Continuation of the open thread. Please use these threads to bring up things that are creating ‘buzz’ rather than having news items get buried in comment threads on more specific topics. We’ll promote the best responses to the head post.
Knorr (2009): Case in point, Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item Update: MT/AH point out the headline came from an AGU press release (Sigh…). SkepticalScience has a good discussion of the details including some other recent work by Le Quéré and colleagues.
Update: Some comments on the John Coleman/KUSI/Joe D’Aleo/E. M. Smith accusations about the temperature records. Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their ‘accusation’ is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and is absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA.
Further Update: NCDC has a good description of their procedures now available, and Zeke Hausfather has a very good explanation of the real issues on the Yale Forum.
“All the more reason for scientists to step forward and inform the public of the real nature of the threat.”
They are David.
But the story keeps coming back to life.
This is why they’re zombie arguments.
“Hey, Chris’ complaint is valid. It goes against my grain to be so unhelpful; I have a service oriented persona”
But not giving it away has benefits for Chris and, since you didn’t find anything in the data, not having it didn’t harm anything.
At the very least, Chris would have had to get more data.
The problem is finding out who on the internet, who are people you never met before, never will meet and cannot track down and shoot like the damn dirty ape they are if they waste your time, you can trust.
The problem isn’t so much Chris as the idea that he didn’t bother looking himself.
Maybe it’s the TV generation, more likely the age of the post-hippie-parent, but if you go out and look, even if you don’t find, or get it wrong, when you ask someone for help, YOU REMEMBER IT BETTER.
If you sit down and listen to someone telling you things, you are much less likely to remember what to do than if you went and did it yourself, ESPECIALLY if you get it wrong and then get corrected.
That’s the learning that sticks.
Have the courage to try. If you’re too busy to try, don’t ask someone else to try instead.
Sorry, it was 5000ppm:
http://wasg.iinet.net.au/Co2paper.html
But try this for dangers at under 1000ppm:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:XDIlfocU8XgJ:www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607+physiological+effects+of+CO2
unfortunately, you need access to get the full paper.
> David Wright says: 17 January 2010 at 4:02 PM
> … Please fill me in … based upon the theory.
I think you’re already full; I’d like to be proved wrong; if I am, this will help:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=projected+sea+level+rise+by+the+end+of+the+century%3F&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=2009&as_vis=1
Re: 1050 David Wright says:
“All the more reason for scientists to step forward and inform the public of the real nature of the threat.
Please fill me in, what is the real projected sea level rise by the end of the century based upon the theory.”
Projected sea-level rise for the 21st century
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/projected-sea-level-rise-for-the-21st-century
&
New Predictions For Sea Level Rise
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727091838.htm
Those were really hard to find. One has to use horribly complicated software called G O O G L E.
David Wright (1050) — Estimated SLR this century discussed in previous threads here on RealClimate. Try using the search feature.
David Wright:
Why don’t you tell us your information source, and why you think it’s credible?
Re:1052 Completely Fed Up says:
“The problem is finding out who on the internet, who are people you never met before, never will meet and cannot track down and shoot like the damn dirty ape they are if they waste your time, you can trust.”
Interesting you should write that.
Some RC submitters names are highlighted, meaning linked to websites with “about” pages and contact forms. Some don’t even offer a name. Why would that be?
“Did you not read what I wrote”
Yes, I did, but I’m trying not to be too disagreeable among my new friends here. I respect your writing skill.
I don’t know of anyone who is anti-logic, and therefore anti-science. Perhaps there are exceptions among some religious fundamentalists, but I really cannot think of anyone in particular who is anti-science. Can you?
Finding what is wrong with an old theory is not anti-science. It’s the first step toward formulation of a better theory, and part of the scientific process. Further, one who discovers flaw in a theory does not carry an obligation to suggest a better one. He may or may not leave that to others. Regardless, he has served the scientific process. He likely will not share in any of the accolades associated with the reformulation of the theory. Perhaps a historical footnote, but no credit.
A follow up on the Red Cross’ relief effort.
The biggest portion of the Red Cross donations to date have gone to the purchase of fuel.
That should give one food for thought….how essential is portable fuel?
You can text “HAITI” to 90999 to donate $10 to American Red Cross relief for Haiti.
“The problem isn’t so much Chris as the idea that he didn’t bother looking himself.”
A complaint I come across at various places is the arrogance displayed by commentators at RC and other sites. Whilst it is preferable to the rank idiocy you find among Watt’s supporters it still rankles when it’s aimed in your direction.
The story first came to my attention when (I think) Jiminsomewhereorother pointed it out & I went looking for the data to see whether the interpolation was valid or not. Only having half-an-hour lunchbreaks (too many midges to count to take too long) I wasn’t able to find it & thus gave up – it wasn’t hugely important to me. As Doug stated he’d found some data I thought I’d ask where & got a virtual earful. Tomorrow I’ll try his suggested google searches and see for myself.
“If you’re too busy to try, don’t ask someone else to try instead.”
I still prefer the Hank Roberts approach: If you find it, disseminate it.
“Working in atmospheres with more than 1000ppm for more than 8 hours is regulated against and there are physiological effects that may not be noticeable (do you notice when that smoke creates a cancer cell? No? So is there no effect from smoking? No).”
As I recall, the EPA recently lowered the acceptable workplace level of CO2 from 6,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm. The typical office today is better sealed for energy efficiency, and contains well over 1,000ppm. IMHO the higher concentration of CO2 (as well as other airborne chemicals such as perfumes and construction materials outgassing) does have a detrimental effect on workers. It may be that over the long term our bodies would adjust if the exposure were constant (much as folks living at higher altitudes adjust to the lower oxygen levels), but the exposure is not constant, since we are only there part of the day. I even recall reading somewhere that high levels of human pheremones in the typical office environment were found to be detremental, but that part could be bunk.
Completely Fed Up says: 17 January 2010 at 4:32 PM
So Robertson’s takeaway is that at a level approximating what we can reasonably expect as a partial policy failure outcome, some folks would experience perceptible metabolic effects. I would never have guessed, which I suppose is confirmation that guessing about this sort of thing is folly.
Is it just me who is so ignorant about this? I’m amazed there’s no hue and cry, particularly when the doubt community is carrying on about all the benefits we can expect from the C02-enriched paradise we’re inadvertently buying from the fossil fuel industry.
I’m not an expert, obviously, but one thing about Robertson’s paper bothers me, namely his prediction of chronic toxic acidosis symptoms w/”enhanced” C02 levels at levels barely above today’s atmospheric C02 component (350ppm vs. 426ppm). Robertson cites two papers in primary support, one a self-cite and the other being a survey of metabolic effects of acidosis not having to do w/respiration of C02. He extrapolates from there to describe more serious effects at higher levels of concentration. It would be arrogant of me to say any more than I find it unsatisfying. The premise would be more persuasive if he had better cites to underpin his conclusions.
This link will produce Robertson’s full paper referring to effects he says are shortly to be expected:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607
Chris S. says: 17 January 2010 at 6:17 PM
Again, Chris, any snark from me was not directed at you.
If you work the search terms I suggested you’ll find your way.
“The problem isn’t so much Chris as the idea that he didn’t bother looking himself”
Surely it’s a pain having to readdress old issues with newcomers. I can’t devise a clear solution to that. I read the realclimate tutorials a long time ago, chimed in occasionally, and more so recently, but there is simply too little time to read all the threads and know what has been discussed. I’ll bet every detail is discussed somewhere here, but there are always going to be different approaches and nuances which folks will want to “air out”.
Methinks that will be the nature of the blog beast. There’s lots of information out there, but it’s getting more and more difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The open thread is probably the best place for newcomers, novices and laymen, which is why I am here.
> Tim Jones says: 17 January 2010 at 5:48 PM
> Some RC submitters names are highlighted, meaning linked to websites
> with “about” pages and contact forms. Some don’t even offer a name.
> Why would that be?
You’d have to ask each individual, it’s a personal choice kind of thing.
When you leave a reply, notice there are three boxes available.
—-Name (required)
—-Mail (will not be published)(requred)
—-Website
If you put a website in the third box, it becomes a link behind your name, and is hilighted as a link.
Don’t confuse this with the list on the right sidebar –the Contributors– also hilighted as links; they’re the climate scientists who make the site.
Tim Jones,
Thanks for the link at post 255. I could have googled the projections, but there are so many conflicting sites out there it’s difficult to know which one is the one deemed credible by the consensus. Now I know.
The projection for the 21st century appears to average at +.4 meter as I read the graph.
If my sources are correct, the sea level rose about a foot in the 19th centry, and about the same in the 20th century. Before that, about the same rate of sea level rise is estimated from about 10,000 years ago.
A .4 meter sea level rise is surely a threat to those who are foolish enough to build their homes near sea level. Given the following graph, such a rise of .4 meter per century is not beyond the range of natural sea level rise in an interglacial period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
coral reefs show evidence that sea levels 6,000 years ago were much lower than they are today, so yes, a rise is to be expected. Less certain are findings of aquatic life forms many meters above the current sea level. This would imply that sea levels have been higher by natural causes, assuming that the fossils did not rise due to tectonic forces.
All of this leaves one wondering still what is unusual about the current (or projected) sea level rise.
If I am off base or missing the point here and sea level rise is not really the issue of concern with global warming, then please tell me what is.
Re: 1059 David Wright says:
“…but I really cannot think of anyone in particular who is anti-science. Can you?”
How about the folks that built the Creation Museum and the hoards of believers that visit it?
http://creationmuseum.org/
&
The Creation “Museum”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php
(excerpt)
“At the Creation “Museum”, one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They don’t want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves.”
Re: 1060
“The biggest portion of the Red Cross donations to date have gone to the purchase of fuel.
That should give one food for thought….how essential is portable fuel?”
Perhaps they should use rowboats for transportation?
Doctors Without Borders is highly recommended as well.
http://doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/
You don’t spend much time at sites like Watts Up With That, do you?
Got a source for that? I can’t find any evidence that EPA regulates this at all.
OSHA does: 5000 ppm.
Unlike you, I have a cite.
> Robertson cites two papers in primary support, one a self-cite and the
> other being a survey of metabolic effects of acidosis not having to do
> w/respiration of C02. He extrapolates from there ….
I’ve seen Robertson’s paper mentioned in various places since it came out, but not seen anyone who knows the field support it, and I don’t think it’s been cited by more than a handful of papers even for minor points.
David Wright says, “Finding what is wrong with an old theory is not anti-science.”
It is if that’s as far as you go. The emphasis in science is always toward improved understanding of the subject matter–not on whether or not a particular researcher did this right or this wrong. In science you would never have people focusing on a single paper or result (e.g. Mann et al. 98) for the simple reason that it is obsolete in 2 years at most!
What is more, when a scientific theory is overturned, it is invariably scientists in the field themselves who overturn it–not auditors. You have to know the science before you can see what is wrong with it, and while there are many uncertainties in climate science, the role of CO2 is not among them.
Re: #1040
Good point about the submarines; I didn’t think of that.
Right you are, it’s OSHA. The EPA has no such guidelines.
Here is the OSHA page with guidelines, advising that over 1000 ppm can make folks sick.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html
1,000 ppm indicates inadequate ventilation; complaints such as headaches, fatigue, and eye and throat irritation will be more widespread; 1,000 ppm should be used as an upper limit for indoor levels.
“while there are many uncertainties in climate science, the role of CO2 is not among them”
If you mean the known properties of CO2 to absorb IR, then that is correct. The projections we keep hearing go far beyond the warming attributable to the known properties of CO2.
So now I’m better informed about the projected sea level rise. What about warming, is that where the real danger lies?
I’ve heard differing projections from various sources, including some who predict an uncontrollable runaway warming due to the crossing of a tipping point.
What is the real projection through the end of the 21st century from those at Hadley?
Tim Jones,
On second thought, the target of your link would appear to meet the criteria of anti-science.
“How about the folks that built the Creation Museum and the hoards of believers that visit it?
http://creationmuseum.org/”
It reminded of Pat Robertson’s skillful anaysis of the cause of the earthquake in Haiti.
Both of these are examples of religion, not science. Hopefully we all know that there is no point debating religion.
Surely you don’t mean to imply that all sceptics are creationists? That would be a very unscientific conclusion.
> sea level
As with so much else talked about here, what matters is the rate of change, far faster than anything in natural history short of an asteroid impact. That’s for ocean pH as well as for sea level rise.
As Michael Tobis said 17 December 2004 at 11:23 PM
“… as for the conclusion that we should be indifferent to the source of climate change, that presumes that such change is sufficiently small. There is, I can argue, nothing on the horizon other than vigorous international policy response that will prevent rate of change of climate from continuing to increase until it eventually overwhelms our adaptive capacity. To reach the conclusion that we can be indifferent to the source of the change, you must first understand the quantitative arguments driving the concern over anthropogenic climate change and then make a convincing risk-weighted argument that this expectation of accelerating change is not a serious concern.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/
> 1,000 ppm indicates inadequate ventilation
The CO2 level is specified as an _indicator_ of — a good proxy for — adequate interior fresh air ventilation; CO2 is specified to measure because it’s consistently easy to measure. It’s not the hazard at that level.
(Industry really does not want measurements of interior air done routinely as a public health matter, nor regulations specifying hazard reduction levels for the many, many other chemicals known to be outgassing or released in ordinary use in buildings that may cause ‘sick building’ problem. Besides, a) they aren’t easy to detect, b) there are so many of them, and c) assigning cause and effect to low level toxicity is in the Big Business Book of Don’t Go There.)
Rate of change:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/54451/title/Acidifying_ocean_may_stifle_phytoplankton
— brief excerpt of the beginning of the article follows —
Acidifying ocean may stifle phytoplankton
Chemical changes in seawater make a key nutrient less available to these organisms — By Sid Perkins
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
Depending on nature — or at least phytoplankton in the ocean — to absorb humans’ ever-increasing emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide probably won’t solve the problem, new research suggests.
A few scientists have long argued that increasing CO2 levels will stimulate long-term carbon-sopping plant growth, but the idea hasn’t proven true for land plants (SN: 12/16/00, p. 396). Now, new findings suggest that the notion won’t hold for tiny ocean plants either, thanks to one of the nagging side effects of carbon dioxide emissions — the gradual acidification of the ocean’s surface waters. Research by oceanographer Dalin Shi and his colleagues at Princeton University hints that rising CO2, instead of providing extra nutrients for phytoplankton, may actually curb the growth of these organisms, which form the base of the ocean’s food chain. The team reports these findings online January 14 and in an upcoming Science.
1021, Barton Paul Levenson: Hate to tell you this, pal, but Letterman’s child really does face doom, or a good chance of it, if we don’t turn things around in the next few years. Doom as in “complete collapse of human civilization some time in the next 40 years.”
In 40 years the average temp will rise about 0.5C and the sea level will rise at most 40cm.
Nevertheless, if you have the threat approximately correct, then it is probably worth investing in 10 times as much nuclear power as the US has now, along with the PV, biofuels, and wind. Either way, there will not be a disappearance of civilization from China, India, S. Korea, Japan, or the US (except possibly New Orleans.)
David Wright … it’s a *proxy* for poor ventilation.
It says so directly – “1,000 ppm indicates inadequate ventilation”.
If you need help with understanding the word “proxy” let us know …
You really are exposing your ignorance to us …
Yet, presumably, as a journalist, you’re writing authoritatively to you audience?
If so … feh.
Re:1074 David Wright says:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html
This a very persistent thread. Here’s a little insight I found.
CARBON DIOXIDE, CAVES and YOU
http://wasg.iinet.net.au/Co2paper.html
By Garry K. Smith © 1997
“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the body’s regulator of the breathing function. It is normally present in the air at a concentration of 0.03% by volume. Any increase above this level will cause accelerated breathing and heart rate. A concentration of 10% can cause respiratory paralysis and death within a few minutes. In industry the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day is 0.5%”
[…]
The difference between 0.03% and 0.5% is more than an order of magnitude. But “any increase above (0.03%) will cause accelerated breathing and heart rate.” Thus there will be physiological effects but apparently not dangerous ones for most folks …on a sliding scale up to having their heart stop.
Here is a claim from a NASA web page for which I seek affirmation or refute.
“Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030”
The nasa page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no5
Could this projection really be accurate? Seems pretty far fetched.
More to come from Pine Island Glacier, watch this space (patiently):
http://onorbit.com/node/1881
— excerpt follows —
Scientists conducting a “dress rehearsal” for deployment of an instrument through an ice shelf into the ocean below …. at Windless Bight, with smoking Mount Erebus in the background. A small team of researchers spent a week at the camp to deploy an instrument through a 200-meter-long hole in the ice shelf to prepare for a larger project in the future.
…
Robert Bindschadler , chief scientist of the Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center …. is the principal investigator for a project jointly funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA to study what’s happening below the Pine Island Ice Shelf.
…
The surface of the ice shelf is too rugged for planes to land on, so support crews must build two field camps for the field program, including one for helicopter operations to the ice shelf itself. [See previous article: Byrd Camp resurfaces.] The team won’t be able to start work from their field camp at Pine Island until the 2011-2012 field season.
… The science demands that we get out to Pine Island. That’s where the answer to ice sheet stability lies, and we’re not going to get the answer anywhere else but underneath that ice shelf. …
I also notice that I yawn a lot more and feel much more tired when a room is not ventilated properly, to disappear within seconds when I leave to go somewhere more open.
David: “Surely it’s a pain having to readdress old issues with newcomers. I can’t devise a clear solution to that.”
The annoying thing is that the best attempt reasonably possible has been made: the Start Here button.
Not many people coming up with questions ever say “I hear from a friend X and reading your FAQ and the other links on Start Here, I can’t see where this is addressed…”.
They just say “I hear from a friend X and what do you say about it?”.
Noobs get some unwarranted short shrift because there are so many zombies who try to make out they’re noobs.
[Response: We’re thinking about ways to improve that – any suggestions welcome! – gavin]
Doug: “I’m not an expert, obviously, but one thing about Robertson’s paper bothers me, namely his prediction of chronic toxic acidosis symptoms w/”enhanced” C02 levels at levels barely above today’s atmospheric C02 component (350ppm vs. 426ppm)”
This is predicated, it seems, on the indoor enhancement and on the note that if you are getting problems concentrating at 1000ppm when you’re only there for a few hours, when the world is at 1000ppm, it’s far worse: where are you going to go? Offplanet?
Tim: “Some RC submitters names are highlighted, meaning linked to websites with “about” pages and contact forms. Some don’t even offer a name. Why would that be”
Why would that affect a poster who hasn’t posted before and doesn’t have a link (or the link is to somewhere silly, like a Googlewhack page) in their Website?
When guidelines recommend keeping carbon dioxide levels below 1,000 ppm, it’s not so much because of direct adverse effects of CO2 at these concentrations. It’s rather because it indicates insufficient ventilation that allows a build-up not only of CO2 but of a range of pollutants that could include molds and bacteria, cleaning products, and substances released from building materials, furnishings, etc. etc. This page is clear about CO2 being used as a *marker* of indoor air quality:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/BuildingVentilation.html
DW: I would rely on others who are better qualified to audit the findings. Even those doing the peer review have not had the ability to perform a proper audit(were they so inclined) because the data is unavailable.
BPL: All the data is available. The idea that it’s being withheld is right-wing propaganda with NO basis in fact.
DW: The divergence of the tree rings indicate that tree rings do not necessarily indicate temperature and so should not be used as proxies for older temperatures (prior to instrumental). Tell me why that’s wrong.
BPL: Take a look. You get the same results with or without the tree rings:
Mann, Michael E.; Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley, Sonya K. Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni 2008. “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 105, 13252-13257.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251
National Research Council 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
DW: IMHO a strong economy is the most effective way of protecting ourselves against climate change in either direction, warmer, cooler, wetter or drier. If we focus on CO2 reduction then we have not insulated ourselves against the possibility of changes other than warming. Further, no one seems to think that CO2 emission reduction will have any substantial effect on warming.
BPL: test response to overcome spam filter
BPL: In 1970, 12% of the Earth’s la nd sur face was “sev erely dry” by the Pa lmer Dro ught Sev erity Index. By 2002 that fig ure had rea ched 30%. You can’t rea lly have a strong eco nomy if the peo ple who make it work are st arving to dea th and fi ghting over the scr aps.
A billion people in Asia and Latin America depend on fresh water from rivers fed by glacier melt. The glaciers are receding. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have already exchanged fire and had troops killed over which side owns a glacier.
Climate change in the past has been survived, not coped with. The ancient Mesopotamian city-states, Easter Island, and the Mayans all collapsed overnight because they didn’t understand where the water was going.
Thanks, Tim. :)
DW: I really cannot think of anyone in particular who is anti-science.
BPL: Half the Republican Party?
Lots of people suddenly become anti-science when scientific findings threaten their business.
And Google the name “Alan Sokal” and see where that leads you.
DW: The open thread is probably the best place for newcomers, novices and laymen, which is why I am here.
BPL: I suggest you go here instead:
Philander, George S. 1998. “Is the Temperature Rising?”
Weart, Spencer 2008. “The Discovery of Global Warming.”
Hartmann, Dennis 1994. “Global Physical Climatology.”
Houghton, John T. 2002. “The Physics of Atmospheres.”
On sea-level rise, there’s Church & White, 2006.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
The introduction says:
Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr 1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr 2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed.
Gee, it’s so hard to find information on glacier change. . .
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf
Septic: “In 40 years the average temp will rise about 0.5C and the sea level will rise at most 40cm.”
Unless a large volume of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet falls into the ocean.
Which is why the statements on sea level rise say “this is almost certainly an underestimate”.
[Response: We’re thinking about ways to improve that – any suggestions welcome! – gavin]
Problem is I can’t really think of anything else to do. The only other option would be for first posters (or first time that session if the browser removes cookies) to be forced into the Start Here page.
I don’t think any of the noobs have ever come up with an idea either (those who are at least genuine in their desire to help).
If you want an answer I would suspect you’ll have to create a thread topic on the question.
David: “The projections we keep hearing go far beyond the warming attributable to the known properties of CO2.”
What warming attribution?
“I’ve heard differing projections from various sources, including some who predict an uncontrollable runaway warming due to the crossing of a tipping point.”
From where?
Mostly I’ve heard that runaway effect as either
1) a strawman to “show” that the proAGW are all nuts
2) an explanation that CO2’s effects do not stop at (the conveniently stated but never proven) 350-400ppm.
If you were a little more explicit in your statements (i.e. cited ANYTHING to say that you didn’t just make it up yourself), maybe you wouldn’t be treated as a waste of time, David.
Re: 1050, “Please fill me in, what is the real projected sea level rise by the end of the century based upon the theory.”
A Realclimate article from last summer seems to come up with a projection of 24 – 32cm, but projections from various sources vary widely.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/
The July issue of New Scientist (the third link in the above article) gave at least one good reason for projections to vary so widely:
“The biggest uncertainty for those trying to predict future changes is how humanity will behave. Will we start to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases sometime soon, or will we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere?”