Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
Comments 40001 to 40050:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:17 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
And I think scaddenp was probably referring to this chart from Zhang 2007.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:14 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Klapper @15... You could try this one:
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 18 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Directly tied to the above discussion is the "must read" article, Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? by Dahr Jamail posted today (Dec 17 US) on Tom Englehardt's website, TomDispatch.com.
Englehardt's introduction to Jamail's article is also worth a careful read.
Both articles are choked full of links to key resource documents.
*Dahr Jamail has written extensively about climate change as well as the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. He is a recipient of numerous awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism and the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. He is the author of two books: Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq and The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.
-
Klapper at 22:31 PM on 17 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
@scaddenp #14:
I'd challenge the contention that Antarctica is warming "around the edges". Maybe the peninsula is, but that's the exception to the rest of the land data from Antarctica. The manned weather stations on the coast don't show any overall warming since 1980 or so. If you have data to demonstrate warming around the edges, please direct me to it.
-
wili at 20:26 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Thanks for the valuable discussion, all. I hope we can all agree that, whether it's 3%, 6+%, or 10+%, the first priority is to get the sign right> annual reductions rather than annual increases.
I am mindful that the latest paleo-study concluded that climate sensitivity is double the traditional 1.5-4.5 degree C range (global temp increase for every doubling of CO2). So all numbers may need to be adjusted accordingly. And in any case, I would agree with OPOF that it is wiser to take precautionary principle and aim to give utter climate calamity a wide berth.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:31 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
One Planet @14, I downloaded the RCP 4.5 emissions data. Cumulative emissions to 2100 of CO2 alone is 1280 GtC, and 955 GtC to 2050. Using a 3% reduction per annum from 2014, and the RCP 4.5 emissions data before that, I get cumulative emissions of 770 GtC and 855 GtC to 2050 and 2100 respectively. RCP 4.5 does not have declining emissions until after 2040, and achieves reductions around 3% per annum in only a handful of years. Consequently the 3% reduction per annum is a far more aggressive scenario than RCP 4.5. For what it is worth, RCP 4.5 shows cumulative emissions of 860 GtC for CO2 alone from 2000-2100. You have probably quoted a near equivalent figure rather than the full historical cumulative emissions.
Further, RCP 4.5 maintains sufficient emissions each year after 2100 to maintain constant forcing. That is, it maintains sufficient emissions to balance any decay of CH4 etc, or ocean absorption of CO2 such that atmospheric concentrations remain constant. In that scenario, temperatures will continue to rise to the Equilibrium Response of the peak concentration rather than only the Transient Response to the peak concentration and the Equilibrium response to much reduced CO2 levels due to ocean uptake after several hundred years.
These two factors (the much greater cumulative emissions and constant forcing after 2100) account for much of the differences in projected temperatures you commented on. A further difference is that I calculated the CO2 forcing only, whereas the RCP 4.5 scenario accounts for all forcings. With ongoing emissions, aerosol emissions approximately cancel WMGHG emissions other than CO2 so that is a fair approximation. In a scenario with reducing emissions, however, that is not so. eventually the anthropogenic aerosol emissions resulting in a short term temperature spike from the other WMGHG prior to their decaying and washing out of the system. Therefore short term temperatures may peak 30% above those I indicated (and indeed 50% above that again allowing for error). In the medium to long term, however, those additional GHG, if no longer emitted, will decay to a sufficiently small quantity of CO2 that they can be neglected.
The CMIP-5 models used for AR5 have a higher equilibrium response than either CMIP 3 models, or is justified by paleological data. I, therefore, have continued to use sensitivities based on AR4. In that, AR5 is in agreement with me, they having lowered the estimated climate sensitivity. The models, however, are run with their innate sensitivities and hence will slightly over estimate temperature responses. I believe this to be a far less significant factor in the difference than the first three factors, and in particular the first two.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Tom Curtis @12,
Though you say you have treated figures conservatvely the results of your evaluation appear signifigantly unconservative when I compare your peak temperatures with the presentation in the IPCC AR5 Report. Cummulative emission of 880 GtC by 2100 is greater than RCP4.5 (which is 780 GtC). And in the IPCC report the mean expected increase of temperature by 2100 for RCP4.5 is approximately 2.5 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, with the temperature continuing to increase after 2100. Your analysis would appear to be on the 'optimistic extreme' of the range of results presented in the IPCC report.
So, to protect the future generations, based on the uncertainty of what we are able to evaluate, even more dramatic reductions of the burning of fossil fuels will be required. The current global economy is fundamentally unsustainable anyway because of all the activities developed that rely on the unsustainable practice of burning (and consuming) non-renewable resources. The fighting over the remaining fossil fuels (and other non-renewable resources), will only get worse if 'some people are allowed to continue to be benefit significantly from that unsustainable and damaging activity'. Eventually humanity will need to figure out how to live without burning fossil fuels. We need to give future generations a fighting chance at a decent life by reducing the benefit that we allow the greediest of the most fortunate among us to obtain from the burning of fossil fuels.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:22 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @6, I agree with Tom Curtis @7. The required action is making sure leaders and leadership hopefuls know your priorities of concern.
I would add that another action to take is to persistently try to help others become better informed. This site is a great resource for that effort. Every time I come across someone making an unfounded claim I am able to provide a prompt and direct rebuttal with the better understanding I have gained from sites like this as well as direct reference to other sources of information like the World Meteorological Organization, IPCC, Met Office/Hadley, NASA/GISS and NOAA.
My personal objective is global development toward a sustainable better future for all life. That is a much broader topic including the need for 'civil society', 'environmental reverence', and dramatically reduced consumption by and damage created by the most fortunate. This issue is a significant aspect of what needs to be understood and changed. However, we do not need to only improve 'one thing at a time'.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @8, compounding emissions reductions of 3% per annum starting in 2014 (ie, 2015 is the first year of reduction) results in a total cumulative emissions of Carbon by 2050 of 775 GtC; and by 2100 of 860 GtC. Given that 75% of total emissions will be absorbed by the ocean in the next two centuries, ie, an extra 20% over the 55% of cumulative emissions absorbed on an ongoing basis, that leads to peak atmospheric concentrations of about 460 ppmv drawing down to 360 ppmv over the time scale over which the equilibrium response is achieved. That represents a transient climate response of about 1.5 C above preindustrial levels - and a temperature that stabilizes at about 1.6 C above preindustrial levels after the full Earth System Response. I believe that once emissions are down to 0.75 GtC per annum (2100 at that rate of reduction), the net emissions can be controlled at reasonable expense by carbon sequestration to bring the long term response lower, however, we will have time to fine tune the response. Importantly, all of these figures are below the 2 C "threshold" for dangerous global warming.
This information is derived from my spreadsheet of cumulative emissions plus David Archer's online version of the Geocarb model, along with an assumed TCR of 2 C, and ESR of 4.5 C per doubling of CO2. I have treated figures conservatively, ie, rounding emissions per annum and cumulative emissions up rather than down.
-
From Peru at 12:12 PM on 17 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51A
I am thankful that my country appears here. 2014 will be an interesting year.
So far almost nobody talks about the COP 20 (the Pan-American Games of 2019 are mentioned more frequently), and everybody talks either about the political scandal of the week or about the increase in criminal activity. I hope this state of things in the media improves next year.
One the bright side, I must say that while the issue of Climate Change is mentioned very rarely, there is a broad consensus over all the political spectrum that this is a real and a serious problem. However I am concerned that as next year the conference get closer, there will be a disinformation campaign (so far nonexistent in my country) that targets my country population and a lot of people will be fooled.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback. Pleased keep us apprised of how the media in your country is covering climate change. Generally speaking, I would like to include more articles from South America in the news roundups.
-
Don9000 at 08:05 AM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
That the UN climate talks ended with this anemic outcome does not bode well for the likelihood of meaningful action where it matters most. In short, I suspect it will be extremely difficult to get any of the big polluters to act unilaterally to cut emissions as much as necessary, particularly when nations like Canada and Australia are actively running in the other direction, and thus the lack of a robust agreement to act collectively is a serious blow to avoiding exceeding the 2 degree C rise.
Providing funds for mitigation efforts in other nations is even more of a stretch. Based only on my sense of the political zeitgeist over here, getting the US to unilaterally commit serious longterm funds to third world nations at this time (which is going to extend at least until the 2016 Presidential election) will be an extremely hard if not impossible sell. Tongue only semi-firmly in cheek, I think it would be a lot easier for nations seeking this kind of financial support to take a page out of The Mouse That Roared and declare war on the US or NATO or their former colonial occupier(s), launch a few cavalry charges or their equivalent, and hope their opponent(s) prove magnanimous in victory (just remember, in the movie, The Duchy of Grand Fenwick wins, albeit in a rather creative way).
Getting the US to take concrete steps toward imposing a carbon tax--the truly necessary first step in my opinion for any serious effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the long term--is currently a non-starter given the weak economy, the weak hand of Obama, and the anti-tax rigor mortis stance of the Republicans. The only thing I can imagine changing this impass is a signficant move by the EU on the same front, complete with penalties for first world trading partners that don't follow suit. If that kind of thing came to pass, the US just might be guilted in action. But I doubt even that would work, as the average politician over here really isn't worried about the floods and droughts that people outside his or her district experience, let alone outside his or her nation or hemisphere, and any attempt to force the US to act would galvanize the anti-tax wing of the GOP into paroxisms of self-righteous pontificating.
Realistically, I doubt that Obama could get any useful UN treaty approved by the US Senate at this point, as that requires a two-thirds majority, which is about as likely as getting Senator Ted Cruz to behave like a moderate for more than fifteen minutes when he's standing in front of a Tea Party rally.
-
william5331 at 04:10 AM on 17 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
The strength of Methane vis a vis Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is 20 0r 30 times as much only if you include the phrase "on a 100 year basis". It's actual strength is somewhere around 100 times that of Carbon dioxide and hence the approximately 2ppm methane in the atmosphere has the same effect as 200ppm Carbon dioxide. I reverse engineered the figure using a half life of 7 years and a relative strength of 20 on a 100 year basis and got x140. Does anyone know where the original work is that worked out the actual relative strengths. In the NSIDC web site, they recently used a figure of x86.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html
wlhgmk@gmail.com
-
wili at 23:40 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Thanks, Tony. The analogy that comes to my mind is someone who has gangrene (or some similar spreading infection). At first it is just at the tip of one toe, and he is told that very minor surgery will take care of it. But he's in denial that there is any rot on his wonderful body and that it could ever be a real threat, so he ignores the advise. Next it's the whole toe that has to go, and he can't imagine parting with so precious a thing. Then the whole foot has to go, and that he certainly can't abide...you get the idea.
We are certainly at or past the toe stage, hopefully not to the stage of having to lose a leg or more, but hard to tell.
W -
TonyW at 14:55 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Yes, wili, Hansen's latest paper provides a strong argument for keeping warming to 1C, though his plan has a brief overshoot to 1.1C. The continued notion that 2C isn't too bad has surely been shot to smithereens, but even apparently well read journalists still talk about 2C as though that would be OK (even though commitments, if met - which is very doubtful - would only give a modest chance of keeping within 2C). Hansen thinks 6% across the board reductions per year (starting now), along with an aggressive reforestation plan would get atmospheric concentration down to about 350 ppm before the end of the century and keep the temperature roughly within the Holocene range.We're not going to get 6% global reduction per year from this year or starting at any point the near future, so even higher rates of reduction will be needed, which would then be even more unlikely, and so ad infinitum. It's funny how some people on the train can see the crash coming, clear as day, whilst others on the train can only see the train keeping on track for ever. -
wili at 14:17 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC, thanks for the response. What is your source for 3%? Hansen's latest paper comes up with at least 6% global annual reductions. I'm not sure I follow your trade scheme, and I'm afraid any such is certain to become hopelessly manipulated by the banksters that specialized in that sort of thing.
Good points on voting. But of course you need more than "a few" people for that to be effective, just as you do ultimately for direct action. And one does not preclude the other. But looking at how effective, for example, the NRA has been at keeping representatives in line may be a good model, in some ways.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:19 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @6, the article quotes Kevin Anderson claiming that 10% reductions per annum by developed nations, not the entire world, are necessary. In fact reductions on that scale are simply not achievable. Global reductions at 3% per annum, on the other hand, are sufficient for a 2 C target and are achievable. They are best achieved by an equal global per capita emissions quota per nation, benchmarked for each nation against the population in a given year, declining by 3% per annum for each nation - and made tradable so that developed nations can purchase excess emissions allowances from under developed nations as they phase down to the quota and the underdeveloped nations initially rise to, and then fall with the quota. As it is, international negotiations bog down because western nations insist undeveloped nations reduce emissions at the same rate they do, thereby insisting that unequal wealth distribution be locked into the global economy as a condition for tackling global warming.
The best thing people can do to tackle global warming at the moment is make it clear to politicians, and to the media by writting letters stating that you want, as a first priority of government that there be a rapid reduction in carbon emissions, and that you want a fair - ie, one person, one value - international agreement to accomplish that. You should indicate, and this should be, that this is should be your highest electoral priority. Make it clear that this, above all other issues, will decide your vote in future elections.
Civil disobedience will be dismissed as the actions of a few, unrepresentative radicals and will not change the policies of government. Clearly indicated voting intentions which are followed through, however, will send a clear signal. It will be ignored only if, as unfortunately seems likely, the demos of our democracies have chosen long term doom over short term inconvenience.
-
wili at 09:35 AM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Good corrections everyone. Now can we get back to the contents of the article?
Besides the immediate need for 10% annual reductions of C emissions, the guts of this article seem to me to be here:
"'Democracy has been stolen by corporations,' Naidoo told IPS. 'While activists and protesters are arrested, the real hooligans are the CEOs of fossil fuel companies.'
The only avenue left to people is civil disobedience and 2014 will be the year of climate activism, he said.
'Now is the time to put our lives on the line and face jail time,' Naidoo said."
There is precisely no time left for anything but demanding immediate action now on a level that actually has some remote chance of avoiding the worst levels of catastrophe.
What are the good posters here willing to commit to? What are the most effective actions to take at this point?
-
scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Well some of the reasons for increasing Antarctica seaice such as ozone depletion, circum polar circulation, do operate by reducing temperature. However, whatever an average satellite tropospheric temperature shows, Antarctica is also warming around the edges (note the decrease in land ice as well the temperature trends) which does imply the increased sea ices is not because it is getting colder.
-
Enginerd at 10:00 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thanks for the response, Scaddenp. I wasn't wondering why the temperature trend is different at the poles. I was wondering why the notable difference in the temperature trends might explain part of the notable difference in the sea ice trends (i.e., why Arctic sea ice is decreasing so rapidly and why Antarctic sea ice isn't). For what it's worth, UAH temperature for the "North Pole" and "South Pole" represent 60-85 degrees latitude, which is why I referred to them in quotes. I think the trend for that region is relevant.
-
wili at 08:11 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50B
Thanks for linking to the article on the Tyndall conference: "Scientists explore paths to ‘radical’ emissions reductions."
Here's the direct link to the conference and a good interview with K. Anderson. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/radical-emission-reduction-conference-10-11-december-2013
What among these or other initiatives seem like the best way forward to the good posters on this site? As pointed out, given the continuing incease in C emissions, what people have been doing so far clearly has not yet worked.
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome and thank you for the link to the conference.
-
scaddenp at 05:50 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Enginerd - why tropospheric temperature trends are different is interesting and discussed elsewhere. However, sea ice in Antarctica only grows a long way from pole (though still within the circumpolar circulation).
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Bad news: November GIS L-OTI is out: 0.77C, a record for Novembers. It's also tied for the 5th warmest of any months in the GIS series. That sets up 2013 to be the 3rd warmest year on record, and it will have occurred in ENSO net negative conditions.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:02 AM on 15 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
Too easy to forget the beauty of the basics! What a nice article.
-
Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
#9 Glenn Tamblyn:
"The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%"
That's not entirely correct, Glenn.
According to PIOMAS the September sea ice volume in Arctic was 3300 km3 in 2012 and 4900 km3 in 2013, pretty close to a 50% increase, and by far the largest relative increase from one year to the next. This also tells us that the average ice thickness was more or less the same these two years.
The problem of course (for the deniers and the Arctic sea ice itself) is that the 1600 km3 of absolute increase is tiny compared to the 13,600 km3 of ice loss from 1979 to 2012. The downward trend is still crystal clear, and there is no reason to believe this "recovery" will be more than a temporary one.
-
Enginerd at 04:34 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thank you for this post. Over the years, I've seen many mechanisms mentioned as possibly explaining the different trends observed between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but I rarely hear people mention average tropospheric temperature. According to the UAH data set, the tropospheric temperatures in the "North Pole" region from 1978-2013 increased at a rate more than 3 times the global average; while in the "South Pole" region, the tropospheric temperatures over the same time frame have a net trend of *zero*. Might this explain some of the very different longer-term behavior observed across the two poles? I'm not suggesting that the other hypotheses listed in the post aren't important. I am just wondering why tropospheric temperature never seems to get mentioned when evaluating the differences between the two poles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 15 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster@3, Peak 1 minute wind speed or hourly avearge wind speed could be used to rank wind events producing very different results. Another factor would be the specific location hit by the event. As an example, if Katrina had made landfall just a little west of where it actually did, the effect on New Orleans would have increased dramatically.
There is more than wind speed to consider. The amount of moisture dropped by a weak cyclone can be more damaging than the peak wind speed of a stronger cyclone. Many events around the world are indicating a trend toward larger amounts of moisture in extreme events. Perhaps even the recent significant amount of snow in the Middle East was due to significantly more moisture being in the air when a cold event occurred.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 14 December 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Poster,
If you want to learn about hurricanes you should read Jeff Masters blog since he is a specialist on hurricanes and can sort through the different measurements. Here is Dr. Masters last comments on Haiyan and Chris Burt weather historian at Wunderground comments are also valuable. You often post links to unreliable sites like the WSJ for easily available scientific information.
It was interesting that the WSJ list of hurricanes in the Philippines is different from Tom's list from the original source. Can you explain why your source appears to be mistaken? If you cannot you should consider not using the WSJ as a source any more since they have been shown to be unreliable. Perhaps you should rethink why your sources are frequently unreliable.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:49 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster @3, significant confusion reigns about the ranking of Typhoon Haiyan because peak wind velocities have been reported in two different ways, with the JTWC reporting 1 minute sustained speeds and PAGASA reporting 10 minute sustained speeds. That confusion has been increased by the WSJ which reports a list of the seven strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines. Oddly, only two of the cyclones on the WSJ list are on PAGASA's list of the 5 strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines, and those two both have inflated windspeeds relative to the PAGASA list. Given that the WSJ cites PAGASA as the source of its list, that is odd to say the least. The cyclone that heads the PAGASA list, Typhoon Durian, is shown has having much lower wind speeds than Haiyan on wikipedia, but a higher peak wind gust by PAGASA.
Going through the WSJ list, it includes (in WSJ order of wind speed):
1) Typhoon Joan (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed);
2) Typhoon Betty (165 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed at land fall 136 mph);
3) Typhoon Ruth (165 mph peak wind speed, wind speed at landfall 125 mph);
4) Typhoon Imra (160 mph peak wind speed, land fall as category 2);
5) Typhoon Dot (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, intensity fell prior to landfall);
6) Typhoon Mike (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed of 140 mph at landfall).
Finally, and in seventh spot according to the WSJ is Typhoon Haiyan, with 195 mph 1 minute sustained windspeeds at landfall.
May I suggest that you cease trusting the WSJ as a reliable reporter on climate (it isn't); and if you wish to discuss this further, do so on a page explicitly adressing Tyhpoon Haiyan (first or last links above).
-
Poster9662 at 20:08 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
As typhoon Haiyan (aka Yolanda) is only the seventh strongest typhoon to make landfall in the Philippines (http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/11/14/is-typhoon-haiyan-the-strongest-storm-ever/), is the catastrophic destruction due more to infrastrucure/habitat changes occcurring since the stongest typhoon, typhoon Seding (aka typhoon Joan), made landfall in 1970?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:38 PM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
William
Cryosphere II may not be available for 2013 but PIOMAS is:
From here:
The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:37 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
@ wili,
The scientifically established 'temperature increase of significant concern' is 1.5 degrees C above the pre-industrial levels (the 1800s).
In Copenhagen the global leaders signed on to the limit of 2 degrees because it was clear that the lack of action over the previous decades by the highest per-capita emitter to change their ways had made it 'impossible' to meet the 1.5 degree limit.
As mentioned, because of the continued deliberate lack of action by the largest per-capita emitters since 2009 it is now very challenging to meet the 2 degree limit.
Nero fiddling while Rome burns is nothing compared to what the people benefiting the most from the burning of fossil fuels and tearing down of forests are doing to the planet. They are basically like Nero gaining wealth and enjoyment from dropping napalm on a burning planet.
And the most absurd aspect of this is that the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels ultimately cannot be continued anyway. Humanity has a few billion years of living to look forward to on this amazing planet. For the sake of the future of humanity, and all other life, this lazy wasteful damaging moment in human history needs to be ended sooner rather than just a little later.
The popularity of benefiting without the consequences is a real sweet deal…for the ones who win the wars and battles to get to benefit the most. It is a very rotten deal for the rest of the current population and for all the future generations of humanity.
-
william5331 at 06:09 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
You mention Cryosat-ll. As far as I can find, they still haven't reported the ice volume for Sept 2013 so that we can compare it with Sept 2012 and see if ice volume has also increased 60% as did ice extent. I understand there is some problem with September associated with ponding water on top of the ice but even the figures for August and October for 2012 and 2013 would give us an approximate figure to compare. Why does the ESA (European Space Agency) which operates Cryosat-ll not produce daily updates for volume as does NSIDC for extent. If the satellite is in the normal 90 min orbit, that means that it passes over the Arctic 16 times a day, each time over a different path. Surly that is enough to give a pretty good estimate of ice volume in real time.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:07 AM on 14 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
BTW, Composer99, there's a preview button on the Basic comment form. It looks like a magnifying glass over a page.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:05 AM on 14 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
To add to Composer99's comments: individuals who are reducing their carbon footprints are to be applauded, but won't by themselves solve the AGW problem. That's because AGW is a Tragedy of the Commons. As Composer99 suggests, lifestyles will change sufficiently, only when burning fossil fuels is made un-economic by government regulation and/or taxation.
-
wili at 04:37 AM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
"To have a good chance at staying under two degrees C, industrialised countries need to crash their CO2 emissions 10 percent per year starting in 2014, said Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.'
And, of course, 2 degrees C is way too high. So what is the level of emissions reduction required to avoid, say, 1.5 degrees?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
meb58... Yes, WV is a stronger greenhouse gas but it's presense is temperature dependent. I don't believe the ice melting would be what would increase WV, but rather the rising temperature. Freshwater evaporates faster (or requires less energy to evaporate) than saltwater, but I would imagine the difference is probably minimal enough to not have a significant impact on the process.
-
meb58 at 01:55 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
...from a non-scientist...as I understand it, water vapor is a more powerful green house gas than CO2 or methane? If so, does fresh water or highly diluted sea water evaporate faster than 'typical' sea water? The rapid artic ice melt is alarming, but doesn't some of the melt water feed back as water vapor at some point in the hydrlogic cycle?
-
Rob Painting at 19:32 PM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
I would add too, that the current behaviour of the Antarctic sea ice is influenced by the present state of the ocean-atmosphere circulation. The current negative (cool) phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) is likely assisting the growth of sea ice, but may reverse when the IPO moves to its positive (warm) phase. This can be seen in the modelled trends from Meehl (2013):
.......and the models vs observations from the UK Met Office:
-
nigelj at 12:47 PM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Rob Honeycutt @3, I agree. The antarctic sea ice is essentially climate neutral, but the arctic certainly isnt. People with open minds can see the antarctic sea ice issue is a very weak sceptical argument, so people who persist with it must have ulterior motives.
On your comment about the arctic, this is a big sort of regional heating effect. I believe the northern hemisphere is also warming more than the southern. Im no climate expert and this may be a naieve comment, but as far as Im aware these temperature differentials can alter pressure systems, winds and currents.
Arent we altering virtually everything? I dont beleive you can actually fully model something so complex. I think its madness to invite changing these patterns.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
The other big difference between the Arctic and Antarctic has to do with albedo effect. The change in planetary albedo that comes with Arctic sea ice loss is significant, and it's something to be very concerned about. But there is almost no change in the Antarctic sea ice minimum, and thus there is little to no change in planetary albedo at the south pole, positive or negative.
Deniers keep focusing on the Antarctic sea ice maximum as if it actually means anything at all. The maximum occurs during the late southern winter when there is very little sunlight hitting the pole, and thus any increase has a very small albedo effect related to it.
Something I've never seen is a chart of planetary albedo over time.
-
ubrew12 at 06:11 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Is it acceptable to claim that Antarctic sea ice is 'increasing' from zero? Prior to 1979, when NASA begins its accounting, reconstructed sea ice was much higher than after 1979. As Arctic sea ice extent has been collapsing in extent in the last 30 years, Antarctic sea ice extent mostly collapsed in the 30 years prior to 1980. In any case, that's what I'm pulling away from this article by Tamino, in which he reconstructs both Polar sea ice extents all the way back to 1880::
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/history-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-part-1/
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked URL.
-
OPatrick at 05:49 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Here, there is a much stronger seasonal ebb and flow to sea ice coverage as over 80% of the sea ice area grows each autumn-winter and decays each spring-summer.
With the recent drastic reduction in summer Arctic sea ice extent isn't this contrast now outdated? Last year the summer ice in the Arctic was below 25% of the winter extent.
-
Composer99 at 00:57 AM on 13 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
To take scaddenp's comment and elaborate it a bit, in no way do we need to view global warming as civilization-threatening to be motivated, even strongly motivated, to take action to mitigate it at a global level.
All we need is to have the following convictions:
- That mitigating warming, and preventing future warming, by emissions reductions, etc., is less expensive than adaptation/coping with the consequences of warming. Personally speaking, based on the probable consequences between 2050 and 2100, as far as I am concerned we have surpassed that point. Thus, mitigation/prevention, even very rapid mitigation/prevention, is the preferable course of action.
- That, if we are willing to consider the interests of others (in securing the basic necessities of life in a stable manner, and in securing occasional or intermittent access to luxuries) as being equal to our own, we have a moral obligation to reduce emissions in order to reduce the severity of the consequences of warming, which the evidence so far quite clearly shows will fall most heavily upon those least able to adapt to them.
I do not think either of these are in any way radical notions.
(Not to say that global warming could not be civilization-threatening if left unchecked; it very well could. My point is that you don't have to see it that way in order to support taking action on a society-wide scale.)
-
David Kirtley at 12:49 PM on 12 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
Very interesting post! I love learning more about scientific discoveries of the past. Looking forward to more posts in this series.
-
scaddenp at 12:47 PM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
At no point before Bill chimed in, did anyone suggest climate would end civilization. He begins by attacking a strawman argument. It is a bizarre position to suggest that we should only take action on climate change if it was a threat to civilization (which his scenario over say 100 years would be, but still...). We should take action because it is the rational thing to do from point of view of both cost and risk. It is also the appropriate moral action from the point that those most affected by change are not the ones who are causing it.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:21 PM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Bob Lacatena @29, you are correct about the balkanization of knowledge which is characteristic of our age, and that it makes us more vulnerable to a breakdown in society. I think you are incorrect in your estimate of the population loss that would be required to bring about that catastrophe. Except in areas of cutting edge research, the knowledge base is duplicated across several major nations, or groups of nations. Specifically, the US, Europe, Russia, Japan, and now China and India all now have sufficient knowledge to allow for the recovery of civilization without much loss of current knowledge if any of them survive largely intact. What is more, as casualties from global warming will be predominantly in poor, underdeveloped nations, they are also the nations (or groups of nations) most likely to survive with few casualties. If 10 or 20% of the world's population is lost, most of the losses will be in Africa with least in the most developed nations. Further, the missing knowledge, if any, following a 10% populatin loss, will be highly specialized, and consequently have marginal impact on world economic production.
The same cannot be said for a 90% loss, which of necissity must hit all nations very hard. Therefore, a 90% loss - ignoring the other impacts - does have the potential to end our civilization. Never-the-less I think sufficient knowledge would remain even then to survive as a civilization, if not at the advanced levels previously achieved, then at least at a technological level equivalent to that of the 1950s.
I think the far greater threat actually comes from the risk of sustained economic decline; and the end of substantial trade. Our civilization is critically dependent on complex trade networks. If these collapse, so will also the high standard of living that allows so many of us to devote so much time to learning. If all must grub for food in subsistence, or near subsistence farms, there will be no engineers or scientists to sustain the knowledge. Any event, particularly an ongoing even such as OA, ocean anoxia, and sustained very high temperatures which can knock out >20% of the population is also likely to knock us into sustained (multidecadal) negative economic growth, and potentially knock out the majority of the trade network, forcing each region to sustain its own population. The problem will not just be in the population loss, but in the ongoing conditions that caused that loss in the first place.
The end product may well be a fall back to a medieval level of technology, with a few advanced holdouts. Whether that counts as the end of our civilization or not, I think, is academic.
Further, I think that any event that can so stress the worlds nations is also a substantial risk of triggering major wars and potentially an all out nuclear exchange. In that respect, economic stress without population decline presents a greater risk. An all out nuclear exchange represents, of course, and a very high threat of extinction for our species.
Finally, although I regard Bill's comments as panglossian, I do not think it is fair to characterize him as a dissmissive. There are a range of rational views on climate change, from those that consider it a major problem but not a threat to our civilization or species, to those that consider it a threat to both. The threats to the later are, given the present state of knowledge, risks - not certainties.
-
Jonas at 12:14 PM on 12 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
I am very grateful for all of the graphics done/presented on sks:
I reposted them many times over: 1 illustration can tell so much ...
(I wish I were a millionaire: then I could donate more to sks ...). -
Bob Lacatena at 07:21 AM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Bill, you missed my point.
If you actually think the world can recover from the loss of 90% of the population, you need to re-evaluate things. I don't think we could recover from the loss of 20%, maybe even 10%.
Modern society is like a hive mind. Very intricate knowledge is squirrelled away in various people, and passed on in a stuttering variation on an oral tradition. Through schooling, apprenticing, trial and error, and experience, people get to understand one minute facet of how our society works, from international finance to aerospace engineering to oncology.
If you remove too much of that at once, basic services, like power, food production, processing and transport, and other things will devolve, and people won't be able to handle it. I think that far, far less than a 90% population loss will be needed to cripple civilization because of how very complex our society and its use of technology has become.
But even if you don't agree with that... you are a dismissive, even if you don't think that you are. If you have no sense of fear or urgency, because you beleive that we can overcome everything, simply because history shows that for the past 100 years we have done so, then... you are a dismissive. You dismiss the problem, not because you don't believe it exists, but because you believe it isn't large enough to worry you.
That is a serious problem that is facing us all, because there is a time limit, and there is a point after which it will be too late to take relevant action. More importantly, every year's delay makes the action that we will ultimately have to take than much more painful.
It just astounds me that dismissives are guaranteeing the one outcome that frightens them most, and are avoiding the path of rewarding (both economically and socially) growth that renewables and a say-no-to-fossil-fuels would bring.
-
nigelj at 04:56 AM on 12 December 2013New Video: Making the Plio Scene – What the Past tells us about Sea Level
Doug Hutcheson @2. The interesting thing is the book After the Ice is written by an archaeologist and agw sceptic, but then the sceptics will probably say hes not a "genuine" sceptic....
-
william5331 at 04:43 AM on 12 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
As the Arctic warms and more storms (low pressure systems) occur in the Arctic, the Arctic Oscillation will be positive more often than previously. Winds will more often be toward the Arctic rather than away. While this warms the Arctic, it takes heat away from lower latitudes which may explaing the temporary apparent cessation of warming of the atmosphere. After all, most of the sensors are in mid latitudes, not in the Arctic.
By the by, it should be amusing, the year after the year there is zero ice in September in the Arctic. There will probably be a recovery of some sort in this following year and no matter how small or big it is, the climate deniers will be able to claim an infinite ice recovery. (something divided by zero = infinity).
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
