Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 Next
Comments 36451 to 36500:
-
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.
-
Mytheroo at 00:11 AM on 22 May 2014There is no consensus
to me it seems this study came about because:
"the skeptics don't believe that, when surveyed, climate scientists tell the truth about AGW and instead endorse it"
So, this study studies the papers instead of surveying the scientists, as it can be assumed that they are more likely to state their correct position in their papers.
The study came up with 32% Endorse AGW.
How do we get to 97%?
"oh...we surveyed them"
:-|
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering whcih is prhobited by the SkS Comments Polcy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Klapper at 13:54 PM on 21 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Tom Curtis #39:
I checked a box around Chengdu (25 to 35N, 100 to 110 E) and found that the warming rate in CRUTEM4.2 for the last 30 years to be 0.31C/decade, so Chengdu has a similar warming rate to the Bejing/Shanghai area.
-
Klapper at 13:37 PM on 21 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Tom Curtis #39:
The most viewable map you've posted (PM2.5) shows the Bejing/Shanghai corridor to be the most polluted. I also looked at other air pollution proxies (ozone, NO2) and they showed the same thing.
Anyway here is a link which shows 2001 to 2010 PM2.5 on a grid which you can zoom in so it's somewhat better than the map you posted. The Bejing/Shanghai area is just as intense as the Chengdu area, but larger in areal extent.
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/sdei-global-annual-avg-pm2-5-2001-2010
If you are convinced that Chengdu is more representative than Bejing/Shanghai then do your own trend analysis of the Chengdu area.
-
chriskoz at 12:51 PM on 21 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
denisaf@9,
Consequences of "industry using fossil fuels" were "unintended" until about mid-last century, before confirmed AGW. Although there were voices in the scientific community pointing the problem of AGW even earlier: click the interactive history button on the left to learn more.
Since at least 50y ago, said consequences are known and quantified (e.g. by CO2 mass balance from Keeling Curve). Since at least 25y ago (first IPCC report confirming AGW) the consequences are intended.
(Snip)
Moderator Response:[PS] Please abide by the comment policy (No accusation of deceptions etc).
-
denisaf at 11:22 AM on 21 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
It is ironical that there is so much hype about combatting climate change. It is a typical anthropocentric view of reality. The simple fact is that irreversible rapid climate change is under way primarily due to the unintended consequences of industry using fossil fuels. No amount of hype will change that reality. The best that society can now do is adopt sound mitigation and adaptation policies as recommended in the latest IPCC report.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note the comment policy prohibition on sloganeering. "The simple fact is that irreversible rapid climate change..." appears to be an assertion in contradiction to the IPCC reports you cite. If you believe this to be correct, please cite the basis for this statement.
-
John Hartz at 10:28 AM on 21 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #20
chriskoz: Please note that the two paragraphs of the El Niño Watch section are the first two pragraphs of the the article verbatim. The name of the newspaper is also a big clue to what "Pacific Nothwest" means in this particualr context.
-
chriskoz at 08:26 AM on 21 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #20
"El Niño conditions usually cause milder and warmer winters in the Pacific Northwest."
Please note that SkS is not US-centric. Therefore such shortcut may be confusing for readers outside US. A better warding would be:
"El Niño conditions usually cause milder and warmer winters in the west coast of North America" (states of CA, OR, WA & BC)
-
Paul D at 05:35 AM on 21 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Regarding GWPF and Lawson...
Nigel Lawson (GWPF founder) was on the radio recently commenting on the attempted takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer, stating it would be a good thing.
Thankfully it never happened, but the comment did highlight the fact that Lawson cares not for science (or successful British businesses), only for markets and economics.The media seem to be obsessed with Lawsons pronouncements these days, after spending years ignoring him in his retirement.
-
ZincKidd at 05:03 AM on 21 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Given the vanishingly small number of contrarian papers published for peer review, it's clear they've wanted an example of a "rejected" paper in order to claim the reason there are so few contrarian papers is they get rejected by the "conspiracy". Expect this case to be cited every time the consensus comes up.
-
PluviAL at 03:13 AM on 21 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
I can imagine a gadget, not to far down the road that will verify factual consensus of casual claims in writing, or speech. In this case false claims by the, supposed, conservative anti-science crowd could be eliminated by the reader. Lets imagine that the gadget might color the content acording to coroborated validity ration according to reader preferences.
We are gradually working toward that capability. The gadget is each of us correcting the discussion, keeping a higher emotional, rational, and level of knowledge and courtecy throghout the blogosphere and in opportunities for discussion. We have the facts and moral highground, we just have to keep at it. The community is getting inoculated agains the lies of the disinformation industry. And they want to do the right thing, we just have to keep figureing it out, and sharing it appropriately.
Patience, perceverence, and valid argument will ultimately win the day.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:43 PM on 20 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Science is about constantly increasing awareness and developing the better understanding of what is going on. Politics is about deciding what actions and attitudes to encourage and reward and which ones to discourage and penalize.
Science and politics should be focused on the same thing, developing better understanding and awaress that enables humanity to develop a sustainable better future for humanity, which ultimately needs to be a sustainable robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
However, the current global socioeconomic systems have developed many unsustainable and harmful actions and attitudes because they can be made to appear popular and profitable.
So investigation into climate, and so many other environmental and social issues, can develop better awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of popular and profitable actions and attitudes. That does not make such investigation and reporting political, but it mobilizes the political marketing of those who wish to maximize and prolong their ability to benefit from unacceptable actions and attitudes. It mobilizes actions to try to discredit the people who are creating that better awareness and understanding. And many people are easily impressed by the attempts to discredit any better understanding of the unacceptability of how they want to personally benefit.
So climate science can only "not be political" when it exclusively produces information that suits the interests of all of the wealthy and powerful. Any information contrary to the interests of any wealthy and powerful person will mobilize political action, by that person.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:57 PM on 20 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Terranova.
Sloganeering to my understanding is, for example, about making assertions such as 'over the top' without first providing the basis for that assertion. A basic rule of debate is that conclusions follow from arguments and evidence. Asserting the conclusion without immediately showing the basis for that assertion is poor reasoning. Something may be 'over the top'. Equally the same something may be 'radically understated'. Only argument and evidence leads to a resolution of the question.
Over stridently proclaiming a conclusion without first providing a basis for that conclusion can be considered sloganeering.
The restriction here on sloganeering isn't arbitrary. It is part of a civil debate. It is actually the distinction between logic and rhetoric. Logic follow chains of reasoning to conclusions. Rhetoric tends to proceed from assumed or preferred conclusions and work back to reasons. All discussions work best when one is arguing evidence rather than conclusions.
If we work from the evidence the conclusions just 'fall out in the wash'.
Moderator Response:[JH] Terranova has been posting comments on SkS for at least a couple of years now. He should have familiarized himself with the SkS Comments Policy (which defines sloganeering) long before now.
-
michael sweet at 20:15 PM on 20 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Roy Spencer also has polotical connections (see linked list of associations from Desmog blog) inlcuding the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute. That makes 3. How many of the 3% of climate scientists that deny AGW are members of these organizations?
-
chriskoz at 16:17 PM on 20 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Michael Mann, who among all of us, is in the best position to comment on this episode of denial campaign, has written an OP in huffingtonpost. A good complementary reading, well agreed with Dana's article herein.
-
scaddenp at 14:54 PM on 20 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
You might also perfer to comment "Its a natural cycle" as place to comment. Your commentary might be better if you look at the paleoclimate section of the IPCC report first however.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:11 PM on 20 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper @38:
First, you are confusing two issues. First, wind disperses aerosols from their source of emissions. That means the area over which the forcing applies does not exactly coincide with the area of emission. In China, the wind initially disperses aerosols to the WSW. but as the aerosols gain in altitude that reverses and they are dispersed to the ENE. These directions vary with season, as does the distance aerosols typically travel before exiting the atmosphere. In China, that means the dispersal is to the WSW for two seasons of the year, and largely static with a thin tail to the ENE for the other two seasons.
In addition to this effect, air that is warmed (or cooled) by a given regional forcing is then carried downwind. There it mixes with cooler (or warmer) air. Cooler (or warmer) air upwind of the regional forcing will also be carried down into hte area of the forcing. The consequence is that the temperature effect of the forcing is more dispersed than the forcing. That is, you have two stages of dispersion. In the first, the aerosol becomes more dispersed than its source; and in the second stage the temperature effect of the aerosol becomes more dispersed (and diffuse) than its source.
Chriskoz (@29) was referring to the later effect. That effect is purely a funtion of surface winds because it is the surface air temperature we are discussing. The more complicated case with the dispersion of aerosols has already been discussed above, and is a seperate issue. Your confusing of the issue looks like your trying to have two bites of the cherry. Having been comprehensively refuted on aerosol dispersion above, you appear to argue aerosol dispersion must be greater than observed, and more favourable to your case than is observed because of some effect of wind which is in addition to the observed dispersion of aerosols.
Second:
"Looking at the Bejing/Shanghai zone, it can be boxed by 110 to 122.5 and 27.5 to 42.5."
Seriously?
After all the discussion above, your just going to exclude Chengdu (104 E) from consideration, even though it is the only area to have red or greater aerosol concentrations year round in China; and restrict yourself to the Peking/Shanghai corridor despite the fact that for half the year it shows yellow or less aerosol concentration; and just totally ignore the temperature dispersion from prevailing winds even though you (following Chriskoz) brought it up?
Your new region of choice is a blatant cherry pick that simply ignores the prior discussion. Having been shown wrong on almost every point you simply attempt to start the argument again showing that you have learnt nothing, and that it is a waste of time continuing the discussion with you.
-
scaddenp at 13:42 PM on 20 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Terranova, perhaps the best way (often used and I should have done it too), is to respond in the appropriate thread, and then post a pointer to response in the originating thread. At the top of a comment, is a link with the date. Copy this link and then use as a referrer.
In those appropriate places, by all means give us examples of "over the top" predictions in papers or IPCC reports; and also evidence that we see now is part of natural cycle. Use the search function at the top to find appropriate threads.
-
Klapper at 12:24 PM on 20 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Tom Curtis #37:
I disagree with your surface winds argument. Aerosols don't just hang close to the ground and their forcing is not just at ground level, it's all the way up the atmospheric column as volcanic episodes show. Your AOD map in post 34 shows dispersion to the NE, out over the Pacific, which is the direction of the prevailing winds on the maps I found and which you noted in your post 32.
Your PM2.5 map in post 28 shows the aerosol maximums in the Bejing/Shanghai corridor. I think you would agree to this? Also in post 28 the warming map for China in this same area shows "red", in the range of 0.4 to 0.6C, although I'm not sure over what time period this is.
Looking at the Bejing/Shanghai zone, it can be boxed by 110 to 122.5 and 27.5 to 42.5. If you take a land only dataset (I choose CRUTEM4.2 since the grid is 2.5 degrees not 5), the warming rate in this area is 0.30C/decade for the last 30 years. For the global land CRUTEM4 shows 0.28C/decade.
So the most aerosol polluted geographic area on the planet is warming slightly faster than the globe. Again I ask the question: how do you reconcile this basic fact with the interpretation that anthropogenic aerosols are a negative (cooling) forcing?
You are right that
-
Terranova at 11:53 AM on 20 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
To JH @ 17:
Since you asked, I assume I will be able to reply here. First, I would like a clear explanation of the SkS definition and use of the term "sloganeering".
Second, I come here to learn, and to discuss. I'm hardly interested in debating or lecturing. When I am asked a question about one of my comments, and I take the time and effort to directly reply with written or graphical data, only to find that reply gets "disappeared" - it becomes frustrating.
I don't mind taking the discussion to another thread, but if a point I raise in Thread A is challenged in Thread A, and I reply to the challenge in Thread A with the requested data and/or reasoning, and then that response is moderated or removed because it is off-topic, it begs a question.
I prefer civil, intellectual discourse on a level playing field. With that being said, I think this website can still offer that type of interaction in spite of what appears to be biased moderation as described in the above paragraph. If a topic needs to be moved to another thread, then start the moderation with that and don't allow rebuttals on the original page.
Moderator Response:[JH] What you are looking is contained in the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:06 AM on 20 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper @35, first, Chriskoz reffered to the effects of air bodies that are warmed, or cooled at one location being carried downwind thereby warming or cooling a location further downwind. As we are talking about the surface (2 meter) air temperature, it is surface winds we are talking about for this effect. Downwind for surface winds is West-SouthWest from the line from Beijing to Shanghai, not NorthWest (or indeed North-NorthWest) of it as required by your theory.
Second, you claimed @27:
"As I pointed out in my original post #26, the fact that China has experienced both a faster than global SAT warming rate and extremely high local aerosol forcing is reason to question the "anthropogenic aerosols are a negative forcing" assumption."
That is a significantly stronger claim than the "no evidence" claim you now indicate was your main point. Further, from the evidence I have shown above, even the "no evidence" claim looks dubious. The strongest warming in China is north of the line in which there have been a substantial increase in anthropogenic aerosols. The weakest warming has been downwind at the surface from the area of major emissions from Beijing down to Shanghai, and around, and downwind of Chengdu, another major area of aerosol emissions. Qualitatively, that is what we would expect of aerosols were a significant negative forcing.
Further, there are good physical reasons to think sulfates, at least are a negative forcing - reasons confirmed by the impact of stratospheric aerosols from volcanoes. An argument to the contrary from Chinese data would need to be very convincing to overturn that data, not to mention data from the US and Europe that indicates the aerosol forcing is negative.
Having said that, there are complexities. The relative composition of emitted aerosols (BC vs NOX vs sulfates) probably varies regionally and by time and will have an impact on the overall forcing. Latitude, closeness to oceans, and ocean fluctuations are also complicating factors. Nor has it escaped my attention that the northern band of strong warming in China more or less coincides with the region where the easterly trade winds (ie, blowing to the west) are replaced by the Westerlies (blowing to the east), and hence represents the area where local ocean influence is minimized and where Chinese temperatures are most impacted by influences over all of Eurasia.
Given these complexities, I seriously doubt a blog scientist will have the resources to disentangle all the issues. They certainly will not if they use a single block grid to represent Chinese temperatures.
-
CBDunkerson at 08:47 AM on 20 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #20
"U.S. insurer class action may signal wave of climate-change suits"
Yes! Finally. I have been waiting for climate change related legal action to go mainstream for a long time now. Farmer's is out on a limb with this one, but it is just the first domino to fall. There will be more cases suing for failure to prepare for climate change... and those will in turn result in suits of fossil fuel companies for causing climate change damage... and eventually for knowing about the damage and covering it up.
This is how big tobacco eventually fell and it has always been the only way to truly stop the climate change deniers. Get them in a court of law... where the lies that have served them so well in the press suddenly become the anchor dragging them down.
-
KR at 05:42 AM on 20 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper - I'm really scratching my head over your last response. Tom Curtis has documented that the larger region warming in China is not correlated with aerosols, rather the contrary (actually less warming in high aerosol areas), and pointed out significant errors in your argument including spatial distribution and erroneous winds. The majority of your assertions and arguments in this regard have been demonstrated to be incorrect, that the data indicates aerosols are in fact a cooling factor.
And yet after all that you end by asserting that your original statement regarding aerosols was correct? I'm sorry to say so, but it appears to be simply an argument by assertion at this point.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:26 AM on 20 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
The increased better understanding of the unacceptability of already developed actions that have allowed some people to get undeserved benefits and become wealthy and powerful will always be challenged by those who cannot rationally justify the actions they want to continue to get away with.
Human history is full of examples of attempts to prolong the popularity of unacceptable unjustifiable attitudes and actions. Whenever benefit has been able to be obtained from unacceptable actions and attitudes those who got away with developing wealth and power unacceptably can be expected to fight against losing their undeserved opportunities to get more wealth and power. And they will not care about better understanding how to develop a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet. Though that type of development is clearly the only viable future for humanity, it is not in their interest.
Continuing to develop the best understanding of what is going on and striving to fully inform the entire population is the best way to disappoint those who want to benefit from unacceptable unsustainable and harmful actions and attitudes. When better understanding clashes with unacceptable ways of benefiting those who know they are threatened can become fierce and can be expected to be irrational.
Keep up the good fight againstly the fiercely irrational.
-
Klapper at 03:23 AM on 20 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Tom Curtis #34:
I think calculating warming rates by 5 degree lat/long boxes is too small. Chriskoz pointed out in #29 that temperature response to forcing is mixed well outside the forcing subareas in this case the Bejing/Shanghai aerosol zone. In any case my zone of 105 to 120, 25 to 45 degrees could be refined to 22.5 to 42.5 and 102.5 to 120 if I can find grid compilers with that resolution. Maybe I will try the RSS or UAH TLT datasets when I get home.
You are right that I ignored some complexities but I got the conversation started. You have addressed a lot of the detail, but my main point remains: there is no evidence for cooling from anthropogenic aerosols in China over the last 30 years.
-
Alpinist at 02:29 AM on 20 May 2014Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory
Look, a squirrel!
There's always another squirrel.
-
wili at 20:48 PM on 19 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #20
Awesome. Thanks. He does good stuff. "Scribbler" is of course a pseudonym. Thanks, as always, for all your great work here!
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome.
[KC] Name removed per policy.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:05 PM on 19 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper @33:
1) The map in question is generated from satellite data. Therefore, your claim that it is of surface pollutants only appears highly conjectural. In fact, it looks like a claim asserted to be fact only because your argument collapses if it is false.
Still, if you want to be certain, here is the global spring (MAM) anthropogenic aerosol optical depth averaged over the years 2003-2010:
You will notice:
a) That no red zones(0.4 +) are found north of Liaodong Bay (the northernmost extension of the Yellow Sea), so that the most intensive aerosol effect in China remains south of about 41 degrees north, is well south of your northern limit. Although you cannot see it here, Spring has the most northerly distribution of Chinese aerosols, with no green (0.2->0.3) showing north of Liaodong Bay in Autumn (SON) or Winter (DJF). Summer (JJA) shows more intense aerosol distribution around Beijing, with red intensities across the Yellow Sea, but the northern edge graduates more quickly so that there is less aerosols over north east China than in spring.
b) The area around Chengdu shows as dark red (0.5 +), as it does in all seasons. Chengdu is China's fourth largest city, a major industrial city and 104 degrees east, ie, outside your mapped area. Its pollution effects extend significantly to the west. As it happens, and unlike Beijing, its effect on aerosol optical depth is year round. Beijing's dissipates in autumn and winter bases on satellite observations.
c) The south China coast, which you exclude, shows red intensity. It shows red intensity also in autumn, yellow intensity in winter, but only green in summer. It is thus never has less aerosol concentration than north east China, and for much of the year has as intense an aerosol concentration as Beijing.
All in all, your claims about aerosol concentrations are not born out by the observations, and you have included areas in your field with consistently low anthropogenic contribution to aerosol optical depth, and excluded areas with consistently high anthropogenic contribution to aerosol optical depth.
2) The upper atmosphere winds are more or less the reverse of those in the lower atomsphere. Looking at the map you can see that means polution in China from Hong Kong north to Beijing will be carried primarilly east across Korea and Japan, with only a slight northerly set. Even in spring, with the most extensive northerly component of the aerosol drift, aerosols are largely confined south of a line from Beijing to the north tip of Sakhalin Island. Thus confined, it means only about a third of north east China (close to the border with North Korea) has a significant anthropogenic aerosol effect at any time of year, and for half of the year the effect is negligible.
3) Thoroughly dealt with above and below. Your assertions are, on the information available, simply wrong.
4) I sampled three 5 degree by 5 degree areas, using NCDC land only temperature data from the KNMI explorer. They were:
North West China (80-85 E, 45-50 N) 0.47 +/- 0.18 C/decade
Beijing (115-120 E, 35-40 N) 0.31 +/- 0.09 C/decade
North of Liaodong Bay (120-125 E, 40-45 N) 0.17 +/- 0.16 C/decade.
The strong warming is in the North West, which is not impacted by anthropogenic aerosols. In those areas impacted by anthropogenic aerosols, the warming is much less. Further, the your claim that the norht east is were the strongest warming is to be found is distinctly dubious.
You might reasonably claim the to north easter samples are also coastal, and so should have lower trends. They also may be more strongly effected by ENSO or the PDO. Those, however, are complexities you have simply ignored in your analysis. If you wish to apply them in defense of your claims, you must apply them when making the initial analysis as well, something you have completely failed to do.
-
Klapper at 16:34 PM on 19 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Tom Curtis #32:
1. But only at ground level. The forcings occur at all levels of the troposphere. The sources, at least for some elements of anthropogenic aerosols are predonminately in the north of China, not the SE (like coal fired power plants).
2. Sorry my typo. You're correct the prevailing winds are to the NE, which is where the the higher warming rates are.
3. You're confusing me. Let's get back to basics. North of 30N the prevailing winds are to the NE (agreed). The maximum emission areas are the Bejing to Shanghai corridor and slightly SW of that. So the wind blow the upper level pollution to the NE of this area which is coincidently the area of max warming rate for China.
4. OK, land vs. land makes sense. But shouldn't China be cooling or at least warming a lot slower if aerosols are a negative forcing? I checked the BEST dataset for my prescribed geopgraphic window and the warming rate is 0.31 from the Berkeley dataset. Note this is slightly above the global rate, not below, or cooling despite the very high anthropogenic aerosol emissions from China. Chengdu is almost within by capture area and if the prevailing winds are to the NE, then its effects on the warming rate are within my window.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:19 PM on 19 May 201475% of Americans want to see climate change taught in schools, and four more graphs
Joel
The reality is a bit more complex. Yes the ozone hole allows energy to reach the surface rather than be absorbed in the stratosphere. However, because this is happening in just the Antarctic its effect is only modest compared to if the effect were global. Still the same amount of energy absorbed is unchanged, just variations in its location and altitude of absorption.
The ozone hole is having another effect which is counter-intuitive - it is cooling Antarctica.
Antarctica is surrounded by powerful air currents that tend to isolate it from weather systems further north which otherwise can transport heat southwards. This goes under the unfriendly name of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). One effect of the ozone hole allowing more energy through to low altitude is that it appears to be increasing the speed of the SAM, reinforcing Antarctica's isolation and exerting a cooling effect on the continent. So the increased energy reaching the surface in Antarctica due to the hole is probably outweighed by the reduction in energy reaching Antarctica from lower latitudes due to the increased blockage caused by the SAM.
So, counter-intuitively, the rest of the planet may be warming a fraction faster because Antarctica is warming slower because of the Ozone Hole.
There was a discussion of this a few years ago at RealClimate here.
Moderator Response:[PS] Interesting as this discussion is, it is also very offtopic. Could I suggest that it be taken to a more appropriate thread please? (Maybe this one)
-
chriskoz at 12:38 PM on 19 May 201475% of Americans want to see climate change taught in schools, and four more graphs
[JH & PS],
Tom@5, by using "pernickity" (sic!), he made a typo, adopted by urban slang. Unless he meant to use urban slang here, which is unlikely.
The correct spelling of the term is "pernickety" (brit.) or "persnickety" (amer.)
Australian written language (excluding local slang terms) is very close to British English, always distinct from American.
-
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 19 May 201475% of Americans want to see climate change taught in schools, and four more graphs
[JH] I think you will find that "persnickity" is North American for the English "pernickity". Check your favourite (English for "favorite") dictionary.
Moderator Response:[JH] What language is spoken by Aussies?
[PS] Apparently the same language as the English given "pernickity" and "favourite" but with terrible vowels. (and a lot of "colloquialisms").
-
Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 19 May 201475% of Americans want to see climate change taught in schools, and four more graphs
Joel_Huberman @4, if I was being pernickity I would point out that "climate change" and "global warming" are not strict synonyms, and that the ozone hole is having a significant impact increasing wind speed near Antarctica, which is a type of climate change. Such hair-splitting exactness is, however, inappropriate when "criticizing" public communication where the important thing (and the rare thing in most media) is to get the fundamentals right.
In this case the fundamentals are that stratospheric ozone more likely acts against global warming than advances it. Whether it acts against or in favour of it, the total effect is very small relative to the effect of tropospheric ozone, itself a small effect relative to that of CO2, though comparable to that of methane. Given that, I am not going to quibble about Donald's statement. It accurately reflects the best current knowledge.
With regard to your assessment, "I don't know", while probably an accurate assessment is an assessment of the respondents knowledge, not of the impact of stratospheric ozone. It is a non-response rather than a correct response. Further, "possibly a little bit" is accurate, but "a little bit" is inaccurate on current knowledge. On the other hand, "not at all" is not the same as "slightly negatively" so that it could also be considered technically wrong so if you want to count both statements as "correct", fair enough. That leave 77% of Americans who claim knowledge in error, with 19% of all Americans at least knowing enough to know they are completely uninformed on the topic. Not a good performance, though I have no reason to think my fellow Australians would do any better.
Moderator Response:[JH] Is "pernickity" Australian for "persnickity"?
-
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM on 19 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper @31:
1) The image I showed @28 shows the presence and intensity of particulate pollution - not the sources of emission. Adjusting the figure to suite your peculiar views of the prevailing wind direction in China is simply to fudge the data based on prejudice.
2) In any event, the prevailing winds in China, which are to the North East, not the North West, so that even your fudge in based on an error:
Upper tropospheric winds will be opposite in direction to surface winds, ie, blowing to the North East, thereby carrying the pollution over Korea, Japan, and eventually to Alaska.
3) Your latitude and meridionally restricted region leaves out the heavilly polluted southern coast of China, not to mention the heavilly polluted region around Chengdu (which has the lowest temperature increase of any area in China over recent times), but includes a large region of lightly, or unpolluted (and rapidly warming) area north of Beijing, stretching into the Gobi desert and Mongolia. In short, it seems well tailored to misrepresent the relationship between aerosols in and temperature trends in China.
4) You compare the trends found in that area to the global trends which include the low trends over ocean. Warming is much higher over land, so the comparison should be with global land temperature, where the trend is 0.296 +/- 0.08 C/decade (NOAA; 0.288 +/- 0.114 C/decade, BEST) since May 1984. That is, the global land surface temperature trend over the last thirty years is indistinguishable from the trend you find in your cherry picked latitude and meridionally restricted area. Had that area included the region around Chengdu and the south coast of China, and excluded the lightly polluted band north of Beijing, the trend would have been lower than the global land surfact temperature trend.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:07 AM on 19 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B
Correction in my Comment @2, "If the Oil Sands ever are developed it needs to be done without burning up better fossil fuels".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:04 AM on 19 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B
Klapper,
I agree that investors may be able to get away with profiting from Alberta Oil Sands. However, their ability to do so is simply and clearly not acceptable.
The Alberta Oil Sands are probably the most damaging fossil fuel source on the planet. They probably have the highest total impacts per unit of usable energy obtained (Venesuela's oil sands are far less degraded). And their extraction, transportation and processing involve major risks of harm.
Since so much of the already known fossil fuels need to be left unburned, the Alberta Oil Sands really should be left in the ground. Maybe some future generation will have a legitimate emergency need for the resource.
And given the need to limit the impacts of fossil fuel burning it also makes no sense for so much natural gas to be burned up to make heat and electricity for extracting Oil Sands transporting it, and processing it into a useable fuel. If the Oil Sands ever are developed it needs to be done with burning up better fossil fuels.
The fact that the current global socio-economic system encourage things like investing in burning up Oil Sands is clear proof that the current global socio-economic system is fatally flawed. It is not encouraging development toward a sustainable better future for all. It has only ever encouraged the development of ways of getting away with unsustainable and damaging actions because those will always be more profitable if they can be gotten away with.
The facts of the matter are clear. The best understanding of what is going on leads to the conclusion that the global socioeconomic system must be changed.
-
Klapper at 00:11 AM on 19 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Glen Tamblyn #30:
I looked at ozone as a proxy for aerial pollution and Bejing and the area west of the Bonsai Sea down to Shanghai seems the highest concentration. NO2 looks to be the same pattern.
The prevailing winds north of 30N would push higher level aerosols to the NW, so towards one of the fastest warming areas of China.
Anyway my calculation on the SAT warming rate of China used a window of 25 to 45N and 105 to 120E so it disincluded the west and NE most parts of China, but did include the major source areas for anthropogenic aerosols. Warming rate within that geographic window is about 0.3C/decade over the last 30 years.
Prev 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 Next
