Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 Next
Comments 20351 to 20400:
-
macquigg at 01:10 AM on 9 April 2017It's not bad
Eclectic @ #372: It is viewed from the point of view of the human race...
Yes, that is the easy part. Rising sea levels are clearly bad. Worse heatwaves, droughts and floods are clearly bad. The hard part is knowing whether the effects will be good or bad, and if bad, what is the cost of adaptation compared to giving up fossil fuels.
We have to look at the effects one-by-one:
1) Sea level rise. Clearly bad, but we have a few decades to adapt. Do not rebuild in the flood zones of New Orleans. Do some careful planning on the costs of relocating Miami, lower Manhattan, etc.
2) Average temperature rise. We have a few decades for a migration to cooler areas.
3) Shifting climate patterns. This seems like the biggest worry, because it can happen rapidly, and rapid change can be costly.
I think we make a mistake by assuming all shifts will be in a bad direction. I live in the Southeast part of Arizona, and the hot summers here have been getting milder on the eastern edge of the Sonoran Desert. Over a larger area (California and Arizona) the drought is getting worse. A few more years, and the Tucson area could be cut off from its life supply, water from the Colorado River. That would be an economic disaster, and it could happen in just a few years. The resulting collapse in the real estate market could happen instantly.
-
scaddenp at 12:36 PM on 8 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
"should be a caveat that those Pliocene-Pleistocene Series precursors to our current situation had to have had both non-anthropormorphic entrances to and exits from their warm periods."
I am not quite sure I follow you, especially with regard to entrance/exit of warm periods. In very broad terms, CO2 has been falling right through the Cenozoic, with exception of PETM. In transition from Pliocene to Pleistocene, CO2 (and surface irradiation) had fallen to level where Milankovich cycles could drive an ice-age cycle. Prior to then, climate was too warm (and CO2 too high). Noone is disputing that orbital forcings drive the Pleistocene ice ages, though turning variations in albedo at 65N into a global event involves several feedbacks of which CO2/CH4 feedbacks are very important. These are hardly analogues of current situation. The pace of change for a start is orders of magnitude faster. If we keep warming, we will also get carbon cycle feedback enhancing the warming but not for 100s of years.
Perhaps time to look at "Climate has changed before" article as well? Or have I completely misunderstood you?
-
nigelj at 12:01 PM on 8 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Chriskoz @18, the hearings on climate change involving Mann reminds me of a "kangaroo court" that is one of your Australian expressions, for a jacked up court with bad rules, and stacked to ensure a certain result!
Trump sure likes to use his right to free speech. He forget's that with free speech (and I'm a big supporter) comes responsibilities for accuracy, fairness, honesty. He obviously couldn't care less, or is so dumb he just doesn't get it. For democracy to work optimally, it requires people understand both rights and responsibilities.
-
chriskoz at 10:38 AM on 8 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Tom Curtis@17,
Indeed, your "multitude of sins" is happening in US (also to the lesser extent in other democracies such as Westminster system) and the sinners are largely immune. I'm not talking about people in power abusing their parliamentary priviledges but about ordinary people. Example: the libel lawsuit by Michael Mann against National Review is going on for many years and not proceeding. NR are citing First Amendment in their defence, so far successfuly. It's no brainer to most people who understand the case that it's a classic example of obstructing the truth with an intention to defame by NR, and the judgement in favour of Mann should be swift, yet under the strong protection of First Amendment, NR are still avoiding the penalty.
Your definition of freedom "implies that the choices in electing are free", and access to free and objective education, which, if I understand your point, means self-correcting process similar to scientific discourse be applied to all other discourses of life, esp. political discourse. We are clearly seing that it does not happen in the real world, and US in particular. The funders of First Amendment conceived it to protect defendants in cases like Mann vs. NR. But nothing was invented to protect people against fake news we are experiencing today. Funders thought if people are given unlimitted free rights to discuss whatever they like (but no obligation to stand behind their words and no penalties for failing to do so), the objective truth would emerge from the discussion. Obviously, it did not work and culminated in total erosion of GOP from reality. Yet, amazingly, they're still functioning (togethr eith their President!) and call themselves democraticaly elected representatives, according to Constritution.
They're still spreading blatant lies to the public. The very setup of the hearing we're looking at, is a blatant lie: 1 mainstream scientist (Mann) vs. 3 "sceptics", while the real setup according to the available evidence should be 30:1. And they get away with this lie because of their parliamentary priviledge and First Amendment. And uneducated people continue having a wrong picture that there is still a signifficant uncertainly on th etopic of AGW. I haven't watched the hearing (no time) so one thing I don't understand while Mann did not raise this false balance lie to the microphone. That would be his "biggest moment" if he did. Yet from what I know he complacently answered the same questions as he did 15-odd years ago, as if he accepted the false setting of that discussion. Likely the procedural restrictions did not allow him to say anything but stick strictly to the questions. Well, he could have broken that procedure in the name of the 'freedom' in your sense, yet he chose not to. He was likely so compromised by the procedures, that I suspect even First Amendment would not protect him. We might even talk about a suppression of truth in this case.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:00 AM on 8 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Dave Martsolf @379, carbon cycle models have shown that a significant portion of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will be retained for many thousands of years. This has been illustrated, along with the relevent processes for drawing down CO2, by David Archer:
The important thing here, however, is not so much the retained fraction as the rate at which CO2 is drawn down, which approximately matches the rate at which temperatures approach equilibrium with a constant CO2 concentration. The approximate match of the rates means that with zero emissions, temperatures remain approximately constant:
That means that if we were to eliminate all CO2 (and other greenhouse) emissions over night, we could expect an equilibrium temperature of 1 C above the preindustrial. If we allow cumulative emissions 1000 GtC before ceasing all emissions, we could expect an equilibrium temperature of 2 C. On current policy settings, the stable temperature will be at least 3 C, if achieved at all (it only requires 5-10% of current emissions to result in a constant, or even slightly rising concentration, and no policy pursued by any government currently pursues zero emissions).
Those estimates hide a host of details. For instance, while GMST will be approximately constant with zero emissions, ocean temperatures will continue to rise for a short period, while land temperatures fall slightly. Sea level will continue to rise, both because of the rising ocean temperatures and because the ice sheets will melt back in the face of the constant elevated temperatures.
-
Jim Hunt at 07:41 AM on 8 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
Chris @2 - Although Arctic sea ice extent has passed it's maximum for this year, volume is still increasing. The situation is bad, but not as bad as you're suggesting!
The September average volume in 1980 was just over 16 thousand km³.
-
Yail Bloor at 05:01 AM on 8 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
DaveMartsolf, concerning CO2 residence time, warming potential can last centuries.
It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.
-
DaveMartsolf at 04:54 AM on 8 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
As a second comment I was intrigued by scaddenp's first link in the discussion above, a link to John Mason's 2013 post regarding past geologic records of 400ppm CO2 found in Russia's Lake E, referred to as a super-interglacial, and ending with the query, is this what we are headed for? Likely, the answer is yes, but as I mentioned above there should be a caveat that those Pliocene-Pleistocene Series precursors to our current situation had to have had both non-anthropormorphic entrances to and exits from their warm periods. If the earlier entrance to the 400ppm plus CO2 atmosphere happened as relatively quickly as ours has, then that past cycle might mimic ours. Does anyone reading this know if the record shows that the CO2 level changed that rapidly, perhaps as the result of some extraterrestrial fireball such as created Lake E and may have burned up all flora on the planet within several years or less? My apologies for being so uninformed in these things. But, I am so curious.
-
curiousd at 02:45 AM on 8 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Correction number one:
Consider the following settings for "Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere" (MILA)
1. All greenhouse gas concentrations set to zero.
2. 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere.
3. Looking down from 70 km
4. Temperature offset at minus 33.2 K, giving a grount temperature of 255 K.
The out going long wavelength radiation (OLR) is then given by MILA as 225.075 W/meter squared.
From the "Black Body Calculator" of SpectralCalc, at 255 K, emissivity 0.98, in the 2 wn to 100 wn range the band radiance (SpectralCalc terminology) is 0.554602 W/meter squared steradian. Multiply by the pi available steradians of a Lambertian surface to obtain a flux of :
(a) 2 wn to 100 wn outgoing flux of 1.742 W/meter squared.
By a similar procedure for 1500 wn to 2200 wn one obtains
(b) 1500 wn to 2200 wn flux of 6.3437 W/meter squared
Then for the 0.98 emisivity case the corrected MILR output is 225.075 plus 1.742 plus 6.3437 = corrected flux of watts/meter squared of 233 watts/meter squared. This is what one obtains by using an expanded wave number range from 2 wn to 2200 wn, assuming emissivity of 0.98.
If instead of an emissivity of 0.98 one uses an emissivity of unity then by a similar procedure one obtains a corrected output flux of 1.777 w/meter squared plus 231.144 watts/ meter squared plus 6.473 watts /meter squared equals 239 watts/meter squared. Note that here the output of MILA between 100 wn and 1500 wn is changed from 225.065 watts / meter squared to 231.144 watts per meter squared to correspond to emissivity of one instead of the MILF emissivity of 0.98.
The context of these results is the following: A number of treatments of elementary environmental science, such as written, for instance by Archer or by Wolfson, show that an Earth with no greenhouse effect, but assuming a best estimate of cloud albedo, is in thermal equilibrium with incoming solar radiation if the average Earth surface temperature is quite close to 255 K. This temperature corresponds to an OLR of 239.7 watts/meter squared for thermal IR emissivity of one, by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The best value from sophisticated satellite analysis for the top of the atmosphere by Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl, BAMS 90, 2009, 311 - 323 is 239 watts/meter squared. These authors assume an emissivity in the thermal IR for the Earth's surface of 1.0.
I will wait to see if others accessing Skeptical Science and reading this post believe my analysis is correct or not, before posting my next correction which is for the value of the cloud free earth OLR.
-
curiousd at 01:22 AM on 8 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
The underlying Planck distribution for the free website "Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere" is displayed in the user output for a range between 100 wn and 1500 wn. I have accidentally found out that this wavenumber range is not just a graphical convenience. The underlying program does have this somewhat limited wavenumber range.
If one investigates the output of the "Show Raw Model Output" button, two features become evident:
1. The underlying computer program does really have a range limited to 100 wn - 1500 wn.
2. The underlying computer program assumes an earth surface emissivity of 0.98.
I have developed corrections to "Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere" for several fundamental cases. The corrections could be made to a class by verbal instructions and do not require any re-writing of the program.
I submitted an authorship proposal to the "Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society" (BAMS). The suggestion of the Board of Editors of BAMS is the following:
"Your corrections to Modtran sound promising for a wide audience. However, the editors feel that BAMS is not the appropriate venue for vetting and distributing this information. For proper exposure and discussion, they would be more productively disseminated directly within the Modtran user community online." In the spirit of the suggestion of the BAMS editors I post below the first of my corrections.
Moderator Response:[JH] Embedded url into free website "Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere".
-
DaveMartsolf at 23:36 PM on 7 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Yes, I was joking on that point and understood on the 1000s of years time required to melt all the ice.
But, don't all these forecasts assume some type of elevated CO2 presence for years to come? I understand that even the most hopeful time scale for full conversion from fossil fuels to renewables with or without the nuclear option is still estimated to be many years away, but I do believe this will happen, and sooner than many people predict today. As that happens, and as we figure in the relatively rapid natural sequestration of our currently elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (half life in the order of only 20-30 years), I still wonder what the models will show when ocean temperatures have been elevated through all the current (and perhaps for another 50-100 years into the future) CO2 emissions to rather suddenly find their warmed surfaces evaporating into crystal clear skies that can quickly radiate all that heat (but not the moisture) into space. It will be a unique set of conditions not often seen on the planet.
-
Skeptical Wombat at 17:45 PM on 7 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
But the message from scientists is that while Antarctic sea ice appears to be bucking the trend this year, they need more than a single year before they can tell if a long-term change is afoot.
True, but the fact that the total increase over the last 38 years has been totally reversed is an indication of just how small that increase has been. Imagine the uproar in the denialsphere if minimum arctic sea ice extent was to reach a maximum for the sattelite era. Moreover using linear regression the rate of increase in average March extent in the Antarctic over the sattelite era is no longer statistically significant.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:16 PM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
chriskoz @16:
"Our disagreement is most likely the result of different understanding of the word "democracy". Hence my understanding of democracy is at the very basic level:
'government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.'"
That definition covers a multitude of sins. To start with, what is meant by "free". To me it implies that the choices in electing are free. But an uninformed in ill informed choice is not free, in the relevant sense. On the first basis, it is widely held that you cannot have a genuine decomacracy without free speech. It should also be held, on the same basis that you cannot have a genuine democracy where the citizens are poorly educated (as is the case in much of the US). On the second basis, widespread reporting of 'fake news' such as by Breitbart or Fox News impars the democracy, as does the continuous lying by Trump himself. (As an aside, I believe that a person seeking or holding elected office in a democracy, who lies to the people to assist their aim of being elected, has committed treason.)
On the second point, the Electoral College is not so constituted that it will typically reflect in its membership the proportion of votes for each candidate. That means their claim to be elected representatives is dubious to start with. That claim is further weakened given that the number of electors in the electoral college for each state is not proportional to the number of citizens eligible to vote in each state.
On a more technical point, supreme power is not vested in the Electoral College, but in the President. The President is neither the people, nor an elected agent of the people; but rather an elected agent of the electoral college.
Given the mendacity with which he campaigned, the active interference of foreign powers, the active interference of non-citizens in the form of corporations, the barstadized rules governing elections to the Electoral College, and that he did not secure a plurality of votes, Trump's claim to be democratically elected is just another of his lies. He is President, but that is because the rule of law is an even more fundamental principle of good government than is democracy.
-
chriskoz at 14:20 PM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
bjchip@12,
Our disagreement is most likely the result of different understanding of the word "democracy". Hence my understanding of democracy is at the very basic level:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
In US, the elected agents are state electoral college system. And it works precisely to the above definition.
That the outcome of the system is not the one that Jefferson envisaged, is a different issue.
If you take a more specific definition, e.g. "political or social equality", you may argue that US electoral college system has failed because it produced an absurd outcome despite a broad "political equality" (popular vote) disagreeing with the result, favouring Clinton.
Or if you take another angle of the definition, e.g. "people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class", you may argue that democracy has eroded because special interest groups (FF or other vested interests) have created the rules (e.g. electoral college boundaries) where they maximize their voting gains, they also (e.g. via control of mass media) supress the "inconvenient" science and brainwash people who are deceived into voting the candidates that do not represent their interests.
But that would be your definition of democracy. And I would agree if I accepted it but I don't accept it in this context. I just say that the US democracy is working as it's supposed to work. No doubt it would work differently (maybe better and did not produce an absurd outcome as it did this year) if it was changed. If Jefferson was alive he would likely want to change it, too.
It turns out we have a lot in common: I have also done a move identical to yours. I moved from US over a decade ago (to Australia so almost the same), one of the reasons of my move was the reality of US politics and social life were not entirely to my liking.
-
Dennis Horne at 14:15 PM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Michael Mann was ambushed. He walked straight into the Clay Higgin's trap (Association of Concerned Scientists, Climate Accountability Institute). A minute on Wikipedia and youtube ("Don't Be Throwing Rocks - Congressmen Clay Higgins") and he might have known not to answer. (Copy Judith Curry: "We don't know".)
Elizabeth Esty knew what was going on and how to deal with it. You can't argue with Lamar Smith, you go around him.
The fundamental problem is the person speaking for science has to know everything in the book and a denier needs know only one question, which may not have a simple answer. So a scientist is going to come off second best against a lawyer or politican.
It is a game and maybe there is something to be said for not playing.
-
bjchip at 13:06 PM on 7 April 2017The Myth of 'Clean Coal'
One has to be realistic about what they mean when they say "clean".
I don't think it means what they think it means :-)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn do it yourself with the link tool.
-
laurencerhunt at 13:03 PM on 7 April 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
I post regularly on climate change topics because global warming is on track to change almost everything we take for granted about Earth's climate. That said, Mr Trump will be gone in a few short years, and Mar a Lago will be spongy wet and under water soon thereafter.... What I'm concerned about, and I think the distinction is important, isn't "stopping" carbon burning... Rather, what interests me is no longer needing to burn any carbon at all. In my view, humanity should be 100% focused on only that aim. Anything else takes us off-track. If we had invested only what has been poured down the rathole of fracking, we would likely have fusion power today, and be on the way to a fusion-powered grid now.
-
nigelj at 11:37 AM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Good article, but I struggle with a political article that then says don't post political comments. Doesn't make sense.
Some moderation is very good and improves the signal to noise ratio, too much will deter anyone from posting anything, and strays into censorship.
Moderator Response:[PS] Moderators find this incredibly tough too. Rules are more relaxed on political threads but firing off partisan insults is still going attract moderation. "All republicans are stupid" or "All democrat are secret commies" dont contribute anything to discussion. Criticism needs to be specific, factual (and referenced if an assertion is being made) to make a worthwhile discussion.
-
nigelj at 11:05 AM on 7 April 2017The Myth of 'Clean Coal'
This research finds coal is a much larger factor in heart disease than previously realised.
Clean coal is never going to happen. Firstly clean coal would require very, very expensive systems to filter particulate emissions, and filter and bury the carbon dioxide, and it doesn’t make sense to do this, as there are more cost effective alternatives with gas or renewable energy already available.
And the only way to get clean coal would be government regulation making this cleaning process happen. The Trump Administration is never going to regulate to ensure they have clean coal. Trump has an open agenda to reduce regulation, and which has already acted against all sorts of environmental initiatives. Clean coal is another illogical and empty promise that won’t happen, just like other recent policy failures.
-
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Trump is doing the inconceivable - making NZ politicians look good. I didnt realize how good parlimentary systems are. Wonder when US congress will get a headline like this: Government surplus almost $1 billion ahead of forecast as business profits boost tax take
-
bjchip at 09:29 AM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Sorry about the caps, I learned to do this before there was a convenient way to bold a comment... :-)
Chriskoz@2 - I disagree. To have Smith and other anti-science pro-ignorance people and parties being elected is a symptom. The role of ignorance in the demise of a democracy was understood by Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be" - Jefferson
...and has not changed. It takes people who are ignorant to elect people who are ignorant, and ignorance is caused by a failure of the news and the schools to inform people who have been transformed into consumers rather than active participants in the governance of the country. The news is not required to be accurate, it is required to gain viewers and sell advertising. The "Free Market" is in fact, the rope with which the Capitalists hanged us all. Recognition of its limitations has never been a common thing in the USA.
Which is why Smith is a symptom, not a cause, of the problem.
He and the T-rump are symptoms and as reprehensible as they are, one has to look for the root cause of this problem and work through the solutions available.
I did that and moved to New Zealand over a decade ago :-)
I still think that any action by the scientific community alone will fail. Contempt of Congress is what you get with a "failure to appear" and that's not a reasonable risk for a man with a family. I think that instead the action has to be broader and more definite. The nation is more divided, more polarized, than it has been at any time since the Civil War. The people who have done that to it are now "in power" and have promised more and greater errors.
There comes a time when one simply has to leave.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Jefferson
The choices available are pretty stark.
-
chriskoz at 09:26 AM on 7 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
CBDunkerson@2,
yearly max volume now is roughly equivalent to where the yearly min volume was in 1980
a continuing linear trend [...] would result in the Arctic being nearly ice free year round by ~2060
Not quite. First, you're exagerating. I read the min in 1979 (grey line) was 14k km3, while Jim quotes today's max at 20. So max has still awhile to drop to reach 14.
Second, remember we're talking about volume reconstruction, rather than area. Volume may drop to near zero but area may stay large if ice becomes simply thinner. So, arctic will not be simply ice-free.
Third, even if summer minimum drops to zero for an extended period of time (likely by mid-century) it does not take much of winter cold to freeze over large part of arctic. Irt's enough that the temps drop below 0C which will be happening for many years ahead, certainly the whole century.
Finally, if you look at IPCC sea ice projections, the downward trajectory will deflect and flatten in the second half of the century, so the exponential/linear process of ice loss will reverse, I think for the reasons I noted in third.
-
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
I thought Titley did rather well in the bits I heard from last inquisition. Personally, I would have liked to see Schmidt or Alley there.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 7 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Wouldnt get your hopes up. You can get 70m (230') by melting all the ice, but melting all of EAIS and GIS would take 1000s of years.
However even 1m of sea level rise would displace a couple hundred million people who are not so fortunate in their location.
-
DaveMartsolf at 06:41 AM on 7 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Wow! Thanks for all the feedback everyone. You are so kind. I will review all this new data and if I have any further questions I'll jump back in. This is a real learning experience for me. Thanks again.
Looks like we're in for warmer weather. We live at about 300' altitude in New Hampshire. I've told our daugher to hold onto the property as it will likely become beachfront generations down the road.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 7 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
Yes the arctic is likely to be ice free within many peoples lifetimes. However Russia, America and Canada and some smaller nations may see this as an economic opportunity. It's no coincidence the USA and Russia in particular are sceptical of causes of climate change, and another reason for Trump and Putin are so friendly.
There are multiple business agendas going on here, and personal interests and beliefs being promoted. They don't see that the planet could get wrecked in the process. Some people are short term thinkers and huge risk takers, and will gamble anything to the detriment of everyone else.
www.cfr.org/arctic/thawing-arctic-risks-opportunities/p32082
-
John Hartz at 02:37 AM on 7 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Recommended supplemental reading:
Climate Change Denial: the Lysenkoism of the present-day Republican Party by Dr. Kevork N. Abazajian, 314 Action, Apr 5, 2017
-
CBDunkerson at 21:39 PM on 6 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
On those PIOMAS numbers... it looks like the yearly max volume now is roughly equivalent to where the yearly min volume was in 1980. Meanwhile the minimum has dropped ~80% and is now approaching zero.
Which would mean that a continuing linear trend, let alone the accelerating decline which has actually been going on, would result in the Arctic being nearly ice free year round by ~2060.
-
Jim Hunt at 16:51 PM on 6 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
John @5 - You are certainly not the only one:
http://AFWetware.org/2017/03/20/a-letter-from-wonderland/
Reality is now more surreal than the imaginative writers of previous eras could conceive?
Jeff @7 - I watched the whole show live, and I agree with you (and Tom) that Michael Mann was not the best choice in all the circumstances. Another option advocated by retired Rear Admiral David Titley was a boycott of such hearings by climate scientists:Should Climate Scientists Boycott Congressional Hearings?
In the past, the science community has participated in these hearings, even though questioning the basics of climate change is akin to holding a hearing to examine whether Earth orbits the sun.
Enough!
Would such action get the message across more effectively? Or not?
-
Jim Hunt at 16:27 PM on 6 April 2017Sea ice falls to record lows in both the Arctic and Antarctic
In addition the PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume numbers for March 2017 have just been released:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/04/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2017/#Apr-4
As expected Arctic sea ice volume is still by far the lowest in the PIOMAS record, and seems certain to result in another "minimum maximum" this year.
Volume on March 31st 2017 was 20.398 thousand km³. The previous lowest volume for the date was 22.129 thousand km³ in 2011. -
Tom Curtis at 14:51 PM on 6 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Jeff T @7, I have not watched the testimony, and so cannot comment on the relative merits of each performance. I agree with you that Michael Mann should not have been the witness chosen by the Democrats (if he was in fact chosen by them). It is very clear that the chair wanted to stack the deck. Essentially the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the consensus got represented by Michael Mann. The 1% who are uncertain got represented by Roger Pielkie Jr and Judith Curry, and the 2% who are definite "skeptics" were represented by John Christy. Whilst the chair insists on an effective gag on the vast majority of climate scientists, the Democrats should invite a different climate scientist to each such hearing. Over time, this will highlight that the Republicans always invite the same people because they really do not have that many to choose from.
-
Jeff T at 13:55 PM on 6 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
The hearing was (or should have been) an embarrassment to most participants. Michael Mann was a poor choice for the Democrats' invitee. He's much too combative to sway any fence-sitter in his direction. Yes, he was the object of a political witch hunt and has received a great deal of vitriol, but those facts aren't effective arguments for his scientific positions. Judith Curry was her usual we-don't-know-enough-to-say-anything-about-anything self.
An especially telling exchange occurred at 1:08 in the recording. Rep. Brooks said that sea level ought to fall in response to global warming. John Christy avoided the awkward moment by deferring to Curry, who hemmed and hawed about East and West Antarctica. Isn't she a big fan of satellite data? Not wanting to cross her sponsors, she missed an opportunity to educate them and gave Mann the chance to mention that we have good data showing that Greenland and Antarctica (as a whole) are both losing ice mass. That was Mann's best moment.
I'm not a fan of his, but I thought Roger Pielke, Jr came out best. He kept quoting IPCC, mostly stayed out of the "you attacked me before I attacked you" conversation, and managed to contradict his sponsors.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:25 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
I remember as an undergrad in the 1970s that an open Artic Ocean was thought to be one possible way of creating enough precipitation to initiate the growth of continental ice sheets - i.e. initiate a glacial period.
I also remember that the 1970s was a period where much of the knowledge of glacial geology in Canada's Arctic was being re-written. Flynn's (?) massive single Laurentide Ice Sheet idea was losing to the idea of several ice domes and much more complex movements. (I was a lowly field assistant working in Canada's Keewatin District, on the west side of Hudson's Bay, on research that helped definitively establish the Keewatin Ice Divide as a long-standing feature, not the late glacial feature that it had been claimed to be.)
So, the idea that moisture from the Arctic Ocean could lead to glacial periods was a serious idea at the time. Knowledge of the systems and causes are much greater now.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:10 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
scaddenp @374, I was, and apologies to both ladies.
-
scaddenp at 09:49 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Tom, I think you are confusing Betty Friedan (author idea that open arctic might trigger ice age), with Anne-Marie Blackburn (Sks author of Milankovich article).
-
Tom Curtis at 08:45 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
DaveMartsolf @372, adding to scaddenp's comment, I would note that Flanner et al (2011) measured the albedo feedback from snow and ice between 1979 and 2008 (see here for discussion). As can be seen from the second panel of the figure below, the only month in which the albedo feedback had increased over that period was October, and that by a very small amount. It in no way compensates large increases from March through to July:
A more recent review finds a global Snow Albedo Feedback of 0.1 W/m^2 per degree K, but that is significantly increased over spring, amounting to a 1% decrease in surface albedo per degree K over spring.
In either case the effect of a more open Arctic sea has been to decrease the snow albedo effect, resulting in further warming. That has been despite some indications of a thicker snowpack in the depths of winter, particularly January. The increased snow depth in winter has minimal impact because winter days are much shorter in the relevant latitudes, and the sunshine weaker durring those days. Despite the thicker snow pack, however, it continues to melt earlier, just as the sunshine strengthens and the days lengthen. The result is an overall increase in albedo. There is minimal effect in the late summer because by that time nearly all the snow pack, except at high altitudes, has already melted.
Overall, Anne-Marie Blackburn's idea, as described by you, is an interesting one, but appears to be failing the empirical test. It also contradicts the current understanding of the causes of glacials and the end of interglacials. In relation to the later, and as shown by the Vostock and Epica C ice cores, declines from interglacials to glacials tend to be long drawn out affairs (unlike the very rapid transitions from glacial to inter glacials). That is the opposite of what would be expected if Blackburn's idea had merit:
-
Leto at 08:29 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
"Obviously, condescension is a one way street on this site."
JF. Don't blame Tom and Rob for my comment. They have been very patient.
I'll leave you guys to it.
Moderator Response:[DB] Mr Fornaro has recused himself from further participation in this venue, finding the burden of complying with the Comments Policy too onerous.
-
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Dave, I have a couple of objections to idea that ice-free arctic would trigger an ice age.
Firstly, an historical look (something not known in 50s). Last time we had 400ppm of CO2 and open water was Pliocene and we didnt have an ice age cycle then (but still have milankovich cycles).
But why?
A warming world will certainly have more precipitation and for cold, wet parts of the globe it will certainly mean heavier snow falls. However, an open arctic ocean is still freaking cold so the contribution to water in the atmosphere from arctic basin is small compared to the warmer oceans elsewhere. An open arctic isnt going to be trigger point.
But could thick snows more than offset the albedo loss from having dark water instead of ice in the summer arctic ocean? The forcing of the ice ages from Milankovich cycles implies that critical factor is persistance of snows around 65N through summer. In cold part of the cycle, there is not enough radiative heat to surface to melt the snow. The summer extent is more important for global albedo than winter. Summer extent continues to decrease implying there is more than enough heat to melt the winter snows even as they get heavily.
-
PluviAL at 06:45 AM on 6 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
I don't think you can comment about this article without being political, and you should not. This is politics; the intention is to discredit the scientific evidence because the objective is to mislead. The job is not up to scientists, it is up to politicians and political leaders to get us on the right road.
What we need is a vision of where we want to go and how to get there. That is what is lacking. I feel that the Trupm distortion is leading to a certain debacle, the sooner, and the bigger the better, so as to project us in some direction.
The direction we want to take is solutions:
a) reduce carbon, and shift to renewable sources
b) Re-fit cities and social orders
c) Develop truly new solutions (what I work toward)
You will go crazy trying to make sense out of words and deeds that are meant to mislead and obfuscate.
-
DaveMartsolf at 05:00 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
The first hyperlink above was mistyped and should be Milankovitch Cycles. The second link to "The Coming Ice Age" is not directed properly and I don't know how to fix it. The Harpers URL works only sporadically, so to those interested in this bit of ancient history I can only suggest Googling a term such as "The Coming Ice Age Harpers" and look for the link in the search results. My apologies for this inadequacy. Another good book for detailed descriptions of Blackburn's original response submission is the book The Ice Chronicles by Paul Mayewski et. al., 2002.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Thanks, Tom. It strikes me that JF is potentially trying to focus on an element of #6 to make an "incontrovertible" argument of persuasion, and is actually looking for the opposite. My suspicion is that he's purposefully creating a straw man argument by ignoring all the other elements that are actually incontrovertible.
"My question will not be answered, and I know why" is a strong indication that he's been persuing a specific answer all along.
-
DaveMartsolf at 04:16 AM on 6 April 2017We're heading into an ice age
Thanks JH and PS. This topic appears to be the most relevant to my question, and my apologies as a newbie if it has already been debunked somewhere in the past 360-odd comments.
I am familiar with the arguments against a new ice age coming any time soon submitted by Anne-Marie Blackburn (the discussion of the <href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html">Milankovitch Cycles and the CO2 emissions override to which Daniel Bailey added the effects of solar insolation contained in the header's Intermediate tab.
My idea comes as old memories from research I made in preparation for my 7th grade geography class term paper on the ocean floor in 1962. At that time I had read a 1958 article published in Harpers written by Betty Friedan called "The Coming Ice Age" that proposed that an open water Arctic Ocean could essentially jump-start a new ice age by saturating the usually very dry Arctic air with moisture that would in turn increase winter snowfalls to the point that increased albedo from snowpack in the northern hemisphere would create a feedback loop that would continue the snowfall throughout the year in these latitudes.
Of course, if you read that entire article you can poke holes in all manner of the supportive evidence since the science at that time was just in its formative years. But, I wonder about the central premise because the catalytic state of an ice-free Arctic Ocean is soon to be achieved. And, just as one releases the choke on one's snowblower after getting it started, I wonder if the world's now-underway switch from fossil fuels to renewables (turning off the choke) will remove the CO2 threat over the next century just at the time when it would be helpful to mitigate against the snow cycle about to come. I would appreciate your views on this idea.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:04 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @90, excellent summary. I woud add that we have a far firmer idea of the low end of possible sea level rises (mostly determined by thermal expansion of sea water) than we do of the high end. We also have some reasonable empirical and model based estimates of the final (equilibrium) sea level rises due to increased temperature, with 7 meters or more for the 2 C that current policy aims at, and 20-50 meters for the likely range of end century temperatures with BAU. What is not known is how long it will take to reach that equilibrium level. From those estimates it follows that a low rate of sea level rise in the 21st century means a longer period to reach equilibrium (which is good news), but it does not mean we will not be dealing with 7 plus meters of sea level rise in the long run.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:43 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... Let's think of this another way, in terms of scientific confidence and risk.
1) Global mean temperature is rising: High level of confidence.
2) Rising CO2 is the primary factor in rising temperature: High level of confidence.
3) Rising CO2 is due to human activities: High level of confidence.
4) Rising global temperature will cause ice sheets to lose mass: High level of confidence.
5) Ice sheet losses will lead to sea level rise: High level of confidence.
6) Rate/pace of ice sheet losses: Low level of confidence.
From this you can easily determine that (a) sea levels will rise as we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere, (b) we don't know exactly how quickly the sea level rise issue will play out. There is virtually no doubt this is occurring. The evidence is already incontrovertible. There is significant risk that this will play out faster than models are telling us.
-
John Mason at 02:04 AM on 6 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
Does anybody else share the feeling that they've gone to bed at night, only to awake the next day and find themselves in the middle of Alice In Wonderland?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:54 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... When you use a terms like "scalar transformation" and "abscissa" it implies that you're working with actual data rather than a graphic representation of data. So, far I've seen no evidence of this.
"At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?
My question will not be answered, and I know why."
Excellent! That must mean you now grasp that the question is irrelevant.It's rather like asking when you can measure the impact of the speeding train as it crashes into your body instead of measuring the speed it's approaching you ahead of time.
As has been repeated many times over, sea level rise is a function of ice sheet dynamics. That is the entire story.
Look, JF. There is no magic bullet here. There is no one graph that you're going to create that is going to convince people who don't want to be convinced. There is an abundance of compelling graphical representations of the science on climate change out there. Any one graph (sea ice retreat, global mean temp, CO2 levels, ocean heat content, sea level rise, changes in animal migration patterns, seasonal patterns for plants, storm intensity, etc, etc) should be enough to give any rational person pause to think about this, and collectively should convince anyone that this is real and very serious.
The problem is that the people who refuse to believe it are doing so because of other reasons. No graph, no matter how incontrovertible, is going to fix that.
I have a suspicion that's not what this conversation is actually about for you, though.
-
MA Rodger at 00:50 AM on 6 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro @87.
The question you pose is:-
"At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?"
We can measure sea level with enough accuracy to plot a global value for Sea Level Rise. We can therefore check whether the SLR projected by "these models" are consistent with the measured values. I would assume that when you talk of "these models" you refer to the graphical representations of SLR presented @40 and @39. Note that these projections of SLR derive from work carried out in 2012 or 2013. That is, the graph presented @40 is sourced from Horton et al (2014), a paper submitted in 2013. And that presented @39 derives from Bamber & Aspinall (2013) submitted in 2012. This means SLR data measured after "these models" were completed includes data beginning from mid-2013. Thus the SLR data as graphed @73 already includes three years of such data, a length of period you have suggested would be adequate.
Assuming all this conforms to the intention of your question, the only part of the question remaining outstanding is whether 3 years of SLR data would be adequate for the establishment of "incontovertible evidence" that "these models" are "accurate." As I made plain @77, I'm not sure what it is you are attempting to establish 'incontrovertibly', what particular aspect of "these models" you hope to estabish as "accurate" but 3 years doesn't seem long enough for anything useful to be learned given the lumpy nature of global SLR data.
-
JohnFornaro at 23:01 PM on 5 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Leto @ 85: "...scalar transformation is fine..."
Of course it is. Rather than discuss data, I'm being criticized for scaling the data to present the information to a policymaker in an easier to understand fashion, because persuading policymakers is the fundamental task at hand.
JF @ 53: "As a technical point, this graph [ http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ ] is in millimeters, and the graph @40 is in meters.
If policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to paint all the graphical pictures at the same scale. Scott Adams may not have any good knowledge about the climate, but he does have good knowledge about persuasion."
The objection made was this: "...if our elected representatives cannot cope with the mental difficulty of understanding a change in scale, there is no hope of persuading them of the actual science and it implications."
JF @ 56: "I pasted the colorado.edu graph mentioned above over the graph @40, squeezed it down to about the right scale at least on the abscissa. The ordinate of the colorado.edu graph should be flattened even more. 1 cm barely registers."
Then the objection became: "In other words, whether squashing (or "squeezing", as you originally termed it) two data series together is more persuasive is irrelevant."
I clarified by mentioning scalar transformation.
Then the objection became: "No, merely squashing a chart down is not — in any way, shape or form — a substitute for real analysis."
Then the argument became "'Squeeze' was your original term, not mine." Of course I used "squash", but hey.
My question [@ 42] is pretty simply stated:
At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?
My question will not be answered, and I know why.
Persuasive evidence, measured in the real world, such as, for only one example, a 4cm rise in sea level in only three years, is not necessary, personal criticism is.
Leto: "Just keep in mind that you are conversing with people who understand this material better than you do."
JH: "Your [JF's] condescending tone is neither warranted nor welcome."
Obviously, condescension is a one way street on this site.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaints are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
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.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:51 PM on 5 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
My own thoughts on last Wednesday's events:
The House Science Climate Model Show TrialSome highlights from my Transatlantic perspective:
The denialosphere is of course now spinning like crazy attempting to pin something, anything, on Michael Mann.
not to mention:
Why on Earth Judith chose to repeat the “CAI” allegation is beyond me.
and:
Given our long running campaign against the climate science misinformation frequently printed in the Mail on Sunday it gives us great pleasure to reprint in full the following extract from [Mann’s] written testimony:
I'm currently doing battle with Steve McIntyre and other "skeptics" on Twitter over his assertion that "the CV contradicts his lie" regarding Mann's alleged CAI "affiliation/association".
I can only assume that Mr. McIntyre has neglected to watch the above video of the proceedings. I even managed to persuade one of Judith Curry's "denizens" to take on board my point of view about that contentious issue! -
ubrew12 at 20:59 PM on 5 April 2017Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing
I think the persistence of people like Smith, Pruitt, and Inhofe is a sign of the corruption of our democracy by 'dark money'. Anyone familiar with the climate 'debate' knows that if the money went away, or shifted to prefer climate action, action would begin tomorrow. It is still shocking, however, to learn in just how many ways 'dark money' has permeated every branch of 'our' government, as Bill Moyers recently wrote about concerning 'plain vanilla' Supreme Court candidate Neil Gorsuch.
Prev 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 Next
