Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
Comments 16751 to 16800:
-
michael sweet at 08:45 AM on 14 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
Norrism @251,
The US CSSR report contains data up to 2016. The IPCC report only contains data up to 2012. SInce the CSSR contains more up to data, Noonan cannot use an outdated graph from the IPCC report to claim that the CSSR is incorrect. The knowledge of scientists has increased since the SR5 was written.
The data on sea level rise and acceleration has been updated since the AR5 was written. The CSSR report is now the gold standard. Noonan knew that the data he used was out of date when he wrote his article. If he wants to complain he needs to use the most recent data available. The fact that he did not use current data indicates that either he is ignorant of the data (and cannot complain about what he does not know) or he is trying to obscure the conclusion.
The data from Jevrejeva et al graphed in figure 3.14 above (sorry it is blurry) was published in 2008. It has been updated since then. Sea level rise has dramatically increased since then. If the graph was drawn with current data the result would be different.
I have provided data that show that sea level rise has accelerated over the past decade. Noonan relies on data almost 10 years old for his claim. That is not an honest claim when we know the rate is accelerating.
You came here and were angry that the claim that current sea level rise was comparable from 1920-1950 was not included in the CSSR. Your claim was based on Noonan's article. You have previously been provided with data that shows Noonan is not a reliable source of information. You need to be much more skeptical when you read information on Currie's blog, it has a reputation for misleading information.
If you came here and asked why this claim was left out and linked Noonan's article it would have been explained to you. When you are upset the claim was left out (because it is incorrect) you are not treated the same.
-
aleks at 08:24 AM on 14 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Michael sweet, please note that statements made in preface (especially, of collective works) are not always confirmed by real data reported by researchers. In the preface: 'As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid". See p.20: Reaction of H2CO3 formation is slow, and '... the concentration of carbonic acid is only about 1/1000 of concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide". Total carbon dioxide (H2CO3 + CO2(aq)) "at higher pHs ionises to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions". Hence, it will be slightly alkaline buffer solution that also contains hydroxyl ions with pH 8.1 (table 1.2, p.24).
-
aleks at 07:20 AM on 14 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Thanks for references. I'll try to discuss them. 1) In nigelj post: pmet.noaa.gov. This article contains general statements without links to original works, mention of one (only!) possible reaction, and explanation of pH value at the beginner's level. 2) The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption. In this paper, the absorption of IR-radiation by CO2 is discussed, not the absorption of gas by water. 3) Seawater Equilibria. Here the total carbon dioxide molality of 1.65mmol/kg is given at a partial pressure of CO2 0.000387 bar. So, the Henry constant k= P/m = 0.235. This value is much greater than in NISTWebBook (0.031-0.035), so it seems to be doubtful.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Mask=10
4) OA not OK. In these 18 articles many chemical processes and parameters are described, but not all. Hydrolysis reactions such as carbonate ion + H2O -> bicarbonate + OH- and the role of buffer systems (carbonate and borate) are not mentioned, the very important data on CO2 solubility in seawater at dfifferent temperatures are not given. In the part 4: "average ocean pH decreases from 8.25 to 8.14 after industrial revolution". The industrial revolution means not only increased emission of CO2 into atmosphere, but also emission of SO2 and NO2 during burning coal and some kinds of oil, development of chemical industry that produces gases much more acidic than CO2. So, "after the industrial revolution" does not mean "because of increase CO2 in atmosphere". Part 14 by Drug Mackie seems to be the most interesting, especially Fig.13. Value of pH near the the ocean surface is ~8.1 in Atlantic and ~7.8 in Pacific: how is this difference compatible with the idea of uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere? And what about explanation of pH decrease by ~0.3 with depth? Which amount of CO2 can be produced by respiration? May be, it would be many times greater than all human produced emission into the atmosphere after industrial revolution.
-
NorrisM at 06:00 AM on 14 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
MA Rodger @ 250
Thanks for the additional information. As noted above, I am working through all of Chapter 3.
-
NorrisM at 05:58 AM on 14 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
michael sweet @ 228
I have now read this full thread and am on to reading Chapter 3 of the IPCC AR5 relating to sea level changes (with Chapter 13 to follow).
After re-reading your post at 228 above I think I have to reply to you because in a number of places in that post you suggest that Koonin and the writer are "lying" when referring to the fact that the IPCC had suggested that there was a period of "similar rates" during he period 1920-1950.
Here are two of the quotes:
"Koonin cites the IPCC to support his lie that sea level rise is approximately the same now as in 1950."
"Raise your game. You have been posting here at SkS for a long time and you still post these obviously false claims from sources you have been repeatedly shown are spouting lies. It is time consuming to find the actual data to respond to these lies."
I am somewhat disappointed that the Moderator of this website did not "snip" parts of your post @ 228 because if these are not "ad hominen" comments (or what I might also describe as "bullying") then I do not know what is. These are comments directed not to the issues but to the person either making the comments or being quoted as a source. Is there a different standard for those posters on this website who seem to be "regulars" supporting the positions of SKS?
What concerns me is that based upon your knowledge level of sea level issues (evidenced both from this thread and others) that in all likelihood you knew at the time I made my post @ 221 that you fully knew where my confusion arose in that at the time of that post I had not realized that the IPCC statement of "similar rates" was based upon the IPCC referencing the Jevrejeva and Ray & Douglas estimates of sea level rise (not the Church & White lower estimates) which studies did in fact show "similar rates" during the 1920-1950 period.
I am also sure that you were fully aware at the time of your post of the discussions of the IPCC in Sections 3.7.4 to 3.7.6 inclusive of Chapter 3 where this "similar rate" and explanation of same are discussed.
Therefore your use of the word "lies" was completely inappropriate.
Moderator: I had hoped to post a copy of the Figure 3.14 graph with this post but could not figure out how to do it. Copy and paste from a pdf does not work. If you could post a copy it would be appreciated to clarify to others where this confusion arose. Any help on how to do so myself would also be appreciated. I was not able to "lift" the graph from the pdf itself.
-
BaerbelW at 05:41 AM on 14 November 2017Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Nov. 13, 2017 - updated the graphic to include data through 2016.
-
william5331 at 05:05 AM on 14 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
America absented herself from the TPPA and we now are on the way, with the rest of the participants, to a much fairer agreement for the people of the countries involved. The same probably applies to talks on reducing carbon emisions. Leave the obstructionist USA out of it and the rest of us can get on with it. Yes I know they are a major contributor to green house gasses but imagine this. The rest of us agree to Tax and Dividend a la Jim Hansen. Countries that don't put on such a tax have a carbon tariff imposed on them. Once a couple of major countries sign up to this, the rest have to follow. We drag America kicking and screaming into the fold whether they want it or not.
-
CollinMaessen at 16:25 PM on 13 November 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
That's not what you said in the comment I was responding to:
Do I believe a Koch-funded climate-study? No! Do I believe a Monsanto-funded GMO-study? No!
But in your more nuanced response you still say:
For medicine risk research in general, I have some trust, for GMO risk research, I have none
That's still dismissing research without actually looking into it if the results are valid or not. Also linking to french articles isn't helpful for me or a lot of other folks on a website that uses English. I can't read French.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:51 PM on 13 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
OPOF @8
Box 6.1 of Chapter 6 confirms what I remember. After a pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere ceases (emissions = zero) the concentration immediately starts to fall, but at a decelerating rate — down to 40% after about a century, 25% after about 1000 years, and the rest after a further immensely long period.
The implication is that, if humanity reduces its emissions to zero, we'll see a decline in the Keeling curve. Owing to the inertia of the system, this decline might not be fast enough to stop the temperature exceeding two degrees, but that's not what I wanted to know. The foregoing contradicts the assertion by gws @4.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:29 AM on 13 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
william@3,
The problem is 'the pursuit of personal interests that are contrary to the public interest'.
The public interest is the development of lasting improvement for all of humanity (everyone today and 'all' the future generations).
Money in politics can be in the Public Interest. So the problem isn't money in politics.
The problem is that people can get away with actions that can be objectively understood to be detrimental to the Public Interest.
Misleading marketing is a major part of the problem. However, misleading marketing that achieves the Public Interest would be Good. But I personally prefer actions to properly educate the masses, especially requiring all the richest to prove that that is what they do if they want to keep their wealth.
-
Jonas at 06:09 AM on 13 November 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
PS (to #45): no product "stable climate" is wrong: wind turbines etc. But comparing the size of the conflicts of interest (possible financial loss) of renewables and fossil fuel industry and lobbying efforts is telling. Still, one should be suspicous of climate studies by those companies too. There is a structural difference between suspicion against conflicts of interest and conspiracy theory: suspicion against conflicts of interests is symmetric and open to change.
-
Jonas at 05:52 AM on 13 November 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@#44
>Funding sources cannot tell you if found results are valid or not
Of course not. But they can tell me if I need to be extra suspicious.
I don't need to be suspicious about Koch funding a study which has results opposite to their interests.
What I criticise about this post is to equal the situations of climate change, GMO research and medicine research: they are structurally not the same, and neither are critics suspicious of the consensus. Consensus is not a yes or no question and each of these domains has various subareas with varying conflicts of interest and vairous reasons for suspicion. Climate risk research in general has the least conflict of interests, because there is no such thing as a product "stable climate" and nobody has any interest in a destabilized climate. For medicine risk research in general, I have some trust, for GMO risk research, I have none (see links in #43 and #38). I am not the same as a climate denier.
-
John Hartz at 05:20 AM on 13 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #45
Recommended supplemental reading:
COP23: Fake Donald Trump marches in Carnival-themed climate protests in Bonn by Jennifer Collins, Deutsche Welle (DW), Nov 11, 2017
The photos embedded in this article are worth seeing.
-
ubrew12 at 05:13 AM on 13 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
william@3: Years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper, in which I lamented the 'sisyphean task of the climate denier', whose carefully constructed evidence against global warming is doomed repeatedly to collapse against the weight of the physical evidence. I must admit, in recent years I've begun to feel like the sisyphus I was picturing in others. Money can hide us from our interests, our families, even ourselves. But, ultimately it can't hide us from Physics.
-
william5331 at 04:31 AM on 13 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
I know a chap that was at a climate change conference in which a prominent politician dissed the whole notion. By a strange co-incidence, they sat beside each other on the plane back home. This chap brought the conversation around to climate change and the politician agreed with him that it is a serious problem. We are pushing the wrong buttons. The core problem; the one ring that controls them all is money in politics. If we sorted this problem out, all the others would be possible. If we don't we are like the Greek that had to push the rock up hill only to see it roll back to the bottom every time.
-
dmccubbi at 01:27 AM on 13 November 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
In the graph showing sea level rise data versus IPCC Assessment Three projections ("Sea Level Rise - models & observations"), why do the projections start in 1990, when the report came out in 2001?
-
MA Rodger at 20:40 PM on 12 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
To clarify the situation regardingGoddard/Heller's use of DMI graphics.
He shows the DMI Accumulative Surface Mass Balance graph (the lower one of the above) in two of his November posts (so far). In the first of these posts (Nov 1) he says "Greenland ice growth is close to last autumn’s record high." (His screen-shot of the graphic does not past Nov 1.) This strongly suggests Heller/Goddard doesn't understand AccSMB.
This was preceeded by a graphic showing the differences between two NOAA SIE graphics aserting "Arctic sea ice extent is up 16% from last year."
This is perhaps no surprise. 2016 was jaw-droppingly un-icy through the Autumn, setting new records for low ice. Using JAXA daily data, 2017 was 14% above 2016 on 30 Oct (& almost 16% up on 2016 on 18 Oct. Yet a percentage is a little silly as a measure - SIE grows over 50% through the month of October). And of course, the whole comment is silly as 2017 remains a very un-icy year, as shown in this JAXA SIE anomaly graphic (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment'). 2017 SIE is at present in 3rd place behind 2012 & 2016.
In a second post (Nov 9) Goddard/Heller again posts the DMI Acc SMB graph saying "The last two years have seen near record ice gain in Greenland." Additionally, to back his primary assertion that there has been a massive expansion of thick ice over the last decade, he blinks two DMI graphs (below) but with the thinner sub 1.5m blue and purple sea ice whited out. While the areas of thick ice may be greater 2007-17 as Heller/Goddard says, PIOMAS shows a healthy drop in total sea ice volume between Oct 2007 and Oct 2017 of 990 cu km.
-
Cedders at 18:47 PM on 12 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
Sorry, there was an important word missing in my post 16 - Goddard Heller 'misrepresented' the graph, but I was going to be charitable and write 'misinterpreted'. However, it's possible he personally understands the difference between surface and total mass balance but has avoided explaining it.
The minimal text in 'Massive Growth In Arctic Ice Since Last Year' (Nov 2017) concerns both sea ice and the Greenland Ice sheet - it makes no claim the two things are related but leaves readers to draw a conclusion. Previous uses of the DMI graph includes 'Greenland Ice Growth Ahead Of Last Year’s Record Pace' (Oct 2017) which seems oddly careful to specify that DMI does show surface mass balance given that it goes on to talk of 'criminals in the press and academia'; 'Record Greenland Ice Growth Continues' (Sep 2017); 'Scientists Discover That Their Imaginary Greenland Meltdown Is Not Having Any Effect' (June 2016); and over at NTZ 'Danish Meteorological Institute Moves To Obscure Recent Record Greenland Ice Growth' (Gosselin, April 2017) mentions 'massive ice growth' without any sign of being aware of calving loss.
On 24 April Goddard Heller tweeted 'Contrary to the lies of government scientists, Greenland has gained a record 600 billion tons of ice this winter.' I pointed out the possible source of confusion, and Goddard blocked me shortly thereafter.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please use Heller's real name.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:01 PM on 12 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Digby Scorgie@8,
The IPCC WG1AR5 Chapter 6 that nigelj@5 identified, particularly Box 6.1, provides information related to what you are asking about.
-
CollinMaessen at 15:44 PM on 12 November 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
By that logic you should reject Berkely Earth because it received funding form a Koch Brothers foundation despite it confirming what independent research found. Or the research that found that vaccines do not cause autism that was funded by an anti-vax group. If we would go into medical research we then could throw out a lot of what we know (medical companies fund a lot of research to find potential treatments).
Funding sources cannot tell you if found results are valid or not. It only means you need to check if the funding didn't influence or bias the researchers. If that's the case there would be issues in the paper itself that give you reason to dismiss it.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:22 PM on 12 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
gws @4
Is that right? For constant concentration, net emissions must be near zero? There was a discussion at SkS involving Andy Skuce a few years ago about the effect of suddenly cutting emissions to zero. If I remember correctly, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 begins to fall immediately but the inertia of the climate system ensures that the average global temperature remains roughly constant. Is the word "net" of significance here? I should emphasize that when I say "begins to fall", it does so at a decelerating rate (again, if I remember correctly).
-
Jonas at 11:04 AM on 12 November 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@Moderator #34:
From the market share point of view, Monsanto+4 = GMO: I cannot afford 5300$ or 2500$ to buy one of the commercial reports on market share, but from the introduction and scope you can see that 5 companies control the market and therefore the money which fund (
https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/5143320/gmo-crops-and-seeds-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2017-2022.html
and http://www.rnrmarketresearch.com/global-genetically-modified-seeds-market-2016-2020-market-report.html )If moreover, the results are protected by patents (see my links above in #38) and may not be researched without permission of the company, it's not science, it's product development. If Monsanto tries to insert "independent" results as science, just as climate deniers do (« Le Monde » montre comment la puissante firme américaine a fait paraître des articles coécrits par ses employés et signés par des scientifiques pour contrer les informations dénonçant la toxicité du glyphosate. http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/10/04/monsanto-papers-desinformation-organisee-autour-du-glyphosate_5195771_3244.html), then the company itself is no not a credible source.
Also, climate science will soon face the challenges that other high tech and high cost research face: those who pay determine what questions may be asked and may therefore be answered: science is not about unbounded curiosity and an abstract clean methodology, but deeply embedded into sociecty and highly susceptible to money supply, manipulation and abuse. The key question to ask is: is there a conflict of interest?
See various articles on Trump cuts and inclusion of industry interests in the control sections of climate science (financing), e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/06/we-have-every-reason-to-fear-trumps-pick-to-head-nasaSo: Do I believe a Koch-funded climate-study? No! Do I believe a Monsanto-funded GMO-study? No! Do I .. And in the future: do I believe a NASA climate study? It depends on how much influence Ebell and the like can put on NASA. There is no such thing as pure science: there only is science which is more subject to conflicts of interest and there is science that is less subject to conflicts of interest (be they societal (what science do we fund?), economic (are there effects on company benefit) and personal (are there effects on my carrer? See Le Monde on pharmaceuical research fraud by individuals: http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/10/28/recherche-medicale-petits-arrangements-avec-la-verite_5207176_3234.html ).
I decided to go on donating to SkS (because of it's precious climate work, which is needed in trump times). Still, I cannot go on sharing the material, because of posts like this one: a pitty: now it's only input for me (because I know I have to ignore posts like this one).
-
michael sweet at 09:52 AM on 12 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
John,
The graph Ceddars linked to (apparently from Goddard's site) is a graph of yearly snowfall and surface snow melt on Greenland.
The paragraph Ceddars quoted correctly describes that more snow falls each year than melts (I think in 2012 more snow melted but most years more snow falls than melts). The graph does not include melting of glaciers or calving of icebergs so it is not a complete record of Greenland ice.
The GRACE gravity data show that more ice melts each year than falls as snow. GRACE measures surface melt and ocean melt.
-
grindupBaker at 09:47 AM on 12 November 2017A Response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing
If I'm understanding the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure correctly, then it measures a different physical aspect of Earth's atmosphere than is measured by a thermometer (either liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance) and it measures a lesser physical aspect. The underlying reason for the difference is that there is no long-wave radiation (LWR) inside a solid such as a platinum-resistance thermometer. I've never heard a climate scientist mention this.
If the lower tropospheric (for example) atmosphere warms then there is an anomaly in these forms of energy:
- molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat),
- LWR energy,
- molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form).The warm target in a MSU/AMSU is a solid blackbody whose temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers embedded in it. The microwave flux density from it is used to scale microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere. The issue I see is that this onboard calibration procedure causes the instrument to scale such that it measures only molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) in the atmosphere and excludes LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs in the atmosphere. This means that differentiation over time of this proxy measures only heat anomaly.
A liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer placed in the atmosphere at elevation 2m (for example) above ocean or land surface measures:
- molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) plus
- LWR energy plus
- molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form)
because LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs are transmuted to molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) upon impacting upon the molecules of the solid and I understand that there is no transverse electromagnetic radiation inside a solid. Placement of the thermometer inside an enclosure does not exclude the LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs due to GHG molecule collisions.Thus, differentiation over time of the liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer proxies for temperature measures the sum of all three anomalies but differentiation over time of the microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere at the example elevation of 2m measures only the molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) anomaly with the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure as described. In order for the MSU/AMSU to measure the same physical aspect as a liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer it would be necessary to calibrate with the warm target being atmospheric gases in close proximity to a solid whose temperature is measured by platinum-resistance thermometers, or a compensating adjustment could be made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR energy + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
Please inform whether:
1) I'm misunderstanding the physics, or
2) I'm not including another aspect of STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure that deals with this issue, or
3) A compensating adjustment for this is made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere, or
4) The ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere is so negligible (far less than uncertainties) that no compensating adjustment for it is required for analysis such as RSS and UAH.Thanks
-
RedBaron at 08:57 AM on 12 November 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Well Chris,
Interesting smattering of almost every denialist talking point known! You certainly came to the right place though! Because here we have very detailed rebuttles to all of them!
I will just point you to the most important and what just happens to be last on your list; your claim that we don't know the warming is human caused. The evidence is here. To give you the cheap and easy explanation though, basically follows like this:
- By the Natural cycles and natural trends like obital wobbles and solar activity combined with ocean currents, volcanos etc.... We should be cooling
- We are warming instead
- The factors causing the warming are either directly human caused like CO2 emissions or reinforcing feedback loops we started like water vapor increases and reduced albedo due to melting ice.
- Thus you are right. We are not 100% responcible for global warming. The actual % is higher than 100%, because otherwise we would be on the long slow decrease in temperatures towards a gaciation period.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for attempting to provide appropriate guidance and suggestions for Chris. The relevant portions of his comment that pertain to this thread have been left; the remainder have been snipped and should be ignored on this thread. Thanks!
-
chrisblandis at 07:58 AM on 12 November 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
The author here has presented a very tendentiuos view on climate change and why people believe in it or not. Like most things in life, nowadays, everyone wants to be reductive - make everything a simple answer, reason or solution - however, the world and the people that inhabit it are extraordinarily complex.
As a democrat, a former catholic, and graduate from Columbia, I can tell you that I am skeptical for the following reasons. First, we live in a universe that we barely understand. Scientific beliefs one day are often proven completely wrong years later. Science is constantly discovering: "the more we live, the more we learn... the more we learn, the more we realize the less we know." Scientists cannot with any certainty predict the course of a hurricane or the weather, for that matter, let alone predict the overall course of our planet's global weather in the future. Computer models show many possible outcomes based on "information we know" but we know LESS than what we actually know, that's why we can't even predict the weather or storms courses accurately. The mystery of life still outweighs science. Next, NASA reported in 2008 that Mars and other planets have been heating up since we began recording their temperatures... are humans to blame for this as well? This information is rational and scientific and should be included in our assessment of the earth's climate changes. The earth and universe have been around for 4.5 billion years, going through a vast number of extraordinary climatic events and extinctions and rebirths... scientific man has been around for 400 yrs. If we reduce this to minutes... if the earth existed for 60 minutes, man's existence is a fraction of a second... to think that we know the earth's cycles or where our solar system is traveling as we speed through the universe... is absurd. With all that said, maybe, maybe, there is a correlation between man and the warming of the planet, it could be part of the reason, or not. 30yrs scientists noted the correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease and told warned people to stop eating eggs, butter and red meat... now science has come out and said "oops, it's more complicated that that," and now eggs and butter are being added back into our diets. Correlations aren't facts...they can be coincidental. Personally, I think that it can't hurt to try to reduce our emissions and be more conscious of our environment, but i do take issue when people try to shove theory down my throat as fact, and demonize or ridicule people if they are skeptical. Skepticism... is good. If we just accepted everything without question - we would never learn or grow. Is the earth getting warmer... yes. Are we to blame solely? Who the F knows. You don't and neither do I.
Moderator Response:[DB] Note that general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Further, please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Multiple off-topic, inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. You are welcome to find more appropriate threads for the individually snipped portions, but ensure you have read them before posting on them. Or a similar outcome will doubtless ensue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 12 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Using the term Conservative is a part of the problem.
The people who are not Open Minded cannot learn new understanding. No matter what amount of Good Reason is developed a close-minded person will not learn.
It is possible that there is a higher percentage of close-minded people in the Right-Conservative catorgory, but Conservative is not the proper label for the trouble-makers.
To pin down the trouble-makers, I have had some success by declaring that the Desired Objective of human activity is developing lasting improvements for all of humanity - eternally into the future. We are fortunate to have the potential to have humanity fit in as a part of the perpetual motion machine for life that this amazing planet can be.
Anyone close-minded who is locked into beliefs that are contrary to developing lasting improvements for all of humanity can only be perceived as a threat to the pursuit of those Good Reasonable Objectives And the best developed presentation of those Good Reasonable Objectives are the Sustainable Development Goals. And anyone who sees merit in achieving any of the identified SDGs should be Open to understanding the importance of achieving all of them. And that can develop a common sense understanding of the Good Reasons to identify specific individuals as threats who should be treated as threats unless they can prove they have changed their minds.
-
nigelj at 06:45 AM on 12 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Debate and discussion should mostly be polite and reasoned, but there are a few times when a strong, aggressive response is required. Otherwise you get walked all over.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Attributed to Einstein.
-
John Hartz at 05:05 AM on 12 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
Ceddars @16: Based on your summary, Heller seems to be conflating Arctic sea ice with the Greenland ice sheets. Is that the case? (I personally do not wish visit Heller's blog to find out.)
-
NorrisM at 03:25 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
Cedders @ 594
As one who is clearly a "lukewarmer", at least, I will look forward to any further posts you have while I personally try to get a handle on issues relating to the measurement of sea levels and actual measurements of global temperature rise.
My underlying concern remains that that the climate system is so complex that the models cannot adequately predict what is going to happen (yes I know this is the topic of another thread). It does not mean it is not going to happen but to ask the world to shift its FF use over a very short time frame is a hard sell. Perhaps you can deal with this in your suggestions to SKS. Another suggestion I have made to SKS (which seems to have fallen on deaf ears) is to address the alternatives and their cost to assure the Republicans in the US (which is surely what has to be done) that there is a reasonable alternative. I understand that this website is not dedicated to those issues but, in my view, those are so critical to convincing the public that they have to be addressed in one or more formal threads dedicated to same.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Cedders at 00:48 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
According to SkS's database this, 'Climate's changed before' is by a slight margin the most popular 'argument' used to protect against 'alarmism' (or action, whichever way you see it).
In the taxonomy, it's listed as a subead of 'It's not us', and this is the usual implication of 'no one denies the climate changes' by committed contrarians - they may go on to assert there's some (unknown) mechanism causing the current rapid warming instead of the predicted enhanced greenhouse effect.
However I would like to suggest that the conclusion reached from 'climate always changes' by most people fits more under the 'It's not bad' top-level heading. howardlee's 'rebuttals' address to an extent by talking about rate of change and past impacts, which are factual points. 'It's not bad' is not purely factual, because 'bad' is a value.
What I mean is that people will use weather, weather ranges, historical climate variations, glacial cycles over human development, or geological records back to the Precambrian to assure themselves, in combination with the self-evident fact that 'we are here', that civilisation, human life or life itself is more 'resilient' than fragile to substantial temperature or CO₂ changes. If it's happened before then it can't be too bad and is not worth regretting. Again, this stance is as much based on values as facts, as described in Mike Hulme's Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Possibly individualists think nature is less unstable than do egalitarians, although that link wasn't immediately obvious to me.
You can also see a ethical evaluation being superimposed in data when discussing 'dangerous' thresholds, for example J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms. What are the dangers? Although these are detailed in the IPCC WG2 reports, in some ways it's sketchy precisely because these are unprecendented changes or rates of changes. Very few think a runaway effect that destroys all life on Earth is likely, so anything less is a kind of survival, and it's possible to 'concertina' geological time with possible changes in frequency recent extreme weather events without fully appreciating what a mass extinction means. A few metres of sea-level rise has happened before, and if it happens over 200 years then it isn't the end of the world.
Largely I think these are still tacit positions when people seem to be discussing topical issues, but they are things on which scientific research and reason can be brought to bear. We can make partial projections based on past evidence of harms and benefits, such as at the Royal Society meeting on hyperthermals. But the possibility of unexpected dangers are harder to evaluate, and most people may assume the existence or otherwise of precedents is the only way to decide whether climate change is a bigger environmental problem than habitat fragmentation or plastic pollution, or how the amount of human endeavour to mitigate it necessary for long-term survival compares to that put into education or defence. Integrated Assessment Models are not the only way one can form an opinion on what the carbon price should be. 'Lukewarmers' presumably hold these kinds of thoughts along with a historical knowledge of previous millennialism and mass hysteria to evaluate the current situation, while others passively dismiss climate concern using similar reasoning.
So there may be several related deeper objections or questions where SkS can summarise evidence. These may often underlie the search for, or adherence to, pseudo-scientific arguments used by contrarians. I may post again on what these are specifically.
-
Cedders at 00:06 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
The Campbell article John Hartz mentioned is well-written but doesn't present a lot of historical or archaeological evidence, and the conclusions to me seem understated.
-
Cedders at 23:33 PM on 11 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
I've noticed new claims that Greenland is gaining ice. It seems Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) a graph by Danish researchers on a web page 'Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet'. It was picked up in Goddard's "Deplorable Climate Science Blog" as "Massive Growth In Arctic Ice Since Last Year" and that has been amplified by contrarians who in this case prefer to believe models to satellite data (eg "Grace data update reveals NASA Greenland mass-loss fraud").
The confusion is simply resolved by reading the explanatory text.
Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
-
bozzza at 21:12 PM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Tamino says , essentially, that the relationship is still rock solid between arctic sea ice and co2 concentration!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
nigelj@5,
Thanks for the pointer to Chapter 6, Box 1 in IPCC WG1AR5.
It is important to note that the CO2 levels we are currently seeing in the atmosphere are the levels after a significant portion of the emissions that will be absorded in the land and ocean as described in Phase 1 have been absorbed.
So Phase 1 will not be rapidly removing 60 to 85% of the 120 ppm of excess CO2 we currently are measuring (400 ppm - 280 ppm = 120 ppm excess still in the atmosphere). The measured excess CO2 after human activity stops creating new excess CO2 will essentially be the levels for a much longer time, very slowly being reduced by Phase 2 and 3 actions.
Admittedly there will still be some Phase 1 reduction occurring after humans stop creating new excess impacts if the termination is abrupt rather than gradual. But the rate of reduction of the later stages of Phase 1 are also rather slow.
A slightly expanded description could be given, but the detailed descriptions of the 3 phases provided in Box 6.1 say it better than I could paraphrase and they make reference to additional related information.
But the bottom line is that everyone who is benefiting or benefitted from the creation of excess CO2 owes others, particularly future generations of humanity, whatever it costs to reduce the created excess to 350 ppm (those benefiting must pay to eliminate the negative consequences they created - with the bigger beneficiaries paying more to neutralize the impacts of their actions). The inter-generational inequity, and the inequity of benefit in the current generation, of what is being gotten away with is the real matter to be focused on by Responsible Leaders in Politics and Business.
The lack of responsible leadership due to the competitive advantage of getting away with behaving less acceptably and the powerful popularity of misleading marketing are the real problems that climate science has exposed in a big way (or Bigly as one of the biggest trouble-making Winners is often misquoted as saying - he said Big League in a fuzzy way).
-
nigelj at 05:25 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
The following is from IPCC report on Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
The graph in box 6.1 shows rates carbon is absorbed by land and ocean sinks and other geological processes after we stop emissions. Briefly about 60% 0f CO2 is absorbed in first century, remaining 40% takes up to approx 10,000 years to be absorbed.
-
gws at 01:53 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
quick answer to DS at 1.
On first order, it would probably be corresponding to ...
(1) CO2 emissions are increasing each year
(2) CO2 emissions are near constant each year
(3) CO2 emissions are decreasing each year
(4) CO2 emissions are approximately net zero
(5) CO2 emissions are net negative, meaning it is actively being removed from the atmosphere faster than it can outgas from the ocean at atmospheric levels are dropping
We are currently somewhere between (1) and (2).
For those interested in getting more answer to tsuch questions, there is a Reddit AMA going on today (from AGU):
10 November, Dr. Sarah Doherty and Dr. Radley Horton, two authors
of the Climate Science Special Report
(http://www.globalchange.gov/content/cssr), part of the National Climate
Assessment, are hosting a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) from 1-3 pm EST as part of AGU’s AMA series. The recent Climate Science Special Report
focused on climate change in the U.S. and Sarah and Radley will answer
questions on how our climate is changing, what causes it, and what to
expect in the years ahead. link -
One Planet Only Forever at 15:19 PM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Bob@2,
I agree that there are Feedback mechanisms to be concerned about. But all of those feedbacks are triggered by Anthropogenic emissions.
So the concern must remain focused on the rapid ending of Anthropogenic GHG impacts because of the potential for massive feedback magnification of those impacts (primarily the burning of fossil fuels, but also many other human actvities).
And, as metioned by Digby Scorgie@1, the obvious requirement is to get back down to a 350 ppm CO2 level. That will require human actions that remove GHG from the atmosphere in a truly lasting way (more Anthropogenic GHG impacts, but ones that reverse the tragic irresponsible developed history of impacts). Tragically, the reduction/reversal of the CO2 impacts in the oceans may be more difficult.
And the greatest tragedy is that the people who benefited most from creating the daunting challenges and damaging consequences now faced by humanity will not suffer any personal loss of enjoyment 'in their lifetime'. And that is the tragedy that really should be focused on.
-
Bob16215 at 12:56 PM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Anthropogenic carbon emissions are not the key value, it is total greenhouse gas emissions less natural reductions from all natural systems. The other most important number is the rate of increase of all greenhouse gases from feedback mechanisms. These two will determine how long we can survive. Too much emphasis is put on just our emissions. There are many huge natural sources waiting in the wings.
-
nigelj at 12:30 PM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks says ocean acidification from CO2 is "insignificant". The following is from NOAA:
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years."
Doesnt look very "insignificant" to me. Ph change also differs from Aleks calculation.
The article has information on impacts currently on sea life including pteropods, coral, shellfish etc, and also projected impacts. None of it looks "insignificant". Also detail on data collection etc.
Relatively small changes can often have large repercussions. We see this as a constant feature in natural world and also technology.
-
sailorman at 11:54 AM on 10 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
To change the topic somewhat. We know that CO2 has increased by 43% over pre-industrial measurements to 400ppm in 2013. The crucial question, it seems to me is, how much of that 43% increase is from anthropogenic causes and how much is natural? I would very much appreciate if someone coud answer that.
Moderator Response:[TD] 100%. See Human CO2 is a Tiny %. Please put further comments there. There are several more relevant posts, but due to me having just my phone right now, plus Elysian Space Dust, I am poorly situated to provide those right now. Comment there to ask for those if you want.
-
John Hartz at 11:28 AM on 10 November 2017Climate's changed before
Recommneded supplemental reading:
The climate has changed before. But this is different – look at the archeological record by Peter B Campbell, Guardian, Nov 9, 2017
-
michael sweet at 10:19 AM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
From the preface of your reference:
"Ocean acidification is an undisputed fact. The ocean presently takes up one-fourth of the carbon CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from human activities. As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, increasing ocean acidity and shifting the partitioning of inorganic carbon species towards increased CO2 and dissolved inorganic carbon, and decreased concentration of carbonate ion. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, surface-ocean acidity has gone up by 30%. The current increase in ocean acidity is a hundred times faster than any previous natural change that has occurred over the last many millions of years. In the case of unabated CO2 emissions the level of ocean acidity will increase to three times the preindustrial level by the end of this century." (my emphasis)
Chemists who actually work in this field think that ocean acidification is an important problem. Your assertions are not scientificly based. Next time try to find a reference that supports your position.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:02 AM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
I think that part of the problem is that many people are not clear on the difference between carbon emissions and concentration of atmospheric CO2. I understand the difference but not how they are related.
The Keeling curve is currently rising at an accelerating rate. It has to stop rising and instead trend downwards to 350 ppm at least. But what would our emissions be doing while this change occurs?
I envisage five states of the Keeling curve:
(1) CO2 concentration rises at an accelerating rate
(2) CO2 concentration rises at a constant rate
(3) CO2 concentration rises but at a decreasing rate
(4) CO2 concentration stops rising and remains constant
(5) CO2 concentration starts decreasing
For each of these five states, what would our corresponding emissions be doing? Please enlighten me.
-
aleks at 08:19 AM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
As a chemist, I'd like to comment the author's statement: "As humans emit more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, in particular) into the atmosphere, the chemistry of ocean change". At first, it's necessary to clarify that in IPCC list of greenhouse gases only CO2 can dissolve in water and change its acidity (not CH4, N2O, CFCs, etc.). So, the question is: how can the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to impact on the ocean acidity?
Simple calculations based on Henry constant for CO2 in pure water and H2CO3 dissociation constant show that change in CO2 partial pressure from 0.0003 to 0.0004 atm (that takes place in last 100 - 150 years) will decrease pH by 0.06. Indeed, this difference will be negligibly small because the solubility CO2 in saline water is less than in pure water, and ocean water contains carbonate-hydrocarbonate and boric acid-borate buffer systems. The composition of ocean water and its acidity are examined in detail in the comprehensive work of the Europen Comission
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf
Estimation of pH in this work (p.26) gives the value of 8.1 (not acidic!). Of course, the local temporary acidification of ocean is possible, but it is caused not by CO2, but by SO2 and NO2 that are much more acidic than CO2.
Moderator Response:[TD] See the multipart series "OA Not OK."
[DB] Also, please see "Seawater Equilibria" and "The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption".
-
NorrisM at 05:33 AM on 9 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
MA Rodger @ 250
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect that when I get through this thread I will tackle Chapters 3 and 13 in IPCC AR5. Probably should read those first but this is easier reading (I do not want to say more entertaining).
-
william5331 at 05:22 AM on 9 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Another thing that jelly fish teach us is that we have destroyed our population of sea turtles (who eat jelly fish). We continue to destroy them by not protecting their nesting sites and by letting plastic bags enter the oceans which they mistake for jelly fish. The jelly fish then hoover up the larvae of all our commercial species which have a planktonic stage (virtually all of them). Unless we smarten up and set aside more and more of our Exclusive Economic Zones as strictly no fishing areas, eliminate plastic bags and protect turtle nesting sites, we better get used to eating jelly fish.
-
Oriolus Traillii at 22:54 PM on 8 November 2017Temp record is unreliable
Link http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png is broken (see "other lines of evidence for rising temperatures", bullet point 3 under "intermediate")
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed; thanks! (I also fixed the missing video on that page)
-
MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
NorrisM @249.
As you become interested in IPCC AR5 Fig 3.14, do note that the three data sets presented are derived from tidal gauges using two significantly different approaches. The first used by Jevrejeva et al (2008) attempts to reconstruct a global coastal SLR and the second used by Church & White (2011) and Ray & Douglas (2011) attempts to reconstruct a global ocean SLR. The full set of approaches employed across all the various studies is listed out in AR5 Section 3.7.2.
-
NorrisM at 14:19 PM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
John Hartz @ 248 and squishy
I think I will get back to reading the balance of this thread. Indian Ocean discussion interesting but seems to suggest that talking about an average SLR over all oceans is challenging.
DB could have been clearer but I see that he was clearly referring only to the contribution from ice sheets.
Do you agree that the IPCC reference to the 1920-1950 period had to be referencing the two studies other than Church & White shown in the 3.14 graph?
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
