Recent Comments

Prev  2348  2349  2350  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  Next

Comments 117751 to 117800:

117751. Ari Jokimäki at 03:46 AM on 10 June 2010
        Request for mainstream articles on climate
        The date should be the publishing date of the article you're submitting. The system currently checks if the link you are submitting already exists in the database. I'm not sure if there are any other checks for the article already existing in the database.
117752. Doug Bostrom at 03:31 AM on 10 June 2010
        Request for mainstream articles on climate
        There is a remarkably comprehensive weekly list of climate-related articles presented and maintained at the site A Few Things Ill Considered, GW News. The list covers the popular press, specialist popular science media as well as academic literature. As well, the Knight Science Journalism Tracker is pretty good, includes technical critique of the technical quality of articles themselves, often identifying for instance when a piece is sourced purely from a press release or includes more in-depth effort. The tracker can be found here.
117753. Neven at 03:27 AM on 10 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        I posted this over at Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice, but I repost it here so more potentially interested people might read it: If it's OK I'd like to point out that I have tentatively started a blog that is dedicated to assembling news and data concerning the Arctic sea ice, as I kind of miss one central place where everyone who is interested can discuss what's going on. The blog is HERE and I'd appreciate it if people would come over and spread their knowledge, 'cause I'm lacking in that department. :-)
117754. Marcel Bökstedt at 03:27 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        I'm with Bérenyi Péter on this one. I think that he is asking a hard question, one that worries me too. I also believe that what he writes is related to my too complicated and too vague comment earlier in this thread. The problem as I see it is that in a technical, mathematical sense there seem to be too many unknowns in the equations to say something definite about climate sensitivity by paleographic studies. Maybe I'm just missing a point. The problem enters when you interprete figure 1, but it seems to me that it also enters into other attempts to estimate sensibility using historical investigations of climate. There are two variables that should determine the system: The temperature forcing T' (from the sun) and the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere and in seawater C'. I assume that C' did not vary in the time frame we are considering. If it did, this would only make things more complicated. On the other hand, T' has definitely changed (Milankovich etc). So we do have a lot of data on the variation of temperature T at the dome and the carbon concentration in atmosphere C as long as C' is constant. There are four variables T,T',C,C', and it seems that figure 1 can only give one approximate relation. But for two of the quantities to determine the two others, we need two independent relations between the four quantities. We don't have any historical record of what happens when the total amount C' goes up - in the time frame we are considering it never happend before, but this is what we are doing today. What we want to do is to compute the derivative dT/dC' which would tell us how much the temperature (at least at the dome) goes up if we add some more CO2 to the system. To get an estimate for the sensibility, we need an independent constraint on the variables involved. This cannot come from the historical data, but maybe we can derive it in another way. It could for instance come from an analysis of how the temperature T at the dome is related to the temperature of the sea at different levels. This could possibly determine how much of the CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and how much goes into the sea. But now the physics is getting too complicated for me.
117755. CBDunkerson at 02:38 AM on 10 June 2010
        Request for mainstream articles on climate
        Another question to guide our efforts - should we be carefully checking to make sure nobody else has submitted the same article? Wire service (Reuters, AP, UPI, et cetera) pieces often get printed in hundreds of different papers with slightly different titles. Likewise, as hengistmcstone notes above, some people put articles in by the date they were published and others by the date on which they are adding them. Thus, it often isn't easy to determine whether an article is already listed or not. Are duplicates ok or a major hassle? Also, I can never find the link to the page listing all the recently submitted articles. I always end up having to search for the post that originally announced it and going from there. Making it more prominent (than wherever it is currently) might help to drive submissions. As might a 'new submission' link on that page itself.
        Response: The submission form won't let you submit an article twice. What I do when submitting an article is I first just enter the URL then hit submit. If the URL has already been listed, it'll tell you. If not, it gives you the form validation error "you haven't entered the title, bias,etc" and I finish filling out the form. It's a bit clunky - what I'd like to do is program some JavaScript that checks for submitted URLs while you're filling out the form but haven't had time to do that yet.
        
        I will make the link to recent articles more prominent and good idea to add a link to the submission form. Good feedback, thanks!
117756. hengistmcstone at 02:26 AM on 10 June 2010
        Request for mainstream articles on climate
        Hi, Ive gotta say this is a really good website, About submitting stuff to the Skeptical Science database. You ask for a date. That is the date of the original article not the date submitted to the database right? It might also be helpful if you remind us that it is using american notation (I think) i.e YYYY/MM/DD. I figured that out but you know the old saying about the british and the americans - separated by a common language:-) Sometimes it's not easy to define the bias. Ive submitted three that I think are skeptical of AGW but you might disagree with that assessment. I would suggest a fourth category of bias - "mixed" - as there is a lot of stuff that pretends to be fair but is really undermining AGW rather than directly attacking it. Particularly Tom Fielden of the BBC! Ive added you to my blogroll on my own blog Salutations and well done Skeptical Science
        Response: The date should be the date of the original article, not the date of submission. Good point re the YYYY/MM/DD - I'll add some clarifying text. I guess if an article is hard to categorize, label it neutral.
117757. Ned at 01:27 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        And again, when I wrote "I don't know why you think [...] that we can only draw conclusions about climate sensitivity when CO2 is a feedback rather than a forcing" I actually meant exactly the opposite. Argh. This is karmic justice for my referring to BP's comment as "a mess". Next time I write a comment here I will read it at least three times before clicking Submit. In the mean time, apologies to everyone reading this thread.
117758. Ned at 01:19 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        Sorry, when I wrote "The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not that T influences ..." there is obviously a "just" missing there. It should be The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not just that T influences pCO2 via solubility in seawater; it's also CO2 influences T via radiation. Both of these were true at the last glacial maximum and both are true today!
117759. Ned at 01:18 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        BP writes: This is the only tiny part of the half million years long dataset, that actually tells us something about climate sensitivity to CO2 variations. Because this is the only time when there is a well documented change in carbon dioxide independent of ocean outgassing. Sorry, but this comment of yours is a real mess. First, there's never a change in atmospheric CO2 independent of the ocean/atmosphere CO2 exchange. Right now we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and about half of it is ending up in the oceans. At the end of a glacial stade, when temperature begins to rise rapidly, the CO2 that moves from the ocean to the atmosphere amplifies the warming. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not that T influences pCO2 via solubility in seawater; it's also CO2 influences T via radiation. Both of these were true at the last glacial maximum and both are true today! The magnitude of that feedback does in fact tell us something about climate sensitivity -- a low sensitivity implies a low feedback. See, e.g., Annan and Hargreaves 2006. I don't know why you think that we can't draw any conclusions about climate sensitivity from paleoclimate data ... or that we can only draw conclusions about climate sensitivity when CO2 is a feedback rather than a forcing.
117760. Neven at 00:43 AM on 10 June 2010
        Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice
        If it's OK I'd like to point out that I have tentatively started a blog that is dedicated to assembling news and data concerning the Arctic sea ice, as I kind of miss one central place where everyone who is interested can discuss what's going on. The blog is HERE and I'd appreciate it if people would come over and spread their knowledge, 'cause I'm lacking in that department. :-)
117761. Riccardo at 00:27 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        Berényi Péter, it looks like you're just trying to engage a controversy not about the science but just for the pleasure to say something. The sentence you quote from the post is not referred to CO2 concentration but to forcing. Please try to do science, otherwise is just a waste of time.
117762. Berényi Péter at 00:10 AM on 10 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        #35 Riccardo at 04:41 AM on 7 June, 2010 That's all it's said. Nope. It says "The slope of the curve is related to the local climate sensitivity and then a non-constant climate sensitivity between glacial and interglacial periods may be inferred. In particular, during the warm periods the climate sensitivity is higher than average. In other words, the temperature increase produced by a forcing is higher when the system is in its warm phases." But the slope of the curve is not related to climate sensitivity, local or otherwise. It is determined by CO₂ solubility in seawater as a function of water temperature and by the relation between ocean and East Antarctic plateau temperatures. Climate sensitivity comes nowhere into the equation. You also claim in the article "They clearly show that we are already far outside the range of natural variability during the last half a million years and heading forward." Now, that's true. Except it is neither "we", nor temperature, but carbon dioxide partial pressure in the atmosphere. This is the only tiny part of the half million years long dataset, that actually tells us something about climate sensitivity to CO₂ variations. Because this is the only time when there is a well documented change in carbon dioxide independent of ocean outgassing. And the story it tells is rather interesting. During the fifty years between 1958 and 2007 atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 314.82 ppmv to 380.42 ppmv above Antarctica. If the linear CO₂-temperature relation derived from Dome C ice core is mindlessly applied to this 65.6 ppmv increase, it would imply a corresponding temperature jump of 8.12 K in fifty years, which is observed not to occur. On the other hand with the quadratic fit it is plainly impossible, because with that formula carbon dioxide concentration could never even increase beyond 293 ppmv. Therefore in this respect we are on unknown ground for sure. However, as it happens, we also have an almost complete temperature record for the Vostok site since 1958. No surface temperature trend is measured in fifty years (0.0159 ± 0.0177 K/yr). The null hypothesis, that local climate sensitivity to CO₂ is zero there, cannot be rejected.
117763. Ned at 00:05 AM on 10 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        muoncounter writes: Logistic models don't have to go to zero. Ah, yes, you're right of course. I'm not sure why I assumed you were extrapolating March sea ice to 0. Sorry! Comment in haste, repent at leisure is my motto.
117764. mike roddy at 00:01 AM on 10 June 2010
        Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
        Scott Mandia, thanks for the 800 pound gorilla link. I've been wondering where to find a comprehensive and readable summary like that. Maybe you can answer this question: Is biological degradation caused by overfishing and oil volcanoes having a substantial impact on the ability of the ocean to sequester CO2? Are there equations available? The Gulf is an especially rich ecosystem, so I would assume that the CO2 impact would be significant.
117765. Ned at 00:00 AM on 10 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        Upon further investigation, the "recycling" here is kind of fascinating. Johnston's document relies heavily on a 2007 paper by Lindzen in E&E (yes, another E&E paper ... Johnston is looking worse and worse). That E&E paper was recycled by Lindzen in a 2009 blog post. That blog post by Lindzen, in turn ... is the very same "skeptic argument" quoted by John Cook and then debunked at the top of this thread! In other words, we've come full circle ...
117766. JMurphy at 22:55 PM on 9 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        Ned wrote : Thus, it's perhaps not surprising that I'm very unimpressed by the link Roger provides to a document written by a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. You're not the only one. Not only does the author of that piece start off by thanking McKitrick, Lindzen and Pielke Jnr for their assistance, but the use of terms like "group of activist scientists" and "faith in the climate establishment" give a good flavour of the author's pre-conceived views. Also, the first foot-noted link goes to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, which has an article using academic papers which have been countered (e.g. Lindzen & Choi, 2009; Mclean, de Freitas & Carter, 2009); attempts to discredit the peer-review process; accepts the views of the Wegman Report with regard to 'tribalism' in climate science, and uses examples from the leaked CRU emails. Only the committed so-called skeptic would advance that paper as 'evidence' for anything other than his/her personal preference.
117767. muoncounter at 22:41 PM on 9 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned #80, Negative?? Why worry, this is skeptical science, after all. "I don't think that any single simplistic empirical model will ultimately provide a good representation of the time evolution of sea ice, because I think we're likely to go through a series of different regime shifts over time" Agreed; I'm more interested in shapes of curves and rates of change than prediction. And one can learn a lot by observing (and trying to explain) where, when and why a dataset systematically departs from a simple curve. For an example, what will happen to the ice melt regime when the summer melt season consistently opens a "Northwest Passage" for more months of the year? I can't imagine that wouldn't drastically alter polar oceanic circulation, with huge consequences. "eventually the March curve would approach 0, and that just doesn't seem physically realistic" Logistic models don't have to go to zero. There is a more general version of the curve with both nonzero upper and lower asymptotes. For example, shown below (link in case it doesn't show) is such a curve applied to 50 years of atmospheric CO2 data. The curve goes flat on the left to match the general shape of ice core CO2 (Law Dome in particular), which shows a more or less constant level of 280-300 ppm for several hundred years back. More good news, the upper limit for this graph is only 450 ppm (but that's to be seen, no?)
117768. Ned at 22:13 PM on 9 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        The legal system is not really a good model for the scientific method. Thus, it's perhaps not surprising that I'm very unimpressed by the link Roger provides to a document written by a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. I picked one area with which I am somewhat familiar (sea level rise, discussed on pp. 65-68) and examined it. Unfortunately, it turns out to be exactly what one would expect from someone trained in the adversarial legal system rather than in the scientific method -- he is making a case rather than skeptically evaluating the evidence. (Roger, do you understand the actual meaning of the word "skepticism"?) It also seems to have been heavily influenced by a recent error-riddled paper on sea level rise by Madhav Khandekar in Energy & Environment, which might explain some of Johnston's problems. Bottom line, I would file Johnston's paper in the recycling bin. If there are any valid points in there, they're obscured by a lot of obvious garbage. There are much better resources out there for understanding climate change.
117769. Ned at 21:35 PM on 9 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        muoncounter, thanks for the comment and especially the links. Bob Grumbine also uses a logistic model to analyze trends in Arctic sea ice. I am dubious about this. First of all, I don't think that any single simplistic empirical model will ultimately provide a good representation of the time evolution of sea ice, because I think we're likely to go through a series of different regime shifts over time in which different constraints become more or less important and thus different time periods would follow different models. (Sorry to be so vague; I'll try to take some time later to figure out how to express my thoughts on this better). As an indicator of this, take a look at the residuals of your Sept. model. There are a long series of points in the 1970s that have negative residuals, and a long series before 2007 (1996-2006?) with positive residuals. With regard to the March curve, we're still very much on the "shoulder" of the logistic curve, and even in the absence of any physical understanding that would seem to suggest that small errors in the model would lead to large errors in predictions further down the line (though in the figure you wisely don't attempt to extend the curve too far). But eventually the March curve would approach 0, and that just doesn't seem physically realistic -- even with a very large warming I don't see how we could produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean in winter, given the absence of insolation, unless there's an immense increase in the poleward heat flux. Anyway, sorry if this all sounds negative ... that's not my intent!
117770. JMurphy at 18:54 PM on 9 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Interesting article relevant to this discussion : Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
117771. Doug Bostrom at 18:29 PM on 9 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        Roger, if a lawyer or judge does not understand what he's reading or hearing he can be lied to without being aware of it. Inability to discriminate truth from fiction implies that useful judgment is suspended. The conclusions of an ignorant jurist are unreliable even as they are necessarily unbiased.
117772. Berényi Péter at 18:00 PM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
        A temperature - CO₂ (partial) pressure - pH equilibrium phase diagram of ordinary seawater (as measured in the lab) would be welcome. Allowing for proper relaxation time, with plenty of undissolved calcium carbonate at hand of course. The same measured in natural marine environments ranging from tropic to polar would be even better. No hydrochloric acid contamination please.
117773. Riccardo at 16:55 PM on 9 June 2010
        Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
        Berényi Péter, the absorption line shape is governed by collisional and Dopler broadening. The former is a lorentzian, the latter a gaussian. The resulting line shape is called Voigt line shape. It's the convolution of the two and depends on both temperature and pressure. Far from the central frequency it may be approximated by a lorentzian.
117774. gallopingcamel at 16:09 PM on 9 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        doug & co, It is encouraging to find that we can agree on something. Let's hope we can build on this. Barry Brook tolerates me even though I sometimes question the importance of CO2 in relation to climate. As you point out (#87) the problem of disposing with the long lived higher Actinides is a serious issue. Borehole disposal needs to be considered but my hope is that emerging Generation IV nuclear technologies (e.g IFRs & MSRs) will convert most of these materials into fission products with relatively short half lives (<100 years) while producing respectable amounts of electric power. In fairness to Barry Brook's monomania, he strikes me as someone who would support "Fuel Cells" or "Photovoltaic" if there was a break through in cost/performance. At this moment the economics favour coal or fission but that could change.
117775. e at 15:59 PM on 9 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        Roger, >Like any lawyer or judge, such a cross examiner ... takes an unbiased view of the evidence and what is presented. Cross examinations are biased by definition. They are an examination of your opponents witness, hence the "cross" part. That paper is just a summary of AGW skeptic talking points. If you are going to claim an unbiased view of the evidence, at least listen to what the other side has to say in rebuttal. In any case, science isn't determined by lawyers, it's determined by scientists publishing peer-reviewed research. Take a look around this site and the others linked for you to get a feel for what the science actually has to say.
117776. Rogerthesurf at 14:52 PM on 9 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        yocta, Its not supposed to be a scientific paper, its looking at the arguments and evidence to see if they stack up from a legal proof point of view. Like any lawyer or judge, such a cross examiner does not have to understand the technical side of things, but takes an unbiased view of the evidence and what is presented. Cheers Roger
117777. e at 14:09 PM on 9 June 2010
        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.
117778. muoncounter at 12:36 PM on 9 June 2010
        On 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 e^{k(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.
117779. scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 9 June 2010
        Climate'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?
117780. scaddenp at 10:21 AM on 9 June 2010
        Climate'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.
117781. yocta at 10:08 AM on 9 June 2010
        Climate'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.
117782. Berényi Péter at 09:53 AM on 9 June 2010
        Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
        What is the asymptotic wing shape of a single absorption line look like?
117783. e at 09:48 AM on 9 June 2010
        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.
117784. Marcus at 09:32 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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!
117785. Rogerthesurf at 09:11 AM on 9 June 2010
        Climate'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
117786. johnd at 07:26 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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.
117787. Riccardo at 06:24 AM on 9 June 2010
        It'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.
117788. nominallyXian at 06:20 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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
117789. Doug Bostrom at 06:04 AM on 9 June 2010
        On 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.
117790. Stephen Baines at 05:35 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
        Sorry, that third ref on lakes as sources of CO2 should have been Tranvik et al 2009
117791. Stephen Baines at 05:30 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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.
117792. Dons at 04:32 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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
117793. Albatross at 04:31 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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.
117794. Doug Bostrom at 03:49 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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!
117795. Doug Bostrom at 03:34 AM on 9 June 2010
        Irregular 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.
117796. Ned at 02:50 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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:
117797. Ned at 02:46 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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.
117798. JSFarmer at 02:40 AM on 9 June 2010
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        OK.... Thanks...
117799. johnd at 02:33 AM on 9 June 2010
        Monckton 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.
117800. JMurphy at 02:17 AM on 9 June 2010
        Species 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...

Prev  2348  2349  2350  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  Next