Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 Next
Comments 32201 to 32250:
-
MEJ at 12:33 PM on 7 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
Thank you all so much for the feedback. A lot of great information. I particularly like the moving graphic on surface temperature.This is proving to be a VERY complex issue to get my head around. It has struck me that I may be comparing apples with oranges.
The SkS graphic is specifically comparing Surface and Satellite temperatures. Three sets of data are being compared. 'Direct Surface Measurements' (Blue Line) and two sets of Satellite(?) data from UAH (Red Line) and RSS (Green Line). In respect to 'Surface Temperature' and I presume once certain adjustments are made they show a very close correlation.
My limited understanding is that if I take a temperature measurement at a ship on the Pacific Ocean (Surface Temperature) then fly up to the Lower Troposphere some 8 to 15 Klms above my position the Temperature measurement will be cooler.
So can I compare Carl Mear's graph of Temperature Lower Troposphere with a graph based on Surface Temperature data?
-
Doug Mackie at 12:16 PM on 7 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
slioch @6: Your eqn wrong. Calcification is a SOURCE not a sink for CO2.
Better to use our eqns 1 and 4 from the OA not OK series. (Click 'OA not OK' button to left). -
shoyemore at 05:11 AM on 7 January 2015Pope Francis plants a flag in the ground on climate change
An Evangelical Christian view here from Professor Katherine Hayhoe, lately one of Time's "100 Most Influential People":
Guernica Magazine talks with Katherine Hayhoe
It’s a common perception that science and religion are mutually exclusive. But there are many scientists who would consider themselves to be spiritual people. Not only that, but in the case of climate change—a scientific issue with strong moral implications and difficult decisions to be made—it’s essential to connect the science to our values. And for many of us, our values come from our faith.
A simlar view to that of the Pope - but the interview is well worth reading in full.
-
Rob Painting at 04:56 AM on 7 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Trying to blame Wallaces' ignorance of rather basic science on Feely and Sabine is rather amusing though.
"From this it may be that ocean acidification may be less deleterious than currently believed"
That's just wishful thinking. The near-collapse of the US North Pacific oyster fishery due to the die-off of larval oysters from too corrosive seawater highlights the rather obvious flaw in your reasoning. And when we look at the geological record, many marine calcifiers went extinct in the past when the oceans acidified at rates much slower than present-day.
The one of the greatest problems with most laboratory-based ocean acidification experiments is that they don't actually simulate conditions that marine organisms face throughout their lifecycle. That was the problem with the larval oysters - they are actually exposed to conditions much more corrosive than consideration of atmospheric CO2 alone would suggest, and their early lifestages are a time of great vulnerability to carbonate saturation state (corrsiveness of seawater).
So quantification of actual conditions that marine organisms face is essential if one wants to accurately forecast how they might respond to ocean acidification. The Hofman paper is right about that.
-
scaddenp at 04:43 AM on 7 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
This is why we have peer-review. The data is made available for the use of scientists with the appropriate domain-knowledge and expertise to be able to use it. This does of course also mean that amateurs with an agenda can use it. If Wallace had tried to publish however, expert reviewers would have immediately pointed out the issues to him. But then I doubt Wallace is really interested in ocean pH, only in ammunition to support a viewpoint based on political values.
-
Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
ginunn - Also note that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Nobody with even a basic understanding of the science would argue for a simple monotonic linear increase in temperatures in the presence of multiple forcings and internal climate variation.
-
Not pHraud but pHoolishness
william - Apart from the 'blaming the victim' issue of putting the onus of pseudo-skeptic misunderstanding on the scientists, Feely and Sabine did tell Wallace about the issues with data coverage; he apparently followed by impugning their science and motives. Not IMO honorable behavior on Wallaces part.
The data coverage issues of past ocean sampling are well known to those familiar with the science - hence there is little reason to repeat common knowledge in the field in every paper.
-
william11409 at 02:10 AM on 7 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Jim Eager @ 9 fair enough but dodgy or incomplete or not spatially or temporally homogeneous or whatever, I am surprised Feely and Sabine made no reference to these data even if only to explain why they chose not to use them. I think they should have done and had they done so, none of this would have eventuated thus denying sceptical blogs another so called "example of sharp practice" with which to regale their readers.
And as an aside, a more recent paper published in PLoS One in 2011 using direct measurements of ocean pH, has shown marine species that are regularly exposed to much greater changes in pH than those forecast for the future and that some species currently are exposed to pH levels more acidic than those forecast for 2100 (http://tinyurl.com/6t9fjly} The paper is also summarised at https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1875 From this it may be that ocean acidification may be less deleterious than currently believed.
-
Jim Eager at 00:55 AM on 7 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
William, try reading for comprehension: the older data are not dodgy, the data are simply incomplete, plus dissolved CO2 concentration is not spacially or temporaly homogeneous. Not taking those facts into account is what is dodgy.
-
Composer99 at 00:00 AM on 7 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
ginunn:
Regarding your second comment, in point of fact temperature increase is linear with logarithmically increasing CO2: climate sensitivity, you may recall, measures global mean surface temperature increase per doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.
-
mitch at 23:58 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
William:
The CO2 data for the oceans are not unreliable, just very incomplete. NOAA put them out because they are valid measurements. The measurements have been made well at least since the 60's and probably longer. The problem is that there is an attempt to create a global record by simple averaging of available data--this is not a smart way to go about producing an average where pH can vary by large amounts depending on the strength of upwelling. I
I guess I get irritated with people that are opposed to funding the monitoring effort but then claim that we cannot determine the trend. If one thinks that there is no trend, there should be more funding to show that, not less. Since 2000, funding for environmental science at the US National Science Foundation for environmental science has dropped by about 20%. -
ginunn at 23:19 PM on 6 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
The lines drawn on the graph exclude initial data that would appear to produce a flatter interpretation. The second point is that if you are arguing for a linear increase, it suggests a problem trying to correlate against CO2 increase which is non linear.
-
Esop at 22:40 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Hmm. Does this mean that the deniers are moving away from their inaccurate claims about temperatures and over to other topics. Wonder why.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 19:47 PM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Tom Curtis @ 60. My comment about the exanding Earth theory was tongue in cheek. Don't be too literal. My "phew" of relief should have indicated that much. Nonetheless, it is telling that Casey appears to treat said "theory" as worthy of rational exmination and comes to the well thought out conclusion that it is not well supported, as if the alternative had any chance to ever contend. In fact, his tone about the subject suggests that the jury could possibly be out again, some day. Open minded doesn't mean fill your mind with garbage. Casey tries hard to give the appearance of being open minded.
-
Slioch at 19:31 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
3. Rob Honeycutt
Perhaps Wallace has been fooled by the sort of nonsense that Tom Segalstad writes here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoM0FaOUxrZ21FSmM/edit?pli=1
where he claims that, ""the upper 200m of ocean water contains enough dissolved calcium to bind all anthropogenic CO2 as precipitated calcium carbonate ... without effecting the ocean's pH" (p.818)
Segalstad is wrong.
The overall equation for the reaction of CO2 with calcium ions to produce solid calcium carbonate is as follows:
CO2 + Ca++(aq) + H2O ==> Ca++Co3--(s) + 2H+(aq)
The reaction produces hydrogen ions (2H+aq). You CANNOT precipitate solid calcium carbonate by combining aqueous CO2 and calcium ions WITHOUT at the same time producing hydrogen ions, and thereby reducing pH. (Of course, the H+(aq) + OH-(aq) <==> H2O ( K = c.10^-14 ) equilibrium is simultaneously maintained, but there is still an overall increase in hydrogen ion concentration)
-
Rob Painting at 17:39 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Nice try, but NOAA isn't culpable for Mike Wallaces' ignorance.
-
Rob Painting at 16:52 PM on 6 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
Rob - the plot is indeed of the lower troposphere, and it was created by Carl Mears. See here. So it is genuine.
Some of the issues are that:
1. The CMIP5 collection of climate model simulations use observations up to 2005 and projected forcings thereafter.
2. Recent observations indicate that the greenhouse gas forcing in the 21st century was smaller mainly due to increased light-blocking volcanic sulfates and a weaker-than-expected solar cycle.
3. Climate models cannot accurately predict the timing of natural variation, especially the multidecadal variation associated with the warm and cool phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). The IPO has been negative (cool surface temps) since 1999/2000 even though the ocean has been soaking up heat. The strong warming of the subsurface ocean is a testament to this.
So the issues are the same as surface temperature observation versus naive projections of the near-future forcings. When these are accounted for, the climate models are seen to be doing a very good job of simulating recent surface temperatures - within their obvious limitations.
Clearly RSS has some additional problems, as UAH and the surface temperature data sets are broadly in agreement, even though they are not measuring the same thing (radiative brightness of oxygen in the lower atmosphere vs surface temperature measured by thermometers).
-
william11409 at 16:37 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
If the data are so dodgy why did NOAA put them on its website without warning that the data were unreliable?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:56 PM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Cocoa Jackson@65,
Noam Chomsky also provides many throughly detailed cases of wealthy powerful people deliberately doing unacceptable things to become even wealthier and more powerful. But reading Noam's published work is definitely tougher than reading Naomi's.
And reflecting more on this issue, I would propose that the term 'developed' is an inaccurate or inappropriate term for societies and economies. Thinking back to the SkS article presenting the case that Climate Disruption is a more descriptive term than Cimate Change because it highlights that something disruptive is occurring, not just the ever changing climate, prompts me to consider using the term 'Advanced' as the proper way of evaluating a society or economy. And a more advanced society or economy would be more sustainable including having developed sustainable more improved circumstances for the least fortunate.
That fits with the accurate suggestions that the least developed nations could be most rapidly 'advanced' by adopting sustainable actions rather than transitioning to them through the damaging unsustainable development that the 'developed' societies and economies seem to be stuck in. And those 'developed' societies are stuck because once an unsustainable or damaging activity becomes popular it will be profitable and that combination makes it an anchor against 'advancement' of the society or economy.
If China can actually snap out of fossil fuel addiction soon enough, before it has become too popular or profitable to fight against changing, they could easily leap-frog past the 'developed' nations.
The sad part is that there have been many amazing 'advancements' created within the developed economies that were stifled rather than being encouraged to grow into the better future that could have been developed. And sadder is that some people may point to something impressive that was developed as proof of the 'advancement' of the society without admitting that as amazing as the development was it failed to be popular because less amazing things that were actually very damaging and ultimately unsustainable were able to continue to be more profitable.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:13 PM on 6 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
MEJ... For one, the 33 models in the upper panel are not (to my knowledge) models of TLT. The heavy black line is, the blue-green lines are modeled surface temps.
Next, Dr. Mears does a fine job of answering your questions in the article you linked to.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:00 PM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
I'm curious how Wallace proposes that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been rising and yet ocean is not becoming more acidic.
-
MEJ at 11:54 AM on 6 January 2015Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
Hi
I hope I can get some help understanding the conflict in RSS TLT data.
The satellite data from RSS seems to fall well below all 33 IPCC data models for Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT). As can be observed below. The thick Black line is the averaged RSS satellite data and the light blue lines are the 33 IPCC (TLT) models.
I understand SKS has the Troposphere graph but I would expect the RSS Green line to be well under the Direct Measurement models. As is shown in the RSS website graph above.
The actual response from RSS doesn't seem to nail the exact problem of the lack of correlation.
RSS report on data discrepency
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. -
Jim Eager at 10:44 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
The Japan Meteorological Agency has officially called it:
2014 was by far the hottest year in more than 120 years of record-keeping.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
The "pause" is dead. Long live the "pause.
-
Ian Forrester at 10:13 AM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
This nonsense by Wallace reminds me of the CO2 rubbish of Ernst Beck. I suspect that Wallace will follow Beck and publish in E & E.
-
Slioch at 10:11 AM on 6 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Even without knowing the means whereby "20th Century Ocean pH" was derived, Wallace's graph immediately raises concern in that the pH values he gives vary widely on an annual basis before about 1975, whereas thereafter that variation is small. This is reminiscent of claims of large variability of global atmospheric CO2 prior to 1959, for example by Beck.In both cases, the huge changes in concentration claimed from one year to the next without any plausible mechanism to cause them should immediately suggest the falseness of the reported data.
-
Cocoa Jackson at 09:55 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
William[34] wrote: '...[undeveloped]...countries argue that they should not be expected to forgo fossil fuel exploitation, which is what the...[developed economies]...asks of them, as the development of the West was largely facilitated by the burning of fossil fuels.'
That perspective is interesting and understandable.Which raises the obvious question: Where did anyone read or hear emerging economies demand carbon based fuel explotation?
From this perspective this has been a strategy used by reactionary thinkers to maintain the status quo, what is reality in the recent past and currently is a completely different scenario however.
Multiantional corporations headquartered in developed nations are the ones who wish to expoit these countries and are the ecosystems greatest threat. As they have a history of using local nepotism and corruption of poor public policy due to undeveloped govenace to gain commercial dominace of the carbon energy resources.
It is true undeveloped economies may in the some projected future demand our energy intensive goods and increasingly luxurious lifestyle. And to explot vast resources of fossil fuel. But largely they are happy to get lights, energy for cooking, and the ability to pump clean healthy water. The real world scenario is undeveloped countries have a take up rate of innovative alternative technology that is running at enviable rate.Where there are individual solar power units on homes, businesses are even creating local small grids and other clean alternative energy sources for power production. They are in the position of being ahead of the developed nations with the clean technology ratio when directly compared to the developed economies.
Our challenge in developed economies is those same using the same corporate culture to lobby against individual power units in local small to large business, homes, schools, and social capital services; creating micro grids for small groups, towns and suburbs. Because the economic leverage of energy monopolies would suffer a poor return on efficiencies due to atrophy in their consumer base and subsequent hit to their yearly profit. While enabling individuals and small business with cheap clean energy.
Realistically undeveloped countries have a distinct and increasing advantage over the developed countries who are still chained to the carbon economy. Left on their own the undeveloped countries will continue to seek current technology that is flexible and affordable. As most importantly clean solar power units to give them cheap power for lights, energy for cooking and pumping clean water. Not only that but the exponential growth in cheap alternative energy in these countries will continue to challenge developed economies for goods production. Most noticeably when sophistication in systems develops even further with automation.
In all probability the emerging undeveloped economies will be even more competitive and then their alternative energy technology uptake rate compared to developed nations will really be seen as clever.Our best chance is modelling alternative clean and cheap energy sources, setting a better example toward a dominant alternative energy ratio. While at the same time encouraging international regulation of multinational corporations and the partners with the rule of law to put our ecosystem before ROI or yearly profit.
What are the probabilities this will happen though?
My guess for what it's worth is:
The probabilities are the same as carbon energy corporations not attacking the scientific consensus on acidification and warming of oceans.
... -
dklyer at 07:15 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
That science denial goes along with other hot-button conservative issues seems pretty obvious. I think to those individuals all educated people are pencil neck geeks or effete, intellectual snobs. They hold to the western myth that the book educated feller is pretty worthless around the ranch. Their world view effectively isolates them from any logical argument. We shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with them except they vote.
The anti-science tone of conservative platforms grew out of an organized campaign to push back against environmental regulations. This started with a group called Sage Brush Rebellion that was embraced by Reagan. Reagan’s in-your-face attitude toward the EPA and the environment didn’t go over well. The anti-environmentalists had to be more subtle. Sage Brush Rebellion became Wise Use. The movement got a huge boost when they were joined by the Christian right. Pat Robertson decided that environmentalists were a greater threat than communists. Eventually we got Gingrich, DeLay, Bush and an industry policy of subverting the EPA from within. No EPA actions were brought against any industrial polluter during Bush’s administration. See Robert Kennedy Jr’s book “Crimes Against Nature”.
Cocoa J, there has indeed been an organized attempt to cast doubt on science since the tobacco/cancer thing. It went beyond lobbyists. There is a core group of scientists who used money from Phillip Morris to found a conservative organization dedicated to disputing the science. I have not read “Merchants of Doubt” but I may have to buy a copy and donate it to the local library. The scientists involved don’t see themselves as evil. Two were physicists and one a soil scientist. They are very conservative and consider government regulation as evil. They had a playbook of how to sow doubt and a list of scientists who would take money to say just about anything. The original reason for this was a fear of personal injury suits against tobacco companies. Once the pieces were in place, they were used to claim acid rain was natural, CFC’s were not causing the ozone hole and DDT was harmless (as Tom DeLay said, safer than table salt). These are the same individuals now responsible for most of the denial propaganda and their techniques include pretty vile personal attacks against sincere researchers and journalists.
So now to the main point of this comment---ubrew’s mention of a free market, anti-tax faith. I think that is more germane to the other posts than has been discussed. There is a movement advocating an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism as envisioned by Milton Friedman. The precepts of this are no government regulation, whatsoever, no taxes on corporations, no public service sector, privatization of all public held property, no restrictions on open markets and no wage protections. Friedman’s Chicago school of economics ran computer simulations showing that an extreme form of pure capitalism would solve all the world’s problems including unemployment. Their simulations were a bit naïve to say the least.
After military coups had opened up markets in Brazil and Indonesia, the Chicago school trained Chilean economists and attempted to reverse the leftward movement of Chile. At the time western industrialists were concerned about a tendency of South American countries to nationalize industries such as the Chilean copper mines. Getting a democratic country to voluntarily adopt their extreme form of capitalism turned out to not be practical so the Chicago boys in Chile worked with Pinochet and developed an economic plan to be implemented after a military coup. The economic plan was an abysmal failure. Friedman, in correspondence and personal visits, told Pinochet to keep pushing and that the system would work but it hadn’t been taken far enough. The result, of course, was high unemployment, half of the population pushed below the poverty line and tremendous wealth for a few at the very top. This was followed by similar free market experiments, following military coups, in Argentina and Uruguay. They had the same effect.
We have now seen the failure of extreme free market ideals in Poland and Russia and seen an example of extreme capitalism in the world’s biggest authoritarian regime---China. As the global market is increasingly controlled by an extreme free market ideology, it becomes apparent that the success of the system is measured by healthy corporate profits and a robust stock market and not by the well being of populations or the health of the planet.
I have not begun to read my copy of Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” (the stuff about Friedman and the Southern Cone policies are from her book “Shock Doctrine”) but I believe her point is that climate change is a game changer. The corporations who have thought they won the battle for a global free market realize that addressing the issue of warming will require government regulation. We won’t fix the problem with a global system of dictatorship by wealthy corporations. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the corporate mentality views the coming disruptions as economic opportunities.
I think we will have to have a paradigm shift to a completely new type of economics that does not depend on ever expanding markets. Even reasonable Keynesian economics, applied country by country with international rules guaranteeing similar environmental and worker protections for all countries, probably won't work over the long haul. It would be a good place to start, however.
-
Sea level rise is exaggerated
Earthling - Long term observations show continuing acceleration of SLR, with shorter term (including multidecadal) variation superimposed. For example, IPCC AR5 Chapter 13, which states from observations:
When a 60-year oscillation is modelled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL (twice the quadratic term) computed over 1900–2010 ranges from 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. For comparison, Church and White (2011) estimated the acceleration term to be 0.009 [0.004 to 0.014] mm yr–2 over the 1880–2009 time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.
Even with variations the current rise rate is considerably higher than the numbers you posted:
You seem to be emphasizing (or selecting) short term variations over longer term trends. That's of little use over longer periods, as variations will regress to the mean trend. And I'm still seeing no support for your "sensible adjustments".
-
Earthling at 06:30 AM on 6 January 2015Sea level rise is exaggerated
(DB) & KR - The meaning of sensible adjustments should be obvious, especially as SLR has slowed to around 2.54 mm/yr, as opposed to "accelerating."
ARGO + GRACE finds sea levels rising at 2.31 mm/yr.
Even the up adjusted from 1.59 mm/yr ENVISO rate is 2.96 mm/yr.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:22 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
JH inline at 59. What makes science trustworthy is not that individual scientists have uncommon sense. Rather it is that it relies on a method in which puts claims to a rigorous test both by requiring that the be submitted before people who are very well informed on the topic for criticism (thus ensuring simple gaffes are quickly noticed and corrected) and by making empirical data the standard against which theories must be tested. Individual scientists need not have uncommon sense at all. Newton, for example, although brilliant enough to present us with the laws of motion and gravity, had his gaffes (acceptance of alchemy) weeded out so that the former survive while the latter is scarcely known and not acted on.
One common feature of gac73's "common sense science" is that its practitioners put their views before the general public (who lack the specialist knowledge to detect gaffes) in preference to publishing in the peer reviewed literature. The reason is that they do not want critical review of their ideas, probably because they realize at least subconsiously that it will not stand up to such review.
Moderator Response:[JH] My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Your response is spot on.
-
scaddenp at 05:18 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
gac73 - why would accept as true the ramblings from a utterly wrong source rather than from peer-reviewed science? You are trying to make a case by claiming things that are not true. That you chose to belief such nonsense without any apparent skepticism is fairly concerning. Science is about being informed by data not by values. Being highly skeptical about peer-reviewed science which sits uncomfortably with your preferences while being unskeptical about nonsense which conforms to your desires is just pseudo-skepticism.
Think like a scientist - what data/observations would change your mind?
-
Tom Curtis at 05:15 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I have responded to gac73's claims about CO2 at a more appropriate location. The short skinny is that his source misrepresents the units of data, presenting emissions during singular eruption events as ongoing emissions, and argues that volcanic CO2 can account for the reduced C13 in the atmosphere because volcanoes are depleted in C13 relative to the reference standard, even though they are typically enriched in C13 relative to the atmosphere.
What I want to note is that a common pattern is emerging in gac73's examples of "common sense science". The common feature is that "common sense scientists" leave out, or misrepresent inconvenient data. At least, that has been the case in every example he has presented to date. Given this, my distrust of "common sense science" seems well based. It is merely a name pseudoscientists give to their activities as a means of persuasive definition.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:08 AM on 6 January 2015Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Elsewhere gac73 has linked to some pseudoscientific drivel as an example of "common sense" science. An example of the author (Timothy Casey) of the drivel style is shown by his table of emmissions per annum from various volcanoes. Unfortunately for him, one of his sources (Shinohara, 2008) is available free online. Consulting that work we find that Shinohara lists total emissions for an erruption event, not emissions per annum (see table 3, and discussion in text). While erruptions typically take less than a year to occur, they do not represent ongoing emissions and presenting them as such distorts his source.
One further misrepresentation (among a host) is Casey's is in his discussion of C13 where he suggests volcanic CO2 could account for the the modern rise in CO2. In fact, volcanic CO2 is C13 depleted relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite Standard having a d13C of -4 in most cases, but up to -12 at convergent plate boundaries. For comparison, fossil fuels have a d13C of -27, and the atmosphere has a d13C of -8. That is right. The atmosphere is C13 depleted relative to the standard, and the vast majority of volcanoes are not depleted relative to the atmosphere, ie, volcanic eruptions typically enrich the atmosphere with C13. Casey creates the opposite impression by only noting the C13 depletion relative to the standard reference case, but leaving that technical detail unclear.
(Sources of data for the C13 discussion are noted at my Notes for the OP here, found on my blog.)
-
Tom Curtis at 04:30 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
PhillipeChantreau @57, Casey's interest in "Expanding Earth Theory" is to refute it, which his hardly discreditable. If we accept rebuting nonsense is a reason to dismiss peoples views, then we are self condemned.
Having said that, Casey has stunningly "shown" that there is no greenhouse effect, and what is more, no need to supose one by. The former he manages by completely misrepresenting the science of thermodynamics, and the later by first assuming that the Earth has no albedo and then proposing the novel theory that radiative temperature balances are achieved with the "at the centre of heat capacity" rather than the temperature of the source of the outgoing radiation (as is actually required by thermodynamics). That firmly places him into flat Earth society level kookiness, even if his views on CO2 did not.
-
DSL at 03:24 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Common sense is why critical thinking exists as a concept. Critical thinking is the act of systematically testing common sense.
In this case, anyone who brings up 'common sense' is doing so in error. The key word here is 'common': most people don't know enough about the composition or mechanics of the atmosphere to develop common sense. The common sense approach to climate is "it's cold outside; therefore, global warming is wrong."
Any sort of actual critical thinking on volcanic emissions needs to reconcile the following.
1. human emissions exceed volcanic emissions by between 30x and 100x.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has been stable around 280ppm for the last several thousand years.
3. Atmospheric CO2 has bounced between 180ppm and 300ppm for the last several hundred thousand years.
4. Atmospheric CO2 hasn't risen at the current rate of increase in at least 300 million years.
5. Parallel increases in other volcanic gases have not occurred.
6. The trend in atmospheric C isotope ratio parallels the increase in human emissions.
Guessing the behavior of extremely complex, highly-integrated systems by using simple heuristics is a sure method for being wrong.
Moderator Response:[JH] Perhaps we rely on experts such as climate scientists because they have "uncommon sense." I certainly do that with my personal Physician.
-
wili at 01:31 AM on 6 January 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #1
The 3.4 area of the equatorial Pacific has been at or above the + 0.5 C anomaly threshold for 12 weeks now, so we should be seeing an official declaration of El Nino state any time now from NOAA. The Japanese has arleady called it, and as you point out here, there are already El Nino-like effects being felt in various locations.
Thanks for your ongoing coverage of this event. Any predictions on where things will go from here wrt El Nino??
-
Things I thought were obvious!
Sorry, the Search tool is on the upper left, not upper right, of the SkS web page.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:37 AM on 6 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Following gac73's link goes to a site by one Timoty Casey, who holds a bachelor of science in geology and, among other things, a senior first aid certificate, or something similar. One of his areas of interet includes the expanding earth theory, for which he finds there is less supporting evidence than for continental drift (phew!). Anyone with nothing better to do can go hack at his volcanic ramblings; unfortunately, my own time is already in short supply for much more rewarding activities.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Please note that gac73's comment was off-topic and that further distracting comments and replies have been deleted. No more in that vein please.
-
Things I thought were obvious!
gac73 - There is no reason to think that volcanic activity (at roughly 1% of anthropogenic emissions) is responsible for recent CO2 rise. This is well understood, here is an article from the US Geological Survey on the topic.
Richard Telford has an excellent article on this, noting that there is no recent increase in volcanic activity, and that total volcanic emissions are well constrained by observed helium/CO2 ratios.
You appear to be grasping at (unsupportable) straws here, gac73 - this volcanic claim is nonsense. If you wish to discuss it further, I suggest using the Search tool on the upper right to find the correct thread, such as Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. The same goes for CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician, and for your issues with renewable energy - these are myths, and have been discussed in some detail.
They are off-topic in this thread, which is rather a meta-discussion on motivations for action.
-
gac73 at 23:08 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I don't see why at thos stage first world tax payers should be paying for third world renewable energy infrastructure and particularly compensation for climate change to underdeveloped and or at risk countries predicted to be impacted by climate change.
There is too little known regarding AGW to warrant compensation. For instance at <carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net> research findings reasonably suggest that anthropregenic c02 cannot currently be finger printed merely by interpretation using the Suess effect alone - the depletion of particular carbon isotopes that is currently used to identify anthropregenic c02. It is suggested in research listed that volcanogenic c02 is depleted in the same isotopes as anthroprogenic c02. Research listed also suggests that tonnage of volcanogenic c02 may have been greatly underestimated and in fact may be the dominant contributor to current rises in atmospheric c02 depleted in 13c and 14c. It requires further research in methods to differentiate anthroprogenic c02 from volcanogenic c02.
-
william11409 at 20:51 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
John Brookes@52 Yes, you're right, I am. But I don't think the majority of first world citizens hold this view.
-
dagold at 16:55 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Yes OnePlanet - folks sometimes ask me why I am so interested in climate change in particular (I write climate articles for HUffington Post and Common Dreams) when there are so many human induced examples of suffering. I think it's because, to me, climate change is simply the inexorable result of so many of the "ingredients" that have manifested such suffering along the way: Finally, our peculiar propensities toward short-sightedness, self-centeredness and partisanship are tipping the very life-sustaining systems of the biosphere out of balance. It is increasingly awful and sad and in an impossible-to-look-away-from sense....stunningly fascinating.
-
John Brookes at 16:54 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
William will no doubt be a strong supporter of the proposal that rich nations give poor nations money to help with the transition to a low carbon world.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 5 January 2015A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
Rob @16, XKCD illustrates it best:
Note the insets of Mauna Loa and the Marianas Trench with "accurate" horizontal scale (= same scale for horizontal and vertical).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:14 PM on 5 January 2015A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
Michael Whittemore... Think of the oceans this way: The Pacific Ocean is averages about 3 miles deep, but it's about 8000 miles wide. If the Pacific were a sheet of writing paper the depth of ocean would roughly be the thickness of the paper.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:06 PM on 5 January 20152014 SkS News Bulletin #7: LIMA COP20 / CMP10
wili,
Here is a Rolling Stone article that points out reasons to hopeful about the Lima meetings.
Inside the Lima Climate Change Summit: 5 Reasons to Be Hopeful
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:23 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
dagold@49,
What you mention is similar to what others have pointed out in a very important way.
The action that needs to be taken is to be taken by current day people. And there is no doubt that the result of the required action being taken will be 'at the expense of the opportunity for more benefit by current day people'. The current fatally flawed socioeconomic game has developed many unsustainable damaging activities that have popular support for their unjustified profitability (all those 'externalized costs', consequences that do not have to be paid for by the person benefiting).
Concerns about consequences others in the future face does not enter the personal accounting of many minds. In fact, the way that slave labour has 'developed' in most 'developing nations' to produce cheaper more profitable products to be consumed by people in more developed nations (where people cannot be employed at living wages doing those jobs because that would be less profitable), makes it clear that many people will not even attempt to investigate and account for concerns regarding consequences faced by other people in the same time period, let alone those future ones.
-
Jim Eager at 13:39 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
Knowingly or unkowling, William is just here peddling the Lomborg, Tol and Breakthrough crowd party line that Eli is currently discussing over at Rabett Run. Maybe he should take it over there.
-
dagold at 12:58 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
I am guessing that most agree that we humans are not very acute when it comes to envisioning non-linear change... I am puzzled when (as is often the case) the possibilities of climate-change fueled human extinction are fairly blithely dismissed as they are in this article. Yes, we are an adaptable lot and will likely figure out how to survive in the climate of a 4C or so world if it comes to that. But there are over 400 nuclear sites (this is not including actualy nuclear weaponry) on our globe and some are in highly fragile geo-political areas (India, Pakistan, Israel). How can we possibly assume that the extremely complex and continuous monitoring required will survive in the, not unlikely, mass breakdowns of a 2C, 3C or 4C and beyond world? We can't.
-
ubrew12 at 12:14 PM on 5 January 2015Things I thought were obvious!
gac78@46: "It's common sense to avoid statistical noise and... to respect error margins in data." But that applies as well (and perhaps more forcefully) to economics than to hard science. The (perhaps unnecessary) cost of Climate Change mitigation is variously estimated to be 0.5% to 5% of annual GDP (analysis easily found here at skeptical science). Rough, but hardly earth-shaking. Meanwhile, the cost of inaction starts at 5%, and continues out to 100%. (to quote this article about just sea level rise: "If governments fail to take any action, the annual cost of damage stands to reach... as high as $100 trillion"). So, when you wrap your error bars around that, its quite obvious what our course of action should be, regardless of hurt feelings among the Saudi's and Russians (aye, but 'there's the rub', isn't it?).
Prev 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 Next
