Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 Next
Comments 36051 to 36100:
-
Razo at 01:13 AM on 1 June 2014Models are unreliable
Although, to be complete, theses solutions ^, do get tested and conditioned to work reasonably well under normal circomstances, ie hindcasting. However this is the mathematically equivalent of rigging it with duct tape. Certainly for highly non linear equations, like NSE, this is not good for extrapolation.
-
Razo at 01:05 AM on 1 June 2014Models are unreliable
Reduced integration techniques are a good example of how researchers can BS themselves for years, just to get papers published (which I will eplain). So the analytical solution is a series of sines and cosines. One tries to approximate the solution using a third order polynimial, obviously in small segments to reduce the error. They use three gausss points (? i dont remeber) for each axis to integrate their equations. Their results are crap. So they just remove a Gauss point and say it has ceratin advantages. Another resaercher removes another Gauss points and says it has some advantages and some problems. They create word like 'shear locking' or 'zero energy mode'--how about 'wrong solution'? This goes on for 20 years and thousands of papers. Meanwhile the pile of paper of what you have to learn gets higher and these methods are put in commercial programs. The next generation of people have fanciful intellectual musings on what a 'zero-energy' mode is, because the pile of paers is so full of crap and the fact that its the 'wrong solution' is lost.
-
Razo at 00:46 AM on 1 June 2014Models are unreliable
Saying that models are mathematically representative of interactions in the climate, is far to simple a statement. As I understand, they basically numerically integrate Navier Stokes Equations (NSE). While NSE are quite complete, integrating them is no simple minded task. Grid size, time steps, and most importatnly boundary and starting condidtions have a big effect on the model's results. Also there are many constants, linear and non linear, that may only be described in limited or aproximate way, or omitted.
Hindcasting is of course a practicle method of checking all the assumption, but it does not guarantee results. It is entirely possible that thousands of papers can be written all using limited and poor models for constants and make bad assumptions, only refering to the work of another reseacher. For example, people numerically intgrate equations that describe reinforced concrete. They describe cracks as a softening and ignore aggregate interlock. Engineers forget when the limits of these assumtions are reached; normally they just add more steel to be safe.
It also been all over the news now that temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years.I realize the oceans are storing heat, and their are trade winds, and that this post started years ago, neverthess average tempratures are not rising. Also early models could not predict trade winds! What, they don`t have oceans either? We have waited now 20 years and the models are wrong. So it seems that although tested with hindcasting on data that showed increasing temperatures, the models could not predict the temperatures staying constant.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - The news, in general, is hardly a reliable source of information. Some news media organizations seem little concerned with things such as facts.
Yes, the rate of surface warming has been slower in the last 16-17 years, but it has warmed in all datasets apart from the RSS satellite data - see the SkS Trend calculator on the left-hand side of the page.
As for hindcasts see: Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming.
-
Razo at 00:21 AM on 1 June 2014There's no empirical evidence
Few deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that the atmosphere traps heat, or that people produce CO2 (i don't care if some do it doesn't matter in analyzing the science). Thats not the question. It seems to me what is presented here is justification to propose the hypothesis, not emperical proof that man is causing climate change. I think this is all basic science of many years ago and all the research in global warmimg would not be necessary if this rebutttal was indeed proof. The question is 'what impact does man's CO2 producction have' and thus 'emperical evidence of his impact on climate change'. So the rebuttal doesn't answer the question.
A couple other points, the graph shows methane as not being less significant. I have heard otherwise recently; that CH4 is 10 times worse than CO2. But Im a little confuced about the methan arguement, becasue methane is heavy, and would stay near the surface.
The question also implies the issue of quality of numerical models. Saying they are mathematically representative of interactions in the climate, is far to simple a statement. As I understan they numerically integrate Navier Stokes Equations (NSE). While NSE are quite complete, integrating them is no simple minded task.
It also been all over the news now that temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years.I realize the oceans are storing heat, and their are trade winds, and that this post started 4 years ago, neverthess average tempratures are not rising.
-
chriskoz at 23:14 PM on 31 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
MThompson@5,
I believe the blog writer is somewhat confused about the difference in the terms 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change'
Really? The definition of the terms in the article:
"Global warming refers to the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change," Yale University researcher Anthony Leiserowitz and colleagues wrote in the new report, "whereas climate change refers to the long-term change of the Earth's climate, including changes in temperature, precipitation and wind patterns over a period of several decades or longer."
Sounds correct and perfectly clear to me. What's wrong with that definiton, or where is the "confusion about the difference", according to you?
Maybe, judging from the rest of your post, you disagree about the interchangeable use of the two terms rather that their definitions. But in that case, it's just your opinion which has no bearing on the integrity of the aticle and its author. Please clarify.
-
chriskoz at 22:53 PM on 31 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
SeaHuck5891@4,
You're correct that this is "distraction from Arctic collapse". But it is not distortion. Antarctic is indeed gaining sea ice but the gain has no "colling effect" at all, and in fact it is paradoxically, partially related to the melting of AIS...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
-
LazyTeenager at 22:46 PM on 31 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Weeeelll , I think we should defer to the expertise of Anthony Watts. Just compare the number of peer reviewed papers he asks his minions to disparage, to the number of peer reviewed papers he asks them to applaud. I am taking bets the ratio is close to 97%.
-
dr2chase at 22:29 PM on 31 May 2014Global warming and the vulnerability of Greenland's ice sheet
The problem with the IPCC reports is that they are biased to be too conservative. If they were literally, mathematically unbiased, half the time they would hit high, half the time they would hit low. We don't see that. Three obvious reasons are that humans tend to be biased in the conservative direction, the scientific process is biased in the conservative direction (default assumption is that nothing new is happening), and that for reasons of credibility in the face of "skeptics", I think the IPCC attempts to never overpredict. This sort of cascaded filtering is nothing new; there are examples of companies that failed because a CEO inclined to "shoot the messenger" successfully created his own little bubble of misinformation, till reality intruded.
But if the IPCC was literally and accurately unbiased, about half their predictions would fall short as new data arrived. There's things where we can look and say "that won't happen" — we know the ice caps won't melt quickly in place, because physics tells us so pretty directly. But otherwise, it would be nice to see predictions that were based on sound science, yet not artificially muted by pervasive conservatism. (I assume this is what we're getting from Hansen, which is why he sounds so much more alarmed than the IPCC.)
-
chriskoz at 22:25 PM on 31 May 2014Global warming and the vulnerability of Greenland's ice sheet
wili@1,
The study in question does not try to quantify the GIS contribution to SLR nor the prediction of its contribution (in the abstract and press releases I only have access to).
The Antarctic study you're most likely referring to (McMillan 2014), quantifies the current total Atntarctic contribution from recent satelite altimetry as 160Gt/y, equiv. to 0.45mm (central value). Recalling the AR5 number for Antarctic ice sheet contribution: 0.27mm/y, we can clearly see that AR5 has been substantially outdated as (McMillan 2014) increases it by some 70%. We know that IPCC findings about SLR outdate quickly, so no surprise here.
I think the increase of AIS loss rate comparing to AR5 is nothing new, considering e.g. (Hansen 2012) who predicted sustained doubling of icesheet melt rate every 7-10 years with SLR up to 5m by 2010. I think Hansen based his prediction on GIS data but I don't know the recent GIS melt data, apart its contribution is just slightly higher (0.33mm/y by AR5). AIS melt rate in (McMillan 2014) seems to be somewhat slower than (Hansen 2012) prediction, if it can be a bit of consolation. That is just my very rough interpolation: in order to verify if Hansen 2012 was correct, we need to wait a couple decades (if we are young enough).
To put the current IS melt contribution to SLR in perspective, it's worth remembering they are still quite behind the main contributors:
- thermal ocean expansion due to warming: 1.1 (0.8 to 1.4) mm/y
- glaciers: 0.76 (0.39 to 1.13) mm/y
and based on that numbers, IS will not become dominant contributor for another 20y or so, even according to somewhat overestimated prediction by Hansen.
-
MThompson at 21:56 PM on 31 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Regarding 'Global Warming' scarier than 'Climate Change,' surveys find, I believe the blog writer is somewhat confused about the difference in the terms. Do you believe that these two are synonymous? I think that the consensus of commenters on this site is that both are happening, both are quantifiable and both portend catastrophe. Even so, these concepts are not the same thing, though the belief is that they are linked. The aforementioned article's blogger does a disservice to the climate-concerned community by suggesting at the end of the article that scientist should be aware of the different responses elicited by the different terms. I would infer that the preferred terminology would be "global warming," in order to "scare" the most people. Is this an intentioned implication, and should climate scientists make sure to be as scary as possible in their publications? If so, then they should also clearly state in their abstract that the results of the study support the consensus belief that global warming is accelerating and that is being caused primarily by human emissions of carbon dioxide?
-
SeaHuck5891 at 21:09 PM on 31 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Saw this article floating around social media the other day. My guess is it is a distortion, or at the least a distraction from Arctic collapse, but is there a more scientific response someone can point me to?
-
Dean at 21:00 PM on 31 May 2014Global warming and the vulnerability of Greenland's ice sheet
I think this shows a few problems with the IPCC reports and using them as THE reference for assessments. First, new research is coming out fast, changing previous conclusions (as above) and 7 years is a long time. Then (and related) the ESLD effect might have affected estimates of ice sheets and sea level rise. IPCC AR4 was quite far off at the low side but also IPCC AR5 gave a lower value than the average expert: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/ and www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/comparisonofsealevelprojections
OK, that estimates are changing with time is in principle a normal part of the scientific progress and not in itself a proof of any bias. But the tendence has been that new (dynamical) effects are added with time, increasing estimates, which is the problem with bottom-up approaches. And IPCC AR5 dismissed the semi-empirical approaches in favour of the process-based, but they now seems to be the more realistic.
-
wili at 06:29 AM on 31 May 2014Global warming and the vulnerability of Greenland's ice sheet
Thanks lots for posting this. Do we have any idea about how much this particular dynamic might increase the rate of sea level rise in the next few decades? A little? A lot? Not at all?
If even a little, how does this, plus what we have learned about WAIS change our understanding of likely sea level rise in the next few decades and by the end of the century? This is a questions of vital concern to the hundreds of millions living in directly vulnerable areas, and really, to everyone one on earth, since nearly all will likely be affected one way or the other by the wrenching changes needed to deal with the evacuations of these areas.
So any light anyone can throw on these questions would be most welcome.
-
CBlargh at 04:17 AM on 31 May 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Your Moerner and Etiope and Kerrick links are dead.
-
howardlee at 00:44 AM on 31 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Leland @30 - I know that conventionally volcanic CO2 is not considered sufficiently isotopically light to explain the strong -ve Carbon isotope excursions. So hydrates are commonly pointed to as a likely source of light carbon. Others point to the geothermal baking of organic-rich sediments releasing high volumes of light carbon. Still others point to crustal melting and mixing with plume magma generating the volumes of light carbon. We also know that the geochemistry of these deepest-mantle-derived magmas is a little different from more shallow-melted magma.
Personally, I'm slightly skeptical of the hydrate idea as the initial driver of the ancient global warming events because the rapid, strong warming points to the initial atmospheric buildup of carbon (CO2/methane) faster than surface ocean/biosphere can buffer the changes (ie centuries to a few millennia at most). IPCC AR5 points to uncertain but expected slow (millennial-scale) release of hydrates, then slow subsequent release of methane from the sea to the atmosphere (see p 531 of the report - warning large pdf). Also recent observations suggest that microbial metabolism would mitigate ocean methane release somewhat.
The "tripple point" shallow hydrates you refer to may indeed be more responsive, and affect the same shallow ocean reservoir that would be saturated by volcanic CO2 and geothermal methane/CO2.
Given the magnitude of the temperature changes observed for these ancient events and the difficulty in resolving dates under about 2,000 years, it seems likely that a cascade of knock-on effects unfolded after the initial perturbation of the system. Hydrates and permafrost methane release would - in my personal view - be triggered as a response to the initial volcanic/geothermal carbon-shock global warming. I recall somewhere related to the Permian extinction that there are multiple isotopic kicks in a very expanded geological exposure which supports the idea of various carbon reservoirs being released in sucession, but I can't find the paper right now. There was also a good paper suggesting that the Eocene hyperthermals after the PETM were driven by permafrost melting at orbital pacing (ie a long tail feedback, long after the initial carbon shock of the PETM - which I am personally convinced was triggered by the North Atlantic LIP).
The suggestion that such huge and long-lasting feedbacks could be triggered by an initial carbon-shock of sufficient rate and magnitude (at rates similar to or slower than today) is truly scary to me.
-
Doug10673 at 20:54 PM on 30 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Of the two or three percent of climate scientists that don't "believe" in man made global warming, how many of them don't deny it, but instead just don't think there's enough evidence yet to make the claim? In other words, we always assume that the two of three percent firmly reject man made global warming, but is that really the case? Perhaps the figure is much lower than the already very low two or three percent, that categorically reject manmade global warming. There may be a very high percentage within the two or three percent, that believe we may be behind the warming. Perhaps Skeptical Science should do a post on that.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - See The Consensus Project (TCP) at the top of the page. Those classified as rejections include papers which minimize the role of humans in global warming and therefore ascribe the bulk of warming to other unexplained forces.
-
Leland Palmer at 13:51 PM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
howardlee @26-
Wow, that's a great list, thanks. Best I've ever seen. :)
So there are isotope excursions at a coincident time and in the correct direction to fit the flood basalt erruption / methane and CO2 release / oceanic acidification and anoxia general theory of most mass extinction events.
It appears now that there is a subclass of methane hydrates that might be dramatically less stable than most methane hydrates are - high salt "triple point" hydrates.
DYNAMICS OF SHALLOW MARINE GAS HYDRATE
AND FREE GAS SYSTEMS- Xaoli Liu (Thesis)"We show that the hydrate system at South Hydrate Ridge is already
everywhere at the three-phase boundary, and therefore it is highly sensitive to changes in ambient conditions, offering a mechanism for rapid release of methane from gas hydrate deposits." [page 2]Other scientists including Peter Flemmings are starting to write about these high salt hydrates. Models of the high salt hydrates tend to confirm Xaoli Liu's predictions.
These hydrates appear to be at the triple point of the hydrate/methane gas/sea water system. This would result in extreme temperature sensitivity and gas phase transport of methane within the high salt region. These high salt methane hydrate deposits, in combination with albedo change from loss of sea ice and permafrost rotting, could act as a bridge between mild CO2 based warming and massive hydrate dissociation.
The high salt concentrations in these sediments would normally be diluted out by diffusion into surrounding sea water and low salt sediments. The salt is generated by the well known "purification by crystallization" process in which the methane hydrates tend to exclude salt from their crystal structure when they crystallize out, leaving the salt behind in the sediments. So, a continuous flow of methane gas from deeper in the deposit is necessary to sustain these high salt triple point hydrates, before the salt diffuses away.
The need for a continuous flow of methane tends to put the high salt deposits in pinnacles at the top of the hydrate formations - in deposits at the top of the hydrate stability zone. So the relative shallowness of these deposits may make them more vulnerable to temperature changes.
These high salt deposits are in principle detectable by seismic mapping - there is a blank looking "wipeout zone" created by free diffusion of gas beneath a methane producing pinnacle.
So, just by looking again at existing sonic mapping data, we could in principle discover just how common these high salt methane hydrate deposits are, and determine how likely they are to push the climate system past tipping points into low level (?) runaway global warming.
-
mancan18 at 11:02 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Thanks howardlee
-
Joel_Huberman at 09:57 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Thanks to billthefrog @ 11 and howardlee @12 for their helpful, informative responses to my comment about the Snowball Earth web site @ 10. And thanks to everyone @1-27 for a wealth of fascinating information about paleoclimatology!
-
John Hartz at 09:44 AM on 30 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
ubrew12: You seem to have missed the point of the article and the purpose of the two surveys it summarizes.
-
scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 30 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Kernos - Wikipedia has a list here. You will note a preponderance of non-climate scientists in that list as well as a large no. who have "gone emeritus". Inside that list, I would say only Lindzen, Spenser, Christy, and Chylek have any scientific chops in the field worth considering. I dont think any of these 4 are into denying physics, though some of the "natural causes" arguments push Conservation of Energy pretty hard. I also do not think that they have published hypotheses that have not been discredited in the published literature. Corrections welcome.
-
ubrew12 at 06:31 AM on 30 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Reading that LiveScience article ('Global Warming' scarier than 'Climate Change,' surveys find) I got the distinct image of people rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
-
Anthony10658 at 06:17 AM on 30 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
What bothers me is the lack of common sense in the people who argue against global warming. They either hide behind kindergarden reasoning, "we had the coldest winter on record" or contrariantism for the sake of it. CO2 is created added to our atmosphere. As that happens the atomsphere gets warmer. Let's say in the old days most CO2 came from animal farts, decomp and lightening strike forest fires. Well clearly since the industrial revolution, we (humans and our by-product industries) have been contributing a lot more CO2 year after year. If you want to argue that it is to late to stop, or that we will be just fine if oceans rise, great. But why disagree with the obvious?
-
BojanD at 05:57 AM on 30 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
Tom, your last point is excellent. I've just checked the robustness of the consensus figure by flipping numbers between 3rd and 4th category and they are indeed very stable and well above 90% even in most extreme cases.
The discussion about operational definition is not so compelling to me, though. I'm not even sure where the alleged problem of exclusion comes from, but I admit the methodology of such studies is not my bag. If the goal is to get a lower bound of a consensus I don't see an inconsistency. Cook et al. found an upper bound and that was my problem, but since this figure is very inelastic, that's ok for me. Looks like I've given the guy I was discussing with too much credit. ;) Thx for clarification.
-
wili at 04:54 AM on 30 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Thanks for another week of well selected articles. Here's my nomination for the next "toon of the week": http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1190cbCOMIC-climate-change-deniers.jpg
Moderator Response:[JH] Thaks for the positive feedback and the suggested cartoon.
-
John Hartz at 03:39 AM on 30 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
SteveFunk:
The Oregon Petition also includes the names of people who have passed away. There's no way to ascertain whether someone who signed the petition a decade ago and subsequently died would hold the same opinion today given the amount of scientific evidence that has accumulated over the past decade.
-
howardlee at 02:25 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
mancan18 @13 - Regarding the link between continental breakup, volcanic activity and these LIP & extinction episodes:
LIPs do seem, tentatively, to be concentrated at times when continents are breaking up. But they are caused by mantle plumes that extend from the core-mantle boundary, and not directly with the regular continental drift process.
It's important to emphasise that these LIP monsters totally dwarf any volcanic eruption ever witnessed by humans. In recent decades the total combined annual volcanic greenhouse gas emissions, including undersea volcanics and mid-ocean ridges, are equivalent to the annual emissions of a single state like Ohio or Michigan.
There is an association between long-term CO2 levels, climate, and the total length of subduction zones at any given point in geological time. But the climate is complex, and other factors (rock weathering rates related to mountain building, ocean currents related to continent configuration, life innovations, asteroid impacts...) all interact and play a role in global climate.
-
howardlee at 02:02 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Leland @24 from the Jourdan et al paper: "the Stage 4–5 transition is associated with a global sea-level rise and negative δ13C and positive δ34S excursions recorded in stratigraphic sections worldwide (e.g., Montañez et al., 2000; Hough et al., 2006)." [stage 4-5 is the same time as Kalkarindji.]
Yes we see a pattern of such events. Here's a list grabbed from a couple of papers - note that the dating of some of the events is better than others. The coincidence of LIP and Mass Extinction/Climate event is strongest where the latest high-precision dating has been applied (Permian, Triassic, Mid-Cambrian).
LIP event /extinction or climate event:
Columba River 17ma (Mid Miocene Climate Optimum)
Yemen/Afar 31ma (none?)
North Atlantic 62/56ma ?PETM/Hyperthermals?
Deccan Traps 66ma (Cretaceous extinction precursor)
Sierra Leone 70ma (?)
Caribbean 90ma (Cenomanian/Turonian Anoxic Event);
Madagascar 90Ma (ditto)
Hess Rise 100ma (?)
SE Africa/Maud/Georgia 100ma (?)
Kerguelen 120ma (?Aptian)
Ontong Java 122ma (Aptian Anoxic Event);
High Arctic LIP 130ma
Parana-Etendeka 132ma
Shatsky Rise 145ma
Karoo-Ferrar-Dronning Maud Land 183ma (Toarcian OAE)
Central Atlantic 201 (Triassic Mass Extinction)
Angayucham 210ma (?)
Siberian Traps 252ma (Permian Mass Extinction)
Emeishan traps 260ma (end Guadaloupian extinction)
Tarim 280ma (none?)
Skagerrak- Barguzin–Vitim - Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (Moscovian and Kasimovian stages);
Viluy - End Tournasian;
Pripyat–Dniepr–Donets - End Famennian–end Frasnian;
Kola/Kontogero - End Frasnian;
Altay–Sayan - End Silurian (?);
Ogcheon S Korea - End Ordovician?;
Central Asian intraplate magmatism - End Late Cambrian;
Kalkarindji - End Early Cambrian;
Volyn - End Ediacaran;(From Kravchinsky 2012 & Bryan and Ferrari 2013) ma= million years ago.
-
howardlee at 01:35 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Billthefrog @16 wow, there's a lot in there! I'll do my best...
The Faint Young Sun Paradox is still just that - a paradox. We know from sediments at the time that there was liquid water and normal sedimentary processes, so the Earth was not frozen solid. The work of William Moore shows that very early Earth was essentially in Large Igneous Province mode all the time. There was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere as plate tectonics handn't started yet (subduction started ~3.2 billion years ago) so the world was basically covered in volcanic islands, but lacked the large mountain ranges and surface area for weathering to draw down CO2 so fast. Yet experiments on fossil raindrops suggest the atmosphere was not so dense, so alternative atmospheric gas mixes have been inferred. We also know the oceans had about 26% more water in them, so the Earth's albedo was likely much lower. By the time of the ice ages @2.9, & 2.5Ga, subduction had started and continents had grown, and oceans had reduced somewhat, but until oxygen arrived the atmosphere was methane-rich. There's much more than I can fit here and it is still an area of ongoing research, and there has even been a suggestion that the sun back then might have been 5% larger (effectively negating the faint young sun paradox).
Regarding the slow decline of CO2 and temperatures since the Eocene hyperthermals, see this post. This decline has been correlated with a reduction in subduction zone length by Prof Zeebe and others. One critical event was the marooning of Antarctica by continental drift and the establishment of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current 33.5-30 million years ago, but increased weathering (Hymalayas, Andes) had a role. I reccomend THE book on the subject: "Earth's Climate Past and Future" by Bill Ruddiman. Hope this goes some way to answering your post.
-
SteveFunk at 01:21 AM on 30 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
About 15 million people in the US have science or engineering degrees, excluding social science, according to this census source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-18.pdf And since the Oregon petition has been around since 1997, it surely includes a lot of people who were once skeptics but are not now, as well as fake names.
-
Leland Palmer at 00:57 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Many of these extinction events are associated with a Carbon Isotope Excursion (CIE)- a surge in C12 enriched carbon into the active carbon cycle. This C12 enriched (C13 depleted) surge of carbon is best explained by the dissociation of several trillion tons of methane hydrates, many scientists think.
The carbon isotope excursions, the oceanic anoxia, and the low level runaway climate change can all be tied together into a general theory of most mass extinction events, triggered by these flood basalt erruptions and subsequent release of methane from the hydrates.
So, now this middle Cambrian extinction joins this list, it appears. The paper is behind a pay wall, though. Does anyone know if there is a carbon isotope excursion associated with this extinction, and if so does anyone have a link to a paper claiming a coincident CIE associated with this extinction event?
A classic paper on the End Permian mass extinction and the probable role of methane release in that extinction is here:
How to kill (almost) all life - the end-Permian extinction event
" The extinction
model involves global warming by 6 degrees C and huge input
of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system
from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates,
leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop,
the ‘runaway greenhouse’." -
howardlee at 00:54 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Tom Curtis @ 15 - I concur. Thanks!
-
howardlee at 00:52 AM on 30 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Chriskoz @20 - That quote is direct from Jourdan et al's paper. The supplementary data can be found at ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2014/2014190.pdf. see p 15 for randomness calculation.
They admit it is a "crude estimate" but go on to say: "Nevertheless, this series of
calculations suffice to demonstrate that the mass extinctions – LIP association cannot be due to chance with a probability of 6x10-9 % that the synchronicity between LIPs and mass extinctions is random." -
jgnfld at 23:13 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
austratsua @4:
It's always nice to be "lectured" on how science _really_ works!
1. Deniers deny. It's a simple, apt, descriptive adjective. And, it's far more apt than "alarmist" as the peer reviewed, scientific literature is remarkably free of alarmism. This can be contrasted to denier blogs stating "the economy will be destroyed" etc. if anything whatever besides business as normal is attempted. All the while ignoring that business as normal carries its own costs which may well "destroy" various parts of various economies, of course.2. Your explanation of how "science progresses by criticism" starts at the wrong place and comes to wrong conclusions. Heliocentrism did not change the course of the planets in the slightest. What heliocentrism did was allow more accurate, easier calculations. Evolution did not change how genes change over time. What evolution does is provide a nice framework for understanding these changes. There is simply NO _theory_ that is going to come along and suddenly make the Earth cool. What could make the Earth cool is various events and processes that are not presently occurring.
3. You don't "criticize" the fact that an apple falls when you drop it any more than you criticize the position of Mars in the sky. You criticize an explanation of why it drops or where the planet appears in celestial coordinates. And interestingly, physicists have really poor explanations--as opposed to very accurate descriptions--of exactly why that apple falls or planet moves.
4. I suggest people taking real science courses from a real scientific sources really do understand the scientific process and the role of criticism within it.
-
Kernos at 22:49 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Who are the 3% of climate scientists who deny AGW and what are their reasons?
-
Jim Hunt at 22:31 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
For the latest news on the consensus amongst IPCC contributing climate scientists see:
"Transformational Climate Science"
Professor Peter Cox of Exeter University "provocatively" states that:Is it still possible to avoid 2 degrees using conventional mitigation? In fact it's likely to be blown out of the water!
-
mancan18 at 20:25 PM on 29 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Thanks Tom
Thanks scaddenp
-
Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
austratsua @4:
"Are you seriously suggesting that the the earth's climate is as well understood as the heliocentric theory or evolution?"
No, they were not. They were denying that a sample of explicit endorsements as a percentage of the entire literature can quantify the level of agreement among scientists with a theory. Such a method applied to any scientific literature would fail, which is why it is necessary to quantify all endorsements (explicit and implicity) as a percentage of all endorsements plus rejections (explicit and implicit).
Your use of a puerile strawman to distract from the logic of the argument is noted.
'"if the 97% expert consensus is right, it means we’re in for several more degrees of global warming if we continue on a business-as-usual path." This is false. The consensus quoted in your paper said nothing about how much the world will warm in the next century.'
Having taken a stand for emperical science in your first determined attempt at distracting (see my prior post), you now forget that emperical study requires following the implications of a theory. An immediate implication of a low climate sensitivity is that it is not responsible for most of the warming over the last fifty years. The anthropogenic forcings are fairly well known, and coupled with a climate sensitivity would not have produced enough warming to account for 50% or more of the recent warming.
Conversely, with moderate or high climate sensitivities, the projectible changes in forcings with BAU will result in a large temperature response in the 21st century.
That you think otherwise merely shows that you do not follow through to the emperical implications of the theories that you support, or in this case reject.
-
scaddenp at 19:07 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
I could ask, if coal is cheap, then why do US coal producers need subsidies and protection?
-
Tom Curtis at 19:02 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
austratsua @4:
"Firsly, it is unseemly to attack people who disagree with you with terms like "denier"."
Firstly, despite your complaint, nobody was called a "denier" in either the original post, nor in the three comments that preceded yours. Rather, it was said that certain people deny certain propositions, ie, they claim that those propositions are false. You are so determined to control the terms of the debate that even use of simple verbs to describe the beliefs of others is now not OK with you.
So, here are two simple questions:
1) Do Bast and Spencer claim that there is not a 97% consensus of climate scientists who agree that >50% of recent global warming was caused by anthropogenic factors?
2) If Bast and Spencer do make that claim, why do you react so strongly against the simple description that they deny that claim?
Secondly, despite you concern about how unseemly the missing attack was, you seem unconcerned that Spenser should refer to climate scientists as "Global Warming Nazi's", unconcerned about Bast's use of billboards to draw a connection between AGW and the Unabomber, unconcerned about the frequent accusations that climate scientists are guilty of fraud (scientific, and less frequently) financial, an unconcerned about accusations that people seeking policy action against AGW are routinely accused of desiring genocide by your fellow pseudo-skeptics. Absent evidence the contrary, in the form of links to comments where you have protested such activity by your fellow pseudo-skeptics, I will conclude that your concern for civility is, like that of most of your fellow travellors, one sided and hypocritical.
The simple fact is that concern about the term "AGW denier" does not arise from genuine feelings of offense. They arise from the same desire to win the debate by persuasive definitions that led pseudo-skeptics to call themselves "skeptics". It is an attempt to controll the debate by controlling the language used in the debate. As with Orwell's "Big Brother", it shows a determination to controll the language to limit what can be thought.
-
chriskoz at 18:57 PM on 29 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Thanks Howard for another innteresting article about extinction.
I want to understand this sentence:
The authors note that the correlation between LIPs and severe extinctions is now so strong that there is a “negligible 6×10–9% probability that such correlation is due to chance alone,”
(my emphasis)
I'm not sure, if you refer to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.06.029 as the source of that sentence because I don't have free access to it. So I want to confirm with you wheather this number is or is not a typo. How can we be so sure about the causes of events so deep in the paleo (60-500Ma)? What do you mean exactly by "due to chance alone" and how do you exclude an event so defined with such inbelievably high certainty?
-
Doug Bostrom at 18:45 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
"cheap coal that could allow them access to clean water and clean air"
That's rather hysterically funny.
Here's what cheap, clean coal looks like in situ where "they" enjoy it :
With regard to risk aversion, we're all in this car together and (to stretch the metaphor) there are no seatbelts. I for one would rather have a cautious driver at the wheel, "inflicting" risk aversion on me, rather than a reckless fool doing the driving.
Doubtless folks wringing their hands about poverty in the 3rd World have already exhausted their own personal means of correcting that problem, for surely they would not be using such an emotional appeal as a cheap rhetorical expediency.
-
scaddenp at 18:38 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
"Should wealthy risk-averse westerners be allowed to force poverty-stricken Indians and Chinese not to have access to cheap coal that could allow them access to clean water and clean air and a good life?"
Show me where this has been suggested. You could try discussing things seriously instead of jumping into cheap rhetoric. Or do actually believe this from reading misinformation somewhere? In fact the usual suggestion is to let non-Western countries increase FF use while alternatives are slowly brought in while the affluent West very sharply reduce their emissions. That would have been substance of all recent climate conferences.
It would be reasonable to hold alternative opinions to AGW if there was actually some data to support some other idea as opposed to, yes, denialism, and misinformation campaigns. If you really think that this exists by all means present the evidence on an appropriate thread.
-
billthefrog at 18:05 PM on 29 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
@Tom & Glenn - Thank you
@ Graham RE: the RCP guide- Wow
-
ranyl at 17:46 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
"Based on this quote the author is so sure that anthropogenic global warming is true that he thinks it's as obvious as the fact that the earth goes around the sun."
That CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and warms the planet is as certain as the earth's goes round the sun. And this physical truth of global warming has gone through the progression from hypothesis, to theory, to accepted common knowledge, with all the trials and tribulations of peer review with several counter theories and arguments put against it over some 150years or so.
That this warming is amplified by the earth's internal systems (the climate sensitivity) has also gone through the same rigorous progression.
The uncertainty is how much the earth's internal system amplify the warming and consensus on an exact figure for this is hard to find, for 2 reasons, there are uncertainties in the measurements (like all measurements) and the system is complex and behaves chaotically, meaning that the climate sensitivity is dependent on the initial conditions of the system, in this the earth's continental arrangement, amount of sea ice present, amount of oceanic ice, amount of O2 etc, over geological time and thus is a moving target overall. Being in a time when there is large oceanic ice cover to melt away quickly is suggestive that this might be a time of higher CS than at others. As climate being dangerous, well as in the previous article this week, when CO2 and SO2 are released in large amounts into the atmosphere life can be dramatically reduced it appears, and although that is open to question, as the evidence mounts it is well into the established theory realm and thus most scientist would agree that global warming induced by burning coal can be quite dangerous I would suspect.
Maybe the authors should put out an scientist e-mail and ask several thousand that question sure they find that most would feel that climate change can be very dangerous to life per se never mind a complex civilization with ~50% of its population and more of its wealth near the ocean edge when sea levels are set to rise.
-
austrartsua at 15:18 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Wow, where to begin. Firsly, it is unseemly to attack people who disagree with you with terms like "denier". Criticism is central to scientific progress. You never know, you might actually improve your methodology if you listen rationally to criticism. Calling them "denier" and talking about irrelevent facts about their history and rupert murdoch is at best "post-modern" and at worst a cynical attempt to evade the criticism.
"By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused global warming."
Are you seriously suggesting that the the earth's climate is as well understood as the heliocentric theory or evolution? Have you heard of scientific fallabalism? It goes like this. A new theory is always assumed to be wrong. This is the default position. Based on this quote the author is so sure that anthropogenic global warming is true that he thinks it's as obvious as the fact that the earth goes around the sun. If all scientists thought this way they would never be able to correct their mistakes and they would hold on to theories no matter what data comes in.
"if the 97% expert consensus is right, it means we’re in for several more degrees of global warming if we continue on a business-as-usual path." This is false. The consensus quoted in your paper said nothing about how much the world will warm in the next century. In fact the criteria did not require any quantification of the amount of warming in the future or in deed in the past 150 years. Accordingly, one could rightly claim to belong to your consensus and still predict relatively little warming over the next century. And then there is the issue of dangerousness. You are right to say that some people are more risk-averse than others. But does this mean that highly risk-averse people should be able to force those who are not so risk averse to pay more for energy? Should wealthy risk-averse westerners be allowed to force poverty-stricken Indians and Chinese not to have access to cheap coal that could allow them access to clean water and clean air and a good life? -
davidnewell at 13:48 PM on 29 May 2014It's too hard
davidnewell at 13:13 PM on 29 May, 2014
As more and more evidence accumulates in regard to the looming catastrophe, more serious consideration may be given to ways to counter at least the rate of increase, so that more time is available to employ other methods, and educate "the masses".Somewhere here someone took some "shots" at the technique found at
WWW.EarthThrive.Net,
mumbling a dismissive comment relating to the amount of CO2 dissolved in the Gulf Stream, or something.. Totally non-bearing on the proposal.
===============
I propose to defend the matter, thru simplicity.l. Many here may find "fault",
but it's hard to argue against this..
=========================
I propose a "new measurement" of alkalinity.
Maybe it's NOT new, but it's new to me, and facile for raising my point.Total Alkalinity, volume, (vs. CO2) = volume of pure CO2 adsorbed / volume of solid substrate
Abbreviated TA(sub)v or TAv, it can be in any dimensional system,
as long as they are "in common". ( of course)My laboratory measurements were in CC.
Ranges of TAv for surface alkali soils ranged between about 2 1/2 to over 3.
(there are speculative reasons to think that lower levels will be more reactive..)
I presently cannot find this (following) calculation, so anyone of interest can do so.
Given the elongated inverted pyramid approximation of (say) the Black Lake Desert,
which is about 25 miles long by 10 miles wide..
Assume that it is a rectangular box 1 mile deep.
Given a conservative TAv of 2.5, what is the weight of CO2 in tonnes possible if all the material was reacted.???????
After that is derived, then we can see if further consideration of the other objections may be warranted.
==============
Lets see: 22.4 liters^ of CO2 = 1 mole wt of CO2, in grams, at STP.
formula wt = 44.grams/ mole
======================
According to my trusty HP-55, which is still running after all these years,
under consideration is 25X10X1, which is 250 cu miles of "dirt",
which can ultimately sequester (with a TAv of 2.5), 625 cu miles of CO2.
1 cubic mile =4.16818183 × 10^15 cubic centimeters
625 " = 2.605113641 x 10 ^18 "
or 2.605113641 x 10 ^15 liters.or (changing decimal pt) 26.05113641 x 10 ^17 liters,
which, when divided by 22.4 liters, = 1.2 X 10^17 moles of CO2,
or, multiplying by the mole weight of CO2, 44,
equals ~5 X 10 ^ 18 grams ,
or 5 X 10^12 tonnes.Anyone who used an HP55 in college is old as the hills,
OVER the hill,
and probably missing a screw, as well..Please point out my errors, other than those which are simple approximations.
=======================
All that is needed, urgently, is to employ a technique
which reduces the rate of increase in circulating CO2,
while "other measures" take effect. If we can take 5 billion tonnes
OUT of the air, per year, we "MIGHT" have a chance.Pumping costs be damned!
AT the very LEAST civilization is "under threat" by our combined ignorance.
(This "rant" is more "refined" at www.EarthThrive.net, so I'l discontinue it,
here..)For far less than Gov Moonbeam's favorite projects of continuing stupidity,
ie the "twin tunnels" under the Delta, and/or the "Train to Nowhere",
we could implement this plan,
AND
(side issue)
produce a hell of a lot of clouds going dowwind.It may be noted that many of the playas (the above is just an example, although one of the larger playas, to be sure..) are "saline" in nature, and are "wet" at some depth under the surface. Maintaining conditions for bicarbonate stability (dampness) is not difficult.
Thank you for your time.David Newell
=================
-
scaddenp at 13:15 PM on 29 May 2014The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Moderation
Moderator Response:OnePlanetForever, please take note and abide by the comments policy, noting especially the section on politics. There are plenty of other sites for political rants. Please stick to the science.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:56 AM on 29 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
Billthefrog
Another important event around 30-35 million years ago was the separation of Sth America and Antarctica, allowing the formation of the Antarctic circum-polar current, tending to isolate Antarctica and allowing it to colmore
-
scaddenp at 09:44 AM on 29 May 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
mancan18 - you might also like to have quick look at this guide to the RCPs. Economics would prevent burning everything but working out atmospheric concentrations also require taking into account how the natural systems draw-down (or otherwise) excess CO2. A typical pseudo-skeptic will argue that environment will continue to draw down 50% of emissions, ignoring that as temperatures rise, the oceans eventually emit CO2, rather than absorb it.
You can play with really extreme scenarios but the RCPs are a far better guide to what is realistic (and frightning enough at that).
Prev 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 Next
