Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 Next
Comments 40351 to 40400:
-
jhnplmr at 18:32 PM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#47 Michael Sweet
"The link you have posted is not very helpful since it is raw data"
Surely it is not impossible for an intelligent person such as yourself to convert that raw data to a graph as I did? The original raw data is much more useful than derived readings from a graph.
"It is clear from your postings that you have misread your link and think 2,000,000 years is 20,000 years"
How can you comment on a graph you haven't seen and are apparently unable to plot for yourself? BTW, I didn't misread the data and didn't confuse 2 million years with 20 thousand years. Please maintain some semblance of rationality if you want to be taken seriously.
-
alan_marshall at 18:25 PM on 30 November 2013No, Greenland Wasn't Green
Good work. Sorry to be pedantic, but there are a couple of typos:
Scandinavian and Icelandic exporers established two or three settlements on the south-west coast of Greenland. So what were the conditions in Greeland like 1,000 years ago?
-
scaddenp at 18:15 PM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
This discussion should be moved to "An ice-age is coming" Most of this is well covered ground. I should also point out that the last time earth was at 450ppm, we still had Milankovitch forcings but we didnt have ice ages.
Moderator Response:[TD] Agreed. That means everybody.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:53 PM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
adrian smits @16
Local CO2 concentrations aren't a strong indicator of local warming. CO2 needs to get mixed into the atmosphere and changes in concentration reach the upper atmosphere. It is changes in the upper atmosphere concentration that cause the warming. This upward mixing takes months to several years. It is then this broad change in upper level concentrations that causes the warming.
So any effect downwind from a city due to its CO2 emissions wouldn't produce localised GH heating. That isn't to say that air masses downwind of a city may not directly carry some heat with them, although most heat transfer is via radiation. But their localised downwind CO2 won't produced localised heating.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:41 PM on 30 November 2013Climate's changed before
John Wise
Yes CO2 has been higher in the distant past, even much higher than 1000 ppm. Over the very longest timescales (100's of millions to billions of years) CO2 levels have been trending downwards. 400-500 million years ago CO2 levels were perhaps 4000-8000 ppm. But what we need to bear in mind is that this is actually compensating for the fact that the Sun was cooler in the past. The Sun's heat output has grown by around 40% over its 4.5 billion year history.
As a rough calculation, Solar intensity today is around 341 Watts/M2 at the earth. Allow for albedo reflecting around 30% of that and the Earth absorbs around 238 Watts/M2 . If we go back 500 million years that would 230 Watts/m2. A doubling of CO2 wil produce around 3.7 Watts/M2 of warming so around 2.5 doubling of CO2 would be needed back then just to compensate for a cooler Sun. In fact the level was more like 3.5-4 doublings of current levels. And temperatures back then were warmer than now - perhaps 5-8 DegC warmer. Suggesting some of the past higher CO2 levels were compensating for a cooler Sun and some were actually producing a warmer climate.
As for the rate of increase, yes it is currently perhaps the fatsest in Earth's history. Some numbers.
- Current CO2 concentrations are rising at a bit over 2 ppm/yr
- CO2 concentration over a Glacial cycle changes by around 100 ppm over perhaps 10-20,000 years. So 0.005 to 0.01 ppm/yr
- A period around 55 million years ago called the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is regarded as the point in the past most analgous to today. A large, geologically rapid release of CO2 & Methane occurred and temps climbed 5-8 Deg C. Recent research by Lee Kump and colleagues has obtained a good estimate for the release of CO2 back then - it occurred over around 20,000 years. We are raising CO2 levels today 10 times faster than that. See this report http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm
- Much of the Coal we burn was laid down during the late Devonian and Carboniferous periods. Perhaps 60 million years. And we are burning this cola up in the space of centuries. Coal that took centuries to be laid down is burnt by us in 1 day. So yes, we are likely releasing CO2 at unprecedented rates.
-
Non-Scientist at 15:09 PM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
O/T
How did you add the pointer-magnifier? That was slick: no user clickety-fiddlery required, it was shows up where and only where needed.
otoh, maybe best to let plagiarizing denier sites figure it out for themselves ;-)
-
John Brookes at 14:44 PM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
I too read Murray's piece in this mornings West Australian. Pretty disappointing. But one should not expect too much from the West :-)
-
Poster9662 at 12:07 PM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
Thanks Dana I look forward to that. Unfortunately however, the post on Moday won't reach more than a very few of those who read Paul Murray's piece in today's West Australian. Consequently the vast majority may well continue to see credence in his article
-
Tom Dayton at 11:44 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr, your own calculations show only a 3 W/M^2 decrease of insolation in that one tiny region from the year 1950 to the year 3950--only .7%. You are confusing the readers of your comments, and I think yourself, by flipping between references to such small short-term changes and large (e.g., 43 W/M^2) long-term changes (over the past 10,000 years).
You also are causing confusion by referencing glaciations and then disclaiming that you are making claims about glaciations. Glaciations do not happen merely because of the change in insolation in that small region of the world, but because of a host of feedbacks, the conditions for which have been altered by human-created higher levels of greenhouse gases. The next glaciation is not going to happen for many tens of thousands of years, which you seem to have acknowledged. So you'll improve your argument by dropping references to glaciations.
As Rob Honeycutt suggested, you should get context for that size of insolation decrease. Even that tiny geographical region's outsized decrease is nearly inconsequential in the context of the total forcings and feedbacks, as Rob Honeycutt was trying to get you to understand by pointing you to Kiehl and Evans. For a summary you might try the SkS post by Trenberth.
For more context, note the neglible consequences of an insolation decrease of 1 W/M^2 over the entire globe--the consequence of another Maunder Minimum.
-
dana1981 at 10:52 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
Poster @18 - we'll have a post on Monday about the AMS survey and the various misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it.
-
Poster9662 at 10:29 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
Anne Marie Blackburn I think you'll find "Big Oil" is strongly supporting the development of renewable forms of energy generation
-
John Wise at 10:07 AM on 30 November 2013Climate's changed before
I have read that CO2 ppm have been much higher in the distant past,as much as 1000ppm. Over what period of time did CO2 reach that level? Is the current rate of increase faster,or can we tell?
-
Poster9662 at 10:03 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
In today's West Australian, which is the most widely newspaper in Western Australia, there is a piece by Paul Murray discussing the survey by the American Meteorological Society of the views of its members on the link between carbon emissions from human activity and global warming. This survey was carried out, so the article reports, because of the conflict among the members on this topic. A reported key finding is "that the society acknowledges the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of scientists. Only 52% of the members who responded "went for the full anthropogenic answer that the cause of global warming was mostly human" Remarkably this is a lot less than the 97% that has been reported elsewhere. However although 93% of the members who are climate scientists did support the "full anthropogenic view" 22% of the most expert group of scientists over all categories did not believe that global warming was mostly human caused. The report also noted that "the climate debate has become increasingly polarised around political issues rather than scientific understanding".
The article also reported on the 22 papers published by the AMS "seeking to explain extreme global weather events from a climate perspective" of which two studied the heavy rainfall in Eastern Australia. One of the authors of these papers is David Karoly who Paul Murray notes "is the Climate Commission's prominent alarmists". Murray goes on to say the results of the studies " found "no apparent influence from anthropogenic climate change in the observed rainfall anaomalies" and concludes (with reference to David Karoly) "It must be a bugger when science does that".
As Murray also refers to the scientific consensus as "the phoney consensus", this article, put out in the mass circulation MSM, may well, I fear, seriously compromise the efforts to persuade West Australians that humans really do affect climate.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:50 AM on 30 November 2013Video: 10 climate myths debunked in under 4 minutes
An even better response about the buring of fossil fuels would be, in addition to the damage done obtaining, transporting and burning them, they are simply non-renewable. Once they are used up they are used up. There will be no more produced for many millions of years. And Humanity should be looking forward to enjoying life on this amazing planet for a few 'billion years'. And the only way of living that can be sustained for that length of time is for humanity to be a vibrant leader of a fluorishing diverstity of life on this planet. All the attempts to artificially and unsustainably get benefit are "counter-productive". And since humanity will be striving to enjoy life for such a long time, there may actually be times in the future when readily available energy from fossil fuels would help with an actual 'short-term emergency need'.
It is a shame that the current socioeconomic system has become so popular, but understandable. Once humans get a taste of benefits many of them develop an addiction to getting that benefit even if it is proven to be damaging or unsustainable. Those people who have become additcted and will fight the 'change of attutude' need to be stopped from succeeding at the things they will try to get away with. That is a significant challenge to solve, but there is no future for humanity if it is not solved.
-
jhnplmr at 09:20 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
"Moderator Response:[RH] You need to host the image somewhere and then link to that location."
The file is on my computer, if I read your post correctly you want me to transfer it to an external web site and then use that web site URL to link it to my post.
This seems a very cumbersome method of linking to a file. Why can't I upload it directly from my computer?
Moderator Response:[RH] SkS is a custom built site and doesn't yet have that capability.
-
jhnplmr at 09:10 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#42 HK
"The file bein11.dat is the one you should use as it covers the next 100,000 years. Multiply the figures for 60oN or 70oN by 0.4843 to convert them from langleys/day to watt/m2 and you will find that the result supports me"
I used orbit91 for the years BP and bein11 for the 10,000 years into the future. I took the mean of Jul 60N and Jul 70N to get Jul 65N. I then had to correct a zero years error between the two sets of data and multiplied by 0.479775 instead of 0.4843 to correct this error. This gives a small scaling error of < 1%. So my figures for the next 10,000 years are less than 1% out but this doesn't affect the minimum or maximum points.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:37 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
nzrobin @45... Looked at your new chart. Still seems like a strange way to process the data but I think it'll all pan out in the end. Just be aware that your Y axis is probably going to change pretty dramatically as we catch some El Nino cycles in the coming years. ;-)
-
michael sweet at 07:23 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr:
The link you have posted is not very helpful since it is raw data . It is clear from your postings that you have misread your link and think 2,000,000 years is 20,000 years. The Wikipedia link from HK in 33 is clear and shows that you cannot read a graph. I think you have proved my initial point that you needed to cite your links for your fantistical claims. I am not going to post on this thread any more.
It is typical for climate change deniers to be unable to read their own data links. Thank you for an excellent example of this point.
-
jhnplmr at 06:43 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#41 gws
"The paper you cite only looked into the past."
I don't recall citing any paper, which one are you referring to?
If you are referring to the Milankovitch data then this covers 5 million yrears BP to 100,000 years into the future.
I don't want to be forced into using the wiki graph, firstly because it is inaccurate, secondly because I didn't introduce it to back my argument.
My initial post was:
"From the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycle the solar insolation was 469.44W/m2 at the maximum 10,000 years ago. It is 426.76W/m2 today, a fall of 42.68W/m2."
These figures were from the NOAA site I quoted. I compared this fall in solar insolation with the rise in radiative forcing due to man (1.6w/m2 according to IPCC, 2.3W/m2 according to the article). I said the man-made forcing was small compared to the change in solar insolation.
I was then informed that the next minimum was 20,000 years into the future. I said that the NOAA data gave it 2000 years into the future:
+3000 424.1W/m2
+2000 423.61W/m2
+1000 424.61W/m2
This shows a clear minimum in 2000 years time. After that insolation will rise.
This change from peak (469.44W/m2) to trough (423.61W/m2), a change of 45.83W/m2, is less than that which forced us into the last glacial period, a fall from a peak of 476.59W/m2 (103,000 years ago) to a trough of 421.14W/m2 (93,000 years ago), a fall of 55.45W/m2.
I feel much happier using my more accurate figures from the original data than trying to derive them from a published graph.
"I do not see your argument"
My argument is that man-made forcing is small compared to that caused by changes in solar insolation. Furthermore, the man-made forcing has been beneficial as it has prolonged the present interglacial period without an undue rise in global temperatures. I made the further point that trying to indefinitely prolong the present interglacial at present temperatures would require a lot of energy, which we don't have. I then said that the fall in insolation would eventually cause a fall in global temperatures, but not a glacial period.
I hope this makes my position clear. It would be much clearer if I could publish my graph but this doesn't seem possible.
Moderator Response:[RH] You need to host the image somewhere and then link to that location.
-
nzrobin at 06:36 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
Hi Rob and John, I like your post and feeling quite chuffed to see my graph here at Skeptical Science. I did another view of the bet trying to eliminate the 'noisey' look at the front end. Here's a link - http://www.kiwithinker.com/2013/11/a-decadal-global-climate-bet-a-second-view-of-the-race/. With best regards to all from NZ, nzrobin.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr... I think HK has just proven my point about making elemental errors and looking foolish.
It's incumbent upon you to more completely do your research before making fantastical claims.
-
Paul W at 06:17 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
What a great validation of the importance of John Cook's work. Almost 200 attach articles pages or jokes.
It cant be denied (well of course it's done all the time but not in any way that makes any sense) that there is a political contest between science and the fossil fuel industries for control of the hearts and minds of the voting public. It's clear from the last Australian elections that climate denial and distortion of what is real can win elections.
Politics is the world of appearances and is a kind of warfare that industries fund to a larger extent that people. I really appreciate the work of SkS to clarify the tactisc used by industry.
-
Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
And BTW, the updated figure for man-made radiative forcing in AR5 is 2.3 watt/m2, not 1.6 watt/m2.
-
Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr:
"If you call oscillations between 560W/m2 to 460W/m2 (rises and falls of 100W/m2) very little change. IPCC gives 1.6W/m2 as the total man-made radiative forcing from 1750 to present day."
First of all, those changes are regional, not global.
Secondly, we are not talking about the maximum oscillations during the last 2 million years, but the next 20,000 years. That’s a big difference!
And third, your source doesn’t agree with your claims. The file bein11.dat is the one you should use as it covers the next 100,000 years. Multiply the figures for 60oN or 70oN by 0.4843 to convert them from langleys/day to watt/m2 and you will find that the result supports me.
-
adrian smits at 05:44 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
Has anyone ever done a study of the downwind rural temperature records of major cities to see if there was a discernible difference in temperature from those rural areas that where not downwind? I am assuming the c02 levels would be higher downwind from the major cities and thus have higher temperatures.
Moderator Response:[DB] Wind directions, no matter how prevailing, still vary. The greenhouse gas effects of CO2, being a diffuse and well-mixed gas, manifest themselves on a global basis, rising bove ackground noise over time. Local effeects on short timescales are lost in noisy weather effects.
-
Drewd006 at 05:26 AM on 30 November 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Was Doran & Zimmerman (2009) considered peer-reviewed? Because many denier blogs keep pionting this out as a point to their side.
-
gws at 05:19 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr,
The paper you cite only looked into the past. Its timeline, same like the cited wikipedia page is in thousands of years. As the wikipedia graph pointed out by HK @33 shows, in the small period past the blue dot (today), the change are going to be relatively small, much smaller than you are talking about. The larger changes (+20 W/m2), i.e. first in the positive direction, are more than 20,000 years in the future. The first negative anomaly is more than 50,000 years in the future. So unless the wikipedia graph is wrong, I do not see your argument.
-
r.pauli at 05:14 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
Tobacco companies are concerned about replacing users since all the serious users die out. That's why they aim a young people.Carbon fuel use will be decimating the population in the same way. Expect to see messages targeting youth - future smokers, er, carbon uses. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:06 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr... Read the Kiehl 1997 paper please. I think you'll find it informative.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:00 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
caroza @11... "That's what oil companies are valued on; if the oil in the ground becomes worthless, so do they."
Exactly.
Think of it in terms of return on investment (ROI). The ROI for the few hundred million (US$) that the FF industry puts behind the climate change denial movement is a tiny fraction of what the industry profits each an every quarter they are able to delay action.
It's sort of a no-brainer for the FF industry to make such investments. Ultimately I think it's going to backfire on them, though.
-
jhnplmr at 04:56 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#37 Rob Honeycutt
"but that you're claiming a ~20% difference in insolation seems off by a couple of orders of magnitude. I think you're somehow not understanding the numbers you're quoting "
The problem is that the insolation figures I am using: LINK
are different to those used by HK. He referred to a graph in Wikipedia and I used the figures from that graph to comment on his "little change" hypothesis.
I do understand the figures I am quoting and they are considerably more accurate than those derived from a Wikipedia graph.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[RH] Can we get you to use the link function for your URL's (second tab above the comments box) so that your URL's don't break the page formatting? Thx.
[RH] Moderation complaints snipped (see comments policy page).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:54 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
I think topal needs to read Naomi's Oreskes book Merchants of Doubt.
It's really not speculation that the same tactics that were used for the tobacco industry that are now being used for the fossil fuel industry. In many cases it's the exact same people.
-
caroza at 04:49 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
And BTW, the strength of scientific consensus can be measured and calculated, by using a statistical technique called meta-analysis, or by doing a research review like the one John Cook and colleagues did. It is anything but an opinion poll.
-
caroza at 04:42 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
@topal, you said: "you fail to understand what consensus means: 'a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group'"
Nope. This article is talking about scientific consensus, which is the convergence of expert opinion as a result of replication and new lines of evidence converging to support a theory.
For example, nobody quibbles with the "fact" that aspirin is a painkiller. But that's really a very strong scientific theory. If you dug around in the research literature on aspirin, you'd probably find (I'm guessing) a couple of papers showing that aspirin has no painkilling effect. But there's so much evidence that it does have a painkilling effect that the results of those papers can be put down to poor methodology or a sampling artefact, because the chance they are right is vanishingly small. So scientists in the area of aspirin research can be said to have come to a consensus based on the probability that the bulk of the research, which points in the same direction, is correct.
The scientific consensus on climate science is probably a lot stronger than the consensus on aspirin given the amount of research in the area (versus a few clinical trials). The theory is accepted as a given, i.e. you can assume that it is true when starting a new piece of related research.
But painting this as the "normal", opinion-based sort of consensus is a good denial tactic, as is highlighting the views of the very few contrarian climate scientists (who are in the same boat as the people who authored negative trials on aspirin, if there are any - they're destined for the dustbin of science history.)
Why would anybody resort to deliberate denial? Follow the money. Tobacco is a big industry. I doubt if it compares to the estimated US$27 trillion worth of fossil fuel reserves still in the ground, which will have to stay where they are if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. That's what oil companies are valued on; if the oil in the ground becomes worthless, so do they.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:18 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
And jhnplmr, you might find some answers in Kiehl 1997 and Evans 2006.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:07 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr... I'm not sure exactly where you're off here, but that you're claiming a ~20% difference in insolation seems off by a couple of orders of magnitude. I think you're somehow not understanding the numbers you're quoting and I don't yet understand them enough to say why.
When I come up against something like this, my immediate assumption would be that I'm not yet fully comprehending the science and continue to do research. You seem to be finding numbers that you believe support what you want to believe and then stop your research.
That's called confirmation bias.
A good clue in this situation would be, "Does what I'm saying go against the larger body of scientific research?" If this answer is yes, then you have to continue to try to understand why. The greater likelihood is that scientists already understand this and I (you) haven't done enough research.
Rather than get defensive about your position, I would suggest you dig deeper. See if you can do what real scientists try to do. Try to prove yourself wrong in the process of your research so that you don't end up looking foolish when someone else points out an elemental error.
-
jhnplmr at 03:47 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#33 HK
"The result is similar to this graph in Wikipedia: As you see, very little change for the next 20,000 years!"
If you call oscillations between 560W/m2 to 460W/m2 (rises and falls of 100W/m2) very little change. IPCC gives 1.6W/m2 as the total man-made radiative forcing from 1750 to present day. That is very small compared to the changes in solar insolation.
A fall from 490W/m2 to 400W/m2 (90W/m2) was sufficient to plunge us into the last glacial period yet you dismiss this as very little change!
Moderator Response:[RH] Removed blank lines.
-
funglestrumpet at 03:37 AM on 30 November 2013Video: 10 climate myths debunked in under 4 minutes
bratisla @ 3
Let us hope that the oil majors do decide to raise the price of oil as extraction costs increase. Gail Tverberg, a highly regarded actuary, in her blog, Our Finite World, possits that notion that they might instead simply cease production when the extraction cost rise too high, see: http://ourfiniteworld.com/.
If she is correct, and her view is supported by the fact that Shell is walking away from shale gas fracking, then Climate Change will be the least of our worries. Indeed such a move could achieve the reduction in CO2 production that we are all seeking, and then some. There would, of course, be an increase in methane production, but that is perhaps a point best left to the imagination.
-
jhnplmr at 03:20 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
#32 Michael Sweet
"You could at least cite where you got the data from."
I have, Vostok ice core data and Jul 65N Milankovitch cycles. Where did you get your data from?
Moderator Response:[RH] Extra blank lines removed.
-
jhnplmr at 03:12 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
"I used the Orbital Forcing model just below the GEOCARB model Kevin C referred to in #31 and set the day of year to 173, northern summer solstice"
My figures were based on the data in:
These will take you well past the start of the present ice age, 2.6 million years ago, to 10,000 years into the future. The figures for Jul 65N seem rather different to yours but they show an excellent correlation to both the Vostok core data and the sedimentary data.
"I agree with Rob that this decade almost certainly will be warmer than the previous one, "
Time will tell but if I am right there should be a cooling trend setting in as decreasing use of fossil fuels, due to shortages, loses the battle against decreasing solar insolation.
The way I see it is that we are trying to keep the temperature relatively constant to artificially prolong the present interglacial period but not allow it to go high enough to pull us out of the present ice age. This will require enormous amounts of energy which is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Faced with a choice between another glacial period and a much warmer "normal" (non ice age) period I know which I would prefer.
Moderator Response:[RH] Extra blank lines removed and hotlinked URL.
-
Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr:
"There is a very strong correlation between Vostok ice core temperatures and the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycles. There is more land mass in the northern hemisphere…."
It’s well known that the present layout of the continents makes the northern hemisphere much more sensitive to changes in insolation than the southern and that the resulting climate change is spread to the southern hemisphere via carbon cycle feedbacks. Therefore the correlation between the insolation at 65oN and Vostok temperatures.
More on that on other SkS threads, for instance here."I don't know where you are getting your figures from…."
I used the Orbital Forcing model just below the GEOCARB model Kevin C referred to in #31 and set the day of year to 173, northern summer solstice. The figures will be a bit different if you choose mid July (day 196-197), but the tendency is the same.
The result is similar to this graph in Wikipedia:
As you see, very little change for the next 20,000 years!But back to the topic here:
I agree with Rob that this decade almost certainly will be warmer than the previous one, and that the only realistic way to avoid that is a large (Pinatubo scale) volcanic eruption in the tropics.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:28 AM on 30 November 20134 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming
Tom, the not-possibly-destructive examples don't work well in communicating the scale of energy involved becase the general public (me for example) don't have a particularly good feel for the amount of energy involved in food or summer breezes, or even thunderstorms (which are much more energetic than I had realised). I did not ingnore these examples, in fact I commented on the food example in my very first post @24
For me the the food analogy doesn't work either because most people don't have a good conception of how much energy there is in a food calorie, it is actually quite a lot, but the body is rather inefficient in turning it into work, so it doesn't seem all that much.
An average western daily diet is about 2,000,000 calories - the amount of energy required to raise 2000kg of water by 1 degree K. It sounds like rather a lot when put that way, but is that the way the general public generally think about their food?
O.K. so we could agree that a Saturn V rocket is an order or perhaps two of magnitude safer than little boy (the probability of one exploding on the launch pad was I suspect not that low for it to be more). But even then is the harm that would be caused by several billion Saturn V rockets taking off a substantially better representation of the harm caused by the equivalent imbalance of the Earth's energy budget than of two billion atom bombs? I would say they were both hyperbolic statements, if the purpose of the widget was to communicate the harm caused by anthropogenic climate change to date, but it isn't; the purpose is to help visualise the vast amount of energy involved.
At the end of the day, large amounts of energy are always potentially dangerous, unless they are highly diffuse, in which case most of us can happily lead our lives without pausing to think how much energy they actually involve - in which case they are not useful analogies.
-
michael sweet at 01:04 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
jhnplmr,
Your excuse for not posting your data is not acceptable. If you cannot learn how to post data why should I think you can process data? You could at least cite where you got the data from. Since you have not supported your data I do not need to support mine. There are plenty of fossil fuels, including unconventional fuels like oil sands and shale oil, for the next 50 years. More than enough for mankind to ruin the planet we live on. It is clear that you do not understand the concept of residence time. Why should you be able to calculate Milankovich forcing which is harder to understand?
-
johncl at 00:51 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
@topal - its really clear that think tanks like Heartland are using the exact same tactics by denying the established science, and even manufactures their own "research" (NIPCC) much like the "doctors smoke this brand" advertising from back then. These groups don't really do or represent real science, but are manufacturing propaganda to spread doubt as they are representing the fossil fuel interests. Scientists arent really representing anything besides the same stuff that govern physical laws. Gravity isnt affected by politics any more than the properties of CO2.
It's important to repeat this message in the media, as people need to be aware that special interests groups are making a lot of noise that really stops us from acting on the real scientific evidence we have at hand now.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:39 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
Kevin's comment is on point and David Cook's quote was misinterpreted. The residence of a given molecule is quite different from the time it takes for concentrations to change and from the time it takes for temperatures to evolve accordingly. Thre is no incompatibility between a residence time of a few hundred years for a molecule and cooling prevented for thousands of years.
-
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 00:34 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
topal, I think you're missing the point. The link between the tactics used by the tobacco industry and big oil has already been established - read for example this report by the Union of Concerned Scientists or Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway.
You don't need to think long to find a reason for the tobacco industry and big oil wanting to spread doubt about the science behind the link between tobacco and cancer, and behind greenhouse gases and global warming, respectively.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:25 AM on 30 November 2013Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
"Trying to find a link between tobacco and climateis pure nonsense."
BS.
The methods used by the interest groups trying to discredit or misrepresent the science on climate are the same methods (refined over time) that were used by the tobacco industry to discredit the science on the health effects of tobacco. Some of the groups practicing disinformation are also the same. The link is very clear, pure nonsense consists of saying there isn't one. In science (real science, as it is nowadays practiced) consensus is possible only if there is a corresponding convergence of research results. That convergence is what gives rise to the consensus, in fact.
-
Kevin C at 00:08 AM on 30 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
Residence time is only really meaningfull for first order processes - in fact CO2 uptake happens over several timescales, characterised roughly by uptake due to plants, oceans and rock weathering. As a result quoting a number for the residence time is pretty meaningless.
So I tried it out in the GEOCARB model here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/geocarb/
Put a 500Gt slug of CO2 in the atmosphere at T=0. This is an instantaneous release, so for a brief period CO2 levels in the air are higher than current, but it's about right.
After 10k years temps are still elevated by 0.35C. After 100k years temperatures are elevated by 0.2C.
CO2 levels are only slightly elevated at that point (10ppm), however both oceans and land surface have become net sources, gradually releasing the CO2 they took up earlier in the process.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:07 PM on 29 November 20134 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming
Dikran @42, I considered the argument to be fallacious because in order to demonstrate that " It is hard to think of examples of large amounts of energy that most in the general public will appreciate that do not have some element of destructiveness", you ignored examples I had given that were entirely non-destructive and accentuated the potential for destruction in one example that has never been used for destruction. If that is a legitimate argument, then no example could be considered "safe" not because no samples are safe, but because, by change of circumstances, any example can be made unsafe. Even food, which burns quite well, and the summer breeze (which would be very destructive released suddenly into a vacuum) can with sufficient contrivance be rendered into examples of unsafe energy.
As to safe distances, the minumum safe distance for a Saturn V launch was 5 km, but that was the distance at which you are safe from any likely failure, including an uncontrolled launch and rapid impact with the Earth. It is not comparable to blast radiuses. A better comparison is that the complete and instantaneious detonation of the fuel of a Saturn V rocket (not achievable in practise) would have a yeild of 5.3 Ktones, ie, 1/3rd of Little Boy. So consequently its blast radius would not be orders of magnitude smaller. Of course, in practice, the two fuels were kept seperate, and the far slower propogation rate of the explosion would mean most of the fuel would be forced away from the explosion and not detonated, so that Saturn V was orders of magnitude safer than Little Boy.
-
jhnplmr at 23:03 PM on 29 November 2013Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
# 25: Michael Sweet
"There has already been enough CO2 released to prevent global cooling for over 100,000 years."
CO2 doesn't last that long. From:
David R. Cook Meteorologist Climate Research Section Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory:
"The duration period for carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is somewhere between 100 and 500 years"
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[RH] Please keep the discussion more polite. Insult snipped.
Prev 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 Next
