Recent Comments

Prev  662  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  Next

Comments 33451 to 33500:

33451. Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 29 October 2014
       The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
       

       rkrolph @1, part of the reason for the small differences in slope between the two trend lines is the choice of data set.  Richard Allen uses Cowtan and Way (2014) which uses one of two methods to correct for biases in the HadCRUT4 data set that arise due to (among other reasons) limited coverage of Arctic regions where much of recent warming has occurred.  "Skeptics" tend to use HadCRUT4 because those very biases accentuate the apparent reduction in the global warming trend.  They also like using satellite data sets which, because they show an enhanced responce to ENSO variations, also show an enhanced apparent reduction in the trend (which is yet more evidence that much of the reduction in trend is simply a response to changing ENSO states).  Using other data sets which do not have the "no arctic" bias such as GISS or BEST would show similar effects to using Cowtan and Way.

33452. Tom Curtis at 01:36 AM on 29 October 2014
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       

       unspecial @107, the lapse rate refers only to the change in atmospheric temperature with altitude.  Of necessity, it has the same magnituderegardless of whether you measure it going up or going down.  The lapse rate is the response to decreased pressure with altitude based on the ideal gas law as modulated by the addition of more heat either by differential absorption of sunlight with altitude (as in the stratosphere) or by the release of latent heat from condensing water vapour.  The geothermal gradient is the change of temperature with depth of the Earth's rocks and soil.  It is a function of the temperature difference between the core and surface as modulated by the thermal conductivity of the rocks.  Other than determining the rate at which geothermal energy reaches the surface, the geothermal gradient has very little impact on climate.

       With regard to your three questions:

       1)  Yes it does, although its effect in that regard is minor relative to that of H2O.  Further, it reduces the daily temperature range (diurnal temperature range) by increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere as well as by the absorption of outgoing IR radiation.

       2)  In hypothetical situations, water is not always a part of the equation.  Because its concentration in the atmosphere depends on atmospheric temperature, and also the extent of exposed liquid water, at very cold temperatures, its effect is negligible.  Absent CO2, the atmospheric temperatures fall to levels where the effect of H2O is near negligible, and is certainly much reduced from its current effect.

       Clouds rise or fall for a variety of reasons, none of which are related to age.  The most common cause of the rise and fall of clouds would be updrafts or downdrafts in the atmosphere.  Further the condensing of water releases heat within clouds, often generating powerful updrafts.  That is what causes the formation of cumulo-nimbus clouds in which the base is not raised, but the upper level of the cloud is lifted to the tropopause.  Clearly the evaporation of water droplets in clouds will have the reverse effect, but because the water is evaporating, the cloud diminishes in size so and may disappear, so the effect is not as noticable.

       3)  As explained in the OP, the greenhouse effect is not a function of where IR radiation is first absorbed when it leaves the Earth's surface, but of the altitude from which it is radiated to space.  Chris Colose shows the following graph:

       

       The graph plots temperature (x-axis) versus altitude (y-axis), with the diagonal lines representing the lapse rate.  The horizontal line at H represents an initial "effective altitude of radiation to space" which is a sort of average of the altitudes from which the various IR photons actually reaching space are emitted.  (Technically, it is that altitude in the troposphere with the such that a black body at that temperature would emit as much power to space as IR radiation as is actually observed.) 

       If you increase the CO2 concentration, some of the IR radiation emitted going upward from H would be absorbed by that additional CO2, then re-emitted at a higher, cooler location in the atmosphere.  The effect is to raise the effective altitude of radiation to space to ΛH (pronounced "lambda H".  Because the energy balance between incoming SW radiation and outgoing IR radiation must be preserved, that will result in changes that raise the temperature a ΛH to the previous temperature of H.  Those temperature changes will then propogate to the Earth's surface due to the constant lapse rate, raising the surface temperature by the same as the rise in temperature at ΛH relative to its previous value.  The rise in temperature equals (ΛH-H) x Γ, where "Γ" (the capital greek letter gamma) represents the lapse rate.

       If the change in CO2 concentration at the surface results in an increase of back radiation that would otherwise cause a greater change in temperature than (ΛH-H) x Γ, it will result in increased convection, reducing the temperature change back to that value.  If it would have resulted in less of a temperature change than (ΛH-H) x Γ, it will result in reduced convection, increasing the temperature to that value.  Consequently, to a reasonable estimate (and you will not do better without a full fledged climate model) the change in absorption at the surface can be ignored.  It is the change of emission height that matters.

33453. Rob Honeycutt at 01:30 AM on 29 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       I'm always astounded that people actually make such absurd claims as the effects of water vapor are "kept out" of the research. It's a blatantly made-up and completely false claim stated with absolute certainty. Yet, 30 seconds on google would show the statement to be incorrect.

       It truly boggles the mind.

33454. Tom Dayton at 23:23 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       Ingvar, see the post Water Vapor Is the Most Powerful Greenhouse Gas, and make any further comments on that topic there, not here.

33455. BojanD at 23:08 PM on 28 October 2014
       The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
       

       @johncl meant this post, for uninitiated.
       
       And this is a different approach to convey the same thing, but addressing 'hasn't warmed since 2002'. Note that both trends are almost aligned. In essence, the pause is an artifact of fast warming during 1992-2006 period.

33456. johncl at 22:29 PM on 28 October 2014
       The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
       

       When discussing a chart like the one on the top of the article, I generally do as Tamino did on his blog - count the number of temperature points after 1998 above the full length (red) trendline and compare that to the number of points under it. Statistically there is no decline in warming. I'd rather say there evidence points to the contrary. 2014 will very likely be very close to the red trendline.

33457. CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       Ingvar wrote: "I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour. Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?"

       As Tom and Glenn have shown, you misunderstood the research you cite from 1949 and your belief that water vapor is "kept out" of climate research is completely incorrect. One point they didn't cover is that it is also misleading to call it the "prime motor" of warming.

       The water vapor content of the atmosphere cannot change significantly on its own... and thus it is not the 'motor' of anything. If some magical force were to double the water vapor content of the atmosphere tomorrow, while keeping everything else the same, we'd have a few days of heavy dew and rainfall and then everything would be back to normal. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is directly correlated to temperature. The warmer the atmosphere in a given location the more water vapor the air can hold (though if little / no water is available you can still have a warm area with low water vapor... deserts for instance). Thus, the warmer the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere the greater the amount of water vapor it can hold. Yes, that additional water vapor then causes additional warming, but without some other warming or cooling factor you don't get a change in atmospheric water vapor levles. It is not a 'motor' which drives climate change at all. Rather, it is a feedback when something else is forcing a change. The actual 'prime motor' / forcing of warming is carbon dioxide. Unlike water vapor it doesn't rapidly 'drop out' of the atmosphere based on temperature (or anything else). The warming from CO2 is roughly doubled by the resulting increase in water vapor, but the water vapor level can't change without the warming. CO2 level changes can be triggered by either temperatue shifts (e.g. Milankovitch cycle warming causing ice melt and release of previously frozen organic carbon) or release of carbon previously trapped underground. In the past this has happened when massive volcanic events have released large amounts of CO2. Currently it is happening because of human burning of fossil fuels.

33458. CBDunkerson at 21:29 PM on 28 October 2014
       The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
       

       rkrolph, that's the point. The orange line is not merely "like something you would typically show as how 'skeptics' view global warming"... that's exactly what it is. The standard 'skeptic' meme of 'no warming for the past 17 years' is constructed by cherry-picking the anomalously hot year of 1998 as the starting point (and looking only at surface temperatures). As you note, starting from 1999 or 2000 (or 1997) yields results more in line with the long term trend. You have successfully demonstrated why this 'skeptic' talking point is wrong from a statistical standpoint.

       However, there is also a larger picture to consider. While the 'change in warming rate' for surface temperatures is not statistically significant, we can still identify likely underlying causes for fluctuations like this. That's what this article is really about... how fluxes in the much larger heat reservoir of the oceans can impact surface temperatures on short time scales.

33459. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:26 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       Ingvar

       " I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour.  Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?"

       Simple answer Ingvar, it isn't.

       The role of water vapour in the atmosphere in its contribution to the Greenhouse Effect, cloud formation, its contribution to setting the observed value for the atmospheric Lapse Rate (its cooling effect), its role in the stratosphere, the rules governing it's concentration in the atmosphere and why it can't accumulate or decline on it's own without some other factor driving it  are all well considered in very great detail.

       For example the research in the early 1960's investigating whether Specific or Relative Humidity was more likely to remain constant as the atmosphere warms.

       Do we know everything about everything? No. But we know a very, very great deal

       Water has been included as a major part of climate science ever since the renaissance in inquiries into the subject in the 1950's.

       So a question for you, and I am intrigued to understand your answer. Where did you get the idea that water isn't considered?

33460. rkrolph at 19:17 PM on 28 October 2014
       The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
       

       Looking at figure 1, the orange line looks like cherry picking, by using a short time frame starting with a hot year, 1998.  It seems like if you started from 1999 or 2000, the orange line would probably match the red line slope much closer.  The red line seems to fit the total data set very nicely, with no significant roll-off obvious in the recent years.  But I have seen other charts where the warming rate "pause" seems much more apparent.  At least from the figure 1 alone, it seems the orange line is not necessary, and even misleading, like something you would typically show as how "skeptics" view global warming.

33461. Tom Curtis at 19:16 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       Ingvar @9 and @10, the abstract of Goody (1949) states:

       "Further considerations along the lines of Emden's methods lead to continuity of temperature at the tropopause as a condition for a stable transition from a state of convective to radiative equilibrium. This explains the characteristic appearance of the temperature distribution near the tropopause. Application of this condition leads to a simple explanation of the latitude variation of stratosphere temperature, mainly in terms of the effects of water vapour and carbon dioxide. The variation of stratosphere temperature with ozone concentration may be calculated, which confirms Dobson's hypothesis that anomalous seasonal variations in stratosphere temperature are due to seasonal variations of ozone concentration. Reasons for the approximately isothermal character of the lower stratosphere are also discussed."

       This, firstly, confirms (as I had begun to suspect) that you were mistaking results about the stratosphere (where increased CO2 cools the atmosphere) with those for the troposphere, and in particular the near surface atmospheric temperature, where increased CO2 warms the atmosphere.  As Goody is discussing stratospheric temperatures, his is in no way a contradictory result to those which show that increased greenhouse gases will warm near surface temperatures.  Indeed, the cooling stratosphere along with a warming troposphere is one of the signatures of a greenhouse related warming of the troposphere, and the observed cooling of the stratosphere along with the observed warming of the troposphere is a major result confirming the theory of the greenhouse effect.

       Second, from the abstract (I have not purchased the paper) it appears that Goody attributes variation in stratospheric CO2 and H2O concentrations by latitude as the primary driver variations by latitude of stratospheric temperatures.  That is a very different thing from determining that H2O and CO2 are more important than O3 in the overall temperature budget.  You will note that Goody confirms Dobson's theory that seasonal variation in O3 is the major source of seasonal variations in temperature.  If we follow the logic that the major source of a variation in temperature is the major source of the temperature mean, then we would equally be required to affirm O3 as the main source of the mean stratospheric temperature, thus seperately affirming that O3 is a more important contributor to that temperature than CO2 and H2O, and the reverse (ie, contradicting ourselves).  It is better to stay rational (ie, not believe contradictions) and reject the mistaken inference which you apply to Goody's results.

33462. Ingvar at 17:44 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       Reference to Goode 1949 as follows:

       Page 11 A Course in Elementary Meteorology HMSO ISBN 0 11 04000090 3.  Text: In 1946 Dobson, Brewer and Cwilong pointed out the importance of ozone as an absorber and emitter of radiation, but Goody, in 1949, suggested that water vapour and carbon dioxide are more important, the first constituent tending to cause a heating of the atmosphere and the second a cooling.  It cannot be said that a full explanation has yet been obtained.

       I am polite.  I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour.  Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?

33463. One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       nigelj@43,

       Are you referring to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", "Earth in the Balance", "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" or "The Future: 6 Drivers of Global Change"?

       I think his book "The Assault on Reason" provides a very good presentation of why there are so many people who still prefer to believe "the science isn't settled" or "climate scientists are wrong" or "the IPCC cannot be trusted" or "any other attempt to discredit or dismiss the science without any substantive basis for doing so".

       I agree with the assertions made in many of the comments here that the science and other avenues of investigation and consideration of what is discovered and observed will always continue to improve the best understanding of what is going. And the discussion of the science needs to focus on the science.

       And I agree that policy should be based on the best understanding of what is going on, meaning it must change as more is learned. It should not delay action to limit activity that is contrary to the development of a sustainable better future for all, no matter how popular or profitable that activity may be among the more fortunate, or those who want to develop to be like the more fortunate (therefore, all the wealthiest should be required to be competing to live the most sustainable life, to set the example to be aspired to by all others).

       It is important to add that leadership toward the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet is the only leadership that has a viable future.

       Any other type of leadership will have to fight against the growing better understanding of what is going on. It will ultimately fail, as will the societies and economic activities such leadership attempt to promote and prolong.

       The problem is the way that popularity and profitability can empower unsustainable leadership, creating as much damage as can be gotten away with in the pursuit of short-term popularity and profitability that is ultimately unsustainable.

       Humanity failing to rapidly develop to be a sustainable part of the diversity of life on this amazing planet should not be considered to be an acceptable option by any leaders. The constantly increased understanding of what is going on will ultimately make any other type of leader unsuccessful.

       This leads to the rational conclusion that any unsustainable and damaging activity should be curtailed when its unacceptability is discovered. And when enough of the population actually better understands what is going on the curtailing could be swift. Which leads to "The Assault on Reason" to try to delay the necessary curtailing of popular and profitable developed activities that are harmful and ultimately unsustainable.

33464. nigelj at 14:03 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Tom Curtis @ 44, 46. Well I didnt realise Gore was being missquoted. In my country we get the mainstream media saying things like "climate scientists claim the science is settled", and the media dont go into specifics like "settled in respect of". Seems like the media are twisting things. This is half the problem and it causes confusion.

33465. Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       nigelj @40, I am having difficulty finding examples of the phrase "the science is settled" by climate scientists (or anyone supporting mitigation of global warming) in a way that is not clear from context.  Wikipedia has a list of such "quotes", but they notably consist of either unverified claims by "skeptics", or are clearly restricted (as in the case of the Al Gore example discussed above).  I am uncertain as to the identities of the various people quoted.  One is just a newspaper columnist (which shows how rare examples are).  One (by Cuffey) is definitely by a noted scientist, but not a climate scientist and the claim is very clear in context.

       In this case I think Dikran Marsupial @33 and scaddenp @42 are correct (except for scaddenp's misattribution of the purported Gore quote).  Climate scientists make nuanced statements that are clear from context.  Deniers misattribute or invent quotes without the nuance or context and try to morph "Not everything is completely certain" into "Everything is completely uncertain" by rhetoric.  

       It is the attempt to finagle uncertainty about a small issue into near complete uncertainty about major points by Donny that I resisted earlier in this discussion.  I am certainly not defending the idea that "the science is settled" except as nuanced statements about particular aspects of the science.

33466. scaddenp at 12:54 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Thanks Tom. Further evidence of "skeptics" attacking a straw man.

33467. Tom Curtis at 12:43 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       scaddenp @42, nigelj @43:

       "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."

       It may be an unfortunate statement, but Gore never made it!  What he did say, in response to questioning by Joe Barton was:

       "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem."

       That comment was made after listing the scientific organizations that supported the concensus.  It was glossed by NPR's reporter, Andrea Seabrook.  From the transcript:

       "Vice President AL GORE: The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.

       SEABROOK: In other words, the science is settled, Gore said. Carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources are heating up the Earth's atmosphere. If left unchecked, this global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and to other aspects of the environment. And Gore pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue."

       It has been subsequently misattributed as a direct quote of Gore rather than a reporters (incorrect) opinion of what Gore was getting at by numerous "skeptics".

       On another occasion, Gore said that "the debate is over", but that was on one point only (attribution).  That it was a limited claim was not only mentioned but emphasized by Gore:

       "VICE PRESIDENT GORE: On the fact that there is a human factor in causing this? Yes. And not only in the administration, in the international panel on climate change, which has, what, 2,500 scientists from every country in the world, they have studied this for several years now. And just a couple of years ago they found what they call ''the smoking gun'' and came out with this consensus statement that there is now a discernible impact from human causes. Now, one of the other obstacles to broadening the consensus on that is that as you all know better than everybody, the noise level in the system is so profound that there are going to be very, very big changes just in the natural course of events. You take hurricanes. Back in the 1930s, as y'all can say better than me, there was a string of powerful hurricanes, more frequent, more powerful than what we're experiencing now. And there are other extremes that are natural. But out of that noise level, this consensus international scientific process has now said that they believe that debate is over, that yes, the human cause is now discernible. And as these concentrations grow it will become more profound and a much more significant part of the cause.

       Q And the administration accepts that fact that that debate is over.

       VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On that one point, yes, sir. Here, and then there."

       And speaking of which, here is the estimated IPCC Anthropogenic attribution PDF:

       

       And the IPCC's conclusion:

       "Overall, given that the anthropogenic increase in GHGs likely caused
       0.5°C to 1.3°C warming over 1951–2010, with other anthropogenic forcings probably contributing counteracting cooling, that the effects of natural forcings and natural internal variability are estimated to be small, and that well-constrained and robust estimates of net anthropogenic warming are substantially more than half the observed warming (Figure 10.4) we conclude that it is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010."

       IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapt 10 p 887

       Gore's claim, with its limited scope, was true in 1997 when he made it, and is certainly true now.

33468. Ingvar at 12:01 PM on 28 October 2014
       2014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
       

       When you dealing with such sensitive commodities as water on earth and in the atmosphere you need a benchmark.  Total water, whether as solid, liquid or gas, is a constant.  How nature deals with this we can theorise. We are not the master, because if we are, where is the operating manual, with is FAQ and trouble shooting chapter.  (I get the wrath of the Moderator for this.)

       Following the atmospheric hydrogen bomb experiments in the 1960-70s the Soviet Academy of Scientists released a document in 1984(?) warning of a new ice age if the heavy release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as experienced in those tests was to be continued.

       That correlates with Goode's finding in 1949 that adding water vapour to the atmosphere tends to warm it (sauna principle), but adding carbon dioxide tends to cool the atmosphere. (Elementary Meteorology HMSO 1975).

       Back to ice.  In 1958 as part of an exercise the USS Nautilus navigated to the North Pole 

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ08GY8RJdU

       The pictures reveal a quite this layer of ice.  Ice in water melts.  But following the nuclear experiments, it ice cover go thicker by an unnatural way that has not been explained.  Over the years since then we have experience a gradual decrease in ice cover.  My experience, practical that is, is that we are seing a long resettling of what should have been there years ago.  Thus research on ice in water, being loss/gain in areas where you have 6 moths daylight and 6 months night is not enhancing our knowledge of Nature.

       For the Moderator: You can scratch me off if you like.  I am an un-educated individual, but I have learned a lot.  please contact my on 2ingvar@gmail.com an I will add some more to your woes.  It is embarrassing to learn the truth.  Cheers

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Comments are moderated only for conformance with the comments policy, which is designed to encourage informed and polite debate. If you are not interested in such a discussion, then go elsewhere.

       You are making claims above which are "surprising" to put it mildly. Please accurately source your material so others can ascertain your claim.

33469. nigelj at 11:20 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."

       A most unfortunate statement by Gore. The words "The science is settled" have been quoted out of context a million times, (without your carbon dioxide part) providing easy ammunition for sceptics. I see this all the time, and it is very frustrating. It also undermines Gores book, which is very good.

33470. scaddenp at 09:34 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       "The climate science community makes the claim “the science of climate change is settled”."

       I am pretty sure that the climate science community make rather more nuanced statements. The quote appears to be from Al Gore to congress and the context.

       "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."

       Well no argument about that. Other quotes from environmentalists etc were similar but also qualified when looked at in their original context. A google search mostly brings up contrarian sites busily creating a strawman fallacy.

33471. nigelj at 06:55 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny @34.

       You say “I also have trouble with quantifying the effects of other known drivers as well (obviously ) unknown drivers and saying we have these effects pinned down enough to consider them settled.”

       I think this is pretty settled. There is a massive amount of research on possible effects of solar energy and cosmic rays etc. Almost all the published research shows these play very little part in the warming period since about 1970. The science on this is very compelling, and is certainly 95% certain.Saying it is not 100% certain is a spurious argument as it is never possible to be 100% certain about this sort of thing.

       
       This year is shaping up to be either the hottest on record, or in the top group despite a distinct lack of natural short term warming cycles. El nino / la nina is in a neutral phase. It is therefore very difficult to see what natural cycle could possibly be implicated. 

33472. nigelj at 06:26 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Tom Curtis #32. Thanks for your information. I accept everything you say about climate sensitivity and other scientific theories. I personally think it is very unlikely climate sensitivity is low. And clearly the basics of climate change are settled.

       However I think you miss my point. The climate science community makes the claim “the science of climate change is settled”. They do not qualify this with any detail on levels of what is settled. The public understandably interpret this as lay people as meaning “all” the science is settled 100%.

       Now when research points out that some element is not perfectly understood, like the slowdown in warming from about 1998, the “public” perceive they have been misinformed and the science is not settled. This creates an opportunity for sceptics to say look it isn’t settled! So to make the claim “the science of climate change is settled” just seems an unwise choice of words to me.

33473. scaddenp at 05:12 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny, "why it may frustrate someone who opposes tax increases." If your position is that  AGW = more taxes, therefore AGW must be wrong, then frankly dont expect to much respect for your views among rational people.

       If you dont like taxes and yet became convinced that it was better to mitigate than adapt, then what measures would you accept to reduce emission? Please tell us your answers here. The world desparately needs new ideas from right-wing idealogues. (Do you seriously think anyone likes taxes? That is the whole point of a carbon tax - you move to non-carbon energy to avoid the tax).

       If you dont like existing proposals for mitigation and cant think of better ones, then I would predict that there is no data, and no argument that would persuade you. Further discussions would be pointless.

33474. Tom Curtis at 03:35 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny, the wider the range of the uncertainty bars, the greater the probability that the true value will lie within them.  Thus, I can confidently state that the science is settled that -1000 < ECS <1000.  The probability of that statement being wrong is so negligible as to be not worth considering.  We can go further.  If the ECS is negative, than increasing sunshine would make the temperature colder, which is absurd.  So we can state with scarcely diminished confidence that 0 < ECS < 1000.  Further, λ = ΔT/(ΔF - ΔQ) where λ is the climate sensitivity factor, ΔT is change in temperature, ΔF is the change in forcing, and ΔQ is the change in heat flux into the Earth's surface (including atmosphere, cryosphere and oceans).  Further, moving from equilibrium, to equilibrium, ΔQ = 0, so that λ = ΔT/ΔF, and hence, for a doubling of CO2 concentration with an ECS of 1000, λ = 270.3 K/(W/m^2), or put differently, a 0.0037 W/m^2 per degree K change in the TOA flux.  Ergo, the radiative imbalance given an ECS of 1000 and a 1 degree K increase in temperature since the preindustrial should approximate to the radiative forcing.  That, it plainly does not do.  Ergo the ECS << 1000.  Carrying the reasoning forward limits the ECS to less than 12 with very high probability (as do considerations about the very stable climates over the Holocene).  Ergo, 0 < ECS < 12 with near certainty.

       Now, you face an invidious choice.  You must either deny that the degree to which an issue is open to question depends on the range of its uncertainty bars, deny the patently obvious upper and lower bounds on ECS even before we begin serious exploration of the data (as determined above), or insist that the IPCC PDF as shown (approx) in 32 cannot be "settled science" in the sense that whatever value ECS turns out to have, it will be constrained by the 95% range of that PDF and will likely be within the 1.5 to 4.5 range even though the PDF differs from the obvious limits by only 0.9 K for the lower bound, and 3.8 K for the upper bound.  The question then becomes, why are you so confident that the evidence accrued to date cannot accomplish even so limited a narrowing of the bounds?  It sounds like a very dogmatic uncertainty to me, and a dogmatic uncertainty ultimately justified by your ignorance rather than your knowledge.

       Further, when you say:

       "So when politicians use the term settled science to back a policy that gives them another reason to raise taxes you can understand why it may frustrate someone who opposes tax increases."

       you exhibit your ignorance about the nature of uncertainty.  The expected utility of a policy is the probability weighted mean of all possible outcomes of the policy.  Given that uncertainty is far greater for the upper bound, that means great uncertainty inflates the relative influence of high values of the ECS on the expected utility of a policy.  If we are less certain about ECS than the IPCC suggests, then we must even more urgently take action to mitigate climate change.  (You probably don't recognize this because you assume implicitly that nearly all uncertainty is on the lower bound, when the reverse is the case.  And turning that about for my allies, they often don't recognize that constraining the upper bound as Nic Lewis purports to do therefore has a major influence on the advisability of mitigation, even if the mean or modal values of the PDF scarcely move.)

       If you really want to shape your science to suite your politics, then the more rational approach is to claim that the science is settled on a low value of ECS (as Nic Lewis argues).  The only problem with that line is all those inconvenient scientists whose science is determined by the evidence who clearly disagree.

        

33475. unspecial at 03:04 AM on 28 October 2014
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       

       Thank you Tom for your answers. It's amazing how finely tuned this planet is in so many ways to support life here. As well as a lapse rate of 6.5 degrees per Km going up we have a lapse rate of 25 degrees going down. E:\Users\Steve\Documents\Science\Geothermal gradient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.htm  

       1)  I had absolutely no idea that CO2 warmed us by 35 degrees. I imagine it affects the daily temp range as well.

       2)  My question about a 100% CO2 atmosphere is hypothetical but in hindsight is a bit silly as water will always be a part of the equation. Do clouds rise as they get older because they absorb radiation which makes them rise via convection? 

       3) > The altitude at which 50% of the IR from the ground is absorbed will depend on water vapour content in the atmosphere, and cloud height, and so will vary from place to place. Typically it will occur within a kilometer of the surface.<  If this is true then the amount of CO2 presently in the air must absorb nearly all of the available IR radiation so how does more CO2 create more warming?

33476. Tom Dayton at 01:51 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       To KR's point:  We really, really are not sure of the exact value of the gravitational constant.  Still.  Despite trying really, really hard.

33477. KR at 01:07 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny - "...when politicians use the term settled science to back a policy that gives them another reason to raise taxes you can understand why it may frustrate someone who opposes tax increases." And here we get to the gist of matters. 

       You seem to object to the science because you don't like the implications - you certainly haven't provided any reasons to disagree on scientific grounds. That's a logical failure. Discuss science with science, with evidence, discuss policies with policies, but policy implications have no impact on the reality of the observations whatsoever. 

33478. KR at 01:02 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny - "Settled science" is a term that came into popularity due to (primarily) the discussions over the impacts of tobacco, as a strawman argument raised by the tobacco industry to dismiss strong epidemiological results. It's essentially a claim that we can never know enough for absolute unquestionable certainty, hence we don't know anything, hence we shouldn't act on the less than absolute information we have. This use/abuse has been carried forth by denial arguments into discussions over ozone, CFCs, acid rain, EPA SuperFund site cleanups, and now climate change. The term is a shibboleth of denial, of avoidance, of sticking fingers in your ears and singing "la la la...".

       In short, the term "settled science" is a bit of rhetorical nonsense. And quite frankly the only reason it gets employed by anyone with evidence backing their argument is that the (do nothing) opponents shout it so much, trying to make it a term of the discussion. 

       In science, in any system of inductive reasoning or generalization, there will always be some uncertainty, some possibility of error. But the likelihood of a major reversal of inductive reasoning decreases hugely with increasing evidence, as whatever alternative explanation must not only further reduce uncertainty where it exists, but must also explain all the previous observations - a notable failure of climate 'skeptic' arguments. 

       Do we know the exact value of the gravitational constant, let alone how gravity interacts with matter on a quantum level? No, there is uncertainty there. However, do we know that objects in a gravitational field will drop if you let them go? Yes. Because uncertainty around the edges of a theory don't invalidate core principles. If we drop a bowling ball, we certainly know enough to move our foot out of the way. 

       So despite your doubts the direct warming of a CO₂ doubling is about 1.1°C, as established by spectroscopy and line-by-line radiative codes (see Myhre et al 1998), something known to extremely high certainty and empirically verified within 1% (Harries et al 2001). As to the rest, the amplifying feedbacks, the impacts, etc., I would suggest looking at the literature, for example the IPCC reports - the 1.5-4.5°C per doubling of CO₂, most likely value 3°C/doubling, represents the best estimates to date with only a 1/20 chance of being outside that range based on the evidence. 

       Settled? No. With bounds on uncertainties tight enough to provide information for deciding policy? Yes. We don't need absolute certainty to act, or we would quite literally never get out of bed in the morning. 

33479. Donny at 00:34 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Tom @ 30 last paragraph. ... I agree with your statement about scope.  I agree with the scope of "settled science" to include co2 as a greenhouse gas.

       I would have trouble with assertions of the science being settled to include exactly how much co2 increases will actually warm the planet. 

       I also have trouble with quantifying the effects of other known drivers as well  (obviously ) unknown drivers and saying we have these effects pinned down enough to consider them settled. 

       And I certainly don't think figuring out how all these factors are going to interact is anywhere near settled.

       So when politicians use the term settled science to back a policy that gives them another reason to raise taxes you can understand why it may frustrate someone who opposes tax increases.

33480. Dikran Marsupial at 00:03 AM on 28 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny wrote "My problem is with the settled science rhetoric."

       try reading this article by climate modeller Gavin Schmidt

       http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

       Skeptic blogs and journalists frequently claim that climatologists say that the science is settled, but that doesn't mean it is true.  As Gavin says, science is not binary, it is almost never "settled" or "not settled", there are always varying degrees of certainty/uncertainty.

       "settled science" like "CAGW" is is essentially a straw man misrepresenting the mainstream scientific poistion by characaturing it as ignoring uncertainties, but you only need to browse the IPCC reports for a few minutes to find out that it is packed full of statements of the degree of uncertainty on a wide range of topics.  This is, to say the least, "inconsistent" with the idea that the mainstream scientific position is one of "settled science".

       If you don't like the "settled science" rhetoric, you would be better off asking the skeptics to stop using it! ;o)

33481. Tom Curtis at 20:50 PM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       nigelj @31, I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say about ECS, although the fault lies in my poor expression.  Consider the following Probability Density Function for ECS:

       

       It is a log normal distribution with characteristics matched to fit the IPCC AR5 information for the probabilities of different values.  That is, there is a less than 5% chance of an ECS less than or equal to 1 (actually, 3.71%), an at least 66% chance of an ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 (66.64%), and a less than 10% chance of an ECS greater than or equal to 6 (7.87%).  It is very close to a best fit PDF for the IPCC values and may reasonably be taken as representing the IPCC AR5 PDF for ECS.  Out of interest, it has a mode of 1.99 C per doubling, a median of 2.72 C per doubling, and a mean of 3.18 C per doubling.  Its 95% range is 0.91-8.15, and its 90% range is from 1.08 to 6.83.

       My point is that substantial evidence and carefull consideration of that evidence has gone into that PDF.  A theory that proposes a PDF very greatly different from it, therefore, is likely to be in conflict with much of that evidence and hence not emperically supported.  This does not rule out alternative estimates.  Lewis and Curry (2014), for example, estimates a mode of 1.64 C per doubling, and a 90% range of 1.05-4.05 C per doubling.  So while there are a number of indentifiable flaws in that paper, all (as it happens) lowering the estimated ECS, we cannot look at that estimate and say it is absurd because it differs too much from the IPCC estimate and "the science is settled".

       In contrast, however, if we see estimates of 0.2 C per doubling (Eschenbach, WUWT), 0.67 C per doubling (Bjornbom 2013), or 0.39 C (Hockey Schtick misinterpretation of Levitus 2012), we can reasonably dismiss them on the grounds that the science of climate sensitivity is sufficiently settled to exclude such radical outliers.  A specialist discussing the issues could not be so dismissive, needing to actually identify errors in the estimates (which is in general trivially easy to do).  But for those estimates to be right, too many other reasonable estimates have to be too radically wrong.  Ergo we would require something more than a blog post from somebody known to not understand the science (Eschenbach) or a misinterpretation of TOA net radiative flux with radiative forcing (Hockey Schtick) to reject that other evidence.

       I note a similar issue applies with respect to Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics (a point you failed to note).  Underlying theories can be radically revised, but the predictions of the new theory must almost exactly match the predictions of the old theory under the range of normal (for middle size organic being) conditions.  If they did not, the new theory would be refuted by the very observations that were previously thought to support the old theory.  Thus, while theories are always in flux, and may always be supplanted, they will always provide good approximations to the results of the supplanting theories accross the range of normal conditions.  It is for that reason when NASA designed the grand tour of the solar system with Voyagers 1 and 2, they used Newtonian dynamics rather than General Relativity.  In essence, for any well developed theory, the theory itself may be in flux, but its predictions, ie, its actual scientific content, to a close approximation and across the range of conditions under which it was first successfully tested, are settled.  Ergo, if radiative physics were overturned tomorrow, we know that the new theory that supplanted it would still predict an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

33482. nigelj at 17:14 PM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Tom Curtis. No obviously I accept the world orbits the sun. Some things about the physical world are totally proven or settled to my satisfaction, at least for all practical purposes. Of course there is an argument that proof belongs only to mathematics, but I feel that is a pedantic argument.

       I was really thinking about your more advanced science concepts like relativity and quantum physics. While these clearly provide fully accurate predictions, neither is 100% proven. They are settled in some aspects, but not others.

       Yes atmospheric physics is arguably settled or highly proven. The Greenhouse effect is settled. You say climate sensitivity is settled by being in a certain range, and that it is settled as being in the middle of the range. However all we know is it is most likely in the middle of the range. I think that is stretching credibility to say climate sensitivity is settled, although I personally think it is in the middle of the range.

       
       My point is terminology and about perception. When climate scientists say to the public "the science is settled" the public assume all the science is settled down to the fine details and with total certainty. This leads the term open to attack by sceptics. I feel it was the wrong term to use in terms of communication to the public, however I suppose we are stuck with it.

       There is also another dimension. Humanity does not have the luxury of researching this climate sensativity issue for the next 100 years to get 100% certainty, because we are faced with making time dependent decisions. We have to go with good estimates, and this needs communicating better to the public.

        

33483. Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       nigelj @29, are you of the opinion that it is still an open question as to whether the Earth is a nearly flat plane, or an oblate spheroid?  Or that it is an open question as to whether the inner planets orbit the center of gravity of the solar system (which is usually inside the Sun's diameter) or the center of gravity of the Earth?  Or that the brain is a cooling mechanism for the blood rather than the center of thought?

       People often (thoughtlessly IMO) run the "nothing is settled in science" line simply because they have in mind only high end theories currently and actively disputed by the scientific community, or because they are overly impressed by the transition from classical physics in the early twentieth century (without properly understanding it).  In point of fact, however, science has resolved some issues to the effective limit to which any emperical issue can be resolved.  What is more, even such radical transitions as the shift between Gallilean and Relativistic kinematics, or from classical to quantum mechanics did not alter empirical predictions in normal situations beyond the error in measurement except in very few cases.  The underlying theory changed radically, but for the most part the predictions were conserved.  Given this, the idea that a science cannot be settled amounts to a claim that the only knowledge is deductive truth - a position not distinguishable from pyrhonian skepticism in its consequences.

       It is better to say that little of science currently being researched is settled (and that for the obvious reason that if it is settled, it is not researched).  On that basis, the claim that "climate science is settled" is obviously true if restricted to atmospheric physics.  It is true within limits for such things as climate sensitivity (which is known to lie in the 1.5-4.5 C range from paleoclimate as well as from models and current temperatures).  And is not true for some key aspects climate science for projecting future impacts of a changing climate.  Thus, I have a problem with the phrase (which I very rarely use) due to its ambiguity of scope.  The idea that radiative physics does not imply a greenhouse effect, or that the climate sensitivity could be very low (below 1 C per doubling) or even negative are simply unsuported nonsense.  With respect to such claims, the science is settled, and those claims are false.

33484. nigelj at 12:21 PM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       I think we are warming the planet, and the science is compelling. However playing "devils advocate" I think the use of the term "settled science" was unfortunate as it leads to obvious sceptical responses. Nothing is ever 100% settled in science, as in 100% proven or understood, so the term is a bad one. It would be more accurate to have said the science is strong, or simply that there is overwhelming agreement with climate scientists.

       And the science is certainly very strong on basic concepts like the greenhouse effect, as strong as any theory in science. And lack of knowledge on details does not invalidate basic findings about climate change.

33485. Tom Curtis at 12:16 PM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Given his difficulty in actually defending his position, I'm going to try and unpack Donny's confusion about CO2 and predator/prey relationships a little.  Hopefully that will allow him to actually put his thoughts on a scientific basis, instead of relying entirely on assertions about how silly I am for not recognizing this obvious truth.

       To start with, as a matter of definition, phytoplanckton are not predators, they are autotrophs.  Predators, by definition, are "organisms that prey on other organisms".  CO2 molecules, it need not be said, are not organisms.  An autotroph, in contrast, "... is an organism that produces complex organic compounds (such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) from simple substances present in its surroundings, generally using energy from light (photosynthesis) or inorganic chemical reactions (chemosynthesis)."  Donny appears to believe that the simple fact that plants (and phytoplanckton) consume CO2 makes their relationship to CO2 a predator/prey relationship, but that is simply not so.

       That does not, in itself mean that the relationship cannot be modelled as a predator prey relationship.  Several attempts have been made to mathematically model that relationship, and there is no a priori reason why the same mathematics should not effectively model CO2 concentrations.  In detail, however, all such predator/prey models give the "prey" a base population growth that is an exponential function of its current population.  Thus the population in a years time might be modelled as the current population times 1.05 less a predation factor, which in the absence of predation leads to exponential growth.  Clearly, however, growth in CO2 concentration is not a function of its current concentration.  What is more, in the absence of draw down factors, and ignoring anthropogenic contributions, its growth would be linear.

       Again I would welcome Donny's attempt to defend his ideas beyond the simple slogan of "isn't it obvious".  To that end, here is a generalized account of predator/prey relationships.  And here is an account of one of the more successful models of CO2 concentrations, including a complete list of relevant formulas in appendix 1.  I invite Donny to specify which equations in the model follow the generalized form of predator/prey relationships.  If he is unable to do so, perhaps he will have the grace to admit his error.

33486. Rob Honeycutt at 11:10 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny...  Look at your #3. 

       The reason we should stop using fossil fuels is because the science telling us that our emissions of CO2 are warming the planet is settled (enough) to take strong action.

33487. Donny at 10:51 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       One planet.... I never said we should continue to burn fossil fuels. ...   I think we should stop using fossil fuels for 3 reasons. ... 1. It will make the US less dependant on other countries.   2.  It is a finite resource.   3.  C02. 

       Humans being fortunate is nowhere on my list. 

       My problem is with the settled science rhetoric. 

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Let's be perfectly clear. The IPCC report is fully of statements about certainty and the extent to which to the science is known. The statement obviously lead to the conclusion that the science is sufficiently settled for it to inform policy.

       There has never been a claim that everything is known - otherwise no research would be needed. To claim that any new discovery somehow invalidates that, is to construct a strawman fallacy and thus is rhetoric. To seriously invalidate that claim would mean new science that countermands conclusion of the IPCC that would affect policy. Nothing presented remotely challenges any of that, but feel free to provide some serious evidence.

        

33488. PhilippeChantreau at 08:59 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       NigelJ "We wreck the oceans to save the planet. "

       On a planet that's mostly covered by oceans, that is indeed a rather funny proposition...

33489. grindupBaker at 08:49 AM on 27 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Riduna @#3 Meltwater pulse 1A cannot have produced a SLR of 200m in a thousand years because total SLR during deglaciation was ~125m. Perhaps you meant a rate of 200m per 1.000 years for a shorter time (I'd have to search around again to check and I'm too lazy just for this).

33490. Tom Curtis at 08:06 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       wili @21:

       "So if these microbes produce methane and if one of the main finding of the study concerns their 'sheer abundance...as compared to other microbial species in thawing permafrost"--then can we conclude that thawing permafrost will produce methane in much higher portions than previously thought?"

       No, we can't assume that.  In fact, this quote from the article suggests the opposite:

       "The models assume a certain ratio between different forms, or isotopes, of the carbon in the methane molecules, and the actual recorded ratio turns out to be different," said lead author Carmody McCalley, a scientist at the Earth Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire who conducted the study while she was a postdoctoral researcher at UA. "This has been a major shortcoming of current climate models. Because they assume the wrong isotope ratio coming out of the wetlands, the models overestimate carbon released by biological processes and underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning."

       What is not clear from the article is how significant that impact is.  To start, the decrease in expected emissions is only temporary:

       "Soil microbes can make methane two different ways: either from acetate, an organic molecule that comes from plants, or from carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

       
       "Both processes produce energy for the microbe, and the microbe breathes out methane like we breathe out carbon dioxide," McCalley said. "But we find that in thawing permafrost, most methane initially doesn't come from acetate as previously assumed, but the other pathway. This ratio then shifts towards previous estimates as the frozen soils are turned into wetlands and acetate becomes the preferred carbon source."

       (My emphasis)

       For a second, my (relatively ill informed) understanding is that permafrost is thawing more rapidly than model expectations, given which we do not know whether the reduced initial methane generation counters that more rapid melt (if my understanding is correct) decreases it beyond that.

       In essence, from the article we do not know the percentage impact on forcing over time of this discovery.  It is likely to be small, as in the case of Riebesell et al I discussed @19 above, but may not be.  I have not commented on it specifically in response to Donny because we would have to read the actual paper (and possibly additional related papers) to know.  We certainly do not know simply from a headline, which seems to be Donny's method of judgeing the issue.

33491. nigelj at 07:02 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       So Donny quotes an article from Science Daily suggesting plankton respond to increasing carbon dioxide by increasing their ability to absorb CO2. The only problem is this has numerous negative side effects for the oceans so gets us nowhere. We wreck the oceans to save the planet. Wow, thats helpful.

33492. One Planet Only Forever at 04:39 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Donny, it has been interesting to follow your persistent attempts to essentially claim that it is OK for already fortunate humans to continue benefiting from the burning of as much non-renewable buried hydrocarbon as quickly as they can get away with, because absolutely everything that might be related to the impacts of that activity is not known.

       This 'new' discovery adds to the concerns regarding the potential rate of climate change. And there are a substantial number of wealthy people who want to prove otherwise. In spite of their massive wealth and motivation to discover such proof they have failed to 'discover' any significant counter-claim. All that has been accomplished to date by that 'massive amount of money wanting to make more money any way it can get away with' is the development of creative attempts to discredit or dismiss the science, attempts that do not withstand careful scrutiny, claims that are ultimately as unsustainable as the unacceptable activities they attempt to prolong.

       Hopefully the unsustainability of such attitudes and actions regarding activities that are ultimately unsustainable and are, without significant doubt, harmful is clarified by the way I have presented the attitude that would lead a person to attempt to create and try to prolong the popularity of such thinking.

       Any activity that is unsustainable and harmful needs to be limited to the rapid development of a sustainable better life for the least fortunate. Anyone else trying to benefit from those activities, including trying to mislead thinking about the acceptability of what some powerful fortunate people try to get away with, is clearly certainly unacceptable.

33493. wili at 03:07 AM on 27 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
       

       Thank you for posting about this important new research on the role of microbes in thawing permafrost. If it is permitted to have a try to start a conversation about the actual contents of the study rather than just swatting at distractions, I'd like to point out the following passage:

       "Researchers suspected that it played a significant role in global warming by liberating vast amounts of carbon stored in permafrost soil close to the Arctic Circle in the form of _methane_, a powerful greenhouse gas trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. But the actual role of this microbe—assigned the preliminary name Methanoflorens stordalenmirensis, which roughly translates to "methane-bloomer from the Stordalen Mire"—was unknown.

       The new research nails down the role of the new microbe, finding that the _sheer abundance of Methanoflorens, as compared to other microbial species in thawing permafrost_, should help to predict their collective impact on future climate change."

       So if these microbes produce methane and if one of the main finding of the study concerns their 'sheer abundance...as compared to other microbial species in thawing permafrost"--then can we conclude that thawing permafrost will produce methane in much higher portions than previously thought?

       And if so, do we have new calculations on what the consequences of such thawing will be on total global warming?

       To be more specific: A while back, you published an piece about an article by McDougal et al. that pointed out that, if you include just part of the permafrost feedback, we are already at the point where, even if all further human GHG emissions were stopped immediately, atmospheric CO2 levels would stay at current levels or even increase over the next couple hundred years (unless unrealistically low climate sensitivity was assumed).

       Modeling the permafrost carbon feedback

       Since that even that model optimistically modeled ONLY CO2 being emitted from the thawing permafrost, I would expect that in the light of this new research the graphs at figure 3 in the above-linked article would need to have steeper upward slopes for future atmospheric CO2 levels going forward, even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow. Or am I missing something?

33494. DSL at 02:59 AM on 27 October 2014
       Other planets are warming
       

       MagickWizard, you're not arguing for a new force.  You're arguing for the same forces that have been measured for decades directly and through proxies for thousands or millions of years.  Magnetic flux has been considered as an element of the GCR argument.  Or is there a different magnetic flux you're aware of but scientists are not?
       
       You can argue for all the mysterious undiscovered forces you want, but until you show the force as a physical mechanism, no one will take you seriously.

33495. JohnSeers at 02:48 AM on 27 October 2014
       From Pole to Pole - a climate-themed tour through a zoo
       

       So this is what you have been doing. Very good article. It is very visual as well.

33496. BojanD at 02:37 AM on 27 October 2014
       Models are unreliable
       

       @Tom & @Tom, very much appreciated. Ok, I get it now. There's nothing absolute about 1990, but it is very convenient year for a sniff test since it was by far the warmest year. And like @TD said and Dana gave it the whole section, you can just forget about aligning stuff and look at the trends instead. Not sure how I missed that Dana's article. Had I read it before I wouldn't have had to ask the question.

33497. MagickWizard@gmail.com at 02:25 AM on 27 October 2014
       Other planets are warming
       

       One thing I have not heard at all in the climate debate is that the Earth and entire Solar System are not only orbiting the Sun, but also, along with the Sun, are moving through Space orbiting the Galatic center. When we orbit the Sun we never return to the same spot. the entire system by that time has moved on. We are constantly moving into areas of space we have never inhabited before.
       How can we say with any authority there are not energies we never encountered, and possibly can't even detect, influencing the delecate balance of our climate and maybe more, like the magnetic field?

33498. michael sweet at 00:45 AM on 27 October 2014
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       

       Tristan,

       Weather forcasts of wind are usually very accurate the day before on an hourly basis so generation by wind is not really variable hourly, it is forecast.  Peaking plants (usually gas in the USA) adjust for small changes so no wind is wasted.  If wind goes down a little the peaking plant generates more, if wind goes up the peaking plant generates more.  This is the same as for current coal and nuclear plants.  With coal the generation is fixed.  As demand rises during the day, peaking plants come online.  With wind the currently existing peaking plants also cover changes in generation.  Coal and nuclear also require spinning backup in case the whole power plant goes out.  Wind generally does not need this backup, although it needs backup if the transmission line goes out.

33499. Tristan at 00:02 AM on 27 October 2014
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       

       Found some good info here: http://masg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Wind-Energy-In-NSW-Myths-and-Facts.pdf

       In Australia:

       "These short-term variations in demand and supply are balanced every five minutes within the spot market. "

       which leads to

       "Under all but extraordinary circumstances, every unit of wind
       power sent into the electricity grid will reduce greenhouse gas
       emissions to meet any given level of market demand"

33500. Tristan at 23:41 PM on 26 October 2014
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       

       scaddenp.

       Picking on wind because I'm interested in the details of how intermittent power generators have been integrated into the grid. If the wind picks up and there is more generation than expected, coal plants don't automatically shut off in response. The excess wind power is stored with some loss or wasted (that's not a feature of wind alone).

Prev  662  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  Next