| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2007/5/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46684 Activity:very high |
5/17 Southern ocean saturated with CO2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html
"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of
this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through
2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this
really quite alarming."
\_ Which ironically shows how wrong this particular scientific model
is. It's amazing how time after time these models prove wrong,nd
yet no one is connecting the dots.
\_ By "amazing", I assume you mean "how science works"... Their
models are turning out to be far too conservative. The irony
is in the claims of alarmism..
is in the claims of alarmism.. --scotsman
\_ I at least am quite familiar with how science works. My last
job (just departed) was in scientific simulation. In
particular of simulation of radiation interaction with human
tissue for oncology. And if my models were more than 3% off,
it was completely unacceptable. Yet in the latest IPCC
report, the estimate for ocean rise is dramatically less than
it was in the previous one. Furthermore, if your results are
wrong, it means you have a broken model, and you fundamentally
can't make reasonable predictions with a broken model. -emarkp
\_ Are you going to dig up Jewish corpses full time? How
much are your CORBA payments?
\_ So... If your models were 3% off, it was unacceptable and..
what? You ran more experiments? You changed your model?
Or you said "Well shit, I guess that proves that radiation
has no effect on cancerous tissue"? --scotsman
\_ The doctors would threaten to throw our software out the
window. -emarkp
\_ So, another parallel that isn't... --scotsman
\_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp
\_ I posit that you are unconvinceable, since no
model will ever be accurate enough for you.
\_ You're wrong. My belief in climate started
with skepticism, moved to acceptance (even of
anthropgenic warming), then back to skepticism
of man's cause, and now I simply don't believe
there is warming. All of those changes in my
interpretation have come from my own
investigation of the data. -emarkp
\_ Have you checked out the Stern report?
The expected cost of even the conservative
scenarios where AGW is real far far
exceeds the cost of doing something about
it. Why is normal risk analysis thrown
out the window only in this case?
\_ Odd, I never see risk analysis on this,
it's typically, "don't you want to help
the earth"? -emarkp
\_ You aren't looking very hard at all.
Google "stern report global warming"
\_ Oh yeah, that looks fun. A 645
page report. No thanks. -emarkp
\_ Odd. You say, "I never see
risk analysis." Then you
are presented with a very
prominent peice of risk
analysis, and declare that
you won't read it.
\_ 645 pages?!? Sorry no. I
looked into it and it looks
pretty sketchy. In
particular, the claim
summarized is that it would
cost 1% GDP to prevent the
problems of GW, but 20% if we
don't stop it. Skimming the
first chapter it seems just a
rehash of previous claims.
Considering Kyoto wasn't
going to solve anything and
cost a ton, I simply don't
buy this. And what does it
claim about China and India?
-emarkp
(Oh and then I find this on
the wiki:
Professor Richard Tol, an environmental economist and
lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), said that "If a student of mine were to
hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I
were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for
diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for
fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics
mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of
Economics simply should not make. (...) Stern
consistently picks the most pessimistic for every
choice that one can make. He overestimates through
cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks
and he underestimates what development and adaptation
will do to impacts.")
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm
\_ Please don't buy the Green hype;
there are plenty of selfish reasons
to want head off AGW. Unless, of
course, you're buying real estate on
high ground in the hopes of owning a
future beach house.
\_ I'm more interested in clean air.
Quit the crap about CO2 and let's
get rid of brown air. -emarkp
\_ a.k.a. air with the mark of cain
\_ a.k.a. air with the Mark of Cain
\_ What sources led you to your disbelief?
\_ Says the man that believes in Joseph Smith's magic plates.
\_ I'm not proposing them as a scientific theory. -emarkp
\_ You know, they keep changing their predictions for
earthquakes in the Bay Area, too, but somehow I'm willing
to believe that there will be one in the future. -tom
\_ But if they predicted one tomorrow, which didn't happen,
and the day after, which didn't happen, and then in one
year (and there was one in 6 months), would you believe
them if they predicted one on a certain date? -emarkp
\_ Your suggested parallel isn't. --scotsman
\_ It's a bit closer than tom's, but hey, like I
care. -emarkp
\_ it's been well established that you don't care
about reality. -tom
\_ hah! Nice troll tom. Go back to your cage.
-emarkp
\_ Tom may be a troll, but it appears that
anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
\_ No, people who post anonymously but
call me out by name are trolls.
-emarkp
\_ I didn't post anonymously or call
you out. -tom
\_ JUST A NATURAL CYCLE!!!!! GIVE ME MY HUMMER BACK!!!!!!!!1!!!!
\_ You may find http://realclimate.org helpful. |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html Most Popular | * Study: Southern Ocean saturated with CO2 Story Highlights Southern Ocean around Antarctica loaded with carbon dioxide Human activity is the main culprit, according to researchers Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon Research indicates it has been saturated with CO2 since the 1980s Adjust font size: Decrease font Decrease font Enlarge font Enlarge font WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday. Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming. The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain. "We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming. The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s. This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere said. Increased winds over the last half-century are to blame for the change, Le Quere said. These winds blend the carbon dioxide throughout the Southern Ocean, mixing the naturally occurring carbon that usually stays deep down with the human-caused carbon. When natural carbon is brought up to the surface by the winds, it is harder for the Southern Ocean to accommodate more human-generated carbon, which comes from factories, coal-fired power plants and petroleum-powered motor vehicle exhaust. The winds themselves are caused by two separate human factors. First, the human-spawned ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Ocean has created large changes in temperature throughout the atmosphere, Le Quere said. Second, the uneven nature of global warming has produced higher temperatures in the northern parts of the world than in the south, which has also made the winds accelerate in the Southern Ocean. "Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement. "The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern," Rapley said. Another sign of warming in the Antarctic was reported Tuesday by NASA, which found vast areas of snow melted on the southern continent in 2005 in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface. Both sides have problems with immigration plan The bipartisan immigration bill that could allow citizenship to an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States will run into bipartisa ... |
| news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm The Investigation When the Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change came out last year, it was showered with praise. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called it, "the most important report on the future ever published by this government". But expert critics of the review now claim that it overestimates the risk of severe global warming, and underestimates the cost of acting to stop it. The message from the report's chief author, the economist Sir Nicholas Stern, was simple: if we did nothing about climate change, it would cost us the equivalent of at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. This point was emphasised at the report's launch by Mr Blair who warned we would see the disastrous consequences of climate change - not in some science fiction future, but in our lifetimes. But if you read the report in detail, that is not what it actually says. The 5% damage to global GDP figure will not happen for well over one hundred years, according to Stern's predictions. And the review certainly does not forecast disastrous consequences in our lifetimes. These critics are not climate change sceptics, but researchers with years of experience who believe that human-induced climate change is real and that we need to act now. If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail Prof Richard Tol Richard Tol is a professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world's leading environmental economists. "If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; "There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make," he told The Investigation on BBC Radio 4 At the core of the Stern Review is an economic comparison between the damage caused by climate change with the costs of cutting our greenhouse gases. Professor Tol believes the figures for damage are exaggerated. "Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts," he said. The review suggests this will cost only 1% of GDP but according to Yale University Economist Robert Mendelsohn, this is far too optimistic and the figure could easily be much higher. Download the reader here But it is not just economists who have found fault with the Stern Review; Next week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release its fourth report. It is designed to be the authoritative statement on the state of global warming science. Anyone expecting to see the scary figures of the Stern report repeated is going to be disappointed. The predictions in the IPCC report will be significantly lower. For instance, the Stern review comes up with a figure for temperature increase by 2050 of 2-3 degrees, whereas the IPCC says this will probably not happen until the end of the century. Professor Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, believes that when the IPCC report comes out next week, there will be a big difference between the science it contains and the climate debate in the UK. it's not going to talk about the next ice age because the Gulf Stream collapses; and it's going to have none of the economics of the Stern Review," he said. "It's almost as if a credibility gap has emerged between what the British public thinks and what the international science community think." Building debate When we put this comment to Sir Nicholas Stern, he replied: "The IPCC is a good process but it does depend on consensus and it means that they have to be quite cautious in what they say. "We were able to look to the evidence and use it in a very particular way, to look at the economics of risk." Chaotic world of climate truth Sir Nicholas is aware of the increasing number of academic critiques of his review, but remains certain about his conclusions. a number of people have raised interesting points and we will be discussing them all. but the broad conclusion that the costs of action are a good deal less than the damages they save, I think is pretty robust." None of Stern's critics are advocating doing nothing about climate change. What they disagree about is how much it is worth sacrificing now to try to prevent a worst-case scenario in a hundred years' time. |
| realclimate.org Climate Science -- group @ 12:45 pm Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes. Gray's paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton's State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern. documentary on the possible over-selling of climate change, focussed on the link between high profile papers appearing in Nature or Science, the press releases and the subsequent press coverage. The press coverage of the paper mostly picked up on the very high end sensitivities (up to 11-oC) and often confused the notion of an equilibirum sensitivity with an actual prediction for 2100 and this lead to some pretty way-out headlines. I think all involved would agree that this was not a big step forward in the public understanding of science. Is it because the scientists were being 'alarmist', or was it more related to a certain naivety in how public relations and the media work? And more importantly, what can scientists do to help ensure that media coverage is a fair reflection of their work? The Big Burp Theory of the Apocalypse (TimesSelect subscription required), which appeared in the New York Times of 18 April. This column is built around the possibility of a catastrophic methane release from marine clathrate decomposition, but at heart it is really a lament that the more conventional and better understood harms of global warming have not proved sufficient to get the attention of the White House or Congress. This column is a refreshing change from the recent spate of backlash columns by Will, Novak and Lindzen attempting to tar climate scientists with the "a****mist" epithet. Dave Archer's RealClimate article on clathrates, and it shows in the Kristof's sound discussion of the basic science. He is very clear on why a clathrate catastrophe would be a bad thing, but equally clear about the uncertainties. The column even contains an intelligent discussion of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as a possible example of a clathrate catastrophe. taking care to point out that this event might not, in fact, have been caused by methane release. Quite a lot to get in a short column, while still managing to achieve a lively style that surely keeps the readers awake. Perhaps closest to our hearts is Kristof's cogently stated theme that uncertainty is in the nature of the science, and is no excuse for inaction -- indeed should be a spur to greater action. "The White House has used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for its paralysis. But our leaders are supposed to devise policies to protect us even from threats that are difficult to assess precisely -- and climate change should be considered even more menacing than a nuclear-armed Iran." He concludes, "The best reason for action on global warming remains the basic imperative to safeguard our planet in the face of uncertainty, and our leaders are failing wretchedly in that responsibility." Kristof is a 2006 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Some of this solar energy is reflected back out to space and this cooling effect is believed to have counteracted part of the greenhouse gas warming. The original version of the film focused mainly on the observational recognition of global dimming, but one aspect did not receive much attention in the film - namely the oft-claimed lack of global dimming in climate models. This led some to assume that climate modelers were ignoring air pollution other than greenhouse gases emissions from fossil fuel burning. Another implication was that climate models are not capable of adequately simulating the transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere and the role of clouds, sunlight extinction of aerosols and aerosol effects on clouds etc, and therefore model projections should not be trusted. The NOVA version will address this issue more prominently by adding an interview with Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Along this line, I'd like to elaborate on aerosols in climate models in more detail. It deserves to be more widely seen, so here it is again. I would say that the central flaw in the op-ed is a logical one: if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual pursuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty. previously pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever that 'alarmism' improves anyone's chances of getting funded - if anything it is continued uncertainty that propels funding decisions, and secondly, the idea that there is a conspiracy against contrarian scientists is laughable. There is indeed a conspiracy against poor science, but there is no need to apologise for that! But rather than repeat ourselves once again, we thought we'd just sit back this time and allow our readers to comment... Greenhouse gases -- rasmus @ 1:22 pm by Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert Venus Express will make unprecedented studies of the largely unkown phenomena taking place in the Venusian atmosphere. European Space Agency (ESA) mission to probe the the atmosphere of Venus and address questions regarding the differences between the climates on Venus and Earth. According to the plans, the probe will enter the final orbit around Venus in May 2006, ie within about a month. Primarily, Venus offers scientists the chance to see how the same basic physics used to study Earth's climate operates under a very different set of circumstances. rather similar to Earth: it has nearly the same mass as Earth, and while its orbit is somewhat closer to the Sun, that effect is more than made up for by the sunlight reflected from Venus' thick cloud cover. Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere. "false objectivity of balance", ie the tendency for many journalists to treat scientific issues--for which differing positions often do not have equal merit-- in the same "he said, she said" manner they might treat a story on policy or politics. This approach can appear balanced, but it leaves it to the reader to figure out on their own which position is most likely correct. However, the reader is rarely as well equipped as the writer to determine the bottom line, and in practice this plays into the hands of those who might seek to confuse the public through clever disinformation campaigns. Thankfully, some journalists "get it", and take the time (and effort) to assess where the balance of evidence really lies and report it accordingly. Climate Science -- gavin @ 11:45 am One of the nice things about a being a scientist is that you c... |