Re: David Cooke
1. Insolation plays little or no role in climate change.
Note to DC: If insolation never changed, we wouldn’t have variation.
2. A 37%-ish rise in CO2 plays no role in climate change. Note to DC: Insolation rises and falls and the combination of GHG and insolation can vary greatly while having similar results. E.g., if insolation is low, but GHGs high, it can be equal to the opposite situation in climate effects. Use the search function; that has been addressed by the scientists here at RC.
3. Some other magical thing nobody has thought of – but probably it’s all those changes in clouds (that have never been measured or quantified.)
Bore Hole? No? This is stuff you could teach a 4th Grade elementary school class. In an English as a Foreign Language class. In Korea. Some of which I have.
@228 Septic: In line with Jim’s comment, let me say only that we can manage anything except the clathrates and permafrost destabilizing. There are decades of warming coming in the best case scenario due to ocean heat, and decades more to cool the oceans back down. I watch the Arctic so closely for a reason. If it melts out…
@228, Jim’s response.
I’m not arguing we should engage the topic, and encourage all not to follow this with further commentary, but your premise is simply incorrect. Collapse is not about constraining risk parameters, it is about policy because it is something that cannot be risked at all.
The signals of potential collapse are clearer than those for climate, if anything, though, yes, constraint is hard. It is also irrelevant. The factors at work are so broad and the dangers so great that we do not need good constraints. The calls for mitigation combined with adaptation are a recognition of this very basic dynamic: it is already recognized we are at the edge of potential collapse.
Dr. Bartlett’s analogy with yeast and doublings is a most excellent example. Essentially, if a lifetime is an hour, 50% of resources still exist at 1 minute to the end of the hour. That makes us myopic.
Some resources that are at 1 minute to midnight:
1. phytoplankton
2. Light sweet crude
3. Water
4. Old growth forests
5. Farmland.
6. High grade coal
7. Uranium.
8. Large fishes.
9. Population vs. ecosystem services.
10. Total ecosystem services.
11. Energy Returned on Energy Invested: oil was 100:1 and is now 11:1, e.g. (Show me the work-around on those thermodynamics.)
And so on. The key metric according to Tainter is diminishing returns on complexity, which we are already seeing. (US real incomes have been flat since 1970, e.g., and made up with women working and expanding credit; crop yields have flattened.)
Patterns? Open up the Dow or S&P and look at the longest view, especially in the linear mode. If that’s not a system going out of balance, nothing is. Same thing for ice. Temps and GHGs are increasing at never-before-seen rates, right? Methane is increasing faster than CO2, long term.
There is, of course, much more I could bring up, but what is the point? I realize many who post here likely do not follow energy, climate, complexity and economics so the full implications of the interconnections may not be obvious to them, but I and some others obviously do watch the full system all the time. Systemically, things look far worse than any one aspect does. Climate may look scary, but the systemic signals are a horror show.
While “collapse” will never be as definitive as climate science, the risk assessment associated with the topic is already much further along the risk curve than climate is, meaning we are past the apex. There will be a different future because we have used too many resources already and population will rise at least another 25%. A new equilibrium is the minimum we will face.
I shared a table with J. Tainter at a conference a year ago. He shared that until recently he’d been optimistic, collapse being a choice. He is no longer optimistic. By definition, if he were positive the chance of success would be greater than 50-50. In his mind, it’s obviously worse. Diamond is equivocal. 50% = 1 minute to midnight.
If you have someone who can trump those two, I’m all ears.
[Response: I’m not sure how my premise can be incorrect when I don’t really have one. We are simply not able to discuss the collapse of civilization. It’s not a climate science topic, even if climate change effects society. The very term itself is not even clear. As I said, if people want to discuss the effects of climate change on specific elements that impact society, that’s fine, including the arguments of Diamond or whomever. But to vaguely talk about the “collapse of civilization” just goes nowhere. I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain why this is out of bounds. Seems to me it should be obvious–Jim]
ldavidcookesays
RE: 252
Hey ccpo,
Apparently a bit of confusion has crept into this discussion, Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere has very little variation. Due to solar activity the old data record suggested a possible 11 year cycle peak of approximately 6 watts. As of the most recent indications it appears to be less then approximately 2 watts. Whether this is is an indication of a long term trend or instrumentation may be of concern; however with the overlap data it looks like it could be a combination of the two in my humble opinion.
As to insolation reaching the Earth’s surface there is significant variation, via a combination of many anthropogenic activities and yet to be researched secondary effects there have been a number of changes that affect the global surface incoming energy. A lot of the focus here of course is the roughly 7.5Gt of carbon that are added to the atmosphere. Recently more research suggests that a reduction in pollutant aerosols may have increased the insolation reach ing the surface. Though at the same time high concentrations of dark aerosols in the Arctic could be increasing the ice melt there.
In the Fall of 2004 a Swiss research team suggested that there was approximately 6 watts/m^2 more solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. In 2005 Dr. Hansen estimated that of the total roughly 1.85-2.5watts /m^2 was related to GHG. The balance could be a combination of solar variation and other anthropogenic activities. If we go with the current est. of 2 watts ToA solar activity variation, this leaves roughly 2w/m^2 to aerosol/water vapor/cloud effects. As to the distribution of contributions I beleve there may be an inbalance in apportioning; but, I am not the expert.
When we look at the changes in ocean surface salinity, Blocking weather systems and N. Jet Stream deviation from it’s formerly eliptical path the source of warmth contributing to Arctic ice melt is clear. Evidence can be found that suggests it is the transport of the ocean insolation and the winds blowing across the warm oceans surface that is most likely adding to the melt there. At issue of late has been with the added ocean insolation why has it not penetrated much into the depths. Likely this is due to the evaporation, convection, and melting of polar ice.
As to changes in insolation, as stated earlier anthropogenic changes in aerosol populations have had a significant effect on CCNs according to Professor Choultran at the UEA and recent works out of NCAR. The evidence of changes in the normal adiabatic processes are growing, if we review the global optical depth and compare that value against the global measured Relative Humidity interesting data begins to emerge. Again, it is quite evident that as more research and data sets are built, a better picture of our climate develops. Hence, before we knock on others can we please examine why it appears that differences in view points exist.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
wilisays
Has anyone seen this piece or have any comments on it. It looks pretty darn grim to me.
“Nature: climate change leads to 67-84 percent intraspecific biodiversity loss by 2080 – Holocene Mass Extinction within this century”
“… A Nature study earlier this year has looked at marine and terrestrial biodiversity threats combined – and found for instance 75 percent of all mammal species to be at risk of extinction within 300 years, and defined such a massive loss of biodiversity as establishing the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event.
That would mean the combined effort of a couple of billion human beings, relentlessly producing and consuming over a couple of centuries time, would somehow have very creatively managed to outweigh the impact of the PETM methane clathrate bomb.”
This is the kind of thing that makes me feel like the smoker who read so much about the health hazards of smoking that he decided to quit…reading.
Further from the article:
” it is practically impossible for evolution to compensate for current extinction rates. As under current extinction rates we apparently risk losing the majority of our planet’s biodiversity within a century’s time, the formation of entirely new species will take at least 10,000 times as long – and that would only be the point where system Earth would start to recover. It could take many tens or hundreds of millions of years more before the oceans could again see something equivalent to a blue whale – if ever. We should remember climate change is just one of the contributors to the biodiversity crisis.”
(And I’ll add a humble request that we avoid feeding denialist trolls.)
[Response: Don’t put too much stock in it. The stated intraspecific loss of heterozygosity is based on one aquatic insect study in Europe if I remember right from a brief look at the article. That blog piece you point to is a mishmash of figures pulled from various places with some suspect explanations thrown in. The loss of species diversity is real, but it is mostly due, so far, to direct habitat loss, especially forest clearing, not to climate change. Climate change will have an effect for sure, but how big it will be in 300 years is really anyone’s guess. Or even 50 or 100 years for that matter. Prediction of biodiversity dynamics, and consequences thereof, is a highly, highly uncertain business–Jim]
R. W. Gortsays
I’ve been reading Charles Mann’s new book, “1493” about the exchanges triggered by the European discovery of the Americas. In it he says that reforestation, after disease wiped out large numbers of Native Americans who had been keeping the landscape more open with fire, which may have been a significant contributor to the Little Ice.
How much work has been done on that and what level of acceptance does that have among climate scientists?
[Response: This is a topic with differing viewpoints. If possible, you really want to try to get your hands on the August issue of The Holocene, which has numerous articles on the whole topic of the effect of pre-industrial human activities–mostly by land cover alterations–in altering the climate. See also RC posts here and here by William Ruddiman for some good overview.–Jim]
David B. Bensonsays
R. W. Gort @255 — Isn’t the book titled 1491? Anyway, in one good CO2 proxy record one can notice the dip in CO2 occassioned by the reforestation. Significant? Doesn’t seem that way to this amateur, but certainly a contribution.
Hmm. The back of this envelope is hard to read, but I think it says the idea is implausible.
Something about a flux change resulting from a vegetative change over a hard-to-define but smallish percentage of maybe 10% of the planet’s surface area (and distributed over a couple of centuries), being much too small to account for the effect proposed.
The Americas are 8.3% of the planet’s surface area–over 24% of land, but the ocean is a more efficient carbon sink anyway, AFAIK.
Much of the terrain isn’t forested now, and wouldn’t have been then, either before or after Contact–deserts, grasslands, mountains, tundra. Moreover, I strongly doubt that all or most of the disparate cultures did in fact use fire to “keep the landscape more open.” There was a tremendous variety of custom and patterns of life. (And actually, a climax forest *is* relatively open, and stays that way for centuries. Plus, some landscapes, notably the longleaf pine forests of the Southeast, were fire-dependent anyway, and are known to have stayed so into the nineteenth century.)
Finally, Contact didn’t only happen in 1492; it occurred again and again for at least a century. (For example, Oglethorpe found sizable native populations in Georgia in the 1730s.) It’s hard to say much about how depopulation occurred, since (last I heard at least) we have yet to pin down pre-Contact population figures to even an order of magnitude. But it seems pretty unrealistic to think that disease could have propagated across both continents on less than decadal timescales–and I think some evidence suggests it took a lot longer than that.
“But it’s only an envelope”–meaning this is the reaction of someone with a little general knowledge and not much more.
(Hmm, maybe you should call me a ‘skeptic’ on this one!) ;-)
[Response: I’d have to disagree with some of these statements Kevin. The use of fire, for example, was very widespread–it was the land management tool of choice in many seasonally dry climates, which are nearly ubiquitous. Most climax forests, are by definition, not “open”–that occurs only when either fire or climate (often both) create a woodland, which is characterized by less than full canopy cover, on the continuum from forest to savanna. That said, I also tend toward the view that there was simply not enough land below vegetative carrying capacity to do the proposed job, at least wrt the LIA. Again though, I direct people with more than a hand waving interest to the August issue of The Holocene which comprehensively covers many of these topics, and more.–Jim]
Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere has very little variation.
Except it is cooling, so…
Due to solar activity the old data record suggested a possible 11 year cycle peak of approximately 6 watts. As of the most recent indications it appears to be less then approximately 2 watts.
Whether this is is an indication of a long term trend or instrumentation may be of concern; however with the overlap data it looks like it could be a combination of the two in my humble opinion.
I think you are babbling. Certainly not providing any evidence.
As to insolation reaching the Earth’s surface there is significant variation
Says…?
…and yet to be researched secondary effects
Such as…?
Recently more research suggests that a reduction in pollutant aerosols may have increased the insolation reach ing the surface.
True.
Though at the same time high concentrations of dark aerosols in the Arctic could be increasing the ice melt there.
Are, not could be.
In the Fall of 2004 a Swiss research team suggested that there was approximately 6 watts/m^2 more solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
It’s not 2? Thought you said it was 2.
In 2005 Dr. Hansen estimated that of the total roughly 1.85-2.5watts /m^2 was related to GHG. The balance could be a combination of solar variation and other anthropogenic activities.
Could be the Easter bunny. Cites for what you think it is that has not already been well-studied?
If we go with the current est. of 2 watts ToA solar activity variation
According to…? Why? I’m not clear there is, nor over what time frame.
this leaves roughly 2w/m^2 to aerosol/water vapor/cloud effects.
Because?
I am not the expert.
Indeed.
When we look at the changes in ocean surface salinity, Blocking weather systems and N. Jet Stream deviation from it’s formerly eliptical path the source of warmth contributing to Arctic ice melt is clear.
According to…?
Evidence can be found that suggests it is the transport of the ocean insolation
What does that mean?
and the winds blowing across the warm oceans surface that is most likely adding to the melt there.
Only those two things?
At issue of late has been with the added ocean insolation why has it not penetrated much into the depths.
What depths? Who said it hasn’t? Who said it should have? How deep?
The evidence of changes in the normal adiabatic processes are growing, if we review the global optical depth and compare that value against the global measured Relative Humidity interesting data begins to emerge.
Where? From whom? Don’t we already know what water vapor does? Don’t we already know it is a feedback, not a forcing?
Again, it is quie evident that as more research and data sets are built, a better picture of our climate develops.
Of course. But you are pretending our knowledge is poorly constrained, which I find untenable.
Hence, before we knock on others can we please examine why it appears that differences in view points exist.
There are no non-mainstream, well-researched viewpoints with any significant evidence. There’s a little bit of interest in the cloud issue. I know of no other significant issues that are studied that would change things in any significant way. As to things not yet studied, well, I’m not sure where magical thinking gets us. Since what we do know matches the record quite well, what big surprises are out there?
Also, please don’t insinuate ideas are dismissed without first being considered, then studied if having merit. There’s no conspiracy against new ideas, only a conspiracy against what we do know.
I notice nobody else is responding to you. I’m going to follow their lead.
Edward Greischsays
253 Jim: You are the boss, but if it weren’t for the collapse in the 2050s, I would be working on the Space Elevator instead of GW. I am just plain terrified by the collapse. That is why the collapse should be discussed at RealClimate.
[Response: Edward, it’s very good that you, and others, are motivated by this issue; I don’t want to detract from that. I would just suggest discussing it in the more specific terms of the effects of climate on food or water supply or human health issues, for example, keeping in mind that even these topics are really on the fringes of, or outside of, the expertise here.–Jim ps: you would probably be interested in the Resilience Alliance and its associated publication]
Thanks for the link to “The Holocene.”
SteveFsays
Following on from my question in 233 about the new Times Atlas and Greenland ice loss, Julian Dowdeswell and colleagues have written a letter to the Times, complaining about the accuracy of the map:
David Benson @ 257…Nope, he’s written a second book, 1493.
wilisays
Jim, thanks for the perspective on the extinction article.
David Benson beat me to the punch on the article about an apparent solution to the “mystery of the lost decade of heating.” I would love to hear what others have to say about it. What role, for example, to La Nina’s play in this sequestering of atmospheric heat in the deep ocean? Is there some kind of saving negative feedback here, where heating may prompt more La Nina’s which may draw more atmospheric heat down into the depths?
How long might we expect this submerged heat to stay out of the atmosphere?
(Sorry again for the multiple questions, and thanks ahead of time for any comments.)
#260, inline–Thanks for the comments and link, Jim.
[Response: I should have clarified though that yes, you can have late successional forests that relatively more open than others (such as your longleaf example)–these are usually fire maintained, and often pine and/or oak dominated.–Jim]
Scanning abstracts from “The Holocene”, one finds that Nevle et al.–“Neotropical human–landscape interactions, fire, and atmospheric CO2 during European conquest”–says (based on soil and sediment records) that “Reforestation following land abandonment due to population collapse has the potential to account for the rest of this CO2 decline. . .”
But Pongratz et al., “Coupled climate–carbon simulations indicate minor global effects of wars and epidemics on atmospheric CO2 between AD 800 and 1850” basically says–based upon coupled climate-carbon cycle modeling–“Oh, no it can’t!” Or, more formally, “None of these events would therefore have affected the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 1 ppm.”
(“These events” being “. . .the Mongol invasion (~1200 to ~1380), the Black Death (~1347 to ~1400), the conquest of the Americas (~1519 to ~1700), and the fall of the Ming Dynasty (~1600 to ~1650).”)
L. David Cookesays
RE: 263
Hey ccpo,
The volumes of evidence are clearly available whether it is a historic analysis since `97 at arm.gov, the ncdc SRRS 250mb isotach station data sets or if you prefer the NCAR/UCAR 250mb upper wind contors, or even if we desire to explore the NASA/NSF sponsored expeditions reviewing the aerosols/water vapor above Costa Rica, the Sahara dust crossing the southern N. Atlantic or even the dark aerosol research during the recent Polar year expedition… The point is there is sufficient evidence that should be reviewed and that most of the long term participants of RC are well aware of. That you would be unaware of Hansen et al 2005 would surprise me as would his follow up, open essay regarding the participating dark aerosols in 08.
If you do not wish to review the data that is fine. However, you can be assured that it exists, the question is are you interested enough in all aspects of climate mechanisms and their interaction? My concern is a closed mind is a terrible waste, likewise a mind that cannot apply critical thinking. Not that you have either of these characteristics, though it does seem interesting to me that you appear to use a lot of energy in in an apparent challenge of that you may be unfamilar with, or at least it seems so.
Hope you well, if you find you would like to explore more as it relates to the primary thread and insolation please review some of the works of Dr. Jason Box of late Ohio State. If you have an interest in ocean heating please review the NOAA Triton (Pacific ITCZ data set) or the PIRITA (N. Atlantic ITCZ data set) bouy data; the 20 deg. C isotherms are very interesting. Again, good luck and happy hunting…
“… ‘The new alert awakened fears about 1815.’
… Little was known about Tambora’s global impact until the 1980s, when Greenland ice core samples — which can be read much like tree rings — revealed an astonishing concentration of sulfur at the layer dating back to 1816, said geologist Jelle de Boer, co-author of “Volcanoes in Human History: The Far-Reaching Effects of Major Eruption.”
Gases had combined with water vapor to form fine droplets of acid that remained for years in the atmosphere, circling the earth and reflecting some of the solar radiation back into space.
Temperatures worldwide plummetted, causing crops to fail and leading to massive starvation.
Farmers on the northeastern coast of the U.S. reported snow well into July.
In France, grape harvests were decimated. Daniel Lawton of the wine brokerage Tastet-Lawton said a note in his company’s files remarks that 1816 was a “detestable year” and yielded only a quarter of the crop planted.
Soon after the ice core findings, scientists started studying Tambora in earnest….”
The bad news
University admits climate ‘research’ funds mishandled
Talisman Energy and other donors to “research” funds at the University of Calgary received tax receipts as a result of a public relations campaign to cast doubt on global warming science, newly released records have revealed.
A brief quote from that Ottawacitizen story with hat tips:
“… The “research” funds were set up in 2004 by Barry Cooper, a political science professor, in partnership with an anti-Kyoto Protocol group calling itself the Friends of Science, and public relations firms APCO Worldwide, Morten Paulsen Consulting and Fleishman-Hillard Canada, where Paulsen worked as a senior vice-president before moving to his current job as a consultant for the university’s school of public policy.
Talisman Energy attributed its $175,000 donation to the fund in 2004 to its previous management, noting that its current position acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions “pose a scientifically credible threat.”
Talisman was not immediately able to say Friday whether it would revise its previous tax filings regarding the donation.
A total of $507,975 flowed through the accounts before the university determined they were being used for political activities and shut down the funds in 2007 …
…
… The “research” accounts, created to support production of a video examining the debate about climate change policies, were also notably used to purchase advertising in Ontario and Quebec for the Friends of Science, in the midst of the 2005-06 federal election campaign.
Paulsen, who does communications work for the university’s school of public policy, declined to comment. The director of the school of public policy also sits on the board of directors of Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon.
Some scientists are frustrated by others’ disbelief in the scientists’ avowed predictive abilities; other scientists are threatened by others’ apparent belief in predictive abilities the scientists themselves explicitly disavow.
“Perry said he erred by not seeking legislative approval but stood by the aim of preventing cancer. Campaigning in Iowa last week, he said Bachmann’s comment after the debate was unwise “when she had no scientific backing, to say the very least.”
Gentlemen and women I believe I have a solution to the skeptics issue. Turns out there is indeed a way to overcome those tenacious objections. Seems to work, at least where Republicans are concerned. We’ve been making the mistake of thinking that mere facts would do the trick. Barking up the wrong tree apparently. Baksheesh (a.k.a bribery) appears to be the missing link in this equation. So cough up folks.
277 Ironic. And then some. They can’t say RC didn’t try to warn them about GW, but rationality doesn’t seem to apply.
Doug Bostromsays
Embedded in the article Edward cited:
The norm of journalistic balance has been exploited by opponents of emissions curbs. Starting in the late 1990s, big companies whose profits were tied to fossil fuels recognized they could use this journalistic practice to amplify the inherent uncertainties in climate projections and thus potentially delay cuts in emissions from burning those fuels. Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this strategy was a long memo written by Joe Walker, who worked in public relations at the American Petroleum Industry, that surfaced in 1998. According to this ”Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” first revealed by my colleague John Cushman at the New York Times, ”Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom” for ”average citizens” and ”the media” (Cushman 1998). The action plan called for scientists to be recruited, be given media training, highlight the questions about climate, and downplay evidence pointing to dangers. Since then, industry-funded groups have used the media’s tradition of quoting people with competing views to convey a state of confusion even as consensus on warming has built.
”Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom” for ”average citizens” and ”the media” (Cushman 1998).
Anything in that sound wrong, let alone unfamiliar? It’s this kind of information that feeds my irritation with the dangling, dancing puppets at sites like WUWT. There’s something deeply offensive about seeing people manipulated in that fashion; they’re not even paid to do this work, instead are gulled into helping to earn money they’ll never see, for private interests.
Meanwhile the “victory” Cushman refers to means the rest of us are vanquished, our requirements made secondary to monetizing fossil fuels.
gryposays
Science question in need of some expertise!
It’s about deep ocean warming. In response to the new Meehl 2001 study, Dr. Pielke said as part of his comment:
A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.
Is the comment a fair treatment of the situation? It seems he is saying that “deposited” heat is significant and be almost negligible on relevant timescales.
I believe the ocean currents make the situation difficult to figure out from a simple diffusivity equation, although that’s part of it. There is also westerly winds and ocean temps to consider. I believe Pielke to be correct in that there needs to be more “adequate” discussion. What I’m not sure of is his fairly definitive statement, “unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all”. In looking through some literature (Manabe 2007)(Hansen 1984) I’m seeing that the timing depends on sensitivity and emissions scenarios (eg emissions X @ sensitity X means equilibrium in 35 years after 70 years). I’m unable to get a clear picture of what that means for amount of warming that is in the deep ocean and on what time scale we’d see that again. This seems to be very important for policy.
[Response: There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. The flux of heat into the deep ocean is very relevant to the rate of change of surface temperatures and to the remaining increase in surface temperatures required in order to balance the TOA forcing. A bigger flux into the deep ocean, slows the progress to the new equilibrium and implies we have more warming in the pipeline (given constant forcings). But it has nothing to do with the notion that the heat going into the ocean now will at some point come back out – it might – but not for hundreds to thousands of years, and only if forcings decrease back to pre-industrial levels. OHC changes tell us about the current radiative imbalance – which is important, but the OHC changes themselves, especially in the deep ocean, don’t have much of a direct effect on anything. – gavin]
ldavidcookesays
RE:287
Hey grypo,
If we look at ocean surface salinity increases, estimating the amount of surface evaporation resuling in the higher salinity, it may indicate that other then warming concentrations such as the thermohaline currents, that not as much heat is going into the ocean as some estimates suggest.
Given the noted changes in the Walker circulation, the NOAA and Woodshole Institute long term cooling trend noted below 1700 feet, and the relative stability of the THC it would seem counter intuitive. As to ocean turnover, most appears to model large lakes with long fetches, a warming at the edge related to shore contact and mixing spreading out over the surface off shore.
As to a possible reason for a reduction in deep ocean cooling, it may be related to an increase in turbidity or bio-mass in certain regions. The increases in dead zones and anoxic events would appear to suggest an increase of near shore of events. If so how wide spread are the effects of these events and when fully mixed over decades what effect would they have on ocean temperatures?
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Pete Dunkelbergsays
# 287 “Is the comment a fair treatment of the situation?”
No it’s just more semantic twistedness. “…has not been ‘adequately’ discussed in the climate science community.”
And RP SR is the only one who ever thought of anything etc etc.
Heat moves through the seas by means of mass transport.
Well, it seems the cycle time of the MOC is 100-1000 years, according to the first couple of sources I found. Haven’t actually run the numbers, but I’d think that would render diffusion secondary.
Perhaps that’s “long-term” for Dr. Pielke? Yet as Dr. Trenberth said, that doesn’t mean the ‘sequestered’ heat has no “consequences,” though they may be yet to be determined.
Anyway, it seems to me it’s basically a new detail about how oceanic thermal inertia plays out in practice, not a big new development per se.
Donnasays
I am not sure why increasing the temps in the deep ocean would not count as part of global warming? From a layman’s perspective – the deep ocean is also part of the globe. The differenentials between the deep ocean temps and other layers in the oceans drive currents and most likely do impact the climate that we experience. Warming of water does impact its volume whether its deep ocean or not so it seems likely to impact sea level changes.
Is there a reason that deep ocean warming would seem to be treated as a mitigation to global warming instead of just another aspect of it?
gryposays
Thank you Gavin, Pete, David, Kevin.
Donna,
Is there a reason that deep ocean warming would seem to be treated as a mitigation to global warming instead of just another aspect of it?
That’s sorta the question I’m discussing. Pielke is saying that heat going into the ocean is a “long-term damper of global warming”. I’m not sure this statement is justified without quantifying it, especially if he thinks it has policy implications.
Richard Birdsays
Hi. A specific question re current state of the art in GCM modelling. Forgive my not ploughing through publications to seek the answer, but this seems the best place for a layman to get an expert opinion.
Given that models include allowance for variation of solar irradiance, volcanoes, and any other natural factors.
Given that models indicate approx 0.2 deg C warming due to natural variations since 1850, plus approx 0.6 deg C due to AGW.
Given that generally accepted reconstructed temperature records for period 900 – 1850 AD from various sources indicate natural variations of approx +/- 0.5 deg C either side of average (approx 14 deg C).
Running current models with no Co2 variation over the period 900 – 1850, can they demonstrate variations of that order? If so may I be directed to relevant papers? Thanks.
[Response: Yes, the models give a very reasonable ‘natural variability’ compared with measurements. There are many papers on this, but one particularly clear one that comes to mind is Crowley, 2000, in Science.–eric
Pete Dunkelbergsays
Dona @ 295: “I am not sure why increasing the temps in the deep ocean would not count as part of global warming?” I agree, it counts big time.
“Is there a reason that deep ocean warming would seem to be treated as a mitigation to global warming instead of just another aspect of it?”
Not a good one, but it might help keep fossil fuel profits higher longer before the rest of humanity pays the price.
ldavidcookesays
RE:297
Hey Pete,
I guess part of the problem is what is defined as global warming. Are you refering to the rise in the thermodynamic emission of the Earth as a gray body or the Global Average Temperature as measured via air temperature weather station values.
If the ocean temperature was a series of gradients rising from the alluvial plain or ocean floor and continental surface that would be different then simple air temperature increases, as long as the deep ocean heat was in essence “sequestered”. Not that the heat has been removed; but, that its influence is not currently contributing to the current air temperature variations.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Radge Haverssays
For those interested in collapsing civilization, there’s some brainstorming for hypotheses over at Casuabon’s Book. It might be a better place for this sort speculation, though it’s a little airy at this point — maybe there try to specifically define how responses to changing climate might feed back into climate, for instance.
“But more practically, I hope people will recognize that there is very limited certainty about how each family or community will experience things. That is, it isn’t sufficient to look at the world scale or one previous history and say “this is how it will play out” – because it will play out differently for different people in different circumstances.”
slightly narrower search with better results for your question:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dust+emission+coal+mining
Pakistan’s Floods: Deja Vu, All Over Again
Re: David Cooke
1. Insolation plays little or no role in climate change.
Note to DC: If insolation never changed, we wouldn’t have variation.
2. A 37%-ish rise in CO2 plays no role in climate change. Note to DC: Insolation rises and falls and the combination of GHG and insolation can vary greatly while having similar results. E.g., if insolation is low, but GHGs high, it can be equal to the opposite situation in climate effects. Use the search function; that has been addressed by the scientists here at RC.
3. Some other magical thing nobody has thought of – but probably it’s all those changes in clouds (that have never been measured or quantified.)
Bore Hole? No? This is stuff you could teach a 4th Grade elementary school class. In an English as a Foreign Language class. In Korea. Some of which I have.
@228 Septic: In line with Jim’s comment, let me say only that we can manage anything except the clathrates and permafrost destabilizing. There are decades of warming coming in the best case scenario due to ocean heat, and decades more to cool the oceans back down. I watch the Arctic so closely for a reason. If it melts out…
@228, Jim’s response.
I’m not arguing we should engage the topic, and encourage all not to follow this with further commentary, but your premise is simply incorrect. Collapse is not about constraining risk parameters, it is about policy because it is something that cannot be risked at all.
The signals of potential collapse are clearer than those for climate, if anything, though, yes, constraint is hard. It is also irrelevant. The factors at work are so broad and the dangers so great that we do not need good constraints. The calls for mitigation combined with adaptation are a recognition of this very basic dynamic: it is already recognized we are at the edge of potential collapse.
Dr. Bartlett’s analogy with yeast and doublings is a most excellent example. Essentially, if a lifetime is an hour, 50% of resources still exist at 1 minute to the end of the hour. That makes us myopic.
Some resources that are at 1 minute to midnight:
1. phytoplankton
2. Light sweet crude
3. Water
4. Old growth forests
5. Farmland.
6. High grade coal
7. Uranium.
8. Large fishes.
9. Population vs. ecosystem services.
10. Total ecosystem services.
11. Energy Returned on Energy Invested: oil was 100:1 and is now 11:1, e.g. (Show me the work-around on those thermodynamics.)
And so on. The key metric according to Tainter is diminishing returns on complexity, which we are already seeing. (US real incomes have been flat since 1970, e.g., and made up with women working and expanding credit; crop yields have flattened.)
Patterns? Open up the Dow or S&P and look at the longest view, especially in the linear mode. If that’s not a system going out of balance, nothing is. Same thing for ice. Temps and GHGs are increasing at never-before-seen rates, right? Methane is increasing faster than CO2, long term.
There is, of course, much more I could bring up, but what is the point? I realize many who post here likely do not follow energy, climate, complexity and economics so the full implications of the interconnections may not be obvious to them, but I and some others obviously do watch the full system all the time. Systemically, things look far worse than any one aspect does. Climate may look scary, but the systemic signals are a horror show.
While “collapse” will never be as definitive as climate science, the risk assessment associated with the topic is already much further along the risk curve than climate is, meaning we are past the apex. There will be a different future because we have used too many resources already and population will rise at least another 25%. A new equilibrium is the minimum we will face.
I shared a table with J. Tainter at a conference a year ago. He shared that until recently he’d been optimistic, collapse being a choice. He is no longer optimistic. By definition, if he were positive the chance of success would be greater than 50-50. In his mind, it’s obviously worse. Diamond is equivocal. 50% = 1 minute to midnight.
If you have someone who can trump those two, I’m all ears.
[Response: I’m not sure how my premise can be incorrect when I don’t really have one. We are simply not able to discuss the collapse of civilization. It’s not a climate science topic, even if climate change effects society. The very term itself is not even clear. As I said, if people want to discuss the effects of climate change on specific elements that impact society, that’s fine, including the arguments of Diamond or whomever. But to vaguely talk about the “collapse of civilization” just goes nowhere. I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain why this is out of bounds. Seems to me it should be obvious–Jim]
RE: 252
Hey ccpo,
Apparently a bit of confusion has crept into this discussion, Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere has very little variation. Due to solar activity the old data record suggested a possible 11 year cycle peak of approximately 6 watts. As of the most recent indications it appears to be less then approximately 2 watts. Whether this is is an indication of a long term trend or instrumentation may be of concern; however with the overlap data it looks like it could be a combination of the two in my humble opinion.
As to insolation reaching the Earth’s surface there is significant variation, via a combination of many anthropogenic activities and yet to be researched secondary effects there have been a number of changes that affect the global surface incoming energy. A lot of the focus here of course is the roughly 7.5Gt of carbon that are added to the atmosphere. Recently more research suggests that a reduction in pollutant aerosols may have increased the insolation reach ing the surface. Though at the same time high concentrations of dark aerosols in the Arctic could be increasing the ice melt there.
In the Fall of 2004 a Swiss research team suggested that there was approximately 6 watts/m^2 more solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. In 2005 Dr. Hansen estimated that of the total roughly 1.85-2.5watts /m^2 was related to GHG. The balance could be a combination of solar variation and other anthropogenic activities. If we go with the current est. of 2 watts ToA solar activity variation, this leaves roughly 2w/m^2 to aerosol/water vapor/cloud effects. As to the distribution of contributions I beleve there may be an inbalance in apportioning; but, I am not the expert.
When we look at the changes in ocean surface salinity, Blocking weather systems and N. Jet Stream deviation from it’s formerly eliptical path the source of warmth contributing to Arctic ice melt is clear. Evidence can be found that suggests it is the transport of the ocean insolation and the winds blowing across the warm oceans surface that is most likely adding to the melt there. At issue of late has been with the added ocean insolation why has it not penetrated much into the depths. Likely this is due to the evaporation, convection, and melting of polar ice.
As to changes in insolation, as stated earlier anthropogenic changes in aerosol populations have had a significant effect on CCNs according to Professor Choultran at the UEA and recent works out of NCAR. The evidence of changes in the normal adiabatic processes are growing, if we review the global optical depth and compare that value against the global measured Relative Humidity interesting data begins to emerge. Again, it is quite evident that as more research and data sets are built, a better picture of our climate develops. Hence, before we knock on others can we please examine why it appears that differences in view points exist.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Has anyone seen this piece or have any comments on it. It looks pretty darn grim to me.
http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-biodiversity-loss-holocene-mass-extinction-2800/
“Nature: climate change leads to 67-84 percent intraspecific biodiversity loss by 2080 – Holocene Mass Extinction within this century”
“… A Nature study earlier this year has looked at marine and terrestrial biodiversity threats combined – and found for instance 75 percent of all mammal species to be at risk of extinction within 300 years, and defined such a massive loss of biodiversity as establishing the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event.
That would mean the combined effort of a couple of billion human beings, relentlessly producing and consuming over a couple of centuries time, would somehow have very creatively managed to outweigh the impact of the PETM methane clathrate bomb.”
This is the kind of thing that makes me feel like the smoker who read so much about the health hazards of smoking that he decided to quit…reading.
Further from the article:
” it is practically impossible for evolution to compensate for current extinction rates. As under current extinction rates we apparently risk losing the majority of our planet’s biodiversity within a century’s time, the formation of entirely new species will take at least 10,000 times as long – and that would only be the point where system Earth would start to recover. It could take many tens or hundreds of millions of years more before the oceans could again see something equivalent to a blue whale – if ever. We should remember climate change is just one of the contributors to the biodiversity crisis.”
(And I’ll add a humble request that we avoid feeding denialist trolls.)
[Response: Don’t put too much stock in it. The stated intraspecific loss of heterozygosity is based on one aquatic insect study in Europe if I remember right from a brief look at the article. That blog piece you point to is a mishmash of figures pulled from various places with some suspect explanations thrown in. The loss of species diversity is real, but it is mostly due, so far, to direct habitat loss, especially forest clearing, not to climate change. Climate change will have an effect for sure, but how big it will be in 300 years is really anyone’s guess. Or even 50 or 100 years for that matter. Prediction of biodiversity dynamics, and consequences thereof, is a highly, highly uncertain business–Jim]
I’ve been reading Charles Mann’s new book, “1493” about the exchanges triggered by the European discovery of the Americas. In it he says that reforestation, after disease wiped out large numbers of Native Americans who had been keeping the landscape more open with fire, which may have been a significant contributor to the Little Ice.
How much work has been done on that and what level of acceptance does that have among climate scientists?
[Response: This is a topic with differing viewpoints. If possible, you really want to try to get your hands on the August issue of The Holocene, which has numerous articles on the whole topic of the effect of pre-industrial human activities–mostly by land cover alterations–in altering the climate. See also RC posts here and here by William Ruddiman for some good overview.–Jim]
R. W. Gort @255 — Isn’t the book titled 1491? Anyway, in one good CO2 proxy record one can notice the dip in CO2 occassioned by the reforestation. Significant? Doesn’t seem that way to this amateur, but certainly a contribution.
for R.W. Gort
This will find some on that idea:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arealclimate.org+deforestation+black+death
here’s one pointer from those results:
https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=597#comment-97362
That first search can be narrowed usefully:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arealclimate.org+ruddiman+guest
#255–
Hmm. The back of this envelope is hard to read, but I think it says the idea is implausible.
Something about a flux change resulting from a vegetative change over a hard-to-define but smallish percentage of maybe 10% of the planet’s surface area (and distributed over a couple of centuries), being much too small to account for the effect proposed.
Of course, it’s just an envelope.
Maybe I should clarify that flip response a bit.
The Americas are 8.3% of the planet’s surface area–over 24% of land, but the ocean is a more efficient carbon sink anyway, AFAIK.
Much of the terrain isn’t forested now, and wouldn’t have been then, either before or after Contact–deserts, grasslands, mountains, tundra. Moreover, I strongly doubt that all or most of the disparate cultures did in fact use fire to “keep the landscape more open.” There was a tremendous variety of custom and patterns of life. (And actually, a climax forest *is* relatively open, and stays that way for centuries. Plus, some landscapes, notably the longleaf pine forests of the Southeast, were fire-dependent anyway, and are known to have stayed so into the nineteenth century.)
Finally, Contact didn’t only happen in 1492; it occurred again and again for at least a century. (For example, Oglethorpe found sizable native populations in Georgia in the 1730s.) It’s hard to say much about how depopulation occurred, since (last I heard at least) we have yet to pin down pre-Contact population figures to even an order of magnitude. But it seems pretty unrealistic to think that disease could have propagated across both continents on less than decadal timescales–and I think some evidence suggests it took a lot longer than that.
“But it’s only an envelope”–meaning this is the reaction of someone with a little general knowledge and not much more.
(Hmm, maybe you should call me a ‘skeptic’ on this one!) ;-)
[Response: I’d have to disagree with some of these statements Kevin. The use of fire, for example, was very widespread–it was the land management tool of choice in many seasonally dry climates, which are nearly ubiquitous. Most climax forests, are by definition, not “open”–that occurs only when either fire or climate (often both) create a woodland, which is characterized by less than full canopy cover, on the continuum from forest to savanna. That said, I also tend toward the view that there was simply not enough land below vegetative carrying capacity to do the proposed job, at least wrt the LIA. Again though, I direct people with more than a hand waving interest to the August issue of The Holocene which comprehensively covers many of these topics, and more.–Jim]
Estimates vary: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00395.x/abstract
Much written: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=depopulation+americas&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=0
Deep Oceans Put Global Warming on Temporary Hiatus
http://www.livescience.com/16109-deep-oceans-global-warming.html
RE: 254
Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere has very little variation.
Except it is cooling, so…
Due to solar activity the old data record suggested a possible 11 year cycle peak of approximately 6 watts. As of the most recent indications it appears to be less then approximately 2 watts.
Whether this is is an indication of a long term trend or instrumentation may be of concern; however with the overlap data it looks like it could be a combination of the two in my humble opinion.
I think you are babbling. Certainly not providing any evidence.
As to insolation reaching the Earth’s surface there is significant variation
Says…?
…and yet to be researched secondary effects
Such as…?
Recently more research suggests that a reduction in pollutant aerosols may have increased the insolation reach ing the surface.
True.
Though at the same time high concentrations of dark aerosols in the Arctic could be increasing the ice melt there.
Are, not could be.
In the Fall of 2004 a Swiss research team suggested that there was approximately 6 watts/m^2 more solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
It’s not 2? Thought you said it was 2.
In 2005 Dr. Hansen estimated that of the total roughly 1.85-2.5watts /m^2 was related to GHG. The balance could be a combination of solar variation and other anthropogenic activities.
Could be the Easter bunny. Cites for what you think it is that has not already been well-studied?
If we go with the current est. of 2 watts ToA solar activity variation
According to…? Why? I’m not clear there is, nor over what time frame.
this leaves roughly 2w/m^2 to aerosol/water vapor/cloud effects.
Because?
I am not the expert.
Indeed.
When we look at the changes in ocean surface salinity, Blocking weather systems and N. Jet Stream deviation from it’s formerly eliptical path the source of warmth contributing to Arctic ice melt is clear.
According to…?
Evidence can be found that suggests it is the transport of the ocean insolation
What does that mean?
and the winds blowing across the warm oceans surface that is most likely adding to the melt there.
Only those two things?
At issue of late has been with the added ocean insolation why has it not penetrated much into the depths.
What depths? Who said it hasn’t? Who said it should have? How deep?
The evidence of changes in the normal adiabatic processes are growing, if we review the global optical depth and compare that value against the global measured Relative Humidity interesting data begins to emerge.
Where? From whom? Don’t we already know what water vapor does? Don’t we already know it is a feedback, not a forcing?
Again, it is quie evident that as more research and data sets are built, a better picture of our climate develops.
Of course. But you are pretending our knowledge is poorly constrained, which I find untenable.
Hence, before we knock on others can we please examine why it appears that differences in view points exist.
There are no non-mainstream, well-researched viewpoints with any significant evidence. There’s a little bit of interest in the cloud issue. I know of no other significant issues that are studied that would change things in any significant way. As to things not yet studied, well, I’m not sure where magical thinking gets us. Since what we do know matches the record quite well, what big surprises are out there?
Also, please don’t insinuate ideas are dismissed without first being considered, then studied if having merit. There’s no conspiracy against new ideas, only a conspiracy against what we do know.
I notice nobody else is responding to you. I’m going to follow their lead.
253 Jim: You are the boss, but if it weren’t for the collapse in the 2050s, I would be working on the Space Elevator instead of GW. I am just plain terrified by the collapse. That is why the collapse should be discussed at RealClimate.
[Response: Edward, it’s very good that you, and others, are motivated by this issue; I don’t want to detract from that. I would just suggest discussing it in the more specific terms of the effects of climate on food or water supply or human health issues, for example, keeping in mind that even these topics are really on the fringes of, or outside of, the expertise here.–Jim ps: you would probably be interested in the Resilience Alliance and its associated publication]
Thanks for the link to “The Holocene.”
Following on from my question in 233 about the new Times Atlas and Greenland ice loss, Julian Dowdeswell and colleagues have written a letter to the Times, complaining about the accuracy of the map:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399
http://people.uleth.ca/~sarah.boon/DATA/Times-letter.pdf
David Benson @ 257…Nope, he’s written a second book, 1493.
Jim, thanks for the perspective on the extinction article.
David Benson beat me to the punch on the article about an apparent solution to the “mystery of the lost decade of heating.” I would love to hear what others have to say about it. What role, for example, to La Nina’s play in this sequestering of atmospheric heat in the deep ocean? Is there some kind of saving negative feedback here, where heating may prompt more La Nina’s which may draw more atmospheric heat down into the depths?
How long might we expect this submerged heat to stay out of the atmosphere?
(Sorry again for the multiple questions, and thanks ahead of time for any comments.)
#260, inline–Thanks for the comments and link, Jim.
[Response: I should have clarified though that yes, you can have late successional forests that relatively more open than others (such as your longleaf example)–these are usually fire maintained, and often pine and/or oak dominated.–Jim]
Alas, certainty!
Scanning abstracts from “The Holocene”, one finds that Nevle et al.–“Neotropical human–landscape interactions, fire, and atmospheric CO2 during European conquest”–says (based on soil and sediment records) that “Reforestation following land abandonment due to population collapse has the potential to account for the rest of this CO2 decline. . .”
But Pongratz et al., “Coupled climate–carbon simulations indicate minor global effects of wars and epidemics on atmospheric CO2 between AD 800 and 1850” basically says–based upon coupled climate-carbon cycle modeling–“Oh, no it can’t!” Or, more formally, “None of these events would therefore have affected the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 1 ppm.”
(“These events” being “. . .the Mongol invasion (~1200 to ~1380), the Black Death (~1347 to ~1400), the conquest of the Americas (~1519 to ~1700), and the fall of the Ming Dynasty (~1600 to ~1650).”)
RE: 263
Hey ccpo,
The volumes of evidence are clearly available whether it is a historic analysis since `97 at arm.gov, the ncdc SRRS 250mb isotach station data sets or if you prefer the NCAR/UCAR 250mb upper wind contors, or even if we desire to explore the NASA/NSF sponsored expeditions reviewing the aerosols/water vapor above Costa Rica, the Sahara dust crossing the southern N. Atlantic or even the dark aerosol research during the recent Polar year expedition… The point is there is sufficient evidence that should be reviewed and that most of the long term participants of RC are well aware of. That you would be unaware of Hansen et al 2005 would surprise me as would his follow up, open essay regarding the participating dark aerosols in 08.
If you do not wish to review the data that is fine. However, you can be assured that it exists, the question is are you interested enough in all aspects of climate mechanisms and their interaction? My concern is a closed mind is a terrible waste, likewise a mind that cannot apply critical thinking. Not that you have either of these characteristics, though it does seem interesting to me that you appear to use a lot of energy in in an apparent challenge of that you may be unfamilar with, or at least it seems so.
Hope you well, if you find you would like to explore more as it relates to the primary thread and insolation please review some of the works of Dr. Jason Box of late Ohio State. If you have an interest in ocean heating please review the NOAA Triton (Pacific ITCZ data set) or the PIRITA (N. Atlantic ITCZ data set) bouy data; the 20 deg. C isotherms are very interesting. Again, good luck and happy hunting…
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Farmers flee as world’s deadliest volcano rumbles
MOUNT TAMBORA, Indonesia
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxmXKE_2XXGagd-29Mn2jHUbLmhw?docId=b5b1d5cf90b04a96871e851ab24df23c
“… ‘The new alert awakened fears about 1815.’
… Little was known about Tambora’s global impact until the 1980s, when Greenland ice core samples — which can be read much like tree rings — revealed an astonishing concentration of sulfur at the layer dating back to 1816, said geologist Jelle de Boer, co-author of “Volcanoes in Human History: The Far-Reaching Effects of Major Eruption.”
Gases had combined with water vapor to form fine droplets of acid that remained for years in the atmosphere, circling the earth and reflecting some of the solar radiation back into space.
Temperatures worldwide plummetted, causing crops to fail and leading to massive starvation.
Farmers on the northeastern coast of the U.S. reported snow well into July.
In France, grape harvests were decimated. Daniel Lawton of the wine brokerage Tastet-Lawton said a note in his company’s files remarks that 1816 was a “detestable year” and yielded only a quarter of the crop planted.
Soon after the ice core findings, scientists started studying Tambora in earnest….”
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
subscribed.
[Response: You might like this in particular.]
Maybe volcanos are there to counter act abrupt climate change. More volcano = more close to abrupt changes.
The bad news
University admits climate ‘research’ funds mishandled
Talisman Energy and other donors to “research” funds at the University of Calgary received tax receipts as a result of a public relations campaign to cast doubt on global warming science, newly released records have revealed.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/University+admits+climate+research+funds+mishandled/5416818/story.html
The good news
Talisman Energy Stock Hits New 52-Week Low (TLM)
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11252330/1/talisman-energy-stock-hits-new-52-week-low-tlm.html
I saw it on Al Jezera on PBS on 20 September 2011:
6 geologists are on trial in Italy for failure to warn of an earthquake.
A brief quote from that Ottawacitizen story with hat tips:
“… The “research” funds were set up in 2004 by Barry Cooper, a political science professor, in partnership with an anti-Kyoto Protocol group calling itself the Friends of Science, and public relations firms APCO Worldwide, Morten Paulsen Consulting and Fleishman-Hillard Canada, where Paulsen worked as a senior vice-president before moving to his current job as a consultant for the university’s school of public policy.
Talisman Energy attributed its $175,000 donation to the fund in 2004 to its previous management, noting that its current position acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions “pose a scientifically credible threat.”
Talisman was not immediately able to say Friday whether it would revise its previous tax filings regarding the donation.
A total of $507,975 flowed through the accounts before the university determined they were being used for political activities and shut down the funds in 2007 …
…
… The “research” accounts, created to support production of a video examining the debate about climate change policies, were also notably used to purchase advertising in Ontario and Quebec for the Friends of Science, in the midst of the 2005-06 federal election campaign.
Paulsen, who does communications work for the university’s school of public policy, declined to comment. The director of the school of public policy also sits on the board of directors of Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon.
Tom Harris, who now teaches a global warming class at Carleton University, said in a letter to the Calgary Herald that he wrote the script of the video and participated in video production and distribution. Harris worked, at the time, for APCO Worldwide.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen”
#275–
Ironic.
Some scientists are frustrated by others’ disbelief in the scientists’ avowed predictive abilities; other scientists are threatened by others’ apparent belief in predictive abilities the scientists themselves explicitly disavow.
Carleton lets this guy teach a class on global warming?! @#$%@#$!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_(mechanical_engineer)
Hmm, apparently not any more:
http://www.charlatan.ca/content/coolest-climate-prof-campus
Ironic Quote of the Week:
“Perry said he erred by not seeking legislative approval but stood by the aim of preventing cancer. Campaigning in Iowa last week, he said Bachmann’s comment after the debate was unwise “when she had no scientific backing, to say the very least.”
-Governor Perry, Champion of Science.
http://tinyurl.com/6eop3yz
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/17/321712/nytimes-com-strikes-false-balance-on-climate-change/
has a great graphic RC might want to comment on.
oh, my, I wonder if this is a coincidence:
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2010/11/more-psychobabble-about-why-skeptics.html
Those looking for a “Rapid Read” introduction to climate science and policy may be interested in Andrew Weaver’s latest, which I describe here:
http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Generation-Us-The-Challenge-Of-Global-Warming-A-Summary-Review
“RapidReads” are meant to be readable in a single sitting (GenUS took me about an hour and a half) and are friendly for ESOL readers, youth and so on.
A “multi-year drought” — or abrupt climate change?
re: my comments 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:38 PM
Ahem.
Gentlemen and women I believe I have a solution to the skeptics issue. Turns out there is indeed a way to overcome those tenacious objections. Seems to work, at least where Republicans are concerned. We’ve been making the mistake of thinking that mere facts would do the trick. Barking up the wrong tree apparently. Baksheesh (a.k.a bribery) appears to be the missing link in this equation. So cough up folks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/perry-s-merck-donations-raise-questions-about-vaccine-mandate.html
Let’s see, I have 25, no 50 cents I can afford to “donate”.
The story about the geologists on trial for failure to predict an earthquake made SciAm:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trial-such-as-that-star&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110921
277 Ironic. And then some. They can’t say RC didn’t try to warn them about GW, but rationality doesn’t seem to apply.
Embedded in the article Edward cited:
The norm of journalistic balance has been exploited by opponents of emissions curbs. Starting in the late 1990s, big companies whose profits were tied to fossil fuels recognized they could use this journalistic practice to amplify the inherent uncertainties in climate projections and thus potentially delay cuts in emissions from burning those fuels. Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this strategy was a long memo written by Joe Walker, who worked in public relations at the American Petroleum Industry, that surfaced in 1998. According to this ”Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” first revealed by my colleague John Cushman at the New York Times, ”Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom” for ”average citizens” and ”the media” (Cushman 1998). The action plan called for scientists to be recruited, be given media training, highlight the questions about climate, and downplay evidence pointing to dangers. Since then, industry-funded groups have used the media’s tradition of quoting people with competing views to convey a state of confusion even as consensus on warming has built.
”Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom” for ”average citizens” and ”the media” (Cushman 1998).
Anything in that sound wrong, let alone unfamiliar? It’s this kind of information that feeds my irritation with the dangling, dancing puppets at sites like WUWT. There’s something deeply offensive about seeing people manipulated in that fashion; they’re not even paid to do this work, instead are gulled into helping to earn money they’ll never see, for private interests.
Meanwhile the “victory” Cushman refers to means the rest of us are vanquished, our requirements made secondary to monetizing fossil fuels.
Science question in need of some expertise!
It’s about deep ocean warming. In response to the new Meehl 2001 study, Dr. Pielke said as part of his comment:
Is the comment a fair treatment of the situation? It seems he is saying that “deposited” heat is significant and be almost negligible on relevant timescales.
Here’s the link for my previous statement.
> if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean … unlikely to
> be transferred back to the surface …
But, but, undersea volcanos are melting the polar ice caps? I read it on ….
on, …
oh, wait. They’ve contradicted themselves again, haven’t they?
grypo @287 — Look up the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity
of salt water and set up a simple situation in which you can sove the heat equation.
I believe the ocean currents make the situation difficult to figure out from a simple diffusivity equation, although that’s part of it. There is also westerly winds and ocean temps to consider. I believe Pielke to be correct in that there needs to be more “adequate” discussion. What I’m not sure of is his fairly definitive statement, “unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all”. In looking through some literature (Manabe 2007)(Hansen 1984) I’m seeing that the timing depends on sensitivity and emissions scenarios (eg emissions X @ sensitity X means equilibrium in 35 years after 70 years). I’m unable to get a clear picture of what that means for amount of warming that is in the deep ocean and on what time scale we’d see that again. This seems to be very important for policy.
[Response: There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. The flux of heat into the deep ocean is very relevant to the rate of change of surface temperatures and to the remaining increase in surface temperatures required in order to balance the TOA forcing. A bigger flux into the deep ocean, slows the progress to the new equilibrium and implies we have more warming in the pipeline (given constant forcings). But it has nothing to do with the notion that the heat going into the ocean now will at some point come back out – it might – but not for hundreds to thousands of years, and only if forcings decrease back to pre-industrial levels. OHC changes tell us about the current radiative imbalance – which is important, but the OHC changes themselves, especially in the deep ocean, don’t have much of a direct effect on anything. – gavin]
RE:287
Hey grypo,
If we look at ocean surface salinity increases, estimating the amount of surface evaporation resuling in the higher salinity, it may indicate that other then warming concentrations such as the thermohaline currents, that not as much heat is going into the ocean as some estimates suggest.
Given the noted changes in the Walker circulation, the NOAA and Woodshole Institute long term cooling trend noted below 1700 feet, and the relative stability of the THC it would seem counter intuitive. As to ocean turnover, most appears to model large lakes with long fetches, a warming at the edge related to shore contact and mixing spreading out over the surface off shore.
As to a possible reason for a reduction in deep ocean cooling, it may be related to an increase in turbidity or bio-mass in certain regions. The increases in dead zones and anoxic events would appear to suggest an increase of near shore of events. If so how wide spread are the effects of these events and when fully mixed over decades what effect would they have on ocean temperatures?
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
# 287 “Is the comment a fair treatment of the situation?”
No it’s just more semantic twistedness. “…has not been ‘adequately’ discussed in the climate science community.”
And RP SR is the only one who ever thought of anything etc etc.
Heat moves through the seas by means of mass transport.
Well, it seems the cycle time of the MOC is 100-1000 years, according to the first couple of sources I found. Haven’t actually run the numbers, but I’d think that would render diffusion secondary.
Perhaps that’s “long-term” for Dr. Pielke? Yet as Dr. Trenberth said, that doesn’t mean the ‘sequestered’ heat has no “consequences,” though they may be yet to be determined.
Anyway, it seems to me it’s basically a new detail about how oceanic thermal inertia plays out in practice, not a big new development per se.
I am not sure why increasing the temps in the deep ocean would not count as part of global warming? From a layman’s perspective – the deep ocean is also part of the globe. The differenentials between the deep ocean temps and other layers in the oceans drive currents and most likely do impact the climate that we experience. Warming of water does impact its volume whether its deep ocean or not so it seems likely to impact sea level changes.
Is there a reason that deep ocean warming would seem to be treated as a mitigation to global warming instead of just another aspect of it?
Thank you Gavin, Pete, David, Kevin.
Donna,
That’s sorta the question I’m discussing. Pielke is saying that heat going into the ocean is a “long-term damper of global warming”. I’m not sure this statement is justified without quantifying it, especially if he thinks it has policy implications.
Hi. A specific question re current state of the art in GCM modelling. Forgive my not ploughing through publications to seek the answer, but this seems the best place for a layman to get an expert opinion.
Given that models include allowance for variation of solar irradiance, volcanoes, and any other natural factors.
Given that models indicate approx 0.2 deg C warming due to natural variations since 1850, plus approx 0.6 deg C due to AGW.
Given that generally accepted reconstructed temperature records for period 900 – 1850 AD from various sources indicate natural variations of approx +/- 0.5 deg C either side of average (approx 14 deg C).
Running current models with no Co2 variation over the period 900 – 1850, can they demonstrate variations of that order? If so may I be directed to relevant papers? Thanks.
[Response: Yes, the models give a very reasonable ‘natural variability’ compared with measurements. There are many papers on this, but one particularly clear one that comes to mind is Crowley, 2000, in Science.–eric
Dona @ 295: “I am not sure why increasing the temps in the deep ocean would not count as part of global warming?” I agree, it counts big time.
“Is there a reason that deep ocean warming would seem to be treated as a mitigation to global warming instead of just another aspect of it?”
Not a good one, but it might help keep fossil fuel profits higher longer before the rest of humanity pays the price.
RE:297
Hey Pete,
I guess part of the problem is what is defined as global warming. Are you refering to the rise in the thermodynamic emission of the Earth as a gray body or the Global Average Temperature as measured via air temperature weather station values.
If the ocean temperature was a series of gradients rising from the alluvial plain or ocean floor and continental surface that would be different then simple air temperature increases, as long as the deep ocean heat was in essence “sequestered”. Not that the heat has been removed; but, that its influence is not currently contributing to the current air temperature variations.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
For those interested in collapsing civilization, there’s some brainstorming for hypotheses over at Casuabon’s Book. It might be a better place for this sort speculation, though it’s a little airy at this point — maybe there try to specifically define how responses to changing climate might feed back into climate, for instance.