Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Next
Comments 35401 to 35450:
-
Russ R. at 10:34 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
scaddenp,
Thanks for joining the discussion. Perhaps you can answer my question.
In reference to Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c) (shown above @ 1.), for which part of the world did these carefully selected "in-phase" models even manage to predict the correct sign of the observed warming trend, let alone its magnitude?The authors are the ones making the explicit claim that "climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns."
All I would like to know is where might I find some of these "good estimates" of "spatial trend patterns", because they're certainly absent in the Pacific over the 15 years the authors presented.
-
scaddenp at 10:12 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Russ, I am frankly having some difficulty believing you have read that paper rather than other people's slant on it. You claim "cherry-picked" subset, but the second sentence is:"Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution"
If that is the postulate they are studying, then why would study of any other interval matter? Secondly, look at what they are testing for: The ensemble mean is composed from runs with ENSO in many different phases whereas what is observed is one particular instance of ENSO. Ergo, models in phase should be better predictors than models without.
Third, look at the legend. The numbers are trends (K/decade), (and NOT temperature) so range from -1.0-1.0 is rather small. The colouring the of trends is emphasise the spatial pattern difference between in-phase and out-of-phase ENSO models compared to observed.
Looks to me like you have extremely unrealistic expectations of model skill and certainly no modeller claims greater skill.
-
greenhousegaseous at 10:08 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili, I have watched Kevin Anderson’s tape. When I decided to write about the horrific world my generation is bequeathing to yours, this and other Tyndall Centre material was covered in my research.
My own assessment as of 2011 was that we will most probably go well over the 4 degree Centigrade level, and stand a good chance of hitting or exceeding 6 degrees. By when? Mr. Anderson’s guess is as good as mine. Or would be if he was using my numbers. :-)
I have no idea how you concluded that there is *any* contest or conflict between what Kevin Anderson is saying and what I or Rob wrote. As will be seen at some point, my analysis is far harsher and far tougher on the citizens of the major carbon-burning countries than he is.
As it happens, his statement about population not being part of the problem going forward is wrong, but I am not going to get into that here or now.
The issue is one of implementation, not awareness of the problem. And even before we can figure out implementation, we need to have a program for folks to understand and agree on. A 10% reduction per annum isn’t a program; it is a target. Professor Anderson doesn’t give us a clue as to the weaponry needed to hit it. Nor, even when we have a feasible plan and a consensus mobilized behind it does Prof Anderson suggest how the vested ownership class will be persuaded to allow the rest of us to radically cut FF emissions.
This has nothing to do with who is the smartest Ape in the room. It has to do with how we get all the other Apes to stop their greedy and self-defeating behavior.
-
Russ R. at 09:46 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Tom,
The paper's authors make the claim in the abstract that their cherry-picked subset of climate models "have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns." (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html)
The comparative image I uploaded was the authors' own depiction of recent 15-year spatial trends, both modeled and observed. (Image credit: Bob Tisdale)
I have a hard time seeing how their composite of the "best" models provides a good estimate of the actual warming trends seen anywhere in the world, Pacific or otherwise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:25 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
greenhousegaseous... I think we're saying much the same thing.
In terms of the stock market, 1%ers, etc. I think this transition to a new clean energy economy actually holds exactly that opportunity to flatten income inquality back out. Certainly having more domestic jobs helps that out a lot. But I also think the mindsets of the people who want to solve these problems are different than those of the people who have created the problem. Supply-side economics has greatly enriched a very very few people. Everything I hear from new economy folks is demand side, and demand side economics flattens out wealth distribution.
My difficulty with wili's position is, I think it's overly idealistic and unachievable. It's not that they are impossible ideals, but I think they're only achievable over the course of centuries, not decades.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:09 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... The problem is, the population 10,000 years ago was a tiny fraction that of today. A planet of 9 billion humans can not live the lifestyle of humans from 10,000 years ago. Are you somehow suggesting that we bring the population down to similar levels?
I'm not talking about infinite growth either. No one (rational) is talking about infinite growth, thus that puts that argument in the realm of strawmen.
What I keep saying is, we are in agreement that we need to get carbon emissions down to zero. But we have to do it in a way that is achievable. I've read some of Anderson's website and I need to better understand his position to know whether I agree with him or not.
What I have read is the DDPP document and I agree with what is being proposed there. I don't see them stating that we need to cut by 10% every year starting next year.
One thing, wili... I sense an increasing frustration that I'm not just flatly agreeing with everything you're saying, and you're becoming increasingly dismissive and angry. Look, not everyone is going to agree with Kevin Anderson. He's one voice among many voices. And he's not the only person with expertise in this area.
...it is again incumbent on you, I'd say, to show how we have even a marginal chance of a marginally livable world under your scenario...
I think this is exactly what the DDPP report is doing. You can certainly disagree with it but disagreeing doesn't make it incorrect.
-
greenhousegaseous at 09:04 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Thanks for the response, Rob.
We are not in disagreement re: the need for a functioning economy to be a constant through the “do it or else” transition to a carbon-limited global system. I was trying to explain in my wordy comment that, while in agreement with wili as to the rapacious nature of capitalism, the statement we either junk it, and junk it right now, in effect, or see the planet we love wither and die is not correct, IMO.
Specifically, I argue that we *must* employ the market economy model to assist in the aggressive adoption of alternative energy technologies. The market economy is also the preferred avenue to develop CCS and the other technologies needed to enable us after a really aggressive emission cutting stage, to use fossil fuels on a limited, gradually declining basis. I further argue that only the market model can rapidly develop and deploy thorium-fueled reactors. And that we should use the market model to deploy mass transportation, to build the Grids that will be needed globally, to put cost-effective solar everywhere we have unused space.
I further argue that in this process, many, many millions more jobs will be created than will be lost. And add that, off-topic, sorry, this all-in, all-out conversion effort will rapidly restore the lost Middle Class, will bring positive trade unionism back to full partnership with industry and the government, and will not simply ratchet up the development of the poor countries, but integrate them securely in the world economy. Did I mention the two chickens in every garage?
All this ranting testifies that I see the market system as the only practical way of reaching the “viable earth” wili and millions of of others want for our grandchildren.
But...
I do not trust the big international corporations for one minute to surrender their lock on such a vast sea of black profits. Even if, as it well might be, the profits to be gained form greening industry aggressively were shown to be even greater than the earnings from criminal despoliation of the planet, they *will not change voluntarily*. NO board of directors will give up secure steady profits for risky bigger profits. Not one. Been there. Been done by several such boards.
That is why the working consensus among the countries that right now consume over 85% of the fossil fuel is vital: we must first implement comprehensive carbon taxation, sure, but then we must *regulate* industries to ensure they do the right thing. And, we must be realistic: it may well require full or partial nationalization of some businesses before we can say we are over the fossil fuel hump. Hey, we did it to save Citibank from itself!
The Germans and others have demonstrated that capitalism can be a partner in this sort of managed economy, and can make money doing their parts.
In short, I argue for the market because it will get the long list of jobs done, with at least a hope of equity and efficiency. I do NOT care about the *stock* market, though. Nor does letting the market do its work mean we need to allow the 1 tenth of 1% to collect a toll on that work.
I want *wili* and the folks he speaks for here to win, not the trust babies living off dirty money stashed in the Cayman Islands.
I apologize for going so long here, on issues that may seem to be barely on-topic. Since the issue is not simply what we do, but how we do it, I want my qualified endorsement of the market system to be crystal clear.
I apologize for a few “political” statements, and beg Mr. Cook’s indulgence. But the decarbonization agenda discussed in the DDPP Report *is* political, intensely so. We have science to thank for bravely identifying the Carbon Menace, but we will need brave political leaders to take on the Carbon Lobby.
-
wili at 08:41 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
"Trade is an elemental aspect of human social structure that goes back 10's of thousands of year."
Great! I'm perfectly happy to go back to levels of international trade that were around 10,000 years ago!
Look, if you're for growing the economy, it is incumbent upon you to tell us how big exactly it should grow till it is the right size.
If you think it should grow forever on a finite planet, I'm sorry, but you are insane, dangerously so, I would say, but an insanity that is, sadly, widely shared by most in the halls of power.
I happen to think (and the evidence is so blindingly obvious I don't see why I have to even start) that the global economy has already grown larger than what the natural world can support--in no longer 'fits' on this earth that we all actually inhabit, and it is killing the host.
Employment levels have essentially nothing to do with economic growth--for example, we could probably have full employment essentially tomorrow, just by reducing the length of the work week by a few hours.
And this is just one of many ways that the economy is a nearly infinitely manipulable human construct.
The earth on the other hand is not so easily manipulable.
But if you guys think you're smarter than Kevin Anderson (I get the feeling you haven't watched his video yet, so I give the link again here) and many others, well, it is again incumbent on you, I'd say, to show how we have even a marginal chance of a marginally livable world under your scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
And here's a shorter version, for the impatient among us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KumLH9kOpOI
-
Tom Curtis at 08:17 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Russ R @1&3, first, as the article makes quite clear, it is not claimed that any particular model is better at predicting ocean osscilations. It is claimed that models that better match the observed trends in ocean temperatures in the El Nino 3.4 region also better match global surface temperature trends. The El Nino 3.4 region is approximately on the equator (ie, in line with Papua New Guinea) and in the middle of the Pacific (approximately directly below the Berring Strait on the map you show). As you can see, the trends in those areas are similar between the best five models and observations (if nowhere else).
Second, the maps you osscilate between are 15 year trends, starting with a very warm year in 1998. Short trends are strongly dominated by outliers near the extremities. As it happens, 1998 was arguable the strongest El Nino on record (and second strongest on my preffered index). 2011 was arguably the strongest La Nina on record, a La Nina that continued into 2012. The strong cooling trend, therefore, shown in the observed map therefore represents the presense of these extreme values. That the average of five model runs does not show such extreme values is hardly a surprise. Clearly the models to not reproduce the exact observed ENSO behaviour, but still reproduce observed GMST trends very well with a far milder reproduced ENSO oscillation. As noted in Kosaka and Xie, when a model is contrained to reproduce the observed ENSO fluctuation, it gets an even better match on the trends.
Finally, here are the SST anomalies for 2012:
You will notice that the "observed trends" from your GIF are very poor predictors of SST anomalies. That is because, as noted, they show a short term trend and are dominated by the extreme values in 1998:
And for comparison, here is the 1998-2012 trend using the same dataset:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:08 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Russ... Your post barely passes the "no link only posts" rule in the comments policy. If you're going to "ask a question" I would suggest you be able to discuss the point rather that just post a rhetorical driveby.
-
Russ R. at 07:39 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Rob,
I'm not making a statement; I'm asking a question.
In reference to "Figure 5: Composite sea surface temperature (SST) spatial trends", where specifically did the selected models show any predictive skill whatsoever?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:00 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
greenhousegaseous... Just to clarify, my position is merely that, as you also state, 10% reductions next year and 10% each year after, are not even close to achievable. And even if there were a massive political shift that enabled that, it would be economically disastrous.
Deep decarbonization is absolutely necessary, but we need a functioning economy to achieve it. And, also as you state, the way to achieve this is through a politically achievable revenue neutral carbon tax. Such a tax would also have to be slowly implemented and ratcheted up over the coming decades.
As the DDPP states, in order to stay below the 2C target, we can burn no more than the same amount of carbon burned since the begining of the industrial revolution. That assumes we are going to continue to burn carbon for a while longer, but we need to be emissions free by 2060.
Ultimately, we're all talking about the same thing. Our differences are a matter of how we get to the goal of eliminating carbon emissions completely.
I have grave concerns when people suggest the path to that goal is to kill the world economy (and wili, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your position on that specific point). Trade is an elemental aspect of human social structure that goes back 10's of thousands of year. Rather than deny a fundamental fact of humanity I think it is better to address the actual problem. The problem is not the world economy. The problem is that our economic systems are not pricing externalities. Like with SO2 and CFC's, when we do manage to price externalities, the solutions happen faster and cost far less than we expect.
I believe the same will happen with CO2.
-
greenhousegaseous at 03:19 AM on 22 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili, Rob and others commenting on this thread - - sorry I’m a few days late to your party. My excuse is I’m totally buried in a new book on, umm, *honest* global carbon profiling, and decarbonization :-))
My background is economic modeling and forecasting and operations research, with a deep interest in environmentalism and over-population since Earth Day One - - that’s right, I was one of the naively optimistic activists standing with a million others in Manhattan in 1970; talk about an old fool...
To business: wili, speaking from an environmentalist and climate analyst point of view, I am in 95% agreement with you on the *causality* of our dilemma, namely an economy founded on unceasing growth based upon a set of essentially rapacious business models.
Speaking from an economic analysis point of view, I have to add that I *also* agree with you 95%. Economics is not some religious dogma or immutable political truth: it is simply the quantitative description of the survival mechanisms we as humans choose to employ, and the accounting of those decisions in terms of resource and labor and operational and opportunity costs.
Not to say or suggest that Rob is wrong, mind. The implementation of an effective global carbon tax regimen is, really, our highest single priority.
And that regime must include a truly punishing tax on air travel, enough to force all business (and international government and UN and academic conference and faux-symposia and Heartland attendees) to think short and hard about video and web-based meetings.
The only really worthy exceptions to this regime would be my wife and I, who “need” to travel to her home in Japan and our numerous favorite spots in Europe. :-)
The global tax regime needs to be an *environmental* scheme, not simply an energy industry transformational mechanism. If we fail to address waste, industrial pollution and water usage, whether related to energy use or not, we can never expect to earn the support of voters.
It must also include severe taxes on individual usage of fossil fuels for transportation in general. Along with steep public license fees for extractors for taking finite resources and polluting and emitting and all the rest. Along with rich tax credits for developing and deploying CCS technology. Along with, well, the list goes on and on....
Now, as to your main issue, at least as defined by wili:
“We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth. Not both...”
I have to take issue with this (commonly held, I think) either-or notion. *If and when* we can build a decisive political consensus among the dominating industrialized countries, we can then, through tax and regulatory policy, institute a massive, aggressive shift to a non-carbon economy. For every job “lost” in the fossil fuel industries, we would see probably 1.5 to 2 jobs created in the alternative energy and related industries. These jobs would result in solid, steady growth in the present carbon-addicted countries, as well as in China and India and the other aggressively growing industries.
Just think of the jobs we in the US will create by re-fitting our buildings and infrastructure for clean energy. For building the Grid. For developing and manufacturing the CCS technologies. For the new global de-salinization industry. For the massive necessary investment in thorium-based nuclear power. For the conversion of coal and petro power stations to bio-mass burning + CCS. For the new rail public transport systems.
This scenario will create hundreds of millions or more jobs over time in the developing world, too, as they switch from carbon to alternate sources of power to fuel their economic growth. Not to mention the additional benefits for these countries, such as skipping the individual vehicle stage and going straight to public transportation.
In the longer term, the level of economic growth will be sustained by productivity improvements largely driven by the gradual decrease in the worker population, as we belatedly turn from the (probable) peak of 12-13 billion humans and begin the long descent toward a sustainable level of 4-5 billion.
I won’t belabor the point further. My point is that we need not and should not concede to the Carbon Lobby and their allies that aggressive decarbonization means the end of economic growth. Their position is not founded on any concern for their workers and dependents, but on the defense of the largely un-taxed, absurdly gross profits of an indefensible business model, sorry Rob, but wili and others are correct, a model that is in the process of driving CO2 levels probably above 600-700 PPM, and murdering hundreds of thousands of species, including the energy-addicted Ape.
You, wili, and others are right: the *goal* of freedom from the yoke and pain and damage of carbon addiction *has* to be the objective.
But, wili, Rob and others are correct that a ten or even twenty year decarbothon is a non-starter. Destroying the livelihood and hopes of three billion or more people while offering nothing substantive in return is simply not going to happen.
Nor need it.
An aggressive global energy and infrastructure refit along the lines outlined above can secure the active support of the voters in the world’s developed democracies, and open the path to green economic growth for all.
As for the folks in the oil-producing and coal-extracting regions, let’s help them wean themselves from their dependency. As for the owners of the energy industries, well, let me tell you a story about the buggy-whip makers of 1895...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:13 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Russ... Instead of alluding to something, please make the statement you wish to make.
-
billthefrog at 02:51 AM on 22 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
@ Edward Hurst
Edward,
As others have pointed out, summarily dismissing Neven's blog on the grounds that you don't like the "emotional values" ensconced therein just might be a tad premature.
It's interesting to see that you are seeking the "unbiased truth" in order to make a comparison with a response you are expecting from the Minister with climate change responsibility at the Scottish parliament. I do not claim to have any personal knowledge of his perspective on the subject, but the fact that the MSP in question - Paul Wheelhouse - is basically an economist doesn't exactly set my mind at rest.
Please be aware that I'm not for a moment suggesting he is anything like that bloody waste of space that has just been shown the door from the equivalent post in Westminster. In fact, in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, Mr Wheelhouse told MSPs he believed that...
“There is no doubt in my mind that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to the world as we know it.”
However, Mr Wheelhouse does appear to have a somewhat pronounced "green agenda", and whilst there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (at least in my book), when he comes out with comments along the lines of...
“It has been very emotive speaking to sub-Saharan states and the Philippines about the kind of challenges they face today and thinking how much worse it will be in a world in 2050 with a five degree or worse temperature rise. I can’t imagine how bad life will be for some of the citizens of these countries.” [My underlining]
Remarks like that not only make me cringe with vicarious embarrassment, but more importantly, they also serve to bolster the meme that climate change is merely some alarmist ploy.
(NB The source of the above quotes is given here.)
I obviously don't know the topic on which you are waiting a response from Mr Wheelhouse, but if it was in any way related to the Arctic, I think you'd be advised to seek confirmation from a source such as Neven's.
(And yes, I do contribute there in a very small way from time to time.)
slàinte mhath
billthefrog
-
Russ R. at 01:51 AM on 22 July 2014Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
Dana, which parts of planet would you say that the models "accurately predicted"?
-
greenhousegaseous at 01:09 AM on 22 July 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #28
@ John Hartz
FYI the link to the Bloomberg Heartland story is busted, and my search for the story simply dumped me back to the missing link :-((
Moderator Response:[JH] The ink has been fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention. \
BTW, Your comment properly belongs in the thread to the Weekly News Roundup #29.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:04 PM on 21 July 2014Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
As a non-Kiwi, I was puzzled as to what a JAFA was. It turns out it refers to residents of Auckland (New Zealand's major city).
-
Tom Curtis at 22:57 PM on 21 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @146, I could never hope to point out all the crazy errors in Postma's opus. For example, I missed the craziness in using just two days data from one location to benchmark global values; the coincidence that those two days happen to be in the month with the greatest average diurnal range at that location; that the observations measured "ground temperature" by placing a thermocouple on top of the ground, and ensuring it was in full sunlight; that the location was temperate and arid, ensuring a high diurnal temperature range relative to global averages; that he neglects to mention that fully one third of the global surface area is in the tropics with minimal seasonal and diurnal temperature range (so the no variation turns out to be a good approximation); that the largest diurnal and seasonal temperature ranges are found in arid areas which also have the lowest surface emissivity for IR (and albedo for SW radiation), thereby minimizing the difference in radiated power at those locations...
Having said that, I am glad you stepped in and filled one breach, and am happy for others to do the same.
Just a parting point. Using an 8 degree K diurnal temperature range (ie, excedig global averages from the graph above), and modern values for the TOA insolation of 1361 W/m^2, incorporating the diurnal temperature range into the zero dimensional energy balance model lowers the predicted global mean surface temperature from 254.582 K to 254.535 K, a difference of just 0.047 K. As you point out, Postma ignores non-diurnal temperture range alterations in the predicted temperature (which would lower it further). Therefore his entire schtick is to complain about an effect making a 0.05 K difference in the predicted GMST without the greenhouse effect, and inflating that figure by dodgy "experimental data", ignoring contrary information, and trashing the first law of thermodynamics as too inconvenient.
-
wili at 22:50 PM on 21 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
True, CBD, but picking a word or phrase out of context from a blog with millions (I'm guessing) of words and trying to claim you are doing anything worth even raising a question about is pretty darn daft, at best, imho. IIRC, some folks tried to do that kind of thing with some illegally procured emails back a ways with more clearly nefarious intent...
My mom, when I was doing something dangerously stupid (not uncommon) like cutting toward myself with a sharp knife, would say things like, "That's a good way to put yourself in the hospital." Ash, listening to that, would no doubt conclude that my loving mother was actually hoping that I would give myself a grievous wound that would require hospitalization.
And of course no one event will 'end the debate' since there is not an actual honest debate anyway. There will be _some_ ice in the Arctic Ocean for a long, long time, since as things warm up there, Greenland will calve more and more of its icesheet into the surrounding waters. So confirmed pseudo-skeptics will be able to point at those ice burgs and say, "See, there's still ice in the Arctic! All those alarmists and catastrophists are wrong and over reacting...[blah, blah, blah]..."
Back on topic--As far as I can see, Francis's basic model (that Screen's work seems to be a refinement of) applies only to the Northern Hemisphere. If we start seeing a lot of unusually persistent 'stuck' weather patterns in the Southern Hemisphere (as seemed to have just happened in NZ), is there some similar dynamic that could explain it down there? My understanding is that, because of its radically different topography (continent surrounded by ocean rather than ocean surrounded by continents), Antarctica has not warmed anomalously the way the Arctic has. So I'm wondering if a completely different explanation would be needed there.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 21 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Ashton wrote: "Can anyone explain why a slowdown in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume warrants the concern indicated by the wording of these comments?"
While the moderator is correct that the best (i.e. only) source for the thinking of another person is that person, I also think the reasoning is fairly straightforward;
If you accept that the Arctic sea ice is going to disappear, as confirmed by all models and every scientist studying the matter that I am aware of, then the sooner this becomes impossible for all but the most delusional to deny the better the chance that we might start doing something about the causes.
It seems likely the loss of the Arctic sea ice may be one of the earliest 'world changing' results of AGW. Sea level rise, loss of the Greenland and Arctic ice caps, breakdown of standard weather patterns, loss of croplands on a massive scale, et cetera are all gradual processes that will play out over a longer time period. The Arctic sea ice could go within this decade, and almost certainly will sometime in the next few. That's a very bad thing, but there are a lot of bad things coming. Many of them even worse.
Many people are hoping that the loss of the Arctic sea ice will end the 'debate' between the facts and the lies. Personally, I'm not so optimistic. Anyone capable of saying in recent years that the Arctic sea ice "is recovering" is fully demented enough to insist that chunks of ice falling off Greenland into the ocean mean that the Arctic sea ice hasn't completely melted and it'll all come back any time now.
-
foolonthehill at 19:34 PM on 21 July 2014Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
Hey! Have we got a JAFA for a moderator?
It's Franz Josef!
Moderator Response:[PS] Blush! (and I am a southerner not a JAFA).
-
MA Rodger at 19:00 PM on 21 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom Curtis @144.
Sorry to bash in again. Your point (1) I think misses some heavy nonsense by JPostma (which is also not addressed by the two SkS posts on his 2011 paper).One of the big complaints made by JPostma is that it is wrong to use the 1-D model to calculate the -18ºC average temperature for a non-GHG atmosphere. The -18ºC value is too low, he tells us. Tellingly, he does not himself present a corrected value. And this is no surprise as the -18ºC from the simple 1-D model is not too low as he insists. It is an over-estimation of the average temperature in the model, something that you will always get from averaging forcings when calculating 4th-powered temperatures in such models. But as temperature lags and surface flues will also act to 'average out' temperatures, the value from the 1-D model becomes usefully accurate.
Still JPostma complains that the -18ºC represents a linear average of a non-linear relationship which is entirely true. But then all he does towards developing a better estimate is to create what could be called an 'immediate' temperature model - the surface temperature T(t, θL) = (FI(t, θL).(1-α)/σ)¼.
With α=30% as per the -18ºC figure, that gives a maximum T(t0, θ0) = +87.5ºC for noon on the equator. Mucho mucho scorchio !!But there JPostma seems to leave it. He presents a 30ºC figure resulting from the "continuous hemispherical input." This is simply the average temperature required to radiate the total global thermal budget from the bright hemisphere. Because of this, with such a bright-side temperature there is no energy leftfor any heat loss during the night, so the night temperature must therefore be -273ºC or, perhaps better, -238ºC if heat from the Earth's core is factored in. From that, the average over the globe would be -104ºC.
Now because JPostma has averaged over the bright side - the same crime he accused the 1-D model of doing over the whole globe - the 'instantaneous' average temperature will actually be lower still. Indeed, if you calculate one degree 'instantaneous' temperatures for the bright-side to obtain an average (easier than using calculus as these days my calculus is a little rusty), the bright-side average drops to +16.7ºC and the global average down to -111ºC.Of course, this is all over JPostma's head. His 2012 paper revises the +30ºC figure. and provides "updates for the integrated average power of Sunlight (vs. the linearly averaged power in [34](ie in the 2011 paper)), and a modification to the cooling profile to reflect the hidden latent heat energy retention; see Figure 18 below." This bullshit provides him with a new higher figure of +49ºC. Now, for other parts of the nonsense JPostma presents in the 2012 paper, he provides the code he used to obtain his results, but not for this result. So how did he do it? How did he get an average temperature for the bright hemisphere which will radiate at least 28% more energy from that bright hemisphere alone, 28% more than the sun provides for the whole globe? I would guess he has but averaged (and thus still practises the crime he accuses others of perpetrating) - averaged the insolation flux for the daytime equator. It may yet be coincidence, but this average yields the same as JPostma's +49ºC. And being an averaged figure, it provides a temperature higher than otherwise. If you calculate the 'instantaneous' temperature in those one degree steps, the average is +38ºC for the bright-side equator and -100ºC for the global equator.
And what of that coincidence? The words JPostma uses when trying to explain his +49ºC suggests he does indeed equate the equator with the whole hemisphere.
"What does occur in one second, and in the square meters where sunlight actually impinges, is illumination of a hemisphere with an intensity projection factor that goes as the function of the cosine from the zenith. If you integrate to the average projection factor and combine this with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and terrestrial albedo, then the real-time instantaneous heat input is constantly +49ºC. At the zenith it has a maximum of +121ºC, constantly, when the albedo is zero." (His stress)
This JPostma shows yielding a factor of 0.637 which equals 2/π, a most simplistic result recognisable from even schoolboy calculus as ∫(from -π to +π) cos(t) dt / π. -
fyi at 10:30 AM on 21 July 2014Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
As the temperature ramps up, higher and higher glaciers will be retreating. Here in New Zealand, two of our glaciers, Fox and Frans Yosef flow down into temperate zones.
<snip of advertising link>
Moderator Response:[PS] Perhaps you were making a subtle point, but the provided link looks like spam to me. Spamming on this site results in instant and permanent ban. I am giving you benefit of doubt this time but you are not spelling Franz Joseph the way a local would so count me highly suspicious.
-
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 21 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Should point out that ScienceOfDoom has another article just out here dealing with the misunderstandings of Second Law illuminati.
-
william5331 at 06:13 AM on 21 July 2014What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
I wonder if the comment that the reversal of the concentration of Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is irreversible is actually true. We have degraded so many carbon sinks that allowing them to recover would just possibly suck a lot of Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Read George Monbiot's book Feral with special attention to his comments on the aftermath of the incursion of the first Europeans into North America or his comments on the Soca valley on the border between Italy and Yugoslavia in the years following the first world war. Also his comments on the conservation in Scotland which keeps wide tracks in a sheep blasted state so that absent T landlords can slaughter sage grouse. I doubt if we will do 'the necessary' but we could.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html
-
ubrew12 at 03:59 AM on 21 July 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29
Regarding the Salon article (criticising a NYT article profiling climatologist John Christy): "NY Times’ climate skeptic debacle: How a new profile sets back science", Lindsay Abrams says "the profile plays into an image that Christy has been working to build — one not of an anti-science “denier,” but instead of a modern-day Galileo, one who dares to contradict mainstream opinion and who will be vindicated by history". I thought the same in reading the NYT article: if they had set up a map of America and put a pin in that map for every PhD climatologist in the country, and had a blindfolded chimpanzee throw a dart at the map to select which one they would profile, not in a thousand years would they have come up with Christy's name. Clearly, what makes Christy worth noting is his 'outlier status', and implicit in that: only rebels get their own profile!
Tell you what. Since Christy is from Fresno, CA, just drop him into a farmers meeting there this summer, tell them he thinks CC is 'no big deal', and lock the doors.
-
Leland Palmer at 02:13 AM on 21 July 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Hi Howardlee-
I had a crazy idea one time, and I dont think it's very likely, but I thought I would share it, and maybe other people can tell me why it's wrong. I do hope the idea is wrong. I don't really expect a reply on this old thread.
The idea was that significant polar melting events might make flood basalt erruptions worse, by transfering mass from the poles to the equatorial regions (as the ice caps melt and the oceans rise) slowing the rotation rate of the earth by conservation of angular momentum.
The idea is that as the ice caps melt and the oceans suddenly rise, changes in isostatic balance enhance volcanic activity. Also, mass is transferred from the poles to the equatorial regions, slowing the rotation of the crust of the earth, by conservation of angular momentum (this effect is often seen in ice skaters, extending their arms to slow their rates of rotation while they are spinning). The crust of the earth wants to rotate slower, but the massive core of the earth wants to remain rotating at the original rate. This sets off massive stresses in the crust of the earth, changes the path of tectonic plates and can set off rifting events, such as the opening of the North Atlantic associated with the PETM, according to this idea.
So, it's just an idea, and hopefully it's wrong. Becasue if it's right, our current round of icecap melting could set off rifting events and trigger massive flood basalt erruptions, similar to those associated with past mass extinctions.
Here's a paper on a similar idea, involving mass transfers from the oceans to the poles following major impact events, and a possible link from such impacts to geomagnetic reversals:
Muller - Geomagnetic Reversals Driven by Abrupt Sea Level Changes
What set off this round of speculation is the observation that flood basalt erruptions sometimes seem to be dated slightly later than mass extinction and rapid warming events, rather than slightly before them.
-
scaddenp at 15:53 PM on 20 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
edward, Neven's blog is what it is and absolutely does not collect information. However, there are multiple organisations involved in observing the arctic. Neven helpfully provides this link on the site which shows you data from all of them. Mind you, data on arctic and Antarctica is pretty unequivocal so you shouldn't have any problem working it out.
The definitive site for sea level data is here. The various agencies at NOAA are good for much of the weather, ocean data. Realclimate provides this helpful link to data sources for numerous climate data and there is another link here.
[edited to make sense. Thanks to Billthefrog for pointed to a sentence that needed shooting]
-
Ken in Oz at 11:03 AM on 20 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
I'd like to see Antarctic ice reported a bit more comprehensively; sea ice by itself isn't very informative and can actually be misleading if it's ups are dwarfed by downs from loss of land ice.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 20 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just for future reference, in case Postma ever returns:
1) JPostma @51 begins with an odd little screed that ends with the claim that:
"Thus, there are indeed material and factual objections which clearly relegate the back-radiation/trapping hypothesis as defunct, as there are actual factors which already lend to a higher bottom-of-atmosphere temperature."
Reduced to its essence, this is a claim that there are more than one factor which raise Global Mean Surface Temperatures above what we would expect from insolation alone, and that consequently the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot also do so. That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. It is equivalent to arguing that because at least five men are carrying a coffin, there cannot be a sixth man carrying it as well.
It turns out that these other explanations mostly come down to thermal inertia. Make no mistake, thermal inertia does warm the Earth. The do so because energy radiated by a black body goes up with the fourth power. Thus, if you have a globe with a surface temperature of 388 K on on half, and 188 K on the other half, it will radiate 1,285 W/m^2 to space on the warm side, and only 71 W/m^2 on the cold side, for an average of 678 W/m^2. It will also have an average temperature of 288 K (~15 C). In constrast, a globe with a surface temperature of 288 K would only radiate 390 W/m^2, or 58% less. Thus the globe with uneven temperatures radiates far more energy to space than does the one with even temperatures. It would be warmer for the same energy recieved than the globe with even temperatures.
The problem for Postma is that the zero energy model calculation of the expected Earth surface temperature assumes an equal temperature over the entire Earth's surface. That it, it already allows for a greater contribution to the Earth's warming from equal temperatures than actually exists. Therefore, latent heat cannot explain the 33 C discrepancy it finds between the energy recieved by the Earth, and the global mean surface temperature.
2) Postma repeatedly ridicules the "one D" model as being completely unrealistic. He however, develops a model of the diurnal temperature cycle, which he describes in the previously linked paper, by saying:
"However, the mass of a one-square meter column of air is about 10,000kg, and if it has an average temperature of 255K, has a total energy content of about 10000 kg * 255 K * 1006 J/kg/K = 2.56 x 109 J. With a TOA output around 240 W/m2, the column will lose 10.4 MJ of heat overnight, which would correspond to an aggregate temperature reduction of 0.4% or 10 C. As can be seen from real-world data, the ground surface and near-surface-air drop in temperature by about ten-times that amount overnight, which means that most of the cooling of the column actually occurs at the surface, and thus cooling there is actually enhanced relative to the rest of the column, rather than impeded."
The implicit model for this calculation assumes that the radiation from all levels is 240 W/m^2, that the average temperature of the atmospheric column is 255 K, that the diurnal temperature range is equal across the entire column, and that the heat dump due to the diurnal temperature range is all to space. He purports this model represents the prediction of the greenhouse effect; and his conclusion from it makes it into his summary points (point 6), and has been mentioned here (although I could not be bothered chasing down in which post). The key point about this model is that every one of its features is false. So when Postma rails about the error of using a simple model (albeit solely for teaching), it shoud be born in mind that he also uses simple models. There are key differences, however. It can be shown mathematically that the use of a spherical model equivalent to the simple model used to teach by climate scientists generates the same results, and it is only used for teaching. Further, it can be shown that once corrected for accuracy as in a GCM, the simple models results can be largely reproduced. Postma's even more eroneous model, however, shares none of these features. I will show only one of these points, the difference in diurnal temperature range with altitude:
3) Finally, it turns out that "ontological mathematics" is the brain child not of Postma, but of "Mike Hockney", whose book, "Why Math Must Replace Science" is described by Postma as "The Best Science in the Universe", going on to say:
"The God Series of books by Mike Hockney are, truly, the best set of books on philosophy, science, politics, religion, psychology, death, and life, that have ever been produced in the history of man. The latest book by Hockney is the best of them all"
In its Amazon blurb, we read:
"It’s time to replace the scientific method with the mathematical method. It’s time to recognize that true reality is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; unobservable, not observable; metaphysical, not physical; hidden, not manifest; rationalist, not empiricist; necessary, not contingent. Physics is literally incapable of detecting true reality since true reality is an eternal, indestructible, dimensionless mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. The Singularity is a precisely defined Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing “woo woo” about it. It's pure math.
Physicists suffer from a disorder of the mind that causes them to believe that sensible, temporal objects have more reality than eternal, immutable Platonic mathematical objects, and to place more trust in their senses than in their reason, more trust in the scientific method of “evidence” than the mathematical method of eternal proof.
Never forget that sensory objects are just ideas in the mind. According to quantum physics, objects are just the observable entities produced by the collapse of unreal wavefunctions, and don’t formally exist when they are not being observed. Niels Bohr, in response to Einstein, literally denied that the moon existed when it wasn’t being observed."
I would say that you could not make this stuff up, but somebody obviously did.
In lieu of a biography, in Mike Hockney's Amazon biography reads (in part):
"Pythagorean Illuminism - the religion of the Illuminati - is the world's only Logos, rational religion. Illuminism rejects faith, rejects prophets, rejects holy books, rejects "revelation", and rejects any Creator. Instead, Illuminism is about the necessary, analytic, immutable, a priori, eternal Platonic truths of mathematics. Mathematics alone furnishes the unarguable, definitive answer to existence. That answer, incredibly, revolves around the immortal, indestructible human soul (the "singularity"). The "Big Bang" - a singularity event - was all about soul (all the souls of the universe, in fact)! The soul is none other than the most basic unit of mathematics: the dimensionless, unobservable point. The soul is "nothing", yet it is also infinity - because it comprises positive and negative infinity, which cancel to nothing. The soul is neither being nor non-being. The soul is BECOMING. If you want to know what it's becoming, read The God Series."
So Hockney consciously positions his "theory" as the religion of the Illuminati, something Postma is aware of and accepts (though when he blogs about it, he calls it "illuminism").
My point? Somebody who would accept and promote this complete tripe is so far beyond crazy they can't see the line anymore. Forget moonlanding conspiracy theorists. They are sane compared to this stuff. And yet the "dragon slaying" branch of AGW skepticism show such profound ability to sort the mental wheat from the chaffe that Postma is one of their leading lights.
Clearly no rational dialogue (socratic or otherwise) is possible with Postma.
-
Ashton at 03:50 AM on 20 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Fair Comment moderator I'll do as advised.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:18 AM on 20 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
WRyan,
Also, natural wind patterns circulate air above the equatorial Pacific to other regions of the planet. So the changes of the surface of the equatorial Pacific can significantly change surface temperatures beyond the equatorial Pacific.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:43 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Mr Hurst,
For sea ice info, the 2 best sites I know are NSIDC and Cryophere Today. The comparator function on Cryosphere today is especially handy. I also like their representation of the ice cover with color coding of the coverage density better than the simple "extent" used by NSIDC. For ice volume, PIOMAS is one of the best sources. The Alfre Weggener Institute has also very good information on sea ice.
Arctic summer sea ice has beaten record lows in 2005, 2007 and 2012. Every time, the record was beaten by a very large margin. Every time, the pseudo-skeptics have nothing but nonsense to say about it. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice is a feature of global warming that had been seriously understimated. It is a "in your face" kind of indicator that can be helpful to convince policymakers to do something about the problem. Hence the tone of some remarks you may read on blogs. Not to mention the fact that pseudo-skeptics claim a recovery is under way every year that the prevoous record low is not broken.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/
-
Ashton at 23:27 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
My apologies in line one I wrote "Arctic sea ice area" That should read Arctic sea ice volume.
-
wili at 23:26 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Edward, you're of course free to go where you want for your info, but you are dismissing neven's blog too prematurely, it seems to me. It's a blog, of course, so there are a variety of voices, and they are real people, so they have a variety of emotional responses to what they are seeing (I see little evidence of your claim that people there 'want' the ice to melt, but they do get excited about dramatic events--a very human response). But mostly they are very concerned about getting an accurate picture of what is going on and they usually keep each other in check if someone is making claims not supported by the data.
If you want general info on climate change, RealClimate is also quite good. The main posts are generally written by scientists. But again, the blog section is full of comments by people with a variety of view points and levels of knowledge.
Skeptical Science is another go-to for me.
-
Ashton at 23:22 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
I looked at Neven's sea ice blog (linked by Glenn Tamblyn @5 above) and was fascinated by this comment referring to the slow decline in sea ice area. The comment is made in context that arctic sea ice may not show a record low level in 2014 and may in fact be greater than all of the other post 2010 years. The comment to which I refer is;
"And so it might be possible for this melting season to end up in the top 3, despite its bad start and lack of melt ponds.
But for that to happen, a lot of weather that's conducive to melt, transport and compaction is needed.
It seems very strange in view of the apparent concern that is shown about the lack of decline in Arctic sea ice volume that the writer should consider it a "bad start" that ice volume might well not be declining. Surely this is good unless there are reasons why increases in Arctic sea ice volume are a bad thing. From this comment one could conjecture that the author considers a lack of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is not good for the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Of course that is merely conjecture and I'm sure there must be some other explanation for this extraordinary remark. However it this comment from John Christianson in the comments section of the blog also tends to make one suspect that surprisingly the slow drop in Arctic ice volume may not seen as a blessing by everyone. Christiansen writes:
The colder June temperatures are the main culprit in the slow volume drop.
"Culprit" seems an unusual choice in the context of a possible halt in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume. Can anyone explain why a slowdown in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume warrants the concern indicated by the wording of these comments?
Moderator Response:[JH] You should pose your question to the commenter on Neven's sea ice blog, not here.
-
chriskoz at 22:41 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Tom@260,
Indeed i ran the GEOCARB model just like your did, except I increased the Degas rate just twice (15E12 mol/y) as my own experiment (Burton et al value maybe an overestimate). I also increased land area twice so that degassing and ingassing (shown as "WeatS") be in balanace which was my implicit assumption that I forgot to state in my previous comment (sorry). Then I compared the pCO2 output with the default run.
Hint for those who play with this model online: in between two runs, you can hit "save model run in background" button and all your graphs will be duplicated (the other run values will be displayed as "pCO2 alt", "WeatS alt" etc.), and you can compare the two runs superimposed.
So comparing the pCO2 of my two runs, in say 500y timeframe, the difference is 413 (default) vs. 401 (mine), i.e. 12ppm only. In 1000y the difference is 372 vs. 356, therefore more. In 10ky, it is 319 vs. 307 which is still more in terms of climate forcing. As expected, the stronger degassing/ingassing exchange has signifficant influence on atmospheric carbon carbon slug decline in long term (>1000y) only.
-
edward hurst at 21:08 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Thankyou Glenn for your kind information. I have looked at the blog you suggest however find it "wanting" the ice to melt. It is important that I have a source of accurate information regarding Ice, sea level rise, global temperatures, precipitation rates etc.
I seek the truth without bias in any direction so as to be able to compare with a response I am expecting from Paul Wheelhouse the Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate change.
This is an important exercise as some very critical decisions that can effect the people and economy of a nation are reliant on the information available. On this matter if you can also point me in the right direction for the other climate parameters mentioned above it would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Edward
-
MA Rodger at 20:44 PM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom Curtis @140.
Just to correct you because 'mathematical ontology' is something with ligitimate philosophical basis.
It is "ontological mathematics" that JPostma is rabbiting on about in that paper. Until just now, I assumed he didn't understand what ontology means because to suggest that reality actually consists of mathematics (or "absolute logic" in JPostma's preferred description), to sign up to the "In the beginning there was zero" stuff, that belongs in the lunatic asylum. I say 'until just now' because a quick web search confirms JPostma truly doesn't understand what ontlogy means but it also showed he is actually fully signed up to the "In the beginning there was zero" stuff. Scary.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:52 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Edward
Try Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog . It has lots of links to many sources including Cryosphere Today. And some of the regulars there are pretty cluey about the Arctic and sea ice.
-
edward hurst at 18:22 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Is the site 'The Cryosphere Today' the correct place to go to look at what is actually happening at the earth's poles? They have some graphs that seem very clear and helpful. If it is providing a realistic portrayal of what is going on can I use that site for reference when reading your posts?
As a latecomer to the climate issues I would very much appreciate your help so I can come to a balanced opinion.
Thank you so much for your help.
Edward
-
Tom Curtis at 16:25 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
chriskoz @259, I am not sure what you did with the online model. I increased the volcanic degassing to 27.5 terra moles per annum (the value arrived at in Burton et al), and increased land area by the same factor (3.67) to set the default ingassing level to the same value. Doing so I arrived at the same result that you did. I noticed, however, that after 1000 years, the CO2 level was still 338 ppmv (24% increase; 1.15 W/m^2 forcing), and that it was 412 ppmv (51% increas; 2.2 W/m^2 forcing) afer 400 years. At a time scale where long term feedbacks are starting to be significant, these are still significant forcings. Further, the 1000 Gtc slug used here is the trillion tonnes of carbon target that is commonly accepted to maintain temperature increases below 2 C. That is, it is the policy target we are very far from achieving. Increasing the slug to 2000 Gtc increases the CO2 concentration to 554 ppmv (100% increase; 3.7 W/m^2 forcing) in 400 years, to 417 ppmv in 1000 years (53% increase; 2.3 W/m^2 forcing), and 322 ppmv in 10,000 years (18% increase; 0.9 W/m^2 forcing). Clearly if we overshoot the 1000 Gtc mark, this salvation comes to late and to slowly to be of much use.
Further, this estimate of geophysical outgassing is significantly greater than current estimates of ingassing. It may be that those estimates will also be revised upwards in future; but it is as likely that future estimates of geophysical outgassing will be revised down towards the current ingassing estimates of 403 to 515 Mt CO2 per annum (the two figures cited by Burton et al). That would still represent a substantial increase over over previous estimates of geophysical outgassing, but just half of the Burton et al estimate.
It may, of course, be that both the ingassing and outgassing estimates are accurate, and that there is an imbalance between the two. That, however, would be bad news in the long term as it would indicate the current high outgassing levels to be an aberration, not likely to last long, and likely to permanently raise CO2 levels if they do. It is the presumed increase in ingassing that is the good news, not the increased rate of degassing. And even that is only good news in the very long term, humanly speaking. (I am certain you are aware of these nuances, but think they are worth clariffying for others.)
-
chriskoz at 14:21 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
CO2 degassing rate by volcanoes does have implications on our understanding of long-tail of antropogenic CO2 slug (i.e. the rate of CO2 sequestration by silicate thermostat or rock weathering).
For example GEOCAB model from UChicago has default parameters of co2 degassing (both Spinup & Simulation) as 7.5E12 mol/y, which is 0.1GtC/y - 1/100 of human emmisions. With such assumption, the GEOCARB simulation of the 1000GtC initial slug ver 10ky, yields the final pCO2 as 319ppm, which is 1.17 times the initial value of 272ppm before Spinup. In other words, 17% of the original C slug remains in the atmosphere after 10ky according to GEOCARB.
Now, if you keep everything the same but increase the CO2 degassing (both Spinup & Simulation), say twice to 15E12 mol/y closer to the latest figures discussed herein, then the final pCO2 value reported by GEOCARB will be 1.07 times the initial value, i.e. only 7% of the original C slug would remain in the atmosphere after 10ky.
So, we can see that increased natural degessing rate would signifficantly shorten the 'long tail' of CO2, now commonly tought to be 'at least 100ky', to something less, say 50ky. Which is good news for the possibility of earth's recovery, maybe the sixth mass exctinction will be avoided. But within human timescale, such correction is irrelevant because 50ky as 100ky, is still "essencially forever".
-
Arnold Ziffel at 13:40 PM on 19 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
"highest wind speed ever assigned to a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds estimated to be 196 miles per hour"
wow
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:06 PM on 19 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
WRyan, One more piece of information that mayhelp understand the temporary but significant influence of the swings between El Nino and La Nina is the amount of change of average ocean surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific.
The ENSO values are presented by NOAA as the ONI (Ocean Nino Index), along with explanations of how they are evaluated. The variation in the average surface temperature of the equatorial Pacific Ocean is as much as 4 degrees C. That is why a stong El Nno or La Nina can temporarily result in a significant shift of the global average temperature from the ONI Neutral condition.
-
scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Postma was the original "we can explain planetary temperature without GHE" maths wasnt he, using lapse rate as an independent variable?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:07 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
One thing I wanted to draw attention to earlier in the discussion, but never got around to, is that Postma appears to believe in the greenhouse effect. In his post @33, he writes in response to Composer99:
""Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived."
Of course, that law is discussed at length in my papers and has even made its appearance here, in worded form. I am sorry if you missed that. Indeed, it sets the effective temperature of the Earth - but this is not to be thought of as appearing at the ground surface, but somewhere in the middle of the atmosphere."
(Postma's quote of Composer99 italicized. Emphasis added.)
This may not be sufficiently clear, but in his 2nd summary statement in the paper I have been previously quoting, he writes:
"Even as the climate models show, an increase in cloud height causes an increase in temperature at the surface. This is not due to a backradiation GHE but due to the lapse rate of the atmosphere combined with the average surface of equilibrium being risen further off of the surface."
In fact, that is the exact mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases absorbe IR radiation from the ground, and re-emit it at a higher altitude, thus raising into the atmosphere the level which effectively radiates to space the same energy as is absorbed from the Sun. That in turn sets the surface temperature, for tropospheric and surface temperatures are coupled by the lapse rate. I have explained this in more detail (and hopefully greater clarity elsewhere).
Postma may not accept the greenhouse on this effect, claiming he only admits the effects of clouds as raising the "surface of equilibrium". If so, his theory is incoherent in that clouds are not sufficient to the task. Specifically, the equilibrium calculation excludes all energy reflected from the Earth, and so the altitude at which it is reflected has no bearing.
If he accepts that the IR radiation from greenhouse gases also contributes to setting the "surface of equilibrium", he is in the position of actually accepting the greenhouse effect, but rejecting its consequences (and it by name) because of his misunderstandings of a simplified model used only for teaching.
-
barry1487 at 10:53 AM on 19 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
Not sure how to read this.
"Near the end of the year, the South Pole had its highest annual temperature since records began in 1957."
I'll get stuck into the report later in the day.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @138, I think the key thing about Cotton's views is the claim that the energy from the cooler object is not turned into thermal energy. Thermal energy consists of the vibrations, oscillations and non-coordinated motion within the body or gas. If the radiant energy is not converted into thermal energy, it must be immediately reradiated from the molecule that absorbed it. Nor can this be a kind of defuse reflection in that such reflection would be in addition to the thermal radiation of the cooler body.
In interpreting Postma, it is important to note that he endorses this non-thermalization hypothesis in the lead in to the Cotton quote. He writes:
"The problem with the materialist objections is that they think of photons as busy little balls of energy which have to deposit their energy as heat into whatever they interact with, whereas a photon is actually a quantum particle that obeys wave mechanics. They are not tiny little balls of heat that have to do something that you think you would feel with sense perception…there are higher principles governing things."
He is definitely rejecting, therefore, the notion that there is a transfer of thermal energy from the cooler body to the warmer body by the photons emitted by the former and absorbed by the later. There is "... a higher principle governing these things", which higher principle turns out to be a mind/number duality so long as, "mind" is understood in terms of "mental idealism" and number is understood in terms of "mathematical ontological" (I kid you not).
(As a side note, it turns out that Postma's views on climate are a consequence of a philosophy which appears to be formed by mashing together ill defined concepts and mistaking the outcome as wisdom because of their ill defined nature. Search for "ontological" in his paper to find the details.)
Prev 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Next
