Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 Next
Comments 34351 to 34400:
-
Tom Curtis at 03:52 AM on 27 August 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Jetfuel @256, if you look around there are lots of correlations, and lost of data we can project. For most such data, simple projection of trends will not successfully predict future behaviour, or will do so only for a short period. Project daily maximum local temperaure for the last few weeks more than a few weeks and chances are you will be making ridiculous predictions. The key to science is finding which, which regularities and which trends are reliably projectable. Noticing a correlation between use of the word "hemline" and global means surface temperatures, for example, means nothing without providing a physical theory as to why the correlation exists, and why it will persist.
Your projection of current trends in SLR, for example, includes no factors except sea level, and time. Therefore the underlying physical theory is (at best) that sea level is a linear function of time. There are many very good reasons to think a better model is that sea level is a function of global mean surface temperature. If you project your model, and a model which says sea level is a function of GMST into a future with global warming, they will give different results. Assuming your projection is better on the basis of "why not" amounts to assuming on no better basis that sea level is a linear function of time, or that temperature has no impact on sea level.
Even assuming sea level is a linear function of GMST is a very simple model, and will make different (and poorer) predictions than models that project sea level rise to be a complex function of GMST (ie, has different rates of increase with temperature for different contributing factors), or ones which make rate of increase of sea level a function of temperature.
Because there are many projectable functions for any observable variable, simply projecting a linear trend for such variables is the refusal to do science. If you want to know what is likely to happen, you need to actually test which physical model makes reliable projections. When you do that, you get the projections made by the IPCC.
-
jetfuel at 02:13 AM on 27 August 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Why isn't projection of the recent past into the future useful? Taking the last 20 years and extrapolating 85 years ahead gives only 1.89 cm of SLR from Antarctica melting. Lots of graphs about ice on this and other websites give a % loss per decade change listed right on the graph. Now, since the article quoted just above says that there "could" be 37 mm of SLR, you can't say that extrapolation "could" not be useful?
Don't compare water levels with temperature. When a sea level rises 6 inches above a level seen in a year, and that represents 1000 years of SLR rate, there is no air temp comparison
-
John Hartz at 00:42 AM on 27 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
@Leland Palmer: You are no longer skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition because you have fallen through it. If you do not cease and desist, you will forfeit your privilege of posting comments on this website.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:52 PM on 26 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Leyland Palmer @56:
1) The gas horizons for two of the fields in the Yamal pensinsular are at 900 meters (for five), and 2,850 meters (for the other 37). For two other fields (paywalled), the top horizon (of many) are at 1,200 meters, and 600 meters (the later being for the Bovanenkovo field). I could find no reason to think these depths are not typical. Scaddenp's estimate of an average depth greater than 2 km seems well born out.
2) The fact that just two smaller fields coul have the gas split among 42 distinct horizons shows that leakage of the gas is restricted, and the exception. Were vertical leakage easy, the gas would leak away from all lower horizons and accumulate in just one or two shallow horizons (or dissipate entirely).
3) The Yamal peninsular has 26 different gas bearing fields. Again, if lateral leakage was easy, these fields would conglomerate. The fact that they remain distinct fields shows they are unlikely to leak.
4) Contrary to your claims, the permafrost at Yamal (and at Bovanenkovo in particular) extends only to 350 meters depth, and only to 160 meters depth at Bovanenkovo (see second link above). That is, for even the shallowest gas horizon the topmost gas horizon has a depth 440 meters greater than the deepest permafrost. The idea of global warming melting and hence weakening that 400 plus meter layer of non-permafrost is fanciful, to say the least.
5) High levels of methane gas in the permafrost of the Yamal peninsular has been known for some time, and thoroughly explored. In particular, it has been determined by composition, and by C13 ratios that the gas is of biological origin and is not related to the underlying gas fields. Please note, this is not speculation, but the result of observations over 30 cores drilled to depths 450 meters (ie, 290 meters beyond the lower limit of the permafrost) at the Bovanenkovo field to specifically explore how permafrost methane would impact on production drilling).
6) Those wells found gas releases that lasted "from several days to several months", so analogies with the "Door to Hell" are misleading. Gas flow rates in a case described as the "most representative", initial flow rates of 3000 cubic meters per day fell by a third within two days, and to 1200 cubic meters per day after 10 days. It continued falling thereafter so that by six months later it was down to 500 cubic meters per day.
Even at the initial high flow rates, from 50,000 such "blowouts", the flow would need to be maintained for 90 years to release the equivalent amount of gas to that contained in the Bovanenkovo field. At the more realistic long term flow rate of 500 cubic meters per day, it would take over 5 million such blowouts to release that quantity of gas in five years. That is assuming, contrary to the evidence, that the flow rate was steady. In fact it was continuing to decline.
Even with that release, the radiative forcing from methane would increase by 0.2 W/m^2, compared to the current (2013) 1.8 W/m^2 radiative forcing from CO2.
It is no wonder that one of the authors of the paper studying gass blowouts at Yamal joined with David Archer and many others in 2009 to write:
"Holes in the ocean’s sediment surface (pockmarks) and submarine landslides are among the mechanisms of eruptive methane release as a result of hydrate estabilization. Quantities released in single events are constrained to about 1–5 GtC, resulting in increased radiative forcing of up to 0.2 Wm−2 if all the methane were to reach the atmosphere (Archer 2007). For comparison, the best estimate total change in radiative forcing from pre-industrial times until today is 1.6 Wm−2 (IPCC 2007b). Methane releases from hydrates that could be most significant to climate change are more likely to be of chronic nature."
Again, Leland, you are manufacturing fears out of nothing. The only sum that gives you cause for concern is the total mass of methane locked up in the north. Even then, your figures (such as the total gas in the Bovanenkovo field) do not generate the types of radiative forcing that you fear. More importantly, any time actual potential flow rates are quantified, it becomes clear that (as the leading experts repeatedly tell us), methane release in the north may well cause a chronic low grade increase in radiative forcing - but are highly unlikely to cause a sudden catastrophe.
-
Composer99 at 23:20 PM on 26 August 2014Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
It would also seem to be that only is "ocean acidification" objected to.
Yes, funny that. An accurate and precise term draws criticism, and the proposed replacements seem to be consistently vaguer and murkier.
Funny that, indeed.
-
scaddenp at 15:22 PM on 26 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Leyland, the gas in those reservoirs was produced millions of years ago and the fact that it is still there tell you about the quality of gas seals immediately about the reservoir (at 2+ kms deep). Given the changes that reservoir has been through, a little bit of warming on top isnt going to magically change seal properties.
Basically, in the planet I live in, you cannot get that methane out of those reservoirs into the atmosphere at a rate that would make much difference. If it was that easy, we wouldnt need all these highly paid reservoir engineers. I am also think it is extremely unlikely that the craters have anything to do with the gas reservoirs at all, and idea that gas could be leaking from those reservoirs over a wide area rather than on narrow fault zones is fantasyland as far as I am concerned.
-
wili at 15:02 PM on 26 August 2014Unpacking unpaused global warming – climate models got it right
The study is now being covered over at Climate Progress now, too, where it is currently being met with something of a denialist swarm/storm.
New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth
-
Leland Palmer at 15:01 PM on 26 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Uh, make that twenty six point five trillion cubuc meters of natural gas, in the last paragraph, equal to about 10 trillion dollars, gross sales at European market prices.
-
Leland Palmer at 14:56 PM on 26 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Tom Curtis and JH-
I still wonder if I'm inhabiting the same planet with you guys, frankly. I'd be lying if I said any different. Yes, there are negative feedbacks going on, JH. We hear about the greening of the Arctic as a negative feedback, and that's great.
But, the Yamal crater is located about 16 miles from Bovanenkovo, one of the three largest natural gas deposits in the world. The latitude and longitude I got off the web for this crater is 70 28 42.8 N, 67 47 52.8 E.
From Gazprom-
"32 fields were discovered in the Yamal Peninsula and its offshore areas with the aggregate reserves (A + B + C1 + C2) and resources (C3) reaching 26.5 trillion cubic meters of gas and some 1.64 billion tons of oil and condensate. The Bovanenkovo field is the most significant one in Yamal as its (A + B + C1 + C2) gas reserves amount to 4.9 trillion cubic meters."
4.9 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, located an average of 16 miles from the Yamal blowout, is more than three Gtons of methane, and is equal to roughly half of the methane in the atmosphere of the entire earth at this time.
Another one of the three cold gas eruption craters we know about so far is located in the Taz district, and appears to be roughly 85 miles from Zapolyamoye, another giant gas field that contains about 2 Gtons of methane.
The entire Yamal complex contains several times the amount of methane contained in the entire atmosphere of the earth. It's located under a kilometer or more of permafrost that has just barely started to thaw, and already we've got three cold gas eruption craters that we know about.
I really do hope you guys are correct about how stable it all is. I find your calm and your confidence in scolarship and mathematics to keep us safe almost as unnerving as the eruptions themselves. I wonder if it is humanly possible to predict what will happen to such a complex system that is being affected so massively by global warming.
Twenty six point five trillion tons of natural gas is worth about 10 trillion dollars, by the way. So, I really do wonder how that huge profit motive will affect the information coming out of Russia about these blowouts.
-
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 26 August 2014Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
For better or worse, acidification is a well-understood and well-used term in chemistry. You could argue for a better terminology when discussing in public but that creates quite a separation between non-technical and technical literature. It would also seem to be that only is "ocean acidification" objected to.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:16 AM on 26 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
Trakar, I agree with keeping discussions to the science until there is full admission that activities that increase CO2 levels must be reduced. How to accomplish the reduction is a separate discussion. But this comment string is about the things that get in the way of keeping the discuission to the science and getting someone to better understand the issue.
It is important to understand the things that may make it difficult to get people to accept that activities that increase CO2 levels must be reduced. That awareness is indeed the reason to avoid getting sidetracked to policy and politics before getting full admission that activities that increase CO2 levels must be reduced.
Of course an aware denier understands the slippery slope that they enter when they accept that activities they enjoy benefiting from are unacceptable based on a rational proof of unsustainability or harm to the environment or other people. Many people want to insist that profitability and popularity rule rather than reason. And much of the developed Western Economic activity would fail a reasoned evaluation to determine that the activity produces no accumulating harm or significant risk of harm, and that it is fundamentally sustainable into the distant future.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:45 AM on 26 August 2014Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
TJ:
To be technical, people heading from California to Texas are also not "heading east". They are "heading less west", because they are not leaving the western hemisphere.
-
Lloyd Flack at 10:42 AM on 26 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
O ne Planet Only Forever,
You are not seeing your contribution to the problem. People react badly to being condemned by the sanctimonious. You are seeing others in a way that makes moral condemnation on your part easier and more satisfying.
But seeing things in such black and white terms means that you have no credibility on the part of those that you see as black. Consider what you gain from having little empathy for opposing viewpoints. It stops you from having equivocal feelings when condemning someone, feelings that spoil the satisfaction of opposing evil. And it stops you from seeing how others see you and reeximining what you are doing.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:39 AM on 26 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Tom:
Thanks for the thorough seach for resources on Canadian physical geography and soils. I agree with your assessment of the various non-climate limitations to agriculture in the parts of Canada you cover.
Although you avoid the use of the term "expertise" (thanks!), my training is in physcial geography, and my "boots on the ground" experience includes being born in Manitoba, growing up in southern Ontario, doing geological field work in Nunavut (formerly Northwest Territories, along the western shores of Hudson Bay) and Ontario, climatological field work around Churchil, Manitoba, and 25 years of living in Alberta and Saskatchewan. So I have seen may of the areas under discussion. I travelled to every province and territory in Canada, so my boots are rather worn.
My personal experiences still do remain somewhat anecdotal, but I can comment further on some of the information sources you have uncovered. Your last link to the soils map is most interesting - the web page also provides maps of such things as "local surface form" and "local drainage".
The surface form map indicates that the areas north of the current agricultural zones are often "hummocky (or irregular)". Much of this area (frequently coinciding with the "Canadian Shield" portion of the geological map you provide) is definitely less suitable for agriculture based on changing slope - hills, valleys, lakes, exposed rock, etc. Things get flatter again in the "green zone" in the middle of the Shield area on the map, but that area (the Hudson's Bay Lowlands) is generally poorly drained - which can be see on the "local drainage" option of the soils map referred to previously.
An additional source of more complete (i.e., non-anecdotal) information on the landscape can be found at the National Atlas of Canada's Toporama web site, which provides an interactve topographic mapping tool. With this tool you can zoom in on nearly any part of the country. I'll show three here, but following the link to the site is worth the trip.
You mentioned the area north of Prince Albert, in Saskatchewan. I have worked in that area. Here is Toporama's view of the agricultural fringe in that area:
The southern protion of the map is in an agricultural area. Note the many roads, lack of green shading (forest), and lack of contour lines - this is agricultural land. To the north, where the green indicates forest, note that roads are now lacking (and the ones that are there cannot follow a straight path), and we're starting to see a lot of lakes and areas marked as swamp. Not exactly an ideal candidate for agricultural expansion.The second map I'll show is north and east of Quebec City, in eastern Canada. Although the St. Lawrence River lowlands are excellent agricultural land, we see again that the land on the northwest part of the map is severely limited by terrain. Lovely scenery, that Canadian Shield, but not prime farming land no matter what the climate.
And last, a map a couple of hours north of Toronto, Ontario. We're now in the southern-most part of Canada, where even current climate is amongst the best in the country, but again we run into the Canadian Shield and its irregular terrain, lakes, swamps, etc.
Same situation: white areas to the south indicate agricultural zones, but forested areas to the north of the map are "cottage country" - Toronto's weekend and summer playground.
As a last note, I have decided to not attempt to find photos on the Internet, but I will promise to try to fire up my old computer and scanner to scan a few of my personal phots from some of these areas.
-
TJ in TX at 08:24 AM on 26 August 2014Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
I quote:
Correcting a Common Climate Contrarian Misunderstanding
The essential point to note here is that the corrosive potential of seawater is only indirectly connected to ocean pH. Calcium carbonate forms don't dissolve because of acidification itself (an increase in hydroniums ions), and therefore has nothing to do with whether seawater is acidic, below 7 on the pH scale (it isn't), or above (alkaline). Calcium carbonate structures dissolve due to the lack of carbonate ions. In simple terms, this means seawater can be well into alkaline territory on the pH scale and yet still be highly corrosive to the various forms of calcium carbonate.
Maybe I'm just being a PITA but I'm not a fan of the term Ocean Acidification. The oceans aren't acid on the pH scale. Technically the term should be decreasing alkalinity. I guess Ocean Acidity sounds scarier. Regardless, as the author notes, the pH level is partially inconsequential and the real issue is the lack of carbonate ions. Could we call it Oceanic Carbonate Ion Depletion - OCID? (sounds like acid at least) -
TJ in TX at 07:30 AM on 26 August 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Might want to watch this USDA video presentation regarding increased levels of CO2. The content is a bit dry, but definitely address most of your concerns above regarding enclosed vs open experiments, wet vs dry conditions, effect of increased temperatures coupled with increased CO2, crop yeild increases, water usage, etc.
A lot of the claims in the article make logical sense - but when compared to empirical test results they don't match up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52UJLpBCssU
Thanks - Tom
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Trakar at 07:16 AM on 26 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
One Planet Only Forever -
The primary problem I encounter occurs when climate science advocates begin blending their scientific explanations and understandings into the larger umbrella of public policy measures and larger philosophy/ideology positions. The most successful contrarian move I've witnessed is to shift the discussion away from the science of climate change and into the broader ideological/political discussions of environmental regulation, sustainability production, population growth, corporate agriculture, etc.,. Once it becomes an issue of what makes the most short-term economic sense, the denial arguments (regulation stunts economic growth which cost jobs, requires personal sacrifice/inconvenience, etc.), become more attractive to many than typical climate change action advocacies which seem to offer very few short-term incentives to individuals, business or national interests.
Typically, I keep science discussions focussed on the science, this usually eliminates most denial and generally, in fairly short-order exposes the conspiratorial thinking required to dismiss all the mainstream science support. If, and when, I do engage in public policy discussions it is important to focus as much or more on the potential short-term economic and societal benefits of taking action (growth, jobs, efficiency, infrastructure, etc.).
-
Trakar at 05:35 AM on 26 August 2014Unpacking unpaused global warming – climate models got it right
I'm curious as to why we so casually accept MET temp. records with the inherent and known polar region biases in that record. According to NOAA/NASA records both 2005 and 2010 are globally warmer than 1998. Even without trying to explain the difference between surface warming and ocean warming, the NOAA records take most of the wind out of the "Hiatus/Pause" claims by most contrarian sources.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:14 AM on 26 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
That's an interesting idea, Jim, one of those things that seem so obvious once recognized. It seems hard to imagine how large increases in fetch won't contribute to destruction of ice, leading to yet more fetch.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:38 AM on 26 August 2014Unpacking unpaused global warming – climate models got it right
Thanks for the this. The "pause" (perhaps more appropriately "redistribution") has produced a surge of interesting research. Putting it all together for understanding by us slow-witted laypersons is a challenge in itself.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 01:42 AM on 26 August 2014Southern sea ice is increasing
Antarctica
I have a good question with respect to sea temperature and sea ice: Who leads who?
It is commonly accepted that there is a feedback between temperature and sea ice. It can go both ways:
1) Lower temperature causes more sea ice
2) More sea ice causes lower temperature.
In the skeptical sphere they believe that 1) is valid.However, it is a little more complicated, which is explained in the following article from 1991 by John W. Weatherly :
Antarctic Sea ice variations and seasonal air temperature relationships
ABSTRACT Data through 1987 are used to determine the regional and seasonal dependencies of recent trends of Antarctic temperature and sea ice. Lead-lag relationships involving regional sea ice and air temperature are systematically evaluated, with an eye toward the ice-temperature feedbacks that may influence climatic change. Over the 1958-1087 period the temperature trends are positive in all seasons. For the 15 years (l973-l987) for which ice data are available, the trends are predominantly positive only in winter and summer, and are most strongly positive over the Antarctic Peninsula. The spatially aggregated trend of temperature for this latter period is small but positive, while the corresponding trend of ice coverage is small but negative. Lag correlations between seasonal anomalies of the two variables are generally stronger with ice lagging the summer temperatures and with ice leading the winter temperatures. The implication is that summer temperatures predispose the near-surface waters to above-or below-normal ice coverage in the following fall and winter.
This means that in the summer the temperature leads the sea ice and in the winter the sea ice leads the temperature.
Question: Does there exist an updated confirmation of this?
-
Tom Curtis at 00:49 AM on 26 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Leland Palmer @54:
First, thankyou for acknowledging your error.
Second, it would be nice if you linked to the source of the information that forms the basis of your claims.
Third, I did find a comprehensive discussion of thermokarst lakes (including Kettle lakes) by Grosse, Jones and Arp (2013). It turns out they can be formed by two known methods, to which it appears a third one can now be added. The second of the known methods is from permafrost melt, and is explained in detail in Figure 7. It is an ongoing process that has been observed, as has happened in Alaska (Fig 6).
Fourth, drained thermokarst lakes have been dated using C14, and show ages from 5.5 thousand years ago up to the present. Therefore the approximately 2 million thermokarst lakes worldwide have formed over that 5 thousand year interval, at an average rate of 400 per year. Total thermokarst lake and pond surface area is estimated at between 250 and 380 thousand km^2, and hence with an average formation rate of 63 km^2 per year. No doubt that rate is not even over time, but never-the-less this is obviously an ongoing process that has been part of the background cause of atmospheric methane for a long time, and has not caused any methane catastrophes in that period. Further, ongoing formation of thermokarst lakes is budgetted into expected increaseses of methane emission with time under global warming (including those by Archer).
Moderator Response:[JH] Also see the NSF news release of July 16, 2014:
Certain Arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they release
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:35 AM on 26 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
Lloyd Flack,
We agree that providing more information and rational evaluation of the full and constantly expanding information available is the only way to sustainably change someone's mind. But you may be misunderstanding the real motivations of the people most reluctant to better understand the issue. I have sympathy for those who did not realize they were tempted to be greedy and will change their minds. They will readily better understand the issue, including understanding how they were being fooled.
However, some people will persist at resisting the development of better understanding that it is unacceptable to profit or benefit to the detriment of other life (environmentally or socially), or to profit or benefit in ways that cannot be continued forever by humanity on this amazing planet. That resistance is directly linked to their motivation to benefit as much as possible from activities like burning dug-up hydrocarbons which is damaging and unsustainable. And that resistance shows up as a resistance to better understanding climate change science.
You may have dealt with may denialists but my attribution of greed also applies to the motivations you are chosing not to attribute to greed. I have also dealt with many denialists. I live in Alberta.
Human accomplishments that have no future are not accomplishments. Pride in those things often masks greed related to not caring to do the harder and less 'personally profitable' task of living more considerately and more sustainably.
Unfortunately, most of the developed Western economy is fundamentally unsustainable and damaging, it really is. Without significant change it is destined for a dead-end. This development has happened because unsustainable and damaging activity is easier and cheaper for someone to profit from if they can get away with it. This motivates people to try to get away with as much of that as possible, to get the biggest competetive advantage. It also leads to tremendous resistance against admitting that it is not acceptable. Some even declare that they expect the future to be better because of human ingenuity, yet they refuse to strive to better understand how to live their life in a way that would assist in that development of a better future when doing so would reduce the present they enjoy for themselves (greed). They prefer to live their life in ways that will set more challenges for the future.
Economic Game playing is also greed motivated unless the game is being played totally fairly with the objective being the development of a sustainable better future for all life. Part of my MBA was the classic Game Playing scenario where the best total solution, and best possible result for any "Team" is through full honest cooperation. The result in MBA classes, which are sure to include certain types of people motivated to take such classes for personal profit, is never the best result because one team ultimately game-plays in a way they believe will be to their advantage (being deliberately dishonest). The result of their game-playing choice is really only a momentary sense of superiority over the others and is ultimately contrary to their best possible result, and definitely contrary to the overall total best possible result for all players. Such game playing is all about getting away with profting to the detriment of others, rather than competing the best you can for the best result for all. Sports played by talented athletes without vicious cheaters among them is an amazing activity, and global economic competition could be equally beautiful, but like sports needs vigilant effort to keep cheaters from prospering.
Environmentalism rationally challenges the illigitimate pursuits of profit. It challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit. Pursuit of Civil Society also challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit. And, like it or not, Climate Change science's biggest hurdle to it being broadly better understood is that it also challenges the unsustainable and damaging ways some people try to profit.
Also, being familiar with many religions I am aware that almost all of them include the point about all life on this amazing planet being precious and for humanity to be responsible stewards in that diversity of life. Noah and the Arc is a very plain and clear presnetation of that, even though it was not as clear to include all plant life in the Arc. So claims made to sound like religious resistance can be greed motivated irrational claims unsupported by the actual facts of the religious scripts.
And Liberty is often deliberately misunderstood to exclude the requirement for rational, reposponsible considerate behaviour. Those trying to maximize their personal profit through unsustainable and damaging actons often tempt people to become callous supporters of their greed by waving the "Liberty" flag. Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" provides a good presentation of this and other aspects of the deliberate actions by some against the development of a fully informed reasonable considerate populaton.
Other books pointing out what needs to change include Paul Hawken's "The Ecology of Commerce", Naomi Klein's "No Logo" and "Shock Doctrine", Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", Daniel Goleman's "Ecological Intelligence", and David Suzuki's "The Sacred Balance".
And I am aware that almost all of the troubles created by humanity, and there are many, cross the political spectrum but have been all been due to greedy or intolerant people, unconcerned about the development of a sustainable better future for all, who have been able to succeed to the detriment of others in their time and to the detriment of the future of humanity.
That highlights that a lot needs to change for Climate Science to be better understood by the entire global population. It is not simply about the science, because better undestanding climate science is 'not in the interests' of many people. And I am in favour of striving towards the required changes of global socio-economics and humanity that would lead to sustainable broader better understanding of the science of climate change.
-
Leland Palmer at 23:32 PM on 25 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
OK, I was wrong, mea culpa.
The vast majority of those circular landforms in Siberia are kettle lakes, left behind by the retreat of glaciers. There aren't thousands - there are millions - 300,000 on the Yamal Peninsula alone.
So, yes, there are two processes that can leave circular holes operating simultaneously in the same area, and Occam's Razor works better with simple systems than with complex ones.
But, just because I got excited and acted like an idiot doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. We've still got cold eruption craters appearing in the same area, mixed in with hundreds of thousands of circular kettle lakes.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:31 PM on 25 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
Personally I reckon there's a potential sting in the tail of the 2014 Arctic sea ice melting season that no amount of statistics can cater for:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/
For the science behind that slightly surreal assertion see also:
"Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean"
It is possible that the increased wave activity will be the feedback mechanism which drives the Arctic system toward an ice-free summer. This would be a remarkable departure from historical conditions in the Arctic, with potentially wide-ranging implications for the air-water-ice system and the humans attempting to operate there. -
MA Rodger at 21:13 PM on 25 August 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
Some images from the net which appear to originate from the Chen & Tung paper linked @284.
Caption @CarbonBrief.org - Heat stored in the global ocean (top) and major oceans compared to the 1970 to 2012 average. Coloured lines show heat from the surface down to different depths (left scale). Black lines are average sea surface temperature (right scale) Source: Chen & Tung (2014)
Caption @Science20.com - (Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage. Credit: University of Washington
Attribution @ScienceMag.org - Xianyao Chen/Ka-Kit Tung
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:42 PM on 25 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
OPOF There are good statistical reasons for trying to predict the mean (for example, it more obviously justifies the statistical assumptions of least-squares based regression methods), rather than the minimum, so it is a sensible thing to do. While there is a good deal of media interest in the minimum daily value, I suspect the September mean is of more scientific interest, I suspect the difference between the two is well in the noise as far as long term evolution of Arctic sea ice is concerned. As my model shows, the previous years September extent is not that good a predictor of next years September extent, too much depends on the Arctic weather over the year.
-
Lloyd Flack at 16:50 PM on 25 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
One Planet Only Forever,
Both Rob and I have corresponded with more denialists than you have. The groups we have dealt with overlap. We have a better idea of what they are about than you do.
It is wishful thinking but the motives aren’t what you describe. There are, I think, two main motives.
One is the value placed on human accomplishments and on liberty and in particular on the accomplishments of Western civilization. Many feel, unfortunately often correctly, that environmentalists undervalue these and are idealizing alternatives, alternatives that they believe are impractical on the required scale.
But there is also an element of game playing. Many see environmentalism as a characteristic of the opposing team and oppose it because of that. This tendency gets aggravated by sanctimoniousness on the part of environmentalists.
In my experience there is an aggravating element among many denialists. Religion. Many denialists refuse to believe that God created a world in which they have to act against their ethical preferences. I’ve found it easier to get a non-religious denialist to re-examine their beliefs than a religious one. Even so it is a matter of patiently explaining what is happening. That is what you have to do, explain, not denounce. You have to appeal to the desire to understand, to point out that the Universe cares nothing about their ideology. When doing this you will be more successful if you have some sympathy with their point of view, If you have ambivalent feelings about the necessary measures.
Also remember some of these motives are not found only on the right. The Soviet Union had a really bad environmental record. Some of the reasons were the same, an unlimited belief in what humans could accomplish, just collectively rather than individually in their case. -
citizenschallenge at 12:17 PM on 25 August 2014Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
And now there's this
"Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration"Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung
Science 22 August 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 897-903
DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
Deep-sea warming slows down global warming
Global warming seems to have paused over the past 15 years while the deep ocean takes the heat instead. The thermal capacity of the oceans far exceeds that of the atmosphere, so the oceans can store up to 90% of the heat buildup caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Chen and Tung used observational data to trace the pathways of recent ocean heating.
They conclude that the deep Atlantic and Southern Oceans, but not the Pacific, have absorbed the excess heat that would otherwise have fueled continued warming.
Science, this issue p. 897
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For more see:
August 21, 2014
Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
Hannah Hickey -
citizenschallenge at 12:07 PM on 25 August 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
Update:
"Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration"
Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit TungScience 22 August 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 897-903
DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937
RESEARCH ARTICLEhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
===============
August 21, 2014
Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
Hannah HickeyFollowing rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.
More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.
Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth’s surface.
...
The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.
“The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat,” Tung said. “But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise.”
Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth, as well as older oceanographic measurements and computer reconstructions. Results show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:34 AM on 25 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
You may be missing my point, but I admit I have little sympathy for people who deliberately resist better understanding this rather easy to better understand issue.
The greedy people I am referring to include people who have a motivation like comfort, convenience or personal pleasure. All of those fall under the definition of profit and would be greed related motivations to not better understand this issue and the changes of human activity that need to be accepted when the issue is better understood.
Please elaborate on the nature of the ideological leanings of your father you are referring to, and explain why you belive he adheres to them rather than being willing to better understand this issue. He may be one of the many people who are easily impressed by the attempts by greedy people to misinform and discredit climate science, because of the motivation to maximize personal profit, easily impressed beciase of a motivation to want more comfort, convenience and pleasure even if it is gotten through damaging actions.
I am genuinely interested in learning more about the motivations of people who resist better understanding this issue that is not really that difficult to better understand. There may be non-greed motivations, but I have seen little evidence of those.
I will admit thta many people who prefer to focus on entertainment and sport may not understand the issue. That is a significant problem, but it is not what we are discussing here. This is a discussion about people in that category who will resist better understanding the issue if it is brought up, people who resist changing their mind about it, even if their initial opinion is based on misunderstanding or very little actual understanding of the issue.
I am not interested in pleasing people. I am interested in increasing the number of people who are more fuly informed and rationally evaluate what is going on. That includes accepting that such activity will displease some people who may never change their mind, because of their personal motivation not to change their mind, which commonly is motivated by greed or irrational fear created and promoted deliberately by greedy people.
-
ghooghkirk at 01:50 AM on 25 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
I just read, ''Climate change: meteorologists preparing for the worst."
"Average temperatures have increased by 0.47 percent degres Celsius so far."
"Scientists have predicted a two-percent rise in average temperatures by 2050."
"Meating ice of Greenland could result in a six-meter (200-foot) rise..."
Where is the editor?
-
CBDunkerson at 22:28 PM on 24 August 2014Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
If the theory they suggest for the cause of the ocean circulation slowdown, larger / longer lasting ice sheets, is correct then the current global warming may result in a return to prior conditions... or something new. That could be 'good news' in that increased ocean circulation might draw CO2 down from the atmosphere faster than predicted based on models using current values... but it would likely also mean massive changes in weather patterns.
In any case, this is all 'long term stuff'... by the time any of this comes in to play faster moving human impacts could have changed the entire equation. The greatest significance of this may be as another piece in the puzzle which may eventually allow us to understand the climate system well enough that we can mitigate our impacts.
-
Robert Murphy at 14:05 PM on 24 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
OPOF said:
Lloyd Flack,
Please share some examples of the motivations of people who resist better understanding the climate science that are not greed related.
Most of the people I know who think climate science is bunk have no financial stake in the issue. My father would be a good example. His resistence is purely based on his previous ideological leanings. That's not greed, it's ignorance. You have completely missed Lloyd's point, and I doubt you will ever get it if you insist on such an extreme position. You have no ability to empathize with someone who disagrees with you. They are not all evil and most think that their position is right.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 24 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
The confusion about "September Mean Arctic Ice Extent" which is the minimum monthly average, and the "Minimum Arctic Ice Extent" which occurs in September shows how important it can be for everyone to always be talking the same way about an issue.
It would be better if all the exercises and reporting related to minimum Arctic Sea Ice were always about the "Minimum". The NSIDC Reporting seems to mainly present information showing the "Minimum" as in the projected minimums in their latest report on August 19 (here).
p.s. I also find the different baselines used by different global average surface temperature sets to also potentially lead to misunderstanding that can be exploited by someone who deliberately wants to cause trouble. It would be better if all the researchers and reporters agree to adjust their values to always be the anomaly from the pre-industrial value (provided they could all agree on that), and all use degrees C. I know this move to consistency would potentially be exploited by trouble-makers to claim a conspiracy or 'errors being hidden', but their attempts to do so could allow the scientific community and its supporters to collectively and consistently point out the deliberate trouble-makers to the general population.
-
mlyle at 02:18 AM on 24 August 2014Ancient ocean currents may have changed pace and intensity of ice ages
Not having seen the study yet, it is hard to completely critique it. However, what they measure is a response, and the cause is still missing or poorly understood.
-
scaddenp at 21:16 PM on 23 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
I'm with Tom. This is utterly irrational. As has repeatedly been pointed out to you, in deep geological time, the world was different with shallow seas and the possibility of much more methane hydrate. Pleistocene glaciations are with a world that is much like ours.
It doesnt actually matter how big those fields are because as has been also repeatedly pointed out to you, loss rates from gas fields are very slow and incapable of producing the dangerous amounts of methane. If you could leak gas fast there wouldnt be a gas field - their very existance implies tight deep seal rocks.
You might see more subsidence etc from methane hydrate loss (a far more plausible explanation than frozen ground holding back a gas seep) but 20,000,000? or even 2,000,000? Anyway, russian scientists are investigating and we will await data with interest.
Your sincere concern is noted but more attention to the science (and arithmetic) instead of uninformed alarmism would be nice.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:12 PM on 23 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Leland Palmer @51, you are motivated a firm belief that causes you to ignore all contrary evidence, and to seize upon any evidence that may trivially support your belief as proof of the belief's rationality. Your approach, in other words, is that of pseudo-science, not sciene. The primary effect of your approach to evidence, if persuasive to any, is to teach those who are persuaded that pseudoscience is "rational", thereby making them more vulnerable to the pseudoscience from AGW deniers. In other words, you are a hindrance, not a help towards effective action on the real problems stemming from global warming.
-
Leland Palmer at 16:56 PM on 23 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
Hi scaddenp-
Past recent glaciations, you mean. There are a series of mass extinction events associated with massive carbon isotope excursions, consistent with the release of trillions of tons of light carbon from the oceanic methane hydrates, if you go further back. And recent glaciations have arguably occurred more slowly and randomly than current warming, without the terrible speed, non-randomness and scale of our current fossil fuel emissions.
You know, thanks for pointing out the immense probably thermogenic methane gas fields in that area of Siberia. Gazprom says that one field there, Zapolyarnoye, has about 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Thats a little bigger than two gtons of methane, right there, compared to about 5 Gtons of methane in the atmosphere right now. Boy howdy, I hope hundreds of Yamal style craters don't start blowing the roof off of that gas field, in say 20 years, or 50 years!
Now that we know such cold gas eruptions like Yamal exist, we would be remiss in our duties as stewards of Earth if we didn't investigate that possibility, wouldn't we? As the permafrost melts, and weakens I hope gas pressure doesn't blow that those Gazprom gas wells out of those soils formerly known as permafrost.
Looking at it in Google Earth, that area looks a little pockmarked, by the way, showing a landscape dotted with circular lakes, perhaps suggestive of past Yamal style gas eruptions plus subsidence. There has been some water streambed erosion through there, though so it's hard to be sure. Gazprom says that this immensly productive field is in an area only 50 km long and 30 km wide, and they are annoyingly vague about its exact boundaries. If you know the exact boundaries of this field, that would be helpful.
You've totally got the shoe on the wong foot, though, abut responsible action. Fear is a totally natural reaction to danger. I truly believe we are in a lot of danger, and it would be irresponsible not to investigate the Yamal cold eruption phenomenon. Given the apparent occurance of past methane catastrophes, we are in fact being remiss right now in not banning fossil fuel use, just on the chance that we might set one off.
Personally, I think that we're going to see more of these Yamal cold gas eruptions. I think they're going to start popping like popcorn. I think we're going to see all sizes of them, many thousands of them, and some of the ones to come are going to make the current Yamal crater look very tiny, indeed. After they blow, I think we're likely to see large chronic emissions from some of them, and a repeated series of explosive eruptions from others. After we get thousands of them, the combined instantaneous and chronic eruptions will likely create a truly significant impact on global warming, I think, and may be large enough to start the widespread dissociation of the continental shelf methane hydrates.
It would be irresponsible not to say this. I know that I have no bad motives in making these posts. I'm not motivated by profit, or greed, or glee at scaring people. I'm motivated by sincere concern, and a conviction that we are only seeing a tiny preview of coming attractions in these Yamal cold gas eruptions.
-
swampfoxh at 11:24 AM on 23 August 2014President Obama gets serious on climate change
Why y'all got to give Pierre a hard time. He's one of us! Obama's not a real asset anyway. Bill McKibben points out his pandering to the oil companies in Bill's book "Oil & Honey". Obama's waiting until December 2016 to approve XL, after he know his successor, but before his successort (if a Democrat) has to take the blame for approving XL. Obama's like Bush, neither of them can walk the walk, but both can talk the talk.
-
scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 23 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
You cant have certainty but you can make some ballpark figures. Firstly, there is no trace of a methane catastrophe in previous glaciations when it has been warmer than now. Second, CH4 analysis suggest methane associated with deglaciation is organic, not hydrate or thermogenic.
Now, assume that arctic has say twice as much deep leaky gas fields as rest of the world, and using the Etope and Klusman 2002 figures for thermogenic output, and you still cant generate 50GT/y or anything like it. You need 5x as much output from thermogenic to even double atmospheric methane. In short, take a reality check and dont go scaremongering where not needed. Climate activism doesnt need a credubility problem.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:23 AM on 23 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
@billthefrog, cheers, hopefully the blog post is better for the editing.
SIPC could use the minimum as the criterion, as I understand that there is daily resolution extent data available, and I did consider modelling the actual minimum instead, but it would have been too time consuming to do it in a statistically interesting way! The model I used was actually just an excuse to play with the GPML toolbox for MATLAB, rather than as a serious exercise; it is interesting that it hasn't done that badly. I was thinking of going back and seeing what the model would have forecast in the earlier rounds of the exercise that I didn't take part in.
I completely agree about the loaded question put to Phil Jones (with whom I have worked on a couple of projects - he is a thoroughly good egg IMHO). The last part of the quote suggests he has a good intuitive understanding of statistical power that is sadly lacking in most of the discussion of the significance of recent trends!
I tend to keep "outliers" in the model, unless I know there is something wrong with the measurements (or there is some other known issue in the data generating process, e.g. a large asteroid hitting the Earth ;o). If you get rid of points that are a long way from the (conditional) mean, then it reduces the apparent variance of the system, and often getting the predicted variance right is very important (one of my research interests).
-
billthefrog at 03:27 AM on 23 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
@ Gavin,
Absolutely no need for a mea culpa. I've been looking at the SEARCH (and now SIPN) stuff for about 5 years, and for the first 12-18 months I thought the same as you - and for exactly the same reason. It was only as I became more familiar with the data, that I realised it had to be the monthly mean which was being used. Largely as a consequence of this confusion, I've tried to drill myself to always explicitly state the time period of a min (or max).
I totally agree with your comments regarding the fact that, whatever the confidence interval selected, there is a gradual transition in the "confidence" of the result. A classic example of this being twisted to nefarious purpose was the loaded question that Phil Jones was presented with in 2010. The case was eloquently described by Dana on the SkS site, with the crux of the matter being the following question and answer...
Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
A: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
When I tried to work out the actual confidence level using the HadCRUT3 dataset, I think it came out at around 93% or 94%, but that's not how it was reported by the usual suspects.
For what it's worth, I tend to omit outliers such as 2007 (and latterly 2012) when trying to "outguess" the Arctic. This strategy wasn't bad in 2010 and 2011, but failed spectacularly in 2012, 2013 and 2014. (No prizes for guessing in which direction I was wrong about each of those years.)
Cheers Bill F
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 23 August 2014Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
Lloyd Flack,
Please share some examples of the motivations of people who resist better understanding the climate science that are not greed related.
I agree that greed will not necessarily be the motivation for everyone who is reluctant to better understand what the constantly improving understanding of climate science is indicating about the acceptability of developed and developing human activity.
However, greed is definitely the motivation behind almost every effort to create and disemminate misleading marekting regarding the issue and attempts to discredit climate science. And greed is also likely the root motivation for almost all the members of the 'audience of information providers' who prefer to believe misleading criticisms of climate science.
What climate science, and so many other fields of scientific investigation, are developing is a better understanding that much of the developed and developing global economic and fiscal activity is fundamentally unsustainable and damaging. And the changes to the socioeconomic system that are needed to lead to have the system actually develop a sustainable better future for everyone are contrary to the interests of callous greedy people who have become powerful and wealthy by getting away with unsustainable and damgaing activity, and are contrary to the interests of people hoping to become wealthy and powerful through similar unacceptable pursuits.
Admittedly there are fearful people and desperate people also easily impressed by the attempts to misinform and discredit climate science. Many fearful people are afraid that they will not be able to live without burning dug-up hydrocarbons. That fear is related to their greed. They want the lifestyle they are accustomed to and fear not having it. That is a valid fear. But the lifes being enjoyed by high-consumption people not paying the full costs of ensuring there is no damage done by their lifestyle are living an illigitimate damaging life. Those who do not care to better understand the sustainability of how they live their life, do not care about future generations also being able to continue the same lifestyle, not caring that others who want to try today to live the same way cannot all be allowed to (only the winners of the dog-eat-dog competition to win to the detriment of others benefit, rather than having everyone compete to live sustainably better which would allow all people to live decently with competition finding even better ways for everyone to live decently) , would fear losing some of their benefits which are also illigitimate ways of living.
So, although there may be many other 'described motivations' most of them could be related to greed, even if the person does not internally recognise their motivation as greed.
And the media likes of Murdoch are not necessarily deliberately against climate science. It is just that greed can lead them to do what they are doing. Media sell advertising. And advertisers want to know what kind of people they are advertising to. The success of the likes of Murdoch can be seen as an ability to attract an audience that 'wants more new stuff', does not care about understanding negative implications of how they live or what they chose to consume, is easily impressed by a message that suits their image and is unlikely to check into the validity of a claim they thought they liked. That type of audience is golden for misleading advertisers who want to profit any way they can get away with.
-
Leland Palmer at 03:03 AM on 23 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
"If it is connected to deep thermogenic gas, then no problem. No possibility of a methane apocolype from that kind of cause."
I admire your certainty, so soon after the appearance of this new cold eruption phenomenon. But, you've actually been quite helpful, and have helped advance the "cold eruption as a cause of the circular lake phenomenon associated with Siberian gas fields" hypothesis.
I'm afraid, though, I cannot agree with your statement about "no possibility". The permafrost weakening mechanism could likely produce cold eruptions from any high pressure source, and it may be that the thermogenic gas fields have the highest pressure.
So, thanks for your help.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:41 PM on 22 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
billthefrog If you look at the call for contributions, you will find it talk about the September minimum right at the top of the page
"The Sea Ice Outlook provides an open process for those interested in arctic sea ice to share ideas about the September minimum sea ice extent. The monthly reports contain a variety of perspectives—from advanced numerical models to qualitative perspectives from citizen scientists. A post-season report will provide an in-depth analysis of factors driving sea ice extent this summer as well as explore the scientific methods for predicting seasonal ice extent"
but September mean much further down. Presumably that is where the confusion arose, mea culpa (I don't appear to be the only one to make that mistake). Thanks for pointing this out, I'll update the page to reflect this.
What difference does it make? Well not much really, if you have a 95% credible interval (note: it is not a frequentist confidence interval), it means you should expect the observations to lie outside the intervals 5% of the time, even if the model is perfect. If the observations lie very slightly outside the CI they are only slightly more unexpected than if the lie very slightly within. The important thing the model learned from the last two years (where the observations were at opposite ends of the interval) was that it was probably underestimating the variability, which is why the credible interval is a bit wider this year. If you look around 1995, you will see that the observations were outside the CI then, even though that is in the calibration period. This sort of thing does happen from time to time, especially if the model is non-physical - you know it is "wrong" (in the GEP Box sense) a-priori.
Now, nobody is claiming the model is perfect, or even good, just a simple statistical baseline that expert opinion or physical models ought to be able to improve upon. -
billthefrog at 21:08 PM on 22 August 20142014 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
@ Gavin & Franklefkin,
Hi guys,
Perhaps it might help if we go through this one step at a time. Gavin correctly points out that, in previous years, this exercise was carried out under the Study of Environmental ARctic CHange umbrella (ie SEARCH).
However, I think Gavin is mistaken in the assertion that the criterion requested for 2013 was the daily minimum recorded in September. In the SEARCH background page, it clearly states that...
An integrated monthly report is produced that summarizes the evolution and expected state of arctic sea ice for the September mean arctic sea ice extent, based on the observations and analyses submitted by the science community. (My underlining)
More specifically, the SEARCH Report for June 2013 states...
With 23 pan-arctic Outlook contributions, an increase over the last two years (thank you!), the June Sea Ice Outlook projects a September 2013 arctic sea extent (defined as the monthly average for September) median value of 4.1 million square kilometers, with quartiles of 3.8 and 4.4 million square kilometers (Figure 1). (Again my underlining)
If the submission was made mistakenly thinking that the daily minimum had been sought by SEARCH, then we are into the realms of chalk and cheese. Should this be the case, then the projection of 4.1 +/- 1.1 million sq kms does indeed encompass the observed NSIDC daily minimum of 5.1 million sq kms. (Especialy as NSIDC have, I believe, an uncertainty figure of around 50,000 sq kms.) However, that was not what the SEARCH team was looking for.
On the other hand, if, as Franklefkin suggests, the 4.1 million sq kms daily figure is somehow derived from an intermediate calculation giving the projected monthly average, then we are in the dark as to the value of this hypothesised monthly mean.
A third alternative is that the 4.1 million figure does represent the monthly mean. In that case - barring Snowball Earth and Hothouse Earth intervals - it is impossible, both physically and mathematically, for the daily mean to equal the monthly mean.
Sorry about this guys, but if got to sign off and go exploring ancient ruins on Dartmoor. I will log in again later this evening to explain my "jangling nerves" comment further.
Cheers Bill
-
Tom Curtis at 13:44 PM on 22 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
To the moderator, I know I probably provoked him by posting a sensible post on a related topic, such that Donny had to rush in to fill the space with distracting nonsense, but surely Donny's quota of irrational, unsupported online "arguments" is used up. If he cannot state a cogent case, with clearly linked supporting evidence, why is he permitted to waste our time?
Moderator Response:[JH] As long as you and others choose to respond to Donny's "distracting nonsense" before a Moderator can take action to delete his post, the problem will persist.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 22 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Donny @71, the total cost of the Conservation Reserve Program from 1995-2012 was 31.5 billion dollars, for an average payment of 34 thousand dollars per recipient, or 1.9 thousand dollars per annum per recipient.
For comparison, farm commodity subsidies amounted to 177.6 billion dollars over the same period, for an average of 60 thousand dollars per recipient, or 3,356 per annum. Further, there were only 1.4 million eligible recipients for the CRP, compared to the 2.9 million recipients of commodity subsidies. In all, the CRP represented only 13.3% of US farm subsidies. The 1.75 billion payed out in CRP in 2012 represented just 0.4% of gross farm income in the US, and 1.3% of net income.
Given these statistics, the claims made about the CRP at the site to which you link are hardly credible. Having acreage under cultivation results in higher net subisidies for the farmer, which are more easilly obtained. Once income from sale of products is included, it can only be commerically advantagious to have acreage rented under the CRP program if that acreage generates a marginal return in the first event. Further, the CRP does result in a net conservation gain, so that its stated purpose is its most likely actual purpose. (Arguing that a minor tie up of land focussed on degraded land that results in improvement of land quality and recovery in population of threatened species was not introduced for the stated purpose of conservation looks very like a conspiracy theory to me.)
Finally, in total, as of 2014, 5.62 million acres of farmland were tied up by CRP contracts. That is just 0.55% of total US agricultural land. So even it, as per your fantasy, the land tied up by the CRP was as productive as the rest of US agricultural land, releasing it would not compensate other than to a minimal extent to the expected loss in agricultural productivity from global warming.
-
Donny at 12:24 PM on 22 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
Ending CRP would help in the extremely unlikely event that there was a shortage.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is not science. It is not even basically relevant. Other commentators have produced data to support their argument that climate change is not going create new farmland due to warming temperatures at a rate commeasurate with crop decline in other sectors. Things like actual studies, soil maps etc. Change of land use in existing areas of arable soils are not relevant. Expect further offtopic, essentially political points to be deleted.
Prev 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 Next
