Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

May 3, 2011 By KARL RITTER , Associated Press
New report confirms Arctic melt accelerating (AP)


In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg is seen off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the ice in the region is melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the region's ice and snow are melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century.

continues
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-arctic.html

snip

an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in.

It also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change.

The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years.

the problem with "averages
...it may appear to be a small gain but the energy is huge and consequences, when the energy is focused in a narrow zone of change as with the Arctic, are substantial and rapid.

 

[Furcifer]

Goalpost shift noted. You made the claim that climate models are unreliable, and I asked you to tell us in what respect you thought they were unreliable. Since climate models are not economic models they will not give you economic information this should be obvious.

They're unreliable when answering those questions. If you have evidence otherwise I'd like to see it.

Now, as to the economic models you are taking the approach of a communist style central command economics. I have no interest in bothering with such things. If we want to take a fee market approach we can’t allow anyone to pump stuff into the air and make others absorb the cost of fixing the problem. This means that whoever is spitting CO2 into the atmosphere needs to pay the costs of removing that CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes this means some prices will rise, but that’s what always happens when market distorting subsidies/externalities are removed, but that’s just how free markets work.

There still has to be an intermediary step that puts a dollar value on CO2.

 

[Furcifer]

The second problem is that if you are going to apply a linear interpolation you need to provide evidence your model is valid. Do you have any evidence to support your use of a linear model of temperature change over the last 150 years and that this model will hold over the next 100? If not then drop your claim.

It's called "the line of best fit". It's a mathematical technique.

 

[BenBurch]

It's even worse than most investigators thought;

http://pda.physorg.com/news/2011-05-arctic.html

<SNIP>
AMAP also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise - one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations.

The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.

That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica.
<SNIP>

 

[Furcifer]

Of course, this is the point. AGW isn't about just a one-off "few degrees over a hundred years" event. That is simply one of the early impacts of antropogenically sourced CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. The full impacts of CO2 being emitted now, won't be realized for many decades to centuries to come, and these impacts include everything from enhanced desertification, increasingly energetic storm systems, increased ranges and spread of pests and pestilence, acidification of the seas, rising sea levels, to the mass extinction of much of the planet's micro and macro, flora and fauna.

Given the extremes of current climates around the world and the proposed increase due to global warming it represents a shift not an apocalypse.

The above alarmist claims also presume no human intervention and no technological deployment. Both of which are false. People only need to look to their cars and the changing landscape to see that isn't the case.

In the case of mount St Helens there was an influx of life from outside the impacted areas to drive its biome recovery, this won't happen in a post-AGW world because AGW is a global event.

It may be a world event but you've incorrectly assumed the climate is uniform around the planet. If you take a look at the actual science you'll see the actual progression is a shift towards the poles.

The obvious difference you've also overlooked is the time frame. St. Helens happened over days not centuries.

 

[Furcifer]

Neither the CO2 increases, nor the temp. increases, are linear affairs. Please link to the NASA (presumably a GISS effort) model you reference, I am well familiar with almost all of their climate models and projections and I have never seen anything close to what you allude to.

The fact is the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year. The fantasy is part of the alarmism, while the increase is linear, most likely as a result of the measures being taken on a global scale, the fantasy is this exponential "business as usual" mongering.

It isn't "business as usual". Take a look around, things have changed.

 

[Furcifer]

In science, and the discussion of science topics, the words we use are very important, so perhaps it would provide for a more constructive discussion if there is a focus on the words we are using, they do possess very specific definitions. Try looking at the term "fiction."

It's fantasy, I checked. It presumes a world wide amnesia where everyone forgets about climate change and stops doing what they've been doing for more than 3 decades.

irrelevent, offtopic, denigrating and incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Lost_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Lost_(1974_TV_series)

One more than 1 ocassion people have referenced ancient climates in the present day world. It's very much like Land of The Lost.

Your bogglement is OT and irrelevent.

The "bogglement" was a result of your strange claims about something being "advocated". I still don't know what you're talking about. Nobody has "advocated" anything as far as I can tell.

If you aren't advocating your position and understanding as considerations important for action (or inaction), then of what possible relevence are your comments in this (and other) threads here?

You're the one advocating "inaction". You're actually claiming it under this "business as usual" fgantasy. It isn't "business as usual". I strongly suggest you take a look around and compare even your own carbon emissions 10, 20 30 years ago. You haven't continued on "business as usual". It's almost impossible to do so, you'd have to make a concerted effort to do so.

There is no evidence of change at this point, just a lot of people hoping for it and a few people working toward it. I would be interested in any evidence you can point to that indicates that substantive changes are being made and real reductions are occurring, but I don't see it in the CO2 emission levels.

Most likely this is a result of your persistent fantasy that it's "business as usual". Shall I cite the closure of coal plants, the construction of natural gas and wind turbines? Do I need to? Or are you just unaware of how much things have changed in the last 30 years? The simple fact that emissions are holding at a linear increase of about 1% per year instead of exponential should be evidence enough.

Sounds like a "fantasy" to me. Regardless, your suppositions and imaginings are irrelevent and OT to this discussion. Pleae stick to what the science is actually telling us, your unsupported suppositions and musings are without significant support and have already been demonstrated to be largely due to confused misunderstandings and/or deliberate distortion.

Again I'd suggest to anyone reading this it isn't "business as usual". Your argument hinges on this fantasy claim that it is.

So either you're deluded into thinking it's "business as usual" or I'm deluded to think that there are measures in place and on the books making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and move us closer to a zero carbon world.

I'm confident of who is and isn't deluded.

 

[Trakar]

The fact is the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year. The fantasy is part of the alarmism, while the increase is linear, most likely as a result of the measures being taken on a global scale, the fantasy is this exponential "business as usual" mongering.

It isn't "business as usual". Take a look around, things have changed.

Please provide the scientific support for your assertion (that temp rises are linear) and the supporting references regarding NASA models that indicate 500 years before reaching +10º C, and any reference that supports that there are any significant emissions reductions occurring globally.

I've already provided numerous confirming and compelling links and references supporting my statements, so far, I've yet to see you provide anything that supports your claims and assertions.

 

[Reality Check]

The fact is the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year.

Can you give your citations for this "fact"?
Without citations it is an unsupported assertion, not a fact.

You seem to be wrong, e.g. the measurments of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory (Keeling Curve) start with one slope and end with a higher slope, i.e. are not linear. All it takes is the ability to read a graph and a ruler to see this.

I suspect that you have been fooled by fact that scientists often refer to the overall increase in CO2 as X% per year. That does not mean that the increase is linear. It is an average increase per year.

 

[Reality Check]

It's called "the line of best fit". It's a mathematical technique.

That is wrong. The line of best fit assumes that the relationship between the varibales is linear. So of course it gets a linear fit!

The scientific technique to get the best fit to a set of data is to
try various curves (linear, exponential, polynomia, etc.) and select the curve that has the best fit to the data, i.e. has the smallest sum of residuals.
The choice of curve is guided by looking at the the physics to see what the best fitting curve would be, e.g. if there is known feedback then an exponential fit is probable.

 

[macdoc]

anything to deny the obvious.....obfuscation rules in the deniosphere.....don't ask for citations - you won't get one.....just unsupported opinion.

If he did cite - he'd end up skewered like the denier fav Roy Spencer....as Gavin so ably illustrates here....

Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’

Filed under:

• Climate Science
• skeptics

— group @ 28 April 2011
Guest commentary from Steve Ghan
A good writer knows their audience, and Roy Spencer knows his. There are plenty of people who would love to hear a compelling argument for why no action is needed to mitigate global warming, and Spencer’s book “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” will give uncritical readers the argument they’ve been looking for. As Sarah Palin said, “while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather change”. That is really the essence of Roy’s argument.

What is the Great Blunder? According to his book, “a fundamental mistake has been made in previous interpretations of satellite data”…”a mix-up between cause and effect when analyzing cloud and temperature variations”.


Who made this mistake? Invariably, it is “the IPCC researchers”. He cites a couple of specific papers by Piers Forster, but finds no fault with them. So he casts aspersions into the wind.


Spencer’s assertion in his book of that there has been a “mix-up between cause and effect” is quite a different conclusion from his recent article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010, which concluded innocuously that “since the climate system is never in equilibrium, feedbacks in the climate system cannot be diagnosed from differences between equilibrium climate states” … despite the fact that this is the exact diagnosis supporting his conclusion in the book.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

It's good for a chuckle at the lengths the deniers will go to try and debunk what is very clear to the climate science community....

it's getting warmer
we're responsible

 

[macdoc]

More on the impact

Seas Could Rise Up to 1.6 meters by 2100

Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland's ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.:

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland's ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.

Such a rise -- above most past scientific estimates -- would add to threats to coasts from Bangladesh to Florida, low-lying Pacific islands and cities from London to Shanghai. It would also, for instance, raise costs of building tsunami barriers in Japan.

"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.

more
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seas-could-rise-up-to-16-meter

 

[Furcifer]

Can you give your citations for this "fact"?
Without citations it is an unsupported assertion, not a fact.

You seem to be wrong, e.g. the measurments of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory (Keeling Curve) start with one slope and end with a higher slope, i.e. are not linear. All it takes is the ability to read a graph and a ruler to see this.

I suspect that you have been fooled by fact that scientists often refer to the overall increase in CO2 as X% per year. That does not mean that the increase is linear. It is an average increase per year.

Bull pucky, Launa Loa has 1.5 ppm increase over the last 30 years. It's linear. (and approximately 1%, I'll let you do the math)

 

[Furcifer]

Please provide the scientific support for your assertion (that temp rises are linear) and the supporting references regarding NASA models that indicate 500 years before reaching +10º C, and any reference that supports that there are any significant emissions reductions occurring globally.

I've already provided numerous confirming and compelling links and references supporting my statements, so far, I've yet to see you provide anything that supports your claims and assertions.

I'm not spoon feeding anyone. If they want to investigate the ppm increase over the last three years to verify if it was linear or not more power to them. If they want to investigate whether it's "business as usual", or if they've experienced the change to a "greener" carbon friendly state so be it.

I could make you cite how it's "business as usual", or plead for you to do so, but I'd rather people investigate this themselves. There are just too many biased sources on the internet for it too mean anything. You really need to look at both "sides" and decide for yourself which is more credible.

If you can't find sources that say the ppm increase over the last 30 years has been about 1.5 ppm then you're not looking in the right places.

 

[macdoc]

The graph showing rising carbon dioxide levels came to be known as the Keeling Curve. Many Americans have never heard of it, but to climatologists, it is the most recognizable emblem of their science, engraved in bronze on a building at Mauna Loa and carved into a wall at the National Academy of Sciences in Washingto

http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/news/6/15/The-first-machine-to-measure-the-Carbon-Cycle/

••••••••••

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/atm...carbon-dioxide-co2-mauna-loa-or-keeling-curve

 

[Trakar]

The above alarmist claims also presume no human intervention and no technological deployment. Both of which are false. People only need to look to their cars and the changing landscape to see that isn't the case.

The above was not alarmist. It is the conservative assessment of mainstream climate science regarding AGW and the impacts it represents. My extrapolation trends towards the higher end of the science's conservative range of estimates merely because, so far, so has reality.

One only has to look at increasing rates of atmospheric CO2 production to see that very little beyond the rhetorical has yet occurred.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not spoon feeding anyone...

Your assertions, your obligation to support and reference,...that's how science works.

 

[Reality Check]

Bull pucky, Launa Loa has 1.5 ppm increase over the last 30 years. It's linear. (and approximately 1%, I'll let you do the math)

Wrong:

• The annual mean growth rate measured at Mauna Loa for 2007 was 2.14ppm.
• From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

It is not linear as also explained in the Keeling Curve article.

The measurements collected at Mauna Loa show a steady increase in mean atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1958 to 385 ppmv as of June 2008.[6][7] This increase in atmospheric CO2 is considered to be largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and has been accelerating in recent years.

(emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

Bull pucky, Launa Loa has 1.5 ppm increase over the last 30 years. It's linear. (and approximately 1%, I'll let you do the math)

Missed out some citations that show that your bull pucky is real non-linear.
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX

Weekly data are used to create a smoothed north-south latitude profile from which a global average is calculated (Figure 2). The growth rate of CO2 has averaged about 1.66 ppm per year over the past 30 years (1979-2009). The CO2 growth rate has increased over this period, averaging about 1.43 ppm per year before 1995 and 1.91 ppm per year thereafter.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2010[update][1] and rose by 1.9 ppm/yr during 2000–2009.[2]
...
[2] http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/09/hl-full.htm Carbon Budget 2009 Highlights

 

[Trakar]

...So either you're deluded into thinking it's "business as usual" or I'm deluded to think that there are measures in place and on the books making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and move us closer to a zero carbon world.

I'm confident of who is and isn't deluded.

Ironically, the DSM-IV states that delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with great confidence and surety.

I can and have provided peer-reviewed and compelling information and reference that supports that which I state. So far, despite your great personal conviction in the rectitude of your beliefs, you have not provided any evidences or substantive supports for your beliefs.