Climate change

[billw55]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "natural state". In a city, the "natural state" of an empty lot is probably going to include a lot of trash.

 

 

Zoning laws are misguided.

If someone bought the house next door to yours, then tore it down and built a gas station there, would you be ok with that?

[onoway]

Lots of the guerilla gardeners are about making space more attractive rather than growing food but today ran across this:

 

(I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a TED talk about pretty much anything! I wasn't looking for this one, it just turned up)

 

It seems to be typical in that he starts out with municipal spaces such as road verges and then grows from there with lots of volunteers getting involved.

[blackshoe]

If someone bought the house next door to yours, then tore it down and built a gas station there, would you be ok with that?

Probably not. But that doesn't give me — or the government — the right to tell him he can't.

 

As I recall, Houston has no zoning laws. I wonder how many times this problem has cropped up there?

[dwar0123]

Probably not. But that doesn't give me — or the government — the right to tell him he can't.

Do you agree with Democracy only when people agree with you?

[mike777]

Although Houston is the only major American city with no formal zoning code, the city's land use regulations have historically been nearly as meddlesome, ...

[onoway]

It was certainly Texas and I think it was Houston that someone who had built a deck onto his house was told he had to take it down because he hadn't asked permission first, and it was something like 9 inches too big in one direction..I don't remember the details exactly now as it was a few years back, but it was (to my mind) totally bizarre.

 

I'd always thought that Texans were a fiercely independent "man's home is his castle" sorts but it seems there are as many people there as anywhere else who don't have anything better to do than supervise the neighborhood.

 

Apologies to Houston, just checked back on emails and it was Austin.

[mike777]

Houston aint Austin.....which is closer to SF. pardner :)

[blackshoe]

As I remember it, Austin is full of liberals. Of course, it's been 40+ years since I was there. Maybe they all moved. B-)

[billw55]

As I remember it, Austin is full of liberals. Of course, it's been 40+ years since I was there. Maybe they all moved. B-)

Austin is home to one of the largest universities (perhaps the single largest) in America. This by itself is adequate to explain a significantly higher level of dems than the state as a whole. It is also the state capital which obviously draws a concentration of the minority party. No surprises here.

[blackshoe]

Austin is home to one of the largest universities (perhaps the single largest) in America. This by itself is adequate to explain a significantly higher level of dems than the state as a whole. It is also the state capital which obviously draws a concentration of the minority party. No surprises here.

I didn't say it was surprising. B-)

[Al_U_Card]

You don't tug on Superman's cape....

 

And you don't piss-off Steve McIntyre, where his work is involved.

 

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/hawkins1.png?w=680&h=600

[Al_U_Card]

Acid test?

 

From Dr. Judith Curry's blog

 

Just how agendized is the alarmist position? (From Craig Idso's critique on ocean-acidification alarmism and alternate analyses from the literature.)

 

In conclusion, based on the many real-world observations and laboratory experiments described above, it is clear that recent theoretical claims of impending marine species extinctions, due to increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration, have no basis in empirical reality. In fact, these unsupportable contentions are typically refuted by demonstrable facts. As such, the NRDC’s portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public.

 

Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic – or even a problematic – view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public. If by some slim chance they were not aware, shame on them for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere. And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future.

 

Finally, if there is a lesson to be learned from the materials presented in this document, it is that far too many predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are looked upon as sure-to-occur, when real-world observations show such doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities. The phenomenon of CO2-induced ocean acidification is no different. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere; they are an invaluable boon to the planet’s many life forms.

 

JC comment: So whose view of the ocean acidification is correct: Doney’s or Idso’s? In this instance, it is instructive for me to describe my own reasoning process, since I come to this topic with very little first hand knowledge, beyond understanding the basic chemistry of the problem.

 

When I saw Scott Doney listed as a witness for this hearing, I was very pleased, since he is a scientific heavy hitter on this subject. However, upon reading the first page of his testimony, the following statement raised my skeptical hackles, especially since their was no evidence or reference to support this:

 

Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times.

 

I found Doney’s testimony to be highly normative, something that I am not a fan of in testimony by scientists. I did a word search, looking for ‘uncertain’, ‘disagreement’, ‘debate’, ‘unknown’. The only statements I found were:

 

Decisions should incorporate precautionary considerations to account for the fact that potential carbon dioxide thresholds are presently unknown for many aspects of ocean acidification.

 

The potential biological consequences due to acidification are slowly becoming clearer at the level of individual species, but substantial uncertainties remain particularly at the ecosystem level.

 

For these reasons, Doney’s testimony didn’t score too high on my credibility meter, in spite of my acknowledgement of his expertise and stature in the field.

 

I figured that there has to be another side to this story, so I did a quick google search and spotted Idso’s document. Idso’s document clearly states that there is another side to this story. Idso’s approach is more credible IMO, since he acknowledges that there are two sides to the story, that at this point may be equally plausible. I searched for the same 4 words; only spotted one use of ‘unknown’, so I am not sure how useful my little litmus test was.

 

The issue is this: failure of the ‘mainstream’ experts to adequately discuss uncertainty and alternative viewpoints leaves a void to be filled by the likes of Idso, with the inadvertent effect of elevating Idso’s essay more than it probably deserves.

[PassedOut]

Taking Antarctica's temperature

 

Yet, over the last six years researchers have found clever ways to take Antarcticas temperature and piece together its complicated climate history. Those efforts reveal that the continent is home to some of the most rapidly warming places on Earth. Whether natural or human-caused, Antarcticas changing climate makes it clear that the continent isnt as isolated as was once thought.

 

If these warming trends continue, what happens in Antarctica will have important consequences for the rest of the world. The Antarctic ice sheet stores roughly 70 percent of the planets freshwater. If it melted entirely and drained into the ocean, global sea level would rise more than 60 meters enough to submerge New York City, London, Copenhagen, Bangkok, all of Florida, much of the Netherlands, Bangladesh and many other low-lying coastal and island locales.

 

Fortunately, researchers dont expect the massive ice sheet to disappear anytime soon. But to plan for the future, officials need to know how much ice will melt and how quickly sea level will rise.

Of course sea level won't rise the entire 60 meters, but even a much more modest rise will cause severe problems.

[Daniel1960]

Taking Antarctica's temperature

 

 

Of course sea level won't rise the entire 60 meters, but even a much more modest rise will cause severe problems.

 

Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years, m yet this article somehow shows warming. By most estimates, Antarctica is still contributing to a sea level decrease.

 

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_08-Dec.-29-20.37.jpg

[hrothgar]

Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years, m yet this article somehow shows warming. By most estimates, Antarctica is still contributing to a sea level decrease.

 

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_08-Dec.-29-20.37.jpg

 

Maybe the authors assumed that the audience had a basic familiarity with the topic and didn't need to provide the standard boilerplate?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy

 

Some public commentators have argued that this possible cooling trend observed in the interior of the Antarctica shows the lack of reliability of the models used for global warming predictions and even of climate theory in general. These arguments are made despite the fact that the small and variable observed trends are broadly consistent with the small magnitude of model-predicted temperature trends for Antarctica. The argument was popularized in Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear. This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. The author advocated skepticism in this matter.[5][28]

As presented in page 193 of "State of Fear": "The data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs. That's what gets reported year after year. But the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker".[29] Crichton's footnote source is Doran et al., 2002.[14]

A rebuttal to Crichton's claims was presented by the group Real Climate:[6]

Long term temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere are hard to find, and by the time you get to the Antarctic continent, the data are extremely sparse. Nonetheless, some patterns do emerge from the limited data available. The Antarctic Peninsula, site of the now-defunct Larsen-B ice shelf, has warmed substantially. On the other hand, the few stations on the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly (Doran et al., 2002; GISTEMP).

At first glance this seems to contradict the idea of "global" warming, but one needs to be careful before jumping to this conclusion. "A rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming. Dynamical effects (changes in the winds and ocean circulation) can have just as large an impact, locally as the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. The temperature change in any particular region will in fact be a combination of radiation-related changes (through greenhouse gases, aerosols, ozone and the like) and dynamical effects. Since the winds tend to only move heat from one place to another, their impact will tend to cancel out in the global mean.[6]

The leading author of the research paper, Peter Doran, published a statement in the New York Times[7] stating that "... our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel "State of Fear"... Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?" He also emphasized the need for more stations in the Antarctic continent in order to obtain more robust results.

It is common to find statements that "climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions", e.g. Doran et al.[14] In fact, climate models predict amplified warming only for the Arctic and not for Antarctica

[Daniel1960]

Maybe the authors assumed that the audience had a basic familiarity with the topic and didn't need to provide the standard boilerplate?

 

The small sample of both temperature and model predictions for Antarctica are insufficient to make broad statements regarding any climatic changes there. Using the Antarctica peninsula as an example of Antarctic temperature changes is akin to using Florida as a proxy for the entire United States. The slight cooling trend and ice expansion for the continent as a whole is not scientifically significant (due to lack of data and small magnitude). The previous post about melting of the entire Antarctic ice sheet fails to account for this and the extremely cold temperatures that persist. At an average temperature of about -50C, it would take considerable warming to melt a significant portion of the ice. By that time, we would have experienced much worse in the way of climate change than the rising sea level.

[hrothgar]

The small sample of both temperature and model predictions for Antarctica are insufficient to make broad statements regarding any climatic changes there.

 

So, its inappropriate to make comments like "Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years" without providing additional context?

[Daniel1960]

So, its inappropriate to make comments like "Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years" without providing additional context?

Not really. Especially considering how your post agrees with my statement. If want additional context, I can provide it.

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting take on the current state of affairs in Britain concerning controversy and consensus...

 

BBC and the policy wonks

 

Andrew Neil’s interview with Ed Davey on the Sunday Politics show last week caused an eruption of comment. For sceptics, it was a refreshing change of scenery: a journalist at the BBC, a stronghold of environmental orthodoxy, challenging the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, an office which is rarely held to account. But perhaps because of this, it upset many of a greener hue.

[Al_U_Card]

And from the Antipodes...

 

The Zeitgiest is shifting. The unthinkable is now thought, and in public.

 

Politicians go cold as global warming debate loses spark

From: The Times July 23, 2013 12:00AM, Reprinted in The Australian

 

Soon will come the time when everyone says “I always knew it was wrong”.

 

Tim Montgomerie notes the great backdown of Kevin Rudd on the carbon tax and lays out the global carnage in the climate meme:

 

Throughout the world green politicians are presiding over similar climbdowns. From Washington to London, shale gas rather than any renewable technology is seen as the future. Even nations such as Germany and Spain, which led the march to green energy, are slashing unaffordable subsidies to the renewables industry. British Conservative Nigel Lawson has claimed that the average share price of companies in the renewable sector has fallen by 80 per cent over five years. “One renewable company after another is going bankrupt,” he declared. The heavy cost of green energy policies might have been justifiable if they had delivered results, but they haven’t. Since the Kyoto treaty on climate change, global emissions have continued to rise. Since 1990 they have increased by about 50 per cent. China’s increase in emissions has been 25 times greater than the reduction by the EU’s core nations. In so far as Europe has actually met its environmental obligations, it has only done so by exporting industrial capacity (and jobs). Once the environmental impact of imported goods has been added to its carbon footprint, Europe has clearly failed to keep its environmental promises.

 

One commentator, Bjorn Lomborg, spelt out the futility of Europe’s unilateral environmentalism. Germany’s efforts to combat climate change might, he calculated, just possibly delay a rise in global temperatures by 37 hours, but that delay will have cost German taxpayers and consumers more than $US100 billion in the form of renewable subsidies and higher electricity costs. That’s about $US3bn an hour.

[Daniel1960]

The following graph shows the average temperature in Antarctica during both the summer and winter as created by William Connolley at EGMWF.

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png

 

The following graphic showing temperatures changes across Anarctica during the period of greatest global warming:

 

http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/CompositeAntarcticTempChange1960-1998.gif

 

The largest warming occurred in the 1960s, while the largest cooling occurred in the 1990s. The following shows UCAR data for Antarctica over the past 50 years:

 

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer08/images/temp_trends.jpg

[PassedOut]

From BBC: Arctic methane 'time bomb' could have huge economic costs

 

The authors say a release of methane on this scale could bring forward the date when global temperatures increase by 2C by between 15 and 35 years.

 

"We are looking at a big effect," said Prof Peter Wadhams from the University of Cambridge, "a possibly catastrophic effect on global climate that's a consequence of this extremely fast sea ice retreat that's been happening in recent years."

Although methane remains in the atmosphere for a relatively short period, its temporary warming effect is considerable.

[Al_U_Card]

From BBC: Arctic methane 'time bomb' could have huge economic costs

 

 

Although methane remains in the atmosphere for a relatively short period, its temporary warming effect is considerable.

 

I wonder what the climate scientists at RealClimate might have to say about this? Oh.... Gavin, you tweeted what?

 

Wadhams' statements on summer ice disappearance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe … based on extrapolation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-piomas-prediction-and-the-perils-of-extrapolation/ … Consensus imaginary.

[Al_U_Card]

And more from the mainstream concerning the "nonsensus"

 

Dr. Tol says...

 

among other things...

 

Update on data (22 July): John Cook has now been asked (once, around July 7) by the director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, and (three times, first around June 20) by the editor of Environmental Research Letters to release all of his data. I asked him 5 times now (first on May 31). Cook has released only a little bit more data: The author ratings. The actual data confirm what is in the paper: Paper ratings and abstract ratings strongly disagree with each other.

 

Not to mention the various and nefarious "approaches" to promoting their study's conclusions BEFORE they did the "research"

 

Dana:

Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she (sic) was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus "at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews".

 

Cook:

"There is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, who led the study in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

 

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," he said in a statement. "When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

 

As well as Dr. Mike Hulme:

 

The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% "nonsensus" paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

 

The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

[PassedOut]

Sea Level Rise ‘Locking In’ Quickly, Cities Threatened by Ben Strauss

 

We have two sea levels: the sea level of today, and the far higher sea level that is already being locked in for some distant tomorrow.

 

In a new paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), I analyze the growth of the locked-in amount of sea level rise and other implications of Levermann and colleagues’ work. This article and its interactive map are based on this new PNAS paper, and they include extended results.

 

To begin with, it appears that the amount of carbon pollution to date has already locked in more than 4 feet of sea level rise past today’s levels. That is enough, at high tide, to submerge more than half of today’s population in 316 coastal cities and towns (home to 3.6 million) in the lower 48 states.

 

By the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, that may lock in 23 feet of sea level rise, and threaten 1,429 municipalities that would be mostly submerged at high tide. Those cities have a total population of 18 million. But under a very low emissions scenario, our sea level rise commitment might be limited to about 7.5 feet, which would threaten 555 coastal municipalities: some 900 fewer communities than in the higher-emissions scenario.

It's probably time to put your Hilton Head and Tybee Island properties on the market...

B-)