Recent Comments

Prev  333  334  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  Next

Comments 17001 to 17050:

17001. michael sweet at 22:22 PM on 15 November 2017
       On climate and global leadership, it's America Last until 2020
       

       kulbirdi:

       Please list 5 western countries that have bsnned coal use to uspport your wild claim that "using coal energy, but that is banned in many western countries."

       According to this article, 6 countries have stated they intend to ban coal use, but all currently use coal.  The USA under President Trump is currently encouraging greater use of coal.  Why do you require the Chinese to lead the way?

17002. Paul D at 21:44 PM on 15 November 2017
       On climate and global leadership, it's America Last until 2020
       

       kulbirdi @ 3

       хорошего дня!

       China has grown on the back of American and European businesses transfering their manufacturing operations to China. I used to work for a successful British business that did most it's software development and and manufacturing in the UK. It was then taken over by a an American business that then closed down manufacturing in the UK and sent it to China. Software development went to India.

       In other words Western companies exported emissions to China.

       In any case anyone in the West can refuse to purchase goods manufactured in China, but they don't. There is no law forcing people to buy anything.

       That is what capitalism tells us, we all have a free will. Or are you suggesting we don't and that markets need to be controlled based on nationalist principles?

17003. kulbirdi at 20:58 PM on 15 November 2017
       On climate and global leadership, it's America Last until 2020
       

       President Trump points out a growing worldwide concern about China trade. China exports goods manufactured by using coal energy, but that is banned in many western countries. This not fair for economy or employment. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology should be implemented worldwide. 

17004. MA Rodger at 20:18 PM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       NorrisM @265.

       Indeed, you do not have it right.

       I have taken the data from C&W and from NASA. For each of the two records, I have calculated linear trends through 11-years, from beginning to end of each record.

       Thus the latest such trend for C&W is centred on 2008 covering the years 2003-2013. It has a trend of 4.2mm/yr. The data centred 2005-08 all yields trends above 4mm/yr and the data centred 1998-2004 yields trends 3mm/yr ot 4mm/yr. Levels of SLR above 3mm/yr are not evident on the C&W record even in a single year. Prior to this latest acceleration, only 10 years on the 134 year record managed to top 2.5mm/yr.

       Your second paragraph begins "From what I have read..." and then delves again into nonsensicalnessism. What do you mean by "They can still show the same acceleration but the measurements do not coincide."?

       I should perhaps add that the dip in satelite-derived SLR shown by these 11-yr OLS calculations, illustrated @258 and described @262: that dip would disappear if the suggested-but-unpublished adjustments to TOPEX are borne out. (Note the researchers were not at all happy with Nature's use of the word "SNAFU".) The adjustment removes the dip and reveals a strong acceleration as per the C&W data.

       

17005. Eclectic at 19:42 PM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       There are: misrepresentations, damned misrepresentations, and statistics !

       Oh, where is our Disraeli or our Churchill when we need him, eh NorrisM.   Churchill, I am sure, would make short work of Koonin and Koonin's misrepresentations — and Churchill would use a three-letter word, not a polysyllabic. 

       In particular for Koonin's statement on SLR's . . . "The rates since 1993 are at the high end of this range, but are not statistically different from those during the first half of the 20th Century."    ~ That being the sort of weasel statistics up with which Churchill would not put.

       "Not statistically different" is a term we have heard before — during the transient "Hiatus" in surface temperatures during the Noughties of this Century.   ~ A pseudo-analysis by science-denialists, which deliberately and clearly ignored the vast weight of evidence [ocean warming] and ignored the most basic physical processes [CO2/GHG effect] still going on unabated.   It was a phrase which sailed very close to, but not quite over the edge of . . . damned misrepresentation.  It was designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the casual reader who did not bother to think it through, and who had little climate knowledge.

       And now [stated October 2017] Koonin is saying sea-level rise for the 21st Century is as yet not statistically different from earlier times.   He ignores the fact that the 1940-ish SLR "bump" was a small and minor variation from the background rising trend, and was quite a different kettle of fish from the high/accelerating rise of recent decades (which has very clear causation by ongoing thermal expansion of the ocean and by large-scale ongoing melting of land-based ice sheets.   And Koonin makes his statements despite having the hindsight from (late) 2017.

       Such misrepresentation by Koonin (for a man of considerable scientific ability) could not be accidental or unintentional.   Indeed, it is all one, with the typical science-denier strategy of continual misrepresentation of what is really happening in our physical world, in regard to AGW.   Rather obviously, Koonin is wishing to imply to the casual reader, that Global Warming is non-existent or of minimal importance.

       # NorrisM, there is no need for you to reply to my post here.   Koonin seems to be on a long campaign of various misrepresentations . . . and I am reasonably sure there is nothing you could say to redeem his current reputation.

       We should move on, to the pure science of sea-level rise where of course [re your post #265] there's a small difference of figures from satellite and tide-gauge measurements — since they are measuring two slightly different things [not different by much: but coastal measurements can never be exactly the same as "coastal + mid ocean" ].

17006. NorrisM at 14:45 PM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       Phillipe Chantreau @ 263

       I have never said that there was a significant difference between your definition and mine.  I just felt yours was somewhat softer.  The term "ad hominen" in Latin means "at or to the man".  The principal point I was trying to make is that this website should not allow posters to allege that particular people are telling or spreading lies.  That is a very serious allegation.  I agree that no one other than the writer has actually used the noun "liar" but is that not what you call someone who lies?   I think I have made my point and I suspect most agree that it is not appropriate to make such allegations when the term "misrepresentation" can be used which probably more accurately describes what the poster intended to say.  

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You wrote:

       ...this (SkS) website should not allow posters to allege that particular people are telling or spreading lies.

       Have you posted a similar statement on Curry's website? On WUWT? 

17007. NorrisM at 14:01 PM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       MA Rodger @ 262

       If I understand you correctly, the satellite data averaged over the last 11 years shows an average increase of 4.2 mm/yr?  And in the case of tide gauge data, although the most recent years show an annual increase over 4 mm/yr the average over the last 11 years is something below 3 mm/yr? Your use of the term "trend" suggests that I might not have this right. 

       From what I have read there seems to be an unresolved discrepancy between satellite readings and tide gauge readings which seems to be borne out by the difference in these rates.  They can still show the same acceleration but the measurements do not coincide.

17008. One Planet Only Forever at 12:47 PM on 15 November 2017
       “Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
       

       Digby Scorgie@13,

       What I have described @14 is also limited to cases where the total human impacts keep CO2 ppm below the level taht would result in significant changes to the feedback mechanisms resulting in an increased amplification of the human impact.

       This is the reason to keep the impacts below a 1.5 C impact. Keeping the impacts below 2.0 C also appears to be reaonably safe regarding feedbacks (less safe than 1.5 C), but of course the negative consequences for future generations are significantly higher with a 2.0 C increase than with a 1.5 C increase.

       Anyone proposing "acceptability" of total human impacts that are above 2.0 C is being very Irresponsible and very Inconsiderate (putting Private Interests way above the Public Interest).

17009. One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 15 November 2017
       “Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
       

       Digby Scorgie@13,

       The complication I see is that the environmental systems are constantly trying to rebalance. So there is a time lag between the changes of the rates of human impacts and the corresponding changes of the Keeling curve.

       If human impacts remained constant for an extended, but reasonably short, period of time then the rate of increase of CO2 should also be constant. The complication is that a warmer ocean will likely absorb less CO2. As the constant rate of human impacts goes longer then the rate of CO2 ppm change will increase. Because of the increasing urgency of action to curtail these human impacts, increasing every year that the CO2 level increases, hopefully there will not be a long period of steady significant human impacts.

       If human impacts are declining then the rate of increase of CO2 would also be declining.

       The constant efforts of the environment to rebalance means that a small but constant amount of human impacts would result in a flat/steady CO2 level in the atmosphere, but the acidification of the oceans would be continuing to happen.

       Once human activity impacts are reduced to zero impact on CO2 in the atmosphere the rebalancing/adjustment mechanisms described in Phase 1, 2 and 3 in Box 6.1 of the IPCC report would result in a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, but to a level significantly higher than the 280 ppm starting point.

17010. Digby Scorgie at 10:41 AM on 15 November 2017
       “Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
       

       OPOF @12

       Pardon me while I try to get my head around this.  Firstly, I understand that inertia complicates the picture.  But I'm thinking of five different ways the Keeling curve can behave:

       If the Keeling curve is rising at an accelerating rate, this will be because our emissions are increasing at an accelerating rate?

       If the curve is rising at a constant rate, our emissions are remaining constant from year to year?

       If the curve is rising, but at a decelerating rate, our emissions are falling?

       If the curve is flat, then what?

       And then to turn things on their head, if our emissions are zero, then from the IPCC report the Keeling curve will be declining?

17011. One Planet Only Forever at 09:52 AM on 15 November 2017
       “Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
       

       Digby Scorgie@10,

       Technically I agree that the exact points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 presented by gws@4 are not exactly what happens at points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in your initial question @1.

       It may be more appropriate to say:

       • the graph of CO2 ppm in atmosphere will be a humped curve with a maximum at point 4 (hopefully that maximum occurs sooner and lower rather than higher and later).
       • the graph of the annual human impacts on CO2 in the atmosphere is a curve that is soon to be declining, reaching zero slightly after point 4 in the CO2 ppm curve.

       It is also probably more accurate to say that the set of environmental responses to human impacts increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as presented as Phases 1 through 3 in Box 6.1, begin after any measurable human impact affecting CO2 in the atmosphere occurs. So the rapid atmospheric CO2 draw-downs at the start of Phase 1 have already occurred for the human impacts that were created several decades ago. Even if the termination of human impacts was immediate today only the most recent portion of the 125 ppm surplus CO2 measured today will be reduced at the rapid initial rate of Phase 1 actions.

       A more important point is that though the atmospheric CO2 levels will decline after human impacts are ended the damaging changes of ocean acidity will continue to occur. And the 'new' balance point for CO2 in the atmosphere at the distant end of all the adjustments to this damaging spurt of human impacts will likely be above the 280 ppm level. The higher the total spurt of human actions push up CO2 the higher the 'new' balance point will be that atmospheric CO2 drops back down to in the far distant future.

       So to be fair to future generations, the current generation is required to remove some of the already created excess CO2. That action is required to minimize the amount of negative impacts and negative challenges for future generations. And that 'sacrifice - no personal benefit' action is primarily the obligation of the already more fortunate portion of the current generation, especially those who benefited most from the burning to date, most especially those who are still trying to benefit even more from the burning of the non-renewable buried hydrocarbons. And that undeniable responsibility for personal sacrifice from the undeserving more fortunate people is a major motivation for the unjustified attacks on climate science.

        

17012. JohnSeers at 08:50 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       As far as I can see no-one has used the word "liar" other than NorrisM. 

       I don't think I have any more to say on that. 

17013. Philippe Chantreau at 07:38 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       NorrisM likes this definition : "an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive or other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

       I said: "the logical fallacy that consists of attacking a person on some irrelevant element in an attempt to invalidate the argument made by that person."

       Any attempt at convincing me that there is a significant difference between these two descriptions is an argument in bad faith that has no merit. I know without a doubt that one who would try to do that is trying to take me for a ride. It is total nonsense. I certainly have better things to do with the time given to me in this life than going back over NorrisM overall contribution on this site, but my recollection of said contribution is telling me that there is a pattern here. The abundant verbiage to say what amounts to nothing and the rather laughable litigation threats are also familiar signs. The obligation to remain polite and tolerant toward this kind of sophisticated abuse of the forum was one of the reason why I gave up moderating years ago. It is quite an ungreateful task that the moderatros tackle...

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please note my Moderator's comment on NorrisM's most recent post. As far as I am concerned, he is skating on the thin ice of relinquishing his privilege of posting comments on this site.

17014. MA Rodger at 07:30 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       NorrisM @259.

       You are verging into the incomprehensible so you will understand if I am at cross purposes.

       You seem to object to the use of recent data but at the same time happy to consider 10+ year assessments of SLR. So let us look at the satellite data (which is available 1993-2017) calculating 11yr OLS trends. Note that IPCC AR5 data collection stopped in 2011 so we have six more years of data. The final 11 years of data used by AR5 showed a trend of 2.8mm/yr and such trends would continue to drop to 2.55mm/yr by the following year. Since that time, SLR has risen sharpely and the last 11 year of data shows a trend of 4.2mm/yr. There is yet no sign of any let-up in that acceleration. (It is running along the same track as shown in the Tamino graphic @258, just past the vertical blue line.)

       And using Church & White tidal gauge data (which today only runs to 2013 but AR5 had data to 2009), the final years are running above 4mm/yr while such 11-yr trends calculated through the full record never top 3mm/yr.

17015. PluviAL at 06:40 AM on 15 November 2017
       On climate and global leadership, it's America Last until 2020
       

       Too true. Paris agreement had gracefully let us off the hook for our largest responsibility for climate change, while helping us to make the greatest contribution to solving the climate challenge, and garnering  the greatest benefit in transition to modern energy regimes, but the archaic structure of our democracy, in its distortion toward rural interests, crashed our efforts to solve the problems of climate change. Sad.

       But China may be a great leader. Current grotesque expression of democratic error shows how other ways of guiding social interest may be better structures. I love being in China, in many ways it is quite free, and wise. Let's hope they lead the world to solve this, which could be the greatest challenge for civilization as well as for the species. 

17016. michael sweet at 06:40 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       Norrism:

       You and Koonan argue that the CSSR should include the claim that rates of sea level rise in the time era 1920-1950 were compaarable to current rates.  Jeverejeva et al 2014 specifically address this claim.

       From the introduction to Jevrejeva et al 2014:

       "However, there have been suggestions that the rate is not historically exceptional. For example, similar rates were observed in tide gauge records during the period 1920–1950 (Jevrejeva et al., 2006) and in decadal mean rates in the 1950s and 1970s (Church and White, 2006), and even a rate of 5.3 mm·yr−1 centred on the 1980s by Holgate (2007). 

       To identify the long-term changes and variability of sea level over the past 200 years ..."

       From the conclusion:

       "However, Fig. 15 and the associated uncertainties discussed in Section 3.4 show that long term estimates of time variable sea level acceleration in 203 year global reconstruction are significantly positive, which supports our previous finding (Jevrejeva et al., 2008a), that despite strong low frequency variability (larger than 60 years) the rate of sea level rise is increasing with time." (my emphasis)

       Koonan's claim that the current rate of sea level rise is not exceptional is in contradiction to the conclusions of scientists working in the field.  It is not included in the CSSR because scientists have concluded that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.  The current rate of sea level rise is historically exceptional. 

       In addition, the rate of sea level rise is expected to strongly accelerate in the future.

        

       This is the same conclusion that I posted at the start of this discussion where I provided data showing that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated strongly over the period of satelite analysis.  The data show that the rate of acceleration of sea level rise is accelerating.

       Koonan and you are attempting to cherry pick sentences that suggest sea level rise is not accelerating and is not a problem.  That is in contradiction to the scientific conclusion.  The CSSR is required to discuss the scientific conclusion, not some potitically correct BS.

17017. knaugle at 06:24 AM on 15 November 2017
       We have every reason to fear Trump’s pick to head NASA
       

       I think you need to look at how some of the other deniers he has placed into office have been behaving.  Scott Pruitt, for example, continues to take actions that seem to contradict any possible claim that the scientists at EPA are informing him.

17018. Paul D at 06:02 AM on 15 November 2017
       On climate and global leadership, it's America Last until 2020
       

       Trump first!

       Everything Trump does and says is for himself and anyone that funds his campaign. His support for 'clean' coal is basically about propping up American coal businesses and paying back their support during the election campaign.

       It makes no economic or practical sense to prop up coal and ultimately the US will fall behind if it takes Trump seriously on this issue. My understanding is that the US businesses that matter have no interest in coal.

17019. NorrisM at 03:51 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       eclectic @ 257

       I have made my point and I do not think we need to pursue this any further. 

       I trust you will agree that no one should be called a liar on this website unless they can prove a statement to be untruthful unless he or she is prepared to back it up in court defending a libel suit.  A statement can be wrong but "liar" connotes an intention on the part of the person making it and that is not appropriate on this website.   Again, if that is not "ad hominen" I do not know what is.

       It remains the case that none of the comments on this thread have "dealt with the substance of the argument itself" which is the following:

       "He said that there were rates of increase in the 1920-1950 period comparable to the present and he felt that a more even handed CSSR report would have made reference to this fact in the same way the IPCC did in its Executive Summary to Chapter 3 of the AR5 report."

       Koonin is making the point that the failure by the CSSR not to include this statement in the Executive Summary (which the IPCC properly disclosed in AR5 Chp 3 and 13) indicates that the CSSR has an "agenda" it is promoting and is not just reporting, as scientists should do, the scientific information available both for and against the propostion of AGW.   It is this very attitude that creates distrust in those (ie  X% of the US public) not fully convinced that AGW is as serious as it has been made out to be.

       Has anyone commented on this argument of Koonin's? Do you not agree that the CSSR should have followed the same disclosure as the IPCC? And if so, why not?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Further regurtitation by you of Koonin's claim about sea level rise will constitute "excessive repetition" and "slogaqneering." As you well know, both are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

17020. NorrisM at 03:30 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       MA Rodger @ 258

       I am not saying that we ignore the most recent measurements since IPCC AR5 but that they have to be taken in context.  Here is what Dan Bailey said at post 184 above when responding to a period 2004 to 2008 when things seem to have flattened out or, looking at the above graph, had even declined:

       "[DB] In addition, per Willis and Leuiette (2011):

       "Because of both uncertainties in the observational systems and interannual variations, it has been estimated that a minimum of 10 years is necessary to meaningfully interpret global trends in sea level rise and its components (Nerem et al., 1999)."

       In other words, use the period 1993 onwards just averaging in each subsequent year.  My understanding is that we are using 1993 because satellite measurements began around this time.  Someone (somewhere) has posted a comment that if the period 1992-1994 had been averaged (as the starting point), the rate of increase would not have been as high as 3.2 mm/yr because 1993 was significantly lower than 1992 and 1994.  I have to admit that I do not have a source for this but I suspect this can be easily proven or disproven.

17021. MA Rodger at 00:46 AM on 15 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       NorrisM @256.

       Pointing to a quote up-thread which cautions against using "a couple of years results for an analysis" will not assist you in explaining the high rate of SLR over the period since the IPCC AR5. The following SLR graphic is from Tamino and certainly indicates a strong level of SLR acceleration since the IPCC AR5 analysis. And if you are considering saying that the data supporting that Tamino finding is inadequate, I would suggest you examine the data supporting those accelerations back in the 1940s and see if that is similarly inadequate.

       

17022. Eclectic at 16:10 PM on 14 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       With all due respect to you, NorrisM :- my OED defines ad hominem as "Directed to the preferences or principles of the individual, not to abstract truth".    Can there be a better English authority than the OED?

       Michael Sweet has directed his criticism to the abstract truth which is the evidence of SLR caused by AGW.   He has exposed Koonin [or "Noonan", as Sweet's Irish blood seems to mislabel it, often] as presenting flawed, incomplete, false, deceptive & misleading information about SLR (and by extension, about AGW).

       Koonin presents information without its proper context, and in a deliberately misleading way.   We can be reasonably sure Koonin is being deliberately misleading in this case, because his action here is part of a larger pattern of deceptive & misleading activities in connection with the subject of AGW.   And we can be doubly sure of that, because Koonin is an intelligent, science-literate man, in whom such errors are inexcusable & could not occur without deliberate choice by him.

       All this reflects very badly on Koonin — reflects very badly on his "preferences and principles".  But that is consequential on Koonin's own activities.  Sweet points out that Koonin is reprehensibly wrong (but that is not in itself an ad hominem attack).

       NorrisM, the question you should ask yourself is: Why should you (or anyone) defend Koonin's untruthful behavior?   Koonin for some years now has been bending over backwards to give false & misleading presentation of the science of climate/AGW.  There must be some strange subconscious emotional force which compels Koonin to plunge into the fiery heart of madness which is science-denial (and you too, NorrisM, seem a Moth which is attracted into the same flame).

       NorrisM, you cannot describe yourself as "luke-warm" when your wings are already badly singed.   ;-)

17023. NorrisM at 14:11 PM on 14 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       Phillipe Chantreau @ 255

       This all began on this thread @ 221 with my comment as follows:

       "In an earlier post on another thread (which discussion has properly moved to this location) I posed the following question:

       'It is interesting that in the above IPCC quote we had similar "high rates" during the period 1920-1950. Curious as to whether there is any explanation of that anomaly.'

       I then referenced the fact that Steve Koonin had, since I had made my comment, picked up on this very same question about "similar rates" during the period 1920-1950 and was critical of the CSSR because in the CSSR Executive Summary there should have been a reference to this period of similar high rates to provide a proper scientific balance.

       This however gets turned to Koonin being a "liar" and me being one spreading lies.

       The definition of "ad hominen", straight out of wikipedia is a little more direct that your soft-pedalled definition.  It states as follows:

       "an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive or other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself".

       If calling someone a liar is not an an hominem attack on a person then I do not know what is.  The statement of Koonin gets turned around to the following:

       "Koonin cites the IPCC to support his lie that sea level rise is approximately the same now as in 1950."

       He did NOT say that.  He said that there were rates of increase in the 1920-1950 period comparable to the present and he felt that a more even handed CSSR report would have made reference to this fact in the same way the IPCC did in its Executive Summary to Chapter 3 of the AR5 report.

       We are not talking about "more up to date evidence".   We are talking about the present compared to a period in the past.  If someone here is going to say, well, Koonin totally misrepresented things because we are now around 4 mm/yr rather than 3.2 mm/yr, I will pull up some quotes from this very same thread from a number of years ago about how inappropriate it is to use a couple of years results for any analysis.  In any event, that is no basis to label someone a liar. 

       To be very honest, I cannot see why that is not just an ad hominen comment but moves into a libellous statement against Koonin.

17024. nigelj at 11:22 AM on 14 November 2017
       What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
       

       Aleks @6,  sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are not causing ocean acidification because concentrations are massively lower than carbon dioxide as below. 

       eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/table_1.html

17025. Philippe Chantreau at 11:19 AM on 14 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       NorrisM, you indeed seem to not know what constitutes an ad hominem argument. It is the logical fallacy that consists of attacking a person on some irrelevant element in an attempt to invalidate the argument made by that person. Michael Sweet's comment is relevant, on point, and does not say anything about your person, only about your failure to scrutinize information; you did fail to exercise proper diligence and apply due skepticism to the weak attempt by Koonin at misleading. This should be brought to your attention. It was. No logical fallacy there.

17026. michael sweet at 08:45 AM on 14 November 2017
       Sea 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.  

17027. aleks at 08:24 AM on 14 November 2017
       What 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).

17028. aleks at 07:20 AM on 14 November 2017
       What 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.

17029. NorrisM at 06:00 AM on 14 November 2017
       Sea level rise is exaggerated
       

       MA Rodger @ 250

       Thanks for the additional information.  As noted above, I am working through all of Chapter 3.

17030. NorrisM at 05:58 AM on 14 November 2017
       Sea 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. 

17031. BaerbelW at 05:41 AM on 14 November 2017
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Nov. 13, 2017 - updated the graphic to include data through 2016.

17032. 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. 

17033. CollinMaessen at 16:25 PM on 13 November 2017
       Anti-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.

        

17034. 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.

17035. One Planet Only Forever at 09:29 AM on 13 November 2017
       2017 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.

17036. Jonas at 06:09 AM on 13 November 2017
       Anti-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.

17037. Jonas at 05:52 AM on 13 November 2017
       Anti-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.

17038. John Hartz at 05:20 AM on 13 November 2017
       2017 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.

17039. ubrew12 at 05:13 AM on 13 November 2017
       2017 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.

17040. william5331 at 04:31 AM on 13 November 2017
       2017 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.

17041. dmccubbi at 01:27 AM on 13 November 2017
       Sea 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?

17042. MA Rodger at 20:40 PM on 12 November 2017
       Greenland 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.

       

17043. Cedders at 18:47 PM on 12 November 2017
       Greenland 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. 

17044. 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.

17045. CollinMaessen at 15:44 PM on 12 November 2017
       Anti-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.

17046. 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).

17047. Jonas at 11:04 AM on 12 November 2017
       Anti-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-nasa

       So: 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).

17048. michael sweet at 09:52 AM on 12 November 2017
       Greenland 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.

17049. grindupBaker at 09:47 AM on 12 November 2017
       A 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

17050. RedBaron at 08:57 AM on 12 November 2017
       Reflections 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:

       1. By the Natural cycles and natural trends like obital wobbles and solar activity combined with ocean currents, volcanos etc.... We should be cooling
       2. We are warming instead
       3. 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.
       4. 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!

Prev  333  334  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  Next