Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 Next
Comments 48701 to 48750:
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:31 PM on 15 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
There may be some sequestration hope on the horizon:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/do-sea-urchins-hold-the-key-to-affordable-carbon-capture-17219
-
chriskoz at 20:29 PM on 15 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
"...has raised CO2 levels from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial periods to 397-400 ppm and near 470 ppm CO2-equivalent (a value which includes the CO2-equivalent effect of methane)"
IMO, it is misleading to talk about "CO2-equivalent effect of methane" in context of this article because CH4 half-life is only 11y, while we are considering long term context of couple centuries. Effectively, that CH4 becomes CO2 and stays for 10-100ky.
Unless the permafrost/clathrates melt rate increases and can sustain the elevated level of oxydising methane for long period of time, then methane becomes an issue which does not happen yet. But if it starts, I imagine people would have to setup some flares at major methane release sites: it's better to oxidise this methane straight at the source rather than in 11y somewhere in the upper troposphere with stratospheric WV release...
-
Rob Painting at 18:45 PM on 15 February 2013OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
You're welcome Susanne. I'm actually very comfortable explaining things without equations, I just thought if you remembered a couple of the basics it would stick in your memory, so that you would have the confidence to explain it to others.
I have quite a few posts on ocean acidification coming up over the next few months too, by the way.
-
Rob Painting at 18:39 PM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Phil Morris - loss of the Greenland ice sheet by 2035 is an extremely improbable scenario. There are many genuine concerns, but that is not one of them.
-
Kevin C at 18:26 PM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
CC or anyone else: Is there any chance you could have a look at the 2001 discontinuity? I'm swamped and don't have the time.
The simple test is to use the temperature calculator here, in CRU mode but using the GHCN data and a baseline of 1981-2010. Run both adjusted and unadjusted data. Then paste the pre-2001 adjusted series onto the post-2001 unadjusted series, and compare the results against JMA?
You may also have to try 900km extrapolation rather than grid box.
I'll take a look at the map series if I can - there may be a contrast visible between land and ocean temps, because the adjustments are land-only.
-
Tristan at 18:09 PM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Phil, while the arctic summer sea ice decline has been a surprise to many, it doesn't follow that the massive land ice deposits in Greenland are under immediate threat (at least not on a decadal time scale). As important as it is to get the message out there that we have to do something, it's best we stick to the literature as much as possible when it comes to estimating the level of catastrophic events. Else the title of 'alarmist' will actually be deserved :)
-
Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
The "hover" works for IE9, and for the current FireFox, popping up the definition. It does nothing in the current version of Google Chrome - looks like one of those browser dependent issues.
-
PhilMorris at 15:50 PM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Given the strongly vested interests in 'business as usual" I would expect fossil fuel emissions to follow RCP 8.5, the effects of which will make the recent recession a cake walk. But if there’s a silver lining to that, it is that the massive disruption to civilization will cause a significant decline in emissions, far more that we saw around 2009. Of course, by then it will be too late!
And why do people till quote 1m of sea level rise by 2100? No-one in the mid-nineties – well, no-one except perhaps James Hansen – thought that Arctic ice would decline so rapidly, but an ice free Arctic by 2016 is almost a certainty. And who’d like to wager that Greenland will be essentially ice free by 2035, given rise of a 6-7m sea level rise. No hard science here, just a reaction to the dramatic and (almost) entirely unexpected changes that have occurred over the last decade or so.
-
idunno at 13:39 PM on 15 February 2013Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
Sorry guys and gals, I hate it. The infuriating automatic pop-ups seem to have stopped now, which is better, but now it doesn't seem to work at all.
Anyway, best wishes, and keep up the good work, and don't let dreadful old curmudgeons like me rain on your parade, but I still hate it.
Moderator Response: [Sph] You need to linger over the term for at least a half a second. If it's not coming up, check your setting to make sure the glossary is turned on for all levels (although for now most terms are classified as "Advanced"... people haven't yet finished going through all 750 terms taken from AR4, let alone adding new ones). -
villabolo at 13:39 PM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Ianw01, @1:
"So the real question is (a) when will there be NO doubt in the public's mind that serious action is needed?"
Keeping in mind that the elite and their propagandists will not disappear, and that lying is more flexible than telling the truth, I believe that the vested interests will simply switch over to "natural global warming" and the "nothing can be done" memes. Since denial is willful and not intellectual, this attitude will thwart any serious action.
In my opinion this civilization, which the elite are in control of, will have to collapse along with the elite before any meaningful action can take place.
-
Andy Skuce at 10:54 AM on 15 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
I certainly agree that there are many good arguments against employing the kind of solar radiation management that involves injecting sulphates into the stratosphere, but I do not think that ocean acidification as a direct result of this intervention is a serious risk. The amounts of sulphur that people are taking about for SRM are about 5-10 million tonnes per year (about one-half to one Pinatubos per year) (Wigley 2006), which is of the order of about 7-14% of current emissions of sulphur resulting from fossil fuel combustion. These sulphur emissions have a well-known and serious acidification effect on freshwater bodies downwind from industrialized areas and may even have a small effect on some marine coastal areas. But Doney et al (2007) calculate that the effect of anthropogenic SO2 and NOx pollution results in an ocean acidification effect that is only a few percent of acidification resulting from anthropogenic CO2 pollution. Deliberate stratospheric sulphate injection would therefore produce less than 7-14% of those few percent.
I suspect that countries that employ sulphate SRM, might feel that their attempt at mitigating climate change through sulphate SRM entitles them to continue or increase their fossil fuel consumption. Those CO2 emissions would certainly help acidify the oceans, perhaps at a rate faster than that caused by the geoengineering sulphates.
To be clear, this is not meant as a defence of geoengineering. I think that it's crazy to contemplate it as an option now.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 10:32 AM on 15 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Sphaerica, I can reliably reproduce the problem I was having, as detailed above.
- Highlight the user name associated with a given comment;
- Click the middle button in the Basic editor, to paste the highlighted name. Note that it pastes as a fully formed hyperlink, exactly as it was in the comment;
- Go back to the comment and right-click on the timestamp, then 'Copy Link Location' (Firefox 18 terminology), to copy the link URL to scratchpad memory;
- Highlight the user name in the editor and click the link symbol in the Insert tab, then paste the link location from scratchpad memory into the link creation dialog;
- Go to the Source tab and note that the HTML seems OK;
- Go back to the Basic tab. On my system, the user name, which should be a hyperlink to the referenced comment, is now not a hyperlink (it is merely <strong>) and there is a one-character-wide dashed box to its left, indicating a problem with the underlying HTML;
- Go back to the Source tab and notice that the hyperlink still exists, but the </a> tab now appears before the <strong>username</strong> phrase.
Look at the HTML source of my comment here for an example.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 10:07 AM on 15 February 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #6
chriskoz @ 2, I think those adherents to the Oz Labor Party who are wanting to be more aggressively fighting AGW, are hamstrung by political realities. Even if Labor was genuine about achieving reductions in Oz's contribution to global GHGs, such as through penalising coal exports, an election year in which they are well behind in the polls is not a good time to be weilding the big stick. Is there ever a politically advantageous time to be penalising one of our few successful industries?
I wish we were not committed to selling CO2 pollution to China and India, but doubt there is much I can do to stop it.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 09:47 AM on 15 February 2013Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
With the auto glossary and the WYSIWYG editor, SkS takes another leap forward in the usefulness stakes. Thanks, people, for a job well done. Very helpful to dabblers like me.
-
JasonB at 09:39 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
ianw01,
If, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that the polarising debate is turning people off, should not MartinG complain about the polarising debate at the sites that spread lies and misinformation rather than those that try to refute those lies and that misinformation by pointing out what the science actually says?
I would be a bizarre world indeed if those attempting to defend themselves from false accusations were to be accused of stirring up controversy rather than the ones actually making the false accusations, don't you think?
-
fpjohn at 09:15 AM on 15 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Is that" ....previously unhindered by climate instabilities...."?
The log-log plot is telling. Thanks for the article.
yours
Frank Johnston
-
Tom Curtis at 09:06 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
DB @ 280:
"It is said that Julius Caesar brought the vine to England. Nice though that story is, some scholars think it apocryphal - wine was certainly brought to Britain by the Romans, but it is less certain whether the vine was grown here, or if it was, whether it was in sufficent quantity to satisfy the local requirement for wine or just as an ornament to remind Romans of home and wealthy Romano-Britons of the source of their civilisation and prosperity."
(Source)
-
Tom Curtis at 09:00 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin:
1) Figure 4 of the intermediate version of the above article shows expected future temperatures based on milankovithch cycles and CO2 concentration. Even by eyeball it is evident that at preindustrial CO2 levels, no new glacial is imminent for thousands of years.
2) I will see you your "wine in England", which as Daniel points out, is a very current phenomenon, and raise you three vinyards in Scotland (one indoors), and four commercial vinyards in Sweden! I will note that traditionally grapes were grown in England not because they produced good wine, but because wine was needed for sacramental reasons, and until recently, wines turned to vinigar if transported any distance.
-
Composer99 at 08:22 AM on 15 February 2013It's the sun
Sapa[ronia?]:
The paper you cite does not change or rebut the most important statement in my comment:
The concern with climate change has to do with greenhouse gases involves their effect on the Earth's outgoing energy flux. Which, to my knowledge, the Sun has very little to do with.
As the moderator indicates, any discussion pertinent to the paper you describe is best left to the other thread.
-
scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Also apparent from DB's graph, is that rate of temperature change (which strongly influences our ability to adapt) is much faster now than going into the LIA. Accounts of the time suggests adapting to LIA wasnt all beer and skittles either. I'd rather avoid that kind of pain and paying more for my energy is certainly acceptable. We adapted pretty well to change in oil price to $15 to $80 and projected energy change costs not in that league.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:05 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
While England had 42 vineyards at the time of the Domesday Book, as is well known, there are now over 300 commercial English vineyards today. 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.
http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
http://www.englishwineproducers.com/history.htm
[Source]
Without a link to a source for that claim I must conclude that Kevin just made that claim up. Especially given that it took me all of 3 minutes to look up the material for this comment...and that Kevin has had more than 4 hours to do likewise... -
dana1981 at 07:23 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Istoessl @17 - as noted in the post, I didn't account for changes to the carbon cycle. There's a simple explanation - it's hard to do. You have to estimate when these feedbacks will be triggered and how the associated emissions will change over time, etc. It's easier just to consider human-caused forcings, which present a rough enough scenario on their own.
-
Sapa at 07:16 AM on 15 February 2013It's the sun
composer99
I posted this link to a serious study of solar activity from evidence found in ice cores. It is relevant as it is documented data taken from the last millenia of solar activity.
The authors concluded "In conclusion, we have presented here a new reconstruction of solar activity on the millennium time scale based upon a description of the related physical processes. It implies that the present high level of sunspot activity is unprecedented on the millennium time scale. The results will be the subject of further analysis."
Moderator Response: [DB] Note that Tom Curtis has already responded to you on this back in December, here. Any further discussion of it should be done at the linked page. -
Composer99 at 06:50 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin:
Wine production appears to have been more-or-less continuous in the UK since the Roman invasion, albeit patchily implemented at commercial scales and vulnerable to sociopolitical changes.
As far as I am aware (courtesy of a survey of the Met Office and Environment Canada sites), the UK, and in particular southern England, has had, for some centuries, a climate that is comparable to current wine-growing regions in southern Ontario and British Columbia, despite being at a comparatively higher latitude.
IMO the significance of Roman viticulture in the UK is overstated in the context of climate change discussions.
-
16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
Something I pointed out on JoNova, where this silly 16 year claim rose once again (sigh)...
Examining any time-span starting in the instrumental record and ending in the present:
- Over no period is warming statistically excluded.
- Over no period is the hypothesis of "no warming" statistically supported WRT a null hypothesis of the longer term trends.
- And over any period with enough data to actually separate the two hypotheses – there is warming.
-
william5331 at 05:48 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
The true climate sensitivity value is of course very important to know. However we may be calculating a false low value if Gaia is "fighting" temperature rise, making it look as if the value is low. We may only know the true value following a couple of tipping points in which temperature rises much faster than the Climate sensitivity value would suggest. We may have the value pretty well right but temperature will rise in steps. The first such step may be in the near future when each year the Arctic ocean becomes ice free earlier and earlier in the summer. Over relatively few years, our met stations will record non linear increases in temperature but taken over a large time period, we will then have a pretty accurate estimate of climate sensitivity. Of course, one tipping point will likely trigger the next one. The second tipping point is likely to be from a vast increase in the release of methane.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:25 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin There are plenty of historical precedents for civilisations not surviving climate change (e.g. Egyptian Old Kingdom). At the time of the LIA, global population was much lower, and agricultiral land less over-exploited, which made adaption very much easier than it is now. There are large parts of the world that are relatively poor, where large populations exist with marginal subsistence agriculture. Adapting for us will be much easier than it will for them. There is also the point that the rate of change is also relevant to adaption. Even then the LIA caused great hardship for many, the natural climate change we can do little about, but that doesn't make it O.K. to cause some more for ourselves.
The point is that questioning whether there is a perfect temperature for the Earth is a straw man - nobody is claiming that there is one, and it isn't really relevant anyway, it is the change that is important.
Now if you have evidence to show that we will have no problem adapting to the projected climate change, then I am sure there is a relevant post at SkS on which to discuss it, but this isn't it.
The post to which I responded is still there (at least I can still see it).
-
lstoessl at 04:22 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
When we talk about worst case scenarios, why do we not talk about the contribution of permafrost, methane hydrate release, forest depletion etc. It is as if since our models don't incorporate those contributions, they don't exist. Certainly, they will be major contributors to CO2 release and warming in the near time frame.
-
Composer99 at 04:18 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
MartinG:
Since your last paragraph has been reinstated, I should like to re-visit the assertion you made, that a "polarised debate is misleading the public into apathy".
Most recent examination of public opinion on the matter (e.g. here or here) suggests that public opinion in the US has been rebounding steadily. Perhaps other countries have had differing trends.
As far as I can see, unless you can show a consistent response in public opinion polling to the degree to which discussion/debate between environmental activists and/or science advocates vs self-styled skeptics is polarised or inflamed, I do not see how your claim is defensible.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:12 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
"During the Roman optimal, wine grapes were grown in Great Britain"
Prove it. We await the links to the reputable sources.
-
Kevin8233 at 04:10 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
the appearance issue was regarding my second post, sorry about that.
-
Kevin8233 at 04:07 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
A reasonable answer to that would be "the perfect temperature of the Earth is that to which our civilisation (and especially agricultural practices) has become highly adapted".
OK. But then, the LIA was quite cold, and people adapted, agriculture adapted, but at cost (which is part of your point - in other direction but applicable). During the Roman optimal, wine grapes were grown in Great Britain. During the Medieval Warm period, grains were reported to be much more bountiful.
On another note, how is it that you were able to respond to my post, yet my post does not appear?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:57 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Kevin You might find this paper interesting, the question of the regularity of glacials is apparently not quite as straightforward.
As to the question "Who decided that the temp after the industrial revolution was the "accurate" temperature the earth should be at, and that we are exceeding that perfect temp?", that really is a canard that has been answered here repeatedly.
A reasonable answer to that would be "the perfect temperature of the Earth is that to which our civilisation (and especially agricultural practices) has become highly adapted". It is the change in climate that is the principal problem, as adapting to change has costs. It seems likely that mitigation will reduce the cost of adaptation, so that would appear to be the rational strategy. It isn't rocket science.
Do you accept that answer? -
Kevin C at 03:22 AM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
CC: The trivial answer to the adjustment nonsense is to calculate temperature series from the unadjusted data. NOAA has done it, Zeke has done it, you can do it with the SkS temperature calculator here, you can do it with Caerbannog's software.
Note the update to the post above.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:41 AM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
Oh wow, I like the new comments window - nice job guys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin,
Anthony's kids have been having fun with this and I was wonder if you cared to comment on the "sudden divergece" of the JMA graph around 1990, which WUWTzers seem to think is extremely significant... now they are waiting - soon the other temp sets will be going down too. Oh and if the JMA's data starts returning to the other three, that will be sure sign of the conspiracy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/japans-cool-hand-luke-moment-for-surface-temperature/
So, it appears that Japan’s Meteorological agency is using adjusted GHCN data up to the year 2000, and from 2001 they are using the CLIMAT report data as is, without adjustments. To me, this clearly explains the divergence when you look at the NASA plot magnified and note when the divergence starts. The annotation marks in magenta are mine: {...}
If anyone ever needed the clearest example ever of how NOAA and NASA’s post facto adjustments to the surface temperature record increase the temperature, this is it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
funglestrumpet at 02:35 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
All well and good, but one has to wonder if it might be best to just give in and let the environment go to hell. I jest, of course, but honestly, today the BBC had a programme dealing with ice ages (In Our Time @ 09.00 on Radio 4, available on BBC iPlayer), which really made me want to scream.
It was all very interesting and personally, I learned a lot. Then in the last few minutes they discussed the role of CO2 in some depth. Just after it was pointed out just how far the current level of CO2 at 390 ppm is compared to the norm of 280 ppm, one of the guests, Richard Corfield. Research Fellow in Geology at the University of Oxford, said that he could see nothing wrong with 1000 ppm or more. His argument being that that would be normal for what they call Greenhouse Earth. Obviously he is completely oblivious of the enormous loss of life the sudden change we are experiencing is going to cause, or doesn’t care. Yes, we will have to adapt, but slowly over thousands of years should be no problem. The worrying thing is that this came from someone who, as a geologist, sees any changes that take less than a few thousand years as ‘instantaneous.’ Unfortunately, that was almost the last comment of the programme, so there was no time for the others to give a riposte. Oh hum.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:42 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
As a followup to my previous comment, real scientists doing real studies have already looked into whether the Earth will warm or cool, long-term. As opposed to empty assertions, let's examine the facts, shall we:
Per Tzedakis et al 2012,
“glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv”
For reference, we are at about 394 right now…and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
But what about further down the road? What happens then? Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."and
"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery the next million years...
Facts, like Tiggers, are wonderful things, for those who have them.
Also covered by Stoat, here.
Given the radiative imbalance at the TOA is still present and that CO2 levels are still increasing (and that human emissions are not ending anytime soon), it is reasonable to presume that the impacts of a warming planet will increasingly impact the most vulnerable aspects of our remaining cryosphere: the Arctic sea ice (a goner), the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
We are, through our own actions, effectively locking-in a world of another 8-12 meters SLR above present. Unless we can magically arrest our emissions and also initiate methods to draw-down atmospheric concentrations of CO2. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:14 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
@ Kevin
"Looking at fig1,it appears that an ice age is due any minute, not in 10,000 years. "
Umm, got any physical basis for that? Any at all? "Eyecrometers"™ do not count.
Frankly, your entire above comment is an example of simplistic thought, tired fake-skeptic talking points and unsupported rhetoric constituting sloganeering (a violation of the Comments Policy here).
-
Kevin8233 at 00:52 AM on 15 February 2013We're heading into an ice age
Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
Looking at fig1,it appears that an ice age is due any minute, not in 10,000 years.
Another bit of information to take from fig 1, it looks as if all the previous interglacials were warmer than the current one. Who decided that the temp after the industrial revolution was the "accurate" temperature the earth should be at, and that we are exceeding that perfect temp?
-
Composer99 at 00:46 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
MartinG:
In addition to JasonB's comments, I find some claims you have made in your post to be troubling. In particular, your sociological claims (including the first paragraph and the now-moderated last paragraph) both also appear to be contrary to the historical & contemporary evidence.
-
Jeffrey Davis at 00:28 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Three summers ago, the first year (of 2 in a row) that Pakistan lost most of its agricultural production to flood, Australia and Russia lost the bulk of theirs to drought. At 2C of warming -- the chart seems to say ---- that there would be localised threats and that "small holders" might have problems.WTF? At .9C of warming we just had the simultaneous destruction of agriculture in Russia, Pakistan, and Australia. How localised is that? As for "small holders" I hope that doesn't mean "anyone other than the US and Canada."
-
ianw01 at 00:14 AM on 15 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
JasonB@11: Yes, but MartinB has a point about the polarized debate turning people off. And that I'd argue leads back to my comment @1 - people will need to truly experience the problem before real action begins. :-(
-
Susanne at 23:08 PM on 14 February 2013OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Rob, Thank you very much. I didn't expect such a quick or detailed response, especially as I'm sure that explaining without equations is uncomfortable.
Thanks again.
-
JasonB at 20:26 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
MartinG,
I don't think your characterisation of the people here is very fair or accurate. "Frantically trawling new research for anything that supports our view"? "Picking the high side"?
I sometimes do mock my "opponents", but only after I have tried my best to correct the generally silly and quite obvious mistakes and misunderstandings, and they have responded by refusing to even try to understand why they are wrong and instead insist without evidence that the whole thing is a scam and places like SkS can't be trusted (or even looked at) because they "censor comments" or are biased or some other inanity that completely avoids addressing the actual issue that has been clearly spelled out for them.
As for "real problems that we can do something about", who said we shouldn't also address those problems, whatever they are?
What if its not CO2 but something we havnt figured into the equation yet?
This seems to be completely backwards. It suggests that we've observed a problem and gone searching for an explanation and as such we may have got it wrong. In fact the problem was predicted long before it was observed, and when it was observed the observations were what was expected from the predictions:
- That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
- That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
- That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
- That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
- Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
- That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
- The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
- They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
- They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
- The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
- The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
- The expansion of the Hadley cells.
- The poleward movement of storm tracks.
- The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
- The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
- The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
- That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you for clarifying that misdirection (coming from BPL's page. Any further discussion of models needs to be placed on the Models are Unreliable page. -
JasonB at 20:05 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
One of my pet irritants is the insistance that a perfectly good word or phrase not be used for its obvious meaning because it is the name of something else. :-)
"Begging the question" is indeed the name of a local fallacy, however that turn of phrase is so colourful that it is just begging to be used in other contexts. :-) It obviously means "invites the question" in this context, but carries an ever stronger connotation in exactly the same way that begging someone to do something is stronger than simply inviting them to. In fact, if there is any criticism to be made, it's that this usage is so common that is has become cliché.
A suggestion of my own — would it be possible to make the underlining of glossary terms more subtle? At the moment I'm finding having so many words underlined somewhat distracting. One effect I quite like is a very pale solid grey line that becomes darker as the mouse moves over it.
-
shoyemore at 19:14 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Just an opportunity to parade one of my own pet irritants. Para 2 "This begs the question ... ".
To "beg the question" means assuming your conclusions to justify your premise. The original meaning was a question "begging to be answered" but ignored by the speaker or writer. Question-begging is a form of logical fallacy, related to a non-sequitur, where conclusions are unsupported by the premise.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
The meaning here is "That invites the question ..."
Rant over :)
-
Andy Skuce at 16:11 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Dana@6
I agree on the trends being the similar until ~2040 but the atmospheric concentrations/cumulative emissions cross around 2060 and start to diverge significantly after that.
-
MartinG at 16:07 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Photon Wrangler - very well put. I wonder if this is all the fault of Climate science. In days of old you could be green and environmentally friendly just out of a desire to protect the environment and live in harmony with the earth. ( -snip- ).
What if there is a real problem that we can do something about?. What if its not CO2 but something we havnt figured into the equation yet? ( -snip- ). And unfortunately the climate is so complex that all our models are rough guesses, probably lacking important factors not yet discovered, and with so many degrees of variables that we can get them to produce any result we want - the denialists picking the low side, and the warmers the high side.
Thats not science, and as the argument rages the public lose interest in the squabble - and then nobody gives a fig leaf about the environment any more. What if this polarised debate is misleading the public into apathy???
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
dana1981 at 15:35 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Agree with Andy @5 except 4.5 and 6 are roughly the same until 2040, not 2060.
-
Andy Skuce at 14:53 PM on 14 February 2013A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
mandas@ 4
The four RCPs are based on multi-gas emission scenarios which were selected from the published literature (Fujino et al. 2006; Smith and Wigley 2006; Clarke et al. 2007; Riahi et al. 2007; van Vuuren et al. 2007; Hijioka et al. 2008; Wise et al. 2009) and updated for release as RCPs (Masui et al. 2011; Riahi et al. 2011; Thomson et al. 2011; van Vuuren et al. 2011b). Because they were produced by four different Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), there are some inconsistencies in the relationships between emissions and concentrations that could complicate the interpretation of the climatic consequences of the four different scenarios.
My eyeballing of the two middle pathways tells me that they are basically the same up to about 2060. After that the world either wakes up (4.5) or decides to leave no coal unburned (6.0), at least until 2100. Based on Figure 2, it appears that both of these pathways may be a little optimistic in the short and medium term if you project our current emissions trends.
Prev 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 Next
