Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 Next
Comments 32301 to 32350:
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:28 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
It would appear that sgbotsford as been taking Dr. Doom seriously. For a full description of how to cook a graph, look here. The description over at Dr. Doom's uses sea ice, but it would also work well for glacier ice - how to adjust the scales to make the change disappear.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:12 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
Related:
"The cumulative glaciers and ice caps (GIC) surface mass balance (SMB) was negative for all regions. The SMB contribution to sea level rise was largest from Alaska and smallest from the Caucasus. On average, the contribution to sea level rise was 0.51 ± 0.16 mm sea level equivalent (SLE) yr−1 for 1979–2009 and ~40% higher (0.71 ± 0.15 mm SLE yr−1) for the last decade, 1999–2009."
-
Tom Curtis at 08:34 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
sgbotsford @3, the two graphs showing cumulative mass balance are both scaled in mm water equivalent, which the article makes plane equates to a loss average thickness of the glacier. Intuitively, with warming, a 50 meter thick glacier* and a 20 meter thick glacier would both lose equivalent amounts of ice, all else being equal. That is, if temperatures rose enough for one to become 1 meter thinner, then we would expect the other to be one meter thinner also, all else being equal. All else is, of course, never equal, so our expectations would be in terms of averages over many glaciers but the point remains.
What we would not expect is that if a glacier just 5 meters thick melted away completely, glaciers 200 meters thick would also melt away completely. Yet that is the expectation encoded in your "non triksy" scaling. Percentage loss is only a meaningful comparison across the world's glaciers if we would expect thick glaciers to take no longer to melt away, and to melt away as completely for small temperature rises, as we would for thin glaciers. Is that really your expectation? If so, what is its basis in physics?
Regardless of your (likely) uninformed expectations, however, the world's glaciologists appear to have the former expectation - born out by years of observation - as is shown by their use of the same scale as is used in the graph above. That being the observed experience, switching to a percentage graph would be tricksy indeed.
* Glaciers are, of course, not of uniform thickness so these thicknesses, but for this discussion, and only to illustrate a logical point, it is convenient to simplify and treat them as though they are.
-
Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
sgbotsford - The standard with graphs is to plot them with the data of interest filling the chart. Since the graphs you are complaining about are entitled Change in mass they are indeed plotted correctly.
Choosing an expanded scale (as you suggest) is often done to be deceptive. One of my favorite pseudo-skeptic graphs of this type displayed global temperature changes in degrees Kelvin, with the axes extending to 0K, or -273.15C. That was indeed tricksy. And, yes, deceptive.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:15 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
sgbotsford,
The scale of the graphs is not biased. And their presnetation is not deceptive.
All of the data fits. And the change of rate of ice loss, becoming steeper, is evident. A deceptive presentation would have been to use something like a log scale in a way that appeared to indicate even more rapid more recent ice loss.
The point is that glacier ice mass is declining and the graphs present that without bias, especially when looked at as part of the reading of the article, which is what was intended.
-
MP3CE at 08:09 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
@mspelto: I had some trouble with your link. Is this one correct ?
-
sgbotsford at 08:07 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
I don't like the way you chose axes for these graphs. Great examples of how to lie with graphs, without fibbing at all.
Here's the issue: The height of the right end is, what, 1/20 of the height of the start of the graph. The unstated visual message is, "There is only a little bit of ice left! Most of it is gone!"
This is the nature of deficit graphs. A more honest graph scales with total thickness, or percent mass lost, with the axis running all the way to zero. Graphed like that, it may show that we have lost 5% or 20% or 1% of the ice.
We must not be tricksy.
-
mspelto at 05:08 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
You are simply not cut out to be a cherry picker. For Switzerland the 6 retreating to 1 advancing is for 2013. In 2012 the ratio was 92 retreating to 1 advancing. For 2011 it was 96 retreating to 1 advancing.
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist?year=2011&submit=Go%21&order=&field=
-
mitch at 03:06 AM on 1 January 2015Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
I have always been impressed how well the cherry-pick works. Please keep putting up graphs like figure 3 for the truly curious and skeptical as well as providing links to good information sources such as WGMS or GLIMS.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:54 AM on 1 January 2015Time is running out on climate denial
jenna... I disagree. I think a modicrum of self-deprecation (finding a silly hook) has a way of disarming people to a message they don't necessarily want to hear.
-
jenna at 02:43 AM on 1 January 2015Time is running out on climate denial
You know, I think Greg Craven's message would be taken more seriously if he weren't wearing all those silly hats that he used in the "How it all ends" series of videos. Why would he do that with such an important message to convey to the average citizen?
Jen
-
Tom Curtis at 00:55 AM on 1 January 2015Time is running out on climate denial
doskachess @6, the fact is you have no idea as to the views ofcontributors and commentors on SkS regarding nuclear war, ebola, over fishing, world terrorism or any of a number of other causes for concern in this world. You have no idea because you have not bothered to ask - you have merely assumed (which contrary to the popular dictum, only makes an "ass" out of "u").
On the basis of that unwarranted assumption you then go onto to dismiss concern about global warming as evidence of credulity. We are, apperently, required to be simpletons who can only imagine one problem in the world at once if we are not to be, in your book, gullible. I am not so gullible as to be swayed by such assinine reasoning.
-
doskachess at 00:37 AM on 1 January 2015Time is running out on climate denial
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml"Hard to understand how we do so little to slow global warming"? Not at all. If you are not concerned about the more immediate possibility of the whole of humanity being wiped out by nuclear weapons (if you are not aware of the reasons for this, that says it all), then how can you expect huge numbers of people to be concerned about the 'sometime in the future' threat of partial destruction of humanity by global warming? Your continued blindness re the dangers of warfare is typical of human willingness to follow a trend, of gullibility in following a religion, rather than to apply intelligence to society's needs.
Moderator Response:[JH] With your first post, you are already skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Daniel Bailey at 22:59 PM on 31 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Far be it for me to even attempt to amplify on Tom's rigorous comments, but I would like to expand on this brief point:
"On runaway greenhouse, there is no doubt. The concensus position is that it is not possible given the current amount of radiation recieved from the Sun."
Hansen himself has repudiated that earlier position of his (WRT a Venus-style runaway):
"With the more realistic physics in the Russell model the runaway water vapor feedback that exists with idealized concepts does not occur. However, the high climate sensitivity has implications for the habitability of the planet, should all fossil fuels actually be burned.
Furthermore, we show that the calculated climate sensitivity is consistent with global temperature and CO2 amounts that are estimated to have existed at earlier times in Earth's history when the planet was ice-free.
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C.
At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.
Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.
The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" — an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants"
[Source LINK]
So no runaway. But Hansen notes that it won't take a runaway to basically completely eradicate civilization as we know it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:09 PM on 31 December 2014Time is running out on climate denial
This type of presentation will not work on a person who understands that the required action is for them to give up potential personal benefit to reduce the magnitude of problems faced by others, particularly others in the future. The 'what happens in the future' boxes are not relevant to them.
Unfortunately there are many people who choose to be motivated by personal interest. Some are even willing to benefit from action they know will be to the detriment of others. They may be inclined to behave better if they believe they could face a consequence in their lifetime, but the consequence needs to be percieved to be likely enough and significant enough to offset the personal benefit and enjoyment they think they might be able to get away with.
Generally, a significant clear consequence is required to offset the desire to gamble on getting away with benefiting. Very little personal consequence is faced by the real trouble makers on this issue and they know it. For them, there is no downside to creating bogus claims that would potentially prolong popular support for their damaging desires.
The socioeconomic system created this problem and has created the wealthy powerful people who fight against the developing better understanding of what is going on and who fight against the required changes of the socio-political-economic system. The following steps are a signficant part of the problem that need to be addressed:
- It will always be cheaper and more profitable to do things in the most damaging and least sustainable way that can be gotten away with. People more willing to try to get away with damaging and unsustainable activity have a competitive advantage.
- The amount of damaging and unsustainable activity grows until the unacceptability of the activity becomes too obvious to deny.
- This leads to after-the-fact attempts to curtail the activity. But developed popularity and profitability make it very difficult to curtail these activities. Wealth accrued by the most profitable will be abused any way it can be gotten away with to prolong the ability to maximize the benefits being obtained.
- The result is a significant divide of a society as the unacceptable pursuers of profit deceptively create popular support for their unacceptable activity. And that illigitimate pursuit of popular support may only fail when the deceptions and damage being caused becomes undeniable. And for many people the damage has to be to them directly. No amount of evidence of unacceptable harm to others will lead them to change their mind.
- The result is a large amount of damaging unsustainable popular and profitable activity in the economy. If a matter like the future consequences of the way the most fortunate enjoy their life can actually be successfully addressed there may be no end to the curtailing of damaging unsustainable activity that have been developed by the obviously flawed socioeconomic system. That means a lot of very wealthy people who have gambled on getting away with damaging unsustainable pursuits would lose their perceived near-future wealth. No amount of consequence to others, or even to themselves, will diminish their desire to fight against the required changes to the socioeconomic system. Those type of people cannot be negotiated with. Those type of people need to be excluded from infuencing the discussions about how to do what needs to be done.
Many powerful and wealthy people do not deserve the wealth and power they have. And they will do everything they can get away with to increase their wealth and power. It is pretty clear what needs to be done. It is also pretty clear that the status quo of global socio-political-economics can be expected to fail to do all that needs to be done as quickly as it needs to get done.
But there is hope, because if the unacceptable among the wealthy really were omnipotent the meeting in Lima to prepare for the meeting in Paris would not have been held.
A sustainable better future for all is possible. But it will be a battle to overcome those who are not interested in that type of development. Continuing to develop the better understanding of climate science is a critical part of the battle. Better understanding eventually prevails. However, everyone should not be expected to rationally accept the better understanding. Some people rationally perceive that they have much to lose if they accept it.
-
From Peru at 08:58 AM on 31 December 2014Time is running out on climate denial
Nota Bene: I forgot to say that the "natural monopolies" are not a general rule, because a lot (actually most) of the fossil fuel production go to commodity markets.
In my country the biggest source of fossil fuels is the Camisea Deposit, where natural gas and liquids are extracted. Most of it is used ifor internal consumption to make electricity, the rest is sold to markets abroad. So here the "monopoly" figure holds for gas.
For mining (mainly metals) there are instead a lot of operations and companies that depend on commodity markets.
-
From Peru at 08:43 AM on 31 December 2014Time is running out on climate denial
I saw this video some years ago.
I can say just that, imagine the "skeptic" worst case scenario is true: global warming is really false and we act to prevent a thing that cannot happen anyway, and as a result:
- The world will turn to cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, accesible to million of people currently off-grid,
- saving millions of lifes from respiratory illnesses due to non-greenhouse pollution (black carbon, sulfates, PM-10, etc.)
- all the economic benefits resulting from that (not to mention the infinite value of human life)...
- Energy will not be a "natural monopoly" (electric companies, oil and gas corporations, etc.) but a free and accesible resource to everyone with the required equipment, an equipment that (unlike the capital intensive equipment for power plants and coal, uranium, oil and gas extraction) has not an increasing price but a rapidly decreasing cost, and can be made at any desired scale, from big wind farms to quite small solar panels.
Well we will have made the world a better place for no reason, nice worst case scenario, isn't it?
-
gws at 08:19 AM on 31 December 2014Time is running out on climate denial
"Although Craven doesn’t look at the probabilities of these worst case scenarios, ..."
Actually, he does. It is in his book though, "What's the Worst that Could Happen?" Easy reading over the holidays, Dana ;-)
-
Andy Skuce at 02:45 AM on 31 December 2014Andy Skuce's AGU Fall Meeting 2014 poster presentation
I will be doing a couple of blogposts shortly on the feasibility of both RCP 2.6 and 8.5. At the risk of giving away the punchline, both pathways are improbable, but for different reasons. But that's how it should be because one of the purposes of modelling is to bracket the range of realistic scenarios. The extreme pathways should be unlikely.
I started looking in more detail at those two pathways about a year ago and I wondered at the time how much the emissions would add to sea level. I calculated rough numbers quite quickly that would have been good enough for blog science, but making this into something rigorous enough to be considered for publication took a lot of additional work.
-
wili at 02:11 AM on 31 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
This seems to be the most relevant passage for what I was confused about:
"One custom in measuring turbulent atmospheric motion is to make all fluxes directed away from the surface to be positive. Examples of such that make sense are thermal energy transfer (within the turbulently-mixed air) and the movement of water vapour away from the surface (AKA evaporation). For shear stress (also known as "momentum transfer"), the actual direction is from the top down: the air is dragging on the earth and transferring momentum from the atmosphere to the surface. So, being downward-directed, it ends up with a negative sign, and more negative means stronger forces."
-
wili at 01:56 AM on 31 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Thanks, Bob. I thought this confusion seemed familiar.
-
BaerbelW at 01:56 AM on 31 December 2014Time is running out on climate denial
To get a more in depth view of Greg Craven's "musings", check out his "How It All Ends" playlist on Youtube. This was prompted by the many comments he received for his "Most terrifying video" linked to in Dana's post.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:41 AM on 31 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Wili:
The same graph of zonal wind stress anomalies was used in this SkS post on Unprecedented Trade WInd Strength...
I gave an explanation of the units in that graph in this comment on that post.
-
Phil at 22:02 PM on 30 December 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hello,
I wonder if someone from the Skeptical Science team or commentators could give their opinion on the linked spreadsheet. (See below)
It takes a different approach to de-bunking arguments such as "no warming for 15 years" or "AGW theory predicts an increase in CO2 should result in an increase in temperature". It does so by taking a qualitative description of some of the factors that affect atmospheric temperatures (CO2 concentration, solar cycles, IPO cycles and volcanic erruptions) and models them as simple algebraic functions.
The intent is use this as de-bunking tool to show that (a) this qualitative description of factors affecting the atmospheric temperature record give rise to plausible looking temperature graphs and (b) the description does indeed predict short periods of "hiatus" or slowing in the temperature record, as well as accelerated periods too. It is not (obviously) an attempt to predict the Earths recent atmospheric temperature changes.
The user can play with the relative strength of the various contributing factors by changing the "factors" in cells H3, I3, J3 and K3. The simple algebraic functions can be examined by looking at the formulae in cells C3-G3
Link here.
Suggestions, improvements, corrections welcome ...
-
wili at 21:29 PM on 30 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
I need help understanding something here: In the second paragraph in the text of the article it says: "during the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) stronger winds mix more heat into the oceans"
But the graphs at figure 3 seem to show stronger winds specifically in the positive phase of the IPO. I have a feeling that 'zonal wind stress anomalies' is measuring something (to me) counterintuitive.
Any help for my bewilderment would be most welcome.
-
wili at 21:01 PM on 30 December 2014Andy Skuce's AGU Fall Meeting 2014 poster presentation
Thanks for this. These are things that I hadn't considered much, especially the contribution of CO2 to sea level rise. Even if they make up a small percentage of the total, it's good to have something like a full accounting, and to have numbers to refer to if someone either assumes the contributions from these sources would be much larger or smaller.
One question: Should we even be including RCP 2.6 in our discussions anymore as anything other than a 'road not taken'? Haven't we pretty well left that pathway a while ago, now? I realize it is still in the IPCC, so I guess that is considered kind of the standard to go by. But it seems to me that constantly including it can give some people the wrong (dangerously wrong, I'd say) idea that it is still a possible future scenario. Is it?
-
chriskoz at 12:45 PM on 30 December 2014Skeptical Science at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
How about the talk:
hemispheric asymmetry in volcanic forcing
by Chris Colose? Why isn't it listed here among SkS presenters?
The talks by John & Andy have been summarised herein SkS, good to see.
However I'd be very interested in Chris' talk at AGU. Any plans to bring it in for SkS readers?
-
Quick at 09:44 AM on 30 December 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
Just caught this on Yahoo earlier:
Moderator Response:[DB] Link truncated.
-
MA Rodger at 04:47 AM on 30 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
From Peru @8.
The most up-to-date IPO data I know of is the most recent of Folland's quarterly data which is up to mid-2008. (Note that England et al (2014) FIg 1a is not a plot of IPO but a plot of annual global temperatures with annotated IPO phases.)
If you are after spotting climate shifts there is a quartet of graphics which show equitorial Pacific SST, SL & wind stress 1980-to-date on this NOAA-NCEP page (the 8th set down) that you might find useful. A graphics package would easily stitch them all together into one image.
-
dvaytw at 00:20 AM on 30 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
Oh man, CBDunkerson, man did you just help me put egg on somebody's face. Much appreciated.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:52 PM on 29 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
dvaytw, AR5 WGI Chapter 5 pages 409, 413, and 419 all show different versions of holocene temperature reconstructions... aka, 'the hockey stick'.
They may be looking specifically for the work of Michael Mann... which is referenced extensively throughout Chapter 5. Just search on ' Mann' in the text of the chapter. In figure 5.7, the hockey sticks on page 409, the four reconstructions with labels starting with 'Ma' (e.g. 'Ma09rem') are from Mann's work.
The only way of interpreting the claim to be 'correct' might be that Mann's original 1998 'hockey stick' is not included... having since been superceded by subsequent work by Mann and others. So, to rephrase, 'The original hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5! Instead, they used several of the newer ones which reach the same conclusions with even more conclusive data.'
-
dvaytw at 21:40 PM on 29 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
Hey guys - would anyone be so kind as tell me or point me to the appropriate response to the denialist talking point, "The hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5!"
-
From Peru at 10:36 AM on 29 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Where can I found the data timeseries (updated up to now) showing the IPO and Trade Wind timeseries used in the England et al. (2014) paper?
Can they be found at NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, etc.?
I will find interesting to see the finer details of those indices. If there are monthly data, the possible shift in climate may be visible in them.
-
Alexandre at 05:02 AM on 29 December 2014It's not bad
Link to Nyegaard 2007 is broken. I even tried to google it, but there's too little information to begin with. If someone could provide a new link, or at least more info (like the name of the paper), it would be greatly appreciated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 29 December 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #7: LIMA COP20 / CMP10
Wili,
As reluctant as I am to consider MSM reports on this issue to be relatively unbiased I was pleasantly surprised by some of the BBC reporting. The following pair of reports seem to be reasoanbly balanced presentations of what happened. They do not necessarily add new information to the set of articles already identified in this post, but they seem to be fairly comprehensive summaries that indicate the Lima talks were a clear step in the right direction.
UN members agree deal at Lima climate talks
UN climate deal in Peru ends historic North-South split
Nothing I saw reported in Canadian MSM came close to being a full reasonably balanced presnetation. They all seemed to want to claim it 'failed' to result in any meaningful action toward 2015 commitments in Paris to effectively reduce CO2 emissions.
-
wili at 01:36 AM on 29 December 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #7: LIMA COP20 / CMP10
Thanks for these again.
And again, I know you're all overworked volunteers, but I would still love it if one or more of you could, however briefly, give us your general take on these negotiations--were they a huge step backward as some seem to be saying, or a modest step forward, or some kind of side-ways Texas Two Step??
-
wili at 07:04 AM on 28 December 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52B
You might add this one to the queue:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:25 AM on 27 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights drew attention to this video in which Hansen says (among other things) that "If we allow emissions to continue at a high rate ...":
"On the long run, if that really happened, ... over centuries we could actually get a runaway greenhouse effect"(1:16)
He later says:
"But with continued rapid increase in greenhouse gases, you could melt the ice sheets in less than a century"(3:40)
With regard to the later claim, it is implicit in his view that the rate of sea level rise due to melting ice sheets could double every decade (from which comes his claim of a potential 5 meter sea level rise this century (see my comment @81). If that doubling of sea level rise due to melting ice continued to 2135, you would have a melting of over 70 meters of sea level - something requiring the melting of all major ice sheets. Even switching to a linear melt in 2110 results in a complete melting of the (then remaining) ice sheets within 100 years, ie, by 2210. So, the claim is not new, and is not a claim about what could happen in this century. It is, however, a claim about what could happen in some not to distantly future century.
Nor is his claim about the potential (not certainty) of a runaway greenhouse effect new to him. Furthermore, unlike the claims about ice melt, it is a claim he is entitled to make in one respect in that he certainly has the relevent expertise to have an opinion on the subject. Nearly half of his pre-1981 publications are on aspects of the greenhouse effect on Venus.
Like Roger Knights, however, I do consider these claims to be alarmist.
Before progressing, I should define my terms. By "alarmist" I mean a view on the pessimistic side of the scientific concensus. The scientific concensus, in turn, is that view held by 90% plus of scientists with the relevant expertise. Note that the consensus need not be a singular view. Thus on climate sensitivity, the consensus is not that the (central estimate of the) ECS is 3, but that it lies between approximately 1.5 and 4.5. The range is given by the likely range of the IPCC (ie, the 66% confidence interval) because the conjoint uncertainty estimate must extend beyond range of the central estimates. Therefore the concensus range is less than the 90% uncertainty interval given by the IPCC (or in the case of ECS, not actually given).
The range of the concensus position need not be reducible to a simple numerical range, as is the case with ECS. The consensus view on clathrates (as I understand it) centers around two views - one that clathrates are, and one that they are not a serious threat. The former is associated with certain experts on methane in the Arctic, and the latter in particular with modellers of the carbon cycle. It follows that the concensus position on clathrates is a diffuse position consisting in what is agreed by both sides of the dispute rather than a more precise statement such as could be obtained from one side or the other.
So, having thus defined alarmism (and the concensus), what of Hansen's views.
On runaway greenhouse, there is no doubt. The concensus position is that it is not possible given the current amount of radiation recieved from the Sun. Note that that is not absolutely certain. If the Earth's albedo was 0.05, for instance, the Sun would provide enough energy for a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. Consistent with this, Hansen considers the presumed large reduction in albedo from a melting of the ice sheets a necessary precondition for runaway greenhouse. Further, there is uncertainty about the strength of the combined water vapour feedback (water vapour plus lapse rate feedbacks). If it is in the upper end of the consensus range, a higher albedo is consistent with a runaway greenhouse effect - though not an albedo equivalent to the current value. Therefore it is not self evident that Hansen's view is unreasonable, and certainly not that it is pseudo-scientific. It is, however, on the extreme margin of scientific thinking and "alarmist".
Likewise his opinion about the doubling every decade of the sea level rise due to ice sheet melt is clearly in disagreement with the scientific concensus. That consensus is that even with ongoing emissions sufficient to melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet (which itself would take centuries), the actual melting of the ice sheet would take many centuries and likely several thousand years. A time to melt all the ice sheets of 500 years would not be clearly outside the consensus, nor yet a time of 10 thousand years. But 100 years is clearly so.
So, Hansen on at least two points, is alarmist. As it happens, SFAIK, he is only alarmist on those two points and the potential effect of the Alberta tar sands. On other points he tends to be very close to the scientific concensus.
What is interesting, however, is what is implicit in the criticism of his views as "alarmist". Absent a clear comparison with consensus positions it is mere name calling. With that comparison, it suggests that scientist should restrict themselve in public communication to the consensus position - or at least indicate where they disagree with the consensus position, and why. The later should include a clear indication as to why the consensus position is reasonable, followed by discussion of why it is disagreed with. Further, there is not scientific difference between disagreeing with the concensus on the plus or minus side. So, criticism of Hansen as "alarmist" is mere name calling if it is not paired with criticism of Lindzen, and of Spencer and Christy for being (even further) outside the scientific consensus. (Indeed, I would go further in their cases in that they have ventured into the realm of pseudo-science on several occasions, with the possible exception of Spencer.)
I do not expect Roger Knights to criticize the leading "skeptical" scientists as pseudo-scientists. As he pushes the "alarmist" line, however, I do expect him to criticize them (and Watts) for not being within the consensus.
Or are we to understand by his criticisms that they are mere name calling.
-
Synapsid at 08:47 AM on 27 December 2014Scientists in focus – Susan Wijffels and Rebecca Cowley
"Global warming" is, in truth, "Ocean warming."
Excellent! This needs to be put out widely indeed.
I'm going to steal it.
-
wili at 07:41 AM on 27 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
Thanks again, OPOF. "This most recent spurt of strong negative SOI has already subsided to near zero daily values" I just saw that, too. Pretty amazing to me that it can change that rapidly day to day. I hadn't paid that much attention to this index before. Good reason to keep most of the focus on those longer-term averages.
Looking at the graph for 3.4 values, I'm struck by the apparent pattern of ever rising waves--from barely touching +.5 a few months ago, to now staying above it for almost three months (or as you say 2 three-month periods), to projections for next summer of values well above .5. It makes me wonder if we are due for a series of ever worsening El Ninos in immediate upcoming months and years. -
John Hartz at 04:21 AM on 27 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
[JH] Moderator's Comment
Roger Knights:
Your most recent posts constituted sloganeering and were deleted. In addition, I have recommended that your posting privilege be rescinded.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:44 AM on 27 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
wili,
The recent monthly SOI values (here) that the SOI bar-graph is based on show the 30 day average being below -8 for October and November. However, the 90 day average in the table of preliminary SOI daily values has not yet reached -8.
This most recent spurt of strong negative SOI has already subsided to near zero daily values but it was a very strong negative SOI and was sustained for 2 days.
The related surface temperature of the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean is also definitely into the El Nino range (more than 0.5 C above the baseline 30 year average). The NOAA presentation of monthy values here shows that the most recent 3 month average (SON) of the Nino 3.4 region was 0.5 C. And the value for the month of November and the current weekly value for the Nino 3.4 here are 0.9 C, so the OND value will be warmer than 0.5. That is still only the second 3 month average at 0.5 C or warmer. Five consecutive 3-month averages at or above 0.5 C would be highlighted in the NOAA ONI as a noteable El Nino (indicated by the set of values being Red).
It will be interesting to see how the pairing of the stronger El Nino supporting SOI and Nino 3.4 values affect the global averages surface temperatures in the early part of 2015 compared to the start of 2014.
-
R. Gates at 02:39 AM on 27 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
I am wondering about the relationship between ocean heat content and the IPO? As ocean heat content has been increasing (down to 2000m) quite steadily for many decades, it seems the relationship to the IPO is one that the ocean heat content increases even faster when the IPO is negative, but is always increasing even in positive IPO periods. Only the Pinatubo eruption seemed to have an impact on halting the ocean heat content rise for a brief period.
-
MA Rodger at 00:11 AM on 27 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
I agree with Wol. His time here is probably best ended. I had a little difficulty not 'flaming' a reply to his input @10, a view he tries to justify @21 with the long-defunct theorising of Thomas Malthus and the naive observation that "it is just not conceivable that the third world will not aspire to a higher standard of living, with all the additional consumption / emissions this entails."
It's rather difficult to presently see a return to the imperial days of old as a template for AGW mitigation. Is there any logic whatever in sending off the 'gunboats' to confiscate all the mobile phones etc from the citizens of nations with below average wealth, given a fair proportion of those nations are in places over-run by pleasure-seeking tourists from the wealthier parts of the world. And to suggest advancement of such poorer societies should be stopped because the wealther part of the world is wrecking the global environment becomes eye-poppingly bad when it is remembered that the wealthier parts would not themselves be similarly constrained and further when the main damage of that environmental wrecking is being meted out on the areas of the world where predominantly society is poor.
So I agree with Wol. The debate he wants is not appropriate here, although I note that Wol @21 appears not to appreciate why.
-
michael sweet at 23:55 PM on 26 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
Wol,
There are many people in the world who do not aspire to the Western consumption model. Have you ever spent time in the third world talking to people in their houses? I have spent hundreds of hours talking to people across the South Pacific. While they would like to have the goods westerners have, often they prefer to have less goods so that they can spend more time with their friends. Look at how much time off people have in Europe and Australia compared to the USA. The Europeans sacrifice a certain amount of consumption to obtain more time off. The real world situation is much more complicated than your description of everyone wants to consume more.
My wife and I are planning on downsizing our consumption by moving into a small boat to live. We will have less goods but much more time to visit friends. We prefer this lifestyle (given up while our children attended school) and would have downsized last year except for health issues with our daughter. There are advantages to having less. Don't believe all the advertisements you see on television.
-
My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
Wol - The UN figures we'll peak at about 10B near 2100, although I've seen estimates all low as 8.5B peaking in 2025 (based on dropping birth rates in China and elsewhere). There are multiple influences, from women's literacy to birth control to increasing city living rather than agricultural, but I suspect that population growth won't be our most limiting factor for the future.
Rather, limited energy availability and pollution (unless there are substantial increases in the rate of renewable energy adoption), water, and the effects of climate change on primary agricultural capacity - possibly declining below sustainable levels for even those projected populations. Those are, IMO, more pressing concerns.
-
Wol at 12:13 PM on 26 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
(Reply to moderator: unable to cut and paste his comment.)
Reference my post about population numbers and the moderator's reply, it is probably time that I unsubscribed from this site.
It seems an entirely valid and logical point to make, that for example doubling a population and halving its consumption leaves, all else being equal, no difference in consumption or indeed emissions.
Added to that, it is just not conceivable that the third world will not aspire to a higher standard of living, with all the additional consumption / emissions this entails.
Several subsequent posts entirely miss my point. Of *course* I was not implying that we in the West have anything like a hair shirt existence. What I was, and am, saying is that a sustainable population on a planet is inextricably linked to its consumption pattern. If a population of say 2Bn on planet earth is sustainable at the West's current standard of living (remember, I am plucking figures out of the air here: it's the principle that concerns me) it follows that 4Bn should have half that standard, and so on.
At some point the numbers would then show that a certain population level would only be long term sustainable if we all went into subsistence mode. Hair shirt, if you like.
Ignoring this fundamental, Malthusian, fact makes the whole climate change issue a bit pointless in some respects - and even a bit like the deniers' argument that technology will somehow come up with a magical solution.
As a layman with an intense interest in the scientific method, an abhorrence of pseudo science and having followed the climate question for some forty years, I can only say that I find the moderator's put-down unhelpful to those who accept the case for AGW. If one is not to be allowed to question the basic parameters of the climate "debate" unless one is involved in one of the relevant sciences then please remove my name from those who can post.
Moderator Response:[JH] Now you are skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition - which is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. You have made your points. It is time for you to move on.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
michael sweet @94, a couple of points.
First, on see level rise it is well worth looking at the blog posts by Aslak Grinsted, particularly
his view in 2009, his update of that view in 2013 in light of three recent papers; and his view on the rate of sea level rise. From those pages, his 2009 graph is very interesting and does not require major modification in light of the later papers:
This plots expected sea level rise relative to projected long term global temperature anomalies. As we are already committed to somewhere between 6 and 25 meters of sea level rise, with a mean estimate of about 12 meters (values judged by eye from the graph).
All three recent papers suggest the increase in sea level with temperature will be fairly flat for a given temperature range, and then ramp up suddenly. The disagree, however, about the temperature range. The empirical data suggests greater than 20 meters of sea level rise even for a 2 C rise in temperature. The model based data suggests we will not reach 20 meters even at about 5 C. Grinsted's take is that:
"At 2°C (383 ppm) we will lose the Greenland ice sheet. We do not really know how strongly the West Antarctic will respond. There is evidence of a large response during the last interglacial though (e.g. this).
At 4°C (525 ppm) then we are pretty much committed to an eventual complete deglaciation of both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet.
At 6°C (720 ppm) we may be committed to an ice free planet."On short term sea level rise, these are his semi-empirical predictions, with uncertainties:
The second point is that projecting Earth System Sensitivity, or even Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity on current CO2 levels is ill advised as the CO2 levels will reduce if we eliminate all net greenhouse emissions. That is big if, as even 5% of emissions is likely to maintain levels at a constant value, and any higher than that (and certainly if higher than 10%) will result in an ongoing increase. I suspect, however, that if we can transition to a renewable energy economy, zero net emissions is feasible provided we keep in mind that it is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
-
michael sweet at 09:19 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Tom,
I noticed on review that I left out some adjustments in my data on temperature.
1) The temperature data is from Antarctia and the IPCC estimate is global. Antarctic temperatures are expected to raise at least double the global average so 10C instead of 5C.
2) The IPCC data is calculated using the Climate Sensitivity not the Earth system sensitivity. This adds another 50-100% to the rise. This makes the expected final rise 15-20C. It would be several hundred years (or thousand) to equilibrum of the Earth System Sensivity. Current temperatures are probably slightly below the highest spike in the record (the temperature scale is 0-4C to compare to 15C increase expected). Hansen's estimate was certainly reasonable. Jason Box's estimates of sea level rise are comparable to this fingernail calculation (sea level rise is proportional to temperature). Perhaps Roger can find a 2,000% error in my calculations or Dr. Box's (and supply a citation). RPC 2.6 is only a little higher than the past 3 million year estimate.
When you do this calculation the change is unbelievable! How can we even be discussing such a change? Ditto with Box's sea level rise of 23 meters from CO2 already in the atmosphere!!
It might be interesting to have a dedicated thread for poetry. I am sure others could write interesting odes. I don't think we need an OP.
-
sgbotsford at 08:45 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
One of the problems with the Climate crisis is that slow motion that it occurs. Watching glaciers move is positively speedy.
In watching my own attitudes to things, for many things if it's more than 3 years to a consequence it doesn't exist.
This changes for individuals at certain times. E.g. when you have kids, then 20 years for certain topics of interest is normal.
One of the questions to ask people: "How far in the future should we plan? And then guide them through a few scenarios:
- Should cities buy up right of way for mass transit and freeways that won't be needed for 50 years. How about 10 years?
- Your town is a mining town. At the present technology the mine will run out of ore in 15 years. As city counselor and as a business man with various inventments what do you think your city should be doing regarding things that are beyond the end of your 3 year term?
- A new medical treatment for obesity comes out. It works *really* well for about half the population. The other half it kills over the span of 5 years. There is no certain way to tell the people apart until symptoms show. What are the implications for your town?
This is training in taking the long view. Most people feel far more connected, more able to affect decisions, to the local comunity than to the nation.
Initially all the scenarios should NOT work in the field of climate. Much of the scenario development stresses what the research has found out. Get them to make decisions based on 'best guess' of what's going on now.
After a time of this summarize the methods used. Talk to the people who should know. Talk about how to trust what they say. If there are numbers, crank the numbers. Make the best decision you can, based on the current knowledge. Start to act on that decision.
Now bring in one that has definite pre-set attititudes. Point out where they depart from the decision model they just used.
At this point don't try to convince them they are wrong. Try to convince them to use the model that seems to work so well.
Prev 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 Next
