Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 Next
Comments 33401 to 33450:
-
Tom Curtis at 15:08 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny @166, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere initially decreases the outgoing LWIR. Changes must then occur at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere to either decrease incoming SW radiation, or increase outgoing LWIR radiation until the two again match, reestablishing equilbrium. Until that occurs, the imbalance will result in additional energy being stored in the Earth's surface systems which will result in rising temperatures. Further, raising surface temperatures is the simplest and most direct means restore the balance. Further, for any other change than raising temperatures to occur, some physical change at the Earth's surface must occur to drive that change, and as that physical change is driven by the imbalance (otherwise the Earth would not reestablish equilibrium), the physical change that drives the other changes will be a change in temperature. Ergo, increasing CO2 will raise temperatures. Tracing the most obvious physical pathways show that it will rise by a significant amount (as do other direct observations, and the paleo record).
-
Donny at 15:01 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Question. ... will outgoing LWIR decrease as co2 increases? ???.... producing the greenhouse effect?
-
Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @31, here is another (less tendentious) definition of pollutant for you:
"In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria: (1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic). (2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem. (3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity. (4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal."
As you say, laws can be changed. Therefore despite the fact that CO2 meets standard dictionary definitions of "pollutant", and is so considered by the EPA and the Supreme Court, it really comes down to whether or not CO2 emission causes harm. What is obliquely claimed by those to claim CO2 is not a pollutant is that CO2 does not harm; whereas those who claim it is are obliquely asserting that it is. If, however, that is what you want to debate, don't hide it behind an apparent discussion of semantics. Argue the case directly on the appropriate thread, preferably after reading the articles involved and related comments.
-
Donny at 14:39 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Rob you are funny. ... you say laws aren't fluid I say they are. ... but it's me that is making something up? At least have a fair discussion.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Please everybody, lets get the discussion back to a less personal tone and keep the discussion factual. Any further content-free comments, such as this one, will be deleted.
-
Donny at 14:37 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Phil. ... we can't buy our way into more climate certainty..... only time can give us that.
-
Donny at 14:33 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Or we could take Phils money. .... this is exactly what I am talking about. ... people wanting other people to pay. Guess what Phil if the fossil fuel companies are making too much money then make it easier for more competition.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:33 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... "I thought you said it didn't matter if co2 was a pollutant or not."
That's not what I said. What I said was, "There is nothing specific that says they 'only regulate pollutants.'"
My mistake was thinking that the endangerment finding was separate from the definition of "pollutant." Tom and the EPA page showed I was incorrect.
And, no, law and science are not that fluid. You're making stuff up again just to suit your purposes.
-
Donny at 14:28 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
If we reduce our co2 emissions by reducing the amount of energy we use and try and institute new energy forms.... there will be sacrifices. ... fish with hydroelectric dams.... birds and wind mills. ... temperature related deaths will increase. I know people in my area are all talk... they don't actually want to sacrifice when it comes down to it.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:27 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
"take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations."
There's a load of dung if I ever saw one. That would disappoint skeptics, who are the ones claiming that the science isn't settled and that we need more research. How about diverting 20% of fossil fue companies net profits? Much more efficient, no doubt.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:24 PM on 29 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj,
My apologies if the way I presented my comment gave you that impression.
I am well aware "the science is settled" is quoted out of context from a speech he gave, but it might also be quoted out of context from one of his books. I was asking about the last line of your comment @43 "It also undermines Gores book, which is very good." I am genuinely interested to know which book you are referring to because I have read many but not all of them.
My addition of his book 'The Assault on Reason" was meant to build on your point, not critique it.
I am genuinely interested in feedback about what I presented. It may seem semi-religious and in many ways I consider it to be a set of values to be guided by. I developed my understanding of these values from the learnings shared by so many who have written in different ways about the improved understanding that is constantly being developed. There is a growing litany of reports regarding the 'harmful activities that have developed and become popular and profitable even though they are ultimately unsustainable and they are clearly causing harmful consequences for people who are not enjoying the benefits'.
-
Donny at 14:22 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Laws are funny things and so is evidence. ... both more fluid than you might think. Rob.... I thought you said it didn't matter if co2 was a pollutant or not. ..
-
Donny at 14:18 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 19.... take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations. Let's just assume that we are going to have a .1 or .2 per decade temperature rise and start solving the issue.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:17 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... The EPA's endangerment findings are there to read. You can disagree but they do have an overwhelming body of science and the full weight of law on their side.
-
Donny at 14:13 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom.... I know that. .... this is the reason I brought it up. I disagree with their take on co2.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:44 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Interesting. EPA Carbon Pollution Standards.
It's seems that Tom is right once again. The EPA regulates CO2 as a "pollutant."
-
Tom Curtis at 13:30 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @17:
"pollutant (p-ltnt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."Further, as you relate the question to the EPA, the EPA is required by legislation to regulate noise pollution, and gases that destroy ozone in the stratosphere, neither of which are pollutants in the sense that you would have it. Clearly, therefore, your sense of the word is inapplicable to the EPA. Finally, the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court found that CO2 was a pollutant in the sense required by the EPA. Ergo you are also wrong in law.
-
scaddenp at 13:29 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny, I mean methods aimed at reducing CO2 emissions - political actions that would have this result.
I agree that interpretation of an Act means semantics, but what he said didnt mention EPA and was taking in general about the lessons learnt from mitigating hazards versus clean up later. If one Act isnt up to it, then government needs to write one that will or amend it.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:14 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... The EPA is tasked with the protection of human health and the environment. There is nothing specific that says they "only regulate pollutants."
There is a large series of document written regarding the EPA's endangerment findings should you care to be interested.
-
Donny at 13:04 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 15.... mitigate what?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @298, let me first note how silly I think it for people who, having observed an effect that could alter the climate, then automatically assume it is more important than the enhanced greenhouse effect without comparison. In this case Steel concludes is essay for a hypothesis he has not presented for peer review, by saying:
"Ockham’s razor demands that the CSI theory be accepted as the working hypothesis for observed climate change, because it is the simplest explanation and is undoubtedly valid (unless someone can demonstrate that my calculations are wrong, along with those made using Berger’s software code) although the AGW mechanism is certainly a (smaller) contributing factor."
As it happens, he is claiming AGW is a smaller contributing factor because the difference in his calculation sprind insolation (on a particular day) over a 1000 years is greater than the radiative forcing over the last 250 years. The effect he calculates appears, however, to be linear over time. From his figures, the effect of the last 250 years is 0.6 W/m^2 on that particular day, ie, less than a third of the radiative forcing over that period. What is more, the effect is not an annual effect (as is the case with the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases). In fact, the total effect sums to zero over the course of the year so that the net forcing from his mechanism is in fact zero. Unless you wish to entertain a change in the laws of thermodynamics so that they only apply on the spring equinox, that alone refutes his conjecture.
Further, his theory does not even match the evidence. As noted, his theory predicts a near linear change over the last thousand years. Temperatures, however, have on average declined over the first 750 of those years - something AGW "skeptics" are famed for noting. The transition from the MWP to the LIA is a direct observational refutation of his theory. So also is the southern hemisphere warming which he is determined to neglect but which is certainly occurring.
That, however, may not be the worst part of his theory. He makes a very big point of the fact that Berger (1978), from whom he draws his algorithms, uses the equinoctial method to calculate daily insolation in preparing his daily insolation tables, often used by climate scientists. Berger, however, does not state that. He defines a method for determining the insolation using the equinoctial method, then provides formula to calculate the calendar day method (see section 3 of Berger 1978). That being the case, the majority of the effect Steel finds may simply be due to his using the wrong method, and therefore introducing a drift into his calendar. That is, he may be making the same error he accuses climate scientists of.
Regardless, his refusal to calculate a total year energy balance, inflation of the effect by using unequal comparison times, and neglecting of straightforward empirical disagreements with his theory render it an example of pseudo-science, not science. I would not waste my time on it.
-
Donny at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 14.... and why do you think he was making that point after reading this article? It's not at all semantics. The EPA can only regulate pollutants.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar @23, the total heat generated by condensation of water vapour is matched by the total heat absorbed by the same water vapour evaporating in the first place. As the absolute humidity is rising with rising temperatures, that the atmospheric water vapour has been a net absorber of heat over the last few decades, slowing down the pace of global warming rather than accelerating it - at least as regards its heat capacity. (Obviously the increase in water vapour increases the water vapour greenhouse effect, an important feedback that means anthropogenic global warming will raise temperatures more overall than would otherwise have been the case.
-
scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny, I notice you havent taken my earlier challenge to say what mitigation measures you would entertain. I have little interest in arguing with someone whose position on climate is based on ideology rather than data.
-
scaddenp at 12:02 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
This is irrelevant to Longjohn's point. His point is that history is full of examples where it would have been cheaper to mitigate hazards (be it pollution or whatever) rather than clean up afterwards. Arguments about what is a pollutants is just semantics - something to entertain lawyers not scientists.
-
Donny at 11:07 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Asbestos is harmful in any dose. Heat and co2 are required to live. Should water be considered a pollutant since it too is harmful in huge amounts?
-
From Peru at 10:50 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny: Heat is not pollution? Think again:
"Globally, in 2005, this anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) was +0.028 W/m2, or only about 1% of the energy flux being added to Earth because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The spatial distribution of AHF, derived from national energy-use data and population density, is shown to the right. Although small globally, current AHF averaged over the continental United States and western Europe is, respectively, +0.39 and +0.68 W/m2, or up to 40% of the local forcing from carbon dioxide. A projection of 2040 AHF is shown in the bottom panel."
I short words: today this is a local pollution problem, but still is only a tiny part of the global warming problem. However, given our current energy consumption/production growth rate, in a few decades it will be serious regional problem and a moderate global one.
In a few centuries it may be worse than the greenhouse gas pollution, and eventually even endanger the habitability of the planet, because, unlike the enhanced greenhouse effect, there are no natural limits to how big it may become provided an abundant nonrenewable energy source (like nuclear fusion) becomes avaivable.
-
Ingvar at 10:44 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Thank you all. You have plugged a few holes for me and I am grateful for your comment. I had a brief look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html and although this is not in this forum, but interesting.
Rain is measured and can be quantified because official raingauges are models of a template metre-square box in which a millimetre yields one litre. Thus over 1,000 sq metres you have one tonne of water that was water vapour. There is a lot of heat released into space with each mm.
Moderator Response:[DB] You comment is off-topic in this thread. As Tom Dayton notes, see the post Water Vapor Is the Most Powerful Greenhouse Gas, and make any further comments on that topic there, not here. Subsequent off-topic comments in this thread will be deleted.
-
scaddenp at 10:09 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Both are hazardous to human well-being, if in very different ways and concentrations.
While the links between changing climate and things like hurricanes and jetstream patterns are controversial, linking AGW to increased risk of drought, heatwaves and enhanced precipitation is certainly not. If you disagree, present some evidence.
-
karly at 09:55 AM on 29 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Physicist and space scientist Dr. Duncan Steel has recently discussed how well-known variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun result in variations in the solar flux received at different latitudes and at different times of year, which are in accord with observed climate changes, independent of effects due to anthropogenic global warming. Dr. Steel finds that the most substantial variations are occurring at high latitudes across spring: in the northern hemisphere the spring insolation is increasing markedly, while in the southern hemisphere the insolation across austral spring is reducing. In itself this might be anticipated to result in what is actually observed: record melting of ice and snow cover in the Arctic, while there is year-on-year growth of Antarctic sea ice. See: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/996. Dr. Steel seeks independent confirmation of his calculations, and welcomes comments, but only on the substantive subject of how Earth’s shifting orbit is affecting the insolation received at different latitudes and different times of year in the present epoch.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Moderator's comment @18, thankyou. I had found the earlier paper by Rothrock et al, 1999 who, based on submarine data from the late 50s to early 70s concluded that the ice draft at the end of the melt season had decreased by 1.3 meters over that period. That, of course, is direct evidence rebuting ingvaar's claim.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
scaddenp @20, it appears that you are correct. The history of the Skate compiled by J D Jensen prior to the Skate photos were used to generate fake controversy about ice thickness definitely identifies the 1959 surfacing as the first at the North Pole. That appears to be confirmed by the fact that in their summary of the accomplishments of Calvert (the Skate's commander), the US Navy mentions surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, but not an earlier (more significant had it existed) surfacing.
Further, in January, 1959, the US Navies "All Hands" magazine described the previous years polar operations as follows:
"Although Nautilus was the first to make the polar underseas transit, uss Skate, SS (N) 578, wasted no time in making a visit to the North Pole. In so doing, moreover, Skate became the first submarine to conduct extensive operations in the polar area. With CDR James Calvert, USN, as CO, Skate (with a crew of 10 officers, 87 enlisted men and nine civilian technicians aboard) reached the North Pole on 11 August, just eight days after Nautilus broke the ice."
An earlier report (October, 1958) read:
"uss Skate, SS(N)578, duplicated the feat of Nautilus 11 August by successfully crossing the North Pole while exploring under-sea routes beneath the polar ice cap. However, the boat did not reach the Pacific. Skate, second smallest of the Navy's four atomic submarines, left New London, Conn., 30 July, carrying a crew of 10 oficers, 87 enlisted men and nine civilian technicians. The sub crossed the Pole and surfaced at a break in the ice 40 miles away to report its success by radio."
For her 1959 voyage, however, it is reported (July, 1959) that:
"Just 10 days after leaving her home port, Skate went under the Arctic ice. Three days later-on 17 March-she surfaced in the ice for the third time, exactly at the North Pole."
Having conceded the point, however, I will note that surfacing just 40 miles from the pole rather than precisely at the pole makes no scientific difference, ie, if ingvaar's point were valid if the Skate surfaced precisely at the pole, it would be equally valid given that it surfaced a mere 40 miles from it.
-
Donny at 09:38 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Longjohn. .. there is a huge difference between co2 and asbestos. CO2 is not pollution. Neither is heat.
-
Old Mole at 07:33 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
No offense, Dana, but your article seems to give the impression that McConnell's Democratic opponent embraces the science, which is certainly not the case.
"President Obama’s new EPA rule is more proof that Washington isn’t working for Kentucky. Coal keeps the lights on in the Commonwealth, providing a way for thousands of Kentuckians to put food on their tables. When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the President’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.”
Any politician advocating for tougher EPA regulations in Kentucky couldn't get elected dogcatcher, and running briskly away from the President's position (which is pretty weak, sad to say ... he is still wedded to the fantasy of "clean coal") is the only reason that the election is close.
See also West Virginia, where Joe Manchin omitted to even endorse a sitting President of his own party to get elected.
As a side issue, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the message "receives funds from fossil-fuel interests" as if it was always pertinent. James Inhofe of Oklahoma recieves tons of money rom the energy companies ... but is it at all likely that all we need do is make him a better offer to have him change his position? Characterizing your political opponents as cynical and venal is something I expect of "skeptics", but I do expect better from you.
Best wishes,
Mole
-
ubrew12 at 07:19 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
We should imagine, perhaps, that 'I'm not a scientist' is a delaying strategy, to be held until the transition from Democracy to Dollarocracy is complete. Afterward, they won't have to pretend anymore to care what the 'voter' thinks, and can brush such pesky questions off.
-
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Tom, that first image is the Skate, but not at the pole. (See www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm). Best guess I think is Drift station Alpha in August 1958.
-
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 29 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
One Planet Only Forever @48
You ask what book Im referring to? I was referring to one of Gores speeches where he apparently said "the science is settled". This seemed too sweeping to me, as not all the science is settled, and it leaves Gore open to obvious attack. However it appears Gore was missquoted.
You are possibly being a little defensive, and are not reading what I said or undestanding my point. I'm not questioning the climate science. I have read all Gores books and completely agree with them.
Please also read my post 47 above. Im not questioning Gores conclusions on climate science and I have read all his books. I do wish people would please read what is actually written.
-
michael sweet at 06:24 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
A small bright side of this is that 5 years ago McConnell would have said that he did not think climate change was happening, or that it was a hoax. The current claim by deniers that they are not scientists is a step up from there.
I teach High School Chemistry. 5 years ago if we discussed climate change there were always two or three students in each class who insisted that scientists were liars and climate change was a hoax. I have not had one of those for two years and only one three years ago. People see the changes around them. After 2014 sets a new record for hottest year even McConnell and Inhofe will say they are concerned about AGW, they will just not want to do anything.
The question is how long will it take to get people excited. Hopefully it will not be too late.
-
Non-Scientist at 06:00 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Once one becomes a partisan, whether this week's flavor is labelled "democrat", "repblican" or "tiramisu", creditibility is lost.
Politics is about power, and altering the perception of truth among the 80% who are too busy, who don't care or are too young to see the lizard behind the curtain.
When McConnell does this:
"McConnell wouldn’t directly answer whether he believes in climate change."
he means roughly this:
He understands that his political survival depends on not acknowledging climate change, and almost certainly understands that it's happening. Thus he can't say anything of substance. Most likely, he is waiting for his constituents and a few donors to alter their position, at which point he can say "well, I'm no scientist, but y'know when I was a kid there were glaciers" etc etc
There are (many) politicians truly stupid enough to believe the denialist lines, but not all. But what all sucessful pols have in common is figuring out how to get elected and re-elected.
There's also the economic issue: someone whose job disapeared is not thinking about the climate in 2100 (which is when it will truly hit, if it continues). They are thinking that they'll lose their home, their family and the little bit of security they've managed to carve out. Demands to "end international trade", "end first world overconsumption" (compared to some Western blogger's perception of 3rd world lifestyle) sound like the guy with the "Word ends in 2012" sandwich board.
It would be smarter to engage with people like McConnell privately, explain what's going on and develop a working relationship. That way, we have a hope of getting economically viable ways to deal with CC in place, rather than fantasies. We certainly won't get far with train wrecks like creating a pump'n dump scam to produce solar panels at a higher unit production cost than the Chinese sell at retail. Curiously, a major campaign donor just happened to be a key investor, and this same investor was given priority over taxpayers when the balloon inevitabtly popped. That's politics in operation. -
C J at 05:21 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
McConnell is not an economist, yet he'll be more than happy to provide you with an enormous amount of economic opinion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:07 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... This issue there, as I see it, comes when people are making sweeping claims about the science, in contradiction to the overwhelming body of climate science, without having any sort of background in the field.
It's one thing to not be a scientist, or have expertise in fields outside of climate science, and try to explain your understanding of the research. It becomes something completely different when you try to reject what 97% of the experts say.
-
DSL at 04:36 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton, can you point me to an example?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:25 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
If I remember correctly, in Stephen Schneider's book, Science as a Contact Sport, he details out the rift between himself and Carl Sagan on the issue of nuclear winter. Of course, as Tom Curtis states, it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with soot and dust. But the rift between them was that Schneider's research pointed to the idea that it wouldn't exactly be nuclear winter, but rather more of a nuclear fall.
-
Ashton at 04:19 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Perhaps the politicians have stolen the rmantra of "I'm not a scientist" from the many commenters on blogs such as this where, if a view with which they do not agree is given, it is dismissed with the comment "he/she is not a climate scientist"
-
Tom Curtis at 03:46 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Returning to Ingvar @8:
1) With regards to hydrogen bombs and CO2, Ingvar is probably referring to Alexandrov, V. V. and G. I. Stenchikov (1983): "On the modeling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war" which I cannot find on the internet, or "Numerical simulation of the climactic consequences of nulear war" by the same authors (1984). The abstract of the later indicates, unsurprisingly, that it models the impact of dust and soot injected into the stratosphere by nuclear explosions. That is unsurprising, of course, because that was the primary climate related concern of nuclear weapons which do not generate CO2 except incidentally by causing fires. The incidental fires do not generate anywhere near the amount of CO2 as that emitted from a single years fossil fuel use. They certainly did not suggest that increased CO2 cools the troposphere.
2) The Nautilus navigated past the North Pole but never surfaced. It was able to do this because the sea is 4 kilometers deep at the North Pole. The trans-arctic voyage of the Nautilus is therefore irrelevant to climate change.
Slightly better informed pseudo-skeptics draw attention to the USS Skate, the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on August 11th, 1958 and again on March 17, 1959. The following are images of the Skate at the North Pole in 1958 and then in 1959:
You will notice the ice still on the hull in the first image, showing the Skate surfaced through very thin ice, not open water.
In both cases the Skate surfaced through areas of thin ice caused by wind opening up gaps in the ice (called polynas or leads), which then refreeze. The refrozen surface is thinner than the multiyear ice typically found in the area. Consequently thin ice in a polyna (all that is shown by the submarine surfacing) is no evidence of thiner ice in the 1950s than exists today.
Moderator Response:[PS] Submarine traverses under the arctic did obtain ice thickness data which show ice thickness has sharply declined since 1958. See http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Kwok.2009.GRL.pdf which uses data from these very submarines.
-
longjohn119 at 03:11 AM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
Once again it is proven there is no such a thing as a Climate Change Denier, only Climate Change Liars .... They don't deny, they lie
There is a HUGE difference here folks .....
-
longjohn119 at 02:58 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Republicans always have been Penny Wise and Dollar Foolish ..... They'll spend 10 future dollars just to save a single penny today
It is always, always ALWAYS cheaper to mitigate pollution than it is to pay for the health and environmental damges later. I have yet to find a single example or have anyone point out an example of this not being true
You would think that after the trillions Society has spent cleaning up just lead andf asbestos pollution they'd have learned their lesson but apparnently not ....
-
Tom Curtis at 02:42 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
knaugle @15, you may want to add to the list of papers that purportedly ignore water vapour, Schmidt et al (2010) (Open access), which quantifies the water vapour plus cloud contribution to the "total greenhouse effect" as 75%, and that of CO2 at 20%. I should add for knaugle's benefit that the "total greenhouse effect" is the difference between upward IR radation at the surface and upward IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It includes many factors which are feedbacks in that their concentration in the atmosphere is primarilly controlled by temperature, and which as a result would not be able to maintain their effect without more stable atmospheric components such as CO2.
-
knaugle at 02:20 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
... just another case of going up the down escallator. Interesting that the excallator link is nearly beside the chart of this article.
-
knaugle at 02:18 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Speaking of 30 seconds on Google (or Yahoo! in my case)
The "ever accurate" Wikipedia page on greenhouse gases has for years stated that water vapor is about 55% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 about 17%, both with a fair uncertainty band.
Given 45 seconds I found a 2006 paper:
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, by J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.
which gave a 60% Water Vapor and 26% CO2 contribution on a sunny day.IF as Ingvar claims, water vapor has been excluded from the research, hidden if you will, it seems the "conspiracy minded climate scientists" have done a mighty poor job of keeping it out of the hands of lay scientists such as myself. I rather think this is one of many red herring arguments I see from those who seek to diminish the science.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:49 AM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
BojanD @4, the " fast warming during 1992-2006 period" is primarilly an artifact of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo erruption. Absent that eruption, there would still be a reduction in recent global warming trends. That, however, is an artifact of the very large El Nino even in 1998, and the very large La Nina events in 2008 and 20011/12. In fact, there is no evidence of the purported "pause" if you only use data sets extending to 2007, showing clearly that the slow down is an artifact of a cherry picked start year along with the two large La Nina's after 2007.
Prev 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 Next
