Recent Comments

Prev  596  597  598  599  600  601  602  603  604  605  606  607  608  609  610  611  Next

Comments 30151 to 30200:

30151. Tom Curtis at 14:31 PM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron @262:

       "His arguments are generally sound and I accept his sources. Excepting his measurements include highly degraded ecosystems found now and not even close to what they were before human impact."

       First, it is not at all clear that the "extirpation and extinction" of megafauna would result in significant carbon emissions.  In particular, while it may result in reduced bioturbation at depth, that would merely result in existing carbon being left at depth, rather than it being brought to the surface.  It is only where that is coupled with significant erosion and/or desertification that it would potentially lead to emissions, and that is not typically the case.  

       The most noted desertification, ie, the Sahara, was brought about by changes in rainfall, not by the extinction of megafauna (which were not, in general, driven extinct in Africa) and hence does not fit your model.  Come to that, neither does North America (where the survival of bison maintained the lush grasslands you consider so important), nor Australia, which has always lacked hoofed grazers until Europeans brought cattle.

       Second, and most importantly, any emissions from soil due to the "extirpation and extinction" of megafauna is already included in Ruddiman's estimations due to the associated C13 signal.  Ergo it was taken into account by my tabulation.

       Third, whatever the effect of the "extirpation and extinction" of megafauna (or whatever other combination of factors caused the early holocene carbon emissions, ie, Ruddiman's fatal flaw), they occured before the nineteenth century agricultural revolution.  Ergo the emissions consequent of that revolution come from the (according to you) already depleted reservoir.  Therefore there did not exist the potential in the nineteenth century for the agricultural revolution to cause a hockey stick in emissions.  Put another way, if we accept your argument about depletion, it gives us no reason to question Houghton's figures Houghton's estimates are for LUC emissions from (according to you) already depleted soils.

       Finally, my critique of Teague's argument about sequestration used the sum of Houghton and Ruddiman's figures, thereby accounting for all LUC over the entire Hollocene.  It, therefore, represents the only basis against which to check Teague's claims.  You may certainly speculate that Ruddiman got his figures wrong because Teague is (somehow) infallible, but you are then no longer basing your estimates on data, only wishful thinking.

30152. Leto at 14:22 PM on 20 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Edit... I mean the points are above the continuation of the first trend line

30153. Leto at 13:30 PM on 20 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Chiskoz @2,

       I agree that  the step looks odd, and I'd be interested in knowing if the timing of that step point was data-driven or chosen arbitrarily. The majority of the initial data points after the step are above the second trend line, so it is odd to suggest, as the graph does, that the first part of the second trend line accurately reflects the beginning of a downward trend.

       If nothing else, the division of the data into two groups needs better justification in the figure legend.

       Does anyone have a link to the original paper?

30154. bozzza at 12:55 PM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       

        Do the Albedo Changes in Greenland constitute evidence?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Image reduced to conform with SkS guidelines.

30155. RedBaron at 11:53 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @scaddenp

       The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years. Any SOM older than 5,730±40 years to the end of the last glaciation period would have a C-14 at 50%-75% similar to Fossil fuels. But that's not the whole story, carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere. Certainly measurable locked in a biological source, but very difficult to distinguish the difference between a stable humus source 50-70% similar to a fossil fuel source having been released into the atmosphere and mixed together. Both will dillute atmospheric C-14 levels, and both have dilluted atmospheric C-14 levels. But that deep SOM largely wasn't released in huge amounts before the industrial age and the spread of the John Deer Plow pulled by tractors and haber process nitrogen fertilizers, disturbing far more acreage far deeper than any previous agricultural practices. That's the key to the puzzle too. The signature is largely hidden in the fossil fuel signature. Very easy to overlook by anyone studying the atmosphere. Mostly the knowledge of this release has been discovered by soil scientists and agricultural scientists (and the quite rare paleosoil scientist like Retallack). Previous to the industrial age the released C-14 isotope ratio from agriculture would have blended in far closer to the O-horizon short term carbon cycle. So it follows the same hockey stick, as they are closely related.

       The important thing to note when discussing the Ruddiman hypothesis is his admitted "fatal flaw". He fully admits that the so called "tortoise carbon release" measured is actually larger than his projected effects from human agriculture. Instead of following the concave curve of population growth (and thus the extent of agriculture in populations using agriculture), the release is far larger, earlier and more convex shaped. Ruddiman's "fatal flaw" though is resolved by by factoring in the evidence from Retallack and Sandom. ie the effect the extirpation and extinction of the megafauna by man and the effect that had on the grasslands ecosystems, all of which preceeded agriculture.

       In addressing Tom as you requested: In general I have no problems with his rebuttal actually. His arguments are generally sound and I accept his sources. Excepting his measurements include highly degraded ecosystems found now and not even close to what they were before human impact. Not allowing for that change is where his rebuttal fails to actually disprove soil source for AGW hypothesis. In discussing Ruddiman, Tom fails to acknowledge the "fatal flaw" in Ruddiman's hypothesis, unlike Ruddiman himself. Tom actually uses the "fatal flaw" to argue against Teague! Instead of using them to counter each other, it is far better to combine their separate lines of inquiry, each explaining the flaws still present in the other when viewed alone. The evidence and context of all the sources combined into a new systems science synthesis paints a much clearer picture. That is the synthesis I am trying to get at here.

30156. sauerj at 11:03 AM on 20 April 2015
       Shell: internal carbon pricing and the limits of big oil company action on climate
       

       Good Article! ... If I understand right, the $40/tonne-CO2 shadow tax only applies to the CO2 emitted by Shell in the extraction process, not for the CO2 emitted by combusting the product itself.

       If true, then the $40/tonne only amounts to $1.69/barrel of crude [math: $40/tonne CO2 x 0.317tonne CO2/barrel_crude(per internet) x 80mmtCO2/600mmtCO2 = $1.69/barrel ... where the (80extraction CO2/600total CO2) ratio comes from data in this article]. If this is all true, the $1.69/barrel is not nearly enough to sway a project's evaluation.

       I believe this is point of this article: That, if instead, the shadow tax ALSO included the combustion CO2, then the $/barrel would be 600/80X higher, or $12.7/barrel. Still a bit low. I'm guessing that the real pay-forward/cultural change impacting cost would probably be above $20/barrel.

       However, I suppose, even this higher $12.7/barrel "adder" would still fail to influence potential projects (at least for projects involving only FF's), as the $12.7/barrel "adder" would be an equal "adder" on all FF projects, since, in general, all FF's have the near same CO2 combustion/kJ ratio. Now, if non-FF projects were thrown in the project evaluation mix (thus adding to Shell's energy portfolio diversity), then this $12.7/barrel "adder" would then have a lot of sway. ... Again, this is probably what the article is ultimately saying. Thanks! ... GHU!

30157. scaddenp at 09:50 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       It may have C13 profile that is closer to FF, but I fail to see how even soils from several millenia can have same C14 profile (ie zero) as FF. Are you implying that mass numbers quoted by you so far are only for for deep SOC? (I dont think so) and what evidence you have that there is a substantial contribution of deep soil carbon (the hardest to lose). I would also be interested in your response to points made by Tom.

30158. RedBaron at 09:07 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Scaddenp,

       Please keep in mind that I am making a clear distinction between "recalcitrant" SOM and "labile" SOM. The SOM isotope profile in the O-horizon is not much different than that found in living vegetation, having a turnover in the carbon cycle measured usually in decades or less and never much more than a couple hundred years unless locked in permafrost. The SOM deep in the A-horizon is very different, often lasting for millenia in a very stable form (unless disturbed), and has a very similar isotope profile as fossil fuels.

30159. Tristan at 08:13 AM on 20 April 2015
       The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       

       Skeptical Science is a strong brand - has there been any discussion related to using the framework and name for other areas in need of science communication (I'm thinking vaccines and GMOs for starters)?

30160. scaddenp at 08:08 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron, any theory that tries to explain the net increase in CO2 from soil degradation also needs to explain the carbon isotope D13 and D14 ratios in the atmosphere which fit accurately with fossil fuel source (eg see here and here which also accounts for spatial distribution).

30161. wili at 06:24 AM on 20 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Thanks for another great roundup.

       Minor point--the second title "'3D Cryosat' tracks Arctic winter sea ic" is missing the final 'e.'

       Something to consider for inclusion in the next roundup:

       Russian Ecologists Warn Summer Could See Repeat of Devastating 2010 Wildfires – or Worse

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The missing "e" has been inserted. Thank you for pointing this out and for the positive feedback.

30162. RedBaron at 04:40 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       MA Rodger and Tristan,

       Both of you are correct, but only if that  ~300 GtC emissions pior to 1850 that Ruddiman discusses[1] is not included. The Retallack paleosoil evidence[2] even adds a causal relationship as opposed to simple correlation. The Teague evidence [3]  confirming both the ecosystem services and pointing one way that information can be put to use for mitigation.[4]

       Just to sum up, the biggest mistake is in ignoring the soils[5], both as a cause and as a solution.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repitition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. 

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

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

30163. HK at 03:50 AM on 20 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Finally pulled myself together and finished the Norwegian translation of "It's not bad"!

30164. MA Rodger at 03:30 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @255.

       So we are effectively back to your input @217.

       "The hocky stick isn't fossil fuel emissions, it's agricultural degradation of the soils, particularly carbon. Sure emissions also help somewhat, but even without a single fossil fuel drop, degrade the ecosystem services and we get global warming. It is us doing the harm, so it is AGW. But you guys are looking at the wrong source. Here is your evidence:-"

       But the evidence you have provided for soils being the overwhelming source of CO2 emissions, right from the start with a National Geopgraphic article, all the way to here and now, is wholly insufficient to support your radical assertions. Of your most recent citations @250, Ruddiman is silent on this and the LiveScience article ditto. @249, Sait makes only unsupported assertions. I did not find anything worthy of further consideration with Retallack or Teague or Savoury. Indeed, @247 I concluded "I see no evidence that Houghton and others are in error over CO2 emissions from land use." Nothing has changed. There is no evidence to suggest soils are a major CO2 source, let alone being the major source as you are arguing.

30165. WheelsOC at 03:21 AM on 20 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       RE: Climate plans put world on track for warming above agreed limits

       The Climate Action Tracker (CAT), compiled by scientists, said pledges so far put the world on track for average temperatures in the year 2100 three to four degrees Celsius (5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than they were in pre-industrial time. That is well above a U.N. goal of a maximum 2 degrees C (3.6F) rise.

       All I can think of is Marcott's Wheelchair.

        

       

30166. Tristan at 01:42 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I'll just point out, that the notion of 'reversing' climate change doesn't really make sense anyway. What matters is limiting the rate of change. Once it has changed, it's changed, and the bits of the ecosystem/society that can't adapt will break. At that point, there probably isn't that much to gain by trying to force the ppm back down (not that that seems plausible right now).

30167. RedBaron at 01:20 AM on 20 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       MA Rodger,

        Would it be fair to say that if you skip the emissions caused by the loss of ecosystem services, it would then bias your analysis of what could be done by restoring ecosystem services? After all, if your main focus is fossil fuel emissions, then the main focus for mitigation would also be fossil fuel emissions. The whole effect of soil sequestration of CO2 glaringly omitted both as a major cause and as a potential major mitigation strategy.

       Now don't get me wrong. I am hugely in favor of alternative energy. At some point that will have to happen anyway, but the more pressing issue is restoring ecosystem services to about 1/2 the planet's land surface. It is the only possible strategy with any hope at all of working. Even going to 0% emissions tomorrow by the entire world will not reverse AGW for hundreds if not thousands of years......unless the ecosystems capability to sequester that carbon is restored. Even more importantly, that ecosystem service is potentially large enough to mitigate fossil fuel emissions even without taking them to 0%.

30168. HK at 21:53 PM on 19 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       #1:

       Done!

30169. michael sweet at 21:04 PM on 19 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Chriskoz,

       The data in the graph you do not like goes back to 1980.  That is likely the start of the satelite data.  It generally is not cherry picking when you show all the data.  If you do not like their fitted line you are welcome to draw your own.  It is obvious that most of the change has taken place in the last ten years.  The article in CB discusses the 2014 data and links the data.  I presume the 2014 data was not included in the paper because it was not available when the paper was written.  Your dismissal of a paper without reading it because you do not like the way they worked up the data is unsupported.  

30170. chriskoz at 20:45 PM on 19 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       About the new research by Marco Tedesco - "Darkening ice speeds up Greenland melt" on CB.

       I don't have access to the actual article refered only as Tedesco et al. 2015 - apparently only submitted, not accepted yet.

       But the albedo timeline graph, as presented by CB, suffers from cherry-picked point (1996) to show the apparent trendline change in albedo so that it looks more "alarming". That's the same type of deception science deniers use to point out that "it hasn't warmed since 19xx" and debunked by the escalator.

       The main fallacy the deniers' method is that when you want to show the change of trends in a signal, you have to draw the trend lines so that the lines are continuous - the are not "steps" between their ends. Otherwise your trend changes are escalator-like bunkum. For that reason, I would not accept Tedesco et al. 2015 if I was reviewing it. Hopefully reviewers will be helpful there and let Marco fix this mistake in this article on an interesting subject.

30171. MA Rodger at 19:54 PM on 19 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @254.

       The references I linked to @253 consider FF emissions from 1751-2010 and "The contribution of LULCC to anthropogenic carbon emissions were about 33% of total emissions over the last 150yr (Houghton, 1999)". So, no, the emissions argued by Bill Ridduman are not included.

30172. Leto at 19:16 PM on 19 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #16B
       

       Some of you may be familiar with the latest antics of Tony Abbott, the Australian PM. He is giving 4 million dollars to the discredited climate contrarian Lomborg. 

       If you think this is a bad idea, please sign the petition: 

       https://www.change.org/p/vice-chancellor-of-uwa-turn-away-bj%C3%B8rn-lomborg-s-anti-climate-science-institute-funding

30173. RedBaron at 19:13 PM on 19 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       MA Rodger,

       Are you including the ~300 GtC  emissions before 1850 that Ruddiman discusses or the lack of decline added on even to that seen in previous glacial cycles?

30174. MA Rodger at 18:41 PM on 19 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron @250.

       Firstly I am sorry that I missed seeing your reply until now.
       I must say that I am not a fan of somebody pointing me at a 20 minute U-Tube video. If somebody cannot condense their argument into something shorter (I was taught anything that doesn't fit on a side of A4) it almost always means they don't then understand the argument being presented. Sait, of course has a simple argument that has been expanded to fit the TED format. Strangely, I see nothing shorter available, rather just a longer one (that I haven't bothered with).

       There is much evidence within this talk by Sait that says he is no expert. He is wrong to say that 50% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions presently end up in the oceans. It is lower, perhaps 35%. He is wrong to suggest that CO2 becomes carbonic acid in water. Most of this CO2 simply remains as absorbed CO2. (To be entirely correct, it is overwhelmingly the bicarbonate resulting from the CO2 that causes the acidity.) Acidification resulting from the additional CO2 has not reached 30%, whatever that is supposed to mean.
       I do not find such errors encouraging when so much else needs to be said but which is ignored.

       Sait's central assertion that 250Gt(C) has been emitted by fossil fuels (and breathing??!!!) while 467 Gt(C) has been released from humus is not supported by any evidence. Indeed, the figure from CIDAC give FF emissions to 2010 as 365 Gt(C) with roughly 50% extra from changing land use (ie 185 Gt(C)) according to Houghton et al (2012) which mostly is accounted by deforestation. Thus CO2 emissions to 2010 not involving humus are considered to amount to 550 Gt(C), over twice the figure asserted by Sait. He offers not support for his assertion. Until he does, his words remain unconvincing. These talks by Sait are a bit old now. The continued silence is very telling.

30175. RedBaron at 17:05 PM on 19 April 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Ok I see no comment, but I would like to present some actual evidence and analysis from a completely different source than Retallack, Savory, or Sait. These two from Bill Ruddiman and Chris Sandom respectively:

       THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

       Humans Blamed for Extinction of Mammoths, Mastodons & Giant Sloths

       The interesting thing to me is that these widely separate lines of investigation, from modern agricultural practices to ancient human impacts to paleosoils all are slowly converging on the idea that soils as part of a whole ecosystem have a much larger impact on the ecosystem services than previously thought. Particularly the ecosystem services of climate control and the carbon cycle. Namely I hypothesize the AGW effects we are seeing now are actually primarily the result of multiple trophic cascades caused by the spread of mankind and then the rise of civilization. Further, I hypothesize that fossil fuel emissions are a problem primarily due to the ecosystem service of carbon sequestration into the soils was already severely damaged, first by the megafauna extinctions, and then by agriculture, both man made. These diverse lines of inquiry are not completed into a fully developed synthesis as of yet, but I am convinced this is the right track not only in better understanding the atmosperic CO2 levels, but also how to reverse them.

30176. uncletimrob at 13:12 PM on 19 April 2015
       The Rise of Skeptical Science
       

       Thanks!  John, you touched on some very inmportant issues that educators face, in particular the lack of a "filter" that distiguishes between actual science and pseudo science.  I believe you are correct in that this is in part because real science is "hard" and pseudo science is often couched in language that is easy to digest.  SS breaks through the "hard" barrier very well, with easy to understand graphics and language that an interested High School student can understand. And, I have to say that many of the students I come in contact with ARE interested in global warming/climate change (despite that my area is Mathematics - although I have taught Physics in the past).

30177. denisaf at 08:59 AM on 19 April 2015
       New Video: The Trouble at Totten Glacier
       

       It is ironic that humans devised the means of irreversibly using up limited crustal stocks of fossil fuels to provide physical energy with the unintended consequence of causing irreversible rapid climate change. So now we have  problems of the kind discussed here while we are losing the physical capability to address them. Oil is running out so fuel for aircraft will be posing a problem that will impinge on studies of what is happening in Antarctica and elsewhere.

30178. gorm raabo larsen at 07:55 AM on 19 April 2015
       The Rise of Skeptical Science
       

       ... excellent... and very important... thank you very much !

30179. Leto at 19:01 PM on 18 April 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #15
       

       I'm hoping it is okay to post something slightly off-topic...

       I googled for 'real climate' because the PC I was on did not have the Real Climate page bookmarked, and was somewhat surprised to see this as the third link in the Google results:

       http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/17/what-it-would-take-to-prove-global-warming/

       The material at the end of the link is obviously thoughtless denialist nonsense, but the question is: why it is so highly ranked in Google? Is thefederalist.com doing some dodgy search engine optimisation (SEO), or is Google giving this site more profile than it deserves?

       If there are are dodgy SEO tactics being employed, I will complain directly to Google, who usually respond to such complaints by re-ranking the dodgy site.

       If it is Google who is pedalling this nonsense, a different response is appropriate.

       Hoping some of you have some insights.

       Cheers,

       Leto.

30180. PluviAL at 03:20 AM on 18 April 2015
       Western Canada’s glaciers could shrink by as much as 95% by 2100, study finds
       

       @1, 2, 3: Yes, it makes it look as if we are at a precipice.  But maybe we are, and this just depicts it graphically. We are aware of the potentail abyss from other works, this may just show how close we are. But you are right, that should have been the point of the article.

30181. One Planet Only Forever at 23:59 PM on 17 April 2015
       Western Canada’s glaciers could shrink by as much as 95% by 2100, study finds
       

       The graphic presentations could have been less questionable if they had included the line of multi-year averages through the historical values. And it may have been helpful to include values prior to 1980 even if they were from a less precise information source or evaluation.

       The model forecast will be a multi-year average trend line. Models are not set up to predict the rather random yearly variability of the systems they model. That would be a waste of time and effort.

       The forecast average line will look 'out of line' with the jagged annual historical data line, especially when the most recent annual line was going up (as is the case with this report).

       A clearer way to present this would be to have the average line through the historical data presented by a line matching the intensity of the forecast line, with the annual jagged line being a less intense background-style presentation.

30182. CBDunkerson at 21:30 PM on 17 April 2015
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       

       qinqo, my take on Muller is that he bought in to the whole 'climate change is a hoax' mythology hook line and sinker, but had enough integrity to acknowledge when his own research disproved (again, past research had done so before he ever started) one of those lies. Unfortunately, the same failures of logic and character which led him to buy into complete nonsense in the first place have also prevented him from thinking, 'Gee, I just made a fool of myself... maybe I should re-evaluate some of this stuff'... and thus he continues to make completely ridiculous claims on other aspects of the global warming 'debate'.

       Basically, if he has done research he'll go with what his data shows, but if he hasn't done the research he'll go with the 'skeptic' misinformation. It seems like he may think he is the only competent scientist on the planet... because he places the blog rantings of 'skeptics' above peer-reviewed research from the scientific community.

30183. qinqo at 09:56 AM on 17 April 2015
       BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
       

       What am I to make about this guy Muller? To me he seems really inconsistent. Unless you take into account that he is often promoting natural gas and fracking. (before and after his 'conversion')

       He still uses his 'old ways' sometimes to diminish AGW, even after claiming that he is certain AGW is real. Why then is he still advocating the use of a fossil fuel? Even a method shown to be really devastating to earth's climate.

       One of the things that got me convinced that he is shady is his claim that 'hide the decline' is a reference to temperatures. This was a while after when the investigation of the scientists took place. It seems to me that he might be a covert shill for natural gas. The 'conversion' study was sponsored by Koch. He seems to be balancing on a tightrope.

       The study accomplished two things:

       1. Good for 'skeptical' public: there is a new independent study acknowledging antropogenic global warming. Deniers will have a hard time denying this. True skeptics in the general public will be more inclined to taking AGW serious.

       2. Good for Koch: there is a new 'trustworthy' scientist risen, who in order to curb global warming, is advocating the burning of Natural Gas and the 'clean' technique of fracking. Natural gas containing 80% methane. Methane: stays not as long in the atmosphere as CO2, but does have a greater greenhouse effect.

       What am I to make of this? Can someone explain why natural gas is a better solution than renewables. Muller seems to think it is the only real affordable option we have. Renewables are as of now too expensive. (what about nuclear energy?)

30184. uncletimrob at 06:24 AM on 17 April 2015
       Western Canada’s glaciers could shrink by as much as 95% by 2100, study finds
       

       Yes, I wondered about the abrupt changes as well.  Perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain them, as the article doesnt really do so.

30185. Infopath at 03:35 AM on 17 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Tom @44,

       Thanks for expanding on that.

       "His dragging out that old misattribution to Einstein rather proves that point."

       That's what I thought too.

       Funny how Einstein would have preferred "theory of invariance" (absolute — speed of light), rather than relativity... beautiful.
        

30186. ianw01 at 01:57 AM on 17 April 2015
       Western Canada’s glaciers could shrink by as much as 95% by 2100, study finds
       

       Those abrupt changes in slope between past and projected trends do not make these projections look particularly credible, particularly for the Interior. I wonder what step change the models have happening at the present moment?

       Intuitively, I would expect the future shape may look more like the increasing slope of current actic sea ice plots.

30187. bozzza at 18:24 PM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       @ 36 @ Rob P: To summarise, does this mean EKMAN SUCTION Ekman Suction is the concept of "Flotation" in action?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The use of "all caps" comnstitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

30188. Tom Curtis at 15:08 PM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Infopath @42:

       "Everything is relative," as the pop version of Einstein's theory goes. Not so. That statement, for instance, is absolutely wrong. The scope of special relativity is rather more narrow. It concerns only very special situations, very special observers, very special questions of relativity and absoluteness."

       Einstein online

       "Albert Einstein was unhappy about the name "theory of relativity". He preferred "theory of invariance". The reason is that [one] cornerstone of his 1905 theory of relativity is that the measured velocity of light is the same (invariant) regardless of any relative motion between a laboratory and the source of light. What Einstein feared came to pass when the popular catchphrase of his theory became "everything is relative." It was snatched up by people not acquainted with the scientific context, who regarded the theory as evidence in support of their own social views."

       Arthur Miller in a letter to New Scientist

       See also here.

       I consider it irrelevant whether or not Carson is technically a scientist (ie, has a PhD in a scientific discipline and/or has published in the peer reviewed scientific literature).  His views on this topic, and on global warming in general are clearly not scientific views.  Rather, they are pseudo-science.  His dragging out that old misattribution to Einstein rather proves that point.

30189. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:56 PM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Peter.

       From the first link scadenp gave you

       "To a certain degree, Eastern Boundary Current (EBC) ecosystems are similar: Cold bottom water from moderate depths, rich in nutrients, is transported to the euphotic zone by a combination of trade winds, Coriolis force and Ekman transport. The resultant high primary production fuels a rich secondary production in the upper pelagic and nearshore zones, but where O2 exchange is restricted, it creates oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) at shelf and upper slope (Humboldt and Benguela Current) or slope depths (California Current). These hypoxic zones host a specifically adapted, small macro- and meiofauna together with giant sulphur bacteria that use nitrate to oxydise H₂S"

       So, "This can only occur, in this area remote from human influence, from undersea volcanic activity."

       Nope, you assumption is wrong. There is another major source, anaerobic sulphur bacteria that thrive in anoxic conditions!

       Volcanic activity isn't the only source of H2S! Simply assuming that it is is sloppy reasoning. If ou want to evaluate an idea you need to consider geological evidence, oceanographic/hydrological and fluid mechanics evidence, and biological evidence.

       ==========================================

       And..."Could it be that warmer water rises?"

       Only if it is warmer than the water above it! If cold water is warmed but not enough to make it warmer than the water above, it doesn't rise. Example. If water at 4 Deg C is warmed to 6 deg C it can't rise if the water above it is 20 deg C.

       So how much warming?

       Peter, unquantitative arguments are worthless.

30190. Infopath at 11:43 AM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Peter Carson@30: "(Wasn't it Einstein who said all things are relative?)"

       Uh... no, I don't think he did. Do you have a reference/link?

       (Sorry, OT but couldn't resist (feel free to delete).)

30191. rockytom at 07:03 AM on 16 April 2015
       New textbook on climate science and climate denial
       

       To #19 Bappleby13

       I have tried to get information from our publisher on specific adoptions but have not yet succeeded. Springer says they can provide me with statistics from each region (state?) but not individual institutions. I find this difficult to believe. I will forward a copy of your kind offer and approach them in a different way in hopes of receiving the pertinent information. If you have a list of the "distracting little errors and duplications" I would appreciate receiving it at rockytom09@gmail.com. We are in the process of preparing for a 2nd edition for sometime in the near future, as soon as John and I complete Volume 2, "Earth's Climate History" and John finishes his MOOC and Ph.D. 

       Thank you for your submittal and offer. Tom

30192. Tristan at 06:55 AM on 16 April 2015
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       toolate: As the mod's suggested link points out, respiration doesn't really have a net impact. The domesticated ruminant (eg cows, sheep, goats) population is another matter though - entric fermentation of plant matter in their stomachs generates methane, a potent GHG.

30193. Mal Adapted at 06:13 AM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Peter Carson: "Oh! And I am a scientist. What are you doing here?"

       Peter, what evidence can you give us that you are a scientist, so we can judge your claim for ourselves?  Your comments here don't evince advanced scientific training, nor the inclination to approach the topic of undersea volcanic heat flux as a scientist would. 

       A person whose scientific ideas have passed peer review and been published in appropriate refereed venues can be considered a scientist.  I searched Google Scholar for publications by "Peter Carson" or "Carson, Peter", but the only hits were published in medical journals, on the topic of heart failure.  Was that you?  If not, please provide citations to your peer-reviewed scientific publications. 

       In any case, we will draw our own conclusions about whether you're a scientist or not.  BTW, have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

30194. toolate at 04:46 AM on 16 April 2015
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       In terms of identifying MM Co2 emissions, how should the CO2 exhaled by the planet's population be counted?  Should CO2 emissions resulting from farming, crop or livestock, be counted as MM or natural?  Same question for CO2 generated from natural decomposition on our world's landfills.  Human waste, treated in sewage plants and piped into rivers and oceans, generates CO2 - natural or anthropogenic? Should the definition of MM Co2 be limited to only that which exits a tail pipe or smoke stack?    Even if all CO2 emissions from burning fosil fules could be sharply curtaild or eliminated through sequestration,  each year there are more people on the planet, and with each year life expectancey is longer.  We all  need to eat and breath and as a consequence of life need excrete waste.   Surely all sources of MM Co2 should be considered and counted in an appropriate way.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] See "Does Breathing Contribute to CO2 Buildup in the Atmosphere?"  It has both Basic and Intermediate tabbed panes.

30195. DSL at 02:52 AM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Peter: "ARGO is unlikely to show heating. I think the floats only take a reading every 30 mins so that they are likely to miss an actual eruption; the warm water would likely just float up past them without being recorded. They’d also have to be situated over the correct position."
       
       This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in months.  Volcanic action that produces enough heat content to warm the El Nino 3/3.4 regions for months just magically slips by dozens of Argo floats.  This is what happens when a pet theory is forcefully driven through the actual data: Bizarro Physics.   

30196. PhilippeChantreau at 00:45 AM on 16 April 2015
       Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news
       

       Scaddenp presents numerous references that none of your arguments address Peter. I'm sorry but you're not being any more convincing by repeating the same arguments without any more backup than before.

       I'm not sure what you're trying to say about references. You claimed to be a scientist. Scientists refer to the scientific litterature. This site is about science and the whole premise to its existence is to bring up what real science says about a subject. The comment policy of the site indicates that claims should be backed up by scientific references. Peer-review is a minimum standard, there is no reson to go below that. "Sources accesssible to the general reader" can be anything and everything, that's no basis to conduct a discussion about science.

       The H2S has been shown to be of organic origin. The entire ecosystem suffers when cold water upwelling stops, and everything below the fish in the food web starts dying. The fish eventually die too but by then H2S from the other organisms that have died before is noticeable.

       No seismic activity that would be caused by increasing volcanism has been observed around the events.

       Birds that rely on anchovies for 80% of their diet are going to continue looking for anchovy at sea until they no longer can. Birds dying of exhaustion or starvation at sea is really not an unusual occurrence a all. Sea birds that are hungry do not stay on shore, they go look for food. One of Scaddenp references above mentions that bird die-offs have been observed during El-Nino events as far California, Oregon, Alaska and the Bering Sea. Large scale weather events can and do kill birds.

       At this point, there is a lot more evidence against your theory than there is in its favor.

30197. funglestrumpet at 23:42 PM on 15 April 2015
       Andy Lacis responds to Steve Koonin
       

       This discussion is way above my level, but, having tried to follow it, I cannot say that I have seen the influence of gravity in anyone's comments - perhaps I missed it. Specifically, what occurs to me is that as ice sheets melt, so their gravity diminishes leading to a fall in sea-level around them. Could this be important with the WAIS? As it melts, so the sea-level falls and thus places the fracture point under more bending stress, which in turn might complete the fracture, leaving it free to float off (though grind off is probably more correct) to deeper waters?

       Probably unimportant, but felt the need to raise it just in case. ('Out of the mouths of babes and innocents' and all that!)

30198. ranyl at 21:39 PM on 15 April 2015
       Andy Lacis responds to Steve Koonin
       

       Hi Glenn,

       However despite all that NH ice weren't the meltwater pulses from the last deglaciation primarily from the SH?

       And this quote is interesting,

       "Our new RSL chronology permits the first robust calculation of rates of relative sea-level change throughout the past 150,000 years (Fig. 3c). This reveals that rates of sea-level rise reached at least 1.2mper century during all major phases of ice-volume reduction, and were typically up to 0.7m per century (possibly higher, given the smoothing in our method) when sea-level exceeded 0m during the LIG (Fig. 3c); the latter is consistent with independent estimates21,22."

       Grant K.M. et al (2012) "Rapid coupling between ice volume and polar temperature over the past 150,000 years"

       And the top of WAIS is melting in a non linear fashion

       "The nonlinearity of melt observed in the JRI ice-core record also highlights the particular vulnerability of areas in the polar regions where daily maximum temperatures in summer are close to 0 C and/or where summer isotherms are widely spaced, such as along the east and west coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula (Supplementary Fig. S3). In these places even modest future increases in mean atmospheric temperature could translate into rapid increases in the intensity of summer melt and in the poleward extension of areas where glaciers and ice shelves are undergoing decay caused by atmospheric-driven melting."

       Abram N.J et al (2013) Acceleration of snow melt in an Antarctic Peninsula ice core during the twentieth century, Nature Geoscience

       “The need to improve upon the uncertainty in the LIG ESL estimates is best seen in terms of its consequences on melting from both Greenland and Antarctica during the LIG. Current modelling and data-based estimates converge on a 2- to 4-m contribution to ESL from Greenland and on a maximum contribution of +3.3 m from West Antarctica (32). Thus, the lower limit estimate of the peak LIG ESL (+5.5 m) is consistent with such contributions from both Greenland and West

       Antarctica, but the upper limit (+9 m) implies additional melt-water contribution from adjacent sectors in East Antarctica.”

       A. Dutton and K. Lambeck (2012) Ice Volume and Sea Level During the Last Interglacial, Science

       “However, the retreat of these southernmost terrestrial ice margins within centuries of an increase in boreal summer insolation of only 1–2 W m–2 (Fig. 5a) suggests that ter­restrial ice margins near their climatic limit are responsive to small changes in radiative forcing.”

       “However, the final collapse of the marine portion of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at ~8.2 kyr ago occurred in less than 130 years and raised eustatic sea level 0.8–2.2 m75, which is a timescale of more importance to global society”

       Anders E. Carlson and Kelsey Winsor (2012), Northern Hemisphere ice-sheet responses to past climate warming, Nat. Geoscience

       So I agree Hansen is hopefully being too bold, as I said already, however with the Weddell Icesheet under threat as sea levelsrise and Southern Ocean winds progress Sotuhwards, and the below seabed portions of EAIS, mean that 1-2m by 2100 is lookingmore liley especially when considering the amount of extra heat into the whole system, far more than in the LIG,whose overall global additional wattage input was due to GHG mainly.

       We passed 300ppm a long time ago, so it is clear that to melt ice takes time indeed, however that isn't that reassuring as since 1990 ice melt has accelerated markedly in all areas and the heatinput into the oceans in the last 10 years alone is remarkable compared to previous melt periods and for melting seabed icesheets that must count, especialy as West PAC waters find their way to the Antartica quite quickly and that is warming quite rapidly.

       Further sea level isn't even, and the East Coast of America gets more than its fair share, 1m globally about 2m EUSA.

       Put it this way, real estate investment in New York isn't a long term investment option on solid ground I'd venture.

       It si weird how the early Pliocene was 3-5C warmer at 350-400ppm (0.25 to 0.42 of a doubling), considering the CS of only 3C for a doubling or 560ppm, hhhmm, oh yeah that is right the CS for full long term equilibrium is double the CS reported by the IPCC forgot about that, it makes more sense now, but still if 350ppm (and that looks more likely now) then still need long term CS of at least 12C if the 3C lower estimate is true, even if it was 2C (some studies say 2C, mainly Hansen as by the by, just make melting more susceptible to temperature rise as sea elvels still 20-25m higher), you still need a long term equilibrium CS of 8C. And the sun was cooler a little bit only a very small bit, all the orbitial parameters actually add zero to the global overall heat input and the continents were close enough not to matter that much, so not much comfort in loooking for other heat sources.

       The NH did have a totally different temperature profile though, interesting, I ownder if the Hadley cell system was different back then due to polar equatorial temperature differential being so much lower, as that would definately affect ice melt in Greenland, keeping in mind there was no GIS then.

30199. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:27 PM on 15 April 2015
       Andy Lacis responds to Steve Koonin
       

       Ranyl

       I tend to agree with Tom that Hansen's view is at the extremes on a single century scale - on multi-century all bets are off. When the high rates of melt occurred we had major ice sheets in Canada/US, Scandinavia, Northern Europe and western Russia. Also southern South America and the Australian highlands. Possibly also areas of the Arctic sea ice had become like West Antarctica, grounded on the sea floor and projecting significantly above sea level. So a much larger area from which melt could occur.

       To produce similar melt rates today we would need much higher temperatures to trigger much higher melt rates per km² since there are so much less km² available.

       That said, I recall a paper published a couple of years ago - can't find it now - looking at fossil beaches in Western Australia from the last Interglacial - the Eemian. Sea levels were reported as being around 5 meters higher than now for much of the interglacial then near the end they spiked higher to more like 9-10 meters higher.

       This suggests a sudden major ice collapse with the WAIS the likely culprit.

       It is interesting to look at the ice core data for temperature history during the Eemian. They spiked higher than today but only for a short period. Perhaps some major disruption in southern ocean currents around the WAIS triggered an ice collapse and the Albedo change triggered a spike in warming. Then the currents reverted and it was all reversed.

30200. RedBaron at 19:22 PM on 15 April 2015
       CO2 limits won't cool the planet
       

       Of course CO2 limits won't cool the planet. You even admit that yourself. The problem however is stated in the form of a false dichotomy. Mitigation in order to work needs every little bit from every possible technology available. The largest of course, by many orders of magnitude, is the soil sink potential. Next comes alternative energy and then conservation. Tree growth and chemical scrubbing are barely a blip on the screen. Not saying we shouldn't try them too, but the net effects are minimal. Soil on the other hand is depleted of carbon, more carbon than is in excess in the air. The technologies to get that carbon back in the soil are very well established agricultural science methodologies and already beginning to be practised in the field by ordinary farmers and ranchers. We just have get serious and do it.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

       I know that's just a Youtube vid, but that speaker is one of several USDA NRCS case studies.

Prev  596  597  598  599  600  601  602  603  604  605  606  607  608  609  610  611  Next