Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 Next
Comments 36401 to 36450:
-
MA Rodger at 03:30 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Not being minded to examine a source used to spread nonsense, I will but point out that the freezy season of 2013/4 left Arctic SIA at 13.5Mkm^2, which is 89.5% of the equivilant 1978/9 figure. The latest SIA is 10.8Mkm^2, which is 89.2% of the equivilant 1979 figure.
Also, unlike Yogi Bear, the term polar bear is neither capitalised nor the subject of fictional commentary; at least, not on this website.
Moderator Response:[JH] I belive that you have directed this coment to jetfuel.
In the future, please identify the comenter (by name) and coment (by number) that you are respo ding to.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:36 AM on 24 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
chriskoz @7, I've run the data from NOAA. Doing so for all 12 month intervals in the global monthly mean data shows the interval March 2013-March 2014 to rank 33rd among all twelve month intervals in the record since Jan 1980. The highest ranked 12 month interval is Sept 1997 - Sept 1998, with a global increase of 3.6 ppmv. For Mauna Loa, April 2013 - April 2014 ranks 15th among all twelve month intervals since records began in March, 1958. Sept 1997 - Sept 1998 is again shows the highest twelve month increase in CO2 concentration, with an increase of 3.7 ppmv.
From this it is evident that the author compared the most rescent Mauna Loa 12 month increase with the global Calendar year increases, which is not a like for like comparison. The result is that most, if not all the claimed records in the OP are mistated. The most recent 12 month increases are not even records for non El Nino years, with larger 12 month increases from Feb 1012 to Feb 2013 for Mauna Loa (3.2 ppmv), and from July 2012 to July 2013 for the Global record (3.47 ppmv). The later is a non-El Nino record, as it ranks second among all intervals. I am not certain of the non-El Nino record for Mauna Loa.
Evidently the first few paragraphs of the OP requires a significant rewrite to correct these errors, which is a shame because it is an otherwise informative article.
-
Composer99 at 02:22 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr:
The impression I get is that you are not reading the OP, or my comment, very carefully, if at all.
The OP notes:
Now let us consider a slightly different experiment. It’s again water with some ice in it, but now the water is salty (like the real ocean). The blue color has no effect on the experiment, but it shows the ice cube in the water more clearly.
It took quite a time to melt all ice but finally it was done and the result is clear: The water level is higher!
Doesn’t that contradict Archimedes’ principle?
According to Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) it doesn’t because the principle refers to weight and not volume. [...][Emphasis mine.]
When the ice melts then this is a kind of freshening of the ocean and the overall salinity is lowered. The lower salinity, the lower density and the larger volume.
The melting of sea ice therefore doesn’t increase the mass but it increases the volume and therefore causes the water level to rise. After Noerdlinger’s and Brower’s calculations the volume of the meltwater is about 2.6% larger than the displaced sea water.
Even though the OP explicitly notes Archimedes' principle, and explicitly notes that the principle does not take into account changes in salinity and temperature in ocean water from melting ice, and explicitly provides a reference discussing the phenomenon, you ignore it all and state:
See Archimedes principal as well.
as if somehow, despite having discussed the principle, the OP is somehow ignorant of it.
You yourself specified that the Antarctic/Greenland ice was land ice:
Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level
As such your following comments were off topic. If you now wish to bring up floating ice shelves, that is indeed topical, although I do not see how bringing up floating ice shelves lends any support to your claims.
-
Lionel A at 01:29 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
That Real Climate link in my #14 above now goes to a very different looking page, this is the one I viewed (unless it is substituted again) Debate over the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis. I have not previously seen this behaviour from RC.
-
jetfuel at 00:22 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
At least Polar Bear adaptation is being relieved so far this year. On 2014 being a meltdown year in the Arctic year, there is now 93% as much ice area (May 21st) as record cold year 1979 ice area level. 2014 Peak March to late May melted area is substantially less than in same period of 1979. source: Charctic ISI.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your "look squirrel" bloging style is very tiresome and impreses no one reading this comment thread. Please cease and desist posting coments of this nature.
-
thorconstr at 00:14 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I pressume that a piece of ice supported by the side of a jar is not a good representation of floating ice. Antarctica and Greenland are not off topic because they represent ice that is supported as is the ice leaning on the side of the jar. This experiment is misleading. Can you comment without attacking?
-
jetfuel at 23:49 PM on 23 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
From clarification in #36, A global warming of 2 deg C is a low range optimistic value and > 4 deg C of global warming by 2100 is a high range estimate. >4 is ~1 deg per 20 years. We are 14 years into the 21st century. What is the global temp increase from 2000 till now?
We are not on track 14 years into the 21st century. I question that the Earth's crust, atmosphere, and oceans as a heat sink could allow that much change in 100 years. I tried to see the annual fluctuation in Lake superior water temps but they only record surface temps, when avg depth is 183.2 meters.
Adapting has so far been to .7F in 60 years from 1942 to 2012. What animal, plant or human can't adapt to: NOAA sea level trends: Naples Fla shows 2.4 mm/yr; Daytona shows 2.32 mm/yr. A house in Jupiter, Fla at 14.5 feet above sea level is also 4419 mm above sea level. The recent trend along Fla coast will bring sea water to the Jupiter Fla house doorstep in 1841 years, assuming no changes in continental plate rise or fall over 1841 years. Sounding so many alarms and raising electric rates 50% in 6 years to fight this seems a bit overdone.
-
Composer99 at 23:49 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr:
You really should read through the papers hyperlinked in the OP before writing in a comment that appears to presume the simple experiment is the end of the matter - and ignoring the point made that the melting sea ice in salt water changes the salinity and temperature of the water, therefore changing its volume.
Your claims regarding Greenland and the Antarctic appear to be purely arguments from ignorance. They are also off-topic, so if you want to pursue them further (with references) please look up appropriate threads to do so.
-
thorconstr at 23:32 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Floating ice (not a huge chunk leaning on the side of a jar) such as the polar ice cap, displaces the same amount of water as ice as it does as water, there is no change in level. Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level although given the land mass of Greenland the affect would be small and Antarctica with an average tempreature of -30 is not an issue. See the site below for a proper demonstration of melting ice and water level. See Archimedes principal as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCqHRpQh88
-
ranyl at 22:11 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
"Your initial sentence sugests to me that it may not in fact be the intended initial sentence of your post. Either way, please clarify.
Therefore seems to imply the hotter we get the less carbon drawn down by biosphere."
Thanks yes, it should read more "that it seems from the excellent and interesting post that the warmer we get the less carbon is drawn down into the biosphere's sinks".
Not sure how to edit an old post for typos etc, so sorry.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank yuou for the clarification. Unfortunately, the SkS coments system does not curently provide commenters with the ability to edit posts. Until such time as an editing function is installed, commenters are more than welcome to post a revised/corrected edition of a previously posted comment.
-
Klapper at 21:31 PM on 23 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Chriskoz #41:
So far I've looked at the temperature trends in 3 different boxes, the first from NCDC, the second and third from CRUTEM4. The last box covered the Chengdu area based on input from Tom Curtis. All were above the CRUTEM4 global average for land temperature. I haven't found any evidence from these data that anthropogenic aerosols have a cooling effect on SAT.
It's possible that the cooling effect of aerosols is non-linear, i.e. cooling at lower intensities but less so at higher intensities, or that the Chinese mix is richer in soot vs sulphate, or that 30 year trends are too long to capture the recent Chinese surge in aerosols. On the latter point, regional SAT is very noisy and trends shorter than 30 years probably wouldn't be meaningful statistically.
All that being said, data from China over the last 30 years don't appear to support the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols represent a negative SAT forcing. That brings us back to the question at hand, whether increasing the leverage of anthropogenic aerosols to recalculate climate sensitivity is appropriate or not. If anything, data from the last 30 years in China would indicate that decreasing the leverage of anthropogenic aerosols to recalculate climate sensitivity should be the next experiment.
-
chriskoz at 18:53 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Tom@5,
Thanks for that clarification. From the article, I wouldn't have guessed that "Last year" (and last point) on Figure 1 means "Year to April 2014".
While other points are perhaps year to Dec XXXX (where XXXX spans from 1959 till 2013) ? Where was that data taken from? Or maybe, in fact, the other points are taken from that NOAA table I've been referring to? Note that the table shows "The table shows annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates" which is different than "year to Dec XXXX". In the latter case the last point does not belong to the rest of the graph.
Pardon my quibble, but in order to be confident about the validity of article conclusions, I have to be confident that the data is accurate and not skewed/cherry picked. Especially if the article makes a big projection/speculation based on the last April 2014 point in the graph. If I was about to construct Figure 1, I would e.g. take 12 times more points, representing annual growth rate ending at each month from Dec 1959 till Apr 2014. Such 12-month running average would smooth the noise and my conclusion would be better supported by the actual trend of last several months rather than by a cherry picked point.
Having said the above, I of course do not deny that CO2 trend on Keeling Curve is exponential (the first derivative shown on figure 1, like the similar figure on NOAA page, is linear with good confidence).
-
ranyl at 18:04 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Therefore seems to imply the hotter we get the less carbon drawn down by biosphere.
Do models represent that well?
Clearly CO2 has been introduced very quickly into the system so there si some lag before euqilibrium between the sinks for sure and thus theoretical if we stopped emitting CO2 the redistribution would lower CO2 in atmosphere. However we are going to still warm as still in radiative imbalance at these CO2 levels and the sinks do buffer 50% of the full release immediate;y, and natural drawn down takes millenia due to weathering, so where is the balance point, 75% drawn down and the reminaing 25% take eons what?
It is just that so many seem to actually beleive that if CO2 emissions stopped CO2 woudl fall rapidly and this seems not quite right for me, the buffer has already taken up 50% and keep in mind that Nitrogen fertilization has helped that quite alot (not in models often) and the sinks from this get less as we heat up and we aren't cooling any time soon due the inherent heat lags and a now the albedo drivers.
Also many of the sinks seem to be under threat, forest fires, permafrost, peat fires, droughts in Brazil, old tree die off and the warming ocean etc, etc...
And although emissions are increasing year on year, can't help feeling th esinks are waining in their effect.
This for implies that even stopping CO2 today CO2 will not fall that quickly and may even still rise, indeed in this study showed if climate sensititivity 4C, then goes up and let's face it recent evidence is in line with a CS of 4C, indeed even IPCC CS 4.5C or above is a 1:3 chance.
Who said we had a carbon budget???
Last time CO2 was 350ppm (and we aren't getting back to that unless we remove CO2 from the atmosphere somehow for at least 200-300 years even if stopped all emissions today), sea levels were 20-25m higher on average and temperature were 3-5C higher, although probably even higher considering the West Pacific warm pool was actually much hotter than prweviously thought and covers ~1/10th of the ocean.
What carbon budget??
Basically from the evidence shows we don't have a carbon budget we have a huge debt and if we don't repay it very soon by going carbon negative asap we won't be able to to adapt even.
Therefore isn't every ounce of carbon a huge gamble now?
Shouldn't the questions be how on earth are going toget to 350ppm by 2100, and even that means 2-3C warming by then if the 60-80% of the full warming proposed by Hansen is correct.
350ppm for millenia, earth 3-5C hotter, therefore 350ppm 100 years, we get 60-80% of that, so 1.8C to 2.4C being optimistic.
Anyway lets pretend and elts emit loads more carbon and think 450ppm is safe in some way!
And just how standard deviations shift of the mean is a 2C rise in temperature?
Looking at the bottom graph, excluding the last 30 years, it seems the range is 0.8C max arround the mean, implying a Standard deviation of ~0.4C.
That means 2C is a 5SD shift in mean.
That is equivalent to increasing the average height of man to 7'1", and means a 1/20 year warm year is 7SD from pre-industrial, and that means we are going very extreme in our weather does it not!
So 2C is well miore dangerous than policy makers have any clue of.
Therefore isn't the question now, how can we get carbon negative asap to give us any chance at all, becuase lets face, a 10SD shift in mean temperature (4C) means things so extreme we have no chance of avoiding human civilization choas.
So what doe sthat mean.
Well it means serioulsy thinking is that flight really worth such an outcome?
And as for solutions, scale is everything, and all renewables have extensive environmental imapcts that are just dismissed, like toxic waste, rare earth metals, etc,etc, and all becuase coal is worse or somethign else we do is worse, you wouldn't think the biosphere was on its kbneees becasue of toxic waste, land use etc....
And the sinks are declining and we have to stop using nitrogen fertilizers so they wilol reudce further.
When is this the scale of this problem going to stop it being abstract dinner party talk to oh shit, lets get on, rebuild the earth's ecosystem and stop using power asap, inhcluding the car!
Moderator Response:[JH] Your initial sentence sugests to me that it may not in fact be the intended initial sentence of your post. Either way, please clarify.
[RH] Adjusted image size.
-
denisaf at 17:48 PM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
The graphs show what is increasing. Money is intangible so the inrease in the amount is not constrained by natural forces. The population is naturally reproducable so long as the essential sustenance is available. However, the tangible infrastructure of civilization is dependent on the availability of the declining stock of natural resources as it ages. Figure 3 gives the rate of exploitation of some of the resources. It does not show what is left. That exploitation cannot possibly continue. That assertion is simple logic. So the trend in Figure 2 cannot possibly continue, despite all the anthropocentric argument. Ironically the world model in "Limits to Growth" was a simple illustration of that stark reality decades ago. Yet society ignored that lesson so the future for the expanded population is becoming more dire. A dieoff is certain while the infrastructure disintegrates. Human decisions can do no more that ease the inevitable powering down.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
chriskoz @4, NOAA shows a Mauna Loa CO2 concentration of 398.35 ppmv for April 2013, and 401.3 ppmv for April 2014. The difference is 2.95 ppmv as stated in the article. Unfortunately the link in the article is to the Global March figures, which show a difference of 2.56 ppmv. The figures you quote for annual means are for Jan-Dec 2012 and Jan - Dec 2013, shown in a graph for Mauna Loa further down the page to which I linked above. Unfortunately, the annual growth rates shown in the graph above appear to be for Global, year to Dec, annual figures. On that basis, the 2.56 ppmv for 2012-2013 is exceded by 1997-1998 (2.84 ppmv) and 1986-1987 (2.71 ppmv). Both were El Nino years, giving 2012-2013 the record for non- El Nino years, but not the overall record.
-
scaddenp at 13:54 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr - read and abide the comments policy.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thorconstr - please carefully read the comment policy. Conformance in not optional. Note especially the section on sloganeering (making assertions without supporting evidence) and the prohibition on political statements. This a site to discuss science. There are plenty of other places for political rants.
-
chriskoz at 13:09 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Last year the concentration of CO2 has risen by 2,95 ppm
That's a false statement. The source linked from NOAA directly contradicts that statement:
Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates table shows: "2013 2.48"
Mauna Loa Annual Mean Growth Rate table shows: "2013 2.05"
I guess 2,95 ppm in the article is a typo. Nufortunately followed by the erroneous interpretation of that typo: allegedly last year's growth was "the highest on record". In fact year 1998 has seen the higher rate of 2.84. Some studies explanains such unusually high 1998 growth was in part due to massive ElNino cooking and in other part due to massive indonesian forrest fires that year, that released as much as 5GtC (half of antropo emissions).
-
chriskoz at 12:45 PM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Marcin,
I'm interested in more details of the "low-oxygen dead zones" in your figure 3. But it's hard to find more info/data in a general link you pointed. And the fact that the y-axis on figure 3 is nor quantified does not help. Can you provide more specific link with some detailed explanation what "low-oxygen dead zones" means, together with some data?
PS: Thanks for that article which broadens the issue of AGW and touches sustainability. I've been enjoying your blogs and discussions in Polish media where you're doing terrific job explaining the science...
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 07:28 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
In the years after a major volcanic eruption (i.e. when there is an abundance of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere), heterotrophic respiration decreases due to a lowering of the Earth’s surface temperature and the productivity of ecosystems in forested area increases under enhanced diffuse radiation. Both processes lead to a negative anomaly in CO2 growth rate. See Wang 2013, Gu 2003, Frölicher 2013
-
jamesprescott at 04:42 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Why do volcanoes reduce interannual CO2 rise?
-
jyyh at 03:09 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
"Previous non-El Niño record was surpassed by 0.53 ppm, which (W)as also a record"
As strong el Ninos are not necessarily natural, it's no surprise nature has hard time adjusting to them.
-
John Hartz at 02:01 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Everyone particpating in, or reading, this comment thread will want to check out Tom Engelhardt's new essay posted today on TomDispatch.com.
Engelhardt's essay is titled, The 95% Doctrine - Climate Change as a Weapon of Mass Destruction
It answers the question: Is Climate Change a Crime Against Humanity?
-
saileshrao at 00:44 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Lionel A @ 14,
"Whilst one could blame the British for starting the exponential rise of CO2 through industrialization one should ask is such blame well placed. For much of the period humans were ignorant of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels on the atmosphere at Earth's temperature."
The Law of Karma has been well-known in the East for several millennia. It is the specifics of the Earth's reaction to a particular depredation that we're now beginning to unravel through science.
The colonialists deliberately chose to deride every piece of wisdom that they found in the indigineous communities that they ruled by force. Therefore, the ignorance was wilful, not unwitting. -
saileshrao at 00:33 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Glenn Tamblyn @16:
"Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm and then continuing to do so is immoral."
Thank you for this statement. It explains why some people want to repudiate the science of climate change: it clashes with their moral being as they find it hard to accept their past "immorality", even if it was unwitting. This understandable denialism also explains why most climate scientists continue to eat animal foods, despite the overwhelming evidence of disappearing forests that satellite images have brought into plain view (see http://globalforestwatch.org ). -
Lionel A at 00:17 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
chriskoz
austrartsua has probaly the anthropic principle in mind.
-
Composer99 at 00:16 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
chriskoz, that's probably some form of the anthropic principle. Possibly a stronger variant thereof.
-
chriskoz at 00:06 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
austrartsua@7,
Small changes in radiative forcing would lead to large swings in the systems temperature. Such a system would probably not be long-lived and certainly would be unlikely to support a bio-sphere for billions of years.[...] you can think of [...] a combination of the Gaia hypothesis and the anthropogenic principle
Note that your "large swings in the system temperature" is not a correct statement. The main negative feedback, not mentioned by anyone yet, not allowing such swings is the increased outgoing IR due to increased temperature. This feedback does ensure that once the planet reaches the radiative equilibrium, it will not warm anymore. Well it'll warm slightly due to slow positive Earth System fedbacks like carbon cycle (e.g. thawing permafrost). But the system as a whole cannot axperience any "large swings", because the omnipresent outgoing IR negative feedback will counteract all Earth System effects.
Your "Gaia hypothesis" can be viewed as a "spiritual take" of the theory of rock weathering, explained by scaddenp@10. However, I have no clue what your "anthropogenic principle" (?) is. I've never heard such term and am puzzled what you could have meant. Please explain.
-
chriskoz at 23:27 PM on 22 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper@40,41
Despite my assertion @29 not to consider climate change in any chinese locality in isolation from the rest of the globe, you did precisely what I warned against (i.e. you "boxed" a convenient cherry area, where temperature trend supports your preconceived claim), therefore you've implicitly denied the validity of my assertion.
Maybe you should open your mind at this point, at the fact that climate change is not only about CO2 and aerosols forcings and cherries. Climate change is about variety of phenomenons, including but not limitted to athmospheric and ocean fluid dynamics, water vapour transport via winds and convection and associated rainfall patterns, etc.
Let's consider for example changes in rainfall over China in last 50y from the widely cited article: (Xu 2001). Xu found that due to the changes in heat equilibrium of the land surface (due to SO2 pollution), the summer monsoon belt has moved southward. How much? Check Xu's figure 4: Average latitudes of the central axis of monsoon rain belt in summer and mid-summer. I'm eyeballing that it moved by some 5 degrees since 1960, leading to an abnormal summer climate pattern of ‘‘north [your cherry Beijing] drought with south flooding’’ It does not take much imagination to conclude that in such situation of signifficant shift in precipitations, the temperature response will also vary. Specifically, we can expect the increase in temperature for the areas that became drier, because the rain cools things down in summer. And that's what Beijing may be experiencing: drier summers due to retreat of monsoon southwards.
This is only one example that I'm giving you, without even trying to quantify the issue because I don't have time and expertise for it. This is just to show that your method of "boxing" and isolating a cherry temperature trend is not how you should aproach the complex problem of climate change in China.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:26 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Lionel
"one should ask is such blame well placed. For much of the period humans were ignorant of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels on the atmosphere at Earth's temperature."
I agree. While in principal we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, there is a strong case to be made that our degree of 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.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:15 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
austrartsua
"Suppose that the earth was highly sensitive to changes in radiative forcing of order 1C. Then the system would be unstable. Small changes in radiative forcing would lead to large swings in the systems temperature. Such a system would probably not be long-lived and certainly would be unlikely to support a bio-sphere for billions of years."
There is a fundamental fallacy in this argument which is easy to miss if we just talk about feedbacks in a purely mathematical way. That the feedbacks have a consistent magnitude. So a positive feedback is seen as being continuously positive no matter how much feedback is applied. Such an implicit idea can lead to the notion that if feedbacks are strong then a system must be unstable.
However in the real world many feedback, +ve or -ve, may be strong but of limited scope.
A good example of this is ice sheets. Warming will melt ice sheets, changing albedo and producing a potentially strong +ve feedback. Right up to the point where the ice sheets have completely melted. After that point there is no more ice to melt and ice sheet change provides no further feedback at all. Similarly cooling expands ice sheets in a +ve feedback. Until the position of continents, percentage of ocean at different latitudes etc limits further ice sheet growth.
So discussion of CS is really a discussion of CS relative to the current climate state. And there is no automatic argument that a higher CS in the current climate state (which is what we are interested in) implies a high CS in all climate states and thus an instability condition. Climate may better be described as a system that can fluctuate between several relatively stable states. Not stable. Not unstable. Metastable.
Unfortunately a transition to a new metastable state may not be good for our health.
-
Lionel A at 20:22 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Whilst one could blame the British for starting the exponential rise of CO2 through industrialization one should ask is such blame well placed. For much of the period humans were ignorant of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels on the atmosphere at Earth's temperature.
Discussion of the legacy of wealth thus gained is too complex, and politically fractious to go into much detail here other than to recognise that those enjoying the benefit of riches thus gained should shoulder proportionally more of the cost of mitigation and adaptation. This goes for other industrial and developed nations some of which have contributed proportionally much more to the GHG content of Earth's surface systems over recent decades.
But of course this does not escape from the reality that Britain became rich and powerful from rapid industrialization which was in turn made possible by the earlier agricultural revolution and the trade abetted by Britain being an island with strategic geographical advantages which made the rise of sea power for that nation almost inevitable.
However the rise in the atmospheric content of two main greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide and methane over a longer timescale has been investigated by, amongst others, William Ruddiman who has written papers and books on this topic. Amongst the latter are 'Plows, Plagues and Petroleum' and the more recent 'Earth Transformed', these are both worth looking up.
Bill Ruddiman has also written more extensive texts such as 'Earth's Climate: Past and Future'. There is a useful introduction to William Ruddiman's research at RealClimate
Debate over the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis
When it comes to the disproportionate GHG contributions of nation states then David JC MacKay has produced illuminating literature both web based and in handy book form with 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air' with Chapter 1 Motivations being of specific relevance here.
Humanity faces many growing problems due to increasing development – mineral extraction, pollution, overconsumption and a huge, and growing wealth divide. The many ethical dimensions of the issues are encapsulated in a very small but topic rich publication 'The Little Earth Book' which contains over sixty small essay chapters, well worth looking up.
-
MartinG at 15:06 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Excellent observations. And since our luxury materialistic lifestyle is one of the prime drivers for growth - and hence fossil fuel burning increases in the developing world, I believe we should have a major focus on a more sustainable lifestyle in the developed world. Its no use jumping up and down and waving our arms about fossil fuel consumption and sounding the alarm about global warming if we are not prepared to change our own lifestyles. Ther best way to slow fossil fuel burning is to use less energy ourselves because we will never beat the fossil fuel industry while the demand (and hence profit) is there.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:43 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Austratua... To add to what scaddenp said, you also can't get well know processes to operate at 1C. For instance, with only 1C for CS you don't get glacial-interglacial cycles.
There are many very good reasons, like glacial-interglacials, showing why CS below 2C is highly unlikely. The real challenges are with higher CS figures. We can't eliminate 4.5C. We have reasonable confidence that methane clathrates are not going to a problem, but we don't know for sure what could trigger releases.
-
gws at 09:23 AM on 22 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #20
Esop, your statement beginning "we should expect the denialiati ..." is as illogical as the denialati themselves ... the nature of denial is to deny was is real and true, ergo they will do no such thing as "admitting". Cheers!
-
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Marcin @9, are you suggesting that in a world which includes AGW deniers there are no conspiracy theories? I'm sure we can find some, if we look around and so find that my formula requires neither multiplication nor division by zero.
More importantly, I agree that the Kaya identity is accepted, and very usefull. It is not, however, accepted because of a mathematical derivation such as the one you show. It is accepted because a strong correlation between energy use and wealth (GDP) has existed throughout human history; and because the use of fossil fuels generates a strong correlation between energy use and CO2 emissions. Your derivation of the Kaya identity draws the focus away from its emperical basis, and appears to suggest it is accepted because of an empty formalism.
-
scaddenp at 08:14 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Austratua- "There are also negative feedbacks which tend to keep the earth system stable in response to changes in forcing." Such as?
I dont think there is much evidence of earth system stability in response to change of forcing. More like natural forcing only changes very slowly. The only known "thermostat" is the very crude weathering feedback which operates over million year timeframes.
There is a high degree of confidence from both physics and paleoclimate, that climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5, mostly likely around 3. A value of 2 is more than enough to cause concern given the rate at which we are increasing the forcing. We do not have many examples from paleoclimate of changes in forcing that occur this fast. We do have evidence that rates of climate change slower than present have not been good for many species.
While the direct response to CO2 increase on only 1C, water and albedo quickly get you to 3 so you need evidence a strong negative feedback if you want to posit a low sensitivity.
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 08:07 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
@Tom Curtis
This is the variation of Kaya identity (or I=PAT formula) It's generally accepted.
As to your theory that elimination of conspiracy theories would eliminate CO2 emissions. Well - that's not sure, because one would not only multiply by ZERO but also divide by ZERO in (CO2 emissions/Conspiracy theories) part.
:)
-
Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Marcin, this is an excellent article, but the derivation of the formula is scientifically nonsensical (if mathematically imaculate). I could as easily derive a relationship as follows:
CO2emissions = CO2 emissions
CO2 emissions = (Conspiracy Theories/Conspiracy theories) * CO2 emissions
CO2 emissions = Conspiracy Theories * (CO2 emissions/Conspiracy theories)
and conclude that to reduce CO2 emissions we need only eliminate conspiracy theories.
Your final formula is based emperically based correlations that are also theoretically predictable. Your derivation conceals rather than illucidates that fact.
-
austrartsua at 05:50 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
@Will. There are also negative feedbacks which tend to keep the earth system stable in response to changes in forcing. As I am sure you are aware, the direct increase in radiative forcing cause by a doubling of the concentration of Co2 is about 1C. What else happens, is all down to feedbacks. Do we know what the tally of all these feedbacks is? Not really, it is an exciting area of research. However I would say that there is reason to believe the earth is reletively stable in the face of a change in radiative forcing of 1C, by argument of contradiction (not definitive, just a heuristic idea).
Suppose that the earth was highly sensitive to changes in radiative forcing of order 1C. Then the system would be unstable. Small changes in radiative forcing would lead to large swings in the systems temperature. Such a system would probably not be long-lived and certainly would be unlikely to support a bio-sphere for billions of years.
Is this a water-tight argument? Of course not and we really do need to work out what the climate sensitivity is. However, you can think of this argument as a combination of the Gaia hypothesis and the anthropogenic principle. If the climate sensitivity was very high, life wouldn't exist here!
So I agree, we wouldn't expect to see a linear trend, but something else. What else? That's an open question.
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 05:50 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
@austrartsua
Temperature growth will be roughly linear with our emissions (they grow exponentially). See IPCC WG1AR5 SPM Figure SPM.10, also explanation on SkS.
-
wili at 05:31 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Austrartsua; Perhaps, but the real world is not necessarily going to respond in a linear manner. "Discontinuities" of various sorts are likely looming. As major reinforcing 'positive' feedbacks kick in, there are likely to be sudden surprises. Alley and others point out that sudden sea level rise cannot be ruled out, and recent research has tended to reinforce this claim. Arctic sea ice melt, especially if you look at volume loss, seems to be proceeding at an exponential rate. A number of systems are likely to undergo a rather sudden phase shift once pushed (linearly) passed a certain point.
In other cases, large-scale linear processes can create large local 'discontinuities,' as when expanding tropical cells cause shifts in long-term rain patterns at cetain latitudes, for example.
-
antelope at 05:22 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Ah yes. Thanks.
-
wili at 05:13 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Antelope, that does seem confusing. But emissions are different from accumulation. Recall that about half of the emissions are taken up by ocean and land 'sinks.' There may be other problems with the math here, but do be sure to distinguish rate of rise in emissions from rate in rise of atmospheric concentration.
SkS, there seems to be a graph missing after the first paragraph. Great post, by the way (as usual).
-
austrartsua at 05:13 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
The temperature forcing caused by Co2 is logarithmic in the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere. Log of an exponential function is a linear function. So a rough prediction of the rise in temperatures is a linear rate. This is a fact which is barely understood by most of the public.
-
antelope at 05:00 AM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
But surely, unless I've misunderstood something, CO2 emissions are not increasing at 2.8% a year. They're increasing at about 2.5 to 3 ppm. Given levels are currently at 400ppm, this isn't 2.8%.
-
Composer99 at 03:02 AM on 22 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
jetfuel:
Sea level rise is currently 3 mm per year, or 10 times higher than the amount you cite. That being said, any further discussion specifically pertaining to sea level rise should occur on pertinent threads, rather than this one, where it is off topic. You might find that those other posts and threads will provide links to papers published in the literature which explain the projections of higher sea level rise by 2100.
In addition, I strongly recommend that you take your inquiry regarding the scientific consensus to another thread where it is on topic. This post and thread discuss Bengtsson's views regarding climate science and the distortion of those views, in service of conspiratorial ideation, by others.
-
Esop at 02:15 AM on 22 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #20
A big El Nino and the corresponding spike in surface temps is not something the deniers are looking forward to, so they are in full damage control mode these days.
Over the past 6 or so years, we have seen nothing but predictions of cooling from them, so with a likely new surface temp record in 2015, we should expect the denialiati to finally admit that they have been wrong, as they have proposed no natural explanation for a new surface record, rather the opposite.
-
jetfuel at 02:09 AM on 22 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
What exactly is the 97% concensus for? That you can't rule out man completely for any contribution to Global Warming? There are many factors affecting sea level besides melting land based Ice or snowpack. The 0.32 mm/yr of recent SLR trend line equals 10 inches by 2100. 2 meters or 78.74 inches by 2100 requires an increase by an order of magnitude from the recent trendline.
Moderator Response:[PS] Beside being off-topic, your statement about SLR is out by an order of magnitude. If have evidence of non-climate related causes of SLR, then please take them to this thread. Using the search function to find an appropriate thread for commentary is not that hard. Further offtopic comments will be deleted.
-
Composer99 at 01:34 AM on 22 May 2014There is no consensus
Is it too much to ask that people read just the infographic?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:14 AM on 22 May 2014There is no consensus
Mytheroo... I would highly suggest you take the time to read the research paper you're commenting on. The answer to the question, "How to we get to 97%?" is there.
Of papers that take a position, 97% of the published research supports the idea that humans are the primary cause of warming.
If you like, you can use the 32% figure too, but you have to compare that, then, to the rejection rate which goes down below 1%.
No matter how you prefer to slice it, the overwhelmingly dominant position in the published literature is that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of warming.
Prev 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 Next
