Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 Next
Comments 22401 to 22450:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:41 PM on 14 November 2016CO2 effect is saturated
David Thorn @425, the specific absorption frequencies for different isotopologues of CO2 are available at Hitran (requires registration to download data). The difference in isotopes will make a difference, if only because the different isotopes will have a different velocity distribution at different temperatures due to differences in mass, and hence different doppler broadening patterns. This can be illustrated by this listing of relevant frequencies of a particular transition for different isotopologues:
Note that the transition in question is at too high a frequency to be relevant to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, but the small differences shown are likely to be typical at lower frequencies as well, although I have not specifically checked.
In any event, Hitran allows the downloading of a composite absorption spectrum for all isotopologues of CO2 at relative concentrations as found in the atmosphere; and it is likely that this is the data used in LBL models of radiation. Broad band models of radiation, and Global Circulation Models typically use lower resolution data in which the differences are not likely to be significant.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:21 PM on 14 November 2016CO2 effect is saturated
I understand you're saturation point now. Just be aware of your phrasing because this is often used by climate deniers to suggest there is no greenhouse effect. Relative to your questions about other bands outside of the 667cm-1 range, I think most of the other bands are overwhelmed by WV. It's that 667 window which has the primary scattering effect.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:45 AM on 14 November 2016It's the sun
Jc @1198, the paper uses four of surface temperature over the last 1000 years to determine independent values for climate sensitivity for CO2, solar activity and volcanoes. In determining independent values, it assumes that a factors impact on temperatures is not a function of alteration of the energy balance, which is unphysical. Using the contrary assumption, based on conservation of energy, that a factors impact is a function of its alteration of the energy balance, you would generate a combined proxy of the factors altering that value and scale it against the temperature proxies. Because of this, I consider the approach of the paper physically invalid regardless of the mathematical validity of the techniques used.
Ignoring that, the uncertainties of the reconstructions of temperatures and forcings over the last 1000 years are very large relative to the uncertainties over the last 136 years. Given this, we would expect the uncertainties to be large relative to climate sensitivity estimates over the instrumental period, wheras de Larminat claims a smaller uncertainty. I would also expect the model(s) obtained over the period of the reconstruction to be tested against the more accurate data, something de Larminat fails to do.
Beyond these more general points, de Laminat uses four temperature proxies, none of which are global. Moberg 2005 is a Northern Hemisphere only proxy, as was Mann 1999. Ljungqvist 2010 reconstructs Northern Hemisphere extratropical temperatures only (30-90 North), and thus covers less than a third of the Earth's surface. Only Loehle 2007 claims to be a global temperature reconstruction, but it takes a simple mean of its (unusually small number of) proxies, and as they are not evenly distributed across the globe, that leads to a very biased coverage. Indeed, 56% of his proxies come from the North Atlantic region (just 22% of the globe), and only two come from the Southern Hemisphere extratropics (both from South Africa). Given that the proxy is generated by taking a simple mean, this is better regarded as a slightly tweaked North Atlantic temperature reconstruction than a truly global one.
Oddly, de Laminat shows a penchant for dated sources. That is clear enough from his use of Loehle 2007 rather than the corrected version, Loehle 2008. It is most obvious in his use of Mann 1999. He defends his choice "there is no reason to discard the reconstruction of Mann: scientific truth does not determine by majority"; but Mann 1999 suffers from a number of minor methodological flaws (some discovered by the original author) and uses a small number of proxies compared to modern reconstructions (other than Loehle). There can be no justification for using it rather than, for example, Mann 2008, which includes a global temperture reconstruction as well. There is even less reason for not using the PAGES 2K reconstruction, the most comprehensive global temperature reconstruction of the last 2000 years.
de Laminat's use of dated, and geographically biased data sets results in regional, particularly North Atlantic temperature variations dominating his results; and is by itself sufficient reason to discount his work.
de Laminat shows his results for what is the best of the reconstructions he uses:
Although he does not directly compare with the recent period, it can be seen his model performs poorly in resolving the 20th century. Out of interest, he also shows a version in which the response to TSI is limited to be no greater than the upper bound of IPCC climate sensitivity (1.62 C/(W/m^2)) As can be seen, so constrained the model works much better in the 20th century (when uncertainties are low), and not appreciably worse in prior periods:
On top of this, he states that for his model, "It can be seen that the output error is large, but comparable with the millennial simulations of IPCC". If comparible, then his model has no claim to superiority even on the geographically biased, uncertain data on which he bases it. It certainly performs much worse on the global, accurate data of the 20th century.
-
nigelj at 10:13 AM on 14 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Driving by, ok nobody knows exactly what Trump will push for, but we can be 99% certain of one thing: Trump and the Republicans have enormous opposition to climate science and reductions in emissions, and will have the power to decimate existing legislation. Are you seriously saying its likely or even possible that they are going to keep what Obama put in place? Even as Trump has already put several climate sceptics in his cabinet? I dont think so.
You are right, gas is cheaper, but these Republicans will promote coal out of sheer hatred of liberals. They have obstructed Obama for 8 years on virtually everything so why would they change their ideology now?
And what has 1960 got to do with climate? Climate change was not really a proven threat back then. The science at that time suggested warming was possible, but there was no evidence of warming happening back then. It was only the warming trend from about 1980 - 1990 that strongly suggested the science was correct.
And take Obamacare. Its not as simple as keeping the "good bits". Obamacare is an integrated package, and cant be fragmented up. I dont have time to explain but a google search might help you.
Yes the wall may become a fence. Who knows. But every Trump policy has huge problems, and softened versions will still be problems.
Obviously I hope I'm wrong, sanity prevails, and Trump changes tack, because if he doesn't this beautiful planet is in genuine danger in so many ways.
-
chriskoz at 09:50 AM on 14 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
One Planet@3,
Very sadly, maybe sadder than this election, your opinion and prediction about the bias of future Supreme Court is true. So cases like Juliana et al. versus the United States have very small chance of ultimate success.
-
Synapsid at 08:07 AM on 14 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
John Hartz:
Your point?
-
DavidThorn at 08:06 AM on 14 November 2016CO2 effect is saturated
Following up my earlier question regarding CO2 isotopomers and absorption saturation, I get the idea that IR absorption is saturated from, among other sources, the article above "Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure." This is not saying the CO2 effect is saturated - there are good arguments and evidence that it isn't - but I am wondering if the minor isotopomers' IR and lower-energy absorption fall within or outside the spectrally-saturated bands. Or perhaps I should use "opaque" instead of "saturation" when asking about absorption spectral lines/bands?
-
DavidThorn at 07:56 AM on 14 November 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Posting answer to "where do you get.." on the suggested thread. Appreciate the response -
-
DrivingBy at 07:48 AM on 14 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Mr. Trump's expressed views on global warming are opposite mine and probably everyone reading here. They're also not the end of the world, and the hysterics detract from our credibility.
The US is only 15% of world C02 output and falling, and President Trump's actual actions regarding it will be much milder than expressed on the campaign trail. The wall is becoming a fence, the Obamacare repeal will retain it's most expensive element, there will be no particular effort for mass deportation of illegals (meaning it won't happen). Not a few seem to have forgotten that he is a New York Democrat who contributed to the Clintons three times and whose kids are friends with Clinton/CGI's sole heir. One thing is certain: He'll be great for ratings.
Coal is not coming back, because natural gas is cheaper and easier to handle. Once a power plant is fully converted to gas, going back to coal means lower efficiency and re-installing huge, maintenance-heavy exhaust scrubbers.
Yes, we should have started dealing with this in the 1960s, when Johnson was originally told about it. But Lyndon Johnson's first, middle and last concerns were ramming through his progressive agenda and having the country "voting Democrat for 200 years".
A small but critical course correction 50 years ago could have made us the world leader on this issue at a small cost, even a $$ gain if we instead of China had become the solar and wind tech manufacturer. (It would help even more if we'd started with solar for hot water preheating, rather than expensive, low-yeild solar electric panels). The course was set then, and can only be adjusted in increments now.
-
nigelj at 06:46 AM on 14 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Honestly many conservatives are clueless about science, and seem to have some deep distrust of science. I suppose it relates to religious convictions, and a preference for gut reactions over scientific data or ideas.
Trump did support Obamas early efforts to combat climate change, but has clearly changed his mind. I suspect he has been persuaded by some clever climate denialist. Trump has no patience for detail, and is not a big reader, so would be easy to fool over a complex issue like climate science.
-
scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 14 November 2016It's the sun
Jc, rebuttal takes a bit of effort and a paper published by forecaster in an non-climate journal isnt going to get a lot of attention. A quick glance would suggest it certainly wasnt reviewed by any physicist. Would appear to be advanced curve-fitting (mathturbation) and highly questionable reconstructions. For this kind of study to be convincing, you need to develop your model with first half of the data and then show that it correctly predicts the remaining half. (For example of a model that does this well, see here.) There are numerous papers linking global warming to celestial orbits, solar cycles, etc. "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" was Von Neumann's comment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:06 AM on 14 November 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
We should probably start with your initial assumption here: "I get that the full-spectrum absorption of 12C16O2 is essentially saturated even at pre-industrial CO2 levels..."
Where do you get the idea that IR absorption is saturated for any specific isotopic variation of CO2?
-
It's the sun
@Tristan
Thanks for confirming what I feel too.
Still, if someone comes with an argument which has not yet met a rebutal, then the argument should be reviewed. SkS is not the place for that, I agree. I was just looking if someone had enough background to point me where the bias lies.
So many arguments can be made based on stats alone. Stats are a real mine field. Easy to get trapped in it. And those stats are not the one I use in my field. Frustrating.
Thanks the same. I appreciate. -
One Planet Only Forever at 02:52 AM on 14 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
chriskoz@2
That would be a great action.I think an even more powerful action would be a lawsuit claiming that Comey, and therefore the FBI and therefore the USA Government, deliberately and unjustifiably defamed Hillary making a critical difference in the razor thin victory by those who would keep the USA from helping to reduce USA participation in the damaging, ultimately dead-end, global pursuits of benefit from burning fossil fuels (particularly damaging and unacceptable is any already reasonably fortunate person getting more fortunate - or staying fortunate longer - from that activity as it is globally curtailed). Proof of the impact of Comey's unjustified action would be the clear boost to the Trump and Republican poll numbers after Comey's.
What would be even better is for that lawsuit to be considered to be a class-action lawsuit for all of the future members of humanity and all of the current day members of humanity negatively affected by the disrespectful damaging selfish actions of that portion of the American population. The amount of the claim would be the total expected future costs of the deliberate efforts to delay or diminish action today, many Trillions of dollars.
Unfortunately the politically partisan Supreme Court that will be made-up by the unAmerican Trump-Republicans will almost certainly be 5 -4 against 'any ruling that favours the future of humanity contrary to the interests of the group behind the Trump-Republican-"Unite the deplorable Right" pursuers of power and wealth'. (As I stated in another comment, America has claimed to be the global leader of humanity to a better future for all.)
Getting that biased 5-4 Supreme Court was one of the main motivations mentioned by American voters against Hillary - not wanting a Supreme Court that would be 5-4 in favour of the advancement of humanity contrary to their interests.
That biased Supreme Court (and it is clearly biased - less reason to doubt that than there is to doubt climate science) can impact the advancement of humanity far longer than elected power obtained by people opposed to the advancement of humanity could maintain its unjustified influence.
Trump's power may be crippled in 2 years if the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in the mid-term election. And the entire group of "appealers to deplorables like Unite the deplorable Right" could be essentially irrelevant in 4 years. But the 5-4 biased Supreme Court that will be set next year will literally live on until its members die or choose to resign and are replaced by judges biased toward the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all.
-
DavidThorn at 00:58 AM on 14 November 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
New member, with a question probably not suitable for this thread and/or already addressed elsewhere, so will make it brief: I get that the full-spectrum absorption of 12C16O2 is essentially saturated even at pre-industrial CO2 levels, but am curious about minor isotopomers 13C16O2, 12C18O16O, and 12C16O17O (which should have populations about 11 ppt, 4 ppt, 1 ppt respectively vs 984 ppt for 12C16O16O, rounded to nearest ppt). Won't these minor isotopomers have significant but unsaturated absorption? Or perhaps their absorption bands ride so close to 12C16O16O bands as to be effectively saturated already? But then how about 12C18O16O and 12C17O16O (together comprising ca. 5 ppt of CO2), won't they have pure rotational absorption bands not present in 12C16O16O, and wouldn't that absorption have some greenhouse effect?
Moderator Response:[PS] I really think any discussion of this should happen on this thread. And David, you have opened with a mistaken assumption, so please read the article there.
-
Tristan at 23:59 PM on 13 November 2016It's the sun
@Jc
I'm no expert but it reads like a vanity project born of engineer-flavoured dunning-kruger. It isn't worth an expert's time.
-
RedBaron at 19:34 PM on 13 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
@ bozzza,
I wish you were right. Unfortunately doesn't look like this is the case...at least according to this article in the New York Times:
Trump’s Climate Contrarian: Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A.
Now it is interesting that they are using the term "contrarian" rather than denialist. So there is the slim chance he would still enact a different sort of mitigation plan. He did leave himself a tiny bit of wiggle room. But I think it pretty unlikely. This news hit me even harder than the election results, because this signals the sort of changes in the beauracracy that can have lasting detrimental effects long after Trump is dead and gone. Just like the changes Butz made in agricultural policy. I am still in shock actually. Haven't figured out what to think or do yet.
-
bozzza at 18:17 PM on 13 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
I'm not altogether sure Trump is a climate change denier: he just said he was.
Now he's starting to use very curious language like "Ameding": he's playing a game to throw everyone off the scent so by the time he gets things done there is nothing to complain about and the job is done.
I could be wrong, of course. But I do hope this is the case as what else is there but hope?
-
chriskoz at 16:03 PM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
William@1,
I recently scolded you about your mispelling Katharine's name, which you have not only ignored but this time you ravaged in two mispells. Because of your lack of engagement with me on it, I don't understand your motivation of your persistent offending Dr Hayhoe, or persistent extreme ignorance of the rules people like me are trying to obide, but I underscore both to be a bad practice and a bad etiquette in blog commenting in general. And I suggests the others not to follow your example.
-
PluviAL at 14:46 PM on 13 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Conservatives own the climate problem, but they are as confused by Trump as everybody else too. We don't know what Trump is going to do and neither does he. Modern conservatives don't really care about reality, or scientific consistency, and neither do they care what happens to the earth, they trust that their myths will somehow come true and they can keep living the sweet life of overconsumption. Conspiracies and blame elements will suffice for all purposes.
But if anything, Trump is practical, and he brave new world double talk is no sweat for him, or his supporters; what we need to do is convince him and them that they can make money by solving the problem, weather it is true or not: This is the Post Truth Trump World PTTW, which we must navigate and manage, but there is a better way.
As you may know, I work for solutions on this scale, and with full knowledge of this 40-years-obvious political/economic condition. Trump did not invent denial he just embraced it with love and gusto.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:03 PM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
A more important factor in the opposition to climate science than the cost of properly addressing the issue is that the costs of not acting will be suffered by other humans.
Humans trying to benefit as much as possible from actions that will create problems and challenges that other humans will have to deal with will only consider caring if the "others" are likely to be successful in rapidly and effectively "getting back at" the trouble-makers.
What is clearly missing in current day socio-economic systems is rapid effective getting back at trouble-makers, a lack of ability to ensure a trouble-maker gets no satisfaction or perception of success for any meaningful period of time.
Rapid action against the trouble-makers is critical. If they expect to die of old age before the action back against them happens they will not be deterred. Heck, some of them probably would think that even just a year of living with wealth and power is worth the risk of being severely penalized at some point in the future.
It would be nice if everyone could be relied on to thoughtfully and considerately limit their actions and focus their efforts on helping to advance humaity to a lasting better future for all. But that is a fantasyland that only exists in fairy tales like the ones made-up by the likes of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
In reality, the desired actions of people need to be rapidly tested regarding the impacts they would have on the future of all humanity. Atittudes and actions that would be contrary to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all would be deemed unaccepable and be stopped, with penalties assessed against any pushers of the activity that could have been expected to actually better understand the unacceptability of what they were promoting or trying to benefit from (the fundamental basis of laws and by-laws and even sport rules, keep knowing cheaters from succeeding).
In that reality (the one that is really needed), someone like Imhoff would already have been removed from his position for being proven to be "incapable of properly performing the duties of the position", which is a valid legal reason to remove an elected official, or any business leader, from a position of power.
-
chriskoz at 09:02 AM on 13 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Check out the interesting case of Juliana et al. versus the United States, where bounch of youngsters aged 8-19, with the help of Jim Hansen, alleged US govs (and president Obama in particular), be thier lack of action to stop climate change. infringe on their rights to have the decent future guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
In judge's opinion and order the case has the merit to proceed. It will be interesting how far it goes. From the moral point of view, everyone agrees that those young poeple's future is screwed, especially upon the iselection when we just tansitioned from the informed but inept gov under Obama, to a terrifyingly stupid, childish narcicist, who's going to make matters far worse than they are now. But it's unprecedented that those young paople are finding support in US constitution to proceed their case. If the democratic avenues are failing us (i.e. those who care about the future of the planet and human civilisation) maybe legal avanues like this one will not fail...
-
It's the sun
A paper was published 2 weeks ago, can some experts comment on it ?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931 -
EvilDoctorDaddy at 08:32 AM on 13 November 2016So fracking reduces carbon emissions, right?
I’ve worked on gas ICE engines (up to 2 MW) and in co-en applications they can reach 90% efficiency. The major issue with using gas remains that it is a fossil fuel – but it doesn’t have to be.
For example Chris Goodall in talking about a sustainable energy strategy for the UK (if Hinkley C dies, which it still may) states that “The real opportunity is finding ways of storing large amounts of energy for months at a time. This is where the need is greatest, and the possible return most obvious. More precisely, what we require are technologies that take the increasing amounts of surplus power from sun or wind and turn this energy into storable fuels. In The Switch, a book just out from Profile Books, I explore the best ways of converting cheap electricity from renewables into natural gas and into liquid fuels similar to petrol or diesel so provide huge buffers of energy storage.
See http://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2016/7/27/an-industrial-strategy-for-energy
There are several methods by with this could be done aside from the above mentioned bio-chemical pathways i.e. via the Sabatier reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction) and several pilot plants are already in operation.
Thus replacement of coal plants by gas could be an advantage if and when sufficient renewable exist to provide excess power for production of manufactured fuels. Goodall has noted that this is already sometimes the case in the UK, National Grid was been willing to pay up to £60 per MW to take excess off their hands this summer. Likewise Audi has a 6MW methane producing sink tied to the German grid.
-
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
Richard, the calculations were done for this by Matthews and Weaver and by Hare and Meinshausen. You can find both of these discussed here and here.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:09 AM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
Richard...
1) The range you've listed spans different emissions pathways. I'm not sure where you find the 1.1C number since there would be no possible way to hold global temperature to that level. The 5.4C figure is a business-as-usual scenario.
2) Yes, once we put CO2 into the atmosphere it's going to stay there for 100-300 years. But, if I understand your second statement, no, it doesn't continue to contribute to raising temperature. Once we hold CO2 as a particular level, temps will rise for another 30 years before reaching most of it's equilibrium potential. After that warming would continue on a much slower pace over the following centuries. See SkS sections on Transient Climate Sensitivity, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Earth Systems Sensitivity.
3) If we stopped today, temperature would continue to rise for about 30 years or so. That might put us somewhere between 1.5C and 2C, if we're lucky.
5) In addition to the Climate Sensitivity reading, I'd suggest reading up on Representative Concentrations Pathways, also found here on SkS.
-
splitpin at 06:07 AM on 13 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Anyone who voted for Trump shares the responsibility for the climate damages resulting from his presidency
Or, equally, anyone who did not vote for Hillary Clinton. That includes all the Democrats that could not bring themselves to vote for her. AND all the US citizens who did not vote at all, perhaps 40% of the electorate. So in total, a majority of the US electorate.
-
Richard13791 at 03:49 AM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
Here are some observations from the current literature, as I understand them, and questions::1. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2100 by from 1.1 to 5.4 deg C. (Is this accurate?)
2. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere most of it stays there for a very long time (perhaps centuries), and presumably continues to contribute to rising temperatures while it is there.
3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?
4. Are my statements/assumptions accurate?
5. Has anyone run the simulation I describe in (3)?
-
william5331 at 03:14 AM on 13 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
Our new president is highly sceptical about climate change so perhaps we should make a strategic retreat. Perhaps, this is an argument he could go with without having to do a political flip flop that would weaken his message to his base.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
I know this comment it is political and hence will be deleated but please read before deleating. Unfortunately, as Catherine says, the issue is political.
-
ubrew12 at 02:57 AM on 13 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
For those interested in other Climate Change news from this past week, Mary Ellen Harte at HuffPo does a listing (link).
-
citizenschallenge at 01:48 AM on 13 November 2016President Trump would Make America Deplorable Again
Well said Rob and moderator (@12), but, what are the chances that ABloke will allow that to soak in.
Though the reason I'm showing up here is to alter folks to what's happening in the United States, unfortunately it remains to be seen if the Democratic limp noodles will be able to do anything with it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
POLITICS Obama Is Now Looking Into Trump’s Ties To Russia That FBI Ignored
By Grant Stern
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/11/11/obama-now-looking-trumps-ties-russia-fbi-ignored/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Text of Dworkin Report
https://www.scribd.com/document/330757147/The-Dworkin-Report-by-The-Democratic-Coalition
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trump’s Ties to Russia Uncovered in “The Dworkin Report,” Submitted to White House and Democratic Leadership
http://www.keepamericagreat.us/thedworkinreport
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://liberalsociety.com/president-obama-takes-trump-matters-into-his-own-hands-launches-this-investigation/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
Micawber at 23:31 PM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Trump will have negligible effect on self-sustaining GHG ocean warming. Heat is trapped in ocean surface and transported polewards. Models still dwell on albedo melt and disregard year-round basal icemelt.
Alaska Climate Research Center, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska show 2.2C warming for 2015 over south central Alaska from the 1981-2010 mean. This is well past the Paris Accord target. Pt Barrow records show October 2015 temperatures were 7.2C higher. There have been 16 record months to date. This demonstrates the warming is maritime – from flows through the 50m deep Bering Strait. Alaska was ice free during the last ice age due to differential north Pacific warming.
The north Pacific traps heat in the ocean surface with equatorial data showing enlargement of the 30C surface water across larger areas each year since 2010. This has reduced the temperature range at the Galapagos. The volume of hot water during the warm season now is much greater than the cold tongue water from Humboldt polar current. Galapagos mean temperatures are well above the long-term 24C. The warm water has even pushed south along the temperate western Australian coasts to destroy kelp beds as far south as Perth.
These processes are driven by the infrared GHG heat blankets. As they increase cumulatively and faster-than-exponentially, continued heat trapping is inevitable. If you keep adding blankets in bed, you will get warmer as less heat gets out. The only solution is to take blankets off, not just stop adding them.
Increasing temperatures are already releasing huge volumes of methane from Arctic tundra and subsea shelves. These processes may already be beyond human control.
Fortunately IPCC 6th assessment will address this in its Oceanography and Cryology report. Better late than never. However, if the warming continues, present voluntary reductions will not stop disastrous weather change from ocean warming. We are no longer dealing with climate but weather that changes each year and month.
Only massive distributed solar wind and water energy systems have a chance of reducing the disaster. California has led the way with DOE showing costs of 2c per KWH are competitive with fossil and nuclear. There is no need for national grids and big schemes if subsidies are concentrated on individual homes, businesses and communities for total fossil free power and heat.
Trump proposes to go back to the age of the robber barons and goldrush. Usually USA has been forward not backwards looking. California must push to move to a fossil free future in which the USA leads the world. This could lead to a head-to-head battle with China. Let us hope this is the chosen battlefield.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:07 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
A slightly more succinct comment than my previous one (the quote at the end will make it seem long but it is an important quote).
You can only claim that the Conservatives "own the problems they are creating" if they will be the ones to actually suffer all of the consequences.
There is a clear disconnect between the ability to benefit and having to suffer the consequences. That Donald Deal Disconnect is the real problem when it comes to limiting what a portion of humanity gets away with to ensure that things only get better for all, particularly the future generations. At least in a current generation there is the possible threat of blow-back on the actual trouble-makers.
The 1987 UN commissoned report "Our Common Future" presents an understanding of what is going on that global Leaders should demand that the Trump Administration provide an official complete, compelling, justified response to. And the response would be the basis for determining if they should be taken seriously, why they should be included in global discussions of how to advance all of humanity to a lasting better future (the only relevant reason for any global interaction). The other Global Leaders should do the same. I would expect most of them (except the few likes of Putin and that character in North Korea), would have an easier time explaining and justifying how their values and objectives and actual actions align with the guiding principle of advancing all of humanity to a lasting better future for all:
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management." -
nigelj at 09:40 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Trevor @34, I disagree. Trump is bad news over climate issues.
Plenty of liberals and I dare say a few conservatives have made real progress reducing emissions. No mention of this from you, just sneering generalisations.
Plus its unlikely owners of electricity generators are going to voluntarily reduce emissions. Mechanisms like cap and trade or carbon taxes, or regulations provide an incentive to change behaviour, and they put a price on carbon emissions which helps that process. Trump has said he will not do any of those things, and has even threatened to pull out of the Paris agreement and stop clean energy funding, and stop funding of research into the climate.
Trump is scientifically illiterate and despite being a so called business person is economically illiterate. He will take us back decades. There are very few economists that have preached protectionism, and very few climate scientists taking a contrary view. This has all been well documented.
-
Trevor_S at 09:05 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Mr Trump is the best thing that could happen to US liberals, he allows them to keep justifying their emisiions profligacy... 'I must fly to New York to protest CO2 emisisons, have a long commute to work, live in a house with a green lawn in the desert' etc ... all of that, they can now blame on Mr Trump and ignore the villan looking back from the mirror failing to normalise low emissions behavior. This was never going to be solved from the top down.
Anyone emitting more than about 3t CO2 per annum is part of the problem, no matter the colour of your tie or what's on your lapel pin.
-
nigelj at 08:58 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
OPOF @28
Well said. As a specific example of twisted planning and implications for future generations, Trump wants to steeply cut taxes and massively increase spending. This will of course be stimulatory and feel good, for about 4 years, maybe even 8 years, but will add trillions to Americas debt, all for future generations to have to deal with. And Americas debt is already huge at over 90% of gdp.
Trump might claim he can make the policy work as it could increase the tax take, but past experience under Reagon and Bush proves this has never been sufficient, and it just creates trillions in borrowing and debt.
This will put a huge burden on future generations, and options will be limited to severe spending cuts, massive money printing Zimbabwee style, or a huge debt write off in the tradition of a third world failed nation. I honestly wonder If America is literally at risk of major collapse, and certainly major deterioration.
And of course it reflects a selfish short term perspective fuelled by blaming problems on scapegoats such as other races, liberal elites, etc. Ironically its the Republican Parties ideology that has largely led to the massive debt problems, but the Democrats are not blameless either. Its the principle that is important.
And of course climate science is seen as getting in the way of the concerns of current generations. Climate science is written off as a liberal or Chinese conspiracy so apparently counts for nothing, all fuelled by closed minds, greed, and frankly an alarmingly huge degree of scientific ignorance in America. It's the age of the "anti expert" where anyones reality is as good as anyone elses. I appreciate that blue collar workers have been hurt and we need to do more, but we have entered "The Age of Stupid".
-
drphysician at 08:35 AM on 12 November 2016Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I'm not a global warming scientist but as a doctor, I read a lot of medical literature. When I read papers + data from both sides, I came to the conclusion...global warming is real; but completely INSIGNIFICANT for us to do anything drastic; basically no need to enforce paris or kyoto protocol, until MAYBE 100-200 years into the future. Plenty of time to work on alternative fuels. Please have a reporter to interview a reputable scientist not paid by democratic or republician or greenpeace payroll on global warming. Al gore did a great job of making it a big thing because of $$$; (snip)just like republicans want an alternative to evolution in children biology books.
(snip)
IPCC is politicized organization; not a true science organization.
their scientific answers fail to adequate explained question #5.Their explanation of the 0.4c from1900-1950 is basically possible mankind and UNKNOWN. IPCC always conveniently chooses graphs and numbers from 1950-1998 of the 0.4c to justify the dangers of global warming. Failed to compare it to any other time period in the over 10,000 years history that will destroy their logic.
Moderator Response:[RH] If you wish to continue commenting here, please read our commenting policies page.
Instead of harping on what you think are ideological motivations please present the research you've read and explain how it supports the conclusions you're coming to. Also, bear in mind, there are no scientific institutions out there who reject the IPCC position on AGW. All those that publish a position on AGW concur with the IPCC's conclusions. I would also suggest that, being a medical doctor gives you no exceptional skills relative to the research over most other citizens to evaluate a scientific field outside of your expertise. What would you say if an atmospheric scientist made sweeping conclusions about your field of medicine, I wonder?
-
Jonbo69 at 08:29 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Just another quick thought: Something needs to be done that is going to make climate change a big issue because there are likely to be so many other big issues that it is going to be competing with. For example, ISIS and similar groups are currently going to be rubbing their hands in glee. The next terrorist attack against the US either at home or abroad and Trump is going fall right into their trap; he's going to go nuts, and do something really stupid that will escalate the problem big time. We need to keep climate change in the media headlines on a continual basis, until such time as Trump changes his tune or is dumped in favour of someone sensible.
-
Digby Scorgie at 08:26 AM on 12 November 2016Watch: Before the Flood
RedBaron
I'll bear what you say in mind — but this is hard work for someone with a physics background!
-
SirCharles at 08:19 AM on 12 November 2016Paris climate agreement enters into force: international experts respond
Some articles by the science journal Nature on the new U.S. president elect:
=> Science and the US election
The United States elected a new president in November 2016: Republican Donald Trump, who defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. Nature is following the transition to a Trump presidency, and analysing how the election outcome could affect science.
=> How scientists reacted to the US election results
Nature rounds up reaction from researchers to Donald Trump's election as the next US president. Trump, a Republican, had trailed his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in polls leading up to the 8 November election day, but pulled out a surprising victory.
=> Donald Trump's US election win stuns scientists
Republican businessman and reality-television star Donald Trump will be the United States’ next president. Although science played only a bit part in this year’s dramatic, hard-fought campaign, many researchers expressed fear and disbelief as Trump defeated former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on 8 November. ...
Carbon Brief, UK => US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
-
Jonbo69 at 08:04 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Perseus
I understand the problem which is why I wrote in my first post that:
"Here in the UK, as in many countries, we are not doing enough to meet our climate targets, but the path America has chosen takes things to a whole new level. In the UK in the 1980's we still had racism; that didn't mean that we didn't have the right to campaign against apartheid in South Africa - a campaign that was ultimately successful."
No-ones whiter than white here, but no-one has announced that they are going to reject Paris and steer a course in the opposite direction other than Trump. Just the scale of what he intends to do, the size of the US, the fact that US is already the largest polluter per capita of the industrialised nations etc puts the US in a totally different league
In addition, the media storm it would generate may lead to the governments outside of the US feeling pressured into doing more to keep their commitments. The fact that Russia hasn't signed up to Paris is irrelevant - Russia doesn't have businesses or sell many goods here in the UK or many other places; a call for a boycott of Russia would be meaningless.
I maintain that what amounts to tough sanctions against the United States may lead to the results we need. But, again, its not going to come from our governments, its going to have to come from the people.
-
gws at 07:38 AM on 12 November 2016So fracking reduces carbon emissions, right?
wlliam #1: there is an interesting post by Tamino about the lack of statistical rigor in the paper I linked to in my response #3
-
Bruce Frykman at 07:13 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
If global warming were real which state or city would you move to?
I understand, for instance. that "global" does not involve a lot of places namely the lower 48 and Hawaii)
How are the polar bears doing...they must be dead by now...the pity...the shame. Such cute cudly things who should have never signed that contract with Coke.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering. (not to mention fairly hard to even figure out what you were trying to say.)
-
RedBaron at 05:22 AM on 12 November 2016Watch: Before the Flood
Digby,
One thing to consider as well is birds. Several farmers, most famously Joel Salatin, have figured out how to follow the grazers with birds. Usually chickens, but sometimes turkeys geese etc.... Generally if chickens, this is approximately 3 days later. The chickens primarily eat bugs, grasshoppers/locusts and fly larvae in the cow patties. This "clean up crew" produces a very high quality egg or meat product with extremely high nutritional values far exceeding hen house chickens, on at least 20%+ less grain. And actually by spreading the herbivore manure, eating pests, and adding their own high nitrogen manure, improves the grasslands even more. This also means the cows don't need wormer, as the chickens break the life cycle of herbivore paracites too. And for the farmer, another stream of income from the same acreage. Often farmers add bees too, with their obvious benefits. Also some people are planting certain nut and fruit trees intermixed loosly and managing it like an open savanna.
When you start adding multiple species of herbivore, and symbiotic species like chickens, turkeys, swine, bees etc. to a HPG management system and vertically stack all these symbiotic production models on top of each other, the total yields per acre start shooting through the roof. Profits too. And surprisingly, the soil building properties also increase dramatically as well. It becomes, counter-intuitively, the more you take from the land, the more it produces.
-
perseus at 04:37 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Jonbo69
I agree governments only take notice wen it hits them in the pocket, soi a boycott might be woth considering. However, I'm not sure which government should be boycotting who!
After Brexit and the appointment of the new Prime minister and an even more extreme right wing cabinet, the UK removed the name climate change from the relevent department
Department of Energy & Climate Change became part of Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in July 2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:09 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
It is wrong to use the generic lable "Conservative" for this issue. Those who are Conservative but are willing to associate with people who have chosen to make-up their minds to be unacceptable impediments to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all are no longer Conservatives. They are the likes of the worst type of people they have chosen to associate with. They no longer deserve to be called Conservative. They own a different description of the type of person they have chosen to be.
As JH requested of me a while ago, I owe an article presenting my perspective, specifically regarding the simple common sense unacceptability of a portion of humanity getting away with personal benefit through actions that can be understood to be creating challenges for others who do not get to benefit, or reducing the opportunity of others to live a decent life. Particularly galling are the attempts to justify what is going on by comparing the cost of challenges that future generations will face (ignoring the lost opportunity of future generations to more meaningfully and sustainably benefit from fossil fuels that are already burned up by their predecessors) to the perceived lost opportunity of current day humans if they stopped creating future challenges and stopped reducing future opportunities. An even more unacceptable aspect of that evaluation is people who deliberately understate the future consequences and overstate the opportunity that current generations have to give up. And even more galling is including perceived increases of prosperity that are just because of expansion of activity that creates larger future problems (the way the likes of Trump want to "Make America Great Again").
In business it is fair for a person who will suffer any and all consequences of their choice to make a comparison of future vs. short-term expectations of their options. What is clearly unacceptable is for a person to strive to only ever benefit from any action, ensuring that any negative consequence is somebody else's problem. In a nutshell that latter clearly unacceptable way of behaving is Trump's "Art of the Deal".
My perspective basically boils down to the fundamental need for human effort that is clearly associated with helping humanity develop a sustainable better future for a robust diversity of all life on this amazing planet to be what is valued the most.
Clearly the current systems of popularity and profitability (including the Communist experiments in places like the USSR) fail because they do not honestly honour that guiding principle. Those systems that allow impressions and perceptions to Trump fuller awareness and better understanding are destined to fail, but sadly not before they do develop damaging perceptions of success.
Conservatives can contribute a valuable perspective on ways to adavnce humanity to a lasting better future for all.
A new name must be given to people and groups striving to Unite all of those who have personal interests that are contrary to the advancement of humanity. They often refer to themselves as "Unite the Right" groups or as Conservatives but they are neither Right nor Conservative. What they are is people who need to change their minds if they want the freedom to participate in pursuits that may be of personal interest to them. They are the unRight, unConservative, unProgressive, unDecent, unThoughtful, unConsiderate, unCaring, the un(Anything that might be percieved to be positive or good thing).
That group is now embarking on trying to abuse the power of Trump's unUnited States to impede and regress the advancement of humanity. Perhaps they deserve to be called unEarthlings until they change their minds (because they disrespect 'any other form of life and living' with the exception of things like their political position in support of disrespecting a woman's choice regarding the use of their bodies to deliver new offspring of males).
They can even be referred to as unAmericans, since America has long claimed itself to be the global leader to a better future.
This is still not a complete presentation of my perspective, but it is a fairly complete summary. There is so much to say, including that any increased awareness and improved understanding of what is going on is helpful to advance humanity. The application of the understanding needs to be honourable. And attempts to limit what will be better understood to thing that will be popular and profitable clearly will fail to be helpful.
The better understanding of how to abuse marketing to create unjustifiable perceptions to impede the advanncement of humanity is not a good thing. And abusing the knowledge of the electoral system is not a good thing (just as abusing knowledge of the tax code is not a good thing). And figuring out how to suppress voting by selected identifiable portions of the population is not helpful, including discouraging people from voting by unacceptably making up rules that make it difficult for specific groups of people to be able to register to vote or providing fewer polling stations and less opportunity for some to be able to take the time it ends up taking to vote.
A summary of the summary is:
The ability to Trump-up popular support for understandably unacceptable pursuits of profit and unacceptable attitudes and actions against the advancement of a robust diversity of humanity to a lasting better future for all "Must have no Future".
-
ubrew12 at 03:41 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
"conservatives now own climate change." John Kenneth Galbraith: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." I don't want to be unkind, but I think the reason people choose conservatism is because walking away from ownership is part of its appeal. You invade Iraq, it turns into a mess. You walk away and blame the Iraqis: "they weren't 'ready' for democracy". You uproot America's industrial sector and plop it down in the land of the 'dollar-a-day' labor rates, and who is to blame for the Rust Belt left behind? It must be the liberal elite and the 'brown people'. I don't think conservatives have any problem 'owning' climate change. When the you-know-what hits the fan, they'll find someone else to pin the blame on. It's part of the appeal of conservatism.
-
Jonbo69 at 02:42 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
I know there are lots of Americans here and you might not like the idea of the US being treated as a pariah, but the stated aims of the new US president elect amounts to a declaration of war against the planet. That is if everything that I've been reading on Skeptical Science, in the Guardian etc is correct.
The message has been clear for a long time; there can be no more operations for the extraction of fossil fuel other than that currently underway, most of the reserves has to stay in the ground, it's going to be hard to keep warming under 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees even if Countries stick to the pledges they made at Paris etc. That's what was being said before the US election. Now; if all of that was true, the situation can't have radically changed overnight and on that basis if Tump goes ahead with his proposals then there is no hope; period! There is no hope for the climate without US co-operation and the sooner people accept this, the less time we'll spend waiting for politicians in other countries to come together and do what's needed to combat climate; they can't do it without the US and, in fact the US stance could give an excuse to other countries to do nothing.
I hate to sound over dramatic but Trump and the GOP need to see a large scale mobilisation of opposition forces before they have the chance to begin putting their war plan into effect; enough to scare them so that they back down before any real damage is done. We don't have time to wait around and see what happens - the enemies intention is clear and there is only a chance of them changing course if they are hit by a Tsunami coming at them from all directions.
If enough ordinary, everyday, people around the world take radical action and boycott goods and services provided by US businesses, then it would be a serious threat to the American economy and potentially lead to the total failure of a Trump administration in a short space of time - that is, if he doesn't change his mind.
I'm not some radical activist, I've never boycotted anything in my life, but I will have no qualms at all in making a pledge to a campaign that targets US businesses in reaction to the US stance on climate. In addition, a boycott against the US could lead other countries to think twice if they are thinking about not honouring the pledges they have made. Another benefit would be that it will put the issue of climate change in the spotlight in a way that's never happened before.
I repeat my call for a boycott!
-
Johnboy at 01:06 AM on 12 November 2016Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
Maybe some tiny glimmer of hope with several Republican senators supporting climate change and have a majority on these issues and appointments to critical positions.
-
michael sweet at 22:46 PM on 11 November 2016CO2 lags temperature
Toobad,
The biggest negative feedback is that the amount of radiation emitted from the atmosphere goes up as the atmosphere warms. This increase is to the fourth power of the temperature. Eventually this increase in emitted energy overcomes any positive feedbacks because the increase in emitted energy is so great.
Everything considered is much more complicated, but the increase in emitted energy wins out in the end.
Prev 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 Next
