Recent Comments

Prev  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  Next

Comments 62001 to 62050:

62001. hank at 14:56 PM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       P.S. -- want a prediction? ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pub/pietropaolo.bertagnolio/o3/shindell98-o3climchange.pdf "... increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations alter planetary-wave propagation in our model, reducing the frequency of sudden stratospheric warmings in the Northern Hemisphere4. This results in a more stable Arctic polar vortex, with significantly colder temperatures in the lower stratosphere and concomitantly increased ozone depletion. Increased concentrations of green- house gases might therefore be at least partly responsible for the very large Arctic ozone losses observed in recent winters6–9. Arctic losses reach a maximum in the decade 2010 to 2019 in our model, roughly a decade after the maximum in stratospheric chlorine abundance. The mean losses are about the same as those over the Antarctic during the early 1990s, with geographically localized losses of up to two-thirds of the Arctic ozone column in the worst years. The severity and the duration of the Antarctic ozone hole are also predicted to increase because of greenhouse-gas-induced stratospheric cooling over the coming decades." _________ Right on schedule: Scientists Detect First-Ever Arctic Ozone Hole October 3, 2011 It marks the first time that ozone loss in the Arctic region has matched ozone loss above Antarctica, both they and Postmedia News are reporting. According to LiveScience Senior Writer Wynne Parry, the researchers discussed their finding in this Sunday’s edition of the journal Nature, writing, “”For the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as an Arctic ozone hole.”
62002. hank at 14:52 PM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       > "few or no steps were taken to limit the emission of GHG's". Nonsense. 7(h) The Greenhouse Effect www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html May 7, 2009 – Artificially created chlorofluorocarbons are the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule.
62003. Bernard J. at 14:22 PM on 5 March 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Tom Curtis.

       Bernard J. @9, Fairoakien explicitly asked about the costs "to Canada".

       Fair point. I always have my ecologist hat on and thus I tend to think across national borders, but yes, Canada's overall agricultural range may increase. Having said that, I have a few references tucked away from years ago that note that Canada's agricultural output might not necessarily increase with a doubling of CO₂, and especially so in non-irrigated regions - if I have a few spare minutes I'll dig them up. Further, optimistic forecasts are predicated on a future industrial approach to agriculture in continuation of the current style, and the small issue of Peak Oil will make such an assumption rather dubious... If humans do not come up with a viable (and sustainable) alternative to fossil fueled agriculture, the optimism of increased production is somewhat misplaced. There's another fly in the ointment too, which I usually tend to skirt around as it's somewhat politically sensitive... During my PhD fieldwork I had the pleasure of spending some time with a Canadian senior staff member of a well-known international NGO. His expertise was in water resources, and he noted that amongst certain government circles the US was projecting future water shortages as a consequence of human-caused global warming. The expectation apparently is that such a shortfall will be in part made up by water sourced from over the border. I'm not sure that the Canadians have been/are to be consulted on the matter, but it seems that there is a south-of-the-border expectation (by some officals, at least) that such will happen. I'm sure that Canada would be thrilled to export water to the States, but doing so might affect their own agricultural productivity...
62004. GreenCooling at 12:15 PM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       Keith, (I hope this is not too off topic, and more interesting than debating Anteros) I just wanted to say many thanks for your highlighting of the contribution of the CFC phase out to reducing emissions, it's very poorly recognised that the Montreal Protocol has been around 5 times more effective at reducing radiative forcing emissions than the Kyoto Protocol ( Velders et. al. PNAS, 2007), and every bit of attention to this is most welcomed. Lamentably the climate benefits achieved by the Montreal Protocol to date are in dire threat of being eroded by the continued growth in the use and emissions of HFCs (and HCFCs - although these are being phased out atmospheric concentrations are still growing). This is entirely avoidable as genuinely climate friendly future proof natural refrigerant solutions exist, and are becoming more widely available and used, but face stiff resistance from some sectors of industry. Additionally the need for transition in developing countries in particular is lacking in support, training and awareness. A recent paper by Velders et.al. 2012 in Science reinforces the 'world avoided' by phasing out CFCs and calls further attention to the need to address HFCs by including them in the Montreal Protocol. Although very useful in setting the scene for 25th anniversary negotiations (of 1987 Vienna Convention) in Bangkok in July and in Geneva in November, far more attention to the HFC threat is required to move the intransigent Parties towards consensus on the now much-debated HFC amendment proposals. Here's the new graph: "Projected radiative forcing by ODSs, HFCs, low-GWP substitutes, and CO2 (12). The blue hatched region indicates what would have occurred in the absence of the Montreal Protocol, with 2 to 3% annual production increases in ODSs [data taken from (5)]. Added to the radiative forcing from ODSs [data from (9)] are the contributions from HFCs from the upper-range scenario [data from (11)]. Also shown are the radiative forcing from alternative sce- narios in which substitution is made with chemicals having shorter lifetimes (lower GWPs); their contri- bution is calculated using methods described in (11) with the parameters from (16). Under the Montreal Protocol, use reductions started in 1989 for CFCs and in 1996 for HCFCs." The 2011 UNEP report "HFCs: A Critical Link In Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer" published in time for but overlooked by Durban is another useful resource, as is the paper by Molina M., Zaelke D., Sarma K., Anderson S., Ramanthan V., & Kaniaru D., Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci. (2009). Recovery and destruction of the bank of old CFCs and HCFCs is another useful contribution the Montreal Protocol could make if much more effective measures could be agreed and acted on. PS - my favourite T-shirt: "Is that the truth, or was your News Limited?"
62005. funglestrumpet at 11:52 AM on 5 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       Regardless of whether the global warming that is currently in play is due to human beings and is thus AGW or not due to human beings and is thus just plain old GW, can there be any argument that we as a species absolutely must do whatever we can to reduce our contribution to the greenhouse effect? Anyone who thinks that there is an argument for not taking action needs to re-read the above post and if they still feel the same, they need to find out what is meant by the term ‘tipping point’. We know what the greenhouse gases are and how much of them we are releasing into the atmosphere. We also know how to minimize that release. Surely it is a crime against humanity to deliberately hinder any action towards their reduction. (Cue some smartarse to say that I am calling for a cull in the population of human beings, seeing as we emit greenhouse gases. Some more than others in my experience.) Future generations are going to look back at what we knew as a species and wonder why on earth we did not take the action the scientists are screaming for. Mind you, five minutes spent looking at archive material of the WUWT website and they will get some idea as to where the problem lies. It is not all WUWT’s fault, of course; in the U.K. we have Lord Monckton, the well known >snipping< >snip<, Lord “We can adapt to global warming” Lawson, columnists such as Peter “The greenhouse effect probably doesn't exist” Hitchins and Melanie “Climatology is a global fraud” Philips, among many others who seem to speak from positions of appalling ignorance, yet deliberately try to stop action that is intended to combat global warming and thus their children’s suffering and that of their grandchildren. The comments policy prohibits my giving an opinion of such people. As for America’s contribution to the issue, well ...!
62006. Doug Mackie at 11:46 AM on 5 March 2012
       Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
       The Feely article linked by JosHag is OK but there is a better one (also by Feely and written for a general audience) here. It is part of a special issue devoted to ocean acidification. Closer to home, if you mean 'recent' = 'last few years' then we gave a plot here at SkS based on the same data as the Feely plot. The plot, (second figure in the post, labelled Figure 6) shows (as do the Feely papers) measured and 'calculated' pH for the Hawaii Ocean Time Series (HOTS). (We just thought their figure was a bit ugly and we wanted to check their calculations using our own program). It is important to note that 'calculated' pH does not mean a guess. As we explained in the post, the marine carbonate system can be completely described with any two of the 4 marine carbonate parameters. The parameters are 'total carbon', 'total alkalinity', 'total pH', and pCO₂ (or fCO₂). (see note 1, note 2) These carbonate parameters are a bit like using trigonometry to solve a right angle triangle. Sometimes you might measure the hypotenuse and other times you might calculate it using the sine of an angle. But it would be foolish to say that because you had not directly measured the hypotenuse that any calculation was dodgy. Similarly, pH can be calculated from other measured carbonate parameters. (see note 3) pH for other definitions of 'recent' will be discussed in our next series (I know, I know, it is taking a while). Note 1: 'total pH' (pH_T) refers to one of several pH scales – kind of like ^oF and ^oC are different scales for temperature (interconversion is possible between pH scales but is not as simple as temperature conversions). Note 2: alkalinity has a complex definition but it is not the opposite of 'acidity' – see our OA series for details. Note 3: There are several sets of internally consistent constants used in the calculations. The different sets perform better or worse depending on the input parameters (e.g. pH or alkalinity)and other environment describing factors (like salinity and temperature).
62007. Trent1492 at 11:13 AM on 5 March 2012
       Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
       I just came across this Science Daily article that found a minimum impact of land cover change on the glaciers of Kilimanjaro. Here is the original article from Nature Climate .
62008. chriskoz at 10:26 AM on 5 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
       Glossary is absolute necessity. For example I remember having hard time understanding Dana's articles when I was newbie. I was even repulsed from them, because they were loaded with strange acronyms like TSI, OA, GSS, etc. Now I'm used to it and appreciate Dana's skills as one of the most accomplished SkS authors. However, I still find that Dana uses those acronyms without explanation. That must be hard for new readers.
62009. JosHagelaars at 10:25 AM on 5 March 2012
       Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
       The paper can be found at: http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt/reprints/hoenischscience12.pdf The supporting online material here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058/suppl/DC1 I found the figure 3 very illuminating, it tells the story of the response time of the oceans. The end conclusion of the article: "However, in additionally driving a strong decline in calcium carbonate saturation alongside pH, the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.". Is there a warm and maybe sour future that lies ahead of us? @TheNucleus For a graph look here: http://www.mcbi.org/publications/pub_pdfs/feely_etal_2008_pices.pdf
62010. TheNucleus at 10:06 AM on 5 March 2012
       Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
       I read the paper and I understand the implications, but it doesn't include a graph showing the recent, rapid change in ocean pH. The graph of ocean pH that it does show (figure 3) is on the scale of millions of years. Figure 2 shows their model of how the time course of atmospheric CO2 influences ocean pH. Does anyone know where I can find a graph showing recent ocean pH measures on the a finer time scale?
62011. william at 06:38 AM on 5 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       As holes are melted here and there through permafrost, surface water from the boggy northern areas drains through the holes, drying out the bogs. The peat exposed becomes very vulnerable to burning.
62012. bbickmore at 05:53 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       Ron, Your method of estimating sensitivity assumes the system was always in equilibrium.
62013. michael sweet at 05:52 AM on 5 March 2012
       It's the ocean
       hjm, You need to think it through before you talk. If you phrase your statements as a question you will not look like someone who is not serious about answers. The ocean loses heat to the atmosphere above it since it is warmer (as you point out). When the atmosphere warms, the ocean loses heat more slowly (according to the theory of thermodynamics as you referred to). When the ocean loses heat more slowly it warms. This is obvious to people who do not have an agenda to to discount the real problems caused by AGW. Summary: the ocean loses heat more slowly to a warmer atmosphere so the ocean increases in temperature.
62014. WheelsOC at 05:33 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       I posted this comment at Bickmore's blog too, but I thought I'd run it by everyone here to get more opinions and feedback about it: "Yet the IPCC refuses to accept that the global warming (or cooling) on time scales of thirty years or more can also be caused by Mother Nature. ...The IPCC has taken for granted that there are no natural variations in global average temperatures once one gets beyond a time scale of ten years or so." I think Dr. Spencer might need to learn the difference between "refusing to acknowledge" something and "having no good evidence" that something is real. Perhaps the IPCC "has taken for granted" that natural variability has little to no impact on longer timescales because there isn't any reason in the literature to assume otherwise, and their process merely reflects that reality. The IPCC can't very well take into account the vague notion of unquantified long-term noise that hasn't been established to exist at all. Given the lack of support for such things in the literature, even if we take Spencer's papers at face value, it's unlikely that his conclusions would be well-vetted, tested, and supported enough to make it into the IPCC's considerations. As I understand it these kind of things that are inconsistent with the existing literature would need more than one or two papers to be considered strong enough evidence. Spencer himself said that such alternatives have received relatively little research. Even if Spencer thinks he has uncovered such long-term natural variability (and so far it doesn't seem likely), it's not a fair criticism because his papers claiming it were first published after the last IPCC report. I think that counts as missing the deadline for inclusion. What exactly does he expect the IPCC to do? Invent a time machine to include papers published after their report, and credulously promote the very little bit of his research that claims to have found something to the status of other, better-supported conclusions that say the opposite?
62015. dhogaza at 05:26 AM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       funglestrumpet: Oh, I totally agree that Murdoch is evil. I was just pointing out that the editorial policy of the WSJ was to blatantly misrepresent or lie about science long before Murdoch bought it. He's certainly done nothing to improve the accuracy or reduce the ideological pandering of the editorial board of the paper ...
62016. Rob Painting at 05:25 AM on 5 March 2012
       It's the ocean
       h-j-m@43 - the same greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere also trap heat in the ocean, via longwave forcing of the 'cool skin' layer of the ocean surface. See SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean.
62017. Tristan at 05:12 AM on 5 March 2012
       It's the ocean
       various gases (mostly CO2) emitted by our industrial society are heating up the atmosphere due to the so called greenhouse effect. So far so well? Not quite. The GHGs reduce the amount of heat escaping into space. Over 90% of this heat takes up residence in the oceans. We focus on the extra heat kicking around in the atmosphere because it matters more to us (to the first order at any rate). It's also easier to measure surface temperatures and we've been measuring them for a long time.
62018. h-j-m at 04:27 AM on 5 March 2012
       It's the ocean
       As KR pointed out in post 36 I would like to restate my concern to clarify what I see as a problem. Sorry to be a year late but more urgent personal affairs occupied my time meanwhile. First I am not supposing that the oceans are driving global warming but it hits me quite queer that a measured warming of the oceans is put up as proof for anthropogenic global warming over and over again. Unless my understanding is completely screwed up AGW (climate change) is based on the fact that various gases (mostly CO2) emitted by our industrial society are heating up the atmosphere due to the so called greenhouse effect. So far so well? Now I completely fail to understand what this has to do with rising oceanic temperature unless there is a physical process allowing for the atmosphere to heat up the ocean. Looking around I just found that on average ocean temperatures are higher compared to the atmosphere above which (according to the theory of thermodynamics) would not allow for such a process. But this in turn leads tho the conclusion that AGW and rising ocean temperature are unrelated and the so are the effects of the latter. But of cause if you leave out all the effects of rising ocean temperature you loose a lot of the most scaring predictions of AGW.
62019. Bob Lacatena at 04:03 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       As a quick point before anyone says it... the MEI as a measure of ENSO strength uses 6 variables: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). Only a few of those are temperatures, and they are based on a very, very small area of the globe, so they are representative of the state of a known mechanism rather than simply being copies of global temperatures. Using the MEI is an entirely different matter than using AMO or some other completely temperature based proxy, and so is not a case of forcing the right answer in to make sure you get (or stumble into) the right answer at the end.
62020. Bob Lacatena at 04:00 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       Ron, I think the problem with your analysis is that you are predicting temperatures based on temperatures (AMO). That is, the AMO index is computed directly from observations of SST, so by including that as a term, you are by default forcing your model to conform to temperature measurements which in turn over the long term parallel global temperatures. It also, IMO, is not a valid proxy for ENSO events, because AMO and ENSO are not related (ENSO is a small-period Pacific cycle, while AMO is a longer period Atlantic cycle). It is also not a valid input because it clearly is not entirely global in nature... it's Atlantic. And last, but not least, there is no known mechanism behind the AMO, and not a long enough series of observations to determine if it is actually an independent cycle with a physical cause or merely an artifact of how things turned out in the past century. Bottom line... as you aptly point out, all it winds up being is climastrology. It is just curve fitting, but by choosing three known, physically relevant variables (solar irradiance, aerosols and CO2) and one direct-temperature-observation (AMO) as core components, you are of course getting a reasonable answer... if you put the right answer into the equation, of course you'll get that back. The trick would be to find some non-temperature based measure of long-term variability, and still have it all work out correctly.
62021. From Peru at 03:38 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       RonManley: You said:"a sensible value for CO2-equivalent sensitivity (0.89 °C for a doubling of CO2-equivalent)" Isn't that too little? Most climate analysis found a climate sensitivity around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.
62022. RonManley at 03:12 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       Can natural oscillations explain the climate? Roy Spencer would seem to argue that this is the case. Recently (Scaffeta’s Widget Problem) you had an article on Scafetta’s claims to be able to model climate just using natural cycles. At that time I produced two versions of a very simple regression model: the first using only sun spots (as a proxy for radiation), optical mean depth (for aerosols) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal oscillation (as a representative oscillation): the second model added CO2 as a fourth independent variable. The first model was hopeless – it represented some of the variations but none of the trend. The second model was much better – it represented both the variations and the trend, and was actually more accurate than a 23 model IPCC ensemble. At that stage I made a tentative estimate of CO2 sensitivity which I now realise was in error (I multiplied the CO2 coefficient by the number of years of data (156) not the increase in CO2 (105 ppm)). Since then I have tried replacing CO2 with CO2-equivalent. This model has slightly improved accuracy (r2 = 0.90) and a sensible value for CO2-equivalent sensitivity (0.89 °C for a doubling of CO2-equivalent). You can see the model herehere. I fully realise that it is dangerous to read too much into a regression type model but it would be an interesting challenge to see if anyone can model the temperature from 1856 to the present as accurately as this model with a 4 independent variables and without invoking CO2.
62023. R. Gates at 01:46 AM on 5 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       The Foster and Rahmstorf study, along with other attribution studies ar of course powerful evedence that Spencer is quite mistaken. Furthermore, the entire issue of deeper ocean heat content is not even considered. The greater thermal inertia and energy storage capacity of the deeper ocean makes it a much better metric for seeing what actually was occurring during the past decade with Earth's energy balance. The troposphere has a far lower heat capacity and lower thermal inertia and is far more subject to the noise of short-term natural variations, and thus requires filtering to see any underlying trend. In looking at the energy storage of the deeper ocean over the past decade we see it stored more energy than any 10 year period out of the past 40. Hardly a sign of a planet that is cooling.
62024. R. Gates at 01:33 AM on 5 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       Owl905, Of course scientists like William Ruddiman would argue that human land use changes beginning with the clearing of forests some 8,000 years ago and agriculture 5,000 years ago already began altering atmospheric chemistry enough to change the temperture profile of this interglacial. Thus, from Ruddiman's perspective the Anthropocene began many thousands of years ago and we created our own conditions for more stable subsequent temperatures. In previous interglacials, human ancestors were not developed nor widespread enough to have altered atmospheric chemistry to the same degree as they did starting with the early Holocene. This alteration of atmospheric chemistry has of course only accelerated as civilization has advanced, and now of course the issue becomes one of excess, as human greenhouse gas emissions can be thought of as a " human volcano" in term of the rate at which they are flowing into the atmosphere, vastly overwhelming any natural mechanisms that might remove them.
62025. CBDunkerson at 01:31 AM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       Tom wrote: "As has already been well established, Anteros understanding of "arguing in good faith" also involves gross misquotation of, and misrepresentation of the IPCC FAR and Gavin Schmidt." Not to mention repeatedly ignoring the presentation of overwhelming evidence directly contradicting his claims and then simply repeating his (blatantly false), 'I am so disappointed that no one has answered me' mantra. When someone is in denial over the content of the discussion itself there really is no point.
62026. Tom Curtis at 00:07 AM on 5 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       Anteros claims at 68 that:

       "Graph A provides a very clear visual image of what the FAR defines as the high sensitivity prediction - 0.5C per decade. You'll note that it is virtually straight."

       For your convenience, here is a graph illustrating that contention: As has already been mentioned by Keith Pickering @58, it is obvious that the slope of the graph prior to about 2020 is less than the slope from about 2020 to 2100. Given this obvious fact, Anteros apparently believes that "arguing in good faith" requires him to use the slope of the line from 2020 to to 2100 as the "IPCC prediction" for the period 1990 to 2011. In this regard, it should be noted that in his post @46, Anteros claimed that:

       "You claim that the FAR prediction comes with an error range. Again, indeed it does, but the limits of that error range (the specified uncertainty) are merely the two other CS's considered - 1.5 & 4.5C/2xCo2."

       The upper limit of the error range was a rise of 1.5 degrees C over four decades, or a trend of 0.375 C per decade. This compares with his current (@68) estimate that the trend rate over that period for scenario A with 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 is 0.5 C per decade. So, apparently Anteros believes that "arguing in good faith" means making contradictory assertions about the same situation in different contexts based on whatever is rhetorically most useful. As has already been well established, Anteros understanding of "arguing in good faith" also involves gross misquotation of, and misrepresentation of the IPCC FAR and Gavin Schmidt. I am certainly glad that none of the SkS regulars "argue in good faith" as Anteros appears to define the phrase. We have far more integrity than that.
62027. Riccardo at 21:14 PM on 4 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       Consistency is not an option in some quarters and that's fortunate because it allows us to easily discriminate between good science and bad science. Of the unfortunate side of this story we know.
62028. John Brookes at 20:58 PM on 4 March 2012
       Roy Spencer's Junk Science
       Its very similar to the stock market, which can drop and even not rise over a 10 year period, but the trend is unambiguously up.
62029. funglestrumpet at 20:26 PM on 4 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       dhogaza @ 66 Agreed. It just seems to me that if we are going to get the public to agree with what is rapidly becoming an urgent need for action on the issue, we cannot continue letting Murdoch and his like have such influence on the issue. While Murdoch might legitimately claim that his editors have editorial freedom, it would be a very unusual editor to be so politically inept as to not pay heed to the views of those responsible for them keeping their job. It calls to mind the probably apocryphal tale of the company chairman saying: “It is only a suggestion, gentlemen, but don’t forget who’s making it.” In the U.K., Murdoch has just lost a lot of influence because the politicians have at last found strength in numbers and given him the finger – a bit like a group of shopkeepers getting together to reject a mafia protection racket; on reflection, a lot more than a ‘bit’ like. Pity we can’t give him the finger globally. Imagine if all the Murdoch owned American media had a completely and genuinely independent editorial policy. They can’t all be single without children or grandchildren who will suffer if we continue with business as usual. Some of them must have learnt that sex is intended to be performed as a duet instead of in solo. I don’t speak American English, but I think the word ‘jerk’ applies somehow.
62030. Anteros at 19:10 PM on 4 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       (-snip[snip] It makes me wonder if those alleging bad faith have checked in a mirror recently.-) It is also surprising that my criticisms remain unanswered. I found it encouraging to agree with a point made by Barry Bickmore, and I can't help notice that not one person has made a comment to him, but my observation of exactly the same thing provokes such ire amongst the regulars here. The most important point about the attempt to discredit the WSJ article [which, I repeat, I have no motive to defend - it is just a poor op-ed] is the allegation that the 1990 FAR line is closest to the high sensitivity prediction. It isn't - that is false. Graph A provides a very clear visual image of what the FAR defines as the high sensitivity prediction - 0.5C per decade. You'll note that it is virtually straight. Remember that the central best estimate is 0.3C (graph B). The WSJ line is 0.32C. Here is what the post above says -

       Looking back at Table 1, only one projection is anywhere close to the 0.32°C per decade increase that the WSJ graph shows

       That is because the numbers in Table 1 are completely different from the numbers given by the FAR. The FAR says 0.5C per decade, Keith Pickering's table 1 says 0.35C. Even Albatross concedes that there may have been a mistake. But Keith Pickering defends it. (-snipI'll leave it with you. The WSJ graph (0.32) - which is it closest to, A (0.5) or B(0.3)?, honestly?-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] As Tom Curtis has amply demonstrated at comment 52 above and at comment # 70 below, and by many others at various points in this thread, you continue to erect a house of misquote cards and then proceed to demolish them.  All the while throwing inflammatory accusatory darts questioning the integrity of others (multiple instances in multiple comments, since snipped).

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

62031. owl905 at 18:07 PM on 4 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       Followup on R.Gates comment - the current interglacial was already an anomaly - it didn't peak and decline like the last three interglacial periods. The 'lucky' event seems to be the Younger Dryas (the Lake Agassiz puzzle). Somehow (or consequently), the spike was intercepted by a cold period ... and temperatures steadied up until the Industrial Revolution. As R. Gates suggested - we've now artificially provided the spike-driver to re-instate the natural high and probable subsequent decline (and a gigaload of GHGs to boot). The implication that this may take our current standard of living with it ... is just minor collateral damage in the scheme of things. "Civilization is Man's way of showing Nature who's boss." - quip from my webpages 15 years ago.
62032. Tom Curtis at 17:18 PM on 4 March 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Bernard J. @9, Fairoakien explicitly asked about the costs "to Canada". I think that it is probably that Canada will be a net economic beneficiary of global warming well into this century, and possibly into the next one as well. The same is probably true of Russia (particularly Siberia) and Finland. As you point out, however, that benefit will come at the price of very substantial costs elsewhere in the world. Quite apart from the moral issue of gaining benefits from actions that directly harm others, should these nations pursue a high emissions policy, the fact is that the world will descend into a sustained economic crisis at best if global warming is not mitigated. While Canada's farmers may benefit, I doubt that Canada over all will benefit from doubling it's arable land in the face of economic conditions equivalent to a permanent global financial crisis, or 1930's depression. Finally, Fairoakien is wrong in asserting that benefits are ignored when assessing the costs of global warming. The IPCC in particular considers both costs and benefits in its assessments.
62033. Bernard J. at 16:46 PM on 4 March 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Fairoakien asks at #5:

       What are the costs to canada [sic] if the climate becomes warmer and farming opens up in larger areas.

       Aside from the hints given in johngray's pointer at #7, Fairoakien needs to consider that the geometrical premise of his question does not necessarily stand up. As the poleward borders of growing regions move further poleward, the equatorially-oriented borders may (and usually will) themselves move also. Fairoakien needs to consider what happens to the surface area of a latitudinal band that spans a particular number of degrees of arc, when the arc band moves away from the equator...
62034. Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 4 March 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       dunc461 @60, your itemization of the relevant processes is basically correct, excepting (as noted by Bob Loblaw) absorption from the sun and (in GCMs and the real atmosphere) lateral heat transfer. More important than those omissions is that it omits the fact that heat loss or gain by convection is governed by the difference between the existing lapse rate at a particular place and time (the environmental lapse rate) and the lapse rate at which convection with consequent loss of pressure involves no loss of heat (the adiabatic lapse rate, or if their is moisture in the air, the moist adiabatic lapse rate). For non-chemical engineers who are reading this, "adiabatic" processes are processes in which there is no net transfer of energy. The result is that if other effects make the lapse rate greater than the moist adiabatic lapse rate, convection will increase until the lapse rate returns to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. Conversely, if other processes cause the lapse rate to be less than the moist adiabatic lapse rate, convection will weaken thus tending bring the lapse rate back to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. The result is that for much of the Earth, in the troposphere the lapse rate can be taken as being determined by the moist adiabatic lapse rate. There are limits on this process, notably at the poles and the tropopause (and above) where convection is weak so that other factors dominate. This is the subject of my intended next post in this series.
62035. amhartley at 10:35 AM on 4 March 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       On assessing investments using ratios vs. differences: The tendency to use ratios indiscriminately seems like a basic human weakness, not necessarily a means of justifying inaction on climate change. Time Magazine had a good article last year about how the public generally assesses cost / benefits. Imagine that you were going to buy a coat for $50 & you find at the last minute that the store down the street sells the same thing for $20. Chances are, you would take the time to walk to the other store to save the $30. Now imagine that you were buying a bicycle costing $1,000, & at the last minute you learn that the store down the road sells the same bike for $950. Most people would not take the time to save that $50 difference, even though it's greater than the $30 they might save on the coat. Somehow, it seems, we are wired to over-emphasize ratios.
62036. Bob Loblaw at 10:31 AM on 4 March 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       dunc461: Note that I said it was unusual, not wrong (except for the lack of solar). In essence, the real atmosphere works as a continuous function, not a series of layers, so the "best" way is to use calculus and analog solutions to describe the system. We almost invariably end up breaking things into layers (or a series of discrete points that kind of look like layers) for practical purposes, however - e.g., finite difference methods for solving differential equations. Beer's Law is a fun example: there is an integrated form (e.g., I/I_0 = exp(-tau*m)) that I used to teach, but a chemist might be more familiar with it in a differential form (e.g, dI/dz = ...) because that's how it is commonly used in a lab when measuring concentrations of solutions by optical methods (sodium comes to mind). Neither is "wrong", but one may be more familiar depending on a person's background, and one may be more convenient, depending on the usage.
62037. R. Gates at 10:15 AM on 4 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       Good point nigelj. One could of course extrapolate that backward to the beginning of the Holocene itself, and suggest that civilization's rise was part of a positive feedback response to the warmer temperatures which allowed for the rise of agriculture which was necessary for civilization. Thus, during this particular interglacial period, one particular species of animal was ripe to take advantage of the warmer temperatures and thus developed the means to further warm the planet by the release of massive amounts of greenhouse gases. So to that extent, civilization is an ongoing positive feedback response to the initial Milankovitch cycle that shifted to begin warming the ocean, melting the ice sheets, outgassing CO2, etc. The difference between this interglacial and others of the past few million years is clearly civilization as a positive feedback response to warmer interglacial temperatures-- hence why giving it the term Anthopocene is quite appropriate and should be marked as officially beginning when human civilization began altering atmospheric chemistry in a measurable way beyond individual human respiration.
62038. dunc461 at 09:57 AM on 4 March 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       Bob Loblaw @61 Thanks for your post. You have to forgive my approach. As an old Chemical Engineer, I tend to compare this process to a distillation column where back in day we used Theoretical Stages and did Heat and Material Balances. I used the generated BBR to designate the full spectrum radiation and the pass through BBR to represent the radiation where the energy in the GHC bands had been partially depleted. You are of course right about the solar radiation. I thought about that just after I completed the post.
62039. nigelj at 09:42 AM on 4 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       Positive feedbacks arent just limited to natural forces, climate change will cause changes in the patterns of humanity that will also cause positive feedbacks. Migration to escape problem areas will increase travel to stay in touch with homeland areas, itself increasing emissions. Relocation of of cities requires energy, air conditioning requires energy encouraging more fossill fuel use. The list could be endless.
62040. Bob Loblaw at 09:29 AM on 4 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI @ 76: So solar radiation input is irrelevant, then? All this data I've seen where net IR is always negative, all day long, but the sun warms the surface, is wrong? (Presuming your DLR and OLR are Downwelling and Outgoing Longwave Radiation, not something to do with Lapse Rates.) [Snipped]
       Moderator Response: [JH] Please do not feed this troll, i.e., Yogi
62041. Bob Loblaw at 09:20 AM on 4 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       re: Alex C @ 60 I just used the eyecrometer on the provided "Reality vs. Alarm" graphic, and 0.1 looked like reasonable mid-range value from '89 to '93. The link to Tamino shows how you should do it, which is more in line with what you say, so I didn't see the need to analyze further. The other projections in the "Reality vs. Alarm" graph don't pop out quite the same way that the 1990 one does - they are much more in the middle. And the year of publication doesn't necessarily reflect the year that the projection starts - look at Albatross's updated TAR graph in comment 61. Although published in 2001, the projection starts to spread (gray band) from a point of origin in 1992. It takes time to collect data, run the models, analyze the results, etc. How would the WSJ graphic look if the first report was held off (contents unchanged) until 1992, and the SAR until 1996, the TAR was rushed out the door in 2000 instead of 2001, and the fourth delayed until 2008? Would the fake skeptics be saying "the warming greatly exceeds all the projections!"? Somehow, I doubt it.
62042. DSL at 09:20 AM on 4 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       You know why, Robert. Given the current state of understanding in the general public, every alternative theory, no matter how absurd, must be addressed. If no one challenged Volker, I guarantee that within five years my mother-in-law, bless her simple lifestyle, would be telling me, "but I heard that Mercury is actually causing global warming. See, it's a natural cycle." Fifty years from now, were she still alive, she'd be telling us how we need to blow up Mercury instead of charging more at the pump (government conspiracy!).
62043. Robert Murphy at 09:15 AM on 4 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       Why was Volker Doorman taken even halfway seriously? Look at his website; it's explicitly astrologically oriented with a new-age eastern mystical bent. There never *was* going to be a scientific argument from him.
62044. YOGI at 09:14 AM on 4 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       Bob Loblaw "..extra warmth..) ? "..can lead to warming if all other heat fluxes remain constant. [Fundamental misunderstanding of physics.]" Al you can say is that it would be warmer with clouds than without, but there is no rise in surface temp` unless DLR is greater surface OLR.
       Response:

       [DB] You still avoid finishing your dialogue with Dikran in comment 73 above.  You will not be able to move on until you finish that one already started.

62045. John Hartz at 09:13 AM on 4 March 2012
       Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
       The OP and Romm’s article are based on the findings contained in the peer-reviewed article, “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification”, Hönisch, et al, Journal of Science, March 2, 2012: 1058-1063, DOI:10.1126/science.1208277 Unfortunately, this paper is behind a paywall.
62046. R. Gates at 09:07 AM on 4 March 2012
       Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
       I think this increase in forest fires represents some of Earth system feedbacks that Hansen has recently commented on that must be accounted for in determination of any final equalibrium response to the rapid increases in greenhouse gases we've seen. In addition to the drying of the forests, there is the issue of the warmer winters which allows insects, like the pine beetle to survive, and destroy more trees, which also ultimately increases carbon in the atmosphere, and thus these biological responses also figure into any final equalibrium response. Given that the we are seeing more fires and more insect infestations already from 394 ppm of CO2, we' ve not yet obviously even seen what the equalibrium response is to our current levels of greenhouse gases, and given that they continue to rapidly build, we'll never know what it would have been.
62047. John Hartz at 09:06 AM on 4 March 2012
       Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
       Purely by coincidence, Joe Romm also posted today an article about the findings of the paper discussed in the above OP. The title of Romm’s article is:”Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself” It covers some ground not covered in the above OP. The two articles nicely complement each other. To access Romm’s article, click here.
62048. Bob Loblaw at 08:58 AM on 4 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI@70 Wow. Basically three short sentences (not counting the single word "Correct" that starts the third paragraph) and we have both a strawman and a goalpost shift. Plus a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.... 1) Who said "all night long"? I'm comparing two scenarios at a single point in time, and how something/someone "feels" at that instant. No need to consider what might be going on hours away. [Strawman - I never said the conditions had to be maintained for a period of time.] 2) At a particular point in time, 30 C with rapid heat loss will "feel cooler" than 30C with a slow heat loss. No need to wait. [Goalpost shift - now "feels warm" or "feels cool" is replaced by "needs to be substantially cooler than skin temperature, or previous temperature". I can't tell which YOGI means.] 3) Whether something warms or cools is dependent on it total energy balance, not just the net IR. Even if net IR is negative (a loss), reducing that loss (making it less negative) can lead to warming if all other heat fluxes remain constant. [Fundamental misunderstanding of physics.] It may be that you're just expressing yourself poorly, but for me, it's "three strikes, you're out".
62049. dhogaza at 08:22 AM on 4 March 2012
       Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
       funglestrumpet: Murdoch didn't really change anything. The paper's editorial and op-ed pages were anti-science before he bought it (when science clashed with the papers political views). It published an infamous "satellite data shows cooling and is the wooden stake through the heart of global warming" piece when the very first UAH reconstruction was published. That was not the first attack on climate science, and that was long before Murdoch bought it. It published a bunch of pseudo-scientific attacks on issues like conservation and acid rain in its day, probably ozone layer stuff as well though I don't remember. It may be more a case of Murdoch buying a paper with an editorial stance much too his liking than of Murdoch buying a paper and twisting its editorial stance into alignment with his own.
62050. adelady at 07:21 AM on 4 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI "clear sky, warm night, surface at 30 degrees C.." What all night long ?" I don't know where you live that causes you to be surprised at this, but it is quite realistic. Where I live the temperature at 2.00am was 30.7C a couple of nights ago. And it wasn't much less at 6.00am.

Prev  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  Next