Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 Next
Comments 45751 to 45800:
-
grindupBaker at 06:08 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
eschwarzbach @ 6 Another way to view situation when "CS target remain stable". If, say, +2.8 degrees required to balance TOA in/out, I see no logical reason why 80% lowest ocean, now at ~6 degrees avge, will not need to be ~9 degrees avge before all is stable in centuries/millenia.
-
grindupBaker at 05:43 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Should add @10 "thin veneer" for surface temp includes top ocean veneer. Need to study to decide a reasonable few metres depth in which thermal conductivity & local mixing significant. It's most significant because each ~6.5m ocean depth = all land+air heat. Land is significant for radiation balance only, not heat content, because it's mostly quite dark albedo.
-
grindupBaker at 04:47 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
eschwarzbach @ 6 "Global Warming" is an increase in the ocean heat content. I suggest a lay person will have endless difficulty contemplating land-air & ocean surface temperature unless they start by understanding it's just heat moving through into ocean, has 97.5%, freshwater=2.3%, land+air=0.2% of ecosystem heat content. Land solid has no currents so thin veneer only involved (I read ~6.5m deep somewhere), ocean liquid so heat mixes ~6km deep (ex. trenches) ~4km avge, but over centuries-to-millenia. Equator to poles top veneer takes heat, warms poles, saltier, drops, returns at depth. Tiny bits of ocean heat like ENSO sucking in & burping out seem really big to us on/in the negligible 0.2% land+air bit. Surface temperature is (1) a proxy (2) a symptom (3) what determines heat in/out balance at TOA. Example: if ocean mixing slowed to stop for few years (just fantasy for example) land+air reaches TOA balance quickly at "final" temp & AGW pauses. Ocean mixing resumes in (unrealistic) example, surface temp drops & AGW resumes. Humans now see "global cooling" when it's the exact opposite - AGW now resumed. Exaggerated example shows why must understand ocean mass, depth, heat capacity (572 yrs for +1C @ +0.9 wm**-2 is what I computed), currents before can hope to understand surface temperature changes.
-
KK Tung at 04:25 AM on 12 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Reply to post 3 by Kevin C:The relationship between large volcano eruptions and each of the cooling periods for the past 400 years was examined in our PNAS paper. They don't quite line up. Also one needs a series of very large volcano eruptions to have a cooling period that lasts 30 years. Volcanic aerosols do not stay in the stratosphere for more than a year in substantial amount, and ocean inertia may prolong the cooling effect by up to seven years but with diminishing cooling. The time profile is very different than the observed cooling. One can also see in historical data large volcanoes eruptions that did not lead to a cooling period.
-
KK Tung at 04:16 AM on 12 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Reply to post 1 by Bob Tisdale: Thanks!
Reply to post 2 by IanC: Sorry for the late reply; I didn't know my post was finally published online after a long wait, and so I am late catching up with all the good comments.
I mentioned in part 2 the result of using different AMO index, in particular the index by Trenberth and Shea. It is towards the end of that long post.
-
dana1981 at 01:41 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
eschwarzbach @6 - equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the warming in response to any CO2 doubling on century timescales. In reality the exact amount of warming will differ at different temperatures, because some different feedbacks will probably apply, but it's a pretty good approximation.
Most equilibrium warming occurs within several decades. About two-thirds happens almost immediately (the transient response). Within a century after reaching a stable equilibrium state, just about all equilibrium warming should have occurred. However, there is also Earth System Sensitivity (in the ballpark of 6–8°C for doubled CO2), which acts on millennial timescales. This is due to very slow feedbacks, mainly large bodies of ice that take a very long time to melt.
If you scroll over the words climate sensitivity, our glossary will pop up and give you the IPCC definition of the term.
-
dana1981 at 01:35 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Sam martin @3 - sensitivity isn't assumed, it's an output of climate models based on their simulations of the Earth's climate. And of course estimates from past climate changes (paleoclimate) are based on observations, not models. I'm not sure about the exact cloud feedback uncertainty, but it's pretty large.
-
meher engineer at 01:02 AM on 12 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Re. eschwarzbach @ 6, as Andy Lacis said, "In the Hansen et al. (1988, JGR, 93, 9341–9364) paper we derived the logarithmic type formula
F(X) = log [ 1 + 1.2 X + 0.005 X2 + 0.0000014 X3 ]
where X is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm. This formula gives the radiative forcing in terms of equivalent temperature change rather than in W/m2. Thus, for 350 ppm, F(350) = 7.0 °C (or 7.0/33.0 = 21.2% of the total (emphasis added_ terrestrial greenhouse effect), while for doubled CO2 (emphasis added) the formula yields ΔTo = F(700) – F(350) = 1.23 °C". That quote appears as a comment in http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/adding-up-the-greenhouse-effect-attributing-the-contributions/. It should take care of your first question. Re the others, Climate sensitivity usually refers to the equilibrium state. It takes a long time to reach that state because of the Ocean's huge thermal inertia. How long? Close to a thousand years, if slow feedbacks are taken on board. Finally, the CS does not depend onthe rate at which you add CO2 to the air. The article by Colose is a good place to understand the subject.
-
eschwarzbach at 23:24 PM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Please, help me understand some points on Climate Sensitivity. Does it refer to doubling of CO2 concentration from preindustrial times, the doubling from the present 400 ppm or for any doubling of CO2 concentration? After how much time after the doubling will the temperature reach the value idicated by CS? Does CS depend on how fast the CO2 concentration raises? And will the temperature after reaching the CS target remain stable or rise further? Where can I find the exact definition of CS?
Erik
-
rugbyguy59 at 17:54 PM on 11 May 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Thanks Rob.
-
shoyemore at 17:15 PM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Peter Gleick has an excellent post here about the Pliocene climate with a lot of links.
-
Paul W at 16:38 PM on 11 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
While I agree with the comments above. There has not been a mention of the GE Toshiba nuclear battery that is designed to be a small 4th generation replacement for the coal burning part of a coal fired power station. The remainder of the power station remains just the heat source changes.
Most of the opposition to nuclear is to teh old Cold War vintage 2nd generation with all it's melt down, waste plutonium production, very large size, very large water use, very high cost.
The 4th generation GE Toshiba design is waiting on regulatory approval and can be roled out in a modular form to a very large number of sites. The design is unstaffed after instalation and has passive control mechanisms.
It could change the coal trajectory and the CO2 levels would not have to risk civilisation.
Sustainables may be more workable than only rewnewables.
-
Rob Painting at 16:33 PM on 11 May 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Rugbyguy59 - No. There's basically nothing to respond to. Their 'step-change' claim is nonsensical though, and is easily appreciated by looking at the sea level trend over the period of 2004-2008, a period which Douglass & Knox claim the Earth's radiative balance was negative . The ocean is by far the Earth's largest reservoir of heat (around 93% of global warming goes into it), and a negative radiative balance would imply the thermal expansion component of sea level rise was also negative during that period. Sea level rise should have seen a dramatic plunge, but no such thing happened.
Then there's the problem of the Earth undergoing instantaneous net loss and gain of heat. How would it be possible to instantaneously mix heat into the ocean, and then lose it again? How could that heat escape the ocean without warming the ocean surface, and cooking the atmosphere, on its way out to space?
Drawing lines on a graph, as they did, does not deflect attention away from the physical impossibilty of it all.
-
rugbyguy59 at 12:24 PM on 11 May 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Dana, did you, or anyone else on the team, respond to the Douglas and Knox reply published online in Nov 2012? It seems to me they are just saying they prefer their noisy data. Is there any substnce to their claims?
-
Bert from Eltham at 10:50 AM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Many years ago I had a lecturer in Mechanical Engineering who described the first building that had a comprehensive centrally controlled air conditioning system that he had designed. Complaints from the new occupants were thick and fast. Rooms were 'too hot' or 'too cold'. His solution was to put a 'thermostat' that people could adjust in every room. These 'thermostats' were not connected to the system! All complaints stopped!
Control is either illusory or real. Sometimes the illusion is more real.
How long will people ignore the realities? I am afraid that when only New York is flooded it may happen.
Bert
-
Riduna at 09:39 AM on 11 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
Mikeh 1
Thank you for referencing Galilee Basin coal development which notes capital investment in the Galilee Basin by Hancock Coal and two major Indian interests – Adani and GVK Enterprises - for development of what will be the largest coal mine in the world. Its product is destined for India and tends to weaken the argument put forward by Justin Guay.
Rinehart and Adani are far too shrewd to be putting their money into coal on spec or without assurances of demand and a market.
I agree with Guay that it is absurd for India to build all of the proposed coal fired power plants. However until technology development enables similar-scale generation of electricity from renewable sources at a cost below that of coal, it seems likely that the present building program will be implemented, though hopefully never completed.
-
Riduna at 09:32 AM on 11 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
Sceptical Wombat … You correctly note that China increased its wind power by more than it increased its coal fired electricity production. Commendable - but coal fired production nevertheless expanded.
I agree with you when you say that “it is misleading to simply quote the number of new power plants”. That is why I also included Table 4 which shows domestic production and consumption of coal and the figures for China speak for themselves.
The decision of the Chinese government to close dirtier power stations is to be applauded since this should reduce coal use and CO2 emissions. To-date the opposite has occurred. In 2010 China was a net coal exporter but by 2012 had become a net importer of >200,000,000 tonnes. In 2013 consumption of coal is reported as exceeding 4 billion tonnes for the first time. This shows that coal consumption, at present, continues to grow.
-
Sam martin8679 at 08:28 AM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Thanks very much for a good article. If warming due to CO2 doubling is 1.2 degrees and most models have lower sensitivity values of 1.5 degrees with means of around 3 C presumably the models all assume some overall positive feedback. How much uncertainty is there about cloud feedback?
-
KR at 05:56 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Dr. Tung - "The Granger test with annual data will fail to show the lag of the atmosphere, thus showing the global temperature to be causal."
If you examine the correlation of monthly data, as Tamino did here, the AMO has a 2-3 month lag behind global temperatures. It may be that annual data is a bit coarse for this analysis.
I continue to feel that the upward trend of the AMO is an effect, not a cause, of global warming, that the linear AMO detrending retains part of the GW signal and inappropriately removes it in the regression analysis, decreasing the apparent anthropogenic GW signal. The linear detrended AMO is not (as per Trenberth and Shea 2006) an independent variable.
In addition, I would again point to Anderson et al 2012, who find from a strictly energy conservation point of view (ocean heat content versus surface temperatures) that:
"...results indicate that less than 10% of the long-term historical increase in global-mean near-surface temperatures over the last half of the twentieth century could have been the result of internal climate variability"
[Emphasis added]
Arguments over regression order and detrending aside, there is sufficient evidence to show that the AMO is not capable of causing large portions of recent warming through internal variations (it would have greatly changed the observed OHC values), indicating that results pointing to large AMO contributions suffer from issues.
-
KR at 05:34 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
Dr. KK Tung - You stated that "atmospheric CO2 has been measured to increase almost exponentially".
This is incorrect, CO2 is increasing more than exponentially over the last century, and the CO2 portion of forcings is therefore increasing faster than linearly.
-
KR at 05:29 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
jdixon1980 - What DS said:
Notice that CO2's radiative forcing increases faster after 1950, because increasing CO2 faster also increases its logarithm faster. That's what makes the forcing "slightly more curvy than linear".
Now if CO2 were increasing in a polynomial fashion, its log (while still increasing with CO2 - the log of a larger number is larger than the log of a smaller number), would by definition have a positive first derivative, but would have a negative second derivative - less than exponential growth, less than linear forcing increase. If that polynomial grew larger (faster growth curve), the log would increase faster than it would otherwise have, with a higher (although potentially still negative) second derivative.
In the case of actual CO2 measures, the growth of CO2 is higher than exponential, the log of CO2 has positive first and second derivatives. DS did skip a step, though, and did not mention that CO2 growth is faster than exponential.
But no matter what, if the rate of growth of a value increases, the growth of the log of that value (always with a positive first derivative under growth) will grow faster than it would without that increase.
-
jdixon1980 at 05:01 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
For a reality check, I asked my friend Lucas about it (a math professor and a Climate Reality Leader with the Climate Reality Project). Some of his reply went a little over my head on a quick reading, but the gist of it is that whether increasing the first derivative of a function will also increase the first derivative of its logarithm depends on what the function is:
"J: Just because a function's derivative is increasing doesn't mean the derivative of the log of the function is increasing. For a function's log to have increasing derivative, it must satisfy a certain differential equation: d^2(ln(f))/dt^2 = (f(t)f''(t)-(f'(t))^2)/f^2(t) > 0 <=> f(t)f''(t) > (f'(t))^2. This is never true for lines (f''(t) = 0) and typically not true for polynomials (for a polynomial with leading term x^n, the leading term on the left is n(n-1)x^(2n-2) and the leading term on the right is n^2x^(2n-2), so the right always eventually dominates).
However, I'm not sure that's what DS meant. DS might mean that if you increase the first derivative of f then you also increase the first derivative of ln(f). More formally, if f(0) = g(0) and f'(t) > g'(t) for t > 0 then (ln(f(t)))' > (ln(g(t)))' for t > 0. Even this might not be true though. For it to be true, we would need the following differential equation to hold: (ln(f(t)))' = f'(t)/f(t) > g'(t)/g(t) = (ln(g(t)))', or equivalently f'(t)g(t) > f(t)g'(t). This now holds true for lines (if f(t) = at+f(0) and g(t) = bt+f(0), the differential equation is abt+af(0) > abt+bf(0), which is true exactly when f'(t) = a > b = g'(t)). It is also true for pure exponential functions (if f(t) = a^t and g(t) = b^t then the diff eq becomes ln(a)a^tb^t > ln(b)b^ta^t, which is true iff a > b iff f'(t) > g'(t)). But for more complicated functions, the exact relationship depends on the functions involved."
-
jdixon1980 at 04:28 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
KR @45 "Abrupt or not, if CO2 concentration shows a faster increase over time, the Ln(CO2) will also show a faster increase over time." This broad mathematical proposition is false, as I showed above by the counterexample in which CO2 = t^2. But the point is moot because, as you point out, we can see from observation that ln(CO2) actually is increasing faster over time. I know that now, because you pointed it out to me, though it wasn't clear to me from DS's statement at 7. The reason why the mathematical proposition holds true in for the particular case of CO2 as a function of time is that CO2 apparently is not proportional to t^2, or for that matter even to e^t (the second derivative of ln(N*e^t) being zero, not positive), but to something even higher order than that.
SkS is good for people like me who are technically literate (I'm a patent attorney with a mechanical engineering degree, which is admittedly growing stale after ten years) but lack broad climate knowledge, precisely because of instances like this: I read something that confuses me by contradicting what I remember from first-semester calculus, I comment about it, and someone like you can straighten me out by explaining the context that makes sense of the confusing statement, in this case by showing me that the confusing statement wasn't intended as broadly as its literal reading.
-
KR at 02:32 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
jdixon1980 - While I used N and N+1 for illustration, there hasn't been a sudden abrupt shift, but rather (as seen in the CO2 data) an increase in the rate of CO2 increase rising over time, a positive second derivative. And a fairly simple check on this, taking the ln(CO2) and looking at its behavior over time, shows that forcing is actually increasing greater than linearly, that CO2 is increasing greater than exponentially.
Abrupt or not, if CO2 concentration shows a faster increase over time, the Ln(CO2) will also show a faster increase over time.
-
jdixon1980 at 02:15 AM on 11 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
KR @42, 43 - thanks for the clarification that time is a multiplier in the exponent. I don't think that's a sign of my needing to check my "math" per se, so much as my (lack of) knowledge of the actual relationship of CO2 rise to time. My math is consistent with what you are saying - in your example where a function that is initially e^(T*N) subsequently becomes e^(T*(N+1)), it may be that the constant term in the exponent changed from N to N+1 because it is not actually a constant, but a linear function of time, which would give you something that acts like e^(t^2), an example that I mentioned of a situation in which a function "increases faster" as its logarithm also "increases faster."
However, I assume you are suggesting that the second term is not actually a linear function of time, but rather a step function that abruptly shifted being a constant N to a constant N+1, at some precise moment or over some short interval, because of some historical event causing an abrupt shift in the emissions trend? As you illustrate, DS's statement would hold true for that case as well, because as you illustrated the first derivative of the logarithm would change from N to N+1.
I hadn't considered this kind of abrupt shift when trying to understand and evaluate DS's statement. I still would contend that not all abrupt transformations of a function resulting in a transformed function having a larger first derivative would also result in a logarithm of the transformed function having a larger first derivative; for instance it wouldn't hold true if CO2 = (N)t^2 suddenly became CO2 = (N+1)t^2, but that's just a quibble with his wording that I wouldn't have brought up had I initially understood the context, which I do now thanks to your clarification.
-
John Hartz at 01:59 AM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
The results of the study that Albatross cites above are also summarized in:
New study tells three million-year old story of the Arctic by Roz Pidcock, The Carbon Brief, May 9, 2013
-
Albatross at 01:28 AM on 11 May 2013What you need to know about climate sensitivity
Nice summary Dana, thanks.
John Mason just alerted SkS to a new paper in Science by Brigham-Grette et al. (2013). They examined sediment cores from a lake in Siberia going back over 3 million years. Their findings are not reassuring and suggest that fast-feebacks (and by extension equilibrium climate sensitivity) may be more aggressive than previously thought:
"Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6-3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today when pCO2 was ~400 ppm. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 Ma, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation."
These findings suggest that we are very likely in for a whole lot of hurt in the coming decades. Even more worrying is that we are already at 400 ppmv-- I shudder to think what the consequences for future generations will be should we continue with BAU and reach over 1000 ppmv...
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:17 PM on 10 May 2013Climate change will raise the sea level in the Gulf of Finland
Are there corresponding places where SLR is greater than expected from isostatic rebound? I seem to remember that some areas, such as the Missippi delta, are experiencing land lowering, due to isostatic rebound elsewhere on the crustal plate (one side of the dish is rising, the other side is falling). Such places would be subject to greater inundation, due to the double whammy of isostatic fall and SLR. Nasty combination, if I have my facts about right.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:02 PM on 10 May 2013Greenland: A Ring of Mountains
Interesting and disturbing, as if I could be any more disturbed ...
<pedantry>"more data has became available" should be "more data has become available"</pedantry>
-
macoles at 12:20 PM on 10 May 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19A
gelderon52 @1
I checked out your site and I generally agree with your advice on how to discuss climate science with contrarians. Personally I find listening to their full opinion on the matter first in order to categorise the extent of their knowledge and motivation of their denial, before I start methodically explaining where they are wrong. There is a great deal of variation in the knowledge and motivation of those who reject the consensus view.
-
John Hartz at 10:51 AM on 10 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #10: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Mike,
As fate would have it, the Globe and Mail published an indepth summary of the status of proposed projects to sequester CO2 emissions in Alberta. Two key paragpraphs:
"Alberta, too, saw two of four planned projects cancelled this year and last, including TransAlta Corp.’s Pioneer project and the Swan Hills Synfuels LP synthetic gas plant. In both cases, the companies said the economics of the projects no longer made sense.
"But Mr. Hughes said the two remaining projects – the Shell Quest project that will capture CO2 from an oil sands upgrader and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line – spurred by provincial and some federal dollars, will go ahead. CCS technology is the cornerstone of Alberta’s long-term climate plan, and is expected to contribute 70 per cent of the planned emissions reductions by 2050."
Keeping the faith in carbon capture and storage by Kelly Cryderman and Shawn McCarthy, Globe & Mail, May 6. 2013
-
KR at 10:24 AM on 10 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
jdixon1980 - Not incidentally, Tamino demonstrated some time ago that CO2 is in fact rising faster than exponentially, hence CO2 forcings are rising faster than linearly.
[Source]
-
KR at 10:19 AM on 10 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
jdixon1980 - The logarithm of a number increases (logarithmicly) as the number increases, the log decreases as a number decreases. That's by the definition of a logarithm.
If CO2 is rising at eT*N, then speeds up to eT*(N+1) the natural log rise rate will go from T*N to T*(N+1). In other words, if CO2 rises faster over time, the forcing (the log of CO2 change) will also rise faster over time.
I suggest you check your math - time is not the base, it's a multiplier in the exponent.
-
mikeh1 at 10:05 AM on 10 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
Justin Guay from the Sierra Club is quite skeptical about whether many of these coal plants will ever be built.
Here for example - "Indias coal illusion"
Here is a Greenpeace map of the large Galilee Basin coal development in Australia that Guay refers to.
-
Mike3267 at 07:33 AM on 10 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #10: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
I read that the Alberta tar sands development is to include CO2 sequestering. See:Technology Review
Anyone know more about this? -
jdixon1980 at 07:32 AM on 10 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
Heh, I just noticed that I applied the chain rule to differentiate ln(t2) instead of just convering it into 2ln(t) and differentiating that - shows my own math is a little rusty... But it doesn't change the result of the second derivative, -2/t2
-
jdixon1980 at 06:57 AM on 10 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
DS @7: You said, "increasing CO2 faster also increases its logarithm faster"
I believe this assertion is false, because increasing CO2 faster does not necessarily increase its logarithm faster. By "increasing CO2 faster" I take you to mean that as time marches on, the first derivative of CO2 as a function of time increases, i.e., the second derivative is positive. Thus, I take your assertion to be that if the the second derivative CO2 as a function of time is positive, then the second derivative of the logarithm of CO2 as a function of time must also be positive. If this understanding of what you are asserting is correct, then what you are asserting is false.
As a simple counterexample, let's say CO2 = t2.
t2 is a function that "increases faster" over time, i.e., its first derivative, 2t, increases as t increases, and its second derivative, 2, is positive.
Therefore, if your statement that "increasing CO2 faster also increases its logarithm faster" were true, then the first derivative of ln(t2) should also increase as t increases.
Let's have a look to see if it does:
d ln(t2)/dt = d ln(f)/df * d(t2)/dt, where f = t2 (applying the chain rule)
=> d ln(t2)/dt = (1/f) * 2t = (1/t2) * 2t = 2/t, which decreases as t increases. (I.e., differentiating again to get the second derivative, you get -2/t2 which is negative for all real values of t)
So your broadly stated assertion is false.
Even if we take the example of CO2 being equal to (or proportional to) et, which has a positive second derivative (the first derivative of et is itself, as is the second derivative), the second derivative of ln(e^t) = d2ln(e^t)/dt2= d2t/dt2 = d(1)/dt = 0. In other words, even an exponential relationship of CO2 to time tends to result in a linear relationship between temperature and time. A linear relationship is what the Tung study apparently found, which is not inconsistent with the understanding that emissions are rising exponentially, assuming a simple relationship where temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 change.
This is not to say that there are no examples of f(t) having d2f(t)/dt2 > 0 where d2(ln(f(t))/dt2 is also > 0. (For example, if CO2 = et^2, read "e to the t squared" then the second derivative of CO2 and the second derivitive of its logarithm would both be positive.) But that's not the same as saying the former implies the latter, which is how I read your premise, on which you apparently based your conclusion that Tung's interpretation of the data was aphysical.
Don't get me wrong, I know next very little about the physics, but based on my understanding of calculus, I suspect you had overlooked this nuance of the math.
-
SEAN O at 00:32 AM on 10 May 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
scaddenp'
Thanks, Fig. 1 in Levitus makes it clear.
-
John Russell at 23:05 PM on 9 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
Skeptical Wombat @3
The claim that "China increased its wind power production of electricity be more than it increased its coal fired electricity production last year" is not quite all it seems and should be put in context. So it's true, but one of those outliers that can distort the actual picture.
But don't get me wrong; China is the one country that if it has the will, will find a way, and, because of it's political set up, can turn things round rapidly.
-
gelderon52 at 19:52 PM on 9 May 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19A
Hello,
I would like to introduce a modest effort of mine and of some colleagues and friends in the field of disseminating the results of climate science. It is titled "The frog that jumped out"
http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.it/
As I said, it is a modest effort, but the idea is that there are many blogs about climate science, but not so many about communicating climate science. So, we hope to have a bit of an impact in this field and we are trying to do our best.
If you were interested in collaborating with us with your thoughts, papers, or comments, you are most welcome.
Ugo Bardi
-
scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 9 May 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Sean O - Sparcity of data is reflected in error bars. Note the increase in size of these at 2003. Its especially noticable in 0-2000 data in the Leviticus 2012 paper
-
sidd at 13:04 PM on 9 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
The war continues. China is closing older coal plants:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-07/26/content_11047808.htm
Environmentalists knock down another in India
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/indian-court-strikes-down_b_3203153.html
sidd -
Sceptical Wombat at 12:13 PM on 9 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
While it is clear that we must do much better at replacing fossil fuels with other forms of electricity generation, we should recognise that some progress is being made. For instance last year China increased its wind power production of electricity be more than it increased its coal fired electricity production. And that is before you count its investment in photovoltaic generation.
Also many of the new coal powered generators are replacing older, smaller, less efficient and dirtier plants, so it is misleading to simply quote the number of new power plants.
-
Mark Bahner at 11:07 AM on 9 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] And with that, we are done here, as we have erred well into sloganeering territory. Anyone wishing to engage Mark further on this may do so at his blog:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/
Let us return now to the OP of this thread, Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
-
Riduna at 10:33 AM on 9 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
John – As far as I know, the only means of reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuelled power plants is CCS technology which, in its present form, requires 40%-50% of power plant output to operate. If more effective and cost-efficient technology is not developed, ff power plants will be replaced by power plants fuelled by renewable sources.
That will occur. When depends on the speed with which advances are made in production and storage of electricity.
Thanks for your PS. Quite right.
-
John Russell at 09:52 AM on 9 May 2013Who is Paying for Global Warming?
It's an inevitable fact of life that 'keeping the lights on'—and the population in a state to which they've grown accustomed—will always trump long-term concerns. I believe it's becoming clear that it's only when the costs of 'carrying-on-as-we-are' manifest themselves in the short-term, perhaps as a result of the escalating costs of extreme weather events and their impact on the food supply, will the pendulum swing towards action on climate.
This was driven home to me when I read a paragraph on 'discounting' in the Ereskes/Conway book 'Merchants of Doubt' (p180)—quote:
"A dollar today is worth more to us than a dollar tomorrow and a lot more than a dollar a century from now, so we can 'discount' faraway costs."
This is the mantra of the majority of economists everywhere, and it's this head-in-the-sand, Micawberesque— 'something-will-turn-up'—mindset that drives the economists and lawyers who dominate our political elites.
Regarding CCS; I also think it's inevitable that it will be viewed as a means to make new fossil-fuel fired plants viable—that's why Shell is so keen on it—and never as a means to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere. So, what with inevitable leakages and failures, the GHG ratchet will always be upwards. I hope I'm wrong.
[PS: perhaps the words 'coal-fired' should be added to the title of fig 1?]
-
SEAN O at 08:07 AM on 9 May 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
In discussing rising OHC, a commenter objected to Levitus etal on the grounds that the data is too sparse, what is the best response?
Thanks in advance.
-
John Hartz at 05:40 AM on 9 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
I believe we can all agree that humans require food and water to subsist. In the context of the ongoing discussion of what manmade climate change may wrought in the near future, here is very sobering assessment.
"Half the world's population—5.2 billion people—could be doomed to an insecure and greenhouse gas-causing reliance on food imports by 2050, according to a new study.
"In the study appearing in Environmental Research Letters, Marianela Fader of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and her team looked at water and land constraints affecting national food self-sufficiency, and investigated how cropland expansion and increased productivity could create the potential for greater national food self-sufficiency."
Source: Are We Doomed to Food Insecurity? New study shows billions more people reliant on food imports in 2050 by Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams. May 8, 2013
-
KR at 04:11 AM on 9 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
My issue with Mark Bahners projections are that they are a combination of cornucopian thinking (all needs for the future can be met by continuing advances in technology, with an underlying assumption of extremely low costs - no limits to growth) and the assumption of numerous black swan events (AI singularity, economic growth an order of magnitude that which has been observed, revamping of all methods of production without economic upheaval, etc).
These are not reasonable assumptions, or realistic projections - they are just wishful thinking.
And they ignore what has been determined to date - that mitigating further greenhouse warming by reducing emissions will be far less expensive than adapting to it later, or diverting the resources/energy to try to sequester CO2 released by continued "Business as Usual" behavior. The economically sensible path is to minimize the GHG problem as much as possible, not to band-aid it later on.
Cornucopian/black-swan goals like his, to me, represent little more than an avoidance of the issues - an attempt to kick the problems down the road under wishful projections that the costs down the road will be trivial.
Personally, I would rather address the issues now - based on supportable economic predictions that current action will cost far less than future re-actions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:33 AM on 9 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
There is a fundamental fallacy where Mark states:
"The value of this information is a simple matter of science. Science consists of one person predicting “a”, and another person predicting “b” (each with explanations for why they are making their predictions) and then observing to see which predictions are correct (or it could be “c” and neither is correct). Or both persons could agree on “a” or “b” in which case there’s not a point in further debate."
What Mark is describing is a "controlled experiment." His predictions are not controlled experiments. He ignores a certain level of randomness in the system. Just because prediction "a" might have been correct does not necessarily mean that the methods used by "a" were better than those of "b" when the experiment takes place in an uncontrolled environment, like world economics.
Again, you can use various methodologies to establish a range of outcomes in order to better constrain uncertainties about future events. You can't use methodologies to predict the future.
Think of it this way. There is some young, hyper-brilliant kid recently born who has the capacity to understand the AI issue better than anyone ever has. That person could grow up to fundamentally change the future of the human race by the year 2040. But, as fate would have it, that child is killed in an auto accident at age 9.
This is what bugs me about what Mark is putting forth. His "predictions" include highly uncertain events occurring at unknown points in the future. So, relative to how we respond today to the challenges humanity faces down the road, his predictions are completely without value.
Prev 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 Next
