Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2011 - 11:51am PT
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Jul 28, 2011 - 10:52pm PT
As someone who lives in a civilization who's very existence depends on oil
the most beautiful thing in any pristine environment is an oil drilling platform.
Asinine and selfish. What a way to go through life.
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2011 - 12:30pm PT
|
The Spencer-Braswell paper is indeed provocative, starting with the title (“On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance”). Lighting up the Blogosphere and even mentioned on Fox News, it has some serious flaws, as Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo have described in detail at realclimate.org. The journal that accepted the paper (Remote Sensing) is a new open-access journal published in India. Although I like the trend toward open access (am urging the American Geophysical Union to move in that direction), the peer review and acceptance of the paper were perhaps too hasty.
It does, however, provide an opportunity to examine just what the controversy involves. Some of what we know about climate is settled. Earth’s temperature has gone up over the past century, as have atmospheric CO2 concentrations. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in a spectral region where water vapor does not, hence increasing CO2 causes the atmosphere to absorb more of the infrared radiation that Earth’s surface emits. Isotopic mixtures of atmospheric carbon show that the extra CO2 comes primarily from fossil fuels.
Let me be clear here. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen would both agree with the paragraph above.
So what’s the issue? The climate sensitivity: how much of a temperature increase will an increase in CO2 cause? For example, how much warmer will Earth be when CO2 reaches 540 ppm, double the preindustrial level (during the last million years up till ~1800, atmospheric CO2 never went above 270 ppm)? Here the calculation gets more complicated because of feedback; warmer temperatures from the CO2 cause changes in water vapor, snow, clouds, oceans, etc. Some of these cause positive feedback and thereby further warming, whereas negative feedback mechanisms reduce the degree of warming. Therefore the questions for the future (and the interpretation of evidence from the past) involve understanding the feedbacks. Some are undeniably positive; two examples are: (i) increases in temperature cause more evaporation from the oceans and thereby more atmospheric water vapor that in turn absorbs more infrared radiation; (ii) decreasing sea ice reduces Earth’s reflectivity and leads to more absorption of solar radiation.
Clouds are not so simple, with both negative and positive feedbacks. They are brighter than Earth’s surface and therefore reflect more solar radiation, so maybe a warmer world would have more clouds and thereby damp the temperature increase. However, clouds also trap more outgoing infrared radiation so maybe a cloudier atmosphere would lead to warmer temperatures. In fact, we see both, as you probably know from your own experience. Cloudy days are usually cooler than clear days, but cloudy nights are usually warmer than clear nights. Measurements of Earth’s radiation balance from the CERES instrument show spatial and seasonal variability of clouds’ effects, but in general clouds warm more than they cool. Spencer’s belief that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than the general climate science consensus is based on a hypothesis that clouds reflectivity of solar radiation will overwhelm their increase absorption of infrared radiation. Lindzen’s Iris Hypothesis is quite different: he believes that a warmer ocean will lead to a clearer tropical atmosphere and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space.
The new Spencer-Braswell paper purports to see less sensitivity to climate from a decade of CERES data (yes, a decade is short, but it is the period over which we have excellent satellite measurements). Two main shortcomings of the paper (see the details from Trenberth & Fasullo at realclimate.org) are:
(1) “. . . no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”
(2) “[Spencer’s] model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO [El Niño/Southern Oscillation]. . . . There is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. . . . Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.”
Bottom line: because of heat storage, particularly in the oceans, you got to be careful when interpreting results from the radiation measurements alone, particularly over a short time period. Also, clouds are a result of weather, not a cause.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2011 - 01:21pm PT
|
Also, clouds are a result of weather, not a cause.
One might add that Roy Spencer, almost alone among credentialed climate scientists, argues the opposite view: that clouds cause El Nino, for instance, rather than being one of its effects.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 11:37am PT
|
Such simple behavior is mostly inferred, however, because there is little evidence of past sea-ice dynamics to allow a more nuanced view.
Ed,
Since I don't know from scientific wordsmithery does this quote mean there is
no evidence because there weren't satellites 200 years ago? There is a pretty
rich history of observations by fairly objective mariners, especially for the
last 500 years, but is that not objective enough? I suppose 500 years isn't
really long enough, is it?
And based upon glacial core samples and such is it really known how much warmer
it was in Greenland when the Vikings lived there? Besides being able to grow
crops there must have really been a lot less sea ice then.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2011 - 11:44am PT
|
I'll bet the vast majority of CWM's also never ask for directions either.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 18, 2011 - 03:06pm PT
|
"The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, but one that does not make sense to exploit," the scientists wrote to Obama. "When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans.
"Now that we do know, it's imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy," they continued. "As scientists, speaking for ourselves and not for any of our institutions, we can say categorically that [the pipeline is] not only not in the national interest, it’s also not in the planet’s best interest."
Climate Scientist Sees No Choice but to Risk Arrest at Keystone XL Protests
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2011 - 04:38pm PT
|
We're wise to the standard trickery of these climate reports: filled with
multisyllable weasel words always preceded with a 'maybe,
possibly
or -please God let it be true because my career is over if it isn't plea!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2011 - 04:54pm PT
|
That is my high light added as i think that paragraph is the nut of the problem. One of the characteristics of the authoritarian personality is hostility and intolerance of those who do not share your values. "Climate change" equals "environmentalism" which equals "liberal". Whether it is right or not dosn't matter. What matters is that they are the enemy.
Oh, the irony!
John
P.S. For the record, I am a short, CWM who believes (if that's the right word) what I consider to be the scientific consensus on AGW, as shown in referenes and posts by Ed H., Chiloe and others.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2011 - 09:09am PT
|
filled with
multisyllable weasel words
Do the big words make your head hurt, cc?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2011 - 11:39pm PT
|
Thank you Bruce Kay for posting this:
Why Are White Guys Climate Skeptics?
—By Kate Sheppard| Wed Aug. 3, 2011 1:31 PM PDT
A new paper in Global Environmental Change has a generated some interesting chatter online. The title, "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States" sums it up the central question pretty well: Why do white guys think climate change is a bunch of baloney?
Via Chris Mooney, here's the summary of the data on conservative white males, or CWM:
— 14% of the general public doesn’t worry about climate change at all, but among CWMs the percentage jumps to 39%.
— 32% of adults deny there is a scientific consensus on climate change, but 59% of CWMs deny what the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists have said.
— 3 adults in 10 don't believe recent global temperature increases are primarily caused by human activity. Twice that many – 6 CWMs out of every ten – feel that way
It's not exactly shocking news, if you've ever taken a moment to consider that white men seem to make up the majority of the audience for Fox News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. The authors boil it down to a few psychological explanations: "identity-protective cognition," or seeking out and believing that which affirms the beliefs or values one already holds, and "system justification," or a motivation to defend the status quo.
Mooney also raises a good point about one theory the report authors left out of the discussion: "social dominance orientation." Basically, the idea is that white men like things they way they are now, because so far they've made out pretty well. They also seek out and are affirmed by others who believe the same things (i.e., Limbaugh and Beck). Mooney explains it eloquently:
**Rather, I simply think they experience modern climate science and climate advocacy as an affront, an attack on them and what they believe. They were brought up in a certain way, they believe certain things, and they have no reason to think of themselves as bad people—and indeed, mostly they’re not bad people. They give to charity. They go to church. They provide for a family. And so on.
But then they perceive all these attacks on their values coming from outsiders—hippie environmentalists and ivory tower climate scientists. If you didn’t do anything wrong, and you consider yourself as reasonable and intelligent--but people are attacking you and your values—you maybe get kind of outraged and worked up.**
What I wonder, though, is how much shifting demographics will affect this. Demographers expect that white people will become the minority in the US in the next 40 years. So the next generation of white men will not be as large or politically powerful, for one. And they might also be less inclined toward those psychological traits, having perhaps not enjoyed quite the vaunted status of our current generation of white guys.
But that also creates the potential for a backlash. As conservative white males become less numerous and powerful, this might increase the tendency toward protectionism/withdraw/hostility, particularly on the question of climate change.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:44pm PT
|
Returned last night from three days of discussions about Arctic science, two arenas (both the science and the Arctic itself) of rapid change. Here's something new: the 3,000-year-old ice of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, north of Canada's Ellesmere Island, experienced further collapse in the last few days. Wikipedia gives the background, what's been changing there over the past century and decade:
The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is the largest ice shelf in the Arctic, located on the north coast of Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada. During the 20th century the Ellesmere Ice Shelf broke up into six separate shelves, the largest being Ward Hunt. Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is about 155 square miles (400 km2) in size, and has been in place for approximately 3,000 years as part of a continuous ice shelf that encompasses the northern coast of Ellesmere Island until the beginning of the twentieth century.[1] In 2005 one of the other shelves, the 25-square-mile (65 km2) Ayles Ice Shelf, calved completely.[1]
....
The Ward Hunt ice sheet began breaking up approximately 100 years ago, but was believed to have stabilized by the early 1980s. However, in April 2000, satellite images revealed that a large crack in the ice had begun to form, and in 2003, it was announced that the ice sheet had split completely in two in 2002, releasing a huge pool of fresh water from the largest epishelf lake in the Northern Hemisphere, located in Disraeli Fjord.[3] In April 2008, it was discovered that the shelf was fractured into dozens of deep, multi-faceted cracks.[4] In late July 2008, it was announced that nearly 8 square miles (21 km2) broke away from the shelf.[1] In August 2010, another 50 km² (19 sq mi) calved off from the northeast quarter of the ice shelf.
And here's the new part, satellite photos showing further breakup of this ancient ice just within the past few days:
August 18, 2010
August 18, 2011
August 20, 2011
H/t to D on Neven's Sea Ice blog, who comments on the August 20 photo,
Fragments of fresh fracture makes the ocean. Apparently this is the final collapse of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf (largest ice shelf in the Arctic)
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2011 - 02:18pm PT
|
View from the icebreaker USCGC Healy today, approaching 79N.
A few days ago the ice concentration in this area was above 50%, but something is happening.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:27pm PT
|
question: al gore's comparing agw skeptics to jim crow racists...
a) proves lib accusations of racism are so hollow they need to re-define racism to include opinions on climate science
b) proves lib hysteria over agw is so hollow they need to re-define climate science to include studies on race
c) proves all of the above
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:38pm PT
|
al gore's strategy to "win the conversation" about global warming?
treat skeptics the way "we" treat racists
1) al is way behind the supertopo libs
2) does he intend to treat skeptics the way he treated his FATHER who as a US SENATOR in 1964 voted AGAINST the civil rights bill?
3) why not "win the conversation" with rational arguments based on sound research and valid evidence?
4) i've found the answer to my own question: gore is definitely the stupidest nobel laureate
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 11:15pm PT
|
Bookworm....surely you gest and your postings are meant as humor...? Regardless , they are pretty hilarious....?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 30, 2011 - 11:05pm PT
|
[I couldn't figure out which thread I should post this to, either this one or the crazy Repub v. Dem thread, so I'm posting it to both. Who knows, maybe some folks reading this thread don't ready that other one.]
Interesting Op/Ed by Paul Krugman
Republicans Against Science
And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.
PS. Ed, that was one funny post. Made me laugh out loud, seriously.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!