Recent Comments

Prev  2407  2408  2409  2410  2411  2412  2413  2414  2415  2416  2417  2418  2419  2420  2421  2422  Next

Comments 120701 to 120750:

120701. batsvensson at 05:01 AM on 18 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        Chris, 1. What percentage of the marine genera would the example constitutes? 2. It is unclear to me how (i), (ii), (iv) contradicting what I wrote. (iii), yes possible.
120702. johnd at 04:54 AM on 18 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        JMurphy at 03:47 AM, is it not obvious why economics force moves in any form of production. Look at China, apart from manufacturing, now a major source of apples as well as an increasing amount of other foods that are displacing locally grown food on many of the worlds tables. In the case of apples, it is not so much the development of new cultivars of apples that has apples growing in various tropical countries, but the development of new "cultivars" of thinking by people who are not burdened by conventional group thinking, people who were not expert enough to "know" that apples could only be grown in certain locales under certain conditions. As fast a some people think climate change is occurring, these new "cultivars" of thinking and changing economics are changing at a much faster rate. With regards to my figures, much of my proof has been in the eating, having spent more than half of the last four decades there. A quick Google search throws up these pages, providing some reference, unofficial, but reflecting what is commonly known and accepted. http://www.asia-planet.net/indonesia/tropical-fruits.htm http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=120_49 http://www.planetmole.org/indonesian-news/apple-farmers-go-organic-kota-batu-east-java.html I checked your FAOSTAT link and notice their information on even major Indonesian crops seems to be merely estimates and unofficial figures, so clearly their information on Indonesia is somewhat limited and they haven't dug too deeply, though I would have thought apples should have been on their radar being much more than just a few trees in a few villages.
120703. Philippe Chantreau at 04:32 AM on 18 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        As for the volcanic CO2, that should also be put in context. Currently, anthropogenic emissions are approximately 150 times larger than volcanic. So, from the CO2 change point of view, we are mimicking periods when volcanic activity was 150 times greater than now. To be honest, I don't really know how it would compare to the Dekkan traps or Siberian traps but that would still be rather impressive. I don't know what kind of oceanic "high resistance to pH change" it would take for that to go unnoticed.
120704. suibhne at 04:27 AM on 18 April 2010
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        A number of people make comments about the Earth heating up without considering the massive thermal capacity of the Earth. In the following example I have exaggerated in every possible way to see what is required to raise the temperature of the planet by just one degree. I have used a very simple model of the Earth made of uniform material with reasonable conductivity If the Earth absorbed all the Suns radiation that landed on it and absolutely no heat ever escaped. How long would it take for the temperature to rise by 1 degree centigrade. Formula used Pxt =cm(temperature rise) P=1367W/m2x(crosssectional area of Earth) t =time in seconds C = specific heat capacity = 1000 (you can tweek this number if you like) m = Mass of Earth =6×10power24 When calculated it turns out to be 1080 years.
120705. JMurphy at 03:47 AM on 18 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        johnd, why would economics force, say, apple production to move to areas not previously used for such production ? Also, could you provide the link for the figures you gave because I'm wondering if you are using figures for Wax apples, which are not the same. Can you provide a link because I can't find anything on the FAOSTAT site. HumanityRules, the fact that you suggest that any references to climate change (especially within a report that acknowledges climate change as a mitigating factor among many other mitigating factors, and which highlights how important it is among all those other factors) are political/conspiracy/whatever (that you alone can determine all by yourself, of course), says more about you and your outlook on the world than it does about anything else. I note also, unsurprisingly, that you have not given any names or links to those 'conservationists' you mentioned previously, or to any 'disaster-peddlers'. Why is that ?
120706. chris at 03:23 AM on 18 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        batsvensson, 1. I can't see where your interpretation comes from. I'd say we can be fairly sure that with current emission scenarios, in 100 years the world's corals will largely be degrading relics, and marine organisms requiring aragonite saturation for creating shells and skeletons will be in decline. You'll have to consult an expert or look more deeply into the science to get a feeling for the knock-on consequences of these effects. But the seas obviously won't be "dead"! 2. There's zero evidence that the current increase in atmospheric [CO2] is a response to some unidentified mass extinction. Can you supply some? It's your notion, so it's really up to you...(and please outline the mechanism underlying your hypothesis). The notion is contradicted by the facts that: (i) The profile of atmospheric [CO2] increase is matched by the known emissions, and can be accounted for by quantitative analysis of our cumulative emissions (ii) The terrestrial environment has absorbed about 10% of our emissions as a result of slightly enhanced pimary production. This is incompatible with a terrestrial mass extinction, which, in any case, we know hasn't happened, even if there have been some species extinctions and many stressed environments. (iii) The isotopic signature of enhanced atmospheric [CO2] (greatly decreasing 13C/12C ratio, and decreasing 14C/12C ratio at least during the period to 1954, when nuclear testing has complicatd the analysis), indicates that enhanced atmospheric [CO2] has come from a fossil fuel source. (iv) The high resolution atmospheric [CO2] record shows that atmospheric [CO2] has been rather steady during (at least) the 1000 years up to around the mid 19th century. There is no evidence for a "mass extinction" starting in the mid-19th century (and the rise in atmospheric [CO2] levels match human emissions from around that time). ...etc. etc.
120707. embb at 01:38 AM on 18 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Comparing the carbon tax with the decision to play or not to pay taxes has a pretty large logical hole: namely you have a state that has the power to make this decisin a no-brainer and it also offers benefits to those who pay their taxes in the form of schools etc. Carbon taxes do not play inside a state - so there is no police to enforce conformance - and the benefits are theoretical at most : the avoidance of something possibly bad happening in about 100 years. So all incentives are for defecting and there is no punishment - how practical is this idea?
120708. embb at 01:33 AM on 18 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Jacob:"Arguing that the decision whether to pay the tax or not poses a dilemma is not obvious. For example, if you import a car from China you can estimate the amount of CO2 emitted to build it using coal. If the producer denies using coal you let them carry the burden of proof because laws in your country prevents import of goods whose production damages the environment." This is in effect a trade war under the pretext of global warming - and an extreme form of protectionism. Not to mention that it does not work in practice - as it will boil down to the question of what kind of proofs will you accept? How much of a price increase are you willing to load on your own citizens - i.e. cheap imported car vs. expensive native one? How about smuggling and directly financing the mafia... Jacob:Kyoto obviously failed because the Bush administration did not ratify it i.e. they defected. No, Kyoto failed because the signatories did not implement the measures that were needed to actually achieve its goals, meaning that everybody defected - which was the logical thing to do. Lawsuits will not change that. And BTW Kopenhagen failed because the Chinese were not willing to play ball? And now several lawsuits IN CHINA are based on that???
120709. Riccardo at 23:07 PM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        HumanityRules, where did Doug and I say that those data should be thrown away? Nowhere. Do you think, instead, that it's fair to draw conclusions on the climate history of the whole arctic based on just one date in a very small region? I'm sure you don't. I think you should not defend whatever claim coming from someone on your side, it might be wrong as likely as mine.
120710. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 21:24 PM on 17 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        embb (...) any pricing of carbon emissions will create "game theoretical traps" like the tragedies of the commons. Arguing that the decision whether to pay the tax or not poses a dilemma is not obvious. For example, if you import a car from China you can estimate the amount of CO2 emitted to build it using coal. If the producer denies using coal you let them carry the burden of proof because laws in your country prevents import of goods whose production damages the environment. Just because a new technology is expensive to acquire is no argument against using it if the total lifetime cost, on a global scale, is less. Any measure that does not calculate with these traps and just wishes they were not there is bound to fail - like Kyoto. Kyoto obviously failed because the Bush administration did not ratify it i.e. they defected. This perpetuated the tragedy of the commons, and several lawsuits in the US are now based on it. An interesting example is that the lawyers that faced off during the battle between 13 states and Phillip Morris in 1998, which lead to a whopping 200 billion USD settlement, have teamed up. They represent the village Kivalina and are accusing American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change. It is an interesting read: "A government memo obtained by Greenpeace outlines a State Department official’s talking points for a meeting with energy-company lobbyists: the president, the memo says, “rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.”" That is indeed a trap that the energy companies set up for themselves.
120711. batsvensson at 21:10 PM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        chris, 1. It is referring to the OP. Anyway, should I understand your comment that you believe it is a possibility that within, say, the next hundred year all of live in the seas may be dead? 2. What make you believe there is "zero evidence" and that this is "contradicted by what we know"?
120712. HumanityRules at 20:04 PM on 17 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        52.JMurphy at 18:30 PM on 14 April, 2010 These are your words. "why not have a read into how climate change is affecting British species" Not A pointer, "IS" affecting British species. The report IS essentially about hatitat loss the fact that the authors need to kneel at the alter of climate change is unfortunate.
120713. HumanityRules at 19:55 PM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        Peter your figure in #38 somewhat contradicts the "Long term seasonal trends in Arctic Ice extent" in the original article which only records a drop in ice extent since the 1950s.
120714. HumanityRules at 19:51 PM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        34.doug_bostrom at 03:32 AM on 15 April, 2010 35.Riccardo at 05:42 AM on 15 April, 2010 Both seem a little unfair to BP. While he highlights to record he also provides a visual representation over several centuries. Data is data. If we threw away all incomplete data in the climate sciences there would be very little left. I'm also not sure why you'd want a particularly linear decrease in sea ice over a century or more as indicated by the figure in #38.Peter Hogarth. This reconstruction of Greenlands temperature for the past 150 years (fig10) by those infamous skeptics Jones and Briffa suggests that temperatures are far from linear. In fact the 1930's were warmer than present. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
120715. chris at 19:43 PM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        batsvensson, I was addressing your assertion that: "However, I do not think we need to worry for anoxia to appear on a global level (i.e. kill a majority of all marine life) the atmosphere would need to be depleted of oxygen for this to happen." and pointing out that the atmosphere doesn't need to be depleted of oxygen for this (anoxia) to happen. Not sure what your point about "anoxia" refers to anyway. The main environmental stressors for coral morbidity/mortality are warming and ocean acidification, both of which are happening and likely to be increasingly problematic in the coming decades. As for your "hypothesis"; why would we propose or consider a hypothesis for which there is not only zero evidence, but which is robustly contradicted by what we know of the real world? I don't see how it takes us anywhere scientifically speaking...
120716. HumanityRules at 19:36 PM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        #48 http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum08.html The world glacier monitoring service preliminary data for 2007/2008 suggests 1/3 of studied glaciers are advancing while overall there is a nett retreat. The need to qualify glacier advancement seems like a bias in the outlook of the reporter. No real need to explain the many complex variables of retreating glacier the answer in that case is obvious!
120717. Riccardo at 18:53 PM on 17 April 2010
        Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
        by the way, here is Science Perspectives article and here UCAR press release.
120718. batsvensson at 18:23 PM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        @ Chris #51 1. I am not aware of any known process that suggest that the oceanic circulations are going to stop even slow down. Are you? 2. I wrote "hypothesis", not "theory".
120719. Riccardo at 18:20 PM on 17 April 2010
        Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
        plazaeme, i find weird your contrasting between science and scientists. But anyway, i find even stranger that a skeptic like Pielke fail to recognize the limitations of our observing system, which is the mantra of the skeptic world including Pielke. Trenberth's point is quite simple, we can not close the energy budget and this can not be explained just by errors in satellite measurements. The obvious conclusion is that our observing system is not fully adequate to the task. I would have guessed that everyone could agree.
120720. chris at 17:53 PM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        You’re still making fundamental errors of logic thingadonta Volcanoes during the Cretaceous. Eruptive tectonic activity (volcanoes; igneous province eruptions etc.) were active during much of the Cretaceous at a level that resulted in raised greenhouse gas warming and an increase in the carbon cycle at a rate around double that of present. The fact that volcanic/tectonic activity makes no significant contribution to raised greenhouse levels now, but did then isn’t a difficult concept to grasp! Volcanos/tectonic activity isn’t “only important when it’s convenient”; the activity is important when it’s important, and unimiportant when it’s unimportant. We live in a contingent world where things change, and thus events and contributions are different at different times in Earth history. If we’re considering the effects of raised greenhouse gas levels (and sulphurous oxides) on global temperature and ocean acidification, then that’s the essential point and we can’t make categorical statements about what volcanoes, or people or impacts can or can’t do, and then ignore the evidence. Anything that raises greenhouse gas/sulphurous oxide levels quickly will cause rapid warming, and rapid ocean acidification. That seems to be what happens at the KT boundary, and the evidence indicates rapid ocean acidification and rapid extinctions. Likewise greenhouse gas levels are rising rapidly now, temperatures are rising rapidly and ocean acidification is increasing rapidly. The fact that many of the extinctions in the deep past seemingly occurred as a result of processes happening over long periods, doesn’t preclude the likelihood that processes that act quickly (bolide-induced vaporization of calcium carbonate and sulphate deposits; massive, rapid oxidation of long-sequestered fossil fuels), may result in rather rapid extinctions. The end Cretaceous informs us of that (see refs. in my post #45; the lesser PETM extinctions are another example). Ocean buffering mechanisms. The major ocean buffering mechanisms are (i) the very slow ocean circulations that dilute the effects of local perturbations on the 100’s to 1000 year timescale; (ii) the carbonic acid-bicarbonate-carbonate equilibrium that acts to maintain the pH of the oceans. While this makes the oceans resistant to change in pH, it doesn’t make it impervious to change, and in fact we know that rapid increase in CO2 levels (and perhaps massive vaporization of sulphates such as likely occurred at the KT impact), can overwhelm the buffering capacity of the oceans, particularly the important surface regions (upper several hundreds of metres). Since we have strong evidence that this occurred rather quickly following the KT impact (see papers linked in my post #45), and can measure the acidification of the oceans in the real world, we can hardly base our views on a mantra that “it takes tens of thousands of years to change them”. A very rapid increase in the surface absorption of atmospheric acids can overwhelm both the chemical buffering and the ocean circulation contributions to buffering. Again, when things change slowly they change slowly; when they change quickly they change quickly! There are no set rules. Incidentally many relevant elements of ocean buffering can be rather easily transferred to the lab. The H2CO2 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3-- + H+ equilibrium is straightforward and well understood, including its response to acidification. Lkewise the aragonite saturation that is crucial for shell and skeleton formation by many marine organisms is rather well understood and can be transferred to the lab. There’s a huge scientific literature on this (see for example papers in a recent issue of Oceanography recent issue of Oceanography , and refs in/cites of this). Coral bleaching. To assert that “corals get over it all the time” and referring to “seasonality”, is not relevant. We’re not considering variations (especially temperature and pH) within a range to which populations are adapted. We’re considering very rapid persistent trends (in sea temperature and acidity) towards regimes to which corals are poorly adapted. Real world observations indicates corals are increasingly unable to “get over it”.
120721. plazaeme at 17:40 PM on 17 April 2010
        Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
        You may try to know what "the science" (whatever that is) says, or you may try to know what the different scientists say. In the later case, and unless you think Roger Pielke sr. is not a scientist, you may be interested in this debate: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/is-there-missing-heat-in-the-climate-system-my-comments-on-this-ncar-press-release/
120722. embb at 17:30 PM on 17 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Guys, it is nice discussion but you forget the original article: the point is that any pricing of carbon emissions will create "game theoretical traps" like the tragedies of the commons. Google can want whatever they can imagine (e.g. a have seen a calculation of how much CO2 emission is caused by a google search so thjey will probalbly warmly welcome a tax on internet searches) the traps are there and waiting. Any measure that does not calculate with these traps and just wishes they were not there is bound to fail - like Kyoto.
120723. thingadonta at 16:17 PM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        #45 Chris: The extinctions you refer to are not 'rapid' (KT/ POTM). They occur over tens of thousands or years+. This is the main issue, and why papers such as Veron are wrong/misleading. Verons article on 'coral reef crisis' is an exercise in exageration. Have a look at his language designed to produce the greatest exageration possible: "degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events." Both not true. Severe weather has not increased. When reefs are impacted by severe weather, they always recover, you would think they have evolved to, after millions of years of 'severe weather'. Opportunistc species rebuild them, as in after volcanic eruptions in the Pacific, Krakatoa etc. "other environmental impacts." ie if you run out of enough 'disaster' words, just say 'other environmental impacts', that way you don't have to explain it. "Perhaps most importantly, there is no evidence that reefs have ever experienced true parallels to today’s anthropogenically-driven combination of stressors." Baloney. End Permian, end K/T, POTM. All 3 took tens of thousands of years. All 3 worse than now. Veron wants us to believe that puny humans can outbeat the Siberian Traps several hundred thousand years of explosive volcanism. His statement that we have lost 19% of reef since 1970 is a gross distortion. (We should get Macintyre and Lomborg onto these coral reef exagerators). What's more, if temperatures have risen, this promotes coral reef growth at the margins of their range: eg Southern Barrier reef etc, I know this partly becuase I studied this area and this issue in my honours thesis. Nowhere does he mention that the ocean has buffering mechanisms which cannot be easily reproduced in the laboratory, and which make oceans VERY resistant to rapid chemical change, as the geological record shows (which is why it takes tens of thousands of years to change them and for marine species to go extinct in geological time periods). Veron completely ignores this, because it is in his interest to promote as much 'quick catastrophism' as possible. Mass coral bleachings are a natural event that occured before the 1970s, there is 'little record of it' before this because no one was looking. Communities in the Pacific have recorded it for hundreds/thousands of years. "The 1997/1998 mass bleaching event killed approximately 16% of coral communities globally (Berkelmans and Oliver, 1999; Wilkinson, 2004). It was also the start of a decline from which there has been no significant long-term recovery." Incorrect, corals are used to such events, it occurs seasonally all the time including at the margin of their range, and they get over it all the time, Veron does not. The article link by Caldera shows he doens't know much about the K/T exinction. He doesnt even mention the delcine of marine organisms from well before Chicxulub about 70Ma. He doesnt mention the Decaan Traps either, and yet this were the major cause of the maine extinctdions (not the impact), the bolide impact was too short to produce long lasting marine effects. He also mentions that the earth was warmer in the Cretaceous because volanoes were spewing out more c02. But I thought volcanic c02 was so minor as to be irrelevant? So it's only important when convenient. IE Volcanoes can change climate on long time scales, but not short ones, humans can change climate on short time scales, but they cant take a geological long time to do it, even though volcanoes have to. (Somebody tell the volcanos because they arent listening). If Veron and co. are the measure of 'well informed scientists' regarding the next announcement of impending doom, then I don't think we have much to worry about.
120724. Kevin Hood at 14:23 PM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        For those wondering above where glaciers are advancing, you can see a few of them in Southeast Alaska in the maps shown on pages 5 and 6 of this report but they are surrounded by many more that are wasting. Also, as the author suggests in the Discussion (#5 at page 7), the reason for advancement may be due to increased precipitation feeding glaciers whose bodies lie predominantly at higher elevation. In other words, climate change (more moisture in the atmosphere) may be contributing to their advancement. To be fair, he notes that there are many complex variables affecting glaciers - but his maps of how many are wasting are pretty sobering.
120725. michael sweet at 10:02 AM on 17 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        The website Cryosphere Today cryosphere today has a lot of data and animations on arctic and antarctic ice. They show their data using ice area, not extent like the NSIDC does (the data comes from NSIDC). I have followed them for about two years and there is little difference between the area and extent graphs. This year Cryosphere Today shifted to a thirty year baseline (NSIDC uses twenty years) and that made more difference than extent versus area. They have an interesting ap where you can compare any two days in the arctic ice record to see the difference between different years. Cryosphere Today rarely comments on the data. In the current era of data being challenged by sceptics I think ice extent is easier to defend to laymen. The extent data is simple and requires little massaging to obtain.
120726. chris at 08:59 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        batsvensson at 07:56 AM on 17 April, 2010 (i) anoxia certainly doesn't require the atmosphere to be depleted of oxygen. Anoxic ocean events in the deep past seem to have resulted from elements of greenhouse-induced warming, temporary cessation of deep ocean circulation and ocean stratification. Try this (not very well written) Wikipedia page on anoxia (ii) we know the reason for the current increasing atmospheric CO2. It's not due to a "current ongoing (mass) extinction"!
120727. cbrock at 08:44 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        #49 batsvensson Thanks for pointing out the Rothman paper; it's interesting. I should note that also in Rothman's conclusion is a disclaimer, "Indeed, our analysis leaves open the possibility, for example, that tectonically induced reductions of CO2 levels led to increased diversity in both continental and marine ecosystems. A definitive statement of causation will require further work that includes not only the study of other geochemical signals (10) but also improved paleontological records." This is frequently one of the problems with (necessarily temporally coarse) ancient paleo data--the resolution is not always there to make a strong causal determination. One then has to look at the physics and known biogeochemistry to evaluate one hypothesis vs. another.
120728. batsvensson at 07:56 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        We should worry about CO2 level in the sea, but for the right reasons. As marine life, for physiological reasons, are more sensitive to (even small) changes in CO2 concentration than terrestrial life then it is something we should be considered about (at least those of use that likes to eat sea food.) However, I do not think we need to worry for anoxia to appear on a global level (i.e. kill a majority of all marine life) the atmosphere would need to be depleted of oxygen for this to happen, but fortunately this is not a very likely scenario in the near future (but will eventually happen when the sun turns into a red giant - then we can talk about real global warming, however any acidification of the sea’s at that time will become a minor problem by then ;). About the plausible theory that CO2 can cause mass extinction. It can not be excluded that elevated levels of CO2 in the past has been a consequence of a previous mass extinction: In the conclusion of "Global biodiversity and the ancient carbon cycle (Rothman)" we can read: "we find that the correlations express complementary fluctuations in the size of the organic and inorganic carbon reservoirs within the biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. Consequently, CO2 levels decreased as biodiversity increased. These conclusions imply that fluctuations of CO2 levels have been driven primarily by changes within the biosphere and only secondarily by purely geologic and geophysical processes." Some final food for thoughts here: Consider Rothman’s paper, then we may postulate a hypothesis that the current increasing of atmospheric CO2 concentration is a consequence of an current ongoing - for some reasons - (mass) extinction.
120729. watchingthedeniers at 05:55 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        And at Chris post 45 - nice summary indeed.
120730. watchingthedeniers at 05:53 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        Ty doug for reminder, well worth re-reading.
120731. johnd at 04:24 AM on 17 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        JMurphy at 02:39 AM, firstly I think posting export figures for a commodity that primarily satisfies domestic consumption is rather misleading. Indonesia has about 2 million apple trees and the annual production from the main growing region is about 200,000 tonnes annually, small by most standards, but certainly much bigger than your figure. I would not consider myself relaxed, but I am certainly not an alarmist. I feel that instead of constantly wringing our hands about halting climate change, whatever the reason for it, something I doubt can be achieved, it is better to concentrate on the efforts being made to adapt to a changing climate, and it was for that reason I mentioned Indonesia, it being only one amongst several where most people would not expect apples to be grown. Given commercial production on a large scale generally results in a loss of diversity amongst most food crop varieties, it is perhaps that lack of diversity that might be the biggest obstacle to being able to adapt to changing conditions in the worlds largest orchards. The migration of production of animals or plants is not a new phenomena, nor only forced by climate change. Discovery of new areas, or changing economics have perhaps forever forced production of one commodity to move from one part of the world to another, the fine wool Merino sheep being such an example. There are certainly large areas of the world that are suitable for apple production to transfer to if current areas fail to adapt, but it may that such changes will be forced more by economics than climate change given how fast the global economic environment is changing.
120732. Doug Bostrom at 03:59 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        Sorry to be redundant but here again is the link to the Veron paper John discusses: Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas I bring it up again because the paper covers a tremendous amount of previous research, addresses most of the concerns about past events mentioned in the thread of discussion so far.
120733. chris at 03:57 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        Thingadonta, Your analyses are flawed. As already pointed out, the fact that some extinctions of the deep past occurred during (apparently) very long periods (100’s of 1000’s of years) doesn’t preclude the likelihood that very rapid perturbations of the climate system (on the 100’s of years time scale, or even less) can’t produce extinctions on much faster timescales. The end Cretaceous extinction is a case in point. It’s quite likely that this extinction was the result of a long environmental stress resulting from the massive flood basalt events that formed the Deccan Traps with a coup de grace resulting from the Yucatan impact into calcium carbonate and calcium sulphate-rich deposits. That extinction very rapidly wiped out all land animals bigger than a cat, and caused massive extinction of marine organisms. The marine extinctions were likely due to rather rapid acidification of ocean surface waters. There’s lots of evidence that supports this view (reviewed here and here[*], for example). Pretty much all marine species that inhabited the surface water columns and that fixed calcium carbonate disappeared likely due to rapid ocean acidification. As indicated in the top article, coral reefs disappeared (not to return for 2 million years). All plankton with calcium carbonate shells disappeared for ½ a million years. What strongly supports ocean acidification is the fact that diatoms that have silica shells didn’t disappear, and nor did some deep sea floor species that weren’t affected by sea surface acidification on timescales shorter than those required to dilute the acidification through the entire oceans. These extinctions were very fast. And acidification of the especially important and vulnerable top hundreds of metres of the oceans can occur rather quickly (Adam C just pointed that out). That’s been described in a recent review of evidence for ocean surface acidification (especially the consistent finding worldwide of a reduction of biogenic calcite in the spherule layers associated with deposits from the impact-se second link in paragraph above). Rapid release of CO2 on the hundreds of years timescale will cause acidification of the top hundreds of metres of the ocean on a similar timescale. In fact, it is the rapidity of release of acid-forming gases (CO2 and sulphurous oxides) that is especially dangerous for the oceans, and the reason that the end Cretaceous and Paleo Eocene Thermal Maximum are significant analogues for today’s massive and extraordinarily rapid release of greenhouse gases. The very slow release of CO2 right through the Cretaceous with the resulting greenhouse warming drove the carbon cycle around twice as fast as today with the result that there was an extraordinary richness of calcerous marine animals (the “Cretaceous” is named after chalk – latin “creta” for that reason). But when greenhouse gases and sulphurous acids entered the atmosphere very rapidly, so the ocean extinctions resulting from rapid ocean acidification followed. This is all pretty obvious I think. After all, we know that since around 1970 we’ve lost around 19% of coral reefs and around 35% of the remainder are threatened. We have good evidence that there are relatively recent occurrences, since we can observe since the 1970’s the widespread bleaching of long lived (600 year old) coral species. So far the dominant effect has been temperature since the major pulses of coral bleaching and die-off is occurring during the El Nino episodes riding on the background rise in ocean surface temperatures. However we’re getting pretty close to the CO2 levels where many of the carbonate-fixing species simply won’t be able to produce their skeletons. That’s also described in a recent review by Veron and a large number of well-informed scientists. [*] can’t find an on-line pdf of this one.
120734. Adam C at 03:32 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        re: 41 "I am skeptical when you want to change an entire ocean's chemistry in less than tens of thousands of years" I don't think anyone's suggested that. The problem is a change in the acidity of the surface layer of the ocean, at a pace too rapid for it to be dispersed into the deep ocean.
120735. JMurphy at 02:39 AM on 17 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        johnd, I'm interested in the responses you have had to your post about apples in Indonesia. As far as I can tell, they export about 35 tonnes a year, as opposed to, say, France's 1.5 million tonnes; and they have to defoliate their trees by hand after every harvest, to get the trees to produce again. Do you really think that means that we have nothing to worry about and that apple production won't be affected by climate change ? I really am interested as to how you can be so relaxed about these things, so perhaps you could explain why you are, with reference to apple production - especially with regard to the replies from michael sweet and yocta
120736. Dennis at 02:30 AM on 17 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        Poptech @50: Do you know the names of any climate scientists who have peer reviewed climate science papers in Energy & Environment? Can you list them here?
120737. JMurphy at 01:12 AM on 17 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        Anyone knowing about Plimer and his most recent error-strewn book, would not attempt to use him for any sort of back-up to an argument, even in fields he is supposedly expert in. His credibility is in shreds. As for the naturalistic fallacy, perhaps that should be added to the one that sees those in denial using past changes in climate as some sort of response to why humans can't possibly be changing the climate now - replied to by asking whether forest fires starting naturally in the period pre-man, means that man can't now start forest fires. Is that a logical fallacy ?
120738. mark_star at 00:16 AM on 17 April 2010
        Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
        Cornell University (Wolfe 2004) study describes an advance of spring Phenology from 2 to 8 days over 1965 to 2001 for observed perennials in the northeast USA. Do you want these paywalled articles in the database? http://www.springerlink.com/content/dfw7db58c8pbm4af/
        Response: Definitely do submit any and all peer-reviewed papers into the database, whether paywalled or not. Even if it is paywalled, often a search on google scholar will find the full PDF floating around, particularly for papers more than a year or two old. And if you can't find the full PDF, I find emailing the author/s is usually fruitful, particularly if you start your email with a compliment about how interesting their research is :-)
        
        Also, I submitted your link to the database, thanks for the URL!
        
120739. CBDunkerson at 23:22 PM on 16 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        Volume = ice area * average thickness Extent = ice area / average concentration (15% to 100%) The past two years the minimum extent has increased while the volume has continued to decrease. Looking at the formulas above we can quickly deduce that this suggests the ice has gotten thinner but more spread out. Which makes perfect sense because it is easier for thinner ice to be broken into pieces which can drift away from each other rather than remaining one large solid block. In short, the recent small increase in extent is IMO actually a bad sign. Given that the ice is thinner and more broken up I'd expect to see a significant increase in ice area and extent... as in my example where a 1000 cubic foot solid block broken into 1 cubic foot components could go from covering an extent of just 100 square feet to as much as 6,667 square feet. The comparatively minuscule increase in extent observed over the prior two years suggests that not only is the ice getting thinner, but more of it is also melting away entirely... leaving a smaller area of thinner ice which is just spread over a larger area of the ocean.
120740. Nick Palmer at 20:26 PM on 16 April 2010
        Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
        I've posted this before but I haven't seen the point understood yet. The actual wording of a major part of the petition is so constructed that even fully legit climatologists - even James Hansen - could happily sign it. It is this bit (the second paragraph): There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. The weasel wording is "is causing or will", which are 100% definitive statements (there's no probability in them). Catastrophic heating/disruption is by no means certain so the average pernicketty scientist could sign with a clear conscience. The first paragraph may have just been skated over by respondents as out of date now (by mentioning 1997...)
120741. watchingthedeniers at 19:55 PM on 16 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        @ 41 Re KT/Cretaceous extinction: see my post @ 34 in which 2010 Science paper confirms Chicxulub as cause of dinosaur extinction here. Cite your references, not popular TV show. Re Deccan Trap theory the stress is on *may*: "Eventually, most paleontologists began to accept the idea that the mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous were largely or at least partly due to a massive Earth impact. However, even Walter Alvarez has acknowledged that there were other major changes on Earth even before the impact, such as a drop in sea level and massive volcanic eruptions that produced the Indian Deccan Traps, and these may have contributed to the extinctions." Your post: "So I don't know how pro AGW people use the past geological record to scare us about short human lifetimes. It's like a biologist scaring us about our rate of speciation..." ~ Actually, if we are talking about viruses then, yes speciation could be alarming. AIDS is a perfect example where it made the species jump from host it's chimpanzee population into the human population. The virus itself mutates with alarming frequency, thus developing many strains. Re using the geological record, to be frank the state of exobiology is such that we only have *one planet* in which to base our speculations on. As a consequence, it is perfectly reasonable to use the geological and paleontological record as a basis for drawing conclusions. Re Plimer, he is a geologist NOT a paleontologist or biologist. Just like his views on climate change, he is operating well outside his areas of expertise. As a consequence, his understanding of mass extinction events,their causes and the like are limited. Re you last comment: "What matters is the time periods involved" Again, I think my point about you falling into the naturalistic fallcy is correct. Ironically, you use the supposed length of time of extinction events to somehow prove your point but then chastise us "alarmists" for using the geological and paleontological data ourselves.
120742. thingadonta at 19:02 PM on 16 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        A few points: re 39 Steve L. "I think you are misinterpreting #35. Or maybe I am. It seems that #35 says that less total CO2 released, but released quickly over a short period of time, cannot have a similar impact as a lot of CO2 released over a longer time period. I believe this is wrong. " I am skeptical when you want to change an entire ocean's chemistry in less than tens of thousands of years, taking the geoligical record as a starting point. This is how long the geological record generally says it takes, even under extreme scenarios. So I dont know how pro AGW people use the past geological record to scare us abvout short human lifetimes. It's like a biologist scaring us about our rate of speciation. This is one of the main skeptic arguments -ie the time it takes to change the oceans, warm the planet etc etc (add it to the list), and is similar to the arguments in palaeontology and biology over gradual evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. That is, how fast is 'rapid/punctuated' versus 'gradual' when you are referring to geological time periods? It's a question of semantics really, eveyone agrees that the rate of evolution can change, but gradualists are very skeptical of any 'jumps' or 'jerks' or 'rapid' rate changes. (It also harks back to the days of the catastrophists and the uniformitarians in the 19th century -Darwin was a a uniformatirian and got it wrong with regards to 'mass extinction' events (he thought they were just gaps in the fossil record), Cuvier was a catastrophist- like nearly all pro-AGW people, and got it right with to mass extinction events). But as for mass extinctions, we are talking in most cases, of hundreds of thousands of years. Skeptics, therfore, contend that for somnething like ocean acidification by C02, it will take about that long to do it, which makes current humnan activities regarding ocean acidification, irrelevant. We can never release the kind of amount of gases that Siberian and Decaan Traps volcanism can do over several hundred thousand years in order to change ocean chemistry. Skeptics contend that various pro AGW researchers have vastly ignored and downplayed the time periods involved with most mass extiction events, and exagerated their own figures to scare people (like Jones with Siberian temperature data). Skeptics also contend that by the time the ocean acidifies (if it does at all, it is well buffered in many other respects in its interactions with volcanoes, sediments, Mid oceanic ridges etc etc?) from human c02, say in about 10,000++ years (?), we will have long ago given up our reliance on fossil fuels. (If this figure seems way too long, that is what is usually meant by 'geologically rapid', conveniently distorted by some coral reef researchers). As for K/T and #34, bolide impact pushed species over the edge after Decaan Traps volcanism had already weakened many ecosystems and which had begun several hundred thousand years earlier. Species were already in decline, especially marine species. This is well established. It was not one or the other (volcanism or bolide impact), it was both. re #32 The Chicxulub impact did not cause Decaan Traps volcanism, becuase it was already well underway (several hundred thousand years) before the asteriod/comet hit Mexico. Species were in decline already for about the previous few million years (including the dinosaurs-have a look at eg the "Walking With Dinosaurs" series-this is well established in peer reviewed literature, volcanic gases/effects were already killing the eg dinosaurs before they were pushed over the edge to oblivion by the asteroid. It was a one-two punch, which is why it was such a major extinction event). You can understand it this way, mass extinctions are by nature worse when a combination of factors are involved. There have been many large impacts in earth hoistory with no mass extinctions. re#36 "Accelerated release is not contingent upon causation being either "natural" or "human induced". What matters is the chemistry/physics. " What matters is the time periods involved. Mass extinction events take hundreds of thousands of years to change the chemistry of the oceans. Ask a volcanologist (which is one reason why Plimer is such a skeptic-one of his pet topics is volcanology-and he is more informed about what they do to oceans, as Veron is not). If someone wants to counter most of the above, they have to show how the past geological record shows the oceans can acidify in a few hundred years from changes in c02 levels. As far as I know, it says no such thing.
120743. Riccardo at 18:41 PM on 16 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        I'm going to be a bit pedantic. If the trend is not statistically significant we can not refuse the null hypothesis, i.e. that we didn't get the result by chance. This does not mean that you can claim the opposite, you just can say nothing. In our case, we have a statistically significant downward trend while the recent upward trend is not. We must conclude that the probability of having the short term upward trend by chance is high. @ Bern i'm still in a pedantic phase :) Statistics won't tell you anything about wether or not the trend will continue in the future. It may eventually allow you to claim that there has been a trend in the past. For example, there is a statistically significant downward trend every spring but you can count on the opposite trend in autumn. To predict the future you need a physical model.
120744. watchingthedeniers at 17:07 PM on 16 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        @ 39 I may have misinterpreted. Here is the para I focused on: "But my point is, all this took hundreds of thousands- to millions of years of vast amounts of c02 etc from Siberian Traps volcanism-oceans didn't,and probably won't, acidify quickly-ie less than tens of thousands of years?, if they do from humans at all." I read that to imply he/she questioned how human activity could result in acidification. He posits time periods and natural processes and contrasts (by implication) possible human interactions with the climate. That's how I read it. (see last sentence) It could be we are *both* reading the different things into the post because the argument is muddled and attempting to argue both points?
120745. Bern at 17:00 PM on 16 April 2010
        Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
        Re the short-term trend - yes, the passage of time will tell us whether it's a statistically significant trend, but by then it will be a long-term trend, not a short-term one... :-D I think that's the whole point re the 'statistical significance' - there's not yet enough data to show whether this is a trend that may continue, or a short-term upward variation in a downward trend. The null hypothesis, of course, being that the existing (downward) trend continues, and this is a short-term fluctuation. Thanks to the folks who provided the references on ice volume - very informative. I suppose decreasing volume at the same time as increasing extent means thinner ice which will melt that much faster during summer. Will be interesting to see what happens this year.
120746. Doug Bostrom at 16:51 PM on 16 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Here's an example of what I'm babbling about incoherently in my crazy way w/regard to carbon pricing. A struggling private enterprise known as "Google" is also managed by crazy persons: Google wants a price on carbon and wants it now -- both for lofty reasons like combating global warming, but also because it could be good for business. As the Senate inches closer to climate legislation that could give the Internet giant what it wants, I checked in with Dan Reicher, the director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google to see what surfing the web had to do with reining in greenhouse gases. Turns out, the answer is technology. Reicher -- a former Department of Energy assistant secretary who now directs Google's investments in clean energy -- believes that exposing the hidden costs of dirty fuels will set off a rush of investment in new energy innovations. He says carbon pricing is an "essential signal we have to get to." Right now, "money is sitting there to make significant investments," he says, but the cash flow is sidelined because the incentives aren't there. Google climate change chief wants price on carbon
120747. Doug Bostrom at 16:17 PM on 16 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Shawnhet, I think I'm correct when I say that the only place we've seen nuclear power adopted on a substantial scale sufficient to largely displace other means of generation is (as you point out) France, where it was made possible by massive public expenditure, via taxation. Elsewhere than France, the same technology is available and would be installed if the market deemed it financially attractive. It does not; if the market found nuclear power acceptable, we'd see it more widely deployed. I fully agree with you that C02 emissions will have to be substantially reduced in order to fix our problem. In fact, I'm not sure where we fully disagree (perhaps we're similarly crazed?) except with regard to your original incorrect assertion that the EU was increasing its GHG emissions despite government intervention of the type and scale you find attractive in France. Is it crazy to collaborate with my neighbor to rectify damage my neighbor and I are inflicting on one another by ignoring environmental costs? Is assigning a cost to our effluent (sewer tax, CCF charge, whatever) and then disposing of sewage using funds recovered from that cost assignment so crazy? I don't know, maybe you should ask your utility or other governmental entity if they believe they and you are crazy? Without some incentive of one form or another we'll burn every scrap of coal we have, until doing so becomes expensive on par with the next most expensive substitute. This in not some kind of controversial hypothesis, it's exactly what's happening today. Wishing the market away with hypothetical and especially unfunded and thus unbuilt technological fixes won't work. Cash incentives will. As long as coal is burned because we choose to ignore the costs doing so inflicts on us, no wishful thinking is going to solve this problem. So tell me, how are you going to get an investor to pay twice as much for a nuclear plant as he would for a coal plant? How are you going to persuade tax-averse Americans to pay twice as much for their generation capacity using tax dollars, and where will those tax dollars come from? In fact, the money for replacement generation plant is going to have to be extracted from somebody, us ultimately, and if that can be done in the form of a levy that simultaneously places a powerful incentive on ditching C02 emissions, so much the better.
120748. shawnhet at 15:44 PM on 16 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Doug, you seem to be pretty confused on this issue, so I'm not sure that there is much more I can add, I will just recap the points here as I see them. #1.You've been arguing that it is impossible to deal with this issue without properly accounting for (what you feel is) carbon's cost. However, this is clearly not the case. Have the French accurately accounted for the cost of carbon? Probably not, from your POV, but that doesn't stop them from emitting much less carbon by using nuclear technology. Again, you are acting like a crazy guy here who thinks he must properly account for the cost of his neighbor's waste instead of arguing for the construction of a sewer system. Personally, I have no idea what the "correct" cost of a month's waste dumped in my yard might be, but since I live in an area with sewers, it is not really necessary for me to know that. #2. You seem to misunderstand the scale of the supposed problem here. The fact is, that if catastrophe is looming, CO2 would have to be substantially reduced, not merely held flat. Even if everyone adopted the exact same approach as the best of the European countries, that would still be nowhere near close enough. #3.As time goes by, conservation efforts of one sort or another will get less and less efficient, in the absence of radical technological change. #4. OTOH, technological change will enable much more efficient conservation as time goes on. If current trends continue, solar power will equal fossil fuel's cost effectiveness(even at today's rates) in somewhere btw 20-40 years. Presumably, once this happens, we won't need to figure out what the correct cost of carbon-based energy, as everyone will more or less automatically switch to solar. Cheers, :)
120749. Steve L at 13:42 PM on 16 April 2010
        Earth's five mass extinction events
        #36, I think you are misinterpreting #35. Or maybe I am. It seems that #35 says that less total CO2 released, but released quickly over a short period of time, cannot have a similar impact as a lot of CO2 released over a longer time period. I believe this is wrong. To support my assertion I tried to look up a figure (I thought it was in Caldiera and Wickett 2005, but my search didn't find a free version of the full paper). My Google search took me to some other interesting stuff. I particularly like the powerpoint presentation (fifth down on the list) -- lots of references and lots of relevance to the discussion above. Go here. Similar but less stuff (and more explanation) is shown in this pdf. Of particular interest to me in the slide show is the information on other important factors (carbonate!). It would be a very long term project for me to study the all the references to permit me to make a good summary. Hopefully someone with more expertise will do it instead.
120750. iskepticaluser at 13:17 PM on 16 April 2010
        CO2 effect is saturated
        NkThrasher #7: the whole concept of saturation is based on a misconception of how radiation is passed up, level by level, through the atmosphere. Spencer Weart has some good non-technical descriptions of this, which I've adapted here.

Prev  2407  2408  2409  2410  2411  2412  2413  2414  2415  2416  2417  2418  2419  2420  2421  2422  Next