Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next
Comments 12101 to 12150:
-
MA Rodger at 07:55 AM on 18 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan Joppich @12,
You are entirely wrong to suggest that the graphic you linked to (below) was the work of Bob Carter. (Even an image he does use is attributed to others & not his work. See image here of graph photographed at a Bob Carter talk which is derived from Davis & Bohling (2001).)
You are rather naive in believing that a google search will yield a Bob-Carter-created graphic of Holocene ice-core tempoerature records. And if you had bothered to read the description of the graph on the web-page you linked-to, you would know it is not a plot reconstructed from Greenland ice-core data and has zero Bob Carter authorship.
And your naivity must be ridiculously great to think any would believe that you "didn't even read whatever the article was on the page" when @8 you have reproduced two (almost) full paragraphs from that very page word-for-word.
Moderator Response:[PS] I find that MA Rodgers is correct and Dan is both copy/pasting without acknowledgement and denying that he read the artcle that he was pasting from. If Dan is not prepared to comment here in good faith, then posting rights will be rescinded.
Furthermore, this discussion is offtopic for this article. If Dan wishes to defend his statement, then "Climate's changed before" myth would be more appropriate.
-
Dan Joppich at 07:00 AM on 18 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
First, the graph was created and presented by Professor Carter from his scientific research and not blog fodder. Second, I couldn't get a good link to the graph so I found it there in a 10 second Google search. I didn't even read whatever the article was on the page, have never been there before, and will never go there again since I will have no reason to ever go there anyway. Thank you for following up on it for me, though. With that said, It doesn't change the scientific data results. Third, why is data take from core samples in Greenland any different from a graph of core sample data taken from Antarctica? Neither presents worldwide data but that doesn't make one right and one wrong. Data can't be right or wrong. It's just data. In reality, if superimposed, I think that the data from both might aline pretty closely so it seems that they each back up the other's results. Fourth, linking your evaluation of Professor Carter to a blog post on your own website is bad form. Don't bother finding other sites unless it makes you feel good. Fifth, based on my research of this site - created by somebody who is "not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade" who watched An Inconvenient Truth and was inspired - I don't think anybody here is in a position to criticize any websites. Lastly, taking a 20,000 year graph and drawing a red line straight up into the near future to prove some point, doesn't seem like skeptical or any other kind of science to me. I was interested in having a conversation about the data and this is supposed to be a safe place to have a dialogue. I never in anything I posted here made any presuppositions about anybody's position on the subject. It was only about the data.
Moderator Response:[DB] "why is data take from core samples in Greenland any different from a graph of core sample data taken from Antarctica? Neither presents worldwide data"
The graphic below is taken from multiple proxies with global coverage, not just ice cores from Antarctica. Note the sources cited on the graphic.
"taking a 20,000 year graph and drawing a red line straight up into the near future to prove some point, doesn't seem like skeptical or any other kind of science to me"
As you noted yourself ("It's just data"), data is data. The instrumental temperature record is data. The proxy records are data. If you have a legitimate reason to question the inclusion of data from being considered, bring your reasoning and credible sources for support of them. Simply not liking the implications is not a reason.
"the graph was created and presented by Professor Carter from his scientific research"
Actually, your graphic is a product of the work of Robert Rohde, not Bob Carter. This is easily revealed by the use of TinEye and the like.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
nigelj at 04:58 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
OPOF @7, the fracking investors definitely look like they are gambling on something, because nothing else explains their activities, but its unusual to me because gambling on a big new find seems so implausible. The big finds have already been made, and are struggling to be profitable. There are simply not going to be huge new fields and even if there were its hard to see why they would be more profitable than existing fields. Any institutional investor would look at this, and the financial accounts.
I can only conclude, or rather speculate that the investors have lost their minds and are in a fantasy world driven by the motives you mention. They are clearly very susceptible to marketing hype.
The profit motive is a powerful force that motivates innovation, but imho it is like a drug, and if its negative consequnces are not corrected and legislated for, it overtakes people completely.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
nigelj @5,
Your point about potential government subsidies is as good one. And it relates to the Gambling Addict version of what motivates the Fracking.
Business interests can try to "Protect their interests and reduce their perceptions of risk of loss" by becoming popular and profitable enough to make elected representatives reluctant to correct the unsustainable and harmful activities. Those elected officials may even be motivated to incorrectly compensate the Biggest Gamblers for their loses. And they can be motivated to incorrectly promote the harmful unsustainable activity, including allowing more freedom for environmental impacts or increased risk of 'accidental' harm (less of an accident when less is done to prevent an accident, because doing less about an accident is cheaper - making the investment more appealing to the Gambling Addicts).
Potentially popular and profitable, but understandably unsustainable and harmful, activity can even encourage people who are trying to win or maintain power to deliberately mislead the regional or national population in support of regional or national actions that are undeniably harmful to the future of humanity (actions that are contrary to achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals). And people who have incorrectly developed small self-interested worldviews can be expected to like to be misled that way.
The responses to climate science dramatically expose how damaging the developed socioeconomic-political systems are. The systems encourage people to become smaller-minded self-interested gambling addicts.
A Gambling Addict loses the ability to think about others or the future. They get stuck in a smaller world-view because of their desperation to Win Big playing in a game where they could Lose it all and can do massive damage to others as they are losing it. And they can be expected to angrily fight against being corrected. They have no interest in minimizing the harm they do to others, particularly to the future of humanity.
The fracking addicts, and other fossil fuel addicts, will fight for the Right to do environmental harm. They will claim that the regional monetary benefits justify doing environmental harm. And they expect that once they get away with doing something they will not get corrected. Even in environmentally leading California, older oil operations continue operating very incorrectly, not required to meet new requirements imposed on new operations, as long as very few influential people are concerned about how the employment or government revenue from such operations is obtained.
And it is real easy to get regional popular support for incorrect unsustainable harmful activity like fracking when most of the harm is done to Others (the entire global population, especially those irrelevant future generations). It can be even easier if people can incorrectly develop a perception that the supposed harm they are doing will be personally beneficial. People in a place like Alberta may easily believe that warming the planet will reduce how harsh their winter is and improve the growing season in their region during their lifetime. And personal benefit in their lifetime is all that the small worldview they have been encouraged to develop leads them to care about.
Those poorly governed, harmfully Freer, socioeconomic-political games can be seen to develop powerful resistance to helpful correction of incorrect perceptions of popularity and profitability. The result is undeserved wealth and power being obtained by getting away with unsustainable and harmful activity that is defended by claiming to care about local employment or local government revenue.
The populist propagandist know what they promote will not continue to be a benefit in the future. But the few hoping to benefit most will fight relentlessly for more freedom to do unsustainable harmful things. And they will fight to keep as much of the undeserved benefit they can get away with (not paying to fully properly clean up the mess they make - leaving as much harmful mess for others have to deal with as they can get away with).
And those people with incorrectly developed small worldviews will definitely try to claim that climate science is incorrect. And they will be easily impressed by any of the many incorrectly made-up criticisms of climate science and the required corrections of what has developed that climate science has so clearly exposed. They will willingly support fracking if they sense a potential personal benefit.
-
Axel Schubert at 03:20 AM on 18 January 2019Climate negotiations made me terrified for our future
@ClimateAdam: I apologize for my comment and for presuming, you were flying. I was badly informed. Congratulations to get there on ground :-) As someone who quit flying more than 20 years ago, I judged indeed emotionally and just too fast (presuming you came from Down Under ;-) )
Sorry again.Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you for your honest apology and participation a SkpSci.
-
gws at 01:29 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Thanks for the comments guys. I like the "Gambing Addict" analogy.
McLean does speak to the "instability" of it often, and the collapse between 2015 and 2017 is the obvious example for that. In her interviews she stresses the uncertainty, and possibility of rapid change should financing dry up for whatever reason. She may have even used the word "gamble".
Alas, good point about long-term issues with orphan wells ... while questions about current, and future, legacy wells have come up in academia, I do not think anybody in the industry cares about what happens when they are "done". Current law only requires a (cement) plug of the well, and surface site restoration, not any type of monitoring.
-
nigelj at 13:10 PM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
I've had a better read of the articles. I agree with MS. It doesnt look to me like fracking is terribly profitable as of yet, and this can't be sustained indefinitely, even suckers of investors will have their limits, so the whole thing looks unstable. However the government might decide to subsidise major problems to try to ensure energy independence, but who knows.
Fracking has certainly had some substantial subsidies form the tax payer already.
-
michael sweet at 10:43 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
I read both articles. Fracking is a complicated industry and it is difficult for outsiders (like me) to get a grip on what is happening.
The Desmog blog post claimed that frackers have never made money. They suggested that executives should be paid for profits and not for production.
The other post talked entirely about production. They did not mention profit. They did a long calculation about how much oil might be produced. They did not calculate what price per barrel of oil was required to make a profit, although they had the data to make that calculation.
It will be interesting to see how this scheme pans out. Hopefully it will result in lower oil production in the end. It is becoming common to see progressives comment that fracking is a Ponzi scheme.
-
nigelj at 10:27 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
OPOF @ 2, yes and the defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme is it is fraudulent, and I dont think the fracking fits that definition, or they would have been prosecuted. Instead I think they have taken on some "ponzi like characteristics", and were also getting like a speculative bubble. Risky business I would say.
-
MA Rodger at 09:57 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan Joppich @8 is cutting-&-pasting comment from this denialist web-page which is why the Wikipedia holocene temperature graphic he provides link-to is being wrongly attributed to Bob Carter. Also the cutting-&-pasting failed to transfer a link within the comment, the link to Willard Watts's other website. Apparently, familiarity with this other website is assumed @AmericanThinker.com.
Moderator Response:[PS] One of the most ironically named websites out there.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:11 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Fracking probably does not exactly fit the way a Ponzie Scheme operates (the top players profit from luring lower players into the game and so on and so on - collapsing when not enough new suckers can be found).
What is happening with fracking can be understood from a business management reality called 'Sunk Costs'.
Sunk Costs are payments made that cannot be reversed. With fracking, the costs to get a well producing cannot be reversed. The requirement becomes maximizing the revenue from the well, even if it will be a net-loss, it will be 'less of a loss'.
Rather than calling it a Ponzie Scheme, I would compare it to a Gambling Addict who keeps placing bets they are likely to lose in the hopes of 'The Big Win'. That Sinking Costs chasing a Big Win is sort of like a Ponzie Scheme. It cannot go on indefinitely. And like a Ponzie Scheme, someone is likely to profit handsomely in ways that cannot be fully reverserd or corrected (any penalty seldom removes all of the enjoyment or wealth collection by the undeserving winners before they lost the ability to continue to Win that Way).
A serious question has to be how is the full proper clean-up going to be paid for. In Alberta there is a massive problem of Orphan Wells, wells no longer owned by anyone who will be sure to pay to properly clean them up.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:52 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
"And, although looking at the past 2,000 years, we see several warming periods (Roman, Medieval), overall, cooling occurred at an even faster rate. Significantly, the last 700 years, which includes the historically colder Little Ice Age (LIA), brought even faster cooling and then warming coming out of the LIA into the Modern Late 20th-Century Warm Period"
Let's look at the global temperatures reconstructed from proxies over that interval:
"Scientists have concluded that over the last 10,000 years, the temp is relatively flat...The graph was created based on Greenland ice core data by the late paleoclimatologist, Professor Bob Carter"
Why would you think that a temperature reconstruction from Greenland, a regional-to-local record, would have any meaning for the rest of the globe?
Let's look at the global temperatures reconstructed from proxies over the past 20,000 years, for context:
For fun, here's the same over the past 800,000 years:
For more on Bob Carter, see here.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan, you do realize that multi-decade temperature oscillations occur because of changes to net forcing? They are not internal variability. The forcings at work during previous warm and cold periods are not at play now. You must look at all the factors affecting climate (solar, albedo, aerosols and GHG) when attempting attribution.
-
Dan Joppich at 05:31 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Thanks. This is very cool stuff. I haven't had a chance to read it thoughtfully due to my day job demands but I was curious about how this graph plotting temp data since the last glacial period (sorry, I couldn't figure out how to insert it here) . Scientists have concluded that over the last 10,000 years, the temp is relatively flat. Here's the link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The graph was created based on Greenland ice core data by the late paleoclimatologist, Professor Bob Carter.
It seems that over the past 10,000 years, we've seen warming and cooling oscillate within a range of +/- 2.5 degrees Celsius (D.C.). The rate today using satellite data (if you're familiar with Anthony Watts's other website, you know that nothing else will do) is 1.5 D.C./century, which is right within the Holocene averages.
And, although looking at the past 2,000 years, we see several warming periods (Roman, Medieval), overall, cooling occurred at an even faster rate. Significantly, the last 700 years, which includes the historically colder Little Ice Age (LIA), brought even faster cooling and then warming coming out of the LIA into the Modern Late 20th-Century Warm Period.
Of course, this data needs to be superimposed onto the CO2 data to be truly comparable to the conversation here, but it does narrow down our range to a possibly more relevant period in human history.
-
nigelj at 05:26 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Desmog blog have an article here arguing fracking is a ponzi scheme. Here is another article here arguing fracking isnt a ponzi scheme.
I find it hard to know, and have only skimmed the articles out of curiosity, might read them fully later, but one thing is for sure, it looks pretty highly leveraged.
Perhaps the more important consideration is the destructive effects of fracking on the environment. This is not just climate change, but local water table pollution, and it causes mini earthquakes. Although the fracking of gas did at least help displace coal.
There is also the question of how long the oil it will last. The EIA is saying production won't peak until 2040, other researches here believe this is over optimistic. Either way 2040 is not that far into the future. So everything is being pinned on a resource with only a few decades of supply left before it starts to get run down.
-
SirCharles at 01:29 AM on 17 January 2019New findings on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
Goes hand in hand with a recent publication in Nature
=> Global warming will happen faster than we think
-
michael sweet at 23:27 PM on 16 January 2019Record snowfall disproves global warming
Molsen,
This copy of the graph Daniel Bailey posted on another thread yesterday shows that spring snow extent has decreased for decades. Your "dozen years" includes the lowest ever measured snow extent. It is clearly a blatant cherry pick starting after snow extent collapsed.
The Rutgers snow lab also has winter and fall graphs"
fall:
I see little winter change while fall is increasing. It appears that the additional atmospheric water is causing increasing snowfall when it is cold in spite of the fact that temperatures have increased.
According to this peer reviewed article (written by a Rutgers scientist):
"Annual snowfall is projected to decrease across much of the Northern Hemisphere during the twenty-first century, with increases projected at higher latitudes. On a seasonal basis, the transition zone between negative and positive snowfall trends corresponds approximately to the −10°C isotherm of the late twentieth-century mean surface air temperature, such that positive trends prevail in winter over large regions of Eurasia and North America. Redistributions of snowfall throughout the entire snow season are projected to occur—even in locations where there is little change in annual snowfall. Changes in the fraction of precipitation falling as snow contribute to decreases in snowfall across most Northern Hemisphere regions, while changes in total precipitation typically contribute to increases in snowfall."
It appears that the observed changes in snowfall are what scientists expected in advance.
I find it striking that two different new posters mention snow extent. Did WUWT have a snow article this week?
-
Sapplo at 20:53 PM on 16 January 2019New findings on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
I was wondering the same thing Nigelj. Has the uncertainties from the Resplandy study, discussed both on Real Climate and in this WP article been clearified?
I remember it being quite a discussion among top climate scientists regarding the measurements made in the above mentioned study
-
nigelj at 13:14 PM on 16 January 2019New findings on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
This is a good article explaining how things work, but I thought the new study in the Editors note, namely Resplandy study, has been found to be flawed. So I'm a bit confused.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/
Other research discussed on this website on Jan 14 has still found considerable accelerated warming of the oceans, just not quite as much.
-
redhot at 10:13 AM on 16 January 2019Climate negotiations made me terrified for our future
Axel Schubert @8 I'm so sad you're sad. You seem so shure ClimateAdam [-S ?] flew around the world, but you better inform yourself before you start presuming. Actually, he "flew" under the radar. Two inches in 24 hours. Just watch him do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q42x1MDXXmc
So how did you come to the your conclusion (deep inside of yourself) that would entitle you to moralize ClimateAdam? How is it justifyable and ok to prolong this culture and practice of making false accussations and spreading disinformation that you seem to be part of?
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:49 AM on 16 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
Not seeing that. Twelve years would not be a statistically significant trend, for climate-related matters. In the absence of a significant change in the overall trend, the existing (declining) trend continues.
Your eyecrometer can deceive you. Do not trust it.
-
Molsen at 08:16 AM on 16 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
Hi! I think this answer needs to be updated: Northern Hemisphere snow cover continues to increase in Fall, Winter, and (for the last dozen or so years), in the Spring. That is, snow cover is not declining. According to the answer above, this must be slowing global warming. Is it?
Moderator Response:[PS] See here for more explanation of recent trends. In terms of albedo and its influence on climate, summer is more important than winter (more hours for sun to be reflected). Overall trends (all seasons) is down. I agree that update would be desirable.
-
swampfoxh at 06:36 AM on 16 January 2019Republicans call for 'innovation' to tackle climate change, but it's not magic
I think I recall that the current rate of rise in GGE is about 43 times faster than the rise that caused the Permian extinction. And I think I remember that the Permian took out about 97% of the plant and animal organisms on the Earth and, further, that it took about 10 million years before the planet was returned to its Permian-prior plant/animal diversity ('though a different bunch of organisms, of course). Does it help us to debate what should happen to mitigate the climate problem or is our debate a total waste of time? What would Jared Diamond say?
-
Axel Schubert at 20:01 PM on 15 January 2019Climate negotiations made me terrified for our future
@ClimateAdams, it makes my feeling sad, that for your insight at COP24, you indeed did accept to fly around the world. Realising zero-emissions as quickly as possible is not compatible with flying, that’s evident. As it is, that those conferences are not the place for adequate social change. (Already in 1992 Environment Commissioner Ripa de Meana resigned in protest to travel to the Rio-Conference...) So how did you really conclude (i.e. deep inside of yourself), that flying around is justifyable - of having the „right“ to do what is affordable? How to presume, that it´s ok to prolong this culture and practice of fossilist travelling?
Moderator Response:[JH] Ad Hominem based on fabricated, false narrative snipped.
ClimateAdam resides in the UK and traveled to and from COP24 in Katowice, Poland via combination of train and bus. He documented his trip to Katowice in this video:
Hat tip to redhot.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:37 AM on 15 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
30 years ago the argument for not curtailing the burning of fossil fuels was that doing so would limit the growth of enjoyment and future wealth (by the portion of humanity that benefited from it), and that increased future wealth would pay for the required adaptation (And it would also mean evil government interference in the freedom of people to believe and do as they please - freedoms that undeniably produced in the problem, and its resistance to correction).
Today, 30 years later, all we hear from those who enjoyed getting wealthier because of the continued burning of fossil fuels are compaints about suggestions that the activity they like now requires a more rapid reduction and that they should be the ones paying for the required adaptations by the poorer who did not benefit from the creation of the problems the poorer now have to suffer the expense of adapting to.
They righteously declare that such 'wealth transfers' are immoral. They also demand that Tax money (everyone's not just their's) only be spent to address any negative impact on their precious developed likes (and they fight to reduce how much tax 'they' pay).
-
nigelj at 07:30 AM on 15 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Iceland have a seed vault storing a range of seeds in case disaster strikes the planet. Unfortunately the permafrost is melting compromising the vault.
Adaptation to climate change is going to have to include preserving old, important cherished buidings. Will be an expensive exercise, if its even possible.
-
william5331 at 05:43 AM on 15 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Oh the legends our 7 times great grand children will tell about this Camalot of a society (or is it the new Atlantis). How will they explain the artifacts they find strewn around, the radioactive hot spots, the paths through the forest where if they dig down they find this layer of tar and gravel. Will they believe that man actually flew to the moon. And our texts will all disappear. Even now who could read a floppy disk. Books are all printed on paper that at most lasts a hundred years and no electronic media will be readable. Perhaps we should print information on the essence of our society on clay tablets, fire them and secrete them in caves all over the world.
-
nigelj at 18:13 PM on 14 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Now for the next battle. The inevitable claims that adaptation is nothing to do with governments and tax payers money, and is all "personal responsibility".
And that we musn't sacrifice profits, consumption and economic growth for adapting to climate change, building barriers and using higher building foundations etc.
Does anyone seriously think the Kochtapus is going to sleep through adaptation?
-
leslie dean brown at 17:38 PM on 14 January 2019Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
Monckton is a fool with zero scientific training. I'm surprised you gave him this much attention.
-
nigelj at 14:59 PM on 14 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Regarding "How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable"
The book to read is Dark Money. Free copies easily googled.
-
nigelj at 14:51 PM on 14 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
I'm not going to waste time on this sort of stuff here or anywhere else, but perhaps a humourous quip is ok? If 97% of scientists said god exists, I would say we better be paying attention!
-
Oriondestiny at 12:15 PM on 14 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Occaisional hurricanes along the gulf coast and up the easter US seaboard is a normal event that has alway been happening. That is just proof the climate has not changed or not enough to change this fact.
Also nice picture of "steam" rising into the air above a power plant.
As for my neck of the woods, it is still the same old spring, summer, fall and winter with the same unpredictable weather as always. Tornados, flooded rivers, 14 inch snow storms is nothing new and has neither gotten worse nor better. Just in the last 6 years, I've seen warm, cold and average winters. Nothing has changed out of any norm.
I'm not saying earths average temperature does not waiver up and down over the millenia because it does. As for causation, the 'real' science is not settled.
Of all the years I've been reading this 'stuff', I've yet to see any solid proof of CO2 or man causing any of the very, very small amounts of warming or cooling.
I hate to burst your bubble but CO2 is not a heat trapping gas. If you put CO2 in between your house window panes unlike argon or krypon gas, your heating bills will go up because it is a worse insulator than regular air. They use CO2 as refrigeratns because its properties to quickly obsorb and release heat unlike reguar air.
Although the mass of CO2 is greater than O2, the small rising amount is negligible. 4 molecules per 10,000 is too small to have any affect.
The problem for me isn't I can't see the graph date showing some small recent rise. It is the causation of the rise that I am skepical with. There is no proof. Climate scientists are no different than religous people who come at you with the predetermined idea that god exists and everything they do and say are predicated to the existance of their god.
Climate scientists have done the same. They come at me with this predicated idea that man and CO2 is the cause and foundation of their argument but with no proof. They throw graphs in my face without evidence of causation. If 97 of 100 people say god exists does not make said god real. It is the same with climate change. 97 of 100 scientist say CO2 and man is causing the earths temperature to rise does not make said accusations true. Consensus is not proof nor is it scientific. It is scientific in the way that it is easier for men to believe in what cannot be seen than what is in front of their faces every time they walk outside and see that nothing has changed.
I'm not sorry for being what you call a skeptic.
Moderator Response:[PS] Welcome to Skeptical Science. Your comment is a gish-gallop of strawman arguments, slogans and long-debunked myths, in contravention of the comments policy which is not optional.
This site is organized by myths, please use the search button or the "Arguments" item on the menu to find an appropriate topic. Make your on-topic comment there (no offtopic points) and back your assertions with evidence. As example of strawman - noone asserts that CO2 is a conductive insulator like Argon; that is not how GHE works. Please take some time to review beginner material to acquaint yourself of the science.
[PS] Anyone tempted to respond to this post, please do on an appropriate thread and only post links to your comment here.
-
AFT17170 at 09:50 AM on 14 January 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
So I just encountered this one, which appears to be a variant of "AGW violates basic physics"...
"It ends up being trivially easy to understand that gravity, not spectrum , is why and by how much bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops. See my website which includes links to my Heartland Inst talk showing the impossibility of explaining Venus's surface temperature , 400c hotter than what it absorbs from the Sun, as a spectral effect."
Moderator Response:[PS] Doesnt like a 2nd law argument. More like the Postma nonsense. Surface temperature is end result of all relevant physics including GHE. Actually I think the author is Bob Armstrong who has some times demonstrated his grasp of physics here. Try https://www.google.com/search?q=bob+armstrong+site%3Askepticalscience.com
-
scaddenp at 08:41 AM on 14 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Whoops! Brain fart. Altimetry and GPS measurements are made with respect to reference ellipsoid not geoid. Sorry about that. However, effect is same (a reference level independent of land up/down).
-
MA Rodger at 04:18 AM on 14 January 2019CO2 effect is saturated
LTO @501,
Concerning Zhong & Haigh (2013), you ask about the meaning of "our calculations assume no change in the surface or atmosphere, do not consider the climate response to the RF, or any issues related to climate sensitivity." This is simply saying that they calculate the climate forcing due to these changes in CO2 levels. Such forcings would increase global temperature and the resulting changes to other GHG levels, cloud, surface albedo, etc, which would result from that forcing are not being considered. This is solely about the direct effect of the CO2 and not any feedbacks.
And the top row of their Fig 5a/b is simply the traces within all the other rows plotted together. The one rather confusing part of this Fig 5 is that Fig5a plots the zero CO2 alongside all the other CO2 levels while Fig5b plots the difference between each different level and a current level (as was) of 389ppm. Thus the second row of Fig5a shows both zero (lt blue) and 1.5ppm (green) but the difference between 389ppm & 1.5ppm (green) appears down in the fourth row of Fig5b.
Note I still intend to tap out a screed as I promised @492.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:38 AM on 14 January 2019Republicans call for 'innovation' to tackle climate change, but it's not magic
I was not paying close attention.
My comment is regarding John S @19.
With the total indicated number of comments being 22 and John S being second last I mistook the numbering. Prossibly why the John S comment reference number to my comment @16 was indicated as @17.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:59 AM on 14 January 2019Republicans call for 'innovation' to tackle climate change, but it's not magic
John S @20,
Thank you for your comment that included feedback regarding my comments. Feedback helps me improve my awareness and understanding, and improve my presentation of my constantly improving understanding.
I will limit this comment to the points about my comments you made in your comment.
- Please clarify your comment “OPOF@7 paragraph 4, an example of the social cost of carbon straw-man fallacy to criticize carbon pricing in the first sentence, then the rationale of what is actually the carbon fee and dividend strategy in the second. As James Hansen said ”As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will continue to be burned”.” I am not able to connect that comment to a specific paragraph in my comment @7. It would help me if you quoted the paragraph rather than indicating a number.
- “OPOF@10 paragraph 1, in agreeing with RedBaron@9 you are (both) totally missing the point that rising costs of fossil fuels ...”. The point I am agreeing with RedBaron about is that it is important to encourage corrections of farming practices that sequester carbon. Carbon pricing will not do that. Carbon pricing will only lead to the reduction of fossil fuel burning in farming practices. A high enough carbon price to terminate the activity in farming is what is required (as I state in my comment @7). However, a higher carbon price (even with a rebate program), will not motivate the development of important corrections of farming practices like corrections that sequester carbon.
- “OPOF@17 paragraph 3, “rich people can pay … investors still profit”. This is regarding my comment @16. I am pretty certian that my full comment does not say what your comment seems to claim it says. My concern is that what may develop instead of the rapid correction of fuels for air transport is a significant reduction of air travel by middle class people while richer people continue to support and prolong the use of the already developed fossil fuel burning system. Eventually, a greater correction may occur. But my point is the need to get the richest to lead the correction in order to get the most rapid correction to occur. And that will likely require significant corrections of the incorrectly developed socioeconomic-political systems, systems that resulted in the massive resistance and reluctance to correction of the understood problem. Without effectively motivating all of the richest to lead the corrections harmful things liked by the richest, like the Concorde was, can be expected to continue to be developed (and be difficult to correct) instead of the development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
-
Hank11198 at 00:01 AM on 14 January 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Just what I was looking for. Thank you.
-
scaddenp at 17:54 PM on 13 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Just one other thought in the question on where land sinks or sealevel rises. Satellite altimetry measures sealevel with respect to the geoid rather than any definition of coast. This height measurement (often referred to ordinary use as "GPS Height" as height from GPS is likewise) can be determined for tide guages too so you can see whether they are moving up or down with respect to geoid.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:30 AM on 13 January 2019Sea level is not rising
"I find it difficult to imagine that any amount of erosion is causing a displacement effect"
You are indeed correct in that skepticism, as the contribution of river sediment delivered to the oceans is about 20 billion tons / year. This sums to about 6 km^3 / yr or ~0.017 mm / yr of sea level rise equivalent (which is about ~1/200 of the current rise rate).
So if the oceans are not rising significantly due to these natural displacement factors, why is it rising? What then are the actual measured major contributors to sea level rise?
Let’s look first at what current SLR levels are: 3.2 mm/year.
Let’s think about what that 3.2 mm/year actually represents, in terms of water volume: 1,184 cubic kilometers per year!
This means that every 5 years, the oceans are rising by the equivalent volume of twelve Lake Erie’s (484 cubic kilometers)! And over a 10-year period, the oceans will rise by a volume almost equivalent to that of Lake Superior! Wow! And that’s just at current rates of SLR!
So where are the various contributions to measured SLR coming from? Let’s look at that.
"Ocean thermal expansion, glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica contribute by 42%, 21%, 15% and 8% to the global mean sea level over the 1993-present. We also study the sea level budget over 2005-present, using GRACE-based ocean mass estimates instead of sum of individual mass components. Results show closure of the sea level budget within 0.3 mm/yr. Substantial uncertainty remains for the land water storage component, as shown in examining individual mass contributions to sea level."
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/essd-2018-53/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/521/2018/
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac2f0/meta
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL074070
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946.abstract
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1111/2017/
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-56490-6_5
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/9/e1600931.short
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JF003550Unfortunately, due to the measured increases in ice sheet mass losses coming from Antarctica (which have tripled since 2012 alone), the rates of SLR are themselves accelerating:
"Global sea level rise is not cruising along at a steady 3 mm per year, it's accelerating a little every year, like a driver merging onto a highway, according to a powerful new assessment led by CIRES Fellow Steve Nerem. He and his colleagues harnessed 25 years of satellite data to calculate that the rate is increasing by about 0.08 mm/year every year—which could mean an annual rate of sea level rise of 10 mm/year, or even more, by 2100."
"This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate—to more than 60 cm instead of about 30." said Nerem, who is also a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. "And this is almost certainly a conservative estimate," he added. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."
Per Nerem et al 2018:
"the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged. This projection of future sea-level rise is based only on the satellite-observed changes over the last 25 y, assuming that sea level changes similarly in the future. If sea level begins changing more rapidly, for example due to rapid changes in ice sheet dynamics, then this simple extrapolation will likely represent a conservative lower bound on future sea-level change."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115
Sea level rise components, from Cazenave et al 2018:
-
scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
The 1200km correlation in temperature anomalies comes from the data, and while initial work done in 1987, it has been reproduced by numerous workers. And the reason is no great surprise either - 1200 km is about the size of a weather system.
Please note the anomaly definition, it is critical. It is saying that if have a station that is measuring say 2 degrees above the local average for that thermometer, then you expect thermometers with 1200 km to also be measuring 2 degree above their local average, especially if you consider monthly average which takes the time factor of the weather system out of it.
Absolute temoperatures vary wildly over very short distances - that is why anomaly methods are used.
-
Hank11198 at 05:46 AM on 13 January 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Thanks Tom. As an engineer I’m familiar with the Law of Large Numbers and thought that might be at least part of the explanation. I look forward to reading the tutorial if the government ever opens.
Moderator Response:[DB] The Internet Archive has a backup of the tutorial page, here.
-
scaddenp at 05:35 AM on 13 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Bart, I find some aspects here a little puzzling. Where has anyone postulated that sea level is rising because of erosion causing displacement? This could only affect very local bays. Seas are rising because of two factors:
1/ Ocean warming. This causes thermal expansion. Because ocean volume is so huge small changes in temperature easily produce mm of rise.
2/ Melting ice. Glacier and icesheet losses are well documented.As you point out NZ is a lousy place to measure sealevel rise because of tectonics (compare Marlborough sounds -going down - with Kaikoura going up) unless you live in Northland. Even so, on many wide beaches noticing a 10-12cm rise in sea level over 50 years takes a very acute observer.
So it comes down to what evidence do you accept? The primary evidence is from worldwide network of tide guages (publically accessible) which admittedly needs works to deal with subsidence and station changes. Why are these not convincing to you? Because of issues of land up/down, since the early 1990s, we have relied on satellite altimetry instead though the curves closely match the tide guages. If you dont accept the measurements of sealevel from altimetry, then does that mean you dont accept the results of all the other uses for satellite altimetry either?
So to disbelieve sea level rise, you have to deny also the measurements in tide gauges and satellites, that the oceans are warming and that the ice is melting. What kind of evidence would you believe?
-
Eclectic at 05:30 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
David Kirtley @71 ,
thank you for that reference to Nick Stokes's "Just 60 stations".
I recalled him saying that he could get a good approximation of global temperature change from a fairly small number of observation stations [ less than 100 ] . . . but I did not recall the exact number he had used in his test case. ( Also, slightly amusing to see the paucity of USA continental stations used in the analysis! )
All of which, is leaving LTO's argumentation looking even more hollow.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 13 January 2019Republicans call for 'innovation' to tackle climate change, but it's not magic
John S, I agree a price on carbon is parmount, otherwise we would need literally thousands of complicated regulations (not that I oppose regulation as such). And this fits in nicely with carbon fee and dividend. I would say this scheme is the most practical of all the possible general approaches.
However I don't think we are going to escape subsidies relating to negative emissions. Government doesn't have to pick winners. Either subsidise all negative emissions technologies equally, or leave it to an independent panel of technocrats to pick and choose. And put time limits on all subsidies.
Cap and trade lacks transparency not just on a carbon price. but in other ways. Could be its "archilles heel" I suppose. Shame because in theory its a good concept.
-
michael sweet at 03:46 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
LTO:
Regarding your question about how BEST justifies averaging anomalies over large areas I will point out that the BEST study was financed by the Koch brothers (fossil fuel deniers) for the specific purpose of finding errors in the surface temperature record. No errors were found. I presume that their data analysis would withstand rigorous examination since it was designed by deniers.
I am interested to find out that you are so expert at temperature records that you can dismiss the work of multiple scientific groups for the past 50 years without even reading their papers. Arguing that you do not believe scientists can average anomalies over 1200 km is simply an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance do not carry any weight on this web site, you must provide evidence to support your wild claims.
Your tone changed so I changed my tone.
-
David Kirtley at 01:44 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
LTO, it seems to me that you are focused on absolute temps, whereas the global avg. temp. reconstructions are given in anomalies. The distinction is important, and this series of posts explains it all very well: Of Averages and Anomalies, especially Parts 1B and 2A, for your other hang-up on "coverage".
scaddenp, up thread, pointed you to this post at AndThenTheresPhysics which is the most recent look at the amazing fact that you don't need thermometers covering every sq. meter of the globe to get a good sense of how the temps are increasing. One of the first to do this analysis is Nick Stokes here: Just 60 stations.
You can do so yourself using Kevin Cowtan's "temp tool".
-
LTO at 01:32 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Michael: That video isn't what it purports to be. The percentages appear to be of mathematically sampled land area, not land area that actually had a weather station on it. Further, the analysis of past data has a pretty major assumption:
"Our calculation assumes that the regional fluctuations in the Earth’s climate system during the entire study interval have been similar in scale to those observed in the reference period 1960 to 2010'
Ummm... How can that be justified, if ihe period from 1960-2010 is apparently one of unprecedented climate change?
-
Tom Dayton at 01:11 AM on 13 January 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Hank: Sea level is a population parameter that is estimated by combining multiple sample measurements of it. The Law of Large Numbers explains that the precision of the combined estimate increases with the number of sample measurements. Look up Law of Large Numbers in a textbook or in Wikipedia, then prove it yourself using a spreadsheet. There is a tutorial on satellite measurement of sea level linked right above the image at the bottom of This NOAA page, though currently it does not work, probably due to the government shutdown.
-
LTO at 01:09 AM on 13 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Hmmm. Intriguing change in tone. I don't yet have a viewpoint; what I'm trying to do is evaluate the evidence being presented.
First, thank you for putting in the time to try and find an answer - I really appreciate it, even if it's made you grumpy in the process. Having done some fuether research myself, I have some answers.
First, I see that the 1200 km figure is actually a 'smoothing radius', which assumes that a climate measuring station within 1200 km 'influences regional temperature'. Again, that is the length of Britain, and only a radius, so the diameter is twice this. A bit odd on its face, but depends how the smoothing is done I suppose. Note: it appears to come from a 1987 paper discussed below. Dodgy, but not necessary to go into now.
I also had success on the gridding, and it looks like GISS breaks the globe down into 16,200 grids, (each presumably ~31,500 sq km - ie size of belgium) which are used to build the charts above. I base this on the data you can export from their site. So my question can be reformulated as:
1. What % of all the 16,200 grids used to create the charts above had daily temperature readings from at least 10 different locations, split out by north/southern hemispheres percentage, in 1880, 1920, 1934, 1960 and 2000 respectively?
Michael, an aside: That you can't find the information could be a sign that the question isn't important. However, given that the question is in essence one of how good the coverage of actual measurement data is and therefore what inferences can be drawn from it, the question seems to me to be of primary importance. You may well take the view that if this Hansen fellow says something then it must be true, but as I said earlier appeals to authority are not science. It's not very reassuring if you can't answer basic questions about the quality of the data set you're relying on and using to draw trend lines,
The discussion in the Hansen paper you cite is trivial and adds nothing. It does however link to a 1987 paper that was perhaps the foundational work for this data set. Link is here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3106/d76f96f30c55f2fa1d7c4e09b2f0f11c3140.pdf
To my pleasant surprise Fig 1 goes some way to answering the question, which you can see here: https://imgur.com/a/HKxf6G3
Each circle has a diameter of 2,400 km (two Britains!) and within it a single meteorological station. Figure 2 shows the globe divided into just 80 grids(6 million sq ft each!), and you can see that for many grids continuous coverage didnt even start until well after 1934, and further the number of stations in many is tiny (far fewer than 10) despite covering enormous areas that will have variances in temperature of many degrees C.
The paper is an absolute must read, if you can do so skeptically. Hansen's done a good job with a very limited data set. The problem is thst that data now appears to be being massively overinterpreted.For fun, I overlaid the 1930 station coverage from Hansen's 1987 paper against the 1936 chart on this page here: https://imgur.com/a/E8mtlqf You can see the chart is just making up data showing a dramatic 4F decrease in temperature across much of the globe despite there not being a meteorological station within many thousands of kilometers. Remember each circle is two Britains wide, and contains just one meteorological station.
So can I answer my own question? Unfortunately not, but I can answer a similar questions using Hansen's 1987 paper:
Q: if the globe was divided into just 80 grids of roughly 6 million sq km each, how many contained at least 10 meteorological stations in 1987? For reference Australia is just 7.6 million sq km.
A: Roughly 65%
Given the explosion of stations in 1960 comapred to 1930, the answer for 1934, even at such a low resolution, would have been much smaller.
My conclusion from all of this is unchanged: that to try and pretend that you can show a chart of global temperatures in 1934 with certainty of within a few degrees F is totally misleading. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
Prev 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next
