Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 Next
Comments 34751 to 34800:
-
wili at 12:01 PM on 6 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
Good presentation. But isn't the larger point that 20 years is not long enough to accurately chart anything? It's nice to be able to be able to identify some of the factors that go into natural variation here. But really, 20 years?
Isn't it true that if you take a slightly longer time frame (and anything longer that 20 years would surely be more appropriate), that there has actually been an acceleration in the rate of global warming? 1990 or so actually seems to be something of an inflection point, with the rate twenty years before it being about half that of the rate over the following twenty years or so.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link.
The length of time required to draw inference about a trend depends on the amount of noise (variability) compared to magnitude of trend. 20 years is short for surface temperature but long for sea level.[RH] Shortened link.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:18 AM on 6 August 2014Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom
I have a copy of Conrath. If you want I can email you a copy
-
Tom Curtis at 08:09 AM on 6 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
Sorry, I picked up the wrong original quote. Here is the proper one:
" Few field observations to date demonstrate biological responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification, as in many places these responses are not yet outside their natural variability and may be influenced by confounding local or regional factors. See also Box TS.7. Natural climate change at rates slower than current anthropogenic change has led to significant ecosystem shifts, including species emergences and extinctions, in the past millions of years."
(Bolded elided by M Thompson)
Also relevant are the two following from the Executive Summary of Chapter 6:
"Rising atmospheric CO2 over the last century and into the future not only causes ocean warming but also changes carbonate chemistry in a process termed ocean acidification (WGI, Chs. 3.8.2, 6.4.4). Impacts of ocean acidification range from changes in organismal physiology and behavior to population dynamics (medium to high confidence) and will affect marine ecosystems for centuries if emissions continue (high confidence). Laboratory and field experiments as well as field observations show a wide range of sensitivities and responses within and across organism phyla (high confidence). Most plants and microalgae respond positively to
elevated CO2 levels by increasing photosynthesis and growth (high confidence). Within other organism groups, vulnerability decreases with increasing capacity to compensate for elevated internal CO2 concentration and falling pH (low to medium confidence). Among vulnerable groups sustaining fisheries, highly calcified corals, mollusks and echinoderms, are more sensitive than crustaceans (high confidence) and fishes (low confidence). Trans-generational or evolutionary adaptation has been shown in some species, reducing impacts of projected scenarios (low to medium confidence). Limits to adaptive capacity exist but remain largely unexplored. [6.3.2, CC-OA]
Few field observations conducted in the last decade demonstrate biotic responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification, as in many places these responses are not yet outside their natural variability and may be influenced by confounding local or regional factors. Shell thinning in planktonic foraminifera and in Southern Ocean pteropoda has been attributed fully or in part to acidification trends (medium to high confidence). Coastward shifts in upwelling CO2-rich waters of the Northeast-Pacific cause larval oyster fatalities in aquacultures (high confidence) or shifts from mussels to fleshy algae and barnacles (medium confidence), providing an early perspective on future effects of ocean acidification. This supports insight from volcanic CO2 seeps as natural analogues that macrophytes (seaweeds and seagrasses) will outcompete calcifying organisms. During the next decades ecosystems, including cold- and warm-water coral communities, are at increasing risk of being negatively affected by ocean acidification (OA), especially as OA will be combined with rising temperature extremes (medium to high confidence, respectively). [6.1.2, 6.3.2, 6.3.5]"My summary of the preceding post remains fair comment.
-
MattJ at 08:07 AM on 6 August 2014Harvard historian: strategy of climate science denial groups 'extremely successful'
Yes, the disinformation campaign has been successful — if you call 'success' winning a policy determined to make the lives of your few generations of descendants absolute misery.
But it is about to get worse: I just saw an announcement on Quora of an even more shameful, bold fraud: the mysteriously and suspiciously named "NICPP", a new front group for The Heartland Institute, claiming scientific backing for many of the false criticisms of the ICPP that we have all heard before.
I also noticed that nothing comes up in the search here at Skeptical Science when I input "NICPP" or "nicpp". That ought to change pronto.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:58 AM on 6 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
Speaking of sticking to what is known, how about we start by quoting in context:
"A few studies provide limited evidence for adaptation in phytoplankton and mollusks. However, mass extinctions in Earth history occurred during much slower rates of change in ocean acidification, combined with other drivers, suggesting that evolutionary rates may be too slow for sensitive and long-lived species to adapt to the projected rates of future change (medium confidence)."
(Bolded sections elided by M Thompson)
Also from the summary on Ocean Acidification:
"Ocean acidification poses risks to ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species (medium to high confidence). See Box TS.7. Highly calcified mollusks, echinoderms, and reef-building corals are more sensitive than crustaceans (high confidence) and fishes (low confidence), with potential consequences for fisheries and livelihoods (Figure TS.8B). Ocean acidification occurs in combination with other environmental changes, both globally (e.g., warming, decreasing oxygen levels) and locally (e.g., pollution, eutrophication) (high confidence). Simultaneous environmental drivers, such as warming and ocean acidification, can lead to interactive, complex, and amplified impacts for species."
(Bold in original)
So, to "stick with what is known" in M Thompson's version, you need to quote out of context, and ignore the IPCC's findings. That is not what I would call integrity.
-
Jutland at 07:55 AM on 6 August 2014Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom @85: that is a very, very helpful answer, thank you. The confusion was my own, not in any discussion with anyone else. I have been wondering where I might have got definition (2) from, and now think that I may have misinterpreted statements in texts online or in books, eg a statement like "IR photons escape the atmosphere at the tropopause" might have been misinterpreted in my mind as "the tropopause is the height at which IR photons escape." Oh well. On the other hand, I am feeling a bit chuffed (especially as a non-scientist) that I worked out that different frequency IR photons must escape the atmosphere at different altitudes. -
MThompson at 07:19 AM on 6 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
Well said, DavidBird at comment #3. To maintain integrity we have to stick to what is known:
"Few field observations to date demonstrate biological responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification, as in many places these responses are not yet outside their natural variability and may be influenced by confounding local or regional factors."
IPCC AR5 WG11 p.9
-
Tom Curtis at 05:28 AM on 6 August 2014Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Jutland @84:
1) The tropopause is that level of the atmosphere between the troposphere and the stratosphere were the negative change of temperature with altitude falls to zero. That also happens to be were radiation can transfer energy more rapidly than convection. As on some planets there is no stratosphere, that fact is often used as the definition (ie, your definition (1)) of the troposphere (as it is more general).
2) I have never seen your definition (2) used as a definition as the tropopause. The average level from which radiant energy escapes to space is called the "skin layer", or "the effective altitude of radiation to space". It does not coincide with the tropopause. On average over the globe, it is at 5 km altitude, compared to the 10 km altitude of the tropopause.
It is possible you, or somebody with whom you are having a discussion, or reading, has confused the definition of the "skin layer" with the definition of the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA). For convenience of calculation, radiative forcing is defined relative to what is called the TOA, but is really the tropopause. That is the level at which the net radiative flux is calculated in determining the radiative forcing for various substances, but is not the level from which most radiation comes. Note that for observational data sets, the TOA usually refers to the altitude of the satellites on which the instruments are mounted, or 70 Km (which ever is higher).
3) Finally, yes, the average altitude of effective radiation to space differs for different chemical compounds, and for different wave numbers (a unit of frequency). This can be illustrated by this diagram from Conrath et al (1970), showing model calculated and observed upward IR radiation at the TOA (ie, the altitude of the satellite):
The black body temperature curves for various temperatures are shown on the graph. Where they intersect the upward IR spectrum, radiation at that wave number has an average temperature equal to the temperature of the black body curve. If we then know the surface temperature and the lapse rate, we can then calculate the average altitude of radiation for that wave number. Unfortunately I have lost my copy of Conrath et al due to a faulty hard drive, so I do not know the correct values. However, the flat trough at the bottom of the CO2 absorption band (approx 600 - 700 cm^-1) represents the tropopause, while the the small spike in the center at approx 666 cm^-1 is the region of peak absorption by CO2, and has an average altitude of radition in the stratosphere (hence the higher temperatures).
The average altitude of radiation for water vapour and methane are much lower, being around 3 km as can be seen in this full spectrum reproduced by Science of Doom (via Goody 1989):
I hope that helps.
-
Jutland at 03:57 AM on 6 August 2014Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
I'm hoping I can check some terminology here. I've heard the term tropopause being applied to at least two different things: (1) the level at which convection ceases to be the main heat transfer process in the atmosphere, and (2) the level at which IR photons escape into space. But they're not necessarily the same thing? - it occurs to me that IR photons trapped by CO2 might escape at a different height from IR photons trapped by say methane. So in definition (2) it should be possible to have different tropopauses for different GHGs. But under definition (1) there's only one tropopause. Am wondering which actually is the tropopause (or whether I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick completely). -
BojanD at 03:26 AM on 6 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Ok, I see the source of our misunderstanding. You were focusing on the scientific process per se (the fact that error was undetected and even that the fix was undetected, too), I was focusing on the fact that mainstream result is probably still correct, hence my remark about error being real or not. Now I'm not saying that your position is not important. :)
However, now I'm faced with another enigma. If Comiso made an error and the fix inadvertantly, how come the other researchers didn't detect any of this stuff before if they were using independant methods. Surely they didn't independantly made an error and the fix at the same time. Or is the data really that noisy? -
WRyan at 01:37 AM on 6 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
It's interesting that you comment that the rapid rise in ocean heat content during the period 2001-2004/5 is unexplained. I think that Hansen et al.
J. Hansen et al.: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications (p.13439)
attributed at least some of the rise to a bounce back from the preceding period (1991-2000) where ocean heat content fell.
In the paper, the mechanism for this heating was described as:
"The physical origin of the rebound is simple. Solar heating of Earth returns to its pre-volcano level as aerosols exit the stratosphere. However, thermal emission to space [from the ocean's surface] is reduced for a longer period because the ocean was cooled by the volcanic aerosols."
Is that hypothesis valid? What are the alternate explanations?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - As far as explanations go, it's not really much of an explanation. The Mt Pinatubo eruption would certainly have played a role, but a whole lot more detail is needed to qualify as a possible explanation.
-
John Michael Carter at 01:31 AM on 6 August 2014Harvard historian: strategy of climate science denial groups 'extremely successful'
"But the overall picture continues: these groups continue to dismiss or disparage the science, attack scientists, and sow doubt."
Interesting about Johnson, I wondered why this wasn't obvious a long time ago (and now see that it was.) I've also been arguing for almost two decades that the basics of climate change are pretty much the same (and not dependent on shorter term patterns. (Since then we've had 14 of the 14 warmest years on record according to the composite data of the three major global data sets as compiled by the World Meteorological Organization, but all anybody can talk about is the misleading pause. And focus far too much on air temperature, and not ocean temperatures.)
Anyway, Oreskes is spot on.
I think the difference is they come to believe it (much as a laywer advocating for a client often genuinely takes on that perspective) and many want to believe it for various reasons, laid out here, and it creates a kind of powerful self reinforcing effect - particularly on the internet where self selection leads to excessive insular reinforcement. It has almost become a religion, but climate change refuters see it as the opposite of course, and project that outward.
There's a constant pattern that simply builds on and reinforces the idea that climate scientists are unscientifically engaging in a narrow, research grant funded groupthink expedition, and the clueless koolaid drinkers are following, while the intreped skeptic/refuter is bold enough to discover and know the true facts and objectively and cooly evaluate and assess the issue. -All while going nearly nuts over any sort of disagreement that makes a good point, or finding some way to simply dismiss it or not consider it, and often wildly disparagingly at the same time. Even skeptical science, over at WUWT, has no merit according to them. Because it has to have no merit. If it had merit, then the extremeness of their views would start to seem unreasonable. So only those facts and ideas that reinforce or support those views are considered real, all others have been and are by one measure or another dismissed, not considered, or disregarded, or, simply, changed. By looking at it differently. (Such as with oceans, since, well we can't have measured every square inch, so once we measure the "right" things, it is no longer warming.)
-
MA Rodger at 22:19 PM on 5 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
BojanD @14.
Digging out the meat from accounts of this Comiso/Eisenman dispute did have a feel of obscure histiography about it. And the descriptive requirements are quite high for this subject, so slips easily occur. The Live Science account, for instance, presents a sentence that goes way beyond where it should, saying - "According to this view, the trend toward expansion might be an error introduced by a recalibration of how satellite data is processed."
Note that, contrary to your assertion @14, there is no dispute that the error is real. The dispute concerns the potential location of it within the latest algorithms.
My entire point with the "misinformation" comment is that it is a very strong accusation to make against the Eisenman et al paper. And the only support provided for such a strong accusation (Essentially My work is correct because it yields the same result as the work of others unaffected by this dispute [a point you make @14], and anyway it's water under the bridge now the trend has increased.) is not a scientific defence. Thus the accusation is wholly unwarranted and that does need some explanation. Thus I consider that the harsh words could result from a level of animosity existing already between the two of them.
Elsewhere the paper has been described as “an excellent piece of scientific vigilance" and note that account also makes plain that Comiso's calibration error was "inadvertantly introduced" and "corrected ... unknowingly" and the presence of an error only identified by dint of Eisenman et al.
And concerning the water-under-the-bridge dismissal of EIsenman et al (2014), the effect of this undocumented error/correction, while diminishing as new data accumulates, remains still quite large and would have constituted the majority of the trend had not there been a genuine increase in trend to mask it - and note it is a 'masking process' that has grown a lot since the paper was written.
-
JRP at 18:05 PM on 5 August 2014A rough guide to the components of Earth's Climate System
Does anybody know the residence time of CO2 in the mesosphere?
Are there any models that can used to simulate the CO2 exchanges between different layers in the atmosphere, please?
Please reply to jrp@plen.ku.dk (IPCC CLA WG2). Best wishes. John R Porter
-
factotum at 11:18 AM on 5 August 2014There is no consensus
Given an organism in an environment one can state that the most adaptive will, by definition, be the most likely to survive. In order to adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it. One could say that the ability to understand ones environment is perhaps the best measure of intelligence that exists. As far as evolution is concerned it is the only measure that counts. Being able to do math and calculate a trajectory does not count, but being able to dodge a predator definitely does count. If two organisms share about the same abilities to react to a given situation then the organism that can read the situation the most accurately is the one most likely to survive.
Now consider Global warming. A search of the internet will quickly demonstrate that the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations. In addition to that, the timing of migration patterns are changing. If this data is not accurate then not only are all climate scientists part of this climate gate conspiracy, but so are all botanists, ethologists, marine biologists, and microbiologists, entomologists and probably some others. So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are less knowledgeable about your environment (less intelligent) then the great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling single celled organisms like plankton. Yep, you are dumber than a plant or an insect.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/animals-migrating-north-global-warming-110818.htmThe pattern of GW denial sort of follows that of, and is similar to the arguments used to deny the correlation between smoking and cancer and a host of other diseases. You had actual scientists looking at the best available evidence on one side, and then you had paid charlatans with degrees in science working for corporations whose interests were threatened on the other. That was not 100% mind you, but it was pretty much how the advocates of the two positions lined up. A prime example is Dr. Frederick Seitz who sold out to become a spokesman for big tobacco and tried to convince people that tobacco was harmless. Later, after, at least according to many who were close to him, he became senile, he sold out to climate deniers.
Now in this case on one side we have not only actual scientists doing their best to explain available information in light of best understood implications of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, black body radiation etc. but you have almost all other life forms on the planet. By other forms of life, I mean almost every entity on the planet living in all but the most except extreme areas.
Now if we accept GW, the next question is: what causes it? Trust me, it is not the sun which for the past 50 years has remained fairly constant or produced less radiation over that time while temperatures have risen. It has not changed much in the past 2000 years. Neither has known cosmic ray counts. This leaves galactic unicorn farts and CO2. We know about CO2, and how it would work, and the most likely results. We have no evidence of unicorn farts, but we do know about bloviation sources from hot air producers.
Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails then the theory is false. Well folks, then I guess that the germ theory of disease is false. Clearly, many people exposed to "so called germs" never get sick. On the other hand people get sick who have never been exposed to these "so called germs" But wait, they are not really germs, they are viruses. See -— those scientists keep changing their story. Because they are in the pay of big pharma who just want to sell us drugs to make us sick so that they can make us more sick. And space that is another hoax. You know that the sun goes around the earth, just go outside and look for yourself. What? You believe the so called scientists?
And speaking of hot air producers. This is a standard equation in statistics, the Gaussian integral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral. If you can not follow the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment without ever having had a course in biology.
But since AGW deniers acutely suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect, they will continue to bloviate.
-
BojanD at 01:12 AM on 5 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
@MA Rodger, it was exactly this 'misinformation' part that tilted me slightly into "not in favour of Eisenman" perspective.
Even if this 'misinformation' is highly subjective, specially if there is a history between these two researcher, which I was not aware of, there is a case to be made against Eisenman: different methods yielded similar results, at least according to the Comiso (unless they all use his algorithm). Don't we usualy tell deniers that hockey stick is a pattern obtained by different methods and proxies and that it is therefore robust? When Eisenman identifies and provides objective criteria to check whether this error is real, we can definitely have further discussion. But we can all probably agree that even if nothing turns out, Antarctic sea ice is not that terribly important for the whole picture of AGW. -
chriskoz at 20:53 PM on 4 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Tom@11
You mistakingly linked to Abram 2013 on you local Windows machine (file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads). The weblink to it is vailable here.
-
longjohn119 at 15:56 PM on 4 August 2014State Department cuts through the acid political environment on oceans and climate
Key words here are :Evolved over 1/2 billion years
They evolved and were able to evolve during climate changes over very long periods of time. Climate change like we are seeing today used to take thousands s to 10's of thousands of years allowing many forms of life to evolve with the change. Currently that same change in climate is taking place in a highly compressed 100 year timeline and nothing can evolve that fast with the exception of a few viruses and bacteria ....
The speed of climate change effects lifeforms as much or more than the amount of total change.
-
Stephen Baines at 13:39 PM on 4 August 2014State Department cuts through the acid political environment on oceans and climate
Tom C @23
Re nets and fish
I'm pretty sure that Duarte, in those articles to which Jim and you link, is talking about lanternfish, mostly, as they are the highly sensitive small bioluminescent zooplanktivorous fish which make up much of the biomass in the mesopelagic. They aren't caught in typical purse seines or trawls typical of commercial fisheries, and are too small for long -lines. So they aren't of interest commercially.
They can be caught sometimes in zooplankton nets with 0.2 - 1mm mesh that are drawn on frames a couple meters square or smaller through the water. Such nets are mostly used by scientists and produce a pretty large pressure wave in front of them that sensitive mobile species can sense and avoid. Plus, they are dragged behind a boat which also scares mobile organisms ahead of the net. the point of the article Jim links to is that these nets to a bad job of catching them, which I believe.
I will say that it is a little strange to say the ocean is "healthier" than you thought previously simply because you found a lot of biomass that you didn't know was there before, as he appears to in the article you link to. The very point of the research is that we don't know how the status of mesopelagic fish has changed...or even what such a change would mean...since we know so little about it.
I guess his idea is that biomass is biomass and that a large biomass of fish that hasn't been harvested means less biomass lost to fishing. But that will be little solace to fisherman with empty purse seines and long lines, not to mention consumers paying lots for fish! It's kind of akin to those who point to life prospering in warm acidic oceans of the past, ignoring the fact that the life that prospered then was basically bacteria and of little relevance to our future in the face of climate change.
Then again, I see that the article quoting him characterizes a Mola mola (ocean sunfish) as a mesopelagic fish, which is crazy, so maybe they misunderstood him!
-
Stephen Baines at 12:55 PM on 4 August 2014State Department cuts through the acid political environment on oceans and climate
Jim @24
Re optimism...
There is no need to protect Carlos Duarte...he is out in public for a reason.
Part of Carlos's "optimism" regarding CO2 may come from the fact that he is, at heart, a seagrass ecologist. Seagrasses have been shown to increase photosynthesis in response to increasing CO2, presumably because they are more strongly limited by diffusion of CO2 than other nutrients and light. Carlos has coauthored papers on the role of seagrass beds as carbon sinks, and has suggested using them in CO2 remediation. Seagrass beds can experience wide ranges in pH and CO2on even a daily cycle, not to mention over seasonal scales.
He's also orginally a strict empiricist from the McGill school who places his faith on hard data, statistical analyses and successful prediction, and who reflexively questions claims he feels have an emotional basis. This is a very admirable quality. However, one can make the case that this strict empiricism — the need to see a significant effect before admitting a phenomenon is possible — may be a little blind to anticipating problems. In statistical parlance, it makes you subject to Type I errors.
In the larger picture, though, I think that Duarte is really trying to counteract despair and the paralysis it produces. Some people feel strongly about the ocean as an untouched frontier. These people often find it hard to accept that there really is no place on earth that has not been affected by humans. The extent of our influence can lead them to despair of hope. Carlos hopes to counteract this by grounding the discussion so people can reframe how they think about the ocean and try to make realistic, focussed choices, rather than simply rending their hair and calling names, which of course only alienates others.
I agree with him in that I would not decribe the ocean as "broken" or "dead," terms I sometimes hear in the public discourse and in the classroom. Those terms are too broad and emotional, and they don't suggest a way forward, only a way to feel. Knowing him, though, I'm also pretty sure he would not say the ocean is in great shape and that there is no chance it will get substantially worse. It definitely could (and has) in the absence of proper management. (Luckily...good management has often resulted in good results!) In that light I'd describe him as a "climate change optimist" only in comparison to those that despair — but that is a pretty low bar.
Where he is undoubtedly an optimist is that he also thinks we can repair/avoid problems in the ocean and maintain our standard of living IF we take the right actions, but those actions must be grounded in a real appreciation how the ocean behaves, not in ideals about how it should be, separate from humans. He also is optimistic that communication of scientific findings can be done well and in a way that influences peoples actions.
Really, that describes the kind of optimism that everybody on this board displays if you think about it. At this point, it's an attitude of necessity.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:55 AM on 4 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
I should note that the updated figure to the one I show above does not include the correction discussed in the OP, and so may overstate the current sea ice extent relative to periods prior to 1994. As such, it may not actually be a record even for the satellite era - but that is rather irrelevant given a fuller record.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 4 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
jenna @9, the Antarctic sea ice extent has reached a record level for the period 1979-2014. That is often, and incorrectly described as the satellite era. In fact, satellite observations of antarctic sea ice began in 1973, although due to change of instruments and methods, NASA does not show the pre-1979 record alongside the later record. There are further records going back to earlier in the 20th century from whaling records, and also from ice proxies such as the one shown below:
(Source)
The ice core proxy is from a compound released by algae that grow one the underside of the sea ice, and therefore represent a good proxy for sea ice extent, in this case extending back to 1841. The red line is the satellite record from 1973-1994. The sea ice extent has now exceeded the value in the early 1980s, thus representing a record over the satellite era. It does not represent a record over the period since 1841. Indeed, it does not even come close.
A very informative report on antarctic sea ice, including an update of the above graph (6:37 on the video) has recently become available from the ABC. A review of ice core proxies of sea ice extent is also available, and shows relative antarctic sea ice extent for the Holocene (fig 3) and the last 800,000 years (fig 5).
-
DavidBird at 09:15 AM on 4 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
That article on increasing ocean acidification hitting the Pacific shellfish industry is pure nonsense and doesn't belong on this serious site. Atmospheric CO2 buildup has decreased ocean pH by less than 0.1 pH unit. That is harmless to shellfish at any life stage. There are much greater pH changes among seasons and perhaps during the diurnal cycle. Don't provide ammunition to the deniers by letting false alarms muddy the waters.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see further discussion here.
[Rob P] - Corrosive seawater has indeed proven to be lethal to 'farmed' oyster larvae off the coast of Oregon in the USA. Oyster farmers were able to stem the loss of larvae by monitoring the acidity of ocean water drawn into the hatcheries - avoiding times when water was naturally highly corrosive. See Barton et al (2012) for instance.
This is only a short-term measure because continued emission of carbon dioxide from human industrial activity will keep increasing the corrosiveness of the upwelled seawater in the California Current system. Another point to ponder is that the carbonate saturation state of the upwelled water is reflective of atmospheric CO2 several decades ago - when the source waters were last at the ocean surface. In other words, there is a considerable lag in saturation state of upwelled water in the California Current system, and it will take decades to catch up to the CO2 we have already emitted.
Oyster farmers will have to come up with some cost-effective ways to combat the increasingly corrosive seawater there, or they will no longer be viable.
-
greenhousegaseous at 09:00 AM on 4 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
Thanks for another week's worth of climate news! FYI, the link for "What Climate Change Debate" invokes the Chi Tribune Pay Wall, so cannot be viewed by non-subscribers.
-
MA Rodger at 05:18 AM on 4 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
jenna @9.
If you are truly after making an accurate claim that you can defend, you will be needing more than a "yes" or a "no" answer. You could help yourself by giving the Eisenman et al paper a quick read. The final figure S11 looks quite fun - ominous for folk who want a simple "Antarctic Sea Ice is expanding" message. Antarctic Sea Ice levels are both rising and falling depending where you look which is why the net Antractic anomaly can shift +1,000,000 sq km in just a couple of weeks. And a quick perusal would also allow you to see the effect that Eisenman et al are agruing is a single step change of ~160,000 sq km which is small beer when compared with recent anomalies. That is probably what you think you're after as it is news on transitory records you're asking about.It would be fair to say that over the period of continual satellite coverage Antarctic Sea Ice has been increasing. The beef of the Eisenman et al paper is that the 160,000 sq km step change in 1991/2 makes a non-trivial change to calculations of linear trend, which is true. But the trend is still positive and that trend is not so linear in form. It increased in rate from ~2007, just as the negative Arctic trend increased in rate also from ~2007.
Now what has got your denialist chums all aflutter lately is the recent year or so which has seen a very strong positive trend in the Antarctic coinciding with a period of high concentration suppressing negative anomalies in the Arctic. However if you want to rain on their parade, you simply point to the world not having started in November 1978. There are some satellite data prior to that which, with surface observations, have been used to compile HadISST back to 1870. There are a lot of gaps in that record which are bridged by straight lines, but it looks to me pretty conclusive that, just as the 160,000 km doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, the recent high Antarctic anomalies are also chicken-feed within the long view. The graph below is compiled from HadISST and taken from Tamino's Open Minds' site. It plots Extent in sq km.
Tamino also did a pre-release item on Eisenman at al (2014). Withn this account Tamino analyses the relative geographical significance of the Arctic and Antarctic trends since 1978. Such a form of analysis was suggested by Eisenman (2010) and shows the Arctic decline over six-times greater than the Antarctic rise, something which may give the odd denialist pause for thought.
-
jenna at 00:46 AM on 4 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
OK guys, all bs aside; Has Antarctic ice extent reached record levels or not? I am getting bombarded by some of my friends that are delialists and I need to be able to make my claim acurately and defend it!
Thx,
Jen.
Moderator Response:[JH] Exactly what "BS" are you referring to? The OP?
(Rob P) - It is indeed possible that winter Antarctic sea ice (extent) has reached record levels, but given that the decrease in the volume of summer Arctic sea ice is, on average, 10 times greater over the last several decades, and the combined loss of ice volume from ice sheets, icecaps, glaciers and sea ice in the last decade over 60 times greater, I wonder what they are trying to get at?
-
Leto at 23:42 PM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Note, editing mishap in my comment at 3... Should read 'square miles of gain'. The point remains the same. It is clearly a propaganda piece with no attempt to weigh the evidence.
-
MA Rodger at 22:50 PM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
The full Eisenman et al (2014) paper is available on-line complete with "Supplemental Discussion and Figures."
BojanD @6.
If within your struggles you find yourself able to articulate the substance of that difference "not in favour of Eisenman et al," it may be worthy of further discussion. For myself, I see a significant difference between coverage that quotes Comiso as saying no more than Eisenman's 'error' is a non-issue having been already corrected and coverage that presents the difference between Comiso & Eisenman as but the likelihood Eisenman places on the potential for a 'post-2007' error being easily possible and the likelihood according to Comiso being non-existent. Further, that Comiso describes Eisenman et al (2014) as "misinformation" points to a bit of history between the two of them.
-
BojanD at 19:36 PM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
This Live Science link gives much more background, but I'm struggling to comprehend why the perspective is somewhat different. If anything, it is different not in favour of Eisenman et al.
-
MA Rodger at 19:26 PM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Leto @3.
Indeed so. That comment @1(along with other more meaty quotes by Josafino Comiso has been cut and pasted quite extensively round the deniosphere. The source of the comment is an item at Live Science which unsurprisingly gives a somewhat different perspective of the Comiso/Eisenman issue.
-
BojanD at 19:25 PM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
@Leto,
Not sure who are you responding to. I think you are responding to the link I provided, not to the point I tried to make. I provided the link only to back up the citation of NASA scientists.
I'll put this in simple terms to avoid further misunderstanding:
- a group of scientists claim they have found the error,
- apparently, another scientist says the error is known, was already accounted for and doesn't change the results much.
So 'apparently' is the key. What is the story behind this so called refutation? Is it real or another denialist spin? This is what distinguishes great articles from merely good ones. -
wili at 17:36 PM on 3 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
There's a new video out that your readers might appreciate:
"Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XpF1MvC8s
-
cunudiun at 14:05 PM on 3 August 2014Medieval project gone wrong
Thanks. I've been a big fan of SS for some time, but this is my first post here. I got that medieval map sprung on me tonight by a commenter over at Mother Jones, so this article was an invaluable find. I had already noticed a few weird things in many of the map's data sets, e.g. spikes going both up and down at almost the same "medieval" time, but Hoskibui really lays it out in all its idiocy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:40 AM on 3 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
John Michael Carter,
I think one of the reasons it is challenging to get more people to be better informed is the simple fact that many people "want to personally benefit as much as possible", and understanding this issue would require them to give up some of the lazy, easy, damaging and wasteful ways they have grown accustomed to benefiting, meaning they would have to admit they do not deserve all the benefit they currently enjoy.
That desire to continue benefiting from things that are becoming better understood to be damaging and unsustainable leads many people to refuse to better understand. It makes them want to reinforce their misunderstanding. And Faux News abuses that gullibility to attract a target audience they can deliver to marketers who want access to people with a proven willingness to be influenced that way. It is just "good business" to attract solid advertising revenue.
-
Leto at 10:36 AM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Bojan D,
You are mistaken if you think that the comment you linked to is best characterised as a rational contribution to a scientific disagreement.
Note the first substantive paragraph at your link:
"The massive growth of Antarctica’s ice sheets has confounded scientists for years now, as global warming was expected to shrink the polar ice caps. But while the Arctic has shrank some, Antarctic sea ice coverage has broken hundreds of records this year alone. On July 25, the South Pole sea ice reached 436,681 square miles above the 1981 to 2010 average — the 127th daily record for the year."
The more obvious clues that this is propaganda rather than science are the failure to distinguish between land ice and sea ice in the first sentence; the readiness of the author to dismiss Arctic ice loss non-quantitatively as ''shrank some" in contrast to the eager documentation of the square miles of loss of Antarctic sea ice; and what appears to be a fundamentally misleading approach to the tallying of broken records, such that a high extent of ice that persists is counted as multiple daily records. Throughout the rest of the article there is an obvious lack of effort on the author's part to put the modest extent gains into the context of the quantitatively greater losses throughout most of the cryosphere, or to consider, for instance, that melting Antarctic land ice and other climatic changes could be a major contributor to the sea ice extent growth.
You would be well advised to read the many useful links on this site that - in contrast to your link - consider the full planetary budget of ice.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 01:55 AM on 3 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Thank you to John Abraham for this post. It is a highly relevant topic to address.
I am studying the development of SST of the Southern Ocean(60S-90S). Until now, I been looking at data from GISS, NOAA, Berkeley, NCDC,… and I'm surprised how different trends in SST are. Some point to a decreasing SST other to growing SST.
Additional, I have been looking at Sea Ice Cover(SIC) and beyond the possible errors mentioned by John Abraham, there is an error in 2009. Both errors are calibrating errors by shift of satellite. The latter error has not been corrected on all dataset I can find at KNMI.
What’s my point up to now: - you can’t trust SST and you can’t trust SIC!
I would be pleased if some could point me to the best data for analyzing SST and SIC for Southern Ocean.
-
BojanD at 18:20 PM on 2 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
Nice article, but could be much better if NASA's Comiso comment:
"That error has already been corrected and the expansion being reported now has also been reported by other groups as well using different techniques."
was discussed, too. I find these disagreements between scientists great as you can learn a lot. -
citizenschallenge at 01:06 AM on 2 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
Thank you for posting this.
I have reposted it at http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/senator-whitehouse-schools-sen-inhofe.html
-
John Michael Carter at 23:25 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
The same problem loop exists on numerous issues. We have allowed 'facts' and 'reality' to become matters of 'opinion' and we are paying a steep price for it. The news media wouldn't do it if it didn't work,
CB,
In general I agree with you, and some of the politicians probably have or had conflicting opinions, pushed one way, then another, and want to lean that way anyway, etc..
There is no Fourth Estate anymore, and now popularity has become the arbiter of truth. Which I know is popular to think works, but I don't think it does. It goes to the most aptly expressed rhetoric, so almost anything can be alleged, and those who frame, win. A minority is framing both sides of this issue and creating a lot of doubt in their own minds (where it is reinforced) and the public, whereas the level of misinformation and the illogic (or basic misunderstanding of the issue) of the most basic of refuter arguments, if anything, further augments the case for CC. But it's not been effectively shown, or framed.
And our "media" turns into "so this side 'says,' relayer, rather than one of elucidation illumination, and explication. But I don't know if a lot of that is being done to a broader audience anymore, anywhere. SScience tries, but it's online and that tends to be self selecting, and misinformed advocates come here armed with reams of misleading studies from Watts up, along with a fervent belief, and an already established ability to dismiss anything ss says because they "know" "skeptical science misleads" and all the other stuff they mistakenly say.
-
John Michael Carter at 23:11 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
I'd say rather that they purport to not believe CC is real. I suspect that most of them know it is real, but they also know that it would be nearly impossible to get elected as a Republican if they acknowledged reality.
This is a reasonable view, but I don't agree at all, and I think this is a big (if, obviously, inadvertent) part of the problem, along with misinformation itself. There is an insularity in the world of self selected reinforcing misinformation on the issue. But the same sort of thing happens among those who "know" or think they know the "truer" facts on this issue (facts more in line with what most actual scientists — not ideologues - who study the issues are saying).
That is, those who don't are liars, and politicians who dont, "really do know." And so the divide is even furthered, as those who dont know are relegated to not even having the ability, the right, to have a "different view" or be wrong, but just a bunch of dismissed deceivers.
Which pushes their righteousness much futher, and only causes their heesls to dig in much further.
I try to convince misinformers of their basic misconstruction of the issue, and it is like arguing with a stone wall. They "know better." I try to convince those, who do know better about the issue, that a lot of people really don't know better, and or are led by zealous belief and a confusing and often self selectively reinforcing world of misinformation out there and a lot of great rhetoric that has really discredited climate scientists, and it is still somewhat, sometimes, like arguing with a stone wall.
Insularity all around, and the knowledge (or belief conflated as knowledge) that "I have" and the views "I have" are what everybody else has. So, as generalization anyway, for refuters, all non refuters have an agenda, and for non refuters, all refuters are liars, or purposefully deceiving.
Yeah, there are exceptions that actually do support those notions (particularly in the latter direction one would imagine, I don't see much of an agenda in the Climate Change direction, but the conspiracist mind has different imaginations), but they are the exception, not the rule, and they don't make the pattern. Unfortunately, once perceived that way, any hint of it only serves to reinforce the overall notion.
Maybe this is not the case here, and it is why I take the time to respond, as I hope this pattern changes.
It needs to, to make any real progress on this issue, which, as the basic physics of the issue haven't really changed for a long time now, is something we should have already been effectively addressing years ago. And still, essentially, as it greatly compounds, are not.
Here's a link. Fox ("News") is contributing greatly to this problem of misinformation as well, and is a big part of it. And along with the incredible reinforcing nature of rampant misinformation projected as "reasoned science" on the issue, is itself the real news story about how this issue is being covered. But again, a lot of people take Fox as a real news site, and it is nearly impossible not to be intensely misinformed on this issue if that is a main source. And, as the leading national news source in America, it is a pretty "main" source.
-
Nylo at 22:25 PM on 1 August 2014A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Sorry, where I said stational, I meant seasonal (english not being my first language and all that...)
-
Nylo at 22:23 PM on 1 August 2014A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Hello everyone, this is my first post here.
As the article says, the claim that the jet stream is stronger when the temperature gradient between North Pole and Ecuator is greater, is supported by the observational fact that it is typically stronger in winter than in summer. My question is: how much stronger?
In winter, the temperature gradient is of more than 50ºC (North Pole typically less than -30ºC, Ecuator over +20ºC). In summer, the temperature gradient is less than 30ºC (North Pole slightly over 0ºC, Ecuator still the same). The temperature gradient has reduced to about HALF of what it was in winter, and in absolute terms, it has reduced by aproximately 25ºC. Does the jet stream change A LOT in response to this, or does it only change a little bit?
My main problem with this theory, is that it is true that we are reducing the gradient between North Pole and Ecuator, but we are talking about a reduction of what, half a degree? One degree? (it depends on which dataset you go to check) of this gradient, for the last 20 years. If this had the possibility of affecting the Jet Stream big time in any sense, then we should see HUGE differences in jet stream behaviour between winter and summer, every year. Is the difference in its behaviour, indeed, huge? We are talking of a stational variation of the temperature gradient that is roughly between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude bigger than the anthropogenic effect. In the months when the arctic is warming up, this gradient is reducing at a rate of one full centigrate degree every week!
So to get an idea of what we can expect, I would like to see a typical picture of the jet stream in winter, together with a typical picture of the jet stream in summer, to see the differences, divide the difference in its behaviour by 20 or 30, and then understand what kind of variation we are introducing with the anthropogenic warming of the arctic, quantitatively. Thanks.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:07 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
John Michael Carter wrote: "Well over a third or more of those serving in Congress don't even think CC is real."
I'd say rather that they purport to not believe CC is real. I suspect that most of them know it is real, but they also know that it would be nearly impossible to get elected as a Republican if they acknowledged reality. Nearly every GOP politician who previously acknowledged the reality of AGW has reversed course as the disinformation campaign ratcheted up. As you note, the bigger issue is that GOP voters don't believe in CC... because all of the news media they follow insist that it is a fraud.
The same problem loop exists on numerous issues. We have allowed 'facts' and 'reality' to become matters of 'opinion' and we are paying a steep price for it. The news media wouldn't do it if it didn't work, and it only works because people allow themselves to be lied to.
-
chriskoz at 19:38 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
The escalator was first used by Sen Whitehouse on the Sanete floor in December 2012 also reported by SKS. So, it's been his debunking tool of choice for over 2 years now.
-
John Michael Carter at 19:29 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
Apparently I don't know how to insert links on here.
-
John Michael Carter at 19:23 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
Well over a third or more of those serving in Congress don't even think CC is real.
There is no way to to strategically address this issue intelligently if many in Congress itself don't even think it's real. Just because the majority do doesn't mean that the best policies can even be discussed, bc much of the attention gets focused on a false debate. When the real debate - range of threat level and most sensible response (<a href="http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html">yeah, link because I think this is a good idea, and limits government intrusion and maximizes response</a>) - thus gets subverted and our entire response thus skewed.
The reason for such misperception in Congress (as well as in Australia) is because of misperception in the populace. That comes from a wild and really focused array of dedicated climate change refutation websites, maybe some industry backed, but mainly really driven by self reinforcing belief. And dedication.
On Wattsup, if one cites this (skepticalscience) site, one is immediately derided because this site is [lots of unfair negative stuff I won't repeat], which makes the phrase the pot calling the kettle black maybe the understated metaphor of the millenium.
This creates public perception, and also the perception of our legislators in total, and shapes our world.
I know it's easy to say Inofe has "heard the facts." And yes Whitehouse effectively presents things; but once one gets a hardened view, everything gets filtered through that view. It's like a religion on CC refutation (which of course, in order to self perpetuate the belief that it is really objective assessment driving this "sensible" "reasoned" view, then causes the labeling of all climate change concern and effective advocacy as "religion.")
Inhofe likely has a natural bent to not want to acknowledge that we could radically afffect the earth long term, a natural fealty toward the right of business even over what harm it might do to our own interests, and maybe even over near basic rights of individuals, but mainly there is just an avalanche of misconstrued information, and misinformation, on this issue that is (mis) driving world perception (and that supports Inhofe's predisposed view.)
And it is mainly in the Internet/pseudo social media, which drives much of the world's perception today, and which is incredingly self selective and self reinforcing.
This has to be looked at as a major broader phenonenon on this issue. Our national and international conversions — not talking about self selection on the blogosphere, even among far more accurate sites, etc — are being wildly affected, and the overall assessments we are making as a world, are exceedingly poor, as a result.
-
Jonas at 18:30 PM on 1 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31A
Thank you for compiling this list all the time. I don't have the time to view all the sources, so I am extremely happy about this compilation.
Out of this one for instance, I took the article on mental health and forwarded it to a psychology professional who has written a book on the subject (in German ..., Andreas Meissner, "Mensch was nun?": http://www.mensch-was-nun.de ).
So, you radiate far beyond direct readership: it's a network with highly concentrated nodes of knowledge, oversight and effort (sks) and lower level relay stations going to the public at large.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for the posiitive feedback. It is most welcome.
-
Jonas at 18:20 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
There are videos where I like to start applauding ...
-
Chris G at 15:11 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
One Planet,
I think some people are inherently more resistant to change (conservatives) than others (liberals), and the idea of climate change slams into that wall hard. Because, it represents change no matter what course we take. Either we change our energy production, or we change how (if) we grow food. In the face of this calamity of inevitable change, it is easy to sow seeds of happy thoughts that this is all not really a problem and/or attempting to mitigate the problem will make our situation worse.
I've seen one person argue both that it is too small problem to worry about and that it is too big a problem for us to do anything about, and I sat there wondering how his head did not explode. I suspect that many conservatives really just don't want to see themselves as agents of change.
For some, the reality is that mitigation will be disruptive, if you make your living from fossil fuels, yes, mitigating climate change will change how you live and make a living. In the US, that is 7% of the GDP, and that is something we need to be realistic about ourselves.
-
Chris G at 14:47 PM on 1 August 2014Sen Whitehouse Schools Sen Inhofe about Global Warming on the Senate Floor
You've done most excellent work here, and you should be proud, but you were not the only one to look and the oscillations on the temperature graph and ask why anyone thinks this latest one is the last one. Although, the escalator analogy is the best I've seen; waves on the incoming tide is another good one, but not sure how many people relate as well to waves and tides.
I particularly liked the 'alternate reality' phrase. Had a chance to hear him speak once; he is a good motivator. Not sure how he manages to put emotion and technical content into the same words.
Prev 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 Next
