Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[dlorde]

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."

Yes, it's not reasonable to explain individual weather events in such a generic way, although I think it would be reasonable to say it is consistent with AGW (for what it's worth).

 

[Trakar]

"On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57469878/noaa-links-extreme-weather-to-climate-change/

'The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

'NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made.'

I can't find these specific quotes on NOAA's site yet but it's great to finally have scientists making the connection between AGW and extreme weather events with much greater certainty.

Here's another great compilation by Peter Sinclair
Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives at Climate Denial Crock of the Week on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w&index=1&feature=plcp

I wonder how many times these people were virgins?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133843546/Study-Links-Extreme-Weather-And-Climate-Change

and wait a minute, aren't meteorologists climate scientists? well,...one can hope that they are, at the least, conversant in the basics to the degree that they don't sound idiots when they are speaking about climate issues.

"Is global warming responsible for a slow tornado season?" - http://www.examiner.com/article/is-global-warming-responsible-for-a-slow-tornado-season

 

[bit_pattern]

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."

True. But I don't see anyone making any such claim so not quite sure what your point is?

 

[Warmer1]

I wonder how many times these people were virgins?

That's great!

I tied to fact check Tom Karls statements at NOAA but missed checking the "first time" claim.

 

[Puppycow]

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Another stage in a rather sorry story. The primary problem is that iron isn't the only limitation on ocean fertility, and in much of it isn't the primary one. Now the idea's been reduced to ocean areas where eddies and upwelling make for "ideal conditions". Not the 70% of the planet surface originally envisaged, by a long chalk.

This will go further, I strongly suspect. Unlike the decline of SciAm, which I remember fondly as a first-class production.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, it's not reasonable to explain individual weather events in such a generic way, although I think it would be reasonable to say it is consistent with AGW (for what it's worth).

Oh course, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise; its just that with the hyperpartisan scrutiny and filtering that every casual press-release and media statement that a reporter can get their hands on now goes through, we really need to make sure that these researchers who are unaccustomed to such attentions pay very close attention to how they say what they say. To me, this is the largest change that has been wrought over the last decade. Researchers in any given field get used to discussing their work primarily amongst themselves. This means that at a casual level, they get out of the habit of properly qualifying and framing their discussion; there is a lot that "goes without saying." This is especially obvious when it is a young(ish) researcher who may have been included among authors on previous papers but is submitting the first paper in which they are primarily responsible for the write-up. Their involvement and personal enthusiasm for their work is difficult for them to contain. Their understanding of proper form is obvious, but it is often like watching the four-year olds some parents harness and leash in malls, they exist in an "orbital cloud" not some easily or intuitively confined pathway.

Being familar with the field in which I see such submitted papers, I generally understand "that which goes without saying," but when a young researcher in told to speak to a fact-checking journalist, there is a breakdown in the system. Reporters record verbatim and then attempt to translate into their paraphrased simplification via their own, often very general, academic understandings into something they believe will interest and be understandable to the popular masses. This then gets picked up by the various and often disparate advocate authors who add their distortions to the grapevine and we get articles like:

"Global warming 'may cause big chill'" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-201951/Global-warming-cause-big-chill.html

"Texas Heat Wave Caused By Global Warming, NASA's Hansen Says" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/texas-heat-wave-caused-by-global-warming_n_1244788.html

"Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness" - http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10810

The main point being that as proponents of rigorous science and proactive public policy action, it is incumbant upon us to hold ourselves, and those who are presenting the information which we seek to use to educate and inform the public and their governing representatives, to much higher standards. If we appear to be making the same types of uninformed and sloppy rhetorical mistakes as those who deny the science, then we really are no more than the flip-side of them. In that case, the faux parity that much of the media desires to present is deserved, and we can blame no one but ourselves.

 

[Trakar]

That's great!

I tied to fact check Tom Karls statements at NOAA but missed checking the "first time" claim.

I'm so glad you took this as I intended. I have no issue with the facts, but the manner in which the media is prone to presenting them, makes a lot of unneccessary work for all of us. That is time and energy that would be better spent developing and refining the scientific, technological and economic solutions neccessary to address AGW.

 

[Trakar]

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Still a lot of problems with geo-engineering concepts, I've little doubt that we are beyond the point where a smooth and non-disruptive transition away from fossil fuels can eliminate our concerns for the future. But until we transition away from fossil fuels, I'm not even sure projects like this would result in net positive carbon sequestration. Think of the fuel requirements to recover, process and transport/distribute the iron.

 

[BenBurch]

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Yeah, just heard that story. What I wonder is if there will be some knock-on effect we didn't anticipate?

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's something that might be useful when the old 'there's no consensus' canard get raised:

Vision Prize Results

Posted on 19 July 2012 by dana1981
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated below.

 

[BenBurch]

I've noticed that denialism is dying out. It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've noticed that denialism is dying out.

It may appear so, but consider

"Aestivation (from Latin aestas, summer, but also spelled "estivation" in the USA) is a state of animal dormancy,[1] characterized by inactivity and a lowered metabolic rate, that is entered in response to high temperatures and arid conditions"

in light of the fact that denialism is largely a North American phaenomenon. Come the boreal winter it may well emerge hale and hearty, and I fully expect to hear that Arctic sea-ice has recovered by Feb 2013. Prior to that there may be a record rate of re-freeze to report.

It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

Politically, the campaign seems to have moved on from AGW denial (leaving a skeleton crew) to a direct assault on alternative energy sources (the real targets all along). I doubt AGW will get much mention in the US elections, but incentives to alternative energy industries probably will (Romney against them, Obama not so much).

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not even sure projects like this would result in net positive carbon sequestration. Think of the fuel requirements to recover, process and transport/distribute the iron.

There could be more sustainable means:

Larger populations of whales would have produced more of this "bio-available" iron, leading to bigger phytoplankton and krill populations in turn, says Nicol.

"Allowing the great whales to recover will allow the system to slowly reset itself," he says. And this will ultimately increase the amount of CO2 that the Southern Ocean can sequester.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html

Save The Whales!

 

[Furcifer]

I've noticed that denialism is dying out. It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

You very well should have, after all "Denialism" has always been a strawman.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh dear , you are not understanding what I wrote again.
There is no confusion. These are two different topics (in English a new paragraph means a new topic)


Topic 1: The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused by the albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!)and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

Furcifer



First asked 3rd July 2012 (10 days and counting)
​

Topic 2: The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

Again, you're making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate. As anyone can tell you the weather fluctuates considerably from day to day and season to season.

 

[Furcifer]

The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

More accurately it's to what extent we're contributing. The fact is scientists are unsure.

 

[CapelDodger]

So says Stephen Nicol of the Australian Antarctic Division, based in Kingston, Tasmania, who has found "huge amounts of iron in whale poo".
[snip]
Nicol's team analysed 27 samples of faeces from four species of baleen whales.

That tells us all we need to know about life in Kingston, Tasmania. Anywhere you can form a team around whale-poop has to be seriously lacking in more conventional stimulations.

 

[DC]

You very well should have, after all "Denialism" has always been a strawman.

not at all. there are even people in denial of the greenhouse effect. there are also people in denial about warming trends, there are people in denial of physical properties of Co2 etc etc.
there are many levels of denial. but there are also people merely being skeptical.

 

[Reality Check]

Again, you're making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate.

Again you are making your own mistake of confusing Topic 1 with Topic 2. Maybe it is the 1 and 2 that you do not understand so here we go again!
I hope that I do not have to split this into 2 posts so that you can understand that the first topic is about weather and the second topic is about climate.

Topic about weather that does not mention climate change:
The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused bythe albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!) and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?

First asked 3rd July 2012 (21 days and counting)
​

Topic about climate change that does not mention weather:
The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

As anyone can tell you the weather fluctuates considerably from day to day and season to season.

Only a really ignorant person would not know this.
Luckily I do not claim that .
I claim what climate science backs up, that global warming will cause (and may already be causing) an increase in the frequency of the extreme ends of those fluctuations.
See for example: Public Perception of Climate Change and the New Climate Dice - Hansen (2011) (PDF)

Should the public be able to recognize that climate is changing, despite the notorious variability of weather and climate from day to day and year to year? We investigate how the probability of unusually warm seasons has changed in recent decades, with emphasis on summer, when changes are likely to have the greatest practical effects. We show that the odds of an unusually warm season have increased greatly over the past three decades, but also the shape of the frequency distribution has changed so as to enhance the likelihood of extreme events.