Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 Next
Comments 38851 to 38900:
-
william5331 at 05:37 AM on 7 February 2014New Video: Climate, Jetstream, Polar Vortex
The jet stream doesn't actually direct these storm systems around the globe. It is a useful metaphor just as the solar model of the atom was a useful metaphor as far as it went. It was an improvement over the plum pudding model but not as good as the modern model. The jet stream marks the border between The Polar Hadley cell and the Ferrel cell and the rising air at this location both creates the jet stream and pushes weather systems around the globe. Here is another equally flawed but possibly useful metaphor. The jet stream is like a top that as it slows down begins to wobble until as it continues to slow down it falls over. In this case the slowing down is due to the Arctic heating up. Previously, the air over the Arctic radiated heat, became heavy and sunk giving great force to the Polar Hadley cell. As the Arctic gets warmer, this heavy air is less heavy and the polar Hadley cell slows. Without this force, the progress of the Rosby waves slows and the waves get deeper (wobble). Eventually, especially in the fall when the land cools off quickly while the ocean still is giving off its huge accumulation of heat from the summer open ocean, the Polar Hadley cell should reverse as air rises over the Arctic. At some point in this progression, the northern most jet stream should disappear and we will have a two cell system in the northern hemisphere. By by wheat crops plus corn soya and so forth if it occurs before these crops have ripened. On average, each year, with the usual ups and downs from year to year, this will become more extreme until we lock in to the new climate regime and trees are growing again right up to the shores of the Arctic ocean.
-
desertphile at 01:22 AM on 7 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
I used the anomalous cat energy metaphone in one of my YouTube videos about 15 months ago, because a few people objected to the atomic bomb metaphore. Instead of sneezing, I used the caloric requirements of an average cat.
-
martin3818 at 01:13 AM on 7 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
How do you measure the success of your campaigns?
Besides surveys that are conducted by others, do you have any way of (automatically?) collecting data on the internet with respect to how often certain words, phrases or memes popup?
CB Dunkerson says that he(she?) never sees "skeptics pushing the 'no consensus' myth any more".
Is it possible to quantify such statements?
-
TD47 at 01:05 AM on 7 February 2014We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
There seems to be some very comprehensive collation of historical records here:
climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years
The large graphic image does expand to be very readable and informative. Hopefully the very interesting references will not be taken to be too off-topic (as they go back 18000 years).
Moderator Response:[TD] It is pretty much off topic, for the reason you gave. And not especially interesting or informative, because it uses only a very few very small geographic regions' temperature proxies with rather low resolutions. How about posting your comment in one of these instead:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 7 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
JH Feel free to prune back any of my posts you deem to be now unnecessary.
-
John Hartz at 00:45 AM on 7 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
All: Vonnegut's most recent comment was off-topic and was therefore deleted. It also bordered on being a moderation complaint which is also banned by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
John Hartz at 00:30 AM on 7 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
All: The three most recent comments by Vonnegut were nothing more than argumentative sloganeering and were therefore deleted.
-
DSL at 00:11 AM on 7 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Vonnegut, I'd say you're close to being permanently bore-holed. Wading through your na-na-boo-boo rhetoric to try to address whatever point you're trying to make or understand whatever question you're trying to ask is difficult, even more so since when the point or question arrives, it's more than likely irrelevant or based on a simple misunderstanding of the physics/chemistry involved.
Your understanding of the science is made plain in your last comment: "Especially as co2 is supposed to be adding to the warming of the planet by its excess."
Perhaps you'd better start at a more basic level and demonstrate why you doubt that CO2 absorbs/emits radiation at various pressure-broadened bands in the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed Earth emits.
You're attempting to kill a tiger by pulling out (or attempting to) the hairs in its tail, one by one, and doing it with blinkers on.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:42 PM on 6 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
It will be interesting to see if there are measurable shifts in public attitudes from these efforts.
I think the consensus project has been very successful... I never see 'skeptics' pushing the 'no consensus' myth any more. The more hard core deniers still dispute the 97% figure when it comes up, but even then it seems clear that most people can see they are grasping at imaginary straws.
However, the 'no warming for time period too short to show statistical significance' myth still seems to be the 'go to' disinformation for the vast majority of skeptics... maybe temporarily supplanted as #1 by, 'Look! Snow! Where is your global warming now, huh?', but still cited on a routine basis. The heat widget is a good counter to this, but I don't think the message has gotten out to the general public yet.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:20 PM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut wrote "Especially as co2 is such a bad guy."
Please keep the discussion factual and avoid this sort of rhetorical quip. All you will achieve is irritating people who would otherwise be only too keen to have a civil discussion of the science with you. Please give it a rest, we've all seen it before, and it does you no credit whatsoever.
-
michael sweet at 21:02 PM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Joeygoze,
It is not clear what you are trying to argue. You seem to be saying that we need to compare only those who you consider to be mainstream deniers to mainstream climate scientists. You claim that US Senators, popular denier blogs and the Prime Minister of Australia do not represent denier opinion.
You have misquoted Al Gore, found an expreme post from a low level scientist, and an instance where a non scientist made stronger claims than are justified scientificly. You have insisted on claiming Gore said that the ice would melt in 2013 when your quote does not support that claim, so you provide an instance as bad as Kerry. Claiming a blog post by Paul Beckwith is as important as public statements from Tony Abbott is absurd.
Deniers say that the greenhouse effect does not exist all the time. It is a waste of time to debate with someone who claims that is not a common argument when several examples have been provided.
-
scaddenp at 17:46 PM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The interactive is correct as far as it goes - it is only concerned with the chemical processes for shell formation. It doesnt go on to show what happens next to seawater chemistry as result. When I first looked at this, I thought shellfish farming gave a way to doing CO2 sequestration, but sadly no.
2 HCO3- < --> CO3-- + CO2 + H2O
gets pushed to the right.
-
chriskoz at 17:45 PM on 6 February 2014Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies
In the original article introducing the widget on 25 November 2013, the HB count (in the snapshot down the page, not the embedded object on the top) was 2,037M.
After just a little over 2 mounts elapsed (a very short timespan, at least for me), the count went up to over 2,063M. An increase by 26HB (1.3%) in just 2 months!
-
jja at 15:17 PM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
between 1978 and 2008
R^2 is 0.939
Standard Error is 1.556E+22
-
chriskoz at 13:03 PM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@27,@29
You haven't answered my questions @24.
Instead, you're now making incorrect claims that this article equates those who deny FGE with those who deny that humans are responsible for AGW (it does not, debunked by grindupBaker@30).
Further, you're now redefining your objections to this article because it "does not represent mainstream thinking in the science community". I disagree. The purpose of his blog is not to follow "mainstream thinking in the science community" (as you would prefer), but to "Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation" as you can read in the home page.
So I renew my question: what's the purpose of your objection? Reasonable and responsible people, do explain all basic aspects of life to their descendants (e.g. children), despite the fact that those basics are not "mainstream thinking in the science community". By analogy, this blog explains the basics of climate science to the bloggers who have not learnt them or have learnet them wrong from denialosphere. Why are you denying the very reason for SkS existence? What is the ethical reason behind that denial of yours?
-
jja at 12:24 PM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
This is the actual function that I used to duplicate Nutticelli et. al. You can check it and use the tenths decimal to get individual year values.
y = (6.683E+21)*D4^3 - (3.006E+22)*D4^2 + (5.846E+22)*D4 + 1.992E+22again, use the value x = 1 for 1978, x=1.1 for 1979 and so on. . .
--again, I wouldn't use the pre 1978 values because of changes in smokestack emissions and the relatively lower TOA at the time. -
jja at 11:59 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom@61
interesting! do you have an image of the plot you generated? the quad/linear function sounds interesting. Of course, this is simply a curve-fitting exercise and can, in no way, accurately provide a convincing tool for projecting future TOA or Heat Accumulation values. This is why even Hansen and Soto show three different projected future TOA values based on the bio-response to increased heat (quick response-high warming leads to lower TOA while a slow response-low warming leads to higher TOAs).
However, we do have the benefit to understand that, after the early 1970's the removal of sulfur dioxide emissions for coal fired plants significantly reduced the aerosol negative forcing (allowing for the large rate of increase in the 1968-1978 decade.This is why I had originally skipped this period. The values are skewed.
From 1978 to 2008 the function that I developed (from three points!) is simplistic but tracks the heat values at a very high rate, in fact, I have basically duplicated the Soto Hansen results using this function.
This doesn't mean that the current trend of doubling TOA every 9 years is coing to be maintained going forward. Another 1998-grade el nino event would lead to a jump in atmospheric temperatures and a pause in the growth of TOA.
however, it appears to be consistent with the data that is most recent in the record (1998 to present).
by the way,
the annual values are generated by adding a decimal to the decade values.
1 = 1978
1.1 = 1979
1.2 = 1980 etc. . . -
From Peru at 10:48 AM on 6 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Kevin C:
The data from your link seems better (at least the graphs). Thank you!
It seems the only still active station in my city is the Jorge Chavez Airport in Callao, near Lima. The others are inactive from decades ago.
This is not good, considering that we will be the host country of the next international conference on Climate Change, the COP 20 Lima conference:
http://climate-l.iisd.org/events/unfccc-cop-20/
(the option for inserting links and images do not work well, they cannot be edited and cannot be placed in the desired place. I don't know if the problem is in my laptop or in the website. Any idea? )
-
Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
KR @31, your link to a "pseudoskeptic blog" is to Jonova's explanation that greenhouse gases warm the Earth, not directly, but merely be retarding the escape of heat. A point on which she is correct. On the other hand, Joe Postma clearly argues in comments (and I strongly suspect others do to) that there is no greenhouse effect. It is probably best to clarrify these points, and even to acknowledge that JoNova is on the side of science on this point (if few others).
-
Tom Curtis at 10:25 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja, what I have been attempting to do, was to apply your formula to the entire record from Nucutelli et al (2012). To do that, I modified your formula to give annual values rather than decadal averages. I did that by using replacing x at each occurence with (year AD - 1973)/10. I chose 1973 rather than 1978 to compensate for the fact that you use a decadal average rather than an annual average. I then calculated the cumulative energy for the entire period of the record.
Frankly, the modified formula (Quadratic) performed poorly over that interval, so I also tried your modified formula plus a linear trend in energy with the trend tuned give the correct values in 1978 and 2008 (Quad+Linear). I compared both of these to a linear trend in OHC, equivalent to an approximately constant energy imbalance over the period (Linear Trend). Here are the results:
|| Linear Trend || Quadratic || Quad+Linear || Short Quad || Short Linear
R^2 || 0.930 || 0.907 || 0.891 || 0.959 || 0.934
RMSE || 1.807 || 5.620 || 2.733 || 1.115 || 1.521As you can see, Linear Trend performs better than either Quadratic or Quad+Linear both in respect to R Squared, and significantly better with respect to Root Mean Squared Error. I also compared the linear trend with the modified formula over just the 1978-2008 interval (Short Quad and Short Linear). In this case the modified formula performed better. That, however, is in part to the 1978 figure being set to the correct value from observations, gauranteeing zero error for that value, and minimal error for close values. It is also in part because I did not recalculate the linear trend for the shorter interval, so while the modified formula was tuned for that interval, the linear trend was not.
These results show that your formula only appears to have a good fit because it is fitted to only part of the data, and not compared to the rest of the data. The quality of the apparent fit is then exagerated by only comparing decadal averages. As it is decadal averages of a 5 year smooth, that makes it an effective 15 year weighted smooth, and smoothing always exagerates correlation as measured by R (or R squared). Further, the modified formula is significantly more complex than the linear fit and therefore, by Okham's razor is to be preferred if there is no clear advantage in fit. Consequently I believe it is preferrable even over the short interval, although I have not applied any statistical test of relative fit to complexity such as the AIC.
I am, of course, amenable to modifying your formula as you suggest provided that it gives annual values and covers the full range of data. If you think you can find a better fit than the linear fit for that period, I am certainly interested. But your formula does not cover all the data, and has a poor fit when it is extended to do so. It is therefore not projectible.
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze - Kerry wasn't just giving an unsupported opinion regarding national security, either. Top U.S. Admiral: Climate Change Biggest Threat.
Other notes - claims that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist are, sadly, neither rational nor rare. They come up time and time again on pseudoskeptic blogs. And as to your quotes about 2013? You appear to have overlooked the qualifiers, such as in "...it could happen in as little as 7 years", not a sole prediction of that single year, and as such you are presenting a strawman argument.
-
davidsanger at 09:24 AM on 6 February 2014It's El Niño
This is perhaps a simple question but I see the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) defined as "3-month running mean of SST anomalies (ERSST.v3, 1971-2000 base period) in the Niño 3.4 region"
The NDJ nunber is shown as -0.4°C, which doesn't seem to be the mean of November 2013 (0.01°C) December 2013 (-0.04°C) and January 2014 (-0.51°C).
Am I missing something terribly obvious?Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed.
-
grindupBaker at 09:02 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze #27 The posting doesn't assert that a majority of people that question man's contribution to the greenhouse effect also do not believe in a greenhouse effect at ALL. I agree with you that people shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims and talk nonsense, though I gather some of those listed here are American celebrities or politicians so it seems like a totally hopeless hope in those cases. This "John Kerry" fellow has destroyed my piece of mind because I'd heard before it was a threat to healthy existence of all mammal & reptile life on Earth but I hadn't realized it's escalated to being a threat "— yes — even to American national security."
-
joeygoze9259 at 08:09 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
michael sweet:
You are making my point, all those are irrelavent people making irrelavent comments. Does not represent mainstream thinking in the science community. I am saying Prominance does not equal valid scientific argument.
Moderator Response:[JH] This discussion has gone off-topic. Let's end it here. Cancel that.
-
Vonnegut at 08:00 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The multimedia interactive on the right, it shows the h ions leaving the shell but no co2
-
michael sweet at 07:57 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Joegoze,
The Gore quote you have produced is a nuanced statement that correctly states that scientists at the time projected the end of Arctic Sea ice between 7-22+ years. Your characterization of it claiming 2013 as a concrete date is false. You have only two quotes remaining.
Paul Beckwith is "Paul Beckwith is a Ph.D. student with the laboratory for paleoclimatology and climatology, department of geography, University of Ottawa.", hardly an important scientist or promenent like Senator Inhofe. He states in his post that he is an outlier. You have one quote.
The Kerry quote applies the minimum scientific estimate to a subject with a large range of projections and Kerry is in error. You have one quote against a half dozen for promenent deniers who claim the greenhouse effect does not occur.
If all you can find is a single politician who has misapplied a scientific study you have little to stand on. You have personally misquoted Al Gore so if we subtract one to compensate for your misquote you have no quotes left!
-
joeygoze9259 at 07:56 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
The statements of the 3 non-scientists are as relevant as Sarah Palin or Jame Inhofe statements raised by Composer99. For a scientific discussion, those individuals are not relevant at all. Saying all those public figures do not represent mainstream scientific discussion.
As far as the accusation of "tone trolling" or "poisoning the well", no comment. That is an accusation against me, not my argument. Just to be clear, I agree with 99% in the above article, the sciecne of a greenhouse effect that warms the planet is clear basic physics. The assertion that a majority of people that question man's contribution to the greenhouse effect also do not believe in a greenhouse effect at ALL is what I was talking about. That is not a "mainstream" scientific position. Along the same lines, I do not accept everything Al Gore says as the mainstream position of the majority of climate scientists. i.e, I do not believe that Al Gore's statements reflected a mainstream position of climate scientists that the arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2013.
-
Vonnegut at 07:45 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Ok Ive found a few papers confirming it.
The interactive on this site is missing something I guess?
www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/a-quest-for-resilient-reefs
Moderator Response:[JH] Which "interactive" are you referring to? Exacrtly what is it missing ?
-
Vonnegut at 07:13 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Is there a citation for the corals being a source of co2? Ive seen the question asked but not seen a reply.
-
John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
All: joeygoze's most recent comment was a moderation complaint and therefore was deleted.
-
mgardner at 05:01 AM on 6 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
chriskoz@19
Thanks. I did come across one of those images in my image search, but there is some other good stuff in there. -
joeygoze9259 at 04:41 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Moderator:
Paul Beckwith - http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
John Kerry - ""It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now," he wrote. "Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/
Al Gore - "Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."
So correction on the Al Gore assertion, if it happened in as little as 7 years, would be the 2014 minimum would be ice free, not 2013
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for providing the references. Why are the statements of these three non-scientists important and relevant?
-
jja at 03:13 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Hansen & Soto have the average 2005-2010 (average time=June 2008) of .581 (W/m^2) - see figure 10.b
End of year TOA
1988 0.0933
1989 0.094553
1990 0.098292
1991 0.104517
1992 0.113228
1993 0.124425
1994 0.138108
1995 0.154277
1996 0.172932
1997 0.194073
1998 0.2177
1999 0.243813
2000 0.272412
2001 0.303497
2002 0.337068
2003 0.373125
2004 0.411668
2005 0.452697
2006 0.496212
2007 0.542213 Hansen & Soto Value fits
2008 0.5907 inbetween these two years.
2009 0.641673
2010 0.695132
2011 0.751077
2012 0.809508
2013 0.870425
2014 0.933828
2015 0.999717
2016 1.068092
2017 1.138953
2018 1.2123 -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, no, it is still excessive repetition whether the links are given or not, it is still sloganeering to ignore the content of the posts and peer reviewed litterature that contradict your assertions, whether you give the links or not. You would know this had you read the comments policy as you were directed to do by the moderator. Here are the two sections that were explicitly drawn to your attention:
No Excessive Repetition: Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
No sloganeering: Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
Please read the comments policy and abide by it.
-
Vonnegut at 03:07 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Sorry was it because I forgot the link?
-
Vonnegut at 01:47 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@95 Done know why you think that but we all have an opinion.
Bikini atoll had 23 nuclear devices dropped on it between 1946 and 1958 there are coral there today, I think that it would be fair to say theyre persistant and resiliant, wouldnt you?
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of slaganeering and excessive repitition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
CBDunkerson at 01:33 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Regardless of how long it takes. You wrote, "Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) can range from preindustrial values pH 8.6 to future ocean acidification scenarios pH 7.6) over the course of a day."
This seems to argue that the ability to survive shifts of 1 pH over the course of a day indicates the ability to survive a 1 pH shift in average daily acidity. It should be obvious that there is no logical connection between the two.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:24 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"I'm just looking at the other side of the coin." No, you're looking at the side of a coin that you like and saying "Look, how pretty!" while there is a pile of $100 bills next to it. Not impressed. The Palau study does not invalidate the overall content and conclusion of the OP at all.
-
climatelurker at 01:01 AM on 6 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Love the -11 comment count today! (Here it's more like -15.)
-
jja at 01:00 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom@57
decade Energy
1 0.0933
2 0.2177
3 0.5907
4 1.2123
5 2.0825
6 3.2013
7 4.5687 -
Vonnegut at 00:49 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@92 Tom "Vonnegut @91, Fortunately, a crashing economy and potentially a crashing global civilization will effectively our further emissions of CO2 long before that. So, almost certainly, will a limited supply of fossil fuels. Consequently, the question is not if we will stop emitting CO2, but when - and how much damage we will do to ourselves and the environment in the meantime."
My sentiments entirely , mother nature always wins in the long term.
Specifically, you have scoured the internet for one or two quotes from coral experts that indicate OA may not be totally disasterous (at least by itself). In the meantime you are ignoring far more quotes from coral scientists that indicate that OA plus SST increase by themselves may be enough to destroy the worlds major reefs. Some scientists put that possibility at 50/50 by 2050. As neither you (nor I) are experts, we have no basis to ignore any actual experts within the range of opinion. By formulating your opinions on only the more upbeat reports, you are biasing them so that they do not correspond with what the totallity of observations and analysis are showing.How do you know Im ignoring other views? Im just looking at the other side of the coin.I dont rest easy knowing the oceans are polluted more each day or knowing that 'global warming did it' is being used as a get out clause and diverting money and resources away from fixing the obvious.
You say Ive scoured the internet for a few quotes, Im surprised how many coral positive reports there are from more than 2 places on the planet. Coral wont be missing off the planet anytime soon because of warming, some will, some wont. I can and have backed that up with links I can do it again if needed.
-
michael sweet at 00:39 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut:
At post 61 you claim that it is difficult to find scientific data about survival of species in high CO2 situation. That is exactly what everyone here is trying to tell you. We know that it is possible to search the scientific literature and find exceptional animals or plants that will survive under increased temperatures. The fact that you claim that you have to search many papers to find one that supports your argument that CO2 is not bad shows that most outcomes will be bad. If you have to search many papers to find one that supports your claim indicates that the claim is incorrect.
Think through what you have said. The fact that most papers say ecosystems will have difficulty surviving AGW indicates that is the most common result . Scientists publish everything they find. They do not look for the exceptional ecosystems that are not going to survive, they show what will happen to all ecosystems. A few will do fine for a while, but that will not do the rest any good.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:31 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @91, if we are "...never going to stop producing co2..." then we are going to kill ourselves of as a species. It is that simple. Fortunately, a crashing economy and potentially a crashing global civilization will effectively our further emissions of CO2 long before that. So, almost certainly, will a limited supply of fossil fuels. Consequently, the question is not if we will stop emitting CO2, but when - and how much damage we will do to ourselves and the environment in the meantime.
If you begin on the assumption that we will not stop emitting CO2, and look only for the evidence that might suggest that could be OK in the short term, you will get a very distorted view of the science. Instead of trying to understand, you will have been merely trying to find a security blanket for your pre-established belief. There have been a lot of signs that that is indeed what you are doing.
Specifically, you have scoured the internet for one or two quotes from coral experts that indicate OA may not be totally disasterous (at least by itself). In the meantime you are ignoring far more quotes from coral scientists that indicate that OA plus SST increase by themselves may be enough to destroy the worlds major reefs. Some scientists put that possibility at 50/50 by 2050. As neither you (nor I) are experts, we have no basis to ignore any actual experts within the range of opinion. By formulating your opinions on only the more upbeat reports, you are biasing them so that they do not correspond with what the totallity of observations and analysis are showing.
-
Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Chriskoz#54
I understand that warming of the atmosphere will increase heat loss to space and therefore decrease the energy imbalance & heat accumulation in the climate system as a whole.
My point was that if the atmospheric warming still was 0.2oC/decade, this would produce an energy imbalance of only 0.006 W/m2, or about 1% of the energy imbalance in the rest of the climate system if that had continued to warm at its present rate.
-
chriskoz at 23:57 PM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
mgardner@18,
I found these slides (Lecture on Thermohaline circulation (THC) with several pictures that maybe of interest to you. For example:
Page 5 'simpleton' overview
Page7 explanation of circumpolar currents and gyres
Pages 16+ (Sandstrom Theorem) explain the mechanisms and structure of ocean circulation
Page 24 upwelling
-
chriskoz at 23:23 PM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@20,
I would correct your [chriskoz's] statement to say it was "simple and primative distortion of the scientific literature by alarmists". That "moronic slogan" was repeated by Al Gore, John Kerry and even as late as March of 2013, Paul Beckwith.
Your "alarmists" may also be considered "science deniers", because they did not check the scientific source before pronouncing the slogan. Or, more likely, they may have fallen victims of the slogan, because they did not have time/will to verify it. They, like the deniers obstructing action against AGW I refered to earlier, also need education so that they also understand the problem of AGW and do not raise 'false alarm'.
Back to the subject of your objection re this article. I may skid onto thin ice of comment policy however cannot help but ask, what's the motivation of your objection? I've already proven you to be wrong on your assertion that "No one from any side of this discussion in the mainstream is arguing that CO2 can not trap heat". You understand that basic science and you don't need this article. Good for you. But do you want those poeple who are not as fortunate not to learn the basic climate science stuff?
-
Vonnegut at 22:42 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"So, this good news story with a loss of coverage, but some survival if we can exclude other stressors (which we are not doing) starts to look like a Titanic story. 'Well, there will be significant loss of life, but at least some first class passengers will get into life boats" sort of thing."
I can see why you say that, You know i disagree, I think more sould be done about what we know about runoff pollutants etc because we're never going to stop producing co2 we have to mitigate the effects. Maybe while we are doing that things may adapt?
-
chriskoz at 22:37 PM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@20
My issue with the above article is the characterization that the denial of a greenhouse effect existing at all is mainstream argument. That is simply not true. No one from any side of this discussion in the mainstream is arguing that CO2 can not trap heat or that No greenhouse effect exists
That is simply not true. Obvious examples of influential peoples (who have thousands of followers) who still deny GFE are: james inhofe in US Congress, Cuccinelli in Senate of VA, Tony Abbott - AUS PM, who said that climate science is "crap" and that CO2 is invisible substance.
Therefore an article as this is needed to debunk Tony Abbott's taking point, because Tony does implicitly deny the existence of GHE here and his argument dismissing GHE is indeed his "mainstream argument". Which proves that your statement above is not true.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:35 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @82 and 84, unfortunately one of the "other" stressors is high Sea Surface Temperatures, which we are not limiting under current policies. Other stressors such as soil runoff, fertilizer runoff and polution will be very hard to limit in a world with a doubling population by the mid 21st century. Finally, some biological competitors are favoured by high temperature and lower pH; so will place corals under further stress. So, you have to understand that just as some scientists are saying OA may not kill of even the majority of species if we can limit other stressors, other biologists studying the impacts of these other factors, and saying the same thing, with OA included as another stressor. Thus a glimmer of hope is not a panacea.
Specifically to 82, a major shift in reef species means the at least local extinction of many species of coral. That will significantly reduce the ability of the reef to sustain biodiversity, resulting in the at least local extinction many species of fish, crustaceans, and other reef associate species. The total loss of local biodiversity has two further knock on effects. First it reduces the total biomass sustainable by the reef (reducing its potential as a source of food); and it reduces the potential to resist other shocks to the reef. The reef become less robust, and more precarious. The loss of coverage (ie, smaller reefs) reinforces that. Smaller reefs support fewer species, and are more vulnerable to complete destruction by additional hazard.
So, this good news story with a loss of coverage, but some survival if we can exclude other stressors (which we are not doing) starts to look like a Titanic story. 'Well, there will be significant loss of life, but at least some first class passengers will get into life boats" sort of thing. It is telling of the predicament facing reefs that such essentially bad news stories if taken by themselves are regarded as signs of hope.
Further, the widespread loss of species at least locally probably means the extensive loss of some species globally. Even without other stressors, this is starting to put us into survival in refugia only scenarios. That means globaly we are looking at the extinction of a very large number of coral and associated species; with hundreds of years to restore healthy reef communities, and tens of thousands of years to restore the variety of reef species, and hence the sustainable biomass of the reefs.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 5 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
vonnegut, This is covered by the post from Tom Curtis at 125, CO2 is not a big absorber of visible light or ultra violet or the wavelengths of much of the IR we recieve from the sun.
Incidentally, see my post at 126 for an example of how to deal with getting something wrong.
Prev 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 Next
