Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 Next
Comments 42901 to 42950:
-
mike roddy at 00:32 AM on 17 August 2013Andrew Dessler on Why It's Stupid not to Act on Climate Change
This is an excellent summary, but overlooks our problem: Here in the US, money trumps all when key decisions are made. As long as the oil and gas companies are raking in such vast amounts of cash- and sprinkling it around to politicians and media companies- we will continue to bake.
-
DSL at 23:00 PM on 16 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Thank you, Philippe. I knew there was a name for that lightless spot in my memory.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:09 PM on 16 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
"Neither has, IIRC, any president of the US. "
Andrew Jackson is known to have killed opponents in duels.
-
scaddenp at 08:49 AM on 16 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
I would note that ajkuiper has not responded to requests to support some sloganeering here. I hope he/she is more ready to engage with some actual science in this discussion.
-
DSL at 05:44 AM on 16 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Deep, AJ, deep. Poverty's never killed anyone either. Neither has, IIRC, any president of the US.
The drop in ASI can change global weather patterns (hard to avoid doing that), and the resulting changes have undoubtedly led to specific deaths that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. Perhaps you should be more specific, AJ. Are you actually suggesting that changes to general circulation have no impacts on human life?
-
ajkuiper55 at 05:20 AM on 16 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
davidnewell - (-SNIP-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Repetitive sloganeering snipped.
-
MA Rodger at 04:56 AM on 16 August 2013How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
jja @35.
Concerning radiative forcing and energy imbalance. The difference is actually rather great. For instance Hansen et al 2012 the discussion of energy imbalance and net forcing leading to their conclusion "Measured Earth energy imbalance, +0.58 W/m2 during 2005-2010, implies that the aerosol forcing is about -1.6 W/m2" and thus a net forcing of +1.4 W/m^2.The crucial point is that radiative forcing is a change over a period (say 1750 to date) and is a theoretical quantity while energy imbalance applies to a particular point in time and is an actual physical phenomenon.
Its a bit like a kid kicking a ball along a road. The forcing, the kid's kicks, can be expressed as increases in speed imparted into the ball by his boot and can be added up over a period of time when he kicks the ball many times. This 'forcing' will always increase adding up with each kick (unless the kid kicks it backwards). The ball will usually be slowing due to air resistance etc and on its own will come to a halt in the gutter. But until that point it will have a speed along the road which in this analogy would represent the energy imbalance. (The distance along the road would perhaps represent temperature.)
The definition of "forcing" given by the IPCC is given here. The altitude it is attributed to (ie the tropopause) is less important than the concept that it is "with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values" (in the analogy, not accounting for the slowing of the ball due to air resistance etc). -
MA Rodger at 04:40 AM on 16 August 2013How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
Agnostic @34.
Indeed. Small increases in global temperature will result in very large SLR. And yes, the cause will be due to melting of land ice from Greenland & Antarctica. So the question is - how "rapid" or how slowly will that melt occur? Or how big will be the "heat" flows in that melting process?
The total global energy imbalance gives a value for the energy entering the global climate system. Polar amplification may suggest that a disproportionate amount of that energy is arriving at the poles but (1) That is not entirely the same as energy available for melting land ice (although it will be in part), and further (2) The vast majority of the global energy imbalance ends up heating oceans and thus not into melting ice. This suggests that the energy available to melt Greenland & Antarctica can only be a minority of the global energy imbalance. And small energy fluxes has to mean small melts and small resulting SLR.
I have yet to see anyone describing how an energy flux can be created large enough to melt enough ice for anything like a 5m SLR by 2100. The literature still shows findings that project sub-1m SLR although they are usually not entirely reassuring in these findings. The Ice2Sea project, for instance, tells us that with a 3.5ºC global temperature increase (A1B emissions), the total SLR contribution from land ice will be 350mm to 368mm by 2100 (so a 700mm total SLR) but but do not rule out higher SLR (5% chance of +840mm SLR from ice) saying "even the state-of-the-art models do not simulate all the processes and feedbacks that might be significant." Perhaps more reassuring is Pfeffer et al 2008 who find that 2100 SLR greater than 2m is "physically untenable."
Myself, I see it that however large the 2100 SLR proves to be, it is less the problem in itself. Rather the rate of SLR by 2100 will set the SLR for the following century when SLR greater than 2m probably will no longer be "physically untenable." And if global temperatures remain high SLR will continue at that rate for many more centuries to come. -
DSL at 04:24 AM on 16 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
John, dating the LIA is anything but simple. The Maunder may have been responsible for the worst of the LIA, but the Wolf and Spörer mins preceded it. There is also the volcanic factor to account for. This article addresses the skeptic claim that a new Maunder would cancel global warming. The article does not attempt to explain the LIA.
-
Composer99 at 02:11 AM on 16 August 2013A vicious cycle: Could droughts and storms make climate change worse?
OK the pictures are showing up properly now.
-
Composer99 at 22:52 PM on 15 August 2013A vicious cycle: Could droughts and storms make climate change worse?
Don't know if anyone else has the same problem, but the pictures are coming up as broken links when I view this post.
-
John Chapman at 22:06 PM on 15 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
If the LIA started 500 years ago, then that precedes the start of the Maunder minimum by about 150 years. So where's the evdience that a grand solar minimum triggers colder climate?
-
michael sweet at 20:36 PM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Terranova,
Since the Milankovich forcing has been cooling for the past 5,000 years, what has warmed besides human interventions? Your claim of "contributing" not "causing" is splitting hairs. Humans have changed the climate for 8,000 years. The question is how much. You are being inaccurate with your pedantic hair splitting. Stop complaining that others have a minor issue until you no longer have the same problem, or worse.
-
chriskoz at 16:22 PM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Terranova@17,19
Can you explain in non-inflamatory terms (so that your post is not snipped) the point you're trying to make?
Your emphasis about CO2 being "not determinative" to glacial cycles does not add anything new to the discussion and your focus on "manmade CO2 emissions" does not mean anything in this context. We already know that CO2 was the feedback rather than causality of pleistocene glacial cycles. And it's also obvious to us that manmade CO2 emissions have overriden the glacial cycles, because said emissions are 100 times faster. So to me, there is no logical value nor point in your post.
Your question about the "Where Are We At Today" section wherabouts can only be answered by Dana. But to me, the section is truthful and valuable, irrespective where it came from: it explains to the possibly unfamiliar reader the context and rate of current climate changes in relation to the changes the original study focussed on.
-
Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink
davidnewell - Sites vary, but on SkS most visitors follow the Recent Comments page, leading directly to conversations in progress.
I would opine (personal opinion) that weathering and the long term natural carbon cycle are quite distinct from geoengineering, whether that involves granite chips or artificial aerosols or orbital mirrors or iron seeding of oceans, etc. And that discussions of natural checks and balances are a very different topic from modifying nature for our goals.
-
Terranova at 12:56 PM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Michael Sweet @ 18
There is a difference between contributing and causing. Read your link again. There is nothing there that implies that humans are the main cause of climate change over the party centuries or millenia. Furthermore, the query about the statement being a part of the referenced paper is still not answered.
-
michael sweet at 12:03 PM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Terranova:
There is substantial evidence that Humans have been causing climate change for 8,000 years. Primarily due to farming and deforrestation. The last that I recall, scientists were coming to a consensus that this explaination was the best way to model the recent climate changes. The rate of human caused climate change has substantially increased in the last 150 years. Your cries of "inaccuracy" would be a lot more convincing if you did your homework. Please read up on the past 4-8 millenia and retract your comment above.
-
Terranova at 11:36 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
From what's available on the nature website: "This fast retreat is governed mainly by rapid ablation due to the lowered surface elevation resulting from delayed isostatic rebound14, 15, 16, which is the lithosphere–asthenosphere response. Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles." Emphasis mine.
From the article above: "Of course, on top of these epic natural cycles manmade carbon emissions are having an effect on the climate. Over short timescales (geologically speaking) of centuries and millennia, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause of climate change." (-snip-).
I asked, but did not get a reply ( -snip-), about the final section of this post "Where Are We At Today". It appears to be an add-on from the article author and not part of the paper referenced.
If in fact it is not part of the paper represented in the post, then we are back to the "inaccurate" topic. If it is part of the paper, then I would like to see it and I will retract my statement.
Moderator Response:[DB] Argument from personal incredulity snipped. Inflammatory snipped.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:24 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
IanC @14, yes. I realized essentially the same point last night just before going to sleep. The key point is that given the rate at which heat propogates by conduction, the current warming will not yet have impacted basal ice except by means of surface melt water carrying warmth to the base of the ice sheet (where it is able to do so) or at the edges of the ice sheet.
-
martin3818 at 07:13 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
I think Freya Roberts post fails to mention that the most important feedback according to the research paper is geological - the delayed isostatic rebound. This keeps the ice elevation low and therefore ice loss remains high while the ice sheet retreats. It is this delay which is responsible for the 100 kyear cycle. Other feed backs, dust feedback, oceanfeedback are less important.
The 100 kyear cycle can be reproduced in models even if CO2 levels are kept constant, although CO2 does influence the size of the ice sheet. If the rebound is instantaneous the 100 kyear cycle is no longer dominant.
-
StBarnabas at 05:01 AM on 15 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Chaps agreed a bit disappointing regarding the Irish Times, when I lived in Ireland it was easily the best paper - in the UK the Guardian is my paper of choice. I know Ian Elliott, or at least knew him when I was an undergraduate in Physics at UCD (1970ies). He was vwry good at public engagement. I can't really comment on him professionally as after becoming a graduate student in astronomy our paths never crossed.
StB
-
shoyemore at 04:05 AM on 15 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
cynicus,
Correct, and what is disquieting is that the newspaper in question if far from being the usual Murdoch lowest-common-denominator or Daily Mail rag. Like the Economist and the New York Times, even the quality publications are inconsistent. I suspect the Environment correspondent and the Science correspondent of the Irish Times do not seem eye-to-eye.
-
IanC at 03:29 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Tom @ 13,
It is true that geothermal heat is trivial at the ice-air interface, but not so at the ice-land interface. I think 'surface' here is meant to be the surface of the lithosphere and not the surface of the ice; with this interpretation the abstract is correct.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:33 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
p4gs @11, I would also be interested in such an article.
Just from looking at the abstract, it is a very interesting paper. Evidently, the weight of continental ice sheets causes a thining of the crust under the ice sheet, allowing enhanced geothermal heat flow. The effect can be seen in the upper right of the diagram below, shown with increased detail in the inset. As can be seen, heat flow reaches a minimum (green colours) during interglacials, and a maximum during glacials when the ice is thickest. As an aside, that suggests a very significant melt back of the greenland ice sheet during interglacials, to relieve the burden of ice mass and allow thickening of the lithosphere beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet.
WUWT appears to want to beat this up into a major factor, claiming:
"The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere."
They assert his despite their cutaway view of the Greenland Ice Sheet showing no temperatures above freezing. However, the diagram below should put paid to any such denier fantasies. The range of geothermal heat flux shown is from 0.043 to 0.061 W/m^2. That compares to a global average of 0.087 W/m^2, and is relatively small even for continental plates as can be seen below:
(Units are mW/m^2)
The peak rate, is therefore less than a 10th of the TOA energy imbalance caused by AGW, and the change in heat flow between glacial and interglacial is about a sixth of that again.
I must admit that having actually seen the figure shown, I am surprised that the abstract states:
"At the Earth’s surface, heat fluxes from the interior1 are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere2, except in areas permanently blanketed by ice."
It would have been rather more accurate to state:
"At the Earth’s surface, heat fluxes from the interior1 are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere2, except including in areas permanently blanketed by ice."
-
What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
p4gs - Looks like references to this paper are already showing up on the denial sites, in the apparent hopes of yet another claim that "it's not us".
Those claims would only make sense if there had been recent changes in the heat from the lithosphere - long standing heat patterns would be part of pre-Industrial conditions as well, and not causes of recent melt acceleration. Not to mention that observed changes in GHGs already account for the Greenland changes we've seen, and such "not us" claims would have to somehow explain those away...
-
BaerbelW at 02:18 AM on 15 August 2013Where SkS-Material gets used - Coursera's Climate Literacy Course
Just now received the Coursera email that the 2nd iteration of Climate Literacy will start on September 30, 2013!
-
p4gs at 01:22 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
I want Skeptical Science to do an article on this newly published research:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1898.html
Moderator Response:[JH] See: Greenland Ice Is Melting -- Even from Below: Heat Flow from the Mantle Contributes to the Ice Melt, ScienceDaily, Aug 11, 2013.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 15 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
chriskoz @2, you calculated the equilibrium climate response, wheras Dana calculated the transient climate response. The difference is in the factor of 0.67 Dana introduces for that purpose. Absent that, his value would have been 0.45 (or 0.48 with a less aggressive rounding).
One twist on this is that radiative forcing is calculated at the tropopause rather than the top of the thermosphere. Most UV radiation is absorbed above the tropopause, and the UV component of sunlight will varies in greater proportion with changing TSI. The effect is that with reduced TSI, relatively more of TSI will reach the surface than currently does. The solar forcing will still reduce, but not as much as the reduction in TSI so that the cooling will be even less than calculated.
Conversely, for the same reason, it requires a greater than 1.55% increase in TSI to generate a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in solar forcing.
Finally, it is possible that some such mechanism as that proposed by Svensmark would result in a greater reduction in temperature than simple calculations from TSI would suggest. His theory as it stands has been pretty much ruled out. Clouds form with great facility even in the absense of cosmic rays, and therefore cosmic rays are not the dominant force governing climate over the history of the Earth. However, cosmic rays may facilitate the generation of additional cloud nucleation particles thereby decreasing the average droplet size in clouds and hence increasing cloud albedo. This may amplify the direct TSI forcing by as much a factor of 2. Of course, there is as yet no solid evidence that this is the case. It just cannot be ruled out either.
-
Chris8616 at 23:15 PM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33A
New discovered Mesospheric Polar Clouds possible indicator of Global Warming Link
Save the Earth Link
-
Chris8616 at 23:07 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
chriskoz #8, fair enough, Though i thought the video was also good, since it points out rate of changes (natural vs human attributed forcing) also explains why there cannot be a runaway snowball earth.
-
cynicus at 17:50 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
One often encounters articles like this where some cherrypicked-out-of-context-but-original quotes from bonafide scientists (like Lockwood in the Irish Times article) is mixed with the breathtaking slay-of-hand conclusion by a fake authority and presented as a compelling picture to the public. In this case the fake authority who makes the final headline claim is Ian Elliott, an ex-astronomer who pensioned 12 years ago and has only few papers published during his professional career, none of which about the solar influence on Earths climate.
Judging by the wide circulation in the denial echo chamber this article is a perfect rehash of the old tobacco tactics.
-
chriskoz at 17:08 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Dana,
I think your final formula to calculate ∆T is unreadable due to too many factors used. In the end, reading it, I'm confused which number is which factor.
I did my own calculation with simpler numbers as follows.
In my calculation, I don't need to consider ∆TSI. I can take amount of sun energy absorbed by Earth (∆TSabs) and assume it changes by the same percentage as ∆TSI. I think your calculation makes the same assumption, although I'm not sure. Then, from (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), I look at this picture:
and find out the amount of Sun energy absorbed by Earth is 168+67 W/m2 = 235W/m2 (ground + athmosphere absorbtion on the left side of picture).
So ∆TSabs = 0.25% * 235W/m2 = 0.5875W/m2
With the equilibrium sensitivity of 0.75K/Wm2, the corresponding ∆T is 0.5875*0.75 = 0.44K
So, my number is larger than yours (0.3K), other suties you quote. Why is that? Did I make a mistake?
-
shoyemore at 16:45 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
I am glad the Irish Times article came to your attention. The newspaper has actually a reasonably good record at reporting on climate change. The article on the solar minimum was an aberration because it did not mention CO2 at all, or the effect solar changes might have on global warming.
I intend to mail the link to this post to the science correspondent.
-
Composer99 at 13:28 PM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Peter Lang:
I've begun to notice a trend:
People interested in clear, effective communication tend to "show their working", or provide sources which have the same effect. You'll notice Aristarchus quotes passages from the report that the LA Times article discusses, and Tom Curtis quotes the article itself; they both lay out the flow of their argument, clearly and concisely.
By contrast, you appear to have acted in a manner consistent with attempting to obfuscate and confuse:
First, when asked to show your working and/or provide examples, you simply don't. You have not provided any reason to accept your claim about the LA Times article (which is hardly necessary since Aristarchus and Tom Curtis' comments would render such reason irrelevant on account of being factually false), you have not provided any reason to take your word over, say, the IEA's, and you do not provide any reference clearly showing the misbehaviour you attribute to the renewable energy industry.
Second, as a substitute for clearly making your case, you rely on bluster. You have no basis to make any assumptions about the physics knowledge of other participants in this forum. You also rely on the lazy "do your own reading" tactic, which I personally find very tiresome - after all, there's no prima facie reason to believe that someone going off and doing more reading will come back and agree with you. (*)
Finally, you make a pedantic, and apparently false, distinction between energy and power. Some rather basic definitions show that power and energy are in fact very nearly interchangeable, as power is simply a measure of energy transfer over time:
In physics, power is defined as the amount of energy consumed per unit time.
The dimension of power is energy divided by time. The SI unit of power is the watt (W), which is equal to one joule per second.
Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy [...]
Ultimately, to speak of power is to speak of energy. Little surprise, then, that these terms are (colloquially) interchangeable when used outside of STEM circles. And, I might add, so much for your claim that they are "totally different".
(*) Like the appeal to authority/expertise, this sort of claim is not always a failure of logic or argument - sometimes someone really just needs to read up more on a subject. However, such exhortations should be made in response to obvious nonsense, such as when someone argues that, say, vaccines cause autism, or, topically for Skeptical Science, when someone argues that, say, the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.
-
chriskoz at 13:03 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
I have a technical question that I cannot figure out because I don't have access to full text.
I'm interested in knowing some more details: how they ran their simulation and what parameters did they establish to be the "tipping points" moving the climate in and out of glaciation.
In particular I'm interested how their model differ from Archer's CLIMBER model, that argues the minimum solar insolation at 65N be the triggering factor for gradual continental icesheet buildup.
-
chriskoz at 12:43 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Chris@2,4,
You should be aware that the Hansen video you've linked to and the paper - subject to this post - are talking about different timescales. Hansen talks about 65Ma cenozoic timescale (and by implication of that context, he does not bother to consider the time granularity less than some 1Ma), while the subject paper talks about the pleistocene glacial periods of last 400Ka-1Ma.
Different factors influence average climate over those timescales. In particular, 100ka long Milankovic cycles considered by the paper override the Hansen's tectonic forcings that act on 500ka+ timescales. Therefore, although "the melting cryosphere" appears on your video, I would argue that this video has nothing to do with the article at hand.
It is very important to distinguish the timescale of changes, e.g. while debunking common "climate has changed before" myth.
- rock weathering/volcanoes with tectonic forcings: 500ky+ up to several Ma
- Ice ages with Milankovic forcings: 10ka - 100ky
- AGW: 100y (at least 100 times faster than any natural forcings)
We must make clear distinction about timescales involved, otherwise we fall into the same trap the ignorant "skeptics" have fell with the myth I recalled above.
-
saileshrao at 12:41 PM on 14 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Paul Beckwith's response as a link.
-
saileshrao at 12:40 PM on 14 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Here's Paul Beckwith's response to this SKS article:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/08/toward-genuinely-improved-discussions-of-methane-and-climate.html -
Terranova at 11:53 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Dana1981,
Is the section entitled "Where We Are Today" directly from the study itself, or an add-on from Freya Roberts? The paper is paywalled unless you have another link available.
-
davidnewell at 11:35 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
It is interesting to note the "sea change" beginning to be noted in local papers, and at cocktail partys. Much less "denying" of the facts: the most dominent response to the rising reality is "Oh well, I'll be dead and gone, WTFrack..."
So now begins the penetration of the psyche of the reality that life on this planet is threatened: at the very least, "civilization" is at risk.
Not an easy transition to accept, everyone lives here.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Peter Lang:
1) You incorrectly claim the post above is improperly titled. The title of the post above is "2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B". The post correctly reports the headline of a news article without comment. Are you suggesting that SkS news round up should edit the headlines of news articles on which it reports to fit our understanding of the topic?
2) It is well known that authors of newspaper articles are not responsible for the headlines. They are merely responsible for the contents of the article (and not always all of that). As such any issue you have should be directed at the contents rather than the headlines, and the contents are accurate. They correctly report that wind is "wind energy became the No. 1 source of new U.S. electricity generation capacity".
So, if your complaint is that newspaper editors often distort news stories in the headlines - well granted, but what does that have to do with SkS (unless, of course, your demand is that SkS misquote headlines when they report them)?
All in all, your determination to ascribe an error to SkS for not misquoting a headline is rather self revelatory. Clearly if that is your approach, you will not like SkS. But that has nothing to do with the quality of SkS articles.
-
davidnewell at 10:55 AM on 14 August 2013Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink
KR:
I've read the "comments policy" , KR, and also have read the "geoengineering" thread.
I manage another large bulletin board, and encounter your "this belongs better elsewhere" notation fairly frequently. However, once there have been responses and evolution of the thread, generally moving it causes more problems of meaning.
Yes, the proposal is "geoengineering", but more specifically, it utilizes the "weathering of rock" propereties to effect it's end. (As stated, "effectiveness" needs to be quantified by a third party independent lab..) (will be done within 6 months.)
I am of the opinion that we MUST effect direct air capture, or reap a whirlwind that will be unthinkably destructive. I hope for all our sakes and subsequent generation's sakes, that this approach works, because it is one of very few that appear to be scaleable.
thank you.
David
-
Aristarchus at 10:36 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
In response to Peter Lang #7
But the title of the artice refers to energy.
No, it refers to energy source.
Trolling, personal attacks and conspiracy theories aside, could you provide some numbers, with reference, on the subject of capacity additions versus energy generated by those additions ?
-
davidnewell at 10:35 AM on 14 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
??? Well, we could descend into trivia on this point, but thank you for explaining to me what the term means to you. I would have to defer to your comment aboput saying "what we ar e FOR": it was an error, although a slight one, in my own estimation of my intent.
However, having stated that screwing up the planet is an example of what we are "NOT FOR" is another way to state that a terminal cancer is NOT FOR individual health.
You agree that there is an obvious interconnectedness of everything, You, for example, and me? How about if it was you and me and everybody else and the Earth, and we call it "Gaia" and try to figure out what is needed for "thriving?"
Mostly, you are projecting your own perceptions on me, and then "tilting" at them.
Let's agree that ther is only one god, and we and everyone else bow down to it.
That god is "God Reality", capitals provided only for efffect.
Wiat, have to go pay my Gaia taxes.
-
Peter Lang at 09:34 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Composer 99 and Aristarchus
You need to do some reading to understand the difference between power and energy. Capacity is measured in units of power. But the title of the artice refers to energy. They are totally different. The Renewabl energy industry and advocates try to confuse them to mislead. Clearly they succeed with many people. Both of you need to get some understanding about the basics and what you are reading before quotiong from artciles that are clearly outsidce your area of expertise..
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] Since you have not furnished any examples nor have you supplied reputable evidence of errors replete with emended suggested text itself based in the literature, your continuance in this line of inquiry is sloganeering (snipped).
-
rockytom at 08:11 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Especially for the "armchair" scientists, Coursera is offering a new course on climate change offered by the University of Melbourn. You can go to Coursera.com to enroll.
-
Icarus at 08:01 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Presumably the ice sheet albedo change is relatively straightforward to calculate, and we have data on greenhouse gas changes from ice cores, so is there anything new or substantially different in this study which would lead to different conclusions about fast feedback climate sensitivity - i.e. lower or higher than the generally accepted figure of around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm?
-
Chris8616 at 07:15 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
The linked video content is directly relevant to the question "What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?".
-
michael sweet at 07:08 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Chris,
What is your point? In your linked video Hansen says that volcanoes affect CO2 and climate over eons of time. Current CO2 changes are human caused and are 10,000 times faster than volcanoes.
No-one disputes that in the past volcanoes have affected climate. Current climate change is caused by humans.
-
Chris8616 at 06:35 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
This video explains how volcanoes too can melt the cryosphere.
Prev 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 Next
