Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 Next
Comments 121051 to 121100:
-
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:52 AM on 15 April 2010Earth's five mass extinction events
IPCC's 2007 report predicted that ... "20 to 30 per cent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 - 2.5 °C" above current levels" But you can see the issues with their "assessment" at www.NewScientest.com -
johnd at 07:32 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
doug_bostrom at 03:27 AM , I think all plants respond to soil temperature and soil moisture. Soil temperature will bear some form of relationship to photoperiod, but as can be seen now in Victoria, growing conditions for plants, and those animals that live on them, are more spring like than autumn like, at least until soil temperatures begin to fall below optimum. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Berényi Péter at 05:55 AM on 15 April, 2010 I like the animation, but you are basing a controversial statement based on a snapshot of a section of data that is far less than 10% of total Arctic “edge”, with uncertain navigation errors, and with unknown definition of ice concentration. If I thought the ACSYS data was representative of overall Arctic Ice extent I would have used it, but their accompanying documentation gives fair warning. I'd have liked to push the data as far back in time as possible and presumably so would Vinje and Goosse (ACSYS). Anyway, here is their modeled estimation of historical Northern Hemisphere ice extent anomaly.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:17 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Karl, I know, I use too many commas, but, thanks. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:13 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
BP my point is, surely there is some relationship between temperature and sea ice extent? I think we could agree that if the polar regions never dipped below freezing, we'd see lower ice extent? Not to be snarky or facetious but instead just point out there's a continuum here that is sort of inevitable. Also I agree w/Riccardo; I don't think the extent information you've got is sufficient to warrant much in the way of conclusions about where we're headed with regard to ice mass. The gif movie is cool but you ought to add some indication of recent median extent to the base image. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 06:11 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
#57.Alexandre You are presenting a "Straw Man" argument. I didn't say there was no evidence. I pointed out the limitation of this study. Your post from the IPCC was enlighting. I'm glad that the IPCC doesn't have credibilty issues. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 06:06 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
#63 JMurphy I did read that, and supports my comments. Headline reads, "Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years" It would have been more appropriate to say, "UK Flowers blooming earlier now..." But that wouldn't be as alarming would it? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 06:03 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
#64 doug_bostrom 1. All previous posts were read prior to my post. 2. I'd suggest you google the term "ad hominem" comments. Additionally if we want to start exchanging personal advice, I've got a bunch for you. Cheers -
Berényi Péter at 05:55 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
#34 doug_bostrom at 03:32 AM on 15 April, 2010 Surely you can better qualify that remark? Do I have to? The LIA is the coldest period during the last eight thousand years. On the other hand, the last decade is claimed to be at least as warm as the Holocene Optimum five thousand years ago. Still, some years in LIA show sea ice extent lower than the lowest recent summer one. Therefore sea ice extent and temperature should not be closely related. Either this or the last decade is not so warm after all. -
Riccardo at 05:42 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
This is what i'd call extreme cherry-picking: one day, in one year, in a small portion of the arctic where extreme melting in 2007 did not occur. People could use their time and intelligence more productively. -
Alexandre at 05:32 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Karl_from_Wylie Maybe you´d like to take a look at my comment #57 above. To claim that there´s no evidence, one has to at least try to look at the evidence. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:07 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Karl_from_Wylie you should take a moment to read some of the comments here that are less flippant than yours. I'd also suggest using Google Scholar w/the search term "phenology climate change." It's worth remembering, we've only got one reputation per login, may as well make 'em last. -
JMurphy at 03:53 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Karl_from_Wylie, you seem to have missed this bit, right at the end of the article above : The next step in this research is to see whether the same techniques can be employed on a larger scale, to give a regional or global picture of nature's response to temperature change. It was at the end, so perhaps you didn't get that far ? Ho hum. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 03:43 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Please add a section to the "Climate Alarmist" section. If a study shows something is happening in the UK, it must be a world-wide phenomenon. Ha ha. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:32 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Berényi Péter while I can think of all kinds of problems with trying to generalize conclusions from Arctic ice in 1664 versus Arctic ice in the present, you are as usual to be congratulated for actually doing original work on this topic. But your conclusion "sea ice extent and temperature are not closely related" is not up to your usual snuff. Surely you can better qualify that remark? -
Doug Bostrom at 03:27 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Actually JohnD you're wrong in saying that plants are decoupled from our calendar. Different organisms take their cues from different things. Some plant and animal behaviors are dominated by temperature, others by photoperiod. Our calendar of course is descriptive of photoperiod so in fact we find that many plants do follow the calendar, or try to. By exerting our imaginations a little bit, we can hypothesize that if plants that are dominated by the calendar attempt to perform in their normal way when the temperature regime they inhabit is no longer appropriate, they'll perform differently. Maybe better, maybe worse, but not the same. -
Berényi Péter at 03:12 AM on 15 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
OK, arctic sea ice extent in 2007 was low. Is it unprecedented? Not quite so.
Ice edge in mid July was never 200 km north of Svalbard in recent times.
You can check it here and here.
And 1664 was deep in the Little Ice Age, winter of 1664/65 being one of the coldest ever in England. Looks like sea ice extent and temperature are not closely related.
I have also made a rather boring gif movie using ACSYS historic sea ice data.
-
johnd at 02:06 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Whilst changes to the timing of plants flowering might be taking place when measured against the calender, being temperature driven, all other related natural activities in the ecosystem will be similarly driven by the same processes rather than by the calender as the article seems to suggest. Anyone who has any knowledge of agriculture knows that the beginning and the ending of a growing season can vary widely, and if allowed, the breeding cycle of livestock will adjust accordingly. But still there are many owners who will try to breed or plant according to the the calender irrespective of how the season is evolving. Animals in the wild respond to the conditions rather than the calender the same as the plants do. Surely humans can do likewise without too much drama. -
JMurphy at 01:36 AM on 15 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Berényi Péter, could you give any links to those 'chronicles' or those old folks' descriptions, please ? -
Tom Dayton at 00:39 AM on 15 April 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Here's a link to the report from that second inquiry: the Oxburgh Report. -
JMurphy at 00:33 AM on 15 April 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Good to hear that the second enquiry into CRU has (generally) backed them. I know the so-called skeptics will be shouting 'whitewash' again, but they must be ever-so desperate now for something to come out of the final enquiry - not that anything will, of course, but surely the more intelligent of them will be questioning some of their scepticism ? That is, will they be true sceptics or so-called skeptics ? -
Berényi Péter at 23:53 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
The thing is here in Central Europe we have chronicles going back to a thousand years and more. This way we don't really need proxies to reconstruct past climate, it is enough to be able to read. Latin, of course, for at that time it was the language of law, science and history. This is how we know fruit trees were blooming in January, 1182. According to Julian calendar of course, because present day Gregorian calendar was not invented yet. So it might have been early February. Anyway, this year we had heavy snow until mid March with not a single bud. And no blooming has ever occurred in living memory as early as described by the old folks. -
Alexandre at 23:22 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
HumanityRules #43 Thanks for pointing it out. I thought this map from the AR4 was based on Parmesan 2003. Actually, it's based on 75 different studies. Research is still much more intense in the Northern Hemisphere, but you can see the change in biological patterns in all continents point to warming, much like the thermometers. -
dhogaza at 22:47 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Leo G:How are humans not natural?
It's called "language". It's a distinction in language that goes back centuries, and everyone knows of the distinction, even if they want to play word games to derail discussion. Here are some dictionary definitions that might be of use:1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
Now that the context has been set, perhaps the conversation can go forward without such needless diversions such as questioning the definition of common English words? -
thefrogstar at 22:36 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
I'm glad that this paper was available only untill Wednesday, but it might have been better if it was not made available at all. So. Imagine that I have "derived an index" to describe the weight of annual crops of apples AND oranges that are grown in Somerset. What would the mean and standard error of the mean actually signify when I apply it to this index? You don't like that there are few oranges grown in somerset and you might ge t an n=0 in the data? Thats OK. Just "derive an index" for apples AND pairs instead No. Better still, "derive an index" that describes the date of the first Cuckoo-call (as reported in The Times) AND the date of arrival of the first Swallow that doesn't make make a Summer (an unladen Swallow, of course). Now do some statistics on this index and make a plot with overlapping error bars. C'mon, people. -
Peter Hogarth at 22:32 PM on 14 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Don Gisselbeck at 10:36 AM on 14 April, 2010 Not sure on those specific glaciers! I guess it depends on how much is left after summer as well as how much falls in winter. More snow and more melt are not necessarily exclusive. But have a look at Bolch 2010 which looks at the pretty high glacier loss trends in BC and Alberta (25% loss in glacier area in Alberta 1985-2005, a bit better in BC) -
Marcus at 22:30 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Conservationists-or contrarians-who claim that dealing with climate change is "distracting us" from dealing with other environmental issues clearly have little faith in humanity's ability to multi-task. Last I checked we had the ability to walk & chew gum at the same time. The fact is that one great way to reduce CO2 emissions is to conserve more existing forest, & to grow more trees where possible-this will increase biodiversity, reduce soil & catchment degradation & save many species from extinction-so this is just one example of where tackling climate change dovetails nicely with saving the environment more generally. There are other examples, but this is the most obvious. Of course, most of the contrarians who make these kinds of claims couldn't give two hoots about any other environmental issues-& would happily promote environmental degradation if it boosted the bottom line! -
Peter Hogarth at 22:05 PM on 14 April 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Berényi Péter at 22:28 PM on 8 April, 2010 If you extrapolate your curve backwards in time what happens?.... the curve I fitted to sea level rise is a fit to observed data, rather than an extrapolation. Anyway, first you need to get hold of The latest satellite altimetry data, as Jason 1 data has not been updated on the Boulder site since late 2009. Jason 2 and Envisat altimeters are both currently active. Now do your trend, but extrapolate the trend plus error contributions as well. To emphasise the danger in your treatment of the data, take the Envisat data which starts late 2002. Fit a second order curve to this and extrapolate. Better start building your ark. I suggest that the correct interpretation is that the overall satellite record trend is statistically indistinguishable from a straight line, but we have to remember the errors, consider the tidal data that allows us to look longer term, and extrapolate carefully, taking all known information and driving factors into account. I’m not clever enough to do that, but I can say the trend over past 200 years is accelerating, the indications are that it will continue to do so, and point to the data and peer reviewed analysis to support this statement. -
JMurphy at 18:30 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
HumanityRules, you state that your personal views on biodiversity are 'more pragmatic' : what does that mean ? As for the 'Natural England' report, I did not state it to be a 'report about climate change' but, rather, a pointer as to how climate change will affect species in this country. The web summary may not have mentioned the words 'climate change' but the report certainly does and has a graph (Figure 5 : The most significant threats faced by BAP priority species in 2008) which has climate change as a midway serious threat - below land-use changes but above pollution. It also has a whole section (Species losing their English ‘climate space’) which gives more prominence to climate change. Would you disregard all that or disbelieve it for some reason, or do you think it's all hyperbole ? How does your pragmatism allow you to belittle the threat ? And again (as you have asserted previously with regard to 'catastrophe peddlers'), you blithely reckon that 'conservationists are begin[ning] to suggest that the focus on climate change is a distraction from issues associated with an expanding global human population'. So, again, I ask for back-up and references for those 'conservationists' (on top of the request for the 'catastrophe peddlers'). Instead of making assertions, how about naming names ? -
watchingthedeniers at 15:44 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Just to make it clear Leo, a collapse of key components of our logistical networks (food distribution, medical services, trade) will have profound and devastating effect. This is why the US military, NSA and other American intelligence agencies are taking the issue very seriously: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/08/us-military-declares-war-on-cl.html This is not a green/left/right wing issue. It's a civilizational challenge. -
watchingthedeniers at 15:40 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
@ Leo G post 48 "...How are humans not natural? Unless the bible is right and we were created by an omniscient being, which I doubt, then we must have evolved as all other natural things have for the past 14 billion years. Don't forget that as a species, we have inhabited this planet for approx. 200K years, thus we have survived through at least 2 ice ages, and 2 warming periods..." It may very well that we survive as a species, however the transition period may be difficult. As a species we number <6bn. However, our global civilisation rests on same fragile foundations: a global food supply network; advanced medical technology; sophisticated global logistic network that allows trade etc. As the global financial crises clearly indicated, a disruption to a key component of a sophisticated network can have profound effects. Remember, 70,000 years ago the human population was reduced to a around to >15,000 individuals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory There are also other instances of genetic bottlenecks in evolutionary history, not just for H.Sapiens. This is where the denial movements fails completely to understand what we are saying: civilisation is a precious thing that we should both celebrate and protect. 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. To draw an analogy: it's like when the Americans ignored all the warning signs that lead to Pearl Harbour; or when the Soviets ignored the massive preponderance of evidene pointing to a massive German invasion. Neither went well. The science supporting climate change is *valuable intelligence* that should be informing our political and economic debates. Instead, we are stuck at the "denial phase". -
Doug Bostrom at 15:30 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Leo, sorry, I have to keep pointing out that we're not mindless like bacteria or a tropical cyclone or a nest of ants. We're of nature but we don't act like nature. Or at least we shouldn't. I'm not a religious person but I think the Bible has some stuff to say about that, something about stewardship which implies a sense of responsibility and thus mindfulness. So we needn't feel guilty unless we have reason. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:24 PM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
And by the way, ahawnhet, you've left hanging the question of how and why-- without encouragement and full information-- free markets will choose non-legacy energy systems that are allowed to be mistaken as more expensive? -- How in the absence of full and transparent accounting for all costs whether that accounting be done voluntarily or otherwise will the free market make the correct choice, the one that is most economically efficient in the long term? -- Knowing of external costs that are presently ignored in pricing, how does the free market adjust the price of legacy energy liberation systems to reflect their true cost? -
Leo G at 15:10 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Marcus - "Though its certain that the planet will recover/survive our irrational acts of vandalism-in evolutionary time-its not as certain that it will recover in sufficient time to save the human civilization, which has a much narrower comfort zone for change than the natural world." How are humans not natural? Unless the bible is right and we were created by an omniscient being, which I doubt, then we must have evolved as all other natural things have for the past 14 billion years. Don't forget that as a species, we have inhabited this planet for approx. 200K years, thus we have survived through at least 2 ice ages, and 2 warming periods. As for the irrational acts of vandalism, why did an inteligence evolve within the species, that has made the actual life for more and more of our breed to be more satisfying and comfortable these last few thousand years? Again, I say a natural evolvolution, as all are, to promote the species that you are associated with. Do you think that Lions and Hyennas get along fine on the Savannah? Not, the lions will, when it is advatageous to them, kill close habitating Hyennas. I wish we could drop this guilt that humans are somehow not natural, therefore bad to nature. Sorry, gotta plead innocent on that charge, Humans are as natural as any virus. :) -
Doug Bostrom at 15:07 PM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Most of the easy stuff has already been done, shawnhet? I'm not so sure about that, if you run the numbers you'll see the EU is choosing to do some of the hard things first, a little prematurely, when they're too expensive. Take photovoltaic systems, for instance. Some EU countries have made the choice to invest in these early, which has helped to build manufacturing capacity but has I think been a poor choice of where the first funds directed to eliminating our fossil fuel habit should go. PV systems are still relatively expensive, dollar per watt, compared to some other technologies that are proven useful and waiting for deployment. For example, the EU like many other places has a substantial requirement for domestic hot water (sorry, one of my favorite grinds) as well as space heating. DHW and space heating systems require low grade heat of the sort not required to do "work" in the sense we're accustomed to. This sort of energy is extremely easy to capture using solar input and it also happens to be relatively easy to store. Because this technology is both very efficient at capturing sunlight and as well requires nothing particularly special in the way of manufacturing capabilities, it is potentially extremely affordable compared to PV systems. N. Europe is not a place where solar heating of water can be accomplished year 'round but nonetheless a substantial portion of energy input to heat water waits to be offset by augmentation of existing systems with solar input. The watt-equivalent contribution this adjustment can make to relieving load from the electric grid comes at about a tenth the price of watts captured via PV systems. Meanwhile, a liter of water heated 10 degrees centigrade does not care whether it was heated by electricity, natural gas or solar radiation, but we obviously should be when confronted with comparative numbers of 10:1. This matter of inverted priorities w/regard to solar energy capture will be noticed, is in fact being noticed now. Given that at the end of the day most water in Europe is ultimately heated via natural gas, we see there is actually a substantial amount of carbon being emitted by the EU that will be relatively easy to eliminate. This is assuming that regulators stimulate the private enterprise needed to produce DHW and space heating solar capture systems at sane production levels and hence prices, instead of the hobbyist level the industry occupies in much of the EU north of Spain and Greece. -
watchingthedeniers at 15:03 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
I think this should put to bed any "controversy" on the warming/solar flare issue: http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/levy-walks-solar-flares-and-warming/ -
Leo G at 14:56 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
Personnal data from my garden -Pear tree in full bloom 15 days earlier then average this spring - Cherry tree in full bloom 4 days earlier then average - apple tree still not even a single bloom, should be in full bloom in 3-4 days, don't think it's gonna make it. Average based on six years of record keeping. O/T - a very good discussion on solar/climate is happening right now on Wuwt. Svalgaard and Scafetta, plus some others I do not recognize http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/levy-walks-solar-flares-and-warming/#comments -
shawnhet at 14:16 PM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Doug, whether the trend is slightly downward or flat or slightly rising, the *big picture* is that in order to avoid the hypothetical catastrophe *significant* **reductions** in CO2 will have to be forthcoming. As I have said, those reductions will be increasingly difficult to come by. Most of the easy stuff has already been done. So what? Do you want to keep focusing on efforts that will be increasingly difficult to receive any sort of payout or do you want to focus on the stuff that has a chance to work? Does it make any sense to complain about others stupidity and ignore doing the easy stuff? Cheers, :) -
watchingthedeniers at 13:49 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
@ HumanityRules post 41 "No mention of climate change. It's likely habitat loss is the most significant here not a shift of 10 days in the onset of spring. I think you have mis-labelled this as a report about climate change..." No credible scientist has made such a claim. Habitat loss and extinction over the past few centuries are due to multiple causes (development, deforestation). Climate change is *another* human induced cause of the extinciton etc. Have you *read* the paper and looked at the 25 year intervals. Can you note how that correlates with our understanding of climate change over the past 100 years? This is exactly what was predicted. To claim otherwise is a little disingenuous. And "many conservationists" question climate change? That would be who? Your last statement suggests you are a fan of the Bjorn Lomborg. -
watchingthedeniers at 13:40 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
@ quokka post 11 - thanks mate, exactly what I was looking for. And I'll look out for the new paper JC refers too. -
HumanityRules at 12:49 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
32.Alexandre I have issues with describing these phenology papers as global. The vast majority of this sort of data is NH, more specifically Europe and N. America. For example you describe the Parmesan paper as "analysing phenomena in every continent" when this is their own description "All studies were conducted in temperate Northern Hemisphere, except for 194 species in Costa Rica and 5 species in Antarctica" Global?? -
HumanityRules at 12:33 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
23.Alexandre I prefer Fow News myself! -
HumanityRules at 12:29 PM on 14 April 2010Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years
20.JMurphy Interesting report although my personnel views on biodiversity are more pragmatic. This from the web summary. "this Lost life report identifies nearly 500 animals and plants that have become extinct in England – practically all within the last two centuries. It also highlights how habitat loss, inappropriate management, environmental pollution and pressure from non-native species have all played a part in the erosion of England’s biodiversity." No mention of climate change. It's likely habitat loss is the most significant here not a shift of 10 days in the onset of spring. I think you have mis-labelled this as a report about climate change. Many conservationists are begin to suggest that the focus on climate change is a distraction from issues associated with an expanding global human population. Again my personnel views are somewhat different on this issue also. Finally if there is no catastrophe looming then it begs the question why we are arguing about this problem? I'm happy to agree that this is not significant enough a problem to make us reconsider our future ecomonic development for. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:20 PM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
I'd certainly prefer to see steadily declining GHG emissions in the EU, shawnhet, but your highlighting of 2 years' data and further remark on economic activity demonstrates yet again how it is a mistake to build a case on selected datapoints, noisy as they are. Using the data at the link I provided above, you can see that despite numerous swerves in economic activity and massive changes in regional geopolitics, the EU's GHG emissions trend is downward. During this period the EU as well as member states acting independently have introduced a number of aggressive schemes to limit GHG emissions. By so doing, a generous assessment is that they have if nothing else arrested the emissions trend we see in other parts of the world with looser regulations. A more pessimistic interpretation might emphasize the declining curve of reductions; that may be a matter of initial incentives running their course and leading to the steepening curve of effort you alluded to. However, your basic assertion of increasing EU GHG emissions does not have a firm foundation. -
michael sweet at 11:46 AM on 14 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Reference for claim of rotten ice near Canada in previous post: Barber, D. G., R. Galley, M. G. Asplin, R. De Abreu, K.- A. Warner, M. Pucko, M. Gupta, S. Prinsenberg, and S. Julien. 2009. Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009. Geophysical Research Letters 36, L24501, doi:10.1029/2009GL041434. -
michael sweet at 11:43 AM on 14 April 2010Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check
Humanity Rules: Surface temperature is limited over the summer ice by the melting ice itself. The temperature in the past was near zero celcius and continues near zero. It cannot go up until the ice is gone. Even then, the surface temperature is constrained by the cold arctic ocean. It is not suprising that summer temps have risen less than winter. There is more room for change in the winter. It will be interesting to see in the next decade if the summer temperature starts to rise faster now that there is so much less ice. There are reports that the old ice near Canada includes large sections that are rotten (contain much degraded ice). This ice may not be resistant to melt in the summer, depending on the weather. I have seen a variety of predictions when the Arctic is expected to be ice free, ranging from 2013 (!!) to 2070. It seems to me that Dr. Hogarth has adopted a conservative tone for this thread (IMO a good position). These models are in flux as the ice changes from year to year. The next few years data will be interesting to see. -
shawnhet at 11:41 AM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Doug, here are a couple of references laying out the increased emissions from Europe. http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en http://ecopreneurist.com/2008/04/03/2007-european-carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-11-carbon-futures-jump-39/ http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2009/20090625-Global-CO2-emissions_-annual-increase-halved-in-2008.html Very recent numbers are affected by the economic downturn, of course. IAC, a flat rate isn't good enough if the theory is accurate, the recent US rate is pretty comparable to the European one. To prevent the proposed calamity, we would actually need to *reduce* the amount of CO2 emissions. So Europe will have to do *more* if you are right(bearing in mind of course that one of the reasons for EU's low carbon emissions is nuclear power). As I have said, it will be increasingly difficult to get them to do so. Again, far from being contradicted by empirical evidence, my POV is confirmed by it. Cheers, :) -
Tom Dayton at 11:14 AM on 14 April 2010CO2 lags temperature
pdt, in accord with Doug's comment I've responded to you on the Models Are Unreliable thread. -
Tom Dayton at 11:12 AM on 14 April 2010Models are unreliable
(This comment is my response to a comment by pdt on a different thread that is not the right place for this discussion.) pdt wroteIt seems that at least some effects are still not really based upon a fundamental understanding of underlying physics. The effects of clouds are still apparently used as fitting parameters to climate data. The fits to climate data are then used to predict climate over other periods. I don't really have a problem with this in principle, but it does seem that these are not really fully based on fundamental physics and this type of fitting leaves open the possibility of trying to use the fitted parameters outside the region of validity (extrapolation rather than interpolation). Apparently things like clouds are not really understood in enough detail to truly predict climate from fundamental physics.
Doug Bostrom correctly replied "It's...a rare matter of actual significant uncertainty." The answer is in the RealClimate post FAQ on Climate Models, the "Questions" section, "What is the difference between a physics-based model and a statistical model?", "Are climate models just a fit to the trend in global temperature data?", and "What is tuning?" A relevant quote from those: "Thus statistical fits to the observed data are included in the climate model formulation, but these are only used for process-level parameterisations, not for trends in time." Part II of that post then provides more details on parameterizations, including specifics on clouds. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:06 AM on 14 April 2010Are we too stupid?
Oops. When I said "productivity figures equal or exceed our own" I implied "our" as the U.S.A., ~4.5% world population.
Prev 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 Next
