Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
Comments 122101 to 122150:
-
JMurphy at 21:53 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Alexandre, the USGS study states that their reconstruction was based on "ice volume and areal coverage on Greenland [being] reduced by 50%", and other studies suggest that the CO2 levels were a bit higher (around 400ppm) and that Greenland actually collapsed. See this WIKIPEDIA page for an overview and more sources. Is it really different from Stone ? -
JMurphy at 21:22 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
RSVP wrote : "It would therefore be helful if climate scientists recognise these limitations, and simply own up to the fact that theirs is also a mix of hard and soft (since it "relies on physics and chemistry), but on the whole, it is a soft science." How is it a 'soft science' ? Models have been making predictions for 20 years or so, since Hansen's famous one with the 3 scenarios - have you tested that ? How about the prediction of rising temperatures alongside rising CO2 - have you tested that ? How about Tropospheric temperatures - tested by you ? -
Alexandre at 21:19 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
According to USGS, there was a period in the Pliocene when CO2 levels were similar to today's (~380ppm), temperature was some 3ºC higher (slow vegetation and ice albedo feedbacks, I assume), and sea level was as high as 25m above today's level. Even so, the Greenland ice sheet was still there, being the only land ice mass in the Northern Hemisphere. I looks different than the Stone 2010 results. Can someone help me put this in context? -
philipm at 20:54 PM on 23 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Mangeclous (41): near surface isn't surface. I'm not sure what altitude is used but this picture illustrates how fast temperature drops with altitude for the first 10km above the surface:
-
Jesús Rosino at 20:28 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Thanks for the post, John! Although emissions are running in the high end, I think that concentrations are not (closer to A2??, I read it in a comment by a moderator in RC, but I cannot find it right now). Anyway, a small difference difficult to asses for such a short period.Response: Here is a comparison of CO2 levels to projected IPCC levels. Two things to note - the graph is several years old and you'd need to get in a little closer to get a good look at the difference between the two.
Figure 1: Monthly carbon dioxide concentration (blue thin line) and its long term trend (strong blue line) as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Dashed line is IPCC's projected carbon dioxide levels (Rahmstoorf 2007). -
David Horton at 19:52 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Ah, I see, of course, silly of me. And now to turn to gallopingcamel. Life was much easier for people like Mr Camel before the internet. Go to his Wikipedia article and you find "Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high[citation needed] in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords". Now I was amazed to learn (although I can't find these fjords on a map, the Wikipedia entry says they are around "the central area of the Eastern settlement") that the phrase "the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords" is incredibly common on the internet - Google gives 3170 appearances on web sites called things like "Global Warming A Fraud". And here was me thinking Mr Camel had come up with this himself! It is also worth noting that archaeological research has (understandably) been very limited on Greenland; that in any case I'm not sure how palynology gives you birch "4 to 6 meters high" what a pity there is no citation; that the area of trees etc was clearly small from Mr Camel's reference, so to say "the Greenland ice sheet was less extensive" is to stretch a very long bow; that there are still today parts of Greenland coast free of ice; that the ice sheet itself is very old indeed; that, even in the Wikipedia article, a number of hypotheses are given about the demise of the colony; and, again Wikipedia, warm currents are suggested as part of the reason for warmer coastal regions. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:44 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Discussion - debate about the fate of the Greenland ice should not ignore this work: "Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007*" Box et. al. 2009, AMS DOI: 0.1175/2009JCLI2816.1 Especially Figure 10, 11, 14 are very interesting. In the years circa 193X-5X; in Greenland was warmer than today. Especially in the spring. Only now the autumn is warmer in Greenland. Why is cooled? Climatic cycles? Aerosols? (sulfur, black carbon?) Let me quote also two important pieces of this important work: "Global and NH warming 1975–2007 has been attributed to the dominance of increased greenhouse and solar forcing over various cooling factors (Solomon et al. 2007). High-latitude warming is simulated by global climate models to be amplified by the ice albedo feedback (Budyko 1969; Solomon et al. 2007). NHcooling 1940–70 has been attributed primarily to the dominance of sulfate aerosol cooling sourced from increased coal-fired power plants largely in the Western Hemisphere (Wildet al. 2005, 2007), and partly to decreasing solar activity during that period (Solomon et al. 2007). Subsequent warming is attributed primarily to increasing greenhouse gasses while coal-fired power plant SO2 emissions were reduced. Whether sulfate aerosols directly or indirectly cooled west Greenland, that is, far away from industrial sources, is something we address in OUR INTERPRETATION." "With the exception of major volcanic eruptions, cooling caused by a negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and/or NAO (Hanna and Cappelen 2003) and strong decreases in solar output are the only potential regional climate trends (Keenlyside et al. 2008) we are aware of to moderate Greenland deglaciation. Climate warming has pushed the Greenland ice sheet beyond its threshold of viability in recent years (Rignot et al. 2008). The ice sheet seems poised not to grow without substantial regional and global climate cooling. It therefore seems much more likely that not that [“our interpretation”?] Greenland is and will be for the foreseeable future be a DEGLACIATING PLEISTOCENE ICE AGE RELIC." We see that natural variability is very important here - the most important? -
David Horton at 19:15 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
John the GRACE graph is frightening. But two questions. How can the ice mass changes be positive before 2006? Positive compared to what? And (I guess) a related question, are there estimates of ice mass/ice mass change using other methods prior to these satellite observations?Response: The graph is showing ice mass changes relative to an average value. The caption doesn't specify the base period but presumably it's April 2002 to February 2009 - the period over which they have data. In which case, naturally the first half of the time series would be positive and the second half would be negative (if you had a negative trend).
Yes, Greenland ice mass change has been determined by other methods (van den Broeke et al 2009). This paper is explored in an earlier post Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating? -
RSVP at 18:58 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
There is this concept of "hard" science as applied to physics and chemistry. The word was clearly used to separate these from other "softer" fields of study such as psychology or economics, the reason being that in these areas you can not apply the scientific method, (i.e., predicting and reproducing results in a lab). There seems to be a clear parallel here with Climate Science in that the Earth's climate does not fit into a lab, nor lends itself to predictable and repeatable testing. It would therefore be helful if climate scientists recognise these limitations, and simply own up to the fact that theirs is also a mix of hard and soft (since it "relies on physics and chemistry), but on the whole, it is a soft science. -
PaulK at 16:52 PM on 23 March 2010Understanding Trenberth's travesty
The use of SLR data to "validate" the Schuckmann conclusions is, in my view, not a robust argument. The long-term tidal guage data shows a (remarkably) constant gradient trend throughout the 20th century, despite the significant variation in both average surface temperature and estimates of OHC. This suggests that the prediction of OHC from SLR data is mathematically ill-conditioned. Given the now critical importance of the deep OHC data in underpinning the basic foundations of AGW, I would really like to see a full regional reconciliation of the Schuckmann findings with the more certain 0-700m data, and a realistic estimate of the uncertainty associated with the deep temperature measurements. I am honestly surprised that he did not include this analysis in the paper to add credibility. -
gallopingcamel at 16:47 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
What I love about this blog is the wonderful statements at the head of each thread. This one includes a real gem: "The last time temperatures were this high were 125,000 years ago." If you believe this you must be a Medieval Warm Period denier. While most parts of Wikipedia relating to AGW have been re-written by William Connolly, the part that relates to the history of Greenland has survived. The link below shows that the Greenland ice sheet was less extensive during the MWP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_GreenlandResponse: I should clarify, 'the last time global temperatures were this high...' There were regions during the Medieval Warm Period that were as warm or warmer than the same regions today. -
Jeff Freymueller at 16:13 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
#11 Humanity Rules. Darn it, I typed out a longish reply, then clicked in the wrong place and lost it. Not going to type it out all over again. But I will point out that the future predictions of the model are all for 400 years from now. They tuned the ice sheet model to match the present ice sheet, and they don't make any prediction about where things will melt first. It looks like the bedrock topography plays a big role in the pattern of predicted ice sheet retreat (see Figure 12 of the paper). However, they didn't discuss it in the paper that I could find, so this is my interpretation. In particular, it looks like the mountains in SE Greenland divide the ice sheet into a main part that has to drain out somewhere other than the SE, and the coastal strip in the SE, plus a few glaciers in the SE that cut through the mountains. So it appears the pattern is controlled by the principle that "water and ice go downhill". -
billkerr at 14:26 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
hi john, Thanks for all the work you have put into this great blog. I read Hansen's book, it sounds like you have too. The paleoclimate information and ice and ocean inertia issues he raises worry me as well. From memory I think Hansen said it bordered on insanity to consider adaptation to significant sea level rise. Nevertheless, I looked further and found that Richard Tol et al have actually modelled an adaptation scenario for the complete collapse of the West Antarctic sheet: Global Estimates Of The Impact Of A Collapse Of The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: An Application Of Fund I expect you and your readers will be interested in the Tol et al study. I want to think about this a bit or probably a lot more before attempting to pass judgment. After all the consequences of reducing or stabilising CO2 are very significant as well especially since no governments have realistic energy plans for the future as currently being discussed on Barry Brook's blog, Brave New Climate -
scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
oracle2world - this is an extraordinarily weird definition of AGW theory that you are working with. It is really a physical theory of climate from which you deduce that if x extra amount forcings (GHG, land change, aerosols) is of human origin, then it will result in extra warmth, and that the observed warming since 1940s is primarily of human doing. AGW does not predict future emissions at all; nor super volcanoes, nor changes in solar. Instead, it is a theory which says that if you continue to increase GHG to this level, you get this climate. It can also happily tell you what the likely effects on climate of another volcanic eruption - or a prolonged solar minima. If you want to send a rocket to mars you don't rely on history - you calculate based on known physics. Just so with climate. Do you think greenhouse gas effect isn't hard science? Model is doing pretty good so far at predicting climate if you check the model /data comparisons. -
oracle2world at 13:24 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned I said no expectation of reproducibility. Since the earth's state is constantly evolving, and nothing ever repeats through time, no climate model based on past history can predict the future. Certainly not to within a gnat's eyelash that fearmongers would like. This is just an extraordinarily difficult problem, even if climate scientists were completely dispassionate, with no grant riding on support of AGW, and no preconceived expectations to confound their research. And if AGW was discarded tomorrow, no one in the hard sciences would think much of the failure. Just another hard problem people took a crack at. Brownie points for effort. The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue to erupt. That probability of eruption (which is unknown) is not taken into account by climate models. Why is that? The assumption is that the probability is low. But the probability is actually unknown. How about a "nuclear winter" that was fashionable years ago? Now the probability of total thermonuclear war, if one can believe the Union of Concerned Scientists, isn't low. So why is this scenario not taken into account? -
Tenney Naumer at 13:07 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Thanks for this post, John. I have a question about CO2 equivalents. Did the Stone paper have anything to say about these?Response: I didn't see any mention of CO2 equivalents and I did wonder that myself, considering the CO2 equivalent once you factor in methane and other man-made greenhouse gases is already well over 400 ppm. Please feel free to try contacting the author to enquire about this question and report back to us :-) -
ajgunther at 12:59 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Can you identify the source of the data in Figure 4? Thanks.Response: Good question - I'm getting more disciplined about citing my sources but this one slipped through the cracks. That graph came from The Copenhagen Diagnosis which I'm now adding to the caption. -
HumanityRules at 12:54 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
9.Jeff Freymueller at 12:38 PM on 23 March, 2010 Again I could easily be wrong but this is not looking at temporal change. This model is saying if conditions are x, y and z what should the Greenland icesheet look like. It says nothing about what happens over the next 400years. As you say it does require that as the process continue there is a complete shift in how ice mass is lost. -
HumanityRules at 12:46 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
How reliable can this model be if it miscalculates the expected size of the ice sheet by 25% based on present day conditions and observations? -
Ned at 12:46 PM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
HR writes: Svalgaard seems like a perfectly good solar scientist. I was reading many of his posting on [WUWT] yesterday because I was going over the ACRIM gap debate again. He seems fairly independently minded, dry, witty and intelligent. I'd agree with 51.Arjan description of the guy. I was wondering whether he is generally seen as a denier because I find him hard to label. I agree with that assessment. Svalgaard is definitely hard to label. He will also probably be the first to admit that his views are not representative of others in the field. I wouldn't call him a "denialist" at all. His off-and-on forays into Watts's site show that he has more patience than I do. -
Jeff Freymueller at 12:38 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
#5 HumanityRules I'm not sure that there is an inconsistency, or even an apparent one. One quantity is present loss, the other is predicted loss over 400 years. Not surprisingly, the warming has hit the southern part first, but that doesn't mean draining the southern part of Greenland ice sheet will contribute more mass in the long term if most of the ice sheet is lost over that long term (if nothing else, Greenland is skinnier in the south, so there may simply be less ice to lose). Differences in the sub-glacial bedrock surface, numbers of outlet glaciers to the sea, all can make a difference as well. Having said that, I just downloaded the paper, and I suspect the authors explain in more detail. (I just downloaded it from home for free, so probably you can too). -
Ned at 12:35 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
I wrote: ... we still don't know convincingly where the water came from! To clarify, obviously we know the water came from melting ice. But at least as of a couple of years ago people were still arguing whether that ice was in the Antarctic, North America/northern Europe, or both. -
Ned at 12:28 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
HR writes: Quick question. What do you mean by completely collaspe. How fast, exactly, can an ice sheet disappear? That's a good question, and I wish we knew the answer to that. I have generally been a bit skeptical about some of the hypothesized dynamics involved in "rapid" (century-scale) collapse of large ice sheets, even ones that are grounded below sea level. Greenland in particular is largely surrounded by mountains that would seem to give it a bit more structural support. On the other hand, if you want to lie awake worrying at night, think about meltwater pulse 1a. Sea levels rose on the order of 7-10m per century for a couple of centuries ... and we still don't know convincingly where the water came from! Until we have a better picture of how exactly the Laurentian and Fennoscandian ice sheets collapsed, and whether MWP1A was purely northern hemispheric or there was an Antarctic contribution, I think there's good cause to be concerned about Greenland and the WAIS. The series of meltwater pulses between the LGM and Younger Dryas would be high on my personal list of climate science topics that are in desperate need of more research. -
ProfMandia at 12:09 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Nice post, John. For those of you in the US, this is a nice page that illustrates sea level rise in coastal cities. Very scary. http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/cutting_edge.htmlResponse: Thanks for that link. I've added it to the list of links relevant to sea level predictions. -
Jim Eager at 12:09 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
"Because it sounds like a very sudden, violent process the way you phrase it." Maybe because it would be, compared to how long we used to think it would take to melt large ice sheets like Greenland and West Antarctica. And as John replied, the fact that large portions of the Greenland ice cap and most of the West Antarctic ice sheet are grounded below sea level will allow intrusion of warm sea water beneath the ice, not only lubricating it, but also melting the ice from below. Moreover, it's a process that will continue well beyond 2100, so talk of just building higher dikes and sea walls to deal with a 1-2 meter rise is sheer nonsense. Oh, and remember, those dikes would have to be run up both banks of every river to the new, higher tidal point, mind you. -
HumanityRules at 12:05 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
This Stone paper seems to model greatest mass loss from the north of the continent at CO2 of 400ppm. A recent Howat paper suggests up to 75% of present day mass loss is from the SE of the continent. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034496.shtml Does this apparent inconsistency matter? -
HumanityRules at 11:19 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Quick question. What do you mean by completely collaspe. Do you mean slowly melt? Because it sounds like a very sudden, violent process the way you phrase it.Response: There are two main contributors to ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet: melting ice and increased discharge as glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean. Part of the reason why Greenland and West Antarctica are losing ice mass faster than East Antarctica is because part of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are sitting on bedrock that is underwater - warming oceans speeds up the slide of glaciers that calve into the ocean.
I wouldn't characterise it as a sudden, violent process. I'd characterise it more like pushing a huge, heavy boulder from the top of a hill. It's difficult at first and moves slowly. But then you reach a tipping point where it's momentum starts to carry it down the hill and then there's no stopping it. -
HumanityRules at 11:02 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Sorry WUWT not CA -
canbanjo at 10:55 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Hi does this alter the sea level rise predictions this century? ThanksResponse: As far as I can tell, it's broadly consistent with the several papers that predict around 1 to 2 metres sea level rise by 2100. But this paper takes a longer view, looking at the impact over 400 years. -
Ned at 10:44 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Nice post, John. GRACE is really turning out to be one of the best investments of NASA's earth system science program. Your figure 4 is noteworthy. Emissions in the mid-2000s really were on an unsustainable trajectory. Presumably the economic downturn has dropped the line back down a bit, but as the global economy picks up steam again we may head back up towards that ugly BAU line. Melting Greenland is one of those things that will probably take a long time to accomplish but one it starts it will be hard to stop.Response: Hansen describes it well in 'Storms of my Grandchildren'. The Greenland (and Antarctic) ice sheets have great inertia. This means it takes a long time before they start moving. So early on, we think the massive inertia of the ice sheets is our friend. But once the ice sheets start moving and particularly when they reach the tipping point where collapse is inevitable, it's not like we can lassoo a rope over them and hold them back. At this point, the inertia is revealed to be not our friend but our enemy. -
HumanityRules at 10:28 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Svalgaard seems like a perfectly good solar scientist. I was reading many of his posting on CA yesterday because I was going over the ACRIM gap debate again. He seems fairly independently minded, dry, witty and intelligent. I'd agree with 51.Arjan description of the guy. I was wondering whether he is generally seen as a denier because I find him hard to label. -
Leo G at 08:36 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dhozzer - K, will try to be more accurate - "world leading scientists in their disciplines" This too me of course includes Gavin, Jim, Ray L. Tammy, etc. Yes Doug, solar is one of the things we offer, but just being over the border a bit from you, we find the sale hard. For a lot of people, to long of a RFI. But at least in Vancouver propoer now, any new construction must rough-in for solar panels, so things are getting there. -
dhogaza at 08:26 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
actually Dr. Svalgaard is a highly respected solar scientist.
Saying "he's not one of the world's leading scientists" isn't the same as saying "he's not respected", OK? -
Ned at 07:45 AM on 23 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
N/A writes: I do not know. I only see it as an important question to answer and have yet to see a satisfactory answer. Nothing wrong with that. Spend some time browsing through the pages on this site -- there is a lot of information, and a lot of very careful discussion of the current peer-reviewed literature. A number of the commenters here are scientists working either within climate science or in related fields ... they can provide a very valuable perspective, too. -
Ned at 07:35 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Unlike hard science, climate science has no expectation that anything is reproducible. Actually, lots of research in climate science is reproducible. You can look at the delta O18 records from ice cores in Greenland and in Antarctica, and they match up quite nicely. The Clear Climate Code project has reproduced the results of GISTEMP using their own software operating on the same input data. Events like the PETM or the Younger Dryas show up in all kinds of different paleoclimate studies. Trends in CO2 concentration at stations ranging from the Arctic to the tropics are comparable. There are small differences among the UAH, RSS, GISTEMP, HADCRU, and NOAA global temperature data sets, but they generally match up pretty closely. And one could go on and on... I'm not sure where you get the idea that nothing is reproducible. Lots of stuff gets reproduced, in fact almost everything out there is being done by at least two groups. -
oracle2world at 07:08 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
And #2 ... when the AGW evidence gets sorted into the good, the bad, and the ugly ... AGW's credibility would be vastly improved. -
oracle2world at 07:06 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I thought #17 was about climate change true-believers for a moment. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim. But I digress. The "Impossible expectations of what research can deliver." was most interesting to me. Unlike hard science, climate science has no expectation that anything is reproducible. The density of water is the same here as in Russia (there is consensus on this I believe). But the earth undergoes constant change that doesn't repeat. The day is slowing down, meteor strikes, radioactive elements decaying in the crust, the moon receding every year, continents drift, etc. So from the get-go, climate science is never going to meet expectations. Especially compared to hard science. AGW depends on about a dozen assumptions, some of which are very strong (China and India are not going to play ball), to some that are very weak (warm weather is universally bad). That secondhand smoke example? The NCI estimates 3,000 lung deaths per year due to secondhand smoke. It might even be true. Within the limits of what can be estimated, that is as good as it gets. Over 1,000 people die in highway accidents each MONTH in the US. That is not an estimate, actual numbers. In terms of risk mitigation, highway safety probably deserves 10 times the money spent compared to secondhand smoke. AGW has some hard numbers, CO2 rising, sunspot activity going back hundreds of years, recent satellite data ... and estimates like tree ring proxies, surface temps from ground stations, all the way to complete WAGs a hundred years out. They are not the same and no one in AGW appears to be especially troubled by it. And no matter how solid a theory is, there is no guarantee it won't be found lacking. Gamma ray bursts are a prime example. Energetic, and just HAD to be within the Milky Way, otherwise basic laws of physics would be violated. The key assumption was that the gamma radiation was uniformly radiated. That assumption turned out to be false. Science is replete with stuff like this. The key assumption in AGW is that CO2 determines global temperatures. Particularly CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. Within limits of climate research, this is really hard to pin down. Maybe impossible. It doesn't appear that CO2 was a driver at times in the past, so folks would like to understand what the differences are today that would make it so. Soooooooooooooooooooooo, great article. Since your website got hacked, figure you are now in the big leagues. -
scaddenp at 07:05 AM on 23 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
I hate to be reiterating an old point but its all about rate. The transition into and out of ice age is extremely slow by human terms. (around 10,000 years). The rate of warming we are creating is by comparison very fast. Rates of change that overwhelm species capacity to adapt are the danger. Also, an ice age hardly kills most of the life on the planet. We have been in and out of ice ages right through quaternary period. They affect temperate zones mostly. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:37 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Leo G at 06:22 AM on 23 March, 2010 I do my part by installing high efficiency heating boilers/systems for my customers. I don't know the application space of your customers and I have about 30 seconds available so I'll just put in a blind plug for solar DHW systems. I hope they're on your menu, check 'em out! 10x efficiency dollar/watt over PV, low hanging fruit. -
Leo G at 06:22 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dhozzer - actually Dr. Svalgaard is a highly respected solar scientist. He was the one on the NASA committee that predicted the low of cycle 24, which all the others on same committee had wrong. And yes, I know that Williss is an amuater, but still, he did go after Goddard quite hard in said post. Actually, there are quite a few scientists such as Paul Dennis (who took to task the assumption that a post on clam shell dating was accurate), Jeff L, a geologist, who right now is trying to educate some on plate tectonics, etc. who post on skeptic blogs. As for Dr. Svalgaard, he just doesn't think that CO2 is going to cause all of those positive feedbacks. Not everyone who posts against AGW is a denier. Most of us agree on the warming, just not the consequences/pro forcings/calamities etc. I do my part by installing high efficiency heating boilers/systems for my customers. I just haven't been convinced yet that the world is going to hell in a handbasket from CO2. But I do keep a very open mind, and always read here, RC, OM and other pro sites, because in the end, I do understand that opinion does not matter, just the data and the facts. Now if I had the education to actually be able to analyze the data, then maybe I would be completely off the fence, and taking a trip down under to buy John a beer or two. :) -
aj1983 at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dr. Svalgaard usually only corrects things he knows that are incorrect. He does not seem to take any side in the global warming debate (you will sometimes see him refuting solar variability theories and the influence on climate if based on bullsh*t though.) He does however try to lecture people about solar physics at the solarcycle24 blog, which are often interesting comments. I respect him for that. He also has a lot of information on his website: http://www.leif.org/research/ -
dhogaza at 04:59 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl!
Before you get too excited, I hope you know that Willis is no scientists, and Svalgard is not one of the world's leading scientists ... Though at least he's done some research. Actually, i think he's pretty much the only scientist who routinely posts at WUWT, and it's mostly to tell people they're wrong (it's hard to understand his brand of skepticism, actually). -
Leo G at 04:57 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Oh PS - if you want to see warmers/skeptics and MOR's having some real good discussions right now on ststs, check out Lucia's Blackboard. Very much like this site, in that most of the time, the posters are civil, and trying to show thier view with logic and data. I don't understand much of it, but it sure is great to follow a real scientific discussion in the blog sphere. -
Leo G at 04:54 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Steve L @ 41 - I know most of you people hate this site, but if you want an example of skeptics "attacking" one another, just check out this post - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/. It ties in nicely to what John has posted here. Willis, Dr. Svalgard, etc. pretty much go after Goddard quite hard. Also, on another recent post about the Iceland volcanoe, a few geologists are trying to "help" certain skeptics, get their geology correct. To be honest, I cruise both pro and con sites every day, and find that there is less of a choir on the con sites. Now maybe that is because there happens to be more lay people on skeptic sites that have heads full of crap trivia and the scientists try to show them the real data, or maybe it is just the way of the skeptic side, that all science must be challenged. Don't really know. But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl! -
We're heading into an ice age
"If you're that concerned about an impending ice age," Really, I am not. My point is that it is possible warming will be good if it prevents an ice age. We seem to be in agreement that CO2 is preventing an ice age. We differ if the CO2 is good or bad. Butr I do not know. I only see it as an important question to answer and have yet to see a satisfactory answer. -
We're heading into an ice age
Well that makes your climate models easy. Are you familiar with the phrase "Dead Certain." Warmer may be inconvenient. Ice will kill most of the life on the planet. I think we should plan for every possible future and not pick only the ones we want to "solve." By the way - how do I get the nam "N/A" and how do I change it? I am having some degree of trouble here. -
Peter Hogarth at 19:58 PM on 22 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
zinfan94 at 05:05 AM on 22 March, 2010 There are of course uncertainties in both the ice melt and the steric contributions, and the fact that these components account for around "85%" of sea level rise, and this is regarded as "within the error bars" indicates that the numbers you mention are reasonable. I have also seen a number of papers indicating a decreased contribution to sea level from land run-off, as more of the river systems are dammed, and more water is used for irrigation etc. I'll look for some global estimates of this. The general view seems to be that Ice melt contributions are going to increasingly dominate sea level budget. -
Jeff Freymueller at 17:22 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
#40 HUmanityRules: "The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'." Nonsense. Science is all about competing arguments. If you want to see competing arguments hashed out, try going to a scientific conference some time. And I guessed you missed the arguments that the IPCC seriously underestimated future sea level rise (by assuming no contribution from melting glaciers). Seriously, there are so many counterexamples to your claim, and as Ned posted in #42 most if not all of what is now the consensus view started out as a hotly contested argument about competing ideas. -
James Wight at 16:38 PM on 22 March 2010Why does CO2 lag temperature?
In 2008, the Antarctic ice core record was extended back to 800,000 years ago using the bottom 200 m of the EPICA Dome C ice core. It shows a similar relationship between CO2 and temperature as the Vostok record does. -
climateresponse at 16:22 PM on 22 March 2010Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Nobody reads peer reviewed science literature except for other scientists. So then, whose fault is when the average person doesn't have the information. Theirs, for behaving like they always have and you should have expected them to, or yours for waiting this long to spell it out for them. For years all we've heard is politicians telling us about global warming and climate change, but not giving us the evidence. Just because some slick talker in a suit says something is true, doesn't mean it is. If that were the case then there wouldn't be so many of them saying so many different things. If you want people to believe you then it is your responsibility to give them reason to. Otherwise you have no right to complain.
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
