Recent Comments

Prev  590  591  592  593  594  595  596  597  598  599  600  601  602  603  604  605  Next

Comments 29851 to 29900:

29851. Andy Skuce at 05:17 AM on 26 April 2015
       Permafrost feedback update 2015: is it good or bad news?
       

       I wish there were some good news to report, but I would nonetheless urge everyone to read Robert McSweeney's latest piece at The Carbon Brief. He reports on a new paper in Nature Geoscience (which I have only so far skimmed, myself) that predicts that the terrestrial carbon sink will turn into a source by the end of the century, because the limited supply of nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients in soils will be insufficient to allow the increased plant growth from CO2 fertilization predicted in current Earth System models.

       If I have read the paper correctly (that's a big "if") a terrestrial carbon sink of 140 +/- 240 PgC assumed in current RCP8.5 models could instead turn into a net carbon source. (Note that the error bars are very large.)

       If so, that effect could be as big as--and additional to--the permafrost emissions reported above.

29852. Andy Skuce at 04:54 AM on 26 April 2015
       Permafrost feedback update 2015: is it good or bad news?
       

       Billthefrog, thanks.

       I can't speak to what the scientific community currently thinks about the imminent catastrophic release of methane from clathrates. I'm not part of the reseach community in this area and I can only rely upon what I read in the literature. The IPCC considers the risk by 2100 to be "very unlikely" (Chapter 12 Table 12.4 ).

       My own opinion, for what it is worth, is firmly with David Archer and Carolyn Ruppel. Of all the vulnerable stores in the Arctic clathrates, being deep in the ocean or deep below permafrost are, quite literally, the best insulated against future warming. Methane released from the ocean-floor clathrates, moreover, will tend to be consumed by bugs at the ocean floor or dissolved and oxidised in the seawater and will mostly not get into the atmosphere. (See Ruppel's excellent piece in Nature.)

       This does not mean that hydrates should not be a concern (even the IPCC with its "very unlikely" grants a 5-10% probability of this happening this century). Over longer terms, centuries and millennia, carbon release from hydrates will certainly provide  a big new source of carbon to the surface that will prolong and perhaps worsen the climatic effects of 20th and 21st Century human emissions.

       The persistence of the imminent clathrate bomb ideas seems to rely on the idea that there are huge metastable deposits of methane clathrates lying around very close to the surface on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). There is no evidence for the presence of these deposits either from sampling or geophysics. Furthermore, what we know about the physical chemistry of clathrates tells us that they should not exist at those depths and conditions.

       I will end by noting that in Shakhova et al.'s recent paper on methane release on the ESAS, the terms "hydrate"  is used only once, in a general sense in the body of the text and "clathrate" not at all. (i.e.,"Among Arctic reservoirs, subsea permafrost, hydrates, and associated CH4 deposits are the most worrisome owing to high heat transfer from rapidly warming shallow Arctic seas"). I have no idea why this is so: it could be that the authors themselves no longer think exposed hydrates on the ESAS are worthy of mention or if the reviewers of the paper insisted that shallow hydrates therenot be referred to without evidence that they exist. In any case, it is unlikely to be an oversight.

29853. billthefrog at 03:25 AM on 26 April 2015
       Permafrost feedback update 2015: is it good or bad news?
       

       Andy,

       Thanks for the very informative article.

       Can I ask a question concerning the level of credence that is currently being given to the views of Peter Wadhams - and his colleagues on the Arctic Methane Emergency Group - as they pertain to this very topic? As far as I can tell from my (very) limited viewpoint, he seems to represent the more apocalyptic end of the clathrate release spectrum, with, perhaps, David Archer at the other. There was an SkS article about 2 years ago by Chris Colose which seemed to suggest this divergence in viewpoint, but I don't know if perspectives within the broad scientific community have changed much in the interim.

       I know that PW went very much out on a limb when he expressed the view that September levels of Arctic Sea Ice could be effectively gone by 2015. (He had elsewhere suggested the figure might be 2016 +/- 3 years, but, since we're in 2015, let's go with that version.) Not many people bought into this particular scenario, and, let's not be coy about this, it did provide a pretty soft target for the "it's not happening" brigade. The "official" AMEG line has softened (unsurprisingly) since PW made his claim back in 2012, and now simply states that...

       "The tipping point for the Arctic sea ice has already passed"

       However, and rather confusingly, about 2 lines further down on the AMEG home page, it goes on to state that...

       "The meltdown is accelerating and could become unstoppable as early as Sept 2015"

       Now, just because PW took an extreme view on Arctic Sea Ice, that doesn't necessarily brand him forevermore as "the boy who cried 'wolf!'" Hence my question about whether his views on methane release are still considered pretty extreme, or whether they're merely at the other end of a perfectly feasible probability range.

       Cheers    Bill F

29854. DSL at 03:13 AM on 26 April 2015
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       I'd say it's less about trust than cherry-picking on the part of the "people."  People for whom critical thinking is not a matter of habit are going to cherry-pick the field of information according to what makes them comfortable.  These people aren't trying to put together an understanding of the situation.  I talk regularly with people who claim, all at the same time, that 1) climate has changed before, 2) it's been much hotter in the past, and 3) climate science is a fraud. (and how do we know about the past?  Climate scientists — the same ones who are telling you that AGW is, in fact, quite real.)  The information is not being put together into a coherent picture, and there's no desire to do so.  The desire is to surround oneself with claims that block responsibility--responsibility for current activity and for future activity.  Trust means going to sources that tell you what you want to hear (in the name of freedom).  

       When people hear that the MWP exists, they have a range of possible responses.  
       1. Those climate scientists are hiding stuff.
       2. How warm was the MWP?
       3. What was the cause of the MWP?
       4. Really?  I think I'll go check it out on Wiki and google scholar.
       5. So? Stop talking to me about stupid crap. I'm trying to get into the game.
       
       It would be less easy to automatically go with no. 1 if climate science communication wasn't primarily defensive.  Sources that misrepresent the science are not legally bound in the US to represent the science accurately.  Thus, we have some very good, very well-paid rhetoricians who frame the message in the most effective way.  The sources don't simply point to Al Gore not talking about the MWP; instead, they create a narrative of persistent deceit, and they can do that because very few sources put together the actual science into a narrative, the narrative that scientists see.  It's simply too complex for the general public.  There will always be little bits of information that don't get included, bits that can be re-framed and blown out of proportion by experts.  The so-called "climategate" is an excellent example, and it revealed the willingness of the "people" to jump all over anything that suited their interests, even while just a tiny effort toward critical thinking would have revealed the absurdity of the whispered claims.
       
       The MWP is a good example for another reason.  All due respect to Mike Mann, but his multi-proxy record of the last 1000 years of surface temperature is not fundamental to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.  It's important, but one cannot work backward from it to confirm or refute the basic physical foundation of the theory, regardless of the accuracy of the work.  Yet that is precisely what "denier" opinion shapers claim. At every step, they push the logic that one alleged inaccuracy causes a breakdown of the entire theory.  The details are irrelevant; the logic is the message.  It is the logic of doubt, the logic that says "You're right: you don't need to try to understand this, because everyone has an agenda, and you're never going to get good information."

       In this sense, people "trust" Rush Limbaugh, but not blindly.  They trust him until he rubs up against their own expertise and experience.  And if he's just plain dumb where their expertise goes, it doesn't transfer to the stuff they don't know anything about.  As long as his message is about not being responsible for the woes of others, everything is all good.

       Any why was Mann attacked so ferociously?  Because he scored a rhetorical home run with his graphed results.  Easy to understand.  No one puts an attack on Lacis et al. 2012 in front of the general public.  It's a fine publication, and works through the fundamentals in a readable way, but it didn't produce any easy-to-get visuals.  Once you see the 'hockey stick' graph, it can't be unseen, and so denierville's experts have to attack, attack, attack.  Same thing happened to Marcott et al. 2013.  They shape public opinion, and, given the enormous amount of money going into the opinion shaping campaign, it's a credit to the people of the US that perhaps only a third of them have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

29855. WheelsOC at 02:57 AM on 26 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       mancan18:

       As well as the h-index, perhaps climate scientist credentials should also be determined by a SCL index, (Safe CO2 Level Index) as well, in which they are required to clearly state, with supporting scientific evidence, the CO2 level that they deem as "safe", while not adversely impacting the planet. Also, as a part of the index, they should be required to justify the economic and political approach needed in order to limit CO2 emissions to the level that they propose.

       I wouldn't support that, it's too much like a test of ideological commitment even if the post is to head up a "policy research center." The real issue is getting a rough metric of their relevant research expertise and experience.

       The most important factor here is whether the person being given a department to oversee actually has the academic chops to serve as a credible head based on their active involvement in the field. The problem here is that it appears someone's being given the position because of the flavor of their sideline critiques.

       Just as you wouldn't pick a new coach to head your team simply because they yelled the words you wanted to hear from their spot in the bleachers, you don't set up an expensive new "policy research center" on the back of somebody who's barely done any legitimate research, and of apparently low quality at that. You want somebody with an outstanding record of participation in forming our understanding of the issue. Setting up an arbitary "what should we do?" test right off the bat is not really much better than picking people based on their propensity to boo the other team.

       If you desire a true research center for generating policy solutions, having them outline their existing idea as a test of fitness seems like filtering for what you want to hear rather than allowing the solutions to arise from any genuine developments in the research.

29856. bozzza at 01:42 AM on 26 April 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       @ 338, hot water doesn't rise: because it is energised and is relatively free to move due to its liquid state it moves in random directions allowing cold water to sink through it which conversely is moving in basically only one direction- that being down.

       Is this density? I suppose it is!

       The concept of hot water rising is not correct, apparently, though there is a concept called "Flotation": but the reality is a warmer body of water is spreading out due to it's more energetic state and if a cooler body of water happens to be sitting on top it will fall through it due to gravity having a stronger influence over the colder waters behaviour.

       Of course the warm water is not sinking: heat energy doesn't belong anywhere- it moves from one object to another unlike the quantity we call mass which stays with the object being considered. (I forget the name for this idea..) When the heat energy moves out of the body of water you have under consideration (this is why dashed lines are drawn around things: it's called a system boundary and represents the system/body of water you are talking about) then this water will be sinking due to gravity.

29857. One Planet Only Forever at 01:08 AM on 26 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       mancan18,

       My MBA education helps me understand another unacceptable aspect of Lomborg's stories and the tales told by many like him.

       Economic assessments evaluating the cost today to avoid creating more CO2 and comparing those costs (or lost opportunity to benefit), with evaluations of the future costs of the results of increased amounts of excess CO2 are fundamentally flawed.

       The most fundamantal flaw is the presumption that it is legitimate to compare the benefit that would have to be given up by some people among the currrent generation of humanity to avoid creating costs that would be faced by others, particularly future generations of humanity.

       The evaluations done by the likes of Lomborg and Stern (including the US government agencies and so many other 'economic investigators'), are based on the falacy of being able to apply the method of financial evaluations a business entity would make to compare its 'project options' to matters of global humanity. Such overall evaluations of benefit and cost through time are only valid when the same actual people will experience all that is being evaluated. That is not even a valid way of judging the acceptability of a business pursuit that will allow a few to profit or benefit through an action that has negative consequences for others.

       The real evaluation of legitimacy or merit of any human activity is the creation of benefit for others, particularly for future generations. I consider any activity that does not create benefit for humanity into the future to be 'entertainment', an important aspect of life that must be harmless (however, any perception of harm to unacceptable beliefs of some by the enlightenment that can be delivered through entertainment and art is not real harm, it is a benefit).

       Any activity that creates costs for others must have those benefiting do more to provide benefit to those who face the costs than the costs those others face. And the evaluation of the cost the others face and the benefit they receive must be performed by the ones facing the costs, not by the ones wanting the benefit from the activity that will result in the costs to others.

       In addition to the above obvious fundamental flaw of the economic evaluations many perform and report related to excess CO2 and climate change, the way the evaluation is performed can be biased in favour of those among a current generation who want to get away with benefiting from activity that all of humanity cannot develop to enjoy if they wished far into the future. In fact, many of the evaluations will discount future costs using the business Net-Present-Value method of comparing future costs or benefits to current day costs or benefits. That evaluation makes sense for a business comparing its project options, especially if it will borrow money to finance the project, but it is totally inappropriate for comparing costs faced by future generations to the benefits of a current generation. With Net-Present-Value it is possible to discount costs more than 20 years in the future into irrelevance.

       Of course, in addition to all of the above, many of the economic evalutions accidentally or deliberately overstate the lost benefit to the most fortunate in the current generation and understate the future costs.

       So in addition to the science being deliberately attacked and misrepresented by those who want to maximize their personal life's benefits any damaging unacceptable way they can get away with, the economics of the matter are also being significantly misrepresented in efforts to justify the benefits being pursued by the same unacceptable group of people.

29858. MrN9 at 00:23 AM on 26 April 2015
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       Glenn Tamblyn and DSL.  What my point is that what is being discussed here is the wrong "myth".  It's not about people thinking: "The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made." ... People think something more like... "Oh look, people who talk about global warming pick and choose the data which they tell us about, and omit that which does not support their view so as to make their own view sound more convincing".  Exactly how warm or not the MWP may or may not have been is irrelevant.  Most will never understand the complexities of the issues, this is about trust...

29859. DSL at 23:47 PM on 25 April 2015
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       MrN9, it's also going a bit too far to claim that "many in the general public" are concerned about Gore's non-mention of the MWP.  I'd guesstimate that less than 2% of the general adult public knows anything about the MWP/MCA, and most of those people could care less one way or the other.  I ask my first year students (highly selective university) each semester if they can describe how the greenhouse effect works--just the basics.  No more than one or two in 30 gets close.

29860. mancan18 at 22:41 PM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       As well as the h-index, perhaps climate scientist credentials should also be determined by a SCL index, (Safe CO2 Level Index) as well, in which they are required to clearly state, with supporting scientific evidence, the CO2 level that they deem as "safe", while not adversely impacting the planet. Also, as a part of the index, they should be required to justify the economic and political approach needed in order to limit CO2 emissions to the level that they propose.

       It seems to me that deniers and skeptics are never challenged to state, in their view,  a "safe" level of CO2, and exactly how much more of the known fossil fuel reserves that we should burn. All they do is sow seeds of doubt and create confusion with the projections and evidence. In other words they run interference. Those who claim to be climate scientists should be made to nail their colours to the mast, so to speak. At least then it will be obvious who they are and where they stand. The trouble with Lomborg and his ilk is that they never clearly state what CO2 level they think is "safe". All they suggest is that it'll all be Ok, it's natural, or that there will be negligible warming, all with little real scientific evidence. All the while, we continue to increase our burning of fossil fuels and hence pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

       In other words deniers and skeptics should always be asked how much, when do we stop, and how? Perhaps, these are also good questions for bona fide climate scientists to answer as well.

29861. Glenn Tamblyn at 21:47 PM on 25 April 2015
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       MrN9

       "Actually I think more the concern that many in the general public have is that the Medieval Warm Period was not mentioned by Al Gore in his inconvenient truth and that the Medieval Warm Period is usually not mentioned by those pushing global warming"

       Leaving aside that what Al Gore may have said about something or other, which has no relevence, the premise of you argument is that there was a Medieval Warm Period. Given that the topic is Global Warming, the question is - was there a MWP Globally?

       Read the Intermediate rebuttal. Was there actually a MWP? The evidence suggests no.

       So what is your point?

29862. Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       thomaswfuller3 @12, are we playing a game of selective quotations?  Here's my move:

       "CUP surely carries an immense responsibility for the misinformation and public confusion that Lomborg’s book generated. Just referring to a standard referee procedure, as CUP’s employee Harrison (2004) does, is inadequate.

       Referee procedures once in a while may fail in adequately judging the scientific quality of a manuscript. It is likely that the reviewers of CUP were impressed by the broad perspective, smooth writing style and amount of detail and never bothered to systematically check the latter. The overwhelming collection of unusually critical reviews by experts (as mentioned in this paper) could have been regarded by CUP as
       an improved, ex post review procedure, and in response the publication decision might have been rectified. Nevertheless, the book is anyway sure to go down in history as an unreliable source of information and argumentation, being one of the most severely criticized texts issued ever by a prestigious academic publisher. Not particularly something to be proud of, neither by Lomborg or CUP.

       To close, the following brief statement perhaps best summarizes the Lomborg case:

       
       ‘‘The greatest regret I have about it all is the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation you created’’ (E.O. Wilson in a letter addressed to Lomborg (Harvey 2002))."

       J van den Bergh, Journal of Integrated Environmental Sciences, 2010 (Download)

       Despite the claim that the Skeptial Environmentalist was peer reviewed, it was not a peer reviewed article, and therefore it should not have been included in Lomborg's h index.  It certainly should not have been included multiple times, as must be done to achieve a h index of 21 for Lomborg.

       As to claims that CUP are peer reviewed in any sensible way, that is a proposition I have held in doubt since they began publishing Intelligent Design Creationist tracts.  Until such time as there is an open review of the CUP review process to ensure that their reviewers were  relevantly expert, and were not chosen for a predisposition to pass the book under review, I consider their claims to have properly reviewed such a travesty of a book to be moot.

        

       Moderator Response:

       Edited to correct line spacing.

29863. MrN9 at 18:16 PM on 25 April 2015
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       Apparently the myth is "Medieval Warm Period was warmer

       The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made." ...

       Actually I think more the concern that many in the general public have is that the Medieval Warm Period was not mentioned by Al Gore in his inconvenient truth and that the Medieval Warm Period is usually not mentioned by those pushing global warming.  I think people see this as selective reasoning or confirmation bias and therfore find it difficult to trust what they are being told. 

29864. rkrolph at 18:12 PM on 25 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       Glenn Tamblyn

       Thanks for putting some numbers to this.  Since clouds do have a cooling effect (although less in a warmer world), would it be possible that if cloud cover was underestimated for the future, then you could still get a net cooling effect.  For example, using your numbers, if equivalent cloud cover was 20% greater, then you would have 66 watts/M² cooling, and 44.4 watts heating, giving a delta of 21.6 watts/M² net cooling, which would be greater than the current IPCC value of 20 watts/M², and therefore a cooling feedback.   It's not that I think this may be a likely scenario, but am just wondering if I am understanding this correctly. 

       I guess a simpler way of putting this would be asking if in the future we were to somehow artificially induce more clouds, would that help cool the planet, with everything else being equal?

29865. thomaswfuller3 at 16:58 PM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       "we were surprised and disappointed to see the critics' letter being quoted in an issue of Time magazine (2 September 2002)... in which the authors repeated their charge that the book had not been peer-reviewed despite the assurances to the contrary that they had by then received by the press... It has become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that this book bypassed the usual Cambridge peer-review process... This is a charge that is repeated in many of the public and private attacks in the press, and it is unfounded."

        

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

29866. chriskoz at 15:24 PM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       Thanks Corey for your good explanation of h-index.

       Is said index realy representative of one's academic credentials? How about quality of cited work? We certainly have plainty of contararians whose work has been 'discredited'. However in order to discredit an article, you need to right another article where you have to cite the non-credible piece. Does such 'discrediting' citation count towards h-index? If so, h-index is not a good credibility measure.

29867. Andy Skuce at 11:00 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       It's worth noting also that Dana wrote his papers in his spare time, not as part of his employment.

29868. Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       Rob Honeycutt @7, why restrict it to very well known scientists.  From the SkS crew we have Gavin Cawley with 26, Kevin Cowtan with 22, John Abraham with 17.  Obviously the list is not exhaustive.  Of particular interest, it excludes John Cook with 7 and he hasn't even completed his PhD yet.  We even have Dana Nuccutelli who matches Lomborg's H index of 4, albeit with more papers (15 vs 7) , more citations (228 vs 190), is more active (h index of 4 since 2010 vs 0 for Lomborg), and walks all over Lomborg in number and quality of popular articles.  Perhaps he should apply for 4 million dollars from the aussie government for his own consensus center?  He certainly deserves it more than Lomborg.

29869. Tom Curtis at 09:31 AM on 25 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       MA Rodger @280:

       "This strongly suggests that the marked trashing of eco-systems over that period has not altered "ecosystem services" to any significant extent on a global scale."

       Exactly!

       Indeed, RedBaron's thesis is intrinsically implausible in that it requires biosphere sequestration of CO2 (by an unaltered biosphere) would go from just matching preindustrial LUC (at best) to matching industrial era emissions with a few years lag at most.  It is thoroughly implausible that so sensitive a feedback mechanism would not either act as an inexorable pump of CO2 levels down to far below preindustrial levels, or result in wild fluctuations in CO2 levels on an annual and decadal basis.  As neither has happened, presumably the feedback mechanism is slow, as is indicated by all the data.

       Indeed, that is what we should expect.  In principle, the Net Ecosystem Productivity (ie, the rate of Carbon sequestration) of an undisturbed forest will approximate to the rate of formation of coal.  That is, it will be effectively zero.  Immediately after it is massively disturbed, as by clear felling, it will become a carbon source, but will then become a large carbon sink with regrowth.  However, within a few years or decades (depending on the rate of growth of the trees), it will decline as a sink, and approach the rate of sequestration of the formation of coal over time (if completely undisturbed). (See here, and also here.)

       This pattern also applies to grasslands, with a possible (but not demonstrated by RedBaron) ongoing and slightly higher rate of sequestration due to the accumulation of soil carbon.  Even there, however, carbon accumulation in soil is dependent on the rate of bioturbation, which implies such carbon soil carbon is outgassed at some rate depending on the rate of bioturbation at a given level.  From that in turn it follows that even soil carbon will reach net zero sequestration given mature conditions, with a slight excess of sequestration if the soil is buried by sediment, and a slight excess of emission if it is eroded.

       This pattern also means you cannot project high rates of initial sequestration in ecosystem reclamation projects (as in his linked article @278) forward as an expected sustainable rate.  It will peter out rapidly for grasslands (excluding sequestration in soil), and over a few decades for forest.  Soil sequestration will peter out more slowly, but will itself reach equilibrium over time.

       The upshot is that the high rate of biosphere sequestration we see now is a consequence of prior degredations.  Absent the regrowth of northern forests (particularly in the USA), it would be much smaller.

29870. michael sweet at 09:30 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       For interest, the author of the OP has an h index of about 48 (obtained by counting the papers in his link above).

       Obviously as you get a higher h index it is harder to get enough citations to raise your score.

29871. Rob Honeycutt at 09:01 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       Andy... Ah, gotcha. I was tripping myself up because I kept trying to look up RB Alley, who also doesn't have a profile on Google Scholar. But I found Kerry Emanuel who, though he's 10 years older, has an h-index of 74. Or there's Jason Box, who is younger than Lomborg (not sure exactly how much), and has an h-index of 35.

       That puts it more into perspective.

29872. Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 25 April 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       DarylLynch @338:

       1)  The upper ocean is heated by short wave radiation (visible light) from the sun.  It cools by evaporation and by radiation of IR energy.  Obviously the rate of cooling depends primarilly on its ability to transfer net energy from its skin layer to the atmosphere (which absorbs most of that IR energy).  If you warm the atmosphere, you restrict the rate at which it can cool.  Ergo it must warm to gain a new balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing (IR and evaporative) energy.

       2)  Cold water sinks because it is more dense.  But salty water is more dense as well.  When ice forms in the arctic (or antarctic) winter, the water becomes more dense due to the excess salt left behind by the freezing process, and sinks.  (The arctic and antarctic water is already unusually salty because of evaporation as it travels from the equator).  Further, winds over the ocean can generate substantial force.  They act in some ways to drive surface waters to depth.  I am, however, very unfamiliar with that process, so you are better of asking Rob Painting for details.

29873. Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       For convenience, I redid Bradshaw's analysis.  Here then are all of Bjorn Lomborg's academic papers, in reverse order of citation numbers:

       1. Nucleus and Shield (Game Theory) 141
       2. Game Theory vs Multiple Agents (Game Theory) 26
       3. Need for Economists to Set Global Priorities (Economics/ Environment) 9
       4. Environmental Sociology and Its Future (Economics/ Environment) 7
       5. Limits to Growth  (Economics/ Environment) 4
       6. Simulating Multiparty Systems (Game Theory) 3
       7. Response to Yohe et al (Economics/ Environment) 0

       Given that his first paper (Game Theory vs Multiple Agents) was published in 1995, that is a lamentable publication record.  Two things to note.  First, all of his game theory publications preceded 2000, when he clearly switched track from an academic career that was rapidly going nowhere.  The second is that if we exclude his game theory articles, his Google Scholar h-index is zero.  So, he has been given 4 million dollars without any competitive application process (ie, as a purely political decision) to set up an academic center in a field in which his h-index is zero, and in which he has only 4 academic papers.

29874. DarylLynch at 08:28 AM on 25 April 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       If its true that air heats up easier than water and heated air expands and rises , why would the Oceans store the heat and not the air ? What is the flaw in my logic ?, Does not heated water also expand and evaporate ?, Is the oceans heating up begin at the surface where the sun and the air have 1st contact ? If true then why is the heated water sinking down ?, is heated water heavier than cooler water ?, in my bath tub , the cooler water is at the bottom when it sits for a while before i get in, if i don't disturb the water and cause the warm and cold water to mix , i can let the cold water drain out , i'm not trying to prove anything, this is what i observe and what i was taught, i would like to be corrected any where i'm wrong, i have no desired comclusion , i desire only the facts and truth

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - The thermohaline circulation (partially explained by Tom Curtis) also has a wind-driven component to it. In areas of surface water convergence (the subtropical ocean gyres) the water cannot go anywhere else but down into the ocean interior. This is known as Ekman pumping and is a consequence of the fact that we live on a rapidly rotating sphere - something known as the Coriolis Effect. There is no magic taking place in the subtropical ocean gyres, the warmest water is still at the surface. 

       Much of this can be understood by watching simple lab experiments of water in tanks on a rotating platter - such as these conducted by researchers at MIT.

29875. Andy Skuce at 07:50 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       Rob H: It would be interesting to know the h-index of some other prominent climate researchers that are somewhat close to Lomborg's age.

       There are quite a few regular contributors to Skeptical Science who have H-scores above Lomborg's, some considerably higher. You can check out most scientists' H scores on Google Scholar. As the article notes, Lomborg doesn't have a profile there.

       Considering that Lomborg is 50 and has been in some kind of academic or quasi-academic research job for twenty years, his peer-reviewed publication record is really quite mediocre.

29876. Rob Honeycutt at 07:35 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       The idea that we can emit another 500 billion tons of carbon and still avoid catastrophe is absolutely insane.

       I don't think it's as insane as you might think. It's certainly not going to be painless, that's for sure, but I believe it's widely accepted that this can be accomplished and keep us at least near the 2C limit.

       See the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project. These are definitely not insane folks. 

29877. TomR at 06:59 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       Thank you for an excellent article.  I wish that there was some solid evidence that the tide was turning against the fossil fuel industry and their paid deniers.  Reading the science, global warming is guaranteed to be extremely dangerous and yet the vast majority of the lay public don't realize what's coming.  Our country and many others like Australia are doing very little.  Even Europe is making much less progress than it appears on the surface. According to a University of Leeds study, the UK has lowered its carbon footprint only 7% below 1990, not the 29% claimed by government due primarily to the embodied footprint of imported goods.  It's so discouraging.  We all need to be carbon neutral now or as soon as humanly possible.  The idea that we can emit another 500 billion tons of carbon and still avoid catastrophe is absolutely insane.  I'm a retired psychiatrist, so I can diagnose insanity when I see it.

29878. Rob Honeycutt at 06:22 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       It would be interesting to know the h-index of some other prominent climate researchers that are somewhat close to Lomborg's age. 

29879. ubrew12 at 04:40 AM on 25 April 2015
       Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis
       

       British Petroleum has a 'Statistical Review of World Energy' which lists current oil reserves at 1.7 trillion barrels.  At todays reduced price ($56/barrel), that is worth almost 100 trillion US dollars.  And all of it under existential threat by websites such as this one.  One has to wonder if some of that 'cheddar' doesn't find its way into bogus appointments such as Lomborgs.

29880. Tristan at 01:42 AM on 25 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       I think If someone wishes to argue from religion, it requires you frame your response in that context.

       Hence, I can think of two responses: God's covenant was that He would never again use a divine downpour to destroy life on Earth (Gen 9:15). He didn't say that the sea level won't rise at all due to the free will exercised by humans.

       2 Corinthians 9:6 says "whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully." If you do not tend your field, don't expect God to grace you with a fine harvest. If you don't look after the geosphere, don't expect the world's food supply to feed everyone.

29881. John Hartz at 00:27 AM on 25 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       The return of the iris effect? by Andrew Dressler, Real Climate, Apr 24, 2015

29882. wili at 00:03 AM on 25 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       ('her' not 'here')

29883. wili at 00:02 AM on 25 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       Will it help me communicate with my students who claim that the promise God made to Noah proves that CC can't get that bad (without throttling here '-))?

29884. MA Rodger at 22:14 PM on 24 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Tom Curtis @277.

       For a second time we use slightly different forms of analysis (I was assuming %(CO2 emissions), you %(drawn-down CO2) using Law Dome data) but I haven't before considered using ice core data to extend analysis of atmospheric levels back before the Keeling curve.

       While the Law Dome data does show some curious wobbles, it does allow a calculation of sorts for the Atmospheric Fraction back into the 1800s. There is no evidence from such a calculation that there was some grand absorbing sink of CO2 existing back then. (There's even an SKS post from 2010 that does a similar analysis with the same outcome.) This strongly suggests that the marked trashing of eco-systems over that period has not altered "ecosystem services" to any significant extent on a global scale.

29885. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:28 PM on 24 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       rkrolph

       Actually they aren't contradictory. There is a difference bewteen the net effect clouds have when the climate is in one state and the impact a change in their conribution has.

       I am going on memory here but I think from the last IPCC report the contribution from clouds as 50 watts/m² of cooling and 30 watts/m² of warming for a net effect of 20 watts/M² of cooling.

       Now hypothetically, if in a warmer world the cooling aspect increased to 55 watts/M² and the warming aspect to 37 watts/M², the net cooling is now 18 watts/M². A change of +2 watts/M². So they have acted as a warming feedback because they now contribute less cooling.

29886. rkrolph at 18:47 PM on 24 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       Some statements in this article seem contradictory. It states  "We know that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet", but then says scientists describe clouds as "positive feedback".  How can clouds have a net cooling effect yet be considered positive feedback?  It seems like this study is saying clouds actually have a net heating effect.

29887. Tristan at 14:43 PM on 24 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       Here's what I wonder:

       If the TLT measurements turn out to be underestimating warming (which seems likely), how does that impact the conclusions of the study?

29888. barry1487 at 11:41 AM on 24 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       Interesting development on a thorny issue.
       
       "This new work confirms the opposite; it turns out Dr. Dessler was correct after all."
       
       Confirms? Wouldn't "corroborates" be more appropriate? This paper is one more step towards understanding. How does John Abraham know it is definitive?

29889. Thomas Huld at 08:08 AM on 24 April 2015
       Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
       

       The links to the works of Dr. Dressler don't work here (they are active in the Guardian article). Some way to fix it?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link inserted.

29890. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:20 AM on 24 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       ryland

       Yes, the course will be strongly forum based. Participation in the forums is part of the assessment. And yes we will be moderating firmly.

29891. michael sweet at 05:04 AM on 24 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron,

       You are not being silenced.  If you want to continue the discussion you only have to cite peer reviewed papers that support your position.  You must also address the data others have presented that argue against your position.  In science you cannot continue to make unsupported claims and expect people to listen to you forever.

29892. RedBaron at 04:32 AM on 24 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Apparently I am being silenced now. Fair enough. I suspected it would eventually happen. As much as I would hope that science was free of politics, it isn't. I'll leave you with some empirical evidence and it will be up to you to figure out why it shows the flaw in your numbers without commentary from me. Because quite frankly I am not interested in debating on a forum where discussing different interpretations of the same evidence is not allowed.

       How ecological restoration alters ecosystem services: an analysis of carbon sequestration in China's Loess Plateau

       Good luck

29893. Andy Skuce at 03:10 AM on 24 April 2015
       Permafrost feedback update 2015: is it good or bad news?
       

       Thank you, HK. I was looking for permafrost in the "north" of that figure and couldn't see it. It makes sense now. 

       Apologies to everyone for any confusion caused by me not seeing what's in front of my nose.  

       I have now updated my previous comment.

29894. HK at 02:09 AM on 24 April 2015
       Permafrost feedback update 2015: is it good or bad news?
       

       Andy:
       Your figure from IPCC has the permafrost carbon in a separate box to the right of the vegetation/soils box and is estimated as ~1700 Gt. That brings the total soil + permafrost carbon up to 3200-4100 Gt, or very roughly 4-5 times the present reservoir in the atmosphere (~850 Gt), not very different from saileshrao’s calculation. It also implies that the permafrost contains between 41% and 53% of all soil carbon.

29895. Tristan at 01:15 AM on 24 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion forums contained some robust (yet moderated) debate. That's usually the case with MOOC's that deal with any public policy area, regardless of what the content actually advances.

29896. ryland at 23:20 PM on 23 April 2015
       University of Queensland offering free online course to demolish climate denial
       

       In many university courses free discussion is encouraged  where opposing views can be aired and debated.  As there are many who are not entirely convinced of all aspects of AGW will that be the case with this MOOC? 

29897. Tom Curtis at 19:32 PM on 23 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       MA Rodger @276, I suggest you reread the first paragraph RedBaron's post @262, which I believe clearly indicates that he thinks anthropogenic emissions from LUC have followed a hockey stick.  He can, of course clarrify this for himself.

       I think he is furhter arguing that by reversing the degradation of the biosphere, it can absorb more than current FF + LUC emissions, thereby reversing global warming, but that that is for him a seperate but related thesis.

       With regard to the biosphere in general, assuming that the biosphere is constantly fifty percent of the total sink, then the biosphere first becomes a net sink from 1942-1950.  It returns to being a net sink again in 1960, and except for 1961, '67 and '68, remains so thereafter.  I calculated this using CO2 concentration data from Law Dome.  Using the same data and assumptions, the biosphere peaks as a source in the late 19th century, and follows a more or less linear trend downward since about the 1940s.  Potentially it could be fitted to a quadratic after 1850, and presumably linear before 1850, making it an inverted hockey stick.  If we take this seriously, that again contradicts either version of RedBaron's hypothesis.  That is, LUC emissions have been an inverted hockey stick, not a hockey stick as required by the version you do not believe he holds; but also the biospheres capability to act as a sink has increased over time, contrary to that part of the theory we both think he holds.

       Having said that, I do not think the assumption of a constant ratio of biosphere to oceanic sink is safe.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] RedBaron's response to you was moderated out due to repetitive sloganeering (multiple simple assertions lacking any credible support).

29898. uncletimrob at 17:41 PM on 23 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #17A
       

       The practice of either shutting down or hobbling an organisation that doesn't agree with your political agenda of appointing a stooge into a potentially influential position are the hallmarks of several state and federal administrations here in Oz.

       Abbot has never reacanted his rant   "The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger" , so I can only believe that he is still the scientific ignoramus that he was back then in 2010.

29899. MA Rodger at 17:38 PM on 23 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Tom Curtis @275.

       I think the term "hockey stick" used by RedBaron refers to the NH millenial temperature reconstructions and so means AGW. I don't think he refers to the atmospheric CO2 record.

       My reading of what is being said @274 is that the levels of climate forcing from CO2 would be greatly reduced had not mankind done such damage to the biosphere around the world. Thus, "the ecological sink is far too small to actually counter Fossil Fuel emissions in its current degraded state."

       The transition from the net LUC emissions & biosphere absorption being a source to becoming a sink depends on the ratio of chopping trees to burning FF. It is also dependent on the levels of absorption into the biosphere as CO2 levels rise.  If we adopt a value of 25% for the proportion of our emissions currently absorbed by the biosphere, we can calculate a rough date for the biosphere becoming a net sink by using FF+cement emissions & LUC emissions - 1971.

       I read RedBaron @274 arguing that the 25% value would be far higher had mankind not reduced the size of the biosphere by chopping it down or whatever. If the biosphere were, say, twice the size of its present diminished state, would it not absorb twice the CO2? With double the absorption, a the date of transition from source to sink occurs in 1930, even without adjustment to the LUC figures. Under such assumptions, if the biosphere were absorbing twice the amount of our emissions, the rise in atmospheric CO2 would be halved and atmospheric CO2 today would only be 337ppm.

       Thus RedBaron concludes "the principle of the effect ecosystem services being capable of moderating atmospheric CO2 is proven by the very thing you mentioned." While this does amply demonstrate the influence of the biosphere on atmospheric CO2 levels, that is something I don't think is in dispute. And beyond that point, I don't see it supporting the various argument from RedBaron scattered down this thread.

29900. Tom Curtis at 15:47 PM on 23 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @274, if, as you suggest, LUC was responsible for the hockey stick in CO2 emissions, except for the last two decades when LUC plus land absorption became a net sink, there would have been a marked decrease in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration over those last two decades.  You, however, take evidence that over the last two decades LUC plus land absorption was a net sink as proof that LUC plus land absorption was a net source that overwhelmed fossil fuel emissions in preceding decades, and then seemlessly converted to a sink with no alteration in the trend in CO2 concentration.  Such a large change from source to sink should also be visible in the isotope data, and also in the relationship between CO2 concentrations and the integral of fossil fuel emissions:

       

       Evidently your "rebutal" of the O2 evidence depends entirely on ignoring the other available evidence.  This is on top of your startling rebutal of the isotope evidence of "I just won't look at it, and will not accept anybody who does look at it has sufficient knowledge to determine that the evidence rebuts my theory".  I think at this stage we can appropriately call your theory the invisible gardener theory of global warming.  We can also appropriately note that there is no point discussing evidence with anybody who conspicuously refuses to note any evidence contrary to his theory (which has been shown to not be supported by your sources, to contradict isotope evidence extending back to well before the preindustrial, and to contradict exact evidence from the last two decades).

Prev  590  591  592  593  594  595  596  597  598  599  600  601  602  603  604  605  Next