Recent Comments

Prev  481  482  483  484  485  486  487  488  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  Next

Comments 24401 to 24450:

24401. villabolo at 02:44 AM on 2 June 2016
       Scientists debate experimenting with climate hacking to prevent catastrophe
       

       I think that the f bomb was a little overboard. One round would have been enough and that without the child mouthing it.

24402. MA Rodger at 02:21 AM on 2 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Mike Hillis @63.

       So you claim that "the bulk of the Holocene was warmer than today" and in evidence present a graph of proxy records from Wikithing that shows the bulk of the Holocene was cooler than 2004. And since 2004, 'today' has been subjected to over a decade of AGW. So we should perhaps add in that 2004 temperature. 2015 was 0.28ºC warmer than 2004 and applying that addition, a very small part of the proxy records in the Wikithing graph are presented as being warmer than today, certainly not in any way "the bulk".

       Am I missing something? Or does your claim require a bit more support?

24403. dvaytw at 02:01 AM on 2 June 2016
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Hi y'all. I'm arguing with this guy who is claiming that AGW is junk-science. Here's one of his points:

       "According to the IPCC:

       The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere”

       And likely is a 66% to 100% probability.

       Well, it either was the warmest or it wasn’t. Probability zero or probability one. Explain to me how a random series of trials could come up as it being the warmest 66% of the time and not the warmest 34% of the time. What is this supposed to mean? How is it falsified?"

       Now, I've told him that AGW is historical science, not experimental science, so we aren't talking about "trials", and that temperature averages have uncertainties which means that they are ranges; further that we have even more uncertainties with temperature proxies.  I've also said that, although neither he nor I knows how the statistics work to come up with the probability, to state that therefore it is meaningless is just an argument from ignorance.

       However, he persists. In my annoyance, I'm reaching out to ask: can anyone actually explain this in sufficient detail or point me to a clear source on it, to show him how dumb his argument is?

24404. knaugle at 00:44 AM on 2 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       Re @5

       Actually the value from the 1960s comes from the Cryosphere Today site, it's older data: Timeseries of annual and seasonal sea ice extent from 1901-2010, and not by drawing the line.

       Cryosphere Today

24405. knaugle at 23:50 PM on 1 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       @4

       Actually, the Arctic Summer minimum is declining about 13% a decade according to the NSIDC reports.  At that rate, there should still be some ice cover during the Summer minimum into the 1940s.  However, this assumes there is not some tipping point at which this decline accelerates

       NSIDC 2015 Melt Season in Review

       Simply drawing the line, 50 years ago, the Summer Ice coverage was thought to be a minimum of about 4.3 million square miles, in recent years that has shrunk to less than 2 million square miles.  By 2030 I'd not be surprised to see that just a bit over 1.4 million square miles and with some years in the 750K range, others near 2 million.  That is getting painfully close to ice free.  From there we will be discussing how long ice free lasts, rather than whether or not as we are now.

24406. Mike Hillis at 23:29 PM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       The fabrication of which I speak, is that the "myth" that most of the Holocene was warmer than now, is based on a comment made by Monkton, who based his opinion on one study by Dr. Easterbrook, who based his entire study on one truncated set of Greenland ice core data that ends in 1855, and that Dr. Easterbrook, a geologist, didn't know that the geological present is 1950, and had no access to data that continued beyond 1855, so he had to lie and pretend the ice cores showed more recent data than 1855.

       Now the facts. The Holocene has been known to geologists since before Dr. Easterbrook was born. Hundreds of studies have been done for many decades, using as many methods as can be dreamed of, using every branch of science, history, and literature. The results of dozens of studies have been charted together giving us the spaghetti graphs that Dr Easterbrook probably learned in high school, all showing that the bulk of the Holocene was warmer than today. One such graph is here:

       

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] I hotlinked the wikimedia link. In future please do that yourself.

       [TD] See the explanation of that image you linked to, on the post "The Two Epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair." And before you criticize that, read "Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'." 
       
       [Rob P] - Image now embedded in comment.

24407. JoeK at 17:55 PM on 1 June 2016
       Study Helps Explain Sea Ice Differences at Earth's Poles
       

       Interesting. Some questions about how to put this in models for anyone who knows. Presumably the seafloor features here need relatively high resolution to see? How close are they to being incorporated in to routinely used GCMs? I guess they are not already there? Would it be a matter of specially adding high resolution for these features, or will overall resolution increase enough to resolve them (e.g. for CMIP6 models)? Is an alternative route to parameterise these effects? Might parameterisation have some advantages over explicit resolution of the topography?

       Another question: are there advances in understanding other parts of the world likely to come from incorporating higher resolution bathymetric data?

24408. bozzza at 15:50 PM on 1 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       @4,

        You don't seem to understand the consequences of a so called ice-free arctic aka "THE BIG BLUE EVENT". It means the structural integrity given by the thicker multi-year sea ice is largely gone.

       This, in turn, means the thinner seasonal ice is easier and easier to break up making the arctic less able to deflect solar radiation from the earth making Greenland more liable to melting and, so, potentially shut down the thermohaline cycle that warms Europe.

       Where are the Syrians going to go then?

       This is real politik!!

       This is the negative externality of mixed market failure!!! Some even call it 'picking winners'...

        

        **^{[Go Greed: why did you have kids again?]}

24409. sauerj at 10:17 AM on 1 June 2016
       Ten years on: how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth made its mark
       

       knaugle @3, by 'ice free' you mean 'ice free at the summer minimum' right? ... 2030 does seem a conservatively assured prediction for that to happen.

24410. Tom Curtis at 09:02 AM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       To recap:

       Mike Hillis @51:

       "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. ... 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."

       (My emphasis.)

       Mike Hillis @57:

       "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."

       So we are quite clear, Alley (2000) in fact used data only extending to 1855.  Easterbrook has continuously misrepresented that data by first purporting it continued through to 2000, and then (when the date of the most recent sample was pointed out), purporting that it continued through to 1905, despite the well known geological convention (and the confirmation by Richard Alley) that "Before Present" refers to years before 1950.  In other words, the original article by Gareth, and discussion by me in various comments above have been accurate, and are now acknowledged by Mike Hillis as being accurate.

       He has as yet provided no apology for his being "shocked" by the purported misrepresentation of these facts, which he now acknowledges to have been accurately stated.  Even worse, he has made no apology for calling either the accurate statement of these facts (or possibly his invention that I claimed to have emailed Alley) a "fabrication".

       I guess we can be at least grateful that he now understands the essential point of the article.

       He still insists (correctly) that ΔO₁₈ measurements for GISP 2 can be obtained till as recently as 1987 (ie, -37 BP).  The data site he uses to prove that, however, states that "Between 1989 and 1993, the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) collected several ice cores from near the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet"; and that "Above 180m depth the measured samples are from the 1989 B core; below 180m the 1990-1993 D core was used".  From this we learn that there are at least two other cores from GISP 2 whose data is not listed at that site.  Further, he only has evidence for one of those cores (the 1989 Core B) that it continues with data, effectively to the surface.  (It excludes the last two year prior to collection, presumably because of the risk of contamination from setting up the site, or because the snow was insufficiently packed to be preserved in the core.)  From these facts he cannot determine which core was used by Alley (2000), and nor can he determine that that core had data prior to 1855.

       However, regardless of that, there is a reason why the temperature data from Alley (2000) should not include data to the surface, and indeed, not include any data prior to the closure of the firn.  Alley (2000) in fact used the temperature data from Cuffey and Clow (1997).  Cuffey and Clow did not just use ΔO₁₈ measurements to determine temperature, but the estimated elevation changes as well:

       "We can use the elevation histories to infer a history of temperature at constant elevation (the true climatic change), by assuming a constant lapse rate of 6 ^øC km^-1•  [Putnins, 1970]. The resulting correction to temperature of the last glacial maximum is small compared to the aleglacial temperature change; the temperature range is about 1.5 ^øC for 50 km ≥ AL ≤ 200 km.  More interesting is the correction to the early Holocene temperature record. Here the correction shows a more pronounced early Holocene temperature maximum with a net cooling through the Holocene of 2.5 ^ø to 3 ^øC, if the large marginal retreat history is applicable (Figure 3). The net cooling through the Holocene is 2 ^øC  for AL = 50 km, and in this case the early Holocene is about as warm as the late-mid Holocene."

       Cuffey and Clow use a model based on snow accumulation and estimated margin retreat to determine elevation, but note that total gas barometry of the gas included in the ice provides a potential independent check of the elevation history (which they then discuss).  This use of included gas as an independent check on elevation history provides a sufficient reason to only use data from when the firn had closed.

       Please note that I am not saying that it is the reason.  The Cuffey and Clow data may have terminated in 1855 simply because of the actual ice core they used, or for some other stated reason.  However, because of the role of estimates in elevation in determining the temperature history, it cannot be assumed that ice from before the closure of the firn was equally suitable for determining the temperature history.

24411. shoyemore at 04:46 AM on 1 June 2016
       Study Helps Explain Sea Ice Differences at Earth's Poles
       

       

        

       Antarctic Ice seems to be below average this year, and may go below 2-sigma limits. Is that a challenge to the theory?

24412. MA Rodger at 04:36 AM on 1 June 2016
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Mike Hillis @52-60.

       Back @52 you write that "it's astonishing that nobody has corrected this fabrication so far." Strong stuff but it is not clear to me what you are branding as "fabrication."  Perhaps it would be good if we could begin by establishing what it is that constitutes this "fabrication."

24413. 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?

24414. 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.

24415. 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.

24416. 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?

24417. 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.
24418. 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.

24419. 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.

24420. 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.

24421. 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. 

24422. 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%.   

24423. 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.

24424. 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.

24425. 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.

        

24426. 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.

24427. 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.

24428. 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"?

24429. 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?

24430. 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.

24431. 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".

24432. 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.

24433. 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.

24434. 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.

24435. 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.

24436. 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!

24437. 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.

24438. 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".

24439. 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.

24440. 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?

24441. 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. 

24442. 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." 

24443. 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.

       

24444. 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.

24445. 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.

24446. 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?

24447. 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

24448. 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.

24449. 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.

24450. 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 ?

Prev  481  482  483  484  485  486  487  488  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  Next