Climate change

[kenberg]

I found the Krugman article useful, and certainly worth more than a sarcastic dismissal. Arguing each and every study is beyond me. I recognize the importance, but lots of things atre important and I do not expect to go into this business full time. But we need some sort of good summary, or perhaps several good summaries, of key issues. It seems to me that Krugman provides this. I don't mean by this that we should all fall on our knees and worship him, not at all. Krugman is an advocate, and even if he were not his position should still be questioned.

 

 

I caught a portion of a discussion on NPR the other day. Diane Riem's show, I think. There were serious people discussing serious plans for dealing with drought in the West, particularly in California. The discussion, what I heard of it, was thoughtful and open. People were talking of what to do about a tough problem.. This is what we need for the general subject of climate change. I believe Krugman's article is a fine contribution, and I thank Passed for the link. No, I am not joining the Church of Krugman. I just think the article is a good and useful piece.

[blackshoe]

"Climastrologists". I like it! :lol:

[PassedOut]

No, I am not joining the Church of Krugman. I just think the article is a good and useful piece.

Yes, he's an advocate, but Krugman lays out the issues and uncertainties clearly and gives the reasons for his position. I was happy to be able still to locate that old article; it had impressed me when I first read it (thanks, Google!).

[PassedOut]

But, just to be on the "safe" side, let's reduce our evil fossil-fuel carbon footprint completely....why not?

Not a practical idea. If you stop to think about it, you should be able to come up with several reasons.

Sorry that the hyperbole and sarcasm was too disguised...

Ditto.

:D

[hotShot]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br6Y1fYCYAEsfTn.jpg

[Al_U_Card]

Ditto.

:D

Now, all we need is to change sarcasm to skepticism and we will have made some progress. :lol:

 

As for the "better world" part. Every aspect needs to be examined, including repercussions and restrictions applied to those peoples who were not first-in-line for the benefits of abundant and inexpensive energy availability. (Bird choppers are expensive, intermittent and dangerous.)

[billw55]

I have a question. Referring to this article,

 

The excerpt of interest to me is,

 

There have been several such transitions in the past, but one of the largest and most dramatic transitions happened at the end of the last Ice Age. The planet hit a tipping point, and over a period of just 10 to 100 years warmed rapidly. Greenland warmed by 10 degrees Celsius.

Now, warming skeptics often trot out statements like "warming is natural, has happened before in climate history, etc." The standard rebuttal seems to be: nobody is denying past warming, only rapid past warming. But here is an article in a generally respected publication, that clearly indicates rapid warming in the past, and presents it as known scientific fact.

What's up with that?

[mike777]

yes but those are not the best questions to ask.

 

Is climate change urgent?

 

How do you define and measure?

 

Over the years here on this thread I have offered options to define and measure.

[Al_U_Card]

yes but those are not the best questions to ask.

 

Is climate change urgent?

 

How do you define and measure?

 

Over the years here on this thread I have offered options to define and measure.

 

Well, Mike, even you can "outrun" a SLR of 2mm/yr... and with global temps on hold for the last 2 decades, you appear to have time to save up for a new AC unit... Climate CHANGE is continual, mostly gradual and a random chaotic system that we humans have only been able to modify locally (Urban heat island effect) to a significant degree. The key is impact-related and past history shows us where the problems lie (colder, dryer conditions) which does not appear to be the direction that we are headed (yet...). Computer models provide some insight but mostly into their tuning and parameters that, thus far, predict disaster but fail to match up with current reality.

Climate is just weather, over the long haul, and those that think they can control it need to think again.

[Daniel1960]

I have a question. Referring to this article,

 

The excerpt of interest to me is,

 

Now, warming skeptics often trot out statements like "warming is natural, has happened before in climate history, etc." The standard rebuttal seems to be: nobody is denying past warming, only rapid past warming. But here is an article in a generally respected publication, that clearly indicates rapid warming in the past, and presents it as known scientific fact.

What's up with that?

 

Bill,

 

Yes, many have argued falsely the point about that past changes have been slow and prolonged. They tend to average the warming over the past 10,000 years or so, when it occurred in a few decades. The rapid change during the end of the last ice age was probably quite disruptive, but not catastrophic. Some large mammals went extinct, like the mammoth, sabre-toothed tiger, and others. Other animals and most plants thrived in the newly warmed climate. Paleontologists have shown that past periods were characterized by long, relatively stable periods, punctuated by short bursts of rapid changes. Many plants and animals adjusted to these past changes, but some did not. The recent warming [rate] is still small by historic standards, and most life has been able to adapt.

[Al_U_Card]

The really inconvenient truth...

 

A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.

 

According to the authors,

"The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site."

The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared "back-radiation."

[mike777]

I have no idea about this point of research but any research that seems to reject a theory grabs my attention assuming if valid.

[mike777]

I have no idea about this point of research but any research that seems to reject a theory(rather than affirm) grabs my attention assuming if valid.

 

OTOH if the whole point of the research was to reject the theory,,,never mind.

[Al_U_Card]

That is the point of any scientific research...the null hypothesis and demonstration that the theory (whatever it may be) has been falsified.

 

For another instance of inconvenience for the alamist agenda:

 

the authors report there is "remarkable agreement" among the overlapping years of their reconstruction (solid black line) and the number of sunspots recorded from direct observations since 1610 (red line). Their reconstruction of solar activity also displays several "distinct features," including several "well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD," as well as "the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009)," which they describe as "a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.

[Al_U_Card]

To mis-quote John Kenneth Galbraith appropriately (for this thread)...

 

"Climate science is extremely useful as a form of employment for climate scientists."

 

 

:lol:

[Al_U_Card]

Rud Istvan has an interesting post up at Climate etc. (Dr. Judith Curry's blog). It seems that the IPCC's AR4 analysis of extinction due to warming leaves a lot to be desired in terms of real references and factual analysis...worth the read to see how the agenda is exercised but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Watching the watchers

 

"So how did IPCC AR4 WG2 reach its supposedly scientific conclusion? A bit of forensics starting with their figure 4.4 reveals the very dubious IPCC basis.

 

AR4 F4.4 The highlighted temperature rise of 1.6°C 9-31% global species loss is supported by findings 5-7; the 3°C 21-52% global species loss is supported by findings 46-52. Most other findings discuss areal changes in regional habitat, or single species impacts in specific ecosystems, for example the highlighted polar bears.

 

This IPCC figure says that only 10 of the 78 references listed in table 4.1 actually support any global extinction estimate. The 10 relevant references are:

 

AR4 T4.1 excerpt These excerpts suggest IPCC intent to deceive in 4.4. The low temperature estimate depends on only one reference, #1, not three. The high temperature global estimate also depends on just #1, not the seven cited. The entire IPCC AR4 global extinction estimates come down to a single peer reviewed paper, #1 Thomas 2004. [vi] In fact, 13 of the listed 78 IPCC references are this single paper,"

[Al_U_Card]

How AR5 buried this is another story...

[Al_U_Card]

Dr. Richard Betts of England's Met Office had this to say about Climate Models (he is a climate modeler and a Lead Author for the IPCC's WG2)

 

“…WE CAN’T PREDICT LONG-TERM RESPONSE OF THE CLIMATE TO ONGOING CO2 RISE WITH GREAT ACCURACY. IT COULD BE LARGE, IT COULD BE SMALL. WE DONT KNOW.”

 

“…CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY IS A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT POLICYMAKERS THINK CARRIES THE GREATER RISK IN THE FUTURE – DECARBONISING OR NOT DECARBONISING”

 

“THE OLD-STYLE ENERGY BALANCE MODELS GOT US THIS FAR”

 

“APART FROM A FEW WHO THINK THAT OBSERVATIONS OF A DECADE OR THREE OF SMALL FORCING CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TO INDICATE THE RESPONSE TO LONG-TERM LARGER FORCING WITH CONFIDENCE”

 

So, where do we send our tax dollars now?

[Al_U_Card]

As far as interesting alternatives go...

 

Time to go nuclear?

 

"Dewan believes one of the MSRs biggest advantage is the its ability to burn SNF (spent nuclear fuel – “nuclear wastes”) more or less completely, extracting 20 times more energy from uranium than a conventional reactor, producing a far smaller and far less radioactive final waste product, that will be much easier and cheaper to store, and will retain its radioactivity above background levels for only a few centuries rather than thousands of years. It also can be configured to burn Thorium, although that is not Dewan’s desired fuel, for several reasons : the greater perceived need to burn nuclear wastes, and the inferiority of a Thorium reactor’s proliferation safeguards, the lack of any need for an alternative to uranium fuel, as well as the current existence of a uranium fuel processing system.

 

The original Oak Ridge MSR design was modified in only a few ways : use of a different material for the moderator in place of the original space-consuming graphite, and slightly modifying the molten fuel salt (uranium dissolved in lithium flouride) being the most important. Together, these modifications allow for commercially competitive amounts of power to be generated, not possible from the experimental molten salt reactors built at Oak Ridge, and the ability to be powered by low level radioactive fuel, reducing proliferation concerns.

 

The Transatomic Power plant design has an estimated overnight build cost of $2 billion for a 520MWe unit. The lower costs are primarily due to the fact that no massive high pressure containment vessels or piping is needed for much of the plant, and also due to its higher efficiency output temps, which allow for smaller power turbines to be used. Power turbines constitute a major cost in any nuclear power plant design. With these build costs and the prospect of near zero fuel costs, there likely won’t be another power source that is cheaper, all things considered. Another advantage of the design is its ability to support load following – i.e. to alter power output quickly as demand changes. As of now only some fossil fueled and hydroelectric plants have such an ability."

 

A complete technical description, accompanied by economic and safety rationales can be found at the company’s website :

 

http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf

[blackshoe]

Dr. Richard Betts of England's Met Office had this to say about Climate Models (he is a climate modeler and a Lead Author for the IPCC's WG2)

 

“…WE CAN’T PREDICT LONG-TERM RESPONSE OF THE CLIMATE TO ONGOING CO2 RISE WITH GREAT ACCURACY. IT COULD BE LARGE, IT COULD BE SMALL. WE DONT KNOW.”

 

“…CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY IS A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT POLICYMAKERS THINK CARRIES THE GREATER RISK IN THE FUTURE – DECARBONISING OR NOT DECARBONISING”

 

“THE OLD-STYLE ENERGY BALANCE MODELS GOT US THIS FAR”

 

“APART FROM A FEW WHO THINK THAT OBSERVATIONS OF A DECADE OR THREE OF SMALL FORCING CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TO INDICATE THE RESPONSE TO LONG-TERM LARGER FORCING WITH CONFIDENCE”

 

So, where do we send our tax dollars now?

That's easy. Send 'em to me. :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

That's easy. Send 'em to me. :lol:

 

It would have as much effect on the global temperature as where they are going now... :blink:

[Al_U_Card]

Well, if we REALLY need to cool off the planet, there is always steering that comet, that they are landing on in November, to the south pole, just like the one that apparently may have hit the Arctic ice-sheet Shine on, you crazy diamonds and caused the Younger-Dryas cooling... :ph34r: ;) :lol:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/younger_dryas_graph.jpg?w=720

[PassedOut]

Warming of the southern polar region is contributing to the rise in sea levels, of course, but an interesting new paper starts to establish the extent of it. This is from the BBC: Antarctic coastal waters 'rising faster'

 

Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds.

 

Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011.

 

Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually.

 

This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface.

 

"Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localised rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.

 

Globally, sea levels are going up, in part because of the contribution of the world's diminishing ice fields. This is well known.

 

But the Nature Geoscience report is the first to show the direct consequences to sea surface height (SSH) around Antarctica itself.

It will be interesting to learn how the increased freshwater from global warming is acting to increase the surface ice around Antarctica, thereby increasing the reflective surface of the southern seas, a mildly beneficial counterbalance.

[Al_U_Card]

I see your model and raise you this model...

 

Spence et al. 2014

 

Abstract

 

The southern hemisphere westerly winds have been strengthening and shifting poleward since the 1950s. This wind trend is projected to persist under continued anthropogenic forcing, but the impact of the changing winds on Antarctic coastal heat distribution remains poorly understood. Here we show that a poleward wind shift at the latitudes of the Antarctic Peninsula can produce an intense warming of subsurface coastal waters that exceeds 2 °C at 200-700 m depth. The model simulated warming results from a rapid advective heat flux induced by weakened near-shore Ekman pumping, and is associated with weakened coastal currents. This analysis shows that anthropogenically induced wind changes can dramatically increase the temperature of ocean water at ice sheet grounding lines and at the base of floating ice shelves around Antarctica, with potentially significant ramifications for global sea level rise.

 

Considering a "global" SLR of about 2 mm/yr, looking at what winds can do (on the order of 200 mm) this may not be a first order issue...

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/sea_level_mssh_2011-1993_300.png?w=960&h=591

[Al_U_Card]

Perspective

 

(Man-made? Global Warming.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpSlhGiHEQ