Last week, Nature published another strong statement addressing the political/economic attack on climate science in an editorial titled “Into Ignorance“. It specifically criticized the right wing element of the U.S. Congress that is attempting to initiate legislation that would strip the US EPA of its powers to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. In so doing, it cited as an example the charade of a hearing conducted recently, including the Republicans’ disrespectful and ignorant attitude toward the science and scientists. Among many low points, this may have reached its nadir when a House member from Nebraska asked, smirkingly and out of the blue, whether nitrogen should be banned–presumably to make the point that atmospheric gases are all either harmless or outright beneficial, and hence, should not be regulated. Aside from the obvious difference that humans are not altering the nitrogen concentration of the atmosphere, as they are with (several) greenhouse gases, such a question boggles the mind in terms of the mindset that must exist to ask it in a public congressional hearing in the first place. But rarely are the ignorant and ideological bashful about showing it, regardless of who might be listening. In fact an increasing number seem to take it as a badge of honor.
There have been even more strongly worded editorials in the scientific literature recently as well. Trevors and Saier (2011)*, in a journal with a strong tradition of stating exactly where it stands with respect to public policy decisions and their effect on the environment, pull no punches in a recent editorial, describing the numerous societal problems caused when those with the limited perspective and biases born of a narrow economic outlook on the world, get control. These include the losses of critical thinking skills, social/community ethics, and the subsequent wise decision making and planning skills that lead a society to long-term health and stability.
Meanwhile, scientific bodies charged with understanding how the world actually works–instead of how they would imagine and proclaim it to–continue to issue official statements endorsing the consensus view that humans are strongly warming the planet in recent decades, primarily by greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Three years ago, we wondered whether geologists in general have a different view on climate change to the climate research community. A recent statement from the U.K. Geological Society, however, suggests that our impressions perhaps were not well-founded.
Notwithstanding these choices of ignorance, many other organizations continue apace with many worthwhile and diverse goals of how to deal with the problem. Here are a few links that we have run across in the last week or two that may be of interest to those interested in sustainability and adaptation. Please note the imminent deadlines on some of these.
The CDKN International Research Call on Climate Compatible Development:
The Climate Frontlines call for abstracts for a July conference in Mexico City on the theme “Indigenous Peoples, Marginalized Populations and Climate Change” [Apologies: the official deadline for abstracts has apparently passed; view this is a conference announcement]
George Mason University’s call for votes on the Climate Change Communicator of the Year
*Trevors, J.T & Saier Jr., M.H. 2011. A vaccine against ignorance? Water, Air and Soil Pollution, DOI 10.1007/s11270-011-0773-1.
143, JCH: What weighs more, articles written by Hansen, or the Reiss interpretation in notes he wrote about a conversation?
That is an important point and I am glad that you asked it. I can’t tell from the other respondents above whether James Hansen has actually repudiated the quote and claimed that it was inaccurate. Reiss clearly wrote that he thinks its accurate and that he heard James Hansen clearly say that he supported it.
One problem we have is that scientists are quoted by media, even friendly media such as Salon and the NYTimes, as saying vocally much more extreme positions than what they have written in peer-reviewed journals or submitted in written form for Congressional testimaony. When that happens, the scientists need to quickly clarify that they have been misquoted, as Mojib Latif did about a year ago (was it about a year ago?)
Other example include the many off-the-cuff comments about the year in which the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer. And there are the many off-the-cuff predictions that AGW would lead to snow-free England and D.C. And there were the many assertions by scientists that Hurricane Katrina would be followed by much elevated hurricane activity in subsequent years. I think that the accumulation of such sayings in the press and on tv have done more than any other single thing to make AGW promoters lose the confidence of the polity. No scientist who wants to be taken seriously should ever again say, more or less, this last event (or last 2 years) shows that AGW is accelerating even faster than we thought.
138, Gavin in comment: Hansen’s statement about what would happen at 2xCO2 is neither ridiculous nor alarmist.
If that particular effect of sea level rise is dependent on 2xCO2, then it won’t be imminent.
in same comment: We are not there yet, and if anything, expectations of SLR in the light of recent GRACE results are greater than they were in the 1970s.
There was a discussion on this thread a few months ago about whether AGW does or does not predict diminishment of total Antarctic snow and ice mass occurring in the 2000s. At least one model predicted more accumulating mass for a time, followed by decreased accumulation. If mass is actually decreasing, then that model is disconfirmed. Contrary evidence was actually cited, some of the pro-AGW commenters here claiming that recent work showed accumulating ice mass in line with recent modeling. Now might be a good time for the absolute most trustworthy statement about model results and measurement results.
A clarification: I wrote that marine skeletons are “made from” HCO3; I meant in the same sense that concrete is “made from” water, not in the sense that they are “made of” HCO3. As I understand it (jump in!) marine skeletons are not “made from” CaCO3, but from dissolved Ca ions and other Ca compounds. CaCO3 is the principle residue after a long process of decomposition. The only scientifically based projection about the influence of increased CO2 dissolved in the ocean water is that the distributions of the genes governing the construction of the skeletons. There is no science-based reason to believe that any population of small, rapidly reproducing plants or animals will become extinct.
Sorry I’ve been busy dealing with my two-year-old tantrumic mother, which was why time outs were on my mind. If you’re ever stuck with a demented elder, remember that all the techniques that work with children work with them too. to return to the topic, please understand that I am NOT against presenting lots of good argument, and I have learned and enjoyed learning vast amounts by carefully reading almost all credible commentary here, and following through links. I’m for it.
I’m just against continuing the argument once the phony skeptic refuses to budge.
I’m thrilled about Cronon.
I’m also thrilled about Mann.
I think the shenanigans at the top are now becoming more apparent to the guy on the street. Unfortunately, their “leaders” are lagging in understanding and continue to claim that caring is communism.
I’d best desist, as this site is no place for politics except those directly involving science.
BTW, my home is somewhere around 5 feet above sea level on an inlet in Boston Harbor. The increase in overflow on the banks of the Channel a block away is now quite obvious to all; it is no longer rare, but accompanies almost every spring tide, especially when accompanied by storms. I have a great picture of a jellyfish floating above the lawn!
“Sceptic” Mathew:
I wasn’t calling anyone a liar. I was merely stating the proven fact that Monckton is a liar (and often dishonest). Stating a fact is not a “name-call”. A “name-call” is a statement of derision that is not necessarily based on fact, e.g. I might call Monckton an idiot and that’s a name-call but it’s not a statement of fact. Stating he’s a liar, on the other hand, is a statement of fact.
#150–“There is no science-based reason to believe that any population of small, rapidly reproducing plant or animals will become extinct.”
OK, here’s a cite:
That’s from Orr, et al, 2004. Nature, I think.
So, yes, the building blocks are ions.
But no, CaCO3 is a product of metabolism, not “decomposition,” and declines in calcification rates aren’t a matter primarily of genetics, but of chemistry. Of specific concern are aragonite and calcite.
#150 (bis)–
More specific to the question of possible extinction from Orr et al, 2004:
#150 (3eme)–Is that “science-based” enough for you, SM?
Granted, one could quibble that it better supports “may become extinct” better than “will be become extinct.”
But either way, concern is merited.
Possibly clarifying the idea that CaCO3 is the product of “decomposition,” Wikipedia says that:
Aragonite is a carbonate mineral, one of the two common, naturally occurring, crystal forms of calcium carbonate, CaCO3 (the other form is the mineral calcite.)
“Long decomposition”–“long” meaning millions to tens of millions of years–could refer to this:
Aragonite is metastable and is thus commonly replaced by calcite in fossils. Aragonite older than the Carboniferous is essentially unknown.
However:
The type location for aragonite is Molina de Aragón (Guadalajara, Spain), 25 km from Aragon for which it was named in 1797.[1] An aragonite cave, the Ochtinská Aragonite Cave, is situated in Slovakia. In the USA, aragonite in the form of stalactites and “cave flowers” (anthodite) is known from Carlsbad Caverns and other caves. Massive deposits of oolitic aragonite sand are found on the seabed in the Bahamas.
Aragonite forms naturally in almost all mollusk shells, and as the calcareous endoskeleton of warm- and cold-water corals (Scleractinia). Because the mineral deposition in mollusk shells is strongly biologically controlled, some crystal forms are distinctively different from those of inorganic aragonite. In some mollusks, the entire shell is aragonite; in others, aragonite forms only discrete parts of a bimineralic shell (aragonite plus calcite).
“. . .the many off-the-cuff comments about the year in which the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer.”
Septic Matt, you may be the victim of an assumption here. Though there have surely been SIE comments that have been ‘off-the-cuff,’ the most famous sea ice prediction currently in play, Dr. Maslowski’s projection that an ice-free Arctic could occur by 2013, was not ‘off-the-cuff.’
It’s been subject to ridicule by the usual suspects, to be sure; and it’s more audacious than any other ‘heavyweights,’ to be sure; but it could still very well be correct. And it’s definitely based upon analysis. See his 2010 presentation (and note the collaborators):
http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
Just to clarify, Maslowski’s definition of “ice-free,” like his work generally, focusses upon ice volume, not extent:
This projection is based on a combined model and data trendline focusing on ice volume. By “ice-free,” Maslowski tells me he means more than an 80% drop from the 1979-2000 summer volume baseline of ~200,00 km^3. –Climate Progress (Joe Romm)
I must also note a high irony here: the WUWT crowd have laughed at Maslawski, but have glorified PIPS 2 because the Navy designed it for operational use and ‘depends on it to keep multi-billion dollar nuclear subs safe.’ (Paraphrased.) Yet who did the Navy put in charge of developing PIPS 3?
You guessed it–Wieslaw Maslowski!
117 Didactylos and 128 Ray Ladbury
I think you’ve slightly missed my point, understandably as it was made a little flippantly and sloppily. Of course, actually getting females into education is massively important and there is an obvious correlation between female education and falling birth-rates. However, the patriarchal and often theocratical societies which predominant in areas of high birth-rate are controlled by males. They need educating in the need for female education…! That’s my point. I’m not holding my breath.
That is an important point and I am glad that you asked it. I can’t tell from the other respondents above whether James Hansen has actually repudiated the quote and claimed that it was inaccurate. Reiss clearly wrote that he thinks its accurate and that he heard James Hansen clearly say that he supported it. – Septic Matthew @ 150
There’s an article about it on “Septical” Science that has some Hansen comments on the matter.
Yawn. SM has become boring, recycling old stuff long debunked as though it were new. Someone forgot to change to a new userid when reloading the bot? Or SM has quit bothering to check the stuff before copypasting, I suppose.
Look the stuff up, SM. Uncritical rebunking is a low form of septicism.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=627
Septic Matthew #150,
I thought they weren’t made of chalk, anyway? Goalposts shifting a bit? Not that I’m complaining. Whether and how fast various marine organisms can adapt to our extremely sharp CO2 spike is a valid and important question, so I’m glad if we can move on from discussions of Lubchenko’s visual aids.
I do not share your apparent confidence on this. Science does not tell us that evolution will preserve every tiny species from extinction, or that it will make things all right no matter how we screw up. The closest past experience that compares in magnitude is the PETM, and extinction-wise, that’s hardly a happy thought, especially given that the present rate of change is probably a good bit higher.
Anyway, this is not only a question of extinctions. Whether species adapt, migrate, or dissolve into oblivion, they will be under severe environmental pressure that could have all sorts of disruptive consequences through the marine ecosystem and food chain.
What would you have told the Irish in the 1840s? That the only scientifically based projection was a change in the distributions of genes governing blight resistance, and that there was no science-based reason to believe that potatoes would become extinct? Cold comfort, even if true.
2, Ron Manley: I’m surprised that you cite approvingly the Editorial by Trevors and Saier. They say: “…the capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule… The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth.”
In a world where the governments of most major economies are right-of-centre pro-capitalist ignoring the science behind climate change and presenting a strongly worded anti-capitalist diatribe will not advance understanding of the issues.
[Response: I agree – that part of their argument is not strong. – gavin]
That isn’t just “not strong”, it’s an insulting rant. It impugns a large class of people whose money you want to take from them for your own purposes. What’s worse, it won’t play in Peoria, or East Moline, or Schaumburg or any other place where people earn their livings growing crops or manufacturing things. It will lose you votes, and probably be read back to you in mockery whenever you testify in Congress. I recommend that you immediately repudiate it strongly.
161, CM: Science does not tell us that evolution will preserve every tiny species from extinction, or that it will make things all right no matter how we screw up.
Science tells us that changing the chemical environment of a population of small, rapidly reproducing organisms will not eliminate them: examples include MRSA, XDRTB, DDT-resistant mosquitoes and quinidine-resistant plasmodium. The coral will survive increased CO2. As your potato example illustrates, we can be less confident that they will survive an epizootic of a naturally evolving blight or predator.
Have been playing with words, and have come up with a different descriptive term for fake skeptics:
“bullying anti-science zealots”
> a large class of people whose money you want to take
> from them for your own purposes.
It begins to become clear, doesn’t it?
> Science tells us …. The coral will survive
Rate of change, SM, that’s what you keep ignoring.
> we can be less confident that they will survive an
> epizootic of a naturally evolving blight or predator.
You already know the species of that worrisome “naturally evolving blight or predator” — obviously, the one increasingly causing the ocean pH change.
Except _this_ species could be smart enough to avoid doing the damage.
Likely cost? Most of the money’made’ by avoiding externalized costs long enough for the damage to become apparent — about now.
Fermi paradox at work.
Oh, and SM, that money you’re so intent on protecting?
It’s borrowed money.
Those who’ve had use of it are being called on to begin paying it back.
Ocean pH rate of change is, what, 100x faster than anything in the past?
Do you even understand why do the scientists tell you to worry?
“Source of Half Earth’s Oxygen Gets Little Credit
Jun 7, 2004 … In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton …
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
I know SM won’t change, but for those who want to read:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ocean+ph+change+photoplankton+photosynthesis+productivity
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ocean+ph+change+photoplankton+photosynthesis+productivity&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2010.00815.x/full
OCEAN CLIMATE CHANGE, PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITY RESPONSES, AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS: A FORMIDABLE PREDICTIVE CHALLENGE†
Gustaaf M. Hallegraeff, 10 MAR 2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2010.00815.x
© 2010 Phycological Society of America
“Prediction of the impact of global climate change on marine HABs is fraught with difficulties. However, we can learn important lessons from the fossil record of dinoflagellate cysts; long-term monitoring programs, such as the Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys; and short-term phytoplankton community responses to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) episodes. Increasing temperature, enhanced surface stratification, alteration of ocean currents, intensification or weakening of local nutrient upwelling, stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2, reduced calcification through ocean acidification (“the other CO2 problem”), and heavy precipitation and storm events causing changes in land runoff and micronutrient availability may all produce contradictory species- or even strain-specific responses. Complex factor interactions exist, and simulated ecophysiological laboratory experiments rarely allow for sufficient acclimation and rarely take into account physiological plasticity and genetic strain diversity. We can expect: (i) range expansion of warm-water species at the expense of cold-water species, which are driven poleward; (ii) species-specific changes in the abundance and seasonal window of growth of HAB taxa; (iii) earlier timing of peak production of some phytoplankton; and (iv) secondary effects for marine food webs, notably when individual zooplankton and fish grazers are differentially impacted (“match-mismatch”) by climate change. Some species of harmful algae (e.g., toxic dinoflagellates benefitting from land runoff and/or water column stratification, tropical benthic dinoflagellates responding to increased water temperatures and coral reef disturbance) may become more successful, while others may diminish in areas currently impacted. Our limited understanding of marine ecosystem responses to multifactorial physicochemical climate drivers as well as our poor knowledge of the potential of marine microalgae to adapt genetically and phenotypically to the unprecedented pace of current climate change are emphasized. The greatest problems for human society will be caused by being unprepared for significant range expansions or the increase of algal biotoxin problems in currently poorly monitored areas, thus calling for increased vigilance in seafood-biotoxin and HAB monitoring programs. Changes in phytoplankton communities provide a sensitive early warning for climate-driven perturbations to marine ecosystems.”
Septic Matthew (#163), you said
“Rapidly” is relative to the rate of chemical change. Your conclusion does not follow. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. say, in response to Baird and Maynard, that while some coral species have generation times measured in years,
If you have access, you should read the full exchange:
Andrew Baird and Jeffrey A. Maynard, “Coral Adaptation in the Face of Climate Change,” Science 320, no. 5874 (April 18, 2008): 315-316 (doi:10.1126/science.320.5874.315),
with a response by the authors of
O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al., “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification,” Science 318, no. 5857 (December 14, 2007): 1737-1742 (doi:10.1126/science.1152509)
FWIW, my five cents’ worth to RC on Trevors and Saier, since people are making an issue of it: Among your many interesting Friday reading tips, this was a dud link. T&S perhaps illustrate a mood of frustration with ignoramus political attacks on science. But they were just venting, and their piece was out of place in a journal, not because of the political analysis, but for want of one. The impolitic phrasing didn’t help. Sure, there were things worth saying in T&S, which could have made an okay blog post. But you guys put such things better in your own words.
Feigned outrage omitted to avoid repetition.
#162–“. . .it’s an insulting rant. It impugns a large class of people whose money you want to take from them for your own purposes. . .”
No.
There is no insult to working people or anyone else; you are reading that in. I presume it’s because you have certain beliefs about what someone who criticizes capitalism ‘should’ or ‘must’ think. (I may be wrong; I can only guess, after all. But the ‘money you want to take from them for your own purposes’ bit is suggestive.)
There is a statement that 1) the “current US” supports profit making, and 2) fails to support “essential long-term goals” such as mitigating AGW and population control.
And, as far as I can tell, both statements are objectively true. The majority (both parties and most media) lauds free enterprise, and clearly sets it as normative, even ideal. That’s supporting profit making, isn’t it? As to the long-term goals, well, do I even need to say anything?
There is also, of course, a rather pejorative description of the US as a “failed capitalistic state.” I see that as a weakness in the argument that they are trying to make, because:
1) “Failed” implicitly contradicts the word “current,” found earlier in the same sentence. Is this subordination of long-term to short-term considerations permanent and structural, or is it amenable to political change (or choice?)
2) It drags in great swathes of political and ideological baggage which distract from an argument that could be framed much more cleanly in terms of enlightened (or unenlightened!) self-interest. (On that point, we’re probably much more in agreement than otherwise–even though in writing this very comment I am exemplifying the distraction factor.)
Perhaps that’s what Gavin describes as “not strong;” or perhaps not. I can only guess there, too.
#163–\Science tells us that changing the chemical environment of a population of small, rapidly reproducing organisms will not eliminate them. . .\
No, it doesn’t tell us any such thing.
It tells us that it may not eliminate them.
Anoxic ocean conditions (a sterling example of a ‘changed chemical environment’) are associated with mass extinctions, possibly including the PETM extinction, which eliminated \about 96% of all marine species.\
While I’m \alarmed\ about AGW and ocean acidification, I doubt that a PETM-like event is very likely. But as far as I know, it can’t actually be ruled out on present knowledge. We don’t have guarantees that ‘the coral will survive,’ or that ‘dinoflagellates will survive,’ or even that ‘H. Sap will survive.’
Blithely assuming that worst cases can’t come about (so we don’t need to think about them) lowers the probability of that last–by how much, no-one can presently say.
Dan H. says: “…farmers know that warmer temperatures and wetter climates yield more bountiful harvests.” [note: that post was moved to ‘borehole’ -moderator]
And of course it doesn’t matter at all how that heat and water are distributed, does it? I mean if all the precipitation occurs in 2 weeks so that the farmer’s field is too waterlogged to plow and then there’s no rain the rest of the season, that’ll be just fine, won’t it?
And if all the rain comes at the end of the season so the crop can’t be harvested, I’m sure the grain will wait for us, won’t it? Or if the rains become completely unpredictable so that farmers have no idea what crop to plant, well I’m sure they’ll still somehow get a bumper crop, right? And if it never freezes so the weeds and insect pests live on through the winter, well, we’ll just dump more herbicide and pesticide onto the field. I’m sure the environment won’t mind.
Dan H., have you given up any pretense of reasoned consideration, or are you just taking a couple of weeks off from rationality?
Good heavens! More water is beneficial? Tell it to Pakistan, China, Australia, Thailand, the banks of any large river, etc. (of course some of these places have exaggerated extremes of drought as well). Unfortunately, farmers in the upper midwest are also about to be plowed.
The point is we’ve known since at least the 1970s that climate change would likely exaggerate extremes, and even before the mechanisms of developing excess emissions began to be clearer. We live in a delicate balance in a rare window that supports life, and we are exploiting that window to the point of extinction for the profit of a lucky few.
Even now, world food supplies are being affected, and this is only the beginning in terms of geological time.
Explaining away each excess event may serve short term profits for the corporate few (perhaps you don’t know that all the info you mine so eagerly is supported by think tanks and other resources whose techniques have been refined since the era of big tobacco, but you’re doing their work anyway) but the big picture is getting really nasty. Getting people to focus on their entertainment until the flood or drought or war or famine is at their door is more like the scary scenarios of the likes of 1984 than the people you are implying are trying to steal your money. They are just trying to sound the alarm; you are trying to get them to ignore it.
We are about to have another one of nature’s demonstrations in the good old US of A, up in our northern midwest. Watch the news from a station near you.
This, for example, is a small piece of what we are expecting:
http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=25909
“MODEL CONSENSUS IS THAT PATTERN WILL REMAIN PROGRESSIVE IN THE 4-8 PERIOD WITH THE NEXT IN A SERIES OF SIGNIFICANT SHORTWAVE TROUGHS LIKELY MOVING INTO THE PLAINS DAY 6-7. IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT A SIGNIFICANT SEVERE EVENT COULD EVOLVE OVER THE PLAINS BY DAY 6-7…SPREADING INTO THE LOWER MS VALLEY AND SERN STATES DAY 7-8 AS MOISTURE RETURNS NWD THROUGH PRE-FRONTAL WARM SECTOR.”
That’s “just weather” but totally characteristic of the predicted danger facing us in this present.
Update on last year’s Amazon drought, with a real paper forthcoming in GRL:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110329150453.htm
Short version: “Yup, it was really bad, and no visible recovery yet.”
SM, you’re Greenspanning.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“with+notably+rare+exceptions”
Susan’s link shows tornadoes. I’ve seen the Mississippi and Cedar River flood. It’s pretty amazing.
Dan, you have a habit of only addressing only tiny portions of the points people make–and those only to dismissively wave your hand. Should you care to actually look at the literature, you may discover that yields on many crops go down with increasing temperature. You would also note that frost free years are indeed a problem for pest and weed control. In short, you would find that everything you are ignoring is where the problem is.
Only few blog spaces available so I used this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&NR=1
This guy says that the Earth can be modelled as black body so there are no feedforwards or feedbacks- isn’t that eloquent. All due to correct analysis of solar radiation- we get less reflection due to less cloud formation when there the sun is at its peak.
No IPCC fudge factors are needed for modelling and the Earth is no especially forcing factor sensitive- volcanic eruptions only cause small changes in temperatures unlike the IPCC models- His model is twice as accurate. Depending somewhat on future solar activity, the temperature forcing due to projected carbon emmissions will be modest a few degrees not a total disaster.
Of course you’ll have to request the full paper to fully test it.
[Response: Same old, same old. There is no trend in cosmic rays since the 1950s and so even if the CR-climate link was as strong as postulated (very unlikely) it doesn’t impact the recent attribution question. His ‘cloud cover’ change diagram is fiddled – the real data does not look like that – especially when brought up to date (see Gray et al, 2011). The attributable change in SLR is also overestimated (by ignoring volcanoes and assuming that there are no other forcings or internal variability). His statement about the over-estimate of volcanoes in models is also completely wrong (see Hansen et al, 2007). – gavin]
For Michael–he’s been here in person; google
site:realclimate.org +Nir++Shaviv
“This guy says that the Earth can be modelled as black body…” http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
One could model earth as a giant turnip being carried on the back of a turtle, but since that doesn’t agree with reality either, it won’t be any more explanatory.
Interesting to see that Bas van Geel is a co-author on the Gray et al paper that Gavin references in his in-line response above. Presumably he’s on there because of the Holocene palaeo aspect of the paper and not because of the final section on modern climate change. I say this because, a couple of years ago he gave an absurdly simplistic seminar in my department, basically arguing standard skeptic talking points and that it was all the Sun wot done it.
166, Hank Roberts: “Source of Half Earth’s Oxygen Gets Little Credit Jun 7, 2004 … In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton …
Are you saying that an increase in the CO2 concentration of the ocean threatens the health of the phytoplankton? If not that, do you have some other point? Was the chalk in the vinegar supposed to be a metaphor for the threat of CO2 to phytoplankton? Will phytoplankton growth start to be stressed in 50 – 100 years?
Thanks Snapple, I grabbed the first report indicating extreme weather (and at the largely conservative AccuWeather) but I was indeed referring to the floods which are predicted to once again top records this year. It will be pointed out that this is normal, but normality is not floods that destroy a way of life, and that’s what they’re beginning to do. Sniping from the sidelines to people struggling with consequences is not particularly helpful, and shows a narrow mind. If selfishness is patriotic and compassion is social-ist, the latter shows humanity and I prefer it.
As hundred-year events come every year or three, we will have to up our idea of what constitutes a big flood, won’t we.
The global incidence of ever-increasing extreme events is now well under way. This summarizes some recent work in Nature:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Modelling_And_The_Rain_999.html
Just coincidentally, the next article there mentions the Thai floods which are currently breaking records.
Matthew@182 – Phytoplankton growth is beyond stressed already, may well be none left in 50 years. Phytoplankton depend on marine biogeochemical processes being affected by the vinegar you’re adding to the oil being spilled on those troubled waters.
18 months after the last record breaking Thai floods.
#184–And that study was building on an earlier finding, Gregg, 2003.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/nsfc-opl091603.php
–and Gregg et al. found some coastal *increases* in 2005:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/chlorophyll.html
Ray Ladbury wrote: “Dan, you have a habit of only addressing only tiny portions of the points people make–and those only to dismissively wave your hand.”
Dan H. has a habit of repetitious, rote regurgitation of falsehoods, distortions, sophistry and long-since, many-times-over debunked talking points. He consistently and relentlessly dismisses or ignores the many, many comments that others have patiently posted which demolish his scripted, copied-and-pasted rubbish.
I humbly submit that it is long past time to consign Dan H. to the “boor hole”, if not to ban him from this site entirely. It would be respectful to the other commenters. Dan H. has made his contempt for honest discussion and his contempt for other comments abundantly clear. However polite his prose may be on the surface, it is nothing but the deliberately time-wasting activity of a classic “troll” and exudes blatant contempt for other participants in these discussions.
SecularAninmist #188. It is really very simple to set up multiple avatars. Thus ‘DanH’ can easily become ‘JaneQ’. Banning these avatars is like trying to exterminate rats. As a novice to these pages, I found comments like these persuasive at first – although rebuttals more so, thanks to the moderators and the likes of your good self. I agree though, DanH is past his use by date, and so are his talking points.
“We need better septics” Hank Roberts.
Piggybacking Ray # 172 RE: Boreholed Dan: “…farmers know that warmer temperatures and wetter climates yield more bountiful harvests.” Yeah Dan, Canadian farmers have that warmer and wetter thing to thank for that 12-15 million acres of wheat that was lost last year. But hey, at least the crop didn’t freeze, right? Ray, Susan, et al covered the rest of your half-thought.
When it comes to geologists, you have to separate the petroleum geologists from those of us who don’t make nearly as much money (and some of us are unemployed).
Warmer and wetter is better? Absolutely right.
Wheat sprouting in the unharvested ear bypasses all that pesky harvesting, storage, seeding, fertilising malarkey.
184, flxible
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/07/critical-ocean-organisms-are-dis.html
If it is true that phytoplankton is (are?) disappearing at a rate of 1% per year, and have been since 1899, that’s about a 60% decline beginning before there was significant anthropogenic CO2 — that is, nothing like the accumulation since WWII. And if it is true that phytoplankton are responsible for converting 50% of all the CO2 that is converted to O2, then the decline in the phytoplankton contributes significantly to the increase in CO2. If in addition it is true that the decline of the phytoplankton is due to the temperature increase over the last 100+ years, then the warming is responsible for much of the CO2 increase, as claimed by a few of the skeptics.
I don’t believe that either, but it is a straightforward implication of the propositions presented in the paper. The forecast for the future is bleak: in 50 more years they’ll be reduced another 50%, approximately, and another 50% approximately by 2010. Obviously it is important enough to keep studying.
It’s time to move past the debate about whether Global Warming is real or not. Our use of cheap, semi-abundant fuel for energy is changing our planet like no other species has (except maybe when (pre)plants started creating oxygen). Another example of the impacts of humans: When CO2 falls out of the atmosphere (which it does eventually) and into the oceans it acidifies the water, which then, in turn, eats away at calcium carbonate (what makes up the shells of many ocean critters). We are rapidly making changes to this planet and many of them may not be fully known/recognized for a very long time…but they are real changes none-the-less. Stop fighting, Stop arguing, START making some changes, Start encouraging the use of alternative energy- before it is too late.
We need to move past the debate about whether Global Warming is real or not. Humans are altering this planet like no other species ever has (except maybe the (pre)plant spcecies which added oxygen to the atmosphere). Another Example of human impact: When CO2 Falls out of the atmosphere and into the oceans (which it does eventually) it acidifies the water, which, in turn, eats away at anything made out of calcium carbonate (most of the ocean creatures’ shells). Humans are changing the planet in ways which may not be fully realized or taken into consideration for many, many years. But the changes are real, and will have their effects non-the less. So Stop the arguing, Stop the fighting, START making life-style changes, Start encouraging Alternative energy/Alternative fuels….Before it is too late to make a difference.
“Aside from the obvious difference that humans are not altering the nitrogen concentration of the atmosphere, ”
Dear me, looks like a case of nearsightedness. The concentrations of the gases in the atmosphere add up to 100%. So any increase in the amount of CO2 has to cause a similar decrease in all the other gases. I haven’t seen any studies of the effects of reduced nitrogen and oxygen on the reaction rates of NOx in the upper atmosphere that produce most of the fertilizer on the planet. Since the amounts involved are so large, even small changes could be significant. We know plants are highly sensitive top nitrogen levels in the soil. Has anyone been following those to see what is happening to non-agricultural soils?
[Response: increasing CO2 does not lead to a decrease in N2 in terms of partial pressure. But since the relative abundance is something like 20,000 to 1. On the other hand O2 is going down very slightly, because of the need for oxygen in the combustion of fossil fuels (Ralph Keeling etc). But again, the 100ppmv increase in CO2 is far more important than the concomittent decrease in O2, because there is 5000 times more O2 than CO2. – gavin]
> So any increase in the amount of CO2 has to cause
> a similar decrease in all the other gases.
see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php
195 George! Thanks for that. Hilarious!