Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 Next
Comments 27851 to 27900:
-
CBDunkerson at 05:02 AM on 1 September 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Hey, Obama's trip to Alaska got me thinking... given that 'the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole'... would that imply that places like Alaska and Siberia are already AT the '2 C limit'?
Obviously, the 2 C limit is meant as a global average, but is there some applicability as each regional area passes that thresh-hold? That is, are the level of changes being seen in Alaska currently similar to what the whole world will see at 2 C?
-
New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
tder2012 - Personally, I do not expect the path to low-carbon energy to be simple, and many of the proposals for accomplishing that are indeed more thought experiment than detailed proposals.
However, if we were to implement costs on fossil fuels commensurate with their impacts, such as a carbon tax, accompanied by government policies supporting rather than undercutting renewables, I expect the move to low-carbon energy in all sectors of the worlds economies will occur simply due to the profit motive.
The second reference you put forth, Vidal et al 2013, has as its abstract:
Renewable energy requires infrastructures built with metals whose extraction requires more and more energy. More mining is unavoidable, but increased recycling, substitution and careful design of new high-tech devices will help meet the growing demand.
Given the doubtful tone of your post, I would have to note that the referred article is actually quite optimistic.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:58 AM on 1 September 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
qikplay... Do you understand the relative forcing of those solar cycles on the climate system compared to other forcings? The difference in the last two solar cycles relative to the previous few is a teenie-tiny signal lost in the background noise. You're talking a small fraction of a watt/m2 relative to the 1361W/m2 of incoming solar radiation. We are lucky to orbit a very stable star.
You should consider the 2.3W/m2 of forcing from increased human activities as the culprit for the the changes we see in our climate system.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:15 AM on 1 September 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
mancan18,
My observations of recent history, following the attempts of many people to develop improved understanding and raise awareness about the unacceptability of developed profitable and popular economic activity, indicate that a major barrier to 'the development of legitimate scientific development of the best understanding of what is going on, the general acceptance of that increased understanding, and the application of the understanding to develop lasting improvements of living conditions for all of humanity on this amazing planet' is a focus on "Scientific development that will lead to profitable and popular pursuits, including the science of marketing to promote those pursuits".
The pursuers of profit and popularity clearly have little reason to investigate and educate the population about the potential unacceptability of their pursuits. They may investigate them, but they choose what to promote about their pursuits. And since it is always cheaper if you can get away with a less acceptable action the chase after popularity and profitability naturally leads to a deliberate lack of awareness regarding the unacceptability of things, either because of a lack of investigation (the ones making the money are not interested in understanding the unacceptability of the ir pursuits), or a lack of sharing what has been learned (If the ones making the money become aware of an unacceptablilty related to their pursuits they will not want others to know about that unacceptability).
And people who pursue personal perceptions of prosperity can have little interest in hearing about the unacceptability of the cheaper ways they have been able to get away with believing they are prosperous. Cheaper ways almost always are more damaging and are ultimately unsustainable limited opportunities that people have to fight to be the biggest beneficiaries of (to the detriment of others).
The pursuit of profit, pleasure and perceptions of prosperity today can be seen to be the equivalent of religion in the 17th Century. That focus is a barrier to the development and acceptance of increased understanding of what is going on. Popularity and profitability today have clearly been a barrier to the development of human activity toward a lasting better future for all of humanity, just as the unjustified religious beliefs were in the past (and still are in many regions, including in developed nations, on many issues today).
-
howardlee at 23:56 PM on 31 August 2015You can’t rush the oceans (why CO2 emission rates matter)
Hi BC. According to one recent paper:
...so the impact of reduced uptake factor is already happening and will get much worse this century.
-
DSL at 23:05 PM on 31 August 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
Qikplay, quick questions:
1. How long is a solar cycle?
2. What has happened to global mean surface temperature and ocean heat content during the last two solar cycles?
Show the evidence that forms the basis of your claims. Do you have numbers? Do you understand the relative strength of the 11-year solar cycle? Or are you just acting as a puppet or conduit for the claims of others. -
tder2012 at 22:19 PM on 31 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
"A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?" from that article "Given the multiplicity of feasibility challenges associated simultaneously achieving such rapid rates of energy intensity improvement and low-carbon capacity deployment, it is likely to be both premature and dangerously risky to ‘bet the planet’ on a narrow portfolio of favored low-carbon energy technologies." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/wcc.324
Also from the journal "Nature Geoscience" - "Metals for a low carbon society" http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n11/full/ngeo1993.html
-
MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 31 August 2015It's the sun
qikplay @1152.
You may feel trawling SkS to identify posts to criticise is helpful but do pause a while. The BBC 'myth' addressed in the post here dates to 2004 and was written by David Whitehouse, a man suffering deep denial on AGW. Indeed, he has since been recruited by the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy). Whitehouse reports the work of Solanki which have been lost and forgotten by all but AGW deniers. And that is because the evidence, the data and graphs, demonstrates Solanki is plain wrong. You appear to reject the use of "competing graphs and data" as a way examining the unsupported fantasy of the likes of Solanki. How then would you suggest we examine his wild claims?
-
MA Rodger at 21:18 PM on 31 August 2015Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
braintic @76.
The room and the match anaolgy, "Iian Samson's problem" (at 27 mins in the video) is new to me. I found no internet comment so I did a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation.
The ratio of atmosphere to the room is a little bigger than you calculate. Taking the troposphere as 80% of the full atmosphere yields a gas content of 3 x 1016 rooms. The analogy's use of CO2 levels increased by cars alone is a bit curious, but this is usually considered as 10% of the total CO2 emissions, thus perhaps causing +0.22ppm/year.
That leaves the match. Perhaps Giaever uses giant matches, but the usual sort, the sort used by marchstick model makers weigh 0.11g. With 50% carbon content that puts the answer at one match every 3½ years not 20 years, a significant difference.
-
qikplay at 21:14 PM on 31 August 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
its obvious we are feeling the effects of the last 2 solar cycles being low, with polar vortexes and snows in August and july in calgary and hawaii respectivly..
-
Jim Hunt at 18:14 PM on 31 August 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
Rovinpiper - Look at this figure from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Arctic sea ice extent is currently over two standard deviations below "normal". Now click the "Antarctic" tab and take a look at this one:
Antarctic sea ice extent is currently below "normal". Now consider the respective locations of all that sea ice when the sun is shining on it. The ice at the South Pole is more than a meter thick on midsummer's day!
-
bozzza at 15:42 PM on 31 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
@12,
mancan: well written except you forgot one thing in the scientific method.
Step 7- write the dang report!
~X^o'///,<
-
Tom Dayton at 11:51 AM on 31 August 2015Hockey stick is broken
Jim Milks compiled a list of three dozen replications of the hockey stick, and that's only up through 2013.
Hat tip to Jack Dale via David Appell.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:13 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Wait!! Isn't that Arya Stark? Is she getting the Many-Faced God to help Dilley?
This makes me sad. ;-)
-
Tom Dayton at 11:04 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Rob, what do you have against Time Lords?!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:58 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
My personal favorite claim on his bio page is this one:
USAF 1968 - 1872 (Weather Officer - rank Captain)
Yes, an obvious typo, but humorous none-the-less. That along with the statement that he has an article published on NoTricksZone dated August 28, 2016.
He seems to be somewhat temporally challenged, in a way that a simple proof reading could cure.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:37 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Tom Curtis, the odd phrasing of Dilley's bio leaves unclear whether he actually got a B.S. or an M.S. Normally people list "B.S. Meteorology," or "B.S. major in Meteorology," and "M.S. Meteorology, emphasis on climatology." Instead Dilley wrote "studies for B.S." and "studies for M.S." It's possible to audit graduate classes, and in some schools to even take them for credit, without being in that school's Masters program. So maybe he took classes but never got his B.S., or got his B.S. but never got his M.S. His misunderstanding of what causes seasons is evidence that he was incapable of getting either degree.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Rob Honeycutt @288, David Dilley claims on his website to have an MA in meteorology, and to have worked with the US Air Force and then NOAA as a meteorologist. He also claims only two, self published papers on climate, so no peer reviewed publications at all. His masters thesis appears to not have been published.
What I find interesting is his claim that:
"Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s."
The research justifying the claim is supposedly contained in an e-book for which his website no longer provides links. The prediction was made no later than August of 2008, so it predicts continued cooling in 2009 to "temperatures ... observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s". For the record, 2009 was 0.1 C warmer than 2008. It was also 0.6 C warmer than the 1940-1979 average, and 0.46 C warmer then the 95th percentile of 1940-1979 global temperatures (GISS LOTI). No year since 2008 (when the prediction was made) has been as cool as, let alone cooler than 2008.
For his 2023 prediction to be valid, global temperatures must fall by more than 0.1 C per year for eight years running - a rapidity of temperature change not witnessed at any time in the modern record. No doubt that prediction will be a bust as well.
As a predictions of global temperatures, these are among the most spectacular fails ever seen. It is also inconsistent with his claim to be a reliable predictor of short term climate and ENSO states in general. Consequently it is no surprise to find no archived copies of his predictions at his website. We 'know' he is a successful predictor only because in 2015 he tells us what his predictions for the years up to 2015 were.
-
DSL at 09:25 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Oh, and ringingrocks, if you are actually skeptical (not simply doubtful), you might want to reverse your research process. Start with the basic physics and work from there.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:22 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Oh, and we already are on our way to that 2025 catastrophic global low temperature, Diller claims, because global temperature peaked in 2012 and has been cooling ever since. Really, that's still on his web site.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:08 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
ringingrocks: The credibility of David Diller is low, given that he claims to be able to accurately predict ENSO events (El Nino & La Nina) and hurricanes four years in advance, yet does not show his past predictions versus the realities, despite him having been in his business for 25 years. He also claims to accurately predict earthquakes. And claims that in 2025 global temperatures will hit a catastrophically major low. And then there is this astonishingly wrong claim that a grade schooler could correct, but which apparently is a key basis for his predictions: "The gravitational cycles of the moon and sun cause the seasonal tilts of the earth's axis and the 4 seasons."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:42 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
ringingrocks... Your video from David A. Dilley is rather long and wide ranging, but has a large amount of incorrect information. You can easily go through each of the myths listed on the top left of this blog page and see responses to each and every issue.
Overall, best I can make out, Mr. Dilley does not have the credentials that he claims. A quick search on google scholar doesn't turn up any published research by a DA Dilley on any climate related issue. You're probably better served by sticking with actual researchers in the field of climate science.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:38 AM on 31 August 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
ringingrocks... This is probably not the appropriate thread to be asking general questions about climate change. This thread is specific to Arctic sea ice. I will post a response on the "Empirical evidence" thread.
-
ringingrocks at 08:24 AM on 31 August 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
Hi folks. I'm trying to get my head around the climate change science. I tend towards being sceptical, I am open to updating and correcting mu opinions. There's been a lot of sensationalism about this topic, and the reporting has flip-flopped all over the place for years. So I ran across this video on youtube that seems worthy of consideration. If any of you have some time to have a look and share your thooughts, I'd be grateful. Thanks.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
Quikplay, if you read carefully, you will see that the myth is that "It is cosmic rays" that is causing the current warming, or more correctly, it is a paucity of cosmic rays that cause the warming. There is no claim that it is a myth that cosmic rays exist. Nor is there any claim that it is a myth that cloud extent effects global temperatures. Nor is there any claim that it is a myth that cosmic rays seed clouds.
As to your anecdotes, yes it snowed in July on Hawaii at 13,000 feet. At that altitude, with the normal lapse rates temperatures are 26 C less than surface temperatures due to altitude. As it happens, the temperature in Hawaii at sea level on the day of the snow (July 17th) was a 90 F (32 C) maximum, and 79 F (26 C) minimum, 2 and 5 F above average respectively. Noting the average July minimum temperature, it is evident that snow in July on the mountain peaks is a rarity primarilly due to lack of thunderstorms early in the day to lift the humidity that high.
As to Calgary, on average it snows in August in Calgary every ten years or so. And you want to count that as evidence of a "mini-ice age"? As somebody just said, "lol feeling stupid [much]?"
Meanwhile you are ignoring the massive, and extended heat wave in the state of Washington, the heat wave in the heat wave in Pakistan that killed 2000 people, and the heat wave in India which caused the deaths of 2,500 people, as well as the heat waves in Europe, and China. In fact, you ignore all the evidence that show 2015 to be the hottest year todate by a large margin, which along with a significant El Nino is causing predictions 2015 will be the warmest year on record:
So please, no more demonstrations of your complete lack of reading comprehension (ie, your persistent and obtuse misidentification of the myth); and no more cherry picking.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 08:10 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
That's it already? Down with GCRs and jumping to the next thing? How boringly typical. Two suggestions, if you want to discuss the role of the Sun:
1-go to the appropriate thread
2- drop the YouTube horse puckey and start with published scientific litterature.
-
qikplay at 07:34 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
can you comment on the correlation between the sun and climate and the graph they show that shows the correlation.
Moderator Response:[RH] The correlation was faked by Durkin.
[TD] Also, read the SkS post "It's the Sun"--the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video lower on that page, then read the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one. If you want to comment further on the Sun, do so on that thread, not this one.
-
qikplay at 07:33 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
wtach from 30minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
Moderator Response:[RH] I think you need to watch this video that shows how Durkin fraudulently altered the materials, to the point where even skeptics complained.
[TD] Also watch the video by Peter Sinclair, on that Durkin's fake documentary and in particular his fakery regarding the Sun and cosmic rays.
-
BBHY at 07:23 AM on 31 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
I feel like the question of whether the new study from Hansen's group is accurate is not the right question. IMHO the right questions are:
1) Is is possible that the study is correct?
2) Even if it is not, willl sea level rise be great enough to cause us serious trouble?
3) How confident are we with the answer to #2?
4) After the sea rises, is there anything we can do to reverse it?
The answers are 1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) Very 4) No.
Hence the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions as soon and as much as possible.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 07:16 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
Qikplay, your lists of anecdotal blurbs is not even funny. Have you even tried to figure what the global temperatures have been so far this year? And last year, the warmest on record? With the immense majority of glaciers receding and loosing mass all over the world? It seems that your participation here is another thing not deserving of any attention. It seems the snow in Calgary has not prevented the region from enacting a fire ban. And what was the wildfire season like this year in Canada again? Do you honestly think that, on a website where scientific evidence is discussed, you rantings would have a chance to sway anyone? An ice age eh? Illustrated by a Arctic sea ice once again below average by more than 2 standard deviations? Makes perfect sense right?
Per environement Canada, the long term trend 1948-2013 for winter temperatures is +3.2 degrees C. The annual average has increased by 1.6 degrees over the past 67 years. Some ice age that is. Personally I think that moderators summarily delete such obvious nonsense as your last post.
-
qikplay at 07:11 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
no clear evidence for GCRs actually being a significant factor
Yes, but that's a far cry from 'doesn't exist' dont you think?
Moderator Response:[RH] Your concern has been addressed already, saying that GCRs are responsible for global warming is the myth. You're going to have to find a way to accept that and move on. Repeating the same error is considered sloganeering is not allowed here.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 06:58 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
It's even worse than Rob suggests. The hypothesis is that GCRs seed clouds and that the resulting cloud cover modulation is a forcing, i.e. responsible for the current warming. Not only there is still no clear evidence for GCRs actually being a significant factor in nebulosity, but the recent GCR count shows an increase, which would mean more cloud and a cooling effect. This whole idea that GCRs influence the climate is a joke, coming from people so desperate to distract attention that they will grasp at the most feeble of straws. It does not deserve any attention whatsoever.
-
qikplay at 06:53 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
OK, sorry for the rude all caps shit..
BUT (whoops) You don't say something is a 'myth' then admit that it's not a myth in the first paragraph of your commentary! what are you thinking.. it's not a myth, rather its extent a bone of contension between you and other scientists, pundits etc..
you don't say something doesn't exist, oh but actually it exists just not that much.. big difference there and talk about being misleading perhaps you should take this off your 'myths' section lol feeling stupid?
and the reason its not responsible for the recent warming is that there is recent cooling like snow in calgary in august, snow in hawaii in july, polar vortex in 2014..how long do you think you can keep up this sham that the mini-ice age isn't really happening? (snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] Please be more careful. I'm going to drop out of commenting here and just moderate. You really need to go carefully read through the commenting policy before continuing to post.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:45 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
qikplay... The myth would be that GCR are responsible for warming of the past 50 years. That GCR are "not very effective" at seeding clouds suggests that they are, in fact, not responsible for recent warming.
-
ivor at 06:07 AM on 31 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Also much larger turbines are being built and at 140 meters their capacity factors usually exceeds 60%. Furthermore the wind at that height is available in many more locations.
-
ivor at 06:02 AM on 31 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
I'm a bit late to these comments too. The idea that renewable energy needs rare earths is outdated. As somebody already pointed out it is not used in normal solar panels. What has not been mentioned is that modern gearless wind turbine magnets only use .7% or less dysprosium and will soon use none. The neodymium may be considered rare but there is an endless supply throughout the world making the term "rare" not appropriate. For reference read the last three paragraphs of this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605
-
qikplay at 05:22 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
I like the way you write this, "The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds."
'not very effective' so it's not a 'myth'
don't say it's a myth and then admit that it's not a myth in the first paragraph of your editorial! That's called a fallacy of logic, something you people seem to excel at.Moderator Response:[Rob P] - All caps edited out - please note the comments policy that you agreed to adhere to when commenting here.
As for logic: note that the rebuttal points out that GCR's have increased in recent decades -which should have seeded more clouds and induced a cooling effect. Instead the Earth has warmed dramatically. The bottom graphic is very unintuitive though.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:42 PM on 30 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
scaddenp et al.
Arriving at this discussion somewhat belatedly, it seems appropriate to point out at this juncture that Ricardo said recently they have designed a low cost, rare earth free EV motor:
-
TonyW at 18:06 PM on 30 August 2015The 1C Milestone
I would put it this way: "Safe" ≠ "benign."
Yes, indeed, Rob. It also appears to be true that 2C is not necessarily safe; there is no science which says it is. Kevin Anderson has said this and James Hansen has said this.
We may already be in unsafe territory at 1C (maybe 2C) with more already built in and, as ranyl pointed out, aerosols are masking some of the rise, so any decrease in burning fossil fuels (or maybe even a slowing of the increas), though necessary long term, could make matters worse over the medium term. To my mind, we're already in the non-benign range.
-
PluviAL at 15:50 PM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
SLR (sea level rise) estimates can only rise. A ratchering process in estimates is due to the trained conservatism of scientists, and the political make up of the IPCC pannel. As such, we must develop technologies to control SLR. We need to expand our sense of what is possible because we will have not choice SLR and agricultural inhospitability are programed into the world unfolding. To deny the possiblity of creating solutions is unwise.
-
suckfish at 15:02 PM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
Charlie, the source is hyperlinked, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdfGuessing from the URL the linked version is a "COP19" paper rather than the actual AR5 report.The AR5 text does gives the 1993 - 2010 numbers, and "1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010" (which is very similar to the 1901 - 1990 figures above). -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:57 PM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Bozza @ 22 and 23,
My reference to mountain climbing was an attempt to avoid the confrontational response often generated when I say that the real problem is the business operators, investors and consumers who prefer the perception of prosperity they have when they can get away with obtaining what they want quicker or cheaper (the quickest and cheapest way to do or get things is usually the least acceptable way it can be gotten away with, involving higher risk of damaging consequences to others).
The real problem is the way the free actions of people in the free market encourages businesses and consumers not to care about how unacceptable their personal pursuits of perceptions of prosperity are. It even leads them to consider any point made about the unacceptability of their perceived or desired prosperity to be a personal threat.
So, as I see it, the real problem is the way that socio-political-economic systems that determine acceptability of an activity based primarily on popularity and profitability encourage the development of activity that all others cannot be allowed to benefit from (people compete to benefit the most from those limited opportunities). It also encourages the development of activity that creates consequences for others with investors and consumers doing anything they can get away with to avoid personally suffering the full deserved consequences of their risk taking pursuits of pleasure and prosperity. Those who get away with being the least acceptable win the most.
The unacceptability of already fortunate people getting even more benefit from burning fossil fuels is not the only developing better understanding that challenges the perceived prosperity of many of the wealthiest and most powerful. But of all the developing better understandings of the unacceptability of 'developed human enterprise' the climate change challenge clearly affects the largest amout of illigitimately developed perceptions of prosperity. And it generates the expected perception of threat and expected response to a threat by those who feel threatened by it.
That undersanding is the best explanation I have for the popularity of the lack of action to date to avoid the creation of more significant problems for future generations. It is why the achievable 1.5C limit (easily achieved if the wealthiest seriously tried to do what should have been started 25 years ago), was never seriously attempted to be achieved. And it is why 2C and 3C and 4C and 5C would also not seriously be attempted to be achieved.
Collectively, the success of unacceptable pursuits of what people want is, and always has been, the most serious challenge facing humanity. And this climate change challenge has increased awareness of how deliberately unacceptable many of the wealthiest and most powerful actually are.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:38 PM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Rob @29
Yes, that's much better: keep as close to 2 degrees as possible (even when we exceed it).
As for a definite zero-point for the temperature anomaly, this is something I've wanted for a long time. I love it. I just wish that henceforth the IPCC standardize on it too.
-
Charlie A at 11:22 AM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
What is the source of Figure 13.3e shown in this article?
The figure in WG1AR5 doesn't have the 1901-1990 and 1993-2010 boxes or show the rates for those periods. The AR 5 figure is at www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2013/Fig13-03.jpg
It shows tide gauge records, which don't show the 3.2mm/yr recent rise .... that only shows in the satellite record, not the tide gauge record.
Please show a 3.2mm trend line from 1993 to 2010.
One can easily look at the chart and see that there is not a doubling or rate in the data presented. (I believe the data is Church and White 2011 and Jevrejeva et al. (2008). The purple and blue appear to be paleo/salt marsh data.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Tom... I'm hoping, if I just keep posting this month-after-month, eventually more authoritative researchers and institutions will establish an agreed upon measure of preindustrial temperature. Who knows, they may never even notice this but it's certainly worth a try.
As you say, this is probably good enough for where we are now. I think you're also right that it's worth noting that the 1880-1909 baseline may not account for some additional preindustrial warming. I'll include that for the next update.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:38 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
TonyW @28, Rob Honeycutt @29, the article by David Spratt uses Mann et al 2008 (cited as Mann, Zhang et al*), although he does not specify whether or not he used the CPS or EIV reconstruction. He also used a 1750-1779 baseline unlike the 1736 - 1765 baseline I used @11. Further, it is not clear whether or not the Mann 2008 data was renormalized for the NOAA dataset. For a more direct comparison, I get a 0.135 C temperature increase from the 1750-1779 baseline relative to GISSTEMP, and 0.148 C if normalized using the EIV reconstruction.
Curiously, in his article Spratt links to a chart indicating research on paleotemperatures which does not contain Mann et al 2008 (and indeed, which contains primarilly NH temperature reconstructions, and in at least one case a NH extra-tropical temperature reconstruction):
For comparison, here is the Mann 2008 global EIV reconstruction:
The key point from this is that the uncertainties in paleoreconstructions are such that preindustrial temperatures could be greater than the 1880-1909 average (by as much as 0.1 C), but are far likely to be less than that average. Indeed, they could be 0.4 C below that level. Given this, there is nothing wrong with just using the 1880-1909 average a a preindustrial estimate. It is worthwhile noting, however, that that baseline is likely to give a low estimate of the temperature increase since the preindustrial.
(* In the citation of Mann et al, 2008, Spratt mistyped the page number as 14252, whereas it is actually 13252)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:49 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Digby @27... Psychologically speaking, I think it's probably important to keep referencing 2C even when we go over that line, rather than start thinking about avoiding an even higher number. Rather than talk about 4C, talk about how close we can keep temps to 2C, else 4C will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
TonyW @28... I've seen Mann make this argument before, and I'm sure he's correct. It's just hard for me to (currently) justify making that adjustment to the baseline without specific data to base it on. I had thought about this when creating the graph, but decided to stick with a 30 year baseline that's as close to pre-industrial as I could get with the available GISS data.
-
braintic at 23:16 PM on 29 August 2015Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Giaever has made a new address to the Lindau Nobel Laureate 2015 meeting.
Here is a link to the video:
Here is a link to my rebuttal of his speech:
His speech is full of poorly researched data which does not represent what he says it does.
-
TonyW at 19:36 PM on 29 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Regarding the 2C limit, James Hansen had this to say in one of his recent missives, "Why have policymakers turned away from GHG amount to temperature as the metric with a value (2°C) seemingly pulled from a hat? Could it be because 2°C allows politicians to set emission targets to be achieved in the future when they will be out of office?"
Regarding baseline, what do you make of this article (look for "it's hotter than you think") that claims surface temperature in 1750 was 0.2C less than the 1880 baseline? If it's right, we're already at 1.2C above pre-industrial. -
mancan18 at 17:08 PM on 29 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
Tom Curtis @13
I am well aware of the works and the scientific approach of Roger Bacon and also that Aristotle was not just some simple philosopher who didn't study any science using empirical evidence. I am also aware that Greek philosophers like Erastothenes did make observations and used them in empirical ways, like for instance, estimating the circumference of the Earth. Yes, my statements were simplistic, but that was because I did not want give a full account of the development of modern empirical science. As for Newton, I am also aware that he spent more time on religious works and alchemy than he did on the scientific and mathematical studies that caused the revolution in the science that now underpins the modern world. The development of modern science is not a black and white affair where suddenly alchemists become chemists, or astrologers become astronomers. My main point is that at the cusp of the 17th century the study of science was done mostly by deeply religious men and was more used to verifying what was in the Bible, than about what the real world was actually like. It is true that if it weren't for the observations of Brahe, Kepler would not have been able to refine the Copernican theory. In fact, Brahe was so much a believer in the Ptolemic view of the motion of the planets because of his religious beliefs and his faith in the teachings of Aristotle, that he developed his own geocentric theory to account for the anomalies of planetary motion rather than simply accepting the Copernican view. As for Kepler, he spent most of his life trying to fit the planets into a geocentric model where the orbits fitted the platonic solids. He abandon his ideas because the actual observations, Tycho Brahe's observations, of the real world did not fit his theory. It was only then that he introduced ellitical orbits into the Copernican model. This was truly a new way of thinking for the time, as he had to abandon deeply held beliefs that he had gained through his religious faith. The vast majority of scientists of this time were highly religious and their scientific efforts were to enhance religious belief and glorify the church. This period is truly unique in that at the beginning of the 17th century, science was done mostly by religious men and used more to verify the prevailing religious orthodoxy. By the end of the 17th century, science was more focussed on the real world and what was actually being observed, i.e. done for its own sake. The Galileo story is just a part of that narrative, and yes he did have contray views to what was generally accepted at the time. However, most of what was accepted was because it verified the religious teachings of the church. Galileo's assertions were not based on religious orthodoxy, although it was obvious from his treatment that there were some religious figures who were sympathetic to his views.
Prev 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 Next
