Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 Next
Comments 35101 to 35150:
-
New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
clarification: As you did correctly summarize in your post, Jones et al's main conclusion was that GHGs dominate the observed warming. But that statement of having cause 200% of observed warming is just bad wording. Thanks again.
-
Donny at 08:40 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
I'm not sure you should call me a troll because I disagree with your opinion. However the models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies. Yes heat can dry areas out.... but it will also produce a larger percentage of the globe to be covered in water thus increasing water vapor and cooling from evaporation. Why do you get mad that I would want to explore different opinions? I disagree with the hypothesis that dry spots will necessarily be dryer and wet wetter. I also think it is funny that the moderator tries to influence opinions. ... instead of just moderating discussion/debate. I am no expert but do have a degree in environmental biology with a interest in weather and climate. Wili... why would you want to censor someone with a different opinion?
-
New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
This line seems to be poorly written: "Overall, Jones et al. (2013) concludes that greenhouse gases have caused between 100% and 200% of the observed global surface warming over the past 60 years"
The other statements seems to accurately portray conslusions of the Jones paper (aerosols and other natural variability caused us to warm slightly less than expected by balancing/off-setting a portion of the GHG-caused energy gain), but your wording above seems to have confused some folks. Thanks.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:35 AM on 10 August 2014Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
In addition to the points by NowhereMan,
A denier will also try to claim that the benefit that a portion of the current generation of humanity would have to give up to reduce the impacts on future generations is worth more than the potential consequences that will be faced by the future generations.
This type of 'economic evaluation' is obvious nonsense because it is the same as saying it is OK for a person to benefit from an activity that is likely to create consequences that are only faced by their neighbour. Yet it is done by many who attempt to justify the unacceptable activity they wish to have expand or be prolonged. And the worst of them deliberately overstate the case in favour of the current day trouble-makers and deliberately understate the future consequences. Some even go as far as to claim that what hapopens in the future is less important than what happens today, using Net-Present-Value discounting of future costs.
In addition, there is the presumption that the economy they want, full of unsustainable activity, will magically continue to grow like it did in the past making the future so much wealthier. That is more clear nonsense because none of the actions of today's developed economy they want to prolong or expand will produce any lasting benefit into the future.
-
wili at 04:43 AM on 10 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
Thanks.
-
wili at 04:35 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Donny at 7--I shouldn't engage with a troll (should these be aloud on this site?) but really, your statement here is just stunningly...well, let's just call it simplistic. Every global warming model I know of (and just common sense, if you bother to think for more than a few seconds) predicts that some places (mostly those that are already rather wet) will get wetter, while other places (especially those that are already dry or in the interior of continenents) will get drier. Heat, after all, dries things out, and where predominant weather patterns don't bring ample rain, that drying will be intense. Of course, many places will (already are) swing between more and more intense drying spells, and every more severe downpours--both very bad for vegetation (and most every other form of life).
-
michael sweet at 04:13 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Tom,
Thank you for looking up the data on McIntyre. It is typical for him to produce shoddy reports and claim others have made the mistakes. Will he audit his own report and rewrite it to reflect the actual data available at the time?
Ashton, perhaps you could copy this data to Climate Audit and tell us his reply.
-
michael sweet at 04:03 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Donny,
Your post hardly rates a response but I will give you one more post. I have a Masters Degree in Organic Chemistry. I teach chemistry at the College level (google Hillsborough Community College Chemistry). I noticed that you post no qualifications yourself. On Skeptical Science people are usually judged by the quality of their arguments and data, not their degrees. So far you have produced no data or links that support your wild claims. The OP supports my claims that food prices will change. It has been pointed out above that the OP did not consider drought (or sea level rise) in their analysis. This makes the decrease they predict a better than best case analysis.
It is well known that the Vikings raised only cattle, it was too cold to raise plant crops (potatoes and cabbage are now, for the first time, raised in Greenland). It was called "Greenland" as a sales tactic, some people are still fooled by this. Under the ice is only rock, as with most of the Arctic. Read Collapse by Jahred Diamond.
Increased food prices in the USA hardly need to be referenced but here is the first of many articles how AGW related drought has caused price increases in beef.
It has been predicted for decades that AGW will cause wet areas to get wetter and dry areas to become dryer. This includes a single location becoming dryer during the dry season and wetter in the wet season. The increased temperature will drive water cycle faster than in the past. Your claim that you are not aware of this indicates that you have not done your homework.
You have yet to provide any data or links that support your wild claims. Please remember that an unsupported claim can be dismissed with a hand wave.
-
NowhereMan at 02:29 AM on 10 August 2014Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
Donny, here's one unofficial answer to your questions. You might be a denier if:
- You suggest that natural variations in climate represent a reason not to worry about human-caused climate variations.
- You point out that climate is and always has been changing without examining the rate of such changes and why the rate of change is important.
- You state that "CO2 concentration is only a small part of the complex system that drives temperature" as if this information is new to climate scientists and is not incorporated into their models.
My personal experience in this field suggests one other indication that you're a denier:
- You probably are a denier if you pose the above claims in a manner that gives you an escape if these claims are shot down: "I was only asking questions!"
Of course, maybe you're really not a denier, and so this doesn't apply to you. But if that's the case, you might want to modify your rhetorical style a bit. Being upfront about what you're arguing for, what you think you know, and where your information comes from is a good way to avoid unfairly being labeled as a "denier".
-
ubrew12 at 02:05 AM on 10 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
wili@9, SkS linked a few days ago to this NY times article, which in turn linked to this MIT article. To quote the NY times: "In 2009, the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model estimated that if we do nothing to curb greenhouse emissions, there’s a 10 percent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, causing wholesale destruction of life as we know it."
For Lloyd to garble the deep ocean lesson to conveniently cast doubt on AGW was forgiveable 20-30 years ago. But 120 years after 19th century Physics first predicted this trend, and 50 years after it first made the desk of the American President? Its 2014, not 1984: Nobody speculates the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could slide into the sea; today we measure it sliding into the sea. Lloyd and his publisher Murdoch are going to end up 'unintentionally' killing a bunch of people. So consider this: how often do the words 'Murdoch' and 'unintentionally' appear in the same sentence? I'm simply submitting that maybe he knows what he's doing, in Climate Change, as in every other facet of his life.
Lloyd did not 'make a mistake'. And if his behavior is not ignorance, what is it? Its knowledge. They are doing this with intention. So, next question is: Why? That's the question we should be asking and we should not flinch from the answer, 'overwhelming evidence' or not. At this point, many lives are hinging on that answer. Why are they intentionally doing this?
-
Donny at 01:51 AM on 10 August 2014Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
The problem is that people tend to generalize and put everyone who disagrees into one box. The climate is always and has always changed. There is no"normal". Am I a "denier" Doug if I think the climate would be warming even if humans were not adding any CO2? What about if I think CO2 concentration is only a small part of the complex system that drives temperature? There are too many aspects to the argument to label everyone who disagrees with one aspect. ... a denier.
-
Donny at 01:00 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Michael I love the "scientific graph" under the"food security" heading. ... [snip]. Just your assumption alone that gw will cause drought even though it's predicted to also produce increased water vapor tells me all I need to know about your scientific background. How about you provide some evidence backing your wild claim.... and yes we know that Greenland supported crops not that long ago. .... hence the name.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
[RH] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 10 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Ashton @4, the IPCC wrote (Section 7.1):
"World-wide attention on food access was given impetus by the food ‘price spike’ in 2007-08, triggered by a complex set of long- and short-term factors (von Braun and Torero, 2009). FAO’s provisional estimates show that, in 2007, 75 million more people were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003–2005 (FAO, 2008); other studies report a lower number (Headey and Fan, 2010). More than enough food is currently produced per capita to feed the global population, yet about 870 million people remained hungry in 2012 (FAO et al., 2012)."
I cannot find the FAO document referenced for 2008, but was able to find "The State of Food Security in the World 2008", which writes (2nd Key Message):
"High food prices share much of the blame. The most rapid increase in chronic hunger experienced in recent years occurred between 2003–05 and 2007. FAO’s provisional estimates show that, in 2007, 75 million more people were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003–05. While several factors are responsible, high food prices are driving millions of people into food insecurity, worsening conditions for many who were already food-insecure, and threatening long-term global food security."
Therefore the 75 million increase cited for 2007 is an accurate report of FAO figures of the time.
The 2012 citation is to the "The State of Food Security in the World 2012", which states (key messages):
"The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 presents new estimates of the number and proportion of undernourished people going back to 1990, defined in terms of the distribution of dietary energy supply. With almost 870 million people chronically undernourished in 2010–12, the number of hungry people in the world remains unacceptably high. The vast majority live in developing countries, where about 850 million people, or slightly fewer than 15 per cent of the population, are estimated to be undernourished."
So, again the IPCC accurately cited FAO figures.
Why, then, the evident discrepancy between the IPCC figures and the "The State of Food Security in the World 2013" quoted by McIntyre and shown in Figure 1 of the report (as posted by McIntyre)?
The answer is largely given by showing the equivalent figure from 2012:
If you look at the green line, it is revised upward from a plateau around 900 million in the early twentieth century to show a peak at about 940 million in the later figures. At the same time, the end figures are revised downward. The downward trend McIntyre finds so obvious, therefore, is a result of revision of earlier figures - a revision that had not taken place in the documents to which the IPCC had access. Indeed, even if the IPCC got rid of its policy of looking only at documents available by a certain date (to prevent a process of continuous rewriting and reassessment preventing publication), the revised figures were not published until October 2013, by which time the IPCC report was essentially complete.
There you go, thirty minutes of research and writing time and we find the IPCC mad no errors, but that more recent FAO documents have revised the figures on which the IPCC relied. Too much trouble, apparently, for McIntyre who was content merely to wrongy tarnish the IPCC with shoddy research.
-
Phil at 23:44 PM on 9 August 2014CO2 effect is saturated
Dan Smith @279. Further to Tom Curtis's response I would add that the following statement is incorrect.
However, rising CO2 levels cause a rise in relative atmospheric humidity .... So CO2 causes higher humidity and that causes global warming.
There is no physical mechanism that allows CO2 to "suck" more water vapour into the atmosphere except its ability to warm the atmosphere itself. In other words, if the CO2 warming potential is saturated (which it is not) then water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere would not be able to rise.
This is the OFFICIAL IPCC explanation that there is a supposed consensus on.
This statement is simply incorrect. I would challenge your respondent to find this explanation in the IPCC reports, available here.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:25 PM on 9 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
I've read only the abstract of the Tai et al. study, plus the description here. Based on what I've seen, I suspect that Tai et al. may not have considered the effects of predicted drought. My suspicions on this point were aroused by the top map (for RCP 4.5), in which yield increases were predicted for western USA--precisely the region where the impacts of drought are predicted to be most severe.
-
Ashton at 19:59 PM on 9 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Although this may be regarded as heretical, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has given a reasoned critique plus the use of appropriate references to show globalyield of most major food crops has steadily increased. The number of under/mal-nourished dropped by 17% between 1990 and 1992 and dropped further from 995 million in 1992 to 827 million in 2013. He notes that there is a significant difference between the IPCC report and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)of the United Nations with the IPCC reporting an increase of 75 million and the FAO a decrease of 46 million in the global number of the undermourished. The data from the FAO suggest that global undernourishment may not be as severe as previously thought. The URL is www.climateaudit.org
Moderator Response:[Rob P] The post is about falling future crops yields due to rising surface temperatures and air pollution. The issue here is not about past trends, but future ones.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:11 PM on 9 August 2014CO2 effect is saturated
Dan Smith @279, your respondent is thoroughly confused, having mistaken a response to temperature increases (the water vapour feedback) for the initial cause of temperature increase (the radiative forcing). The theory that CO2 is saturated, ie, that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause not increase in radiative forcing does, however, contradict the IPCC:
In fact the IPCC gives the formula for radiative forcing due to a change in concentration of CO2 as being:
ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/C0),
where ΔF is the change in radiative forcing, C is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in part per million by volume (ppmv, or ppm), and C0 is the CO2 concentration in the period to which you are comaring, and ln is the natural logarithm. The specify this in the supplementary material to chapter 8 (section 8.SM.3), as they have done in the two preceding reports.
Anybody who thinks CO2 is saturated does not understand the basics of the greenhouse effect. The change in CO2 concentration reduces IR radiation to space. Ignoring the stratosphere, any increase in CO2 concentration means the IR radiation to space must come from a higher level, and hence cooler level. Because the amount that a gas will radiate depends on its temperature, this means it will radiate less to space, and hence the total IR from the Earth to space will decrease. To restore radiative balance, some change in the atmosphere will need to occur. As changes in the atmosphere are driven by changes in temperature, and as increasing temperature increase radiation (and hence radiation to space), that will certainly require an increase in temperature. I have explained this in more detail here.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:29 PM on 9 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
wili @9, I am not specifically aware of the study. I have seen reports of the MIT Integrated Assessment Model which is pessimistic both in terms of radiative forcing for a BAU scenario by 2100, climate sensitivity, and impacts relative to other models. Further, I believe there is a remote risk of human extinction from global warming, primarilly due to the increased risk of nuclear war in a world massively, and adversely effected by global warming. Therefore I was willing to entertain ubrew's assertion as a basis of discussion, but probably should have made it clear I was supposing the existence of the study rather than confirming it.
-
wili at 17:50 PM on 9 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
Could someone provide a link to these "MIT model results" mentioned by ubrew and by Tom Curtis?
-
Dan Smith at 14:55 PM on 9 August 2014CO2 effect is saturated
I am technically a laymen in the world of climate change, but I have a decent understanding of climate change principles. I am by no means near the level of understanding as all the people posting on here. But I have a quick question that I don't think would require much thought for most of you.
I was in a back and forth with someone on a comment board and he brought up the saturation argument. I then sent him the link to this article. He then said that this article contradicts the IPCC:
"CO2 has reached its reflective saturation limit, we accept that. However, rising CO2 levels cause a rise in relative atmospheric humidity and water vapor is amount the most powerful global warming forces. So CO2 causes higher humidity and that causes global warming. This is the OFFICIAL IPCC explanation that there is a supposed consensus on.
If you can’t see how your source contradicts the actual explanation the climate scientists give at IPCC and you can’t admit that you had no clue as to the actual explanation, we are done, I have no more time to waste on you."
I don't see what the contradiction is. Am I missing something? Thanks for any thoughts.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are correct. There are no contradictions between the OP and the IPCC report. The role of water vapor is explained in the SkS rebutal article, Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works.
-
michael sweet at 08:20 AM on 9 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
Donny,
This is a scientific board. The OP uses data to show that there is great risk that billions of people will be left undernurished by AGW. They only look out to 2050, after that it will be much worse. Your argument from ignorance has no standing. You must provide data to support your wild claims.
If fact, currently in the USA the cost of beef has gone up substantially due to AGW related drought in the midwest. California is losing billions of dollars from AGW related drought damaging agriculture. Where is the new farmland going to come from, under the glaciers in Greenland?
-
Donny at 07:33 AM on 9 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
To elude that more people will go hungry if the climate warms is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Globally much more land would become viable farm land than would be lost. Not to mention CO2 is a plants best friend. Everyone should agree that using up all the fossil fuel this planet has is a dumb idea... however making up "consequences" is just going to hurt credibility.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see Dai et al and CO2 is plant food to come to a rather more informed position.
-
longjohn119 at 07:15 AM on 9 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
The deep oceans aren't cooler per se, they simply hold less Heat Energy than they once did but the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that can only mean the Heat Energy went somewhere else .... like towards the surface.
Heat is a definitive term, cool, cold hot are relative terms denoting more or less Heat Energy. Cold has no Magic Powers to destroy Heat Energy although it seems to be a very common misconception from the Scientific Mental Midgets that deny the Reality of Global Warming because they simply aren't intelligent enough to grasp basic physics .....
-
RFMarine at 01:19 AM on 9 August 2014Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
this is why we are in a hurry and that means the risk of using a combo of nuclear power + renewables to get fossil fuels retired faster is far less than insisting on 100% renewables which causes fossil fuels to hang around longer
-
Falk at 20:13 PM on 8 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
After having a brief look at the paper, it seems to contain a lot of information regarding my question on the blog post of July 28th.
The write:
A total change in heat content, top to bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10e22 J in 19 yr for a net heating of 0.2 ± 0.1 W m−2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al. 2005, 0.6 ± 0.1 W m−2; Lyman et al. 2010, 0.63 ± 0.28 W m−2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011, 0.55 ± 0.1 W m−2.
Even though they find a smaller total heat content increase than the other studies I find the summary at the beginning (first 2 pages or so) very helpful. For the rest of the publication I would greatly appreciate a blog post summing up its contents as my background knowledge on this is quite limited.
Moderator Response:[PS] Added link to earlier question.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:45 PM on 8 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
ubrew12 @5:
1) The accusation that people know of potential genocidal consequences of a policy and intentially promoting it for that reason is offensive and should never be entertained except in the case where you have overwhelming evidence in support of it. In this case you do not. It is mere speculation that should not be intertained by any rational or decent person.
2) Specifically with relation to the Australian, I am (or was) a long term reader and know how some of their columnists think quite well. Some of them are eminently rational even if I frequently (in one case nearly always) disagree with them. Among these are Paul Kelly, Dennis Shanahan and Greg Sheridan. They are not the type of people who would find potential genocide in anyway attractive and they would certainly move heaven and earth to stop it if they thought it was in prospect. Some others of their commentators I also know well and more or less despise them, but I cannot think of the slightest reason to think that poorly of them as to accept your suggestion.
3) The MIT model results are in any event an over estimate of the risk of extinction from global warming. That's OK. Scientific results will never be precise, particularly in an area as complex as climate science. As a result you will get models that overshoot, and models that undershoot. The thing to do is not to fixate on the results of a single model, particularly (as with the MIT result) it is a clear outlier.
-
ubrew12 at 14:40 PM on 8 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
I got snipped for a too forceful reference to what I think Lloyd and his publisher are doing, but I'm going to persist once more in the charge in a more politic way. There is now a 10% chance AGW will cause humanity to go extinct (MIT model results), so the chance is very high AGW will, at a minimum, significantly 'thin the ranks' of humanity in the near future. The 'misinterpretation' of Climate conclusions over the last 40 years can no longer reasonably be ascribed to tribal pride or fossil influences. We must now entertain the notion that Lloyd and his publisher are knowledgeable of AGW's lethal outcomes and are hastening us there intentionally. They are comfortable doing so because they read in themselves a superior survival probability in such an attritious environment. So Lloyd did not misunderstand the deep ocean findings. He did not make a mistake. Instead, he did his part to help set a multi-generational and multi-ethnic trap whose targets are your children.
Lets at least entertain the notion that this is happening. History suggests that at times like these, by the time the targets say something, the trap has long been set.
-
MattJ at 14:25 PM on 8 August 2014It's planetary movements
Before they changed the name to "technical analysis" to fool the unwary, hucksters used a similar "curve fitting exercise" to ensnare investors. It was called 'chartism'. But once so many economics textbooks had debunked 'chartism', they change the name to something sounding more respectable, not to be confused with genuine financial time-series analysis.
But I see no campaign as successful as the past campaign against chartism to persuade the public this "Jupiter/Sun Gravity Model". Forbes has jumped on this bandwagon, too. Worse yet, Scaffeta got his chartism published in a supposedly "peer reviewed" journal.
I haven't done the calculations myself, but it seems to me that a quick back of the envelope calculation of the force on Earth due to Jupiter and Saturn even at it's peak would show that they can't even lift a feather, far less influence the Earth's orbit and therefore climate. Why the 'peers' of the peer reviewed journal never did this calculation is a mystery to me. It should be a cause of disgrace for them, too.
Reviewers who give a pass to garbage like this need to be outed and publicly humiliated.
-
chriskoz at 13:27 PM on 8 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
The Australian, in pasrticular their env columnist Graham Lloyd, have developped quite a history of climate science misrepresentations. Some of them, e.g. recent incorrect critique of 97% concensus in Cook 2013 by Richard Tol - misrepresented by Lloyd - have been discussed here.
More comprehensive list of Lloyd's biased coverage is available here. Clearly, based on that history, we need not to be surprised at this latest development; furthe3r may expect more distortions of climate science from Mt Lloys in the future.
But it is hartening that scientists do not ignore those incidents but fight back the misinformation straight at its source, as Carl has done here. Another example of a scientist who "fights back" is Michael Mann who not only writes comments/op-eds to the affected newspapers but also enters legal battles if required to stand his ground. Others should also be encouraged: their time doing it is well spent. I'm personally thankful for that: great job guys!
-
Doug10673 at 09:16 AM on 8 August 2014Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
I have found when dealing with deniers that talking with them helps, and I mean talking as oppossed to writing back and forth in e-mails or blogs. Also, not being afraid to back them into corners helps. Leave them no room for escape in a non confrontational way. Most people can be got at. It also helps to anticipate what they are going to say, so that you have ready proof to show them. Know what you are talking about.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:35 AM on 8 August 2014CO2 lags temperature
Sorry edgberht, but the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 600M years old.
-
ecgberht at 07:30 AM on 8 August 2014CO2 lags temperature
The earth is 600M years old. Do you show CO2 levels for earlier periods than 400K (when the levels were far higher and the earth was far warmer) anywhere on this site?
Moderator Response:[PS] your comment tone is bordering on sloganeering. Ie posting long-debunked myths in disguise. If you are genuinely interested in the science, then certainly this is a site to help for instance see "Climate changed before" and "CO2 was higher in the past". Even a cursory read of the appropriate chapters in the IPCC WG1 report will tell you what the science is really saying as opposed to what misinformation sites might claim.
-
scaddenp at 06:03 AM on 8 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
The processes involved in sealevel rise, especially ice melt are non-linear. What models we have for sealevel rise predict accelerating. This post at Realclimate links to many of the relevant papers.
"and a slower rate of growth in sea level rise". Um I am not seeing that. Do mean the pothole in 2011? That La Nina moving water onto land, not any reducing rate in ice loss.
Acidification is tightly bound to concentration of CO2 in atmosphere, completely independent of surface temperature, and no, no reduction in that.
As for locked-in sealevel rise, the sea will stop rising when the ice stops melting. If temperatures stopped rising tomorrow, then you would still get more glacier melt since so many are out of balance with current temperature, but you would expect rate of rise to decline. A recent paper on West Antarctica ice sheet suggests it may be too late with warmer ocean already doing the damage.
-
MA Rodger at 03:27 AM on 8 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
BojanD @18.
I am a bit mystified by your comment that it is possible the "the error, if found, will turn to be a minor one." Surely the size of the error in question is not in doubt. Or do you think otherwise?
Beyond that, consider where you place yourself w.r.t. Eisenman & Comiso. Eisenman gives no preference for the error being within either BootstrapV1 or BootstrapV2. Thus his position could be characterised as 50:50. Comiso insists the error is within BootstrapV1 so his position could be characterised as 100:0. The neutral position between the two would thus be 75:25. Your stated position (>68%) could perhaps be considered as centered on 84:16, closer to the neutral position than the Comiso position.
Does that make sense?
-
michael sweet at 01:14 AM on 8 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
MThompson,
Since when did "few" mean "none"? The IPCC quote you cite is not in contradiction to the OP. North east scallop aquaculture is a well documented example of one of the few.
I think scientists are handicapped by always limiting comments to things that have been proved beyond doubt. Meanwhile, skeptics repeat the same old myths over and over until people believe them. Then some people insist that scientists need many examples, one is not enough. This single example is the tip of the iceberg, more are coming. our insistance that scallps are not currently affected by pH change is contrdicted by the facts on the ground. You need to read the background on the article you object to.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 8 August 2014Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
The "Communitarian" "Individualist" split of the sample may be missing key factors that could significantly affect a person's attitude toward investigating and interpreting infromation regarding this issue.
More applicable differentiatiors would be:
- "Desiring the development of a better future for others" vs. "Desiring a better present for themselves". Communitarians can be tribal and not care about others or the future. Individualists can recognise the benefit they obtained from others who cared about the future they contributed to developing through their individual actions.
- "Accepting that something profitable or propular is justified by its popularity ot profitability" vs. "Understanding that profiatbility is increased by the amount of unacceptable activity that can be gotten away with due to popular support, unwitting or aware, for the unacceptable activity". Again, communitarians and Individualists could develop either attitude.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:18 AM on 8 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
MThompson @7, the first rule of science is to keep an accurate emperical score. In this case, the emperical score is a few studies showing harm to organisms in situ as a result of declining pH. There are also some more studies that show in the presence of low pH, certain organism have greatly reduced frequency of occurence, even over seperations of mere meters. That is, in addition to laboratory studies, field studies show both that the hypothesized fall in pH with increase in atmospheric CO2, and the harm to some marine organisms due to low pH are actually occuring now. Repeatedly quoting the IPCC out of context to suggest that there are few relevant studies while ignoring the fact that those studies that exist support the hypothesis is not being scientifically "pedantic". It is misleading and deceptive conduct.
-
MThompson at 23:30 PM on 7 August 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
Perhaps once again my commentary was unclear to some. In my original comment numbered 4, I was referring to the article “Intensifying ocean acidity from carbon emissions hitting Pacific shellfish industry,” and not to all the possibilities of extreme anthropogenic global climate change in general. The IPCC quote I provided stands in plain opposition to the headline of the referenced article, unless some dramatic new evidence has come to light since the final draft of the IPCC AR5.
If I correctly understand Tom Curtis’ missives (5 & 6), I have left some readers with the impression that, since the IPCC reports that there are few examples of PH decrease beyond natural variability, my assertion is that marine life will not be harmed by increasing atmospheric CO2.
Please forgive the pedantic, but the scientific method applied to this situation:
1) It is observed that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising, and have been doing so for decades.
2) It is observed that reduced PH is harmful to marine organisms, both in natural and laboratory settings.
3) It is hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 will lead to decreased PH of the oceans, and that will in turn be harmful to marine life.
Thus I restate:
"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 WGII p.9Moderator Response:[Rob P] - That's a poorly-worded paragraph in the IPCC assessment. Not as bad as the Himalayan glacier error from the previous report, but the inference is that ocean acidification needs to be outside natural variability to cause problems for marine calcifiers - which is just silly.
This is like suggesting that even though the Earth is warming, and causing heatwaves and droughts to intensify and occur more frequently, we can't attribute enhanced tree mortality in drought-affected regions to global warming, because the mean temperature has not moved outside natural variability.
I suspect this has been watered down by the political process involved in signing off the reports. Watered down to such an extent that it is nonsensical. No matter, there's plenty of emerging research being published on ocean acidification, and we'll start to get a better idea of which species are likely to survive, and which will perish.
As for your assertion that marine life will not be affected by ocean acidification, it's a nice idea, but one not supported by the scientific literature, nor present-day observations. The dissolution of the shells of pteropods around Antarctica, and in the California Current System are a case in point.
It certainly seems that corrosive seawater can be tolerated by many marine organisms, provided that the exposure is brief, but long-term exposure creates energy demands that simply cannot be met under normal conditions. In other words, as long as the calcifier can get sufficient food to power the calcification process, it can make up for the dissolution occurring outside the calcifying space. In the real world, this isn't going to happen over the long-term as the entire carbon chemistry of the ocean continues to change. Ocean acidification is like a rising tide in that it raises all boats i.e. the energetic demand increase right throughout the life-cycle.
-
ozboy1 at 18:47 PM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
My thoughts these days go to implications. 3.3 mm is a global average and there are strong regional variations, or so I read. At that rate in 10 years its 3.3 cm and in 100 years .33 of a metre. In the end I wonder how much of an issue that is?
This leads to another question of how much future sea level rise is locked in? If we magically reduced excess CO2 output tomorrow for how much longer would sea levels rise?
My third question is that we have seen in recent years a slower rate of growth in surface air temperature (now about 5% higher than the 20th century mean) and a slower rate of growth in sea level rise. El Nino is invoked as a partial explanation for both. Do we see a similar development in the rate of change in water acidity?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - No, El Nino does not explain the slower warming rate in surface air temperatures in the 21st century. Stronger and more frequent La Nina, however, are only a partial explanation - see Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming for instance.
La Nina is dominant during the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation [IPO]. As the spin-up of the wind-driven ocean circulation is able to mix more heat down into the ocean (mainly the Western Pacific & the subtropical ocean gyres), and draws up more cool water from below the thermocline in the eastern tropical Pacific, we get this stronger ocean warming/weaker surface warming pattern.
It so happens that the trade winds connected with the current negative IPO have been exceptionally intense, and have thus temporarily counteracted the strong greenhouse gas-forcing during this century. See England et al (2014).
-
Mikemcc at 15:59 PM on 7 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
Unfortunately it appears that is no legislation that holds newspapers to account to publish factually correct information beyond the various libel laws. The worst culprits appear to be the Murdoch press (Scum, Austalian, Faux News, etc) closely followed by papers like the Daily Fail, the Telegraph does seem to have seen the light a bit recently in getting rid of the likes of Chistopher Booker.
-
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
Stardustoz - if you look to the right of this comment, you will see the heat widget. Currently heat gain is equivalent to more than 2 billion Hiroshima bombs since 1998 - so no - the heat release from bombs is insignificant compared to the extra solar trapped from GHG accumulations.
-
Stardustoz at 11:59 AM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
First of all, I'd like to thank you all for the information you provide here on a daily basis. Second, I'd like to say that I am in no way scientific or have a degree in the sciences. However, I do have a very inquisitive mind, especially when it comes to the effects that human interactions has on the Earth. The question I wish to pose in regards to sea level rise and warmth is whether the large scale nuclear testing that has been conducted at sea over the years has contributed and whether such anthropogenic factors are considered in the models. Would this have a significant impact on sea level temps and rise? Again, please forgive me if this question is a silly one to ask here.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:56 AM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
r.pauli:
Yes, warmer air is capable of holding more moisture. The relationship is roughly exponential.
At cold temperatures (say, -30C), the air holds little moisture and large changes in temperature don't change that capacity by much. You don't see much snow falling at cold temperatures, because there isn't much moisture and you can't get much out for a given decrease in temperature.
At warmer temperatures (say +30C), the capacity is much higher, and small changes in temperature make a much bigger difference. A little bit of cooling leads to significant condensation, which lleads to thick clouds and lots of potential for heavy rain.
-
michael sweet at 10:37 AM on 7 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
The NSIDC discusses this error in their current sea ice report (scroll to the end). They say their data was unaffected by the reported error. The NSIDC seems to feel that it was a small error and that other data, including their own, confirm the amount of Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice ahs increased over the past three years. The quesiton is whether it is a long term gain or just a short term fluxuation.
-
scaddenp at 10:28 AM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
The atmosphere isnt a very large reservoir. On the other hand, moving enough water from sea to land can indeed lower sea level as it did in 2011.
-
Falk at 09:12 AM on 7 August 2014Nigel Lawson suggests he's not a skeptic, proceeds to deny global warming
Thank you Rodger @19 and Tom @ 20 for both your answers. I knew somebody would notice the 'roughly' in my doubling. I did it too but didn't know how to edit.
I indeed did not notice that it was a stacked graph. Thanks for pointing it out. And it makes sense to take the earths whole surface into acount I just thought that 0.44 W felt too small (with 21e22 J instead 35e22 J even more so) and I didnt' know if it was a valid estimate.
Tom Curtis @20: I really was thinking about the ~2 W/m^2 for anthropogenic causes. Thanks for the brief summary with the feedback effects that explains the difference in my head. By the way step three was coming from the mislead thought about sun incidence on the earth projected area but as you pointed out the energy imbalance is mainly due to the insulating effect of greenhouse gases and not in combination with direct sun light passing through them.
-
r.pauli at 09:00 AM on 7 August 2014A Relentless Rise in Global Sea Level
I thought warmer air holds more moisture. Wouldn't increased atmospheric heating carry water vapor sufficient to affect sea level?
If we have deluge rainstorms that can release many inches of water, wouldn't there be some quatifyable increase of water removed from oceans??
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - The caption in Figure 2 does mention that the comparatively small increase in atmospheric water vapour is included in the calculations of Cazenave et al (2014). So this effect, albeit small so far, is accounted for.
As for your 2nd question, yes, that certainly seems likely and is something I've mentioned in previous posts - these fluctuations could increase in magnitude as the Earth grows warmer. The atmosphere, in the absence of changes in the large-scale circulations, should be able remove and dump more water on land during La Nina-dominant (negative Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) periods, and during La Nina events themselves.
In the last 4-5 years the magnitude of the year-to-year variation in global sea level seems to have gone up quite a few notches - which suggests that the large-scale circulations are playing role as well.
-
longjohn119 at 06:12 AM on 7 August 2014Harvard historian: strategy of climate science denial groups 'extremely successful'
These same Paid Politcal Propagandists were also involved in the denial of Acid Rain and it's causes (like mercury and CO2 it was from burning coal) as well as denial of the Ozone Hole and CFC's contributions to it.
-
BojanD at 04:54 AM on 7 August 2014Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion
As for the mainstream result, I was of course refering to the 'corrected' data sets, so the word 'still' was indeed unfortunate. It's tough to get to probabilities, but I can do this.
In favour:- other researchers obtained similar results
- (minor due to overlap) algorithm was already compared to another one with negative results
not in favour:
- (minor since models don't work well for Arctic sea ice, too) models predicted the trend, but not as steep
- the change to algorithm was made and reverted inadvertantly, which is kind of weird, and was not detected by other researchers. So this kind of weakens the first bullet.
IMO it's likely (more than 68%) that current mainstream results reflect the real trend or that the error, if found, will turn to be a minor one. -
Paul D at 04:44 AM on 7 August 2014Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling
It does seem that many newspapers today are willing to lie and fabricate 'truths' to further a political agenda when it comes to climate change.
Lets not forget that national newspapers are not interested in pure news, they all have an agenda, every inch of page space has a 'meaning' and a message even when an opposing view to the papers ideology is expressed. The problem is at the top and the agenda of the editor and owners.
In the context of democracy and politics this probably works to the advantage of our communities. But when it comes to facts and science, it clearly fails us all.
Prev 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 Next
