Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 Next
Comments 33551 to 33600:
-
scaddenp at 05:12 AM on 28 October 20142014 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:35 AM on 28 October 20142014 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.
-
unspecial at 03:04 AM on 28 October 2014Greenhouse 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?
-
Tom Dayton at 01:51 AM on 28 October 20142014 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Donny at 00:34 AM on 28 October 20142014 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.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:03 AM on 28 October 20142014 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)
-
Tom Curtis at 20:50 PM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
nigelj at 17:14 PM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
nigelj at 12:21 PM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:16 PM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:10 AM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
Donny at 10:51 AM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 08:59 AM on 27 October 20142014 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...
-
grindupBaker at 08:49 AM on 27 October 2014Why 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).
-
Tom Curtis at 08:06 AM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
nigelj at 07:02 AM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:39 AM on 27 October 20142014 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.
-
wili at 03:07 AM on 27 October 20142014 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?
-
DSL at 02:59 AM on 27 October 2014Other 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. -
JohnSeers at 02:48 AM on 27 October 2014From 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.
-
BojanD at 02:37 AM on 27 October 2014Models 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.
-
MagickWizard@gmail.com at 02:25 AM on 27 October 2014Other 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? -
michael sweet at 00:45 AM on 27 October 2014Renewables 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.
-
Tristan at 00:02 AM on 27 October 2014Renewables 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" -
Tristan at 23:41 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables 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).
-
michael sweet at 20:23 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables can't provide baseload power
Tristan,
I believe that 1 kWh of wind power replaces more than 2 kWh of coal energy. When they burn the coal they are only about 40% efficient in converting heat to electricity. 60% of the energy is wasted. They only count the energy that is useful in their generating statistics. They do not count the energy that they wasted from the coal. The wasted energy is realeased into the environment as heat pollutiion. On the other hand, 100% of the energy the wind generator makes is useful. (A small amount of energy in both cases is lost in transmission).
Some coal palnts in Germany are shutting down due to competition from renewables. It is hard to tell if for one kWh of wind the energy source would have been coal, gas or oil, but it would have certainly been fossil fuel. This post discusses that when Nuclear was shut down (in England) it was replaced with coal. It stands to reason that when they have more wind forcast they throttle back the coal.
-
michael sweet at 19:47 PM on 26 October 2014Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Rett,
The data in figure 2 is a 12 month average, not the maximun. The Antarctic sea ice maximun (this year) was just over20 million km2. Sea ice was only that high for about one week. Sea ice has dropped to about 18 million km2. The yearly average is lower than the maximum is. The graph is also from last year so it does not include the most recent data.
The yearly average is more informative than the maximum because it tells us about what is happeing the entire year. A graph of all the data can be found here (the graph is area not extent so the maximun this year is 17 million km2. The graph of the Antarctic is about half way down the page.)
-
scaddenp at 19:39 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables can't provide baseload power
Well I dont know why pick on wind in particular, but I would say, yes, every kWh of power from non-carbon source is kWh of coal power saved. I dont think you could ever precisely say that x wind turbines have been built to replace y coal plants. Perhaps you could explain more of the context of your question?
-
Tristan at 17:04 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables can't provide baseload power
Doesn't that assume that each kWh of wind power results in -1 kWh of coal power?
-
Rett Smit at 16:54 PM on 26 October 2014Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Is the scale on the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent graph in Figure 2 correct? I thought that Antarctic sea ice was up around the 20 million sq km mark. Thanks.
-
grindupBaker at 15:26 PM on 26 October 2014What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
Smith@2 & Andy Skuce@5 NOAA has 4,267 metres average ocean depth and Woods Hole Oceonographic has 3,682 metres. I don't know why the huge range (Woods Hole inclusion / NOAA exclusion of some shallow seas maybe ?). If "average ocean depth" is based on its volume and the area covered at the surface including continental shelves then if it's 4,267 metres then above 700 m and above 2,000 m cannot possibly in any practical way be more than 16.4% and 46.9% respectively (they can be less). If it's 3,682 metres then above 700 m and above 2,000 m cannot possibly in any practical way be more than 19.0% and 54.3% respectively. I infer that the "20%" and possibly the "50%" appear to be approximations not within 1% of actual.
-
scaddenp at 15:11 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables can't provide baseload power
Should be straightforward. Use total wind generation hours from say IEA, and use conversion of 0.542Kg CO2 per kWh.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:08 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Donny @19, it is easy for you to say. You do not, however, do it. Nor do you show examples from the copious literature on the determinants of CO2 concentration and rates of draw down that support your claim. I have no inclination to treat the mere assertion of "random internet guy" as evidence, and you evidently have nothing better to offer.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:05 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Donny @18, thankyou, but I prefer this version, from which:
"Supplementary Fig. 4a depicts ΔDICorg as a function of atmospheric pCO2, with the present day value (ΔDICorg at 380 μatm) set to 1. Extrapolating the observed trend to pre-industrial CO2 levels (pCO2 = 280 μatm) yields a value of ~0.95; that is, for a given amount of inorganic nutrients, biological carbon consumption under pre-industrial conditions was about 95% of today's level. On the basis of this relationship, an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 μatm to 380 μatm (present day) corresponds to an excess carbon sequestration of 22 Pg (range 14-29 Pg) for the past 150 yr (Supplementary Fig. 4b). Without this negative feedback mechanism, atmospheric CO2 would be approximately 11 μatm higher than its present value. By the end of this century, this process would sequester an additional 94 Pg C to the deep ocean, bringing total excess carbon sequestration to 116 Pg C (range 76-154 Pg C). This reduces the increase in atmospheric CO2 by a total of 58 μatm at 2100."
That is, by 2100, CO2 concentrations will rise to 700 ppmv rather than to 760 ppmv, with a total change of radiative forcing of 0.44 W/m^2, or a 0.2 C difference in temperature based on the transient climate response.
Returning to your original claim, we see that the actual study on which you purport to rely does not back it up. The study finds it very convievable that we will achieve and maintain high CO2 concentrations. They have found an effect that may reduce the increase in CO2 concentration by a small amount (and hasten its decline over millenial time scales).
I say "may" because their plots were essentially predator free, and the presence of planckton eaters may significantly reduce the effect. Further, the algal blooms are significantly limited by the availability of nutrients so the generalization of the results to non-isolate plots and to non arctic waters must be considered tenuous. Further, you assume also that there are no other effects currently not-known or poorly quantified that will balance out in the other direction.
-
Tristan at 14:39 PM on 26 October 2014Renewables can't provide baseload power
Are there any published estimates of how much cO2eq has been averted by wind turbines globally (or just in the EU or US)
-
Tom Curtis at 14:21 PM on 26 October 2014What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
grindupBaker @9, I am not sure I understand your point. The slow down in warming in GMST has resulted in a trend about half of the expected, and hence an increase in temperature over the purported 15 years of the slowdown of 0.15 C. By your estimates, that represents 1.8 Zettajoules. That represents 1.2% of the approximately 150 Zettajoule rise in ocean heat content over the same time. Note that there was also a 150 Zettajoule rise in ocean heat content in the 15 years prior to that when GMST rose as expected. The point then, is that the difference in the rate if rise in GMST between the two periods is:
1) A result of additional warming of the oceans; but that
2) That additional warming is so small a component of the total warming as to be negligible.
In short, they are saying the additional heat is going into the ocean, not that all of the increase in OHC is due to surface heat going into the ocean instead.
Further, and with respect to the cold water, if the cold water at the surface cools the surface temperatures, then it must do so (at least in part) by being warmed by the surface. More directly, the colder the surface water, the harder it is for heat to escape from that water given a warm atmosphere and hence more of the incoming heat is retained in the ocean. Consequently, I do not see how your description differs from that which you are criticizing.
-
Donny at 14:17 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071117121016.htm
Tom.... this should help you understand the science that I am talking about.
Moderator Response:[PS] Much more useful thank you.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:05 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Donny, I don't believe I insulted you. I said you don't understand the relevant science, which clearly you do not. I concluded from that that when you make assertions about what we do, or do not know about the science you are not basing those claims on an understanding of the science.
Now, I would be delighted to be proven wrong on either point. Clearly we cannot do it with regard to the vacuum comment which you now claim was figurative (apparently never having heard of the phrase "all else being equal"). So, you claim the CO2 content in the atmosphere is modelled by a predator/prey relationship. The obvious questions then are:
1) Which (set of) equation(s) to model the predator/prey relationship do you use?
2) Over what period have you modelled the CO2 content of the atmosphere using the equations specified in response to (1)?
(3) What emperical evidence did you use to test the validity of those equations in modelling the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere?
Absent answers to the above, you alternative theory of CO2 concentration is not scientific. It is neither modelled (ie, you don't have an actual theory, just a phrase which can be trotted out to pretend its a theory) nor tested. Ergo, absent answers to the above, my conclusion that your claims about the uncertainty of the science of global warming are not based on understanding the science are in fact borne out.
-
grindupBaker at 13:50 PM on 26 October 2014What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
I disagree with the analytical logic of the statement in the posting "...with heat that might otherwise add to the atmosphere seemingly entering the ocean on a regular basis...". In this disagreement I'm assuming that the statement relates to GMST fluctutations being due to the oceans absorbing heat (else my disagreement might be void). It is not that heat enters the oceans which could reduce an increase in GMST, it is that colder deeper water must rise to the surface if warmer surface waters are being pushed downwards. It is this colder deeper water reaching the surface waters that restrains an increase in GMST to less than that naively expected from solar or atmosperic changes just as it is warmer water rising to the surface (such as, obviously, El Nino) that boosts an increase in GMST to more than that naively expected from solar or atmosperic changes. It is not that "heat that might otherwise add to the atmosphere" gets added instead to the oceans. Rather It is that the temperature of the oceans varies between -0.2 degrees and +5 degrees (apart from a trivial ~3% in the tropics and sub-tropics sitting on top in a tiny pool) but GMST is +14.6 degrees. To make this important point (this isn't semantics) another way, it requires only 12 zettajoules to raise GMST by 1 full degree including land to a depth of 6m and ocean to a depth of 1m (which I'm arbitrarily considering the "surface") so it is not sensible to state or imply that 150 zettajoules of heat added to oceans the last 10 years (for example) was "instead of" GMST going up an additional 0.3 degrees or some such over that 10 years. It's quite simply additional cold water from that vast reservoir of coldness getting to the surface. Obviously, a corollary to that is that the additional cold water from depth getting to the surface will cause it to warm by SWR, increasing OHC.
-
Donny at 13:44 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Rob.... I respect the way you discuss these issues. ... even though I know you disagree with my views on how things are likely to play out.
-
Donny at 13:41 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Tom.... were you bullied as a child? Grow up and stop insulting someone you don't know. I forgot Tom knows everything about every scientific field.
Tom.... when I used the term vacuum. ... I was implying that there were no other variables. .... not if it was done in an actual vacuum. I'm sorry you were the only person to not understand that.
With regard to your deforestation rant.... thanks for allowing for co2 to be considered plant food as I am sure that is settled science. Oceans my friend cover twice as much space as land and have huge potential to buffer available co2.
Moderator Response:[PS]Everyone, please abide by comments policy. Inflammatory remarks do not move a debate forward. Donny, people are trying fill gaps in your understanding. You could do everyone a favour by familiarizing yourself with the basic science - start with either a textbook or the IPCC report.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:08 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Donny, @7:
"The only thing that is settled is... that in a vacuum increasing CO2 will increase the temperature."
Also @10:
"I think it will become increasingly hard to maintain elevated co2 levels because of poorly understood biological mechanisms. When mice are plentiful owls flourish until the mouse population declines. I think the same thing will happen with co2. CO2 is a food of sorts."
So, from these two examples we establish that Donny does not know the science he disputes. Specifically, CO2 in an atmosphere warms the surface. Adding the equivalent mass of CO2 to that in the Earth's atmosphere to the Moon in gaseous form would increase the Moon's surface temperature neglibibly. Remember, ΔT = ΔAEff * Γ, where ΔT is the change in temperature, ΔAEff is the change in the effective altitude of radiation to space, and Γ is the lapse rate. No atmosphere means no lapse rate.
Further, change of CO2 concentration over time is not modellable as a predator/prey relationship. Further, even allowing the facts that CO2 is plant food, and increased CO2 therefore results in increased growth of plants, deforestation has contributed <10% of total CO2 emissions and therefore a food model for eliminating CO2 requires forestation to the extent of >10 times the total deforestation from the industrial period to now (for which theres is simply not the habitat space); and further, plants certainly are food for insects and other animals so that a growth in plant biomass will result in a growth insect and herbivore biomass which will limit the capacity of simple biomass growth to remove emissions. (From the last point we see that Donny does not even understand the science he mistakenly appeals to in order to believe that there is no problem.)
If he does not understand the science, he is in no position to assess whether the evidence todate settles it with reasonable certainty. His claim that it is not settled is, therefore, a faith claim. He is required to believe it by his ideology, not by the evidence.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:07 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Not saying we understand everything. I'm saying we have 150 years of research on all the fundamental elements of this issue. We actually understand a great deal. It's highly unlikely that something is going to pop up to substantially alter our fundamental understand of man-made global warming.
Understanding of ocean currents are not likely to change any fundamental conclusions.
Definitely the more we know, the more we understand what we can know. But I would have to reject that makes us clueless. Understanding more does not means what we've already come to know is of less value. The big issues are well understood. That is settled science. The nuances are what are fascinating to learn.
For instance, at the turn of the 20th century Arrhenius made the earliest calculations for climate sensitivity. Those estimates have been shown over time to be fairly good. We are highly unlikely to suddenly discover sensitivity is below 1.5C or higher than 5C.
Improving our understanding of central climate sensitivity estimates from, say, 2.8C to 2.9C doesn't mean Arrhenius' estimates were clueless. It was his work that put us on the path to our current understanding.
-
Donny at 12:50 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Whether it's hundreds or thousands of approaches they all have the same problem of lack of enough time in the game. They are all rookies.
You make it sound like we understand everything but we just haven't sorted out the details. ... in reality we don't understand much. We think the ocean currents are a major player. ... but are basically clueless when it comes to understanding them. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes the more you learn the more you realize how clueless you really are.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is empty rhetoric. Not knowing 100% is not the same as knowing nothing. Unless you have something other rhetoric to offer, with data/papers to back your claims, then I would suggest this discussion is over. Either discuss the science or find some other blog for your entertainment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:33 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Donny... But you do understand, I hope, that the science on climate change approaches the theory from hundreds of different directions, and nearly all those approaches are in general agreement. Even if there is one new aspect that is interesting that pops up, it's unlikely to overturn the broader understanding of the science. It's merely going to reveal to us why things are the way we understand them to be.
-
Donny at 12:28 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Rob... I think it will become increasingly hard to maintain elevated co2 levels because of poorly understood biological mechanisms. When mice are plentiful owls flourish until the mouse population declines. I think the same thing will happen with co2. CO2 is a food of sorts.
-
Donny at 12:11 PM on 26 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Rob.... I understand what you are saying. ... but can't you see that there are biological mechanisms that very well could be "unchecking" our emissions as we speak. And when I hear about the serious issues that warming is likely to cause. ... they don't seem overly scary. These serious issues are also extremely weakly linked to warming.
Prev 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 Next
