Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 Next
Comments 48651 to 48700:
-
Richard D at 19:57 PM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
use of language plays some havoc in these situations. It's natural for people to use short hand of one form or another. So climate change denial is short hand for rejection of the consensus view of the social problem created by emissions of GHGs. Unfortunately that gives disinformationists room to play on the ambiguity of meaning. But this isn't really any different when some people say scientiic theory X (e.g. general relativity) can't be 'proven'. The word prove has different associations depending on who is saying it and what the context is.
-
Rob Painting at 19:37 PM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Composer99 - the current rate of CO2 rise is unparalleled in the last 300 million years. See Honisch (2012). I've almost finished a post on Foster & Rohling (2013), but based on their research, global warming and consequent sea level rise will persist for many centuries. With atmospheric CO2 levels between 300-400 ppm (parts per million) sea level in the last 40 million years typically reached around 24 metres (+7/-15) higher than today. With CO2 now over 390ppm long-term sea level rise from greenhouse gases already emitted is going to be substantial.
If the low climate sensitivity people are right, it implies extraordinary sensitivity of global land-based ice to small amounts of warming. I doubt they are right, but the basis for this is too lengthy to fit into a comment. Even keeping under the 2°C limit effectively dooms the coral reefs. A collapse of that ecosystem is going to have profound effects on the hundreds of millions of people whom depend on the reefs for protein. This will have significant repercussions for all humanity, especially so when industrial fishing methods are simultaneously emptying the oceans of fish. The future is going to very different to how many people imagine it will be. And not in a good way.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:11 PM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
Clyde @4, from Nucitelli et al, 2012, Table 1 the average increase in heat at the Earth's surface from 2002 - 2008 was 0.73 W/m^2. In contrast, the average heat accumulation from 1990 to 2008 was 0.46 W/m^2. Clearly for those figures to make sense, the heat gain from 1990-2002 must have averaged 0.3 W/m^2. The perceived discrepancy is because John takes the average over 16 years, while Dana contrasts the endpoints of a 15 year interval.
-
Clyde at 16:49 PM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
Importantly, it also ignores the fact that over the last 16 years, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of over three Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. To deny global warming is to deny the basic fact that our planet is building up heat at an extraordinary rate.From <a href="dana1981's"></a> article it says -In fact, heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system due to the increased greenhouse effect at a faster rate today than it was 15 years ago, and the energy is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 15 years.Which is it 3 or 4? When you consider their detonating every second that makes a difference. -
Ger at 16:33 PM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1107017.html for nice overview on the advantages of re-instating a clean charcoal industry based on biomass residues.
-
Ger at 16:20 PM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
@#12, Icarus. Charcoal making does produce a lot of excess energy. Most retorts use the excess energy for producing steam. Pelletizing the charcoal dust from biomass residues takes a lot less energy than raw biomass, another energy saver.
-
Composer99 at 13:19 PM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
With regards to the best vs worst-case scenarios, I'm curious how they stack up against paleo evidence.
The danger limit agreed upon by policymakers is 2°C increase compared to pre-industrial times.
Basically, apart from the best-case emissions scenario combined with best-case sensitivity, we can look forward to a minimum 2° increase, pretty much no matter what, by the end of the century.
As far as I can see, a 2°C change in global mean temperature in approximately 250 years is almost without precedent in the period for which we have any remotely reliable paleoclimate data, that is, the past 550-600 million years.
The only episodes I can think of with climate changes that are comparably rapid are the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous periods. So even the change that is considered under the danger limit involves the climate changing at a rate that is only seen in entirely undesirable circumstances, at least as far as I can see.
But I'm a musician: anyone who knows this stuff care to comment?
-
Jonas at 11:18 AM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
@Composer99: In self-perceived critical movements, I dislike the non scientific bias towards criticism (sometimes leading to esoteric or unscientific conclusions and sometimes even climate change denial). On the other hand, I do not like uncritical belief of science, if the source of the money and along with it the research goals and limitations are clear: being skeptical is especially useful, if research is driven by big business, as is the case for GMOs (no checks due to revlving doors legislation) and pharmaceutical products ...
So, I am a science skeptic and especially a climate skeptic, but I did not find anything to complain about in climate science, up to now: it's not business driven (view the oil company benefits and you see where the majority of the money interests are), it's independent, open, scrutinized, multinational. But I remain skeptic on genetic engineering and pharmaceuticals and I have (non scientific) reasons to remain so, because business is at least partially involved in what is researched.
---
@Initial (re)post: I agree: I am not a climate scientist, but I read a lot on it, including books on climate science (currently blackbody radiation and placks law, phew!), but I try to communicate the scientific consensus, and I can see all sorts of excuses for not wanting to change, which all boil down to one of the top 10 arguments of denial listed in Sks, which basically go back to the genuine, independent scientific consensus. This is why I absolutely like the scientific guide to global warming skepticism, which draws a complete model of reality and points to the failure of skptics of having a consistent model of reality and the escalator graphics, which brings at least questionmarks into peoples minds who are unwilling to read the 12 pages they don't like ... This is a "constructive" approach, together with real life examples that communicate that even a big change need not be a loss in quality of life, only a change in habits, with a hard transition period, we all know that.
But I think we also need to cover who brings in the money to deny science consensus: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt
Also, the former tobacco harm deniers are now in the climate denial business, e.g.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_SingerApparently, it 's the same strategy over and over again ...
-
mikeh1 at 11:03 AM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
I prefer the term "climate science denial" over "climate change denial" for the reason that John outlines in the first paragraph.
-
Composer99 at 10:56 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin pretty much scored an own goal here.
-
saileshrao at 09:56 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
@Daniel Bailey (15), please see, e.g., http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/forests-soak-third-fossil-fuel-emissions/
Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you. -
sidd at 08:51 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
That link to the new dataset for greenland bedrock seems to be garbled. The correct link should behttp://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/4829/2012/ -
Farmer Dave at 08:17 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Icarus @12: You may be excessively gloomy about the potential for CO2 sequestration via biochar. An Australian company, Pacific Pyrolysis has developed a slow pyrolysis technology which (so they claim) takes an incoming biomass waste stream and converts about half of its carbon content to biochar. The other half is more than enough to drive the process (no need for fossil fuels after startup) and generates enough electricity to export a surplus from the plant. More information is available here.
It's true that I am not aware of any independent verification of Pacific Pyrolysis's claims, and a full life cycle analysis would have to include fossil fuels burned during the aggregation and transport of the waste to the pyrolysis plant; however, pyrolysing waste which would otherwise be burned or allowed to rot would seem to be positive.
-
sidd at 08:09 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
The Greenland image was constructed from the Bamber data. There is a better dataset than Bamber these days.see www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/4829/2012/Griggs et al.As far as abrupt melt goes, how are you going to get a mole of Joules into the ice ? sidd -
Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Dikran Marsupial @291, the very sharp decline in population in the 14th century has almost nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with the Bubonic Plague. Much of the increase before that had little to do with climate, and much to do with the adoption of the horse collar in Europe.
-
witsend at 08:01 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Haha, KR, that trailer was great, thanks! Now I know where all the HAARP conspiracies originated.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:54 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
If I can end the game between Kevin and the Moderators, this is evidence of viticulture in Roman Britain:
"This article presents stratigraphic and palynological data from Wollaston in the Nene Valley, England, which provides conclusive evidence of viticulture on an large scale. The spread of Viticulture through the Roman World and the extent to which it supplanted beer brewing can be seen as an essential element in the consideration of the Romanization of northwest Europe. The pollen assemblage suggests hoeing or ploughing was used, presumably to reduce grass and weed growth around the vines. The distribution of known and probable sites and of suitable pruning tools has a distinct southeastern bias, as might be expected from the spatial variation of climate in the British Isles."
(My emphasis)
So also does this article about the same site, but note that while "...the apparent lack of viticultural tools and wine presses in the archaeological record in Britain is not reliable evidence for the absence of viticulture at that time", it must be considered evidence that viticulture was not widespread.
Regardless, as I have noted on other occassions, the presence or absence of vinyards is a poor proxy of climate as human and economic factors play too large a role. Is the decline (but not absence) of viticulture in Anglo-saxon Britain and indication of cooler climates, or just an indication that the Anglo-saxons has a taste for ale in preference to wine? Does the post norman decline in viticulture in England reprsent a decline in climate or the fact that improvements in wine manufacture and transport made French wine cheaper in Britain?
More importantly, if you are going to use viticulture as a proxy for climate in the past, then you must be consistent and do so in the present. So, if viticulture in England in Roman and Norman times is evidence of warm climates at that time, then viticulture in Scotland and Sweden now must be considered evidence that it is warmer now than in Roman or Norman times. The extent to which deniers cherry pick data rather than following evidence is shown by their refusal to follow the clear logic of this argument.
-
No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
-
r.pauli at 06:37 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Induced volcanism would require the least effort. But unpredictable and uncontrolable.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:54 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
@ saileshrao:
"In fact, Josep Canadell at CSIRO had estimated that if the world stopped deforestation today, let alone regenerate any forests, then forests would be sequestering 50% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions starting today, not just 25%."
Do you have a link for this?
-
saileshrao at 05:36 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Icarus, I respectfully submit that biological sequestration would be fast enough for our purposes. In fact, Josep Canadell at CSIRO had estimated that if the world stopped deforestation today, let alone regenerate any forests, then forests would be sequestering 50% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions starting today, not just 25%. And all that deforestation is occurring mainly to support the growth in meat and dairy consumption, which is truly a voluntary activity that is entirely unnecessary for human well-being.
I would urge reputed climate scientists to set examples, by going vegan themselves. At the moment, I don't know of a single climate scientist who's vegan. -
william5331 at 05:04 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
No argument with the thesis that we must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide but any technological system we adopt will likely be too little too late and if deployed at a sufficient level to actually have an effect will trash our economy. Worse still, we will run into unexpected consequenses such as releasing already sequestered carbon as we try to sequester more carbon. No one would argue against the fact that our first priority is to stop putting more already sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and this is well within our technological capacity. Already, wind is competitive with fossil fuels and solar is just about there. The main barrier in the way of solar is legislative, not technological. However, has anyone noticed that atmospheric CO2 goes up and down 7ppm each year or more accurately, 8 up and 6 down. Natural processes are far more powerful than anything we could devise. We need to, for instance: 1. Selectively log, sequester the wood in well built houses and furniture, use all the waste wood to produce organic urea, liquid fuel and any other product that will displace fossil fuel 2. completely stop whale harvesting and let the whale pump recover with it's ability to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. 3. stop the use of palm oil and let the jungles re-form. A mature jungle doesn't absorb any net CO2. A jungle growing from scratch is a huge carbon sink (dry wood is 50% carbon or put another way, the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered in wood is close to the wet weight of the wood) 4. Completely change our fisheries policy, 5. Adopt Jim Hansen's system of tax and Dividend and so forth.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/10/wood-waste-and-urea.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/german-fit-system-brilliant.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/whale-poo.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/jim-hansens-climate-change-solution.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/12/fisheries-policy-lets-change-tacks.html
-
Kevin8233 at 05:02 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Here is one for the Roman Optimal
www.english-wine.com/history.html
The last source was for the Medieval Period, for grain.
Moderator Response:[DB] It is noted that your referenced source does not support your earlier contention. Therefore, the conclusions reached in this comment apply and you tacitly agree to its conclusion:
"So the climate today in England is much more conducive to wine-making than during the Roman occupation of England, consistent with the proxy reconstructions of temperatures covering those times."
By agreeing, you concede you earlier comment was in error and therefore invalid. If you disagree, you will need to then further support it here before being allowed to comment elsewhere on this site.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:41 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
As far as I can see, that source provides no real evidence (references to primary sources?) and provides only rather equivocal support for your assertion, e.g.:
"More people meant smaller acreage of land per person and this led to "harvest sensitivity." In years of poor harvests (such as the wet summers of 1315-1316) insufficient grain was grown and the poor starved."
"English agricultural methods and productivity remained stagnant throughout the Middle Ages. The "strip" system of farming was equitable and extremely inefficient. Yields of grain per acre remained stagnant."
"Food production was only increased by bringing more land under the plow - a process that stopped once all available waste land had been improved."
Also the graph of population (reproduced below) suggests that a fair proportion of the population didn't adapt to the LIA (except perhaps by dying).
Regarding grain abundance, your source emphasises a point I was making: "More people meant smaller acreage of land per person and this led to "harvest sensitivity." In years of poor harvests (such as the wet summers of 1315-1316) insufficient grain was grown and the poor starved." That sitation is far worse now in a world with 9 billion mouths to feed. As far as I can see you have provided very little evidence to suggest that the past suggests we can adapt to future climate change without substantial hardship.
Moderator Response: [DB] Nor does it cover his claimed time period of the Roman optimal. -
Phreddie at 04:37 AM on 16 February 2013Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The data from The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica shows results that are inconsistent with those presented here. I did a scatter plot of CO2 vs. temperature for the 800,000 years represented by that study. The first thing I noted was that the current point is way, way, way far away from the other 799. That suggests by itself that there is a fundamental structural difference in what’s going on today vs. the past. Next, I plotted the climate equation using the maximum value of λ, 1.2. It was way below the actual data points. Then I estimated the value of λ which would best fit the historical data (leaving out the current point because it is so far off). The result was a value of 20.7 which is an order of magnitude larger than the maximum value stated here of 1.2. Finally, I fit the best linear relationship. It’s R square, .79, was better than that of the log fit, .76. Can anyone give me a scientific explanation of what’s going on here?
-
Kevin8233 at 04:27 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
source for grain abundance is
faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2013%20Society.htmModerator Response: [DB] Non sequitur. The Domesday reference does not cover the period in question nor is there any references to wine or vineyards in the linked article. Try again. -
Composer99 at 04:01 AM on 16 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
The comments by pseudoskeptics and assorted contrarians on The Conversation version of this post, as far as I can tell, universally neglected the most important part of the post:
There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.
The reason there's a consensus of scientists is because there's a consensus of evidence. But for some reason, none of the contrarians wanted to engage with that part (I can't imagine why not).
Discussion on the relative importance of a scientific consensus on climate change IMO obscures the fact that every single other widely-accepted major scientific theory is also backed by a large, perhaps overwhelming, scientific consensus, in an almost identical manner to the way climate science is accepted:
- evolution of organisms through descent & modification
- quantum mechanics
- general & special relativity
- plate tectonics
- germ theory of disease
(and the list goes on)
The only difference is that, except for medical science, attacks on these consensus positions are generally the sole purview of isolated individuals or groups.
What self-styled climate "skeptics" might not realize (or might try to ignore or downplay) is that anyone familiar with attacks on some of these other consensus positions can quickly spot similarities between their methodologies and those of, say, young earth creationists, or anti-vaccine activists, and the like.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:49 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
For reference, here is the morphological structure of Greenland I referenced above:
[Source]
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:44 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Agreed with DSL. Given the morphological structure of the GIS and underlying basement rocks, neither meltout nor dynamic calving and collapse will make any sizable dent in the bulk of the ice sheet by 2035. I doubt if even a 50% loss is even possible by 2535.
The WAIS, OTOH, is a far different stripe of ice...
-
DSL at 03:41 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Yah, complete Greenland ice sheet loss by 2035, driven by GHG emissions, would require an uptick in GHGs so sudden and vast that such melting would be the least of our worries. I'm not sure it's even mathematically possible, esp. given the basin structure the ice is filling.
-
DSL at 03:34 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
DM, you're being generous. Kevin might want to take a look at some of the other studies that E&E has published.
Kevin, you might also look at the Soon & Baliunas (2003) affair, and also what Willie Soon is capable of trying to pull over on his target audience. What a world it would be if fake skeptics gave the same level of scrutiny to those they pedestalize as they do to the studies that do not support their worldviews.
-
Tristan at 03:32 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
I don't think you understand quite how much energy it takes to melt 3 million km^3 of ice. Our understanding of climate science hasn't changed so abruptly that something estimated to melt on a milennial timescale will suddenly melt on a decadal one.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:09 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin, that is not proof, Bauliunas says that vinyards flourished in England, but that doesn't make it true. Is there evidence in the paper on which the press article was based?
BTW you do know that Energy and Environment is not a science journal, but a social sciences journal, don't you?
-
PhilMorris at 02:56 AM on 16 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Tristan, to the climate deniers, anyone who thinks climate change is real and/or induced by human activity is an alarmist. By their (our?) very nature, scientists are conservative but an issue of this magnitude requires worst case scenarios to be loudly articulated, otherwise the political will, driven as it is by public opinion, will never change.
Rob, loss of Greenland ice sheet by 2035 is an extremely improbably scenario, and therefore by implication, nonetheless possible, right?
Since none of the climate models take into account the methane release, nor did any of them suggest a summer free Arctic by 2016, we have no foundation whatsoever for using phrases like 'highly improbably' and 'not on the decadal time scale' when it comes to climate change. Human activity has opened a Pandora's box and despite the efforts of climate scientists, we simply do not understand the mechanisms involved sufficiently well to be certain that dramatic and catastrophic changes are NOT going to occur far more rapidly than models predict.
Is it better to be 'conservative' and suggest that worse case effects won't happen for decades yet – a timescale that allows most people to ignore the effects of climate change – or to sound the alarm bells of the possibility of ‘imminent’ disaster in order to get people to recognise that disaster can strike well within their lifetime? I’d rather sound the alarm bells and be wrong, than not do anything that causes me to branded alarmist and be right!
-
Icarus at 02:49 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
On the subject of biochar, there seems to be a significant problem: To char organic material you need a lot of fuel - clearly it would be counter-productive to use fossil fuels, and if we started a massive programme of burning organic matter to produce biochar then we would be putting a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere for a relatively small amount of carbon sequestered. That would work in the long term as we would be constantly growing new organic matter as the fuel to produce biochar, but how long would it take to make any significant reductions in atmospheric CO2? Decades? Centuries?
Any biological sequestration method would surely be too slow for our purposes. The entire terrestrial biosphere is only absorbing about 25% of our annual carbon emissions, and we can't realistically increase that by more than a few percent. We certainly can't expect to quadruple it and more.
Whatever method we use, it's going to have to sequester all of our CO2 emissions (currently 30 billion tons per year), plus enough to make a meaningful impact on the existing atmospheric concentration, so perhaps 60 to 100 billion tons of CO2 per year, every year for the next 50 years at least, to get us back down to ~300ppm, depending on how much we manage to reduce emissions and how fast we need to bring it down.
That's a lot of carbon. I hope we find a way.
-
Kevin8233 at 02:48 AM on 16 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Here is a source for wine in UK CfA Press Release
Release No.: 03-10
For Release: March 31, 2003 20th Century Climate Not So HotCambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years.
"Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades," Soon says, "so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last 5-10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."
Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme. Their findings about the pattern of historical climate variations will help make computer climate models simulate both natural and man-made changes more accurately, and lead to better climate forecasts especially on local and regional levels. This is especially true in simulations on timescales ranging from several decades to a century.
For more information, contact:
David Aguilar, Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7462 Fax: 617-495-7468
daguilar@cfa.harvard.eduChristine Lafon
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7463, Fax: 617-495-7016
clafon@cfa.harvard.eduModerator Response: [DB] Further to DM's comments below, your claim also pertained to the Roman optimal, not the Medieval Warm Period. Try again.
[Sph] Original comment edited to correct formatting issues. -
Jim Baird at 02:31 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Dr.Howard Hanson of the Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center, recently reponded to my proposal that ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is a geoengineering thechnic that can provide all of the energy we require by drawing down the surface heat of the ocean saying "OTEC, is not generally based on geoengineering as a premise or motivation. For that to come to be widely accepted, it would be important for refereed journal publications to emerge showing quantitatively and credibly that OTEC has the potential that you assert. I would be interested in seeing such analyses."
As I am an inventor, not an academic and thus am unlikely to be published, I offer for the the reveiw of group a summary of a presentation I recently gave to the University of British Columbia's Fisheries department - http://www3.telus.net/gwmitigationmethod/You%20Tube.htm and an article on the EnergyCollective -The Existential Imperative: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/184496/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion
-
Icarus at 02:20 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
There is no doubt at all that we need sequestration as well as emissions reductions. I think James Hansen correctly suggested 350ppm as an initial goal for atmospheric CO2 concentration, as that reduction (from around 390 to 350) should be enough of a forcing to counteract the current planetary energy imbalance. However... as a 'final destination' we would probably aim for below 300ppm. That's around 700 billion tons of CO2, plus whatever comes back out of the oceans and land in subsequent years and decades. I really hope we're smart enough (and have enough resources) to do this, because the alternative is pretty grim.
-
Roger D at 02:17 AM on 16 February 2013Arctic sea ice has recovered
No, No, everything's OK with Arctic ice (kidding). Steven Goddard has a plot on his site showing that recently, there was the "Most Ice Gain Ever Recorded". What the plot seems to show is sea ice area change from the summer minimum to the cold season maximum. If the summer minimum extent is in a general, pronounced, downward direction, but spring max ice extent is holding steady or decreasing much less slowly it seems maybe the plot could reflect reality. But of course he's misusing that reality to imply something that is not true: i.e there's no "problem", by only highlighting a fraction of the story and then counting on his readers lack of curiosity and predjudices to make the incorrect assumption that arctic is is just fine - instead of for example seeing that the graph would represent the replacement of multiyear-age ice with one year old ice, among other things. "Skeptics", sheesh.
-
witsend at 02:10 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Not only will new trees not grow if we continue to spew ozone precursers into the atmosphere, the existing trees are already dying off all over the world and so we will lose that critical carbon sink. While it seems incontrovertible that the amplifying feedbacks are running amock, geoengineering won't fix the collapsing ecosystem if we continue burning fuel and polluting.
So, to postulate: "By contrast, retardation of solar radiation through space sunshade technology may allow time for CO2 draw-down."
...is misleading, in my opinion. There IS no more time to allow for CO2 draw-down, because ozone precursor emissions are very closely linked to CO2 emissions, and the forests are in rapid decline right now.
For links to science supporting the two assertions (1. the global trend of forests is towards decline and 2. ozone underlies the increased susceptibility to biotic pathogens that are attacking trees) please go here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/29/whispers-from-the-ghosting-trees/
-
Kevin8233 at 01:45 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
(-snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Before being allowed to place further comments on this website, you must first respond fully to the question about your source for your assertions made here. Please include a link to the reputable source used to make that assertion in your reply. Please then put that response on that thread, not here. -
Kevin C at 01:35 AM on 16 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
OK, I can reproduce that.
Are the baseline periods the same? Changing the baseline period for a map series can change the trends if coverage changes significantly over the trend period. I don't know if that has occured, but the interpolated datasets are likely to have more consistent coverage.
-
saileshrao at 01:27 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
How about sequestration of carbon on land by regenerating forests in the mostly tropical, global South? Global land carbon stock is estimated to be 3X the total carbon in the atmosphere and has the potential for further storage if we stop deforestation and begin active regeneration efforts. Of course, that would require the global North to go vegan in order to free up the land for the regeneration, which is happening anyways from health considerations as chemical pollutants work their way up the food chain.
-
Johnb at 01:21 AM on 16 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Quote,
an effort requiring a planetary defense project by NASA.
Even without a review of geo-engineering as a viable technology the above quote poses a challenge. Might have been a possibility in the 1960's but not in todays multi-polar globalised world. We can just about sustain an ISS project beyond that we struggle, think G20 and downhill from there.
Johnb
-
pauls at 00:55 AM on 16 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
IanC - Correct, or wrong twice? :)
Kevin C - Yes, but HadSST2 recent trend is similarly high compared to the interpolated datasets. -
Philippe Chantreau at 00:01 AM on 16 February 2013Humidity is falling
You're citing Steven Goddard? Seriously?The Steve Goddard of Antarctic carbonic snow fame, who covered himself and WUWT with so much ridicule that Watts eventually had to distance himself from him? The guy who couldn't grasp the message contained in the phase diagram of CO2? The Steve Goddard who averages percent of snow cover without area weghing so he can come up with ridiculous numbers? The same guy who is now arguing that the Arctic is seeing an unprecedented ice gain (one of his funniest yet)? That's you source? You trust it?
The precision that can be derived from thousands of measurements gathered from thousands of sources is much greater than the precision of one individual source. Research that before jumping to conclusion. Why would you believe that the scientist studying this don't do their homework?
Instead of gish galloping across areas of which you seem to have limited understanding, why not stick to the subject. Earlier you made an argument that appeared to suggest that CO2 "displaces" H2O as a greenhouse gas. That is quite new and exotic, you should elaborate on that with scientific references (Steve Goddard does not qualify as such).
Moderator Response: [DB] Jeff313 has been counseled to find more appropriate threads to place his concerns, as made more fully compliant with the Comments Policy, on more appropriate threads than this. -
Kevin C at 23:50 PM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
Pauls: The higher trend in the HadSST3 data is well understood. It comes down to HadSST3 including a correction for the differing biases of engine intake sensors (warm) and buoys (neutral). There has been a transition from engine intake sensors to buoys over the last decade or so creating a cool bias, detectable when ships and buoys take readings at the same place, which only HadSST corrects. For more details see this article.
I don't know much about the others, although I've recently regridded ERSST into Hadley format for easier comparison.
I've now redone the skill calculation using the HadCRUT4 calculation. The RMSD of the null method is unchanged at 0.033C, the RMSD of the kriging method increases from 0.14 to 0.16. The bias was real but rather small, and the results stand.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:45 PM on 15 February 2013Humidity is falling
Jeff313 This article is concerned with humidity, it appears that you no longer want to discuss that topic. If this is the case, please find a more appropriate thread for your discussion, and please avoid "gish gallops" where a number of different topics are introduced all at once. All that achieves is to disrupt the discussion, so that none of the topics can be dealt with in detail.
-
Jeff313 at 23:19 PM on 15 February 2013Humidity is falling
(-multiple off-topic and inflammatory snipped-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Discussions of temperatures, temperature acquisition methods, siting issues, models, etc need to be placed individually on the most appropriate discussion threads...AFTER first reading the OP of that thread AND each and every comment on those threads to best determine if your issue/question has already been addressed and resolved. THIS thread is about the discussion of the effects of humidity in the climate system and what the science has to say about it. Period.
Please use the Search function located in the upper left section of every page to search for the most appropriate thread for your comments. The Taxonomic listing is also very valuable, providing insight into the nature of the structure of skeptic arguments. Also, please re-read this site's Comments Policy and then ensure your comments fully comply with it.
-
IanC at 22:30 PM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
pauls,
You are in fact correct about GISTEMP: As of Jan 2013 they've switched over to ERSST for the ocean portion.
Prev 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 Next
