risen by about 0.6 C since 1950. Kelly O'Day has a very nice website with R scripts for analyzing climate data. Here's Kelly's example of a script for plotting historical SST data:
-
David Horton at 20:54 PM on 8 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
#15 Stephen - It's worth adding that while people tend to mainly (for good reasons) think about coral being affected by acidification it's worth noting that there would be very few marine organisms which would be unaffected both by effects on calcification of skeletons (exo and endo) - molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms, etc - and also on the effects on ion exchange for soft-bodied animals. It is also worth noting that apart from the direct effects on individual species, a deleterious effect on population numbers of one species will set in train all kind of unpredictable ecological effects. -
amymarshall95 at 20:52 PM on 8 June 2010It hasn't warmed since 1998
how many degrees has the ocean's surface temperature risen by since 1950? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:53 PM on 8 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Further to GC and Ned's remarks, some generation systems just are not suitable for certain contexts. I don't know of a single fission technology now available that would be reasonably safe to deploy in other than highly stable countries. For instance, imagine if the Americans had decapitated Iraq and instead of fossil thermal generation plants the country had been equipped w/boiling water reactors? Big mess; the generation plans were swiftly abandoned by their operators, damaging to a combustion plant but potentially catastrophic in the case of a fission generation system. Then imagine those plants being looted. Ouch. There is a depressing tendency toward monomania by various factions w/regard to energy liberation and capture systems. The fact is, if we really want to transcend caveman combustion we're going to need a plethora of technologies. Too much squabbling means too little progress. -
gallopingcamel at 15:57 PM on 8 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
I'm done with being disagreeable at least for this week so it gives me great pleasure to applaud Ned (#71) even though he is "Off Subject". As he points out, it makes no sense to prescribe a mix of power generating technologies. Each jurisdiction needs to figure out what works best in their situation. The trouble is that governments tend to pre-judge the issue and follow up by providing incentives for one technology over another. This "Soft Lysenkoism" is much more dangerous than the hard kind that Stalin supported. The trend toward ever larger power plants eventually becomes counter productive as gains in efficiency are offset by distribution losses. Whether it be via wind, solar, fuel cells or tiny nukes, distributed solutions have advantages. -
sailrick at 15:53 PM on 8 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
I know you were looking for SkepticalScience posts on the Oregon Petition, but these might be useful. Scrutinizing the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/ http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-thats-wherethe-junk-mail-came-from.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine -
Stephen Baines at 15:42 PM on 8 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
Good Job John! These kinds of things scare the bejeebus out of me, like that sink hole in Guatemala... an endless pit of despair! I'm sure I would trail off into an trail of mindless factoids that would fly right over people's sleeping heads. You kept focus well. I wonder about that weather vs climate metaphor, though. You nailed the sense that weather is random, and that we'll feel the changing climate mostly in the extremes. But that dice analogy doesn't really accomodate a superimposed trend. Not sure I have a better option. Thought of hiring a rapper to do a jingle? I mean, if they can get em in Alberta, why not Queensland.Response: Re the dice analogy, the superimposed trend comes from the weighting of the dice so that it rolls a 6 more often. Maybe I didn't explain that bit clearly enough. -
Stephen Baines at 15:01 PM on 8 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
No, it's not an easy question. CO2 is one of those variables that has very wide ranging effects that can cascade through aquatic ecosystems in unpredictable ways. First there is the effect on acidity, which influences a myriad of chemical equilibria including carbonate chemistry and metal ion speciation. Then there are the effects on photosynthesis, which can be limited by supply of CO2. The composition of plant matter, the balance between photosynthesis and nutrient uptake, the growth of organisms that feed upon plants and the formation of sinking particles can all vary in response to CO2. Roger Revelle notwithstanding, oceanographers (and limnologists) have spent the better part of a century thinking about CO2 as a constant, not a variable. That has left us ill prepared for this event! I think the task will force a better integration across wide ranging fields, including chemistry, climate science, physical oceanography, ecology and evolutionary biology. I should note that despite the complexities, there are some things that are abundantly clear. For example, the formation of carbonaceous, and particularly aragonite, skeletons is almost always negatively affected by decreasing pH. It's not clear evolution can keep up with the rate of change in pH -- maybe because the options available to organisms are constrained by chemistry. Also, the depth at which net carbonate accumulation within sediments occurs will get shallower as the ocean acidifies. Both factors affect the LONG TERM ability of the ocean to sequester CO2. -
scaddenp at 14:58 PM on 8 June 2010Robust warming of the global upper ocean
But this paper hasnt actually been published yet has it? It looks rather like it needs some reviewing (unless of course it is for E&E). -
Doug Bostrom at 14:33 PM on 8 June 2010Robust warming of the global upper ocean
Delving into Scafetta's latest paper, we immediately find a dubious assertion: The existence of a 60-year natural cycle in the climate system, which is clearly proven in multiple studies and herein in Figures 2, 6, 10 and 12, indicates that the AGWT promoted by the IPCC [2007], which claims that 100% of the global warming observed since 1970 is anthropogenic, is erroneous. Does the IPCC claim that 100% of warming observed since 1970 is anthropogenic? Here's what the IPCC 2007 report actually says: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4} Not even close to a flat 100%, not by the most liberal interpretation. So either Scafetta can't read, has not read the IPCC material he references, or is resorting to rhetorical hyperbole, something unwelcome in a scientific paper. No matter as long as we don't care what's true or false, Scafetta has a hypothesis. Or does he? The planets, in particular Jupiter and Saturn, with their movement around the Sun give origin to large gravitational and magnetic oscillations that cause the solar system to vibrate. These vibrations have the same frequencies of the planetary orbits. The vibrations of the solar system can be directly or indirectly felt by the climate system and can cause it to oscillate with those same frequencies. More specific physical mechanisms involved in the process include gravitational tidal forces, spin orbit transfer phenomena and magnetic perturbations (the jovian planets have large magnetic fields that interact with the solar plasma and with the magnetic field of the Earth). These gravitational and magnetic forces act as external forcings of the solar dynamo, of the solar wind and of the Earth-Moon system and may modulate both solar dynamics and, directly or indirectly, through the Sun, the climate of the Earth. So what's the mechanism? Later: In conclusion, data analysis indicates that current general circulation climate models are missing fundamental mechanisms that have their physical origin and ultimate justification in astronomical phenomena, and in interplanetary and solar-planetary interaction physics. In sum, we're asked to accept as certainty an indication of a previously unknown cyclical mechanism influencing climate, this cyclic process being derived from a fairly scanty physical record and an elaborate compound astronomical process. More, despite there being no known actual physical process describing how this mechanism may function, this mystery is "fundamental" and should be included in GCM's or they're incomplete. All this coming from somebody who for whatever reason was unable to accurately describe what the IPCC actually has said regarding the behavior of the climate. What would happen if the IPCC included work of this sort in WG1? Would anybody complain? Nah, surely not.Moderator Response: Better topic thread for discussion of this is Models are unreliable -
Doug Bostrom at 13:48 PM on 8 June 2010Robust warming of the global upper ocean
PhilC, to my untrained eye Scafetta appears to be throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick. Previously Scafetta has said We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted. Problems with this assertion were discussed at Real Climate. In another paper, Scafetta says We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period such as the cooling periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825). The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 This paper was also critiqued at Real Climate At least those two papers had something in common. Now Scafetta is trying something else entirely? But what about the previous research? Is it inoperative now? Is there something new under the Sun?
Prev 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 Next
