That's not a fact, that's a supposition based on the accuracy of a proxy. CO2 levels vary *wildly* on the local scale, so much so that the official CO2 measurements at Mauna Kea have to throw out outlying data to avoid measuring local disturbances:
No, it's based on direct measurements of CO2 levels from ice cores.
Actually you're right - it obviously doesn't create 1C of warming because negative feedbacks have kept it to about 0.8C
But we haven't doubled CO2 levels yet so your argument is incorrect. CO2 has increased about 40% from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. Doubling would take it to 560 ppm. So we've had about 0.8C of warming with a 40% increase in CO2.
Giving him credit for actually working in the field I've read most of what Lindzen has to say but he doesn't have much credibility with me. Do you accept what he says as uncritically as you think I accept what what other climate scientists say because he agrees with your point of view?
Sea level has fallen the past couple of years mainly because the heavy rainfall around the world has put a lot of water on the land that takes time to drain back to the oceans.
The debate is not whether the Earth can handle it or not, it's whether human civilization can handle it or not. The only real solution is to stop increasing greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere. Anything else is just window dressing.
Consensus in science is when most of the scientists in a field (except for the crackpots) quite arguing about something because they have nothing to argue about. They all agree on the particulars of a point.
I never said that without humans that CO2 levels are in perfect equilibrium. Each year it cycles up and down by about 10 ppm following the northern hemisphere seasons But the fact remains that for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation the level of CO2 remained at about 280 ppm. Only since the increase in human burning of fossil fuels has it risen to 390 ppm now, a level that hasn't been seen for over 15 million years.
It's true that a doubling of CO2 would cause about 1C of warming from the CO2 alone but that ignores the feedbacks it produces. In particular that warming causes an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes its own warming. The total warming, including feedbacks, from a doubling of CO2 appears to be around 3C.
"Assume for a minute that we accept the GRACE numbers. The first problem is Antarctica contains a lot of ice : 30 × 10^6 km. At 100 km per year, it will take 300,000 years to melt."
(BTW, I think you should have used km^3 for cubic kilometers) The rate at which Antarctic ice is melting increased at a rate of 26 gigatonnes/year^2. In other words it's accelerating, losing 26 more GT each year than the year before. At that rate it will take a lot less than 300,000 years to melt. But it would still take several thousand years for all of it to melt regardless of what happens. There's a lot of ice there, enough to raise sea level by nearly 200 feet it all were to melt.
The GRACE satellites don't measure the flow of ice at all so flow would not show up on his map. You would have to actually visit the site to at least set up some instruments in order to measure flow. Flow increases when the ice gets warmer too.
Given that we had 20cm of sea level rise in the past 100 years, I'd bet we're in for another 20cm for the next hundred, if we don't hit a Maunder minimum type event. So, 8 inches, tops.
Considering that if some of the worst things that scientists think might happen do happen climate science deniers might be looked down upon in the same way holocaust deniers currently are in the future.
I wondered how long it would take to bring up climate science. No climate scientist worth his salt would say it's all been figured out. What they are saying is that they've figured out enough of it, particularly the major factors, that they can make some reasonable projections about what's generally likely to happen under various scenarios. Now they've moved on to filling in details because they don't argue about most of the big things any more. Consensus is what happens when only the crackpots are arguing against it.
I held my nose and went an looked at your WUWT citations. Neither of them has anything that calls into question the GRACE results. What Steve Goddard missed is that glacial ice not only melts but it flows as well. The places losing ice in Antarctica are near the coast where the ice can flow into the sea. Temperatures don't matter much in that case. Tom Fuller says "I am not a scientist" and goes on to prove it. He speculates about what could be wrong with the GRACE satellites. I doubt he can think of anything credible that the scientists involved haven't already thought of. He provides no evidence, just a bunch of statements.
I suppose there are some people around who think sea level rise is going to be quick but the latest scientific projections I've seen are for 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) of SLR in 2100, most of it after 2050. The only thing that could change that would be a rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Most of it is grounded below sea level. But at this point it appears to be a remote possibility.
I know that carbon dioxide doesn't care where it came from. The point it the CO2 you exhale is not adding to the total carbon in the carbon cycle because it was already in the carbon cycle then the food you ate acquired it and an equivalent amount of CO2 to the amount you exhale will be absorbed by your future food before it gets to you. So it's a carbon neutral cycle. The carbon from burning fossil fuels has been out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years and so is adding to the total carbon in the carbon cycle thus increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans (ocean acidification) and the other short term sinks.
I'm a little surprised that Watts would use the Lenaerts paper. After all its results are based on Atmospheric Climate Models. Aren't those supposed to be totally wrong? And when you get into actual physical measurements using the GRACE satellites to detect changes in gravity, Antarctica, particularly West Antarctica is losing ice mass over all. (Velicogna 2009)
The fact that you think the CO2 you exhale matters at all just shows how little you know. The carbon in the the CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat which came from carbon that was already in the active carbon cycle, absorbed from the atmosphere by the plants in your food chain. The carbon that matters is the carbon that we're digging up and adding to the active carbon cycle after having been buried for millions of years.
It should also be noted that this statement by Muller was a 180-degree reversal from what he had repeatedly said before. That makes it highly suspect. Scientists don't just "change their opinions" about data.
That's pretty funny. Muller was skeptical of the temperature records in the true scientific meaning of the word. Once he got the chance to examine the data in detail, create his own temperature record and compared it to existing ones he no longer had reason to be skeptical of them.
Obama gutted the space program. Democrats killed the Superconducting Super Collider. Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision like Newt Gingrich's moon base proposal.
If a Republican had done those things they'd call it being fiscally responsible.
Building a moon base might be the one thing I agree with Newt Gingrinch on. It's the best place to build a portal to the rest of the solar system. It's got the raw materials and energy you need to build with. Launching product from the surface is easily accomplished with a mass driver. It's the easiest place to build a radiation protected permanent base outside of the Van Allen belts.
Rick Santorum thinks government should get out of education at all levels, federal, state and local. That would undoubtedly lead to a big increase in the teaching of ID.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a fact, that's a supposition based on the accuracy of a proxy. CO2 levels vary *wildly* on the local scale, so much so that the official CO2 measurements at Mauna Kea have to throw out outlying data to avoid measuring local disturbances:
No, it's based on direct measurements of CO2 levels from ice cores.
Actually you're right - it obviously doesn't create 1C of warming because negative feedbacks have kept it to about 0.8C
But we haven't doubled CO2 levels yet so your argument is incorrect. CO2 has increased about 40% from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. Doubling would take it to 560 ppm. So we've had about 0.8C of warming with a 40% increase in CO2.
Giving him credit for actually working in the field I've read most of what Lindzen has to say but he doesn't have much credibility with me. Do you accept what he says as uncritically as you think I accept what what other climate scientists say because he agrees with your point of view?
Sea level has fallen the past couple of years mainly because the heavy rainfall around the world has put a lot of water on the land that takes time to drain back to the oceans.
Most = more than half and usually well more than half. Note that I said "except for the crackpots".
The debate is not whether the Earth can handle it or not, it's whether human civilization can handle it or not. The only real solution is to stop increasing greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere. Anything else is just window dressing.
Consensus in science is when most of the scientists in a field (except for the crackpots) quite arguing about something because they have nothing to argue about. They all agree on the particulars of a point.
Man, I hope you're young enough to eat those words and choke on them.
I never said that without humans that CO2 levels are in perfect equilibrium. Each year it cycles up and down by about 10 ppm following the northern hemisphere seasons But the fact remains that for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation the level of CO2 remained at about 280 ppm. Only since the increase in human burning of fossil fuels has it risen to 390 ppm now, a level that hasn't been seen for over 15 million years.
It's true that a doubling of CO2 would cause about 1C of warming from the CO2 alone but that ignores the feedbacks it produces. In particular that warming causes an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes its own warming. The total warming, including feedbacks, from a doubling of CO2 appears to be around 3C.
"Assume for a minute that we accept the GRACE numbers. The first problem is Antarctica contains a lot of ice : 30 × 10^6 km. At 100 km per year, it will take 300,000 years to melt."
(BTW, I think you should have used km^3 for cubic kilometers) The rate at which Antarctic ice is melting increased at a rate of 26 gigatonnes/year^2. In other words it's accelerating, losing 26 more GT each year than the year before. At that rate it will take a lot less than 300,000 years to melt. But it would still take several thousand years for all of it to melt regardless of what happens. There's a lot of ice there, enough to raise sea level by nearly 200 feet it all were to melt.
The GRACE satellites don't measure the flow of ice at all so flow would not show up on his map. You would have to actually visit the site to at least set up some instruments in order to measure flow. Flow increases when the ice gets warmer too.
Given that we had 20cm of sea level rise in the past 100 years, I'd bet we're in for another 20cm for the next hundred, if we don't hit a Maunder minimum type event. So, 8 inches, tops.
Sea level was rising at about 3 mm/year in the 2000's. In 1900 it was rising around 1 mm/year. So the rate of SLR is accelerating. A Maunder Minimum type event would slow projected global warming down by 5-10 years at best.
Considering that if some of the worst things that scientists think might happen do happen climate science deniers might be looked down upon in the same way holocaust deniers currently are in the future.
I wondered how long it would take to bring up climate science. No climate scientist worth his salt would say it's all been figured out. What they are saying is that they've figured out enough of it, particularly the major factors, that they can make some reasonable projections about what's generally likely to happen under various scenarios. Now they've moved on to filling in details because they don't argue about most of the big things any more. Consensus is what happens when only the crackpots are arguing against it.
I held my nose and went an looked at your WUWT citations. Neither of them has anything that calls into question the GRACE results. What Steve Goddard missed is that glacial ice not only melts but it flows as well. The places losing ice in Antarctica are near the coast where the ice can flow into the sea. Temperatures don't matter much in that case. Tom Fuller says "I am not a scientist" and goes on to prove it. He speculates about what could be wrong with the GRACE satellites. I doubt he can think of anything credible that the scientists involved haven't already thought of. He provides no evidence, just a bunch of statements.
I suppose there are some people around who think sea level rise is going to be quick but the latest scientific projections I've seen are for 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) of SLR in 2100, most of it after 2050. The only thing that could change that would be a rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Most of it is grounded below sea level. But at this point it appears to be a remote possibility.
I know that carbon dioxide doesn't care where it came from. The point it the CO2 you exhale is not adding to the total carbon in the carbon cycle because it was already in the carbon cycle then the food you ate acquired it and an equivalent amount of CO2 to the amount you exhale will be absorbed by your future food before it gets to you. So it's a carbon neutral cycle. The carbon from burning fossil fuels has been out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years and so is adding to the total carbon in the carbon cycle thus increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans (ocean acidification) and the other short term sinks.
I'm a little surprised that Watts would use the Lenaerts paper. After all its results are based on Atmospheric Climate Models. Aren't those supposed to be totally wrong? And when you get into actual physical measurements using the GRACE satellites to detect changes in gravity, Antarctica, particularly West Antarctica is losing ice mass over all. (Velicogna 2009)
And some horrible setbacks have come when people aren't skeptical enough and jump on the bandwagon too soon.
I'm breathing out CO2,
The fact that you think the CO2 you exhale matters at all just shows how little you know. The carbon in the the CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat which came from carbon that was already in the active carbon cycle, absorbed from the atmosphere by the plants in your food chain. The carbon that matters is the carbon that we're digging up and adding to the active carbon cycle after having been buried for millions of years.
It should also be noted that this statement by Muller was a 180-degree reversal from what he had repeatedly said before. That makes it highly suspect. Scientists don't just "change their opinions" about data.
That's pretty funny. Muller was skeptical of the temperature records in the true scientific meaning of the word. Once he got the chance to examine the data in detail, create his own temperature record and compared it to existing ones he no longer had reason to be skeptical of them.
Obama gutted the space program. Democrats killed the Superconducting Super Collider. Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision like Newt Gingrich's moon base proposal.
If a Republican had done those things they'd call it being fiscally responsible.
Building a moon base might be the one thing I agree with Newt Gingrinch on. It's the best place to build a portal to the rest of the solar system. It's got the raw materials and energy you need to build with. Launching product from the surface is easily accomplished with a mass driver. It's the easiest place to build a radiation protected permanent base outside of the Van Allen belts.
Jeb's wife, Columba, has made it neuteringly clear that he's not available until 2016.
Maybe we'll have forgotten about his brother by then.
Yeah, I need a head vise to listen to Santorum.
That's one of the funniest things I've seen all day! I guess Santorum will pray for God's intervention.
I am a crackpot
Not as much a one as Santorum.
Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon was a mistake. How much are we going to allow Presidents to get away with before we put our foot down?
Reagan signed one of the biggest tax hikes in US history when they doubled the Social Security tax.
Even though there's no such thing I think devolution might be the better word.
Yet, we don't have ID taught in schools.
Rick Santorum thinks government should get out of education at all levels, federal, state and local. That would undoubtedly lead to a big increase in the teaching of ID.