Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 Next
Comments 18601 to 18650:
-
DPiepgrass at 01:07 AM on 31 July 2017It's internal variability
An obvious source of internal variability should be heat entering or leaving the ocean. But the way this article is phrased doesn't work for me:
even if there were a period of predominantly positive PDO over the long-term, the oceans would cool as a consequence of the transfer of heat to the overlying air. That is not the case: the oceans are warming as well.
Um... while the oceans as a whole would have to cool, the sea surface would have to warm up substantially in order to transfer lots of heat to the air (and in order to warm up substantially, I suppose there would have to be reduced circulation with cold deeper waters). Since most of our ocean sensors are on the surface, and "ocean temperature" is often used as shorthand for "ocean surface temperature", it seems to me that we should see the oceans warming at least as fast as the land, if internal ocean variability could explain global warming. The temperature record tells a quite different story:
Moderator Response:[JH] Graphic resized to conform with posting guidance:
The image must be no wider than 450 pixels.
This guidance is shown at the bottom of the Comments Policy.
-
ubrew12 at 00:09 AM on 31 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
The New York Times has a Sunday editorial 'When Life on Earth Was Nearly Extinguished', which ends with a quote from paleoclimatologist Lee Kump: "The rate at which we’re injecting CO2 into the atmosphere today, according to our best estimates, is 10 times faster than it was during the End-Permian. And rates matter. So today we’re creating a very difficult environment for life to adapt, and we’re imposing that change maybe 10 times faster than the worst events in earth’s history."
-
chriskoz at 18:03 PM on 30 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
I note the other AGU pize this year:
Climate Communication Prize
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Researchand want to congratulate Dr Rahmstorf. He's indeed not only the world class oceanographer but also one of the best communicators. His articles on realclimate are not only informative but very clear and easy to follow, with all references available if you want to follow upthe details which often do. A benchmark of science communication to popular audience. Well done Stefan and please keep it up!
-
chriskoz at 17:52 PM on 30 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
What Swayseeker@4 sais is simply nonsense.
He wants to dig out million years old carbon (in form of gas from fracking or other, it dodes not matter) and purposely burn it in hope of helping shift some carbon from atmosphere to biosphere.
The obvious problem is that this experiment does not and cannot remove any carbon from biosphere/atmosphere circulation but does the exact opposite: adds even more old carbon that will be eventually redistributed evenly into surface reservoirs and increase CO2 in the atmosphere. And all of that for just nothing. While the goal of burning FF are to increase the among of energy available to humans to do useful works, which is something - a short term or immediate gain for which we pay long term price. The only solution to curb that price is to keep FF in the ground. Any solution involving burning FF (especially wasteful burning) only increases the problem.
BTW there are other methods for seeding rains that do not involve wasteful FF burning.
-
scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 30 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
Not like right-wing policy makers to be terribly interested in the poor.
-
nigelj at 13:51 PM on 30 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
Africa has a lot of poor people, but has great solar and wind power potential. Both are cost competitive with coal, or very close to it, so to claim renewable energy would hurt the poor is just misleading right wing concern trolling nonsense.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:30 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Well, the first thing I noticed about idliedtke's post is that there is a complete ignorance of the meaning of "BP" in the graphic in question. That's "Before Present", where "Present" is the standard geological 1950. So the graph ends in 1950. There is the phrase "mid-20th century" in the caption, which where I come from also means some time around 1950.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 29 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
OPOF @98
Thank's for the details. I thought I had read something like that. Those high fructose corn syrup sugars are also particularly bad for the health. It's all the money influence in politics problem again.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 29 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
Swayseeker @4
Interesting idea. However most of the fracking In America is not in deserts, apart from a little in southern california and around there. The fracking and potential fracking shales are mainly in green and leafy rural America, around North dakota, down near texas and the states around there, and over on the north east coast up near New York and Washington.
However more trees is always a good idea, but waiting for gas flares to lead to more rain encouraging a few more trees sounds a weak process. You would need to also plant the trees wouldnt you? This requires a planned, comprehensive strategy to combat climate change, the very thing Trump and the Red States have desperately been trying to destroy.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:14 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Right here:
And Here:
"It is natural for climate to change as it has for millions of years"
So many fallacies, so little time...
FYI, the Earth's climate only changes in response to warming or cooling forcings. No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
And this gem:
"There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth's record hot streak is natural"
Lol. Let's see what else you got:
"The theory of global warming is completely debunked by this chart"
Nope. You smear the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Indeed:
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.For a good discussion of science terminology (especially for the "Evidence, not Proof" bit), see here.
FYI: Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a hypothesis. It is a robust theory, referred to as "settled fact" by scientists.
Per the National Academies of Science, science advisors to Congress and the Office of the Presidency since Lincoln, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (p. 22):
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from page 22.
"Settled facts"... Just rollsssss off the tongue...
Back to you. Be warned, I'm just getting warmed up.
-
ldliedtke at 03:48 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
The Holocene Temperature Variations chart included in this article clearly confirms Ivar Giaver's conclusions and debunks the authors claim. The average temperature over the last 6000 years has been in a gradual decline and has not varied more than 0.5 degrees Celcius. Where is the Global warming? It is natural for climate to change as it has for millions of years. The theory of global warming is completely debunked by this chart. In addition, recent revelations about NOAA temperature measurements on a global scale show that they have been artificially adding to the temperatures recorded to show a warming trend. It appears they have been averaging the temperatures up to prove this theory.
Moderator Response:[TD] There is an arrow pointing to 2004. And there is a small graph embedded in the top right of that graph, magnifying the recent data.
[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:52 AM on 29 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
nigelj,
There is a powerful political reason for the scientifically questionable and socially unethical "corn ethanol" promotion program. A massive part of the USA economy is based on the growth and diverse uses of corn materials. That government subsidized "corn" industry has a big lobby group thta is a powerful influence on all matters related to corn, including mis-information campaigns to protect the corn-derived sugars industry as well as the promotion of a 'new subsidized use of corn - ethanol producton'.
-
Swayseeker at 22:25 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
President Trump seems set on saving the coal and oil and gas industries and although I am a fan of renewables, if fracking, etc, is going to be done anyway I can see a way to offset carbon dioxide formed. Offset CO2 caused by oil and gas burning, flaring, etc, by producing rain with a "rain enhancement gas grid" so that trees can be grown in deserts and other places. The trees will take carbon dioxide out of the air:
People have been complaining about fracking, but I can see a possible benefit if it is occurring anyway. When the methane gas in natural gas is burned it produces water vapour. Methane is the main constituent of natural gas.
CH4+2O2 gives CO2+2H20. Now convectional rain can be brought about merely by having a piece of darker ground heating up more than surrounding lighter coloured ground (urban heat island, etc). Why not encourage fracking companies to burn the waste gas in long pipes with lots of holes in to form a sort of huge grid with thousands of flames coming out?
This will heat and humidify a large volume of air and could cause convectional rain if relative humidity is high (relative humidity usually increases when air gets colder at night). More trees could be grown with more rain (perhaps in deserts) to offset carbon dioxide made from the "rain enhancement gas grid". Fires could be reduced by use of the grid. One could also have a "rain enhancement steam grid, where pipes carry steam that is let out of holes in the pipe grid (steam generated with solar energy or gas, etc).Gasification of coal produces hydrogen and methane and both could be used for the grids.
-
nigelj at 20:48 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Jgfnld @96
Ok fair enough. I appreciate your explanation.
Just putting eugenics aside, you noted the following (and I don't think its off topic).
"In climate science, it would correspond to if the ultra-greens were able to pass some extreme legislation based on an error in extrapolating climate research. For example, let's say the worst case scenarios we have recently seen in the NY Times gained high public traction. It is easily possible to imagine the public to pressure politicians to pass legislation that "seems" sensible but has only minimal scientific support. Or, as actually happened, recall the great oil embargo fears of the 70s. Corn-based ethanol for cars is indeed a good example of fear-based legislation with only minimal scientific support and "consensus"."
Just a few random thoughts, as it got my attention. I gather you mean the Wells scaremongering article about some doomsday scenario of run away climate change, turing earth into something ilke Venus? I have just been reading this myself recently, just briefly, and some commentary on it. I feel climate change needs more urgency of language, but this doomsday stuff is a step much too far. I actually don't think the public would buy into it, as even the dumbest person would realise it's a very low probability scenario (incredibly scientifically low). Its treating adults like children, and they are unlikely to take it seriously or be moved. It wont convince denialists, in my opinion anyway.
But I agree with your point about how some scary, exaggerated stuff does catch on with the public, or politicians, or both . It seems hard to predict which will, and not much logic to it.
We had a curious reaction to the oil embargo of the late 1970s. The government went into panic mode with "carless days" and building synthetic petrol plants! The public were less worried, as it was obviously political and thus unlikely to last.
Corn ethanol always seemed nonsensical to me. Biofuels of that type using crops seem like a dead end to me and totally impractical. But I thought the corn ethanol thing was more driven by farmers lobbying government for subsidies or something?
I have seen promising experiments converting waste and algae or something into biofuels.
But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. A few mistaken decisions are inevitable. with this whole climate issue and they can only be minimised.
-
jgnfld at 20:10 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Nor was I was not disagreeing with you. Simply elaborating on specific parts of the history of eugenics that denier types gloss over or completely ignore. But OK.
The real point is that eugenics really does not provide a great example of a wrong scientific consensus among basic researchers in the field. Eugenics may, however, provide a good example of why we have a large program in the marginal area (w.r.t. climate amelioration, anyway) of corn-based ethanol. Further history than that probably is getting well off topic, anyway.
-
Rob Painting at 19:41 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
Well done, Kevin! Thoroughly deserved.
-
nigelj at 19:03 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
And congrats to Kevin Trenberth of course. Well deserved.
-
scaddenp at 18:58 PM on 28 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
Well spotted Lachlan - the graph is mislabelled in this article. The graph comes from here where it clearly states that the height of bars is the anomaly from the 20th Century average, not the a 1980-2010 average. Ie the same baseline as the other 2 graphs on this page.
-
wettercafe at 18:58 PM on 28 July 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
are you so called alarmists with no climatologie background?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Read and comply with the comments policy if you want to make points here.
-
nigelj at 18:51 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
A huge gulf is growing in America between people like Trenberth and Trump. Science versus gut instincts, ideology, guesswork, summed up as "truthiness" .
-
nigelj at 17:42 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Jgnfld@94
Thank's for your comments.
I'm aware America promoted odious practices like forced sterilisation, as in my comments further above. I assume you scanned through previous comments, always a wise thing to do.
I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything, if you read my comments.
I find your tone agressive, unfriendly, and patronising and have done nothing to deserve it. Some people on this website should take a course in basic communication skills. I won't be continuing this discussion.
-
jgnfld at 16:01 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
@93
Eugenics, as practiced in the US and elsewhere was most definitely NOT "controlled breeding". It was uncontrolled culling. That is, in practice it was used to sterilize "undesireables" who were already in the population and to keep out any "undesireables" who might try to immigrate into the population.
There were--believe it or not--"Better Baby" contests, but in general there was no intentional selective breeding to develop various human lines together with culling--which would be standard if actual controlled breeding techniques of the time were used--of which I am aware.
Eugenics was extremely popular among the educated classes in the early-to-mid years of the 20th century, there is no doubt about that. It's just that the science and technology of genetics and breeding were never the point of the political legislation. Fears were. And if the science and technology of breeding of the time had actually been applied and tested scientifically, it would have become obvious pretty quickly that "feeble-mindedness", "shiftlessness", "criminal propensities", the vast majority of "disabilities" and the like were not traits amenable to much change through selective breeding. But this never occurred as basic science research was never the point.
There are behavioral propensities that are amenable to selective pressure. Certainly in domestic animals various behaviors have been successfully selected for. But "criminality", say, isn't one of them. Aggressiveness/reactivity might be as one example--certainly is in some dog lines. But how the dog is brought up decides whether the aggressiveness/reactivity is "criminal" or not.
-
Ger at 15:48 PM on 28 July 2017Trump pulled out the oil industry playbook and players for Paris
Is there still the same (oil & gas) economy when Earth was 0.5 C cooler? Costs have rissen, quality of gas,oil & coal has fallen, operating conditions detoriated --> energy price went up. Will we accept the same economy when Earth is 1.5 C hotter, with prices close or above the values in 2008? Don't think so. Prices collapsed and now we buy (much worser quality, higher processing cost) oil for about half the price.
Any use of some old scenario pulled out of a hat ain't gonna work. The state of the economy has changed with the temperature in a not so simple way.
-
Lachlan at 15:42 PM on 28 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
The third graph (monthly anomalies) in the lead story looks wrong.
The graph claims to show the excess over the mean for the period 1980-2010, but only one point is reported as being below that mean. The mean appears to be offset by about 0.4 degrees.
Was a different baseline used? This graph exagerates warming, giving fuel to those calling scientists "alarmists". Could an expert please fix it?
-
Wol at 14:23 PM on 28 July 2017Trump pulled out the oil industry playbook and players for Paris
I think it's important to separate the science from the economic argument.
A (poor, admittedly) simily might be the police service of a nation: it almost certainly costs more in pure economic terms to maintain one than it "saves" in money and all the costs of crime. But few would argue that means there should be no police service: it's not an economic plus or minus equation.
It's a valid point of view to accept the science of AGW and to say "I don't give a **** " but I don't think it's valid to argue that whether or not the cost of containing temperatures is a plus or minus on carrying on as usual, given the probable effects in the long term, is worth it.
-
nigelj at 06:48 AM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Jgnfld @92
Yes interesting comments.
My understanding is eugenics is essentially controlled breeding. It is a very bad example of scientific consensus for another reason, as controlled breeding is more of a technology, or applied science, with all sorts of political and ethical overtures. Even if biologists were in general agreement on the scientific principles, there's no evidence they supported the practice.
I agree eugenics would work to some extent in theory, in that some traits can be encouraged. Eugenics happens anyway in an informal, voluntary sense. Intelligent people (with degree based educations) are tending to marry more these days, and so presumably this leads to slightly more intelligent offspring, which is not a bad outcome. It does however raise questions about potential downsides, like increasing economic inequality.
I guess that it's a question of whether society consciously does this sort of thing in some sort of planned way. That becomes much more challenging and dubious idea. Its not like breeding plants for bigger, brighter flowers. Humans are far more complicated.
For example if you had blue eyes, do you seek out a partner with blue eyes hoping to increase the odds of blue eyed children? It becomes slightly dubious, and who is to say what is preferable anyway or that a blue eyed population makes any kind of sense. We might find blue eyes have some hidden negative feature.
It's slightly clearer with intelligence. And its slightly clearer with genes associated with inherited diseases. But I'm comfortable with people and couples having good information on that, and making their own minds up in a voluntary sense.
I disagree with ideas like forced sterilisation or any coercion, or state planning / encouragement.
And do you you seek out passive, non agressive people to breed together? We arent 100% sure what behavioural traits are inherited, or whether a totally passive population is desirable (although I would prefer a bit less agression in the world). We just dont know enough to know what we would be doing.
Regarding criminal traits, Australia was founded as a penal colony. It's a country of immigrant criminals, but actually now has quite low rates of crime. So criminal behaviour may be mostly determined by environment and childhood rather than some inherited factor, or maybe its caused by a complex mixture of both.
Even if we encouraged some form of selective breeding, we just dont know enough. And imagine trying to sort out so many different attributes.
Forcing the issue on people is just plain creepy. I think there is more future in gene therapy with crisper technologies that can target attributes that cause disease. This could eventually extend to behavioural attributes, but that is likely a fair way in the furure and right now we just dont know enough.
Agree about Erlich. It was never a scientific consensus, but the climate denialists deliberately muddy the waters.
The denialists pick on that book "Limits to Growth" on resource scarcity as another example of so called failed consensus, but it was only the view of a few people. It was also only a modelling exercise based on known knowledge about resources at the time, and openly admitted reserves were likely larger.
-
jgnfld at 20:24 PM on 27 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Eugenics is often brought up by deniers as we see here as an error in "consensus". I disagree. It was much more an error of extrapolation based heavily on fears. First, there is a grain of truth in eugenics: I have no doubt that we could breed, oh, women who produce more milk and a subgroup of men who produce sperm that leads to more women who will have high milk production just as farmers have done with dairy cattle. But extrapolating to "feeble-mindedness" never had solid scientific support no matter how politically attractive the notion was. Fears of havng defective babies are prettty deep and common in all of us, after all.
In climate science, it would correspond to if the ultra-greens were able to pass some extreme legislation based on an error in extrapolating climate research. For example, let's say the worst case scenarios we have recently seen in the NY Times gained high public traction. It is easily possible to imagine the public to pressure politicians to pass legislation that "seems" sensible but has only minimal scientific support. Or, as actually happened, recall the great oil embargo fears of the 70s. Corn-based ethanol for cars is indeed a good example of fear-based legislation with only minimal scientific support and "consensus".
Eugenics was heavily influenced by a rather "alarmist" economic notion that bad genes caused a great economic drain on society. A 1911 Scientific American editorial put it thus:
ADA JUKE is known to anthropologists as the "mother of criminals." From her there were directly descended one thousand two hundred persons. Of these, one thousand were criminals, paupers, inebriates, insane, or on the streets. That heritage of crime, disease, inefficiency and immorality cost the State of New York about a million and a quarter dollars for maintenance directly. What the indirect loss was in property stolen, in injury to life and limb, no one can estimate."
Suppose that Ada Juke or her immediate children had been prevented from perpetuating the Juke family. Not only would the State have been spared the necessity of supporting one thousand defective persons, morally and physically incapable of performing the functions of citizenship, but American manhood would have been considerably better off, and society would have been free from one taint at least."
Note the argument about "destroying the economy" and consider who most invokes this argument today.
Immigration fears, particularly fear of immigrants from Catholic and Slavic areas, also influenced the prevailing thinking as much or more as it was influenced by science. Race, of course, entered in too.
It is important also to note that eugenics was always shunned by central figures in genetics like Morton and Bateson in the US and others elsewhere.
Eugenics makes a bad example of showing the supposed problem of scientific consensus on climate. It simply misses as a good analogy in very many ways. It makes a very good example of showing how widespread fears can be allied with minimal science to make bad politics. The confluence of widely felt fears that eugenics tapped was wide and deep and that political action ensued is understandable if not rational. Surrendering to fears really is a problem as this blog entry shows.
Another scientific debate brought up by denier types as an example of the "dangers of consensus" is the population bomb proposed by Erhlich. In this case, while Erhlich attained much public support, as did the eugenicists, it had even less support from basic researchers than did eugenics. And as an analogy it fails even more deeply.
-
bozzza at 13:08 PM on 27 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
The panic has set in (as readily observed by increasing market demand being met by increasing market supply): the truth is that a journey of a thousand miles doesn't begin with the first step because we are already on the path. We are already on the journey.
"Where am/are I/we going again?", becomes the individual/collective question as it always has been.
Who am/are I/we?
The game is always being played... we are on the journey as we speak.
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 27 July 2017Trump pulled out the oil industry playbook and players for Paris
Everything you say is true. It all makes me frustrated and annoyed, like an irritating mosquito buzzing around.
We have a group of individuals in denial about climate change for a variety of reasons, because it challenges their vested interests, and ideological world views. They link up with like minded lobby groups like the Heartland Institute, with nice warm fuzzy names, but extreme and very dubious political agendas underneath. The whole thing is like a network with a language all its own.
They hire any expert they can find who might share their ideology, or will do anything for money no matter how unethical it is. These people corrode the public good.
We have enough books, websites and articles documenting aspects of all this, like "Merchants of Doubt" and De Smog Blog etc
You have politicians in denial about climate change , particularly in America. They are ignorant and cowardly, and scared to do anything that might annoy the public, so are desperate for soothing messages from economists saying climate change is not an issue.
Ignore these characters with their misleading reports. Look at places like California, British Columbia and Great Britain that have taken some significant steps to combat climate change. It hasn't hurt their economies in the slightest.
Real world evidence always trumps claims by second rate economists hired by oil companies , or so called "think tanks" (that would be an oxymoron).
-
chriskoz at 21:47 PM on 26 July 2017What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Latest study (press release) on the subject:
The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change
confirms the 4 main ingredients of mitigation at individual level: "eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car-free, and having smaller families".
Maybe individual mitigation does not have as big impact in my country with emission breakedown I showed @18, but still it's the easiest thing to do by everyone and by far.
-
scaddenp at 21:02 PM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
"Thirdly, Humlum argues that OHC is a better measure of global temperature which all would agree is true"
I am guessing Humlum support for OHC was at same time as Peikle was pumping it, believing it would show less warming. Wonder if he still as enthusiastic? Peikle went very quiet about it. OHC is a good measure of energy imbalance - and the data set is considerably less noisy than surface temperature. However, the surface temperature for all of its noise and measuring issues is about where we actually live.
-
scaddenp at 20:46 PM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
"but the data revisions - especially those before the satellite record - would seem to create some uncertainty around the long term rate of the warming."
I dont get the logic here. Does cleaning the lenses on your camera increase the noise in the image? The "revisions" are results of in depth, peer reviewed methodologies to put station records onto a common basis which reduces the uncertainty, not increases it.
I find your faith in the satellite data unwarrented too. See this myth for which has the greater uncertainty. Let me ask this, how much of Humlum stuff do we need to debunk for you before you write it off as misleading (to be polite)? 10, 20? or will you keep looking through that and other pseudo-skeptic sources in hope of finding better news?
-
MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike Evershed @427.
For anyone who takes the time to examine Humlum's work, it is evident the man is a prolific source of nonsense and that he does not take any rebuttal seriously because he doesn't care. Note his Figure 3 on the web-page providing your primary quote - it is addressed in this SkS rebuttal here but in response Figure 3 has not been properly corrected by Humlum. Rather, now we find his Figure 3 is simply "not showing the post Little Ice Age temperature increase."
The logic of the Humlum quote you present @422 is making three assertions. Firstly that it is difficult to create "a meaningful global average temperature" and while the word "meaningful" is a bit odd, it is correct to say that it is not a trivial task to create a global surface temperature record. But, as shown in the links @423Response, this work has been done.
Secondly, Humlum references Essex et al (2006). Yet Humlum does not set out in any way what it is in this paper he is referring to. He says it is "an interesting discussion of the whole concept of calculating an average global temperature" and that "a re-read of Essex et al. 2006 might be worthwhile." The reference by Humlum is thus nonsense.
Thirdly, Humlum argues that OHC is a better measure of global temperature which all would agree is true.
So, stripped of its nonsense, Humlum's quote is not supporting your suggestion that there is "some uncertainty around the long term rate of the warming," that is uncertainty beyond that declared within the work that created them.
-
Mike Evershed at 18:33 PM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Thanks for the measured response Rob. My question was a serious one - my reading of Humlums data on this narrow point is not that there is any doubt about the fact of warming, but the data revisions - especially those before the satellite record - would seem to create some uncertainty around the long term rate of the warming.
-
Ger at 14:12 PM on 26 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
3rd sentence first paragraph: a better COKE from the coal than from the charcoal..
-
Ger at 14:07 PM on 26 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
A good starting point would be the time when fossil fuel usage surpassed the use of charcoal/firewood. First commercial mining of coal started back in 1680 (England), 1740 (USA) but the use of coal became significant after we could produce a better from the coal than charcoal (around 1850). I would pick that point as the start time: we put more long stored carbon into the air than from the short storage period.
Best option to me would be creating a second -closed loop- carbon cycle, capturing all carbon dioxide from power production. No need for sequestering on a large scale if at the same time we use all available solar/wind power produced in excess to convert CO2 back to methane (Power to gas) and inject the gas into existing pipelines/resevoirs until needed. Solar power received is large enough to convert a 10,000 time over all energy need so even a 2% coverage of all land mass (roof tops/desserts/forest/water bodies) with 0.5% efficient overall technology would give about 2 to 3 times the amount of energy we use today. The larger part of that excess can be used to remove CO2 from the natural loop and inject into the new technical loop.
If carbon capture can be done for a $45/ton ( $135/MWh produced) than, on top of the production price of $70/MWh, reducing distribution costs by local distributed generation (tie lines with capacity of 10% of total volume) to a $30/MWh, we are looking at a power price $235/MWh or US$ 0.235/kWh at the moment.
Currently the price I pay (non-industrial use) is a 16 cents/kWh (Philippines, Manila area) but know of enough areas here where the actual price is 22 cents, areas in Cambodia where the price is 1700 Riels (consumer, 40 cents) to 2000 Riels (industrial, 45 cents). Imagine a good distributed power to gas generating system in such sunshine countries with constant 'natural' carbon capture storing natural carbon in a separte second loop.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:18 AM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike... It should be noted that most of the regulars here are very familiar with Humlum's work. He really isn't credible. On this topic in particular he's presenting a rather absurd notion. Yes, all the various data sets show different figures, but they only vary in a minimal way, and the differences between them certainly don't invalidate them in any way.
To the question, "Is global mean temperature rising?" there can be no doubt. All the data sets say yes. We get that from all the surface station data and from all the satellite data. The variances between them are merely a function of how each group processes their data.
It's interesting that Humlum states that ocean data is the better indicator, and he's right. And when you look at ocean heat content you get the exact same answer. The climate system is accumulating heat.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Er, MIke, not Mark. Sorry.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:50 AM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mark:
The point is that Humlum has no credibility as a witness.
-
Mike Evershed at 05:11 AM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Hi DB: I apologise for not adding the final extension to the link. However now you have added the correct link, other users can see Humlums extensive analysis of administrative changes in all the major data series. This hardly constitutes a straw man. And how does making a generic attack on "Humlum's nonsense" contribute to this debate? I have cited his extensive charts on instability in the reconstructed temperature data and you respond with two completely unrelated points made on other data presented by humlum. Do your sites standards on "ad-hominem" and provision of proof apply to moderators? If not I'm probably wasting my time.
Moderator Response:[TD] Tom Curtis's comment is educational. Also Zeke's post.
[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:43 AM on 26 July 2017It's methane
The 'Solomon' paper you obliquely reference is found here:
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:35 AM on 26 July 2017It's methane
Let's look at atmospheric methane levels, shall we?
First, we see that overall levels of atmospheric methane are indeed rising:
We can also look at the global methane budget:
We can even look at atmospheric levels of methane by latitude band:
From the available evidence, we see that the primary sources of the recent rise are from the tropics and mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, with some further contributions from animal agriculture and fugitive emissions from industry.
Doubtless further research will elucidate better quantifications.
Your contributions from Zickfeld et al (not Solomon) are noted. But the sheer size of the bolus emissions from CO2 have multi-millennial consequences, too:
Per Zhang and Caldeira 2015, when you burn a lump of coal or some gas, the greenhouse effect from the resulting CO2 will over time warm the Earth 100,000 times more than the heat released upon combustion.
(1 min video on their new study comparing CO2 and direct thermal warming from fossil fuels)
At the end of The Long Thaw, David Archer calculates that the amount of energy that is trapped by the CO2 produced by burning gasoline today is, over its atmospheric lifetime, 40 million times the amount of fuel energy released today.
"The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this. The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
"The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our "fossil fuel addiction", to use George W. Bush's phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years."
-
Mike Evershed at 01:30 AM on 26 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Moving on to a more sensible discussion. Surely the instability in the reconstructed temperature record is a legitimate cause for concern? Ole Homlums has published a lot of data on the adjustments and seems to come to the reasonable conclusion that:
"Based on the above [detailed charts of changes over time ] it is not possible to conclude which of the above five databases represents the best estimate on global temperature variations. The answer to this question remains elusive. All five databases are the result of much painstaking work, and they all represent admirable attempts towards establishing an estimate of recent global temperature changes. At the same time it should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct. With this in mind, it is interesting that none of the global temperature records shown above are characterised by high temporal stability. Presumably this illustrates how difficult it is to calculate a meaningful global average temperature. A re-read of Essex et al. 2006 might be worthwhile. In addition to this, surface air temperature remains a poor indicator of global climate heat changes, as air has relatively little mass associated with it. Ocean heat changes are the dominant factor for global heat changes."
Source (http://www.climate4you.com)
Moderator Response:[DB] "Surely the instability in the reconstructed temperature record is a legitimate cause for concern"
You document no instability, so you posit a strawman. Further, Humlum's nonsense has been debunked in this venue before (here and here, notably), so if you wish to address anything from him, take it to one of those threads. Not here. Further, no matter where you place comments at Skeptical Science, the Burden of Proof is on you to bring credible evidence to support your claims.
Further, your supposed quote is actually from here.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:25 PM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
Agreed. The important message, as stated in Dana's last section heading, is "We need to cut carbon pollution ASAP."
-
HK at 23:14 PM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
In a summary of the global temperature in 2016, James Hansen et al start with a discussion of what the term "preindustrial" really means and argue that the period 1880-1920 is appropriate. They then present a global temperature graph with that baseline, and conclude that the best estimate of global warming since "preindustrial" time is 1.07°C based on the linear trend since 1970.
When I did the same with the Berkeley Earth data, but used the linear trend since 1975 instead of 1970, my "end-of trend" result was 1.14°C. With the 1880-1920 baseline the BE temperature in 2016 was 1.34°C, so it seems that the 2016 El Niño boosted the global temperature by 0.2°C.
Therefore it’s not necessary to move the "preindustrial" back several hundred years to reach the conclusion that the global warming has already crossed the 1°C threshold. -
Baraliuh at 22:59 PM on 25 July 2017It's methane
When will you update this nonsense that CH4 is not increasing anymore?
As it definetly is:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ -
Kevin C at 20:02 PM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
I agree in part and disagree in part.
To the extent that the 1.5 and 2C warming limits are social conventions, I agree.
However there is an objective component to the amount of warming since pre-industrial. If climate model simulations reliably show a particular impact at 1.5C vs pre-industrial, then we should probably work on the hypothsis that that impact will appear at that level of warming compared to pre-industrial. The key is then to define 'vs pre-industrial' in the same way between the models and observations. That's not a trivial step, and requires an understanding of the forcings used in both historical and control runs - I would need to look into that further.
I like the paper. The implications, which dominate the media coverage, are something to which I need to give more thought.
-
bjchip at 19:31 PM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
Agreed with the others here. This feels too much like moving the goalposts and realistically we've only ever worked from the basic late-1800's starting point. Moreover, it feels foolish to me, to be specifying over a tenth of a degree when we can't know the sensitivity that well or actually get any indication that we are going to stop before we hit 4 or 5 degrees. We have not really even slowed down and adding more to the target will not I think, help us to change course.
-
nigelj at 16:05 PM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
There is this theory that human agriculture and deforestation, starting when farming first emerged which is approximately 12,000 years ago caused some warming. I think it's a plausible theory, but was clearly a modest increase in temperature over many thousands of years. This has no comparison to the more rapid, and clearly unsustainable, damaging, warming from fossil fuels, so should not be used as some form of baseline point.
-
nigelj at 09:03 AM on 25 July 2017Study: our Paris carbon budget may be 40% smaller than thought
I totally had the same reaction as OPOF. Focussing too much on pre-industrial temperatures wont help.
Pre-industrial temperatures are of some scientific interest, and the work of Rudiman is worth reading in this regard, but were not that much different anyway so of no huge practical use to the discussions about reducing emisssions.
It's of deep scientific interest, but will only confuse the Paris issue and sidetrack the more practical discussions on emissions targets and reductions, in unhelpul energy wasting directions, and will play into the hands of the denialists.
Prev 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 Next
