Recent Comments

Prev  569  570  571  572  573  574  575  576  577  578  579  580  581  582  583  584  Next

Comments 28801 to 28850:

28801. DSL at 01:58 AM on 16 June 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Perhaps I'm dense, ghoward.  Could you explain further?  Could you also give a method that results in global net sea ice increase over a meaningful time period?

28802. DSL at 01:56 AM on 16 June 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       

       May GISTemp L-OTI is out.  The graphed figure is 0.68C.  The tabled data says 0.71C.  With the re-adjusted data (through 1996 anyway), this May tied for the 2nd-warmest May in the record and 32nd-warmest month.  May ended the warmest 6-month and 36-month periods, and the 12-month period was the third warmest following March and April of this year.

28803. ghoward79 at 01:42 AM on 16 June 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Everyone should be happy, more sea ice means less ocean level rising. FACT.

28804. One Planet Only Forever at 00:06 AM on 16 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @22,

       Here are some things to think about related to my position.

       1. Envision a set of parameters that determine the carrying capacity of the planet. Do any of the items create accummulating harm to any other life? If so revise the parameters since maintaining the robust diverity of life is essential to the future of humanity. Have you included any consumption of non-renewable resources? If so then revise the parameters to eliminate those things because they are not essential to life, and they are things that only a few can enjoy the benefit of. And entertainment is only OK as long as it does not cause any harm to other life. If it harms other life it isn't entertaining, no matter how popular it may be able to be.
       2. Now that a realistic and meaningful set parameters for the carrying capacity of humanity are established reflect on how far from that the current developed ways of living of the most fortunate are. Consider why it is that so much has developed so far away from the direction that is essential for a lasting better future for humanity.
       3. Now envision the mix of life circumstances currently on the plant at a level of total consumption and impact that exceeds the identified carrying capacity. Then while maintaining the same dispairity of life circumstances and impact reduce the population to the carrying capacity. As a comparison, reduce the population by removing the highest impacting people. As a last comparison, reduce the population by removing the lowest impacting people. You should have 3 clearly differnt numbers, not one.
       4. Now instead of reducing the population number consider the result of reducing the consumption of the highest consuming and highest impacting people. In this case all that is required is for the most fortunate to lead to the development of and setting the standard for lower impact and lower consumption ways of living. It is possible that no population reduction will be required to meet the carrying capacity. Take this one step further. After the highest consuming and impacting have reduced their consumption and impact they will likely still be living excessively decent lives, better than a basic decent life. However, there will still be desperately poor people suffering brutal harsh short lifes in situations where they correctly understand that their only chance of being cared for in their old age is to have a surviving child who will take care of them, leading them to try to have as many children as possible since many children die (or in a culture where it is believed that males matter more than females so a male can force women to bear children for them until a son is born). Now have the most fortunate strive to help the least fortunate advance to a basic decent life. The most fortunate would have to give up some of their potential for benefit to do that but they would still be living excessively decent lives.

       All of the above creates a variety of possible futures. One of which is hopefully understood to be more fundamantally decent than the others. Think about why that most decent future for humanity has not been the objective or result of development to date, in spite of efforts by some in the population to get things to develop that way.

       That should get your thoughts to the roots of the real problem. And the population is indeed a concern, as I said at the opening of my first comment in this string. However, it is actually certain types of people in the population who are the real problem.

28805. Tom Curtis at 00:00 AM on 16 June 2015
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       commonsense @390, in the troposphere, convection induces a lapse rate (fall of temperature with altitude) of about 6.5 C per kilometer.  The exact value depends on the specific heat of the atmosphere, the local graviational acceleration, and the mixing ratio of water to dry air in the atmosphere.  Because of this, any change in temperature at any level of the troposphere will in general be reflected across all altitude levels in the troposphere.  Specifically, if a 1.2 C increase in temperature at the effective altitude of radiation to space is required to balance the energy effect of doubling CO2, because of the effect of the lapse rate that same temperature change will also be felt at all lower altitudes.

       This is not a magical effect.  Suppose the effective altitude of radiation to space increases in height, ie, lifts to a cooler altitude.  It follows that less radiation to space will occur, so that the temperatures will warm.  The warmer temperature at higher altitudes will then slow convection, reducing the rate at which energy leaves the surface, which will in turn warm the surface.  This process will continue until the lapse rate is restored to its former value, ie, the temperature increase at the surface equals that at altitude.

       All this ignores feedbacks.  As it happens, one of the feedbacks, the lapse rate feedback slightly decreases the lapse rate due to increased water vapour in the atmosphere with increased temperatures (the cause of the tropospheric hotspot).  This is more than balanced by the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapour (the water vapour feedback) so that the net feedback is positive.  Consequently the final change in temperature is much more than the 1.2 C found in the no feedback case (and mentioned above).

28806. KR at 23:56 PM on 15 June 2015
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       commonsense - Two words: lapse rate. Rising air decreases in pressure and cools, descending air rises in pressure and warms (by the ideal gas law, PV - nRT). Surface temperatures will be directly related to tropospheric emission temperatures by altitude difference and the lapse rate. See Fig. 4 at this Realclimate article.

       At the surface IR in GHG wavelengths is absorbed within meters - but the real action takes place around the tropopause where pressures and absolute amounts of GHGS decrease to the point that ~50% of IR escapes to space. And the more GHGs, the higher that altitude is, and the larger the difference between the emission altitude temperature and that of the surface. 

28807. One Planet Only Forever at 23:11 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @22,

       The fundamentals of my point are not related to a specific set of conditions. The most impacting and consuming people reducing their impacts and consumption makes more room for others. Do you acknowledge that?

28808. SkepticalinCanada at 22:26 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       Sorry, forgot the link.

       10000 year misunderstanding

28809. SkepticalinCanada at 22:22 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       So, how many?  Under your ideal conditions, what is the carrying capacity of the planet?

       Daly's is not the only analysis which indicates a much smaller number of people than we  have now.  Other analyses (soil scientist Peter Salonius, for example) indicate that even those promoting much more organic and non-technology based agriculture misunderstand our relationship with the planet.

       And further, given the evidence that we are not living on this planet sustainably at present, what population number would correct that? 

28810. billthefrog at 20:17 PM on 15 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       Phil @ 35

       Ahhh! Peter Taylor!

       My Garbage In - Garbage Out filter had managed to delete all memory of him until you triggered some residual linkage. About 5 years ago, I borrowed the book he casually mentions from the local library - and virtually pissed myself laughing.

       It comes highly recommended if you want a good giggle. As for rigourous, objective intellectual content, it's right up there with Erich von Daniken and Immanuel Velikovsky.

28811. Langham at 19:54 PM on 15 June 2015
       Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
       

       Scaddenp @ 74.

       UK government energy policy does not envisage reliance on renewables to the extent demanded in your probably unachieveable and certainly unrealistic scenario - see the recent output from DECC on the subject, which clearly envisages a mixture or energy sources, less reliant on FF than at present but also making use of biomass and CO2 sequestration technologies - as well as nuclear.

       In the real-world circumstances, at the present time, it may well be that the UK and perhaps other nations turn increasingly to marine power, where this is available, to complement or replace land-based wind-power systems - and my assertion is absolutely true. The UK has a target for renewable power, and if some of that is met from marine sources, then the land-based component is reduced in direct proportion.

       Perhaps in certain middle-eastern or equatorial countries with abundant sunshine and sparse countries it is possible to envisage an energy policy based entirely on renewable (in this case solar) power, but in densely populated European countries, 100%  reliance on renewable energy generated locally, with present technology, is just an idle pipedream.

       The concept of rural serenity seems, for reasons which are obscure to me, to aggravate some here. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of people in the UK and I imagine elsewhere prize it sufficiently that, while it would be delusional to imagine there can be any form of complete embargo on all rural development -  clearly there isn't - nevertheless any government or planning authority is ill-advised to interfere with it lightly.

28812. commonsense12265 at 19:35 PM on 15 June 2015
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       There is a concern about saturation of CO2 absorption that I haven't seen addressed. Most of the action - like increased IR aborption - takes place at 16+ km above ground level.  How can this affect ground level temperature?
       Take into account that the greenhouse effect will not let radiation through.

28813. PhilippeChantreau at 16:02 PM on 15 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       That is not so clear from the quote, in fact, since he does mention a volcano as well. At first glance, the quote suggests that either event would make the data more difficult to interpret, which is understandable. I'm not sure what his meaning exacly is, and I don't have the time or inclination to explore it. There is plenty of interesting reading with which one can use his time.

28814. PhilippeChantreau at 15:52 PM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       POJO, adequate answers have been provided. The warmer the air, the higher the water vapor content can be. Relative humidity is the precentage of total water vapor that could be contained in a volume of air at a given temperature. Absolute humidity is the actual water vapor content of the air in g/cubic meter. In aviation, relative humidity is given in weather reports and expressed, instead of a percent, as the temperature/dewpoint spread. The dewpoint is the temperature at which water vapor would condense if the air was cooled down to that temperature. The smaller the spread, the higher the relative humidity, hence the chance of visible moisture, which is of concern for aircraft operations. When considering climate, absolute humidity is more important because, as far as I can recall, it determines the warming feedback of water vapor.

       Furthermore, I would underline that the lower the relative humidity, the lower the chance of water condensing out of the air. A low relative humidity makes precipitation less likely; if your interlocutors are in California, perhaps they will realize that their argument does not foster a case of "it's nothing to worry about."

28815. One Planet Only Forever at 15:03 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @19,

       Hopefuly this will clariy things:

       • The population number that can live on this planet is totally a function of how that population exists "as a part of the robust and diverse web of life on this amazing planet". That does not mean that humans must live without technology. It simply means the technology used cannot overcome the need for the robust diversity of life. And the less robust and diverse other life is because of human activity the less future there is for humanity, the smaller the number of humans who can continue to live through the hundreds of millions of years it will be feasible for humans to live on this amazing planet.
       • More food can be produced from the same plot of land if talented human effort is applied to its production. Mechanization and chemicalization changed how 'profitable' the production could be while substantially ignoring the lack of sustainability of that profitability.
       • Daly's limit of humans may be based on a flawed analysis. It may not allow for de-materializing the economy. The number probably relates to a certain level of material consumption. And if any of that material is not practical and easy to fully recycle through the very long potential future for humanity then that is a limit that has been ignored. So Daly's population number is also a function of a presumption of the level of consumption. And it probably presumes things like the average human continuing to consume beef, even though it is clear that more humans could live on the planet if beef was only very rarely eaten by everyone.
       • So the impact of the total human population is what matters, and it sets the number for the population that could continue living that way in-perpetuity.
       • Your second last point raises a concern. You appear to be thinking Us-Them in regional terms. You should be thinking about 'all of us on this planet', with the only them being the ones who do not want to think about 'all of us on this planet'?
       • For the record I would prefer that everyone responsibly limited their way of living to the development of ways of living as an eternal part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet and helped all others enjoy that way of living. That would make the most space for others on this planet, rather than believing that somehow a more limited number of humans can live artificially on this planet. That would be everyone living in ways that actually had a future, rather than a smaller number enjoying a way of living that cannot last.
28816. scaddenp at 14:54 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       "same denialist thinking surrounding human-caused global warming is in evidence when human population is discussed as well - and at all stages of denial"

       Yeah, any policy that would limit no. of children is vastly at odds with commonly held values (see any no. of examples tut-tutting about China's one-child policy), ergo problem must not exist. Definitely same kind of thinking. Since societies are observed to naturally reduce fertility (given means) when probability of child survival is sufficiently high, there is hope without governmental control. It's just that I think are already beyond the point where that needed to kick in.

28817. SkepticalinCanada at 13:34 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @17  To address the first part, given that the current sixth great extinction is not wholly because of our emissions, given the ideas expressed that our agricultural society in general is not sustainable even without fossil fuels, given the estimates from ecological economists like Herman Daly that our sustainable population level seems to be somewhere below 2 billion people, and so on - in short, given the current evidence that we may have already passed the point where we need to look at humane population reduction - what do you estimate the current sustainable population level might be?  I would be most appreciative if you would provide your definition of "sustainable."

       With regard to your other points, I believe that over the long term, the same processes that provided us with our current unfortunate bonanza of fossil fuels may in fact provide some more.  So "non-renewable" in that regard may be relative.  Will it take a longer time than it will take for us to burn through what we have? Absolutely.

       Regarding your second question, no.

       Please define "habitable."  If you mean just continuing to grow our population, then no.  If you are implying that the planet is habitable now, please define "habitable."

       So, back to another question of mine.  If we magically reduce our consumption and emissions to zero, can we just keep growing the human population?

       And an additional question: if those highest impacting people do in fact change their ways, how much of an impact will that have on the sustainability of what the rest of the population is doing, especially if the population just keeps on growing?  By what percentage will that increase "sustainability?"

       For the record, I share scaddenp's pessimism, and in my opinion, some of the same denialist thinking surrounding human-caused global warming is in evidence when human population is discussed as well - and at all stages of denial.

28818. scaddenp at 13:08 PM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       The thought I have heard before (maybe E.O. Wilson) is something like:

       "Which is more difficult - telling most of the world that they cannot live Americans; or telling Americans that must live like most of the world?"

       Tough call.

       And one definitely from E.O. Wilson (Consilience).

       "They, and most of the rest of us, have yet to learn the arithmetical
       riddle of the lily pond. A lily pad is placed in a pond. Each day thereafter
       the pad and then all of its descendants double. On the thirtieth
       day the pond is covered completely by lily pads, which can grow no
       more. On which day was the pond half full and half empty? The
       twenty-ninth day."

       I would vastly prefer to the brakes on human population to be applied by a voluntary reduction on fertility rather than involutary increase in the morality rate. I'm not that optimistic however and downright pessimistic after visiting some of the more looney "skeptic" sites.

28819. One Planet Only Forever at 11:55 AM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @16,

       I am pretty sure that my comments remain consistent about this. It is only the total impact of the number of humans that matters. The number of humans would totally depend on how robust the diversity of other life is. The less robust and diverse the other life is the few humans that can be supported.

       Billions of humans could probably live very decently sustainably through the hundreds of millions of years this plant will potentially be habitable. But developing that type of living would require a completely different development motivation than the ones that have been most significantly driving development to date. It would require people who are willing to see all others live decently, and help others live that way.

       I have been adding that regardless of the number of humans, the burning of buried hydrocarbons is a dead-end activity. I have also pointed out that the 10,000 highest consuming and impacting people today are big consumers of non-renewable resources and are creating significant impacts.

       Please let me know what aspects of my position you specifically disagree with.

       • Do you believe that non-renewable resources are renewable?
       • Do you believe it is impossible to live decently without burning fossil fuels?
       • Do you believe the planet will not be habitable for hundreds of millions of years meaning that you expect the reasonable to access non-renewables will last up to the end of human survivability?

       I personally believe that requiring the highest impacting people to change their ways is a far more humane way to develop a decent future than allowing such poeple to get away with whatever they want to do and have them demand than the number of others hoping to live like them be reduced, or use their wealth and power to keep those others from 'getting any real chance to live the way they do, the way that only a few can, and even those few can only do for a while.'

28820. SkepticalinCanada at 09:39 AM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       I keep trying to ascertain whether or not you believe that the total number of people is an issue, and have even asked you directly.  If you are coming from the perspective that it is an issue, but consumption and in particular emissions are more important at present, I can certainly understand, and even more or less agree.  If however you believe that we can just continue to grow and grow the human population, even with reduction in consumption along the way, then I have an additional question:  At what number, and for what reason, will we have to stop?

28821. Bob Loblaw at 03:57 AM on 15 June 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       Rob @ 693:

       I would tend to call meteorology and climatology as two overlapping subsets of atmospheric science. Climatology places a lot of emphasis on certain prtions of physics that are less important for meteorology - radiation being an example. Some factors do not have a great effect on day-to-day changes (meteorology), but can have significant effect on long-term variation.

       Many meteorologists seem to think that climatology is a subset of meteorology, but then they also tend to think of climatology as "statistics applied to meteorology" (which it isn't).

       An interesting historical outlook (historical now, not so historical when I first read it in 1985) is:

       W. J. Wiscombe and V. Ramanathan, 1985: The Role of Radiation and Other Renascent Subfields in Atmospheric Science.Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,66, 1278–1287.
       
       

       The abstract says:

       The horizons of atmospheric science are undergoing a considerable expansion as a result of intense interest in problems of climate. This has caused somewhat of a renaissance in hitherto-neglected subfields of atmospheric science. Focusing on atmospheric radiation as the renascent subfield of most direct concern to us, we describe the exciting research and educational challenges that lie ahead in this subfield, and offer possible ways in which these challenges might be met.

        

28822. MA Rodger at 03:54 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       POJO.
       Further to more recent comment & specifically addressing you comments:-
       @200, I think you should point out to the guys that the relevant line on page 164 of IPCC AR5 WG1 is "Observed change in the hydrological cycle, including precipitation and clouds, is assessed in Section 2.5."
       @201, the difference in the graphs is the difference between specific and relative humidity (as pointed out @199). You may note that the data is measured in g(H2O)/kg(air) in the one graph & % in the other.

28823. One Planet Only Forever at 03:30 AM on 15 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @14,

       We obviously will continue to disagree, including about the ability to prove that the burning of non-renewable resources or wasteful consumption is fundamentally unsustainable. As you indicate there is far more about the current developed economy that is fundamentally unsustainable. All of that consumptive harmful activity needs to be ended regardless of its popularity or proiability. Economic theory is fatally flawed because it presumes the system will develop sustainable activity. All that the system does is consume of harm until it can't consume or harm any more, n=meaning an ultimate dead-end.

       The consumption of non-renewable resources is fundamentally unsustainable no matter what number of people do it. This amazing plant is likely to be habitable for several hundred million years. Therefore it is irrefutable that benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels cannot be sustained.

       And the current top 10,000 impactors are doing that ultimately unsustainable action at a very significant rate.

28824. Tom Dayton at 02:56 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Also, the global average of specific humidity is what matters by far the most.  Scales smaller than that will show variation, as described in Chapter 2 of the AR5, but such variation is no more important to the increasing global energy balance than are small scale variations in temperature.  The fake skeptics are using their standard tactics.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] Indeed. Needless to say, the amount of moisture in the air is increasing - as physics would dictate in a warming atmosphere:

       

        

28825. Tom Dayton at 02:52 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       I believe that trends in relative humidity are far less important--and maybe completely unimportant--than trends in specific (absolute) humidity.  The latter reflects the absolute amount of water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas.  It is physically and logically completely possible for relative humidity to decrease at the same time specific humidity increases; that would mean only that specific humidity was not increasing as fast as the relative humidity allowed it to.  So increased greenhouse forcing from increased absolute amount of water vapor would not be defanged by a simulaneous decrease in relative humidity.

       The only caveat I can think of, is that relative humidity affects lapse rate, which certainly is key to the greenhouse effect.  But I've seen no mention of that counteracting increased specific humidity.

28826. michael sweet at 02:46 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       My understanding is that the important increasing factor is the specific or absolute humidity and not the relative humidity.  Because warmer air holds more water vapor, if the temperature increases the specific humidity can increase while the relative humidity decreases.  This thread, referenced above, discusses the data for specific humidity.

28827. POJO at 00:43 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       MA,  why is the link you provided for WV at 1000 and 600mb different from NOAAs dataset.  Here @1000mb and here @600mb

       

        

       

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] There is a post and thread devoted to this topic--the counter to the myth Water Vapor is Decreasing.

       [RH] Resized images. Please try to keep images below 500px otherwise they break the page formatting.

28828. POJO at 00:23 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       MA Rodger,

       Is there a problem with the NOAA data.  Just saying the data is no good does not wash with these guys.  They have cited references from IPCC which make it very dificult to argue against.  Particulary BOX 2.3 of section 2 of the AR5.  Page 185 of the document clearly states that the NOAA reanalysis datasets are aceptable.

       They have also shown me another part of section 2 where it states that BOX 2.3 is the latest and greatest.  re page 164

       "In recent decades, advances in the global climate observing system have contributed to improved monitoring capabilities. In particular, satellites provide additional observations of climate change, which have been assessed in this and subsequent chapters together with more traditional ground-based and radiosonde observations. Since AR4, substantial developments have occurred including the production of revised data sets, more digital data records, and new data set efforts. New dynamical reanalysis data sets of the global atmosphere have been published (Box 2.3). These various innovations have improved understanding of data issues and uncertainties (Box 2.1)."

       So if that is the case i am at aloss to argue with these guys.

       The NOAA data used is referenced in this box 2.3

        Help me out will you.

28829. MA Rodger at 00:06 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Correcte link to global RH at 300mb.

       Also the final graphic linked is SH not RH.

28830. MA Rodger at 00:01 AM on 15 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Daniel Bailey @196.

       The choice of a narrow tropical latitude band used to produce the graphic originally presented by POJO doesn't make a great deal of difference to the graph plotted for all latitudes.

       What is being plotted in these graphs is the RH at 300mb in the upper troposphere. (The mention on the graph axes legends of "(up to 300mb only)" is confusingly reproducing an instruction that the data available for plotting does not extend above 300mb.) The web-utility that generates them is here.

       The problem with the data at high altitude is that it is very unreliable being much troubled by calibration issues. A plot of this global RH data for 1000mb, 600mb & 300mb & suitably smoothed (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') shows that at lower altitudes where calibration is more certain RH is increasing.

28831. POJO at 23:45 PM on 14 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Thanks for the response Daniel,

       Well the IPCC stated that warming is expected to be amplified in the tropics in the upper troposphere.  I harp on about radio sonde not being acceptable but they then site references where the ipcc accept it in the ipcc ar5.  I am left with very little to argue with here.   Anyway here is the link for world Water Vapour.  Help me out will you. 

28832. SkepticalinCanada at 23:38 PM on 14 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @13  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about that statement, as it's likely that neither of us can definitievely quantify whether or not having only 10,000 people on the planet with that level of consumption is sustainable. For example, at what rate are the fossil fuels of the future forming right now? Would the emissions from only having 10,000 people on the planet cause sufficient disruption in the carbon cycle to create a problem for future generations? The current issue seems to be the rate of change, which does not give the planet sufficient time to adapt to what we are doing.  With sufficient time, is there a problem? 

       Are you disagreeing that total impact is a function of both level of consumption and total numbers? And of course, this is about more than fossil fuels if we are talking total numbers. This is also about scarce resources (Liebig's Law of the Minimum and the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate come to mind), displacement of other species, social and psychological impacts of large numbers, and other issues that I cannot articulate at present I am sure.  That is why my opinion that we must deal with both issues if sustainability is what we are interested in - total numbers and consumption.  

28833. Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 14 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       "have rightly shown me for which i cannot dispute that the tropics is best where the amplification is to take place"

       How did they rightly show you?  Do these people maintain that water vapor somehow "knows" that it can only amplify temperatures in a narrow band of the tropics and not anywhere else?  Sounds like magic thinking, to me.

       Ask them for links to the primary literature establishing such.  And please keep the same user name here.

28834. POJO at 23:07 PM on 14 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Thanks Daniel,

       I am getting annihilated at work.  The guys have rightly shown me for which i cannot dispute that the tropics is best where the amplification is to take place.  Hence why I have shown the narrow band.  Is this incorrect? 

28835. BBHY at 23:01 PM on 14 June 2015
       Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
       

       Wol, Regarding your observation that they "slip from one false argument to another seamlessly", that is called the Gish Gallup.

       When that happens I found the best thing is to ignore all their noise and come right back to "None of that makes any difference to the molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere.

       Those molecules of CO2 don't care how you feel about politics, taxes, liberals, the UN, science, scientists, Al Gore or anything else. They just do what they do, which is to absorb infrared heat radiation, and they are quite good at it. The more CO2 in the air, the more heat gets absorbed. Proven fact."

28836. Daniel Bailey at 22:57 PM on 14 June 2015
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       A response to new commentator POJO:

       The output graphic you linked to specifically excludes relative humidity outside a narrow band of the tropics (5S to 10N).  Looking at global RH, we see that the atmospheric composition of water vapor has increased by about 5% since 1970 (Trenberth & Fasullo, 2009; pp 317). As a result, the atmosphere now holds the approximate equivalent of an extra volume of Lake Erie in it, spread throughout.

       Also see my comment above about research done by Lacis on water vapor vs CO2 as drivers of temperature change (hint:  water vapor is not a driver and CO2 is).

28837. POJO at 22:40 PM on 14 June 2015
       Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
       

       Hi guys,  i am new here.  

       A bit concerned that the science is not settled.  Why does NOAA show Water Vapor has been decreasing for many decades now.  This is something that concerns me greatly. Here is the link

       

        

       It seems to contradict what is supposed to be happening! I mean we talk about facts and this has been mentioned to me for which i have no reply.  How do i respond?  

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science!  This site has thousands of posts expanding and unpacking the science and debunking the memes of the fake-skeptics denying the science.  As such, and to avoid clutter, the proper thing to do when one has a question is to use the Search function and place questions on the most appropriate comment thread.  In you case, that most appropriate thread is here:  Explaining How The Water Vapor Greenhouse Effect Works.

       I have place a comment further answering you there, with this comment, here.

       Lastly, as a new user please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy, as this is a moderated site.  Thanks, and enjoy what this site has to offer!

28838. Phil at 22:00 PM on 14 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       Phillippe @34

       The most eregious use of "the pause" I have come across is by UK contrarian Peter Taylor here

       Another five years of no warming will nail it. Unless a major Nino or volcano muddies the water!

       Taylor clearly believes that is OK to start a trend in an El nino year, but not to end with one.
       

28839. MA Rodger at 18:33 PM on 14 June 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       rkrolph @394.

       The URL you provide to the pdf of Stenhouse et al. (2014) 'Meteorologists views about global warming: a survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members' lacks the papers abstract (& a clickable link to the supplimnatary material for those interested in the detail fo their regression analysis). Abstract (& clickable link) is available with the full article here.

28840. Wol at 17:44 PM on 14 June 2015
       Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
       

       I think one of the most effective ways of taking on sceptics (and for most of us this means in blogs and the like) is to ask them to elucidate exactly what their individual points are. Each one is easily refuted by the facts.

       The more difficult thing is that 90% of them slip from one false argument to another seamlessly, which means playing catchup and never getting to address their falsehoods. I can't see anyway around this because it's not possible outside a face to face debate over a pint to force someone to get to the point.

       On a blog they can merely stop posting, which leaves the impression to third parties that they have somehow won the argument.

28841. villabolo at 16:29 PM on 14 June 2015
       Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
       

       Simple: Make the explanation understandable to Mid school students. Also, use the least number of charts and graphs necessary. People get turned off instinctively when they see charts and graphs thinking that they're too technical for them to understand. Exceptions are simple temperature graphs and GISS temperature maps.

       I would also use the phrase "Big picture, little picture" when explaining how deniers take things out of context. It's a more visual phrase than simply saying "It's out of context", Tell them how scientists look at the "big picture" while 'Skeptics look at the "little picture,'"

       When saying that I would use a gesture with both hands (open palm) spread in front of me  in reference to the "big picture" but I shorten the space between my hands when I say "little picture". It mimicks a gesture that would indicate the old phrase "put blinders on".

       Also, the phrase "cherry picking" is not necessarily understood by everyone.

       Credible/unexpected: I use the Navy's Arctic ice thickness maps to emphasize that it's coming from a military source. It would be good to say that submarines travel in the Arctic beneath the ice (a good way to visualize things).

       I also use Roy Spencers temperature graphs in case somebody asks me for the source. I like to tell them, since they may be wary of scientists, that an actual "Skeptic" produced it. It throws them off guard.

       That sidetracks the propaganda made by deniers that scientists are making things up. That also would put the response in the category of .

       Concrete: Explain that global warming is going to create both crop damage (through droughts) and infrastructure damage (through flooding).

       People like to eat and not have their roads washed away.

       And last may I suggest preparation and anticipation. I would print out GISS anomaly images and temperature graphs and put them in the trunk of my car or inside a belt bag or in your back pocket (folded up) in case I get lucky and find someone who's interested in the subject.

28842. PhilippeChantreau at 16:01 PM on 14 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       I am not exasperated, Ryland. I am probing because I want to know if the right answer can be acknowledged. Not everything is a matter of opinion. It is possible to narrow down a given question so that the right answer can be clearly established.

       In the case of 1998, it is abundantly clear that it is the worst year to choose as the beginning of a sample because it is such an outlier, due to the massive El-Nino that happened across 1997-1998. What exasperates me is that there has been so much noise made around the "pause" that even serious people give credence to an idea that has in fact no basis in reality. If the year is placed in context, it is painfully obvious that one must not use it as the beginning of any sample. Furthermore, no sample too small to identify a truly statistically significant trend should be used at all. These are objective truths. If one wants to look at even something of as little value as the "most recent trend", he should start from the lastest data (2014) and go back far enough to have a sample that will yield a valid trend. How big a sample that is is not a matter of opinion either. It can be determined by statistical means. These are facts. If one fails to do that, he just reveals how fake his "skepticism" is.

       I am interested to see if even one whose ideological leanings appear to be the kind for which climate change is a very inconvenient problem can acknowledge these objective facts, i.e. think rationally. Can you?

       The same applies to Christy's declarations. One can agree wholeheartedly with the ideological convictions that compel him to participate in certain organizations. However, the distance between what the weight of the evidence shows (including the one he himself produced) and what he said in Congress is also an objective fact. One can decide to not think rationally and intentionally overlook this fact, of course. However, it remains plain to be seen for those who do think rationally. And it is not a valid argument to point attention on to others who supposedly do similar or worse things. The question at issue is clearly posed, other issues are other issues. On this specific question, can you think rationally?

       Doing so inevitably forces one to accept a great numbers of things about climate change. What you do with them within the framework of your favored ideology is up to you, but if the ideology can not accomodate the reality, then the ideology must be amended.

       In the old Soviet Union, they pretended that, in their camp, airplanes did not crash. In a certain current of thought nowadays, some pretend that temperatures are not increasing, that see level is not rising, that misleading arguments are honest, etc. What's wrong with this picture?

28843. rkrolph at 15:54 PM on 14 June 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       anticornco6-

       "only 52% of meteorologists accept man-made gobal warming"

       As worded, that is not a true statement from the survey.  It was a very detailed survey with several categories and many possible responses. 

       Actually, for all respondents to the survey (meteorologists of all disciplines), 73% said humans were "at least partially responsible for global warming."  For publishing climate scientists, the survey showed 93% agreed with that statement. 

       Even more telling, only 5% of all respondents to the survey said global warming was mostly natural. 

       The authors also acknowledged that because they framed the question with regard to human influence on climate change over the last 150 years, instead of the IPCC mid 20th century time frame, it may have biased their results, stating:

       "Six respondents sent e-mails to notify us that their answers would have been different if we had asked about the most recent 50-yr time frame rather than the 150-yr time frame; the time frame used in the question may have also influenced other respondents. Our results therefore may represent a more conservative estimate of the consensus on global warming than would have been obtained had we asked about a 50-yr time frame."

       Based on this, I think it's fair to say that "skeptic" you refer to was not at all accurate.

       http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

28844. bozzza at 10:03 AM on 14 June 2015
       Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
       

       Going back to basics: you simply have to ask skeptics, "What would happen to water vapour if the earth had no CO2?" 

28845. Rob Honeycutt at 08:57 AM on 14 June 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       anticorcob6...  If I'm not mistaken, climatology would be a subclass of meteorology. Meteorology is the study of weather and the atmosphere, where climatology is a specific area of this related to weather over long periods of time. Thus, climate is an area of specialization within meteorology. A climatologist is also a meteorologist, but a meteorologist is not necessarily a climatologist.

       I've seen the study that your "skeptic" is talking about and, if I remember correctly, the point of the study is regarding how to raise the level of understanding about climate change within the full ranks of meteorologists.

28846. anticorncob6 at 08:32 AM on 14 June 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       There is a popular survey being shown around saying that only 52% of meteorologists accept man-made gobal warming (a simple internet search will bring you there). I was talking to a "skeptic" and he pointed to this survey in response to my facts supporting the 97% consensus. He said that meteorologists are relevant to global warming and are a subset of climatologists.

       So are they in fact relevant? And is the survey reliable?

28847. scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 14 June 2015
       Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
       

       Langhorn, I am aware of current technology. However, extracting the full power available from tidal streams requires stacked one on top of another which has yet to be achieved as far as I am aware. However you cut it, offshore systems are inherently more expensive to maintain than onshore.

       "every new offshore wind-farm or tidal stream system equates to one less onshore wind-farm"

       And as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not true. You cannot get off FF on marine power alone. You also need all the onshore wind as well. You do not have an easy choice. You can give up your rural serenity (small price compared to what some will pay for FF use), you can accept nuclear, or you can accept the consequences of a warming climate. How many refugees from the great deltas do you think the UK should accept given it's historical contribution to the elevated CO2 levels.?

28848. Phil at 02:22 AM on 14 June 2015
       Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
       

       "There is absolutely no need to extrapolate from this model result about the 20th century and say something about the next decades."

       But isn't this exactly what the climate modelling with regard to Co2 is all about?

       No, climate models do not extrapolate current trends. If they did, they couldn't make projections for different RCP's.
       

       "[Model] projections are still uncertain but do prefer increased precipitation. They also indicate that the evaporative demand will go up to more than enough to compensate for rainfall changes, so that drought conditions are expected to continue."

       Isn't this doing exactly what she says should not be done, namely extrapolating from this model result to say something about the next decades?

       "Model projections" refers to GCM's which are, as explained above, not extrapolations, but projections based on physics.

       The caution about extrapolation is that, if a current relationship appears (say) linear, but there is no simple physical reason to expect it to be linear, then extrapolation should be done cautiously. The GCM's are not extrapolating a relationship, they are modelling it with physics.

28849. One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 14 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       @12,

       The 10,000 people currently living the highest impact way of living is not even sustaianble.

       The total impact of the population is the issue, and the ability to sustain the way of living into the distant future is essential for a way of living to be considered decent. Fewer people still doing things that create a growing problem or consume a non-renewable resource has no future and is not 'more decent'. The smaller number of such people simply delays the inevitable realization of the lack of sustainability of that group living that way.

       Burning a non-renewable resource such as fossil fuel is ultimately unsustainable through the millions of years this planet will be habitable, and that is without coinsidering the unacceptable creation of consequences for future generations of that activity.

28850. ryland at 01:52 AM on 14 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       At the risk of further aggravating the situation which I have absolutely no desire to do, to answer your question you wrote"Ryland I note that you have not answered any of my questions."  and "I did not see a response either to my other question about cherry-picking the year 1998, so I ask again: what are the "trends" starting....".  In retrospect I should not have used the term peevish and apologise for that.  I should have written you seemed rather exasperated with my lack of response which perhaps has less unfortunate connotations than peevish even though both words mean the same thing namely "annoyed".  

Prev  569  570  571  572  573  574  575  576  577  578  579  580  581  582  583  584  Next