Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 Next
Comments 21051 to 21100:
-
Raenrfm at 01:52 AM on 23 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
@Rob Honeycutt - I find it quite arrogant that you assume that every tidbit of information on this website is accurate while others only produce incorrect data. This for me is the crux of the whole issue, the "us" vs. "them" mentality. The very fact that legitimate scientists are labeled as "deniers" (substitute heretic if you like) if they do not tow the company line, offends me, as it should any true person of science. When you enter into a scientific discovery with a bias, that should set off alarm bells.
When postulating a theory, it is the primary goal of the scientist postulating that theory that they make all attempts to disprove it, and allow others to make the same attempts and to not "fall in love" with it (please search for Dr. Richard Feynman and his lectures on the evolution of the oil drop experiment in calculating the charge of an electron and how credential bias delayed the calculation of it's true value). It's called transparency. The validity of an argument does not depend on whether it is peer reviewed or not either, we throw that idea around like it is the true litmus test of an idea. If it is the truth, it will survive all efforts to destroy it. In fact Einstein was offended that his papers needed to be peer reviewed. Peer review to me is censorship. If the goal is the truth, peer review is unecessary because it's quite possible that those peer gatekeepers are inadequite to fully understand new or "radical" concepts, like when Einstien and Rosen postulated that gravity was a wave. I feel it hobbles us as a species. True science is also not gouverned by concensus either (that single flawed paper that everyone clings to). We used to all agree that the world was flat remember?
I have a degree in physics, I understand how to read papers and understand how data is represented and mis-represented. Graphs are never or rarely presented with error bars which in itself smacks as unscientific. I will patently ignore any data set that does not have a full disclosure on the error analysis and indicate it clearly, yet the general public is led to believe that what they are seeing is gospel and not open to debate.
I do not know you Rob, as you do not know me, and I have no issue with your point of view, other than it should be stated that it is a point of view and not a definitive statement of the truth, because neither of us has earned the right to say what the truth is, and a great many people with greater qualifications than ours haven't earned that right either. The truth is or it isn't, it does not require concensus or cheerleaders.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Factualies at 01:24 AM on 23 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
It was easy to see Hitler and the Nazis as evil people, go to war, and justify killing them to save millions from their ovens. So why don't we look at the people in power, both corporate and governmental, who are knowingly setting policies and making decisions that are turning the planet into a giant oven that will kill billions (of our species and others) and do the same? This is life and death and happening faster that we want to accept. For all it's intelligence, our species is incredibly stupid. We study the laws of nature, then knowingly defy them; we study history, then knowingly deny it. Perhaps in the long run, this may be bad for us, but good for the Earth.
-
shoyemore at 01:04 AM on 23 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
Richard Muller has a record of conflict with climate scientists and for many, many years he was a soulmate of deniers like Anthony Watts. In the end, he stood up to be counted when he was confronted with the evidence.
Whatever about the past, he is very, very good in this video, quite the star in fact.
-
bvangerven at 00:47 AM on 23 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
What needs to be done to bring the climate crisis under control ? Those who are responsible must be forced to pay the bill. It is a simple as that. For me, the most essential question in the climate debate is: who is going to pay for this ? Fossil fuel companies keep on funding climate change denial for this reason: they think they will get away with it in the end. They will cash the profits and the population will be presented the bill: climate adaptation, mitigation, geo-engineering. Or even worse: we will all pay in the shape of an unprecedented disaster, we will all participate in a gigantic lottery with only losers.
If only …
If only it is possible to make a damage claim against the fossil fuel industry, backed up by the scientific evidence that has been around for about 30 years. If only fossil fuel companies could be made to understand: you, the polluters are going to pay no matter what. And the longer you delay climate actions, the higher the bill will be. The alternative: to start collaborating NOW in a plan to evolve towards a carbon neutral society as soon as possible.
-
deivis_bluz at 00:35 AM on 23 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
But scientists do one major mistake. They consider objects (measurements) as separate from each other. Scientists create an independent observer with thoughts and assume there is common view. In fact this world is just measurements or sounds. Everything in this world is just thoughts (measurements). The number of measurements in the substance increase so the substance starts heating up. All our measurements are based on this planet (meter, kilogram, second) and not related with our senses (periodic table of elements). We don't align our activities (waves) with the sun and moon so our minds get disturbed and disturb environment. Without aligning our clock and calendar with sun and moon and our activities with the cardinal directions i.e. movement of our planet we can not solve climate and extreme weather.
-
stephen baines14492 at 15:21 PM on 22 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
Excellent video by the way. Hats off to Peter.
-
stephen baines14492 at 15:20 PM on 22 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
I like the last line... "Are you serious?"
-
ubrew12 at 14:45 PM on 22 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
Dcrickett@2: Also on Peter Sinclairs 'climate crocks' website, I was fascinated by something pollster Ed Maibach said. After detailing the substantial public preference, as polled, for climate action in the U.S., he mentioned that the public, by and large, doesn't know that their neighbors hold the same opinions that they do (see at the 2 min mark of that articles video). They've been conditioned to 'suffer in silence' with their climate concerns, and not rock the boat. The fossil propaganda doesn't just preach against climate action, but encourages its believers to loudly proclaim that those who don't hold similar views are socialists or worse. So, to keep the peace, a majority of Americans simply hope somebody else will broach the subject, and never rise up to realize that all their friends and neighbors hold the same view. Here possibly is a way forward: destigmatize 'alarmism'. The message must be pushed that 'we are all alarmists now' (or, at least, a healthy 70% of us) and thus encourage people to end their climate silence.
-
Dcrickett at 11:09 AM on 22 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
Great video!
But it makes me wonder about the priorities of climate care. It shows a trickle of somewhat soft initial indications has segued into a torrent of firm and ever-hardening “facts” (I do not wish to get into a discussion of Karl Popper’s Empirical Falsification). The scientific evidence has for years pointed to increasing urgency for action on climate care, but politically the powers of denialism hold the field.
If presenting the scientific reality could win the day, that day would have been long ago. I have no objection to pointing out and defending the reality; it keeps on winning small victories all the time. But in no way can these small victories bring the climate crisis under control.
What can?
-
BBHY at 10:28 AM on 22 February 2017Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It
Great video. I've noticed for some time that the denier-skeptics, when they accept that some warming has actually ocurred, always frame it as 1) scientists noticed warming 2) scientists looked for a cause, 3) scientists settled on excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Which is basically in reverse order of what actually happened.
The reality, that scientists correctly predicted today's conditions decades in advance, is a very powerful argument that scientists really do know exactly what they are talking about when they make climate predictions decades to centuries into the future and we should take those predictions very seriously.
-
SirCharles at 10:23 AM on 22 February 2017Is anything wrong with Forbes Climate Reporting?
Reading Forbes for science is about the same as visiting a plumber when suffering from a toothache.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @547, I just noticed from scaddenp's reply your comment to the effect that:
"The IPCC review? Is it not true that there are a large number of non-scientific personnel among the IPCC?"
First, there are a large number of non-scientists among the IPCC personel. That is because the paid personel of the IPCC do not conduct the reviews. Instead, the paid personel are administrators who undertake publication, maintain the website, and reprsent the IPCC in meetings with other UN bodies/officials. The actual reviews are conducted by experts acting pro-bono.
You will note that I say "experts" and not scientists. That is again, because there are a large number of non-scientists among the authors of the IPCC. Specifically, the authors of Working Group 3 (dealing with the best policy for mitigation), and to a lesser extent Working Group 2 (dealing with impacts), include a large number of economists. The authors of Working Group 1 are (The scientific basis) are, however, exclusively scientists; and all IPCC authors are relevant experts.
Finally, you may have heard that the IPCC reports are political because the wording is voted on line by line by national (and hence typically political) representatives. That, however, is only true of the Summary for Policy Makers. It is why it is always better to read the Technical Summary, or the relevant sections of the individual chapters.
I will note that most wording changes in the Summary for Policy Makers have been at the insistence of states such as Saudi Arabia, who have had an obvious interest in downplaying the effects of anthropogenic global warming. To the extent that it introduces a bias, it causes the IPCC to underplay the risk.
-
shoyemore at 07:44 AM on 22 February 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
Bought the Kindle version .. best reading on Windows 10 laptop running the Kindle app. Not so good on my old Amazon device or my Android tablet. Print was small, looked cramped without spaces. But an excellent reference Rob well done.
-
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Ardi
"Is it not science? When Jane Goodall is talking in a documentary about the behavior of chimpanzees is not science?"
No, it is not. It is one scientist explaining her work, and subject to the editing of the documentary maker. No other scientists review her comments, nor is there a "right of reply". Documentaries are often didactic (eg GGWS) and by selective editing/quoting present a view that is very different from what they actually support (ask Carl Wunshfor example.) Actual science is presented in peer-reviewed journals and thanks to citing tools it is easy to see whether the views expressed there have contested or accepted by other scientists.
"The IPCC review? Is it not true that there are a large number of non-scientific personnel among the IPCC? And then, why only the IPCC?"
Hmm, so it would appear you have again unskeptically accepted a comment from what source?? as an excuse to dismiss the views of the IPCC. See your biases at work? You still havent explained where these biases arise. When governments wanted to know about the science of climate change, they put together IPCC. The science of climate change (WG1) is a review of the all peer-reviewed science by a large team of international experts in the field. The people and their associations are listed in back, (but have you actually bothered to read it - or just spent time finding reasons to avoid conclusions you dont like?) Are you seriously suggesting that there is a more capable group for assessing climate science out there that we should take note of?"Of course, you can convince me if what you say can be scientifically tested directly and not based on an assumption."
You would appear to have an extremely naive about the nature of scientific testing. Vast sections of the science cant be put on a laboratory bench. Instead science proceeds from investigation of the chain of causation and seeing what can be observed fits one theory or another.Climate theory makes a huge no. of predictions of which the most compelling is probably the change spectra and amount of radiation both irradiating the surface and being lost to space. Both are directly measured, both fit theory to extraordinary accuracy (see here and here). No other theory remotely fits the predictions.
You claim climate science is based on untested assumptions. Which would these be? Something you read from another unreliable source? Are conservation of energy and Planck's Law untested assumptions in your mind or is it okay for scientists to assume that?
So far people here have shown that sources you have relied on for your arguments are in fact from sewers of disinformation. MA Rogers above shows you how a link you provided distorts the science. If that were me, I would be angry that they duped me and would trust them no further. You? Or are your biases too powerful?
-
Kiwiiano at 05:19 AM on 22 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
jipspagoda:
The Earth can be compared to a bed that has had an extra top sheet added. Whether it is a cold night or hot, the occupant will be slightly warmer. That translates as a more energetic atmosphere, where every event has an element of AGW, mostly small but sometimes large or even contradictory, like the massive snow dumps. The larger events are likely to exceed the capacity of our infrastructures, topping stopbanks, depleting water resources, overloading air conditioners. And if we don't pull finger and deal with our excessive release of "thermal blanket" (greenhouse gases) the situation will only get much, much worse.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:42 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri... I take extreme exception to your comment relate blue sky and Stalin. No one here presents the arguments for AGW because anyone has "told them so." People you will encounter here at SkS are presenting the published scientific research which they've read and understand. We are presenting what has been researched and shown to be correct through a great deal of hard work by a long list of very intelligent and well-educated people.
Again, per my original question... When I read your comments it sounds to me as if you are starting from a position where you believe the science must be wrong, and you're attempting to rationalize that position before you even understand some of the most basic elements of the science. I'm trying to understand why you would do that rather than starting from a position saying you just don't know and proceeding to learn something about the science.
I fully admit, this is a challenge today because there are so many websites out there which present wrong information. You just have to have some capacity to decipher which resources are reliable and which are not.
-
MA Rodger at 02:26 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @547.
You say:- "I do not know if it's a good way to discredit me by supposing that those graphics are maliciously manipulated, that they are biased or that they are directly garbage."
Of those four graphics you presented @540, certainly three of them were "biased" to the point of being "directly garbage" although whether this "bias" was due to malicious manipulation I cannot say for sure. It could be simple incompetance.
As for your notion that I was 'discrediting' you - that I find surprising because you said of previous comment examining the failings of graphics you had presented that you had "liked the dissection" done and even offered up more charts on the stength of it (indeed you offered up the "garbage").
And off-topic, I note you also present @547 a link to a web blog provided by The Daily Sheeple (which has been described as "among the most untrustworthy sources in the media") suggesting this shows "NASA scientists" amongst other arguing for a potential "a new short cold period ... between 2030 and 2050." If you examine this web blog you link to, you actually see it shows no such thing. The "garbage" it presents on that matter is only supported by the well-konwn climate denier Don Westerbrook. The NASA scientist comment is solely about the sun, as is that of Clette & Lefevre. The NASA web page linked does say:-"The Little Ice Age lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum, and there are other potential causes. Nevertheless it is believed by many scientists that the prolonged solar minima and its corresponding decrease in solar energy cooled Earth. Mapping out the details of how much the change in solar energy could have produced such an effect remains an unresolved area of research."
but this still does not support your assertion of a NASA source for "a new short cold period ... between 2030 and 2050."
And please do not see this as "a good way to discredit" you, unless that is you choose to take no heed of this correction and continue spreading "garbage."Concerning the global temperature rise since 1935 and my rhetorical question - averaging GISS, NOAA BEST & HadCRUT the rise is quite significant, so far totalling about 1ºC.
-
John Hartz at 01:54 AM on 22 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
The likely reasons for the Oroville Dam's main spillway failure are identified and explained in:
Damage to Oroville's main spillway 'was an accident waiting to happen' by Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times, Feb 20, 2017
-
Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @549, your discussion is becoming increasingly wide ranging, and off topic. I am sure the moderators would appreciate your taking the various points to their most appropriate threads. In particular, where you say,
"The theory is essentially that solar observations are increasingly recording fewer sunspots and it is thought that solar cycle 25 or 26 will practically have no stains, a event that has precedents +200 years ago where especially the Maunder Minimum coincided with the colder phase of the Little Ice Age."
You should read, and take further discussion to this article.
Discussion of the MWP should be taken to one of numerous threads devoted to it, or that on Pages 2k. That includes discussion of farming in Greenland, although this thread would be more apt. Discussion of Holocene temperatures should probably be taken to a thread on Marcott et al.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 22 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @548, when you have different numbers of proxies in different areas, you can either take a simple mean (as did Loehle and McCulloch), or you can divide the globe into different areas, determine the temperature for each individual area from the proxies within it, and then determine the global temperature by taking an area weighted mean of the reconstructed temperatues for each area. There are a variety of other techniques which approximate to the effects of one or the other. If you do the first of these, you get a biased temperature record. If you do the second, you get an unbiased temperature record, but with some regional temperatures being more reliable than the other. What was done by the PAGES 2000 project approximated to the second method.
-
Adri Norse Fire at 23:21 PM on 21 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
And Tom Curtis, thanks for the info. I almost forget it.
-
Adri Norse Fire at 23:18 PM on 21 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Rob Honeycutt
You're right. I simply answered a question that alluded to my convictions or motivations, but I understand the censorship, I do not set the rules, much less want to change them. And I can assure you that I am not confused, annoyed or angry with any of you who are answering me and I think the conversation so far has been very correct. We are going through the path of science, you believe that what I say is not science because they are sources with which you are not familiar, I will not deny that some of the data I have mentioned come from sources that are openly against anthropogenic climate change and may be biased, but you can not deny that you are using an ad hominem fallacy as the truth of their arguments does not imply a direct relationship with their personal convictions.
It's like saying, the sky is not blue because Stalin said it was blue. In the end we refer to scientific research, as I put above.
MA Rodger
I do not know if it's a good way to discredit me by supposing that those graphics are maliciously manipulated, that they are biased or that they are directly garbage.
<I wonder what has happened to global temperatures since 1935?> Me too.
Tom Curtis
<Probably the best, and certainly the one using the most proxies, is that from the PAGES2000 consortium,>
As you say about the reconstruction of Loehle and McCulloch, the reconstruction of PAGES2000 consortium is also a biased reconstruction since it has many more proxies in some areas than others as we can see. It is true that for the average global temperatures it is necessary to perform tests on different continents, but it is not necessary when we are talking about a particular region. So I wonder where the investigations of the four reproductions above were made, (whether global or regional) because they are closer to me than to you. And according to the graph of PAGES2000 consortium, you must recognize that in the last 2,000 years there have been periods, at least as warm as the current one.
scaddenp
<I find it worrying that you would uncritically accept a comment from a TV documentary and assume that it invalidates the science.>
Is it not science? When Jane Goodall is talking in a documentary about the behavior of chimpanzees is not science?
The IPCC review? Is it not true that there are a large number of non-scientific personnel among the IPCC? And then, why only the IPCC?
<Is there actually any point in us discussing data with you? In your own mind, what data would you change?> Of course, you can convince me if what you say can be scientifically tested directly and not based on an assumption. Because if we agree that the truth of this subject depends on assumptions because it can not be scientifically demonstrated directly, then as long as we both have different assumptions we have become believers of our own conclusions. So when you can raise the temperature of a huge biosphere box by adding CO2, I'll believe you.
<Also, just make sure that you do understand the extent of agriculture in Greenland.> I find the link very interesting, but I think you have not noticed some comments below.
Eclectic
<Since 2013, the world has had its three hottest years in recorded history ( 2014 / 2015 / 2016 ).>
Really? Can you tell me the degree of difference between those years? Can you give me more information about these investigations? I would appreciate it. I have never been a detractor of global warming, but I did not know that it was so marked, especially by the cold waves that have lashed Europe lately.
But going back to the subject, I do not really know what an 'Amerikaner means', but these statements do not come from Mr. Ferrara, (by the way you were making the ad hominem fallacy an art) come from NASA scientists and others. And especially of Russian scientists of whom I can not remember the name now. The theory is essentially that solar observations are increasingly recording fewer sunspots and it is thought that solar cycle 25 or 26 will practically have no stains, a event that has precedents +200 years ago where especially the Maunder Minimum coincided with the colder phase of the Little Ice Age. They believe that something like a new short cold period can happen between 2030 and 2050 and it seems to me, that nobody should be underestimated, even though they have worked as lawyers and 'propagandists'.
1.- Link, NASA: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/nasa-admits-solar-cycle-is-the-weakest-in-200-years-the-link-between-sunspots-global-cooling-and-agenda-21_112013
2.- Link, (independent?): https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2016/6/23/1015-am-the-sun-goes-blank-again-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century
-
MA Rodger at 22:32 PM on 21 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis @1490,
The Manabe & Strickler model presents interesting findings but I'm not sure that I would accept them without a fight. Likewise, the figure of 5% convection contribution deriving from the figure presented @1488 is also not well established. (The 5% is more the value for the conduction of sensible heat from surface to atmosphere and certainly is not a good value to rely on.)
While the Manabe & Strickler non-convection calculation of atmospheric temperature profile is a useful calculation, I do not see it as the final word. Firstly, it is being compared with two other profiles which pre-suppose the lapse rate. Thus the model Manabe & Strickler were developing is really just testing their model above the troposphere. So is the non-convection version a fair one? It assumes only a single value for the H2O profile which may not be (probably isn't) a good choice for a global average. Indeed, what model should be set up to calculate a non-convective atmospheric GH effect? That is the start point. I think you would have to freeze representative GHG levels (& presumably cloud) over the whole globe to calculate it. I would suggest that the result would show that it is the holes in the H2O blanket that are responsible for a very large portion of the energy balance. This is why the Wanabe & Strickler graph without such a hole shows the large increase in temperature for non-convection at low altitudes where in their modelled H2O is high.
And a quick back-of-fag-packet argument. If we look at average surface temperatures, if half the cooling were convective, would we see a significant temperature differential between equator & 30 degrees? If we look at TOA outward IR (eg Trenberth & Stepaniak (2004) fig 3a&b) would there be a sign of a cooler upper atmosphere above the outer limit of the Hadley cells? Of course, what we see is more LR at the outer limits and less over the tropics which suggests it is the GH effect which continues to dominate the outward energy budget through the thickness of the troposphere with the dry atmosphere sinking in the gentle Hadey cell flow allowing big energy fluxes to flow out from the planet, averaging perhaps roughly 270W/sq m. Over the equator the H2O GH effect keeps that energy flux down to say 225W/sq m. Of course, all this very much first-cut response to the Manabe & Stickler model.
-
MA Rodger at 21:11 PM on 21 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rob Honeycutt @1491,
I agree that when explaining the GH effect, at a minimum there is a willful prejudice being employed when an immutable counter-argument wielded against both "blanket" and "greenhouse" as an analogy (or metaphor or whatever) is of the form as presented @1482 (ie - "One is a solid and one is a gas.").
But my thought is to break that immutable nonsense rather than live with it. Thus my position trying to revitalise both the "blanket" and the "greenhouse" as strong analogies for the GH effect.
Thus I would argue as follows.
Note the follow-on comment @1482 "A solid object like a blanket will impose on the rate of heat loss through the loss of convection." A blanket does not trap air anything like as well as the lower atmosphere. The plume of hot gas passing through a blanket is travelling at quite a rate (as this test shows - note 400ft/min =2m/s) And greenhouses are not hermetically sealed but are actually far more leaky that the lower atmosphere, even commercial ones. The lower atmosphere retains parcels of air for a week or more. The same cannot be said for either any blanket or any greenhouse.
And this slow action of the atmosphere circulation is probably best explained by the planet Earth being so big and tha atmosphere so shallow. In the tropics a latitudinal band measuring say 1,000 km is heated and so it is wanting to rise up and displace the cooler air above it. This creates a Walker Cell which will flow away from the tropics at the top of the atmosphere where it cools by radaition into space and so cooled drops back down to the surface outside the tropics. The problem for the "big convetion" argument is that the longitudinal winds at the top of the atmosphere (and the balancing ones in the lower atmosphere) are much less than 10m/s. This speed of wind is the result of the upward convetion flow from the tropics but the <10m/s represents a massive acceleration from the vertical convetion speeds - because comparatively the tropics are very broad but the atmosphere is rather shallow. If the vertical motion feeding this <10m/s is 1,000km wide, the upward speed has to be <0.02m/s which means the air in any "big convetion" cooling circulation will take >600,000 seconds or seven days to reach the top of the atmosphere. Radiation, on the other hand, is flying about at the speed of light. So it's not much of a contest, is it? Thus the values of the various fluxes in the Earth Energy Balance diagram as shown @1488 show very small quantities of convection in operation.
Now this last bit referring to the diagram is a bit of a throw-away remark. The diagram in its original form did describe the sensible heat flux as "thermals" (eg in Trenberth et al 2009 figure 1) which is wrong. But I'm not sure it is entirely wrong.
-
michael sweet at 20:52 PM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
Jipspagoda,
It is common knowledge that there are large rains in the American West on 100-200 year intervals. California and the feds decided that it was not worth ,spending the money for an event that has not happened since 1862. As pointed out above, AGW made the flood worse. It is very unlikely that with natural forces alone that Oroville dam would have neared faliure this year. AGW added the extra to force failure.
They are expecting 10 inches (25 cm) of rain at Oroville this week from a new storm. Other reservoirs are full and there will be significant flooding. Oroville expects to be low enough to slow the flood as long as the damaged main spillway holds out. The rainy season is nearing its end. How much water will fall in March?
What Ubrew12 said x2.
-
chriskoz at 19:59 PM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
Situation in CA is identical to "inland tsunami" fluds in QLD 6 years ago. After a decade of misarable drought, the freak and very intense rains filled Wivenhoe Dam to some 170% of its capacity. The dam operators must have spilled signifficant amount of water, otherwise it may not have held. Everyone was quick to blame dam operators (ditto as jipspagoda@1,3 above) but refused to acknowledge the unprecedented weather event (weather on steroids is avery accurate term here) leading to the tragedy; and at the same time tried to dismiss any links to AGW with "weather has always been unpredictable" trolls (exactly as jipspagoda@1,3 above). Give me a break, deniers: how many times do we need to repeat the obvious that AGW signal is responsible for increasing magnitude of extreme precipitation events like this one in CA and recent one in QLD? You can argue that the dam operators could have better handled the emegrencies (if they could have predicted the magnitude of these emergencies 50y ago) but do not dismiss the obvious influnce of AGW signal here, as proven by climate scientists and the long term weather data.
-
ubrew12 at 19:14 PM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
The main spillway failed due to unprecedented volumes of water cascading down its length. Where did all that water come from? 1) falling as rain rather than snow (AGW), 2) unprecedented amounts of rain (AGW), 3) falling on hillsides denuded by five years of unprecedented drought (AGW). I'm not surprised that infrastructure like this is taxed past its design limit by the unprecedented conditions that have long been associated with AGW. It's part of a pattern, as the author states "what we’re seeing is consistent with climate scientists’ expectations of a hotter world." Munich Re recently reported that severe flood events in Europe have doubled since 1980. So it would be folly to not ready our infrastructure for more of this: the point of this article.
-
scaddenp at 13:19 PM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
The issue is that GW increases the frequency of major rainfall events and thus the risk, something the environmental groups challenging the spillway safety 12 years were well aware of.
-
jipspagoda at 12:22 PM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
MS,
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/12/oroville-dam-feds-and-state-officials-ignored-warnings-12-years-ago/
Extreme droughts and floods have happened in the past and will happen in the future. Seems more like failure to plan for the past and the future to me
-
Tom Curtis at 12:13 PM on 21 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
"One more error is, he claims Al Gore states that, "...we will see a tipping point where temperatures will run away, [Gore] is positing that feedbacks will be nearly infinite (a phenomenon we can hear with loud feedback screeches from a microphone)." Nope. Sorry. That is Mr. Meyer's misunderstanding and is nothing that Al Gore has ever stated."
I did a bit of research and managed to find the source for Al Gore's claims about "tipping-points". It turns out to be a conflation of a comment Gore made to CBS news in 2006, and a review of An Inconvenient Truth, by James Hansen.
CBS reported on January 26th, 2006 that:
"And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
He sees the situation as "a true planetary emergency.""
You will notice that while the sentiment is Gore's, the initial sentence contains no quotations, and hence no indication that the term "point of no return" was Gore's.
Meanwhile, in his review of "An Inconvenient Truth", Hansen expressed similar views when he wrote:
"Any responsible assessment of environmental impact must conclude that further global warming exceeding two degrees Fahrenheit will be dangerous. Yet because of the global warming already bound to take place as a result of the continuing long-term effects of greenhouse gases and the energy systems now in use, the two-degree Fahrenheit limit will be exceeded unless a change in direction can begin during the current decade. Unless this fact is widely communicated, and decision-makers are responsive, it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences. We have reached a critical tipping point."
In January, 2016, Anthony Watts published an article by Jaclyn Schiff, which quoted the NBC article, before saying:
"Well, the 10 years are about up, by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels” Let’s look at the data:
...
As you can see, little has changed since 2006. Note the spike in 1998, in the 18 years since the great El Niño of 97/98, that hasn’t been matched, and the current one we are in isn’t stronger, and looks to be on the way to decaying. So much for the “monster” El Niño."
In the space covered by the ellipsis, Schiff published a graph of the UAH TLT temperature through to Nov 2015. Why November, given that the Dec 2016 data was published by Roy Spencer on January 5th, 2016. Perhaps it had something to do with the December values being higher than those of October, hence giving the lie to the claim that the temperatures "looks to be on the way to decaying". Regardless, hindsight shows her claims to be utterly baseless:
Indeed, so also did foresight for anybody aware of the relative delays of surface and mid troposphere temperature responses to ENSO fluctuations.
More important than any shenanigans with out of date temperature data is the complete misunderstanding of what Gore is reputed to have said.
Going back to the original NBC metaphore, a point of no return is that point in a flight, or expedition, were turning around will not leave you with sufficient fuel (or supplies) to return to base. It could also be used of a scenario where you are driving rapidly towards the lip of the Grand Canyon, in which case the point of no return is that point at which no amount of braking, or rapidity of turning will prevent you from going over the lip. In neither case is there any sudden change in your conditions. The point of no return on a flight is not a point of sudden turbulence; and the point of no return as you follow Thelma and Louis to a premature death is as smooth as any other point you had traversed on the trip thus far.
Applying this to Gore's thought, clearly he was saying (whether using that phrase or not) that if radical action was not taken by (approximately) 2016, then we would have reached a point where no economically achievable measures could prevent CO2 concentrations rising sufficiently to cause temperatures to pass the threshold beyond which their impacts are considered dangerous. No sudden jump in temperature is predicted, and nor is it predicted that the temperature increase by 2016 will itself have passed a dangerous threshold.
In any event, Schiff's misunderstanding was then picked up by the deniasphere, with Hansen's term frequently substituted. From there, it was apparently further misinterpreted by Warren Myer.
Ignoring the gross misrepresentations without which deniers have no argument, the question is whether or not we have in fact passed Gore's 'point of no return', or Hansen's "tipping point". The answer is that we do not know. We may have, and if we have not we certainly will do so soon. My feeling is that we have for a 1.5oC increase above the preindustrial, but not quite yet for a 2oC threshold. Unfortunately, whether we have or have not passed it, the actions of Trump in the US, and Turnbull in Australia seem geared to ensure we pass it very soon, if we have not already.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:51 AM on 21 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
joe... I think you're misinterpretting here. In the article, I'm stating that Warren says the IPCC merely makes up positive feedbacks. That is clearly not true. On the other hand, Warren does make up the idea of negative feedbacks dominating, which would make CS lower than the direct effect of CO2. That is not scientifically supportable.
And, no, there's not been any retreat from the position on the estimates of climate sensitivity. They remain basically where they've been for many decades.
-
michael sweet at 08:46 AM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
Jipspagoda,
Do you really want to not tell people that a large part of the problem is caused by AGW? Even if AGW is only responsible for 20% of the precipitation, the flooding would not have happened without that contribution. The main spillway is reported to have failed due to erosion from the heavy rains so it has the same ultimate cause. If it was not warmer due to AGW the rain would have been snow and they would not have had any problem. Can you suggest a situation where this flooding would have occured without AGW? It would be extremely unlikey.
All weather is affected by AGW. Whenever there is record damage from weather it is always worse because of AGW. People need to be reminded every time. Most people in the USA do not really remember when Pakistan or Bangladesh is flooded. They notice California a lot more.
-
joe - at 08:16 AM on 21 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rob - thanks will gladly clarify. The statement is made to the effect that Warren made up the second part of the theory catastrophic warming based on positive feedbacks. (ie he pulled it out of his backside and/or his imagination) .
I was only pointing out the theory has been put forth by many from the climate science community, including this site. Granted, there has been some retreat from this position.
(my second part of my comment was pointing out that i originally posted to the same/similar comment to a different blog post in error)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:59 AM on 21 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
joe... Your comment is fairly nondescript. Can you clarify your point or be a little more specific?
-
joe - at 07:27 AM on 21 February 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Warren like most skeptics got his idea from one of these posts (this response was previously posted on different topic -)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-climate-feedbacks.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sensitivity-training.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Anderson.html -
jipspagoda at 06:54 AM on 21 February 2017Expect to see more emergencies like Oroville Dam in a hotter world
The emergency spillway had to be used because the main spillway failed and then had to be put back into service because of the imminent catastrophic failure of the emergency spillway. It is likely that if the main spillway had not been damaged the level of the lake could have been lowered without using the emergency spillway and therefore evacuations would not have been required. Is this a road we really want to go down where everything is attributed to CAGW?
-
Jim Hunt at 23:28 PM on 20 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
This story is set to run and run! The 3rd instalment of David Rose's anti NOAA fantasy fiction saga was published in Sunday's MoS:
"Climategate 2 – Episode 3 of David Rose’s Epic Saga"
A couple of UK Met Office scientists have already identified some gaping holes in Mr. Rose's latest set of "Alternative Facts" -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:20 AM on 20 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
MA Rodgers... I suppose that would be a function of how you referred to it. You can make it a simile, metaphor or an analogy. I think TM was attempting to dismiss it on a more literal basis and that, I believe, was deliberately missing the point.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:27 PM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
MA Rodger @1489, the energy balance diagram only shows energy movement between realms - ie, from the surface to the atmosphere, or from the atmosphere to the surface. It does not show energy transfer within the atmosphere itself. For that reason, the figure is not a good guide for estimated what Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) would be like in the absence of convection.
A better guide is Fig 4 from Manabe and Strickler (1964):
As you can see, from their model, an absence of latent heat transfer (ie, dry-adiabatic lapse rate) would lift GMST by about 10oC, while the complete absence of convection would lift it by about 45oC relative to current conditions. As the greenhouse effect on Earth raises GMST by over 33oC, the presence of convection cools the Earth by over 50% of the temperature increase that would occur from a greenhouse effect without convection.
Eliminating latent heat transfer within the atmosphere by the condensation of water would eliminate just under 25% of the greenhouse effect coupled with convection. That is an esoteric figure, however, given that 75% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour and clouds. Consequently the combined effect (greenhouse and lapse rate) of water vapour in the atmosphere is to warm the Earth; although at a lower GMST it might be to cool it given the reduced greenhouse effect but near constant cloud albedo effect.
-
MA Rodger at 19:57 PM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rob Honeycutt @1485,
You say the descrption "blanket" is but a metaphor. I would disagree. The convection within the atmosphere is very very slow. How else could it be? Convection contributes directly only 4% of the surface cooling (as conveniently illustrated @1488 above). And that is because the circulation of the atmosphere is very slow. Outside cyclones it takes something like two weeks for a parcel of air to move from surface to tropopause and back. The atmosphere is not static but neither is a greenhouse hermetically sealed. And blankets are far from air-tight. Just like with the planet surface and the GH effect, a blanket's main mode of operation is not preventing cooling convection but in trapping radiant heat loss. So I would suggest that both 'greenhouse' and 'blanket' are analogies and not metaphors.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 16:18 PM on 19 February 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
william... That doesn't make for a very good elevator pitch, though. ;-)
-
william5331 at 16:12 PM on 19 February 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
No, the ancient carbon is not fused with carbon. Dead organic matter to a first approximation is CH2. It already contains the Hydrogen . The longer a carbon chain, the closer the material gets to this formula. Methane is CH4 so when it is driven off, it enriches the remains in Carbon. The point is that the Hydrogen is in the substance and with pyrolysis, the organic material is fractionated into various organic materials from methane to waxes and beyond. With some forms of buried organic material, coal is left which to a first approximation is C.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:58 PM on 19 February 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
Wol... Yup. Not sure how that slipped through. That should have been the 18th century. Thank you. Correction made.
-
Wol at 14:48 PM on 19 February 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight
>>.....with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the 16th century when humans became aware,,,,,,<<
A bit premature, I think! Debatable on exact dates, but somewhere around 1750 - 1800 is more like it, not the 1500s.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:25 PM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Further to tm @ 1482
"It should read…. "Heat CANNOT flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature." The Laws of Thermodynamics are LAWS not theory."
The term "heat" is used ambiguously. Some people use it to mean the thermal energy. Used with that meaning, it is unambiguously the case that thermal energy (in the form of IR radiation) can flow from a colder body to a warmer body, although more must flow in the reverse direction.
The other (possibly more scientifically accurate) meaning is "net thermal energy flow", under which meaning it is unambigously the case that "net thermal energy flow" must be from the warmer body to the colder body (something that can be deduced from the preceding paragraph).
Needless to say, the sentence you find offensive uses the first, and more common in popular usage, meaning.
Under either definition, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is no bar to the Greenhouse Effect which predicts that net energy flow will be from the Sun to the surface, and then surface outwards. This can be clearly seen in the standard model used to teach the mathematics of the Greenhouse effect:
You will notice that the downward IR radiation at each level is less than the upward IR radiation from the level below, so that the net energy flow is upward. You will also notice that, as the model shows an equilibrium condition, the net IR energy flow between each level is an upward flow equal to the downwar flow from solar radiation. However, to maintain this condition (which conforms with all energy conservation laws), the ground level upward flux must be (in this example), four times the incoming flux from the solar radiation, implying a very strong greenhouse warming. It is only able to do this in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics because of the downward IR flux from the layer above.
Note: this is just a toy model used to illustrate imortant concepts, and introduce a very basic level of the maths involved. It is in no way meant to represent a real situation. In real situations, atmospheres do not conveniently divide themselves into layers like that, and convection is a crucial element. However, in real life the Earth's surface is warmer than can be accounted for by solar radiation and the the Earth's albedo alone, and the net energy flow upwards from all sources matches the downward energy flow from the incoming solar radiation at all levels (although not all levels are shown below):
That is, there is a greenhouse effect, but it is in complete confirmation with the laws of thermodynamics (which is no surprise given that it was predicted by some of the key figures in determining those laws.)
-
Tom Curtis at 12:58 PM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
tm @ 1482:
"The surface of the moon is +200F. Why, because there's not convection to draw the heat away."
200 Fahrenheit is approximately 366.5 Kelvin. To put your claim into context, the most thorough scientific examination of the surface temperature of the Moon says:
"The mean temperature at the equator is 215.5 K with an average maximum of 392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K (Fig. 19), representing an average change in temperature of ∼300 K. Average maximum and minimum temperatures in the polar regions (poleward of 85°) are 202 K and 50 K respectively; with a mean average temperature 104 K. Mean maximum temperatures in the south polar region are ∼11 K warmer than the north polar region, however the average minimum temperatures are the same at both poles."
In other words, your estimate of the Moon's temperature over estimates the mean equatorial temperature by 155 K (279oF). It overestimates the mean lunar surface temperature by much more.
You will also note that the lunar mean equatorial temperature is about 72 K less than the Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature. As the equator of the Moon has the warmest mean temperature of any latitude, it follows that the Global Mean Surface Temperature of the Moon is much more than 72 K less than the Earth's. That is despite the fact that the Moon's albedo of 0.136 is less than half of that of the Earth's. It follows, even by your reasoning, that the Earth's atmosphere heats it relative to what it would be as an airless body.
As it happens, the major part of that warming is due to the thermal inertia of the atmosphere, and the oceans (in particular), along with the poleward heat transport by both, results in much more equal temperatures. However, the Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature is about 33 K warmer than would be possible with its albedo, even if its surface were a uniform temperature. That means the combined effect of the atmosphere (radiative and convective energy transfer) warms the Earth's surface. As it happens, it has been shown that the radiative effect warms it, while convection cools the surface relative to what it would be with the radiative effect (ie, the greenhouse effect) alone.
-
michael sweet at 11:04 AM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The Master:
Interesting choice of names.
Answering your points in order, your words in italics:
"All energy the Earth receives from the sun is returned to space." Some energy is absorbed by the surface and not returned to space for a period of time. That can range from a day or two up to centuries. A great deal of ice has melted from Greenland and the Antarctic the past few years. The heat to melt that ice came from the sun. It will not be returned for centuries (or more likely thousands of years) when the ice freezes again. On average over a very loong period of time all the energy is re-emitted but for shorter times (like the life of a human) some is absorbed and raises the temperature of the Earth. At other times more energy is emitted than absorbed as the Earth goes into a glacial period.
The surface of the moon is .+200C during the day but it is -200C at night The average temperature is not 200F as you claim. The temperature of the moon is as predicted by scientists. The colder average temperature of the Moon shows that the Earth is heated by greenhouse gases. This has been known by scientists since 1850.
" Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation clearly states that a body’s ability to absorb heat energy is equal to its ability to emit that heat ." At 5 kilometers above the surface the temperature is about 30C less than at the surface. If the surface emits IR radiation proportional to its temperature some of that energy will be absorbed by CO2 at 5 km. Since the CO2 is colder than the surface it cannot radiate the energy outward as fast as it absorbs it, even though it follows Kirchhoff's law. You need to pay more attention to the temperature of the emitting and absorbing surfaces. Mistakes like this make it appear that you have not thought through the physics enough yet.
"If, instead of a blanket, we set the environment to a saturated C02 level of 100%, the heat loss would be the same as if it was at zero." Many videos on You Tube show that bottles filled with CO2 heat up faster than bottles filled with air. The heat loss is lower when the atmosphere is CO2.
You have me with an example of heat flowing from a cold area to a warmer area, but that statement is not used in the argument so it is moot.
In general it is easier to discuss your misunderstandings of the scientific arguments if you limit your arguments to one problem at a time. Once that issue is resolved we can move on to the next misunderstanding. When there is a long list like yours the replies become difficult to read.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:03 AM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
the master... "A blanket is NOT the same as a trace gas like C02 (sic)."
"A blanket" is a metaphor. No metaphor is intended to be exactly like anything, otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. As a metaphor, a blanket is a good way to explain how greenhouse gases work.
[Again with the all caps "not."]
-
Tom Dayton at 11:02 AM on 19 February 2017It's cosmic rays
December 2016 paper in Science: "Nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds. Furthermore, in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:01 AM on 19 February 20172nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
the master... "C02 (sic) does NOT 'Trap' heat." [Mods should probably warn about all caps.]
CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, thus causing more heat to remain in the climate system. That's what people mean by this phrase.
Prev 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 Next
