Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 Next
Comments 44051 to 44100:
-
Donthaveone at 11:49 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Composer99 @ 5
This is an issue worthy of more discussion, i should say i am not from the US so am not sure where the EPA sits in all this regarding energy policy etc so i cannot comment on political issues one comment by Obama has spiked my interest.
This statement
Agency (EPA) will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, in addition to the rules already in draft form that are set to regulate emissions from new power plants.
Is the intention to apply a tax to the CO2 emissions or to actually reduce the said emissions?
Cheers
-
skywatcher at 11:36 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
@Donthaveone : you do know that Maslowski's prediction was 2016 +/- 3 years don't you? What is your reasoning for thinking such a prediction would be falsified in 2013, when the uncertainty bound is in the range 2013-2019? Do you think the prediction is unreasonable, given the acceleration in ice volume loss?And yes, climate scientists know full well that climate's changed before (#20). Evidence of that is one of the powerful reasons we know that the Earth is sensitive to change in forcing, including changing CO2 levels- approximately 3C per doubling from palaeoclimate data. For me, global warming is what is happening, climate change and climate disruption are the consequences of our increasing the heat content of the Earth system. -
Composer99 at 11:12 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
(On topic:)
While I am hardly either anti-government nor an unqualified booster of markets, I certainly feel that fee-and-dividend, by sending clear price signals and relying on decentralised decision-making, is more likely to gain traction with political conservatives, and takes advantage of, instead of trying to fight, human nature. (And, for those who don't like government, it also means money goes straight into people's pockets.)
So I certainly hope that Congress can get its act together and get on with passing some fee-and-dividend legislation.
However, I suspect that will (a) have to wait for Congressional midterms in 2014, and (b) the Democratic Party will either have to do much better or moderate Republicans will have to win primaries against the Tea Party caucus.
-
Donthaveone at 11:12 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Esop in 14,
You raise some interesting points re Arctic ice however you need to be careful with what you say. For example Professor Wieslaw Maslowski made a rather bold prediction when he stated according to his model the Arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013 (see link below)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Now if we look at the current state of Arctic sea ice we can see it is a long way from being ice free, granted we are a few months away from "peak melt" but the Arctic will not be ice free (see link below)
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Obviously Professor Wieslaw Maslowski got his prediction/projection wrong i will be interested in hearing what his reasonings are.
Moderator Response:[DB] See my response to you below.
-
JasonB at 11:03 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Ah, the feeling that if something is tiny it would surely have a tiny effect — what Peter Hadfield calls the "Feelie Method of Scientific Enquiry".
Yes, let's put that into perspective:
He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).
Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).
Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.
That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).
The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.
Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).
Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.
A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.
All from the appropriately-named "CO2 is just a trace gas" page right here at SkS.
No idea why you thought converting it into feet would help. How big do you think an influenza virus is compared to a person? Ebola? I guess "Feelies" aren't the best method of scientific enquiry after all.
-
Dave123 at 11:02 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
@1
Your myth is covered in this Skeptical Science write-up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
-
Composer99 at 11:02 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
voneschen:
Assuming for the sake of argument that your comment survives moderation, given it is (a) off-topic for this thread and (b) practically constitutes sloganeering, your simplistic analogy, put bluntly, has no basis in the reality of what is going on.
There are many resources, online and in textbooks that are presumably available at public libraries in your general area, which explain the radiative physics of atmospheric gases, and precisely why only the gases identified as greenhouse gases (namely CO2, H2O, and a few others) are important for modulating the outgoing flux of infrared from the Earth's surface, resulting in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Please avail yourself of, say, David Archer's online materials at the University of Chicago before continuing with further, similar analogies which have no bearing on the applicable physics. Certainly you will be in a far better position to ask more interesting and perhaps even incisive questions.
-
Donthaveone at 10:58 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I think AGW is the best title as it states clearly that the globe may warm from mans actions, climate change is not a very good title because the climate changes all the time with or without us. Climate extremes, well we already have that think the poles winter/summer etc.
-
voneschen at 10:38 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
CO2 is now 400 parts per million. Lets put that in a new perspective. Lets use "feet per million". Therefore air is 78% nitrogen or about 780,000 feet per million or about 140 miles. Oxygen is about 21% or about 40 miles and that leaves 1% of other gases, mostly Argon, or not quite 2 miles. Then CO2 is 400 parts per million or 400 feet. So all the gases except CO2 will reach 999,600 feet or just about the distance across Minnesota's midsection from SD to Wisc. and the CO2 will reach from home plate to the fence at Target Field. So What the hell"s the big deal?
-
Skeptical Still at 10:17 AM on 26 June 2013Climate's changed before
Thanks to those that responded to my post- I will look through the references and continue to visit this site; it’s the best representation I’ve found for the pro-manmade argument. I am open to the idea and willing to review more data but I remain unconvinced. Thanks again.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
I would also say that paper is interesting for what it doesn’t find. While the authors are correctly cautious about their findings, and point to alternative explanations, they do indeed find significant ocean warming and not a “same as” picture that the “its just a natural cycle” crowd would have expected. By itself the comparison doesn’t “prove” anything but the findings are consistent with current climate theory.
-
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Donthaveone, the paper I linked included the discussion of the errors and raises a number of issues. The article however is about a followup pape which further delves into those questions and uses combination of both data and ocean thermodynamic modelling to look at spatiala and temporal variability. It is unfortunate that no freely accessible version exists yet but you could follow up with the authors as suggested above.
-
Zen69 at 06:11 AM on 26 June 2013It's the sun
I have recently had a conversation with a 'sceptic' friend who believes 'it's the sun' . Showed him figure 1 to which he appeared slightly aggitated and suggested that whoever produced the chart was being misleading as it is based on the 11 year average, and this is not as reliable as the 'smooth' average. Apparantly the smooth average shows much less of a divegency between solar avtivity in temps from 1980 onwards. Can anyone enlighten me as to what he is on about? Thanks.
-
HK at 04:30 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Esop #11:
Let me guess.
You are referring to the climate "realist" Ole Henrik Ellestad in the program Debatten that aired on June 6th. I didn’t even bother to watch the whole program because I was almost certain about the result, and I was right.Ellestad got a chance to deliver his "climate’s changed before" and "CO2 lags temperature" arguments and nobody present were qualified or got the chance to argue against him.
I wonder when NRK will actually let a real climate scientist thoroughly and without interruptions debunk some of the specific arguments that the deniers are promoting. It hasn’t happened yet.
-
KR at 04:30 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
HK - Quite right, in that a continuing radiative imbalance coupled with a "hiatus" period means that the oceans are accumulating heat faster during that time. Thus a hiatus period essentially acts to speed (or in a warmer atmosphere period, slow) the climates response to any imbalance, changing the settling time to equilibrium.
In fact, a hiatus period (accompanied by accelerated circulation of warmed water into the deeper ocean) actually increases any existing imbalance - and again warms the climate faster. A period of radiative imbalance with a hiatus period will in sum result in a greater number of joules accumulated over that period.
-
heb0 at 04:07 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Whenever I talk about Global Warming, I generally try to stress that "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" describe different parts of an overall effect that we tend to lump together. So, while it may be a mouthful, I'll use phrases like "Climate Change as a result of human-caused Global Warming."
No matter what, I'm also hesitant to use "Climate Change" more frequently than "Global Warming." Global Warming is an effect much closer to the source: our GHG emissions. Climate Change is simply the response to that and, to me, it's so far down the line that it doesn't "click" for people.
As for other terms (climate disruption), I think they're even further down the wrong path. The ideas they convey have only very minor differences, and they do nothing but lead people to believe the myth that the nomenclature is some sort of worldwide scientific conspiracy because one or more of the words is "no longer happening."
The only improvement over "Global Warming" (or, better yet, the incredibly wordy phrase I like to use) that I could think of would perhaps be "Global Heating," simply because it stresses energy rather than temperature changes. But that's getting pretty pedantic, and not really worth it in my opinion. -
BillEverett at 03:42 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I agree with CBDunkerson regarding terms. "Global warming" is the best term for the current human-caused climate change because it is the main characteristic feature of the change.
I would use the term "climate disruption" for relatively short-term deviations from the long-term climate. Major volcanic eruptions typically cause a climate disruption lasting for several years. Other singular events might cause a climate disruption lasting for several decades or centuries (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Younger Dryas).
Imagining a miracle, I would call what happened a human-caused climate disruption if we quickly stopped burning fossil fuels and reduced greenhouse gases to something close to the pre-industrial concentrations, resulting in a reversal of the warming and a return to a congenial climate over the next century.
-
HK at 03:25 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
I have noticed something interesting:
The top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance (left columns in figure 3) barely changes from hiatus decades to decades with accelerated warming.
Shouldn’t the climate system as a whole accumulate more heat during hiatus decades because the colder surface loses less heat through radiation and evaporation? Shouldn’t heat that is stored in the deep oceans be much "safer" from being lost to space than heat in the upper oceans and atmosphere?
Can this apparent contradiction be explained by positive feedbacks?
After all, feedbacks like the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere only respond to surface warming, not the warming in the deep oceans. Could it be that the increasing feedbacks cancel out the amplified heat loss during decades with accelerated warming, keeping the TOA energy imbalance more or less stable as long as the forcing is steadily growing?
-
grindupBaker at 03:12 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
A good assembly of information to study but I have a quibble with the title. Has a question that's rhetorical as phrased - I would not think it possible that warmer oceans over centuries have no effect in the atmosphere and just sit quietly down there (more energy for more weather). I don't quite agree with "Come Back" as the descriptive phrase. Sun heat will in general keep moving through into ocean. So, I'm adding "...in next few years" in my mind to your title to clarify that you are theorizing that we might fairly soon get the 1st of the larger weather events that will become increasingly standard over the coming centuries/millenia.
-
Ger at 02:23 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Isn't the escalator graph not showing this phenomena in a perfect way?
-
CBDunkerson at 02:14 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Actually, I prefer 'global warming' to 'climate change' or 'climate disruption'. It is more precise in that it explains the primary underlying shift. Yes, the climate is changing and being disrupted... because the planet is getting warmer. Leaving out that the issue is warming would be like having a daily weather report stating, 'big weather changes tomorrow - be prepared!'. Prepared for what, exactly?
How do we prove that 'climate change' hasn't stopped? By showing that warming has continued.
Yes, the simple term 'global warming' doesn't convey all the complexities of what can happen as that warming causes air and ocean currents to shift, but climate change/disruption provides even less information.
-
David Kirtley at 01:48 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
If you're interested in helping out with on-going, crowd-source research using old ship logs you can "hop aboard" one of these vessels and help transcribe the data at OldWeather. I'm aboard the US Concord which sailed all over the world in the late 1800s.
-
Composer99 at 00:56 AM on 26 June 2013There is no consensus
PeterBCourt:
Even if one does not feed the trolls, misinformation must still be examined and addressed.
So your unveiling of Schollenberger's straw-grasp is IMO a very useful exercise.
-
angliss at 00:52 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
shoyemore@8 - MT's idea to drop "global warming" is a good one. He's incorrect, however, that Holdren coined the term "climate disruption" - it's been in use since well beore Holdren came along, and I started using it at S&R before Holdren started working for President Obama. That said, however, Holdren did popularize "climate disruption."
-
Dumb Scientist at 00:36 AM on 26 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Sorry for the delay. I now think more than 10,000 Monte Carlo runs are necessary for stable statistics, but I'm traveling now and only have access to my netbook. When I return home next Monday I'll try 1,000,000 runs on my desktop and reply as soon as possible.
-
PeterBCourt at 22:43 PM on 25 June 2013There is no consensus
I've waded into some discussions recently and have presented some of the points here on the consensus. This to me is a very key issue, because if one cant discredit it, then the only option is looney conspiracy theories involving very large numbers of scientists over decades. Lets face it, the average (and even not so average) person is not going to be able to comphrehend and judge the detail of any scientific discussions. Its all about who you are willing to trust.
I came across a rebuttal quoting Andrew Montford at bishop hill quoting Brandon Shollenberger. Now I know many feel that Shollenberger is an extreme wingnut, and Troll who is best not fed, but he is all excited about finding a hole in theconsensus project.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/ 17May2013.
It took me a little to understand what he is on about. His statements on the relative numbers of each Endorsement levels. A reminder that these levels are:
1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4. No Position
5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
8. UndecidedHis incorrect claim is that the top rating 1 - (only 65 papers) is smaller than the "Oppose AGW" numbers at 77 rejects. But he is comparing Level 1 alone with the bottom 3 levels 5,6 and 7.
The correct comparison of course is top 3 with bottom 3, which is 3898 Endorses vrs 77 rejects, and 7976 that state no opinion.
Amazing at how they are grasping at straws to overcome a mountain of evidence. Well .. disgusting actually.
-
Esop at 20:55 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
The funny thing is that when we hit a new record in the surface temps in 2010, the deniers make a lot of noise that the surface measurements only represented a tiny 2% of the whole system. How things change. I will bet that once the next Nino hits and we get a new surface record, it will be back to the same tune.
Just like Arctic sea ice. If 2013 does not go lower than 2012, they will scream recovery and coming ice age, but when 2014 or 2015 smashes the 2012 record, they will claim that it is all natural and they knew it would happen all along. Denial is easy when you can make up your own facts and reality, and the press never questions it, but call upon you as an expert on the topic.
-
Icarus at 20:46 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Hmmm...
-
Icarus at 20:43 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Tamino provides a nice simple graphic showing that global temperature remains within the projected range based on previous decades of warming:
<img width="450" src="http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/giss.jpg" alt="">
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/2012-updates-to-trend-observation-comparisons/
-
Esop at 20:37 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
A very timely article, Dana.
Just this morning, one of Norway's major newpapers, Finansavisen, ran an editorial perpetuating the very same myths.
No surprise, though. Norway has more outspoken deniers per capita than any other nation on earth. Humlum and Giæver are just two of many.
NRK (Norway's BBC) has a bad habit of inviting denialists, but no climate scientists when debating global warming. A well informed denier knows the talking points and will run over a representative from the Green Party andy day of the week.
This is just one tool in the state owned TV Channels quest to form public opinion and gather support for continued explotation of FF reserves in the North Sea and Arctic, securing continuation of major cash flow for the state owned oil company.
-
Icarus at 20:36 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Sea level rise continues unabated, which is surely another indication that there has been no slowdown in global warming, even without the OHC data.
-
Terranova at 20:29 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
John at.11
It's possible. Acceleration or deceleration ate inevitable.
-
Ken in Oz at 19:11 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned - you don't think humanity has the intelligence to foresee the consequences of our actions, sufficient ethics to act like it matters or the collective organisation capable of incorporating scientific foresight into effective government policies and regulations? You seem to be saying that even knowing that climate change makes bubonic plague seem inconsequential you think no government level efforts should even be attempted due to certainty of failure.
-
shoyemore at 17:40 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Michael Tobis comments:
It’s tempting, then, to say “global warming has not stopped, it has just gone underwater”, but I think this is an opportunity to let go of the always poorly chosen name “global warming”.
I believe John Holdren coined the term “climate disruption”, and I think it is exactly right.
-
Paul D at 17:33 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
ajki@6
You might find this article useful:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
-
grindupBaker at 16:56 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
The period 1550 -1850 was known as "Little Ice Age", appears drop maybe 0.5 degrees C just eyeballing graphs. So, I do not see how finding that ocean heat was less ~1870 A.D. than previously thought leads to the conclusion of increased anthropogenic warming 1873–1955 unless the prior computations include a quantitative assessment of what the ocean heat change would have been during that period with no anthropogenic warming.
-
Donthaveone at 15:04 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
To scaddenp,
I read the paper you provided, it does detail potential errors in the readings from the Challenger and the authors appear to do thier best to take these errors into account.
They say all the errors add a warm bias to the measurements therefore the Challenger data is reduced in magnitude, obviously the larger the reduction the larger the trend over the 135 years becomes.
So i suppose it comes down to how much confidence you have in the data and according to the authors i would say that is not too much when they say
Obviously, these local differences may represent any timescale in the 135-year intervalfrom a transient meander of the Gulf Stream in 1873 to a long-term change in the current's latitude. Similarly, regional to ocean-scale differences may be affected by interannual to decadal15,16 variability, including in the deep ocean17, and hence our Challenger-to-Argo difference based on stations along the Challenger track must be viewed with caution.
That said i found it an interesting study and according to the authors the results show a warming on centenial time scales
The larger temperature change observed between the Challenger expedition and Argo Programme, both globally (0.33 C +/-0.14, 0-700 m) and separately in the Atlantic(0.58 C +/-0.12) and Pacific (0.22 C+/-0.11), therefore seems to be associated with the longer timescale of a century or more. The implications of centennial-scale warming of the subsurface oceans extend beyond the climate system's energy imbalance.
What the authors are saying is that the positive trend in OHC can be extended right back to the 1870's (Challenger data).
In summary, this paper uses data that cannot be considered accurate but if we were to accept these results as they are the trend shown in this data is similar to other studies and tthey show the trend extends back well before man could have started to change the climate through CO2 emissions. This paper is not a new discovery, this paper adds to what is already known and that is OHC and therfore SLR has been increasing at a steady rate for well over a century.
I believe the headline "Is more global warming hiding in the ocean" to be an inaccurate description of what the paper discusses and declares.
Thanks again for supplying the paper
Cheers
-
Tom Curtis at 14:25 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
DSL @4, it is the equivalent in energy content to two small nuclear weapons when averaged över the increase in OHC since the 1960s. Over the last decade, it has average near 4.6 times the energy release by the Little Boy bomb.
Personally I do not think the comparison is apt on two grounds. Firstly, in terms of physics, while the energy content is equivalent, the entropy of an atomic explosion is much less than that from the TOA energy imbalance. Because of this, a single small fission bomb has greater capacity to cause harm than does the TOA energy imbalance, even though the later is global in extent. Put another way, if some alien race were dropping four small fission bombs at random locations around the globe every second, we would be in no doubt as to the destructive effect of the energy release. In contrast, the greater energy release from the TOA energy imbalance can only, currently, be shown to be causing harm by statistical analysis.
Second, I do not consider it appropriate to use the tragedy of Hiroshima for merely illustrative purpose. Strictly speaking, John Cook referred to the bomb itself rather than its consequences for illustrative purposes, but I see no benefit in even coming close to that line.
-
ajki at 14:21 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I'm not very happy with this (kind of) "liberal" approach on terms. When that what has been measured and shown by the scientific community throughout ages is "global warming" - then by all means call it so. The term "climate change" smells like "denier spirit" - just to come by with this usual "well hey, that's ok - climate will always change". Using the wrong term for the noted phenomenon will get us nowhere.
-
Donthaveone at 14:07 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
I do believe GillianB is referring to this statement
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-like-atom-bomb-scientists/story-fn3dxiwe-1226668054364
Or habe (Hiroshima atomic bomb equivalents) but alas i do not know how this figure was reached.
-
Donthaveone at 13:45 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Mod,
I have read the comments policy and i do accept i erred when i copied and pasted a statement for which i appologise, i did not complain to a moderator i merely asked what the word meant as i did not recognise it. I have no idea what was inflammatory but if a mod feels it is then so be it.
In response do the mods feel it is acceptable to percieve ones tone and then make unsubstantiated comments based on that perception?
Also do the mods feel it acceptable that one can claim the use of the word "Cheers" when ending a post to be an indication of ones true intentions?
Moderator Response:[DB] Per the Comments Policy :
No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.
For those genuinely wishing to engage others on the science of climate change...and the denial of it, then Skeptical Science is the place to do that. However, please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. The Comments Policy is a common set of rules that everyone here observes and abides by.
Lastly, please note that moderation policies are not open for discussion.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it; this will allow yourself to participate in a rich discussion. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
DSL at 13:32 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
It's two hiroshimas per second, if you're talking about ocean heat content gain. I haven't seen a calc for the other two or the other parts of the climate system. Of course, OHC 0-2000m has spiked in recent months . . .
-
GillianB at 13:23 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
Hi, can someone point me towards the calculations behind the 'four Hiroshimas a second' statement?
Thanks, Gillian
-
DSL at 13:09 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Yah, I second what Rob points out.
Skeptical Still: "I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."
Start with the greenhouse effect. If it's highly probable (it's been measured in lab for over a century, inferred from satellite for decades, directly measured from the surface for a couple of decades (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004), and successfully accounted for in products such as air-to-air missiles), then we have a basic energy imbalance situation. Add GHGs, and the climate system stores more energy. No matter what any other forcing is doing, and no matter what alternative is offered, the enhanced greenhouse effect must be accounted for. If you don't believe that humans are responsible for the rapid rise in CO2, there are threads for that. If you don't think that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, Lacis et al. 2010 is a fairly readable explanation why it is.
The paleo data simply helps constrain the net feedback both in terms of strength and timing. It does not provide evidence for the basic theory. That's just physics. -
scaddenp at 12:46 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical Still.
Okay, how about looking at a longer (2000 years say). The important thing is actually to take a long enough record to be able to distinguish the signal from noise. This depends on S/N ratio.
"I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it)." I find this strange coming from a fellow geologist. Firstly its not normal to talk of proof in science, only maths gets that. Second, there is a vast geological literature on the paleoclimate and forces. For starters you should look at IPCC WG1 Chp 6 for the basic background but follow cites from key papers and you will see new research. Hansen and Sato 2012 is discussed here. Note Fig 3 especially.
"Cant predict weather so cant predict climate" is a very old myth. See here for pointers to the science. I would strongly suggest you work your way through the "arguments" button on the top left of this page so see what science has to say about these myths.
-
michael sweet at 12:29 PM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical,
If you have a degree in Geology you will be aware that changing sea level leaves geological records. This link has data you might appreciate covering the last 40 million years. Is that enough for you? The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians all left records of sea level. These records extend the well documented record back 4,000 years. You cannot expect to have world wide tide gauge records longer than 150 years, scientific measurements have only been done for that long.
You are confusing climate and weather. Climate is much easier to forecast than weather. I do not know if there will be a storm in two weeks. It will certaily be colder in January than it is now in Florida. Read the background information before you challenge people who are much more informed than you are. If you do not understand the basics you cannot hope to master more complex subjects. The ice core data is compared to model projections to determine how the various forcings interact. This is one of the ways the models are validated. If you do not understand how the data is examined, how can you expect to understand "incredible" results?
It is not the responsibility of this web site to spoon feed you all climate science. You must read the background information so that you can ask reasonable questions. I suggest you go to the "start here" button at the top of the page. Ask a few questions about items you do not understand. You will sound like you want to learn more with a better attitude.
If you do not look at the data you will never see "incredible" evidence. That does not mean that the data does not exist, just that you have not looked for it yet. Arhennius predicted in 1896 that the increase of CO2 would increase temperatures more in winter than summer, more at night than in the day, more over land than sea, more in the arctic than the tropics and more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere. All these predictions have been measured in the last several decades. That sounds pretty "incredible" to me. What is your alternate explaination for the collapse of Arctic sea ice (keep in mind that the "skeptics" still deny the ice is melting and predict a recovery every year)?
We all wish that AGW theory was wrong. Unfortunately, the data indicate that is not the case.
-
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned - I find this very hard to comprehend. You are skeptical about published science because people are asking for something to be done? Because studies to date show that mitigating will be way cheaper than adaptation? This makes no sense at all. Let me put another example. Suppose science instead finds that there is asteroid on collision path with earth with 99% probability and also put up a number of potential avenues by which this might be averted. Are you going to be skeptical that the asteroid exists because they are funnily enough jumping up and down and asking for something to be done about it? What should they do?
This sounds very much like this little piece of logic:
"If AGW is true, then it is better to mitigate. I dont like proposals for mitigation, ergo AGW cant be true."
Is that really what you mean? On the other hand, solutions to date have had a lot of trouble gaining traction, particularly with with political right. Perhaps you would like to take the challenge here and say what you think should be done if you were convinced AGW needed mitigation.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:57 AM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
Skeptical Still...
First I have to ask, do you believe that the researchers who have spent decades studying this subject understand their field of science? Those researcher are extremely clear about how serious this issue is. What I get from your comments is that, not only are you "not yet convinced," you seem to have already made up your mind before fully understanding the issue.
This is definitely a field of science where there are considerable uncertainties in many areas. Thus, it requires getting to know many more of the elements of the research in order to grasp how all the pieces fit together.
This is the point I usually direct people to Richard Alley's AGU lecture.
"I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."
And this is where I usually point out the basic radiative physics of CO2.
"To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong."
And this is where I agree wholeheartedly. But the concern is that the evidence is overwhelming at this point. It's very unlikely to be wrong. The remaining question is merely, is it going to be bad, or is it going to be really bad? Or, hope beyond hope, can we stomp on the brakes and get our trajectory under control fast?
-
Skeptical Still at 11:24 AM on 25 June 2013Climate's changed before
I stumbled on this webpage and appreciate the huge amount of work, data and analysis that goes into it. I have a degree in Geology and understand the arguments yet I'm not convinced and I'll site two examples. 1. The text posted alongside a graph showing sea level rise cautions the reader not to focus on a small set of points (with a ruler) as any trend line can be visible in a small data set. We are cautioned further to look at the entirety of the data. The first thing I noticed is that the data is only available to the mid-1800s. This ~180 year span is a tiny sliver of geologic time- even since the last ice age. We don’t seem to have a data set covering a span of time long enough to be meaningful. Why draw a conclusion from incomplete data? 2. Ice cores are presented as providing data on volcanic dust, atmospheric gases and other forces that worked to cause previous climate change. I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it). The inference I took is that we fully understand the mechanics of the earth’s climate and can account for the causes of past climate change. Given our meager ability currently to forecast the weather and predict storms this does not seem to be true. I’m not a ‘denier’ nor is my head in the sand. I’m offended by these terms and refuse to hold a civil discussion with anyone resorting to name calling. My position, to paraphrase, is that incredible claims require incredible evidence. I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause. To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong. P.S. I don't seem to have mastered the formatting capabilities of the software- please forgive the lack of structure in my writing.
-
Ken in Oz at 11:17 AM on 25 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
"The transport of ocean heat to depths, and to the poles, will drastically slow down, and this will allow the surface of the tropical oceans to warm rapidly."
This is -dare I say the word? - alarming.
Are we already getting long lived warm zones in deep water beneath and around the gyres? How much heat and time before that drastic slowing down?
My own interest in ocean heat has been mostly as a better way to communicate the ongoing nature of the ghg induced change in global heat balance in the face of strident claims that warming has been slowing down. The ups and downs of global air temperatures allow the unfortunate impression that global warming is something that waxes and wanes; Dana and co's combined ocean, land, ice and atmosphere heat content shows much less internal variability and, if used as a reference measure, would probably never go as long as one American or Australian election cycle without showing clear signs of ongoing warming.
Prev 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 Next
