Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

Also, I believe that Hansen used sensitivity estimates from the time that were marginally higher, so when corrected for currently accepted values the fit is a lot better (read that on SkS somewhere)

ETA: oh, Halsu already pointed that out in his reply to my question

Sensitivity is an output of the model not an input parameter.

I believe he did come up with a higher airborne fraction which means he’s actually generating results for higher CO2 concentrations than the emission scenarios would suggest. In particular the business as usual scenario uses much higher CO2 concentrations than we currently have. IIRC actual CO2 concentrations fall between the other two scenarios.

 

[Robert Prey]

Mmm... from wikipedia, about the author:

"Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".[3] In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[17] Mörner declined the offer.[18]"​

Also, this is not as scientific paper but rather an opinion pamphlet published by SPPI, a well known denialist think tank. Oh well...

From Wikipedia -- how come you left this out? Not relevant???

"Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

Oh,well.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

From Wikipedia -- how come you left this out? Not relevant???

"Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

Oh,well.

Formerly, yes. He is a nutjob. And that is well established.

 

[macdoc]

I think the denier community sends pilgrims out into the wilderness devoid of Faux haven.
Had a watts refugee wander into ratskep today peddling mendicants and null hypothethics claiming his meteorology background as a retire pilot translated into writing papers on atmospheric science.
Almost as nonsensical as his 5th century brothers in proliferation of all things sky daddyish.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I like reading Wikipedia articles about people like this Mörner person. Also their personal websites and their sites in institutions. They look like you are reading the biography of William Tell or Indiana Jones.

A point in their favour is that they usually aren't college drop-outs or talkative chaps "who hadn't an opportunity in life to develop their potentials" -so they decided to take revenge via Internet- like most of the denialists that swarm here and there like bees without a queen.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

From Robert's linkomania:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=907&pictureid=7183[/qimg]

What's next? Inviting climate scientist to a debate and smashing each one in the head with a candelabra as they're coming in?

I really dont understand that image....why is it tilted?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I really dont understand that image....why is it tilted?

Mörner says that's the way it is and he can prove it -but the prove is not available-. He tells that there's a bias in all of the instruments of different satellites that makes it look like the sea is rising, but he claims that's a fatamorgana. Of course, on the question about sea ports and measuring sea level rise with marks in a pole and a 50-cent ruler, Mörner made a sampling and after discarding dozens he found an actual port that "confirms" the trend, that port is in Northern Saxony and it's settled in a strip of coast that goes from the mouth of the Rhein to Schleswig. Of course, the fact that that strip has a tendency to sink and that there are soils suffering consolidation and use of groundwaters, seems not to bother him.

As you said, the guy is a nice nut-job.

 

[Robert Prey]

Caught in a lie, he doubled down, trying to pass a story about raising costs of oil during Winter as if about "global cooling".

How much of an apology do you think we'll get from him?

Lesson One: Never judge a book or a magazine by its cover.

Lesson Two: Never judge a book or a magazine by its cover.

To All Climate Change Deep Thinkers: Pay Attention.

 

[macdoc]

the sage of denier land. Would you like to discuss climate science or continue to maunder?

••

Meanwhile in the real world.....

Ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming fast

* 02 January 2013

THE ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming much faster than we thought, suggesting swathes of it could melt and send global sea levels soaring.

Climatologists have struggled to work out whether Antarctica is warming, and how quickly, because it has few weather stations and the records from some are incomplete.

David Bromwich of Ohio State University in Columbus and his colleagues filled in the gaps for one key station using statistics and data from a climate model. They conclude that temperatures since 1958 have risen about 0.46 °C per decade - more than twice as fast as previously thought (Nature Geoscience, doi.org/j351).

continues

http://www.newscientist.com/article...eets-of-west-antarctica-are-warming-fast.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

Lesson One: Never judge a book or a magazine by its cover.

Lesson Two: Never judge a book or a magazine by its cover.

To All Climate Change Deep Thinkers: Pay Attention.

Trying to rewrite history like the oppressors in 1984, Robert?

No matter how much you try to disguise the story as if you intended "to teach us a lesson", it remains to be obvious that your mind works like the typical denialist's: you saw that "cover" elsewhere and you swallow it hook, line and sinker because of your irrational prejudices: you're just an aggressive hedonist who decided that anthropogenic global warming and what have to be done about it didn't give any pleasure to you, but any stupid bit that denies it satisfy you, so you go on that way. That's why all what you do boils down to telling lies, repeating lies -usually as crappy links- and when you are caught doing so, like in these fora, feigning like each episode didn't happen or you intended it other way.

"Never judge a book by its cover", and your "eloquence" couldn't even imagine other than a fixed expression. As I said, your morality shares the same level of your intelligence, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Dancing David]

From the "Read the cover story" link in the page you posted:

"SHORTAGES: A Time of Learning to Live with Less
Monday, Dec. 03, 1973

Heavy with cargo, low-riding oil tankers bucked through the windblown South Atlantic last week on their way from the Persian Gulf to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, New York and other U.S. ports. In a week or so, they will tie up at their destinations—and the U.S. will enter a sterner, more painful new era of energy shortages. These huge ships were the last to be loaded before the Arab states blocked all petroleum shipments to the U.S. in retaliation for American support of Israel. The Arab move is expected to diminish by a..."

So, you once again are caught in a lie.

Pathetic.

[takei] Ooh myy [/takei]

Standard RP quote something without reading it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

you are correct in the denial but it's well funded not just crackpot ...this is well worth the hour it takes to watch and you will come away

a) well informed
b) appalled at the manufactured controversy to protect the fossil fuel interests

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

The British Royal Society for the first time in it's illustrious history went public over it and wrote an open letter to Exxon decrying it's role in funding disinformation and there was an Exxon shareholders revolt over the company's policy.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2004439843_exxonrock27.html

They almost unseated the chairman over it.

Yet despite that AGW was almost off the agenda on the election and many of us here figure it's just a matter of coping with the change that is on it's way - and it will not be pretty.

This last years wild weather was only a small presage of what's coming as the climate moves into a different state.

Where the science focus is now is what that state will be like for various regions of the planet as the planet warms.

Certainly the Arctic is already the throes of major change.

C02 has not been this high for millions of years and it WILL get warmer. Interesting times.

It seems it's the misinformation effort you speak of that is at the root of the adamant denial arguments I have witnessed among laypeople.

 

[Perpetual Student]

When I look at this list LINK, the situation seems to be hopeless. If, say, the USA, second on the list, were to undertake a massive effort to reduce emissions and for example, reduced them by half, that would accomplish very little in global terms, but would come at an enormous economic cost. It seems it would be wiser to spend the money preparing for the consequences of rising sea levels, etc.

 

[DC]

When I look at this list LINK, the situation seems to be hopeless. If, say, the USA, second on the list, were to undertake a massive effort to reduce emissions and for example, reduced them by half, that would accomplish very little in global terms, but would come at an enormous economic cost. It seems it would be wiser to spend the money preparing for the consequences of rising sea levels, etc.

Have you based that conclusion on some studies ?

what is the cost of reducing CO2 emissions?
what is the cost of the impacts?
what is the cost of preparing for those impacts etc?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Have you based that conclusion on some studies ?

what is the cost of reducing CO2 emissions?
what is the cost of the impacts?
what is the cost of preparing for those impacts etc?

I intentionally used the expression, "it seems" to preface my comments (not "conclusions") because I have no supporting data, only a general impression. But you missed the main point, which is that even if we did succeed in reducing our emissions by half, it would have a minimal global effect. "It seems" we should expend our effort on preparing for the inevitable consequences of global warming. I have no expertise in this area and I am very interested in learning that I am wrong in this opinion -- if indeed that is the case.

 

[DC]

I intentionally used the expression, "it seems" to preface my comments (not "conclusions") because I have no supporting data, only a general impression. But you missed the main point, which is that even if we did succeed in reducing our emissions by half, it would have a minimal global effect. "It seems" we should expend our effort on preparing for the inevitable consequences of global warming. I have no expertise in this area and I am very interested in learning that I am wrong in this opinion\ -- if indeed that is the case.

if we fail to reduce our emission, the problem is getting even worse. even with mitigation it is unclear if we might hit a tipping point. but without mitigation it is pretty sure we will hit a tipping point. this alone is reason enough to go the route of mitigation.

 

[lomiller]

If, say, the USA, second on the list, were to undertake a massive effort to reduce emissions and for example, reduced them by half, that would accomplish very little in global terms, but would come at an enormous economic cost. It seems it would be wiser to spend the money preparing for the consequences of rising sea levels, etc.

The US produces ~ twice as much CO2 per person as most other industrialized countries (France, Germany, The UK, Japan) so the notion that there would be great economic cost involved with cutting US emissions in half is questionable at best. There are still plenty of avenues available to reduce emissions in those countries as well.

A 60% reduction in the US and 20% in Europe would mean about a 15% decrease globally with is actually a lot more than it sounds since the oceans absorb more than half of human CO2 emissions. Int the short term this could slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 by up to 1/3. (Only temporarily though, as the CO2 stored in the ocean increased the rate at which it anaerobes CO2 would drop )

Obvious China/India/Brazil/Russia are still a big problem going forward. China is already approaching the lower end of EU industrialized countries in terms of CO2 per capita so they would need to stop their CO2 emissions from increasing pretty much immediately which unfortunately I don't see happening.

It is still possible to make meaningful CO2 cuts, but it would need everyone to participate. Europe is basically in already, but more can done. The US talks about it from time tom time but probably won't even though it could. The third big player, China won't. Their government sticks to it's playbook long after it's no longer viable, I just don't see them changing course.

 

[Perpetual Student]

if we fail to reduce our emission, the problem is getting even worse. even with mitigation it is unclear if we might hit a tipping point. but without mitigation it is pretty sure we will hit a tipping point. this alone is reason enough to go the route of mitigation.

Yes, things seem to be quite unclear. I would guess that it is extremely unlikely that China, India and South American countries, etc. will not continue to escalate their levels of emissions. If you look at that link and extrapolate out at some reasonable rate of increase for those less developed nations, I think the conclusion that we should spend our efforts in preparing for the worst is a fairly good one. The fact that this may not be consistent with the dogma of some of the political left is irrelevant.

 

[DC]

Yes, things seem to be quite unclear. I would guess that it is extremely unlikely that China, India and South American countries, etc. will not continue to escalate their levels of emissions. If you look at that link and extrapolate out at some reasonable rate of increase for those less developed nations, I think the conclusion that we should spend our efforts in preparing for the worst is a fairly good one. The fact that this may not be consistent with the dogma of some of the political left is irrelevant.

i don't think its a good conclusion at all.
the problems it will cause are far bigger than the problems we will face with mitigation.

 

[macdoc]

If first world can at least kill coal then that goes a long way to help.