A new open thread – hopefully for some new climate science topics…
Reader Interactions
350 Responses to "Unforced Variations: March 2013"
Lawrence Colemansays
Hydrogen powered ships?.. Many years ago I had the idea..born of cleaning our salt water swimming pool and watching the bubbles of hydrogen bubble up from the electric salinator..I thought..what if a ship was covered with light weight high efficiency solar cells and that electricity would generated hydrogen through electrolysis from the salt water the ship is sailing in. As the hydrogen bubbles would float to the surface there was some way of trapping and compressing them and then to feed the compressed gas to hydrogen powered engines which I thought would give better bang for the buck then just using the solar cells on deck to power the ship’s electric motors. I cant think of any harmful emissions that would cause. You would need to replace the electroysis electrodes once in a while but that’s all. Just shows I was conscious of emissions even way back in 1990. Do you guys think this is a viable concept?
I too have noticed they are doing excellent work and will follow your suggestion to begin supporting them. We do need an alternative to the NYTimes which is now also giving up on the International Herald Tribune (IHT) which did some of the better environmental reporting, if I understood correctly.
Also, I agree that Neven’s Sea Ice blog should be listed here.
T Marvellsays
Tex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, was on Charlie Rose yesterday, Thursday. A smoothie. Tries to sound reasonable. Says there is AGW, but the extent of the impact is unclear, due to the multitude of factors involved and to the margin of error given in scientific reports. Says we must develop non-carbon energy sources, but carbon fuels much supply 80%+ of energy in the next 40 years, and the government should not subsidize alternate energy production because it reduces the incentive of companies to become more efficient. Says he likes the carbon tax, an easy thing to say since it has virtually no chance of becoming law. Against regulation, including cap&trade. For government supported basic research (which won’t interfere with Exxon, like regulation does). He emphasized that his goal is for Exxon to make money.
At least he admitted to AGW, but I don’t like his use of climate science uncertainty to muddy the waters and downplay the importance of AGW. It’s a lite version of what the tobacco industry did concerning cancer research. The uncertainty really isn’t there any more, for global warming or cancer.
Why the different end-points for your data in your graph linked @64? The latest data seems to be for early 2012 with most other of your traces ending even earlier.
I myself feel the rolling annual average SIE/SIA is worth plotting (eg, as per here), mainly for completeness sake. I took a quick look at a plot of an averaged differential of that annual average, which does shows me plenty of wibbles & wobbles (not unlike your light blue trace) but I see no obvious cycles. The best of it is the gaps between the high peaks which are 4 to 6 years long with one peak absent
The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered.
More BS in Forbes. I hadn’t noticed before that they have a Tea Party columnist, James Taylor. He cites a survey of geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, essentially representing fossil fuel interests, as if they represent the views of all scientists.
Paraquat says “we are a rather long way from having hydrogen-powered cars”, and I, once a hydrogen-energy enthusiast, agree. Hydrogen cars are decades away. It isn’t certain engineering effort won’t be being misdirected into them decades in the future, but it is certain that the BMW 520h, with a liquid hydrogen tank and 300-km range, existed decades ago.
… of course you first need some sort of non-fossil fuel electricity (solar, wind, nuclear?) to produce the ammonia …
Better to extract CO2 from rocks, or the atmosphere, hydrogen from water, and react the CO2 and hydrogen to produce non-fossil gasoline.
Greedy Lying Bastards,” Craig Rosebraugh’s new film about climate change denial, opened today. It’s playing in selected US cities. See also its Wikipedia page.
Also, what has to be my favorite climate change headline ever appeared on CNN today: Global warming is epic, long-term study says. The article contains a bit of false balance but it’s mostly straight out of “Science”. The comment threads are truly bizarre however, and reek of what I can only construe as mental illness.
“Confronted with a high probability of environmental catastrophe on Earth, the richest people on the planet–people who systematically overeat and who air-condition the outdoor forecourts of gas stations–are unwilling to wait an extra four months to increase their incomes by 40 percent. Understood this way, the growth fetish appears to be a form of madness.” (Clive Hamilton, “Growth Fetish”, p 183)
AICsays
I’m surprised to see no mention of Marcott et al in March 8, 2013 Science “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”. Comments? [coming soon… -mike]
SecularAnimistsays
T Marvell wrote re: Rex Tillerson: “At least he admitted to AGW, but I don’t like his use of climate science uncertainty to muddy the waters and downplay the importance of AGW.”
The fossil fuel corporations have pretty much given up on public, outright denial of AGW when speaking to a general audience, since that position has become untenable — although they continue to fund organizations like Heartland to preach “AGW is a liberal hoax” to their talk-radio-Fox-News-programmed cult following.
They have moved on to other propaganda strategies to obstruct and delay the urgently-needed phaseout of fossil fuels.
These include denial that AGW will cause any serious harm in the forseeable future (a line which is also rapidly becoming untenable given the onslaught of serious harm already occurring), and of course attacks on the solutions — especially renewable energy like wind and solar — as costly, damaging to the economy, and ineffective.
I have noticed of late a small but growing number of blog commenters who acknowledge the reality of AGW and preach despair and hopelessness in response — e.g. “it’s too late, we’re doomed, you’re deluded if you think there is anything that can be done, just give up, resistance is futile” — in a clear attempt to demoralize, while simultaneously regurgitating every Koch-funded, spurious attack on renewable energy (Solyndra!) that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh spoon-fed to their audiences throughout last year’s election campaign.
Remember, for the fossil fuel corporations this is not about, and has never been about, science. It’s about perpetuating fossil fuel consumption as long as possible, by any means necessary — and that largely involves getting people to be passive and do nothing. When deceiving people by denying the existence of the problem won’t fly any more, then demoralize them into inaction by denying the existence of any solution.
Over 9000 comments so far on that CNN story (which is about the Marcott et al. study).
Susan Andersonsays
Chris Korda, OMG, commenters have a new meme: BP oil spill happened because government outlawed shallow water drilling so they had to drill in deep water.
sorry everyone, OT, but in an era of shocking ignorance, this one was new to me.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by SecularAnimist — 7 Mar 2013 @ 4:16 PM
So, what is the advantage of the “artificial leaf” over a standard PV array? Steve
Lynn V @89 Search ‘climate science degree programs’ and you’ll find lots, and see: who’s a climate scientist? More to the point is who’s not?
Killiansays
SecularAnimist said I have noticed of late a small but growing number of blog commenters who acknowledge the reality of AGW and preach despair and hopelessness in response — e.g. “it’s too late, we’re doomed… in a clear attempt to demoralize, while simultaneously regurgitating every Koch-funded, spurious attack on renewable energy…
Remember, for the fossil fuel corporations this is not about, and has never been about, science. It’s about perpetuating fossil fuel consumption as long as possible, by any means necessary — and that largely involves getting people to be passive and do nothing.
Honestly, such people no longer bother me all that much. I agree with Annie Leonard who said at Bioneers in 2009 or ’10, it’s time to simply ignore these people and get about the business of change. She’s absolutely correct. Observable climate changes are making the difference. Obviously that is all that could tip the playing field, so let’s just get on with it now that we have a majority, even in the US, that are “getting it.”
Second, studies indicate that memes and/or social movements reach tipping points and then spread relentlessly.
Other research (The Authoritarians, oft linked here) indicates the far ends of any ideological spectrum are essentially immovable and must simply fade out over time and/or end up marginalized.
Worrying over denial is pretty much the biggest waste of time the “aware” can engage in at this point, and I needn’t remind at least some of you how ardent I (aka ccpo) have been in the past in fighting denial.
What worries me far more is the seemingly increasing cannibalization going on among the “aware.” Much like racism and prejudice when the key antagonist has been overcome, the smaller differences between the formerly co-oppressed become more important and seemingly magically a whole new oppressive framework appears. (Protestant Americans vs. Catholic and other immigrants immigrants, e.g., light- vs. and dark-skinned of various ethnic groups.)
We who are, for lack of a better term, climate aware need to avoid the sort of cannibalism already apparent, and even seen on these fora.
The import of all this on climate science lies in finding solutions to sequestration, emissions and consumption. Biases are apparent for as yet “unproven” solutions merely because they haven’t been paid much attention by enough scientists, regardless of their efficacy in practice – even in the face of 30-year comparative studies, e.g.
Failing to keep our ears, eyes and minds open in the problem-solving process is quite likely to lead us to non-viable solutions. Solutions are going to become a more important part of climate science. We will need to be modeling what happens if we start growing food all over towns and cities and not just on big farms. We need to model what happens if we regrow half of all the forests we’ve lost or start rebuilding soils at a rate many times what natural processes achieve.
What happens if we successfully (the math is pretty simple, really) but very rapidly return atmospheric CO2 to sub-300 ppm, say, on a 50 – 100 time frame? Do we create problems with reversing CO2 just as we do with increasing it? Does rate of change matter in both directions?
And all this on top of geo-engineering ideas and such.
Meh… forget the denial. It’s days are numbered. Let’s get to the work at hand.
aSIDE: First the Russians in Lake Vostok, and now reCAPTCHA –> EMIXPR ELEMENT
Henk Schuringsays
Could anyone comment on NOAA’s Ryan Neely’s (et al) article in GRL considering the “lack of warming” being caused by moderate tropical volcanic eruptions, rather then by anthropogenic SO2-emissions (China, India, etc).
[Response: Neely et al is a paper about attributing the source of stratospheric aerosols, not temperature. They show quite convincingly that the small amounts of aerosols are the result of volcanic aerosols, rather than pollution from china or India. The paper itself doesn’t draw any further conclusion. However, in their press release, they link this result to a speculation in a paper last year that this amount of aerosols was significant in terms of temperature. Unfortunately, the release and the subsequent coverage took this extrapolation as if it was the main result. It was not, and the significance of these small amounts of aerosols have not yet been demonstrated to have had a significant impact on temperature. They may have a noticeable effect or not, but that has not been shown. – gavin]
SecularAnimistsays
Steve Fish wrote: “So, what is the advantage of the ‘artificial leaf’ over a standard PV array?”
Well, as I understand it, MIT’s so-called “artificial leaf” combines a PV element with chemical catalysts to create a self-contained solar-powered device that, when dropped into a container of water and exposed to sunlight, separates the water into oxygen & hydrogen by electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be stored, and either burned as a fuel or used in a fuel cell.
Whether that technology will eventually have an advantage over storing electricity in batteries (it’s apparently still in “proof of concept” status now) I cannot say, it does seem like an elegant way of producing hydrogen.
The earlier discussion of using hydrogen for vehicles (either as a fuel for combustion engines or in fuel cells for EVs) got me thinking about using hydrogen as a fuel for utility-scale turbines to generate electricity, instead of natural gas.
Gas turbines are often discussed as backup for wind and solar power, but of course gas is still a fossil fuel and still contributes to GHG emissions as well as other problems. It would seem to me that hydrogen could be used instead. The challenges of creating mobile hydrogen engines for vehicles wouldn’t apply to large, stationary turbines. And the resulting H2O emissions could be captured and recycled.
I don’t know whether anyone is working on that, though.
SecularAnimistsays
I wrote: “I don’t know whether anyone is working on that, though.”
An experimental gas turbine simulator equipped with an ultralow-emissions combustion technology called LSI has been tested successfully using pure hydrogen as a fuel – a milestone that indicates a potential to help eliminate millions of tons of carbon dioxide and thousands of tons of NOx from power plants each year.
The LSI (low-swirl injector) technology, developed by Robert Cheng of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, recently won a 2007 R&D 100 award from R&D magazine as one of the top 100 new technologies of the year.
Alexsays
I had to be a nag but I am still hoping to hear an explanation as to why the sea level rise predictions for 2100 (~20 inches see Figure 3) are so unusually low in this paper:
Millennial total sea-level commitments projected with the Earth system model of intermediate complexity LOVECLIM
H Goelzer et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 045401
An educator who seeks to explain this to his students…
He’s been treated like a scientist — that’s called hard argument:
“This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time….
…
“Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is alchemy: it turns shit into gold. Keep that in mind the next time some blogger decries the ill manners of a bunch of climate scientists ….”
Ray Ladburysays
Dan H.
Bullshit.
Susan Andersonsays
OK guys, time to weigh in before comments are closed. Tom Friedman, for whatever reason (we won’t go there, please) is enormously popular and is featuring Keystone and negotiating chips for the Sunday NYTimes. Please get on it if you feel like it, sooner rather than later:
(only 2 comments so far, but my experience is comments get closed within an hour of two):
Hank Roberts, thanks for keeping “Science is so powerful it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts” front and center!
H Goelzer, P Huybrechts, S C B Raper, M-F Loutre, H Goosse, T Fichefet. Millennial total sea-level commitments projected with the Earth system model of intermediate complexity LOVECLIM. Environmental Research Letters, 2012; 7 (4): 045401 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045401 Article;
I’m just guessing — I’d guess their model, as set up to run out to the year 3000, was using conservative assumptions about how sturdy the big ice caps are.
Because for a run out to the year 3000, it makes not much difference how fast change happens in the first century of the thousand years.
Sure, they could’ve assumed much faster melting. But they’re interested in the year 3000.
On Earth in 3000, I’d guess, few would know or care if those antedeluvian icecaps went slowly melting, or shattered into crushed ice and avalanched.
Different perspective.
As you’re a teacher, though, I’d encourage you to actually telephone or write the corresponding author of the paper and ask — often scientists are quite willing to give a phone interview to a class, or have some other way to talk to students about their work. A call from an interested teacher and the chance to talk to students who even know about the paper could be quite welcome.
Vendicar Decaruansays
Taylor is a paid propagandist employed by the Heartland Institute.
He is a typical Libertarian Piece of Filth.
“More BS in Forbes. I hadn’t noticed before that they have a Tea Party columnist, James Taylor.” – 108
Secular Animist: A number of my contri’s might have seemed starkly pessimistic of the planet’s future but it’s only because I wish to lay out the actual state of affairs and not the usual soothing..”if we globally cut emissions by 15% within the next 10 years we will avert the worst of GW” crap. The water in the bucket is dangerously hot, all us little frogs must leap out IMMEDIATELY!. No more time for fiddling while rome gets nuked,(“nuked” fits the geological time frame we are dealing with), no more time for academic procrastination. Let’s tell it as it is shall we. Far from discouraging and depressing people all I’m saying is… there is a bad ass bear hot on our tail…RUN!!!
Alex Glasssays
Hank Roberts,
Thanks for the comment. I contacted the first two authors of the paper when it first came out – with no response. :(
Lawrence Colemansays
131: Susan Anderson. It does! It can take a while though as Copernicus found out.
Chuck Hughessays
But James Taylor has seen fire and he’s seen rain. He saw sunny days that he thought would never end. He has some credibility when it comes to Climate Change, you have to admit.
I have noticed of late a small but growing number of blog commenters who acknowledge the reality of AGW and preach despair and hopelessness in response — e.g. “it’s too late, we’re doomed… in a clear attempt to demoralize, while simultaneously regurgitating every Koch-funded, spurious attack on renewable energy…
Is it not possible that some of us simply aren’t persuaded that humanity is going to take the appropriate action? Is it not possible that those of us from an engineering background aren’t persuaded that we can transfer this fossil fuel based civilisation onto a different track? Is it not possible that a person like myself sees the growing traffic on the roads and knows that all his work colleagues and friends remain totally wedded to FF driven exponential growth?
I rarely voice these doubts precisely because I don’t want to sabotage any efforts others are making. But these doubts are considerations I hold having a good knowledge of the issues. They are not driven by a desire to demoralise.
In the mean time I do what I can. I don’t drive, apart from the rare occasions I have to for work. I walk everywhere, apart from a weekly trip by bus. I’m typing this wearing three layers so I only have to turn the heating on occasionally to knock the rooms I use above 12degC. And I blog rather than keep my notes to myself, or tucked away on some message board.
Be careful that the justified disdain we both feel for the denialists doesn’t turn into a disdain for anyone that disagrees with any minute aspect of your views.
Intelligent and informed people can and do disagree with you.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of commentators on global warming seem to under the impression that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. For example there is a lot of talk of keeping temperature increases below 2C by controlling emissions. If C02 was the only greenhouse gas this might be possible. However if you include the others we are passed there already. Has anybody else notced this?
[Response: You appear to be confusing CO2 and CO2_equivalent. The distinction is critical. See e.g. my commentary in PNAS “Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4065.full -mike]
I’m not a scientist, but — rereading the paper — their models give results consistent with the last IPCC AR4 report.
That paper is looking at the end result in the year 3000. The rate by 2100 isn’t their focus — by 3000, that’ll be _ancient_ history.
Did you read the earlier topics here at RC on sea level rates of change when the AR4 came out? The AR4 explicitly did not include anything after their deadline, which was before a lot of research came out on melting rates.
Models take a while to build. The paper’s quite thorough in describing what they were doing. I think you’ll find your question answered — and enough information to explain it to your students — if you look at it and read the earlier discussion.
(PS for Alex Glass — I can’t guess what level of students you’re working with so I may be way off the mark — what level of explanation are you looking for?)
SecularAnimistsays
Lawrence Coleman & Chris Reynolds:
I wasn’t thinking of you guys in my coment (#115).
I’ll be the first to say that it is self-evidently impossible to prevent extremely destructive impacts from AGW, given that they are already occurring.
I’ll also be the first to say that not only is the current situation with AGW much worse than most people realize, but it is getting worse much more rapidly than most people realize.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we can avoid much more destructive impacts than we are seeing now, which will cause horrific harm to the Earth’s biosphere, not to mention incalculable human suffering, and will likely challenge human civilization to survive.
But, SO WHAT? Shall we all just sit around crying in our beer?
I don’t think so.
Because we absolutely do have the knowledge and the technology and the resources needed to reverse the ongoing increase in global GHG emissions and begin steep reductions within 5 years, leading to near-zero emissions within 20 years, with the vast majority of those reductions occurring in the first 10 years. Likewise, we have the means to begin drawing down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of CO2 and sequestering it in soil and biomass.
And based on my best effort to understand what climate science is telling us, I believe it is possible, even likely, that by doing those things we can prevent the most catastrophic outcomes of AGW, end the rapid warming, and allow the Earth system to recover.
It’s one thing to recognize the real challenges and obstacles that face us — while exerting all possible effort to overcome them.
It’s another thing to become an obstacle, and to in effect aid and abet the fossil-fueled obstructionism that is the only real obstacle, by preaching the sort of defeatism and despair that is known to make people tune out, give up and become passive.
SecularAnimistsays
Chris Reynolds wrote: “Is it not possible that some of us simply aren’t persuaded that humanity is going to take the appropriate action?”
I am certainly not persuaded the humanity is going to take the appropriate action.
That’s exactly why I’m focused on persuading humanity to take the appropriate action.
ah the Daily Telegraphs own Christopher Booker requires a response to his it aint warming much dimissasl of ACC ever being a issue for humankind
Bob Gortsays
Re: 23 and 42, Nocera is an opinion columnist for the NYTimes who strikes me as a gadfly who sometimes hits the nail on the head and sometimes hits his thumb. He is not dogmatic like Brooks and some of their others. An unkind person could say he confuses the NCAA and NOAA!
The interesting thing about the NYTimes is that they killed their environment desk earlier this year, but claimed coverage would not suffer. Then earlier this month they killed their Green blog (announced at 5 p.m. on a Friday), again claiming coverage would not suffer. Shortly after that they published Nocera’s editorial tirade against Hansen.
“ah the Daily Telegraphs own Christopher Booker requires a response to his it aint warming”
Just wait until he discovers the Kelvin scale …
Jamessays
> Now, there are very serious problems with hydrogen as a fuel when it comes to warming. The stratosphere is very dry and adding water vapor there can
> have a strong warming effect. Fugitive hydrogen from fuel production and use could enter the stratosphere and become water vapor through oxidation.
>(Fugitive methane can do the same.) Under those conditions, the water vapor has a chance to accumulate and behave like a noncondesable gas for a while.
> But it is not the water vapor tailpipe emissions that would be the problem but rather hydrogen fuel leaks.
Hydrogen powered ships?.. Many years ago I had the idea..born of cleaning our salt water swimming pool and watching the bubbles of hydrogen bubble up from the electric salinator..I thought..what if a ship was covered with light weight high efficiency solar cells and that electricity would generated hydrogen through electrolysis from the salt water the ship is sailing in. As the hydrogen bubbles would float to the surface there was some way of trapping and compressing them and then to feed the compressed gas to hydrogen powered engines which I thought would give better bang for the buck then just using the solar cells on deck to power the ship’s electric motors. I cant think of any harmful emissions that would cause. You would need to replace the electroysis electrodes once in a while but that’s all. Just shows I was conscious of emissions even way back in 1990. Do you guys think this is a viable concept?
I’m sure you all know about the Revkin latest, since it involves extensive quotes from Mike Mann. The deniers, for once, were late to the party. Still, it’s an interesting article with video interviews with Shakun (minor author) about this in Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
I can’t help thinking they’re trying to mop up after the massive Nocera fail and blowback on getting rid of environmental focus just when climate interest is ramping up in the general population.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/hicks-nix-climate-fix/
John Mashey, thanks for the suggestion about USA Today. That’s a fascinating item about early farming.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthropocene-climate-farming/1955041/
I too have noticed they are doing excellent work and will follow your suggestion to begin supporting them. We do need an alternative to the NYTimes which is now also giving up on the International Herald Tribune (IHT) which did some of the better environmental reporting, if I understood correctly.
Also, I agree that Neven’s Sea Ice blog should be listed here.
Tex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, was on Charlie Rose yesterday, Thursday. A smoothie. Tries to sound reasonable. Says there is AGW, but the extent of the impact is unclear, due to the multitude of factors involved and to the margin of error given in scientific reports. Says we must develop non-carbon energy sources, but carbon fuels much supply 80%+ of energy in the next 40 years, and the government should not subsidize alternate energy production because it reduces the incentive of companies to become more efficient. Says he likes the carbon tax, an easy thing to say since it has virtually no chance of becoming law. Against regulation, including cap&trade. For government supported basic research (which won’t interfere with Exxon, like regulation does). He emphasized that his goal is for Exxon to make money.
At least he admitted to AGW, but I don’t like his use of climate science uncertainty to muddy the waters and downplay the importance of AGW. It’s a lite version of what the tobacco industry did concerning cancer research. The uncertainty really isn’t there any more, for global warming or cancer.
Greg Goodman @64.
Why the different end-points for your data in your graph linked @64? The latest data seems to be for early 2012 with most other of your traces ending even earlier.
I myself feel the rolling annual average SIE/SIA is worth plotting (eg, as per here), mainly for completeness sake. I took a quick look at a plot of an averaged differential of that annual average, which does shows me plenty of wibbles & wobbles (not unlike your light blue trace) but I see no obvious cycles. The best of it is the gaps between the high peaks which are 4 to 6 years long with one peak absent
Tamino takes apart Greg Goodman’s comment(@ #83): http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/back-to-school/
Vincent #82,
Sure, you can mail me. If you don’t have my adress, look here:
http://www.haagsmilieucentrum.nl/index.php?text_ID=65&subonderwerp_ID=1
I already sent you a mail; at least I think it’s you.
Stomatas again: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113000553
The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered.
More BS in Forbes. I hadn’t noticed before that they have a Tea Party columnist, James Taylor. He cites a survey of geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, essentially representing fossil fuel interests, as if they represent the views of all scientists.
His article: Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis. The paper he cites: Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer. Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, Organization Studies November 2012 vol. 33 no. 11 1477-1506 — read and see for yourself.
Comments on the site have mostly taken him to task for misrepresenting but a few more won’t go amiss. I am writing to the editors too to complain.
See Tamino’s post for some thought’s on Greg Goodman at 83…http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/back-to-school/#more-6326
@83 and earlier…
Posting this twice link twice probably isn’t necessary. Rather reading about it once here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/back-to-school/ would likely be better.
This certainly deserves some comment:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
S. A. Marcott, J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, A. C. Mix (2013) Science 339, 1198-1201.
Paraquat says “we are a rather long way from having hydrogen-powered cars”, and I, once a hydrogen-energy enthusiast, agree. Hydrogen cars are decades away. It isn’t certain engineering effort won’t be being misdirected into them decades in the future, but it is certain that the BMW 520h, with a liquid hydrogen tank and 300-km range, existed decades ago.
Better to extract CO2 from rocks, or the atmosphere, hydrogen from water, and react the CO2 and hydrogen to produce non-fossil gasoline.
Greedy Lying Bastards,” Craig Rosebraugh’s new film about climate change denial, opened today. It’s playing in selected US cities. See also its Wikipedia page.
Also, what has to be my favorite climate change headline ever appeared on CNN today: Global warming is epic, long-term study says. The article contains a bit of false balance but it’s mostly straight out of “Science”. The comment threads are truly bizarre however, and reek of what I can only construe as mental illness.
“Confronted with a high probability of environmental catastrophe on Earth, the richest people on the planet–people who systematically overeat and who air-condition the outdoor forecourts of gas stations–are unwilling to wait an extra four months to increase their incomes by 40 percent. Understood this way, the growth fetish appears to be a form of madness.” (Clive Hamilton, “Growth Fetish”, p 183)
I’m surprised to see no mention of Marcott et al in March 8, 2013 Science “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”. Comments? [coming soon… -mike]
T Marvell wrote re: Rex Tillerson: “At least he admitted to AGW, but I don’t like his use of climate science uncertainty to muddy the waters and downplay the importance of AGW.”
The fossil fuel corporations have pretty much given up on public, outright denial of AGW when speaking to a general audience, since that position has become untenable — although they continue to fund organizations like Heartland to preach “AGW is a liberal hoax” to their talk-radio-Fox-News-programmed cult following.
They have moved on to other propaganda strategies to obstruct and delay the urgently-needed phaseout of fossil fuels.
These include denial that AGW will cause any serious harm in the forseeable future (a line which is also rapidly becoming untenable given the onslaught of serious harm already occurring), and of course attacks on the solutions — especially renewable energy like wind and solar — as costly, damaging to the economy, and ineffective.
I have noticed of late a small but growing number of blog commenters who acknowledge the reality of AGW and preach despair and hopelessness in response — e.g. “it’s too late, we’re doomed, you’re deluded if you think there is anything that can be done, just give up, resistance is futile” — in a clear attempt to demoralize, while simultaneously regurgitating every Koch-funded, spurious attack on renewable energy (Solyndra!) that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh spoon-fed to their audiences throughout last year’s election campaign.
Remember, for the fossil fuel corporations this is not about, and has never been about, science. It’s about perpetuating fossil fuel consumption as long as possible, by any means necessary — and that largely involves getting people to be passive and do nothing. When deceiving people by denying the existence of the problem won’t fly any more, then demoralize them into inaction by denying the existence of any solution.
Over 9000 comments so far on that CNN story (which is about the Marcott et al. study).
Chris Korda, OMG, commenters have a new meme: BP oil spill happened because government outlawed shallow water drilling so they had to drill in deep water.
sorry everyone, OT, but in an era of shocking ignorance, this one was new to me.
Re- Comment by SecularAnimist — 7 Mar 2013 @ 4:16 PM
So, what is the advantage of the “artificial leaf” over a standard PV array? Steve
91: Hank Roberts..and the CSIRO in Australia.
“The most recent decade was the nation’s hottest on record”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/02/28/climate-change-usa-chat/1954825/
Which ten year span, did anyone catch that?
Lynn V @89 Search ‘climate science degree programs’ and you’ll find lots, and see: who’s a climate scientist? More to the point is who’s not?
SecularAnimist said I have noticed of late a small but growing number of blog commenters who acknowledge the reality of AGW and preach despair and hopelessness in response — e.g. “it’s too late, we’re doomed… in a clear attempt to demoralize, while simultaneously regurgitating every Koch-funded, spurious attack on renewable energy…
Remember, for the fossil fuel corporations this is not about, and has never been about, science. It’s about perpetuating fossil fuel consumption as long as possible, by any means necessary — and that largely involves getting people to be passive and do nothing.
Honestly, such people no longer bother me all that much. I agree with Annie Leonard who said at Bioneers in 2009 or ’10, it’s time to simply ignore these people and get about the business of change. She’s absolutely correct. Observable climate changes are making the difference. Obviously that is all that could tip the playing field, so let’s just get on with it now that we have a majority, even in the US, that are “getting it.”
Second, studies indicate that memes and/or social movements reach tipping points and then spread relentlessly.
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902&setappvar=page%281%29
We are likely at those tipping points.
Other research (The Authoritarians, oft linked here) indicates the far ends of any ideological spectrum are essentially immovable and must simply fade out over time and/or end up marginalized.
Worrying over denial is pretty much the biggest waste of time the “aware” can engage in at this point, and I needn’t remind at least some of you how ardent I (aka ccpo) have been in the past in fighting denial.
What worries me far more is the seemingly increasing cannibalization going on among the “aware.” Much like racism and prejudice when the key antagonist has been overcome, the smaller differences between the formerly co-oppressed become more important and seemingly magically a whole new oppressive framework appears. (Protestant Americans vs. Catholic and other immigrants immigrants, e.g., light- vs. and dark-skinned of various ethnic groups.)
We who are, for lack of a better term, climate aware need to avoid the sort of cannibalism already apparent, and even seen on these fora.
The import of all this on climate science lies in finding solutions to sequestration, emissions and consumption. Biases are apparent for as yet “unproven” solutions merely because they haven’t been paid much attention by enough scientists, regardless of their efficacy in practice – even in the face of 30-year comparative studies, e.g.
Failing to keep our ears, eyes and minds open in the problem-solving process is quite likely to lead us to non-viable solutions. Solutions are going to become a more important part of climate science. We will need to be modeling what happens if we start growing food all over towns and cities and not just on big farms. We need to model what happens if we regrow half of all the forests we’ve lost or start rebuilding soils at a rate many times what natural processes achieve.
What happens if we successfully (the math is pretty simple, really) but very rapidly return atmospheric CO2 to sub-300 ppm, say, on a 50 – 100 time frame? Do we create problems with reversing CO2 just as we do with increasing it? Does rate of change matter in both directions?
And all this on top of geo-engineering ideas and such.
Meh… forget the denial. It’s days are numbered. Let’s get to the work at hand.
aSIDE: First the Russians in Lake Vostok, and now reCAPTCHA –> EMIXPR ELEMENT
Could anyone comment on NOAA’s Ryan Neely’s (et al) article in GRL considering the “lack of warming” being caused by moderate tropical volcanic eruptions, rather then by anthropogenic SO2-emissions (China, India, etc).
[Response: Neely et al is a paper about attributing the source of stratospheric aerosols, not temperature. They show quite convincingly that the small amounts of aerosols are the result of volcanic aerosols, rather than pollution from china or India. The paper itself doesn’t draw any further conclusion. However, in their press release, they link this result to a speculation in a paper last year that this amount of aerosols was significant in terms of temperature. Unfortunately, the release and the subsequent coverage took this extrapolation as if it was the main result. It was not, and the significance of these small amounts of aerosols have not yet been demonstrated to have had a significant impact on temperature. They may have a noticeable effect or not, but that has not been shown. – gavin]
Steve Fish wrote: “So, what is the advantage of the ‘artificial leaf’ over a standard PV array?”
Well, as I understand it, MIT’s so-called “artificial leaf” combines a PV element with chemical catalysts to create a self-contained solar-powered device that, when dropped into a container of water and exposed to sunlight, separates the water into oxygen & hydrogen by electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be stored, and either burned as a fuel or used in a fuel cell.
Whether that technology will eventually have an advantage over storing electricity in batteries (it’s apparently still in “proof of concept” status now) I cannot say, it does seem like an elegant way of producing hydrogen.
The earlier discussion of using hydrogen for vehicles (either as a fuel for combustion engines or in fuel cells for EVs) got me thinking about using hydrogen as a fuel for utility-scale turbines to generate electricity, instead of natural gas.
Gas turbines are often discussed as backup for wind and solar power, but of course gas is still a fossil fuel and still contributes to GHG emissions as well as other problems. It would seem to me that hydrogen could be used instead. The challenges of creating mobile hydrogen engines for vehicles wouldn’t apply to large, stationary turbines. And the resulting H2O emissions could be captured and recycled.
I don’t know whether anyone is working on that, though.
I wrote: “I don’t know whether anyone is working on that, though.”
Well, now I know:
I had to be a nag but I am still hoping to hear an explanation as to why the sea level rise predictions for 2100 (~20 inches see Figure 3) are so unusually low in this paper:
Millennial total sea-level commitments projected with the Earth system model of intermediate complexity LOVECLIM
H Goelzer et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 045401
An educator who seeks to explain this to his students…
He’s been treated like a scientist — that’s called hard argument:
“This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time….
…
“Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is alchemy: it turns shit into gold. Keep that in mind the next time some blogger decries the ill manners of a bunch of climate scientists ….”
Dan H.
Bullshit.
OK guys, time to weigh in before comments are closed. Tom Friedman, for whatever reason (we won’t go there, please) is enormously popular and is featuring Keystone and negotiating chips for the Sunday NYTimes. Please get on it if you feel like it, sooner rather than later:
(only 2 comments so far, but my experience is comments get closed within an hour of two):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-no-to-keystone-yes-to-crazy.html
captcha: survey milyars
Hank Roberts, thanks for keeping “Science is so powerful it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts” front and center!
H Goelzer, P Huybrechts, S C B Raper, M-F Loutre, H Goosse, T Fichefet. Millennial total sea-level commitments projected with the Earth system model of intermediate complexity LOVECLIM. Environmental Research Letters, 2012; 7 (4): 045401 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045401
Article;
I’m just guessing — I’d guess their model, as set up to run out to the year 3000, was using conservative assumptions about how sturdy the big ice caps are.
Because for a run out to the year 3000, it makes not much difference how fast change happens in the first century of the thousand years.
Sure, they could’ve assumed much faster melting. But they’re interested in the year 3000.
On Earth in 3000, I’d guess, few would know or care if those antedeluvian icecaps went slowly melting, or shattered into crushed ice and avalanched.
Different perspective.
As you’re a teacher, though, I’d encourage you to actually telephone or write the corresponding author of the paper and ask — often scientists are quite willing to give a phone interview to a class, or have some other way to talk to students about their work. A call from an interested teacher and the chance to talk to students who even know about the paper could be quite welcome.
Taylor is a paid propagandist employed by the Heartland Institute.
He is a typical Libertarian Piece of Filth.
“More BS in Forbes. I hadn’t noticed before that they have a Tea Party columnist, James Taylor.” – 108
http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd
Secular Animist: A number of my contri’s might have seemed starkly pessimistic of the planet’s future but it’s only because I wish to lay out the actual state of affairs and not the usual soothing..”if we globally cut emissions by 15% within the next 10 years we will avert the worst of GW” crap. The water in the bucket is dangerously hot, all us little frogs must leap out IMMEDIATELY!. No more time for fiddling while rome gets nuked,(“nuked” fits the geological time frame we are dealing with), no more time for academic procrastination. Let’s tell it as it is shall we. Far from discouraging and depressing people all I’m saying is… there is a bad ass bear hot on our tail…RUN!!!
Hank Roberts,
Thanks for the comment. I contacted the first two authors of the paper when it first came out – with no response. :(
131: Susan Anderson. It does! It can take a while though as Copernicus found out.
But James Taylor has seen fire and he’s seen rain. He saw sunny days that he thought would never end. He has some credibility when it comes to Climate Change, you have to admit.
Secular Animist,
Is it not possible that some of us simply aren’t persuaded that humanity is going to take the appropriate action? Is it not possible that those of us from an engineering background aren’t persuaded that we can transfer this fossil fuel based civilisation onto a different track? Is it not possible that a person like myself sees the growing traffic on the roads and knows that all his work colleagues and friends remain totally wedded to FF driven exponential growth?
I rarely voice these doubts precisely because I don’t want to sabotage any efforts others are making. But these doubts are considerations I hold having a good knowledge of the issues. They are not driven by a desire to demoralise.
In the mean time I do what I can. I don’t drive, apart from the rare occasions I have to for work. I walk everywhere, apart from a weekly trip by bus. I’m typing this wearing three layers so I only have to turn the heating on occasionally to knock the rooms I use above 12degC. And I blog rather than keep my notes to myself, or tucked away on some message board.
Be careful that the justified disdain we both feel for the denialists doesn’t turn into a disdain for anyone that disagrees with any minute aspect of your views.
Intelligent and informed people can and do disagree with you.
Related to my earlier question
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50328/abstract
“Warming in climate-change simulations reaches a local maximum in the tropical upper troposphere as expected from moist-adiabatic lapse rates, but the structure of warming varies between models and differs substantially from moist adiabatic in the extratropics. Here, we relate the vertical profile of warming to the climatological temperature profile using the vertical-shift transformation (VST)”
Older question:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/unforced-variations-feb-2013/comment-page-7/#comment-321043
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of commentators on global warming seem to under the impression that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. For example there is a lot of talk of keeping temperature increases below 2C by controlling emissions. If C02 was the only greenhouse gas this might be possible. However if you include the others we are passed there already. Has anybody else notced this?
[Response: You appear to be confusing CO2 and CO2_equivalent. The distinction is critical. See e.g. my commentary in PNAS “Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4065.full -mike]
James Gentle and Karen Kafadar take over at WIREs Computational Statistics<a href="http://deepclimate.org/2013/03/10/james-gentle-and-karen-kafadar-take-over-at-wires-computational-statistics/"
There has been a big change at WIREs Computation Stats.
In a stunning (but welcome) development, James Gentle of GMU and Karen Kafadar of IndianaUniversity have been named editors-in-chief, joining remaining original editor David Scott.
I last discussed WIREs Comp Stat back in July, when Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said were quietly dropped as editors. I outlined the problems that apparently led to their summary dismissal.
James Gentle and Karen Kafadar take over at WIREs Computational Statistics
There has been a big change at WIREs Computation Stats.
In a stunning (but welcome) development, James Gentle of GMU and Karen Kafadar of IndianaUniversity have been named editors-in-chief, joining remaining original editor David Scott.
I last discussed WIREs Comp Stat back in July, when Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said were quietly dropped as editors. I outlined the problems that apparently led to their summary dismissal.
> Alex Glass
I’m not a scientist, but — rereading the paper — their models give results consistent with the last IPCC AR4 report.
That paper is looking at the end result in the year 3000. The rate by 2100 isn’t their focus — by 3000, that’ll be _ancient_ history.
Did you read the earlier topics here at RC on sea level rates of change when the AR4 came out? The AR4 explicitly did not include anything after their deadline, which was before a lot of research came out on melting rates.
Models take a while to build. The paper’s quite thorough in describing what they were doing. I think you’ll find your question answered — and enough information to explain it to your students — if you look at it and read the earlier discussion.
Try the search box upper right, or a site search like this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arealclimate.org+AR4+sea+level
(PS for Alex Glass — I can’t guess what level of students you’re working with so I may be way off the mark — what level of explanation are you looking for?)
Lawrence Coleman & Chris Reynolds:
I wasn’t thinking of you guys in my coment (#115).
I’ll be the first to say that it is self-evidently impossible to prevent extremely destructive impacts from AGW, given that they are already occurring.
I’ll also be the first to say that not only is the current situation with AGW much worse than most people realize, but it is getting worse much more rapidly than most people realize.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we can avoid much more destructive impacts than we are seeing now, which will cause horrific harm to the Earth’s biosphere, not to mention incalculable human suffering, and will likely challenge human civilization to survive.
But, SO WHAT? Shall we all just sit around crying in our beer?
I don’t think so.
Because we absolutely do have the knowledge and the technology and the resources needed to reverse the ongoing increase in global GHG emissions and begin steep reductions within 5 years, leading to near-zero emissions within 20 years, with the vast majority of those reductions occurring in the first 10 years. Likewise, we have the means to begin drawing down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of CO2 and sequestering it in soil and biomass.
And based on my best effort to understand what climate science is telling us, I believe it is possible, even likely, that by doing those things we can prevent the most catastrophic outcomes of AGW, end the rapid warming, and allow the Earth system to recover.
It’s one thing to recognize the real challenges and obstacles that face us — while exerting all possible effort to overcome them.
It’s another thing to become an obstacle, and to in effect aid and abet the fossil-fueled obstructionism that is the only real obstacle, by preaching the sort of defeatism and despair that is known to make people tune out, give up and become passive.
Chris Reynolds wrote: “Is it not possible that some of us simply aren’t persuaded that humanity is going to take the appropriate action?”
I am certainly not persuaded the humanity is going to take the appropriate action.
That’s exactly why I’m focused on persuading humanity to take the appropriate action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html
ah the Daily Telegraphs own Christopher Booker requires a response to his it aint warming much dimissasl of ACC ever being a issue for humankind
Re: 23 and 42, Nocera is an opinion columnist for the NYTimes who strikes me as a gadfly who sometimes hits the nail on the head and sometimes hits his thumb. He is not dogmatic like Brooks and some of their others. An unkind person could say he confuses the NCAA and NOAA!
The interesting thing about the NYTimes is that they killed their environment desk earlier this year, but claimed coverage would not suffer. Then earlier this month they killed their Green blog (announced at 5 p.m. on a Friday), again claiming coverage would not suffer. Shortly after that they published Nocera’s editorial tirade against Hansen.
> Christopher Booker … look at the graph
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02505/guide_2505022c.jpg
Ignoramus.
“ah the Daily Telegraphs own Christopher Booker requires a response to his it aint warming”
Just wait until he discovers the Kelvin scale …
> Now, there are very serious problems with hydrogen as a fuel when it comes to warming. The stratosphere is very dry and adding water vapor there can
> have a strong warming effect. Fugitive hydrogen from fuel production and use could enter the stratosphere and become water vapor through oxidation.
>(Fugitive methane can do the same.) Under those conditions, the water vapor has a chance to accumulate and behave like a noncondesable gas for a while.
> But it is not the water vapor tailpipe emissions that would be the problem but rather hydrogen fuel leaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
Saying (fugitive) hydrogen escapes from the atmosphere. Recent reports on catalytic and bacterial production of hydrogen are of interest