Recent Comments

Prev  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  Next

Comments 33601 to 33650:

33601. DSL at 23:57 PM on 22 October 2014
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       bvangerven--

       1. "The earth is now definitely cooler than during the Roman Warm Period"

       It's fairly clear from global Marcott et al. 2013 that the Roman Warming Period was not globally warmer than the present.  

       2. "There are passes in the Alps that the Romans used, today they are covered in ice.  The tree line was hundreds of meters higher 3000 years ago, we still find remnants of trees under glaciers."

       Note regional Marcott.  The Northern hemisphere (north of 30) was likely warmer than present (though Marcott's uncertainty for 20th c. temps is large).  It may be that the Alps were responding to a greater forcing during the RWP.  How about the rest of the globe?  Take a look at Funder et al. 2011 and see if the RWP is noticeable (note that Funder ends in 2000).

       Regardless, what's the point?  Even if the RWP were warmer than present, what would it mean, other than the possibility that climate sensitivty is greater than the current mainstream range?  If the RWP was warmer, does it mean that global warming is going to stop? 

33602. TallDave at 23:43 PM on 22 October 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Several obvious problems here.
       First, Hansen's 1988 presentation was about emissions, as the Congressional record clearly shows. Actual global emissions look like Scenario A (if mainly because of China). Yes, the forcings in the model depend on concentrations, but the fact that methane or CO2 concentrations didn't do what the model expected are failures of Hansen 1988 to accurately model the relationship of emissions to concentrations. This is part of what critics have accurately labelled the "three-card monte" of climate science: make a claim, then defend some other claim while never acknowledging the original claim was false. This is not how good science is done.
       Second, the graph purports to measure whether Hansen 1988 made accurate predictions, but it doesn't start in 1988. To show the hindcast (which the model was deliberately tuned to!) is another kind of three-card monte.
       One can quibble with the choice of the GISS surface temperature record, given that Hansen himself administered it, but the divergence from satellite doesn't really affect the conclusions, so suffice it to note the 1988 prediction looks slightly worse using UAH or RSS.
       Another minor quibble is that the article is now somewhat out of date — we're well into the 2010s and the predicted warming is still not materializing. This also makes the prediction slightly more wrong.
       Last, and most risibly, the resemblance of actual temperatures to Scenario C predictions is now being held up as vindication. Even if that were defensible on the merits, it would certainly have come as a great shock to Hansen and his audience in 1988. Imagine a time traveler arriving from 2014, barging into Senate hearings brandishing the satellite record and yelling "Hansen was right! Look, future temperatures are just like Scenario C!" The obvious conclusion would have been "oh good, there's no problem then."
       As this is an advocacy site, I do not expect these errors to be corrected, I merely state them for the record so visitors to the site can draw their own conclusions.

33603. BaerbelW at 21:01 PM on 22 October 2014
       From Pole to Pole - a climate-themed tour through a zoo
       

       Thanks much, Tom!

33604. tanelorn26 at 20:21 PM on 22 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Hi folks,  need a little advice,  in correcting some information contained in our small town newspaper written by Joe D'Aleo, it seems that Dr legates has come to his defense regarding the Cornwall alliance.  It seems Joe is taken to writing Alex Jones style diatribes,  im not sure i can devote the time to continue to correct his misrepresentations?  I'm a not a scientist, and I think I'm a bit over my head.  Any advice or assistance would be appreciated.  I know a little bit about these folks, and as I learn more, I'm shocked by what they espouse.

       Thanks

        

33605. bvangerven at 19:07 PM on 22 October 2014
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       

       Hi, 

       I encountered the following argument:

       <statement>The earth is now definitely cooler than during the Roman Warm Period.

       There are passes in the Alps that the Romans used, today they are covered in ice.

       The tree line was hundreds of meters higher 3000 years ago, we still find remnants of trees under glaciers.</statement>

       I have no idea if these statements are correct, can anyone point me to the relevant literature ?

        

33606. BojanD at 17:41 PM on 22 October 2014
       Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate
       

       @ubrew12, agree! I noticed this quote in particular:
       "In the end, they end up with a bunch of tunable parameters, which they adjusted so that the model output matches the measured temperature history."
       
       I think Spencer is too smart to not know how wrong this is. But no matter how wrong it is, the casual observer will notice the tuning part and just assume that all models do this, it's just a matter of how sophisticated they are in doing it. That's why any kind of denial is successful.

33607. Tom Curtis at 17:04 PM on 22 October 2014
       From Pole to Pole - a climate-themed tour through a zoo
       

       Outstanding post.  Well done.

33608. Tom Curtis at 17:01 PM on 22 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       To give more perspective on future rates of sea level rise, here is the upper limit of sea level rise by 2100 as estimate by Jevrejevya et al (2014):

       

       And the time series of sea level rise from the same paper:

       

       The rate of increase at the upper limit from 2080-2100 is approximately 3 meters per century.

       And the sea level rise (with uncertainties) out to 2300 as estimated by a Semi Empirical Model by Jevrejevya et al (2011):

       

       (Follow the link for estimates out to 2500, and for scenarios other than RCP 8.5)  These estimates give a higher value than the IPCC expected range, but must certainly be considered reasonable.  It is interesting to note that the maximum rate of sea level rise over a century, and at the upper confidence level is again about 3 meters per century (from 2150-2250).

       Given this data, I think it is reasonable to set policy on an expectation of 1-1.5 meters of sea level rise over this century, and a rate of sea level rise around 2 meters per century for the following two centuries.  Both are higher than medium, or mean values.  However, damages rise with increased rapidity of sea level rise, so that cost weighted expectations (ie, the expectations that should be used for policy) will be higher than the mean or median values.

       I do not, however, see anything in Grant et al (2014) to contradict such estimate, nor reason to think the IPCC is significantly inerror in their estimates.

33609. ubrew12 at 15:18 PM on 22 October 2014
       Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate
       

       "The Science isn't settled"  One of the advantages of denial is that once Curry and Spencer publish their (predictably) super-low estimates of climate sensitivity, the necessary rebuttal process (by illuminating their mistakes) supports the central denial claim ("The Science isn't settled").  When your object is to sow confusion, even losing an argument allows you to win: there was an argument.  Certainly Curry and Spencer, and their backers, know this, and don't care.  Anymore than someone tagging a bridge with X-rated grafitti cares that someone else will eventually show up to, slowly and laborously, repaint the bridge.  Their purpose is anarchy, like so much of modern conservatism.  They are saying nothing gets done, if it can't get done their way.

33610. sidd at 10:14 AM on 22 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       1)It is unfair to judge IPCC AR5 in light of results such as this, since the paper was published long after the review period closed.

       2)Glacial-interglacial SLR may be the wrong analog for present day forcings. Consider rather, the ANDRILL results, eg Pollard(2009) doi:10.1038/nature07809 from Pliocene and early Pleistocene

       sidd

33611. rkrolph at 09:34 AM on 22 October 2014
       Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate
       

       Aren't these the kind of inaccuracies that peer review is supposed to weed out?  I guess not always; I remember back when cold fusion made it through.

33612. Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 22 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       sidd @12, thankyou.

       CBDunkerson @10 (Cont), the IPCC says the following about sea level rise:

       "For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1. We have considered the evidence for higher projections and have concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed likely range. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century."

       Note that their likely rate of rise for 2080-2100 given RCP 8.5 is 0.8 to 1.6 meter per century.  For the mid value, and assuming an exponential rate of increase, that represents an acceleration of 1.75% per annum.  Given that rate of increase, in 180 years the rate of sea level rise would be 6.8 meters per century, well beyond the upper rate of sea level rises shown in this study, and at half the time to a "peak" rate of increase of sea level shown in this study.  More plausibly, if we do reach the peak rate of increase by 2200, the rate of increase will decelerate as we approach that peak yielding a lower value for the peak rate, but still well within the upper range of sea level rise.

       I am not making any predictions here that the rate of sea level rise will peak within 200 years, or that it will reach 5 meters per century.  I am merely pointing out that this study is entirely compatible with current IPCC estimates, ie, of a likely increase of 0.52 to 0.98 m by 2080-2100 under RCP 8.5.  Put another way, for approx 1 meter to be the lower bound on sea level rise by the end of this century, we must expect 1.6 meters per century to be the lower bound on the rate of sea level rise in the same period, with maximum rates of sea level rise by 2200 well above 5 meters a century.  This study does not support such rates.  If anything it precludes them.

       In short, I don't think just below 1 meter is a reasonable lower bound on expected sea level rise for this century.  That is not because I do not expect rapid rates by the end of the century, but because we are starting from a (relatively) low base.  Overall I am still inclined to accept the IPCC stated rates.

33613. sidd at 07:22 AM on 22 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       " If by "maximum retreat" they mean "maximum rate of retreat"  "

        

       yes

        

       

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Modified image size and added zoom feature (at least, tried to add the zoom feature...)

33614. wili at 05:09 AM on 22 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Another article/topic to consider for inclusion in the next News Roundup:

       Betting on Negative Emissions Fuss et alia, Nature Climate Change (online), 21 September 2014.

       Essentially, we are more and more relying on unproven or undeveloped technology (AKA pixie dust) to even imagine non-catastrophic climate futures in the coming decades.

33615. Climate Bob at 04:34 AM on 22 October 2014
       Ocean Warming has been Greatly Underestimated
       

       If there are markers in the sea how long does it take for Gulf Stream water that sinks off Norway to resurface in Antarctica?  http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/blog/global-warming-pause

33616. Tom Curtis at 02:50 AM on 22 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       CBDunkerson @10, just briefly in relation to your last point, here is the graph of the sea level rise reconstruction from the paper (fig 2):

       

       It is fairly easy to see that some of the sea level rises took longer than 1.1 k (0.11 of the graduations).  Indeed, some took more than than 10 thousand years, although they may have proceeded by stops and starts.  

       Further, the abstract of the paper says, "We also find that maximum sea-level rise rates were attained within 2 kyr of the onset of deglaciations, for 85% of such events."  If in fact the paper found that 95% of melt periods lasted 1100 years or less, the claim in the abstract is very weak.

       What the post above claims is that:

       "In the 120 different events we looked at, ice sheets went from initial change to maximum retreat within 400 years 68% of the time, and within 1100 years for 95%. In other words: once triggered, ice sheet reduction (and therefore sea level rise) kept accelerating relentlessly for many centuries."

       If by "maximum retreat" they mean "maximum rate of retreat", that brings the post into line with the abstract and the graph.  If not, and they mean 400 (68%) and 1100 (95%) years from inception of melt to maximum sea level rise, there does appear to be a conflict between the claim and the data presented.

       At the moment I am interested if anybody with access to the full paper can clarify which claim is meant.  I shall return to the other points tomorrow.

33617. CBDunkerson at 21:56 PM on 21 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Tom, all good points. However, I think the second is covered by the different ice volume conditions covered in the study (since area should be fairly closely correlated with volume) and the third may be largely responsible for the range of variation in sea level rise the study found for given ice volumes... suggesting that at best, modern sea level rise might be on the lower end of that range if the zenith angle is a more significant factor than the warming rate.

       I don't have a good feel for how quickly the equilibrium can shift, but haven't we already observed increasing rates of sea level rise? Likewise, the breakup of various ice shelves has taken place quite 'rapidly'. It is clear that Greenland is losing ice mass, and I think the evidence that Antartica is now doing so as well has become fairly solid. You note glacier growth in the 19th century, but do individual 'small' glaciers have the same 'equilibrium period' as the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica? In any case, the vast majority of glaciers have clearly been in retreat for decades now... suggesting (to me) that we are well past equilibrium temperature for them. Indeed, I recall reading a study that found glacier retreat began from natural causes even before significant AGW kicked in... suggesting that we were already on the 'retreat' side of the equilibrium point even before adding in AGW.

       Intuition can certainly be wrong, but in this case there is also data... both from this proxy study and studies of recent sea level rise. Would you agree that data seems to be trending towards setting a 'lower bound' of possible sea level rise by 2100 not much below one meter?

       I think one of the most significant findings of this study was that most melt periods lasted less than 400 years and nearly all less than 1100. That all but rules out estimates that the ice melt / sea level rise from AGW could take thousands of years. It also suggests (to me) that the onset, even with vastly slower natural warming of past melt periods, cannot take hundreds of years... it should be decades, and if data showing Antarctica losing ice mass is accurate then those decades have apparently already passed.

33618. Tom Curtis at 01:12 AM on 21 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       CBDunkerson @8:

       1)  Plausibly, the rate of ice melt is a function of the difference in temperature between the current temperature and the temperature at which the remaining ice would be in equilbrium.  Given that in the 19th century, glaciers were expanding, it follows that they were at or below the equilibrium temperature and that hence we are not far of the equilibrium temperature for the current extent of ice sheets.  On these assumptions, a rapid temperature rise will rapidly increase the disequilibrium and hence the rate of ice melt but need not do so significantly for several decades.

       2)  Plausibly the rate of ice melt is a function of exposed surface area of the ice, or perhaps the exposed edges of the ice sheets.  The much smaller ice sheets current would therefore have a much smaller melt rate than those in the LGM to Holocene transition.  Coupling both intuitions, we would need a far greater disequilibrium to generate the same rate of ice melt with todays smaller ice sheets.

       3)  Plausibly the rate of ice melt is also a function of the zenith angle of the sun durring the season of maximum melt.  That zenith angle partially determines the rate at which energy can be absorbed by the ice sheet.  The LGM - holocene ice melt had ice sheets at much lower latitudes and far greater summer insolation in the Arctic, both contributing to significantly higher zenith angles than is currently the case.

       I am not saying that these intuitions are correct (although I strongly suspect the first two are, and think the third likely).  My point is that they are reasonable intuitions that run counter to the intuition you rely on to conclude a very rapid ice melt (sea level rise).  Given that there are plausible counter intuitions, I do not think we can rely on your intuitive argument.

33619. CBDunkerson at 22:28 PM on 20 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Given that the current warming rate is vastly greater than anything in the natural record for the time period of this study, it stands to reason that the sea level rise rate should be at least as great as seen in past periods with similar amounts of ice. That apparently comes out to ~1.25 meters per century... which is consistent with some of the latest estimates (e.g. Rahmsdorf) of sea level rise by 2100 based on the currently observed rate of increase.

       What this data, or any study of past climate change, is unlikely to be able to help us with any time soon is understanding how much greater the melt rate might be with the accelerated warming we are seeing, and how much of that future melt/sea level rise could be stopped if we succeed in reducing GHG emissions. There just haven't been any comparable situations which we can study.

33620. CBDunkerson at 21:36 PM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Miguelito, well...

       The study doesn't say whether "it can work". Just that, currently, it doesn't. Could sensible regulations, better leakage controls, and carbon pricing allow natural gas to 'save the planet' by ending global warming? Maybe, but saying 'yes' based on this study is even less accurate than saying 'no'.

       That said, to me it seems likely that the costs which would have to be added to natural gas in order to make it environmentally beneficial would also make it economically unfeasible. Solar and wind are already dropping below grid electricity rates in many countries. A carbon price reflecting the true cost of fossil fuels would instantly shift that to most of the people on the planet being able to get power from renewables more cheaply.

33621. gpwayne at 15:57 PM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Note to SkS: could you correct the error in which the Guardian article about Richard Tol is attributed to 'Bud' Ward, instead of his actual name - Bob?

       Thanks...

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Correction made. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. 

33622. Rob Honeycutt at 14:03 PM on 20 October 2014
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       

       Interestedparty... I would highly suggest you read the SkS commenting policy before posting any further.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] It would seem that Interestedparty does not have the slightest interest in abiding the comments policy.

33623. Rob Honeycutt at 13:35 PM on 20 October 2014
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       

       interestedparty... "...to comment on the obvious."

       Therein lay the problem. You don't have to be an expert but you would need to have a little bit of humility regarding a complex field outside of your own when it comes to understanding what is, and what is not, "obvious."

       What, pray tell, would you think is so obvious that specialists in the field have failed to already consider and include in their overwhelmingly agreed upon positions regarding man-made causation of global warming?

33624. Miguelito at 13:18 PM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Gawd, I hate misleading headlines.

       "Natural gas won't save the planet, says new peer-reviewed report"

       It should say "Natural gas without supporting policy won't save the planet, says new peer-reviewed report", because that's what the study says.

       If there's good policy on things like curtailing fugitive gas and carbon prices, it can work. Otherwise, it's not going to help that much.

33625. michael sweet at 13:04 PM on 20 October 2014
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       

       Interested party,

       You would be better off studying climate science that chaos theory when you want to comment on a climate board.  The natural trend now is cooling.  Without human influence the temperature would be cooler.  Your general comment seems to suggest it is impossible to know anything.  Scientists feel we can learn and project what needs to be done.

       Perhaps you can sugggest a specific topic you want to discuss and we can help you figure out what you want to learn.

33626. sidd at 10:00 AM on 20 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       there was more than twice present ice volume at the beginning of MWP1A. Fig 4 in the paper.
33627. wili at 08:14 AM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Also relevant: Amazon deforestation picking up pace, satellite data reveals

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thanks for the link. I'll include this article in the next News Roundup.

33628. jja at 07:20 AM on 20 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Ok, so it is important to rebut obviously innacurate models (i.e. no pressure broadening and LW "windows" to space) 
       
       HOWEVER,
       
       If the Durack et. al estimation is correct and ECS is now pushed much higher, (with associtated TOA values pre 2005 much higher) then we must conclude that the aerosol forcing factor is much greater (negative) than current models hold. 
       
       The implications are then that, as China has been radically reducing its sulfate emissions since 2011, we are seeing a regional NH spike in heating (though we are only now experiencing the warming increases).
       
       Further implications are that the anthropogenic signal may now be accurately extracted from the 1910 to 1975 global temperature regime.
       
       If this is true, it changes everything.  near and long term temperature responses, incresed near-term land based and permafrost carbon cycle feedbacks, increased regional rainfall and land-based temperature extremes, radically incresed long-range projections for sea level rise.  And all of these produce an accelerated damage function in the IAMs leading to an estimation of the social cost of carbon greater than $300.00 per tonne CO2e (with a completely immoral and indefensible 3% pure-time multigenerational discount rate)
       
       In short.  If these implications are correct, we have crossed a threshold where mitigation discussions must now take on the urgency as an existential threat, without prejudice.

33629. wili at 05:33 AM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Good point. MSM generally don't connect the dots very well. I'd be interested to hear what you think of this fellow's take:

       Reservoir at 5 Percent Capacity: Climate Change to Leave Sao Paulo’s 20 Million Without Water By November?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] RobertScribbler's article is interesting. 

33630. wili at 04:52 AM on 20 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Thanks. I had searched "Sao Paulo" and came up with nothing. I'm not seeing a lot related to the most recent development ins SA using that search term either. I just wanted to give you a heads up that a major climate story/catastrophe is developing in SA that you may want to look into a bit more. Thanks for all your other coverage.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] I have scanned many articles about what's happening in Sao Paulo, but have not come across any that link the drought to climate change.  

33631. hank at 02:58 AM on 20 October 2014
       IPCC admits global warming has paused
       

       Aside — you'll find many 'septic' sites posting a partial quote from Al Gore's 2007 Nobel acceptance speech (one way to identify that sort of misattribution and spin is to look for their copypaste repeats of the partial quote).

       Here it is in context:

       "Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."

       The US Navy research:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=maslowski+2007+arctic&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2007&as_yhi=

33632. Hans11230 at 07:17 AM on 19 October 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       And of course I agree with what I have read somewhere that the extra 3 billion people are an extra sink of Carbon.

33633. wili at 06:34 AM on 19 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Have you included any articles about the drought in much of Brazil (and in Central and South America for that matter)? Sao Paulo, the largest city in SA, in particular is on the verge of running out of water and having to turn to much-lower-quality reserves. CA is not the only dry spot in the world.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You can readily answer your question by inserting "South America" into the  SkS search engine.

33634. Hans11230 at 06:17 AM on 19 October 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       
       I'm sorry to bring up this subject again, but I've only just been introduced to this platform. I have had no previous opportunity of discussing whether " Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup "?

       When we replace forests bij vegetable fields a lot less carbon is stored in vegetable fields than in forests. The forest canopy is higher and permanent while vegetables are also a seasonal crop.

       The differrence in carbon storage has been burned and is introduced into the atmosphere. Therefore 7 billion people needing more crops than 4 billion people will subsequently have displaced carbon from storage in forests to the atmosphere. This is added to the GHG. Breathing will not further increase the amount of GHG as we have to keep growing crops to keep the cycle in balance.
       So yes there should be more GHG and I think you can feel this in your bones. But its in facilitating our food that crops are a far less functional temporary carbon sink.
       And breathing does NOT contribute to a buildup of CO2 as we will allways have to cultivate new crops to ensure a continual supply to enable future bre

33635. jja at 02:32 AM on 19 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Even the PETM took 10,000 years to advance to a hothouse state.
       
       RCP 8.5 will create a hothouse earth within 200-300 years.

33636. Phil at 22:30 PM on 18 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       For a brief time early this morning, Wind was the second largest contributor to the UK grid, and came within a whisker of being the largest

       Time	Coal	Wind	CCGT	Nuclear
       5.20am	5.87	5.578	5.316	4.343
       6.20am	7.321	5.99	5.956	4.337

       (figures in GW)

       Obviously this is cherrypicking; demand at this time is at its lowest, and wind conditions appear to ideal for power generation at the moment. Nevertheless it does indicate that the UK grid can accomodate a substantial proportion of wind power. The interconnector to Holland was also fully importing, suggesting that mainland Europe also had an abundance of wind energy.

       Data from www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

        

33637. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:55 PM on 18 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Jonathon

       See my comments attached to your video.

33638. Jonathan Doolin at 14:06 PM on 18 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I put together A 20 Minute Video that attempts to explain some of my current thinking.  I don't think I have any current questions...  

       KR, Thanks for the reference to Harries.  But at $32 to read the article, or $199 to get a year's subscription to nature.  I'm going to try to figure it out on the cheap.  

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Try here.

33639. scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Most significant climate papers are published in journals that have a larger base than climate science and so have same process as all the other disciplines. I do hope you will further at the dispersions cast on scientists and peer review than just the misrepresentations by "skeptics". It is not often you get mass resignations of journal editors.

33640. Bob Loblaw at 10:56 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Ashton:

       Yes, there have been some rather poor practises in peer review in climate science. In addition to the links provided by DSL, I suggest you take a look through this article chronicling Pal Review.

33641. mbryson at 10:55 AM on 18 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Riduna: I agree— when it comes to events like that, preparing for the more extreme scenario is wise, even if we think it's unlikely.  It's called insurance, it makes sense when we can't afford a potential loss, and this case meets that  description in spades.  

33642. mbryson at 10:52 AM on 18 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Ranyl: Your first question is the one I logged on to ask.  I can understand that the amount of ice makes a big difference, but the rate of warming now, as I understand it, is much higher than at the end of the last ice age.  So an inference about likely rates of sea level rise in the future based just on the amount of ice seems to leave something important out.  

33643. Bob Loblaw at 10:50 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Please take this as an entirely tongue-in-cheek look at publications and citations, but as soon as I read this thread I was reminded of the old chain-mail take on how to get tenure. I easily found the full text online at this location, with a bit of background info on its origin,  but here it is for local fun. I particularly enjoy the third paper cited.

       Dear Fellow Scientist:

       This letter has been around the world at least seven times. It has been to many major conferences. Now it has come to you. It will bring you good fortune. This is true even if you don't believe it. But you must follow these instructions:

       • Include in your next journal article the citations below;

       • Remove the first citation from the list and add a citation to your journal article at the bottom;

       • Make 10 copies and send them to colleagues.

       Within one year, you will be cited up to 10,000 times! This will amaze your fellow faculty, assure your promotion and improve your sex life. In addition, you will bring joy to many colleagues. Do not break the reference loop, but send this letter on today.

       Dr. H. received this letter and within a year after passing it on she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Prof. M. threw this letter away and was denied tenure. In Japan, Dr. I. received this letter and put it aside. His article for Trans. on nephrology was rejected. He found the letter and passed it on, and his article was published that year in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the Midwest, Prof. K. failed to pass on the letter, and in a budget cutback his entire department was eliminated. This could happen to you if you break the chain of citations.

       1. Miller, J. (1992). Post-modern neo-cubism and the wave theory of light. Journal of Cognitive Artifacts, 8, 113-117.

       2. Johnson, S. (1991). Micturition in the canid family: the irresistible pull of the hydrant. Physics Quarterly, 33, 203-220.

       3. Anderson, R. (1990). Your place or mine?: an empirical comparison of two models of human mating behavior. Psychology Yesterday 12, 63-77.

       4. David, E. (1994). Modern Approaches to Chaotic Heuristic Optimization: Means of Analyzing Non-Linear Intelligent Networks with Emergent Symbolic Structure. (doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Royale El Camino del Rey Mar Vista by-the-sea).

33644. Riduna at 10:25 AM on 18 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       “When starting with double the modern ice volume or less, sea levels did not rise faster than 2m per century”

       Not quite. Meltwater pulse 1A produced SLR of 200m in a thousand years some 14,000 years ago.  What unprecedented AGW is now doing to climate and OHC indicates that average global sea level rise this century is going to be a lot more than current predictions of 1m by 2100.  

       Governments should be planning on SLR of at least 2-4m by 2100 rather than relying on conservative assessment such as this.

33645. Firgoose at 07:35 AM on 18 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       I read that in The Conversation a while back and the comments are worth reading as well. Professor Rohling was very responsive.

       The Read the original article link at the end of the article above has a digit missing from the conversation id, hence clicking it will lead you to discover more than you realised you needed to know about incontinence in young women. ;o)

       Here's the actual conversation

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

33646. DSL at 06:22 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Ashton: "I'm not sure what the peer review process really is in Climate Science, although some disquieting emails on peer review in Climate Science were brought to light a few years ago."

       Yes, that's true Ashton.  The Soon & Baliunas (2003) affair was fairly disquieting.  The Wegman affair was as well.  But perhaps it's these emails that you're referring to, addressed to the Met Office's Phil Jones.

33647. Ashton at 03:49 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       I'm not sure what the peer review process really is in Climate Science, although some disquieting emails on peer review in Climate Science  were brought to light a few years ago.  I suspect it probably is no different from the peer review pocess in my own area where  I never found out who peer reviewd the papers I submitted.  On publishing in open journals, which seem to be a lot less rigorous in their scrutiny of submitted papers, I write seem as I haven't submitted to such journals, it does add to the body of published work by an academic.  Although this may not enhance his/her standing in their particular  scientific community,  it could be very advantageous in internal applications for  promotion where a long list of publications can have a ssignificant positive impact on the university promotion committee 

33648. ranyl at 02:15 AM on 18 October 2014
       Why ice sheets will keep melting for centuries to come
       

       Thank you Eelco Rohling,

       1m is reassuring as you say.

       However what scale and rate of heating forcing was that reacting to?

       And does the current unprecendented rate of warming mean things might more quickly?

33649. Dikran Marsupial at 00:56 AM on 18 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       CBDunkerson, I don't think that is necessarily the case, there are comparatively few skeptics, so even if they all cite every paper each of them writes, that is still a relatively small number of citations for any given paper, compared to the available citations available from the research community in general.   A basic newtork analysis would expose their gaming of the system, so there would be little to gain from it.

       However, I was more thinking of acedemia in general rather than climate science in particular.  If academics no longer have an incentive to write papers that nobody cites (i.e. that everybody ignores), there will be no profit in running a predatory open access journal.

33650. CBDunkerson at 21:44 PM on 17 October 2014
       Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert
       

       Dikran wrote: "One possible solution to this problem is to make promotions etc. for researchers contingent on the citation of their papers rather than merely the existence of the papers themselves."

       Unfortunately, I doubt that would work for very long. Given the established willingness of 'skeptics' to game the system, changing the details of the sytem will just mean a brief period of clarity until they adjust by changing their gaming strategy. In this case... if citations are the determinant it seems inevitable that groups of 'skeptics' would get together and cite each other's papers en masse. Even legitimate scientists might be tempted to cite a friend's tangentially related work just to 'help them out'.

       Unless some 'ungameable' benchmark can be established, switching the benchmarks only serves to make an even bigger mess in the long run as each standard is deliberately corrupted in turn.

       An alternate approach is to play 'whack-a-mole' with each effort to undermine the current standards. In this case, if we take the problem to be publication of dubious research in journals with low standards, a solution might be to establish a means of identifying such journals and excluding them from consideration. No doubt this would lead to cries of 'bias' and 'censorship', but the reality is that various forms of publication (blogs, vanity press, un 'reviewed' papers, et cetera) are already excluded. This would just move the line slightly from including 'anything even ostensibly reviewed' to 'anything reviewed in a remotely competent manner'.

Prev  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  Next