Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 Next
Comments 48801 to 48850:
-
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.
-
pauls at 22:19 PM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
Aside from some formatting problems, I made an error: the GISS global record does actually use a combination of HadISST1 and Reynolds OIv2, not ERSSTv3.
-
pauls at 22:06 PM on 15 February 2013The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
There seems to be a disconnect between the heavily-interpolated 1º SST records - COBE (used in JMA), HadISST1 and Reynolds OIv2 (not used in any global temperature record) - and the wider-gridded NOAA-ERSST (2º, used in GISS and NOAA global) and HadSST3 (5º, used in HadCRUT4) products.
Looking at 1982-2012 trends, cropped to 50S-50N to hopefully avoid most sampling differences:
1º HadISST1 = 0.08ºC/Dec
1º Reynolds OIv2 = 0.09
2º ERSSTv3 = 0.11
5º HadSST3 = 0.13
It's not easy to track down a time series for the COBE-SST product, but <a href="http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-4.html">this plot from AR4</a> indicates a trend around 0.08 to 0.09. Not sure what the issue is here, whether coincidence or methodological factors, but this may be the main reason why JMA produces lower warming than the other records.
-
Tony Noerpel at 21:58 PM on 15 February 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
Thank you for this article. Has your article "The geological dimension of climate change: Current greenhouse rise rates are the fastest in 65 million years" been submitted/accepted for publication so that we can reference it?
In Figure 2 of this article you show the 1890-2011 data point. It might be helpful to show the trend at this time.
-
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...
Prev 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 Next
