Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 Next
Comments 42851 to 42900:
-
Rob Painting at 18:22 PM on 20 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
BC @ 22 - The graphic above is of the Thermohaline Circulation, whereas the SkS post, A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?, was focused on the wind-driven ocean circulation. The two circulations are not really separate, but a distinction between the two is necessary for the purpose of explaining the main features of the ocean circulation. SkS has some upcoming posts explaining the wind-driven ocean circulation in more detail, and why the deep oceans are warming.
-
StBarnabas at 17:47 PM on 20 August 20132012: One of the 10 Warmest Years on Record
@Klapper
I presume the Global SAT anomaly in in oC. do you know the error on these figures? Is it truely 0.001 degree or less?
-
grindupBaker at 17:07 PM on 20 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
This post opens the topic of somebody's question "How can the ocean below 700 meters be heated up, without the upper ocean warming" but does not give the simple blindingly-obvious answer. It's because the deep ocean (the majority of it) is colder (often far colder) than the upper few hundred metres at most places. If the ocean was same temperature surface to sea bed it would be impossible to raise temperature of the lower part from above without raising the temperature of the upper part, but it ain't, so it is.
-
basnappl at 16:37 PM on 20 August 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Hello KR,
In post 234, I quote Harries 2007 paper (Griggs, J. A., J. E. Harries, 2007: Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. J. Climate, 20, 3982–4001.)
Regarding Stealth's "unsupportable" comments: It seems to me that at least part of his question is to what extent are lab models of radiative transfer representative of what is actually occurring in the atmosphere. I think this is a fair question. He did add a perhaps unneccessary bit of opinion but I took that as supplying context for why he might feel compelled to post here at all. Essentially, I think, he's saying that he has a lot of experience with applying non-climate physics based models to the real world and that this experience, along with Dyson etc's statements and what appears to be variability in a pretty foundational number (CO2 forcing), has led him to be skeptical about climate models.
It bothers me that his skeptisism wasn't greeted more warmly. I understand that this is an enormously complex system and it must be tedious for those that know a lot about it to try to bring others up to speed. I imagine it doesn't help when those asking questions start with the hypothesis that this is all a bunch of hooey (which I don't think Stealth was). But, that's the way it is with climate science. There's no denying it's been politicized and lots of people who have no business voicing an opinion do. That's not (as far as I can tell) what the case was with Stealth. Bear in mind, the entire purpose of this website is at least partially political. It wouldn't make much sense for me to make a skepticalscience page regarding high-temperature superconductors even though it's an open, important problem. This site is, in part, meant to be a political counterbalance to non-science. I think that's a good thing, but I also think that attacking people is an ineffective way to change their minds.
-
Klapper at 14:08 PM on 20 August 20132012: One of the 10 Warmest Years on Record
"...ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used..."
Not true. As I pointed out on an earlier story, in the NCDC dataset 2012 is actually #10 and here are the numbers to prove it:
Rank Year Global SAT anomaly 1 2010 .658 2 2005 .651 3 1998 .633 4 2003 .623 5 2002 .612 6 2006 .597 7 2009 .595 8 2007 .589 9 2004 .578 10 2012 .575 These numbers come from
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat The rank for 2012 in the RSS TLT dataset is 11th. No current dataset for atmospheric temperature shows 2012 to be 8th so the range is 9th to 11th. The NOAA is victim of the incessant corrections to these datasets I guess.
-
chriskoz at 14:08 PM on 20 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Tom@4,
Thanks for your insightful (as usual) comment.
So, the "atmosphere absorbtion" part of solar (67 W/m2 in Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997) is mainly UV absorbtion by the ozone layer 20-50k above surface. With such facts, it's worth to note that the proclaimed impending Maunder Minimum, although having little effect on AGW, will have a positive effect on the ozone hole: if the lower level sun activity is confined to essencialy UV spectrum, then ozone will be depleting at lower rate, giving it a chance to recover quicker. But I don't know how signifficant that latest effect would be.
-
CO2 effect is saturated
basnappl - "...in Harries et al's more recent publication, no significant difference in absorption for CO2 is observed between 1997 and 2003"; a reference please? I am not aware of such a paper.
Chen and Harries et al 2007, "Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared
spectrum between 1970 and 2006" clearly indicates the same top of atmosphere (TOA) spectral changes as predicted by LBL models and described in Harries 2001.Speaking for myself, some of the strong responses were due to Stealth dismissing (repeatedly) the accuracy of well supported LBL spectral calculations by inappropriately considering them to have the uncertainties associated with far more complex global circulation models (GCMs). Those are not equivalent, and his comments thereof were unsupportable.
-
basnappl at 13:31 PM on 20 August 2013CO2 effect is saturated
I've returned to see what discussion followed the questions I asked a while back and have a few comments.
First, I would like to say that I have enjoyed reading the questions posed by Stealth. I am six years into a graduate program in physics and appreciate that even some of the most "basic" phenomena can be hard to model.
That said, I would like to point out that Stealth comes across to me as a true skeptical scientist. A quick Google of define:skeptical yields:
- Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
- Relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
As I was reading the responses to his questions, I also felt they were needlessly "combative". Some of them, I think, would certainly qualify as "ad hominem"...
Whatever. Just sort of disappoints me when I see the response to a well-thought out question on a website that intends to teach is criticism of the asker. That said, the parts of the responses that were science I liked.
Back to the original topic (and my prior question), it is true that the measured outgoing spectra and the atmospheric temperature profile are coupled. It is also true that, in Harries et al's more recent publication, no significant difference in absorption for CO2 is observed between 1997 and 2003. The original post here uses the observed difference as definitive proof that CO2 absorption is not saturated. Should the conclusion be changed to something like "Assuming the validity of the temperature profiles resulting from simulations to match the outgoing spectra, CO2 absorption is not saturated."?
-
chriskoz at 12:34 PM on 20 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Rob@21,
There would be no incentive for the "impact denial" movement, unless the asteroid was made of gold, or some rare earth mineral, or some other substance proclaimed to be a miracle homeopathic remedy that can extend your life to 1000s y.
Your WUWTA would've been just secondary hub of "impact denial" associating those who believe in the miraculous properties of the asteroid.
The primary hub would exist of those who, even if knowing the signifficance of potential damage to the civilisation, they have claimed the exclusive rights to the asteroid, and make money by trading their claims on the stock market. Those primary "impact denialists" would rather make sure the asteroid hits the Earth, because that would increase the value of their wealth on the stock market.
I'm sorry if this quasi-sober & entertaining vision goes off topic.
-
Bert from Eltham at 12:01 PM on 20 August 2013Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Closing the Consensus Gap
This is why John Cook's refereed paper 'Qualifying the Consensus' is so important! It is also why it is attacked with the most spurious inane analyses.
The anti science brigade will always do damage to the rest of us. The anti vaccination mob against preventable diseases are a good example of a subset of deniers that fear an outcome that has no basis in scientific reality. Yet when there is a lethal outbreak of whooping cough these deniers line up in droves.
I look forward to all the deniers having a 'road to Damascus' conversion. The comments on denial sites seem to me to be now only the most fervent ignorati. Cherry picking has become such an art, that the Japanese would categorise it as a 'National Treasure'!
Bert
-
scaddenp at 10:47 AM on 20 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
William, if clathrates beneath the ice sheets are a significant part of the feedback, then this would imply a few things:
1/ Should see more than CO2 is atmosphere than is explainable from other earth system feedback.
2/ If straight methane is important, then should see enough in ice bubbles to match the supposed forcing.
3/ The methane in ice bubbles should show a d13 signature consistant with significant clathrates.
What does observation say?
1/ is not easy to constrain, but it will be interesting to see AR5 models on this.
2/ Methane rises in ice core, but not to levels of significant forcing
3/ What's been looked at so far (eg Petrenko at al 2009) suggest swamp methane is far more important than clathrates.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:44 AM on 20 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Actually, the statements would be comparable if we were currently staring down a large asteroid. 97% of scientists might say, "Yup, that sucker is big enough to destroy civilization and there's a high likelihood it's on target to hit us."
You would also likely see 3% of scientists still saying the asteroid is clearly there, but it's too small to do significant damage and might not hit us anyway.
Then you'd have people on the internet running websites called WUWTA (What's up with that asteroid) running articles of people saying thing like:
"Asteroids are likely made of spongy material." and...
"Asteroid impacts are a natural event." and...
"The asteroid is clearly going the other direction." and...
"Asteroids are missing other planets, so this one will likely miss us." and...
"Asteroid projection are done with computer models and thus can't accurately estimate the true track." and...
-
Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 20 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark Bahner @19, the two statements are obviously not comparable. That is because while it is true (I suppose) that 97% of scientists think that an asteroid impact could be "serious and dangerous" they do not think it likely in any given short time frame. According to NASA, "... an impact by an asteroid larger than 1-2 kilometers could degrade the global climate, leading to widespread crop failure and loss of life. Such global environmental catastrophes, which place the entire population of the Earth at risk, are estimated to take place several times per million years on average." Taking "several" to mean 10 (it is likely to be less), that means in any given century there is a 0.1% of such a cataclysmic impact (and a 1% chance in the next thousand years). So, that means that around 97% of relevant scientists believe there is a 0.1% chance of so devestating an impact in the next century.
In contrast, at least 80% of relevant scientists (see my post @17) think it very likely that AGW will cause devastation on a similar scale to the asteroid impact within the next 100 years.
Further, your claim that the statements are "not actionable" represent a ridiculous rhetorical ploy. The statements by themselves with no further context do not inform us as to which are, and which are not reasonable policies, ie, "are not actionable". But the statements are not made shorn of context. There is a massive context of further facts summarized by the IPCC on which we can draw, and which can certainly guide policy.
Given that your point depends on:
1) comparing two disparate probabilities as though they were approximately equal (despite knowing better); and
2) deliberately ignoring a host of further available information,
it strikes me as nothing beyond vacuous rhetoric.
-
Mark Bahner at 08:41 AM on 20 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
"97% of scientists agree that global warming may be severe."
This is not an actionable scientific statement...any more than a statement that, "97% of scientists agree that an asteroid could destroy human civilization" is an actionable scientific statement.
Obviously, 97% of scientists agree that an asteroid could destroy human civilization. (And that outcome would be pretty "severe.") But it means nothing from public policy standpoint.
-
william5331 at 06:48 AM on 20 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
In the first 1.5m years of the present ice age, the glacial-interglacial cycle was about 41,000 years, in sinc with obliquity (one of the Milankovitch cycles). It is still in sinc but only every third or so nudge melts the ice. Clathrates sequestered under the ice sheets plus the fact that the deeper the ice sheet, the more unstable it is, may, at least, partially explain this.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html
-
franklefkin at 05:50 AM on 20 August 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
KR,
Thanks, its been a long day and I knew the answer was something simple like that.
-
Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
franklefkin - Keep in mind the difference between relative humidity (the percentage of how much water air at a particular temperature can hold without saturation) and absolute humidity (the mass of water in an air volume) - these are very different numbers.
Relative humidity, including over the oceans, has changed very little globally, meaning that the 'evaporation thermostat' hypothesis is not supported by the data. Evaporation/precipitation drives any heat loss, and while regional effects have been strong, they to a large extent cancel out globally, with only a small and difficult to detect mean global increase (Zhang 2007).
Absolute humidity, on the other hand, has been increasing - and with each 1C increase in temperature trapping an additional 2 W/m2, meaning that increased water vapor with temperature has an overall positive feedback, not a negative/cancelling one.
-
franklefkin at 03:55 AM on 20 August 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
KR,
Are you sure of this number?
Evaporation is controlled by both temperatures and by local relative humidity. Relative humidity worldwide has changed less than 0.6% worldwide over the last 30 years (Dai 2005), so this continues to act as a limiting factor - the atmosphere can only hold so much moisture at any temperature.
0.6% is pretty low. According to another SkS thread, it is expected that each C increase should increase humidity levels by 6 - 7.5% (H2O is most important GHG). If temps have risen by ~ 0.5 C over the past 30 years, humidity should have risen by 3 3.75% over that time, not 0.6%.
Tell me if I have mixed up percentage increases and percent point increases, please.
-
Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
dvaytw - Evaporation is controlled by both temperatures and by local relative humidity. Relative humidity worldwide has changed less than 0.6% worldwide over the last 30 years (Dai 2005), so this continues to act as a limiting factor - the atmosphere can only hold so much moisture at any temperature.
Even more importantly, though, is that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Additional water vapor (absolute humidity) given by the same relative humidity at higher temperatures means more IR trapped, a warming feedback rather than a cooling one (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder data).
Last but most certainly not least, the data regarding IR driven skin layer gradients controlling heat loss from the oceans shows, over a long enough period for any evaporative feedback, that evaporative effects do not override the gradient effects. In other words, such claims are flatly contradicted by the data.
In general, as several people have commented, the claims that "evaporation will stop warming" are just another "single-cause" argument, not considering other contributing factors, much as in discussions of CO2 without considering other forcings. And as such, they are incorrect.
-
dvaytw at 01:39 AM on 20 August 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Bob Loblaw thanks for that!
And sorry to be a pest, but I was wondering if anyone could give me a good analogy to explain why my opponent is wrong on the issue of evaporation. Something along the lines of, "If what you're saying was true, it would mean..."
In general terms I get what you guys are saying, but I don't get it well enough to analogize, and a nice analogy always makes a point stick better.
-
What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
There was a recent SKS article talking about the PDO and ocean gyres and how with a La Nina surface ocean currents flow from east to west across the Pacific, which slows or stops with an El Nino. I don't understand how these surface flows (eg La Nina and the gyres) relate to the warm surface flows shown in the diagram in this article. Anyone help?
-
Leland Palmer at 17:15 PM on 19 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Correction for spelling- That's the sea of Okhotsk, in the last paragraph.
One of their papers shows a severe anoxic region in the northern Pacific, extending down the Alaskan and Canadian west coast.
I live in California, near the ocean.
Are my wife and I going to have to worry about clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas drifting in from the Pacific, if this anoxic region extends as far south as northern California?
-
Leland Palmer at 16:58 PM on 19 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
The Department of Energy and national labs IMPACTS group is attempting to quantitatively model sudden climate change scenarios, including methane hydrate release.
Here are some links to one of their papers, doing basin scale modeling of the next hundred years of methane hydrate release, and also a slide show based on that paper:
BASIN-SCALE ASSESSMENT OF GAS HYDRATE DISSOCIATION IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE -Scientific Paper
Basin-Scale Assessment of Gas Hydrate Dissociation in Response to Climate Change
The second link is to a slide show, based on the scientific paper linked to by the first link.
Their assumptions are troubling in some respects, at least to me. They use slab models- one dimensional models projected over a two dimenstional surface- and suggest that their modeling confirms that the dissociation process will be gradual and orderly. But the use of slab models dictates that the process will be orderly, I think, which seems like circular reaoning to me. Will it really be an orderly process, and what are we willing to risk to confirm that?
I believe that they are assuming a total methane hydrate inventory of around 4000 cubic kilometers of methane hydrate. I wonder, myself, what their modeling would tell us if they were to use the higher global methane hydrate inventory estimates of around 80,000 cubic kilometers.
But, still, it seems like a good first effort, I think.
Their modeling seems to show some interesting or perhaps terrifying things. Their conclusions?
• Shallow hydrates can release significant methane rapidly, with significant methane fluxes regulated by coupled thermo-hydrological processes
• Methane is relevant to ocean (and atmospheric!) chemistry, not just as a contributor to total atmospheric CO2
• 1-D models averaged over depth/temperature/area can estimate basin-scale release potential
• The vast majority of deep hydrates are stable, in the short term, but the methane release potential is still large
• Limited instability/release can feed biochemical/chemical changes in the ocean and atmosphere, before climate effects are considered
• Resource limitations overturn assumptions about methane oxidation
• New coupled seafloor-ocean-atmosphere calculations under way (with plume physics, extended biochemistry, higher resolution) leading to a coupled global model… and better estimates.Their conservative modeling, which postulates an orderly process, shows significant Arctic Ocean anoxia after 30 years of methane releases from the hydrates, with one figure suggesting a 60% direct transfer to the atmosphere through these anoxic waters. Their conservative modeling arrives at numbers like an additional 800 ppb of methane in the tropics, rising to an additional 1,800 ppb in the Arctic, after 30 years of methane release. So,assuming that methane concentrations, mostly from other sources, rise to about 2000 ppb in 30 years, that would mean methane concentrations of about 2800 ppb at the equator, increasing to 3,600 ppb in the Arctic.
But I don't think that their modeling takes into account increased warming from the methane itself, and a subsequent higher methane release rate. I don't think that their modeling takes into account what would happen if the global methane hydrate inventory turns out to be 80,000 cubic kilometers of methane hydrate, rather than 4,000 cubic kilometers. I don't think that their modeling takes into account atmospheric chemistry effects predicted by Isaksen's modeling, increasing methane lifetime and so increasing its greenhouse effect. Their modeling suggests an orderly top down methane release process- but what if that projected order is an artifact of their use of slab models?
Their modeling also does not consider shallow permafrost bound hydrates- for example those contained in the East Siberian Arctic shelf.
One of their papers shows a huge anoxic area- not in the Arctic Ocean, but in the northern pacific in the region of the Sea of Othosk. Their modeling suggests that the Sea of Othosk is particularly vulnerable to sea water warming, and could "light up like a candle".
-
Jose_X at 10:00 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark Harrigan #5, the video addressed costs by saying we are going to have to move to renewables whether we like it or not.
I wonder how the people whining about making changes now would behave if they were born 100 years into the future instead and had to deal with society running up against real fossil fuel supply limitations. We can't risk paying $6/gallon in the US tomorrow -- no, way Jose -- but our great grand kids should not mind $60/gallon if the whiners around the world today have their way with policy?
scaddenp #14, yup. -
Tom Curtis at 09:51 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
BillyJoe @7, Cook et al 2013 (The Concensus Project paper) rates papers rather than authors, and so the 97% is not directly translatable to "97% of scientists". Rather, it is 97% of papers in the literature on climate change, that state a position. As it happens, it is known from Anderegg et al that scientists "convinced by the evidence" that AGW is real publish at approximately twice the rate of those who are "not convinced by the evidence". Allowing for that, around 94% of scientists publishing on climate change accept that AGW is real, where AGW is defined as believing that the surface of the Earth has warmed significantly over the 20th century and at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic in origin. Nothing in the paper refers to how dangerous that is, so the results cannot be directly read as indicating acceptance that AGW is dangerous.
I should note that the 94% is dragged down by higher disagreement early in analyzed period, and that on independent evidence it is likely that that figure is greater than 95% currently. Having said that, Bray and von Storch 2010 show that only 83.5% of climate scientists in 2008 were convinced that "most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, mostly a result of anthropogenic causes" (Question 21). That compares to 93.8% who are convinced that "climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occuring now" (question 20). I think the Bray and von Storch questions are poorly framed (see discussion below), and that that poor framing has dragged down the percentage of acceptance. Accepting the Bray and von Storch figure is, however a reasonable position.
The interesting quesiton in Bray and von Storch is question 22:
At face value, this shows that in 2008, 78.92% of climate scientists were convinced that climate change posed a serious and dangerous threat to humanity.
Unfortunately, the question as posed is multiply ambiguous. If somebody says that they think there is only a 5% probability that humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, it would be absurd for them to say that they are a little bit convinced of that claim. Rather, they are rather firmly convinced that it is not the case. Following this logic, the questions posed by Bray and von Storch are missing 6 values, with the value of 1 being forced to do service for everybody who considers the claim or its contrary to be at best 50/50. Thus on this interpretation, the "skeptics" and the unconvinced represent only 1.162% of climate scientists. In fact most people will assume standard conventions rather than the strict logic of the question apply, and will treat a value of 4 as being 50/50 on the statement. However, it is likely that some respondents where more logical than that, which would introduce a bias away from a high percentage as being convinced. This bias applies also to questions 20 and 21.
Further, the question arises as to what constitutes a threat to "humanity". Does it have to be a threat to humanity as a whole, or only to individual members thereof? And does it have to be a threat to survival, or only way of life? Question 22 as posed is open to being interpretted such that only extinction threats count; or that only threats of massive population reduction count as threats to humanity under the terms of the question. This possibility is reinforced by the conjoint qualifiers, serious and dangerous. Because they are conjoint (ie, joined by an "and"), a person thinking the threat to humanity to be serious, but not dangerous (or dangerous, but not serious) would be required to disagree with the statement. These possibe interpretations also introduce a bias against strong agreement with this statement.
Finally, it is open to interpret the scale as an index of relative danger, or as a binary choice. In the first instance, responses would be made based on the scale of how dangerous AGW was thought to be, with 1 representing "not dangerous or beneficial" and 7 representing "extinction level threat". On the later (probably more correct) interpretation, somebody who thought the threat of AGW was very real but not dangerous could potentially answer 1, depending on how convinced they were of their position. The former interpretation would bias the results towards the middle, while the later interpretation would bias results towards the lower end of the scale.
It is important to understand that what is relevant here is not your particular interpretation, or Bray and von Storch's particular interpretation, but the range and frequency of differing interpretations by respondents.
Overall, this ambiguity suggests to me that the Bray and von Storch results consistently under represent the agreement with the concensus. They do, however, show that the level of agreement of climate scientists that AGW is dangerous is only slightly less than the level of agreement that GW is AGW. Further, they show that that level of agreement is at least around 80%, and IMO is likely higher. Thus it is certainly a supermajority (<66%) of climate scientists that agree that AGW is a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, but it may not be strong enough agreement to be considered a concensus position. The weaker statement that AGW is a significant threat, however is likely to command a concensus among climate scientists. I do not know how you scale "severe" to comment on that.
-
DSL at 08:10 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Speaking of Things buried under polar ice, my bedtime reading right now is "Who Goes There?", the short story from John Campbell that forms the basis of various films, including the two versions of The Thing. A serendipity of sorts, or, since DB is watching and the subject is denier's dictionary, "serenderpity."
-
Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
My apologies, the first link in my previous post (under "monsters erupting from Arctic ice") should have been to this.
-
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Kr, based on comments in denialati sites, it seems the catastrophe that most fear is more taxes, or at very least paying a higher cost for energy. Costs associated with warming are apparently avoidable - paid by somebody else.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:27 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Sphaerica @11, in science very few things have "absolutely zero chance", and the chance that climate sensitivity is at the lower limit of the IPCC range and that the utility impact of temperature increase is also at the lower limit is significantly better than, for example, the chance of a single ticket winning a state lottery. Further, in this lottery we only get to buy one ticket (reality). So while agreeing that it is absurdly optimistic to hope that BAU will be all right, I do need to note that your claim is is an example of hyperbole.
-
Sapient Fridge at 06:49 AM on 19 August 2013Putting an End to the Myth that Renewable Energy is too Expensive
In reply to Mark Harrigon I would like to ask where you are getting your figures from?
The figures from the EIA Levelized cost estimates don't seem to indicate that all renewables are anywhere near the multiples more expensive than fossil fuels as you suggest. For example hydro, geothermal and onshore wind all come out cheaper than coal when all factors, including transmission, are taken into account.
Some renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels, but it is not true across the board as you seemed to assert. And some costs are dropping rapidly e.g. for solar PV.
-
Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
DSL - Catastrophic? Don't forget monsters erupting from Arctic ice (along with mad scientists and frozen cavemen), cats and dogs living together in sin, and the horrors of the loss of our morning coffee:
...the most favourable outcome is a c. 65% reduction in the number of pre-existing bioclimatically suitable localities, and at worst an almost 100% reduction, by 2080... Arabica coffee is confimed as a climate sensitive species...
I would certainly consider that catastrophic, your opinion may vary. But don't talk to me until after my first cup!
Personal opinion - the catastrophe for most of those in denial are the loss of the "infinite growth" and "anyone can win" scenarios that are fundamental ideological touchposts for so many (they live in their parents basement, so to speak, but they could do so so much!). They just seem to be fundamentally disturbed by the ideas of limits, the idea that unlimited expansion is not possible in a finite world. And egged on by those whose income is related to not having accounting for social carbon costs, or to avoiding regulation, etc.
-
william5331 at 06:26 AM on 19 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
On Carbon tax, any party that proposed Tax and Dividend a la James Hansen would have a huge advantage in the coming elections. Which voter could resist getting a monthly dividend from "The Man". This must be causing all sorts of angst amongst senators and congressmen. Do we go for re-election or do we support our fossil fuel lobyists. It's like the prince in Shrek trying to decide which princess to pursue.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:53 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark,
if warming turns out to not be severe.
and
...should warming turn out to be less severe than feared.
These "possiblities" are not on the table, not even remotely. There is absolutely zero chance that the consequences of warming will not be severe if we reach 450 ppm, and at the moment it appears virtually certain that we will not only reach but blow right past 450 ppm. I put 575 ppm at the bare minimum where we will stop, and then only after many national economies are simply crushed by the impacts, and so stop emitting by default.
Anyone who is saying "gee, this isn't so bad now" is kidding themselves. Climate change takes time, a lot of time, but after you've jumped out the window it's too late to start worrying about what happens at the end of the fall.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:47 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Catastrophic? Is that what the C stands for?
I always thought they meant Confused About Global Warming.
[You learn something new every day.]
-
DSL at 04:13 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
JH, I think SkS should start a compendium of all the definitions for "C" ("catastrophic") in the oft-used "CAGW."
Oceans boiling away. All life dead. All humans dead. Humans reduced to "caveman" status. 300 meter sea level rise. 40 Cat5 hurricanes per year. Multiple monster tornado outbreaks annually. And all of this should already have happened or else the theory of AGW is falsified and/or benign.
-
John Hartz at 01:26 AM on 19 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
@ BillyJoe #7:
What is your working definition of "severe AGW"?
-
BillyJoe at 23:21 PM on 18 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 97% figure applies only to scientists who believe that anthropogenic warming is happening,not that it will be severe.
-
michael sweet at 22:44 PM on 18 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Mark,
I noticed that you provide exactly zero references to suppport you Gish Gallop against renewable energy. Here is a SkS link that discusses your myths. Gish gallopers like you never mention that natural gas plants also operate at 30-40% of capacity. If you stick around and provide support for your assertions (in the unlikely case that you can find support), I will link more articles that show renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for modeling good thread discussion habits.
-
david.hamilton at 22:16 PM on 18 August 2013Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Good information, thank you. There is nice irony in an argument put forward by a "sceptic" in reality providing evidence for AGW. I have a question of fine detail - not because I want to criticise, but to fine tune my understanding. The OP mentions changes in the Earth's "orbital" motion: is it really the orbital motion that's operating here, or is it the Earth's rotational motion? I can envisage the Earth's precession around its rotational axis as having exactly the effect discussed, and that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, tells me that the period of Earth's precession is around 26,000 years, which seems to fit in with the argument.
-
Mark Harrigan at 18:10 PM on 18 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Unfortunately there is a gap in Andrew's logic that those who wish to avoid action can shoot huge holes in.
While I agree action should be taken one canot ignore the COSTS of taking action. These are not insignificant. The switch away from fossil fuels has a significant economic cost associated with it and is not a "no regrets" policy if warming turns out to not be severe.
Although it's a complex issue confounded by how the current economics of fossil fuels are determined (for example failing to account to the true health costs even without climate change) the fact is that overbuild required for renewables is not insignificant - estimates vary from as much as 2x to 5x nameplate capacity. And frequently such costs estimates fail to account for additional transmission costs (typically 50% or more of the real costs of grid based power).
And before anyone quotes BZE at me you need to address their heroic assumptions about reductions in consumption AND the fact that they largely ignore the ovebuild and transmission cost question.
For action to be logical today on the basis that the science is clear that there is a non-negligible risk of severe warming with potentially large negative consequences you have to address the issue that the costs of taking action (replacing fossil fuels as an energy source) do not outweigh the benefits should warming turn out to be less severe than feared.
Moderator Response:[DB] As Michael Sweet notes, your comment more properly belongs on the Putting an End to the Myth that Renewable Energy is too Expensive thread. Please take this discussion there.
-
william5331 at 07:30 AM on 18 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
If you don't accept that the climate is changing or that we are causing it or if we are causing it, it will only be good for us then forget Climate Change.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
michael sweet at 00:52 AM on 18 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33B
This article documents changes in apple taste and firmness caused by AGW in Japan. Apples don't taste as good and are less firm. At the start of the article they reference about 20 other articles documenting changes in fruit and food production worldwide. They say that changes in care of plants and cultivars grown make it difficult to document these changes in many areas (if cultivation practices have changed it is difficult to separate changes from AGW and changes from cultivation practices). In their orchard they have the same trees and care for them the same way.
-
ShaneGreenup at 22:54 PM on 17 August 2013Global warming games - playing the man not the ball
Hi John,
I have added most of the relevant posts to rbutr now, but can you submit your original presentation as a rebuttal to any instances of Monktons original talk which you can find online? Or at least let me know where they are, and I will submit them.
Thanks.
http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?requestType=showLinksByFromPage&fromPageId=140127
-
Paul D at 22:24 PM on 17 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
Regarding plane crashes etc.
Really the issue is survivability. If you happen to be on a plane that does crash the probability of surviving is far less than say that of being in a train crash.
eg. if you compare the worse case scenarios of different types of transport. Some are better than others.
It boils down to whether imagination wins over statistics.
If you imagine yourself in a crash, your better off in a train.
If you check the math, it probably doesn't matter much (although I haven't checked!). -
saileshrao at 11:52 AM on 17 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Have we been looking at Climate Sensitivity all wrong? We've been focused on global temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling, but shouldn't we have been focusing on global temperature sensitivity to input radiative forcing? Atmospheric methane increases occurred in the ice-core data in tandem with temperature increases with just a 0.5W/m2 increase in input radiative forcing due to the Milankovitch cycle. The resulting feedback exacerbated the rise in temperature to around 5degC. Why should the planet's store of methane now NOT react when humanity has created a 3W/m2 increase in input radiative forcing (minus the aerosol component) by burning fossil fuels and deforesting the planet?
I don't understand this "what me worry" attitude among prominent climate scientists on the methane issue. Is it subconsciously linked to their consumption of beef? -
davidnewell at 09:59 AM on 17 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Although the informaion has received a fair amount of criticism because of source,
and even though I don't believe it either:
there is another innaccuracy, perhaps arising from pedantry, which I will eruct:
quote:"We're fortunate that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is very stable" endquote.
I would say that the author should report back on the accuracy of this statement the next time we're hit dead center by a solar flare.
Oh wait, he won't ba able to, as much of the electrical distribution system, and much of the electronics connected to it,
will be fried.
===============
I would agree that the cycle of the sun's output will have no significant net effect on our CO2 scenario
-
davidnewell at 04:52 AM on 17 August 2013Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink
KR, whatever Skeptical Science decides is appropriate is fine with me.
In point of fact, I am loathe to look at "geoengineering" wiith anything but a seriously "jaundiced eye", as in general they (the techniques) smack of just more wild-eyed demonstration of the human intellect's capacity to dick around with things we really have a poor understanding of: trying to use a hammer to adjust a wristwatch.
That being said, "this" technique takes a natural process (mineralization of CO2) and enhances it, in a natural way. (Spraying water in the air, duh!)
"This" technique, if shown to be harmful in any way whatsoever, can be discontinued, modulated,
: and if shown to be valuable, enhanced, expanded, etc..
============
It is an unfortunate fact that the "intellect / ego" has ignorantly gotten us into this mess,
but unlike what the flower children might want, which is to return to teepees and hunter-gathering, (which by the way might be OK in the long run, I've no opinion on the matter..)
what WE have to do is employ the SAME imagination and intellect, but in a different way, to reduce the ramifications of the die we've already cast.
"What do we do to make life prosper????" on this planet, whose wholeness is sometimes called "Gaia" by some: (although it does expose onto some abuse in these parts. )..THAT's the question we each should be continuously tryiung to answer and act on. .
So how do we decrease circulating CO2?
This methodology, utilizing the weathering products of granite, to both sequester CO2 and increase water vapor in the air, appears to be the best, most innocuous, route suggested, to the best of my knowledge of specific geoengineering suggestions, such as the others in your response. .
All speculative, but if there's a better speculation out there, let's hear it!
Thank you.
-
StBarnabas at 03:55 AM on 17 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
@mike roddy
agreed. To me this is a good statement of the obvious and we should all do our bit to lower our carbon footprint. I found www.navitron.org.uk/forum/ a good place for me in the UK for advice and help to do our bit.
I dispair of the USA. It was such a fantastic country when I lived there in the late '70s whilst doing my PhD at the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory. It seems however to have lost its way. Al Gore's book "The Future" is quite interesting in its analysis of the current disfunctionality of the US. For me its deeply saddening that a country I held in the highest regard seems to have become more part of the problem rather than the solution in a number of areas in particular CC
StB
-
catman306 at 03:16 AM on 17 August 2013A vicious cycle: Could droughts and storms make climate change worse?
Too bad there isn't a satellite or some such device that measures the Earth's total biomass from week to week and year to year. It would probably show a negative correlation with the Earth's average surface temperature. As the temperature rises, the total biomass dimminishes.
-
Leland Palmer at 01:34 AM on 17 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
We should not forget that our future course of action- whether to massively switch to renewable energy sources or continue on our fossil fuel trajectory- is an economic problem as well as a scientiic problem.
The methane in the methane hydrates is worth hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of dollars.
The methane in the methane hydrates could also arguably kill the biosphere.
A scientific paper which mentions the economic factors associated with the methane hydrate problem is linked to below:
Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age or climate threat?
Methane hydrates, ice-like compounds in which methane is held in crystalline cages formed by water molecules, are widespread in areas of permafrost such as the Arctic and in sediments on the continental margins. They are a potentially vast fossil fuel energy source but, at the same time, could be destabilized by changing pressure–temperature conditions due to climate change, potentially leading to strong positive carbon–climate feedbacks. To enhance our understanding of both the vulnerability of and the opportunity provided by methane hydrates, it is necessary (i) to conduct basic research that improves the highly uncertain estimates of hydrate occurrences and their response to changing environmental conditions, and (ii) to integrate the agendas of energy security and climate change which can provide an opportunity for methane hydrates—in particular if combined with carbon capture and storage—to be used as a ‘bridge fuel’ between carbon-intensive fossil energies and zero-emission energies. Taken one step further, exploitation of dissociating methane hydrates could even mitigate against escape of methane to the atmosphere. Despite these opportunities, so far, methane hydrates have been largely absent from energy and climate discussions, including global hydrocarbon assessments and the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intense localized methane plumes could perhaps be captured, burned using (for example) oxyfuel combustion to generate electricity, and the resulting CO2 deep injected into fractured basalt sediments, I think. The resulting electricity could be transmitted to shore using submarine electrical cables- a new but farily well developed technology. This would be carbon neutral remediation of the captured methane, if it works.
On the other hand, trying to capture the methane would be like trying to catch soup in a net, in my opinion. Vast quantities of methane would go into the oceans, contributing to ocean acidification, leading to probable widespread anoxic areas, and perhaps even a dead arctic ocean- one incapable of oxidizing much of the methane released into it by the hydrates, according to modeling by the DOE/LBNL/LANL modeling done by the IMPACTS (Investigation of the Magnitudes and Probabilities of Abrupt Climate TransitionS (IMPACTS)) group. Check out their publications link:
Investigation of the Magnitudes and Probabilities of Abrupt Climate TransitionS (IMPACTS) Project
As an inhabitant of the Earth, I don't think that a "methane age" of abundant energy is worth the risk of low level or greater runaway destabilization of the climate system.
Fossil fuel corporation executives and major stockholders of fossil fuel corporations may disagree.
In such an environment, there is the potential for enormous profits to skew the scientific debate.
Prev 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 Next
