Recent Comments

Prev  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  Next

Comments 24801 to 24850:

24801. Ger at 18:32 PM on 2 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       1. Fossil fuel CO2 is additive, unlike the CO2 in soil being at most 100 years old. 1+2 is the amount actually added but the landsink in the figure is taking in just about the same amount of CO2-eq from LUC. Meaning that current areal of (food-crop) land is in perfect balance. If their would be no slash and burn and primaire forest conserved, all is fine. Of course not as the current areal is depleted and has released CO2 over the years now adding artificial fertilizers releasing even more potent greenhouse gasses.

       2. CH4 from animals, manure is from very recent stored carbon and can not influence the balance. Though CH4 is 7 times more potent over 100 years than CO2, capturing CH4 from dairy farms, waste water treatment, landfills (should be phased out) is already done and could be extended. CH4 from permafrost is far more older and does give a problem as it is 1000th of years 'old' carbon.

       3. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide the total amount of N2O is 5.7 Terragrams where a 3.5 terragrams is by natural activities. Being 285 to 310 times more potent than CO2 that would result in 1.76 Petta grams CO2-eq. yr-1, Not 4 as the drawing suggest.

       4.Furthermore the Nitrogen cycle in soil is quite complex and hardly any N2O gets away. More problematic is the escape of N20 by production of nylons and the use of N2O as inhibiting gas/driver gas. My guess is that N20 production from industry is quite an amount higher, not a 20% as suggested but more in the range of 50%.

       5. Nitrogen loss in soil can be controlled by using correct type of fertilizers. Although only 17.1% of the nitrogen ends up in the food (part), the food part represents only 20% of the plant. As for some fertilizers type 40% ends up in the air (as ammoniak), this can be reduced to a mere 5% by applying N fertiliser in the soil and not on top only.    

       "Importantly, CO₂ emissions from deforestation together with methane and nitrous oxide emissions are mainly associated with the process of making land available for food production and the growing of food in croplands and rangelands." 

       CO2 emissions and N20 emissions are mainly due to preparing exisiting, intensive used and depleted -therefore provided with high amounts of artificial N fertilisers- crop lands. Deforsted land is not capturing any CO2 anymore, but it is not releasing vast amounts of CO2. De-watering, and other mechanical does break down soil-life and will release CO2 (and equivalent GHG)  

         

       2. 

24802. Tom Curtis at 17:19 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       pjcarson @63:

       "Perhaps you can help Tom as he seems unable to do so?"

       As you insist on niggling...

       The formula being discussed is the found on pjcarsons's addendum to his 'chapter one'.  He attempts to explain the CO2 notch seen in IR spectra for Venus, Earth and Mars, as shown in Pierrehumbert (2011):

       

       pjcarson follows Pierrehumbert in calling it a 'dip'.

       pjcarson conjectures that:

       "The experimental relative dip (eg from figure 6 or 8) is the ratio (measured IR) / (hypothetical directly transmitted IR, ie black body curve)."

       (My emphasis)

       Note carefully that it is the measured IR, not the IR that strikes the satellite.  Measured IR can only be that observed by the instrument itself.  It follows that in calculating the ratio of the area above the limb of the planet (approx: horizon) for the satellite to a sphere with a radius equal the the satellite limb distance, he is calculating an irrelevant quantity.  Much of that radiation falls on the outershell of the satellite, or other instruments, and not the AIRS instrument that did the observing (for Earth).

       If we look at the description of the AIRS instrument we read:

       "AIRS looks toward the ground through a cross-track rotary scan mirror which provides +/- 49.5 degrees (from nadir) ground coverage along with views to cold space and to on-board spectral and radiometric calibration sources every scan cycle. The scan cycle repeats every 8/3 seconds. Ninety ground footprints are observed each scan. One spectrum with all 2378 spectral samples is obtained for each footprint. A ground footprint every 22.4 ms. The AIRS IR spatial resolution is 13.5 km at nadir from the 705.3 km orbit."

       Plus or minus 49.5 degrees turns out to be approximately 77% of the limb to limb angle, meaning pjcarson's formula (if it were the correct formula) would significantly overestimate the ratio of " (measured IR) / (hypothetical directly transmitted IR".  Worse, that arc is not what is observed in a single spectrum.  Rather, there is one spectrum per footprint, with a resolution of 13.5 km, so each spectrum as in panel a in the figure above represents the IR radiation from an area just 13.5 km wide (unless explicitly stated to be a composite spectrum).  That is, pjcarsons formula (if it were correct) would overestimate incoming radiation by a factor of 116 or so.

       You can see this mismatch of pjcarson's concept of the resolution of the instrument and the actual resolution from some of the AIRS products:

       

       The images on the right show a 13km resolution within a single scan path.  Where pjcarson's model of how the instrument operated correct, there could be no resolution of details across the width of the scan path, and the width of the pass would be wider.

       When confronted with this essential fact above, pjcarson responded that:

       "The instrument doesn’t appear in the equation and so the results are independent of the sensor."

       As he is attempting to explain properties of the measured results (ie, the actual IR spectrum) his claim that the results are independent of the sensor are absurd.  Apparently, in his world, the mission planers could have greatly reduced the budget by simply leaving the instrument on the ground, given that the "measured results" are "independent of the sensor".

       Pressing on, pjcarson then shows a diagram essentially similar to this one from wikipedia:

       

       The only significant differences are some difference in the labelling and the fact that he shows the reflection around the R,h axis.  He then states:

       " Then the calculated relative dip is the ratio ≈ (planet sector area exposed to satellite) / (satellite-centred sphere area) = 2* sin-1 (R/(R+h)) / 360".

       sin^-1(R/(R+h)) is the inverse sine of the opposite (R) over the hypotenuse of the included angle for line segments d and h.  It returns the value of that angle.  Multiplying by 2 gives the included angle from limb to limb from the satellite.  Dividing by 360 gives the ratio of that included angle to the number of degrees in a circle.  At this point, pjcarson simply assumes that that ratio is also the ratio of area between the "planet sector area exposed to satellite" and the "satellite-centred sphere area".  If the angles were dividing the sphere in a manner similar to the quarts of an orange, it would be.  But the "planet sector area exposed to satellite" is not analogous to a quart of an orange.  Rather it is a spherical cap.  Therefore the formula pjcarson should in fact be using if his premises were sound (though we know they are not), is the ratio of the area of a spherical cap of the earth for the included angle γ, relative to 4*pi*d^2 (ie, the area of the satellite centered sphere, with radius equal to the satellite to limb distance).

       As it turns out, for a satellite altitude of 700 km, for the Earth, that ratio is 0.035.  pjcarson, by using the wrong formula, has overestimated the value he purports to find by a factor of approximately 10.

       That it was the wrong forumla, that the principles used to invoke the formula, and that the formula even as concieved cannot explain the selective dip only at certain wavelengths given that the formula contains no variable for wavelength can all be seen at a glance by somebody who knows the topic.  It take rather longer to explain it to people who are less familiar, and it cannot be effectively explained to somebody who will not learn.  

24803. pjcarson2015 at 12:38 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       MA Rodger.

       1. #38 You do a calculation to show how much lava is required to heat the whole ocean. OK, so why do you not also consider the same when dealing with the Greenhouse” effect which you reckon is so much larger?
       Simply, the whole of the oceans are NOT warmed. As it’s the air near the surface that’s measured (WMO), it is only necessary that the top of the oceans (and the land) are warmed to change measured Global Warming.

       2. I started here with comment #48 concerning geothermal heat. I responded (#50) to Tom Curtis’ #49 comment about Greenhouse gases’ relative size, but later comments, until #57, were “moderated”.

       However, I’m glad you took the time to derive the equation. Perhaps you can help Tom as he seems unable to do so?

        

       Moderator Response:

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

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       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, as no further warnings shall be given.

24804. Tom Curtis at 09:57 AM on 2 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       OPOF @21:

       "International Policy is only words if effective means of enforcement do not exist (that would be effective methods of dismissing sovereignty when required, something you called totalitarian which was a rather gross misrepresentation of my position, but I did not choose to claim it was)."

       Your specific words that I responded to were:

       "Essentially, the International Community would have to be able to 'remove from power' any elected representatives in a nation like the USA (or leaders of businesses) who would claim that already fortunate people should still be allowed to benefit as much as they can from actvity that produces CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (or be able to convince a bunch of voters who are easily tempted to be greedy or intolerant to change their minds and choose not to try to get away with getting what they want even though they probably could collectively get away with it, for a little while, perhaps long enough that they enjoy the undeserved benefits in 'their lifetime'.)."

       I take it as obvious that a government that will not impliment a specific policy will not agree to be removed from power by unconstitutional means so that that policy can be implimented.  Ergo, any attempt to remove governments from power to implement anti-global warming policies will be resisted by force.  For the only countries with large enough emissions for this to make a substantive difference, there armed forces are sufficiently large and advanced that only a sizable coallition of the worlds major powers could hope to remove them from power by conventional force.  Even then, all such countries are nuclear powers and there is every reason to believe they would resort to nuclear weapons rather than be forcably removed from power.

       Even if they could be removed from power, you would then need to sustain your government against a guarantteed hostile population.  That in turn will require all of the mechanisms of a police state.  Hence a totalitarian option.

       You may not see the implications of what you suggested, but it does not mean we are blind to it.

       At its best, you may have suggested a change to the international order such that the UN has the unvetoable constitutional power to removes such governments, where said governments have agreed to that power and altered their constitution so that it is permissible.  We might just as well wish for the solution to the worlds energy problems by the invention of a perpetual motion machine.

       "And I return a question about your timelime. How is your timeline affected if the current cast of Republicans continue to control the House and Senate after the upcoming election? And what if the Republicans also win the Presidency? And worst of all, what if the Republican President is Ted Cruz (a known deliberate misrepresenter of information hoping to win more success for those who do not care about advancing humanity)? If you would claim such events would have little effect on your timeline then there really is nothing more to discuss, no other way for me to understand your position."

       In that event, it would be put back, but given the increasing tendency of US states to go it alone, not by as much as you might think.  However, the difference between 2 C and 2.5 C GMST that that might imply is not as great a harm as would be caused by war with the US, the only method of changing their government.

24805. Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 2 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       nigelj @23, Naomi Klein may well want to impliment the reforms in parallel, but she ties the reforms together.  That serves only to increase resistance to the measures we can take against global warming now.  It is counter productive in the short term, and probably in the long term as well.

24806. Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 2 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       chriskoz @28, on the more substantial issues.

       First, I apologize if I was insufficiently clear.  I do not accept a "free market with no negative externalities within the set of sovereign nations being the best available playground for sustainable enonomy".  Rather, a 'free market' is an idealized but never realized condition that is defined by, among other conditions, the lack of negative externalities.  It serves an analogous role in economic thought to that served by frictionless surfaces in physics.  We know they can never actually exist, but it is often helpful to assume that they can.

       In practise, a key role of government is to regulate the market so that it more closely approximates to a 'free market', including most especially for this discussion, regulations to prevent avoidable negative externalities and to price in unavoidable negative externalities with the income raised being used to mitigate the externality or being returned as a dividend to those affected by the externality.  Importantly, it should do that with a light hand because one of the assumptions of a 'free market' is no transaction costs, and government intervention tends to increase transaction costs.

       With regard to greenhouse gases, this means governments should impliment a carbon price (carbon tax or emissions trading scheme) with the money recieved being returned as an (ideally) per capita dividend.  Some other regulations may have a greater impact in reducing negative externalities than their impact on transaction costs, but the case is not obvious and will not be the same across all circumstances.

       (As an aside, this also means the government should also impliment fees to cover the externalities on road transport, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, etc.  If you have a socialized medical system, those externalities include the cost of that system.)

       Of course, you are quite correct that such action does not go beyond national borders, while the externalties of fossil fuel use certainly do.  That must be dealt with by negotiated agreements to, ideally, set up an international emissions trading scheme; but failing that as rigorous an agreement as can be negotiated.  Such an agreement should ideally included enforcement measures such as tariffs applied to the goods of non-compliant nations (including those not in the agreement) to recover the cost of the externalities of those nations GHG production.

       Even without an international agreement, national governments should (IMO) consider imposing carbon taxes at a rate equivalent to the domestic carbon tax (or current mean cost of emissions permits) less the value of any carbon tax (or emissions permits) paid at the source nation.  Unfortunately relative stenght of economies creates a major problem with this, as potentially does the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in particular the enforcement provisions under the WTO.

       However, what is not acceptable is the attempt to impose such an agreement by force.  Still less acceptable is any thought of replacing governments of foreign nations to ones more amenable to the agreement, which can only be done by force.  These options are unaceptable simply based on transacton cost considerations; but far more importantly, they are unacceptable violations of democratic principles except where the foreign government is so undemocratic that it ought to be replaced on those grounds alone.  In the later case, the replacement of the foreign government should have as its objective democratic government, and should not impose policy positions on that government, including regarding global warming.

       I will note that an agreed international ETS or Carbon Tax does not restrict sovereignty because it is mutually agreed by sovereign governments.  Nor does an ETS or Carbon Tax imposed at point of entry, as it applies only to goods within sovereign borders.

       I will also note that restricting ourselves negotiated agreements (and acts only carried out within sovereign borders) may not be as efficient, to one way of looking at things, as imposition of appropriate policy by force (as suggested by OPOF).  That, however, is only the case if we only consider the costs of global warming.   

24807. MA Rodger at 09:30 AM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       pjcarson @60/61.

       So you tell me @60 that if an equation happens to give the hoped-for answer, then the equation can be considered to be correct. Are you serious? (I'm not sure here how the IPCC fit into the issue. Do they use a different equation? Or is it that they obtain a different answer, one you disagree with?)

       And if that is not enough to provide a measure of the lunacy of you spout, do note that if, as you argue, all the IR that leaves the surface of a planet emerges after a few adventures at the top of the atmosphere and then shoots off into space; if this were true, how can CO2 (or for that matter, any other gas in the atmosphere) be acting as a greenhouse gas? The very notion that GHGs can operate without creating back-radiation is pure thermodynamical nonsense!!

       And you may be glad to learn that a quick back-of-fag-packet calculation of you geometric explanation for a change in 'fantasy-total-globe' satellite radiation measurement due to different heights of emission suggests the % of the Earth visible from the satellite drops by 1.5% for an increase of 10km in height (~65K temperature drop) but due to the inverse square law having twice the opposite effect, the radiation measurement at the satellite would actually rise with increased in height. So you also supply a goodly quantity of geometrical nonsense.

       (Note - I would attempt to find a more appropriate thread for this comment but the scope of argument being addressed defies easy categoraisation.)

24808. pjcarson2015 at 08:48 AM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       MA Rodger.

       1. #38 You do a calculation to show how much lava is required to heat the whole ocean. OK, so why do you not also consider the same when dealing with the Greenhouse” effect which you reckon is so much larger?
       Simply, the whole of the oceans are NOT warmed. As it’s the air near the surface that’s measured (WMO), it is only necessary that the top of the oceans (and the land) are warmed to change measured Global Warming.

       2. I started here with comment #48 concerning geothermal heat. I responded (#50) to Tom Curtis’ #49 comment about Greenhouse gases’ relative size, but later comments, until #57, were “moderated”.

       However, I’m glad you took the time to derive the equation. Perhaps you can help Tom as he seems unable to do so?

        

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

24809. Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 2 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       RedBaron @26:

       "That would take additional studies of course. However since a very high % of intensively managed cropland is used to produce food for livestock, and that change in management to a forage based system was the change in management showing the highest increase in methanotroph numbers and activity, it leands me to believe all that is needed in confirmation studies."

       From the final study to which you linked, and partly quoted by you above:

       "Soil from a calcareous site (pH 7.4) under deciduous woodland (Broadbalk Wilderness wooded section) oxidized CH4 6 times faster than the arable plot (pH 7.8) with the highest activity in the adjacent Broadbalk Wheat Experiment (with uptake rates of −80 and −13 nl CH4 1−1 h−1, respectively). The CH4 uptake rate was only 20% of that in the woodland in an adjacent area that had been uncultivated for the same period but kept as rough grassland by the annual removal of trees and shrubs and, since 1960, grazed during the summer by sheep. It is suggested that the continuous input of urea through animal excreta was mainly responsible for this difference."

       Doing the maths, the CH4 uptake in the woodland is 6 times that on the arable plot, and 5 times that in the grazed grassland.  If follows that the CH4 uptake in the grazed grassland in 1.2 times that in the arable plot.  In other words, switching from cropping to grazing does not result in the 400% increase in methane uptake you desire, but only a 20% increase.

       Meanwhile your second last link indicates that increasing soil carbon content (which increases water retention) will increase methane production, as will increasing water content (as by irrigating improved pasture), or fertilizing.  Ergo, increasing net methane oxidization in soil is at the expense of increasing CO2 emissions from LUC; while intensive pasturing which does increase soil organic content (just not enough to reverse the atmospheric effects of the industrial revolution) will increase methane generation, and therefore decrease net methane oxidation in soils.

       Your linked studies do not support the idea that methane oxidation can be increased by a factor of 5 in agricultural land, let alone in all upland soils by any definition.

24810. pjcarson2015 at 06:57 AM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       #59 MA Rodger.
       1. If my simple equation is incorrect, why does it give the correct answer!? [The equation is simple, isn't it!] It does show why I regard IPCC's IR badly.

       2. Please give quantitative answers to show my lunacy.

       3. No ad hominem! It only degrades its user.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB]  Argumentative, baiting and inflammatory snipped.

24811. TomR at 05:15 AM on 2 April 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       According to University of Maine's daily global temperatures on the "Climate Reanalyzer" website, March has definitely blown away February's all-time hottest month in modern Earth history record. Global warming is 93% in the ocean which is why El Nino years are tending to get hotter as the oceans giving back some of that warmth.

       There is some evidence that this El Nine might not totally go away but rather make a small comeback after September. This makes is very likely that 2016 will be even warmer than 2015 as projected several months ago by the UK Met. All major global warming gases are at record levels and are still increasing. 

       Many world governments are still not being honest about their emissions. The IPCC only used a Transient Climate Sensitivity of 1.8C instead of the more scientific estimate of 3.0C+. The Arctic is already starting to release large amounts of methane 70 years ahead of schedule. Arctic sea ice is at a record low and looks very likely to set a record low maximum this year. 

       We need to do all we can to reduce the scale of the coming catastrophe. It's going to be huge and sooner than you think. Ban new fossil fuel vehicles, new fossil fuel power plants, cattle except in zoos, deforestation for any reason. Pass a global carbon tax of at least $200/ton of CO2 with money returned to the people and to help finance the shift to renewable energy.  We are in for a hell of a ride. Billions are certain to die this century.

24812. RedBaron at 04:45 AM on 2 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       Tom,

       No, you misunderstand. I am not talking about increasing the upland soils so that they cover 5 times their current area. I am talking about changing the agricultural practises to those that increase the effectiveness of the methane sink by 5X or more. That's why I provided those additional studies and quotes from them. Of all the CH4 sources and sinks, the biotic sink strength is the most responsive to variation in human management, and examples I showed prove that increases of 5X or more is at least possible. Although I am fully aware that one published study is not vetted enough to proclaim it is necessarily possible on all oxic cropland. That would take additional studies of course. However since a very high % of intensively managed cropland is used to produce food for livestock, and that change in management to a forage based system was the change in management showing the highest increase in methanotroph numbers and activity, it leands me to believe all that is needed in confirmation studies. The principle itself seems sound.

        

       BTW we are also using two different definitions of "upland soils". The definition I am using (and that of the citation I provided) is land above the level where water flows  (i.e., well-drained, oxic soils), to differentiate from swamp, delta or paddy soils. That means most agricultural land excepting rice production.

24813. PluviAL at 02:52 AM on 2 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       RedBaron, Awsome. I am not familiar with your figures, but sense this is true from my house vegetable gardening, and from my studies for other solutionis. We can do it, we must be a positive contributor to a  healthy ecosystem, and we will be one with nature soon.

       Imagine walking through San Diego Zoo, and that this is the way the whole world is, but instead of enclosures to keep nature in, we live in exclosures, to keep civilization in designed balance with nature. Yes we can!

24814. KR at 02:49 AM on 2 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis - I had considered the 'prisoners dilemma' as an alternative term myself, but that has the implication that all actors in the decision are fully aware of the tradeoffs and potential costs of their actions. That's not the case in the situation of unpaid external costs from fossil fuels, or even in many cases industrial pollution. 

       An interesting discussion of emantics - now, back to the original discussion...

24815. MA Rodger at 01:09 AM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       Tom Curtis @58.

       The link to pjcarson's 'grand work' has been moderated away and it should be reinstated to allow understanding of this interchange.

       I do sympathise with you in trying to correct his thesis. And we are off topic on this thread, but where do you start on something so heavily loaded with nonsensical assertions. For instance, that equation he presents is simply the diameter in degrees of the planetary disc visible from the satellite divided by 360 degrees. It is obviously wrongly applied but his description of what he thinks it represents is simply nonsensical.

       I think myself I would make a start at unravelling his lunacy at the beginning by asking for clarification of his opening statement:-

       "IR properties have been somewhat neglected, eg in the thousands of pages churned out by IPCC, very few refer to IR – and even these are of dubious scientific character."

       I am not familiar with any parts of IPCC ARs that could be described as being "of dubious scientific character." I consider it quite outrageous for someone to make such an statement entirely unsupported.

24816. Tom Curtis at 23:39 PM on 1 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       pjcarson @57, I was in no way intrigued by your 'analysis'.  That sort of flat earther level denialism is a dime a dozen.  Because it is premised on not undersanding the science it criticizes, its criticizisms cannot be interesting.  I made the comment only because I thought my 8 minute comment meant I owed you that much.  So, I have delivered.  You have responded with flat denial and more nonsense.  So, you won't learn hence there is no point my trying to teach you.  End of conversation.

       (If any readers want more details on why pjcarson's website is nonsense, I will be happy to do so on a more appropriate thread, but he himself at this stage can only escape the charge of dishonesty by pleading idiocy, given his response.  Horse, water, etc.)

24817. Tom Curtis at 23:33 PM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       chriskoz @38, as noted in my original comment, I was just flagging my dislike of the Hardin sense of the phrase.  I did not think I was making a substantial point on the issues being discussed before my comment.  I think flagging my dislike and the reasons is usefull because sometimes terms are designed to set us up to accept certain positions without due scrutiny.  "Tragedy of the commons" in Hardin's sense and use was certainly designed with that purpose.  Noting the Orwellian nature of that term pulls its rhetorical teeth.

24818. michael sweet at 23:32 PM on 1 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       Chriskoz,

       I think you have misunderstood the figure.  It accounts for all the emitted CO2.  As you know, the atmospheric CO2 is increasing (3ppm last year), that is a sink.  Since about half the emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere, it is the largest sink.

24819. Tom Curtis at 23:29 PM on 1 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       chriskoz @2, it may be better to think of it as a partition.  The total value of fossil fuels plus net LUC should equal the total value of atmospheric growth, land sink and ocean sink, with the relative ratios showing how the increased CO2 in the total reservoir is partitioned.  Atmospheric growth is then just the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

24820. Tom Curtis at 23:26 PM on 1 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       RedBaron @24, yes, all we need to do is increase the upland soils (dark blue on the map below) so that they cover 5 times their current area:

       

       (Source)

       How could there be any problem with that at all?  /sarc

       And please note that in the US, nearly all cropland is in lowland (ie, net methanogenic) soils, while in the rest of the world for the most part (by area), crop intensity is very low.  The exceptions are in countries with very high population densities where a loss of cropland would result in a severe risk of famine.

       

24821. chriskoz at 20:04 PM on 1 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       Unexplained on the figure is the huge CO2 sink (ca -5pGC/y) called "Atmospheric Growth". What is it??? I don't recall seeing such sink on any carbon cycle picture of any scientific publication. Is it some mistake/ misnomer? A sink (whatever mysterious its origin is) should not be called "Growth"...

24822. RedBaron at 19:55 PM on 1 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       Tom,

        Lets try and discuss the relevant parts only please. 

       I happen to agree with this part of your statement, right up until your conclusion:

       "3) In fact, with regard to upland soild Conrad et al cite Holmes et al (1999), who conclude that globally, acidic soils are a net sink of 20-60 million tonnes of CH4 annually. Even at 60 million tonnes per annum, that is substantially less than CH4 emissions from cattle. That, of itself, makes it unlikely that the complete biome (upland grasslands plus grazers) is a net CH4 sink, and it is, it is certainly a small one. More importantly it means that even without grazers, the loss of grassland cannot account for even a very small fraction of total emissions anthropogenic emissions (just short of 500 million tonnes per annum in 2012)."

       How is it that we can look at exactly the same evidence and draw the exact opposite conclusion? I agree that now the cropland that supports animal husbandry is not nearly large enough to offset emission. It functions quite differently with regards to methanotroph activity. So why would citing the sink is only 20-60 million tonnes of CH4 annually somehow refute what I am saying? That's actually my point. Increase that sink by 5x or more and you get 100-300 tonnes of CH4 annually. that actually puts a big dent in the just short of 500 million tonnes per annum total anthropogenic emissions from all sources. By the time you add in abiotic oxidation and improvements in rice production, it appears as if we might be able to remove the "mystery CH4" in the OP, as well as actually reducing atmospheric CH4.

24823. chriskoz at 19:10 PM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis@30,

       Yet, term tragedy of the commons can be ambiguous. But I @28, use the term tragedy of the commons in Hardin sense. It's obvious in the context of topic at hand, as KR@31 & yourself@32 confirmed.

       Therefore, I don't understand why you're trying to explain the other, Orwelian sense of it, a discussion that goes off topic here, which is rapidly increasing CO2 emissions and difficulty stopping it. As you did not provide any reason for your Orwelian deliberations about TOC ambiguity, I consider your comment off topic trolling, unless you clarify it.

24824. bozzza at 18:48 PM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Of course, Dcrickett, I hope you are feeling well!

24825. bozzza at 18:47 PM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       @ 34,

        You just seemed to be having a mindless dig at so called 'socialism' without realising all 'legitimate' markets are Governed. Year 11 economics starts with this as truth.

        You can say everyone prefers market forces but they are just as imaginary as the fabled invisible hand! Ronald Reagan is famous for saying, "If it moves tax it; if it keeps moving regulate it; if it stops moving subsidise it!"

24826. bozzza at 18:36 PM on 1 April 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       Simon,

        Is Argo confirming any trends?

24827. Simon Johnson at 17:53 PM on 1 April 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       Jim Hansen has said that the best measure of the Earth's energy budget is the heat content of the oceans. That has been measured for about a decade by the Argo 'floats/buoys' project. 

       See http://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

       See http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm and

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/measuring-ocean-heating-key-to-track-gw.html and

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12

24828. pjcarson2015 at 17:34 PM on 1 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       Tom. I’m glad you are intrigued. You write, you read my site casually. Consequently you haven’t got anything correct. Try to read it without bias; it’s simply a scientific investigation, not a manifesto. It’s there to be corrected if it’s wrong, but you haven’t done so.

       1. No

       2. No

       3. No. I don’t asume anything about the AIRS instrumentation. You’ve misread again. My diagram actually shows the section of Earth’s surface that is able to direct energy to the satellite. The instrument doesn’t appear in the equation and so the results are independent of the sensor.

       4. The equation is independent of wavelength. Apart from the equation itself, you really should have tweaked IF you really did read my Conclusions …

       “ ALL satellite spectra will need to be adjusted with regard to their measured magnitudes” .

       Your “Without further need to check the maths” suggests you haven’t been able to work out my equation. Although it’s simple, it does require a little trick – changing one’s perspective from Earth’s (first), then to what the satellite sees. Take it as an exercise.

       Anyway, if it’s wrong, how does it get the correct answer?

       5.Try to not make “ad hominem” remarks. You have not shown any errors at all.

       To cap it all off, I’m trying to add another section which explains much more simply why the Greenhouse Effect is minuscule.

       [By trying, I mean working with Wordpress can often be difficult! I’ll get there.]

       However, its essence is

       All the above is true and accepted by all, but embarrassingly, what has been forgotten is that radiation is but one method of transferring energy, the other two being conduction and convection, and it is principally using these processes that Earth heats its atmosphere.”

       You say you left a message. My site hasn’t registered any comments from you.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory and argumentative snipped.

24829. Tom Curtis at 14:54 PM on 1 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       For whatever it is worth, I have just posted this comment at pjcarson's website:

       "pjcarson:

       A casual read of your chapter 1 plus annex reveals:
       1) That you have taken purported evidence that CO2 emissions of IR to space come from high in the troposphere (an essential feature of the theory of the greenhouse effect, see https://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html) as a disproof of that theory, thereby showing you do not understand even the basics of the theory you purport to disprove;

       2) That you misread Pierrehumbert (2011)'s explanation of the maths of line by line radiation models as itself an explanation of the greenhouse effect (it is not), thereby showing you have misunderstood even basic level explanations of the evidence;

       3) That you assume in your equation that the AIRS instrument scans the entire visible globe in each frame, whereas it in fact scans an area 1600 km wide, thereby destroying the logical justification of your equation (see http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/mission_and_instrument/instrument);

       4) That your equation contains no variable for the wavelength or frequency of light, thereby applying equally to all wavelengths. From that it follows that it cannot explain changes in the brightness temperatures at specific wavelengths as is observed in the satellite instrument. Without further need to check the maths, this is sufficient to show your equation does not explain what you claim it to explain.

       5) These very basic errors, discoverable with a very superficial reading, show that you do not bother with basic fact checking, and are out of your depth in logical analysis. That gives sufficient reason to check no further.

       From this, an 8 minute turn around on your submission merely shows the sub-editor had a basic knowledge of climate science, and therefore sufficient knowledge to reject the paper on such a superficial reading."

24830. Tom Curtis at 14:36 PM on 1 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       RedBaron @22, what I clearly refuted was the claim that largescale return to intensive grazing will solve greenhouse gas problems into the future.  Your claims about methane above are of the same nature.  However, seeing you challenge the point:

       1)  You say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences", but provide not significant evidence.  A list of unexplained links coupled to out of context quotes is not evidence.  It is a smokescreeen.  You need to explain what the papers (and blogs) show in detail and how they support your views.

       2)  You claim @18 that "According to the following studies those biomes actually reduce atmospheric methane" but Conrad et al (1996) studies only the trace gas emissions and sinks of soils.  It is not a study of the entire biome, which of course includes the animals on them.  Ergo, your extraordinary evidence consists of exageration.  (This is not suprise as the papers are available to the IPCC, who take them into account.  It follows that if you come to signficantly different conclusions to the IPCC from those papers, you are likely misreading or exagerating them.)

       3)  In fact, with regard to upland soild Conrad et al cite Holmes et al (1999), who conclude that globally, acidic soils are a net sink of 20-60 million tonnes of CH4 annually.  Even at 60 million tonnes per annum, that is substantially less than CH4 emissions from cattle.  That, of itself, makes it unlikely that the complete biome (upland grasslands plus grazers) is a net CH4 sink, and it is, it is certainly a small one.  More importantly it means that even without grazers, the loss of grassland cannot account for even a very small fraction of total emissions anthropogenic emissions (just short of 500 million tonnes per annum in 2012).

          

       These arguments just echo in form the arguments with regard to CO2 that refuted your positions on that gas.  There is not substantial difference between the cases, and no reason to consider your claims of any more interest with regard CH4 than there was with CO2 unless you actually unpack all the numbers, including peer reviewed estimates of loss upland grassland to horticulture, CH4 sink per km^2 for grassland relative to CH4 emissions per km^2 for grazing cattle at expected herd densities etc 

24831. RedBaron at 12:57 PM on 1 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       Rebuttal of Rudiman is not exactly the same as actually taking a minority view of methanotrophs and claiming you refuted their function in controlling atmospheric gasses is it? Do you honestly believe anything you posted on that other thread refutes the work of Dr Ralf Conrad? Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. You provided none at all regarding methanotrophs. Your post of biomass that includes human biomass has little relevance regarding herbivores existing on a grassland/grazer biome either. Except as the prairie was plowed at about the same time as the industrial revolution, the curve could support either hypothesis.

24832. tcflood at 12:33 PM on 1 April 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13
       

       The news article "Peru Tries to Adapt to Dangerous Levels of UV Radiation Brought on by Climate Change" by Lucas Iberico Lozada, Newsweek, Mar 15, 2016, in the Sunday, March 20 list badly confuses climate change with depletion of the ozone layer. This could be very confusing to those who don't understand the difference. 

24833. Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 1 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       RedBaron @20, I was merely pointing out that your claim about megafauna was false.  I am not interested in rediscussing your other views, which have already been sufficiently refuted here.

24834. Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       KR @33, the term 'prisoners dilemma' is the general term for such situations in the discipline that actually studies strategies for dealing with them.

24835. Dcrickett at 08:01 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       @29 Bozzza — I see no conflict in what I wrote. Maybe I am merely in a drug-induced stupor; I had major surgery. But I would be glad to attempt an explanation, if you would explain what you see as conflict.

       What I do see as not entirely clear is my point that there is little time for taking proper and adequate action to address the CO₂ crisis. I fear the point of no return (more like a span of time than a point in time, but the phrase stands) could pass before the paradigm of inaction gives way. Maybe Ragnarök would be a better analogy than updated French Revolution. Either way, not a good time to be a one percenter. Or a human of any kind.

24836. KR at 04:32 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis - Do you have a preferred alternative term for the tendency of individual self-interests to drive actions contrary to the common good? Such as in pollution of the air, water, etc, the externalities that are currently not accounted for in fossil fuel prices?

24837. RedBaron at 02:56 AM on 1 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       There is just one tiny point I disagree with slightly. You said, "The greenhouse gas footprint of food is growing while the role of the food system in climate mitigation is not receiving the attention that it urgently needs." In my opinion food production has the attention. It even has well vetted solutions that are simply huge due to the very size of agriculture worldwide. BUT the problem is that there is tremendous backlash and opposition to actually making those changes. Almost insanely high levels of backlash.

       This should help a whole lot.

       The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)… … is climate-smart rice production

        

       This also has great promise, although not quite as vetted.

       Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under

        

       And of course one thing that keeps popping up in agriculture all over everywhere one looks:

       Holistic management (agriculture)

        

       One reason I believe the resistance is so huge for these changes is the results are so huge and so beneficial it literally is embarrassing to those who implemented their destructive agricultural practices we have now. For example take a look at the results from pasture cropping.

       "Jones calculates that 171 tons of CO2 per hectare has been sequestered to a depth of half a meter on Winona."

       Any climate scientist that starts plugging in numbers like that into worldwide agricultural acreage and they get numbers so huge they proclaim it just is too good to be true.

       171tons CO2 per hectare X 224.2 million hectares = over 38,000 million tons CO2 sequestered just in changing one crop, wheat, to regenerative agriculture. Start applying similar practices to all agriculture and the numbers get ridiculously huge. People just can't accept numbers so huge. They refuse to believe it really is that simple as simply restoring our soils to fertility.

        

       "I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change, I am the change."

24838. PhilippeChantreau at 02:41 AM on 1 April 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       I think Tom Curtis has it right. Billev has been provided with more reading than he even had time to do before responding with again the same objections, indicating that he has either not attempted to understand the material, failed to do so, or has no interest in anything that deviates from his already held belief, regardless how invalid that belief is. This seems to be a waste of time. Perhaps there should be a quick test to pass on suggested reading before one can post again...

24839. Tom Curtis at 02:36 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       KR @31, I am quite aware of the standard definition of the "tragedy of the commons".  I am pointing out that that definition is Orwellian in nature, and motivated by a desire to supplant customary tenure held by (primarilly) indigenous peoples with fee simple tenure held by corporations.

       For what it is worth, the term "tragedy of the commons" was coined by Hardin in 1968.  It was not coined by Lloyd, although he discusses a model of the commons, and draws an analogy from that to the labour market, arguing that because the labour market is a commons, laborours will essentially breed without restraint. (pp 30-33).

24840. KR at 01:19 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis - While that abuse may be part of the history of the term "Tragedy of the Commons", originally and in particular when describing climate change it follows a different definition, that put forth by William Forster Lloyd in 1833:

       The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource.

       The term may have been misused, but that doesn't invalidate the original meaning. 

24841. Nick Palmer at 00:54 AM on 1 April 2016
       Six burning questions for climate science to answer post-Paris
       

       Nice to see someone else on Skepsci who's aware of the large potential of agicultural/pasture soils to sequester large enough amounts of carbon quick enough to counterbalance our current emissions and holds out the hope of actually reducing atmospheric C levels.
       
       It would require changing most agriculture away from the big chemical input methods we have today. Most people, when hearing about this for the first time, usually expect that crop yields would fall but, on balance, it seems crop yields can even improve.

24842. Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 1 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       chriskoz @28, I will respond to the greater substance of your comment later.  Just now I want to flag my dislike of the term "tragedy of the commons" in its current usage.  That goes back the the first, and genuine tragedy of the commons, also known as the enclosure movement.  In essence, at the end of the midle ages, land holdings were based on a system of enfiefdom, wherein a tennant would hold land from their lord based on a requirement for certain duties.  The duties varied based.  For peasants they could include mandatory service on their lord's land, serving in their lord's militia on demand, payement of a small percentage of their own corn, and payment of a fee on inheritance of the rights.  For that they typically had possession of a small amount of arable land, the right to liven in the village, to protection by their lord, and the right to graze livestock on the commons and/or fallow land, and the right to forrage (but not hunt) in the commons.  The key point was that the system of responsibility was mutual, and in particular, the lord could no more refuse the relationship than could the peasant, or the king refuse the equivalent relationship to the lord - at least in principle.  

       In practise, of course, customary rights tend to be enforcible for those with power, and not for those who are weak.  As a result, when it was discovered that more money could be had by grazing sheep on the land, many lords started to enclose their land, either just the commons or all of the land for sheep.  This was in breach of customary law, and later in breach of several acts of parliament, but no effective action was taken.  The tragedy here was not that the commons were being over used.  It was that a very large number of the relatively poor and powerless were rendered destitute so that the rich and powerful could gain more wealth by seizing the commons to their exclusive use.

       In principle and in practise, this was no different to the English seizure or Australian land under the doctrine of terra nullius, or equivalent denial of customary land rights in Kalimantan and West Papua by the Indonesians.

       In current usage, the term "tragedy of the commons" is used to justify the seizure of customary rights of access to land/and or fisherys and giving them a simple property rights to the wealthy.  It is in fact, a modern enclosure movement.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  And as their rhetorical justification for that seizure, they choose as their flag a misdescription of what actually happened to common land in Europe all those centuries ago, and what the actual tragedy of the commons in fact was.

       The term is Orwellian.

24843. bozzza at 23:35 PM on 31 March 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       @ 27, your comment seems conflicted.

       You say taxes would be better than regulation but then you go on to say that systemic change is required.

24844. chriskoz at 21:36 PM on 31 March 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis,

       Your acceptance of free market with no negative externalities within the set of sovereign nations being the best available playground for sustainable enonomy, can easily be challenged as inadequate with respect to the climate change problem.

       The issue is that CO2 polution is the tragedy of the commons not just within the economies of each of the sovereign nations. If it was, the externality of CO2 polution could be fixed by known mechanisms such as emission tax/trading scheme or regulations. However, CO2 polution is a truly global tragedy of the commons problem, in a sense that it goes beyond the realm of all sovereign economies. Therefore, the mechanisms cited above cannot fix it. It is described by some as the big  TOC where sovereign nations are the actual players. IMO, you must ultimately resolve such TOC problem at this level to succeed.

       Assuming the so called "global economy" is the playgrond here, it is far more difficult to fix the CO2 emision externalities while preserving the sovereignty of the players. The same applies to other TOC types of  issues that you consider, e.g. the problem of ocean overfishing. The question is not just that mechanisms suitable in global economy do not exists. In fact a global carbon tax ideas have been circulating for some time, e.g. Hansen's idea of ubiquitous tax and dividents at all levels, at the source point (i.e. mining), import points and finally burning. But that idea is unimplementable without a breach of players' sovereignty. For a starter, how are you going to police it to ensure the enforcement?

24845. RedBaron at 21:17 PM on 31 March 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       Tom,

       Lets say you are right, and we have more total ruminents now. (I am not convinced of that but not worth arguing) That is a good thing if the animals are part of the grazer/grassland biome which is a net sink. The only reason it is a problem is due to removing those animals from the biome and putting them in CAFOs instead.

       What we have now is a loss of ecosystems services over a vast area of land, because a cropfield most certainly does not function the same in regards to methane oxidation as a grazer/grassland biome. In fact at least one of the sources I quoted above found it functioned at only 20% the effectiveness of an adjacent grazed area. Think of all the cropland in the world producing grains and operating at only 20% efficiency in methane oxidation!

       It is not unusual for agriculture to actually produce more food than a natural ecosystem. It is managed after all. But grasslands can be managed as well. There is no need to overproduce grains, far more than we could possibly eat, and then feed them to livestock, just so we can count that productivity twice. More important to AGW mitigation is to bypass all the "middle steps" and go straight from grassland to animal so we don't loose that ecosystem service.

24846. BBHY at 21:13 PM on 31 March 2016
       New survey finds a growing climate consensus among meteorologists
       

       We had what I would consider a very mild winter. Temperatures even in late December were in the 70's, and in late February/early March we had more warm spells, even touching 80 degrees in some places.

       But in January we had one big snowstorm, and somehow that was reason enough for folks on social media to claim that we had a record cold winter. It wasn't even that cold during the snowstorm. That is really some extreme spin they are putting on.

24847. barry1487 at 17:57 PM on 31 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       Here is an eyeball test of whether or not there has been a pause since 2002.

       

       Frist line is the trend 1970 to December 2001.

       Second line is the tend 2002 to december 2015.

       Doesn't look like much of a pause to me.

       How about if we include January and February of 2016?

       

       Doesn't look like a pause since 2002.

       Now, that's just the 'eyeball' analysis. It's totally insufficient. But if you are not interested in doing it properly, billev, if you're just going to go with what your eyes see, then you have to agree that there's been no pause since 2002, right?

       Here's the link to that web page, too, so you can check for yourself.

       [Link]

        

24848. RedBaron at 17:15 PM on 31 March 2016
       Six burning questions for climate science to answer post-Paris
       

       Obviously reducing emissions is one way to help. But Nick is correct. Regenerative agriculture is the solution. Most the schemes mentioned might help, but they are no where near large enough to actually solve the problem. Agriculture is easily large enough. Need methane oxidised? Methanotrophs. Need carbon sequestered, soil carbon actually increases food yields. Water shortages? Soil carbon actually holds water resisting the effects of drought.  Floods? Same. Soil carbon increases infiltration rates mitigating the effects of floods. Is the soil sink large enough? Absolutely. Larger than all the carbon in the atmosphere. We might actually be forced to slow down a bit in our efforts just so we don't actually pull too much carbon out of the atmosphere and accidently trigger a glaciation event. But we need to get started soon. We have worldwide such massive soil degradation that in about 50-60 years agriculture will fail worldwide. Once that happens all is lost. With no agriculture as a base both civilization fails and any chance at using agriculture to mitigate AGW is lost as well. Then we are stuck with the much slower natural biomes to do the work, and they are not up to the task as they are also highly degraded. Mass Extinction event in my opinion.

24849. barry1487 at 16:50 PM on 31 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev,

       No one expects a long-term warming trend to follow a straight line year after year. There are long and short-term spikes, dips, flat periods etc. If someone was trying to pull the wool over your eyes than those temperature graphs from NASA and other groups would look like a straight line.

       I don't know why you expect the warming from CO2 to be represented as a straight line going from cooler in the past to hotter. I don't know why you think the variation that we see means something important about CO2 warming. As we all agree, there are other short term and long term factors that influence temperature. That's why we see the variation, the spikes and dips and flattish periods. The long term signal doesn't dominate at short time scales. It is, however, more persistent. We're going to see more warmth in the future, with spikes and dips and flattish periods. The signal is clear.

       For most of your other points, the list of links in KR's post answers them well.

       I tried to explain why no one can claim a pause, warming or cooling from short data sets (like since 2002). I can only link you back to the explanation.

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/gw-basics-what-has-changed.html#116608

        

       When you say 'pause', you are instantly in the domain of trend analysis. You need at least a basic understanding of that to make any kind of claim, or to have an understanding of the claim you are making. Eyeballing a graph isn't good enough.

       But if you are only going to use your eyeball, then I showed you the results since 2002 for a bunch of graphs, all but one of which showed a warming trend. The line went from lower temps in 2002, to higher temps at the end. A naive reading is that this is a warming, not a flat trend. If you are going to stick with a naive reading, an eyeball assessment, then you must conclude that there is no pause since 2002?

       I even linked you to the application where you can check for yourself. It's very easy to use.

       http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

       If you want NASA's trend, then click on GISTEMP (GISS is the acronym for the department of NASA that does the temperature records), type 2002 in the 'start date' box and click 'calculate. Then look at the trend you get.

       Tell me what you see for yourself. A pause or a warming trend?

24850. bozzza at 15:42 PM on 31 March 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       The bottom line according to Hansen is that surface temperatures are not necessarily the best indicator!

       So what is then? According to Hansen it is the total energy in versus out budget: which includes various unkowns.

       So, where do we go from here?

       It's risk managament 101 and rather than change billions of dollars of plant the big swingers are going to play pause button politics until they can get the jump on the affirmed data. Oh noes.. what if the new guy starts with a well placed bet!

       Divestment wins...

Prev  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  Next