Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 Next
Comments 28901 to 28950:
-
Tom Dayton at 14:15 PM on 19 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
SeanO, HotWhopper dealt with that paper last year: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/anthony-watts-has-found-another.html?m=1
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
[PS] Since the input is the hitran database, this isnt really about CO2 saturation. Any further discussion should take place on "Climate sensitivity is low"
-
SeanO at 14:03 PM on 19 June 2015CO2 effect is saturated
With 8 pages of comments, I am not sure that I covered all of the conversations. However, the original premise of the article seems to contradict the study and paper by Hermann Harde. It is a 45+ page paper so it is impossible to shorten in this comment however it is clear that the study disagrees with the analysis of the original post and points out that the IPCC estimate of 1.5C to 4.5C is likely to be in error with a more realistic sensitivity of 0.6C including a declining increase of CO2 impact due to absorption and emission spectra of greenhouse gases.
http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf
We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming. The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular, the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail. The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ˚ C and a solar influence of 0.54 ˚ C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ˚ C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ˚ C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).Moderator Response:[PS] You might want to look at discussion that begins here. You might want to sharpen your critical skills by seeing if can spot some reasons why there might be an issue.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 13:30 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
And, if we "should not raise species loss to an absolute loss," then I suppose the loss of the human species will be no loss for the planet. That statement is of course subject to all kinds of misinterpretation.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 13:28 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Sorry, I don't subscribe to such an anthropocentric point of view. Can you please provide the source for the comment that humans are the only species capable of moral choice? A quick search for "Are humans the only species capable of moral choice?" comes up with an interesting variety of articles.
And humans have abundantly demonstrated that they are not qualified to be the stewards of this planet.
-
chriskoz at 13:28 PM on 19 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25A
The study by James L. Powell, upping the concensus to 99.9% would be interesting to get hold onto when it become available. Powell broke the news in advance before Francis' encyclical because "he doesn’t want his holiness to reference outdated numbers".
Powell's numbers seem exagerated, though. Her's the clue:
He also tried a different approach than the earlier studies. Rather than search for explicit acceptance of anthropomorphic global warming, Powell searched for explicit rejection. All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.
Perhaps he inflated his numbers by considering "settled" those papers that have nothing to do with AGW attribution, just like the Oregon petition assignees have nothing to do with climate scientists.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:18 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
SkepticalinCanada @11, IMO:
1) Humans are unique on planet Earth as the only beings capable of moral choice. That means we are not just one more species among many, even from an ecological point of view. The loss of any species is a loss to us all, but the loss of the human species devoid of moral value - a tragedy of the highest magnitude. Therefore we must be stewards of our planet, for that is what it is. Further as we are capable of destroying life on this planet in several ways, and human life in many more - we must take responsibility for that stewardship.
2) Again, the loss of any species is a loss to us all; but it is not necessarilly a significant loss. In terms of genetic diversity, 26% of human genes can be found in yeast. 92% can be found in mice, and 98% in chimpanzees. Humans are by no means unique in the degree to genetic similarity to other species. Consequently the loss of any given species is likely to result in the loss of very few, and in some cases no, genes from the total global genetic diversity.
In terms of ecology, many species occupy niches occupied by other species elsewhere, or occupy microniches that less specialized species would occupy almost as well in the absense of the specialist. As one example of this, the common form of gecko found in Australian suburbs 45 years ago has become very scarce in that setting, largely due to the proliferation of insecticides. Recently a Spanish cousin of that species has invaded Australia. It is better able to cope with insecticides and has started proliferating in urban areas, a trend that increases the likelihood of the Australian species going extinct. Despite that, it improves the ecological health of the system because the two species are almost identical in habittat and behaviour; and the Australian species was being diminished. In this example, extinction of the Australian species would constitute almost no ecological loss.
Given this, it is not true that every "... species extinction makes that part worse by 100%", except in the purely tautological sense that every species extinction involves the loss of 100% of the species. In fact, most species losses have minimal impact on total ecosystem viability and/or genetic diversity. That is not comfort for anti-environmentalists because the rate of species loss driven by over-fishing, deforestation, AGW, human transported invasive species and other anthropogenic factors is so large that continued for a century there is a real risk of loss of total ecosystem viability. It should also be no comfort in that ecology is more complex even than climate so that it is often unpredictable as to the actual impact on total ecosystem viability from the loss of any given species. Therefore we should take all reasonable measures to minimize all species loss. But we should also not raise species loss to an absolute loss.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 13:05 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
I would be most interested in any sources which quantify what you are claiming. How much reduction would occur? How many more would that make room for? How would that impact our resource and energy use?
As well, if you have any sources which analyse the actual mechanisms whereby we can negate that "desire by a group to dominate and benefit more than others," I would certainly look at and consider them.
Links, please.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:58 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Population growth needs to be addressed but it is not the problem some people want to claim it is. The overconsumption, excessive pursuit of benefit from harmful activity and waste of the 'most fortunate' is the real problem.
Reduction of the excessive damaging impacts of the way most of the most fortunate live would make room for many more people within the same global carrying capacity. But that would require the most fortunate to limit the amount of personal benefit they can get to levels that are lower than they are pretty confident they could get away with personally enjoying.
Leaders of the global population, everyone who has become wealthier than others, needs to be required to lead by example which would require peer pressure and penalty, those who want to be free from such an obligation would be forced to forfeit their excess wealth.
The required development would happen in the free-market if everyone, particularly the richest, were competing to live the lowest impact and least consumptive most sustainable way. The richest would still live much better than all the others and their competition would motivate the development of ways of living decently that everyone else can develop to enjoy and continue forevermore if a better way does not get developed. The only losers would be those who gambled on benefiting from less acceptable ways of living. The global economic change required would simply make those current unacceptable gamblers the losers they deserve to be.
The fighting to be the ones that get the most of a limited opportunity to benefit has produced horrific consequences, especially being the motivation for the majority of the killings through wars. Religion has been used as the excuse for many military actions. But the real motivation is almost always the desire by a group to dominate and benefit more than others, with whatever slogan or marketing program appears to be the best way to disguise or excuse what is really being pursued.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 12:57 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@14 But, if as many claim, we are already far beyond the ecological capacity of this planet, if as some claim (Daly, Salonius) our sustainable population level is only a few billion or a few hundred million, the "population will level off" idea is hardly comforting - just as comforting as the "the planet is about to cool" nonsense from Curry et al. The key to preventing overpopulation is likely actively working, ethically of course, to reduce the population. Regarding efficiency, I tend to believe that there is some substance to the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, and to Liebig's Law of the Minimum. I can only base that on my personal observations, however.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
FromPeru @14, very well said!
-
From Peru at 11:00 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Population growth is not the big problem, because as people improve their quality of life, natality drops spontaneosly.
The highest population growth hapen among the poorest people. This seems strange, but poverty introduces a perverse mix of ignorance, lack of access to healthcare and need to manpower. In the 1800s a term describing this last aspect was used: proletariat (people that have as their only wealth their own children, or prole).
As living standards, education and healtcare improved, natality dropped. (just see how Europe population has not only stopped growing but is actually shrinking in some countries). The key to prevent overpopulation is fighting poverty.
Not so with overconsumption. As one consumes more, one wants more, even if that does not necessarily improves your living standard. A better approach to improve your quality of life would be not to just consume more, but consume better.
Today there is an obscene amount of wasted resources and wealth due to inefficiency and inequality. Just use better (more efficiently and with less inequality) the wealth we already have and the improvement in people's lives will replicate the European example all over the planet, solving the population problem.
However, if you fight poverty just by increasing the quantity of consumption, without caring for the quality, you will overshoot the planet carrying capacity long before you reach the "1st world, stable population" condition, and then we would be in big trouble.
-
John Hartz at 10:41 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Suggested supplementary reading and directly related to the ongoing discussion...
Ideology Subsumes Empiricism in Pope's Climate Encyclical by Lawrence M. Krauss, Scientific American, June 18, 2015
-
Dcrickett at 10:31 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@8 Apologies. I meant to write "I do not find NO urgency…" in the last sentence.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:17 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
I do agree that the most urgent problem is human-caused global warming, but we do as well have other problems that need to be addressed, including (in no particular order) growthism, extractivism, the pressures of human population on the rest of the planet, accepting the idea that the evidence is clear that in general we are not qualified to be stewards of this planet but rather are a part of a complex ecosystem where we are the first species with the capabality to totally destroy it (whew!), and on and on. But to say that "population growth...can only make ecological problems worse by 26%" is an incredible oversimplification. Every species extinction makes that part worse by 100%, as an example. For all the talk about environmental "tipping points," there seems to be precious little talk about population-induced tipping points. For example, at some threshold level in cities, demands for more services such as swimming pools and other infrastructure become sufficiently large that they are built, with a significant short and long term energy and resource commitment. That's just one small example off the top of my head, but I'm sure that thinking people can find more. And yes, this discussion likely belongs in another thread, but again I wonder if the SKS staff can create a more appropriate place for the discussion.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:26 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Not being Catholic, the encyclical is almost completely irrelevant to me except that I welcome any clear acknowledgement of the problem by a world leader, be that religious or secular. I doubt, however, that the encyclical will inform the approaches of catholics to tackling AGW. Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbot is nominally Catholic, but is happy for his policies to clearly violate not just Catholic but Christian teaching as a matter of course. I doubt this encyclical will change that.
I note that Ryland (@2) and others have criticized the encyclical for not reversing the Catholic Church's longtime stance on birth controll and population growth. Such a criticism reflects an unrealistic expectation. More importantly, it completely fails to reflect the relevant magnitudes of the problems. Specifically, the world's total population is projected to peak at around 9.22 billion in 2075. That assumes no heroic efforts to constrain population, but only the well known trend to smaller familly size with increased affluence. On that basis, population growth absent all other factors can only make ecological problems worse by 26% (current population estimated from World Population Clock). For comparison, a projected 1.5% economic growth per annum compounded over 60.5 years (ie, to 2075) would result in a 246% increase in income, and hence on environmental impact, all else being equal. The 1.5% growth was chose as being at the low end of long term growth trends and economic targets. So, even on the most basic analysis Pope Francis is correct in concentrating on the race to affluence rather than population growth as the major problem. Indeed, on that basic analysis, the burning issue for Ryland has just 11% of the impact of the factors on which Pope Francis concentrates.
Even more imortantly, the affluence, and hence environmental impact is not equally distributed among the World's population. Specifically, in 2010 31% of the world's population consumed 69% of the world's energy (and hence were responsible for approximately 69% of total emissions). The rate of consumption is far in excess of that required for healthy, happy lives which can be achieved with much lower rates of consumption. If follows that equalizing affluence at sustainable levels is a far more viable strategy for dealing with ecological problems then merely limiting population.
It is my personal opinion that neither is necessary per se. It is possible to switch energy supply to a purely sustainable model allowing both an increase in affluence along with projected population growth. That does not mean there will be no cost in doing so, but the cost is not so large as to prevent continued economic growth and equalization of economic resources between first and third world nations. Regardless of my opinion, however, there is no doubt that Pope Francis' approach is far more logical than that of Ryland, in addition to being far more consistent with prior (and core) aspects of Catholic doctrine.
-
Watchdog at 07:04 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
If I may..
The Encyclical is not a detailed scientific analysis of ClimateWith that in mind, as we know, the pope has heard the voices of many of the world's experts - and has access to Science via the non-sectarian, non-religious of dozens of our top science academians who are also members of the Pontifical Academy of Science.
With that said, and on a note which most people accept at least in principle, is the pope’s reflection of humanity’s God-given responsibility as custodians of the Earth.
In other words, IMO, this pope is, "GREEN"
Again, I would suggest again for any interested - to read/skim the entire text, for, different "summaries" aside from the OP are making different 'points'
-
Dcrickett at 06:55 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@2. The RC Church has long nailed its flag to the mast so adamantly on issues related to sex (including procreation of course) that an abrupt reversal would serve only to damage the effectiveness of the encyclical by kicking the Church's dinosaurs in the groin.
More to the point, Laudato Si' is otherwise a most helpful document.
My impression is that the global ecological crises are more urgent, at this time, than the Population Bomb. (Not that I do not find urgency in the latter.)
-
bozzza at 06:50 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@ 2, Yes- given that point 6 does address this in large part- you rightly point out that the problem still exists.
Therefore I wouldn't say this religious teaching is completely incorrect, as you do, but I do acknowledge population as a necessary talking point.
Basically, I think the joining of issues is also a reality that has to be dealth with aswell, however.
-
michael sweet at 06:38 AM on 19 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham,
Hundreds of millions of people are farmers in the great deltas of the world. Suggesting that they can move to mountains is absurd and demonstrates that you have no difficulty killing off these hundreds millions of people for your own short term pleasure. All habitable areas of the world are already settled. Every country still habitable in the world will have to take in many refugees, there are too many people under 5 meters sea level to go anywhere nearby.
-
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 19 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
The entire country of Bangladesh is less than 7m high. Telling people they have move or drown so you can enjoy the benefits of FF while they are largely deprived of is doing nothing for your case. I have no sympathy for an argument whereby one person gets a benefit and another pays for price. The best solution is stop sealevel rise by getting off FF immediately. Otherwise you are morally obliged to help the people affected by your emissions.
I similarly do not equate peaceful countryside with matters of life or death.
-
Langham at 05:46 AM on 19 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
ScaddenP - you live in a country with a very small population and easy access to abundant, and as far as I am aware, very nice countryside, so I can only assume that it is something you take completely for granted otherwise you would not dismiss my values as 'trivial and highly subjective'. My country is over-populated already so there can be no question of us being reasonably expected to receive those 'refugees from the great deltas' you mention (Nile? Mississippi? Irrawaddy?), they will just have to find higher land that is slightly closer to home. There are plenty of mountain ranges.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 05:13 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Sorry, I should have noted, those are my personal thoughts, as this issue seems to arise relatively frequently in discussions about climate change, emissions, and solutions.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 05:11 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@2 The basic problem is too many humans consuming too much and producting too much waste. In another thread, KR said "Might suggest Part 1 and Part 2 of the Economic Growth and Climate-Change threads, with explicit discussion of the impacts of population growth, as a more appropriate locale for this discussion?" That is apparently the appropriate place for population discussions, but it's pretty sparse with regard to population discussion, and perhaps SKS could consider another location/way for this discussion to happen - just my personal thoughts.
-
mwsmith12 at 05:04 AM on 19 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this explanation.
-
Watchdog at 04:24 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
The various 'summaries' are ok to a point.
For the Complete 180 Page Text Goto:
[url]Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Use the "chain-link" button in the editor to create links.
-
ryland at 04:11 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Apologies "did not fall in 2104" should read "did not fall in 2014"
-
ryland at 04:01 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Without accepting the use of contraception to address the increasingly rapid expansion in global population, the Pope’s encyclical is significantly flawed. It is an undeniable fact that humans all over the world want the best life possible and cheap, reliable energy is an essential element in attaining this. No matter how it is spun or denied or rationalized, the basic problem with the effect of humans on global warming and the environment is, too many humans. No matter how much the scientists warn humans and no matter how many, usually broken, promises to reduce emissions are made by politicians, human self interest will always triumph. That basic fact is amply evidenced by the complete failure of climate change conferences since Kyoto to achieve a meaningful reduction in global emissions. Although emissions stalled but crucially did not fall in 2104. it is thought by some that this could well be due to reduced global economic activity as happened in the 1980s, 1992 and 2009. Whether the stalling in 2014 heralds a fall in CO2 emissions remains to be seen but judging from the past this is certainly not a given. A fall or at least a stalling in human population is, self evidently, an essential element in combating AGW and indeed in the increased consumerism that so dismays the Pope. By deflecting this issue of population increase by focusing on increased consumerism, the Pope has been somewhat specious.
-
bozzza at 02:08 AM on 19 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
He's basically telling the world to stay away from Bjorn Lomborg and anyone else who argues fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2...
-
michael sweet at 01:01 AM on 19 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
wmsmith:
Karl et al have measured that all the temperatures measured before the buoys were 0.12C too high (presuming that the buoy data is correct). In order to be consistent they have to either:
1) Subtract 0.12 from the entire record previous to the buoy data or
2) Add 0.12 to the buoy data.
Changing the buoy data means that it is easier to compare the current record to papers published in say 1995 or 2005. It also means that less of the record is affected.
The old record has already corrected all the old data so that it lines up with the ship data. This means all of it has to be changed, not just the past 50 years or so.
The people at WUWT will complain no matter what is done.
Note again: if the raw data is used the global increase in temperature is 0.1C greater than using the corrected data, but WUWT will not tell you that.
-
michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 19 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
This picture from the Canada tar sands looks like Mordor to me, and all the life is gone.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:08 PM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
1) Just rehashing, because the temperature series is an anomaly series, it made absolutely no difference to the end result whether Karl et al added 0.12 to the buoy data, or subtacted it from the ship data. For simplicity of illustration, assume there was no buoy data till 2001. Supose then we subtracted the bias correction from the ship data. It follows that the temperatures durring the anomaly period (1971-2000) would have been reduced by 0.12 C. However, recalculating the anomaly would reset the average over that period to 0 C, thereby adding 0.12 C to all values to obtain the anomaly value. For shipboard measurements, the two adjustments would cancel, but for buoy measurements there would be a net 0.12 C adjustment regardless of whether you initially adjusted shipboard or bouy data. The only difference is whether you include that change to the buoy data as an explicit adjustment or implicitly in caclulating the anomaly period.
You already get this, and so should everybody else including the authors of the WUWT post because (excluding the sheer number of values involved) this is simple arithmetic. Put another way, if Michaels, Lindzen and Knappenberger are not being completely disingenuous, they are demonstrating that fourth grade arithmetic is above their payscale.
2) Yes, adding more buoys will increase the temperature but only because it removes an artifact produces by the increase in the number of buoys while incorrectly assuming that shipbourne and bouy temperature measurements were not biased with respect to each other.
3) From the paper:
"Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. (The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C dec−1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C dec−1."
(My emphasis).
And from the supplementary material:
"In addition, because buoy data were determined to have less noise than ship data (greater precision), another improvement was to give buoy data more weight when using Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections to reconstruct SST (see equation 3 in (13))."
So, contrary to the Michaels, Lindzen and Knappenberger's argument, the buoy data was given greater weight because it was more accurate. Once we ignore Michaels, Lindzen and Knappenberger's smoke and mirrors trick (ie their failing grade in arithmetic), the paper in result in fact gives more weight buoy data which increases the measured trend.
-
Yail Bloor III at 23:03 PM on 18 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25A
You've linked a number of good stories but here is a link for a WaPo story I enjoyed:
There was a comment by one that countered with (not an exact quote) "Don't blame snow cover loss on melting, winter precipitation is down and that's the real reason for the lack of snow cover." He proceeded to link to a Climate4You image showing (eyeroll) the decline of precipitation. Yes, Ole Humdrum (sic). It was fishy, as you might imagine. My response:
Never mind, I figured it out. Ole was creating the precipitation anomalies using the totals from each year, November through April. This image specifically compares the 1990s to the average of the whole 20th century. I can see that being a problem...assuming we want information that's actually helpful. First problem: knowing how the last decade (9 years, to be precise) of the 20th century compared against an average of the entire previous century precipitationwise doesn't seem particularly relevant in 2015. Second problem: this image should come from precipitation information from everywhere in the Arctic, all the way down to the 50th parallel (according to Ole). Does this include precipitation data for Alaska from 1901-1924? NOAA doesn't have this information on their website...I'm wondering if they considered the data reliable. Otherwise, one would think they would include it.
Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us
If my calculations are correct, the average annual (liquid) precipitation for 1925-2000 (Nov.-April) is slightly less than 16". The average for the 15 years since Nov. 2000 is almost exactly the same, oddly enough. Gosh, what happened? Where's the snow? They almost cancelled the Iditarod for lack of snow. They hauled in a bunch of snow for the concluding ceremony in Anchorage...they almost didn't get finished before it melted. Then I remembered...when we got the icy blast in the Appalachians last February, I checked Fairbanks' weather. High near 50...and RAIN. There's some of the missing snow, it was rain. The rest of it vanished during the May heat blast. (For the next 10 days, Fairbanks (and more) will be back into the low-to-mid 80s.)
Your Ole climate image, it was showing a lot of negative precipitation anomalies over Alaska, a bit surprising. I noticed if the precipitation is one molecule under the 100 year average, the lightest shade of yellow appeared. Guess how much lower it has to be to get the next darker shade? 0.4 inches...only 10 millimeters. Ole thought it would be cute to have 10 mm increments between color shades. That's one way to create a false impression without actually lying. I don't trust denier websites. They almost never present data that they haven't massaged to a bloody pulp. I'm not interested in propaganda, don't have time for it.
Moderator Response:[DB] Removed extraneous and incomplete hyperlink.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:31 PM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
shoyemore @6, that Connemara inspired Tolkein's conception of the geography from the Dead Marshes looking towards Mordor is certainly possible. I suspect, however, that like most major geography in middle earth it was determined by the necessities of a concieved history moderated by the requirements of the narrative. From that perspective Emyn Muil would have been conceived first, along with the nature of Mordor as surrounded by mountains. With that, we then add Dagorlad ("battle plain") and the Dead Marshes as necessary battle sites due to their relation to the primary exit from Mordor. Tolkien would then have fleshed out both with two different conceptions of the effects of combat on geography. Dagorlad (previously home to the Ent wives) was, in effect England (or the Shire) made desolate by warfare; while the dead marshes hark back to "no man's land" of the Somme (where Tolkein fought).
On that theory, we must imagine the Dead Marshes as looking like this:
Only we must imagine the unrecoverable corpses still preserved by vile magic, and the pits and hollows fill with stank water forming ponds covered by an algal scum and dank struggling grasses on the verge of any land still above water.
That speculation has support both in Tolkein's description of the Dead Marshes:
"Dreary and wearisome. Cold, clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long forgotten summers."
And also in Tolkein's own comments in his letters.
On this view, then, the rise above the bog of the mountains of Mordor are a necessary consequence of the notion that Mordor is surrounded by high, nearly impassable mountains, while the foreground is determined by an imagining of the Somme turned swampland.
(The picture, by the way is of Scwhabben Redoubt, where Tolkein fought as part of the 25th division).
Finally, the only worthy endnotes to the trilogy are The Silmarillion, Hurin's Children, and sections of Unfinished Tales which I heartilly recommend to anybody who has read and enjoyed the trilogy. I understand that some people find the Silmarillion difficult going as it is not in the style of modern novels, so if you have tried to read the Illiad or the Mort d'Arthur and not enjoyed them, perhaps read only Hurin's Children.
I would be delighted to think of myself as (and certainly Lunt has) contributed a useful footnote to Tolkein scholarship.
-
mwsmith12 at 22:29 PM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
michael sweet,
The authors of the WUWT post claim that adding .12 to the buoy data it must put a warming trend in the data:
"Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/
That's right, isn't it? As more buoys are added, more artificially high readings are added.
-
michael sweet at 21:31 PM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
mwsmith,
The data need to be adjusted because the temperature of the ocean used to be measured using ship intake tubes and now is measured with buoys and ships. If all the data was currently collected using buoys the data would need to be adjusted because the older data is higher than it should be due to calibration issues. Whenever there is a change in the method of collection adjustments have to be made.
Much larger adjustments were made when canvas buckets were switched to wooden buckets and when the change was made from wooden buckets to engine intakes. Those adjustments were made by adding temperature to the older measurements. This lowers the measured temperature trend, The overall adjustments lower the measured trend for the entire globe about .1C, but they will never say that at WUWT. Imagine how many adjustments have to be made in the satalite record where the calibrations change with each new satalite, as each satalite orbit decays and as the time of day changes.
You are correct that the scientists you report at WUWT know that they are disingenious at best. I see no way that all data can be reported in such a way that people who want to lie cannot find a way to decieve others. This site is dedicated to countering those lies by providing correct explainations.
In the end, the record temperatures for 2014 and 2015 will convince many people that AGW is real. The record floods in Texas that ended their record drought will convince others (since AGW predicts both more drought and more floods).
-
mwsmith12 at 20:37 PM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
This is important because it illustrates how contrarians leverage these details into doubt and suspicion.
This is a quote from post by Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Paul Knappenberger over at WUWT. I don't read that site, but posts from there get used everywhere, so I had to deal with this one:
"In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
"As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/
The authors are trying to convince me that homogonization is cheating. They put it in quotes. Well, I already know why homogenization is important and how it improves data qaulity, but even so, why add 0.12C to all the buoys when the buoys were designed for this and should be more accurate than measurements from ships that are just trying to get from A to B as fast as possible?
And despite my being a career software engineer who at least reads a lot of climate science reportage and the occassional paper, and who understands the scientific method and the concepts of statistics etc, I was still left with some doubt because it isn't clear to me why data that seem to me to be more accurate are adjusted up to be compatible with data that seem to me to be less accurate.
Having now understood the explanation, I can't believe the three authors of the WUWT post don't know it already. And if so, their objection is disingenuous at best. But it would be very useful to the general public if each scientific paper could have an accompanying link to a page on which these explanations are provided, together with the perhaps bogus objections that require them.
Maybe a section here at Skeptical Science, where these papers are catalogued toghether with all the contributed explanations for questions like: Why did we add 0.12C to the buoy data, and why is that the right thing to do?
-
mwsmith12 at 19:30 PM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
But it's because the thermometers move from grid to grid, and the record for a particular grid can include both types of measurment. If buoys were used in the Pacific, and ships were sed in the Atlantic, there would be no interference so they wouldn't have to be adjusted.
-
shoyemore at 17:53 PM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
Tom Curtis,
Wonderful tongue-in-cheek critique of Dan Lunt's model. Kudos to Cook and Lunt for the videos.
Your knowledge of MIddle-Earth is better than mine, but I still have a hankering for a view of Mordor's edge across the Dead Marshes, approaching from Emyn Muil being like the top picture. I am sure the rainfall in the West of Ireland does not match that of the model (about a factor or 2 higher, I think), but as a visualisation it pleases me.
The best MIddle Earth of all is the one we retain in our imagination. John, Dan & Tom have stimulated our imagination and supplied worthy endnotes to the trilogy itself.
-
chriskoz at 16:59 PM on 18 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #4: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Republicans' leading climate denier tells the pope to butt out of climate debate
Oklahoma senator James Inhofe [...] calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”, took a star turn on Thursday at the Heartland Institute[...]
His message – that “God is still up there” and that Pope Francis should mind his own business – sent a clear signal to his fellow conservatives
That's just hillarious. To maintain the tenacity of his position, Inhofe is now assuming the role of fake religious leader. How far would he be able to travel that way before the obvious stupidity of such ideology becomes untenable?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:38 PM on 18 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
The last sentence was meant to be "Those results would just make most of those other type of people more uncomfortable, not more inclined to change their minds."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:32 PM on 18 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Andy Skuce @ 44,
I agree that annual averages would be a more appropriate comparison to previous annual averages.
The average of the 12 months ending in May 2015 is 0.72 C, which is indeed lower than the 0.77 C average for the first 5 months of 2015.
The highest 12 month average in the NASA data set was the 12 months ending in March of 2015 (0.728 C). Using the Temperature Trend calculator it is easy to see that these 12 month averages are higher than any other 12 month period.
And if the El Nino condition continues and strengthens then it is likely that the 2015 values for June and July will exceed the values of 2014 (June 0.61, and July 0.50), by enough to make the 12 months ending in June and then July each the highest 12 month averages in the data set to date. And that is without a strong El Nino increase like 1998.
The 12 months ending in March 2015 should be enough to convince people that the expected warming of the global average surface temperature due to increased CO2 can continued to be seen in the global average surface temperature records, except the most made-up minds or easlily impressed minds that prefer messages dismissing or discrediting that type of information.
Even warmer 12 month averages ending in June or July should not be necessary to convince someone who is open to understanding what is going on. Those results would just make most of those people more uncomfortable, not more inclined to change their minds.
-
Lloyd Flack at 12:40 PM on 18 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #4: Pope Francis & Climate Change
What I really, really hope he does is denounce the idea, popular among religious denialists, that God has created the World to be proof against damage thata humans can cause. I have see plenty of disingenuois false humility claiming that it is presumption to believe that puny humans could harm what God has created. I see variations of this from atheist deniers as well, with rather less justification. This really is a claim that God backs your side of politics and your opponents are doing evil, not you.
-
Composer99 at 11:42 AM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
Tom Curtis @2:
Well played, sir. Well played.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:30 AM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Everyone:
Please note that there is a user "Martin Smith" asking much the same questions over at RealClimate. This is the answer I posted over there (currently awaiting moderation).
Martin Smith: "<i>How was it decided that the ship-based measurements are more accurate than the buoy measurements?</i>"
You are making the incorrect assumption that choosing one implies that it is "more accurate".
The ship-based measurements are more accurate at measuring the temperature where the ship-based estimates sample the temperature. The buoy measurements are more accurate at measuring the temperature where the buoys sample the temperature.
The two are different. You can't mix them arbitrarily and expect to look at trends. You need to decide how different they are, and shift them to match where you have overlap. It does not matter whether you shift one up or the other down. The choice does not affect the resulting trend.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:14 AM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
Sorry, I forgot to add a link to Lunt's paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:10 AM on 18 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
mwsmith12 @38, global temperatures are presented as anomalies (ie, variations from the mean value) of a thirty year period. From the zero value they appear to have used a 1971-2000 anomaly, although 1951-1980 and 1981-2010 anomalies are also commonly used. Had Karl et al taken the buoy data as accurate and adjusted all ship based data accordingly, that would make no difference to their having done the opposite because the anomaly adjustment would have eliminated any difference. Indeed I see no evidence that that is not what they did.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:00 AM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
shoyemore @1, Mordor, or at least the plains of Gorgoroth which Frodo and Sam transited, was presented by Tolkein as being almost devoid of plant life. Ergo even Mordor pound is too verdant to represent Mordor:
Further, the reason for the baren terrain of Gorgoroth presented by Tolkein was the poisonous fumes from Orodruin, so that even the spinifex that dominates the vegetation in Mordor Pound would probably not have survived there.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:50 AM on 18 June 2015Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
Just to show that Tolkien buffs are never satisfied, I reproduce my (tonge in cheek) comment on Lunt's paper from when it was first released below. Prior to that, however, I want to note the excellent teaching value of the model and of the video's by John Cook. Well done in both cases. And now, my comment:
"There are several things to be said about the climate modeling of Middle Earth, the most obvious of which is that it failed to reproduce the climate of Middle Earth. This can be seen clearly in the Forodwaith which is shown as far to warm relative to observations. The predicted broadleaf forest over the grasslands east of Mirkwood are also a concern.
It is difficult to assess whether is a problem with model physics, or the set up. Certainly, the set up does not match geographically with Middle Earth as it is known. In particular, Tolkien said:
““The action of the story takes place in the North-West of ‘Middle-earth’, equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean (…) If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.”
(Quoted from here, note, the map at that site is a load of crap)
Being more specific, The Grey Havens, the Shire, and Rivendel are all approximately on the same latitude, about that of Oxford (52 degrees North) on modern Earth. Contrary to that, the model places the latitude of the Grey Havens at about 60 degrees North. The model does correctly place Pelargir and the Mouths of the Anduin at about 40 degrees North, however, but the consequence is that Middle Earth is expanded in scale.
The more northerly latitude of the Shire in the model is difficult to reconcile with the the warmer than observed Forodwaith. Clearly the observed Middle Earth is colder overall than is shown in the model, a fact possibly attributable to the lower solar constant in the past, but more probably attributable to a lower CO2 content, thus explaining the reasonable temperature estimates for more southerly lands in the model. A CO2 content significantly lower than the preindustrial value used would allow colder northerly latitudes due to arctic amplification.
The poor model geography is not restricted to just the poor scaling of Eriador (the territory west of the Misty Mountains) and Rhovanion (that east of the Misty Mountains as far as the Iron Hills). The model topography is clearly shown as including Numenor and the undying lands. That clearly identifies it as a model of the Second Age of Middle Earth. It is, however, purported to be a model of Third Age Middle Earth, as clearly indicated by its purported (see below) author, Radagast the Brown. Radagast as one of the Istari, did not arrive on Middle Earth from the undying lands until 1050 of the Third Era. Indeed, as Middle Earth was flat until the fall of Numenor, at which time the undying lands were removed from the Earth and became only accessible on elven vessels, it is impossible that the model be both of the Second Age, and hence also impossible that the model topography is correct.
I need not go into the entirely speculative extended eastern and southern continents shown in the model topography.
In addition to representing poor scholarship, the article is a transparent forgery. This is most clearly seen in the fact that the “Elven” and “Dwarvern” versions are merely transliterations of English into the Tengwar and Cirth scripts. Even the identification of Cirth as Dwarven is incorrect, it having been originally devised by Elves, and merely adopted for the Dwarves. Had “Radagast” being who he claimed to be, he would no doubt have composed the article in quenya, the more scholarly of the two elvish languages. He also would probably not have produced a Khuzdul version, the dwarves being secretive and not teaching the language to others.
I am disappointed that you have ignored these clear modeling flaws, not to mention the transparent forgery to concentrate on trivia about some inconsequential “climate scientist” who appears not to have the least knowledge of Middle Earth."
I noted with pleasure that John Cook in questions in the first video picked up on the fact that Middle Earth was flat (until the fall of Numenor), but Lunt evaded his question on that point. However, he failed to pick up on the fact that Elves did leave Middle Earth from near the mouths of the Pelargir (near Tol Amroth). Lunt offered an explantion as to why they left from the Grey Havens rather than "western Gondor" but Tol Amroth was at the same latitude as western Gondor so his explanation explains too much.
-
scaddenp at 08:14 AM on 18 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Any further comment on chaos should go on the thread "climate is chaotic and cant be predicted". Lots of useful stuff there.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 18 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Weather is chaotic - do you have evidence to support the assertion that climate is chaotic? The fact that temperate summer average is always warmer than winter average is strong evidence that while weather is chaotic, it is bound by limit of the energy balance.
Prev 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 Next
