Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 Next
Comments 18001 to 18050:
-
Eclectic at 12:52 PM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
If I may beg JH's indulgence for a moment, to make a general point about both the Little Ice Age and the MWP issue :-
I hope that readers [including NorrisM] can see, in total Holocene perspective, that the LIA & MWP (if discernible at all) are very tiny ripples in global temperature compared with the huge rise which is AGW. And that neither MWP and/or LIA supply any valid argument against the size/severity & anthropogenic causation of the recent global warming.
-
Tom13 at 11:56 AM on 11 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
From the last paragraph in the article
With urban sprawl and poor planning came expansive impervious surfaces – absorbent soil covered instead by concrete and asphalt, increasing flood risks.
just a note - Houston's soil is a black clay - which is not very absorbent
Moderator Response:[JH] No reference equals sloganeering. Ditto for the assertion, "not very absorbent."
Please document the source of your statement about the Houston soil.
-
ubrew12 at 11:19 AM on 11 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
David Roberts, at Vox, always has very thoughtful articles, and his "As hurricanes and wildfires rage, US climate politics enters the realm of farce" continues that trend. Here he notes what is now a profound 'tribal epistomology' that surrounds American conservatives and insulates them from the conclusions of climate science, among other fact-based conclusions about the world we inhabit. Some years ago, I became alarmed to find a website called 'Conservapedia', i.e. Wikipedia for Conservatives, which attempts to explain everything Wikipedia explains in a manner consistent with conservative principles. Check out its main page, and the second most-viewed entry is on 'The Second Law of Thermodynamics', which as you might expect, ends up supporting the idea of intelligent design.
Roberts: "I look forward to the glorious day when our confidence in the basics of climate science finally makes it from 97 percent to 100 percent. But I think we have reached a point where we can say conclusively that the substantive scientific case for climate change is not going to pierce the conservative bubble, no matter how sharp the spear.
Hurricanes are battering our shores, the West is on fire, that poor 2 percent of remaining scientific skeptics has been refuted, and here’s Rush Limbaugh, telling people in Miami not to believe meteorologists...
conservatives will tend to believe on climate change whatever people on Fox (or talk radio) tell them about climate change.
It is conservative elites, and only conservative elites, who have the power to end this surreal farce. Judging from Rush Limbaugh’s take on hurricanes, they do not yet feel any pressure to do so."
-
John Hartz at 09:23 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
NorrisM & Michael Sweet:
Please take any further discussion of the Medieval Warm Period to the thread of the SkS Rebuttal aricle, How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
-
scaddenp at 09:11 AM on 11 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
"Scaddenp, that applies to conventional geothermal. Enhanced geothermal is different."
I dont really follow that. When teasing this out a while ago, I found it partly related to how "primary energy" was defined in a geothermal context (the issue with boundaries), but its mostly due to the relatively low main steam temperature. The inescapable limit of a heat engine. I dont see how enhanced geothermal fixes that?? In most cases getting a higher temperature would mean much more expensive drilling. Enhanced systems also need to account for the pumping energy cost.
-
scaddenp at 09:04 AM on 11 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM - sks basically insist that you comment on the appropriate thread and stick to that topic. Comment here have already veered very far the topic of this thread. Regular here read Sks by using the Recent Comment links so changing to a different topic is not a problem. If you like you can comment on the appropriate place and then put a link to that comment here.
-
nigelj at 07:39 AM on 11 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #36
Cutting flood protection measures is crazy, incomprehensible stuff, especially given climate change impacts.
America has huge issues with hurricanes, so even without climate change it beggars belief why you would cut something like that. Americas economy is doing well enough to afford such measures, as gdp growth has been pretty good for several years now.
Its poor quality, false economy, short term thinking pandering to business interests, and thumbing their nose at environmentalism. What other concusion can we draw?
Political leaders need to think long term. They are chairman of the board effectively. We need to adopt the UN development goals, and this provides a framework for better quality short term decisions.
It's not just hurriciane irma that set a record for sustained wind speeds. Typhoon Hayan set the previous record in 2013. These are both in very hot years globally and climate models predict more intense hurricanes as climate warms.
Granted studies of past hurricanes have mixed results on intensity partly as records of past intensity arent that reliable , but I doubt its coincidence that two records have been set in a period of high and increasing global temperatures.
-
MA Rodger at 06:48 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
NorrisM @554,
You sepcifically ask about the reference made in a comment on another thread which concerned data from Kemp et al (2011) and a Sea Level reconstruction used to make a comparison with the good-old hockey stick. The actual graphic shown was::-
The fit with the hockey stick only works back to AD1000. Simplistically, the SLR found by Kemp et al is saying that (if the SLR is the result of global temperature changes) the temperature was in balance with sea level up to AD1000 after which average global temperatures rose by about 0.15ºC, a level maintained for a period of 400 years, then dropped back for a period of 500 years, after which we have the instrument record showing a global rise of 0.5ºC to 1950 and a similar rise since. So any MWP & LIA are globally very tiny features relative to post-AD1900 warming.
An alternative is that globally temperature was much flatter with the SLR resulting from regional temperature variation in places that SLR would be sensitive to; places like Greenland perhaps.
-
MA Rodger at 06:26 AM on 11 September 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Patrick K @21,
Your specific questions (and also your comments about the galaxy) raise some subjects that are complex and so not yet entirely resolved by science. However it is straightforward to answer your last two questions (2) that cosmic rays are indeed not the only route to forming aerosols, and (3) if there were no aerosols their absence would have fundamental impacts on climate. You would still get ground condensation and presumably any supersaturated atmosphere would still form clouds but at much greater altitudes. Globally that would be a recipe for a run-away greenhouse effect.
That leaves your first question which is perhaps better framed by asking "How important are cosmic rays in cloud formation?" Svensmark's work is entirely unreliable on this matter, but that is not because he fundamentally misrepresents the motion of the solar system through the galaxy.
The present structure of the outer Milky Way is now understood but there is still scientific debate over the dynamics of galactic arms. Yet there are surely no theories that don't included the sun moving between arms of the galaxy, this on a scale of ~100 million years/arm. One problem for the likes of Svensmark is that the arms are not neatly positioned (as described by Overholt et al (2009) featured in the OP shows).
Yet Svensmark (2012)'s calculated Super Nova rates (see his Fig 6) somehow still manage to provide a pretty strong rhythmical pattern.
At present the sun is also is moving away perpendicular to the disc of the galaxy and this is part of an oscillation which sees the sun returning through the disc every 35million years or so.
Svensmark seems to ignore this ~35Ma oscillation. Not so Shaviv, one of his co-presenters in "Mystery of Clouds." The work of Shaviv et al (2014) "yields a prominent 32 Ma oscillation with a secondary 175 Ma frequency modulation. The periodicities and phases of these oscillations are consistent with parameters postulated for the vertical motion of the solar system across the galactic plane, modulated by the radial epicyclic motion." Shaviv et al do not then make a 'Svensmark leap' and so do not insist this finding proves a cosmic ray effect. And quite right too, especially for the 175Ma finding.
Of course, all this palaeo-climate stuff will not directly impact the climate variability of the last few decades. Yet if we assume the mechanism is resulting from cosmic rays and if you can assess the size of the palaeo-cosmic ray wobbles, it could potentially suggest a size for any decadal cosmic ray effect today. Such a step does not appear to have been made of late, even speculatively. If it were, it would be remain highly controversial.
As for the work at CERN, it provides a more direct but still complicated method of assessment for the impact of cosmic rays.
But we can have a bit of fun assessings the bold assertions of Svensmark and that is a much easier task. If cosmic rays are a big, big driver of climate and responsible for the warming of recent decades, we should be able to see some form of correlation between temperature and cosmic rays over the last decade. So does this SkS post which is showing data up to 2012 support Sensmark?
Recently, the level of cosmic rays has been very high of late (this web-page provides the latest data) and these recent high level of cosmic rays should have been peppering the sky with clouds and so should be giving us a big big drop in global temperature. Thus it is a bit of a mystery that we actually find "sorchyissimo!!" with the last four years in turn the warmest on record and this year set is to find a place in the top three. -
michael sweet at 05:36 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
Norrism,
This is the graph for the Northern Hemisphere from Mann et al 2008 :
There might be a more recent paper that I did not find. Mann has done the analysis with no tree ring data and it is the same as with the tree ring data.
It is usually possible to get free copies of papers if you Google them (I found this paper using Google). Apparently it is only for the Northern Hemisphere (as was the other graph I posted). More data is available for the Northern Hemisphere so Mann only did the Northern Hemisphere in 1998.
Here is a global analysis by Marcott et al (SkS article about Marcott)
Marcott is the red line. The small bump up is around 1000 years ago and is too early for the MWP. Current temperature is about 1.0 on this graph.
Keep in mind that we expect the temperature to decline after the Holocine maximum to a new ice age. This is the decline from 5000 bp to 150 bp. AGW then kicks in in earnest. AGW might have slowed the decline in temperature from 5000bp on from early farming releasing CO2.
I see no indication of a MWP in any of this data.
-
NorrisM at 04:32 AM on 11 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
michael sweet,scaddenp and MA Rodger
I have now read both the Weissbach and Ferroni papers and the responses by Raugei et al as well as one rebuttal by Weissbach. It gets costly paying for some of these downloads so I have had to restrict myself.
Would you prefer me to provide my thoughts on the michael sweet SkS article referenced above? I am still wading through the IPCC 2014 report on costs but the EROI is an interesting place to start.
-
NorrisM at 04:24 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
Moderator
Thanks, I have now read your Policy Statement. I would have thought that my references to nigelj's comments re ocean temperatures (on another stream) somewhat corresponding to the periods "alleged" to be the MWP and the Little Ice Age would be considered "additional information" and not just repetition of earlier positions. Surely a matching of ocean temperatures tells you something about atmospheric temperatures at the same time.
Furthermore, my reference to the recent Chinese Academy of Science recent paper analyzing temperatures over the last 1,000 years in China was also something which shows that this was not just a period isolated to parts of the Northern Hemisphere. Does anyone have any comment on this? I have read somewhere else (and I do not have a citation) that during the MWP the tree line of the Rocky Mountains was much higher than at other times. This would just about "connect the dots" for all of the Northern Hemisphere since we have Northern Europe, Greenland, Newfoundland and China already.
The above graph has posted the Michael Mann 1998 hockey stick. My understanding is that sometime around 2007 he revised his graph. Could someone post his most recent one? For some reason, I thought it was not so "flat". Perhaps because it does reach back further than 1400 to cover the period from 800 AD. If this is totally "out of the blue" with reference to the Rocky Mountain treeline, I will find my source for this statement or acknowledge that I cannot find it. However, my guess is that you have heard this before.
I will again reiterate that even if there was an MWP, it does not prove anything about today's temperatures but only goes to show that this has occurred before when it was not caused by man.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please provide a link to the Chinese Academy of Science paper that you have cited.
-
michael sweet at 01:39 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
Eclectic,
Bob Loblaw's comments are always thoughtful.
Your understanding of the MWP and mine are much the same. There were various warm and cold periods worldwide but they were not all at the same time.
According to Mann's Hocky Stick from this SkS reference:
Where is the drop in temperature for the LIA? I do not see any noticable drop between 1600 and 1900. There is an overall drop over the entire graph (the Hockey handle) that is probably the descent into the next Ice Age that was stopped by CO2 emissions. As you would expect, there is some noise.
Since I see no special "LIA" I conclude that it never existed.
I see that the above graph confirms Mann's original Hockey stick as very close to the best data available ten years later.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:34 AM on 11 September 2017Climate's changed before
Eclectic:
Another weakness of the "recovery from the Little Ice Age" meme is that the Little Ice Age ended a long time ago (in weather terms). Such a "recovery" should be fast in the early stages, and proceed more slowly as it appraoches the state it is recovering to. It wil not, without some magical physics, proceed slowly at first and continue to "recover" at faster and faster rates later on. If the current warming is "recovery from the Little Ice Age", why didn't it recover two hundred years ago?
Tha magical physics of the "Recovery" meme requires that whatever caused the Little Ice Age must proceed very quickly to create the Little Ice Age, but removing tha cause must proceed very slowly to get us back out of the Little Ice Age.
Such physics is not impossible - c.f., adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels causes a rapid rise, whereas the atmospheric CO2 will not drop rapidly if we stop burning fossil fuels. We have a good physical explanation for that behaviour, though. The "recovery from the Little Ice Age" meme has no such physcial explanation, however, as you point out.
-
Eclectic at 23:42 PM on 10 September 2017Climate's changed before
Michael @557 ,
please correct me if I have gained the wrong impression : that impression being --
(A) There was no global MWP, as the numerous "warm patches" of approximately 1,000 years ago were Northern Hemispheric and were minor and not contemporary. In other words, the so-called MWP is nowadays a Eurocentric "beat-up" from denialists who are using outdated ideas and who are being very economical with the truth.
(B) The so-called Little Ice Age actually "was a thing" : as it involved some cooling of both hemispheres (IIRC, caused by two Solar Grand Minima, helped along by a number of above-average volcanic eruptions). Also IIRC : the Little Ice Age was a rather minor affair, constituting a global temperature drop of only about 0.3 or 0.4 degrees below the natural long-term (multi-millennial) slow decline of global temperature [until the modern rapid "Hockey Stick" rise caused by AGW, of course!].
I often see denialists claim that the temperature rise of the 1800's and 1900's was nothing more than a "rebound effect" from the LIA. That argument seems [to me] to be a complete nonsense, since recent temperatures are higher than the extrapolated pre-LIA levels (and the Holocene temperature is on a natural down-curve). And those denialists are supposing that any changes in global climate simply occur for no physical reason. Perhaps they subconsciously think of global climate as being a sort of inner-spring mattress!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:41 PM on 10 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
nigelj@35,
You are correct. I am "Excessively-Reacting" to NorrisM's use of the term Warmist to refer to the scientific concensus side of the debate he believes is "Inevitable" and could be "Helpful".
This started on the comment string of "The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists".
I am emphasizing the understanding that the two sides of any discussion regarding the well developed and robustly defendable understandings of climate science -> global warming -> climate change must be understood to be "The well developed and robustly defendable understandings" which can be called the "Scientific consensus on the matter" but not a term open to interpretation such as "Warmists".
Of course, that means that 'Everyone genuinely interested in developing and delivering New Evidence to improve/increase the awareness and understanding is part of the Consenses team' as long as they are producing robustly defendable new information/understanding.
Everyone else is on the Other Side. and all the other side has are questions that can be answered and criticisms that can be debunked. And everyone who is still trying to do that after all these decades of opoortunity to be more aware and better understand this issue deserve to be called Denier/Delayers. And that means the matter is Undebateable. Questions can be asked and answered. And attempts to change the understanding that are not robust get debunked. And the public gets the questions along with the answers, the weak claims with their debunking, from every information source that ever delivered climate related statements.
And it is the contunued effort to drum up unjustified popular support for 'beliefs' contrary to the developed better understanding for climate science that has kept Leaders who consider themselves 'beholden to popularity rather than responsible to inform and correct misundertstandings' to fail to Lead the improvement of protection of the general popultion from the more difficult to accurately predict but most likely to be increasing risks of harm being created by rapid climate change due to rapid global warming due to massive global impacts from humanactiovity that is ultimately unsustainable and has aletrnative (though admittedly more expensive that getting away with the unsustianbel damaging activities for as long as can 'Popularly' be gotten away with, especially when people perceived to be Winners can succeeed through actions that promote the unjustified and damaging popularity)
-
michael sweet at 22:01 PM on 10 September 2017Climate's changed before
NorrisM,
For this instance, the data very clearly shows that there was not a global MWP or little ice age. Since they never existed, they cannot be denied and your comment using the word denied appears to be deliberately offensive.
You have previously made statements about the MWP and LIA and have been referred to citations that show they were local events and the global temperature is shown by the Hockey Stick of Mann et.al. Since you have been shown data to support Mann et al and have provided no data (because it does not exist) to support your claim Mann was incorrect you are sloganeering by repeating an unsupported claim.
Many scientists have reproduced Mann's Hocky Stick using a variety of methods and data. It is completely accepted by anyone informed about AGW. Use the search button to find SkS references to educate yourself. If you have a question we are happy to help you understand, but claiming Mann is incorrect repeatedly makes it appear that you are not reading (or reading and ignoring) the answers people give you.
-
RedBaron at 21:04 PM on 10 September 2017Animals and plants can adapt
guad,
You are factually incorrect. An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".
Whereas this article focuses on actual things that are bad...because they would be bad whether natural or not. Ecosystems have functions. We call this ecosystem services. You might want to read up on it, since it is what keeps you alive. Ecosystem services
-
RedBaron at 20:20 PM on 10 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Digby Scorgie,
Here is a primer 101 on SRI
SRI English Pt 1 of 3 System for Rice Intensification
by Dana HemingwaySRI English Part 2 of 3 System of Rice Intensification
by Dana HemingwaySRI English Part 3 of 3 System of Rice Intensification
by Dana Hemingway -
Other planets are warming
It’s also worth noting that it takes about 240 million years for the Sun to complete one orbit around the centre of our galaxy, a period sometimes referred to as a cosmic year. One cosmic year ago the Earth was just recovering from the worst mass-extinction ever, the end-Permian 252 million years ago. It should be unnecessary to say that any significant climate changes related to the galaxy (if there are any) happens on a much, much larger time scale than a century or so!
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:54 PM on 10 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
RedBaron @15
Ah, I see what you mean about matching farming method with corresponding biome.
I had a look at the article about rice. It lists all the advantages, but doesn't say how it differs from traditional methods. How does it?
-
william5331 at 14:07 PM on 10 September 2017Study: mild floods are declining, but intense floods are on the rise
If the intensity of rainfall events is indeed increasing, it becomes even more vital to adopt the farming techniques described in David R Montgomery's book, Growing a Revolution. Also valuable is to encourage the spread of beavers in all our catchments. Both not only reduce flood peaks but increase flows during low water. Beavers replace the function of glaciers in storing water during high winter precipitation and releasing water during the growing season.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/07/canadian-beaver-pest-or-benefactor.html
-
Eclectic at 12:43 PM on 10 September 2017Other planets are warming
Jonplumb @46 ,
Lest you think that Daniel's reply is giving you the "brusque off" . . . let me expand the answer to your humorous question [though to be more precise, your question is more like 3 jocular assertions, well beyond science fiction comedy].
Since our solar system is roughly 25,000 light years from the galactic center, then our solar system would need to travel around 20,000 light years to get into the more densely-starred inner regions, where, let us suppose [though it isn't] the background radiation level is the equivalent of 1 degree hotter (i.e. the 1 degree hotter that the Earth's surface temperature has risen, in the past 150 years or so).
The hypothetical rubber-band pulling our solar system (toward the inner Galaxy) would need to be extraordinarily strong — also, if you care to calculate the accelerations involved, they turn out to be truly formidable. And there is the (relatively small) problem that the solar system would need to travel at well over 100 times the speed of light. [Fortunately, Einstein is long dead, and so won't be able to protest against that "Alternative Fact".]
Then there is the minor difficulty: umpteen thousand professional and amateur astronomers (as well as a few billion non-astronomer humans) have not detected any significant displacement of Earth relative to the stars visible at nighttime, during the past century or so. Though conceivably that may all be a ginormous Conspiracy cover-up (a conspiracy in which your own eyes are also participating! Damn your lying eyes!).
All that aside — and assuming that (despite appearances) we are now really close to the galactic center, and this position (somehow) caused recent rapid global warming — there is still the problem of CO2. Since the fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere does (scientifically) nicely explain the recent 1 degree temperature rise . . . then we must (somehow) discover some totally unexpected and new factor (a cooling factor) which nicely cancels out the 1 degree of AGW.
So, overall, the "rubber-band" oscillation of our solar system within the galaxy . . . is an "explanation" which is trying to push a megaton of sewage uphill with a pointed stick (of toothpick size).
BTW, Jonplumb, the true center of the galaxy is not "fiery" but actually a Black Hole — the very opposite of "fiery". Let's just hope that the supposed Galactic Rubber Band is not slingshotting our whole solar system right into the Black Hole! That would be a grave situation — indeed, a situation of extreme gravity!
-
Patrick K at 11:16 AM on 10 September 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Hi there, this is my first post to your site and is more of a question than a comment.
I recently had the misfortune of watching the documentary "The Cloud Mystery" which presented Henrik Svensmark's Cosmic Ray Theory (CRT) as being the driving force for climate change. The documentary did not appear to be solid science to me which is why i was surpised CERN appeared to be reasearching CRT for climate change. Aside from the documentary's lack of defining or explaining scientific terms, and, misrepresentation of the fundementals Geology and Atronomy, i.e., our solar system does not move to different arms of our galaxy as we orbit the galactic center, the documentary really didn't adress a basic question. Do we need cosmic rays to create aerosols for cloulds to form? Are cosmic rays the only way to get aerosols in the astmosphere? Is there or was there ever a shortage of aerosols in our atmosphere that prevented cloud formation thus making our asmosphere supersaturated with water vapor that couldn't condense? This is just my cursory look at the CRT for climate change, but it appears to me that the CRT may be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
-
guad at 11:11 AM on 10 September 2017Animals and plants can adapt
This is appeal to nature fallacy. Just because some species exist, doesnt mean it's necessarily good that they continue to exist. Also, "animals/plants can adapt" doesnt necessarily mean every specie will adapt. it means life in general will adapt and create new forms of animals who, guess what, can now survive in the new climate. Throughout history catastrophic events changed entire climate of the planet in a day. and yet life survived, and flourished. So this entire appeal to nature fallacy is wholly uninteresting to me.
-
Jonas at 08:06 AM on 10 September 2017New research, August 21-27, 2017
Thank you for this list. Will try to digest
whatever lists you post whenever, whereever.
As a normal worker, I have no chance to keep up,
otherwise. -
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 10 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
The "6 questions on hurricanes irma etc" link doesn't work. I tracked down the article using google as below.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:54 AM on 10 September 2017Other planets are warming
No.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 10 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
One Planet Only @34
I think you are technically correct about the term warmist and what it implies, and context etc. Shrewd observation.
I also find the term demeaning and very annoying, and its intended to be demeaning like the term "liberal elite" or "too pc".
But most people wont have any idea what you are getting at (average IQ is 100) They will just see you as being petty and over complicating things.
It's a term I hate, but accept in good humour. Instead I would say "yes Im a warmist because thats where the evidence points". Dont let them "bait you" with label, move right on past it and swivel discussion right back to the facts and evidence.
-
jonplumb at 06:28 AM on 10 September 2017Other planets are warming
I've found this thread very intriguing (and long-running). I just wanted to ask a question related to all of this:
First, I recently read a theory that our solar system might be weaving in and out of our galaxy, moving over time closer to the galactic center and rubber-banding out to the outer rim, repeatedly. Would this not be cause enough for global warming? It would surely explain the supposed temperature increases on other celestial objects (while understanding that some objects could still cool to lower temperatures simply because of its phase in its lifecycle). Even with the sun reducing its output, the general increase in temperature as we approach our fiery galactic center could easily counter the decrease in output by the sun. Also, if the cosmic dust cloud we're traveling through were to get any thicker, even by a small fraction, would that not also "trap" the sun's heat increasing the temperature of our solar system?
I'm just curious if our temperature changes might be related to the position of our solar system withon the galaxy, just as seasons temperatures can change based on our position around our sun.
Thoughts?
-
NorrisM at 05:23 AM on 10 September 2017Climate's changed before
Moderator. I would be happy to avoid "sloganeering" if I knew what it was. I was not using slogans in the part snipped above. Can you define this term? You have my email address. I would be happy to have the definition offline. There are numerous contributors to this website who present political comment who are not chastised when they make reference to matters which are not factual based. For example, the discussion of who is and who is not a "denier" and what various subsets there should be of this classification. Have requested a definition of "sloganeering" before. Could you provide one? Thanks
Moderator Response:[JH] "Sloganeering" is explicitly defined in the SKS Comments Policy. You have been advised more than once to read the Comments Policy and to adhere to it.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:17 AM on 10 September 2017Climate's changed before
NorrisM:
I am not a moderator here, but I've been around a while. In my interpretation, "sloganeering" is the repeated posting of unsupported assertions, covering the same material, while ignoring comments that have pointed out information that contradicts the assertions.
You appear to be simply ignoring a lot of comments. SkS also has a rule against "dog-piling", where one commenter is facing comments from a large number of opponents. Regulars here do try to avoid that by restricting comments, but you can help by selected a very small number of posts to comment on, and sticking to those issues until more-or-less resolved, before going on to other topics.
Moderator Response:[JH] "Sloganeering" is explicitly defined in the SKS Comments Policy.
-
NorrisM at 03:16 AM on 10 September 2017Climate's changed before
nijelj
In looking for something else, I just saw this reply of yours on one of the blogs:
"Your understanding or information is wrong. Sea level rose from AD800 to around 1500 then fell until about 1900, then started rising as in the link below. This correlates reasonably well with burning of fossil fuels so all or nearly all this sea level rise can be attributed to fossil fuels."
Just curious but does this sea level rise and drop pre 1900 correlate quite well with the theory of the MWP and the Little Ice Age?
We now have the Chinese study which also seems to support both the MWP and Little Ice Age. If you need I cite for the Chinese study I can get it for you.
Again this does not prove anything about the existing warming but the denial of the MWP and the Little Ice Age is part of the "Hockeystick" theory suggesting that this present warming is anomalous over the last 2000 years.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:30 AM on 10 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
nigelj@23,
I am still sorting out thoughts to try to be brief yet clear.
The term/label Warmist, without clear context, is not a good term to use by itself.
Climate science has robustly established Good Reasoned Explanations based on all the available evidence.
Therefore, people who want to claim that the amount of warming due to increased CO2 is less than the established understanding without actually providing significant robust new information or explanations are a sub-set of the Denier/Delayer group.
Some people are referring to those type of made-up claim-makers as Warmists (including those type of people referring to themselves that way). But such a label needs to be clearly understood to be a sub-set of the Denier/delayer group. Using Warmist to refer to people who aren't honestly legitimately contributing to increased awareness and better understanding may shed an undeserved 'positive light' on what they are trying to get away with, or may annoy people who think that an 'ist' label like Warm-ist is undeservingly dismissive.
NorrisM referring to the scientific consensus group as "Warmists" could easily be interpretted as a denigration of the science consensus group (and his use of that term that way is the main focus of my commenting). His other comments appear to be attempts to be dismissive of, or argue unjustifiably against, the scientific consensus and the resulting required changes of human activity (basically trying to argue against part of the Sustainable Develop Goals without justification) rather than contribute to increased awareness and better understanding.
My point is that the consensus understanding regarding climate science issues are 'robustly defendable for what they are'. It would be clearer if all claim-making that does not have a robust significant 'new understanding' basis, or persistent questioning contrary to that understanding (a failure to learn from the responses to questions asked) was always referred to as the actions of a Denier/Delayer or a sub-group, not just "Warmists".
NorrisM's use of Warmist for the Climate Science Consensus group could be seen as 'legitimate by someone having unjust reasons for preferring to believe things that are contrary to the developed best understanding (a Denier/Delayer)'. And 'someone having unjust reasons for preferring to believe things that are contrary to the developed best understanding (a Denier/Delayer)' could see the use of the term Warmist by people trying to support the consensus understanding as an undeserved denigration of what the Denier/Delayers would prefer to believe.
Perception can lead to 'Belief'. And 'Belief' can clearly be contrary to independently confirmable understanding (Reality).
-
KojoKerr at 01:52 AM on 10 September 2017Study: mild floods are declining, but intense floods are on the rise
Hi
The premise explained beginning of this post is incorrect. Although you explained some limitations, you missed the most important limitation being; understanding of the geology of the highly porous and high transmissivity of the Holocene recent and the hydrological dynamics of the cover and basement.
In addition, the comments introducing the topic constitute alarmist rhetoric. Shameterism at best. I suppose that's what you get with suspicious journals and the quality of their peers!
The NH is warming in places and the SH seems to be cooling despite slowly climing CO2. There is actually more evidence for a cooling SH than a warming simply because our macro observations cannot be fudged in the same way the data is been!
Moderator Response:[JH] Nonsensical and inflamatory sloganeering snipped.
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.
-
michael sweet at 21:08 PM on 9 September 2017The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
Tom13:
You have a lot of brass asing me to produce citations when you never do.
Now you are just making things up. As nigelj has shown your claim "there has been a reasonably steady rate of SLR since circa 800ad" (with no citation) is simply fabricated from whole cloth. You have made a great many other unsubstantiated claims here at SkS.
Readers beware: Tom13 is simply fabricating his claims. I do not have time to look up citations to counter your fabricated data.
Nigelj: I was going to link to the realclimate post but I noticed you already had.
-
RedBaron at 20:26 PM on 9 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Digby Scorgie,
You have it pretty good for general concepts. I would only add that the primary common feature is biomimicry. In the case of most dryland crops you have it. But it could vary depending. For example paddy rice production differs substantially, because it is mimicking a different biome, namely more marshy partial grassy wetland biomes. Here is what that looks like:
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)…
… is climate-smart rice productionA tree nut or fruit crop would appear more like a forest or open woodland biome and called a food forest. You probably are beginning to see the pattern. Grass crops are grown in fields simulating the grassland savannas, Graziers simulate the great herd migrations. No matter what the crop is, we look at the natural functioning wild biome to inform us of the pattern we need to simulate. It even applies to fish farming too! We know we found the pattern when instead of degrading the environment, it begins to regenerate. This requires careful monitoring. There is no magic here.. Takes lots of knowledge, work, and sophisticated proactive monitoring of ecosystem services. But when it works, the results can seem pretty magical.
-
Digby Scorgie at 15:10 PM on 9 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
RedBaron @11
I've read more about this new (?) type of agriculture recently. I think I prefer the term "conservation agriculture", but then a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What interests me is what such farming would look like to a townie like me. The following is my current understanding:
Conservation agriculture has three aspects. All three aspects must be present for the system to work properly. The three are:
(1) no tilling
(2) crop rotation
(3) keep it covered
To elaborate: Firstly, tilling is to be avoided as much as possible. Each Seed is simply injected into the soil, regardless of what else is growing in the soil (see 3).
Secondly, rotation of the "cash" crop is practised. The more choice there is for these crops the better, With a random change of crops from season to season, pests find it difficult to get a foothold.
Thirdly, going hand in hand with the no-till approach is the practice of keeping the soil covered at all times. This can take several forms: a cover crop that is grown out of phase with the cash crop, leaving the residue of harvest covering the soil, adding organic waste, and making use of animals. Weeds have a hard time in such an environment.
When carefully organized, very little or no pesticides are needed, very little or no herbicides are needed, and much less fossil fuel is needed. There is also the potential to replace the fossil fuel with electricity.
Incidentally, regarding animals, this ties in with Alan Savory's "mob grazing", which we've discussed elsewhere at SkS.
Not being a farmer, I've probably got the story somewhat garbled, but the essential message is that with this type of agriculture, one sequesters much more carbon, one has much less of a negative impact on the evironment, it is indefinitely sustainable, it is profitable (but not to the people who supply herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuel), it is drought-resistant, it is flood-resistant, and it builds rather than degrades the soil.
I'll leave it to the experts to correct my mistakes.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 9 September 2017The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
Tom13
Just a couple of comments on your views about contribution of sea level rise to hurricane Sandy. I think you have to be careful with your back of envelope calculation. You are assuming the global sea level rise since 1850 applies to the area struck by hurricane sandy. In fact rates of sea level rise can differ quite a lot regionally, so the 6% attribution is probably more likely.
And whatever the number its only going to increase in the future.
You claim "A) the 1 foot SLR since circa 1850 would only be partly attributable to AGW. As the the graph from the study note, there has been a reasonably steady rate of SLR since circa 800ad. A reasonable estimate of the SLR since circa 1850 would be less than 1/2 foot. Obvioulsy cant attribute the full 1ft to AGW."
Your understanding or information is wrong. Sea level rose from AD800 to around 1500 then fell until about 1900, then started rising as in the link below. This correlates reasonably well with burning of fossil fuels so all or nearly all this sea level rise can be attributed to fossil fuels.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 9 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Wol @10
Im not entirely sure where you are going with this. I do reiterate our only option is cutting fossil fuel use, and would appreciate a clear cut view from you on this.
And lets put the fundamental cause thing aside. I certainly agree population growth is a huge problem. Its putting a lot of pressure on the environment. You have no argument from me there!
We have to get growth rates down. It may or may not stabilise, and it really depends on whether we can shift enough people out of poverty such that it enables them to have smaller families with confidence. It really comes down to this because other options are brutal therefore economic policy should focus on poverty reduction.
As to sustainable levels of population, that is a huge question. I think the planet is already showing obvious signs of stress. You are right we have delayed Mathus predictions with technology, but its only a delay. Everything Red Baron says on it is true, although it goes beyond just issues of agriculture obviously to climate impacts, high levels of nitrates, over fishing, depletion of minerals etc.
If you look at realistic pathways for agriculture 10 -12 billion might be possible, but if it gets above that bad things will happen. Or we will all be living in high rise towers eating laboratory made food, but even that probably has its limits, and its a horrible thought anyway.
You can't have infinite population growth, it will ultimately crash. Even high growth becomes absurd, because why would we want to pack in the maximum possible numbers of people? Its a nightmare scenario with reduced quality of life.
You can't have infinite economic growth on a finite planet either, although recycling and cheap energy can prolong growth for some time yet, although probably at a lower rates than we have had in the past. Its more a question of promoting environmentally friendly growth, and wealth creation. I think in a capitalist economy that can only be done with good quality environmental laws. But thats beside your point about population.
So to finish population is a problem, but the only realistic alternatives are promoting less poverty and thus smaller families, and also maximising agricultural capacity but in a sensible and sustainable way, and having sustainable development and environmental policies.
-
John Hartz at 07:00 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Michael Sweet & Tom 13: Please take your ongoing discussion of the link between sea level rise and Sandy's storm surge to the SkS rebuttal article:
The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming by Dana Nuccitelli.
It is chocked full of references/links to peer-reviewed studies.
-
Tom13 at 06:39 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
The seemingly modest 1 foot of sea level rise off the New York City and New Jersey coast made a Sandy-like storm surge of 14 feet far more likely,
Two additional points -
A) the 1 foot SLR since circa 1850 would only be partly attributable to AGW. As the the graph from the study note, there has been a reasonably steady rate of SLR since circa 800ad. A reasonable estimate of the SLR since circa 1850 would be less than 1/2 foot. Obvioulsy cant attribute the full 1ft to AGW.
B) Since the storm surge is the difference between the water level without the storm and the level with the storm, the delta for the storm surge shouldnt change. In other words the height of the storm surge should be affected.
-
NorrisM at 06:39 AM on 9 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
michael sweet @ 83
Thanks for the reference to your SkS article. Just cost me the last hour skimming it. I have heard of the Jacobsen paper. I suspect it was highlighted in an issue of National Geographic. That particular stream seems to have petered out in 2016 but it does make more sense than this one.
For now I will spend some time reading both what I referenced above and the other information provided in the stream arising out of your post.
I personally would 100% prefer the risks inherent with nuclear power waste disposal than wind turbines defacing our land but it seems that the costs imposed on nuclear by the regulatory requirments (both cost and time) have effectively killed nuclear power. It has to be this cost if the Weissbach analysis is anywhere close in its EROI comparisons. Hansen suggests that France and Sweden converted to nuclear power within 8 years. I appreciate that was a long time ago but we are talking about the whole country.
-
Tom13 at 05:19 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Thank to the link to an actual study. - A brief review of the study raises the following observations - Hope you can address
1) the study appears to attribute all the SLR rise to warming without separating the natural SLR from the agw slr. There has been approx 1.0-1.5mm rise per year since the emergance from the LIA and even before,
2) the attribution to various other factors appears to be underweighted. The other factors being the funnel effect of the geography with Sandy hitting at the very center point of the funnel, , the lunar tide and the high tide. All three of those factors contributed significantly to the storm surge. The study doesnt provide the actual math ( at least not in easily obtainable format) which makes it difficult to ascertain the reasonableness of the assumptions
-
John Hartz at 04:45 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Speaking of Sandy and sea level rise...
For example, even if we could say nothing else, we can conclude that sea level rise has contributed to the coastal flooding associated with recent major hurricanes: nearly a foot at Battery Park in New York City in the case of 2012 Superstorm Sandy and roughly half a foot in the case of Hurricane Harvey. The seemingly modest 1 foot of sea level rise off the New York City and New Jersey coast made a Sandy-like storm surge of 14 feet far more likely, and led to 25 additional square miles of flooding and several billion extra dollars of damage.
What We Know about the Climate Change–Hurricane Connection by Michael E. Mann, Thomas C. Peterson & Susan Joy Hassol, Scientific American, Sep 8, 2017
-
BaerbelW at 04:38 AM on 9 September 2017Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
Just added a neat new crowdsourcing project to the list:
In this project you can help transcribe "forgotten weather records from the UK's highest mountain".
-
Tom13 at 04:12 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Michael - You mention the gaurdian article as being peer reviewed. How do you get a peer reviewed study on an issue where the factors are highly subjective?
I have provided a link to a peer reviewed study (the authors of the OP-Ed I cited link to their peer reviewed study) that found that the last foot of sea level rise caused $2 billion in damage.
-
BaerbelW at 03:58 AM on 9 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Here is an op-ed by Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who was the E.P.A. administrator from 2001 to 2003 (appointed by George W. Bush) and the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.
Some relevant snippets:
"[,,,] On the other side is a tiny minority of contrarians who publish very little by comparison, are rarely cited in the scientific literature and are often funded by fossil fuel interests, and whose books are published, most often, by special interest groups. That Mr. Pruitt seeks to use the power of the E.P.A. to elevate those who have already lost the argument is shameful, and the only outcome will be that the public will know less about the science of climate change than before.
The red-team idea is a waste of the government’s time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance. Sending scientists on a wild-goose chase so that Mr. Pruitt, Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who has endorsed this approach, and President Trump can avoid acknowledging and acting on the reality of climate change is simply unjustifiable. And truly, it ignores and distracts from the real imperative: developing solutions that create good jobs, grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.[...]"
and the final paragraph:
"If this project goes forward, it should be treated for what it is: a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels."
Really says it all!
-
Tom13 at 03:52 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Michael # 22
I am currently on the Chesapeake bay in Maryland. The houses nearby where I am have lost 50% of their value because of sea level rise.
Do you have a peer reviewed study supporting your calculation of lost value to SLR. Chesapeake bay area has a lot of subsistance Have you factored that into your estimate?
Michael # 21 _ I gave you link to the tide gauges. The fact that Sandy hit into the funnel of new york harbor, hudson river, etc is well know and the geography is well known, Would not think you need a citation for that info. That Sandy came in at both the high tide and at the high lunar tide is also well known, I would not think you need a citation for that data. I did provide a link to the tide gauges which should assist you in reviewing the reasonableness of the peer reviewed study and the reasonableness of the computation.
Can you provide a link to the Actual Study. You provided a citation to the guardian, not exactly a scientific journal. The links the guardian links to either advocacy websites or dead ends. A link to the actual study does make it easier to review the reasonableness to the study.
-
michael sweet at 03:32 AM on 9 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM
Here is a link to the SkS article I linked above at 57 on the costs of renewable energy. It would probably make more sense to discuss the costs of renewable energy on that thread. Use the search function in the upper corner of your screen to find other SkS threads on renewable energy. If you read Jacobson's paper he gives a great deal of information on energy and how it might be generated in the future.
There is not yet a consensus on the best way to switch to all renewables. Jacobson's articles are the most detailed that I know of but some people think he greatly underestimates the cost of energy storage.
The general idea is to rapidly build out wind and solar until they produce most of the power used. Existing gas plants could be used as back-up as you have suggested during this phase. All industry and transportation would be switched to electrical power from current fossil fuels. Once you have enough renewable energy to have excess production some of the time you would start to build out storage. Jacobson likes hydrogen gas for bulk storage with several other types of storage also used.
Baseload power plants like coal and nuclear do not back up solar and wind well. Hydro and gas peaker plants are much better at filling in for peak requirements (or when the wind does not blow enough).
Prev 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 Next
