Since people are wanting to talk about the latest events on the Antarctic Peninsula, this is a post for that discussion.
The imagery from ESA (animation here) tells the recent story quite clearly – the last sliver of ice between the main Wilkins ice shelf and Charcot Island is currently collapsing in a very interesting way (from a materials science point of view). For some of the history of the collapse, see our previous post. This is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in recent times.
Maybe we can get some updates and discussion of potential implications from the people working on this in the comments….?
steve@294,
Sea surface temperatures have not shown a “leveling out”.
The phrase “small but significant” is used by Johnson et al. in the context:
“Thus, abyssal Pacific Ocean heat content variations
may contribute a small but significant fraction to the
earth’s heat budget.”
This does not appear to give any support to the belief you express in your last sentence: they are saying, in effect, “Don’t neglect variation in the deep Pacific when calculating how much the Earth has heated up”. Usually, when “significant” is used in scientific papers it means “enough for us to be confident it is not due to sampling error”, not “important” – although it is not clear Johnson et al. are using it in that sense in the passage quoted. However, when it is used in the statistical sense, it should be coupled with a probability that such a difference could arise from sampling error in the absence of a real difference (a “level of significance”); when that is done, the only possible sources of disagreement are whether the appropriate statistical test and level of significance have been used.
@Barton Paul Levinson
#284
You wrote:
snip
4. The world’s temperature is rising. This is shown by land surface temperature readings, sea surface temperature readings (no urban heat islands there), borehole readings, balloon radiosonde readings, satellite readings, and effects such as melting ice caps and glaciers, tree lines moving toward the poles, earlier hatching dates for eggs of fish, frogs, insects, and birds, and earlier blooming dates for flowers and flowering trees.
snip
A good point, for as clearly the birds and bees are not yet chasing grant funding, nor are they yet embracing a political agenda, I am prepared to take their word for things.
Are there any commonly quoted references for this earlier breeding and flowering?
#296 Thank you for the polite response Nick.
As I read it, it seemed to me that in that particular passage they were not refering to significant as a reflection of measuring technique although I could be mistaken.
I am confused that you state the SSTs have not shown a leveling out. I look at the SSTs from the GISS web page for ocean temperatures and they appear to be leveling out to me. One could argue that the leveling is temporary and the long term trend is up. But I don’t see how one could argue that the recent temperatures don’t show a leveling off.
Re: #260,
Ray, I have speculated – and the evidence is in full bloom in this thread – that certain segments of CS have fallen into a pattern of defending the case for AGW to the detriment of actual science, the examination of the unknown and the search for sound theories.
In other words, the unknowns are being buried beneath a PR blitz.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is occurring.
By the way, I consider it perhaps more likely that AGW will advance much more rapidly than the “best projections” and is likely already past maaningful tipping points vis a vis permanent ice.
I was roundly bashed here last year for discussing geo-engineering as the only possible actual “solution” to avert massive sea level rise.
I see now that Obama’s climate team is seriously discussing that approach.
Beware insularity!
re 301 and other mentions of the pursuit of research grants.
I find it interesting this talking point even comes up when you consider what has happened to funded science research over the past few decades.
In the October, 2007 issue of Discover there was an article written on the state of science research funding in the U.S.
Quote: “In 1965, the federal government financed more than 60 percent of all R&D in the United States. By 2006, the balance had flipped, with 65 percent of R&D in this country being funded by private interests.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
Frankly, given the ever shrinking research grant pie being handed out by the government, and the increasing influence of private interests in not only funding research, but in cases dictating research, it makes one wonder why the denialist camp even brings this up.
This is not a peer-reviewed publication, of course, but the reporting in this case seems rather sound. Regardless, if you want what appears to be a decent overview of the current research funding picture, and how it is often being manipulated to the advantage of private interests, this might be a good place to start.
“and the evidence is in full bloom in this thread – that certain segments of CS have fallen into a pattern of defending the case for AGW to the detriment of actual science,”
Wither ist thine evidence, knave?
If mere accusation is enough, I have noticed that you will clutch at ANY straw, make up ANY allegation and uncritically accept ANY rhetoric if it manages to promote the lie that AGW is false.
The evidence above shows you’re in the pay of Phillip Morris.
Is the process “simple”? No there is a a whole branch of science called metrology (not meteorology) devoted to instrument calibration as has been correctly pointed out. The point is however that calibrating a thermometer can be done with VERY simple easily obtained standards (boiling water, ice water). If you really want EXTREMELY high accuracy, you would have to use the reference standards at NIST to calibrate your thermometer. On the other VERY GOOD accuracy can be obtained in a high school chemistry or physics lab. I would expect a group of scientists to argue whether the value of g at latitude 39 should be 9.80616 meters per second squared or 9.80665 meters per second squared. There are well known correction factors to account for the evaporation of mercury into the top of the column, there are correction factors to account for not being at STP while the thermometer is being calibrated, no the scale isn’t exactly linear from 0 deg C to 100 deg C. As a teacher I going to ask how large an effect will any of these corrections have on a thermometer that has an scale that can be read to +-0.25 deg C?
The original point that appears to be missed is that you don’t need a thermometer to calibrate a thermometer
“Of course. And being a tropospheric aerosol it will tend to get rained out — with a half-life of a week to 10 days.
I like it!”
In the UK, probably closer to a half-life of fifteen minutes…
:-(
“Would you provide some reference to the claim water vapor is a positive feed back. I have seen data that is in opposition to this”
And I have seen Bigfoot.
#301 Theo Hopkins
“Are there any commonly quoted references for this earlier breeding and flowering?”
I don’t know about commonly quoted but here’s a few for you (note this is only really scratching the surface, there is a huge, and growing, amount of evidence for this):
European trees: Response of tree phenology to climate change across Europe: Chmielewski and Rötzer: Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 108
“Since the end of the 1980s the changes in circulation, air temperature and the beginning of spring time were striking. The investigation showed that a warming in the early spring (February–April) by 1°C causes an advance in the beginning of growing season of 7 days. The observed extension of growing season was mainly the result of an earlier onset of spring.”
Hoverflies: Changes in phenology of hoverflies in a central England garden: Graham-Taylor, Stubbs & Brooke: Insect Conservation & Diversity 2
“first appearance in spring has become significantly earlier for three species and flight period longer for a different set of three species.”
Birds: Climatic change explains much of the 20th century advance in laying date of Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus in The Netherlands: Both, Piersma & Roodbergen: Ardea 93
“In The Netherlands, eggs of Lapwing have been collected for consumption for ages, especially in the province of Fryslân, and as the finding of the first egg of the season has been an important social event till today, first egg dates are archived. Here we present data on the dates at which the first egg of the season was found in Fryslân, in 1897–2003. Somewhat to our surprise we found that the advance in the first egg date was primarily explained by increasing spring temperatures. Lapwings also laid earlier after wet winters, with little variance remaining to be explained by habitat changes.”
Plankton: Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch: Edwards & Richardson: Nature 430
“Using long-term data of 66 plankton taxa during the period from 1958 to 2002, we investigated whether climate warming signals are emergent across all trophic levels and functional groups within an ecological community. Here we show that not only is the marine pelagic community responding to climate changes, but also that the level of response differs throughout the community and the seasonal cycle, leading to a mismatch between trophic levels and functional groups.”
Mediterranean species: Phenology and climate change: a long-term study in a Mediterranean locality: Gordo & Sanz: Oecologia 146
“reports long-term temporal trends of several phenophases of 45 plants, 4 insects and 6 migratory insectivorous birds. Dynamic factor analyses performed with plant phenophases showed that most of those events occurring at spring and summer had common trends toward the advancement, especially since mid-1970s. However, during these last decades, insect phenology showed a steeper advance than plant phenology, suggesting an increase of decoupling of some plant–insect interactions, such as those between pollinators and flowers or herbivorous insects and their plant resources. All trans-Saharan bird species showed highly significant temporal trends in all studied phenophases (some of them covering most of the last century). In two species, the duration of stay is increasing due to both earlier arrivals and later departures. On the other hand, two wintering species showed a significant advancement in their arrival dates, while an opposite pattern were found for departures of each one.”
Wisconsin species: Phenological changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin: Bradley, Leopold, Ross & Huffaker: PNAS 106
“A phenological study of springtime events was made over a 61-year period at one site in southern Wisconsin. The records over this long period show that several phenological events have been increasing in earliness; we discuss evidence indicating that these changes reflect climate change. The mean of regressions for the 55 phenophases studied was −0.12 day per year, an overall increase in phenological earliness at this site during the period. Some phenophases have not increased in earliness, as would be expected for phenophases that are regulated by photoperiod or by a physiological signal other than local temperature.”
Globally: A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems: Parmesan & Yohe: Nature 421
“Causal attribution of recent biological trends to climate change is complicated because non-climatic influences dominate local, short-term biological changes. Any underlying signal from climate change is likely to be revealed by analyses that seek systematic trends across diverse species and geographic regions; however, debates within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveal several definitions of a ‘systematic trend’. Here, we explore these differences, apply diverse analyses to more than 1,700 species, and show that recent biological trends match climate change predictions. Global meta-analyses documented significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles (or metres per decade upward), and significant mean advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade.”
And the very long term: The response of species to climate over two centuries: an analysis of the Marsham phenological record, 1736-1947: Sparks & Carey: Journal of Ecology 83
“An appraisal of the historical response of flora & fauna to climate was made and allowed us to predict changes in species performance due to climate change in the future. If commonly used climate scenarios are accurate we predict that most or all of the indications of spring noted in the Marsham record will occur earlier in the calendar year.”
Also look out for the Kyoto cherry blossom festival (900 years of recording the flowering of cherry trees indicating a very rapid recent change in phenology).
“The original point that appears to be missed is that you don’t need a thermometer to calibrate a thermometer”
No, you can use a computer model or a scientific theory to make a calibration.
Then again, that’s just a consensus and you already know how Dawn doesn’t trust that…
Doesn’t the NIST have a blog where people can go to discuss thermometer calibration? Remember too, that when water and ice are melting, the temperature doesn’t change, even though the energy content of a kilogram of ice vs water, the “heat of fusion” being about 330 kilojoules per kilogram of ice… which is part of the reason that big ice sheets and thick sea ice serve as a thermal buffer. Other local effects include the high albedo of ice and the insulating properties (preventing the ocean from warming the atmosphere). On top of all that, you have the poleward energy transport to take into account – and the models have been underestimating the Arctic summer response, but doing pretty well everywhere else.
#294, “steve” says: “shouldn’t the temperatures in the deep oceans eventually show a leveling out as the sea surface temperatures have done?”
What “leveling out”? Polar warming means warmer ocean SSTs, and more areas of open ice mean more air-ocean energy exchanges (which is what SSTs influence). Consider the situation in the Arctic:
Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Stroeve et al. 2007 GRL
This conclusion has been supported by the radical thinning of Arctic sea ice and the loss of perennial sea ice.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027200309.htm
By the way, I just came across what looks like an accurate climate blog at csmonitor:
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-fights-losing-winter-battle-again/
It doesn’t seem to be “leveling out”, in any case.
#256: Hank R. – thanks for this post, very interesting, esp. Mercer’s prediction; almost a bit eerie how right this is turning out. Did you happen to see anything amongst those refs dealing with the fabric of the sea bed, or the submarine topography? (I ought to look into this myself, but I’m up to my ears in a difficult hydro. modelling problem at the moment).
Also, re. your post #254, and comments by others here e.g. Timothy Chase #62 etc., I am still wondering about this saw-toothed edge effect, noticeable on the ESA imagery, and to what extent the bed topography is interefering with or even driving the pattern of the fracturing and later break up.
Mauri, if you’re reading still, any thoughts?
“I am confused that you state the SSTs have not shown a leveling out. I look at the SSTs from the GISS web page for ocean temperatures and they appear to be leveling out to me. One could argue that the leveling is temporary and the long term trend is up. But I don’t see how one could argue that the recent temperatures don’t show a leveling off.” – steve
A few years’ measurements simply aren’t enough to justify such a statement; nor are your (or anyone else’s) eyeballs sufficient grounds to make it. Such a statement requires statistical support to be valid.
#274 Dawn
Please present the basis for your challenge. In other words present your model and evidence that proves what your saying. Show the evidence in the natural system. Explain with how in a cooling world, glaciers worldwide are melting, the Arctic ice is in virtual freefall, WAIS is showing signs of weakening. Explain how all this works in a cooling world as you claim, scientifically.
Please understand, your opinion is irrelevant. The opinions of others are largely irrelevant, without well reasoned evidence. Show the evidence that you have? Sometimes even my opinions are irrelevant if not based on substantive reasoning associated with evidence.
One other question, can you even in the slightest degree, understand how irritating it is when someone like yourself comes into a science site, and these very busy scientists have to spend energy and time explaining things (that not only already explained but well explained and understood) to someone such as yourself and others who bring completely irrelevant points into the conversation, and claim they are relevant based on nothing more than ‘you say so’ because ‘you read it somewhere’…
Geez, I’m amazed they tolerate me in here, let alone you, and the likes of you.
#289 william
Don’t forget that it has been warmer in the past. This throws a big monkey wrench (no offense to monkeys) into the Lindzen hypothesis. If, as he apparently expects the magic cloud albedo will save us as the world warms, then where is the paleo evidence that shows, or even indicates that the world never got much warmer than today, associated with the constraints that solidify his hypothesis?
Science is about measuring, modeling, testing, falsification and reasoning, it’s not a guessing game (pardon my oversimplification).
#297 Jim Norvell
Wow
John Reisman addressed Dawn: “One other question, can you even in the slightest degree, understand how irritating it is when someone like yourself comes into a science site, and these very busy scientists have to spend energy and time explaining things …”
To a troll, the whole point is to be irritating and to get people to waste their time.
So far, Dawn’s comments have given no indication that she has any other intention than that.
I fairness to Jim Norvell, there is data showing specific humidity declines at altitude, it just is not very good data, and usually involves re-analysis products which are not useful for determining long-term trends on water vapor, precipitation, clouds, etc. The perspective article in Science by Dessler and Sherwood summarizes well the current status on the topic, and is in line with the best scholarship.
[Response: Yes, but that isn’t even remotely tantamount to a plausible challenge against the positive nature of the overall water vapor feedback. The links to Dessler’s site provided up thread and to Dessler and Sherwood given above) are must-reads for anyone confused about the difference. – mike]
#302 Theo Hopkins
This gives me an idea. If anyone spots relevant government of university study links pertaining to seasonal shift, please drop them into my contact form.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/contact-info
I just added a TOC to the page
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/links
and a new section for seasonal shift
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/links#section-21
If anyone feels inspired, please send relevant links pertaining to seasonal shift, latitudinal shift, or related and I will try to organize them here.
Fire, Hurricanes, Agriculture and such will apply here.
ref #312 the link to the Stroeve paper didn’t seem to work for me. I tried to repost it for you but all I could get to show up here was the http address. Thought I’d let you know in case you wanted to repost or perhaps it is a problem limited to me. I’m not sure.
Re #310
Chris S,
Thank you for that fascinating (and rather scary) post. I appreciate your effort to illuminate a topic I, for one, know little about. I’m motivated by your post to learn more.
Regards – Phillip
> Antarctic … sea bed, or the submarine topography?
There are abstracts from the 2008 AGU that turn up in Google Scholar, nothing I can quote usefully just from the abstracts, but enough to convince me there is a whole lot of study going on. I’m guessing much of the International Polar Year work is still making its way through the journals’ slow processes.
I hope someone’s doing large-scale tomography down there, to get some really fine-detailed images of the ice sheet (whether radar, acoustic, or whatever).
This is kind of like the ice core work — I imagine most of the researchers are working frantically to get the data collected before their subject goes away, and analysis probably lags.
For a take on water vapour and negative feedback, see Andrew Dessler’s site
Walt Bennett contends: “In other words, the unknowns are being buried beneath a PR blitz.”
Really, I haven’t noticed any PR blitz in Science, Nature, JGR… That’s where the science gets reported. Just what scientific journal is this PR blitz taking place in?
So, precisely what unknowns are being buried? It’s about evidence, Walt. Got any?
re Secular Animist in #135 above:
You have put in a few short sentences what I taught (as a Biology and Earth Science Instructor especially enamored with Systems Ecology at the high school and college level) for forty years. I found it extremely hard to maintain a positive outlook (necessary if students are to remember and take action) when I could see every one of the outcomes you mentioned as not only possible but probable, and much of that within the lifetime of my students and certainly their children.
Our earth cannot support the lifestyles of western economies for much longer. Climate change is the inevitable result of our hunger for the energy provided so conveniently by fossil fuels, and that hunger is generated by population growth.
In my view, we are already seeing some consequences of global warming: butterfly populations migrating up mountains to maintain preferred temperature regimes, severe and worsening droughts in areas predicted under AGW, the plight of the polar bears – and many, many more examples such as glacial melt and Wilkins cracking.
The biota of the planet will certainly change over the next few hundred years, and we will feel the effects. Overall, I predict humanity will shrink to a sustainable one-half to one billion people over the next two hundred years.
Like I said, it has been really hard to remain positive with all this in my head.
Correction: I pulled post 135 from memory – should have referred to post 124.
Dessler:
http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation
Discusses the articles linked earlier in this thread.
Begins:
“I have a paper [PDF] in this week’s Science discussing the water vapor feedback. It is a Perspective, meaning that it is a summary of the existing literature rather than new scientific results. In it, my co-author Steve Sherwood and I discuss the mountain of evidence in support of a strong and positive water vapor feedback.
Interestingly, it seems that just about everybody now agrees water vapor provides a robustly strong and positive feedback. Roy Spencer even sent me email saying that he agrees.
What I want to focus on here is model verification. If ….”
Re: #325
Ray,
I’m entitled to my opinion and I intend to stick to it. You ask me to identify unidentified unknowns. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and it is just that arrogance that condemns climate “science” to the sort of mockery it receives.
Scientists do science, they don’t set out to prove a case.
It’s not the scientists with whom I take issue, for the most part; it is those such as you (and the vast majority of those who post and comment here) who take the science and run with it.
You won’t understand a single word I just wrote. You are blinded.
Science is by definition SKEPTICAL.
Did that sink in?
But, Walt, there’s usually some evidence if there’s something missing.
Look at the guy I asked you to help out earlier, who’s looking at a chart and thinks he sees a trend one way, but the statistics say there’s a trend the other way.
THat’s clear evidence of something missing. Were you able to help him find the missing information?
Take the classic example: law of gravity.
It says, in paraphrase, the Earth sucks by 1g.
It’s certainly possible the universe sucks by some countervailing force, say 0.5g, which would mean that gravitational theory is wrong and the Earth has to actually suck by 1.5g for the theory to be modified to match the observations.
In fact that’s the case if you look far enough out into space and time, at the edge of the universe, where it appears to be true.
So — what’s the problem with climatology that you see? Where’s something like the red shift difference to show that there’s some hidden force operating?
You’re not just saying there has to be some power operating in the gaps, because you believe in one, are you?
Seriously, show us how you help the guy looking at that chart — which has been posted in lots of blogs lately all misreading it by eyeballing it.
Give an example of showing someone where the missing information is?
Hank,
What I have been saying for months now is that “AGW Theory” {CO2 is a greenhouse gas; doubled CO2 will lead to initial 3*C(/-1.5*C) global temperature rise) has been absolutely stretched to the breaking point with all of the “evidence” which is summarily stapled to AGW Theory as though each new data item carries the same certainty as the very limited definition I give above.
Balderdash. Each new data item is evidence of *something*, but just because it seems to conveniently fit AGW theory, much of the new data is instantly assumed by many to have the complete legitimacy of the theory itself.
Balderdash!
And another thing: all contrary evidence (evidence which does not seem to support AGW theory) is just as instantly dismissed, or cloaked in very careful language.
All evidence needs to be treated equally. I feel sorry for some poor scientist out there who just wants to do his work and not worry how well it fits a theory which has grown to ridiculous proportions.
And then there is my absolute irritation at the simple fact that the AGW science community continues to live in an ivory tower where they get to say things such as “stop burning coal.”
We won’t stop burning coal, and it’s not science’s job to tell us to. Those are social issues which must be informed by science but must operate in reality, where people freeze if you don’t burn coal.
If we speak honestly about these things, we can at least honestly inform policy.
I’ve said this all before. Absolutely nobody listens.
[Response: Possibly because no one is actually saying any of those things. Perhaps you could show us where any contributor to this site has said that all ideas are as solid as the basic issue you mention above, or where we have trivially dismissed inconvenient data, or that anyone has said that we should ‘stop burning coal’. If you want discussion, you need to start from a what is actually being said, not a typecast exaggeration. – gavin]
Quick question: Is it correct to read satellite anomalies as how out of whack the temperature is from “normal”. Like, I’m building a right web site that makes fun of Obama but I want to have the science straight… it’s hard to be a denier when you know how to add.
The fun part is that I’m going to be tracking monthly Mauna Loa CO2 and the RSS lower tropospheric monthly anomaly, as if a ten year goal of having the CO2 down to 280ppm. Now, to do that, I’m assuming that the temperature anomaly of 0C, is a good baseline for planetary success. Is that correct? Like, if we had 0 or lower anomaly from RSS for five years, is that a sign of victory? If not, then what is the number?
Walt Bennett Says (9 April 2009 at 3:39 PM):
“…people freeze if you don’t burn coal.”
Really? So all of the non-fossil CO2 emitting energy sources, from woodstoves to nuclear reactors, don’t actually work? It’s either burn coal or freeze in the dark? And of course it doesn’t help to use insulation so you burn less coal, either?
#330 Walt Bennett
Of course science is by definition (nature) skeptical.
That is why it is not too difficult to understand that this global warming event is human caused… and have a decent idea of where this is going; because of the rigorous science being performed.
That’s why the confidence is so high at this point, that we are warming outside of the natural cycle; and it is human cased.
Unlike what you seem to be saying, which is ‘very’ opinionated based on an apparently limited scope/view, probably based on reading too much pulp climate fiction.
Since you are apparently into guessing, what do you think is the likelihood of you finding any mistakes reasonably outside the error bars of the current GCM’s?
Look again – We are on a different path due to global warming.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-variability/overview/image/image_view_fullscreen
You apparently have no idea of the context and relevance of what you are looking at, either on denial sites, or on real science sites.
Did that sink in?
Todd, use ocean pH instead, it’s the more serious immediate problem.
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/images/OcAcid_image001.jpg
“The upper panel in the figure shows anthropogenic (from human activity) carbon emissions; they are modeled to reach a maximum by 2100 and then decrease. The middle panel shows atmospheric CO2 concentrations; which would peak in 2300 at about 1900 ppm (contrasted to the present day level of 380 ppm). The x-axis (horizontal) shows time, starting before the Industrial Era (1750) and then extending into the future until the year 3000. The bottom panel of the figure shows the pH in ocean waters from the surface to 4.5 km depth (4500 meters, about 15,000 feet) for the same time period.”
Sometimes when people don’t listen, it’s because you’re not saying anything worth listening to.
Gavin wrote: “Perhaps you could show us where any contributor to this site has said … that we should ’stop burning coal’.”
James Hansen is not a contributor to this site, but he has pretty clearly said that we should stop burning coal.
In a 2007 essay posted at Grist.org, Hanson wrote “The most important time-critical action needed to avert climate disasters concerns coal … the only practical way to keep CO2 below or close to the ‘dangerous level’ is to phase out coal use during the next few decades, except where CO2 is captured and sequestered.”
Since effective CO2 capture and sequestration technology does not exist and is unlikely to ever exist, that amounts to a call to stop burning coal.
And this past February, in an essay published in the UK newspaper The Observer, Hansen wrote: “A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet … The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Of course the purpose of this site is to discuss climate science, not energy technologies. And I appreciate the reticence of climate scientists about speaking out specifically on energy technology issues, since in many cases they have no expertise in that field.
For example, Hansen himself has promoted “fourth generation nuclear reactors” as an important and essential solution to reducing CO2 emissions, which I regard as an unfortunate suggestion based on ignorance, both about the nuclear technology he advocates, which has no chance of making any timely, significant contribution to reducing emissions, and about wind and solar, which can do the job faster, cheaper and with none of the severe problems of nuclear.
But with regard to coal, Hansen is absolutely correct. We need to stop burning coal. We need an immediate moratorium on the construction of any new coal-fired power plants, and we need a deadline and an aggressive plan to phase out all existing coal-fired power plants in no more than ten years.
Fortunately, as US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently said, “The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility. It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.” Salazar pointed out at a public forum on offshore energy development that according to estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind has a gross resource of 463 gigawatts of power in the mid-Atlantic area alone, whereas current US total production of electricity from coal is 366 gigawatts.
[Response: Hansen is on record, in many places, as calling for a moratorium on new coal powered stations without CCS. That is not the same as demanding that all coal burning cease forthwith. You are exaggerating for rhetorical effect, but this is not a fair assessment of his policy proposal. A long term (or even medium term) phase out of all non-CCS coal burning would be necessary for many emission cut plans on the table, but there is a big difference in a phase-out over 10/20/30 years and cessation tomorrow. – gavin]
Is there a high school (US) or secondary school (UK) level physics lab experiment to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
How did Hadley originally experimentally confirm his idea? His name often comes up in newspaper discussions/articles here in UK as evidence of CO2 trapping heat, but no one takes it further.
(This post inspired by post that was talking about high school lab calibration of thermometers, and numerous references on RC to Hadley as “Father of Global Warming” – so having the Hadley Centre called after him)
If you do, you won’t be making fun of Obama, you’ll be making yourself look foolish. No one is talking about a goal of having CO2 down to 280ppm over the next decade. Lampooning Obama on this basis would be nothing more than a strawman attack.
re 332, 9 April 2009 at 3:39 PM
Perhaps if you look at what you just wrote with just a little bit of editing, you might understand why people aren’t buying what you are trying to selling:
=================
Balderdash. Each new data item is evidence of *something*, but just because it seems to conveniently fit Evolutionary theory, much of the new data is instantly assumed by many to have the complete legitimacy of the theory itself.
Balderdash!
And another thing: all contrary evidence (evidence which does not seem to support Evolutionary theory) is just as instantly dismissed, or cloaked in very careful language.
All evidence needs to be treated equally. I feel sorry for some poor scientist out there who just wants to do his work and not worry how well it fits a theory which has grown to ridiculous proportions.
And then there is my absolute irritation at the simple fact that the Evolutionary science community continues to live in an ivory tower where they get to say things such as “Intelligent Design is not science.”
We won’t stop promoting Intelligent Design, and it’s not science’s job to tell us to. Those are social issues which must be informed by science but must operate in reality, where people need to be taught the controversy.
If we speak honestly about these things, we can at least honestly inform policy.
I’ve said this all before. Absolutely nobody listens.
===========================
And I didn’t need to substitute Evolution for AGW theory – I could have easily said Quantum Theory or some such.
The real point is, once once looks at what you are complaining about in terms of this discussion, you aren’t making any sense – you are being inadvertantly selective (ignoring that you could likely say the exact same thing about ANY scientific theory – and likely would not), and in so doing, essentially engaging rhetorical flourishes (rhetoric the anti-evolution crowd has used for years now.)
IMHO (not as a scientist – I’m not – just someone who recognizes real balderdash when I see it) if no one is listening it may be because you aren’t really saying anything bearing a resemblence to a consistant and honest approach to how science operates.
Hank, isn’t 1900ppm that you cite getting pretty close to flat out CO2 poisoning? I mean, forget what melts, aren’t we getting at not being able to breathe?
Theo, Google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=physics+lab+experiment+to+show+that+CO2+is+a+greenhouse+gas
This could be the start of a wonderful friendship.
Just one example from the results — click on the above link and see what else you find there.
Experiment – The Greenhouse Effect
The blue series in front shows the course of temperatures in the right vessel. … The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas. …
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Oh, and, Theo –Hadley? Where’d you get the idea it was Hadley? Who are you relying on for that?
Look in the right sidebar under Science, first link:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
“… A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. …”
“Is there a high school (US) or secondary school (UK) level physics lab experiment to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?”
Yes, the original experiment can be carried out with high-school level equipment.
I don’t know of any place that does, mind.
“Science is by definition SKEPTICAL.
Did that sink in?”
Didn’t need to. That was already internalised.
However what you’re doing isn’t skepticism. It’s nihilism.
You don’t have an alternative (or none that you’ve been SKEPTICAL of yourself) and the current theory fits the data well.
But, being skeptical, if someone comes up with a better idea, we’ll look at it (skeptically) and if it does seem to fit the evidence better, move over.
Got anything better?
Theo Hopkins (338) —
“My kid’s science class did a very simple experiment: they took two clear glass bottles, added some CO2 to one of them, dropped a thermometer in each one, closed them, and put them outside in the sun. After a few minutes, the CO2-enriched air was hotter than the “normal” air. It’s about that simple.” — Chris Dunford, Maryland
from a comment on DotEarth
Er, Theo, one more thing:
Where are you reading a version of RC in which you see ‘numerous references on RC to Hadley as “Father of Global Warming” ‘please? How do you find that?
I tried the search box here, and found none.
Then I thought I’d check for the newspaper story references you remember seeing.
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Hadley+CO2+greenhouse+gas&cf=all
“I have no idea what you’re talking about … so here’s a bunny with a pancake on its head.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oolong_(rabbit)
Hadley didn’t [show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas — which seems to be your implication]. He was a C17-C18 amateur meteorologist. I’m not even sure that Hadley would have known about CO2, as it was discovered towards the end of his life.
As to school experiments, this one gets close IMHO. At least it seems closer than the two-bottles experiment you see sometimes. What might be interesting is to extend the experiment to CH4, N2O and a CFC.
For Todd B. — before you set up a public web site making fun of anyone or anything, it will be good to get comfortable looking up facts yourself.
If you just take what others tell you and paste it up on the web, you can be really made a fool of by people who are putting out PR instead of helping people learn to think for themselves. Seriously.
Google Scholar is going to be more reliable than Google for this. As Coby Beck has often pointed out there is no “Wisdom” button on the Internet.
And you won’t get credibility if you attribute what you believe to something written by some stranger on some blog somewhere.
For example, you ask about the toxicity of CO2 and say that you suspect that 1900ppm is toxic.
Where did you get that idea? Why do you consider that source to be one you can rely on for good information?
How can you check it yourself?
Try it out.
See if you can find support for this statement — call it a challenge to exercise your skepticism and figure out if this is any more credible than what you think now:
“At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.”
Who says so? Take your question to Google, or Google Scholar, paste it in and see what you find out.