Recent Comments

Prev  2418  2419  2420  2421  2422  2423  2424  2425  2426  2427  2428  2429  2430  2431  2432  2433  Next

Comments 121251 to 121300:

121251. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:29 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        In many ways the answer to the question 'Are we too stupid' depends on how big the problem is. I believe we will be able to make the switch away from fossil fuels for power generation and transport, although how quickly we will do it (as opposed to how quickly we can do it) remains to be seen. These are achievable because they are technical changes in nature, viable, and apart from some economic costs, it does not have any real impact. Power still comes out of the socket, we still drive our cars. This change has no meaningful impact on how the economy works or the basic paradygms of our lives. However, if this is all the change we make, we had better hope like hell the Climate Sensitivity ends up being right at the low end of expectations. Otherwise we are in trouble. Actually there are a range of threats we face this century and the scale of response we need to make to deal with the sum of all of them is frightening: - Climate Sensitivity might be at the high end of expectations. - Tackling all the other ways in which humanity causes Greenhouse gas emissions - Melting Permafrost and Clathrates releasing Methane. - World Population is heading for 9-10 Billion before it is likely to level. And even then any decline after that would be very slow. Even more radical policies such as 1 child per family world wide would only see a decline back to levels similar to today by the end of the century. And any rapid decline in population would result in a demographic bulge for generations. Too many older people and not enough young people to support them. - The Green Revolution is in trouble. The Green revolution of the 60's and 70's saw many crop yields double and triple. This required new plant varieties, but it also required resources to allow them to achieve their yields - adequately fertile land, irrigation and chemical farming, particularly artificial fertilisers. And now population has climbed to the level where food shortages and famine are starting to threaten again. We need even more food yet the resource base needed to support its production is under threat: ---- around 1/3rd of farming soils are being lost faster than new soil is being created ---- The Hydrological Crisis may lead to major water shortages in important growing areas; declining groundwater supplies, declines in Glacial run-off, and AGW induced rainfall changes ---- Most of the worlds fertilisers rely on Natural Gas as their main feedstock in production. If we use up the NG before we switch to renewables, we may face a fertiliser shortage. ---- Crop Ecologists have a rule of thumb that a 1 DegC temperature rise results in a 10% decline in productivity for most major grain crops. So we face the possibility of a world with 9-10 billion people with even less food production than now. Maybe only enough for 4 billion - Then there is Economic Growth. Not only will we have more people who will want higher living standards, our economies are actually dependent on growth to function. Even when we have periods of low growth, but still growth, the economy is still described as sluggish. And much of our economies are dependent on huge waste to function - planned obsolesence, the throw away culture, needless consumption of vast amounts of pointless and contrived products and services. So much so that we are acculturated to call this Consumer Society our 'way of life'. We can't afford this level of resource consumption if we are to survive. So if the economy doesn't have increasing population as a driver of demand, if it doesn't have 'rising living standards' as a driver of demand, if it no longer has the wastefulness of the Consumer Society as a driver of demand, what happens to the economy? Vast arrays of industries, businesses and jobs vanish. Permanently. We could produce the basic goods and services we need with a fraction of our current workforce. But there is a problem. A part of humanity might be able to produce every thing that we all need. But the rest would be unemployed. And thus would not be able to afford to purchase the goods & services. And thus all the businesses that are producing them will have no markets. And even more people will have no jobs. So how do we create an economy that is low resource consumption, hyper-efficient in its use of resources, able to support everyone adequately yet still fits the economic model that includes things like property, money, that we can only have access to the resources of the world if we have access to money to buy it. And can only get money through work. If the work is available. Are our dominant paradigms, that have underpinned our societies and our sense of who we are as individuals, compatible with what we need to do to be able to survive? Personally I think not. But cut us some slack here. The change we need to make to really protect our futures are so profound that it is a huge ask. The technological aspect is trivial by comparison. We seem to be apemen who have evolved a huge capacity to change the world around us while being hostage to our inability to evolve comparable changes in our internal mental landscape to allow us to survive in the world we have created.
121252. tobyjoyce at 18:44 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Tom Dayton (#5) is absolutely right regarding galloping camel's claims. The discussion at Open Mind contains all that needs to be said. However, I cannot resist quoting this from "a particle physicist" (Comment 98) "Climate science obviously differs [from particle physics] in that we have only one Earth to work with (a “cosmic variance” problem that should be familiar to many physicists in other contexts). Not to mention that global warming from the greenhouse effect is a prediction of well-understood physics; the extraordinary claim that would require huge statistical significance to be convincing would be that it isn’t happening." Some of the ideas around the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons are discussed non-mathematically in Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue"
121253. RSVP at 18:40 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        "If players were also enlightened with expert knowledge on the climate they even cooperated significantly more." I am all for learing to be cooperative, but... these behavioral dynamics are found with overfishing, where cooperation is problematic even in the face of unequivocal observation (i.e. no fish). There is no doubt that Earth's resources are limited. Its atmosphere is also a limited resource, and becomes ever more so as population increases. Only with science can this limit be properly determine. But population does not only affect warming. And while limiting population solves many problems, it does not solve all problems. The million dollar question is how much is best, and in what manner? And even for that, you need cooperation.
121254. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 18:31 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        HumanityRules "If I could just restate Humanity does in fact Rule." It does not occur to you that Earth might defect on Humanity?
121255. Berényi Péter at 16:38 PM on 6 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        #6 Ned at 11:04 AM on 6 April, 2010 "If one only uses one's own reasoning and disregards outside expertise, one is liable to be led into serious errors" Yes. That's a risk one should accept. However, mistakes can (and should) be corrected. Let's discuss it under the proper topic, please. On the other hand, the only way to actually understand anything is by trying to reproduce it on your own. There is no royal road. "Now there are many things that seem to be grounded in truth and to follow from scientific principles but actually are at variance with these principles and deceive the more superficial. It was for this reason that Euclid set forth methods for intelligent discrimination in such matters, too. With these methods not only shall we be able to train beginners in this study to detect fallacies, but we shall be able to escape deception ourselves". You also ask: Why would you link to that as justification for your claim that the pre-ARGO data aren't reliable?" I suppose you have read the paper. If so, you can see it has nothing to say about the 2003 step-like increase of OHC. Without it most of the multi-decadal trend is gone. Energy conservation is a pretty solid principle. If it ever gets falsified, it would not happen in climate science.
121256. Tom Dayton at 15:44 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Anyone who believes gallopingcamel's claims about statistical significance should read the professional statistician Tamino's post The Power -- and Perils -- of Statistics. Be sure to read all the comments, too, since many of them are from us "real" scientists.
121257. Steve L at 15:42 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        I should read this again, but it looks like people can be expected to act more responsibly when they are well-informed and when their actions are not anonymous. Seems pretty obvious, but it's good to be reminded. (This probably applies to behaviour on blogs, too.) I suspect there is more to Figure 4 than just that, though.
121258. gallopingcamel at 15:01 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Fascinating post. Maybe your best yet. I have been wondering how long it will take for the Deniers and Alarmists to realise that nothing much will be achieved as long as they enjoy debating more than trying to find common ground with their opponents. This thread may be venturing into the realm of "solutions", something that John Cook has avoided to date. When it comes to solutions I can think of several issues that both sides of the climate debate could support. According to Milinski things have to get pretty bad (90% probability of disaster) before the warring parties will be motivated to make common cause. The fly in the ointment is that hard science usually expects predictions to meet a 5 sigma limit (Normal distribution). This corresponds to a very high probability that the result is not random. In matters of life and death, even higher standards may be involved. For example, the probability of remaining alive after taking a scheduled air line flight in the USA exceeds the 6 sigma limit (p>0.99999998). When it comes to "Climate Science" it is hard to find any results at the 2 sigma level. Some even argue that a probability at the 1 sigma level (p=0.8413) should be good enough when they are predicting "the end of civilisation as we know it". I call it junk science that brings us real scientists into disrepute.
121259. Tom W at 14:11 PM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        The splicing across more than one graph and the offset in the y-axes points to a deeper problem. Why not just offset the GTTA axis 6 inches down the page? Or expand the heck out of the scale. Since two axes refer to different metrics with no clear QUANTITATIVE relationship you're free to represent them however you want. Therefore MacLean's inference drawn from the observation that the GTTA never rises above the SOI doesn't mean anything.
121260. HumanityRules at 13:34 PM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        There are so many bad things to say about Lovelock's opinions in that interview that I don't know how you could find it in you to take up one point. If I could just restate Humanity does in fact Rule.
121261. Ned at 11:04 AM on 6 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        Berényi Péter writes: Sometimes you should use your own head. No amount of peer reviewed literature could save you that effort. It's important to use your own head and think about things for yourself. But when considering a highly complex subject outside your own area of expertise it's equally important (or more important) to make an effort to understand what people who spend their whole careers studying that subject have to say. If one only uses one's own reasoning and disregards outside expertise, one is liable to be led into serious errors like this: "[Water vapor] feedback is not positive. If it would be positive, the scenario described above [a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus] is inevitable. It is not climate science, not even physics. Just plain old math. Plus the empirical fact we are still alive." If you will forgive me for making a critical comment, I think that this kind of disregard for learning from active scientists is one of the weaknesses of many of your comments here. I rarely if ever see you engage at all with the peer reviewed literature, which is a bit puzzling -- this site is unique among climate science blogs because of John's emphasis on discussing the peer reviewed literature, so if you have no interest in that, why do you comment here? This current topic is a case in point. Many people have worked on reconstructions of ocean heat content from the 1950s or 1960s onward. There are debates within the field about the best ways to handle sparse data, the best ways to handle instrumentation biases, and whether there are sufficient data pre-1967 to permit a statistically valid reconstruction before that time. All of these are interesting topics and all of them are discussed in great detail in the literature. Against all that, we have your flat assertion that pre-ARGO ocean heat content data are unreliable. Why? Well, you just say "look at this graph". It's not clear what you think you see in that graph. Oddly enough, the graph itself (here) is actually from a paper titled "Global ocean heat content (1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems," a paper in which the authors describe how they were able to reconstruct ocean heat content from 1955-2008 in spite of various difficulties associated with pre-ARGO instrumentation. Why would you link to that as justification for your claim that the pre-ARGO data aren't reliable? I have no doubt that when you write something like "In #86 I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that recent decrease of OHC has nothing to do with ENSO. Just have a look at the figure" you sincerely believe you have in fact demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt. But alas, what seems convincing to you may be completely unconvincing to others. This is the advantage of testing your understanding against the accumulated expertise of scientists working in the field.
121262. Bernard J. at 10:23 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Berényi Péter at #24. If the oceans are "not quite" warming, what then accounts for the consistent rise in level, if not thermal expansion? Note that the rise occurs in the face of dam inpoundment which, according to BF Chao, removes more than 0.5mm/yr additional rise, from river inflows around the planet.
121263. gallopingcamel at 09:41 AM on 6 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        Many trees, from Sequoias to Olives can survive thousands of years when we let them. Even if we harvest the trees for lumber that wood can have a long lifetime, especially high quality woods. Instead of incentives for food and timber production we have provided incentives for farmers to produce ethanol from corn as an additive for gasoline, so the carbon absorbed is soon released back into the atmosphere. It is hard to see much benefit from this idea while the disadvantages have become increasingly obvious, including poorer vehicle performance, higher food prices and the pollution of water ways. Phillipe mentions the lobbyists who pressure governments into making bad public policies. The ethanol in gasoline idea is a notable example of that; it can be traced directly to ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland). To influence the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere we need to implement better solutions than the ones tried so far. I agree with John Russell (#76) when he says humans can overwhelm the natural processes that sequester carbon; it is important that we make good choices. As Phillipe Chantreau points out, it is not going to be easy but this might be something you could persuade "Deniers" to support. I would also point out that it does less harm to the world's economy to produce valuable goods (non-perishable foods and high quality timber) than goods that are useless or perishable. Probably the worst kind of public policy is the all too common practice (USA & EEC) of paying farmers to grow nothing at all.
121264. Alexandre at 09:37 AM on 6 April 2010
        Are we too stupid?
        Very interesting post. One great work to be added here is the one by the 2009 Nobel Prize Elinor Ostrom. Her book "Rules, Games and Common-pool Resources" is enlightening on the dilemma "private vs. collective result". Some games have a structure that lure agents to a destructive end result. A fisherman won't preserve his much needed tuna only by individually choosing to fish less. Only collective coordination of individual action can provide: 1) A rule of use of the resource that keeps consumption below its carrying capacity (eg limiting number of users or limiting individual consumption) 2) Some way of enforcing the above.
121265. Berényi Péter at 09:24 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        #9 ubrew12 at 08:14 AM on 5 April, 2010 "The oceans are where the judgement of AGW is actually written, and those oceans are warming" The first part of the sentence is true. The second one is not quite so.
121266. Marcus at 09:22 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Heres the thing I fail to understand though. ENSO is hardly a *new* phenomenon-indeed humans have been *aware* of it for at least 250 years. Yet prior to the last 30 years we're supposed to believe it had *no* impact on long-term climate, but is now suddenly the cause of global warming. Excuse me if I'm a *little* incredulous, but isn't it just as likely that global warming is driving changes to ENSO, rather than the other way around?
121267. Berényi Péter at 08:37 AM on 6 April 2010
        Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
        #89 Ned at 21:40 PM on 5 April, 2010 "this subject is off-topic for a thread on snowfall" Right. I have also switched to the ocean cooling thread.
121268. Berényi Péter at 08:31 AM on 6 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        #4 Ned at 21:37 PM on 5 April, 2010 "I'm replying here, since the subject was off-topic for that thread" OK, it was, indeed. However, it came there naturally, as things are interconnected. Just for reference: it was a response to #85 Ned at 00:29 AM on 5 April, 2010 under topic Does record snowfall disprove global warming? You have claimed there that "we've been in El Nino conditions for some time now and there's typically a short-term decrease in OHC when the cycle shifts from El Nino to La Nina". In #86 I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that recent decrease of OHC has nothing to do with ENSO. Just have a look at the figure. I have also noticed there, that the 2003 jump in OHC may be an artifact due to instrumental change. The NODC OHC graph shows an increase of about 5 × 10²² J in a single year. Since heat storage capacity of all other components of the climate system are negligible compared to the oceans, this energy could only come from an abrupt 3 W m^-2 increase of radiative imbalance at TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Let us see. Well, if ISCCP data are considered reliable, nothing like that has happened. There was a sharp decrease of some 4 W m^-2 in net incoming flux at TOA between 2000 and 2002. Since then it is practically flat. Therefore reconstruction of OHC history before ARGO is suspect. Sometimes you should use your own head. No amount of peer reviewed literature could save you that effort. #87 Riccardo at 06:43 AM on 5 April, 2010 in same thread wrote: "you're dangerously falling into a grim denialism. You do not bother to verify you claims and let other people do the dirty job to make your denialism apparent. It's a bit boring" Now. I kindly request our host to comment on this attitude. According to the site's Comments Policy "Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice". A couple of other points come to mind as well. John, I would rather not ask you to delete that comment, as it also includes a false claim I'll comment on shortly, but it definitely deserves one of those green boxes. #87 Riccardo at 06:43 AM on 5 April, 2010 "Your claim about the jump in the deployment of Argo floats in 2003 which you immagine is the cause of the jump in OHC is blatantly false. Check youself (pag.4)." Riccardo, you are referring to this image: First things first. I have not claimed there was a jump in deployment. What I did claim, there is a jump in OHC reconstruction and at the same time instrumentation went through a huge change. However, as you may notice, there is indeed a jump in Pacific ARGO deployments during 2003. This jump is due to lack of ARGO floats in southern Pacific (to a lesser extent in southern Atlantic as well) during early 2003. The gap was filled in by December 2003, but it took another four months to get a reasonable distribution by random drift. As for the number of active ARGO floats, it went like this: 2002-04 465 2003-04 797 2003-07 832 2003-08 860 2003-12 1023 2004-04 1158 2004-07 1257 2004-11 1500 2005-04 1788 2005-05 1871 2006-05 2451 2006-11 2743 2007-11 3070 2008-05 3111 2009-07 3319 The histogram shows the annual number of profiles collected, the blue line is the number of active floats. Compare the distributions above to current status: It is only the Number 5 December 2004 issue of Argonautics Newsletter that declares: "Uses of Argo data    Perhaps the most important feature is that the array is now global and this permits us to start to address important scientific issues and to make the data useful to operational centres" You can see how sparse OHC data really are prior to ARGO: All other sources of OHC data also diminished dangerously by the year 2002. It is slide 6 in the Leviticus presentation: Caption: The number of 4°x2° boxes that meet the observation criteria as a function of time for both MBT and XBT comparisons based on computations from WOD data.
121269. philc at 08:26 AM on 6 April 2010
        Is the science settled?
        Re 106-111 and humidity. Relative humidity is just that relative. To get to the root of the matter go with absolute humidity(g of water/g of dry air) and dewpoint(the temperature at which water condenses from the air in question). The term relative humidity was invented to explain why one might feel more comfortable on a warm dry day than on a slightly cooler but much more humid day. In order to get precipitation the air has to cool below the dewpoint. This might happen at 5,000 ft for cumulus clouds with high absolute humidity, or at 50,000 ft for cirrus clouds with low absolute humidity. Precip can happen at any altitude and any temperature, depending on conditions. That is why using a parameter to simulate it in a 200km grid box in a model is a dubious proposition at best. Trenberth's paper was very good. "The global energy budget is not closed." In other words we don't know where significant amounts of energy are going in the climate system. Per table #1, the residual is 30-100 Jx10^20 per year, which is in the range of the forcing attributed to GHG(~107 Jx 10^20/yr). It's also 1-3 times the total net positive imbalance in figure 4. I totally agree that long term, reliable measurements of the TOA radiation from a source such as the CERES satellite are needed. "A climate information systrem that first determines what is taking place and then establishes why is better able to provide a sound basis for making predictions and (sic)which can answer important questions such as 'Has global warming really slowed or not'". I agree 100%. Until we have real, reliable, accurate measurements of the TOA radiation we don't know sXXX.
121270. Riccardo at 08:04 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        johnd, McLean's claim is different. He says that from the short term SOI variation logically follows the long term trend, which is quite obviously not the case.
121271. Doug Bostrom at 07:52 AM on 6 April 2010
        It's land use
        BTW, johnd, what doubts do you harbor about what you term "revelations" concerning the UHI effect?
121272. Doug Bostrom at 07:43 AM on 6 April 2010
        It's land use
        The answer for your #6 is easy, johnd. With steadily improving insulation the Earth's retained heat will increase, until the planet reaches thermal equilibrium again. This whole issue is really not complicated in its essential features but the scale of the phenomena involved defies our intuitive numeracy.
121273. johnd at 07:29 AM on 6 April 2010
        It's land use
        Doug @4. I believe that if the infrastructure humans build creates additional thermal mass that stores heat that otherwise would radiate off at a faster rate, then that does alter the immediate environment we live in. This is something we all know, what a relief to escape the stifling city heat during the warmer days, or nights....With regards to the UHI effect, there are 2 aspects to it. The first is what effect it has on the natural climate. The second is what effect it has on the data collected that is used to quantify the physical conditions. I am not certain that the scientists have got a handle on the second as yet. Certainly revelations in recent times have created a considerable amount of doubt.
121274. Doug Bostrom at 07:17 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        Philc, this is one of those situations where a very simple experimental analogy can resolve a misunderstanding. The experiment's so easy to picture it's probably not necessary to do an actual implementation. But if you want to do it, you'll need an empty one gallon paint can, a thermometer, a 75 watt reflector lamp, and an old sweatshirt or other piece of cloth. -- Fill the paint can with water. -- Situate the can in a place with a stable ambient temperature -- Allow time enough for the temperature of the water to reach the ambient temperature of its location. -- Take a reading of the water temperature -- Arrange a 75 watt reflector bulb so that it is shining into the top of the can from a few inches away. -- Continue to take temperature readings, until the temperature has stabilized at its higher level. Record the stable temperature. -- Wrap the can with the old sweatshirt or cloth, leaving the top of the can and water exposed to the lamp. -- Take more temperature readings until the temperature of the water has stabilized at its new higher level. You've just seen why the Earth's temperature will rise but will not rise forever when its better insulated. The experimental analogy is not perfect because the insulation you've added to the can not only retards radiation but also reduces convective losses, but it's adequate to model the situation.
121275. johnd at 07:15 AM on 6 April 2010
        It's land use
        Doug, I don't want to turn a fun experiment into a full blown project, but to get the most out of such an exercise, the temperature of the slabs would have to be tracked at least a full 24 hours with an additional slab stood at right angles to the other standing slab, as well as the temperature being recorded just below the soil surface over the same period. One of the objectives I believe is to measure under what conditions any residual heat will remain after a full day/night cycle. Of course what matters really is what heat remains after a full summer/winter cycle.
121276. johnd at 07:04 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Sean @20. It depends on what short and long term refer to. There is no doubt that the SOI does help form longer term variations seen as the multi decadal IPO or PDO which cycle over about 6 or 7 decades, and these have been identified back centuries. Reconstructions of El-Ninos (Quinn El-Ninos 1527-1987) indicate that the 1500's and 1800's were times of more frequent El-Ninos than more recent times.
121277. Tom Dayton at 06:54 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        philc, maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. Increased insulation reduces outgoing radiation, causing an imbalance between incoming and outgoing. Temperature increases, increasing the radiation trying to get out, until the extra radiation trying to get out overwhelms the additional insulation, resulting in, once again, the outgoing matching the incoming.
121278. Ned at 06:53 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        philc writes: Sorry Tom, but assuming the earth in in radiative energy balance [...] That's the whole point. The earth's radiant energy budget is currently not in balance -- outgoing LW radiation is less than the incoming solar radiation. This causes the planet to heat up, which in turn causes more LW radiation to be emitted. Eventually outgoing LW radiation will thus be back in balance with incoming solar radiation, but at a higher temperature (and with less LW in the CO2 absorption bands and more LW outside those bands). That's assuming that CO2 stops rising and then plateaus at some value for a long enough time for the radiation balance to reach equilibrium.
121279. philc at 06:24 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        Sorry Tom, but assuming the earth in in radiative energy balance(that we aren't in thermal runaway and are doomed) the incoming and outgoing radiation have to be equal. Any mechanism that slows the transfer of energy through the atmosphere("insulation") would result in an increase in temperature within the earth's atmosphere with no permanent change in the outgoing radiation. Depending on the rates involved there might be a temporary, measurable change in the outgoing radiation, but given the large amounts of radiation involved and the large variations in already already existing measurements, it might be very hard to pinpoint. The slower the heat transfer, the larger the temperature difference that will be supported.
121280. Sean A at 05:51 AM on 6 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        McLean: "If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation." That's so classic! I can't believe he actually said that. ;-) On blaming ENSO for global warming... where does the heat come from? No matter how much handwaving is employed, you can't ignore thermodynamics.
121281. Philippe Chantreau at 04:12 AM on 6 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        There is no doubt that vegetation is a great way to take a hold of all that carbon. That's how it was stored in the first place. As others have mentioned, the problem is to not only store, but actually remove that carbon from the cycle. It would be, in fact, low tech and possibly low impact geo-engineering. Problem is, it's not so easy to do that from vegetation because it implies that the vegetation will neither burn nor rot. The remarkable thing that happened in the carboniferous was the storage of immense quantities of vegetation in anoxic conditions. Now all that carbon/hydrogen is getting back to the oxygen with a vengeance, thanks to us. If we want to get anywhere close to the kind of quantitative result we need, we're going to have to use, reuse and recycle ad-infinitum every scrap of wood we produce, and produce vast quantities of it. Feasible but difficult and perhaps energy intensive too. There is no silver bullet. We're looking here at a solution requiring: massive land use changes, infrastructure changes, attitude changes (getting back to using wood for all sorts of applications). Not to mention that the displaced industries will fight with their usual methods (i.e. the current climate disinformation, tobacco campaigns, lead paint campaigns, etc). It will also involve some strain on the world's economy. It's not a bad idea and I'm not opposed to it in principle but it will be every bit as hard as reducing emissions.
121282. Ned at 02:32 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        philc, your comment here is a bit unclear, but it seems like a restatement of your recent comment over on another thread (Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming). I replied to it there.
121283. Tom Dayton at 01:57 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        philc, you are incorrect that "If the mechanisms that slow this energy transfer act to slow the energy flow further, the surface would increase in temperature with no change in the energy absorb vs that emitted." If the surface temperature increases, the surface radiates more energy.
121284. philc at 01:41 AM on 6 April 2010
        The human fingerprint in global warming
        "A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001)." The key driver here is not "that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths GHG absorb". The key metric is whether the overall radiation from the earth at all wavelengths is in balance with all the energy absorbed by the earth. The atmosphere/oceans/biosphere act as an insulator, slowing the rate of energy transfer from where it is absorbed to where it is emitted. They have done this for millennia, maintaining a higher temperature at the surface than we would have absent atmosphere/oceans. If the mechanisms that slow this energy transfer act to slow the energy flow further, the surface would increase in temperature with no change in the energy absorb vs that emitted. No change in the overall radiation balance is required to change the temperatures in the system, simply a change in the rates of transfer. CO2 certainly absorbs IR radiation, but how this affects the mechanisms that move the energy around in the system is far from understood, particularly when water(vapor,liquid, and ice) has such a large effect on the atmosphere and surface. The overall climate, barring catastrophic meteors and volcanoes, has remained hospitable to life for over a billion years. The reasons why this is so still don't seem to be understood.
121285. Riccardo at 23:25 PM on 5 April 2010
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Ned, i'm no expert so i'll only place my bet: it has something to do with the Arctic Oscillation which became about neutral in March. We'll soon have the response.
121286. Ned at 22:55 PM on 5 April 2010
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        The northern hemisphere sea ice extent graph for this winter/spring is a bit remarkable. For most of the winter the ice was tracking the 2006-2007 extent line quite closely. But instead of plateauing and starting to drop in late Feb. or early March, it just kept going: It will be interesting to see what NSIDC has to say about this in their next monthly update, which should be out soon.
121287. gallopingcamel at 22:07 PM on 5 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        Phillippe (#78), I will choose my words more carefully! Several folks are discussing the production of timber and that is another great strategy for sequestration. Are we headed for consensus on something?
121288. Ned at 21:58 PM on 5 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Re MCdF09 Figure 7, the jump from panel (a) to panel (b) is a real problem. I don't think the offset in left vs right Y axes for panels (b) and (c) is a problem (I disagree with Jeff F. about this). The bigger issue is that MCdF claimed that SOI explained 81% of the variability in the MSU record, but that was based on the detrended data. That was their ONLY quantitative comparison of the two, and it was fundamentally wrong. Figure 7 is just for "eyeballing"; there's no quantitative analysis included. In his recent comments McLean keeps trying to shift the discussion to Figure 7. It's important to note the problem with Figure 7 (panel a vs. b/c) but it's also important not to let him shift the discussion away from his erroneous quantitative claims.
121289. Ned at 21:40 PM on 5 April 2010
        Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
        Berényi Péter: writesPre ARGO project OHC data are unreliable. You're wrong about this. Pre-ARGO data on OHC are more sparse and more difficult to work with, but there have been many successful analyses of long-term trends in OHC. Because this subject is off-topic for a thread on snowfall, I've replied over in the thread on Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?
121290. Ned at 21:37 PM on 5 April 2010
        Oceans are cooling
        Over in another thread, Berényi Péter writes: Pre ARGO project OHC data are unreliable. I'm replying here, since the subject was off-topic for that thread and it's on-topic here. Pre-ARGO OHC data are sparser and more difficult to work with. But there are many papers that have successfully analyzed long-term trends in OHC. Here are just a few examples from the past two years: Levitus et al. 2009 Ishii and Kimoto 2009 Domingues et al. 2008 Much of the work from the Levitus et al. 2009 paper was also treated in this2009 presentation at CLIMAR. Note the following comment: "There was a concern that instrumental bias corrections might have affected the long-term trend (1955-2007) in ocean heat content that we previously reported. It will be demonstrated that, although some small corrections are indeed necessary, the instrument bias corrections do not affect the previously reported long-term trend in ocean heat content."
121291. Ned at 20:54 PM on 5 April 2010
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        Jeffomatic writes: In fact, it's April 04, 32 F. outside and snowing right now! That kind of anecdote is not particularly useful. On the same date here in northern New England (where there's normally still snow on the ground at this point) it was in the mid-70s F (after having been an astounding 83 F the previous day).
121292. John Russell at 18:51 PM on 5 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        Doug Mackie: 77 I see now where you're coming from if your vision of woodland/forest is the monoculture cash crop of pines which are rased and replanted every 30 years or so -- as also are oil palm plantations. That's the current reality of most commercial forestry, enabled by the ready availability of cheap diesel. I'm talking about woodland management of indigenous trees which are coppiced and thus highly sustainable and, I would claim, a net carbon sink. That's the only sort of tree-planting I wish to promote.
121293. Tom Dayton at 16:36 PM on 5 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        Correcting my previous comment that "It's nice if they at least acknowledge receipt of submissions, but that, too, takes time, so they don't always." I intended to write that pre-submission inquiries such as the one that McKitrick said he made to BAMS are not always responded to. In fact, I suspect that few such inquiries are responded to by any journal in any field, because it takes time. If you want to know whether there is any chance of the journal accepting your paper, just send them your freakin' paper. The editor is disinclined to spend the time to respond to you "Well, maybe, but that depends on exactly what's in your paper." The editor can just as rapidly tell you "no" upon seeing the title and abstract of your paper, as by reading your pre-submission inquiry's description of your paper.
121294. Doug Mackie at 15:47 PM on 5 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Being vain, I seldom hesitate to repeat myslelf: (this also posted at Deltoid). I’ve offered this up before elsewhere. Here are links to submissions made by McLean to a New Zealand Parliament Select Committee that was considering an Emissions Trading Scheme. Three Select Committees have had a go. For the first round in 2008 McLean co-submitted with someone who in a previous life called for a boycott of Mobil because of climate change issues and is now a denialist. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Evidence/9/1/7/48SCFESCEvidenceCCETRP_ET44-Terry-Dunleavy.htm For the second round in early 2009 McLean went solo: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Evidence/6/3/2/49SCETSSCevidenceETSR_047A-John-McLean-supp1.htm http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Evidence/3/6/2/49SCETSSCevidenceETSR_047-John-McLean.htm And nothing for the 3rd round in late 2009.
121295. Tom Dayton at 15:32 PM on 5 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        Harold, the journal Science's editors reject 80% of submissions without sending them to reviewers.
121296. Tom Dayton at 15:26 PM on 5 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        Harold, only a small fraction of submissions to peer reviewed journals are accepted. The exact percentage depends on the field and on the journal within that field. The most prestigious journals have the lowest acceptance rates, because those journals are the most stringent in applying their publication criteria, which is what makes them prestigious, which is why so many people submit to them, which is one cause of the huge submission rate that creates so much competition among submissions thereby lowering the chances of being accepted,.... For example, the journal Science accepts less than 8% of submissions. Consequently, editors don't even send all submissions out for review. Many submissions get rejected based on the editor reading the title and abstract, because the topic might not be suitable for that journal regardless of the submission's quality, or because the journal has been publishing many articles on that topic recently and wants to give space to other topics, or because the findings of the submission are not novel enough or do not contribute enough to the literature to justify taking up space. Submissions never are judged solely on their own merits, but also on whether the literature is better served by publishing them or their competition of other submissions. The editor's job is to make those decisions if possible without using the scarce time of the (volunteer) referees. The referees' opinions are merely advisory to the editor, though different journals have different rules about how much weight the editor should give the reviews. Editors are busy people, so they rarely respond to rejected authors' subsequent inquiries. It's nice if they at least acknowledge receipt of submissions, but that, too, takes time, so they don't always. It's not that different from any non-scientific periodical; they do not always (and some never) acknowledge unsolicited submissions. Harold, this really is how the scientific peer review system works, and has for a very long time, in all fields. It handles submissions as best it can, but the reviewers all are unpaid volunteers who already are desperately busy, the editors get paid little or nothing and also usually have full-time other jobs, and there is barely enough funding to publish the small percentage of articles that do make it all the way to print. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal (or a conference, for that matter) is not a right, it is a privilege.
121297. johnd at 14:58 PM on 5 April 2010
        McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter
        Given that the intensity or magnitude of any ENSO events in the Pacific Ocean are subject to influence of the IOD in the Indian Ocean, any theorising that fails to incorporate that and other regional influences, that combined, represent the entire global climate, is unlikely to come up with all the answers. I realise Australia is not the world, but when scientists were putting too much emphasis on ENSO in trying to predict our weather their success rate was lucky to be as good as tossing a coin, perhaps worse. Now as greater understanding of the IOD begins to filter in things are starting to make more sense.
121298. Harold at 14:51 PM on 5 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        Oops. I just read the policy page that forbade cutting and pasting from previous comments. My apologies. This issue regarding McKitrick's paper has been pushed as far as is decent, and I will leave it alone. Thanks again.
121299. Philippe Chantreau at 14:44 PM on 5 April 2010
        A residential lifetime
        GC "I can't put it much plainer than that." Indeed, and that's a significant progress compared to the horrific- pestilence type of formulation. I conclude that we are in agreement on the better ways to word an argument.
121300. Harold at 14:27 PM on 5 April 2010
        A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change
        I appreciate those of you who have responded to my comments and the patience of this blog to allow me to press the issue. I have continued to press the issue because it does not appear to me that the issue raised McKitrick has been squarely addressed. Tom Dayton writes "All the things he complains about in his public screed have been publicly addressed, and his paper is just... well, wrong" and then directs me to this paper published in Jan 2009 which calls into question McKitrick's 2007 published paper. But the paper that McKitrick has been submitting since early 2008 addresses the objections that have been raised to the 2007 paper, including (according to McKitrick) those articulated in the Schmidt's 2009 paper. I am not sure how his position can be considered to be publicly addressed when it has not even been seen. Quoting Tom again, "McKitrick's experience was typical for anyone whose submitted work is severely and fundamentally flawed." This is fair, if the editors/reviewers consistently says so. However, McKitrick's summary of the responses he has seen is the following: "Altogether I sent the paper to seven journals before it went to SP&P. From those seven journals I received seven reviews, of which six accepted the findings and supported publication. The one that rejected my findings contained some basic technical errors, but the journal editor would not respond to my letter pointing them out. Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters would not even review the paper, while the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society never acknowledged the pre- submission inquiry. Global and Planetary Change received one review recommending publication, blocked another reviewer before he could submit a report and then turned the paper down." This is not how I would expect a working peer review system to respond to a fundamentally flawed paper, even if that system is imperfect. Comment 27 points to an article that tries to show how peer review is effective at accomplishing quality control while avoiding censorship. I would be interested to see what it takes to qualify as censorship in the climatology field.

Prev  2418  2419  2420  2421  2422  2423  2424  2425  2426  2427  2428  2429  2430  2431  2432  2433  Next