Recent Comments

Prev  476  477  478  479  480  481  482  483  484  485  486  487  488  489  490  491  Next

Comments 24151 to 24200:

24151. Mike Hillis at 03:59 AM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       The point is, the data from the GISP2 ice cores, as shown on this link, give temperatures from 2 meters deep (1986) to 3040 meters deep (over 110,000 years BP). Your link to a 2004 Alley paper on the Younger Dryas does not contain all the available data.

       The top 2 meters are not in the existing cores because they were the snow pit that I mentioned, which was shoveled out. But the isotopes for the top 2 meters were measured as well, as Alley states in "Two Mile Time Machine".

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] To whom is this comment directed? 

       [RH] How does any of this have any relevance to the main article?

24152. knaugle at 01:31 AM on 1 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       I've also seen the most quoted error in AIT is when Al Gore mentioned that most scientists think the Arctic will be ice free sometime after 2030.  However one scientist from the US Naval Academy said it could be as early as 2013.  Since this obviously didn't happen and I haven't heard Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski's views since about 2011 when he revised his prediction to 2016, many deniers stop there.  However the NSIDC report for Arctic Ice cover for today is rather eye opening in that the 2030+ group still looks well on track.

24153. knaugle at 01:22 AM on 1 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       AIT also created an interesting lightning rod for deniers.  My experience has been that many simply think they need to take out Al Gore and Michael Mann, and the whole problem simply goes away because 97% of climate scientists, in their view, aren't really sold on AGW.  Al Gore is after all the only "climate scientist" many people can name.

24154. Mike Hillis at 00:49 AM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       On that link, click the tab that says

       "gisp2_measured.txt 664KB Complete GISP2 continuous sample results (2m to 3040m)"

       The dates are given in BP which is 1950. A date of 0 is 1950 and positive numbers are before then, negative numbers are after then. The first datum point is -36.88 which means 1986

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] What's your point?

24155. Mike Hillis at 00:46 AM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       http://depts.washington.edu/qil/datasets/gisp2_main.html

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Per the SkS Comments Policy:

       • No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
24156. Mike Hillis at 23:39 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       I see where the 1855 comes from now. Somebody, I suppose Easterbrook, is using a data set from a 2004 Alley paper about the Younger Dryas, in which he only uses enough data to clarify that event, starting from 95 years BP and going backwards. I assure you, that the ice cores were measured, not just from 1855 and back, but every single year. Just because that data is not included in this particular 2004 paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The GISP2 study painstakingly measured the isotope levels of EVERY year, right up to the fluffy snow on top of the summit.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] The GISP2 temperature data end 95 years BP, which is 1855. Period.

       Data series here.

24157. Mike Hillis at 23:32 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       The point is not random, I'm saying that if they had used deuterium and 1H then nobody would have made the above mistake, because there are no H2 bubbles in the ice. There are O2 bubbles, and I needed to clarify that nobody is measuring the isotopes of O2 gas bubbles, only the O in the ice molecules.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] First address your error about dating of the GISP2 data. Then we can move on to the isotopic issue.

24158. Mike Hillis at 23:20 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       The reason they use O isotopes instead of 1H and 2H (deuterium) is because the chemists who measure the isotope levels transfer the O from the H2O to CO2 molecule, because it's easier for them to deal with CO2 on the mass spectrometer, for reasons I won't get into now. 

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Rather than making random statements, you're going to need to make a point here.

24159. Mike Hillis at 23:01 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       "Finally, snow pack exist up to the present and shows annual layers as you note. However, the holes within the snowpack containing the gas do not become air tight and hence preserve a record of prior atmospheric concentrations until decades after the fall of the snowpack"
       
       The temperature proxy in ice cores is measured using the isotopes of oxygen in the snow molecules themselves, not the gas trapped in it. In other words, some of the O (I call it O here rather than O2 because we are talking about the O in the H2O not the oxygen gas trapped in bubbles) is 16O and some is 18O. There is also 17O but that is not stable. The temperature record is made from the fact that more 18O atoms are found when temperatures are warmer. The proxy is extremely accurate because there is a big difference between O isotope levels in winter and summer snow of the same year, even the current year. It's not necessary to wait for the snow to turn into firn or ice, in fact the calibration is done using fresh snow and present day thermometers. Let me quote from Werner et al 2001:

       "The observed present-day (spatial) relation between d 18O,
       d D, and surface temperatures of polar sampling sites (Dahe et al., 1994; Dansgaard,1964; Johnsen et al., 1989; Lorius et al., 1979)
       are taken as transfer functions to interpret temporal changes of the d-values as changes of surface temperatures at the drill site"

       So, they measure current temperatures and isotopes at various current places (spatial) and use it to interpret temperatures in the ice cores (temporal), and refer to this as a transfer function.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] For a previous article I contacted Dr Alley directly and asked him about the "before present" reference used for GISP2 data. He stated to me that "present" is the 1950 standard used for radiocarbon dating. The GISP2 data ends 95 years before present. Thus, 1950 minus 95 years is 1855. 

24160. Ger at 22:53 PM on 31 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       @Snedder #15.

       15.7 million tons is the lower value. Consisting of straw (wheat, barley, rapeseed), maintenance wood (cleared to prevent forest fires; see Canada if you don't), wood scraps from wood working operations and chicken litter (mixed with sawdust). Materials which are now being disposed off at certain costs. For example chicken litter removal costs can varies between Euro 5 to Euro 35 per ton for removal. It is not a very good fertiliser. Of course chicken farms could process the litter themselfs in small CHP units, providing electricity to the grid and heat to the chicken operation. There is little to no transport except for the initial sawdust (bedding) for the chicken and the feed. Both are well established transport mechanisms. 

       Biggest problem for temperate zone countries is the one single harvest period where all should be collected in a time frame of 3 months and stored for the rest of the year. Straw and other easy to bundle and store materials have to be collected. Use of straw (carton) is nowadays limited so most is ploughed under (burning in the field, even cheaper not allowed since 1993), taking considerable amount of fuel, which could just as well be used to bundle and transport the straw. But if their is no demand, (nothing to earn) no one cares what is happening with it.

       Wood, trees are easier to harvest and can be harvested the whole year long (winter preferred, dryer wood), stored in the same fields to dry for a year (moisture content 25%, little extra mechanical drying needed).

       If there is a collection mechanism, like there is for MSW, even small amounts can be collected and bring up the amount to a 35 million tons of (pretty clean) agricultural biomass.

       Logistics, now fueled by fossils, is considered a point. Looks like people (politicians, general) do not catch that up to a 75% of the fuel for logistics is already used (in the form of empty return cargo) and paid for in the form of the food/fuel price.

       On the part of importing 3 million tons of wood pellets from SE America: feedstock price and logistics. Basicly wood fuel pellets are made from wood residues. When request went up and power houses demanded lower prices (or more subsidies), the paper & pulp industry got interested and all production forest wood for paper is diverted to fuel pellet - as long as one can earn more than with just paper making-.

       Torrefaction in one method to enhance energy density, improve storage capabilities and when done close at the source, reducing transport mass with a 20% to 35%.   

24161. Tom Curtis at 14:58 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Mike Hillis @52, perhaps you would be less shocked if you actually read for comprehension.

       Firstly, I have never claimed (nor ever have) emailed Richard Alley.  The person claiming to have emailed Richard Alley is the author of the OP, ie, Gareth.

       Secondly, neither the article, nor any comment by me, claims that Alley used 1855 as the present.  Rather, we have claimed that the fist datum point in the Alley data is at -95 (specifically 0.0951409 thousand years before present), and that the standard age of "the present" in geology used for dating Before Present is 1950.  Combining these two facts, we determine by arithmetic that the first datum in the Alley data is at 1855.  You may have difficulty reading, and be shocked by, arithmatic - but that is your problem, not mine.

       Thirdly, what has been confirmed by Richard Alley in the email to Gareth that when he referred to "years before present" in the data and article with out explicitly stating he was not following the standard custom, he was in fact following the standard custom.  Given that it would have constituted an error in the document to do otherwise, that comes as no surprise.

       Finally, snow pack exist up to the present and shows annual layers as you note.  However, the holes within the snowpack containing the gas do not become air tight and hence preserve a record of prior atmospheric concentrations until decades after the fall of the snowpack.  Indeed, not until they have been sealed by compression of overlying the overlying snowpack.  How long it takes for that to happen depends on the rate of precipitation, which is slow at the GISP 2 sight at the top of the Ice Sheet.

24162. Mike Hillis at 14:31 PM on 31 May 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       I read this thread and am shocked by what I'm reading. The data that Richard Alley uses does not end in 1855, nor does it use 1855 as any sort of "present". Nor does the snow have to be compacted into firn and then the firn into ice, in order to date the annual layers, or for these layers to be usable in isotope measurements. In his books and papers, for example his book "Two Mile Time Machine", Doctor Alley goes into detail about the snow pits, roughly 6 feet deep, that they were digging in the current and previous year's snow, where they could see the first annual layer by eye. The snow was described as being about 2 or 3 feet per year in fresh snow, which packs down to about 1 foot per year in firn/ice. I am very suspicious in the assertion by Tom Curtis that Alley's study ends in 1855, and much of his reasoning for claiming so. I need to see evidence of this. I can see where Tom Curtis claimed to have emailed Alley and asked him, and got a reply from Dr. Alley, but also find this to be a copy and paste from another person who emailed Alley, which means Mr. Curtis probably never actually emailed Dr. Alley at all. It's astonishing that nobody has corrected this fabrication so far.

24163. Mike Hillis at 13:41 PM on 31 May 2016
       We're heading into an ice age
       

       I don't see how the author of this thread can say the next ice age is 10,000 years away. I see from the graph at the top of this thread that the previous interglacials were all very short, and it appears from the green bars on the graph that the Holocene is already longer than any of the past 4 interglacials. What evidence is there that we can expect 10,000 years of Holocene?

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Read the text. Then click the Intermediate tab and read that text.

        

24164. One Planet Only Forever at 12:23 PM on 31 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       A clarification of my use of the term compatriot. I mean a new definition that would be for Global Humanity into the Future, not a subset of humanity that is only concerned with its interests in its time.

24165. Bob Loblaw at 10:29 AM on 31 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Chiming back in again....

       Billev's posting pattern is one of repeated "Just Asking Questions". I have yet to see him give any sort of indication regarding just what sort of "proof" he would accept, and I have yet to see him give any sort of detailed explanation as to why the answers he has been given are unacceptable.

       I do not see BIllev's pattern as encouraging an honest discussion of the issues.

       One issue he keeps beating to depth is his claim that he doesn't believe that CO₂ is in sufficient quantity to make a difference, being in low concentrations. With radiation transfer, the presence of radiatively-inert gases in the atmosphere does not dilute the radiative effects of gases that are active in the wavelengths in question. It doesn't matter if it is 0.03%, 3%, or 3% of the total - it's the absolute amount that matters. And it's enough to matter.

       In fact, radiative measurements of sunlight can be used to determine the total quantity of a particular gas. A very common example is ozone - instruments measuring UV radiation at wavelengths where ozone absorbs strongly can be used to get the total atmospheric O₃ value. The original instrument for this was the Dobson spectrophotometer, and the current Rolls Royce version is the off-the-shelf Brewer spectrophotometer. The total quantity is what matters, not the concentration. (Where the ozone is does matter in terms of atmospheric response, but the absolute  amount can be measured regardless of whether it is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere or concentrated at one altitude.)

       It's like cyanide. If a few millgrams in a cup of water will kill you, a few milligrams in a bucket of water will kill you, too. Dilution is not your friend, until you've added so much water you can't drink it all in a short time scale.

24166. scaddenp at 09:11 AM on 31 May 2016
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       

       Well to answer your questions,

       1/ I would say the following: Firstly, in looking at the problem, the proposed solutions (ways to encourage reduction in emissions), involve international treaties, government legislation, changes to taxes, plus for added measure guilt about fun activities. These are anathema to portion of population, particularly in US, who hate anything to do with gov'mt. Furthermore, early proponents of climate action (eg Al Gore) was from wrong tribe. Climate action would also involve loss of shareholder value for some powerful companies.

       So what happens is a mass of misinformation sites being created. This in turn, drives the creation of sites like this by people sick of it, but concerned at affect on electorate.

       2/ This question seems odd. You propose that people only act because there is money to made? There is no place for concern about environment, our fellow planet-dwellers, or future generations? Is money the only thing that would motivate you? Surely not!

       3/ There doesnt. The point about proving concensus is to counter the argument "that there is no concensus". A consensus doesnt prove the science is right but the only rational path for policy however is to be guided by concensus, particularly if it is strong.

       4/ Because the stakes are mind-boggling high? What do you consider as cyber-bullying?

       5/ Couldnt agree more about the way of science. However, I am not chilaxed about governments ignoring the science because solutions to the problem are unpalatable.

       Just a thought - if you are in science, do think social/government action in areas touched by your subject should be on the basis of consensus position as expressed in peer-reviewed journals, - or from uninformed, politically driven amateurs doing "blog science"?

24167. scaddenp at 08:32 AM on 31 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Billev seems to repeating himself because he doesnt like the answer - scientists measure the CO2 contribution to surface radiation by measuring it both at the surface and at top of atmosphere. It is positively tied to CO2 by the spectral signature. However, Billev seems to be contending that somehow this measured increase in radiation, positively identified to be from GHGs, has not be proven to actually heat the surface!! You can demonstrate that radiation in that frequency will heat a surface in a lab, (must do so by Plancks law) but apparently that is not good enough.

       Again Billev - stop avoiding the question and tell us what you think is heating the ocean and why this heat increase matches the GHG radiation?

24168. michael sweet at 08:26 AM on 31 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Billev:

       What do you want measured about CO2's role in Earth's warming that has not already been measured?  In 1896 Arrhenius calculated the effects of CO2 and predicted the increase in temperature.  He took the absorbtion lines for CO2 and combined that data with the measured lapse rate to make his calculations. His calculation is similar to the high end of the IPCC range today.   He also predicted that the night would warm faster than day, winter faster than summer, faster over land than water, faster in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern and fastest in the Arctic.  He did not predict that the Stratosphere would cool as the Earth warmed because the Stratosphere had not been discovered yet.  You are 120 years behind scientists.

       Tom Curtis has posted hundreds of graphs that show the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.  You have to say what effect you are not satisfied has been measured yet for me to respond.  I suggest you use the search function in the upper corner to find posts that describe the data you want.

24169. michael sweet at 08:15 AM on 31 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Here are Billev's last two posts copied from the deleted comments bin where they were accidently sent by JH.

       4:13 am May 31:

       "The fact that CO2 absorbs heat is not the issue. The issue is whether the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere is sufficient to cause the warming the Earth has experienced since 1880. What form of measure has been employed to positively link the CO2 exisisting in the atmosphere to the warming of that atmosphere?"

       4:21 am May 31:

       "michael sweet @48, why is a "good argument" about the small level of CO2 in the atmosphere worth much. What is needed is an actual measurement of atmospheric CO2's role in the Earth's warming not an "argument".

24170. One Planet Only Forever at 07:20 AM on 31 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       This article and the comments are a valuable discussion by people who understand the need for significant change of the way humanity operates on this (or any other) planet.

       However, this type of discussion cannot be allowed to create the impression that those who identify, understand and discuss the need for change must create a solution that is acceptable to people whose interests are deliberately and wilfully contrary to, or blithely oblivious to, what is required to advance humanity to a lasting better future.

       The changes required to get that discussion and action happening among the wealthiest and most fortunate is more important than this scientific discussion. Most of the responses in the article and may of the comments have alluded to or plainly stated the need to the change the way the socio-economic-political games are played (as Naomi Klein says - this needs to change everything).

       All of the wealthiest and most fortunate in the world, not just a portion of that group, need to be required to prove conclusively that their actions are substantially advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all. They must all be required to be leaders toward that required lasting better future for all, a requirement that undeniably eclipses any temporary personal desire for benefit or reward through actions that cannot be proven to advance humanity, actions that are likely to be to the detriment of future humanity.

       A great start would be a clear statement by groups like the G7, G20 and Davos attendees (and any other groups that want to be perceived as legitimate leaders deserving respect) that their focus is on ensuring that any increase in, or new, economic activity is only through actions that are proven to be a part of the lasting better future for humanity. That would make sense since developing or expanding any other type of activity clearly has no future regardless of perceptions of popularity, prosperity and profitability such actions could temporarily have among a portion of current day humanity.

       A great follow-up action would be an open global admission that much of the development of perceptions of prosperity through the past 20 to 30 years are not deserved since they were created by already fortunate people increasing their opportunity to temporarily benefit from understood to be unsustainable actions that did not sustainably improve the life circumstances of the least fortunate among humanity (one clear measure of advancing to a lasting better future for all).

       The scientific discussion needs to continue to advance the understanding of how humanity can advance to a lasting better future for all. And the power-players of the world need to all be rigorously audited based on the constantly improved understanding of what will advance humanity to a lasting better future for all. The objective of the audits would be to determine who deserves to be a power-player and who should have to be a spectator or sit on the bench until they have changed their minds and proven they have adapted to the requirement to participate in advancing humanity.

       Humanity cannot advance when people pursuing a better present for themselves at the expense of the gift of a better future for humanity can temporarily be successful. And those type of people need to be kept from disrupting a great game being played by honourable talented competitors and compatriots pursuing a lasting better future for all.

24171. Fairoakien at 06:56 AM on 31 May 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #22
       

       From California

       THE ELITE weather scientists  forecasted dramamtic rains in California; that rains would very heavy in southern Calif and would be warmer in nOrthern calif.

       None of those came about

       SO MUCH FOR SCIENTISTS ABILITY TO FORECAST WEATHER ,JUST 6 MOS AHEAD.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering and "all caps" stricken. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

       [PS] And if you dont understand the difference between climate and weather, please spend some time becoming better informed using our resources before repeating ignorant slogans.

24172. wili at 05:48 AM on 31 May 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22
       

       "Scientfically Engineered Coral Could Sruvive Climate Change Devastation by Richard Schiffman, Newsweek, May 22, 2016"

       
       Change to "Survive."

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Done. Thank you.

24173. John Hartz at 05:39 AM on 31 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Billev: I inadvertently deleted your prior two comments. Please repost them.

24174. Physics108 at 03:14 AM on 31 May 2016
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       

       Everyone including me uses Confirmation Bias, usually unknowingly using 'facts' to prove their usually already decided PoV (for some perceived conscious or subconscious advantage); and we confabulate arguments to justify this; I'm a scientist, but admitedly not in the field of Climate but did study some at University.

       Ask yourselves:

       1.Why are there so many sites 'proving' either side?

       2.Whose making money out of this? (apart from the big guy in this)

       3.Why does there have to be a so called consensus?

       (you don't really hear that much about other areas of science except maybe evolution)

       4.Why is there so much cyberbulling on this subject?

       5.Either way skepticism is the way of science; chilax peops!

24175. chriskoz at 19:20 PM on 30 May 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       If AIT sparked the birth of SkS, then by such outcome alone, it proved to be most valuable popular climate science doc ever conceived. All other reviews and critiques fade away in view of that simple event. Hopefully Al Gore reads that and can be proud of it.

24176. chriskoz at 12:56 PM on 30 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       Haze@9,

       Trump, for whatever reasons, resonates with the American voter despite, or perhaps because of, his views on climate change

       
       No, or unkown yet. I would rather say "Trump resonates with the republican voter".  How he resonates with American vover in general, will be revealed in November. It is e.g. perfectly probable, that most republican voters, given a choice between Trump and Rubio/Cruz and others, are so fed up that they chose the insane Trump. Some of them even declared that they will vote for democrat despite their allegiance. So a landslide victory of a democratic candidate (presumably Clinton) in November would not be surprising if such sentiments were the real cause of the "Trump phenomenon".

24177. scaddenp at 08:22 AM on 30 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       "Has there ever been any testing to examine the relationship beween the temperatures measured by the official measuring sites and the surface temperature at those sites?"

       I cant understand what you mean here. An official surface temperature sites measures the surface temperature at that site?

       Note the intricacies of local temperature variations at a site are removed for climatic purposes by looking at anomalies not absolute temperature. Defining absolute surface temperature is extremely difficult and not a lot of use.

       Ie, a 0.5C temperature rise, is a change in averate temperature of 0.5C from some baseline. Local surface temperatures vary enormously over short distances, but changes in temperature anomaly are consistant across 1000s of kilometers. (ie if it is warmer than usual in your city it is generally warmer than usual in the neighbouring city). The classic work on this is Hansen and Lebedeff 1987, but it rests of decades of earlier research on how best to measure temperature.

24178. snedder at 04:50 AM on 30 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       Ger @14

       15.7 million tons?  Sounds impressive if true, but much of this will be scattered in small inconvenient amounts all over the country.  How much useful energy will be left after deducting the energy inputs for collection, transport, processing (e.g to reduce moisture content), and further transport to the power station?  

       There can also be other objections to full exploitation of "waste"; for example that removing deadwood from semi-natural forest environments is bad for nature conservation.

       Sadly the UK's rapidly expanding market share for biomass power so far depends on imported wood pellets brought all the way from the USA (and pellets it seems often derived from harvesting of whole trees in the southern US).  Why should this be happening, if it is as easy as you say to get power by sustainable use of forestry and agricultural wastes?

24179. Ger at 01:53 AM on 30 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       As an update to support my claim that little land is needed for producing sustainable fuel incontrast with the claims in the http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/BECCS-report.pdf, I collected the numbers of agricultural residues for England from the websites: https://www.eforestry.gov.uk/woodfuel/pages/Results.jsp (for residual woods, not energy crops) and http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,17302&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL and end-up with a figure of about 15.7 million tons in ready available biomass materials in England alone. For tropical countries like Philippines with an year round harvest season and lot's of (non-fertilized) production forests, these figures are about double to tripple the amount. 

24180. DSL at 01:27 AM on 30 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Billev, if you found a 20-year "pause" in the global mean surface temperature trend, what would you make of it?  
       
       1. Would you draw conclusions regarding the physical nature of the climate system? (e.g. the greenhouse effect does not exist)
       
       2. Would you conclude that global warming has stopped?

       3. Would you conclude that scientists are engaged in fraud, because clearly this is some sort of natural pattern?

       4. Would you respond thusly:  "Given that the greenhouse effect is extremely well-supported, and given that humans are indeed continuing to dump stored carbon into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, and given that ocean heat content continues to increase unabated, I wonder what's causing this pause in the surface temperature trend.  I'd better take a closer look at the physical mechanisms involved." 

24181. HK at 22:39 PM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       billev@50:
       "....and they indicate a pause in warming starting about 2002."

       What pause?
       As Glenn explained in @28, ocean heat content is a much better indicator of global warming than atmospheric temperature, at least in the short term (a decade or two). If you study the chart he posted, you will find that the ocean warming from 2002 to 2015 was about 40% faster than in the previous 13 years, from 1989 to 2002! So, what pause are you talking about?

       As this thread is about CO₂ vs other drivers of the climate, I want to include this chart (from Hansen & Sato 2004, "Greenhouse gas growth rates") which shows the annual increase of forcings from the well mixed greenhouse gases since 1950. Note that CO₂ was less dominant a few decades ago because the contributions from methane and CFC’s were much larger.

       

24182. Digby Scorgie at 20:42 PM on 29 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       snedder @12

       Here is my summary (similar to yours?):

       (1) The possibility of deploying NETs must not be used as an excuse to avoid or delay decarbonizing.

       (2) Governments require a portfolio of NETs from which to select and implement those appropriate to local conditions.

       This puts me in mind of an engineering specification — and as all systems engineers know, it is essential to be clear on the goal.  I suggest:

       (3) Aim to decarbonize x% over the course of the next y years.  (x=80 and y=20?)  Any use of NETs would be helpful but must not be relied upon.

       There is one barrier: the governments of the world are obsessed with "economic growth".  My own government (New Zealand) has stated that their number-one priority is economic growth — but they hope to reduce our emissions.  Yeah, right.

       This is arse about face.  The number-one priority must be to decarbonize, regardless of the effect on economic growth.  Until we get such a change in attitude we'll get precisely nowhere.

24183. Tom Curtis at 15:22 PM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       billev @50, try reading the graph @45 (reproduced below).  You will clearly see the observations are labelled as the GISS LOT five year running mean:

       

       For comparison, here is the GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index, as produced by NASA:

       

       You will notice that the red line is labelled as the 5 year running mean, and matches the five year running mean as I have produced it. 

       So, if you could not find a temperature series matching mine, it means only that you did not look very far, or that you did not recognize a line clearly labelled as a five year running mean to be a five year running mean.

       As to the trend, in the GISS LOTI, 2002 equals the anomaly of 1998 (which was then the record anomaly), but was exceeded in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, and will be in 2016.  Of those years, 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2015 set new records, as will (almost certainly) 2016.  The trend from 2002 to 2015 is 0.124 C per decade, which rises to 0.168 C/decade if you include the first 4 months of 2016.

       You may not want to include 2015 and 2016 as El Nino years, but that does not explain why you don't want to exclude the 2008, 2011, and 2012 which were all near record breaking La Nina years.  Of course, if you do want to exclude those years, it begs the question why you are looking at the trend from 2002 at all.

       To call that a "pause" is to show abysmall ignorance, or to lie.

       I did not answer your question @46 because, IMO, if you want to start running a conspiracy theory about global temperature records (which appears to be what you are angling for), I expect you to do it explicitly and on topic.

24184. billev at 14:21 PM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       I have just reviewed several charts of temperature history from a variety of sources including NOAA and NASA and they indicate a pause in warming starting about 2002.  None of the charts I reviewed appears to be similar to the chart @45.  What about my question @46?

24185. Haze at 13:08 PM on 29 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       The comments here are focussing on Donald Trump rather than on the American voters.  Why is Trump so popular?  Why, if Climate Change is so important to mankind, are Americans voting in droves for a presidential candidate who considers it a hoax?  Clearly Trump is having "a bob each way"  as his actions to protect his personal property and wealth are at odds with his statements on climate change.  But it seems that at the moment Trump, for whatever reasons,  resonates with the American voter despite, or perhaps because of, his views on climate change

24186. Tom Curtis at 11:56 AM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       billev @46 now claims to not have a theory despite previously asserting:

       "I also am of the opinion that once the current EL Nino ends then the pause will reassert itself and continue until about 2032. I base that opinion upon the pattern of previous temperature change since 1880."

       Of course, if he had an opinion about future temperatures trends, he had a theory about future temperature trends.  It may be a "dinky little theory", but it is a theory none-the-less, even if he want's to deny that when faced with its refutation.

       He now retreats back to a mere tautology, that:

       "I merely state that the past record seems to indicate a pattern of rise and pause that, if it continues, will be repeated in the future."

       Well of course if the pattern is in fact continued, it will continue into the future.  That is what continued means.  But the graph @45 has already shown the pattern has not continued.  And therefore as the antecedent of your tautology is false, so also is the consequent.

24187. Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 29 May 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       The misnamed* Conventionalskepticist @9 asks, "What of this?"

       In doing so he provides two links without explanation or argument, in contradiction of the fifth requirement specified in the comments policy, ie:

       "No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic."

       The links themselves are to a graph, and two pictures which are themselves off topic on this thread, and hence in violation of the first point of the comments policy:

       "All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted"

       These two violations make me suspect "Conventionalskepticist" is angling to have her/his comment deleted for violation of the comments policy so they can complain about "being censored at SkS" at their favourite fake "skeptic" hangout.  They will, of course, not have been censored, but will be demonstrating that they are a precious petal who thinks the rules do not apply to them because they are so special.

       For what it is worth, the first link is to a version of the Remote Sensing Systems TMT temperature series, commencing in January of 1998 to ensure we cannot draw a proper trend on the record, and terminating in what looks like March of 2014 due to, at best laziness, but more likely a desire to exclude the 2015 and 2016 records from the chart.  If you do not lie by concealing data, what you actually see is this:

       

       In which the curren EL Nino, likely weaker than that of 1998, has recorded three successive monthly temperatures warmer than the warmest month in 1998, with February of 1998 being 0.23 C, (0.41 F) warmer than the warmest month in 1998.

       *  Misnamed because he shows her/himself to be incredibly unsceptical of denier crap, and/or intellectually dishonest, neither of which are features of skepticism as conventionally understood.

24188. Eclectic at 11:21 AM on 29 May 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       And — What of this , Conventionalske @9 ??

       Is there a point you wish to make, or a point you wish to discuss ?

24189. Conventionalskepticist at 09:27 AM on 29 May 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       What of this?

       https://w3.newsmax.com/NMWOS/media/Images/CTI/no_global_warning-bw.jpg

       https://w3.newsmax.com/NMWOS/media/Images/CTI/nasa-satellite300-s.jpg

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Sorry. No link only posts. Please review commenting rules.

24190. michael sweet at 08:08 AM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Tom,

       I do not remember seeing Krakatoa used as an example against the "CO2 concentration is too low to make a difference" argument.  I thought it was an excellent argument since it is weather and the concentration of SO2 is so much lower than CO2.  Thanks for the new argument.

24191. DSL at 04:56 AM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Billev, it's easy to see patterns.  That, in fact, is the human brain's extraordinary strength.  Critical thinking is a systematic way of testing the strength of apparent patterns.  You're failing at critical thinking because you refuse--for no apparent reason--to accept that CO2 absorbs and emits radiation at various broadened bands within the thermal infrared range.  That action--the central component of the greenhouse effect--has been established in lab for over a century, established through applications that rely on the effect's existence, and established through direct field measurement.
       
       If atmospheric CO2 increases, the climate system will store more energy.  Whatever alternative theory you propose, it must include that actually-verified component.  If you refuse to include that component, then your theory is never going to describe the Earth climate system.  It's like trying to explain human history without referring to economy.

24192. JIm Steele at 04:01 AM on 29 May 2016
       Corals are resilient to bleaching
       

       Rob asserts, "tropics are reaching temperatures in summer that exceed the upper thermal tolerance threshold of coral that is no longer the case"

       
       You are assuming that the upper thermal tolerance threshold has been reached but symbiont shuffling and shiftings has demonstrated that the upper threshold is moveable and new thresholds rapidly evolve. The fact that coral thrived during the Holocence Optimum when temperaturs in the Coral Sea were 2.1C warmer than today suggests you are very wrong about corals upper threshold. Coral must adjust their thermal boundaries to deal with cooler and warmer temperatures. The Great Barrier Reef Expedition of 1928-29 was concerned with bleaching and warming temperatures. Bleaching happens when ever there is an abrupt event that exceeds the prevailing climatology. If the extremes represent a trend the coral then evolve new symbiont partnerships best suited for that change.

       Most global bleaching events are temporary and will not be detected by cores sample. Furthermore as discussed in Hendy 2003 even massive mortality as observed in the 1998 El Nino bleachings are very difficult to detect without much  much larger samples size within a location and from a wider range of locations.

       You absurdly suggest a growing pace of coral death based on extrapolating from a short term  snapshot and dismissal of the evidence of symbiont shifting. But most reefs that suffered high mortality have recovered within a decade and have been resilient to subsequent warm events. Bleaching is a minor cause of moratlity and coral have had to evolve resilience and quick recovery to deal with more destructive forces such as tropical storms.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - Symbiont shuffling is no panacea for the ongoing global demise of coral reefs. It's just another example of people in denial building a delusional belief around a 'kernel of truth'. Yes, symbiont shuffling is a real adaptation, but no it won't save coral reefs. The current precipitous decline in global coral cover might be a wee bit of a giveaway here. A glaring example is the recent assessment of the 2016 bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) - there is an average of 35% mortality on the central and northern reefs surveyed, an area making up two thirds of the entire GBR reef system. So one single bleaching event may have eliminated 20% of the reef. Fat lot of good symbiont shuffling did after GBR bleaching events of 1998 & 2002 eh?  

       The Holocene Thermal Maximum is an interesting point. Was it warmer in the tropics during this interval? There doesn't seem to any consensus on this. The change in insolation due to orbital forcing would have made the tropics cooler-than-present, while outside the tropics, the Northern Hemisphere in particular, was much warmer. See the figure below from Marcott et al (2013) and note panel C) - the average annual insolation anomaly compared to modern-day.

       Rosenthal et al (2013) show that intermediate waters were much warmer, but the reef-building coral we're talking about don't live hundreds of meters deep. How much of this high latitude water returned to the equator via the subtropical cells, and how much did it affect the surface layers? The authors reconstructions show a very modest SST cooling 0.5°C in the Indo-Pacific warm pool from 9000 years ago to present (present being 1950 as is convention). By constrast, Marcott et al (2013) reconstruct tropical temperatures as cooler-than-present at the Holocene Thermal Maximum.    

24193. snedder at 02:43 AM on 29 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       It is very useful to have collected all these expert views in one place, thank you for that.

       Would it be a fair summary to say that most of these expert opinions give very, very little grounds for optimism? The concensus seems to be that there are serious drawbacks to all the proposed methods for removing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. Either they are untried and uncertain to work; have only been tried on small scales and would require much R & D to prove whether they have any hope of working on the global scales required; or would only work if given massive resources (like huge areas of agricultural land being taken out of food production, and quite rapidly to boot).

       It also seems that implementing anything on a scale that would make a difference would also require both an unprecedented degree of worldwide political concensus; and an unprecedented willingness of ordinary folk to pull together, accept perceived hardships (like dietary change or higher taxes), and not put short-term personal needs and desires before the long-term greater good. Are these things practicable?

       It even seems doubtful whether more R & D is desirable. Holding out hope for upcoming negative emissions technologies may be seized on by political leaders; they would surely use it as an excuse for many more years of doing too little, too late towards the real and urgent goal of reducing mankind’s carbon emissions.

       It is surely better to stop emitting so much CO2 pollution than to emit it and then try to get it back. But sadly it also seems doubtful if the world’s political institutions are capable of taking the required action.

24194. Ger at 02:21 AM on 29 May 2016
       In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
       

       Darn.... Just typed in a long reply to request of #8 and #9 only to find that there was a cache_miss, work gone. 

       http://www.aebiom.org/ for references for already available residues from wood, pulp & paper and rubber industries. Specificly the use of difficult to use biomass residues torrefaction of several biomass species and the sources/distribution of the resulting fuel by http://www.biomasstorrefaction.org/

       Additional Arundo Donax has been research as possible fuel and bio-remidation crop in Australia by CSIRO and as an 5 year research program of the EU under Cordis: http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/37456_en.html

       For the Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIG-CC) I have based my calculations on the data available from 3 IGCC power plants, 2 America (as in Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage of Edward S. Rubin à , Chao Chen, Anand B. Rao) and Willem Alexander in Buggenum, Netherlands. I made those calculations for power plants in the SE-Asia region (particular Cambodia, fueled with Arundo Donax) with data from suppliers as Solarmax (gasturbines), Dahlmann(gasification).  

24195. billev at 00:34 AM on 29 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       Has there ever been any testing to examine the relationship beween the temperatures measured by the official measuring sites and the surface temperature at those sites?  It would seem to me that if the two changed proportionately then that would indicate that the surface temperature was the driver of that sites's measured temperature.  If the relationship was not proportional than it would appear that something in the atmosphere influenced the site's measured temperature.  As far as there being a continuation of the pause that began around 2002 and should continue until about 2032, if the experience since 1880 continues, we will have to wait and see.  I am too old to bet.  i won't be around to collect.  If the temperature record does plainly show a level line of global mean air temperature for the period in question it apparently won't be "seen" by those who are dubious about my remarks.  And by the way, I don't have a theory about trhe future.  I merely state that the past record seems to indicate a pattern of rise and pause that, if it continues, will be repeated in the future. 

24196. bozzza at 15:05 PM on 28 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       Remember what Arnold Schwarzenegger said: "The people lead, ..Governments follow!"

       The middle-class have their pizza and talking head circus.... None of us care! The kids were just an excuse to put money into bricks and mortar and play the, "I'm Brad Pitt and you're Elle  MacPherson" , game of dressed up charades.

       What is a critical-mass again?

24197. bozzza at 14:59 PM on 28 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       Climate Change is bigger than Trump!

       When he says market forces are a beautiful thing he is abrogating responsibility knowing that is how he wins the popular vote. It's not statesmanship, to be sure, but he's saying market forces and regulation from the greater world will force everyone's hand to price the externality that needs to be priced.

       ...it's not statesmanship but it is business!

       The priority for America is to remain business savvy and retain some sort of middle-class dream otherwise they are in Anarchy and I think we all realise nobody wants that.

       Hmnnn, I think I almost convinced myself he is doing what is right!

       (...it is the human condition to abrogate responsibility I seem to be arguing!)

24198. chriskoz at 13:23 PM on 28 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       The "Trump phenomenon" is not just a case of climate science (in fact scinece in general) ignorance, but the broad ignorance of any social, economic, ethical, political (you name it) rules our democratic society has developed. The rise of such presidential candidade (totally unfit for the job he applies for) from GOP, only testifies how far that party alienated themslves from their voters. Voters decided to push for such paranoid, preposterous candidate, because they dislike all GOP mainstream candidates. It does not bid well to GOP future.

       But that is not the aspect to be discussed here in SkS. It would've been much better if "Trump phenomenon" in particular exposed the climate science denial in GOP. It looks like, given a strong denial among GOP leaders, a candidate even moderately accepting AGW had no chance there: only the total and open ignorant like Trump had.

       If such preposterous & ignorant man became next president later this year, it would be a world disaster in many aspects, particularly in climate mitigation as he wants to effectively pull US out of Paris agreement. There is no doubt about him doing that, because in face of presures from his own party and FF industries, pulling out is the easiest thing to do for an ignorant man. Such presidency would indicate US voters escape to the irrational mumblings of a beauty pageant minder and political puppet show, in preference of facing their economic and environmental problems. I hope such disaster do not happen.

24199. Tom Curtis at 08:53 AM on 28 May 2016
       Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
       

       Stranger @4, I do not expect Trump to move very far towards rational policies, for doing so will loose him the popular support he has.  This remains a factor in his potential presidency if he wants to run a second term, and/or if he wants cooperation from a Republican dominated congress.

       The Hitler comparison is certainly inapt because, firstly, he has no brown shirts.  Secondly, and more importantly, the constitutional protections in the US are far stronger than those of the Weimar Republic.  Even Hitler could not do in the modern US, what Hitler did in Germany in the 1930s. 

24200. Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 28 May 2016
       CO2 is not the only driver of climate
       

       billev @43:

       "I also am of the opinion that once the current EL Nino ends then the pause will reassert itself and continue until about 2032. I base that opinion upon the pattern of previous temperature change since 1880."

       Crucially for Billev, it is an untested opinion.  It is only be not testing his opinion against data that he is able to retain it.

       In fact, several people have already made proposals of a similar nature to Billev's claim that the pattern of temperature will repeat themselves.  Specifically, Don Easterbrook has argued for a near repetition of the pattern; Akasofu has argued more abstractly that the temperature pattern is a gradually rising trend modulated by a sine function and short term variations; and Loehle and Scafetta have argued for a repeating, rising temperature pattern accelerated since 1970 by global warming.  As the linked articles show, none of these projections of temperature based on a cyclical pattern have been successful.

       Billev's own theory is indistinct.  He clearly rejects any forcing effect from CO2, and so cannot accept Loehle and Scafetta's projection.  He thinks the "cooling pattern" that he expects to repeat from 2000 onwards was evidenced in the "early 1940s" which does not align with the repetition from 1945 used by Easterbrook.  It is possible that he accepts a view similar to Akasofu's, but he is not explicit enough to be sure.  Regardless, neither a repetition of the 5 year running mean from 1940 (to match the early 1940s projection) or the Akasofu cyclical function matches the post 2000 temperature function:

       

       Billev's theory is a bust - something he does not know because he never quantified it and checked it against the data.  That is, he used feels to develop his theory, not reasoning, and certainly not scientific method.

       As Billev seems to have dropped discussion of the role of CO2 as a climate forcing, his remaining thesis is not on topic in this thread.  I would highly recommend that if he wants to defend his busted theory, discussion be moved to the theory that he thinks most closely resembles his (from the three links above), or failing that, to the general discussion of different projections here.

Prev  476  477  478  479  480  481  482  483  484  485  486  487  488  489  490  491  Next