Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 Next
Comments 36351 to 36400:
-
Tom Curtis at 11:38 AM on 27 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr @48, what I (and I suspect nearly everyone) accepted was not the "first experiment", but the analysis based on a detailed knowledge of the relevant scientific principles and values by two experts in the field as detailed in the paper found by following the first link in the article. Some of us may also have done analyses similar to mine @47 to test that the result genuinely followed from known scientific principles (or used an alternate method based on calculating the new salt concentration after melting of the ice, and determining the difference in density that results). I (and I suspect nearly everyone) considered the illustrations to be merely a usefull illustration, not explained in sufficient detail for anything but illustrative purposes.
Your "experiment", in contrast, lacks relevant details, is poorly constructed and gives results constrary to what you claim. It is certainly an inadequate basis for over turning a basic scientific principle (which is what you are attempting to do, though you do not recognize the fact).
<snip> I am only interested in one response from you. Does ice floating in sea water float higher, lower, or the same as ice floating in fresh water?
Moderator Response:[PS] A reasoned debate is more likely without implied derogatory observations. This applies to everyone.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:19 AM on 27 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Yves @10, I certainly don't want to claim that 12 month increases in CO2 concentration of 2.95 ppmv or above have not occurred. Only that such increases do not represent a record. As it happens, the top ten 12 month increases in CO2 concentration for the global data are:
Rank Value
1_____ 3.6
2_____ 3.47
3_____ 3.42
4_____ 3.41
5_____ 3.32
6_____ 3.21
7______3.03
8______3
9_____3
10____2.99Of those, the bolded values have terminated within the last twelve months. The underlined values terminated in late 1998/ early 1999. The tenth ranked increase terminated in early 1988 (an El Nino year based on Fig 3 in the OP).
With regards to the specific points you make:
1) If the result was from January to January (as indicated by the adjusted value you quote), then the provisional result was 2.63 ppmv. The adjusted value may, however, have been for 2.47 (December to December), for which I can find no archive values.
2) The trend shown above is about correct, with the current trend value being 2.2 ppmv per twelve month period, incrementing at 0.03 ppmv per annum. That value is far more significant than individual monthly values.
3) You are probably correct with regard to differences in trend for different ENSO state. However, using rolling twelve month differences may give enough data to give a significant result (I have not tested).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:18 AM on 27 May 2014Looking for connections
John Hartz @22.
A very good read indeed.
Of course, since the people benefiting from creating the harm of this weapon of mass destruction can easily believe they will not suffer more cosequences than the benefit they hope to get, future generations will suffer and have no means of getting even, it is easy to get popular support for this unacceptable behaviour among those who clearly see themselves benefiting from it and don't care how they benefit.
Even better questions:
"Is it a crime against humanity for someone who has the ability to be well informed and understand the unacceptability of pursuing benefit from burning fossil fuels to deliberately not understand things and instead pursue benefit from unacceptable activity?"
"Is it worse than a crime against humanity for a wealthy and successful person to try to mislead or misinform others about the unacceptability of benefiting from burning fossil fuels?"
If either of the above is true then: Anyone who is actually well informed and should appreciate and understand the unacceptability of already fortunate people trying to benefit from the unsustainable and damaging burning of fossil fuels but deliberately participates in the misleading or misinforming of others on this issue is "Aiding and abetting criminal behaviour".
-
thorconstr at 09:23 AM on 27 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
"I've asked this before thorconstr, but exactly how can a vertical glass wall support a block of melting ice, both substances notable for their slipperyness?"
I can't believe you ask this, no matter what the surface, when things rub they cause friction which would affect the experiment. My background is as a high voltage lineman 15 years, high end home builder 18 years, private pilot, and building high end cars for fun. I don't profess to be a scientist, I do have a lot of "real world" knowledge. Everyone here accepted the first experiment without question, the experiment is far from professional yet you accept it like the "Holy Grail", not a negative response, and you all have problems with mine. Mine wasn't intended as a professional experiment. If I found that I was wrong I would have said so. If I blow the pictures up to show only the glass rim the water level is the same, whether you believe it or not. In retrospect, posting on a such a totally left leaning sight was a mistake. And I unlike most on this site do have an "open mind".<Snip>
Moderator Response:[PS] Commentators have pointed out problems with your experiment and reasonable improvements, as well as detailed explanations of the principle at work here (Tom). Responding to these comments would be better than throwing insults. Your conjecture that no rise in water level is what is expected overthrows a few thousand years of knowledge so the onus lies with you.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 27 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Despite the triviality of the topic, I'll have one more go.
Suppose you have two large tubs of water at 0 degrees C, one containing a cubic meter of fresh water, and the second containing a cubic meter of sea water (salt content = 35 g per liter). The density of the water in the first case is 999.868 Kg/m^3. In the second it is 1028.131 Kg/m^3. In both tubs you place half a cubic meter of ice, also at 0 degrees C.
The first question I have for those doubting the science (such at thorconstr), is in which tub does the ice ride highest? That is, in which tub is the greatest volume of ice above the level of the water?
As it happens, the density of ice at 0 degrees C is 916.2 Kg/m^3. Hence 0.5 cubic meters of ice has a mass of 458.1 Kg. By Archimedes Principle, we know that the weight of the displaced water equals the weight of the floating object. Thus the block of ice will displace 458.1 Kg of sea water, and the same mass of fresh water. Because of their different densities, however, that means it will displace 0.458 m^3 of fresh water, but only 0.446 m^3 of sea water. That is, the ice in fresh water ill have only 0.042 m^3 above the surface, but 0.044 m^3 above the surface if floating in fresh water. It floats higher in sea water.
We can carry that one step further. If the ice melts it will occupy a volume of 0.458 m^3. That is, it will occupy the same volume as was displaced by it in fresh water, but 0.002 m^2 more volume than it displaced in sea water. That excess volume must result in a rise in the water level. To deny that fact requires us to insist that the displacement of a body is the same regardless of the density of the fluid in which it floats.
The science involved in this case is not that difficult. It is as simple as realizing that ice will float higher in a denser fluid. It is even simple enough to be taught in high school chemistry (in the UK). The problem is that having got a fixed and inaccurate view of that Archimede's Principle states, thorconstr's mind is not open to subtleties that follow from the actual principle.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr wrote "I find it amusing that you are sceptical about my experiment where the level remains constant from picture to picture",
The amusing thing is thorconstr utter lack of self-skepticism about his own experiment, which is sad because self-skepticim lies at the heart of science.
The level does not remain constant from picture to picture. In the picture with the ice the meniscus is clearly concave around the rim of the glass, in the picture without the ice it looks to be convex around the rim. The lack of a constant camera angle (poor scientific practice) makes it difficult to be absolutely sure of this. Thorconst should reat his experiment properly, and use a glass with vertical sides, not fill it to the brim and mark the bottom of the meniscus as MartinS did as that is the only sensible way of performing the experiment. Also thorconstr should use a larger ratio of ice to water to make any change in volume as large and easy to measure as possible (as MartinS sensibly did). Of course thorconstr wont actually do this, because there is a limit to most skeptics sckepticism - it doesn't extent to themselves.
"but a huge chink of ice leaning top and bottom against the container and not freely floating does not concern you."
I've asked this before thorconstr, but exactly how can a vertical glass wall support a block of melting ice, both substances notable for their slipperyness?
-
Yves at 21:31 PM on 26 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Tom@9,
AFAIK I've truly seen the 2.95 ppm figure in the NOAA website, as a global mean for 2013 ... but 2 months ago. It was a preliminary result, now corrected as 2.48 ppm. There is an extensive explanation of the data treatment in http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
This alters the somewhat emotional title, but not the trend, well described in Figure 3. The preliminary value was at the upper limit of the interannual variability for a neutral year (grey points), the corrected value is still above the expected mean values but well within the variability range.
OTOH, I think that the sentence following Fig.3 "If we look in more detail at Fig. 3, we can see that the slope for La Niña years is slightly lower than during neutral years, and the slope for El Niño is slightly higher than during neutral years." is overstated, since we lack enough El Niño or La Niña points (only 8 red and 7 blue points) for inferring robust - statistically significant - statements. -
chriskoz at 20:50 PM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
[PS]@43,
That's exactly what I was hoping to show @39 if thorconstr had given me the parameters needed to calculate the expected outcome. Depending of the results of the calculations, say if dh more than 0.5mm, then we would be able to confirm or bust this science. Otherwise (more likely IMO) we would conclude the experiment requires refining because it was impossible to tell. So the experiment would be useful & we would end up wiser.
Sadly, Thor chose to decline my friendly and open minded invitation, instead accusing people of some imaginary "agenda" when they saw something he didn't like. Why so? This piece is AGW-neutral, therefore there should be no "controversy" here... All I can say is: that's typical behaviour of a science denier in general.
As unimportant this piece in the big picture of climate science is, it shows the classic example of science denial represented by Thor here. I was hoping that Thor's experiment shows inquisitiveness of mind (I agree with the appraisal by Tom@36) but in the end, Thor disappointed me big time showing the attitude that has nothing to do with typical constructive skepticism, as his user name would suggest...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:36 PM on 26 May 2014Looking for connections
My version of “Think Global act Local” has become “Think Globally about all life and the Future - Act Locally Now and Forever”.
I recommend adding a global population line to fig 3 and fig 4. Actually, a more interesting presentation would be to add figures showing the consumptions and GDP as “Per person” so that the per person rate of growth of these items can be more clearly seen.
The total population has not grown as rapidly as consumption, which is clearly not sustainable growth on a finite world. Yet, even with these indicators of success growing faster than the population, many people still suffer horribly through no real fault of their own. They suffer because of the success of people who do not care how they personally succeed. Even very few humans benefiting from burning up non-renewable resources, or consuming other non-renewable resources without full recycling, is fundamentally unsustainable.
This article is in line with my best understanding of what is going on. It, and the comments so far, have prompted me to re-visit my thoughts and present them in a slightly different way. I have submitted all of my related thoughts one comment....
This article is a great summation of what has been going on and continues to go on. And there are even more unacceptable consequences from the burning of fossil fuels, such as the horrible conflicts between people who have been able to get away with benefiting more than others. They fight each other to remain the most wealthy and the most powerful from the unsustainable damaging limited opportunities they strive to benefit from. They also fight against developing groups who desire to become the most powerful, aspiring to be like the current most powerful through similar unsustainable unacceptable activities.
The constant development of the best understanding of what is going on, particularly understanding what is unacceptable, in spite of its potential popularity or profitability, is key to all of humanity succeeding at becoming a sustainable part of life on this amazing planet (the only viable future for humanity)....
I appreciate the many different groups that investigate and develop better understanding of things related to sustainable human activity. And I am beginning to appreciate that using terms like sustainability without fully describing what they are intended to mean provides more opportunity for people to interpret things as they wish. The definition of sustain had a “permanence” to it. However, some groups now use the word in ways that do not actually suit its meaning. The Alberta Government refers to efforts to sustainably extract the oil sands. They should be referring to prolonging or extending the opportunity to get away with it, since extraction of any non-renewable resource cannot be sustained it can only be prolonged.
One thing I have recently learned is that electricity generation in Alberta is so horrible that, from a CO2 emissions impact perspective, in Alberta it is currently better to drive a car with a gasoline fuel efficiency of 11 litres/100 km than an all electric car (based on 2.3 kg of CO2/litre of gasoline burned, and electric car performance of 20 to 25 kWh/100 km). Alberta's electricity generation produces over 1.0 kg of CO2/kWh. That is 4 times the Canadian average of 0.25 kg/kWh. Alberta's electricity generation is also worse than China's current national average of 0.75 kg/kWh. Alberta is even worse than the highest level China had of nearly 0.9 kg/kWh in 2003....
It is very important to better understand the impacts of the CO2 emissions aspect of unsustainable pursuits of benefit from burning fossil fuels. However, it is also important to understand the bigger picture. There are many other harmful unacceptable consequences of trying to benefit from burning fossil fuels. And there are many other aspects of the current global socioeconomic system that are similarly unacceptable, having no real future and creating harmful impacts on the future.
Some believe that GDP growth can be counted on into the future. So any “future costs” of the impacts of today's benefits can be discounted because the future will be better. That is essentially saying that benefits by today's most fortunate are acceptable as long as the created future consequences, as figured out by the most fortunate today, are larger but not significantly larger than the benefit today's most fortunate figure they would be giving up not to create those future problems. That is like one person justifying their bad behaviour by claiming that the problems they cause other people are only a little bit more than the benefit they thought they would be giving up by behaving decently, an absurd justification since the creation of problems others will face is never justifiable....
This amazing planet is expected to be habitable for several hundred million years. Humanity needs to be focused on constantly developing better ways to sustainable be a part of a robust diversity of life on this amazing planet, including a diversity of sustainable ways of living. Science and politics should both be focused on that clearly essential objective. Instead we see scientific pursuits wasted on developing unsustainable ways of gaining or prolonging benefit for a few through unacceptable actions. And we see political leaders beholden to people who became wealthy and powerful through their willingness to benefit from unacceptable unsustainable actions.
When humanity has figured out how to be a sustainable be a part of a robust diversity of life it will have developed a gift worthy of spreading beyond this planet. And one key thing to be figured out is how to keep the few among humanity who will try to benefit from unacceptable actions from ever succeeding. Those trouble-makers spoil things for everyone else. They think life is a competition with the winner having the most stuff, no matter how they got it (like sports cheaters). And they believe that everyone else deserves what they end up with. They particularly enjoy “beating” caring and considerate people who are at a competitive disadvantage to a callous and cruel-hearted pursuer of personal benefit who can get away with the unacceptable things they are more than willing to try to benefit from regardless of the amount of evidence showing how unacceptable their desires are. And those are the kind of people who will persist at attempting to discredit and dismiss any evidence of how unacceptable they are. Those type of people want to enjoy their life as much as possible for as long as possible. Any delay of effective restriction on their unacceptable activities is a “win” for them. And they have been building many ways to keep their undeserved benefits after restrictions get imposed, their “safety-net”. And even if they can't keep all the undeserved benefits they know they enjoyed an undeserved better time for as long as they could get away with, which is really appealing to many people, should be appalling to everyone else.
Those “successful” industrial powers were always fundamentally unsustainable. They all needed external resources to stay the power they were. And they all did unacceptable things to get control of those external resources for “their own maximum benefit”.
And because the “basis of success” in the model has been getting away with success through unacceptable actions, those who are more than willing to behave unacceptably have been increasing in numbers among the successful and powerful, which is only accelerating the unsustainability towards its inevitable dead end.
Some among the few who are more fortunate because of the over-consumption “their group” have been able to control and benefit from, are proposing going beyond the planet as the answer for their voracious unsustainable desires. That is the same as the unacceptable unsustainable way the British Empire prolonged its power, and that America did as well (after the unsustainable natural resource advantage America had was used up). The control of access to limited opportunity has also been the basis for prolonging the “superiority” of the wealthy powerful European nations. And Brazil, China, Russia, and India are following the same pattern, aspiring to be the most successful through similar unsustainable pursuits.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
"the camera angle was different."
The camera angle sucks. Why did you take the pictures at an angle that makes it so hard to see the level? The last picture is obviously much closer to horizontal than any of the others. Even with the poor camera angle, put me in the group that says the water level looks higher in the last picture.
-
wili at 09:51 AM on 26 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Thanks for the link to the article on WAIS melt. But I am wondering if there is anyone who has put together the new information on accelerated estimations of rates of glacier retreat from both WAIS and GIS to come up with new predictions of total slr by 2100 or earlier. This is the closest I have come to finding anything:http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/18/greenland-ice-melt.html
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in August warned of a three-foot sea level rise by 2100. But with new insight into melting glaciers in West Antarctica, that increase must be revised to at least seven feet."
But this does not include slr from the new understanding of GIS dynamics. Would that add another two feet or so? So are we talking 3 meters or more by century end? How much of that would come in the next couple decades?Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
thorconstr at 08:55 AM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
The glass was never moved, the camera angle was different. No.
Moderator Response:[PS] While trying to rewrite Archimedes principles with poorly controlled experiments might be entertaining, I would ask all concerned to note from the original article.
"They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice." (emphasis mine)
and wonder if there are more important parts of the science to discuss?
-
saileshrao at 07:18 AM on 26 May 2014Looking for connections
will@27,
"The earth does foster its 'children' for a while...until it suddently flies into a rage periodically and slaughters (almost) all of them in a mass extinction event."
Not to pick on will, but the language here is very interesting and speaks to the hubristic source of our collective predicament: the Earth is an "it," while the Earth's children contain billions of "he"s and billions of "she"s, along with thousands of "Your Highness"es, "Your Lordship"s, "Your Holiness"es and such. -
DSL at 04:47 AM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr, why did you move the glass mid-experiment? Also, are you going to answer chriskoz?
-
thorconstr at 04:28 AM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I find it amusing that you are sceptical about my experiment where the level remains constant from picture to picture, but a huge chink of ice leaning top and bottom against the container and not freely floating does not concern you. I have better things to do than cheat to prove a point. An now I'm going to do them. Adious.
Moderator Response:[JH] Parlor tricks are rarely well received on this website.
-
Jutland at 02:44 AM on 26 May 2014Climate sensitivity is low
Tom @314 and Chriskoz @ 315Thank you both for your helpful and swift replies. I had suspected something must be awry as he had published it online rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, but I am not a scientist, so could not work out what it might be. Incidentally, as this is the first day I've posted may I say what a valuable resource this site is, I very much appreciate it. For many years I *thought* I understood the greenhouse effect, because I understood those simple diagrams which show a single-layer atmosphere with equivalent arrows emerging out, one into space and one back to the ground. Then I read a piece by John Houghton which talked about the adiabatic lapse rate and how the greenhouse effect would be impossible if the lapse rate didn't exist. And I realised that I didn't really understand the greenhouse effect at all, because the lapse rate wasn't on those over-simple diagrams. This site was one of the ones I used to read up on it to improve my understanding, and it was the first place I thought of for help when I was reading Wasdell's paper, so thank you very much. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:24 AM on 26 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Incidentally, there is a well known trick that is often used in the classroom to demonstrate surface tension. You fill a glass to the brim with water, and then float pins on the surface, and surface tension is enough to support the pin. The pin still displaces water in accordance with Archimedes principle, but the water doesn't overflow the glass as the surface tension at the edge of the glass is surprisingly strong. All that happens is that the meniscus rises slightly. You can't get the meniscus that high by pouring the water into the glass because the drops don't drop in gently enough and the waves mean that the surface tension can be overcome.
Now thorconst says that the meniscus hasn't changed, but you can't measure it accurately by eye. Thorconsts response is a demonstration that (as usual) the skepticism of the skeptics is rather one sided, so the talk of an agenda is rather ironic.
If he/she were really a skeptic they would repeat the experiment using a flask that wasn't filled to the brim and mark the bottom of the meniscus as martinS did as this is the only way that you can measure it accurately. He/she would also use a larger ratio of ice to water to make the effect as large as possible to make it as easily measurable as possible (which he/she clearly didn't the first time, but MartinS quite sensibly did). Lastly having a better intuition for physics might help, it is hard to see how much support vertical glass can have on melting ice (both notably slippery substances).
-
Klapper at 23:26 PM on 25 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Chriskoz #44:
I think what you are saying is that there are confounding factors to the cooling forcing of anthropogenic aerosols. You gave the example of changes in precipitation in turn causing local warming in Beijing, undoing the normal cooling effect of aerosols.
What about Chengdu then. My analysis of a 10 x 10 degree box around Chengdu shows the same warming rate over 30 years as the global rate for land. Is this area also effected by the same drying by sulphates as Being?
If there is a sulphates drying effect then perhaps this effect is also occurred historically in other areas meaning our current estimates for net aerosol forcing are too high.
-
chriskoz at 23:22 PM on 25 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr@37,
I've seen the same as Tom@5. Further, honestly, I didn't even read the article (I was just lured by your beautiful pictures), so I wasn't encumbered by any thought process. That's already 2:1 against your "agenda" but I admit my observation could be inaccurate. So don't despair, together we can learn something from your beatiful pictures by calculating what science tells us and comparing with what we've seen.
So how about you tell us what was the water temperature (we already know the salinity, thanks) and the amount of ice? I assume the amount of water is ~250ml. Then I will calculate the theoretical dV/dh and we can compare it with what we've seen...
-
Tom Curtis at 23:18 PM on 25 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr @37, to avoid the risk of seeing only "the results [my] agenda demands", as you put it, I asked my teenage daughter to assess the water levels without prompting as to what she should see, or what it signifies. Oddly, she saw the same as me.
Your refusal to acknowledge the evidence of your own eyes clearly demonstrates who has the agenda here.
-
thorconstr at 22:52 PM on 25 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
There is the same amount of the lip of the glass showing above the water in all of the photos. However, you are going to see he results your agenda demands. I know the results, they were gotten honestly, not with trickery, I don't need to waste my time here.
-
chriskoz at 22:03 PM on 25 May 2014Climate sensitivity is low
Jutland@313
The biggest mistake in that booklet is their application of Earth System Sensitivity, which by their own definition works in millenial timescale, to the problem of AGW mitigation, which works on a century (or couple of centuries) timescale. The ESS by thier own definition, is a speculative measure, based on inaccurate deep-paleo data. You cannot expect ESS to play out fully within the mitigation timeframe (until say 2100) IPCC is concerned about. Beyond the timeframe of few centuries, the CO2 level may drop signifficantly due to ocean invasion, so most of the ESS feedbacks may not (and likely will not) play out. The same applies to Hadley & Hansen sensitivities: their positive feedbacks are not rellevant within the timeframe considered. By the same token, the rock weathering negative feedback does not play out within interglacial cycles of 100ky, therefore we don't talk about it while considering Milankovic forcings. While taking about this century, Charney sensitivity is the only one that we can be certain to play out.
Even more erroneour (actually ridiculous for me) is their calculation of Earth System Sensitivity in this booklet.
Check out the figure 8 on age 13. They claim ESS being far more accurate than other sensitivities, because it's derived from "high precision mathematics". That's just pathetically ridiculous. They don't mention how imprecise their input data is: just few points of highly uncertain values from 100 or 40 milion years ago. I'm sorry but if you are trying to estimate ESS from so highly uncertain old data (even ignoring the paleo-expert assertions that Earth sensitivity was different at that time due to continental configurations, etc.), your "high precision mathematics" won't help you to find the precise parameter you're looking for.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:59 PM on 25 May 2014Climate sensitivity is low
Jutland @313, the 7.8 deg C value is for the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, ie, the change in temperature for an initial doubling of CO2 after all feedbacks, including slow responding feedbacks from ice sheets, etc, have stabilized. The value is similar to other reasonable estimates, but the Earth System Response will take several thousands of years to stabilize. The value is therefore largely irrelevant to temperatures over the next century or so. Further, provided we do stop emitting CO2 at some point in the next century, equilibriation of CO2 concentration between the surface and deep oceans will reduce CO2 concentrations to about 50% of their peak increase over preindustrial values, so that the Earth System Response would be to a much lower overall CO2 concentration.
Far more relevant to the immediate future (ie, next 100-200 years) are the Transient Climate Response and the Charney Climate Sensitivity, which the Apollo-Gaia project shows as 3 C (close to IPCC central estimates). The only policy relevant impact of the Earth System Response is that it shows that a stable solution to the problem of global warming will require zero net anthropogenic emissions. Merely reducing emissions to 20% of current values is not a stable long term response.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:44 PM on 25 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I must congratulate thorconstr @35 for going ahead and carrying out the experiment. Perhaps, however, he should look more closely at the photos. Clearly in the bottom photo, showing the glass with ice cubes, the water level is slightly below the level of the lip of the glass. In contrast, in the top photo, in which the ice has melted, the water level is slightly above the lip of the glass, being only held in by surface tension. Contrary to his presumption, therefore, his experiment has merely confirmed the result discussed in the OP, and which he disputes.
-
Jutland at 18:39 PM on 25 May 2014Climate sensitivity is low
Long time lurker, first time poster here.David Wasdell of the Apollo-Gaia project claims climate sensitivity is closer to 7.8 deg C per CO2 doubling. http://www.jayhanson.org/climate.pdfWhat's his mistake, if any? It's based on palaeoclimate data but doesn't fit the lower palaeoclimate sensitivities given elsewhere. -
thorconstr at 14:54 PM on 25 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
OK here you are. The solution is fresh water made to be salt water at 35,000 ppm of sea salt. The ice is fresh water, the pictures are at 30 minute intervals. There is no rise in the level when total melt is achieved. The paper towel is dry. Your result is exactly what you expected it to be because your ice was not in free float, it was leaning on the glass top and bottom. Try an honest experiment, I'm not impressed.
Moderator Response:[DB] Accusations of dishonesty are a Comments Policy violation. Please familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy and comport your comments with it. Subsequent comments by you constructed thusly will be summarily deleted.
-
billthefrog at 04:13 AM on 25 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
Contrarian:
I've no idea when this was first used as a sort of politically correct euphemism for someone who denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
However, I first saw the term used in that context in James Hansen's book, "Storms of my Grandchildren". About 3 or 4 years ago, I borrowed the book from one of the local libraries in Devon, and its publishing date was 2009 - I think.
-
MA Rodger at 02:53 AM on 25 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Tom Curtic @42.
Thanks for the pointer to the SIE data source. Sadly there are those who cannot understand (or probably refuse to understand="shenanigans") the simplest use of scientific terms - in this case Area and Extent. The same apprarent ignorance seems true for the effects of Arctic topology on the rate of ice loss - it slows up as it retreats through the Bering Straits. Of course, there comes a point when accumulative shenanigans become statistically irrefutable.
-
John Hartz at 00:06 AM on 25 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
jetfuel:
As stated above, your future posts will be carefully scrutinized by Moderators to make sure they are in full compliance with the SkS comments Policy. If they are not, they will be dealt with as appropriate by a Moderator.
Your propensity to post "look squirrel" comments tells us that you are not here to engage in meaningful discussions of climate science. Our Moderators and regular commenters have more important uses of their time and energy than tracking and responding to your shennanigans. In other words, you are on the cusp of losing your privilege to post comments on this website.
-
chriskoz at 21:02 PM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
Rob@3,
I took to the online dictionary to find out:
Noun 1. contrarian - an investor who deliberately decides to go against the prevailing wisdom of other investors
Hhm, that's quite different definition than yours. More to do with economic gambling rather than science in general. Yours is better described by the term "science denier". Our dictionary is changing, and IMO degrading itself by fusing the two terms: "contrarian" and "denier".
-
Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
Dana writes a blog for The Guardian and copies his posts here at SkS. I expect this largely for the audience there.
Localis - I operate on the assumption that contrarians are impervious to any factual information that contradicts their preconceived notions. Most here as SkS do so as well. Afterall, you cannot reason a person out of a postion they never reason themselves into in the first place.
What I'm getting at is that contrarians aren't our target audience. It's probably the same at The Guardian, although they do get infested with climate trolls.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:00 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
"Tom, Per my source Charctic, considerably less melting for this most recent 8 days (251,000 sq km) vs the same ~week in 1979 (415,000 sq km) could cause ponderance to some."
That really is the most ridiculous cherry pick I have ever seen on a climate blog. A whole eight days, wow that can't possibly be just weather noise!!!
-
chriskoz at 18:15 PM on 24 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper@43,
You're still denying to acknowledge my assertion when supported by my citing of (Xu 2001) because you did not even bother to acknowledge/address my argument. And you're continuing to cherry pick the "boxes" confirming your preconceived idea. That falls IMO into the "excessive repetition" category of policy violations, therefore I would not be surprised if your comment was deleted (and my response herein can also be deleted). All I can conclude (after Tom@38) is that it is waste of time continuing the discussion with you
-
localis at 17:48 PM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
This video might have some effect on the illiterate but won't do anything to change the denier's attitude as they already are aware of the science but prefer (for whatever reason) to contradict it. Posting it again doesn't re-inforce its message.
-
cesium62 at 16:15 PM on 24 May 2014It's not urgent
I'd like to see the Basic article expanded in various ways. This article doesn't mention a time frame as to when we might see costly effects. Sounds like we have at least hundreds of years if not thousands before Miami sinks beneath the waves.
The article doesn't discuss any problems other than sea level rise. Will climate change leave agriculture unphased and as productive or more productive than it currently is? If production drops, how log before we might see climate based drops in production?
Over time frames like hundreds of years geo-engineering becomes more feasible. And over longer time frames, smaller yearly investments can be made.
-
DSL at 15:52 PM on 24 May 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel, so what if anything is up from year to year? In the 35 years of the satellite record for ASI area, area at minimum exceeded the previous year's minimum fifteen times, yet the overall trend is strongly negative. If this year's minimum drops below last year's, what will it tell us? Very little. Just as 2013's increase at minimum over 2012 told us very little. As for multiyear ice, there's so little left--like volume--that variance can be played up into quite a rhetorical pudding: "multi-year ice has doubled over last year!"
Moderator Response:Please do not respond to any future comments by jetfuel until a Moderator has had a chance to ascertain whether or not it is in full compliance with the SkS Comments Policy. From here on out, jetfuel is on a very short leash. His/her shennanigans will be stopped one way or another.
-
jetfuel at 15:44 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
DSL, it seems ice loss outpaces most projections. Is only getting down to 4.6-5.3 in 2014 unreasonable at this point? Multiyear ice is up from 2013, but ice area trails 2013 for this day.
-
DSL at 12:57 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
jetfuel, are you aware of the model projections for Arctic sea ice loss?
Take your answer here.
-
jetfuel at 11:48 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Tom, Per my source Charctic, considerably less melting for this most recent 8 days (251,000 sq km) vs the same ~week in 1979 (415,000 sq km) could cause ponderance to some. Thus, in warmer Arctic Ocean water, from a thinner ice pack, and with 401 ppm CO2, ice is dissapearing slower than way back when everything had warmed less. I was just noting that the ice area @time lines were converging over that short time. Yes, that is a general trend for most years. At least that part is behaving normal this year.
Unfortunately, yes, there is 7% less ice than in 1979. Actually 2014 = 2010 amt this day.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is a/ offtopic, b/ cherry-picking - and suspiciously like trolling. If you wish to discuss science then do so in scientific way. If you are here to amuse yourself with outrageous arguments and trolling, then please find somewhere else for your entertainment. Further offtopic comments will be deleted.
-
DSL at 11:01 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Ahhh, but Tom, jetfuel said "area."
CT SIA for the current date is 88.23% of 1979's value and 103.15% of the satellite period record minimum for the date (2011).
And just to be complete, jetfuel, PIOMAS volume for the last day in April (PIOMAS comes out monthly) was 69.65% of its value for 1979 and 100.5% of the record minimum (2011), after having spent much of March and April 2014 as the record minimum. -
michael sweet at 11:01 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Thorconstr,
The normal business in Science is for you to do the experiment over since it is you who challenges the result. Since the result is backed by calculations and is the result I expected, it is a waste of my time to replicate a result that is exactly what I expected it to be.
Skeptics have this expectation that any crazy idea they get has to be countered by scientists doing real experiments. The onus is on the skeptics to actually do the experiment and proove that the accepted result is in error.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
MA Rodger @41, the current (day 142) sea ice extent according to Charctic is 12.592 million km^2. That is 92.69% (or 93% after rounding) of the 1979 figure of 13.585 million km^2, but only 90.714% of 13.881 million km^2 on day 142 of 1985, ie, he actual record year for day 142 values. 1979 was the record year for maximum ice extent, but not for maximum May extent.
Jetfuel is very careful to not tell us that the current sea ice extent is only 97.794% of the equivalent 2007 sea ice extent (12.876 million km^2), and 97.794% of the equivalent 2012 extent (12.876 million km^2). That there is currently less ice than in the former, and current record September minimum ice years, and that the former record minimim extent ice had more ice in day 142 than did the current record shows how pointless are the statistics jetfuel is quoting.
As jetfuel well knows if he has perused charctic, in May sea ice extent variability is at a minimum. At this time of year, there is the least difference between all years so that current values of sea ice extent provide almost no predictive value in predicing eventual September minimums. It also means that at this time of year there is a maximum ice melt for years with the maximum March extent relative to other years - and it means nothing in terms of determining how low the summer sea ice extent will be.
This repeat and greatly extended series of such posts by jetfuel were he takes data out of context and milks "skeptical" conclusions from them regardless of their actual import (or lack of import). He does it so consistently, and persistently in the face of correction that he is (IMO) not entitled to the presumption of honest mistakes, and I am astonished that his record of misinformation, sloganeering and repetition has not yet resulted in his loosing the privilege of posting at SkS.
Returning to the topic, polar bears are adapted to hunting on ice packs. That makes them poor hunters on land, so that summer months are lean month with many polar bears near starvation by the end of summer. The most immediate threat from global warming to polar bears is from the extended duration before they can return to the ice after summer due to the more extensive summer sea ice melts. The slightly reduced sea ice extents in March are of almost no consequence for polar bears, and also have no bearing on the critical summer sea ice extent values.
Moderator Response:Please do not respond to any future comments by jetfuel until a Moderator has had a chance to ascertain whether or not it is in full compliance with the SkS Comments Policy. From here on out, jetfuel is on a very short leash. His/her shennanigans will be stopped one way or another.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:17 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr... Just remember, this experiment here is using ice in salt water, not fresh water. The video you linked to is not using salt water.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:52 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr... Perhaps you should replicate the experiment with the modifications you're suggesting and see whether you get similar results. That would be the normal response.
-
thorconstr at 07:03 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Michael, Why don't you do the experiment again with a piece of ice that floats without leaning on the side of the jar? Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level just as the friction of the ice leaning on the jar showed a wrong conclusion. Put a piece of ice in the jar, fill it completely to the top with water as in the you tube video and watch the outcome.
-
jenna at 06:54 AM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
I'm pretty sure this video was already posts here at SKS on May 13th, no?
Jen
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:53 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Just this morning I listened to this podcast of Chris Mooney interviewing Dr. Richard Alley. Really interesting discussion that brought out a number of points I was unaware of. One being that the gravitational mass of these major ice sheets also plays a role in sea level rise. The ice sheet are so massive that the exert gravitational pull on the ocean around them, thus as they melt, the reduced gravitational pull results in ocean's mass being more evenly distributed around the globe. Wow!
The other one was, the summits of the major ice sheets are currently fairly high in altitude. As the ice sheets melt the lower altitude of the summits will mean they are in warmer air and thus have an amplified melting effect.
-
michael sweet at 05:36 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Thorconstr,
The ice leaning on the side of the jar is only supported sideways, not up and down. It has no effect on the experiment. The setup of the jar makes the experiment easy to see.
When I search "Greenland ice sheet sea level rise" the first hit is Wikipedia which states that the melting of Greenland will result in a 24 foot rise in sea level. Since I live in Florida that seems like a lot to me since over half the state (home to over 10 millionj people) would be inundated. Climate Central only goes up to 10 feet of rise so their maps are much too conservative. I do not know anyone who thinks this "affect would be small". Perhaps if you look up data before you post you will seem less uninformed. This thread is better for Greenland discussion
Antarctia is melting from below due to the increase in ocean temperatures. The fact that the average temperature is -30C does not matter when the bottom of the ice is melting due to heat in the ocean. You are spending too much time reading skeptic blogs that do not know what the facts of the matter are. This thread is good for Antarctia.
-
wili at 03:55 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
Others have already addressed quite well most of aust's points, but I would just add that Peter Ward has proposed a "Medea Principle" (or Hypothesis) to set against the Gaia--The earth does foster its 'children' for a while...until it suddently flies into a rage periodically and slaughters (almost) all of them in a mass extinction event. LINK
We are now in the midst of just such an event, and it is getting worse.
Note also that even with less than one degree C of warming above pre-industrial levels, we are already seeing non-linear, permanent changes kick in--Arctic sea ice will be essentially gone in the next few years or (at most) the next very few decades, and won't return any time soon no matter what happens. And now we hear that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is simillarly doomed, though that collapse will take a bit longer to play out.
Unfortunately, the 'negative' damping feedbacks to raising of CO2 levels are both smaller in number and much slower than the positive feedbacks--think weathering of mountain ranges. The speed of our carbon 'forcing' is breathtakingly fast by any geological comparison.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed excessively long url that was breaking page format. In the future, please use the link tool located on the second tab of the comments box to hotlink your urls. Thx.
-
wili at 03:42 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
I would like to join saileshrao in praising Glenn Tamblyn's insightful and articulate wording which I will reproduce more fully:
"
While in principal we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, there is a strong case to be made that our degreeof responsibility is moderated/modulated hugely by how witting or unwitting we were when we took those actions.Conversely, if we were unwitting and then gained understanding later, how we respond to that discovery is of paramount importance. Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm is sad and disturbing.
Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm and then continuing to do so is immoral."
This is so well put (and something I have been trying to articulate but failed to do with this level of precision) that I hope GT will not mind if I use it elsewhere, properly cited, of course. I would add, though, that ignorance of consequences should not completely let us off the hook, since any marginally reflective soul should be able to be aware of his/her own ignorance and apply the precautionary principle accordingly.
Prev 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 Next
