but we know there was no pre-existing ozone hole before the invention of CFCs and their use in industry
We most certainly do not. The ozon "hole" was discovered first time we looked (after a hypothesis was formed as to how CFCs could impact stratospheric ozone) and we have no data whatsoever as to how the concentration of ozone has fluctuated over history. Thus, we have no baseline to compare natural vs human sourced influence with.
(The report you link to does not contain any data on the subject)
CFCs have been produced and used since the 1930's. The first reliable ozone hole measurements were done in the early 1980's. The fact that there are natural sources of halogenated molecules now cast doubt on how causative the correlation with human created molecules is. A biological oceanic source in the pacific will likely oscillate with the PDO - a 60 year cycle.
I would prefer that we stop popping out new people at the present rate. will that happen? I doubt it.
The rise in population growth has been declining for decades. The UN median projection is that we will top out just below 10 billion around 2070 and then shrink.
The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.
Could you please source that statement? Since we've only recently discovered some of the natural sources it does surprise me that we would know anything about the ratio.
*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.
"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "
"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."
I can read it fine. It does not state what you claimed it did. Maybe you should read the links I've given (2 out of 3 to actual research papers) and then go and edit the wiki entry since it's not accurately reflecting current state of knowledge?
A scientist accepts findings contrary to his views. Religious acolytes don't. Choose which one you want to be.
(Your initial claim about Bronze and Roman warm periods being american "myths" has been thoroughly refuted)
The german article about the nordic bronce age is here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordische_Bronzezeit And this article clearly states that "a bronce age warmth period" is a rumour and lacks so far any evidence.
FYI, as a Swede I studied enough German in school to conclusively tell you that you're misrepresenting what the article is saying.
I'm quite sure you believe that. It's not true, however. Those warm periods are well documented not only in climate proxies but also in documented human history. As a Scandinavian, they're integral to our culture since those were the periods of prosperity.
You might want to ask yourself what has caused you to believe differently, and how the above information will change your beliefs now.
You're also wrong about Röde Viking and Greenland btw, and I suggest looking into the archeological dig around the frozen viking village for more insight.
My data set is my window. It's been hotter than hell.
[---] I'm sure you can cherry pick all sorts of graphs about the frequencies of particular types of storm events. Big deal.
See, I have issues with anecdotes as evidence. I'm also quite sure I don't do any cherry picking - I really want you to show me a dataset that indicated our current weather is unusual over long time scales. As for temperatures in the US, the 30s is a good match.
I'd suspect that this film has already been paid for (by Mojang) and that this way of distributing it is a toungue-in-cheek snarky way of making fun of the current asinine state of copyright law.
Considering the creator of Minecraft and founder of Mojang is a Pirate Party member I'm not sure how much toungue-in-cheek is needed.
There are indeed several indications that the sea level has been more than a foot higher in recent history:
If the port was bustling 2000 years ago it is reasonable to suppose that tidal access was less limited then than it is today-or was at least as good. Consequently the evidence suggests that in 350BC there was probably a little more water than exists today in order for it to be a worthwhile place to ship cargo from, and therefore current ocean volume (glacier melt and thermal expansion) is less now than then, to take into account the known land changes.
“The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into ill-prepared Roman territories.
The results indicate that during the Byzantine period, sea level at Caesarea was higher by about 30 cm than today. The Late Moslem and Crusader data shows greater fluctuations but the data sets are also much smaller than for the earlier periods.”
Wave-cut notches along the seaward shoreline confirm a site-specific rheological model for the northern the Red Sea that indicates a sea-level highstand (~1 m above present MHW) during or immediately prior to occupation.... etc.
I live in Scandinavia and as far as we're concerned the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were warmer than we are currently. Thus, likely less ice in Greenland as well.
There's no data pointing to today's weather being any different than the weather we've always had. If you believe differently, please point to such a data set.
there is much less outright AGW denial on slashdot
Anyone who believes there exists such a things as "denial" (and that there's oil funded denial "machine") is not doing science but is following a religion. Apparently one Slashdot editor is as well, since each and every "the sky is falling" study gets reported here - but not the multitude of published scientific evidence that points to all existing models having overestimated the actual feedbacks.
I like this study, by Keith Briffa. A previous study of his was used in creating the latest "IPCC hockey stick", and has been well publicised all over the world. Briffa himself has now released that there were errors in the previous study, and now that he's updated it with proper math the hockey stick is gone.
The way to differentiate people doing science from those following a religion is in how they react to what I just wrote above. A scientist goes "hey, that's interesting". A religious fanatic starts spouting things like "denier!" and "it's worse than we thought ANYWAY".
I was a demo coder in the 80s/90s. If you released a demo with effects running at half framerate ("2 VBL", 25/30fps) you got laughed at. Fluid motion was only available at full framerate (288/240p videomodes, "1 VBL", 50/60fps).
Everyone can perceive the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Much much better is for everyone who consider this court abuse by BPI to join their local Pirate Party. We're represented in over 40 countries, and if there isn't one in yours you're welcome to copy what you need from another Pirate Party to get started;)
Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked. As a producer with copyright (an author of short scifi stories), I can take my words and ideas, and sell them to people who want to read/hear/otherwise-consume them
I'd suggest talking to the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, Anna Troberg, about this. She's also a published author, and she held the same view as you did before she decided to study the subject. After having done so, she became a Pirate Party member and subsequently its leader.
You'll find the full story here. If you have further questions, I'm quite sure she would be happy to answer them.
You cannot divide these things up, CO2 and clouds are not separate things so your question is not sensible.
Of course it is. If the uncertainty with regards to even the sign of cloud feedback (= state of knowledge at IPCC AR4) then we have no idea whether an increase in CO2 will cause warming or cooling after having accounted for those feedbacks.
Feel free to let me know which papers have narrowed down the uncertainties with regards to clouds since AR4. Those I've read still come to completely opposite conclusions.
And YES, ENSO is weather. I suggest reading the literature on the subject.
Oh I have:) I assume you've accepted that we have no models that are able to predict ENSO then? Do you also agree that cycles in ENSO (increased amounts of El Niño vs increased amounts of La Niña) are what causes the PDO cycle - and that it's a cycle over ~60 years and thus is what's considered climate (>30 years)?
I'm less sure whether you tried to claim the effects of ENSO being strictly local. If so, I'd have to ask you to.. read the literature.
Regional models have been predicting the ENSO months in advance for years
If that was true we'd be in the middle of an El Niño right now, as I'm sure you know:)
ENSO is weather, not climate
Doubtful. The PDO cycle alone is long enough for ENSO to be considered climate, and you can't have an opinion on the PDO without ENSO. Cause and effect.
What we CAN say is go ahead and plug in the most optimistic and pessimistic cloud physics assumptions, what happens? You STILL get realistic models that STILL show substantial sensitivity. How do you think the low and high ends of the range are determined?
Are you saying we know the limits of cloud sensitivity as a feedback to a degree higher than the causative effect of CO2? (That wasn't the case for IPCC AR4, that's why I'm asking. I didn't know we'd come much further).
Slashdot Mirror
but we know there was no pre-existing ozone hole before the invention of CFCs and their use in industry
We most certainly do not. The ozon "hole" was discovered first time we looked (after a hypothesis was formed as to how CFCs could impact stratospheric ozone) and we have no data whatsoever as to how the concentration of ozone has fluctuated over history. Thus, we have no baseline to compare natural vs human sourced influence with.
(The report you link to does not contain any data on the subject)
CFCs have been produced and used since the 1930's. The first reliable ozone hole measurements were done in the early 1980's. The fact that there are natural sources of halogenated molecules now cast doubt on how causative the correlation with human created molecules is. A biological oceanic source in the pacific will likely oscillate with the PDO - a 60 year cycle.
I would prefer that we stop popping out new people at the present rate. will that happen? I doubt it.
The rise in population growth has been declining for decades. The UN median projection is that we will top out just below 10 billion around 2070 and then shrink.
No doubt needed.
The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.
Could you please source that statement? Since we've only recently discovered some of the natural sources it does surprise me that we would know anything about the ratio.
*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.
"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "
"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201093105.htm
Let me illustrate, and PLEASE nobody call this racism
Hans Rosling does a much better job than you at illustrating it. He also completely disproves your fears.
www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
I believe both he and the Swedish Pirate Party have updated our views.
http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/19/stallman-endorses-pirate-party-position-on-trademarks-patent-and-copyright-monopolies/
I can read it fine. It does not state what you claimed it did. Maybe you should read the links I've given (2 out of 3 to actual research papers) and then go and edit the wiki entry since it's not accurately reflecting current state of knowledge?
A scientist accepts findings contrary to his views. Religious acolytes don't. Choose which one you want to be.
(Your initial claim about Bronze and Roman warm periods being american "myths" has been thoroughly refuted)
The german article about the nordic bronce age is here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordische_Bronzezeit
And this article clearly states that "a bronce age warmth period" is a rumour and lacks so far any evidence.
FYI, as a Swede I studied enough German in school to conclusively tell you that you're misrepresenting what the article is saying.
More on the Bronze Age warm period: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312000416
I'm quite sure you believe that. It's not true, however. Those warm periods are well documented not only in climate proxies but also in documented human history. As a Scandinavian, they're integral to our culture since those were the periods of prosperity.
You might want to ask yourself what has caused you to believe differently, and how the above information will change your beliefs now.
Scandinavia and the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC
Scandinavia and the Bronze Age Warm Period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate
You're also wrong about Röde Viking and Greenland btw, and I suggest looking into the archeological dig around the frozen viking village for more insight.
My data set is my window. It's been hotter than hell.
[---]
I'm sure you can cherry pick all sorts of graphs about the frequencies of particular types of storm events. Big deal.
See, I have issues with anecdotes as evidence. I'm also quite sure I don't do any cherry picking - I really want you to show me a dataset that indicated our current weather is unusual over long time scales. As for temperatures in the US, the 30s is a good match.
This is a list over different records for different US states and when they were set. I think you'll find it interesting: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
I'd suspect that this film has already been paid for (by Mojang) and that this way of distributing it is a toungue-in-cheek snarky way of making fun of the current asinine state of copyright law.
Considering the creator of Minecraft and founder of Mojang is a Pirate Party member I'm not sure how much toungue-in-cheek is needed.
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-theft-ridiculous-lost-sales-they-dont-exist-says-minecraft-creator-110303/
There are indeed several indications that the sea level has been more than a foot higher in recent history:
If the port was bustling 2000 years ago it is reasonable to suppose that tidal access was less
limited then than it is today-or was at least as good. Consequently the evidence suggests that
in 350BC there was probably a little more water than exists today in order for it to be a
worthwhile place to ship cargo from, and therefore current ocean volume (glacier melt and
thermal expansion) is less now than then, to take into account the known land changes.
“The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of
northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known
as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into
ill-prepared Roman territories.
The results
indicate that during the Byzantine period, sea level at Caesarea was higher by about 30
cm than today. The Late Moslem and Crusader data shows greater fluctuations but the
data sets are also much smaller than for the earlier periods.”
Wave-cut notches along the seaward shoreline confirm a site-specific ... etc.
rheological model for the northern the Red Sea that indicates a sea-level highstand (~1
m above present MHW) during or immediately prior to occupation.
Quotes from here - click for citations.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
Where's the data on a more energetic atmosphere?
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
Greenland has never had significantly less ice than it has now in at least 6 or 7 thousand years
For various definitions of "significant", of course. In this context we're comparing today and the MWP.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/archeo.html
I live in Scandinavia and as far as we're concerned the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were warmer than we are currently. Thus, likely less ice in Greenland as well.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html
http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract
Thank you for that post.
Reality?
There's no data pointing to today's weather being any different than the weather we've always had. If you believe differently, please point to such a data set.
Here's some to get your started:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.ytd.gif
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure2.gif
http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/regplots/real/real_us_2.gif
there is much less outright AGW denial on slashdot
Anyone who believes there exists such a things as "denial" (and that there's oil funded denial "machine") is not doing science but is following a religion. Apparently one Slashdot editor is as well, since each and every "the sky is falling" study gets reported here - but not the multitude of published scientific evidence that points to all existing models having overestimated the actual feedbacks.
I like this study, by Keith Briffa. A previous study of his was used in creating the latest "IPCC hockey stick", and has been well publicised all over the world. Briffa himself has now released that there were errors in the previous study, and now that he's updated it with proper math the hockey stick is gone.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract
The way to differentiate people doing science from those following a religion is in how they react to what I just wrote above. A scientist goes "hey, that's interesting". A religious fanatic starts spouting things like "denier!" and "it's worse than we thought ANYWAY".
I was a demo coder in the 80s/90s. If you released a demo with effects running at half framerate ("2 VBL", 25/30fps) you got laughed at. Fluid motion was only available at full framerate (288/240p videomodes, "1 VBL", 50/60fps).
Everyone can perceive the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Much much better is for everyone who consider this court abuse by BPI to join their local Pirate Party. We're represented in over 40 countries, and if there isn't one in yours you're welcome to copy what you need from another Pirate Party to get started ;)
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
http://wiki.pp-international.net/Main_Page
Disclaimed: I'm a proud board member of the Swedish Pirate Party. Changing the world, one byte at a time.
Please do show me where it's been so mortally debunked. As a producer with copyright (an author of short scifi stories), I can take my words and ideas, and sell them to people who want to read/hear/otherwise-consume them
I'd suggest talking to the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, Anna Troberg, about this. She's also a published author, and she held the same view as you did before she decided to study the subject. After having done so, she became a Pirate Party member and subsequently its leader.
You'll find the full story here. If you have further questions, I'm quite sure she would be happy to answer them.
http://annatroberg.com/english/
What does a proxy steal?
Join the club!
Today, the Swedish Pirate Party filed formal charges against Swedish banks for their discrimination against WikiLeaks
http://falkvinge.net/2012/12/17/pirate-party-presses-charges-against-banks-for-wikileaks-blockade/
You cannot divide these things up, CO2 and clouds are not separate things so your question is not sensible.
Of course it is. If the uncertainty with regards to even the sign of cloud feedback (= state of knowledge at IPCC AR4) then we have no idea whether an increase in CO2 will cause warming or cooling after having accounted for those feedbacks.
Feel free to let me know which papers have narrowed down the uncertainties with regards to clouds since AR4. Those I've read still come to completely opposite conclusions.
And YES, ENSO is weather. I suggest reading the literature on the subject.
Oh I have :) I assume you've accepted that we have no models that are able to predict ENSO then? Do you also agree that cycles in ENSO (increased amounts of El Niño vs increased amounts of La Niña) are what causes the PDO cycle - and that it's a cycle over ~60 years and thus is what's considered climate (>30 years)?
I'm less sure whether you tried to claim the effects of ENSO being strictly local. If so, I'd have to ask you to .. read the literature.
Regional models have been predicting the ENSO months in advance for years
If that was true we'd be in the middle of an El Niño right now, as I'm sure you know :)
ENSO is weather, not climate
Doubtful. The PDO cycle alone is long enough for ENSO to be considered climate, and you can't have an opinion on the PDO without ENSO. Cause and effect.
What we CAN say is go ahead and plug in the most optimistic and pessimistic cloud physics assumptions, what happens? You STILL get realistic models that STILL show substantial sensitivity. How do you think the low and high ends of the range are determined?
Are you saying we know the limits of cloud sensitivity as a feedback to a degree higher than the causative effect of CO2? (That wasn't the case for IPCC AR4, that's why I'm asking. I didn't know we'd come much further).
Andrew, Katrina and Sandy were just ordinary weather
Yes.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.ytd.gif
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg