Recent Comments

Prev  614  615  616  617  618  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  Next

Comments 31051 to 31100:

31051. protagorias at 12:45 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Tom Dayton, thank you for pointing that out. Begrudgingly I have to admit that I stand corrected. We are, I think, a civilization going through a modern and enlightening period in history.

31052. Tom Dayton at 12:22 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       protagorias, your definition of "science" requiring experimentation on a whole-planet scale is incorrect.  Indeed, "science" in general does not require experimentation.  Unfortunately, your definition of "science" is what typically is taught in grade school.

31053. DSL at 12:21 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Protagorias, perhaps you could provide a specific example of where you think this terrible error in judgment has occurred.

31054. protagorias at 12:07 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       tom curtis @106,

       On the contrary I think my points are inherently self-evident to anyone who knows how to conduct a scientific experiment and properly interpret data. Quite frankly it's sheer folly and arrogance to take any particular data point, which may be transient in nature, and lacking any ability to test for such transience, ascribe undue meaning to it. I have no interest in playing games of whose creative interpretation of incomplete data is better.

31055. Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       protagorias @105, your comments are so lacking in specifics as to be void of content.  Where they rise to any level of specificity, they amount merely to an ad hominen, accusing people of basing their theory on a "philosophical point of view" rather than science, again without specifics so as to avoid detailed refutation.  In all, your post is a classic example of sloganeering, which is banned by the comments policy.  Ergo, it is not worthy of further comment.

31056. protagorias at 11:33 AM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       What's interesting in reading through the comments section here about possible greenhouse warming in Venus' history is the degree to which several factors can contribute to what I think is really an unhelpful paradigm.

       You have first of all a lack of experimental rigor. Data we can measure is incomplete, and we have no current ability to conduct on a planetary scale, any sort of experiment which could yield telling conclusions.

       Secondly, to incomplete data, you have an excess of theoretical mathematics. Interpretation of current data, divorced from adequate experiemental results, VERY quickly becomes a creative endeavor. It's extrmely easy to twist aspects of the data to fit a predetermined philosophical stance.

       Thirdly, you have an issue when you bring in a philosophical stance to an issue that should ideally be bereft of one. For example, anyone who uses the term "denier"  is really bringing in an unethical a priori point of view to something that should be science based.

       Lastly, my overarching point is that we have a lack of ability to carry out valid experiment, and that we shouldn't be overly eager to marry a particular philosophical point of view with inadequate data.

31057. Synapsid at 10:40 AM on 26 February 2015
       With climate change, US presidents matter
       

       John,

       President Obama vetoed a House bill that would have circumvented the established process for evaluating the KXL application.  He did not veto KXL.  He could still approve it; I don't know how likely that is.  One suggestion I've seen is that he could use it as a negotiating piece with Canada.

       The President did stand in a pipe yard to announce that he had instructed his administration to do everything it could to fast-track the southern end of KXL, and that portion of the pipeline went into operation in January 2014.  The President had called it "vital to the American economy."  Its capacity is 600 000 barrels of oil a day, if memory serves.  (The admistration had no authority over the southern end of the pipeline anyway; it crosses no international border.)

       Under the current administration exports of US coal, much of it from Federal lands, have increased 50%.

       120 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico have been offered for leasing for oil and natural gas (NG) exploration and development.

       The East Coast, which has been shut to oil and NG drilling for decades, has been opened.

       31 000 drilling permits on Federal lands have been approved, including more permits in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011--one year after the Macondo blowout--than since 2007 under President Bush.

       There's more, of course.  The point is that President Obama has been acting realistically--as much as an elected politician can--about energy.  The ongoing emphasis on KXL has served to divert attention and energy from the ongoing increase in the export of crude oil from Canada (much of it from the oil sands).  Where is the value in that?  Last year more Canadian crude was brought into the US than in the year previous, and the story is the same for the year before that and for the year before that--without the northern part of the KXL.  Crude that doesn't move by pipeline moves by rail, as we see in the news, and I don't see that as a plus.

       Here's a thought:  The bitumen from Canada's oil sands won't flow through a pipeline--it's too viscous.  It has to be diluted with lighter oils including condensate, and Canada imports that stuff from...the US.  If you want to slow the development of the oil sands then work to prevent export of US light oils to Canada.  Stopping or delaying KXL won't do it.

31058. Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I see scaddenp has beat to the punch on Houghton et al.  Here is the full quote:

       "4.2 Agricultural management
       The changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) that result when native lands are converted to croplands are included in most analyses, but the changes in SOC that result from cropland
       management, including cropping practices, irrigation, use of fertilizers, different types of tillage, changes in crop density, and changes in crop varieties, are not generally included
       in global LULCC model analyses. Studies have addressed the potential for management to sequester carbon, but fewer studies have tried to estimate past or current carbon
       sinks. One analysis for the US suggests a current sink of 0.015 Pg C yr−1 in croplands (Eve et al., 2002), while a recent assessment for Europe suggests a small net source
       or near-neutral conditions (Ciais et al., 2010; Kutsch et al., 2010). In Canada, the flux of carbon from cropland management is thought to be changing from a net source to a net sink, with a current flux near zero (Smith et al., 2000). Globally, the current flux from agricultural management is uncertain but probably not far from zero. Methane and nitrous oxide are the predominant greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture."

       The IPCC in turn indicated that it's estimates of emissions from LUC were:

       "Estimated from the cumulative net land use change emissions of Houghton et al. (2012) during 1850–2011 and the average of four publications (Pongratz at al., 2009; van Minnen et al., 2009; Shevliakova et al., 2009; Zaehle et al., 2011) during 1750–1850."

       (Footnote g to table 6.1)

       So, the flux that RedBaron says the IPCC ignores is explicitly taken into account by the IPCC's primary source.  Further, while he estimates that flux to dominate the flux from Fossil Fuel emissions without evidence or reading of the primary literature, Houghton et al (2012) looked at the primary literature and found that while in some cases the flux is positive, increasing atmospheric CO2, in others it is negative and that the net global effect is close to zero.

31059. scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Read a little further into the IPCC report. FF has zero C14. The continued dilution of C14 in atmospheric CO2 since nuclear testing is consistant with the calculation of relative proportions of FF v LUC.  You claim IPCC has not considered changes in agricultural management affecting soil carbon. However the IPCC source for LUC using fig 6.8 is Houghton et al 2012. This uses and compares a number of different studies all producing similar results. Your point is explicitly discussed in section 4.2. From the studies discussed, it concludes "Globally,
       the current flux from agricultural management is uncertain
       but probably not far from zero". If you have papers that can challenge those studies, then please cite. However, as Tom points out, if LUC contribution is higher than current estimates, then given known FF emissions, you then need to account for an unknown sink to get our measured concentrations (and the C14 dilution).

31060. mancan18 at 08:21 AM on 26 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I hope Dana's book is a success. Judging by the qualities of his posts his book should be an informative read and deserves to be a part of the lierature related to Climate Science. However, I am not sure it will necessarily be a success, if what happened to Al Gore and Tim Flannery are any indication after criticism by the usual cast of climate change doubters in the media. That is the problem with conveying climate science to the wider public. On one side there is a scientific argument. On the other side there is a marketing campaign where those who cast doubt are not required to justify their argument in any meaningful scientific manner. They never seem to be challenged on the basic premise behind Climate Science. They are never required to justify how the planet will cool or won't warm when one of its primary greenhouse gases, due to us, is increasing at the rate it is. Most climate science discussion in the popular media seems to revolve around the impacts we are seeing which ranges from that they are non existent and don't matter to they will be a catastrophe. This is because very few in the media are sufficiently scientifically literate to make a proper judgement and write a properly balanced article. Also, there is a huge financial incentive for media outlets to publicise arguments that are favourable to some of their largest financial contributors, fossil fuel companies. I do hope Dana's book is read by some of the journalists and what he has to say is properly conveyed.

       Despite anything deniers argue they should always be challenged on the basic premise i.e. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is increasing at unprecedented rates, its increase is due to us, and it will warm the planet; and the evidence that this is happening is quite clear and over the past century; carbon dioxide levels have increased 40%, global temperatures have risen on average by 0.8 degrees Celsius, the sea level has risen by around 19 cm, polar and galacial ice is melting, the seasons are changing, the range of some species is increasing as others are going extinct, and the paleontology record as well as climate models indicate that there will be huge problems for us in the future if the increase in carbon dioxide continues. What scientific evidence do the climate doubters ever convey to justify their argument that it isn't happening and it will be all OK, basically none.

       Again, I hope Dana's book is a success and changes the balance in the media.

31061. Jose_X at 07:21 AM on 26 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Rob, before cs became politicized, ask anyone about it and they'd likely say that they would defer to the scientists or would express an opinion but accepted they did not know nearly enough to base public policy on it. They'd probably also agree it would be best to be a little safe over sorry and that preserving fossil fuels (cutting back) would probably be a good thing anyway. Politicized either way, however, and the non-experts will protect the political party probably because the party wars have many more items at stake. People like Barry Bickmore (Mueller?) and others are a minority because it is a minority that can actually dig into the science to avoid misplaced allegiances on this topic and can hold their own in debate. We should take the media to task for being biased as some of them are (or for lapses), but they represent a wider body than scientists so are affected by politics, never mind that ownership (especially for blogs) are frequently enough unapoligetically political.

        

       Moderator, I did not realize to post in a different thread and then a link here to it. [That earlier comment, flaws and all, was to Patrick, btw.]

31062. michael sweet at 06:46 AM on 26 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Patrick,

       You ask about how during the ice ages the ocean could outgas CO2 while warming but now it is absorbing CO2 while the temperature increases.  You can calculate the solubility of CO2 using the formula here if you want more accuracy.   

       The issue here is that on the "skeptical" blogs they do not consider the magnitude of processes.  They presume that any effect that seems to minimize the AGW problem is the dominate one.

       According to figure 1 in the OP, the CO2 changes from about 190 ppm to about 280 ppm during an ice age.  This is a change of about 90 ppm.  The global temperature change is about 6C during the same time.  Thus the CO2 changes about 15 ppm for each 1C change in temperature.

       For AGW we have changed the CO2 from about 270 to 400 or about 130 ppm of CO2.  The temperature has risen about .8C so far.   We might expect ocean outgasing to decrease CO2 concentration in the ocean by the equivalent of about 10 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. (the deep ocean has not come to equilibrium.  This explaination is a rough estimate)  

       According to Henry's law, the solubility of CO2 is directly proportional to pressure of CO2.   The increase in pressure has increased the solubility of CO2 about 130 ppm which is over 10 times as much as the solubility of CO2 has decreased from the increase in temperature.

       The ocean acidification narrative is correct because the increase in solubility from pressure increase is so much greater than the decrease in solubility from temperature.  The situation was different during the ice ages because the change was slow and the difference in CO2 concentration was smaller.

       As the moderator points out, the increase of temperature may cause major problems in the future as the deep ocean heats up.  After enough temperature rise the ocean will not accept any more CO2 (the temperature affect increases as the temperature increases).  Then the CO2 in the atmosphere will rise more rapidly.  The surface few hundred meters will stay acidic in any case.  The rapid change in acidity is difficult for ecosystems to adapt to.

       This calculation is old news to people who have researched the facts about AGW.  Your posts would come across better if you asked questions about what you want to learn instead of suggesting that scientists have made major errors.

31063. citizenschallenge at 05:38 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       Thank you Kevin, very helpful article.

       fyi. Since it's a great rebuttal to some of Jim Steel's Crazy-making over at WUWT I've decided to mirror this post over at my blog. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/exposing-ushcn-homogenization-insanity.html

       Regarding the tiff with the Telegraph might I offer:  Political leaders and the public have a right to learn without malicious interference! ~ ~ ~ Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity", Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible and always learning. ~ ~ ~ It's not about relying "only on what others are telling us." It's about trusting a huge community of experts who keep each other honest ! http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/florifulgurator-denial-scienceofdoom-1c.html

31064. CBDunkerson at 03:47 AM on 26 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Inside Climate News has the best writeup on the Soon debacle that I have seen thus far.

       Quoting Soon: "For polar bears... you do want to watch out for ice. Too much ice is really bad for polar bears."

31065. Jubble at 03:38 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       This was the response from the Telegraph - now on to IPSO:

        

       Thank you for contacting us about this article.

       As you are aware, climate change is a complex and controversial topic. A newspaper is not a scientific journal, and is not required to represent all the possible shades of evidence and interpretation that might have a bearing upon any given topic.

       This is clearly an opinion article and identifiable as such. Against the background described above, readers can be expected to understand that any evidence offered is almost certainly contestable. It follows that in an opinion article of this nature only the most egregious inaccuracy could be significantly misleading. The point you raise does not qualify as such.

       The article is based on material published by Paul Homewood on his weather blog. The writer is entitled to cite Homewood's interpretation of temperature data and comment upon it. Although I understand you disagree with his views, the existence of contrary interpretations does not negate Christopher Booker's right to offer his own. There is nothing that would engage the terms of the Editor's Code of Conduct.

       I trust this is of some assistance.

31066. RedBaron at 00:52 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I'll try to address you guys points one by one. First scaddencamp, you said: "Your thesis is not compatible drop in O2 and isotope ratio of CO2 in atmosphere." Actually it is compatable, even the IPCC report says as much. C12 isotope ratios are consistent vegetative sources, whether fossil, or in the biosphere. "With a very high confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration." p 493

       But what is lacking in the IPCC report is the Land Use data is far too crude. There is little analysis of land use changes within agriculture. In other words IPCC says this:

       "With a very high level of confidence1, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. About half of the emissions remained in the atmosphere (240 ± 10 PgC) since 1750. The rest was removed from the atmosphere by sinks and stored in the natural carbon cycle reservoirs. The ocean reservoir stored 155 ± 30 PgC. Vegetation biomass and soils not affected by land use change stored 160 ± 90 PgC. {6.1, 6.3, 6.3.2.3, Table 6.1, Figure 6.8}"

       But not factored was the "land use change" that was a result of the green revolution. The Green Revolution refers to a series of research, and development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1960s that radically changed how agriculture is practised world wide. That's the same flaw in the graph posted by Dikran Marsupial. Agricultural land that changed methodology but was prior agricultural land and is afterwards agricultural land is no counted as "land use change". However, there is a radical change in the carbon cycle that accompanies that change in methodolgy. Specifically the most radical change is in soil health, primarily carbon. If you change that graph to include changes within agriculture, I believe you'll find that instead of crossing in 1965 you'll see it continuing to be the primary cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

       Further confirmation of this flaw can be seen in this quote from the IPCC report. "Since 1750, anthropogenic land use change have resulted into about 50 million km2 being used for cropland and pasture, corresponding to about 38% of the total ice-free land area (Foley et al., 2007, 2011), in contrast to an estimated cropland and pasture area of 7.5 to 9 million km2 about 1750 (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999; Goldewijk, 2001). The cumulative net CO2 emissions from land use changes between 1750 and 2011 are estimated at approximately 180 ± 80 PgC (see Section 6.3 and Table 6.1)" They have the numbers right for the land use change to agriculture, but are missing the land use changes within agriculture as methodologies change.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Formatting glitch fixed.

31067. Jubble at 00:24 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       I have just posted a complaint on the Telegraph website on this article.  We will see how it is taken.

31068. BBHY at 23:39 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Thank you for writing this book. I have read so many, many predictions of the "coming mini ice age", etc from the like of Joe Bastardi and many others. They get a lot of play in the media, but it seems that nobody ever comes back later and confronts them with these failed predictions after we have yet another Earth's hottest year. 

31069. Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron, the factor you describe is already taken into account by the IPCC (and all other carbon cycle researchers) and it is described as "land use change emissions" (as pointed out above by scaddenp).  You can get data on on this from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre (CDIADC).  One of the most surprising things I found out about climate change when I first looked into it just how late cumulative anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel use finally overtook those from land use change.  The answer turns out to be about 1965. 

       

31070. Nick Stokes at 19:36 PM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       That gives a good view of distribution of adjustment effect. I made a Google Maps gadget here, where you can color stations according to adjustment trend effect, though you don't get the color shading picture. It also lets you link to the GHCN data pages.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Activated link.

31071. Rob Painting at 19:26 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Jose - ain't it weird how the high CO₂ levels predominantly seem to be affecting the cognitive abilities of those of a certain political persuasion?

31072. Tom Curtis at 19:01 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Just one more point, one of the factors showing it is the consumption of fossil fuels leading to the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been the reduction in the O2 content:

       

       As can be seen, given known emmissions from fossil fuels, measured delines in O2 and increases in CO2 concentration, the equations only balance if the combined effect of LUC plus natural uptake by the land (vegetation plus soils) decreases the CO2 concentration over the period of measurement.  That is consistent with total anthropogenic emissions from LUC being positive, but only if they are less than natural sequestration by vegetation and soils.  That is again inconsistent with RedBaron's thesis.

31073. Tom Curtis at 18:53 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @220, with respect, your anonymous, non peer reviewed analysis consisted of a map showing the proportion of the land surface currently under agricultural production.  But now you want us to give a pass on that analysis, and question the expert, public and peer reviewed analysis of the IPCC based on your say so?  I think you have radically disparate standards of evidence depending on whether or not you agree with a theory.

       Further, you simply neglect the force of the case as presented by the IPCC.  The IPCC shows changes in reservoirs with 90% uncertainty intervals.  Specifically, changes are as follows:

       Atmosphere + 240 +/- 10 GtC

       Ocean  + 155 +/- 30 GtC

       Fossil Fuels - 365 +/- 10 GtC

       It follows that the change of all other reservoirs combined (ie, vegetation plus soils) is 30 +/- 33 GtC from that information alone (assuming the data is independent).  Calling into questin the partition between soils and vegetation in no way allows the sum of change in soils plus vegetation to exceed those limits.  So, until you find the evidence that the ocean is absorbing CO2 at several times its rate as reported by the IPCC, you do not have a case.  Indeed, looking at the uncertainties, it is more likely that vegetation plus soils have increased in CO2 content than that they account for even 20% of the atmospheric and ocean increase, let alone most of it.

31074. scaddenp at 18:34 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Redbaron - your quote applies to potential scenarios in the future, not to current source of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not sure why you think there is a fixation with forest in the carbon budgets given the soil carbon storage in grassland is well known. The change in grassland is explicitly calculated. While land use change is part of AGW, the evidence to date is that is small compared to fossil fuel burning. The check on the calculation is the carbon isotopic concentration in the atmosphere. You need a massive change in carbon fluxes for this to be significant compared to FF.

31075. RedBaron at 17:29 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @ scaddenp & Tom Curtis,

        I am well aware of the IPCC report and the charts. I even think most of it is relatively good. There are however several flaws that change the overall picture. This for example is potentially quite flawed.

       "It is very likely, based on new experimental results {6.4.6.3} and
       modelling, that nutrient shortage will limit the effect of rising
       atmospheric CO2 on future land carbon sinks, for the four RCP
       scenarios. There is high confidence that low nitrogen availability will
       limit carbon storage on land, even when considering anthropogenic
       nitrogen deposition. The role of phosphorus limitation is more uncertain.
       Models that combine nitrogen limitations with rising CO2 and
       changes in temperature and precipitation thus produce a systematically
       larger increase in projected future atmospheric CO2, for a given fossil
       fuel emissions trajectory."

        

       another flaw is the fixation with forests. The primary historical carbon fixation is not forests. It is grasslands. The fixation is not in vegetative material, but rather exudates. Forests do have a moderating effect, especially as seen now with a new balance being made as fossil fuels emissions increase. But ultimately the long term effect of forests is near neutral, as a much higher % of the products of photosynthesis are above ground. A relatively small % is sequestered, because ultimately above ground and near surface carbon compounds are released in the short term carbon cycle by way of the processes of decay. So you get a net effect of maybe 2% +/-? Depending on how long a time frame you look? Grassland sequestration is completely different. Those grasses and forbs sequesture as much as 37% directly deep in the soil by direct exudate production. The carbon is sequestered far longer than near surface and above surface carbon. In the thousands of years if undisturbed. That's why historically molisols have far deeper A horizons with much higher SOC than alfisols (even old growth forst alfisols).

       But, while only about 1/2 the land suface is under agriculture and there are still forests, the grassland/savannas of the world (primary terrestrial carbon sequetration of the Earth) are largely either extirpated like the tallgrass prairie, or under poor management and no longer functioning as a carbon pump. Pretty much all of it is gone. So the secondary buffers (forests) are helping to take away 1/2 the excess carbon from fossil fuels. But the primary terrestrial buffer to the carbon cycle is nearly completely gone or disfunctional due to poor management.

31076. Tom Curtis at 14:52 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @217, adding to scaddenp's response, here is the graphic showing reservoirs and fluxes of CO2 from the IPCC (Fig 6.01):

       

       Fluxes are shown in by the arrows, reservours by the boxes.  "Natural" (ie, preindustrial) values are shown in black, changes since the preindustrial in red.  Units are in terms of Petagrams of Carbon per year for fluxes, and Petagrams of Carbon for reservoirs, with a Petagram equalling 10^15 grams, or a billion tonnes of Carbon (Gigatonnes).

       So, looking at the reservoirs, we see that the combined atmosphere/ocean reservoir has increased by 395 Gigatonnes of Carbon, while vegetation has decreased by 30 gigatonnes of carbon, and fossil fuel and cement stocks have decreased by 365 gigatonnes of carbon.  That is, the combined effect of land use changes and the CO2 fertilization effect has resulted in only 8.2% of the total increase, with fossil fuels accounting for the rest.

       The total emissions from fossil fuels and cement manufacture is well known.  For it to be even matched by emissions from LUC, you need a new, and very large reservoir to store the excess CO2.

       There is additional evidence that the primary source of the increased CO2 comes from fossil sources.  Of these the most important is the decline in C14 concentrations.  Another is that there is a very strong correlation between cumulative fossil fuel emissions and CO2 concentrations:

        

       Over the period of observations at Mauna Loa, that correlation is 0.9995 with an r squared of 0.999.  That correlation actually decreases slightly when emissions from LUC are included, probably because estimates of those emissions are not as accurate as those for fossil fuels.

31077. scaddenp at 14:00 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Change in Land use is accounted for - see the IPCC report. Your thesis is not compatible drop in O2 and isotope ratio of CO2 in atmosphere. Some discussion of that here. I think you may be underestimating the role of oceans in CO2 cycling compared to land. You can get references to studies doing the maths of CO2 accounting from the IPCC WG1 chapter 6.

31078. RedBaron at 13:50 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Here is what I believe you are missing. You claim: "Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions." It's true. But we have also degraded the ecosystem services by ~1/2 as well...with modern factory farming style agriculture. 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:

       http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

31079. Glenn Tamblyn at 11:39 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       Patrick

       Notice also in the summary in the post, the reference to chapter 16, that the key value - Ω - depends on both carbonate ion concentrations and calcium ion concentrations. The paper scaddenp referred you to is discussing issues with calcium ion availability in fresh water and the mussels need to evolve an active pumping mechanism to collect calcium which isn't commonly available in fresh water.

       Sea water in contrast has large amounts of calcium in it - thats where all the dissolved minerals end up.

       The chemistry of calsification is significantly different between fresh water and sea water.

31080. scaddenp at 11:19 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       This paper discusses the process for fresh water mussels. In short, they have evolved for it and the organisms pay an energy cost to do so. Like much about AGW, it is not the absolute temperature or the acidity that is the issue - it is the rate of change.

       If the intent of your question is suggest that OA cant be that bad, then a quick search of google scholar on effects of ocean acidification will yield numerous papers documenting observed issues. I'm sorry but questions like this reek of trolling. If you have issues, then please cite some science backing your position.

31081. Patrick Moore at 10:16 AM on 25 February 2015
       OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
       

       I'd be interested to know why it is possible for species of freshwater mussels and clams to calcify and produce shells at pH 4-5, whereas it will be difficult for saltwater species at pH 7.5?

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - see this recent SkS post on ocean acidification - Corrosive Seawater, Not Low pH, Implicated As Cause of Oyster Deaths. Producing shells is somewhat problematic when the marine organism is dead as a result of ocean acidification (carbonate undersaturation).
       
       Factor in the knowledge that ocean acidification is implicated as a kill mechanism in three of the 5 major extinction events, and that current ocean acidification is proceeding at a rate that is likely unprecedented in 300 million years, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned.

31082. Kevin C at 09:39 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       uprightsquire: Here's a different version of te 50 year plot. White centred does highlight the zeros nicely, although I have to make a missing cells grey to distinguish them, which I think is less intuitive. I stuck with blue-red, because I want to see whether the adjustments shift the trend towards cooling or warming.

       

       You can now see the predominantly upward adjustments as soon as you enter the US (I presume due to the change from glass to electronic thermometers), in contrast to the mixed changes elsewhere and the predominantly downward adjustments in the Arctic.

31083. uprightsquire at 08:21 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       IMO, those trend maps are not presented ideally.

       Particularly, 

       Use of Blue-Green-Yellow-Orange-Red means its hard to easily determine the regions with smaller values.

       Blue and Red are associated with temperature. This graph measures something related to, but not, temperature. I.e., Blue on this graph doesnt mean its cold, or even decreasing temperature.

       Describing the colours are warm / cool, similar issues to the use of blue / red. We're not really talking about temperature here, so temperature related adjectives to decribe the colours isnt ideal.

       Suggested alterations:

       Colors other than Blue/Red. Perhaps pink and purple.

       Going colour (-) ->white (0)- colour (+) (eg Pink - light pink - white - light purple - purple) makes it easier to determine relative and absolute differences.

31084. Jose_X at 08:14 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I don't think human civilization (or humans) have ever lived in co2 levels this high. It's been millions of years since it was this high, right? Human society came about during historically cold temperatures, right? Also, aren't there studies that show our performance in critical thinking problems goes down significantly when exposed for a period of time to co2 levels even as low as 1000 ppm? We do better with CO2 levels that are at "historical lows" ("low" judging by evolution of all life on the planet and not just of humans).

       No offense, but I think we should be more concerned about human optimal performance than plant optimal performance.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This is off-topic for this thread. Anyone else wishing to respond to the commentator should set an example and respond on an appropriate thread. You can post a pointer to that comment here.

31085. Patrick Moore at 06:09 AM on 25 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Above you state: "The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere."

       How does this jibe with the ocean acidification narrative which postulates that in a warmer world with a higher CO2 atmosphere the ocean will absorb more CO2 and become acidic?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Your question on ocean acidification is dealt with in the 18-part 'OA is NOT OK' series, written by subject matter experts in that field, as summarized in Parts 1:
       
       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_19.html
       
       And Part 2:
       
       http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_20.html
       
       If you have questions, place them on the appropriate thread and the subject matter experts will respond to them.

       [PS] Its about equilibrium - outgassing from warm ocean is something for centuries in future. The above links give the details.

31086. Patrick Moore at 06:06 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I suppose refusing to discuss climate with people who have some skeptical thoughts is a good defence mechanism, but surely not all skeptics resort to personal attacks. My reason for being skeptical is the both temperature and CO2 are close to historical lows, 14.5C and 400ppm, and we are told they are too high. Plants do best at 1600-2000ppm which is about the average level over the millenia. So I only discuss facts and you could have an intelligent discussion with me.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please address your concerns on the appropriate thread.  For example, your statement about plants is best addressed here.  Also, in this venue the inherent presumption is that participants here make factual statements based on the evidence (itself based in the primary literature appearing in peer-reviewed reputable journals).  Starting off with

       "So I only discuss facts and you could have an intelligent discussion with me"

       is a red flag. 

       Further, please provide a reference citation for these claims:

       "both temperature and CO2 are close to historical lows"

       Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy before continuing further.

31087. swampfoxh at 05:23 AM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I wonder if we should be spending less time on those who deny the science of "global warming" and just proceed to rally those who know what is going on?  My ex business partner, with whom I have always had the best of relationships simply refuses to look at the science.  She maintains that John Casey, et al, has the "real answers" on climate change and everybody else are just a bunch of left wing propagandists trying to get rich on carbon trading schemes.  So, I don't talk to her about climate anymore.  It is probable that the vast majority of the human race will follow the fate of the Roman Empire or that of the Incas and thereby drag the rest of us into a climate hell.  But, it seems to me we are looking at a climate hell anyway, so we may as well try to place "our fellow travellers" into as many decisionmaking places as possible before the roof falls in. Then, maybe some of our (distant) offspring will survive the Sixth Extinction.   

31088. Glenn Tamblyn at 04:30 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       Nice work Kevin.

       And wow! The earliest research into Time of Observation Bias goes back to 1890!

31089. jja at 02:24 AM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       This is beautiful, lucid and dedicated work!  It will be invaluable to have these tools in the public sphere as China's economic slowdown and air pollution reduction programs continue to impact Aerosol emissions.  We are already seeing the precursor of this effect on globally averaged temperatures and in a potential PDO shift to a positive state.  Subsequently temperatres are set to rise, possibly at an extreme rate not seen since the mid 1970's.
       
       I would ask all to consider that the Public Relations industry works in concert with ideologically aligned media outlets to cultivate a common narrative.  This has been well documented.  This narrative is one that has been developed through scientific analysis of future trends and their potential impacts to client's business models.  In this realm, then, it is clear that the current coordinated attack on station-level adjustments is an attempt to define the narrative in preperation for this near-term rapid warming.
       
       In view of this, a rapid response, backed with similar narrative placements, is absolutely vital if there is going to be any successful mitigation efforts in the next decade.   The rate of warming that will be experienced in the near term will show whether the indirect cloud forcing and ECS values were both understated in the models.

31090. John Hartz at 02:17 AM on 25 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Re SkS rebuttals of Willie Soon, we sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees...

       This “it’s the sun” claim is an extremely popular argument with climate change doubters — according to the website Skeptical Science, it is the second most popular anti-global warming argument of them all, second only to “climate’s changed before.” So is there any truth to it? After all, regardless of who supports his research, if Soon is actually right on the substance then we may be getting all worked up about global warming for nothing.

       No, the sun isn’t driving global warming by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 23, 2015

31091. wili at 23:17 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       RC now has a post on "The Soon Fallacy"

31092. Daniel Bailey at 22:40 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       "My point is that going after funding simply VALIDATES what deniers assert all the time"

       Deniers bewail many things, some of which are true and some are untrue.  There is evidence that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, there is evidence that human activities are driving the warming of our world...and there is evidence that Soon's funding was predicated upon "deliverables"; then the specific nature of the deliverables is fair game.  And the failure by Soon to divulge his remunerations and links to industry is also fair game.

31093. alby at 21:30 PM on 24 February 2015
       Missing Arctic warming does contribute to the hiatus, but it is only one piece in the puzzle.
       

       It is possible to have a graph with the same data as the last graph but covering latitude 0-70?

       Because I see that Gleisner method is performing quite well on Arctic lat. (see fig. 4 and 5 looking > 70N) but the conclusion of their article curiously is that "the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitude".

31094. Tom Curtis at 20:58 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld @10 & 11, perhaps you should read my comments again.  Particularly the sentence where I say:

       "For example, there is no evidence that Willie Soon stated opinions he did not hold in order to gain funding."

       There is evidence, however, that he gained funding because he held (or at least, was prepared to propogate) certain opinions.  If the deniers want to turn that around and say that there is no evidence that the 97% of climate scientists state opinions they do not hold, but that they gain funding because of the opinions they hold, they are still left grasping at straws to explain why 97% of climate scientists disagree with them.  As in so many areas, we can have a reasonable discussion of the problems in certain funding methods, whereas the deniers cannot, for the deniers require a reason to believe that 97%  of climate scientists are not guided by the evidence, and such a reason does not exist.

31095. jgnfld at 20:41 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Added (or can a mod merge?): Going after appalling overt personal actions and behaviors is totally fair game as well. That would include (apparent) dishonesty in declarations of conflicts of interest and possibly the use of the word "deliverables" depending on surrounding context. I hope journals, in particlar, would look very carefully into this matter.

31096. jgnfld at 20:27 PM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       My comment seems highly unpopular(!), but I think the main point was partially missed except perhaps by Mal. My point is that going after funding simply VALIDATES validates what deniers assert all the time. I simply think that is a serious strategic error, personally.

       
       WRT Mal's point, as you know it is an article of faith among deniers that what you know to be true, that funding agencies are arms-length, is not at all the case. Funding agencies are controlled by various agendas to produce specific results. That means the message to the broader public from science is that Soon is biased because of funding and the message to the public from deniers is that science is biased by the funding. It is this (seeming) parallel logic that the broader public hears that worries me. Especially when going after his (supposed) scientific statements is so easy and direct.
       
       Is this a totally senseless worry?  It's not that I am not appalled by certain behaviors on his part.

       Moderator Response:

       The use of "all-caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

31097. Mal Adapted at 11:39 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld @1:

       Going after Willie for funding is a mistake that I wish this site would not commit. It plays right into the hands of deniers who claim that ALL scientists are just saying what the funders want to hear.

       When science-deniers claim that ALL all scientists are just saying what the funders want to hear, they are implying that all funders want to hear something in particular.  It gives reality-based people the chance to expose the obvious flaw in the denier's logic: while it's no secret that a funding sources like Southern Company Services is protecting its investments, why would, say, the National Science Foundation be biased one way or another?  At all times, the difference between the obvious profit motive of fossil-fuel investors, and the clear public interest behind sources like NSF, can to be highlighted.  I recommend this piece by John Timmer of arstechnica as an example of how it should be done.

       Moderator Response:

       The use of "all-caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

31098. wili at 11:09 AM on 24 February 2015
       A melting Arctic and weird weather: the plot thickens
       

       Another consequence of Arctic melt? barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2015/02/new-sinkholes-appear-yamal-12-02

31099. Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8B
       

       Stephen Baines @22, well summarized.

31100. Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       jgnfld, a small addendum to my prior post.  You say:

       "It simply is a mistake in my opinion to go after him for funding sources as pretty much every other comment has done. Go after the science."

       The fact is that Soon has not published a paper recently (SFAIK), but that his funding is in the news.  Ergo it is no surprise, and no problem that comments discuss what was in the news.  If the comments had equally focussed on his funding after a post criticizing one of his papers, you would have had a valid point.

       Unfortunately, there is no such post on SkS (contrary to my prior impression and claim in the preceding post), although there are posts directly assessing the general thrust of his arguments that do not mention him by name.

Prev  614  615  616  617  618  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  Next