Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 Next
Comments 120851 to 120900:
-
thefrogstar at 21:21 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
The blog appears to faithfully reproduce the published article, but I think I'm missing something here. "....satellites which measure both the incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation. The absolute energy imbalance is too small to be measured directly." -So the simple calculation of Energy 'Out' subtracted from Energy 'In' can't be done because the errors of measuring the two are large, relative to the difference between them? "However, the satellite measurements are sufficiently stable from one year to the next so it's possible to track changes in the net radiation". -Isn't this the exact same calculation: "Net Radiation" is the difference between radiative energy 'In' and 'Out'? If the measurements are "stable" how does this make them better? ....Or are they just collecting data over a longer time period to get a better statistical grasp on the data? If this is the case, won't the signal-to-noise ratio only increase as the square-root of the time period? Separately, a third expanation: Might "a divergence problem, if you will" be due to a model which is incomplete, if you will? -
Marcel Bökstedt at 20:40 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
SNRatio> Yes, it seems that the expansion of water per added unit of heat is about twice at big at the surface as in the deep ocean, so if we (A) believe figure 1, (B) believe that all that missing energy went into the deep ocean, we would conclude from looking at figure 1, taking into account that the upper ocean is warming at a slower rate now, that the rise of sea level should have been approximately constant since 2005. This ignores the additional effect of melting glaciers. -
SNRatio at 20:20 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
27.Marcel Bökstedt at 18:37 PM on 19 April, 2010 Berenyi Peter> It seems that Trenberth does exactly this calculation, and gets that if the "missing energy" (0.9 W/m^ 3) were deposited in the ocean below 700 meters, it would rise the sea level by 1.3 mm/y. ---- May this be an explanation why we have had a continuing sea level rise in spite of very little surface temp increase 2000-2010, and only a fraction being explainable by ice caps/glaciers melting. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 20:06 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
thingadonta> I think that we don't really know the amount of heat transfer between the top of the sea (say the top 700 meters) and the rest of it. I'm not saying that there must be a significant transfer, but I can't see how we can rule it out - how do you know that "global heat transfer is weakest and slowest between the deepest oceans and everything else"? -
thingadonta at 19:35 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
There is insufficient heat transfer between the atmosphere, land and oceans on annual and interannual time scales for net radiation measurements and calculated heat contents to be in agreement, even if the calculated heat contents are correct. This means there will be a time lag between the two, which becomes most apparent after an inflexion in either trend. If the rate of warming has indeed slowed, and there is no 'missing heat' in the deep oceans, net radiation is lagging the decreased rate of warming and the two lines in Figure 1 diverge, and are correct as they stand. They should eventually re-align. Also, note that global heat transfer is weakest and slowest between the deepest oceans and everything else, so it is even more unlikely that this 'missing heat' is going into the deep oceans in the short time scales involved (ie years to several years). If this explanation is correct, it also contradicts at least some of the standard assumptions about climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Neither declining rates of warming, nor the divergence in satellite measurements of net radiation and modelled earth heat content should be happening if greenhouse gases are physically doing what the IPCC says they should be doing. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 18:37 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Berenyi Peter> It seems that Trenberth does exactly this calculation, and gets that if the "missing energy" (0.9 W/m^ 3) were deposited in the ocean below 700 meters, it would rise the sea level by 1.3 mm/y. An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy . -
Marcel Bökstedt at 18:10 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Berenyi Peter> That is a good point, maybe we can start quantifying? It seems you know this stuff, so perhaps you can offer an estimate on the sea level rise which would be caused if the "missing energy" was hiding in the deep sea? -
Berényi Péter at 16:58 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
#24 Marcel Bökstedt at 16:28 PM on 19 April, 2010 the temperature of the deep ocean is close to that minimum, so that its thermal expansion coefficient is close to zero A common misconception. Equation of state for sea water is rather tricky. At high pressure volumetric thermal expansion coefficient is positive even at 3 °C. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 16:28 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Humanity Rules> The argument about sea level rise is nice, but has to be analysed a bit. The expansion of water under heating is not constant, it depends on the temperature you start with. The minimal volume and highest density is reached at 3.98 C. I understand that the temperature of the deep ocean is close to that minimum, so that its thermal expansion coefficient is close to zero, which means we cannot use sea level to restrain the temperature of the deep ocean. I think. -
James Wight at 16:13 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
This seems to be quite a mystery. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (which appears to have switched to a "cool" phase). -
yocta at 15:26 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
RE#21 garythompon. I think you may be looking at the wrong paper. The paper you have linked is titled "Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation" K.E. Trenberth, J.T. Fasullo. Geophys. Res. Lett, 2009 Reference 5 in the paper discussed above is titled Earth's Global Energy Budget K. E. Trenberth, J. T. Fasullo, J. Kiehl, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 311 (2009) . which can be found here -
garythompson at 14:29 PM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
the following statement in the trenberth paper says "Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) (see the figure) and other greenhouse gases have led to a post-2000 imbalance at the top of the atmosphere of 0.9 ± 0.5 W m–2 ( 5);" going to reference (5), i looked at that paper and couldn't find that in it. can someone point me in the right directions and let me know what i missed? and i apologize if the link doesn't show as embedded. i followed the style as listed on this website but for some reason it didn't show right in the preview. i'll keep working on that..... -
scaddenp at 14:08 PM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
"weather has cycles". But the papers under discussions are talking about trends not cycles. -
HumanityRules at 14:02 PM on 19 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
53.Philippe Chantreau I don't think understated just stated. The mass balance has probably been in negative territory (with a few interruptions) since the 1750's. -
Tracking the energy from global warming
Very curious - that's quite a divergence, rather unprecedented from the previous data. I would certainly trust the sat. data; radiation measures are pretty straightforward compared with ocean temp. accounting. My own DK idea would be to posit a change in deep vs. shallow water circulation - a new(ish) vertical cycling of the water providing a new heat sink. But then, I would be suggesting a WAG, not even a SWAG (scientific wild a** guess). Are there any suggestions of changes in circulation that might be consistent with this theory? I look forward to better suggestions from people who actually know what they're doing on this topic. -
johnd at 12:52 PM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
scaddenp at 12:40 PM, it depends on how the wetter and dryer periods cycle. Weather has it's cyclic patterns as well. Droughts in Australia being a good example. -
scaddenp at 12:40 PM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Wetter is climate change of course. -
yocta at 12:24 PM on 19 April 2010Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
RE #6 hu? You say:Where in Ternberth 09 does it state that satellites indicate an energy gap? Trenberth 2009 states it is the difference between satellite measurements and ocean heat content measurements from ARGO ocean floats. And Trenberth says: ..."Their sum should amount to the sea level from altimetry estimates from satellites, but substantial discrepancies betweentrends of 2 mm/yr were found..." You say: Also, what do you think the author meant when he says 'or the warming is not really present?'. He is referring to perhaps the satellite observations are incorrect, which is discussed more in the paper on page 24. (See also John's post here too) You say: ...public computers...how can the author's have any expectation of privacy? And what is the basis of your claim that the emails were stolen? They are stolen because they were hacked and the Police are investigating. You can very certainly expect privacy. Even though one might be a public servant, nobody should have ther private correspondences delved into anyone who could misquote it. You may be dealing with sensitive information including defense, patents and communication with industry. Universities and staff have the right to protect their intellectual property. If an official inquiry demands the information stored on public computers then yes of course you would have to disclose the contents but only then. -
Leo G at 11:20 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Errr - weTTer, not weeter! LOL! -
Leo G at 11:20 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Hmmm, just discovered this - http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/images/stories/Trends_images/T_300dpi/T_Fig2.46.png Seems that England has been getting weeter since the early 1960's. I would think that this would have a lot to do with the earlier bloom times of the last 25 years. -
HumanityRules at 10:43 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Response #14 I thought there is an independent confirmation of energy in the ocean and that is sea level rise. Extra energy in the ocean would cause it to expand making the sea level rise. Sea level rises via two mechanisms thermal expansion and extra volume (from melting land ice). The most recent measurements of sea level, I think from 2003 onwards, suggest that sea level rise has slowed. And that nearly all that sea level rise has come from melting ice. This would suggest there is little thermal expansion, suggesting little extra energy in the ocean. We should measure temp in the deep ocean but sea level rise suggests it probably isn't there. -
HumanityRules at 10:33 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Another important question is why did the energy budget balance for the first decade of figure 1? If we are looking for a nett transfer of energy to the deep oceans from 2005 onwards we have to assume that this wasn't happening before 2005 when things would have to have been in equilibrium. We need a machanism for the transfer and one that shows a fair amount of variation over time. Do we have anything like this? And evidence it went through some sort of phase switch in 2005? -
yocta at 10:29 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Great posting John. I remember reading this posting by NASA on Balancing the Sea Level Budget in which Willis identified problems with the latest Argo floats which led to underestimating ocean warming. I am interested in what comes about from your correspondence with Susan Wijffels as she is quoted there saying "What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.” Here is my DK moment but since Trenberth has used Argo data in his assessment of ocean heat content, could that not account for some of the divergence? My hunch is it is more likely an instrumentation problem than anything else. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:23 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
John, I would hope that Trenberth knows of your site here and appreciates the valuable and gallant job you're doing to help people understand the complex science going on with climate change. (I imagine that's why you got such a prompt response from him.) -
Don Gisselbeck at 10:08 AM on 19 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Peter Hogarth at 22:32 PM on 14 April, 2010 That was a pretty interesting paper. If you want to see the Stantan Glacier pictures, they are on my flikr page (dongisselbeck) and on my facebook page. It is striking how much change a small glacier can have in a few years. I expect to see the ice at 2007 levels or less this Sept. -
paulgrace at 09:37 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
RE: "Hopefully, Trenberth won't get bothered too much by nagging bloggers such as myself and he can get on with the important work of better tracking the flow of energy through our climate." Don't discount the importance of communicating the subtleties of the work. This is just the kind of data that would be taken out of context by deniers. It's good for lay individuals to be able to refute it right away. After all, researchers can't solve the problem and communication is a key part of the resolution. -
HumanityRules at 09:35 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
9.Glenn Tamblyn at 08:18 AM on 19 April, 2010 Is there a third possibility. This issue, like most others in climate science, is subject to assumptions, data processing, modelling and theorizing. The best test for all these is how things develop going forward. What we are seeing is that some aspects are poorly understood to the point that the expected and observed data diverge. When this happened with solar irradiance and temperature we were all ready to kill off a theory. Shouldn't we be loading the syringe with Nembutal again?Response: The comparison with sun/climate is not quite right. In that case, we're looking at a cause of climate change - if the sun is cooling while climate is warming, it's hard to see the sun is causing the warming.
In this case, we're looking at two different ways of measuring the same thing - the planet's energy imbalance. So if the two metrics diverge, we need to examine both metrics. As there is independent confirmation of the veracity of the satellite data, the more likely problem is with the accounting for heat content. And as our observation systems don't currently observe all of our climate, the natural next step is to look to extending our observations to cover more of our climate. A good first step would be to measure the deep ocean more comprehensively. -
HumanityRules at 09:24 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
I also found this paper on deep water heating which is in press. Can anybody to the mathes to see if this makes up the difference? http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/gcj_3f.pdf Funnily I had also followed the Trenberth/Piekle email exchange and thought it was genuinely interesting. I don't know why you suggest Trenberth needs patience, Piekles seems a reasonably polite individual and it seems a genuine exchenge between two people who wish to get to the bottom of a problem. It's science. Anyway I also weighed in by sending this reference to Piekle, I guess we've both choosen our sides ;)Response: I was refering more to my bonehead questions - seeing Trenberth and Pielke discuss von Schuckmann in detail made me realise of course Trenberth had looked at von Schuckmann from the front, from the back, sideways and upside down. A Dunning Kruger moment on my part.
Funny you should mention that paper on bottom water heating - I was just talking to one of the authors, an Australian scientist Susan Wijffels (emailing her more of my bonehead blogger questions). -
Chemware at 09:21 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
A minor nitpicking point on Fig 1: rates (dQuantity / dTime) always have unit of reciprocal time: eg: Wm-2year-1. -
HumanityRules at 09:17 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
So where is the energy? -
Leo G at 09:09 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Do the sats detect which way the energy is travelling? IE from/to space? If Drs. Spencer and Christy are right, clouds being a negative, would the satellites "see" the SWR going the other way or would they just pick it up and add it to the downward travel of the original SWR? Even Dr. Trenberth mentioned that clouds might be playing a part of the extra energy data. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:18 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
It seems there are two possibilities. Instrumentation issues - inaccuracy, lack of coverage etc - or a real phenomena. In either case, why such a sudden transition. If it is instrumentation, what changed in 2005? If it is physical, did some unexplained phenomenon 'turn on' in 2005? If this was simply a change in the rate of existing phenomena, wouldn't the divergence be slower? Simplistic observation - if the surface ocean has been warming faster than the deep ocean for decades, doesn't that change the temperature gradient down through the water column? Could a threshold gradient have been reached that is triggering new circulation patterns down below? On the Net Radiation side, how much of this is measurement vs measurement and estimation from theory? -
johnd at 08:07 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
michael sweet at 06:03 AM. Are we putting too much importance on a supposedly advancing spring, and just how much of the accumulated flowering data comes from plants that are cultivated against those completely subject to natural conditions? Whilst spring and autumn are called seasons, they are really only transitional periods between the two real seasons, summer and winter. In agriculture the difference between autumn and spring is that in autumn, the soil temperature is generally in place first with soil moisture the variable. With spring the soil moisture is also the variable, but has to be in place first before soil temperature increases. In south eastern Australia, the first or second week of September is the time pasture growth begins to improve. The opening of both autumn and spring growth can vary, but are subject more to the availability of moisture than temperatures. The first flowering index then should therefore incorporate some indication of soil moisture, or at least the dates of first rains to be of any use as a real indication. -
johnd at 07:24 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Leo G at 04:04 AM re "the way we act is precisely as nature let us evolve" is precisely my view also. Even to the extent of coaxing all living things to adapt to changed circumstances irrespective of how they come about. If man can achieve such change then it obviously was within the range of possibilities allowed by the genetic make-up, but man may have just sped up the process. It always amuses me the description of the fertiliser super phosphate as being artificial. Being basically bird poop, it comprises elements all found in the natural world, but combined in way not normally evident in nature. However I believe it is the birds who chose to strip the phosphorous from the natural environment in the first place and concentrate it in one area, the same as we concentrate dumping our waste in a confined area, that were changing the natural order given the importance of phosphorous in the growth of most life forms. Is what we are doing in redistributing the phosphorous back to where it is needed to enable plant growth not part of the natural processes? -
Leo G at 06:07 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Philippe @ 97 - yes! I was using the Iceland Volcanoe as a way of showing Dhogazza that we react/are part of nature. But you took it to a much higher level. Thanks. -
Leo G at 06:04 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Philippe, sorry, not very clear was I? Just a simple coorelation to what I do in my "real" life. If I say that the climate is cooling right now (the outside temps are dropping) then I would expect the oceans to be releasing very large amounts of energy to the "cooler" atmosphere (higher Delta T). So if the sats are not calibrated to pick up this huge increase in outgoing radiation, could they perhaps be missing it? -
michael sweet at 06:03 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Johnd: The subject of whether mitagation or adaptation is a cheaper/better strategy was not the point of this thread. Maybe John will have a thread on that topic at some time in the future (hopefully). Several posters suggested that advancing spring had only been observed in the UK. My response (and others) showed this has been observed worldwide. Other posters suggested that advancing spring had only positive attributes. While we can debate the possibilities of adaptation, it is clear there is a cost to the change in the arrival of spring. Not only apples are affected: my reference states that all temperate tree and vine crops have a chilling requirement. There is a cost for adaptation of each type of fruit. Of course we can all change to eating mangos and pineapples. The debate over whether the cost of mitagation or adaption is greater is long and complicated by value judgements. The science at the start of this thread clearly shows that spring is advancing and that has economic consequences. -
batsvensson at 05:15 AM on 19 April 2010Earth's five mass extinction events
Chris, I am interested to know why you reject the idea, therefore my questions. If you don’t like to answer my questions then that is fine with me, but to me and this is based on what I know and scenarios I can imagine what you list seams not to contradict it and I gave you a second chance to rethink it but maybe what you claims does make sense to you, then that is fine with me as well. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:12 AM on 19 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
"Overall there is a net retreat" Quite an understatement, looking at the annual mass balance. Advance and retreat appear almost petty considerations when considering the mass of the ice loss. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:00 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
That little volcano in Iceland is little indeed, ejecting a small fraction of what Pinatubo did, at a much lower altitude. The fact that it disturbed air travel so much is precisely because the ejected material failed to reach the stratosphere. Now imagine all the volcanoes in the world and their activity over a year. Multiply that by 150 (that'd be a lot of volcanic activity). That's how much CO2 humans release in the atmosphere in a year. Not exactly insignificant. Imagine how many years of natural processes it took for a couple thousand tons of coal to accumulate and fossilize. Imagine how much time it takes us to extract and burn a couple thousand tons of coal. Now scale that up to the worldwide yearly coal consumption. Insignificant? We are a small part of the natural universe indeed. The real success of Life is with bacteria. They are the dominant form of life by all accounts, everything else is just luxury and embellishment, unnecessary to the successful continuation of Life. What we do or don't do matters next to nothing to this planet and Life in the grand scheme of things. But it matters to us a great deal. Of course, each one of us, individually, is very small. Just like every individual strand of the brown algae that made our oxygen was. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:37 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
I'm not sure I understand your post Leo G. If I recall right, satellites use mostly microwave sensors for temperature. -
Leo G at 04:33 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
JohnD @ 92 - "Very often this results in them trying something that everybody else says cannot be done, or has failed in the past" Very true! Back in the fifties, my uncle decided that he would grow blueberries on his chicken farm to help supplement his income. It had been tried before by others and they had failed. My uncle did not listen and went ahead and planted his patch. Now the Fraser Valley is one of the worlds leading blueberry producing areas. -
Leo G at 04:29 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
dhogazza @ 55 yes, language. At one time we thought the earth was only a few thousand years old, yet we were able to get beyond that. As our species, hopefully, keeps on progressing in maturing Dhogazza, I hope that eventually we will be able to come to terms that we are only a small part of the natural universe. When I get to thinking that I am so important, I like to go and lay out on the lawn and look at the vastness that surrounds us. This humbles me quite quickly, and reminds me that I am only a very small cog in web of nature. Sorry Dhogazza, we DO NOT stand outside "3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers." Heard about that little volcanoe in Iceland? -
Leo G at 04:20 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
WTD @ 50 "Climate change is a threat to our advanced, industrial civilisation. We want to mitigate the impact and the damage it could cause. Nothing more, nothing less." Totally agreed. But where we diverge paths is in the analysis of future events. Right now, with the knowledge that I have gained, I feel that the warming predicted to come is too high, and the effects will not be calamitous (sp?). I want the policy to be based on the best science available not on a semi-religous need to repent for mankinds sins against nature. The whole of the CS field is still quite young, and there are more mysteries popping up, i.e. Trenberth trying to decipher the "lost" energy in our system. Where I live, we have a carbon tax already. ANd it is about to go up again on July 1. I strongly support it. Not becoause I feel that CO2 is a danger, but because it is a user based tax. If I want to, I can decide to drive less, thus lowering my tax burden. Also, there is a lot more then just CO2 that comes out of the old tailpipe! :) -
Leo G at 04:04 AM on 19 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
doug bostrom @ 49 - " We're of nature but we don't act like nature." But Doug, the way we act is precisely as nature let us evolve. This is the main thrust of my point, because we have the ability to record, we have a past. Because we have an ability to think, we have a future. Why would this be considered to out of nature? If nature is as vast as this and maybe other universes, why do we as humans think that somehow we are special and stand outside of nature? The logic of this is not there. Studies on birds are starting to indicate that these fine feathered friends, at least some species, may have the ability to "guess" the future, and remeber the past. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/01-who-you-callin-bird-brain I agree that we may be the only species that has the ability to forsee what our actions might lead to, there fore we should be better stewards of this planet, but then we will have to go into the nature/nurture debate. -
Leo G at 03:39 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Hey John, glad you found the time to do this post! Dealing with aged parents the last 4 months, so sorry for not being able to lend a hand. From my perspective, in my field of hot water heating, one of the observations that I have noted over the years is that as the outside temps go up, the heated water returning to the boiler has a lower DT. As the temps go down outside, the DT can get into the 30*F range. Now this is just pure speculation, but if the globe is cooling as of right now, from who nows from what factor, I would not be at all surprised with the satellite readings we have been getting for T the last few months. If my idle speculation happened to be true, do you think that the outgoing radiation may be overwhelming to the sats sensors? Sort of like if at night time someone shines a light in your eyes, your sight system is overwhelmed and can no longer function nromaly. i.e., you're for all intents and purposes blinded. As for the antartic, I think this week there will be very little if any continental ice melt - http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275 Check out some of the wind chill forecasts! :) -
Steve L at 02:16 AM on 19 April 2010Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
For BP, a paper on Eastern Tropical Pacific coral reefs and how upwelling of low pH, low carbonate water makes them more vulnerable to erosion. As I tried to say earlier, your oversimplification leads you astray (but the details are a bit different and more interesting than I had guessed). -
Steve L at 02:08 AM on 19 April 2010Earth's five mass extinction events
I haven't read through all the way up to here -- I'm still catching up. This comment is a thanks to HR @16 for this paper by Manzello about Eastern Tropical Pacific coral reefs -- given BP's comments at the Ocean acidification (evil twin) thread , I think he would also find it very enlightening. Galapagos reefs are chronically exposed to lower pH (and aragonite-undersaturated) water due to upwelling and therefore their structures are poorly cemented and they are more vulnerable to erosion. I would infer that it is also more difficult for them to recover following high temperature events (El Niño), despite their evolutionary history in these conditions since approximately the close of the Panamanian isthmus. Manzello cites Manzello et al 2008, which adds that upwelling nutrients may stimulate bioerosion. The Manzello (but not Manzello et al) paper cites Veron 2008 briefly in the discussion and concludes that the mechanism discussed fits with Veron's hypothesis that reef gaps are driven by ocean acidification. -
michael sweet at 01:37 AM on 19 April 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
BP at number 4: Since the preceding temperature in the series you referenced is -15.2 and the next measurement is -15.3 it is safe to presume that the 15.2 measurement is a typo. Why do you waste my time following up your link for such a trivial error in unfitered data? -
embb at 01:06 AM on 19 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Jacob: There is nothing remotely trade war-like about a scientifically founded carbon tax and coordinated import restrictions. Some disagree. Here is a link, in German: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,649903,00.html The title says: economists warn about CO2 trade wars. Maybe they missed something? Jacob: The nightmarish problem with the mafia is mostly the violence. Everybody knows that. So, as long as they quietly skim off the emissions trade by fraud all is ok? Come on.. Jacob: I highly doubt that. Here is a link, again in German: http://www.abzocknews.de/2009/12/13/organisierte-kriminalitat-milliardenbetrug-mit-dem-emissionshandel/ The translation is "organised crime creates a fraud of billions with the trade of certificates" Wiki probably missed that. Jacob: It would make no sense to disregard the defection of the largest economy. It would if your objective was to understand why the signatories defected. In fact it would make no sense to talk about the US in this case as they did not sign so they could not defect by definition. Jacob:You seem unaware that tit-for-tat beats defection on payoff. No, I am not. You seem to have missed my point. Thje question is how you can implement a tit for tat in the case of emission taxing.
Prev 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 Next
