Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 Next
Comments 42751 to 42800:
-
grindupBaker at 15:12 PM on 26 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
@Shizel #1 There's a recent SKS post stating (or maybe quoting) that a 50 gigaton methane release would not be a disaster. Seem to recall it was basically due to methane's short life. I recall a commenter disagreed. I can't remember the post date, within the last 5 weeks anyway.If you have time and interest you might want to find it and study, see what you think.
-
barry1487 at 14:31 PM on 26 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Tom (and DSL), thanks for going to the trouble. I'll have to read this and the linked comments section carefully and more than once to get a grip on it.
Cheers,
B.
-
Paul from VA at 13:06 PM on 26 August 2013Climate sensitivity is low
Michael, I'm well aware of that. My point is that if one didn't go digging through to the original article AND understand IPCC terminology AND frequentist statistics, the graph would seem to be confusing.
If it were labelled for example "66% confidence interval" and "90 % confidence interval" one wouldn't have to go chasing footnotes to understand it....
-
michael sweet at 12:28 PM on 26 August 2013Climate sensitivity is low
Paul,
The 90% interval is from 5% to 95% so it includes the 66% confidence interval. Therefore it is more likely to occur since if the 66% occurs the 90% must also occur.
-
Riduna at 10:25 AM on 26 August 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #16: Leaked IPCC Report
Ho-de-hum. SLR <1m. by 2100. Nothing new.... No worries.... I wish!
-
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 26 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
barry @9, you may be being misled by the explanation of stratospheric cooling in the main article here, which is IMO incorrect. Essentially, the stratosphere is warmed by UV radiation absorbed by O3. It is cooled by IR radiation from CO2, O3, and to a lesser extent, H2O and CH4. If you double the quantity of CO2 and hold all else equal, you will effectively double the IR radiation from CO2. That is because nearly all of the IR radiation emitted in the stratosphere either escapes to space or to the troposphere due to the thin atmosphere in the stratosphere. Doubling the IR radiation results in more energy being radiated than is absorbed, thereby cooling the stratosphere until the IR radiation emitted matches that prior to the doubling of CO2.
In the explanation given in the main post, it is assumed that increasing CO2 in the tropophere will reduce IR emissions from the troposphere to the stratosphere (which is true). What is ignored is that the CO2 in the stratosphere also doubles, meaning it will absorb (approximately) twice as much radiation for a given amount of incoming radiation. This effect approximately compensates for (and may more than compensate for) the reduced IR emission from the stratosphere.
The question arises, could the mechanism described in the main post actually result in a decreased temperature in the stratosphere from reduced emission by H2O in the troposphere. The answer is no. H2O is restricted to too low an altitude by condensation due to falling temperatures.
Below is a graph showing the cooling trends induced by various gases at various levels of the atmosphere. Note, positive numbers represent a cooling trend. Also note, this is produced by a Line By Line model, and as such presents straightforward physics that is very well understood; but it does not show any compensating adjustments to restore radiative equilibrium.
You will notice the very strong cooling effect (deep blues and reds) caused by H20 in the upper troposphere, with altitude depending on the strength of absorption. That cooling is likely caused by the reduced IR radiation from lower levels due to increased H2O which is not fully compensated at upper levels by increased absorption because the condensation of H2O limits the increase in watervapour at those levels. In sharp contrast, the cooling in the troposphere from increased CO2 is limited because the CO2 concentration increases approximately equally at all levels. There is even a slight warming at the tropopause where radiation that previously escaped to space is now traped in the atmosphere.
In the stratosphere itself, the cooling effect of CO2 rises to the mesopause (the highest temperature region of the stratosphere), then falls to the thermopause, before rising again. That is, it follows the temperature curve of the local gas - something predicted by the explanation I give above, but not predicted by the explanation given in the main post.
Although much weaker, a similar pattern can be seen in the stratospheric cooling from H2O. That would be expected if the stratospheric cooling effect of H2O were due to increase H2O in the stratosphere from the combustion of fuels by jets in the stratosphere rather than from a shading effect from increased H2O in the troposphere. (As noted in my post @8, increased tropospheric H2O cannot cause increased stratospheric H2O.)
Finally, and crucially, we see a different pattern from O3. Reduced O3 will cause a warming of the stratosphere by the same mechanism that increased CO2 causes a warming (and with the same temperature dependent pattern). However, the far stronger effect is a decreased absorption of UV radiation in the upper stratosphere, which cools by reducing the energy input. That is accompanied by an increased absorption in the lower stratosphere as more UV reaches those levels (due to not being absorbed at a higher level). The net result is a pattern of strong cooling in the mesophere and upper stratosphere, and a warming in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. Due to the thinness of the atmosphere, and hence very low initial absorption of UV radiation (I presume), it appears that in the thermosphere the warming effect of reduced O3 due to reduced IR emissions dominates over the cooling effect due to reduced UV emissions.
The distinctive cooling and warming patterns of CO2 and O3 with altituded allow us to see that there is a strong CO2 cooling in the stratosphere. We can see that because cooling is weak in the lower stratosphere where CO2 and O3 have opposite effects, but very strong in the upper stratosphere where both cause a cooling trend. Absent the effect of CO2, the stratosphere would cool in the upper stratosphere and warm in the lower stratosphere.
Interestingly, a third possible cause of a cooling stratosphere is reduced reflection of visible sunlight due to reduced aerosols or clouds. That, however, would have its strongest effect in the lower stratosphere, and scale of rapidly with decreasing atmospheric density. Thus the distinctive pattern of CO2 cooling in the stratosphere allows us to be certain that it is a major factor in the cooling of the stratosphere.
Finaly, you will note in the stratospheric temperatures above any sign of the 1997 El Nino, while volcanic erruptions are clearly visible as a positive (warming) temperature spike in the lower stratosphere. That spike is weakest where the negative trend is strongest showing clearly that the dominant influences on stratospheric cooling are reduced O3 and increased CO2.
-
Paul from VA at 09:37 AM on 26 August 2013Climate sensitivity is low
Hey, so I was linking your excellent version of Knutti and Hegerl graphic used in this post and noticed that it uses a potentially confusing notation both here and in the original paper. The 90% confidence interval is labelled "very likely" and the 66% confidence interval is labelled as "likely." That's sensible from a science perspective, but a bit confusing in that values from the 66% region are more likely to be the drawn values than those in the 66-90% interval. Not sure there's any way to better label the figure, but I thougt I'd just put that out there to see if there's a less confusing way of doing so....
-
DSL at 06:15 AM on 26 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Barry, some of what you may be looking for might be found here in the comment stream.
-
barry1487 at 04:09 AM on 26 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Tsk, spelling errors. I really need to keep more sensible hours.
-
barry1487 at 04:04 AM on 26 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Tom, thanks for the reply.
I might be a bit dim here, but you appear to be answering the question "why do we not see enhanced warming in the stratosphere from water vapour?"
I'm interested in the effect of stratospheric cooling as a well-known signature of surface/tropospheric warming from enhanced CO2 in the troposphere.
Water vapour, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas. Why would not enhanced water vapour in the troposphere - which amplifies surface warming from any source (WV feedback) - also cause the lower stratosphere to cool? On short time scales, wouldn't we see this effect with a strong persistent el Nino providing warming at the surface with attendant water vapour increase? I guess solar forcing would both heat the stratosphere and enhance the greenhouse cooling effect on the lower strat through increased water vapour, acting as a kind of negative feedback on stratospheric temps. I assume the solar heating of the stratosphere would outweigh the cooling effect on it from increased water vapour in the troposphere. But I've never seen that particular point addressed, so I'm curious. Makes me wonder about the this particular effect when the surface is warmed from different forcings.
Slightly orthoganolly perhaps, the modeled impact of ozone depletion over the last century or so shows warming of the surface and cooling of the stratosphere.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html [ panel d) ]
Which might make attribution of stratospheric cooling a bit complicated?
-
davidnewell at 01:51 AM on 26 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
One Planet Only Forever @5 and all the others.
I believe I've met another realist. All arguments based on past projected scenarios are highly suspect, if not totally obsolete.
We can rationalize any thing we want to do, but using "future value scenarios" predicated on the artifice of monetary gain is an exercise in .. futility.
What we have, here, is the "going away" of ALL value, as measured by the rate of species extinction: which is OUR EXTINCTION... If our ankles were rotting away, perhaps the seriousness of the scenario would be apparent.
We'd best be about managing a radical change to a more sustainable future immediately, or society will disintegrate, social unrest will be rampant, and we will not be able to mount a response other than dying.
One Planet Only Forever, amen.
—used to express solemn ratification or hearty approval (as of an assertion)
-
Tom Curtis at 20:33 PM on 25 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Barry @7, the difference between the stratosphere and the troposphere is convection. Because of the thinness of the atmosphere in the stratosphere, convection transfers energy far slower than does radiation, with the result that very little convection occurs. The point in the atmosphere where this breakdown in convection occurs is the tropopause, a region of the atmosphere lying between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Crucially, the temperature at the tropopause is well below freezing. That means any water carried to the tropopause in its liquid form (as for example, in a thunderstorm) quickly freezes, and is unable to be carried to a greater altitude by diffusion. It is also, of course, unable to be carried to a greater altitude by convection, which goes no higher. This prevents the increased absolute humidity in the troposphere from resulting in an increased humidity in the stratosphere, preserving the unique greenhouse temperature signature.
It should be noted that there has been a slight increase in humidity in the stratosphere, not from increased humidity in the troposphere, but as a waste product from the combustion of jet fuel. As it is a direct anthropogenic effect, and is not temperature dependent for its strength, it is a forcing rather than a feedback and is included in IPCC modelling.
-
MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
Going back to look at the sources, Figure 1 in the post plots World GDP in $ trillions at 2000 prices.
One of the problems I find with this economic side of AGW is that economics is a rather esoteric subject based on the wholly artificial concept of wealth. Developing any economic argument is difficult at the best of times and it appears all too easy for somebody to make a nonsense of your work if they wish. And with AGW there are plenty of wreckers who do so wish.
For instance, Figure 1 shows a drop of 40% in world GDP for the higher emission scenarios. "Ah, but they will still be vastly more wealthy than we are today," is the sort of reply you would get from the likes of GWPF who would probably add "And don't forget there will be benefits as well as costs associated with AGW."
The word "cost" makes everything allowable as long as you have the wealth to pay for it. Strangely, the damage wrought by our collective refusal to accept the "cost" of effective and timely AGW mitigation measures will initially impact those societies that have the least wealth and themselves wrought the least damage.
-
Richard Lawson at 20:23 PM on 25 August 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Not sure what happened to my last comment. In case it disappeared, here is a plot of SST with land surface temps:
It seems to show that land and sea surface temps parted company after 1980, with sea surface lagging land surface by up to 0.4C. Is this a symptom of the process of heat being transferred to the deep ocean?
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting.
-
barry1487 at 19:28 PM on 25 August 2013Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Wasn't sure where to put my query. This thread seems appropriate.
A greenhouse gas fingerprint would be: warming at lower altitudes with simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere higher aloft, since in case of enhanced CO2 the stratosphere loses more infrared radiation than it receives from below. This is mainly a consequence of the temperature structure of the stratosphere. And guess what? Measurements clearly show a greenhouse gas fingerprint, not a solar one.
While trying to explain why enhanced tropical tropospheric warming (the hotspot) is not a unique feature og greenhouse warming, I started wondering about the 'fingerprint' of stratospheric cooling under greenhouse warming.According to models/physics, warming from any source should cause increased water vapour in the atmosphere, which roughly doubles or triples the contribution from a doubling of CO2. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. If "enhanced CO2' causes cooling of the lower stratosphere by 'trapping' infrared radiation, why would we not expect the same effect from the enhancement of another greenhouse gas - water vapour?
IOW, why would the stratospheric signature (cooling) not be seen with warming from other sources - like solar - when enhanced water vapour is anticipated regardless of the source of warming? Does water vapour mix differently in the atmosphere? Or is it that the cooling signature should only become evident from the combined radiative impact aloft of both water vapour and CO2?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
Another correction to my comment 5. (I tend to rephrase things as I go and really need to let the comment sit for a bit then review it before posting)
The start of my para 3 should be:
"So, as you noted, to get the eternal growth the theoretical presnetation relies upon..."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:27 PM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
Tom Curtis @ 4.
Economic growth that relies upon actions that are not sustainable is not sustainable.
The theoretical presentation of "eternal growth at a certain percentage" misses the essential need for all the activity to be truly sustainability. Growth of any activity that is not sustainable is of no value in the future. Burning of fossil fuels for energy is not sustainable even with "actions to try to mitigate the consequences". The consumption of any non-renewable resource without full eternal recovery and recycling is also fundamentally not sustainable.
So to get the eternal growth your theoretical presentation relies upon, activities that are not sustainable must not be part of the growth, they must be stopped. Then the truly sustainable activities can meaningfully grow indefinitely, as they would need to in order to actually eternally develop a better future for all life on our one and only planet.
The climate change aspect is actually not really the reason to stop the current industrialized wasteful mass consumption aspects of the economy. It is an aggravating factor. Eternal economic growth will be possible when all human activity is truly sustainable, and is impossible until we develop to that way of living.
-
chriskoz at 12:52 PM on 25 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
Shize@1,You're incorrect: everybody is looking at and talking about the problems you describe. Did you ever look around before you started your rant?
For example, look at "OA not OK" button on the left margin. Even among the latest articles, you find the studies about OA discussed, for example here.
In general, for any of your issues, you can just use the search box on the top: you'll get plenty of hits throughout.
This site is about explaining the climate science and our comment policy requires that your post makes a point, e.g. clarifies of asks the for the clarification, related to the science discussed. If the point you are making is only about the lack of topics in the articles cited (I'm trying to understand you), then if you want to be taken seriously here, you must spell it clearly, one problem at a time. The way you make it however, sounds like baseless, alarmist gish gallop. Like the science deniers, you will not be taken seriously with such style on this site even if people agree with your conclusions.
If your goal is not to understand the details of climate science but the rather the activism about AGW, that's fine and understandable. However I think you've come to the wrong place necause this site is not about the promotion of activism.
-
jkolb at 12:22 PM on 25 August 2013Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
I would agree with the Post 14 statement that the rate of rise - using a consistent measurement method - is constant. What tidal guage data set/type, or satelite data, do give different estimates, but none appear to show a change in rate. Can't take one data set in C and then go to F and say you have a temp acceleration, as an example of the same..
-
Tom Curtis at 07:59 AM on 25 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark Harrigan @43, Dessler takes the conclusions of the IPCC, including those of Working Group 2 and Working Group 3 as being part of the concensus position. Those Working Groups find that the cost of inaction excedes the cost of action with high probability. He then gives a meta-justification for acting on the supposition that the findings of the IPCC are correct - including the findings in Working Group 2 and 3.
Given that, your criticism is no more coherent than insisting that he needed to expound the evidence for the existence of a planetary greenhouse effect, or that CO2 absorbed IR radiation. It is reasonable to address those issues, but doing so in no way impacts the validity of Dessler's argument, which takes as given the assessments made by the IPCC as being one of the two positions set before us (ie, the one "agreed to by the 97%").
If you wish to adress Dessler's argument, you need to adress the reasons given for considering not acting on the information as presented by the IPCC as being the "worse outcome". I have transcribed those reasons @37. I believe that discussing those meta-reasons would not violate the moderator's strictures.
Alternatively you can ignore the moderator's comments and return to your current line of argument. Doing so, IMO, consists of just pointing out again in greater detail that in addition to the position of the "97%", there is a "3%" that disagrees.
(Note: I put the percentage figures in scare quotes because there is not a 97% consensus accepting central findings of the full IPCC report. Rather, there is a 97% consensus that the Earth is warming rapidly, and that that warming is primarilly human caused, and at least an 80% agreement that that warming projected into the future with BAU is dangerous.)
-
Tom Curtis at 07:41 AM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
One Planet Only Forever @2, one aspect of the discount rate is reasonable. If I invest a million dollars broadly across the stock exchange, and sit and wait, the real value of my investment will increase at approximately 3% per annum (or at least, has done so historically). Now, given a choice of investing in preventing or mitigating AGW, a question arises as to the costs and benefits. If the benefits are less than the sum of the costs x 1.03^y, where y is the year, for all years into the future, then future generations would have a higher standard of living if I that money had been invested in the stock exchange on their behalf, rather than used to combat AGW. This part of the discount rate represents mean growth.
Having said that, use of a 3% mean growth discount rate is not beyond criticism. It is not guaranteed, for example, that economic growth will be able to continue at an average of 3% per annum on into the future in the face of the impacts of AGW. In fact, it is quite possible that it may become negative, whereupon the mean growth component of the discount rate would also become negative. It is a major flaw, IMO, of economic models of the impact of AGW that they set as an axiom that economic growth will be positive regardless of the impacts of AGW (Stern at least lowers the mean growth rate to 1.3%).
Further, the mean growth component of the discount rate assumes that all impacts can be given an appropriate monetary value - something that is seriously in doubt for the loss of major eco-systems such as the Great Barrier Reef. This can be partly compensated by assigning a large nonmarket value to the loss of those systems, but such assignments are necessarilly just a guess.
The second part of the discount rate, the "pure rate of time preference" does represent a preference for the good of current generations over that of future generations. Including it is ethically objectionable, and your argument applies directly to it, and shows the fallacy in including it in economic models.
-
John Hartz at 07:11 AM on 25 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
@bjchip#2: My take is that the "mega hearing" questions are designed to create a comprehensive inventory of exisiting federal government activities and budgets devoted to climate science and related research. Having assembled such an inentory, House Republicans can more easily target these activities for budget cuts in the future.
-
bjchip at 06:26 AM on 25 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
One notices that the "Mega Hearing" questions include not a single question relating to how bad climate change is actually likely to be for the USA over ANY span of time. One has to wonder at their ability to ascertain that they already know all they need to know about this part of the issue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:11 AM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
Re my Comment 2:
A correction in the 4th para: "These types of activity should never "be protected", and their potential impacts certainly should never be "balanced" with someone's or some group's evaluation of their personal benefit in their moment.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:06 AM on 25 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
Comparisons of "the cost to, or lost benefit of, a current generation" compared to the "costs created for a future generation by the actions of a current generation" are fundamentally unjustifiable. And applying a "net-present-value" discounting of future costs, which is often applied to such evaluations, is an added insult to the already unjustifiable attempt to excuse benefiting from creating a future problem.
The future generation is not a "set of shareholders in a business operation". The future generation cannot just declare bankruptcy to minimize their costs at some time in the future and "invest in a different planet".
So it is unjustifiable, and simply not sustainable, for actions by a current generation to create a potential consequence or problem for future generations. The development of unmanageable conditions in the future needs to be stopped. All activities of any current generation need to either be of no future consequence or preferably lead to a sustainable better future for all life on our one and only shared planet.
The challenge for the current generation is to figure out how to undo the unacceptable industrialized mass consumptive economies that have been developed by our predecessors. These types of activity should never "be protected", and certainly should never be "balanced" with someone's or some group's evaluation of their personal benefit n their moment.
As much as possible this change of economy and lifestyle should be accomplished by all of the most fortunate being required to develop the ways to live totally sustainable lifestyles and help the lss fortunate develop to that way of living with as little time as possible spent transitioning through industrial mass consumption activities and ways of life.
The entire population can sustainably live on our planet, as long as those whose lifestyle and ways of benefiting have the highest impact are required to change their ways.
So the real required action is political motivation of the most fortunate to spur the scientific development of the understanding required to lead to those best ways for humans to truly sustainably live on our one and only planet.
-
John Hartz at 00:55 AM on 25 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark Harrigan: Lest there be any confusion, here's what the Comments Policy says about "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.
This is your second and final warning about this policy. If you post repetitive comments in the future, they will be summarily deleted.
-
Mark Harrigan at 23:42 PM on 24 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
@ Michael,
With due respect what you did was make a snide attack that my comments were a "Gish Gallop" - now you use condescending language like "spoon feeding".
Do you really think this is a constructive way to debate?
You also misrepresent me. At no stage did I say renewables are more expensive. I stated facts. 1) that the cost of switching is not zero 2) The economics of costing energy (fossil and renewables) is complex, 3) It is necessary for renewables to have nameplate overbuild in order to gain significant penetration of the overall supply (read the AMEO report on this) and (4) that not infrequently such costings ignore the grid transmission costs (BZE being one)
Nor did I ever claim "it might not be too bad". I simply stated that is a fact that projections of climate sensitivity include the possibility that this is low. (To be clear my personal worry is this is not the case)
Please re-read my original post more closely.
Also - I don't what to have a debate here about renewables costs. As the moderators rightly point out such a detailed debate is off topic (although you might like to look at this http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables.html ) I was however talking about the relative costs of renewables versus the costs of damage as being relevant to Andrew's argument
My main point was that Andrew's logic is basically that we can take action with no regrets. That is not true under a scenario where climate sensitivity turns out to be low and costs of renewables exceed our optimistic expectations.
Instead of assuming I make "wild claims" perhaps you should open your mind to arguments and debate from someone who is saying that the arguments made by Andrew (which are generally pretty solid) need some work?
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made your point. It's time for you and others to move on.
-
Mark Harrigan at 23:13 PM on 24 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
@ Scaddenup You and other seem to have misinterpreted me. And climate sensitivity is not the topic of this thread (although clearly it is not entirely irrelevant given the nature of Andrew Dessler's argument).
However the IPCC clearly supports a response to doubling of GHG emssions to be possibly less than 2 degrees - as indeed this site itself makes clear http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=88
Of course it is equally likely it may be very high. But I am not specualting either way (personally I worry it will be high as the ocean heat capacity - while enormous - is not infinite and we do not yet know enough about long term ocean circulation to be unconcerned - if the heat currently stored there does find it's way into the atmosphere in the near term that is a huge problem)
My point, which apparently I have not made clear, is that Andrew's argument needs to be buttressed. Because if climate sensitivity does turn out to be low (fingers crossed) and the costs of renewables do turn out to be high (a possiblity that cannot be ruled out) then taking action is NOT a no regrets policy.
Perhaps you should read Nordhaus? His economic analysis is quite clear that there is a point at which taking action becomes economically non-viable (i.e. costs of action are higher than the damage avoided). The interesting debate is where that occurs (none too easy to establish but important none the less)
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made your point. It's time for you and others to move on.
-
Shizel at 23:03 PM on 24 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34B
We don't have time for civil disobedience. After 40 years of nuclear protest, all we have to show for our troubles is Fukushima and 60 brand new nuclear plants under various stages of completion world wide. I believe we should commit to Hansen's 100% private no-split carbon dividends using a new world e-currency. This will unite the people of the world and undermine the government-military-corporate hegemony. I also believe we should support Hansen's 4G nuclear research project. We cannot safely store nuclear waste 10,000 years when we can't even be sure of our own survival over the next 100 years. Nuclear denialists usually attack this idea with the same fevor and tactics Fox News uses against climate scientists. This schizm underlies the fultility of searching for the magic uprising narrative.
FUN WITH NUMBERS
The acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 10 times faster than 55 million years ago when when a mass extinction of marine life occurred. It is also faster than during 4 of earth's biggest mass extinction events during the last 300 hundred million years -- faster than even the great Permian mass extinction event where 95% of life on earth vanished 250 million years ago. The oceans are now 30% more acidic than in pre-industrial times. In less than 40 years they will be 60% more acidic than then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dQJHJ6dbhsA
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/08/1976351/acidification-arctic/
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2951
http://readthescience.com/2012/09/17/climate-change-book-review-under-a-green-sky/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfnwi2m9M&feature=player_embeddedWhen ice ages come and go the planet can change temperature 5°C in as little as 5,000 years. 50 times slower than what we are doing to earth now. In the past, a 5°C change normally takes 20,000 years, we are going to do 5°C in 50-100 years, 200 times faster.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdfClimate change is happening 100 times faster than in the past.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-yearsBy 2025, humans will impact 50% of earth's biosphere. This will cause a planetary ecological state shift leading to a mass extinction event that is unstoppable and irreversible once started.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-UjEaCoVVU
http://www.ecoshock.info/2012/06/planet-shift-no-return.htmlWhy does nobody talk about the thousands of 1-kilometer wide bubbling methane seabeds recorded in 2011.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.htmlOnly 1% of methane needs to be released to cause total disaster.
Peter Wadhams interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_biGUz6ACBgNatalia Shakhova interview:
do you believe scientists
who spent 30 years in the arctic
or do you believe scientists
who spent 30 years at their computer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ -
chriskoz at 16:40 PM on 24 August 2013Fasullo (2013) Seeks Some Levelheadedness Regarding Sea Level Variability
Thanks for the article, John.
The text answers the two of your bullet points:
- why have drops of similar magnitude not accompanied other La Niña events in the altimeter era? (coincidence of MEI and IOD & SAM is required as seen on figure 3c)
- how can rainfall anomalies over land be responsible for such a prolonged drop? (because of unique shape of the AU continent whereax the runoff goes into lake Eyre)
But the answer to the third bullet point:
- how frequently do drops similar to the one in 2011 occur? does evidence exist in the historical record for other such drops?
does not apear obvious to me, because I don't have access to the full text. I've downloaded figure S4 and I can see the rainfall map from the 1973-74 event (setting the famous record flood levels in Brisbane for those who remember) showing the anomaly in the central basin as wide spread as the latest one. Obviously, that was before GRACE era, but I suspect the event should have left a discernible dip in the gauge record. Such dip (of 6-7mm) would have been the evidence answering that bullet point. Did you find it or was it to small to find?
Second question, what do you mean by "dominant contributor" in terms of the actual numbers? Did you establish an approx percentage of the contribution based of GRACE mass numbers?
Thanks again for a great piece of reaserch.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:49 AM on 24 August 2013Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction
I suspect the graph shows GDP/capita. If not, it is missing a quantifier on the y-axis.
More importantly, the GDP growth scenarios are just that, scenarios. They are inputs into determining the forcing trajectory of the various scenarios rather than outcomes of applying those forcing scenarios to an economic model and determining the consequent rate of economic growth. As such they are not evidence for the thesis of the OP. I say this even though I agree with that thesis, ie, that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action on climate change.
-
StBarnabas at 08:49 AM on 24 August 2013Fasullo (2013) Seeks Some Levelheadedness Regarding Sea Level Variability
John
great post thanks. Good to see the science going forward. Many thanks again. I am becoming more optimistic that good science rather than disinformation is winning the day. A year ago I was deeply depressed that we were entering a new dark age.
StB
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 07:50 AM on 24 August 2013Fasullo (2013) Seeks Some Levelheadedness Regarding Sea Level Variability
Ah yes, 2011. The year sea level drop was supposed to be the "final nail in the coffin" for global warming.
So many blogs claiming that the sea level dipping back to 2007-ish levels was somehow a lasting reversal of a decades long trend. Excoriating the climate models. Ridiculing NASA for—accurately, as it turns out—calling it a "pothole". Even halfway out of the "pothole" in 2012, some were still cherry picking those last few months to claim "no upward trend".
-
Rob Painting at 06:08 AM on 24 August 2013Fasullo (2013) Seeks Some Levelheadedness Regarding Sea Level Variability
A highly informative post. Thanks.
-
John Chapman at 00:31 AM on 24 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #34A
Oops, that was a bit silly of me.
-
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth - Two small but, I believe, significant points:
The references you gave for variance of insolation reaching the ground in this post are for decadal variations, in particular mid-century dimming (1950's-1980's), the well known cooling associated with high aerosols, and in fact discussed on SkS. They also discuss some indications of higher aerosol cooling in the last decade, considered as a potential influence (although not dominant) in 21st century temperatures. Aerosols are a known forcing, and variations in insolation are generally treated separately based on satellite observations. And they are not short term variations.
The uncertainties you mentioned in the Trenberth energy budget (I'm speaking of Trenberth 2009 are uncertainties in absolute values, not variances. You seem to imply a 34 Wm-2 variance in energy imbalance, which is not what that paper is stating. In fact, what they say is:
The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). (Emphasis added)
Again, anomalies are very important, telling us how much these values have changed - not the absolute numbers. And uncertainties in TOA imbalance are highly constrained by other observations.
-
Mark Bahner at 11:12 AM on 23 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
“Mark, you have been given incisive and complete answers to this, on this forum and in Dessler's video.”
That is demonstrably false. I will give you $200 if you will identify the point in Dessler’s 6-minute video in which he states:
1) What percentage probability is associated with the word “may” (i.e., “a 50 percent probability” or “a 10 percent probability” or “a 1 percent probability”, and
2) What he means by “severe” (i.e., “global surface temperature change greater than ‘x’,” “sea level rise greater than ‘y’, ”reduction in life expectancy greater than ‘z’, etc.)Moderator Response:[DB] "That is demonstrably false"
This is tiresome. Please demonstrate where "on this forum" (not just in the video) you have not been given your "incisive and complete answers".
You will be held accountable to this.
-
Bert from Eltham at 11:08 AM on 23 August 2013Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Closing the Consensus Gap
I am amazed at your ability to cherry pick red herrings joeygoze. It is a shame you missed my Freudian slip in calling John Cook's paper 'Qualifying the Consensus' instead of Quantifying the Consensus. The irony is by quantifying the consensus one can then qualify the consensus! This point has completely eluded your obvious talents. Bert
-
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
I dont actually understand where you get your 34 "window" for solar, but I cant see how that diagram can tell you anything about stability of solar radiation reaching the earth (for which you need a time dimension). The error bars about the limitations of the measuring systems, but given that solar at TOA is very stable, if you claim that energy is not reaching the surface, then the imbalance is being stored in the atmosphere. Does that sound better to you somehow? More to the point, where is the evidence for storage of that kind of imbalance in the atmoshere? On the other hand, OHC changes match pretty well with the imbalance.
-
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth - There's plenty of regional variation in atmospheric transmission and albedo from clouds. However, global temperatures both surface and in terms of OHC show a rise that indicates an average imbalance of between 0.6-0.9 W/m2 over the last 50 years. That means the global variation of TOA imbalance is quite small over any reasonable time period.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 07:53 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
All: my apologies. I made a mistake and started too many conversations @12. I tried to respond to all of the issues I had with Dana’s article and I should have kept it to just one. Let me back up and do some homework on ocean heating. I may even go look at Argo data and play with it a little bit.
I’d like to restart and focus just on Dana’s multiple comments stating “the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is very stable.” I do not think this is true at all. I think Wild 2009 and 2012 (referenced above) both claim the opposite, and Kiehl and Trenberth’s energy budget (http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif) has a huge 34 W/m^2 window (30 times the effect of CO2 forcing). This clearly indicates there is a lot of variance in surface energy, or it is hard to measure, or both. In in case, it is not stable.
-
joeygoze9259 at 07:30 AM on 23 August 2013Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Closing the Consensus Gap
Newyork J - I think the fact that 6 skeptical papers got into the "support AGW" column is reason enough to suspect a methodology problem and this unfortunately weakens the conclusion of the study.
Tom Curtis - I was not suggesting data was hidden, was honestly asking for someone to point me to the data
-
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth, you quote a line from Stephens to support your case. I note that you didnt quote the very next line.
" Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates."
Now that doesnt sit well with the idea that uncertainities make any action unwarrented, or that science is overestimating AGW.
Your statements on Kiehl and Trenberth (you dont say which paper), dont seem to fit that well with Trenberth et al 2009. While they note the difficulties in surface budget, note:
"Therefore, we have a lot more confidence in the values we have assigned than indicated by the spread within the tables. TOA values are known within about ±3% or better, except that the net is (or was) 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 (Hansen et al. 2005), and surface fluxes are constrained within 5% except for solar-reflected, LH, and LW, where errors may be as much as 10%."
Note the TOA estimate is well constrained. If energy isnt leaving to space, where is it and why do you think the TOA imbalance is not a problem?
-
davidnewell at 04:45 AM on 23 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Rob Honeycutt @ 21. Great response, there's always the "outliers" who are facile in their characterizations of "what is happenning."
"Reality", however, is not dependent on whether or not a vote is taken.
I hold out a consistent hope that the existential "Reality" of the potential end of "everything of value" on this Planet, (which I call Gaia just because some of y'all love the term muchly) ":<)
will cause a paradigm shift in how we relate to one another.
==========================
How does one put a "cost" on an activity which may -stop- further evolution on the planet? And then price a gallon of gasoline to offset it?
-
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth - You were involved in a long discussion of IR/ocean heating here, including the accuracy of OHC measurement, and in a discussion of the human contribution to warming here (thanks go to Google Search).
Yet your post on this thread repeats some of the very same misunderstandings.
It would be helpful if you were to avoid restarting discussions on another thread - without any apparent acknowledgement of either prior discussions, or the responses people have provided, as if the questions had never been addressed.
-
davidnewell at 04:17 AM on 23 August 2013How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
Thank several of you for correcting my misunderstanding of the aggregate production of CO2 by China, for the actual annual production by 2100.
I personally appreciate jja @ 16, interspersing his comments with "magical thinking" perjoratives.
It's one thing to be a chicken little "The sky is falling" alarmist: it's another to actually have the equivalent becoming manifest.
In regard to
" If global temperatures rise, the warmer world will radiate more energy back out into space and the energy imbalance will reduce"
being a salient response to a "+7C" increase by 2100...: well, I am speechless.
We must derive a doable "Direct Air Capture" technology.
-
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth - I would agree with Tom Curtis - claiming that the uncertainty of multiple measurements from almost 4000 ARGO floats is identical to the error of a single measurement is absurd, and anyone with science or engineering background (which you claim) should be well aware of this aspect of signal averaging, right along with the Central Limit Theorem.
OHC is an anomaly measure, not an absolute measure, and hence the link you provided regarding absolute measures is wholly irrelevant. Use of anomalies also removes any potential systemic bias in those measurements.
Your last few comments appear to be (IMO) increasingly disingenuous.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:51 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth, to follow up on Tom Curtis's reply to you, read about the Law of Large Numbers.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:24 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Stealth @17, as I understand it, the uncertainty of the mean of n values, each with uncertainty x equals x/(n^0.5). Your claim that the increase of OHC in within the error bars presumes either that there was just one measurement (for the whole ocean), or that the error of measurement is entirely composed of a systematic bias. Please put forward your evidence of either proposition.
Absent that evidence, you appear to be guilty of deliberate obscuring of the evidence (assuming that, as a scientist, you know the basic mathematics of uncertainties).
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 02:05 AM on 23 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
KR @14: Minnett 2000 and the A High-Accuracy, Seagoing Infrared Spectroradiometer paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426%282001%29018%3C0994%3ATMAERI%3E2.0.CO%3B2) point out that their “high accuracy equipment” has stated accuracies of 0.1K. The entire OHC content anomaly when converted from Joules back to temperature in the ocean is on the order of 0.09C (I assume you can do the math and conversion, but if not let me know and I’ll show my work). Clearly, OHC is within the error bars of the measurement system, unless Argo can measure more accurately (unlikely). It could be there or it might not be – it simply is too small to measure. Then, when combined with the number of measurements and uncertainties induces by thermal eddies and ocean mixture, it is seems unlikely to me that measurements can tease out the true OHC.
Finally, I believe OHC from NOAA suffers from modeling artifacts like surface air temperature (SAT). Please see Dr. Schmidt’s discussion of SAT at NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Prev 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 Next
