Recent Comments

Prev  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  681  682  683  Next

Comments 33751 to 33800:

33751. KeefeandAmanda at 20:02 PM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       I have some questions about the numbers that Greg Laden gave. He wrote [with my modifications for ascii text]:

       "One of the key numbers is the energy imbalance where the ocean absorbs extra AGW produced heat. Energy imbalance is measured in terms of Watts per m^2. The present study yields a value of 0.72. A previous study reported 0.54. Other estimates have varied in this range. Llovel et al point out, however, that these differences may be due to differences in the ocean depth considered in each study and the time periods covered."

       Before I ask these questions, I would like to quote what one named "BBD" said in the comments toward the end of the comments section at October 8, 2014 at 6:58 PM

       http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-lot-more-heat-is-found-in-ocean.html?showComment=1412755125544#c8146988397082631758

       for the article "A lot more heat is found in the ocean" posted Wed Oct 8 20154 at the site HotWhopper:

       http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-lot-more-heat-is-found-in-ocean.html

       Here is the quote from BBD's comment [with my modifications for ascii text]:

       "...Nobody has claimed all of the extra heat has gone there although some of it obviously has. I hope you take the point, sloppy language here is encouraging sloppy thinking.

       From Llovel14:

       Therefore, we estimate the heat uptake by the upper 2,000m of the global ocean to be 0.72 +- 0.1 W m^2. Our estimate is slightly larger than the recently reported estimate of 0.54 +- 0.1 W m^2 for the upper 1,500 m layer computed over 2005-2010 and the estimate of 0.56 W m^2 for the 0-1,800 m layer over 2004-2011

       The planetary energy imbalance is ~0.6 - 0.7W/m^2, so the OHU estimate in L14 would seem to account for all of it."

       The first paragraph above seems to be a direct quote from the Llovel paper itself. The context of this comment above by BBD seems to be on Trenberth's "missing heat" that those who reject mainstream climate science say is still missing. But BBD seems to say that via the given numbers, seemingly directly from the Llovel paper itself, this paper more than closes the gap and so therefore there is no more "missing heat" problem.

       My questions are mainly to those who have access to the paper itself:

       Are Laden and BBD using the term "energy balance" differently or applied to different things? BBD says, "The planetary energy imbalance is ~0.6 - 0.7W/m^2" while Laden says, "Energy imbalance is measured in terms of Watts per m^2. The present study yields a value of 0.72." But the Llovel paper according to the above quote from the paper uses the term "heat uptake" for the 0.72 +- 0.1 W m^2 measure.

       Also, BBD seems to say that since 0.72 is greater than the range ~0.6-0.7, Trenberth's "missing heat" is more than covered by the 0.72 +- 0.1 W m^2 heat uptake (as the paper puts it). Is BBD saying this and if so, is BBD right - does the Llovel paper do this and say this in this quote above from that paper?

       Please, would someone with the requisite knowledge and access to the paper answer these questions and clear all this up? (And please feel free to include mathematically oriented information.)

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed links

33752. Andy Skuce at 19:04 PM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       Smith@2

       From the Llovel paper:

       "Nevertheless, the ocean layers above 700 m and 2,000 m represent only 20% and 50%, respectively, of the total ocean volume."

33753. Rob Painting at 14:58 PM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       victorag - The uncertainty range in the Llovel paper is many times larger than their estimate, but from a physically-based perspective one has to wonder why, if the abyssal cooling trend is correct, geothermal warming in the abyssal ocean appears to stopped stone-cold dead. We would expect geothermal activity to be still be going on down in the very deepest parts of the ocean, as it's a component of the thermohaline circulation. 

       As for continued global warming (aka the pause):

       

       And the remaining 1% which is warming the atmosphere:

       

       

       

       

       The RSS satellite data appears to be the odd one out. We'll need more data to say for sure, but it looks like the atmosphere is still warming too, albeit at a slower rate than the previous two decades. SkS has a three-tiered rebuttal to this myth in the works.

       That the climate models are remarkably close to the observed temperature trend over the recent decade, taking into consideration all relevant factors, is an explicit demonstration that we can get this temporary surface temperature slowdown even when the Earth's climate sensitivity is around 3°C per doubling of CO₂.

         

       As for climate policy, one needs to consider the ecological and agricultural impacts of warming and ocean acidification if one expects to be taken seriously.   

33754. victorag@verizon.net at 14:10 PM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       I’ve recently completed a pretty serious blog post dealing with climate change, with reference especially to the new NASA report on the lack of deep sea warming discussed by Laden, which as I see it, could make a huge difference to the debate. And no, I’m not a “denier,” but a card carrying lifelong Democrat, liberal to the gills. I’d appreciate feedback from anyone reading here in the form of comments, positive or negative. http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2014/10/common-sense-on-climate-change.html 

33755. Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 11 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Further, and minor points:

       1)  Absorption is best specified by molar units.  The reason is that the atmosphere becomes less dense as you rise, so that the number of moles in a vertical column that is a meter squared at the base decreases, (ie, absorption per meter decreases with altitude).

       2)  IR can only absorb or emit CO2 at very specific frequencies, based on the natural resonant frequency of the molecular bonds.  That frequency of absorption is blurred by the motion of the particles.  A CO2 molecule moving in the same direction of the light will see the light as being redshifted (longer wavelength) and will consequently be able to absorb light of a slightly shorter wavelength than would normally be the case.  Likewise in reverse.  The doppler effect broadens the effective bandwidth of IR light that can be absorbed.

       Pressure broadening (and collisional) broadening also broadane the effective bandwidth, but the physics involved is above my pay scale.

       3)  You would probably find it instructive to play around with the Modtran model.  (Instructions and source code)  Modtran is a moderate resolution model of atmospheric transmission.  The version in the public domain dates from the late 1980s to early 1990s, and is slightly inaccurate for exact calculation.  It is, however, very informative about basic effects.

       Science of Doom developed his own model along similar lines, describing the process and maths involved in his blog as he did so.  Also very informative.  There are two relevant series of blog posts.

33756. Tom Curtis at 08:50 AM on 11 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Johnathan Doolin @289, to begin with, the graph you rely on from Jo Nova incorrectly shows the distribution of IR radiation from the Earth.  To get a better idea of the distribution, here are three satellite observed spectra of outgoing IR radation:

       

       Units of wavenumber may be unfamiliar to you.  They are a measurement of frequency in terms of number of waves per cm.  For ease of conversion, here is another satellite observed spectrum showing both wave numbers and wavelengths, this time from over Barrow in Alaska, and also showing a simultaneous downward spectrum at the Earth's surface:

       

       These graphs are drawn such that an equal area under the grap corresponds to an equal total power (in W/m^2) emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere (or in one instance at the bottom of the atmosphere to the Earth's surface).  The large feature at about 666 cm^-1 wave number, or 15 micrometers wavelength is the CO2 absorption/emission band.  As you can see, it is displaced in the Jo Nova graph to suggest CO2 absorbs very little outgoing radiation - but from the actual observations above, it is evident that that displacement is (to be far kinder than she deserves) an error.

       As an aside, all five graphs also show the blackbody curves at different temperatues.  The "brightness temperature" is just the absorption spectrum rescaled at different wavelengths such that the black body curves form parralel lines with the x-axis.  It is convenient for some purposes but not for others.

       The most important fact shown in the graphs above is that at atmospheric temperatures, CO2 both absorbs and emits IR radiation at the same wavelengths.  This can be seen in the top three images in the tiny spike of increased radiation from the point of greatest absorptivity by CO2.  Because CO2 absorbs so efficiently at that wavelength, it also emits efficiently.  More importantly, at that precise wavelength, most IR radiation as seen from space looking down comes from the stratosphere, which is warmer than the nearby troposphere, resulting in a peak in net emissions.

       The emissions can also be seen (very obviously) in the downward spectrum at Barrow, where the near surface air is much warmer than the near tropospheric air.  As a result, the emissions seen from space (which can see no further down than the upper troposphere) are very low and much lower than the nearby wavelengths without CO2 absorption where we can see down to the lower 4 kms of the troposphere (H2O band = 400-800 cm^-1) or the surface ("atmospheric window" = 800-1000 cm^-1), which being warmer emit more intensively.  Seen from the surface, however, all emissions in the CO2 and H2O bands come from the lowest kilometer of the atmosphere and are much warmer than that from the neighbouring atmospheric window (where they effectively come from space).

       Turning to your fog model, it contains three essential errors.  First, at IR wavelengths, CO2 both absorbs and emits radiation.  That is an important disanalogy to your headlights in the fog, for fog will absorb visible light, but not emit it.  Second, early in the you define "saturation" in terms of whether or not headlights can be seen in the fog.  You say, "If you can't see the headlights in front of you at all, that means the light is completely blocked."  But, if you cannot see the headlights at all, then headlights at a shorter distance may well not be blocked.  Absorption is a function of distance.  Third, the theory of the greenhouse effect is a theory of radiative balance relative to space.  You apply your assumptions from the perspective of light leaving the ground, but the proper perspective for the greenhouse effect is that of light escaping to space.

       So, consider a hypothetical case in which a gas that absorbs equally in all frequencies.  That gas will also emit as a black body, and hence emit according to its temperature.  Supose also that the gas is thick enough in the atmosphere as to block all light from the surface.  It cannot, however, at Earth's temperatures block all IR radiation, for it emits some.  The higher in the atmosphere it is, the higher in the atmosphere from which it will emit so that while it may block all sight of the surface, it can never block all IR emission.  So the question becomes, what is the lowest from which you can see an IR beacon on a satellite when looking up?  Because from that same altitude, IR radiation emitted by that gas can escape to space.  Looking from space, you will see a (very tiny) amount of IR radiation from that altitude, and more from higher levels.  If that level is above the surface, the atmosphere is saturated, but that in no way prevents IR radiation from reaching space.  It only prevents it from reaching it from the surface.

       Suppose, that we take an atmosphere containing that gas, which is just saturated.  You can just see the IR beacon from a km above the Earth's surface and from no lower.  Now we double the concentration of the gas.  It follows that the lowest altitude from which we can see the beacon will rise.  Ergo, the IR escaping to space will come from a higher altitude.  But, because temperatures fall with greater altitude, it will have a correspondingly less powerfull emission based on the Stefan Boltzmann law.  As less energy is escaping to space, the result will be a build up in energy stored in the system until radiative balance is restored, ie, the temperature of the levels of the atmosphere from which IR radiation emitted to space rise to match those of the lower levels from which they previously were emitted.

33757. nigelj at 08:28 AM on 11 October 2014
       GWPF funder Lord Leach – relying on unreliable sources of global warming information
       

       I have heard these climate sceptic arguments many times, and it is obvious they are wrong after even a cursory look at the mainstream information.  You do not even need a science degree to see the weaknesses. Intelligent people like Lord Leach must know the arguments are simply wrong.

       So call it what it is. These people are simply liars and deliberate deceivers, prepared to lie because they value their libertarian beliefs more highly than the science. 

33758. DSL at 07:11 AM on 11 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Jonathan, you'll get a response here, but if you're actually interested in going through the maths, save some time by going to SoD.

33759. Smith at 06:54 AM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       Shallow ocean = 0-700 meters

       Deep ocean = 700-2,000 meters

       Abyss = > 2,000 meters

       Are the relative volumes of the above depth categories know? 

33760. PluviAL at 06:36 AM on 11 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Wonderful summary, I think we are slowly coming around to a new perspective of the way the globe works. From my studies of atmospheric energy budgets, I come to a very unusual perspective, which this studies seem to support. I can't find the reference, but there is a paper showing that the acceleration of the Indian subcontinent into Asia was preceded by climate change.

       Here is the unusual perspective: Tectonic plate motion is much easier to motivate with an energy source that is much larger than earth flux; climate. Solar flux onto earth is 3900 times larger. And the mechanics of GIA, glacial isostatic adjustment, transfer much greater, faster, and mechanically more viable energy impetus for tectonic plate movement.

       In my mind I see Antarctica pumping with a potential of 60 petatons of energy, on the pulse of climate. In that model, waves from that action have piled the continental masses on the northern hemisphere.

       Gravitation waves play nicely into the process too, but that is too detailed here. Although it may be farfetched, the mechanics are much more robust. If there is any truth to this at all, the seismicity implications within immediate human history may be substantial. Such volcanic reactions to climate with feedback mechanisms through carbon seem to be potentially valid. Even the 39 cubic kilometers of water in the Three Gorges Dam affected seismicity, how much seismicity can 72,000,000 km3, suddenly lifted cause?

33761. Rob Honeycutt at 06:30 AM on 11 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Jonathan Doolin...  Just want to get something clear first. You're going to throw your lot in with two computer science guys, who have no special training in any of the science that they're commenting on, over that of 30,000+ actively publishing climate researchers, and all the National Academies, and pretty much every scientific organization who has a statement on AGW.

       Have I got that right?

33762. Philip Shehan at 06:08 AM on 11 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       I received the following reply from Ross McKitrick.

       I note that I was incorrect in thinking that he was saying that the "pauses" were statistically significant, but I believe he has incorrectly concluded that when warming ceased to be statistically significant, the "pauses" begin, even though at this point the trends are still warming and the error margins have only just crossed thew zero line.

       Dear Phil
       I don't know why the UAH result is so different. I don't know what algorithm is used on the SKS website. Also there might have been revisions to the UAH data set since I accessed it.

       My calculations didn't aim to measure a statistically-significant trend in the neighbourhood of zero, instead I was aiming to measure how far back the hiatus apparently started.
       Cheers,

       Dr. Ross McKitrick
       - Professor of Economics and Chair of Graduate Studies
       - CBE Fellow in Sustainable Commerce

        

33763. Jonathan Doolin at 05:31 AM on 11 October 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I was attracted to this particular article because I think that the causality case can be made most convincingly from the properties of the Carbon Dioxide molecule itself... especially its absorption spectrum.
       
       I have got into the practice of screen-recording things as I learn it, so that three to six months from now when I have the opportunity to pick up where I left off, I might remember some of what I was thinking.  

       LINK

       Here is a short list of where I think I'm still confused.

       •What is the meaning of "Brightness Temperature"  Isn't brightness usually measured in Watts/meter^2?
       •I didn't fully grasp how the "Pressure and Doppler Broadening" but that may have been for lack of time and effort... 
       • What I see, though, is that the absorption coefficient doesn't drop off instantaneously... I would think that any absorption coefficient below 1/(10 km) is going to be NOT saturated.  I think maybe the problem involves a lot more detailed calculus though because in those 10 km to to the top of the troposphere, there are pretty massive changes in the density and pressure, wouldn't there?  
       •According to the graph at LINK (which I used in the video above) it appears that Carbon Dioxide absorbs about 2% or more of the light in a continuous spectrum from 1.5 micrometers to 30 micrometers. 
       Is that graph accurate?  And if so, wouldn't you say that Carbon Dioxide does *not* saturate the spectrum in the wavelengths where it is absorbing 2% of the light?
       
       Finally, have you thought about trying to put together some kind of quantifiable problem...  Could you give a functional representation of the absorption coefficient of CO2, as a function of wavelength and concentration?
       
       Then a representation of the power-distribution emitted by the surface of the earth, as a function of wavelength (Planck distribution, yes, I know) 
       
       Then a calculation of the heat capacity of the atmosphere at large, with 70% nitrogen, 29% oxygen, etc.  
       
       And maybe a description of whether heat flows at the boundaries of air and water, and between troposphere and stratosphere... What kind of models are used in predicting heat conduction between the layers.  I guess convection between air and water is completely halted, since clearly the water doesn't flow into the air, and the air doesn't flow into the water...  But what about conduction?  Is the phase change just as dramatic between the troposphere and the stratosphere?
       
       
       

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Hot linked urls.

33764. michael sweet at 05:31 AM on 11 October 2014
       The Wall Street Journal downplays global warming risks once again
       

       Judith Curry has an op-ed in the WSJ  down playing the problem of AGW.  It is paywalled so I could not see the date.  I am sure Dana will have a reply soon.

33765. michael sweet at 03:01 AM on 11 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       Cosmicomics:

       Can you provide links to these claims?

33766. StBarnabas at 02:42 AM on 11 October 2014
       What's the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate contrarians get this wrong
       

       The thermal expansion coefficient of water is very temperature dependent; warm water expands a lot more than cold for a given heat input, so this is very worrying and a double whammy so to speak. It's interesting that global sea level rise has been nearly constant at c 3mm per year for the past few decades. I worry that there will be a rapid acceleration sometime soon

33767. cosmicomics at 01:38 AM on 11 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       A few minutes ago I heard that the French government has decided to reduce France's consumption of electricity from nuclear power from 75% to 50%. At the same time, France will be reducing its consumption of fossil fuels.

       Last week the new Swedish government announced policies that will lead to the shutdown of the aged reactors 1 and 2 at Oskarshamn, 1 and 2 at Ringhals, and stop Vattenfall's plans to build additional reactors there.

       Sweden has been building up its renewable infrastructure, and this year the nameplate capacity of Swedish wind power will exceed Denmark's.

33768. Hank11198 at 23:47 PM on 10 October 2014
       The Wall Street Journal downplays global warming risks once again
       

       Tom I think I understand what you are saying. I need to go over it in detail ASAP. Thanks for you help.

33769. billthefrog at 23:36 PM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Thanks for another illuminating and thought provoking post Howard.

       You really know how to spoil somebody's day, don't you?

       Cheers    BIll F   ;)

33770. howardlee at 23:01 PM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Ianperrin - I addressed Wright and Schaller's study in this post  (under 'timing matters' about half way down, and see comments at the end)

       I think we can say for now that their study was refuted in a series of replies (towards the end of this page) on the basis of:- (a) the heat capacity of the oceans required centuries to warm to the PETM extent, (b) an instant release of carbon in the atmosphere would produce a carbon isotopic shift far larger than observed, and (c) that microfossils ruled out the sedimentary rates claimed. There was also a claim that the apparent varves were drilling artefacts but Wright and Schaller pointed out varve-like layers in land exposures of the same clay unit - so they can't be just drilling artefacts.

       The Marlboro Clay that they studied will I'm sure provide valuable insight to the PETM, but as things stand more work is needed to bridge the apparently-varved clay record with the longer term but coarser-resolution records.

33771. howardlee at 22:47 PM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Correction to the post above the ...rhythm IS recognized...

       (not sure how 'not' got in there)

33772. howardlee at 22:35 PM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Wili and WheelsOC - yes I meant beat as in heartbeat, sorry if that was confusing. The point is that this 100,000 year and 405,000 year rhythm is not recognized throughout most of the geological record, operating as an oscillation about a background climate state. In the Eocene the climate state was already hot so the orbital oscillations made hyperthermals.

33773. ianperrin at 20:29 PM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       How does this fit with the Wright and Schaller study of last year that has the PETM push occuring within just 13 years.  Though at first it seems unlikely, the study has not been refuted as far as I know.

33774. Tom Curtis at 12:20 PM on 10 October 2014
       The Wall Street Journal downplays global warming risks once again
       

       Hank, your correspondent seems to be taking the view of the greenhouse effect I discussed @9 above, rather than Coonin's actual view.  As such, the relevant figures are:

       Total greenhouse effect c.1980: 150 W/m^2

       CO2 contribution: 20% (30 W/m^2)

       (Figures from Schmidt et al 2010)

       CO2 concentration c 1980: 340 ppmv

       Projected CO2 concentration for mid century with BAU (RCP 8.5): 550 ppmv

       Relative forcing: 2.55 W/m^2

       Change in CO2 forcing:  8.5%

       Assuming that CO2 is responsible for 25% of the total greenhouse effect reduces that to 6.8%.  Assuming the forcing change is from 2013 reduces it to 5.6%, or 4.5% assuming the 25% figure.

       The only way to reduce it to the 1% figure is calculate it as a percentage of the total greenhouse effect, ignoring the anthropogenic increase over the last 33 years, and ignoring the increase in the total greenhouse effect from water vapour related feedbacks.  That is, it requires first fudging the figures, and then making an apples to oranges comparison.

       The scenario as described, by the way, deliberately excludes all other well mixed greenhouse gases from the equation; and is chosen to ignore the fact that we are not in temperature equilibrium, and that consequently temperature changes from past forcings (including prior to 1980) are still "in the pipeline".

33775. wili at 10:13 AM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Doh! Of course you're right, Wheels. I missed the metaphor. But they do use that throughout, now that I look again.

33776. Hank11198 at 08:21 AM on 10 October 2014
       The Wall Street Journal downplays global warming risks once again
       

       First time post. Hope someone sees this and it not too late.

       As an engineer I'm able to follow a lot of the math but not the details. Living in east texas I’m among a lot of deniers. Even other engineers who I would think would understand some basic science. Anyway a friend of mine often sends me articles that criticize climate change science and I try to respond but often don’t understand the details as I said. When I responded to his email he sent me regarding Noonin’s article using one of the comments here, he sent me the following reply.

       He is dead on accurate Hank. Koonin said the HUMAN additions to atmospheric CO2 are expected to shift the greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. That is perfectly in agreement with the fact that the totality of CO2 in the atmosphere contributes 25% of the total greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. What he's saying is that the 25% is going to increase to be 26% to 27% by the middle of this century.

       Your science sources are blooming idiots.”

       I was hoping someone could help me with a reply because I don’t understand what that reply is talking about.

33777. foolonthehill at 06:12 AM on 10 October 2014
       GWPF funder Lord Leach – relying on unreliable sources of global warming information
       

       I quite like the image but they're not actually seals...

       www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/03/walrus-alaska-beach-climate-change-arctic-ice

33778. WheelsOC at 05:32 AM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       Pretty sure "beat" is the right word, referring to the rhythmic recurrence of the warming even though the suspected sources for it had dried up. Hence the term "heartbeat" after the block quote.

33779. wili at 04:39 AM on 10 October 2014
       The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
       

       In the second sentence after "New Thinking": " But Turner et al refute this, showing that the Hyperthermal beat continued long after reserves of methane hydrates and permafrost must have been emptied..."

       
       "beat" should, presumably, be "heat."

33780. dklyer at 04:19 AM on 10 October 2014
       It's cooling
       

       Simpleton here with a dumb question. This has probably been answered multiple times but I'm not finding any reference in the main posts. There are 6 long pages of comments that I haven’t read through.

       Much has been made of the hiatus in warming. It seems like it is (at present) small compared to the cooling in the 40’s to 70’s. This seems apparent from your graph on the PDO post. I read that the cooling seen from the 40’s to the 70’s was due to aerosols from industrial pollution and volcanism (see New Scientist) and that the temperature began ramping up after clean air legislation in England and Europe followed by similar legislation in the US.

       Is there any new data on aerosols from Asia and India and how those may be affecting global average temperatures? Is the aerosol affect still thought to be the main culprit in the post WWII dip? Didn’t I also read that the aerosols were thought to be a factor in shifting rainfall patterns that created multi-year drought conditions in North Africa? Are people looking at how aerosol pollution from Asia may be affecting the drought in the American Southwest?

33781. jja at 03:20 AM on 10 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #41A
       

       The IPCC AR5 report is written as an update to the 2007 AR4. The information used to update the previous report was gathered between 2005 and 2009. Then that information was collected, analyzed and a peer review paper was submitted. The newest paper utilized in the AR5 was published in 2010.

       Since 2010 we have learned that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is losing mass at twice the rate published in the AR5. We have also learned that the topography of the WAIS valleys will allow a steady increase in melt rates leading to eventual, unavoidable, collapse (Rignoit et. al). We have also found that the arctic sea ice is set to be ice free in September sometime closer to 2030, not "as early as September 2050". This means that by 2050 the arctic will be largely ice free in June, during the summer solstice when the arctic receives a higher daily solar insolation than occurs at the equator. This will produce significantly higher temperatures and regional melting of arctic permafrost and the Greenland ice sheet than is currently projected by the AR5.

       Additionally, the AR5, while showing permafrost area decomposition in the graph of this article, it does not include permafrost emissions as a contributor to global warming. The closest that the AR5 comes to including these is by showing a graph that indicates carbon feedbacks will reduce the amount of future emissions that are captured by the earth and sea (taken from the atmosphere) by 6%-29%. This means that an additional 160 Billion tons of CO2 will be effectively rejected by the earth and sent into the atmosphere by 2100. (IPCC AR5 WGI Fig. 6.27)

       If the emissions from thawing permafrost were included, especially with the new understanding of arctic feedbacks (ice loss) and the rapid rise of arctic temperature that it will bring was then applied to the thawing of permafrost in the arctic we would find that the arctic permafrost, on its own, has a very high likelihood of emitting between 200 and 600 billion tons of carbon (not CO2) into the atmosphere between now and 2100. This is enough to raise the global atmospheric CO2 burden by between 90 and 270 ppm, on its own.

       Finally, Lawrence Livermore Lab just released its study of the southern hemisphere oceans and found that the current warming rates are underestimated, by a vast amount. This means that global current warming rates have been underestimated by 9.4% to 30.3%, with the vast majority of that heat going into the oceans.

       This means that our current understanding of the basic heating effect of CO2 in our atmosphere has been underestimated, significantly. This makes worst-case projections much more likely.

       In summary, this current CO2 abundance of 402 ppmv in our atmosphere will likely lead to 4C of warming by 2100, even if all emissions were halted today. We have no more time to waste in our efforts to repair our broken biosphere.

33782. bill4344 at 21:56 PM on 9 October 2014
       GWPF funder Lord Leach – relying on unreliable sources of global warming information
       

       Though the mental image is great, you may want to modify 'actual seal level experts'

33783. Firgoose at 13:33 PM on 9 October 2014
       GWPF funder Lord Leach – relying on unreliable sources of global warming information
       

       @Alexandre: Why allow that these people may have made a mistake when blatant lying fits their consistent behaviour far more accurately?

33784. Joel_Huberman at 08:41 AM on 9 October 2014
       Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming
       

       Very nice article. But, just like the preceding three words, "Despite the overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature showing that we’re causing global warming" is not a sentence. I hope that the author will correct this problem in both his original post and in the Skeptical Science re-post. Correction should be simple--replace the preceding period (stop) with a comma, and change "Despite" to "despite".

33785. mancan18 at 08:21 AM on 9 October 2014
       Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming
       

       Sadly, the balance of 97% agreement by climate scientists re Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change versus the only 55% of agreement by the public relects the reality of getting a message across using modern media. Having publicists, media advisors and proper marketing is just as important as having climate scientists agreeing. While Internet sites like Skeptical Science and Real Science deliver a pro-AGW/CC perspective, and the related Internet forums do allow those who understand the issue to discuss it and provide information to interested lay people, the vast majority of people still get their information from traditional mainsteam media outlets like newspapers, TV and radio. Because of the recent decline in investigative journalism due to the economic realities of running traditional media outlets today, there has been an increase in spin by the competing political entities who provide copy to fewer and fewer journalists. It is this spin that is being reported mostly, not proper investigative journalism. This means that the reporting of this issue has been biased by the the effectiveness of the media and marketing advisors on the each side of the debate, a debate that the contrarian side is winning due to the powerful vested interest backing it and because they can afford the media and marketing advisors to properly promote it. This may be one of the reasons for the consensus imbalance between the science and the public.

       A study of traditional media with the respective market shares of each outlet and how it reflects the scientific consensus should be quite informative. Quite simply, Climate Change is not currently winning the marketing war. It's a sad reality that having a 97% consensus among Climate Scientists is not simply enough to turn around public opinion. To do that will require simplifying the CC message with the science presented to the public in terms that can be more easily understood; using professional media advisors providing appropriate copy to journalists; and marketing advisors providing a proper marketing strategy of to convey the science. Scientific discussions between climate scientists and just expecting journalists to properly convey the balance of those discussions will not translate the balance of the scientific consensus into a similar media consensus and hence a similar public consensus.

33786. Paul D at 04:27 AM on 9 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       tcflood@66 AFAIK the only limitation regarding storage time is 'leakage' of heat from the hot store and gain of heat from the surroundings in the cold store and that is down to how good the insulation is insulation. The storage medium is gravel and the gas used is Argon.

       This video might help:

       http://youtu.be/sIxt6nMf-IQ

33787. Alexandre at 01:00 AM on 9 October 2014
       GWPF funder Lord Leach – relying on unreliable sources of global warming information
       

       Lindzen also claims that high climate sensitivity comes from models, whereas low ones come from observations. Odd that an active climate researcher could make such a mistake. Didn't he bother to read the papers from his colleagues, perhaps?

33788. JARWillis at 23:02 PM on 8 October 2014
       Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming
       

       Any sensible person who really believes that 55% (never mind the actual 97%) of experts are telling us that we must cut carbon emissions to avoid the risk of catastrophe would surely want to play safe. 'Prepare for the worst while you hope for the best' and that sort of old fashioned wisdom. The problem seems to be that people are not behaving sensibly over this arguably most urgent of all issues. Too big to comprehend, perhaps.

33789. Zeboo at 19:47 PM on 8 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       Some reflections: 1) Finland is highly technical developed and stable democratic society with a long history of running nuclear plants. If they can not build one nuclear plant on time and within budget, who will do it? Both investors and governments are likely to divert their money to other areas. 2) Are there any life cycle assesment of real (carbon) costs of nuclear energy, which includes mining, building (a lot of concrete) and long term waste disposal? A new study seems to be very favorable for renewables 3) The discussion here focus very much on production side of energy. As much as there is a need to vary energy production, what are technologies for smart changes in demand? If the wind is low during a day, how much can a combination of smart utilities and smart grid adsorb the need to lower demand? I think more out of the box thinking is needed.

        

33790. Michaelf at 14:58 PM on 8 October 2014
       Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money
       

       Ingvar, your post shows absolute ignorance of the actual consequences of global warming and the associated climate changes. More likely though you are deliberately misleading, and yes I agree that should be a criminal offence. In summary, the issue is not a slight change in temperature in one area but the effects of an increase in global temperature on the climate, sea levels, ocean warming and acidification. Your understanding, if true, indicates zero knowledge of the science, the real world and lacks common sense.

33791. Rob Honeycutt at 14:11 PM on 8 October 2014
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Skinny_Pete...

       And here is your experiment performed (for all intents and purposes).

33792. Rob Honeycutt at 13:55 PM on 8 October 2014
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Skinny_Pete...

       1) You should read all 3 levels of the article you're commenting on first.

       2) You should understand the difference between a greenhouse and the greenhouse effect.

       3) You should read the comments policy for SkS before you make another comment.

       Now, to answer your question. Yes. Greenhouse 1 will get hotter than greenhouse 2.

33793. Skinny_Pete at 13:00 PM on 8 October 2014
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Let's take a look at a small scale model. As everybody knows if you cover a greenhouse frame with clear plastic it quickly gets much hotter inside than outside the greenhouse on a sunny day. Yet if you cover the frame in shade cloth which is perforated, the temperature in the greenhouse goes down in full sunlight. The cloth helps retain some warmth during the night, thus helping to stabilize the extremes. This is a typical greenhouse effect model and is in fact the reason why greenhouses and shadehouses are so popular in backyards. It is also the reason why shade cloth is so popular in large car parks.

       Now, consider the following experiment. I have two greenhouses completely covered with clear plastic and both are in full sunlight, out in the open, and side by side, on the same day. I extract all of the air out of the first greenhouse and then pump it full of CO2. I do nothing to the air inside the second greenhouse. Question: Will greenhouse 1 get any hotter than greenhouse 2?

33794. DSL at 12:27 PM on 8 October 2014
       Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money
       

       Ingvar, where has anyone said that living in a world that's on average 2C warmer is the primary threat from global warming.  You're building a strawman.  How's about you actually read some of the research from the scientists out in the field--out in the "the world out there."  Here's a good place to start.  Perhaps when you can actually articulate what it is you wish to attack, you'll be taken more seriously.

33795. wili at 11:30 AM on 8 October 2014
       Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming
       

       Somewhat related: Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

       I had heard that pointing out the scientific consensus was one of the more successful approaches, but this article suggests other kinds of reframing.

33796. Ingvar at 11:24 AM on 8 October 2014
       Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money
       

       Of course warmth will possibly be a cause to health problems.  But climate change theory is not that terrible.  For example living in a temperate climate I moved into a tropical environment where the average temperature was 11C higher.  That situation lasted for 4 years in the late 1970s.  The alarmist view displayed here for a puny 2C increase by year 2100 as mentioned by IPCC indicates to me that researchers have little or no experience of the world out there.

       Emotional drivers work well on the uninitiated population.  But to deliberately mislead should be a criminal offence.  We do not owe anything to environmental scientists, because nature, common sense and honesty should be the main purpose in our lives.  Maybe I should add a better ethical standard.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] you have been warned previously about sloganeering and this is dangerously close. All you are really indicating is that you have not bothered to read the science and are happy to accept other's distortions instead.  If you want to play that game, find quote in paper or IPCC report and then present data or papers that you think contradict it. Take some time to understand what is being claimed before you dismiss it. Further nonsense like this will be summarily deleted.

33797. tcflood at 05:42 AM on 8 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       Glenn @63

       Thanks. That helps a lot.

       Still, it looks like both the hot and cold storage reservoirs need a narrow region of thermal gradient bwtween the two isothermal zones. This seems to imply that 1) the system must be discharged as some point short of complete temperature conversion of a reservoir (limiting its storage time) and 3) prevention of widening of the gradient region might be a problem through numerous partial cycles.

       I realize this is getting off topic for this thread, but I don't know a proper thread and it seems important to me to have some idea of the reality of solutions to storage that are presented on the web.  

33798. KR at 00:30 AM on 8 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       Gustafsson - I suspect that's because the topic, nuclear power, provided an opening for the general topic of nuclear power in a reduced carbon economy. As far as I know there aren't any specific threads for that. 

       Personal opinion: nuclear will certainly have its place. But given the failure of nuclear power to seize a large worldwide share over the last half century, and the general lack of solutions (economic and political) to nuclear ash and plant end-of-life, I have some doubts as to whether nuclear can present a really large scale alternative. We'll see...

33799. Gustafsson at 18:31 PM on 7 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       I find it surprising that apart from KR @25 nobody seems to stress the fact that the data is from such a short timescale and doesn't really answer the question of wether wind can cover for reduced nuclear. (Although the people stating that wind stepped in when nuclear failed is apparently wrong it's a very small question in the scope of it all, isn't it?)

       The market reaction to a short term energy shortage is not the same as the long term reaction to a long term energy shortage. If we shut down nuclear plants the short term market response might be the same, given insufficient time to adapt in advance but the long term response is given by which new form of energy is considered the most economically viable at the time. 

       For a better (more relevant) analysis i recommend looking at using a tool like MARKAL (http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Markal.asp), developed by the IEA, or simmilar and looking at the long term changes. An analysis like that would be truly worthy of SKS ;)

33800. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:37 PM on 7 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       tcflood

       The Isentropic system is based on the Brayton Cycle.

       Note particularly the sections on Closed and Reverse Brayton cycle. So the basic process is fairly standard. Also read the FAQ at Isentropic — this covers the question of the applicability f the Carnot Efficiency.

       During the discharge cycle the Carnot Efficiency applies to the conversion of heat to work. However during the charging cycle it is acting as a heat pump, a Carnot Refrigerator

       Carnot Efficiency for the discharge phase is (T_hot - T_cold)/T_hot

       So some of the heat flowing is extracted as work, the rest flows through to the cold store. Efficiency is less than 1.

       Whereas during the charging phase the Carnot Coefficient of Performance applies T_hot/(T_hot - T_cold)

       Work in plus some heat from the cold store is transferred to the hot store. CoP is greater than 1.

       It is because this is a cycle. If the system were perfectly reversible then they would get 100% of the energy they put in back out again. But because of irreversibilities they get less than this. Their performance claims are about the quality of the equipment and thus how close to true reversibility they can get. Carnot does not apply to that calculation

       This diagram might illustrate this:

       

       If all the processes are perfect, reversible processes then W_in = W_out.

       It is only the irreversibility of the processes that leads to any losses.

       So yes, it does pass the smell test.

Prev  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  681  682  683  Next