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….?
David B. Benson…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.
I’m very skeptical of that experiment, since glass is not transparent beyond about 2.7um. If there is an effect from CO2 at shorter wavelengths, it has no significant relationship to the greenhouse effect since the earth is not warm enough to emit much energy there.
Here is a high-res image of Wilkins Sound obtained via National Snow and Ice Center:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2009096-0406/WilkinsSound.A2009096.2010.250m.jpg
In this April 6 image, it appears that the wind (and maybe current) is from the right.
I’m a little confused as to what is the primary contention here, by Walt Bennett and earlier posts by Jim Norvell, dawn, etc.
Those arguing against the basic foundations of climate science are only showing that they have no faith whatsoever in physics. “AGW” cannot really be called a theory in any sense; that is, AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory, but rather it emerges from the theory. The essential basis is,
— All objects with a temperature above 0 K emit radiation according to the Planck law
— energy is conserved
— The fundamental boundary condition which constrains the global climate is the TOA energy balance determined by the incoming solar irradiance, planetary reflectivity, and atmospheric greenhouse structure and vertical temperature profile
— CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and thus absorbs/emits infrared radiation. At current, terrestrial conditions it makes the planet completely opaaque to infrared in the 14-16 micron window (and some distance away from those edges as well). Increasing its concentration allows the mean altitude of emission to be shifted to colder layers of the atmosphere where the influx of energy then exceeds the output, and the planet must warm.
— The role of the greenhouse effect is essentially to make the surface temperature 33 K (59 F) warmer than the effective temperature maintained by equilibrium with the incoming sunlight and an albedo of 30%
— Of the 33 K greenhouse effect, roughly 20% of the infrared opacity is due to CO2. Roughly 75% of the infrared opacity is due to water vapor and clouds, although water is condensible at Earth-like conditions, and because its variation is responsive to temperature, this means that the non-condensible greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, ozone, etc) provide the supporting framework for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (where water vapor then provides an amplicative factor of roughly three). Removing all of the CO2 and other non-condensible GHG’s would result in a most of the water vapor and cloud effect precipitating from the air, and a consequent collapse of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. The corresponding change in surface albedo would likely make the planet much more reflective and thus colder than the 255 K baseline temperature.
— On the other hand, specific humidity climbs in a warmer world (essentially following Clausius-Clapeyron) which forces a strong positive water vapor feedback, predominant in the tropics and higher altitudes. Most of the water vapor feedback is caused by enhanced infrared opacity, although water vapor also absorbs solar radiation which becomes important at the polar areas where it can absorb upwelling photons in the visible. Decreases in ice cover lower the surface albedo, and thus provide a mechanism to enhance warming. Decreases in the vertical temperature gradient from an atmosphere following a moist adiabat essentially reduce the strength of the greenhouse effect providing a partial negative feedback.
Much of this was known a century ago, with many of the key developments happening earlier in the century, mainly in the form of observational evidence of climate change (e.g., rising CO2 levels from Keeling, better radiation experiments and carbon cycle understanding). The key uncertanties now do not relate to the reality of AGW, but in the general response to the terrestrial biosphere and climate system (including the ice sheets, sea ice, and possible thresholds for “tipping points” within the system).
Any objections to the above physics should take the form of a real, competing synthesis which better describes not only the 20th century warming, but the basic structure of the entire climate record as we know it, as well as models built on physics and osbervation.
Walt, Ah, I see, it’s the unknown unknowns. Well, how shall we approach those unknown unknowns in a scientific manner? Could we ask how large a contribution they are making? Can we ask if we see evidence of them in the paleoclimate? Can we ask what other plausible forcings there might be? Can we ask how it could simultaneously warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.
See, Walt, I just don’t know how to do science if you make the assumption that there’s some invisible, unmeasurable, undetectable unknown out there that messes up our theory and leaves no evidence. I think that when you start talking about things like that, you’ve left the scientific domain.
Science requires having the courage to advance a hypothesis and allow it to be subjected to falsification. Asking you to do that is not arrogance. It’s how the game is played. Wanna advance one or is science too scary for you?
No one is talking about a goal of having CO2 down to 280ppm over the next decade
I know, but his advocates cannot say that, as during that time the country is going to spend about hundreds of billion dollars in CO2 taxes and a reduction in lifestyle designed to lower CO2. It’s to force an examination of the cost of this proposed solution to provide the right with a way in. It’s time for the right to actually engage this problem as there’s plenty of political differences as to how to solve it. If you will, its an argument for developing technologies to clean the air and to also begin a massive nuclear power program.
Dawn #274:
How about more warming than the data shows?
If you distrust the data and the error handling methodology, why do you insist that the errors must all be on the warmer side?
That’s not skepticism, that’s bias.
Todd Bandrowsky #341:
You need to worry when concentrations in air reach 2%. That’s 20,000ppm. At 2% you will start to feel ill effects; 5% starts to become toxic. Asphyxia risk starts at 10% (100,000ppm).
1900ppm would cause serious enough consequences though, so that we needn’t worry about asphyxiation or poisoning is not much cause for comfort.
Steve Reynolds (351) — Thanks. What about the experiment linked in comment #349?
> I know, but his advocates cannot say that,
Oh, nonsense, Todd.
Who’s paying for this website you’re building?
Are you free to provide facts?
Are you setting up a PR outlet?
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) Says:
9 April 2009 at 11:41 AM
“#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://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=earlier+breeding+flowering+climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
“about 26000 hits”
Two from PNAS, two from Nature, one from Proceedings of the Royal society on the first page. I think that the problem won’t be finding authoritative studies, but rather too many of them to sort.
Add “phenology” to the search reduces the hits to a more manageable “about 4,630”. I guess the AGW conspiracy not only involves Climate Scientists but Biologists as well.
recaptcha says “two griff” (almost grift &;>) I have a theory that much of the indecipherable junk email floating around on the internet is in fact the infant babbling of a nascent AI having spontaneously arisen from viruses, trojans, and all the other wildlife on the net. It’s trying to learn to communicate, as all babies do, by imitation.)
Todd Bandrowsky Says (9 April 2009 at 7:46 PM):
“I know, but his advocates cannot say that, as during that time the country is going to spend about hundreds of billion dollars in CO2 taxes and a reduction in lifestyle designed to lower CO2.”
You know, you’re wrong on two, and perhaps three, major points in that one sentence.
First, AFAIK neither Obama nor anyone else in government is seriously talking about trying to lower CO2 concentrations. Even the most extreme only talk about trying to stabilize at some high value; the majority just about slowing the rate of increase.
Second, about that “reduction in lifestyle”. How exactly is that supposed to happen? I started putting CFL bulbs in my house a decade and more ago: I have better light and pay less. Doesn’t that improve my lifestyle? I upgraded insulation & heating so I need very little fossil-fuel heat, and zero A/C. I spend less, and am more comfortable. Isn’t that a lifestyle improvement? I reduce my driving by telecommuting & biking, which saves time & money, and keeps me in good physical condition. Aren’t those lifestyle improvements? When I do drive, it’s in a car that gets 70 mpg – $4/gal gas didn’t even affect me, unlike some of my neighbors. Again, a lifestyle improvement. In a few years, I hope to be able to replace it a Tesla, Apera, or some other electric or PHEV car, which again is a distinct lifestyle improvement. And so on down the list: it seems as though darned near everything that reduces my CO2 footprint also improves my quality of life.
Third (and I apologize for a very brief digression into the political), I’m a pretty long way from being an Obama advocate, since I disagree with his policies on most issues. Including CO2: I don’t think he’s nearly serious enough.
Brian Dodge wrote: “I have a theory that much of the indecipherable junk email floating around on the internet is in fact the infant babbling of a nascent AI having spontaneously arisen from viruses, trojans, and all the other wildlife on the net. It’s trying to learn to communicate, as all babies do, by imitation.”
Hank says not to paste nonsense–but this is lovely, poetic, Arthurian (as in Clarke) nonsense! Beautiful.
(And Captcha says, “talking of.”)
In other words, you plan to lie on your website, for ideological reasons. Thanks, I knew that from your first post, but confirmation is … comfortably confirming. Most RW liars aren’t willing to confirm their intent to lie in public like this.
Can we quote you?
Todd, how about we cross-reference your two posts earlier in this thread over to the Advocacy thread so we can talk more about them there? That’s:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/advocacy-vs-science/langswitch_lang/spthread?
They’re relevant to that one, and not to this on the Wilkins ice sheet.
You’ve got some clear goals about making fun, and some very odd ideas about the science, to go on this website you’re setting up. Whoever’s having you build it might not be giving you good information to start.
#338 “Hanson wrote “The most important time-critical action needed to avert climate disasters concerns coal”
I was privileged to hear Jim Hansen speak today at the University of Colorado in Boulder (the event sponsored by UCAR).
His message was urgent while being delivered in his usual deliberate way…lots of charts and graphs and very convincing.
He brought up the current “cooling” being linked graphically with La Nina.
Will there be a reaction posting to the DEC 2008 NOAA attribution paper?
Gavin,
Thank you for the inline; at least there is some engagement from within. That is a first for me with regard to this rant.
Allow me to say I can find quotes where Dr. Hansen says we must immediately stop building coal plants that do not CCS. That idea is politically dead on arrival, and Dr. Hansen has no place even saying it. What he should be saying is something like: “All of the science work I have done, supported by the work of many others, indicates that if we continue to burn coal and allow the CO2 emissions to escape into place, we are going to need even more radical solutions which will have even greater unknown consequences.” And then policy makers will have decisions to make. Instead, he comes out against coal, and coal comes out against him, and on we go with the political stalemate. I’m sure you agree that not near enough political progress is being made, and the prospects for a binding agreement with any potential ameliorating effect are dim at best. We are at least a decade behind; where is the political will to catch up?
As to the divination of agreeable science, this very post is Exhibit A, and all of your best friends have shown up to serve as the Greek Chorus. You all have been talking to each other for so long, that you do not realize how insular (cult-like, in fact) you have become.
No sense of humor; no sense of irony; no sense of cuation; no sense of balance.
Here is the point, I suppose: the current warming is within the bounds of variability, and while it is true that the ice shelves were there for thousands of years, and while it is likely that global warming caused their disintegration, that is not the same as saying “It’s AGW” and it’s not the same as saying “This means things are getting a lot scarier in Antarctica.”
It may mean those things, but come here and all you’ll learn is that “Of course it is AGW, you blankety blank, now go back to your coal-sponsored hole in the ground.”
I’m something of a pessimist in the first place. I know how next to impossible it is to get anybody on either side to look at something that competes with their firmly held view. I realize that stalemate equals loss. I see no hope of avoiding stalemate, and thus loss. I believe that means my children and especially their children are condemned to live on a planet where things will become quite unstable in all meaningful ways.
But when I survey the landscape to identify those who are to blame, sites like this do not escape blame. Not by a long shot.
I’m still somewhat stunned that you actually called somebody an idiot, that nobody other than me objected, and that several came rushing to your defense.
I guess none of you can see that it just doesn’t matter.
So to wrap all this up: we need scientists to do science and quit trying to sell a case. IPCC is bad enough, placing all sorts of correlated conclusions on individual work. Let’s not devolve to a practice where all climate science is judged by how well it supports AGW.
If you can’t see the peril in that, I don’t know how to make you.
Re #37 Comment by Gavin,
I have noticed that quite a few denialists are very confident with their “gut feel”. My “gut feel” is the AGW is 100% correct! Did you ever notice my comment when the “Ocean cooling” subject was first raised on this site? See: – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=337#comment-17807
Cheers,
I want to add a “third” to the suggestion above for using Google Scholar. I am not sure why, by now, people do not try Google Scholar before saying (on a blog) “how can I find documentation on ___?” or “why hasn’t anyone considered ___?” In my case, after never publishing on climate change, I found myself part of a study showing a three month advance in seasonal phenology due to an indirect effect of climate change on the availability of a refuge from predation. I typed “seasonal phenology and climate change” into Google Scholar and the Walther et al (Nature 2002) paper was listed first with over 1000 citations. I downloaded and read this paper as well as a few of the other general reviews and decided that the Walther et al. (2002) paper was a good one to cite as a general review in the introduction of my paper. The Walther paper is very easy to find and is, I think, a free download for everyone. Of course, many papers have been published since 2002, but this paper gives a nice overview to anyone wondering about the nature and extent of the evidence on seasonal phenology shifts.
It seems to me that using Google Scholar needs to be emaphsized in high school and university science classes, as well as in journalism schools. I am making sure that my undergraduates are well aware of this tool.
#360 Brian Dodge
Thanks, I should have googled…
but I think I have a brain cloud, which may be a positive feedback caused by the level of inanity added to the atmosphere in here by those that can’t see the deforestation through the lack of trees. Of course this supports Lindzen’s hypothesis as it seems to have a negative feedback on my ability to think clearly due to the increased fog levels from the atmospheric additions herein-above mentioned.
However, I don’t have a sufficient time series to determine if I am heating up or cooling down due to the increased hyperbole combined with the increased fog levels and the internal bias of my cherry picked view, combined with my lack of acceptance of relevant modeled analysis. In other words, I’m using the raw data unadjusted for urban hubris island effect, so I can prove in my own mind that my perspective represents all perspectives possible, based on my view of the data.
Luckily my wife is doing diligent measuring of my tolerance levels and comparing them to my known past behavior, other involved individuals, and those that are blissfully ignorant of the atmosphere (mentioned herein-above) as a control. And though she says I’m becoming less tolerant, I choose not to believe her because I claim that while it may seem obvious to her, based on her long term experience with my historic behavior, I won’t believe her until she can prove it by my being arrested for going over the top.
Guess we’ll just have to wait rather than apply science or reasoning. We wouldn’t want to make any hasty decisions about my condition. So if I go crazy, which based on her views and the comparative data against the controls and other studies, seems likely due to the path she claims I am on, and if there are negative impacts, such as a lot of damage attributable to the imbecilic atmospheric overload from external forcing elements, then everyone can talk about how maybe we should have been more reasonable and done something to prevent this based on the evidence that was knowable before the event manifested to such extent?
er, I’m sorry, did I say that out loud ;)
… and I will try to pick some cream off the top of the search.
In defense of Secular Animist (338), he did quote Hansen (correctly I believe) as saying that we should
“… phase out coal use during the next few decades, except where CO2 is captured and sequestered.”
In the following, Sec. An. made clear that he doesn’t believe that CCS will ever make a contribution to decreasing CO2 emissions, whereas Hansen does.
Chris (353): Very nice review of the basic cornerstones of climate science and their place in the ‘discussion’.
“Dawn,
You folks know what the problem here is don’t you?
Too much interpreating, correcting and estimating and not enough accurate, calibrated measuring. And way too much pretending they are one in the same.
“
Dawn I do not study climate, but I do study mathematics. There exists a mathematical reason for climate scientist and other types of scientist to make revisions. The revisions are necessary due to the limitations of mathematics or the Theorem of Incompleteness. In a basic nutshell, no mathematical model can be complete and consistent at the same time. To put it into the words of George Box, “All models are wrong but some are useful.” This little theorem encompasses just about all of science. It’s also the reason why physicists cannot construct a theory of everything.
In a basic nutshell, modern day science is statistical. Some areas may have variations, but it’s the over all trend that is useful for information. If you expect a certain precise method, I’m afraid it’s not possible to do mathematically for the reason stated above. In respect to global warming: All statistical trends point to a planet that is warming.
When scientist attempt to link the power of a storm to global warming, I would agree that they are abusing science; however, the link of melting ice to a warming planet doesn’t seem to be far stretched in my opinion. Not only is it logical, it seems to be a part of a cascading effect.
Onto Another Topic:
I see two clear implications from the collapse of the ice shelf. The first being reduced reflection of sunlight, and thus increased irradiation being absorbed by the environment. It’s likely that we will see an increase to the acceleration of warming in the arctic down the road. It’s also likely to increase slipping of glaciers, for obvious reasons.
This brings me to a question, do you believe it’s possible to intervene? Quite frankly, I don’t see humanity changing anytime soon (I’m a pessimistic person). Even if humanity does change, I’m not too sure that it will make a difference.
Jim Norvell writes:
Google “Clausius-Clapeyron relation.”
Theo: Try
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/animals_plants_already_feeling_effects_of_global_warming
Re David B Benson
I think any bench-top school experiment is only going to be an approximation and you are going to run into the well-known glass-greenhouse analogy shortcomings. You need to explore/explain the shortcomings of the various set-ups as part of the exercise. You could replace normal glassware with UV/vis/IR-type spectrophotometry cuvettes I s’pose.
The other tack, and probably beyond most schools, would be just to replicate the measurements that make up the HITRAN database, or utilise the HITRAN database itself for CO2, N2O, …, and then discuss the implications. But that’s probably not as exciting as actually doing a hands-on experiment, unless you’re a budding theoretician that is, where experiments are largely anathematical/a waste of your time ;-).
Thanks to all the scientists that post here from an informed person who knew little about climate science but is well versed in the scientific process of discovery. I have learned more than you might have guessed about your science and appreciate your dedication and time spent spreading your knowledge to those who are not in your field. As for the ‘dawns’ out there, you are known by your utter lack of science motivation and your rather transparent neocon arguments to be only here to spread your political agenda. You should have learned [but did not] from the last two elections that the time of politically inspired attacks on science is over. again thanks to all the scientists that patiently explain your scientific knowledge to us of lesser knowledge.
Steve Reynolds writes:
CO2 has strong absorption bands from 1.9 to 2.1 and 2.6 to 2.9 microns. Technically, though, its “greenhouse effect” should be about the infrared it absorbs. The CO2 would also have been absorbing IR from the warm walls of the jar.
“Since effective CO2 capture and sequestration technology does not exist and is unlikely to ever exist” – SecularAnimist
On what do you base that claim? It is not shared by the IPCC; and I refer you to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/first-carbon-capture-power-plant-lacq.
E #357: Lifetime exposure toxicity threshold of CO2 (as well as almost anyhing else) is not well known.
The sources you cite concern short term and/or periodic exposure of presmably healthy adults. The numbers are based on experimental work done to establish requirements for submarine crews, extrapolations and estimates derived from those data.
The life cycle exposure needs to include impacts on developing embryo, the growing children as well as the sick and elderly, eventually combined with numerous other environmental stress factors.
““Since effective CO2 capture and sequestration technology does not exist and is unlikely to ever exist” – SecularAnimist
On what do you base that claim? It is not shared by the IPCC”
I suspect based on 17 trillion kilos of carbon needing sequestration and storage.
That’s a lotta carbon.
Effective == gets rid of it and stops it being a problem.
IPCC is more
Effective == helps
“I’m very skeptical of that experiment, since glass is not transparent beyond about 2.7um. ”
And why is that?
Because glass is a strong absorber at that range.
Now, a thought experiment:
If you made the glass thinner and thinner, the effect would reduce, would it not? Like very thin china is translucent but thick china opaque.
Now what happens if some of that IR that would have been blocked by glass were instead blocked by CO2?
Same as if it were thicker glass, yes?
“Here is the point, I suppose: the current warming is within the bounds of variability”
And you’ve worked this out how?
Where is your statistical mechanism, the data and the results that shows this.
Because it seems that all the people who HAVE done that seem to disagree. The warming is well outside the bounds of variability.
Unless you’re talking about “less than the difference between, say, day and night temperatures”.
The September-November average is well outside the variability of the pre-industrial revolution September-November average.
Nick #378, Laq is a gas not coal plant. There is a significant difference because gas creates the possibility of pumping the CO2 back where the gas came from, where there is at least some reassurance that another kind of gas was previously stored there for a very long period without leakage. Coal is a different case. Coal-fired plants are often positioned near a coal mine, and not that often positioned near a depleted gas field. So you have a problem as to where to put the CO2. Shipping it in high volume over long distances is seriously risky, as is pumping it underground anywhere that a leak is possible.
Even so, a depleted gas field has another problem. It may have been free of leaks before it was tapped, but you have to be pretty sure that the process of extracting gas has not introduced potential for new leaks. CCS is widely seen as an excuse not to pursue renewables because so many projects have been started and stopped before making much progress. We’ll have to see if Total keeps this one going long enough to be plausible.
Barton Paul Levenson #284 writes
“5. When I regressed NASA GISS temperature anomalies against ln CO2 for 1880-2008, I got 76% of the variance accounted for. That means all other causes of temperature variation for that 129-year period, including other greenhouse gases, caused no more than 24%. Volcanoes had a small effect (about 2%), and sunlight had no discernable effect–and I measured the sun’s influence four different ways, TSI, sunspot cycle, years since maximum, and years since minimum.”
Correlation does not prove causation, as I’m sure you know. Both ln CO2 and GISS temperature anomalies have risen over this period and so they must show a correlation. You would also find a correlation between the temperature anomaly and any other increasing parameter, such as the price of a bus ticket.
#115, 124, 130 (Jack Roesler, Gavin, SecularAnimist):
the potential 80-90% reduction in global population was mentioned recently by John Schellnhuber at the Copenhagen Climate Congress. See slide 43 of his presentation there:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/schellnhuber-plenaryspeaker-12march2009.pdf/
Of course James Lovelock has also been speaking in these terms. I hope they’re wrong, or simpy being too excessive, like Gavin said, but i wouldn’t count on it.
In 2005, Nature wrote about a study “If their estimate of the ice erosion rate is correct, within 100 years Larsen C will be close to the thickness at which Larsen B broke up.” (sorry I don’t have the full paper, just this : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22within+100+years+Larsen+C%22 )
In 2008, http://cires.colorado.edu/science/pro/irp/2008/scambos/ wrote : “The work will compare the present Wilkins break-up with similar past break-up events, and also those of the Larsen A and B Ice Shelves in 1995 and 2002 respectively. Further south, Larsen C has thinned and continued warming could lead to its breakup within the next decade. Can we forecast break-ups based on sea ice and climate anomalies?”
Larsen C breakup would be a huge event – and would release huge amounts of ice currently “trapped” behind it. Wilkins is gone, now it’s to monitor the remaining ones…
Walt Bennett, While I am more than content to engage in a flame war, I would suggest that that might not be the most advantageous use of bandwidth. I find your post #367 interesting, as you are suggesting that a scientist must speak only in very measured tones.
First, I would point out that Dr. Hansen and others have been speaking in precisely such measured tones for over 20 years, with the only result being that we have lost 20 years during which we could have been addressing this issue. In fact, all Hansen and his colleagues got out of the exercise were subpoenas and accusations of fraud. I’m wondering why you would expect a different outcome now, or is your goal to forestall meaningful progress for another 20 years?
Would your admonitions also pertain to dissidents like Lindzen and Spencer, who regularly distort scientific results ex cathedra, as it were, to lay audiences, or is it only the 97% of climate scientists that support the consensus model who should have their first amendment rights curtailed?
Is it only climate science where such restrictions apply? Should scientists be prevented from advocating for or against nuclear power? Should doctors be forced to speak in soft, measured tones when urging patients to stop smoking?
You have asked for “balance”, and yet when asked for peer-reviewed papers that raise significant questions about the consensus model of climate or evidence that poses significant problems for that model, you have provided nothing. Are we to assume you have no such papers or evidence? If so, how can we as scientists give much consideration to the dissenting view?
As to the evidence favoring warming, I believe you are mischaracterizing the situation. Nobody (at least nobody responsible) is saying that the collapse of the Wilkins ice shelf is proof or even evidence of global climate change. But the collapse of Wilkins, Ross and others, coupled with unprecedented loss of ice in the arctic, coupled with 3 decades of rising global temperatures, coupled with shorter winters, coupled with a cooling stratosphere, coupled with… The fact that a single mechanism favors all those disparate developments is surely strong evidence that we are outside of normal variability. The tremendous successes of climate models at reproducing the general trends of paleo- and modern climate have to count as well. And then you have the fact that none of the 2 dozen or so professional and honorific science bodies that have looked at this issue dissents from the consensus position.
Look, I wish this issue had not become politicized, but it has. The gloves are off, just as they are for stem cells, evolution, the ozone hole, smoking and cancer, the big bang and on and on. Like it or not, science itself is under attack here. It has to defend itself.
Mark@380,
Where does your “17 trillion tons” of carbon come from? No one technology is going to solve the problem. I quote from the IPCC’s 2007 report on CCS (p.12 of the Executive Summary):
“In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppmv
CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options,
the economic potential of CCS would amount to 220–
2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would
mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative
mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a
range of baseline scenarios. It is likely that the technical
potential for geological storage is sufficient to cover the
high end of the economic potential range, but for specific
regions, this may not be true.”
Now this could be quite wrong – I’m not claiming any expertise here – but it merits something more than dismissal unsupported by argument.
Philip Machanick@383,
There are other places than depleted gas fields that could be used for sequestration (e.g. deep saline formations, depleted coal beds); and the Laq project is specifically designed to look at possible leakage problems. Given the rate at which both gas and coal-fired power stations are being built, particularly in China and India which both have large reserves of cheap coal, it seems to me very unwise to dismiss CCS out of hand, although it is certainly not my preferred option, and I do share the concern that it can be used as an excuse.
If you have been watching http://webservices.esa.int/wilkinsarctic/wilkins.php?type=full
you would have seen that since the 4/4/09 the ice bridge has been collapsing. Have a look at it now..the last image was from the 8/4 and it shows the complete and utter destruction of the ice bridge linking charcot to latady. What this shows me is that the wilkins ice shelf is now so brittle, thin and impoverished that it cannot any longer withstand the usual glacial forces pushing outwards. This is what a sustained raise of 2.5C will do to ice. To the naked eye not much is happening but within the crystalline structure major changes are taking place. The oxygen bubbles within the ice are expanding thus fracturing the surrounding homogenous water ice and turning what was once hard and smooth into mush. If this is what a 2.5C raise will do can you imagine what a 5.0C increase will spell. It will then rain far more more frequently on the antarctic mainland turning the millenium old continemtal ice mass into swiss cheese and a geologically instantaneous and catastrophically deadly increase in sea level. I really hope the senseless and utterly ignorant capitalism of the past is dead or we will be before much longer. We need an earth and ecology based system of finance that puts our planetary home as first and formost. Sharing of sustainable resouces, sustainable and non polluting energy and the end of the use of fossil fuels. If this criteria is not met immediatly we will perish. There is no doubt!.
@Swann,384: “Correlation does not prove causation, as I’m sure you know.”
Good thing, then, that there is a physical theory that explains CO2 causes warming through radiative absorption and re-emission.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
@Ron Broberg:
Indeed, that was a particularly ridiculous comment by Swann, since the quoted paragraph was point 5 in Barton’s post, where points 1-3 were a summary of how causation is established (and points 4, 6 provided other, non-statistical evidence).
And they wonder why people don’t take them seriously ….
Ref #387 Ray says “Would your admonitions also pertain to dissidents like Lindzen and Spencer, who regularly distort scientific results ex cathedra, as it were, to lay audiences, or is it only the 97% of climate scientists that support the consensus model who should have their first amendment rights curtailed?”
From Gavins one response to me I had already determined there was animosity towards Lindzen here but I wasn’t aware the animosity extended also to Spencer. Does the animosity also extend towards Christy and Pielke? It would be nice if my tax dollars were going to people that could get along long enough to meet and discuss these issues in a civilized manner. And of course this criticism is not aimed at anyone in particular nor at one side in particular.
Wouldn’t anyone that believed there was a green house affect or an urban heat island affect, or a land use affect also be included in the 97% of climatologists that believed humans had a role in warming the planet? Which climatologists might I have heard of in the debate over AGW would not also fit into the 97%?
Ray,
If there is a flame war, it’s one-sided. Ranting and flaming are not the same.
There is no solution to the problem. Politicized science ceases to be science.
You correctly state that twenty years later, Hansen’s 1988 warnings have had little effect. You seem to be saying that he now has no choice but to proverbially chain himself to a smokestack.
I not only disagree, I disagree with all the vehemence I can muster.
If you cannot see what a horrible (and horrifying) development that is, I don’t know how to explain it to you.
I note that you did not attempt to dissuade my pessimism. Perhaps in your more honest places, you see it too.
So – where has all this advocacy gotten us?
David B. Benson: “What about the experiment linked in comment #349?”
That looks like a much better experiment, but I think I see a flaw that may dominate the temperature increase: The container with pure CO2 would have a faster temperature increase even without any IR absorption, just due to the lower heat conductivity of CO2 relative to air (because of CO2’s higher molecular weight).
Maybe that could be fixed by mixing enough helium into the CO2 container to equalize the heat conductivities.
OT, but maybe useful to others: I received this email on the OSS site yesterday and thought I would reply here as well. Anyone, please feel to correct anything I may be wrong about and/or add to the context for relevance:
There are multiple problems with such a claim.
HCN 1
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
HCN 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
Read carefully all the modeling and the reasons for the modeling, as described for HCN 1 & 2. Then you will know how to answer them.
1. They need to stop eating spoon fed junk science and start doing their homework.
2. One chart, from a single data set is a cherry pick.
3. Out of context, if you compare, for example the raw vs. modeled in the example of ‘HCN 1’ you can see that using raw data is patently insane. Anyone that makes a judgement on global temps based on raw data from a cherry pick is equally insane, within the context.
4. The modeled data shows less warming than the raw data in some/many circumstances, so if they want to support their claim of less warming, relying on the models might help them more (cherry pick dependent).
5. The USHCN does not represent the GMT (it’s a regional temp. not a global temp.).
6. Those “denialists are touting this chart as proof that human adjustments to data is the sole cause of rapid warming” have a serious case of ‘confirmation bias’ that no amount of Preparation H can cure. Ironic that those most afflicted with confirmation bias are so enmeshed within its lure, and use it without substantiation. Using a cherry pick to support a holistic claim falls directly into the category of facts out of context, thus irrelevant.
The reality is that measurements (raw data) have to be modeled with method to eliminate problems that reduce the reliability of the overall data-set: like UHI, TOB, MMTS, trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations), SHAP & FILNET. Without modeling the ‘raw data’ you simply can’t get reasonable results, and that is what science is about, getting reasonable results.
If we relied entirely on raw data without modeling to reduce errors, we might be showing global warming at much higher a temperature than what we have at our well understood +0.7C, or maybe lower depending on cherry picking or not, but either option would be more wrong than right in the degree of error.
For some reason denialists just keep getting everything backwards.
gavin wrote: “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.”
Yes, there is a big difference, but a 10-30 year phaseout and “cessation tomorrow” are both accurately described as “stop burning coal”. The only difference is how long we take to stop.
My understanding is that CO2 is already at “dangerous” levels and that we need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible.
Coal-fired power plants are a major source of emissions. Replacements are available now — as I referenced above, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar points to NREL studies showing that the gross offshore wind energy resources of the mid-Atlantic region alone exceed the entire output of all existing coal-fired power plants. Other studies have found the same for the offshore wind energy resources of the Northeast alone. Other studies have found the same for the wind energy resources of only four midwestern states. Other studies have found that baseload concentrating solar thermal power plants built in the Southwest could supply all the electricity consumed in the USA. Solyndra, a manufacturer of cylindrical PV collectors, calculates that fully exploiting the solar energy potential of existing commerical rooftop space could generate 185 gigawatts of electricity.
Al Gore’s organization has put forth a detailed plan for the USA to get all of its electricity from clean renewable energy within ten years. I believe that is eminently doable.
Meanwhile, CCS for coal-fired power plants does not exist — except as a coal-industry propaganda campaign to justify building more coal-fired power plants without CCS, which can be marketed as “CCS ready”, which means nothing.
And by the time that a hugely expensive research program to develop reliable, industrial-scale CCS for coal could yield an hugely expensive technology that could actually be implemented, there should be no need for it, since by then, at far lower cost, we can be producing more electricity than we know what to do with from wind, solar and geothermal.
Bottom line is that (1) we need to phase out — i.e. “stop burning” — coal as quickly as possible, and (2) we can do so, pretty easily, if we choose.
#367 Walt Bennett
Walt, I have no problem with what Dr. Hansen is saying. And besides, be reasonable, If we stopped building coal plants right now, America will not fall apart. The easiest target is consumption reduction of energy.
I think Dr. Hansen is saying pretty much what you are saying he should be saying:
But he does say more, and with good (excellent) reason. Too many people, such as yourself don’t seem to comprehend the ramifications of human action with respect to GHG output.
#393 Walt Bennett
You have yet to understand that when the food and water gets short, the peasants often react. History should be your guide on this one. The reactin to the peasants reacting has in the past often been draconian in nature. This warming event will/is causing climatic zonal shift.
To quote a rather famous phrase: “It’s the economy stupid”.
Once folks wake up on oceanic thermal inertia and atmospheric lifetime of CO2, I’m sure there will be outcries of why didn’t the government see this coming, not unlike those that said the same regarding our most recent bubble.
But some did see it. Heck I even wrote about it, but not many thought it important at the time. Same apparently as you now. I don’t pretend to know all your contexts, but it is fairly clear you do not understand the science.
There are folks that, without any professional background or experience in climatology, can do better than professional climatologists, just by being smart individuals in their free time with the courage of their convictions. And then there are folks that, without any special experience in science outreach, think they can do better than those scientists that, by the side of their proper jobs, have practiced this difficult art for many years.
I have news for you Walt Bennett. Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Stop blaming victims. Stop being a concern troll (you’re not Pielke under a pen-name are you?). And stop being a blathering [edit]!
Bull. Easily proven to be bull by a brief perusal of sites like WUWT and CA, where on a daily basis the climate science community is accused of scientific fraud, of making up data, of lying about what data tells us, etc. In addition, as Ray mentioned, people like Hansen have been hauled in front of Congress and have been publicly accused of such behavior. People like Lonnie Thomson have been subjected to attempts to get their university employers to take action against them because of supposed scientific fraud, etc.
Spencer’s guilty of outright lying about the science. How should people feel about him?
Don’t you find it just a bit offensive that an established scientist would do so?