Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 Next
Comments 31701 to 31750:
-
Kevin C at 08:25 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
JCH: ERA and MERRA show February as cold too, so I think it was genuine and global. Outlier months like that appear at other points in the record.
Micheal: Thanks!
-
JCH at 06:57 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is probably obvious to everybody but me, but February is the lowest month of 2014. The news in February was full of stories about the polar vortex. I was expecting Cowtan and Way to take a smaller February dip than it did. A bunch of arctic air, air that was up there in January, left the arctic and swept south, making Feruary very cold versus the rest of the year. What replaced that polar vortex arctic air, and how did it get so much colder than the arctic was in January?
-
michael sweet at 05:56 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin C.
Your posts are always easy to read and informative. They help the rest of us keep up to date on what is known about the temperature record. Thank you for posting again.
-
scaddenp at 05:36 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is about the surface temperature reconstructions and the reasons for the differences. RSS and UAH are measurements of tropospheric temperature. While surface and lower troposphere (lower 3000-4000m of atmosphere) have very similar trends, the satellite measurements react more extremely to ENSO (hotter in El Nino than surface record and colder in La Nina).
-
knaugle at 04:49 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
It would have been informative to include RSS in the table as well.
Or perhaps a disclaimer that this is not a "temperature provider"? -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:57 PM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Treesong2,
Though the article did not clearly explain the many ways that the economic activities related to the burning of oil are threatening water supplies, those activities are well understood to be threats to clean water supply.
Another point is that climate change projections have indicated that 'regional' access to clean water will be dramatically reduced by climate changes. These regional changes of access would require global open borders to ensure everyone can go wherever they need to get what they need. But even then there would be significant effort related to the relocations. And the relocations may need to be made many times as the regional climates go through stages of change.
Saying there will still be water somewhere on the planet fails as a defense of the damaging and unsustainable burning of oil.
The article's assertion, as I see it, that 'the unsustainable attempts to benefit from burning non-renewable buried hydrocarbons are less valuable than the human need for clean water in the regions humans live' still seems to stand in spite of your suggestions so far.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 10:15 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Paul W, the text you quoted does not support the statement that you prefer. One way to paraphrase that text would be to say: the probability that sensitivity will be very low is extremely small whereas that of being very high is very small; both "very" and "extremely" are clearly quantified.
This is quite a different statement than saying that there is higher probablility for the range of sensitivity currently considered most likely to be either higher or lower than real. In fact, it is different enough that nothing from the text you quote can translate into such a statement. That would be a different problem entirely. It just says that the chances of sensitivity to be very low is less than to be very high. Nothing else can honestly be extracted from these words.
-
Paul W at 09:44 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
I agree with the article but I think the heading
"The chances of overestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of underestimation"
should read
The chances of underestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of overestimation.
The body of the text gets it right with"It subsequently states that it is extremely unlikely (less than 5% probability) to be smaller than 1, and very unlikely (less than 10% probability) to be higher than 6. In other words, very low values are less likely than very high values, which substantiates the above statement."
Personally I wish the worlds governments were habitually over estimating the climate sensitivity like every good "conservative" should be doing!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:44 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Unfortunately the reluctance to accept the importance of significant action towards the changes of the way the most fortunate enjoy their life is very popular and powerful among those who are the problem.
The successful denial that their overconsuming enjoyment and pursuits are a problem is the real problem. The popularity of that attitude fuels the profitability of activity that is clearly understood to be unaccepable.
Through the past 25 years, the combined power of the profitability and popularity of a lack of concern for the future has created the horrible present day situation. As mentioned, there now is little chance of avoiding significant future consequences. And there is significant resistance among the real trouble makers to any action that would be a 'sacrifice to their potential to personally benefit more just for the potential benefit of others, no matter how minor their sacrifice is compared to the magnitude of trouble others would face if the sacrifice was not made'.
The ability of people to personally succeed through activity that clearly has no long term future, and actually adds to the future challenges to be overcome by others, distracts effort from the important essential tasks that need to be focused on.
It is clear that the socio-economic-political system has never been very good at developing toward a sustainable better futre for all. It actually has no interest in that type of development. It even motivates people to try to get as much wealth and power no matter how unacceptable their means are, because there is ample evidence that unacceptable activity can be gotten away with.
That is the barrier to the amount and type of research and development that is required.
-
DSL at 08:43 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Moderator, I was hoping to drag it back to climate science. JWRebel seems anxious not to connect what he's trying to get out with climate science.
Out with it, JW! You're not saying anything! You claimed I didn't understand what you were saying, and then you explained exactly what I said, but failed to apply it to the issue at hand (climate). Insinuation is fine if no one wants to go anywhere. We can insinuate all day.
Moderator Response:[PS] Unless someone has something of serious substance to contribute, I would say drop it.
-
MA Rodger at 06:01 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel @1&3&5.
Give us a break.
First. Nobody here is saying AGW is a philosophical "fact". And 'in fact' it is not even being presented here as some form of scientific fact. Rather it is to be taught "as a fact" and is also being described by the National Academies of Science as "settled facts", the latter because the science has presently run its course.
Second, "fact" is generally what people accept to be true. @1, you strongly suggest that you accept AGW as true, as 'being fact.' So why all the philosophy? You don't even present your philosophy convincingly!
Thirdly, it is always better to use Pythagoras's Theorem not Euclid's for such an example. Not only can Pythagoras be proven mathematically, importantly, it can be proven very simply on the back of an envelope. So, bar space not being flat, Pythagoras's Theorem is evidently more than mere "theory" . And for good measure, its discovery has zip to do with Pythagoras.
Fourthly, that some mathematical construct is provable but is still call a theorem has zip to do with what you are trying to argue.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note "no dogpiling" from the comments policy. I think this discussion is in danger of descending into semantics and philosophy with little to do with climate science. Please desist.
-
Treesong2 at 05:52 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
OPOF, I agree with denisaf. Water is a renewable resource, though usable supplies can be reduced by contamination. If I flush my toilet thirty times a day, that will not reduce the amount of water available here by Lake Erie twenty or a hundred years from now, except possibly as a result of climate change because of extra energy used to pump the water up to provide water pressure.
Water shortages are local problems, due to climate, overpopulation, or contamination. Saving water in one place does not help shortages elsewhere, except maybe downstream. The real problem with wasting water is the concomitant waste of energy, and I don't think the article makes that connection clear enough.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:42 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel smears the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.
Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.For a good discussion of science terminology (especially for the "Evidence, not Proof" bit), see here.
-
JWRebel at 04:45 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You are right DSL — you are not sure what my point is: it has nothing to do with certainty. Surely you don't think that I have doubt's about Euclid's theorem. Still we do not call it a fact. Because, as I stated already, theories are a different kind of thing: they require thought (about cause and effect).
Let me give you two facts: Eddy was hit by the bus. Eddy died shortly thereafter. A convincing theory would be that the bus killed Eddy. But it is not a fact that the bus killed Eddy. Maybe he threw himself in front of the bus and killed himself. Maybe the bus driver hit him on purpose and it was the bus driver that killed him. Maybe he survived the bus accident but was hit by lightning right after. Note that the theory could be a convincing explanation even if I told you that I made up the facts.
And that is why AGW is a theory. If you knew everything about temperatures and CO2 and CH4 in the air, but nothing about burning fossil fuels, you could even have more or better facts than we do have, but you would not have a theory. Theories can be tested, but facts can at most be verified.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made your point more than once. Please note that excessive reptition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
denisaf,
Oil is not being carefully and exclusively used to advance to a sustainable better future for all. And the 'frivolous' pursuit of benefit from oil threatens water quality and the reliability of water supply. That is the crux of the issue. So your comparison in the context of this article is not really relevant.
-
jenna at 01:09 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Really enjoyed Dave Robert's article, and also Revkin's support of Dave's views on this. I was sad to see Joe Romm attacking their pragmatic approach :( We need some serious planning to actually move forward on this issue, as opposed to Romm's 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude. We also need to present a unified front on Climate issues in general, this kind of infighting is well noted (and laughed at) by the 'opposition', if you get my meaning.
Jen.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:22 PM on 1 February 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Chris G
From the paper "in substantial areas of the global breadbaskets, >60% of the yield variability can be explained by climate variability". Yikes!!!
jja
"The food insecurity issue is not as significant as the related political unrest...."
Not yet, Perhaps say it is currently a 'fear of food insecurity' issue at present. But a few decades from now actual food insecurity may come to dominate. Then all bets are off, the world starts to go ape!
-
denisaf at 13:04 PM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Water recycles naturally, oil does not. Water is very valuable and will remain very valuable in the difficult times ahead. Oil temporarily plays a major role in the operation of technological systems. The artcle is comparing apples to oranges so spoils the valuable message on water.
-
DSL at 11:51 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
I'm not sure what your point is, JWRebel. Is it simply that you object to the theory being called a fact? Or is it that you don't think that the theory has been amply demonstrated in, for example, direct surface-based measurements of the greenhouse effect, e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004 — amply demonstrated to the extent that A) no one--even a very large percentage of "skeptics"--thinks more evidence is required, and B) a number of successful products rely on the existence of the effect to operate correctly?
If the first, yah, ok. Absolute language. Probably a bad idea where science is concerned. Even what you describe as "facts" aren't really absolutely and universally known. The general public (that part that doesn't really get science), of course, wants absolute certainty. So how should the science be communicated? With uncertainty--ala the IPCC--or representative of the level of certainty that has become actionable in the minds of those who do understand the science (in other words, "we're certain enough that we demand action"?
-
JWRebel at 10:07 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You're kind of missing my point: Euclid's theorem is not less true or certain because it is called a theorem. It is a different kind of a thing than a fact. Climate change is not a theory because of some degree of uncertainty, but because you cannot discover anthropogenic global warming somewhere except in a book or human discourse. A single fact is rarely very remarkable outside the context of a theory that it supports or falsifies. A theory is a whole more than a fact. A theory can even be very convincing despite uncertainties about many of the facts involved, as if often true of court cases. Scientific theories are often about relationships of cause and effect. Sometimes it can take a long time and a lot of ingenuity before you discover cause and effect, even if all the facts are already present at hand. You cannot state: here we have a weight, there we have a number of sightings, here are some temperatures, there some distances, oh, and then we tripped over a bunch of causes while crossing the gully.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:14 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a robust theory, referred to as "settled fact" by scientists.
Per the National Academies of Science, science advisors to Congress and the Office of the Presidency since Lincoln, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (p. 22):
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from page 22.
-
JWRebel at 05:23 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
New science standards require students be taught climate change as a scientific fact.
Climate change is not a fact but a theory. Facts pertain to measurements of temperature or green house gas fractions, etc. Climate change cannot be discovered as a fact in nature, but is an explanation of many facts and ties them together. Facts without explanation and theory are pretty random and boring. It's not that I'm unconvinced. I fully expect climate change to be humankind's major challenge in a future which is likely to be nearer than most think. It's a matter of terminology. You have data, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws. Data itself means nothing (thermometer readings), they have to be combined with context and some interpretation (was it night or day? what kind of thermometer?) before they emerge as facts. Hypotheses construct a possible working explanation (a "story") about causes and effects that tie facts together. Theories are hypotheses that have passed a lot of tests and discussion and have proved convincing. Even in mathematics we talk about Euclid's theorem, not because it is not true (theorems have to be proven), but we still do not refer to it as a fact. Theories are about relationships, and even if they are true, positing and formulating relationships require thought and cannot be discovered solely from experience or observation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
In addition to regional shortages of water, contamination of water is also happening on a massive scale, including contamination by plastic waste.
Burning buried hydrocarbons, or turning them or anything else into plastics, are clearly not sustainable activities, except in the minds of people whowant to claim that prolonging the ability to benefit from those actions is 'sustaining something' and can therefore be called sustainable action.
Many fossil fuel industry related companies have created departments for 'Sustainability'. And those groups promote all the ways they 'improve their activity' without ever admitting it ultimately cannot be sustained.
-
Jim Eager at 01:03 AM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
They found it out in Akkad, Angkor, and Canyon de Chelly quite a while ago.
-
wili at 14:09 PM on 31 January 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
"Water is far more valuable and useful than oil "
They're fiding that out in Sao Paulo now.
-
jja at 04:41 AM on 31 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Chris G @7
when you say, "I suspect food (in)security will hit us harder, faster than sea level rise."
realize that the syrian destabilization and much of the political unrest in the region was catapaulted by an historic regional drought that drove rural populations into the cities looking for work and caused an explosion in the price of grain.
The food insecurity issue is not as significant as the related political unrest, economic destabilzation and societal dissolution caused by (associated) regional conflict. This "threat multiplier" of climate change is why the U.S. military considers global warming to be the greatest existential threat to the U.S. today. -
billthefrog at 22:42 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja #18 & 19 (& Michael #13)
Thanks for the IOP reference in #18 - it makes interesting reading and was certainly more concrete than the earlier paper I looked at.
I did, however, notice some weasel words in there. For example, at the bottom of the second page...
For instance, in China installation and increased operation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for existing and new plants (Xu 2011, Zhang et al 2012) has caused a reduction of emissions compared with previous expectations
The last 4 words in that sentence open a real can of worms. Also, the text box accompanying Fig 2 of the paper does refer to estimates, rather than empirically derived values. (I could be splitting hairs here, but reducing an estimate ain't necessarily the same as a real reduction.)
The authors also observe that the aforementioned FGD improvements only really apply to power generation, not to transport, domestic usage and non-power related industry, where they continue to spiral upwards. They also point out that, consequently, the relative contribution from power is rapidly declining viz-a-viz these other sources.
Worryingly, India does not appear to be following China's lead in trying to retrospectively clean up its act.
Finally, can I just point out that the paper in question was specifically addressing the issue of anthropogenic SO2: it was not looking at other aerosols, and it may be a step too far to assume that these are also on the wane. I don't think we can necessarily just write off the grey literature on this one.
However, I do hope you're right and I'm wrong. If aerosols concentrations are still on the rise worldwide, then this will serve to hold back the worst excesses of climate change - but for a limited period only. The shit will then really hit the fan when we see a sudden significant aerosol reduction at some indeterminate point in the future. All the while, the ostrich brigade will be taking us on an irreversible "burn, baby, burn" route.
On that cheerful note... Bill F
PS I totally agree with your assessment in #19
-
jja at 17:47 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
We are very soon approaching the "locked-in" 2C warming threshold.
-
skymccain at 17:42 PM on 30 January 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5A
The Weekly News Roundup is perhaps the most informative and vital contribution to climate change public awareness. Thanks for all the work.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback.
-
jja at 16:57 PM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
I believe that these are underestimates (the pre-2008 values were actually higher than reported)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014003/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014003.pdf
The last decade of global anthropogenic sulfur dioxide: 2000–2011 emissions
Klimont et. al. (2013)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:04 PM on 30 January 2015Climate change could impact the poor much more than previously thought
jja,
I have an MBA and totally agree that the way many 'economists' value things and evaluate things is unrealistic and can even be shown to be irrational.
I prefer to state that it is unacceptable for anyone to benefit at the expense of others or in a way that harms others, and others includes future generations and other aspects of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet. I add that helping others and striving to imrove the understanding of what is going on to improve the ability of humanity to advance to a sustainable constantly improving better future for all life on this amazing planet is among the most valuable things a person can do, contrary to what the current soicio-economic-political system values (encourages to be popular and profitable).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:54 PM on 30 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
MA Rogers,
Thank you. Your explanations have helped clarify things for me.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 30 January 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
I wonder if the Washington Post would be willing to lead the investigation into improperly validated reporting of climate change claims like they did regarding the Rolling Stone article about unacceptable activity at UVa.
It would seem reasonable to challenge every media that reported that particular piece of Washington Post leadership on honest reporting to give equal billing to every case of a similarly inadequately validated report of a climate disruption claim.
And an article identifying the media that would not repeat such reports, even though they repeated the Rolling Stone one, could be the culmination of their efforts, exposing which media is actually not trust-worthy.
-
billthefrog at 10:09 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Oops - typo!
Penultimate paragraph in my #16 should read...
... Stephen Chu... and his "coal is my worst nightmare" views
-
billthefrog at 10:03 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Michael #13
During the build up to the 2008 Bejing Olympics, the problem of atmospheric pollution (especially the PM2.5 crap) really started to get aired. (Pun intended.)
My, admittedly very limited, understanding was that steps were certainly taken to reduce pollution in the vicinity of the Olympic venues, but that's hardly the same as country-wide. The Real Time Air Quality Index doesn't make for very comforting reading, although some areas in/around Bejing are better than others.
Although many might distrust the source on principle, Greenpeace announced on 22nd Jan 2015 that Jia Zhangke, a Chinese filmmaker, had just released a short documentary dealing with the ongoing air pollution problem in China.
I still remember Stephen Chu (Nobel Laureate and Secretary for Energy in President Obama's first term) and has "coal is my worst nightmare" views.
Hence my scepticism regarding a reduction in sulphate emissions since 2009. It is obviously possible to increase coal consumption whilst reducing emissions, I'm just taking it with a pinch of salt until I see something a bit more concrete.
Cheers Bill F
-
Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jgnfld - Good point, autocorrelation isn't a huge factor at 5 years or more.
However, decadal and multidecadal internal climate variations such as ENSO, PDO, and the solar cycle have considerable impact on that scale, and again the possibility of >15 year low or negative trends driven by variations, overlaying longer term positive trends from GHGs, is not to be discounted.
It's noteworthy that GCM runs exhibit similar emergent behavior when driven by basic physics.
-
jgnfld at 07:28 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
KR: Foster/Tamino aggregate at monthly intervals so of course there is a lot of autocorrelation. Aggregating at annual intervals tends to wash all or most away as shown by nonsignificant autocorrelation tests when you check. I have not checked the various series at half-decadal aggregations, but I suspect autocorrelation would be quite low at that level.
I like the bet and given the magnitude of the long term trend I would have supported making it especially as the criterion was a simple rise of any magnitude greater than zero. I just disagree with that one particular bit of reasoning.
-
michael sweet at 06:49 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja,
Thanks for the references. I have always thought China aerosols would be important and am interested in seeing what is known.
Bill: I understand that they are installing scrubbers on a lot of generators in China. They are installing scrubbers because their pollution problem is so bad. They are also replacing old units with newer, more efficient ones with scrubbers. This means they can reduce sulfate emissions while increasing consumption of coal. A quick Google gave me several news articles that were long on story and short on data. Supposedly the central government is forcing facilities to run the scrubbers because they are concerned about the terrible smog. It makes sense that they would try to reduce smog but it will take some time to get in the peer reviewed system.
-
billthefrog at 04:29 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja #5 & #9
I've had a look at the citation provided in #9, and, apart from the abstract, it is sadly behind a paywall. However, I found an article on a very similar topic to which you refer - interaction between Tropical Belt Width and the PDO - here on the AMetSoc web site.
What I failed to find there was anything that remotely supported your comment (#5) concerning "China sulfate emissions reductions from 2009...". As stated in my #10, the information to hand suggests that China's sulphate emissions should be growing - hence causing a negative forcing (direct and indirect).
There are three explanations that immediately spring to mind...
1) I am developing selective blindness,
2) Something (behind the paywall) in your citation talks about Chinese sulphate reductions, or
3) You have inadvertently linked to the wrong article
Cheers Bill F
-
billthefrog at 03:58 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja #9
Sorry, your response to Michael arrived whilst I was typing my #10.
I'll have a plough through the citation you kindly provided.
Cheers Bill F
-
billthefrog at 03:54 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jja #5
"China sulfate emissions reductions from 2009 are also a major contributor to the recent warming trend"
As Michael already indicated in #7, I would sure like to see a citation for this claim. I did a little presentation last year on energy consumption trends, and, as recently as 2012, China's voracious hunger for the nasty black stuff was showing no sign of abatement.
Quoting an information brief from the US Energy Information Administration dated 14th May 2014...
"Chinese production and consumption of coal increased for the 13th consecutive year in 2012. China is by far the world's largest producer and consumer of coal, accounting for 46% of global coal production and 49% of global coal consumption—almost as much as the rest of the world combined"
Given that their consumption rate was still on the rise, it would be very interesting to learn what practices had been introduced that would result in a reduction in sulphate release!
Cheers Bill F
-
jja at 03:49 AM on 30 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/full/ngeo2091.html
Michael
Anthropogenic aerosols and their indirect cloud effects are primary drivers of the PDO, this is only the first of preliminary results:
In both time periods, anthropogenic aerosols act to modify the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and therefore contribute to the width of the tropical belt.
In addition, Booth et. al (2012) correlated influence of aerosols on AMO http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature10946.html
Though Zhang et. al has placed this observation in doubt. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2013/02/15/35-atlantic-multi-decadal-variability-and-aerosols/
However, the unanswered questions regarding fluctuations in the AMOC driven by aerosols that Zhang brought up raises even more interesting questions regarding interhemispheral aerosol forcing effects on the AMOC and regional forcing effects on surface wind patterns in the South West and North East Pacific.
I firmly believe that when these aerosol-ocean interactions are fully investigated we will find an entirely new anthropogenic fingerprint on surface warming. If I am correct, we will see a very large increase in surface temperatures over the coming years as China is set to reduce her aerosol emissions profile significantly with emissions controls and a likely regional economic slowdown. -
Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
jgnfld - There certainly is autocorrelation observed in the temperature record, which can be characterized as ARMA(1,1) in nature (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Appendix on Methods). A signal of that nature can easily show >15 year negative trends as variation over an underlying positive trend, as discussed at the end of this post with artificial data.
In addition, the GCMs produce much the same behavior from the physics, demonstrating autocorrelation and in effect inertia in variations. So the statement is entirely reasonable.
-
michael sweet at 20:34 PM on 29 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
JJA:
citation?
-
MEJ at 14:11 PM on 29 January 2015Temp record is unreliable
Thanks Tom a very informative video from Kevin Cowtan. That software he is using is pretty cool. VERY clever. Good of Kevin to take the time. Could I just mention something. KC makes reference to 1970 & 2005 'temperature drop' doesn't Berkeley Earth flag those two periods as 'station moves'? I noticed that in the ATTP link 'scaddenp' posted #333
-
jgnfld at 13:50 PM on 29 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Re.: "A period of cooling due to incidental variations in the climate
The climate knows random variations. Strengers wrote that these may lead to longer periods of no warming or even cooling, even under a steady increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. During the discussions, Strengers pointed to a study which shows on the basis of climate models that periods of up to 16 years of random cooling or non-warming may occur, even in an overall warming climate." it may just be I'm not reading this right, but this seems to suffer from Gambler's Fallacy reasoning. That is unless he is invoking autocorrelation which does, in fact, allow such reasoning.
In any case it might be worded more clearly. -
jja at 13:46 PM on 29 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
China sulfate emissions reductions from 2009 are also a major contributor to the recent warming trend. The secondary cloud effects appear to be at the higher end of the uncertainty spectrum (more negative).
-
wili at 12:28 PM on 29 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
" the degree of warming according to the UAH series, which is based on satellite measurements, was 0.1 °C over the last 5 years, compared to the mean of the 10 years before that. If this trend continues over the coming 5 years, our current decade will register a warming of around 0.15 °C"
(From the second-to-last paragraph.)I don't follow this. If we had .1 degree warming over the first five years, would we expect .2 degees over the decade "if the trend continues"?
Also, I was surprised to see no mention of volcanoes. Couldn't a major volcano eruption have through a major spanner into these rather short-term predictions?...
ranyl asks: "...do we actually have a carbon debt rather than a budget already?"
Certainly, yet, imho.
-
ranyl at 12:20 PM on 29 January 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Thanks Bart good read and interesting.
You rightly highlight that there are papers suggesting a low CS recently and that given all thign matural we should be cooling, however have you also considered the several papers than suggest the CS might be higher than thought at ~4C but less than 5C and greater than 3C.
"The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."
Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony & Jean-Louis Dufresne, "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing" Nature 37, vol 505, 2 January 2014
In medical practice a 95% chance of success is generally considered reasonably safe when taking actions, 99% is preferable and less than this and things became deemed quite risky.
Therefore shouldn't we be considering, what is the CO2 accumulative emissions amount that would give a 95% chance of avoiding greater than a 2C in the next 100 years?
And if the evidence in the paper holds true, (which is likely considering all that heat going into the oceans etc.) then the range for CS would start at 3C and end at 5C. A shift in the CS range of that nature would significantly reduce the carbon budget estimations currently being made for policy makers to ponder.
Further maybe we should even be asking what is the total GHG emissions that gives a 95% chance of keeping earth lower than 2C for the next 300 years, given that prevention is better than cure for future generations?
And is 2C even safe?
As the only way to actually turn the CO2 heater down is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, do we actually have a carbon debt rather than a budget already?
-
DSL at 10:35 AM on 29 January 2015Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
An interesting point, though, FreeDubay. I'm set on cremation, but perhaps this is not the best way to go. Maybe burial in a place designed for human sequestration.
Prev 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 Next
