Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 Next
Comments 118001 to 118050:
-
Ned at 10:50 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
val majkus, you're not at all "off topic" -- this thread is basically explaining why Gerlich and Tscheuschner are completely wrong. The report you cite mostly just repeats the same errors and misinformation from G & T's original claims. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. According to your model, it would. It doesn't matter what other speculation you included in your post. Any conclusions you draw that do not come directly from your model are completely irrelevant. Your model is what it is. If you are going to claim that your model has physical relevance, then you need to explain the specific conclusions of that model. Perhaps you can explain the relevance of an anomaly of -.58, and why your model shows no CO2 change for temperatures stabilizing at that point, yet shows a constant change for all other temperatures. Why does the ocean cease to absorb or release CO2 at that precise temperature? Your last comment also highlights a key issue with your original post: your conclusions and discussion of physicality do not logically follow from what your math shows. What it is is blind speculation with a dash of numerology. You've shown you are capable of performing the math, but not in interpreting the meaning behind what you have calculated. I suggest you swallow your pride and take some time to understand what Ned and others are trying to tell you. -
HumanityRules at 10:47 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
86 Philippe Chantreau Proteins are made of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. Life on earth is often described as "carbon-based". I agree with you that nitrogen is important and often limited, that is why farmers use nitrate fertilizers. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting trees won't grow if the CO2 level is less than 400ppm. Trees in the pre-industrial Holocene is not incompatible with the idea that post-industrial CO2 levels may change the rate of growth of plants. CO2 was relatively stable and homogonous. With a relatively stable resourse like this it makes no real sense to talk about it being limiting. It is what it is, it never really changes. A plant cannot adapt or respond to a resourse that is constant, temporally or spatially. It cannot move into or be excluded from ecological niches because of it's response to CO2. Yet in present times this particular plant resourse has changed. It's interesting to consider how plants will respond to this change. This isn't skeptical science, the implication of it might temper the worst disaster scenarios, but thats not a reason to dismiss it. -
Ned at 10:33 AM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon writes: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. Clearly, you need to reread the original posting. Lon, your model says that if T_anom stays constant at any value above -0.58, CO2 will rise linearly without bound. If it stays constant at any value below -0.58, CO2 will decrease without bound (eventually becoming negative!) You may say that this wouldn't happen in the real world. But "e" is obviously correct in stating that this is what happens with your model. I note that we're now at 100 comments (48 since you joined) and you have still not addressed the primary points of this thread. * Your model doesn't prove what you said it proves. You appear not to understand how your model actually functions. * The actual meaning of your model (not your misinterpretation of it) is something scientists have known for decades and is discussed in the IPCC AR4 report. * The oceans are currently a net sink, not a net source, for CO2. -
val majkus at 10:02 AM on 22 June 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I'm not a scientist so forgive me if I'm off topic There is a lay explanation of the physics underlying climate alarmism. KE Research, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other climatologists, physicists, and scientists at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html Conclusions of the report include: The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world. Earth has a natural “cooling system”. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power. An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space. CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine. The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth. IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface. IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more. The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above. As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” accordingly dispensable. Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion. Does anyone have any comments on the contents of that report? -
Lon Hocker at 09:55 AM on 22 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
e: No it wouldn't rise forever, it would asymptotically head for a saturation value. Clearly, you need to reread the original posting. -
Marcus at 09:47 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
John D, this comes from the DPI Website you linked to (did you even READ it?!?!): "Now, the caveat there is that you can see increases in yield, but you also have to have sufficient water and nitrogen still to grow the crop and considering changes in climate, if this area of Australia, for example, has decreases in rainfall then we may not see the responses to be quite that dramatic in the future." Also this: "Now, other results that are important to the agricultural industry is that we see a decrease in the plant nitrogen content. Now, nitrogen is a fertiliser, it’s what causes the green part of the plants to be green and that’s important…what happens is that translates into less nitrogen in the grain, which is less protein. So that interacts directly with quality issues and the wheat industry would be quite interested in understanding that. So, the nitrogen content, the protein content goes down and we’re seeing that very consistently. However, what’s interesting is that the total nitrogen extracted from the soil increases and that’s because there’s more biomass. So it’s just pulling a lot more nitrogen and that has potential impacts to future farming in terms of fertiliser requirements." It certainly doesn't sound as positive as you're trying to make it-even with the guy putting a more positive spin on it than the researchers who did the trial. *Yes* their was a 20% increase in *total* biomass, but there was no statistical difference in grain yields for most varieties-suggesting the bulk of the biomass is going into stems, roots & leaves, not seeds. Also, he tells us how protein levels in the plant are decreasing, but nitrogen use has *increased*, which means that farmers will need *more* fertilizer just to retain existing protein levels. So, again, how is that a benefit to the farmers. Still, once again I've strayed back into the area of plant food, & it's clear that you're determined to spin these results as positive, in *spite* of the more cautionary language of the people running the trial-so for the sake of my sanity, I think I'll just ignore any further comments from you, & leave it to others to try & set you straight. -
Marcus at 09:32 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Argus. Who is it that you think is funding all of these so-called "skeptic groups"? Who do you think spends all that money on lobbyists to ensure most governments do as little as possible to encourage such things as energy efficiency, fuel efficiency & renewable energy technology? How else do you think the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy massive tax-payer subsidies-whilst they scream Blue Murder at even the slightest mention of subsidies for the renewable energy sector? Some countries have bucked the trend though. In spite of your attacks on Denmark & Germany, they have substantially reduced their total & per-capita CO2 emissions via a combination of increased renewable energy use & better energy efficiency (Germany has one of the lowest per-capita levels of energy use in the Western World, but enjoys a per-capita GDP on par with most other Western nations. For the record, Argus, I use public transport to get everywhere, am very energy efficient & source the bulk of my electricity from renewable sources-as do many of my friends. However, in spite of all of my efforts, I feel that I'm making little to no progress in the face of such a well organized & well-funded anti-mitigation campaign! -
Doug Bostrom at 08:50 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
JohnD, just to get calibrated here, are you in favor of a global, unplanned, decentralized and happenstance experiment w/the global atmosphere to see what happens to our food supply? Is this a thought experiment for you, or is it something you're anticipating as imminent? Regardless of your personal inclinations for or against hubristic accidents, for those who don't choose to participate in such an experiment, what words of wisdom do you offer? For instance, should crops found to have an adverse response to some combination of increased temperature, more or less moisture and more C02 be moved under domes, put in climate-controlled conditions? How will we pay for such adjustments? If a farmer now successfully growing a suite of crops of his choice and in the location of his choosing finds his choices constrained or removed, is forced to undergo costs to adjust to the new reality we're creating, how do you see the finances of such a situation being handled? Presumably you're ok with seeing your taxes increased to help with adjustments? Alternatively, you'd be ok with being impoverished? What's your personal preference? -
johnd at 08:12 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Philippe Chantreau at 02:26 AM, the yield increases don't just happen at the levels you indicated, but are happening all the time. Whilst most interest is in trials at higher levels of CO2, trials have also been done with lower levels of CO2 which indicate that growth at about 280ppm would have been about half of present day growth levels. -
johnd at 08:06 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Marcus at 13:38 PM , a decade may be a lifetime of experience to some, but especially in the agricultural sector, a lifetime of experience, plus that of their parents, plus that of their grandparents, merely gives a glimpse of the cycles and changes that drives the the whole industry. Despite the gloom and doom preached by those for whom the last drought is always the worst on record, for the current generation, they see that perhaps things may have been worse for their grandparents. Those having generations of experience to draw upon also recall some of the bad advice offered up by "scientists" at various times, especially with respect to chemical use, where what was portrayed as the latest breakthrough became the worst nightmare. Nowadays the average participant in the sector is better educated and better informed and better able to spot carpetbaggers. With regards to your concerns over the varying responses of different varieties, what did you expect? The scientists, as well as most well informed interested observers know that the various varieties all have different responses to different conditions, hence the range of varieties trialled. This knowledge is not only what drives the continual development of new varieties, but the usage of them. Perhaps this link from the Victorian Department of Primary Industry (DPI) sums up the official view of the trials. They see a 20% increase in yields, but most interesting is their view of CO2 being a fertiliser for plants. Obviously some will cherry-pick the negative aspects, but there doesn't appear to be any problems that are substantially different to those that have been overcome in the past as the science, and techniques developed have allowed productivity to continually increase. National wheat Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) array -
kdkd at 07:26 AM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #92 You're repeating yourself here. Essentially your argument seems to be about claiming that noise is signal. You appear to be claiming that a poor quality, highly complex measurement model is strong evidence against AGW. For such a complex noisy system, 6 years is a ridiculously short period of time in which to attempt to draw strong conclusions. If you want your argument to appear to have substance you'll have to do much better than fiddle with the minutae of a large coherent data set at the end of the series. -
Joe Blog at 07:21 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Marcus at 11:05 AM on 21 June, 2010 "My understanding of the reason why there hasn't been a runaway warming event in the past 72 million years is because the pool of available CO2 has been that present in the total biosphere during that entire period (around 280-300ppm). That is to say, even at the height of every past interglacial, the maximum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been less than 300ppm." Marcus, i think you would find that what you have written is true for the 2.5mybp, and in all probability out to around 15mybp... but i think you would find that at around as little as 45-50mybp, it was around 900ppm(when ice first started forming on Antarctica) It was continental drift that killed the last hot house and brought the globe into the present ice house, and basically it lead to a gradual burial o carbon from this period(45mybp) until 2.5mybp when the planet went into its glacial interglacial cycles, with the co2 around that 280-300ppm. -
How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
gallopingcamel, The problem with Hocker's argument was that he was taking a correlation and using that to make a causative argument (even worse, the things that he claims are causative are not part of his correlation). When it comes to CO2 lag scientists make no such claim. The models for temperatures and CO2 level change over these time periods are built up from physics, the historical data only acts as a confirmation of the predicted relationships. This is the appropriate way of using correlations: as evidence for a particular physical explanation, not the source of explanation itself. In this case, the historical data is consistent with what is predicted by the physical models: according to the models there should be a lag, so the lag supports the models. As such, if you want to criticize the models you'll have to address the physical assumptions, not correlations in the historical data. Otherwise, you are making the same error that Hocker is making. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:03 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
dhogaza.... Actually, I just went back and was looking through Knutti 2005 and they say in the introduction, "Atmospheric CO2 is prescribed directly in the idealized scenarios used here, other forcings are not considered." So, they get 1.4C to 6.5C without other forcings. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:47 AM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert I know that it's rhetorically important to focus on hypothetical, undemonstrated errors in the XBT-ARGO transition. Putting aside that thesis for a moment, is it your claim that -no- heating has been observed in the ocean over the instrumental record period? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:30 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Some food for thought and actual dollar numbers concerning public policy response, fears about the costs of mitigation may be found here: The Price to You for Modest Climate Action The article briefly describes the results of EPA's best effort to put a price on mitigation efforts resulting in significant changes to risk probabilities arising from increased C02 in the atmosphere. The nut of the article: In the absence of new policies, the EPA estimates that we have a 1 percent chance of keeping global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius goal set by the international community, by the year 2100. The probability that temperatures would rise by then above pre-industrial levels by as much as 4 degrees Celsius is 32 percent. With the passage of the American Power Act — in conjunction with assumed policies adopted by other G8 countries — the probability of staying below the 2-degree threshold increases to 75 percent. In exchange for this, the EPA predicts a “relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers.” The $79 to $146 figure, the annual average across the lifetime of a phased-in energy program through 2050, is modeled on a number of factors: the increased cost of energy with a price on carbon; the increased efficiency of items that consume energy; the behavioral decisions people will make as a result of both of these factors; as well as the impacts on wages and the revenue from emissions allowances that will be returned to households. For purposes of comparison, for privately purchased insurance of various forms we currently spend a little over $550 USD annually for every person on the planet. The EPA report may be viewed here: EPA Analysis of the American Power Act in the 111th Congress (pdf) -
dhogaza at 04:15 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
The multiplier is claimed to be water vapor, which is theorized to increase CO2 temperature effects by a factor of three. There is no defense of crisis theory in the claim that CO2 behaves like everyone agrees it does.
Beyond the fact that there's a lot of good reasons to expect relative humidity to, on average, remain roughly constant as temperatures warm ... There are detailed satellite observations to back it up, as NASA reported last year. A very large number of observations at various altitudes checked against model predictions showed that water vapor feedback was operating almost exactly as models predict. robhon:Roy Latham... I don't know where you get the 0.75C for doubling CO2. There are at near a dozen papers listed on this very website that put that figure closer to 3C.
He's talking about direct warming without feedbacks, which actually is "oneish" C, not 0.75C. The 3C figure is due to feedbacks, the major one being water vapor, as Roy points out. However, far from there being "no defense" of this, as I mention above, detailed satellite observations strongly support it. Roy says:Moreover, claims that CO2 was the cause of past interglacial warming, per Al Gore, are wrong. It was the effect, not the cause. It added a little to the warming as we would expect.
I doubt Al Gore misstated the science as badly as Roy says, but it doesn't matter, we care what scientists, not Gore, have to say. And scientists don't claim CO2 was the cause of the end of past ice ages. Rather, it's a feedback to the end of Milankovich cycles which, as you say, adds to the expected warming. Though more than "a little". -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, If temperatures just happen to stay at an anomaly of -.58, then yes, your model predicts no change in CO2, however consider what happens if temperatures remain "flat" at any other anomaly: Your model predicts that CO2 will continue changing forever. To summarize: if temperatures remain at an anomaly of exactly -.58, then your model predicts CO2 level will never change, if temperatures remain at any other anomaly, then the CO2 level changes forever. Also, if temperature anomaly is less than -.58, your model predicts a drop in CO2 levels, even if temperature has been increasing year to year! And the corollary: if temperature anomaly is greater than -.58, your model predicts an increase in CO2 levels, even if temperature is dropping! Does that really make sense to you? What's so magical about an anomaly of -.58 that the physics of CO2 accumulation hinges on it? This unphysical prediction is a direct result of what Ned has been telling you over and over again: your model is nothing but a hard-coded linear trend scaled by temperature anomaly. Replace temperature with any other linear trend and you can construct a model that is just as good as yours. The model has no real predictive power outside your sample set, and it certainly has no physical implications beyond a restatement of what was already known. -
VoxRat at 03:38 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
@ Roy Latham #26:"So if the ordinary behavior of CO2 is what occurs in the atmosphere, we would expect doubling CO2 to cause about 0.75 degrees of warming." Where did that figure come from? Do you have a reference? "The "CO2 crisis" comes from a theory that something in the atmosphere multiplies the effects of CO2 above it's ordinary physical greenhouse effect. The multiplier is claimed to be water vapor, which is theorized to increase CO2 temperature effects by a factor of three" Do you have references for this? It was my impression that the "positive feedback" effect (the "multiplier") came from the fact that more CO2 -> higher temperature -> more CO2 (released from ocean) -> etc. But I'm no expert. "Moreover, claims that CO2 was the cause of past interglacial warming, per Al Gore, are wrong." Do you have references for this? Did Al Gore (or anyone else) claim that CO2 was THE cause of past interglacial warming? -
actually thoughtful at 03:28 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Roy, Those are comforting thoughts. John Cook laid out the science in his post above. What is your source for disputing the accepted evidence and theory? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:26 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Roy Latham... I don't know where you get the 0.75C for doubling CO2. There are at near a dozen papers listed on this very website that put that figure closer to 3C. Forest 2002 - 1.4C to 7.7C Knutti 2005 - 1.5C to 6.5C Hegerl 2006 - 1.5C to 6.2C Annan 2006 - 2.5C to 3.5C Royer 2007 - 2.8C Lorius 1990 3C to 4C Hoffert 1992 - 1.4C to 3.2C Chylek 2007 - 1.3C to 2.3C -
Roy Latham at 02:44 AM on 22 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
As far as I know, no scientist doubts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The physics of the gas is well-determined by lab experiements. Adding CO2 increases temperature logarithmically, So if the ordinary behavior of CO2 is what occurs in the atmosphere, we would expect doubling CO2 to cause about 0.75 degrees of warming. The "CO2 crisis" comes from a theory that something in the atmosphere multiplies the effects of CO2 above it's ordinary physical greenhouse effect. The multiplier is claimed to be water vapor, which is theorized to increase CO2 temperature effects by a factor of three. There is no defense of crisis theory in the claim that CO2 behaves like everyone agrees it does. Moreover, claims that CO2 was the cause of past interglacial warming, per Al Gore, are wrong. It was the effect, not the cause. It added a little to the warming as we would expect. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:26 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
I'm not sure I agree with that. What matters most is proteins, and for that the key ingredient is nitrogen. In any case, closer examination of the "plant food" claims do not warrant the exuberant optimism shown by some. Considering that yield increases widely cited by skeptics happen between 550 and 1200 ppm and we have no idea what would happen globally with such levels, I will remain skeptical on this. If I recall, there was was no time in the Holocene with anything even remotely comparable to such CO2 levels, yet forests covered the Earth in all places where the rainfall permitted so. That does not point to CO2 as much of a limiting factor for plant growth. -
HumanityRules at 01:08 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
73 Philippe Chantreau "CO2 is no more plant food than you can serve up oxygen on a plate to people" In the process of photosynthesis the energy from sunlight is used to convert CO2 into sugars. The carbon in plant proteins, lipids and carbohydrates is solely derived from CO2. This is the starting point of all of the organic carbon in living beings. CO2 is the building block of plant food and everything else. In colloquial terms you could call it plant food without that being misleading. -
RickG at 00:54 AM on 22 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Look, let's cut through the chase. Scaletta clearly states that in the period 1970-2000 that 60% of the warming is due to the 60 & 20 year cycles while 40% is due to human causes. In other words a full 0.3 of 0.5 deg C is attributed solely to Scaletta's cycle. For that claim to have any validity, I would expect to see a 0.3 deg C increase in a 30 year period in relation to that cycle every time in addition to any other forcings. Conversely, I would expect to see a 0.3 deg C. drop at the bottom of that cycle in a 30 year span as well. I don't see it. Anyone? -
tobyjoyce at 00:03 AM on 22 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
@Arkadiusz Semczyszak Please explain, if "Even some of the IPCC scenarios IV assume increased precipitation in many deserts, arid zone (including the Sahel zone)", as you say, how can a paper finding that outcome be a refutation of AGW? Global extrapolation from a local study is risky. Better to see it as another piece of a very large and complex jigsaw. Does this particular piece not fit with the rest of the jigsaw? I think it fits, or at least does not contradict our growing understanding of the picture. Do you disagree? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:59 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
... not a single word about the solubility ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:56 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Whew ... if only it were so simple ... ... one of many examples that it is not ... ... but it is my favorite. During the warming increases significantly the amount of shelf seas, Epeiric arise (epicontinental sea - in the Cretaceous). Oolite disposal of CO2 is maybe more efficient, maybe faster than by solubility in cold oceans ... Another eight thousand. years ago, Lake Chad had an area of the Caspian Sea ... Recent trend in the global oceanic sink for CO2, Quere, 2009: "On a time-scale of decades, the global oceanic sink for CO2 is limited primarily by the rate at which oceanic circulation transports carbon from the surface to the deep ocean." "The exact fraction absorbed by the oceans depends on the re-organisation of the natural carbon cycle. Evidence from the geological past suggests that the oceans store less CO2 when the earth's temperature is warm. It is thought that the reduced ocean storage is driven by changes in the Southern ocean circulation, although the exact mechanism is NOT YET RESOLVED. [??]." -
Ken Lambert at 23:44 PM on 21 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris#43, Albatros#48 Marcus#53 Owl905#68 You all had better go back and read the "Robust" thread here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html Far from being 'flawed', both BP and I have shown the impossibility of the jumps in the 0-700m OHC charts being TOA imbalances over such short periods which happen to coincide with the change from XBT and the full deployment of Argo in 2003-04. The jump of about 7E22 Joules in a 2 year period is most likely an instrument offset error. Take out the jump and the OHC is pretty flat for the whole 16 year period - and the more accurate Argo data from the 6-7 anlyses starts to converge on a flatter trend over the last 6 years (Fig 2). Dr Tremberth's paper (Aug09) oft quoted here also summarises the sea level story in Table 1. The total land ice melt accounts for about 2.0mm of the total 'observed' 2.5mm rise per year (2004-2008), leaving about 0.4-1.2mm for the ocean thermal expansion. These numbers have wide error bars eg. 0.8mm +/-0.8mm is quoted for steric estimates. Chris and I have debated the TOPEX - Jason satellite transition - and if the two trends are linearized - there is a flattening in the Jason record closer to 2.0mm than 3.2mm per annum often quoted over the combined record. There is also the probably of an offset error in the transition. Lack of steric rise means lack of thermal expansion means lack of take-up of heat in the oceans which means - globally - lack of TOA imbalance - which means lack of global warming over the last 6 years at least. Cop that for reductive thinking. And finally if the current 'lack of warming' over the last 6 years or so is due to Chris' bottoming of the 11 year Solar cycle, there is a the difficult question of scale of forcing imbalance of Solar (0.25W/sq.m)compared with Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m overall 'observed' imbalance. In other words, if a drop of 0.25W/sq.m (top to bottom) of the 11 year cycle, flattens global warming over the last 6 years or so, then that suggests a similar warming figure was acting at the top of the cycle ie. about 0.25W/sq.m, which is a lot less than the Trenberth TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:12 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
"The truth is unfortunately not that simple ..." I only very briefly supplements Argus: The papers: A recent greening of the Sahel—trends, patterns and potential causes, Olsson et al., 2005: "Speculation [...] about the climatology of these droughts is unresolved, as is speculation about the effects of land clearance on rainfall and about land degradation in this zone. However, recent findings suggest a consistent trend of increasing vegetation greenness in much of the region. Increasing rainfall over the last few years is certainly one reason, but does not fully explain the change. Other factors, such as land use change and migration, may also contribute. [?!]" Even some of the IPCC scenarios IV assume increased precipitation in many deserts, arid zone (including the Sahel zone). Recently it was found that the Atacama desert was inhabited by people - 11-9. thousands BP ... For me, so skeptics (such as described here - "brilliant": and the fact that - ruthless ...) are needed, if only to refute the MYTHS (e.g. - Sahel - here probably AMO phase decides) - associated with AGW ... -
tobyjoyce at 23:09 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
@JMurphy, Bringing scientific questions into public fora or courts of law is a strategy of denialism, pioneered by tobacco deniers and creationists. These arenas are not suited to the settling of scientific questions, as fiascos like the OJ trial have shown. Appeals to emotions, ad-hominem attacks, twisting evidence, "spinning" events, pleading victimization, scapegoating and smearing are all legitimate debating and rhetorical tactics. And of course, they have been used by scientists, and do influence them, who are only human. In general these strategies are ruled out by science in preference to consideration of the evidence alone. Also, referring to marty's earlier comment, science is not a democracy. It is a complete meritocracy where the "victory" goes to the theory (idea, research program, or hypotheses) that fits the known facts. You can think of it as a fierce Darwinian struggle of ideas, where the winner is the one best adapted to the evidence. It is not in the least high-handed or arrogant to make you aware of that. Public debate has to be about public response to the scientific consensus, as it usually is in the case of the risk of a new flu epidemic, or the construction of a new nuclear power station, or a star wars defense system etc. -
HumanityRules at 22:59 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
71 Marcus "the negative impacts of increased senescence as climates warm. Nor have you dealt with the problems of increasing water scarcity (which is a *major* issue here in Southern Australia)" I'll give it a go at calming your alarm. Here's wheat yields in SA over the past 150 years.
A steady increase punctuated by major losses due to drought. The worst being 1915. Even in the worst of times in the late 20th century we're still more efficient than the best of years in the first half. This is because the improvements in farming (and plant breeding) has meant that to some extent we can mitigate the worst that nature can throw at us. I remember reading a paper on wheat strains (I know, exciting stuff) which lists the most used strain in each decade. Every decade the strains changed as better strains became available. I remember the paper because I was surprised by the amazing rapid pace of change. This process won't stop under the worst scenario of AGW. This is often forgotten.
Just back to SA. I think some of the poor interstate politics surrounding the Murray-Darling basin have contributed to SA farmers not getting their fair share of water. In fact a general argument could be made that Australian politician have been complacent about managing water for their growing population for many decades, regardless of what extra strain AGW might have placed on it. This isn't a climate problem, it's one based on poor human decisions. You let the politicians off the hook by blaming it all on AGW.
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:59 PM on 21 June 2010Astronomical cycles
@Marcus - sunspot ... The sun also, for instance through its "active" gravitational effect on Earth's volcanic activity - aerosols - and such as, cause e.g. transferred those to the activity of "direct" (TSI) Sun - LIA ... Please look at this picture: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/fig_tab/nature05072_F5.html (with: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate, Foukal et al., 2006, Nature). For example, year 1150 - 1300 - is nearly complete lack of direct correlation: sunspots - global temperature. Shifts in time are all too visible - even when compared with the newer (than in this work) temperature reconstructions. Present here the natural pattern of origin of the current warming - an explanation which will be dominated in the forthcoming report NIPCC (not the theory of Svensmark - like now). The increase in solar activity (TSI), is closely correlated with interactions of the planets in our star. Additionally, it causes (parallel - or cyclically delayed in time - the TSI) changes in the gravitational system the Sun - the planet - the Moon. Currently, a number of cycles is the most important series of changes to the layout Millennium - "Millennium" x multiples - it requires also, or the strongest short cycle - 60 years. The gravitational influence of solar system planetary radius of THC changes will affect the NAO, AMO, PDO, ENSO, about AO, etc. (Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change, Swanson, 2009,: "Variability associated with these latter processes, generally referred to as natural long-term climate variability, arises PRIMARILY FROM CHANGES IN OCEANIC CIRCULATION.") Currently, more energy is put to NH. Warming to NH - particularly the Arctic - is greater than in SH. They will run a strong positive feedback associated only with the NH (not in the SH): - Increases the area of the lower albedo (less sea ice, glaciers are melting); - Increased evaporation - the greenhouse effect (on the NH is more land than the SH, the lands have a lower thermal inertia compared to the oceans ...), greater CO2 emission from the richest soils in carbon ...; Moreover, when such changes in THC - AMO - of ENSO, El Nino often occurs - it is stronger - the ocean gives more (and faster) energy ... In conclusion, in our view, the system planets - the Sun - Earth - Moon - by affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation, corresponds to (mostly) for the increased capacity of the Earth's atmosphere to heat accumulations (...). - and with that Marcus (and al.) should discuss. .. and for me is the impact of THC on the MOON seems to be the most important ... P.S. In addition, I recommend the discussion: Dickman, 2006, Short and longer-term planetary effects on Sun and Earth; Mackey, 2009, The Sun's role in regulating the Earth's climate dynamics. -
Argus at 21:00 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
"Marcus" seems very focussed around the fossil fuel industry, as if the industry itself, and its hunger for profits, is the sole reason why the countries of the world are using so much coal and oil (and not their need for energy). Some Marcus quotes from this post: "...*rather* than the fossil fuel industry should lose even a single dollar of their mega-profits..." "...promulgates another myth of the fossil fuel industry..." "...rather than suggest that the fossil fuel industry should have their profits cut by so much as a single dollar!" "...those who're trying to push fossil fuel industry propaganda down our throats..." "...the message being how good the fossil fuel industry is being to us..." I would think the problem with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels lies deeper than with the needs for industry profit. In China they open up a new coal-fired plant roughly every week, and burn two billion tons of coal a year. USA is in the same league as China (with about one billion tons). In addition they use 3 million cubic metres of petroleum per day. German energy supply is largely based on burning brown coal from local strip mines. How can we replace this growing need for energy in the world with other sources? Denmark is one of the world leaders in wind power, but they still only get 20% of their energy from the wind. How do we convince American drivers that they should drive their cars less? USA has more than 250 million passenger cars (with their use even encouraged by low taxes on gasoline). They already think their gas is too expensive. How many in this forum drive a car, and travel regularly by air? Should you continue doing so? Have you considered basing your own life on energy only from the sun - including wind and water - (or from radioactive fuel, if you like that stuff)? If you already have, how are you planning to convince all the millions of others in your country to do the same? -
JMurphy at 20:43 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
marty, the debate about the science is taking place within the scientific community and can be seen by looking at the papers published on the subject of Climate Change. There, you will see where the evidence lies. I have never understood how anyone can claim that they aren't able to work out what the science says unless there is a public debate or some sort of legal case, etc. Perhaps we should also debate as to whether we accept Evolution or the origins of the Universe ? As for your views about the world ending up in a 'Green dictatorship, backed by an evil scientocracy' (I paraphrase), I just wonder how you even think that such a thing is possible ? It sounds as if you have read (and believed) some so-called skeptical expert (perhaps Monckton ?) pontificating on the affects of limiting the output of CO2, claiming that it will lead to a Marxist/Leftist New World Order taking us back to the Stone Age ! Otherwise, where do you get your ideas on that from ? -
tobyjoyce at 19:08 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
MattJ @60 I must concede on that one (sigh!):( My point was intended for an ideal world, where politicians determine policy based on scientific input, not on what plays in the media or with rich backers. -
tobyjoyce at 19:06 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
marty @59, Given that a "balanced" public debate is no longer possible, there is also the "prudence principle" to be taken into account. The prudence principle says that you should take steps to mitigate or prevent calamitous outcomes, even if they are unlikely. That is the principle behind taking out any sort of insurance, like against a road accident, housefire or serious illness. The probability of each of these events is very low, but the outcome is so bad that insurance is advisable. Now there is a reasonable methodology to working out how much of your income you should devote to insurance, that is what actuaries do. Some insurance policies are also a means of saving money. That is a good analogy for taking action on global warming. While we have the time, we can start investing in an insurance policy (alternative energy) that will pay off in the long run. Should the adverse circumstances not pan out, we still have the savings. My fear, which is turning into a conviction, is that global action will not happen until they evidence is overwhelming. At that point, some of the most adverse effects may be irrversible. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:47 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
A few extra things that can be observed from the Ice core shown in Jo's SH. Look closely at the point where the warming first starts. Temps & CO2 both start to move up at around the same time. It is only later that the Temp trend starts to lead the CO2 trend. Look also at the difference between the warming phase, where CO2 follows Temp quite well vs the cooling phase where the relationship between CO2 and Temps is more indistinct. This actually matches what we might expect. At the bottom of the cycle, huge ice sheets cover large areas of the world, resulting in a low Albedo. A Milankovitch cycle kicks things off and Temps & CO2 start to rise. Also not shown here is possible methane release due to melting permafrost at the edge of the ice sheets. Methane is a powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas which then converts to CO2. So methane could give a significant warming while only leaving a small CO2 residual in the ice core. Also, the ice sheets are so thick that it may be millenia before they start to thin enough and break up. An ice sheet 100 metres thick has essentially the same albedo as one 1 kilometre thick. So they are quite likely shrinking in mass for long periods before any significant albedo change cuts in. So a quite likely sequence of drivers during the warming phase is Milankovitch then Methane then CO2 then Albedo Change. Now look at the cooling phase. The Temp signal looks much noisier during the early stages, and CO2 doesn't drop much at all. In fact it is relatively stable while Temps climb further at the end of the warming then drop. What could drive this? Consider; The ice sheets have retreated, leaving bare rock. It will take reasonable periods of time for any meaningful amount of soil to be created there. Then vegetation starts to colonise the exposed land. Not just lichens but later forests. Large Carbon stores. So at the end of the warming phase it is quite possible that CO2 levels were being held down by their absorption by the expanding Biomass while Temps are being driven further up by albedo change as the ice sheets really start to collapse. As things start to cool, colder weather returns and more snowfall. A few metres of snow has the same albedo as kilometer thick ice sheets. So albedo change can now be a driver very early in the process. And as Temp's drop, you would expect the oceans to start reabsorbing CO2. But there is a store of carbon in the extra biomass that grew during the interglacial. As the cooling progresses and this biomass starts to die-back, this is a store of carbon that can be released into the environment, offsetting to some extent the drawdown by the oceans, holding CO2 levels up. The noisy Temp' signal during the early part of the cooling phase is what you might expect when natural climate varibiality is occuring during the cooling. A 50 year warmer phase for example could easily remelt snow and ice accumulations when they are still relatively thin, resulting in an oscillation of albedo as a consequence of climate variability. This would only settle down once the degree of cooling is greater than natural variability and remelt cannot be completed; then the accumulation of ice would start in earnest. But none of these kinds of considerations fit into the simplistic meme that 'CO2 follows Temps, so Temps cause CO2'. Sometimes the world of the Climate Sceptics is a comfortingly simple world. Maybe that is its appeal. MattJ To your comment about positive feedbacks, the answer is the second - change the gain. In fact, as long as the gain is less than 1, it will always be a limiting feedback. Examples of how the gain is limited in the climate wrt the ice cores. Albedo can only change due to ice melt until the ice is all melted - then no more feedback. And as ice retreats to just the polar regions the feedback is declining anyway. Similarly albedo change during the cooling phase is limited since ice sheets simply can't spread that far over water. Co2 gain is limited during warming by the logarithmic nature of its radiative effect. Similarly, as cooling progresses the reduction in the volume of the oceans due to sea level fall because more ice is forming on land starts to limit how much CO2 can be bound up in the oceans. So too biomass decline in cold climates will limit the amount of carbon stored in biomass, making it harder to sequester CO2. In the longer time scale, chemical weathering of rocks that removes CO2 from the atmosphere via the formation of Carbonic Acid will be slower in cold climates, faster in hot ones. And balanced against this is the ongoing slow outgassing of CO2 from vulcanism. -
Megan Evans at 16:40 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
For comparison - Monckton tickets were $150 a headResponse: Lord, how that Monckton put bums on seats! :-) -
Megan Evans at 16:34 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
doug_bostrom - Not sure what the total cost will be for the CS Party to bring Watts out here, but the ticket itself was $20. Looks likely they will make a hefty loss. -
David Horton at 16:32 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Thanks Chris, having seen the latest reconstructions of the possible past extent of oceans on Mars it occurred to me to wonder if the initial loss of water was due to an early greenhouse effect. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:06 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
BTW, what was the cost of having Watts in to speak? I'm thinking of Christopher Monckton, who cost the "Climate Sceptics Party" something like $100k AUD for his roadshow. Only $20k or about $2500/performance directly to Monckton, mind, the balance being spent on travel and accommodation expense. Does Watts command a similar fee? If I were a show promoter looking at the empty room pictured above I'd be squirming. -
Chris Colose at 15:40 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
David, the current mainstream paradigm is that this is what happened in Venus' early history. This is the only planet is our solar system that experienced such a fate, although presumably there are many other planets outside our solar system which can support an atmosphere and receive enough solar radiation for this to be relevant. On Mars, almost the opposite occurred. The climate evolution of Mars is a tug of war between the sun gradually brightening over geologic time, and the loss of its atmosphere. Geologic evidence for the presence of water suggests that the stronger greenhouse effect temporarily won out in its distant past (although quantifying the levels of CO2 or other greenhouse gases needed to get ancient Mars above freezing is a long-standing issue in comparative planetology and not yet possible with current spectral database information). However, the atmosphere has slowly faded away, and today is only a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric mass. Mars will never again have any significant atmosphere, and thus cannot generate any meaningful greenhouse effect even if what little of it remains is mostly CO2...The planet is now extremely cold, so in no sense can it be said to have experienced a runaway greenhouse. All the water is frozen beneath the Martian sand. It will take a long time for the sun to keep brightening for Martian temperatures to approach Earth-like values. For Earth, the range of temperature and CO2 feedback variation that we have experienced in the past are rather small from the perspective of planetary climate. Sure they can get you in and out of an ice age (even the PETM which was one of the best examples of a hellish hothouse and abrupt GHG-induced warming was nothing compared to the temperatures observed on Venus or Mercury, and that cooled down relatively rapidly); however there's a strong converging limit as to how much CO2 feedback you're going to get out of the oceans just by raising the temperature. One interesting discussion on this is here. The domain of interest when discussing the CO2 feedback to warming over the glacial-interglacial cycles should not be taken too far outside the bounds of glacial-interglacial cycles, as things are going to change over different timescales and ranges of temperature. It isn't as though temperature and CO2 are going to keep rising forever, and clearly the ice-albedo feedback diminishes with time and goes to zero when there is no more ice. Just as when you drop a bouncing ball to the ground and let it go, eventually the height of each successive bounce decreases with time. Prior to the point when it stops bouncing completely, you get to the point where it just bounces a millimeter or so up and down for a little while and you can still calculate a number for the total distance that ball went up and down over the course of its journey. This is how feedback (radiative or carbon-based) tend to work on Earth, and is quantified in a manner similar to Jim Eager's post in #10. If you define a feedback factor "f" which diminishes with time (so f < 1) then an example converging series looks like 1 + f + (f^2)+(f^3)...(f^n). Eventually you can add up an infinite number of numbers and still converge to a real finite number (!) since f raised to the power of n becomes exceedingly small when f is between zero and one, and n becomes large. By the way, if you get an hour or so to sit and watch an excellent climate talk on CO2's role over geologic time, you should definitely watch Richard Alley's a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml">presentation presentation at the recent AGU meeting. It is very interesting and informative. -
scaddenp at 15:24 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
thingadonta - why do you get this idea? The climate models always work on premise that climate is response to all forcings and temperature feedbacks happen irrespective of forcing. See 2nd paragraph of Chris's post above. The estimates of sensitivity from past climate change HAVE to work on basis of solar induced feedbacks. One of the arguments against low sensitivity is that you couldnt get ice age cycle without strong feedbacks as the forcing is so weak. The question really is about WHICH forcings are most dominant at the moment. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:16 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Since you guys did the reading, can you clarify whether these results were obtained at 550ppm but with current ambient temps or at temps that would be consistent with 550ppm? Btw, let's drop the plant food theme. CO2 is no more plant food than you can serve up oxygen on a plate to people. Plant food is made of nutrients, mostly nitrates and phosphates, is it not? -
thingadonta at 15:11 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
#14 Ned. My concern is that positive feedbacks seem to only ever be applied to greenhouse gases, not to eg the sun. This is inconsistent. For eg, if we stopped all greenhouse gas emmissions now, we would still get warming for several decades because of all the heat already gone into the oceans. But why can't this also apply to changes in insolation/output from the sun 1750-1950, eg from when the sun stopped increase in output from about 1750-1950s- to the late 20th century, or after the end of ice ages, to swamp the relative effects of greenhouse gases, in both cases?Response: You're completely correct that positive feedbacks don't apply just to greenhouse gases. They apply to any warming whether it be from the sun or greenhouse gases.
So there is a time lag after the sun stops increasing. A paper by Sami Solanki compares the temperature record to solar activity over the last 10,000 years or so. He finds a lag of around a decade - when the solar output changes, it takes around a decade for the temperature to come back to equilibrium.
What happened throughout the 20th Century was the sun warmed in the first half of the century, then levelled off in the 1950s. So what we expect to see if after the sun leveled off in the 1950s, if the sun was the major driver of climate over the 20th Century, we would see global temperatures continue to rise for a decade or two (or three) as it gradually approached equilibrium.
Instead we see the opposite. After the 1950s, we experienced cooling then as we got further away from the 1950s, the planet's energy imbalance actually increased rather than decreased towards equilibrium. So we're going in the opposite direction to what we expect if solar changes was the main driver of climate.
When I write these blog posts, I could qualify every statement along the way - point out that CO2 is not the only driver of climate every time I mention the warming effect of CO2. Mention that CO2 positive feedback is not the only positive feedback and in fact, water vapour feedback is the greatest feedback. But each post would get pretty turgid, unwieldy and unreadable with so many qualifications. Nevertheless, I do try to mention these general principles on a regular basis along with links to the appropriate pages. -
David Horton at 14:28 PM on 21 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
"Runaway Warming" - that's interesting Chris, I'm learning a lot today in various venues. So presumably, by your definition, only Venus and Mars have experienced "Runaway Warming" in our solar system, is that right? And Earth can't. I had always taken the phrase to refer to the continuing feedback of more CO2 gives higher temps gives more CO2 and so on. And then, in addition, more warming gives release of methane, lower albedo, and so on, so that you get even more warming, and so on. That is, unless you can break the loop by dropping CO2 levels, you will find temperatures rising faster and faster to whatever theoretical maximum is possible given Earth's geography and atmosphere, and at that maximum we are all in big big trouble. It may not be "runaway" to infinity (as it were) but it is runaway as far as the well being of life forms on the planet are concerned. -
Marcus at 14:15 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Sorry, but I really feel that other people need to see why the result of the FACE study is not as great as John D wants us to believe. Here are the grain yield results (in grams/meter squared) Drysdale: ambient 475 +/- 25/elevated 525 +/- 25 Gladius: ambient 450 +/- 25/elevated 550 +/- 25 H45: ambient 425 +/- 25/elevated 450 +/- 25 Hartog: Ambient 625 +/- 25/elevated 625 +/- 25 Janz: ambient 400 +/- 25/elevated 550 +/- 25 Silverstar: ambient 475 +/- 25/elevated 500 +/- 25 Yitpi: ambient 550 +/- 25/elevated 650 +/- 25 Zebu: ambient 400 +/- 25/elevated 500 +/- 25. So really, with the exception of Gladius & Janz, none of the varieties are showing a huge increase in grain yield in elevated CO2 conditions-once you've accounted for variability-even before we account for the deleterious effects of reduced water availability & increased senescence/heat stress due to warming. This is why I believe their overall summary (which I posted above IN FULL) is so circumspect-yet still John D wants to report these results as entirely positive. If I tried to pull that kind of spin off in my job, I'd be lucky to keep it! -
Marcus at 13:38 PM on 21 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Oh John D, please do enlighten this poor "ignorant" soul (who actually works closely with farmers from across the whole of Southern Australia-& has a DECADE of experience working in the field of the Agricultural Sciences) about where I've actually "cherry-picked" the data. All I've done is to highlight the relevant data-namely the grain yield per meter squared. An overall increase in biomass is *useless* to us if its primarily restricted to vegetative biomass-given that its the seeds we primarily want. The other relevant piece of data is the protein yield, which is also not positive. Decrease the protein yield per gram of seed, & you'll need to increase your intake to get the same amount of protein. Yet we're supposed to believe this is GOOD NEWS? Only to those who're trying to push fossil fuel industry propaganda down our throats. BTW, buddy, I live in South Australia-the driest State on the driest continent on Earth-so please don't lecture me on aridity! I also note that you've got nothing to say about the acclimation they noted in the trial, or my point about the negative impacts of increased senescence as climates warm. Nor have you dealt with the problems of increasing water scarcity (which is a *major* issue here in Southern Australia) All of which suggests to me that you *know* that this is an increasing problem, but you're avoiding any mention of it so you can stay "on message"-the message being how good the fossil fuel industry is being to us by producing all this extra CO2. Guess what, its a broken record & some of us are getting sick of hearing it after its been so totally debunked!
Prev 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 Next
