|
If it is ultimately born out to be true, a staggeringly important blog post (it is updating data from peer-reviewed papers): http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/ Nic Lewis plugged in brand new estimates of aerosol forcing into their paper, and the long-tails are completely eliminated. TCR is now estimated to be 1.21C with a 5-95% of .75-1.65(!!). TCR, one measure of climate sensitivity, is the temperature change at the point of time when CO2 has doubled. If TCR is 1.21, and starting with 2015, CO2 would have to increase to 800 ppm to see temperature increase of 1.2C and 1600 ppm to see temperature increase of 2.4C. I personally think 800ppm is all but impossible, because of the speed at which we're developing alternate energies, so if climate sensitivity is indeed this low, the alarmist scenarios pretty much get thrown out the window. Awesome news. The schadenfreude if climate sensitivity is this low will be a source of enjoyment for decades to come. edit: wrote TCS, meant TCR Arkane fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 22, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
What schadenfreude? Who on earth would possibly be mad if climate change weren't as bad as predicted? Also  "alternative energy that liberals have been pushing for decades might be more effective than we thought, haha take that liberals!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:He can't show his face since his "pause" "ended" (2014 having been the new warmest year on record), and especially since this: The pause/hiatus is not over by any stretch of the imagination. If it is being driven by the oceans (as the current science now speculates), it could last for another decade+.  As to the link you posted....no idea why people get excited about arctic sea ice. It is a giant ice cube floating on the ocean that waxes and wanes. People use it as some sort of proxy for planetary destruction. It is certainly plausible that we had ice-free summers in the MWP and various other points of time in the interglacial. And this isn't exactly a hard leap considering Greenland certainly had less ice than it did today in the MWP. Did we survive through that? Worrying about glacial melt at least makes logical sense. So worry about that instead. It's way too slow to matter to anyone, but at least it is more productive than arctic sea ice worries. VitalSigns posted:What schadenfreude? Who on earth would possibly be mad if climate change weren't as bad as predicted? Are we reading the same thread? There are tons of people all-in on this politically. People who get really angry when it is suggested that the apocalypse might not be on its way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
No but you see those things will take jobs from the hardworking people in the traditional fuel industries.  I kid of course but chances are people actually do believe this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Nic Lewis plugged in brand new estimates of aerosol forcing into their paper, and the long-tails are completely eliminated. TCS is now estimated to be 1.21C with a 5-95% of .75-1.65(!!). TCS, one measure of climate sensitivity, is the temperature change at the point of time when CO2 has doubled. The global mean temperature rose by +0.85ºC from 1880 to 2012 while CO2 rose by an estimated 103.02ppm. Also, you perhaps didn't read this from the previous page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:And this isn't exactly a hard leap considering Greenland certainly had less ice than it did today in the MWP. No. People are annoyed when others misrepresent science, pull bullshit, and act like everything is hunky-dory when we see literally right now across the world what appears to be the effects of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:If we weren't hosed, everyone would rejoice. I don't understand this skeptic notion that people who buy into AGW would be upset if it weren't happening. To be clear, it is happening, just slowly. And yes the logical thing would be to rejoice, so it is interesting that people ignore the hiatus/pause (which itself would imply we have sensitivity wrong -- and thus our models), people ignore the studies which are seemingly figuring out why we have sensitivity wrong and pointing to a likely lower range, and people continue to give the false impression that we're somehow increasing natural disasters via CO2 emissions. I mean you had VICE a week or two ago imply that the Earth was about to be drowned by Antarctic ice melt. Showing images of much of Florida underwater. I've read that paper before, and I watched that episode having a good idea of what they were going to discuss. What was so disingenuous about that piece is they excluded the time-scales. The paper they discussed indeed predicts a collapse of a large amount of WAIS, but it will take centuries. There is such a political element to this debate that the science gets lost in the shuffle. So would there be people who would reject the science if it were pointing to an okay future? Yup, and this thread is a testament to that. Evil_Greven posted:The global mean temperature rose by +0.85ºC from 1880 to 2012 while CO2 rose by an estimated 103.02ppm. Also, you perhaps didn't read this from the previous page. The pre-1940 temperature changes had virtually nothing to do with CO2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Greenland having less ice during the Medieval Warming Period is an interesting notion. Care to support it? We have anthropological evidence in the form of Viking settlements. Greenland was likely as warm as today, if not warmer, in 800-1000 AD (which would coincide with Viking settlements which began near 1000 AD): http://pages-igbp.org/download/docs/newsletter/2011-1/Vinther_2011-1%2827%29.pdf Conversely, you can see that temperature began to drop, which would serve to expand the ice cover, and render those colonies unlivable (again supported by historical evidence). And fwiw, glacial cover was definitely much lower 3000 years ago: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/11/033.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
I don't know why we even have the IPCC when Nic Lewis (B.S., Mathematics) has already cracked the case. Wrap it up IPCCailures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I don't know why we even have the IPCC when Nic Lewis (B.S., Mathematics) has already cracked the case. Wrap it up IPCCailures. You act as if Lewis/Curry is the only one finding lower ranges for climate sensitivity. And we both know they're not. It is becoming more and more obvious at this point that we have sensitivity too high. Any dummy looking at the model/observation mismatch can see there might be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:As to the link you posted....no idea why people get excited about arctic sea ice. It is a giant ice cube floating on the ocean that waxes and wanes. People use it as some sort of proxy for planetary destruction. It is certainly plausible that we had ice-free summers in the MWP and various other points of time in the interglacial. And this isn't exactly a hard leap considering Greenland certainly had less ice than it did today in the MWP. Did we survive through that? Because ice reflects light and there's a lot more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now. C'mon man, those arguments are bad, even for you. Arkane posted:You act as if Lewis/Curry is the only one finding lower ranges for climate sensitivity. And we both know they're not. Then stop citing Lewis and start citing more credible experts. What about that concept is difficult for you to grasp? Arkane posted:With respect, I don't think you know enough about this topic to say which arguments are bad. Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Because ice reflects light and there's a lot more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now. C'mon man, those arguments are bad, even for you. The albedo is likely to be regulated by cloud cover: http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf With respect, I don't think you know enough about this topic to say which arguments are bad. Hello Sailor posted:Then stop citing Lewis and start citing more credible experts. Why on earth would I (or anyone) stop citing a peer-reviewed paper that is certain to be included in the next IPCC report, a paper that shows low climate sensitivity? lol @ "more credible experts"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Guys, Greenland was warm once therefore it being warm now PROVES there's no such thing as man made climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Guys, Greenland was warm once therefore it being warm now PROVES there's no such thing as man made climate change. Yup I definitely said that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You act as if Lewis/Curry is the only one finding lower ranges for climate sensitivity. And we both know they're not. I'm confused, does this contradict AR5? AR5 gives a range from 1C to 2.5C TCR, and this estimate falls within that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I mean you had VICE a week or two ago imply that the Earth was about to be drowned by Antarctic ice melt. Showing images of much of Florida underwater. I've read that paper before, and I watched that episode having a good idea of what they were going to discuss. What was so disingenuous about that piece is they excluded the time-scales. The paper they discussed indeed predicts a collapse of a large amount of WAIS, but it will take centuries. Vice, whose basis of existence is to present controversial or otherwise exciting subjects, is hardly a good youtube channel/e-zine to criticize if you want to attack science. Anthropogenic CO2e pre-1940 had a more significant climate forcing effect than the last equal volume of CO2e that we emitted. I'm not going to add the figures up year by year, but if you visually integrate this chart, it looks like pre-1940 CO2 made up about 1/8 of our total output, which is a lot.  If you want to discard pre-1940, then, from 1950, at least, the correlation (and causation, incidentally) of increasing CO2e and global temperature is even more striking. Arkane posted:The pause/hiatus is not over by any stretch of the imagination. If it is being driven by the oceans (as the current science now speculates), it could last for another decade+. The "pause" never existed. Have you forgotten this graph?  And how can you claim that "current science speculates" something, if you reject almost all of the current climate science concensus? Edit: accidental leaching. Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I'm confused, does this contradict AR5? AR5 gives a range from 1C to 2.5C TCR, and this estimate falls within that. Their estimate has a dramatically lower range compared to AR5. 1-2.5C is the 17-83% range. The corresponding figure from Lewis' update is .9-1.45 as the 17-83% range. So the "tail' risk has been reduced significantly, and the tail numbers are generally what you hear about in terms of warming ("up to 4C of warming by 2100", etc.).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Arkane posted:And this isn't exactly a hard leap considering Greenland certainly had less ice than it did today in the MWP. Did we survive through that? The quantity of ice that Greenland had hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to our immediate future, which is determined partly by the rate of ice loss today. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/new-satellite-maps-reveal-hidden-intricacies-of-greenland-ice-loss-and-sea-level-rise/ Note: typo in the opening paragraph: it should be 4mm not 4cm. "Between 2003 and 2009, Greenland lost about 243 billion tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.68 millimetres to sea levels annually" That's not isostatic sea ice - it's glacial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Vice, whose basis of existence is to present controversial or otherwise exciting subjects, is hardly a good youtube channel/e-zine to criticize if you want to attack science. I was highlighting the fact that Vice presented a study out of context to make it scarier, as an example of political views clouding the science. Placid Marmot posted:The "pause" never existed. Have you forgotten this graph? The pause/hiatus is a widely discussed issue in the scientific community (especially trying to figure out why). It's pretty much only a "fake" thing in the non-science realm, such as this thread. Placid Marmot posted:Anthropogenic CO2e pre-1940 had a more significant climate forcing effect than the last equal volume of CO2e that we emitted. I'm not going to add the figures up year by year, but if you visually integrate this chart, it looks like pre-1940 CO2 made up about 1/8 of our total output, which is a lot. Not sure what it is you think that I believe, but it doesn't look correct. Temperature change is usually broken up into pre- and post- industrial for a reason. Natural forces almost certainly swamped out human effects before we started emitting CO2 in large amounts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not sure what it is you think that I believe, but it doesn't look correct. I quoted you. Pre-1940 is not pre-industrial. As you can see on the graph that I posted, and as I stated, about 1/8 (est) of all our CO2 output was pre-1940. Your statement that "Natural forces almost certainly swamped out human effects before we started emitting CO2" is not only hilariously tautological (and doubly hilarious since you express uncerainty about whether natural forces were much greater than human effects before human effects existed), but suggests your belief that CO2 is a driver of climate change, despite that you so love to play down any possible link.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
 I stopped reading after the long tails disappearing, but the replies are always entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Pre-1940 is not pre-industrial. As you can see on the graph that I posted, and as I stated, about 1/8 (est) of all our CO2 output was pre-1940. I don't know if the graph you posted is accurate. The observatory at Mauna Loa started measuring CO2 concentration in ~1960 and it was ~315ppm, increasing at ~1ppm per year initially. Pre-industrial is identified as 280ppm. 1940 was probably somewhere in the area of 300ppm (which would be .7ppm per year 1940-1960). The pre-1940 increase in CO2 was likely to be negligible: 20ppm (280->300ppm) spread out over 200 years. And it makes sense, because economies were much smaller, energy demands were smaller, the Great Depression, etc. So to tie that back to what was being posted...it is disingenuous to point to pre-1940 temperature rise as CO2-driven. CO2 would have a negligible effect. Placid Marmot posted:Your statement that "Natural forces almost certainly swamped out human effects before we started emitting CO2" is not only hilariously tautological (and doubly hilarious since you express uncerainty about whether natural forces were much greater than human effects before human effects existed), but suggests your belief that CO2 is a driver of climate change, despite that you so love to play down any possible link. I don't think you read many (any) of my posts given what you think my positions are. Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I don't know if the graph you posted is accurate. The observatory at Mauna Loa started measuring CO2 concentration in ~1960 and it was ~315ppm, increasing at ~1ppm per year initially. Pre-industrial is identified as 280ppm. 1940 was probably somewhere in the area of 300ppm (which would be .7ppm per year 1940-1960). The graph is from the same data as this, which is based on fossil fuel consumption. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg It's pretty disingenuous to term pre-1940 emissions as "spread out over 200 years", for the same reason that you term pre-1940 emissions negligible themselves; for the first half of that time period, annual emissions really were negligible. Multiple measurements that agree with Mauna Loa show a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 from around 1900, and, as everyone knows, each new CO2 molecule that we produce has a lesser warming effect than the previous - that is, a 1900 era CO2 increase of 1ppm had a greater warming effect than each 1ppm today. As for your positions, the last graph that you posted specifically states that the effect of CO2 is overestimated, as I said in my last reply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I was highlighting the fact that Vice presented a study out of context to make it scarier, as an example of political views clouding the science. I never address you becauses lol what's the point but, No, You were using a vice documentary to try and prove that posters in this thread would be upset if climate change never ended up happening. You slimy piece of poo poo. Durr people tell me to gently caress off when I tell them science isn't real ergo they must be an apocalypse cult. For my next trick I'll poo poo my pants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I mean you had VICE a week or two ago imply that the Earth was about to be drowned by Antarctic ice melt. Showing images of much of Florida underwater. I've read that paper before, and I watched that episode having a good idea of what they were going to discuss. What was so disingenuous about that piece is they excluded the time-scales. The paper they discussed indeed predicts a collapse of a large amount of WAIS, but it will take centuries. But yes Vice does present it as all very dour and grim, because it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The graph is from the same data as this, which is based on fossil fuel consumption. It didn't say the effect of CO2 is overestimated, it said that the sensitivity of the earth's climate to CO2 increases could be exaggerated, because climate models failed to fully account for natural forces (such as, from high-profile papers published in the past year, changes in the Atlantic and the Pacific...and the recent papers on aerosols and albedo). We know climate's response to CO2; it is almost exactly 1C per doubling. The question is any amplifying or dampening effects. And based on the study that I posted (that has been updated this week to reflect a new study into aerosol forcing), the range is much lower than the IPCC (and IPCC climate models) assume. As far as 1940, we're veering away from the post I was responding to/point I was making, which is that this statement: quote:The global mean temperature rose by +0.85ºC from 1880 to 2012 while CO2 rose by an estimated 103.02ppm. is a bit deceiving, since the 1880-1940 temperature fluctuations had very little to do with CO2 because we barely emitted any. Do you disagree with that? If not, and I am guessing you don't, then I don't get the point of what you're arguing about here. katlington posted:I never address you becauses lol what's the point but, No, You were using a vice documentary to try and prove that posters in this thread would be upset if climate change never ended up happening. You slimy piece of poo poo. You're frothing at the mouth over me pointing to a Vice episode as an example of political opinions skewing science? Might be time to calm down a little. unlimited shrimp posted:I just watched the episode Friday night and Vice is very forthright throughout that the timescales are large, citing the year 2100 at one point. It was honest enough that I remember thinking, "If you frame the large-scale impacts as occurring gradually over decades or generations then how are they planning on convincing climate deniers today that there's an immediate problem?" They even have Obama's quote about ours being the first generation to feel the effects of climate change, and the last generation to stop it. Implying this is a generational problem. This is kinda case in point. 2100 is still way too soon, so if you came away with that impression it is not at all scientifically accurate. We're talking hundreds of years for the WAIS glaciers they discussed to cause meaningful sea level rise. It is an incredibly slow motion collapse. Antarctica is currently losing ice at a rate of .01cm of sea level rise per year, if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It didn't say the effect of CO2 is overestimated, it said that the sensitivity of the earth's climate to CO2 increases could be exaggerated. These are exactly the same, just worded differently. When someone says "the effect of CO2", they mean the result of a given change on the Earth's climate; this is implicit. "The result of a given change on the Earth's climate" is no different from "the sensitivity of the Earth's climate" - they are just in different units. You did not get around to answering why you accept this paper that supports your view, while rejecting the rest of climate science. quote:As far as 1940, we're veering away from the post I was responding to/point I was making, which is that this statement: The post accurately stated the correlation of CO2 concentration and global temperature. As I ALREADY replied to you, if you take out pre-1940, this correlation is even more striking. 1880-1940 represents upwards of 90% of pre-1940 emissions, which, as I ALREADY said to you, is about 1/8 of emissions to date (approx), which is not insignificant. quote:This is kinda case in point. 2100 is still way too soon, so if you came away with that impression it is not at all scientifically accurate. We're talking hundreds of years for the WAIS glaciers they discussed to cause meaningful sea level rise. It is an incredibly slow motion collapse. Antarctica is currently losing ice at a rate of .01cm of sea level rise per year, if I recall correctly. As I linked to you just a few posts ago (you didn't have a response), Greenland ALONE is (2003-2009) raising sea levels by SEVEN times your poorly-recalled figure for the whole of Antarctica. The 03-09 average land ice loss for Greenland was 243 billion tonnes, while the 10-13 average for Antarctica was 160 billion tonnes; at 1mm of sea level rise per year per 360 billion tonnes of land ice, that makes 0.675mm per year for Greenland and 0.44mm per year for Antarctica, which, sure enough, is four and a half times your claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:These are exactly the same, just worded differently. When someone says "the effect of CO2", they mean the result of a given change on the Earth's climate; this is implicit. "The result of a given change on the Earth's climate" is no different from "the sensitivity of the Earth's climate" - they are just in different units. It's not at all the same. There are numerous feedbacks, including cloud cover, water vapor, albedo, etc., which are rolled into climate sensitivity estimates that extend beyond carbon dioxide concentrations. The note on the graph concludes that they likely underestimate natural forces (including specifically the role that the oceans play). Placid Marmot posted:The post accurately stated the correlation of CO2 concentration and global temperature. As I ALREADY replied to you, if you take out pre-1940, this correlation is even more striking. There is correlation post-1940; pre-1940 there is virtually no correlation (in fact you can see rapid warming to 1940 that had nothing to do with CO2 levels, and probably much more to do with some sort of natural recovery from the little ice age). Placid Marmot posted:As I linked to you just a few posts ago (you didn't have a response), Greenland ALONE is (2003-2009) raising sea levels by SEVEN times your poorly-recalled figure for the whole of Antarctica. The 03-09 average land ice loss for Greenland was 243 billion tonnes, while the 10-13 average for Antarctica was 160 billion tonnes; at 1mm of sea level rise per year per 360 billion tonnes of land ice, that makes 0.675mm per year for Greenland and 0.44mm per year for Antarctica, which, sure enough, is four and a half times your claim. I wasn't far off...here are the GRACE estimates from last year: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13005797 About .16mm/year or .016cm per year. The rate of increase in ice mass in East Antarctica and the rate of decrease in WAIS both appear to be accelerating, but it's a very small observation window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I wasn't far off...here are the GRACE estimates from last year: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13005797 About .16mm/year or .016cm per year. The rate of increase in ice mass in East Antarctica and the rate of decrease in WAIS both appear to be accelerating, but it's a very small observation window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
For those of you who were asking for it, is this really better than kid-chat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Yeah I also hate science in science threads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:
Nobody is frothing at anything. You're a disingenuous piece of poo poo because you pointed to it as an example of people wanting to accept climate change is real out of an apocalyptical desire and who would deny accepted science if it ever swung against them. Arkane posted:
It's the laziest and most transparent bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Yeah I also hate science in science threads. There's a huge difference between discussing the science behind climate change and retreading the same old poo poo year after year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I'll assume the climate scientist in Antarctica wasn't making things up when he said there is a fundamental difference between east Antarctica gaining seasonal sea ice and west Antarctica losing glacial ice. I don't remember that, so I can't say. One way that we measure Antarctic ice cover is with the GRACE satellite and that paper I linked contains the results (which pretty easy to read graphs that show the differences in the eastern and western half of the continent).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I'll assume the climate scientist in Antarctica wasn't making things up when he said there is a fundamental difference between east Antarctica gaining seasonal sea ice and west Antarctica losing glacial ice. This is an important point. Seasonal sea ice extent is driven in part by snowfall levels. Snowfall, in turn depends on the amount of water vapor present in the air, which itself depends on air temperature. Warmer air is much better at holding water vapor than colder air, so a small increase in polar air temperatures--especially in the much colder Antarctic--can result in increased snowfall during the winter months. This can give the illusion that the ice cap is growing when it isn't; the vast majority of ice is below the surface of the water, and it is that ice which is eroding due to warmer temperatures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
katlington posted:Nobody is frothing at anything. You're a disingenuous piece of poo poo because you pointed to it as an example of people wanting to accept climate change is real out of an apocalyptical desire and who would deny accepted science if it ever swung against them. Yes I think it is a great example of fetishizing climate outcomes for political ends. Another example would be duck monster's posts in this thread. Paraphrasing one of his posts, "the hiatus doesn't exist because it is getting warmer in Australia." I mean if you're telling me that people aren't completely committed to climate change bringing an apocalypse, I'd say click on page 1 of this thread, buckle up/secure all small children, and then start reading. And you still sound really angry for some reason. Did I insult your mother at some point or something? Uranium Phoenix posted:There's a huge difference between discussing the science behind climate change and retreading the same old poo poo year after year. I dunno man...I think there have been a lot of exciting advancements/papers in climate over the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I don't remember that, so I can't say. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/08/3577610/antarctic-sea-ice-record/ tl;dr Sea ice represents the freezing and unfreezing of ocean waters. It's the same as freezing and unfreezing a glass of water. Melting land ice is the equivalent of adding more water to that glass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It's not at all the same. There are numerous feedbacks, including cloud cover, water vapor, albedo, etc., which are rolled into climate sensitivity estimates that extend beyond carbon dioxide concentrations. The note on the graph concludes that they likely underestimate natural forces (including specifically the role that the oceans play). You stated "the sensitivity of the earth's climate to CO2 increases could be exaggerated". Cloud cover, water vapor, albedo and etc. are altered by temperature, not CO2. You still have not got around to explaining why this one paper is right and almost all climate scientists are wrong. quote:There is correlation post-1940; pre-1940 there is virtually no correlation (in fact you can see rapid warming to 1940 that had nothing to do with CO2 levels, and probably much more to do with some sort of natural recovery from the little ice age). How do these graphs - from 1905, at least (before which we can both agree that human CO2 emissions were minor, at just a few percent of current total emissions) - not show a correlation?   quote:I wasn't far off...here are the GRACE estimates from last year: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13005797 About .16mm/year or .016cm per year. The rate of increase in ice mass in East Antarctica and the rate of decrease in WAIS both appear to be accelerating, but it's a very small observation window. That paper gives a rate for the whole of Antarctica of -58gT per year, accelerating by -15gT per year, yet you saw fit to mention the accelerating increase in East Antarctic ice mass with equal weight as the accelerating decrease in West Antarctic. Can you not see how dishonest this is? In any case, the -58gT figure for 2003-2012 agrees with this 2005-10 paper http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183, whose authors' more recent paper, utilizing the best new satellite, shows a more than doubling of ice loss per year in the 2010-13 period compared to 2005-10 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183, resulting in treble the GRACE sea level increase estimate. Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:To refresh your memory: Yeah...what I posted doesn't have to do with sea ice. East antarctica is gaining ice mass on the land (and west antarctica is losing sea ice).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 04:35
|
|