175 comments on DrumBeat: January 10, 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
175 comments on DrumBeat: January 10, 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…”
—Winston Churchill, November 1936
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Last Night David Brancaccio, the host of PBS’s program NOW, presented something on television that was earth shaking in its audacity. He had the nerve to present actual science to the American public:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/502/warming-oceans.html
NOW presented Jacqueline Savitz, a Marine Scientist and Senior Campaign Director of the Climate and Pollution Campaigns for Oceana,a global ocean conservation group. For the benefit of viewers she created a very simple model to illustrate what the loss of Sea Ice will do to the temperature of the Oceans.
In the experiment she took a large beaker of water with ice and placed it on a hot plate and stirred it mechanically to simulate the circulation of the Oceans. Each time the temperature rose 1 degree they made a time record and graphed it. The temperature over the first half of the experiment rose very slowly until the point where the ice was gone and then it shot up dramatically over a short time.
Her stark warning was: With the disappearance of sea ice that’s what will happen to our oceans and the implications are terrifying.
Scientists now predict with a great degree of certainty that unless we switch to a clean energy economy, climate change will result in increased severity and intensity of storms, melting sea ice, rising sea level, changes in food production and drinking water availability and importantly, the acidification of our oceans and a mass extinction of corals.
I guess we should have that seafood dinner while we still can!
Joe
People have never been able to control or change the climate or weather.
Examples - past ice ages, floods, storms, heat waves, droughts.
Another example - volcanos, earthquakes, and land changes have a drastic effect on the climate - i.e. Krakatoa, that cannot be matched by people. Mountains, deserts and seas have come and gone over time - Sahara region. There are many other reasons for climate change that people cannot control or stop. Thinking that we have control is a false idea.
People are able to adjust to climate change or we would not still be here today.
Switching to clean energy is still good for us because of pollution and health concerns,
but to expect to change the climate is not realistic. More deaths are caused by pollution than any other human controlled process. We can adjust to climate change, but not to dirty air that we breathe.
nowhere,
We, that being the overall global biosphere, has survived some remarkable things. However, shellfish are not so adaptable to acidic oceans. The will find their shells dissolving as they are formed. Accordingly, the earlier statement is correct, that we should have that seafood dinner while we can, but we better do it quickly if we want shrimp, lobsster, or any other shellfish. There is a greater emphasis if you are eating seafood from oceans in the southern hemisphere since the acidification is higher there, although still seasonal.
Nowhere seems to be unaware of the fact that every established scientific body in the world has acknowledged the reality of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change.
If he has some information or analysis that these bodies have missed, he should share it with us (and with many others.) Otherwise, his off the cuff opinions are a good bit worse than useless.
Nowhere is not unaware of the scientific bodies. However, science of the future will prove that human impact on the climate is very small compared to many other factors. Humans being alive and breathing oxygen is an impact, but we have to breathe to live. Even if we reduce CO2 by some imagination, there is still a greater chance that some other event will occur to change the climate. What I am saying is that humans do not have any real significant amount of control over the climate. All of our atomic weapons could not even equal one volcano or one large meteor in terms of impact. We cannot fix the climate issues. The talk about lowering CO2 is just a way for someone to make more money on new equipment and new technology. Pollution (micro particles in air)in general is a larger impact on people than climate change anyway.
Thank you for that science. Your outstanding citations of study after study supporting your claims were impressive. The logic rock-steady and impervious to argument.
We are moved.
Cheers
Nowhere, meet a scientist.
Maybe you should tell HIM what his great miscalculations are..
If you think my call to authority is misplaced, and Hansen's creds don't give his argument more weight than yours.. please do tell me why.
And understand, I don't think his diplomas mean he's absolutely right, just that it's worth paying close attention to what he says, and then to check with a few thousand other climatologists to see if there's anything to be concerned about, anything that we ought to start doing to see if we can gird against the repercussions of our earlier actions..
Straight from scientist Hansen -
"When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today’s level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 centimetres but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature."[30]
It should be noted that Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions:"
So if it happened 3.5 million years ago, then what made it happen at that time? It was not human emmissions. We cannot explain everything, and cannot fix everything. Hansen said we have had this problem before, and I am sure we will have it again no matter what people are doing. Humans may cause CO2 to rise, but there are so many other ways that climate change can occur. To say that one way out of thousands is the "one" is simple arrogance. Do you really think that the World will stop burning coal any time soon? Not until it runs out, and then the CO2 from coal burning will go back down. That change could result in an ice age????? But that does not mean that thousands of other changes will not still result in another climate change in the future. Sometimes the greatest scientists are wrong. An 80 year life is not enough time to gather all the facts about climate change over thousands of years. To think that people can actually control the climate is absurd. We cannot regulate the Galaxy, Sun, Moon, Stars, inner Earth, Asteroids, Comets, etc, all of which are factors. Some people actually think that this is the only time our climate has changed. One thing is clear - "We do not know the future of the earth."
Whew, what a relief! There are uncertainties. So let's keep doing our gigantic uncontrolled experiment!
Welcome to the Ohsh1tocene.
I really like your "science of the future" bit. It sound kind of like Bush saying that historians of the future will find him to be the best president ever.
I think I'll use that one, if you don't mind, the next time someone complains about second hand smoke I will declare: "Science Of The Future will find that second hand smoke is the healthiest thing you can breath!" I'm sure that will take care of any concerns.
Do you think that we haven't burned up a trillion barrels of oil since it was first used, and greater quantities of coal?
Do you think these activities didn't generate hundreds of billions of tons of CO2?
Do you think CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (a fact established over 100 years ago)?
Do you think CO2 levels haven't risen by over 30%, from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since the 1800 when we started burning all those fossil fuels?
What parts of this don't you get?
It sounds as though you have made up your mind without seriously contending with any of the data.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
That a comet could hit the earth (an extremely low probability event in our lifetimes, in any case, and one almost completely out of our control) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether gw is real or dangerous. So please don't bring up such red herrings.
Thank you for that science. Your outstanding citations of study after study supporting your claims were impressive. The logic rock-steady and impervious to argument.
We are moved.
Cheers
sneer. sneer.
You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, I think.
If there are compelling counterarguments, please present them. I'm all ears and eyes
All these problems seem trivial compared to the risk of a hypernova from Eta Carinae; a neighboring star in the Milky Way Galaxy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR200705...
There may be other more immediate concerns. Yellowstone had 11 more quakes yesterday. Full moon tonight about 10 PM EST. I hope I don't get to say "I told you so"...
E. Swanson
Notice there are apparently no known faults under the lake where the previous swarm was, and that these new quakes were in a faulted area? Looks to me like the movement propagating as opposed to a new signal of danger.
Cheers
The moon is at perigee tonight. I was hoping to photograph it, since it's supposed to look bloody huge, but it looks like a blizzard is going to get in the way.
More likely cellulosic ethanol will collapse without massive funding from tax reciepts; with an Obama tax cut promised and first generation ethanol failing after massive subsidies from taxpayers. All this as the dollar sinks relative to the yen and European banks try to cope with failed U.S. mortgages on their balance sheets.
The earth is a temporal thing in an explosive universe.
Firewood for sale $200 a cord, more if you want it delivered long distance. It is solid cellulosic heating fuel. Requires no crusher or hydrocarbon powered still. Legal and contributing to the GDP and Federal treasury without government subsidies. Instead of bankruptcies, tax receipts. Instead of investors losing all their money, good solid returns. Green energy. No acetalaldehyde and formaldehyde ethanol fume pollution in the parking garages of D.C...
How many windmills will a trillion dollars buy?
thats not even a concern. if it explodes tomorrow we won't know for 7,500 years. we don't even know if it exploded 7,499 years ago next week. it's one of those neat things that are of little concern because even when it does happen there is nothing we can do.
Eta Car, is less worisome than Yellowstone. Eta Car, is pretty far away, and it would require one of the strongest gamma ray bursts, to be oriented just right to cause us any real damage. Even then, it would be a damaged ozone layer, not the direct effects that we would have to deal with. And it will hit the southern hemisphere much worse than the northern (where it never breaks the horizon north of the tropics). In any case, most likely it would be an ordinary supernova, quite an event, but not a death star for us. And even then, it might be a million years before it blows.
And your half truths aren't quite lies, but the result is still disinformation. To be sure, humans have been very adaptable. Some were even able to survive the Ice Ages. But, civilization is an entirely different matter, having only been around for about 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. The present world population is an entirely new situation compared with the few millions of years of previous human adaptability.
The climate of the past 8,000 years has varied little, with global temperature variations of only a few degrees C over rather short periods, often the result of volcanoes or slight changes in solar output, as you mention. But what we are doing to the environment is much greater than anything previously seen by civilized humanity. While it's unlikely that all humanity will die as a result, it's also unlikely that the population levels we now have will be able to continue. This will be especially so as the oil peaks out and other less favorable energy sources are tapped to replace it.
What you are missing is the fact that we ARE changing climate, it's just that what we are doing is not a planned change. That is to say, our activities are "out of control". The problem is, it looks like our lack of control is going to have serious negative impacts, which will move the Earth's climate away from the wonderful "Goldie Locks" climate enjoyed for the past 8,000 years or so.
But I do agree that it's likely that we won't be able to CONTROL climate because we won't be able to CONTROL ourselves. Human greed and ignorance appears to be boundless...
E. Swanson
Had any arguments been put forward, I might have. As I said, thanks for the science.
Tell me, how many mass murderers are caught with honey? How many torturers? How many Skillings, Keatings, Cheneys? You may pretend the sneer is not deserved, but never forget you are fooling only yourselves. Sui-genocide is all you are accomplishing. Do not expect praise or gentlemanly exchanges for either knowingly or unknowingly engaging in actions I consider to be crimes against humanity.
But, since you asked, here's a treat to go with your sneer. Both are free. Since you are impervious to intelligent scientific inquiry, I'm sure you will survive reading the following, but please do be careful: Cognitive dissonance may ensue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
Jeers (<-- No down arrows, so... )
The IPCC report, for all of its shortcomings and less than complete reporting of the absolute severity of Climate Change Undeniably caused by negotiations to get unanimous approval of all member nations, including of course the United States of America), did report very accurately on the acidification of the oceans. Do you need the reference to that or can you google it yourself?
Human beings have survived the weather, obviously, that has occurred while there have been human beings. Not a very useful observation, however, if the weather reverts to a level with much higher temperatures than have been experienced during the existence of homo sapiens. Further, there is a huge difference between survival and a tolerable, prosperous, comfortable, happy human existence.
True, humans have never experienced the warmth that is headed our way, but our species did evolve during the period of greatest climate swings in earth's history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
Our evolutionary history has made us supremely adaptable, the ultimate noxious weed.
As has been pointed out way too many times for anyone to zone on, I will repeat here for clarity:
1. It is not the amount of change, it is the time frame.
2. It is not survival of the species (necessarily), but of civilization.
Cheers
"volcanos...have a drastic effect on the climate - i.e. Krakatoa, that cannot be matched by people."
If you are speaking of CO2 your comment is false. Human generated CO2 emissions dwarf those of volcanic activity. Aerosols, on the other hand do create "short term" cooling.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w
Now, I am no climate change expert but I am firmly in the "humans are screwing the pooch" camp. In recent weeks, I encounter the same ole, same ole, same ole skeptic arguments day after day after day, the root of many(not all)can be traced back to ExxonMobile and the American Petroleum Institute. This link is most enlightening as many skeptical papers can be traced back to some very interesting people and organizations:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-...
It goes back (in part) to this "1998 Action Plan" describing how to create uncertainty a la tobacco companies "smoking doesn't cause cancer" campaigns:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf
Anyone can find thousands of pages of legitimate peer reviewed studies on line, the VAST majority recognize AGW/climate change as "very likely" to have some nasty consequences.
But the skeptics are keeping the debate going with absurd and irrelevant comments like yours. This will insure that nothing significant will be done.
Power down and circle the wagons.
Some entertaining weekend listening. Neil Degrasse Tyson goes a long way to making science cool. Talks about carbon molecule, global warming, and, oh yeah, this little thing about an asteroid that is coming to earth in 2029.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole
"Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about Death By Black Hole And Other Cosmic Quandaries"
"...but if this asteroid hits it would create a tsunami beyond measure. No, we can actually measure it, but beyond anything you would ever seen that would make the Indonesian Tsunami look like the tides just rolling in."
Hello Soup,
Great link as Tyson is a humorous, fascinating, and riveting speaker--Thxs, I much enjoyed the video.
I also enjoyed Leanan's toplink: "The age of oil is ending"
---------------------
..Simmons called the price of oil absurdly low: "Let's say you and five fat friends run out of gas and you see a guy coming down the street riding a donkey and pulling an old messy cart and you say, 'Hey pull over here. Can you take me and my five fat friends a couple of miles for 22 cents,' which is what that much gas will get you. And the guy's going to flip you the bird. 'Are you stupid?' "
Oil prices, Simmons said, have to skyrocket to have an impact on demand.
-----------------------
Thanks for that link. Always enjoyed listening to Dr. Tyson.
Thanks for the link.
I have always found listening to and reading things by physicists to make the most sense in terms of scientific understanding - I think because they are often concerned with both the hard science and the philosophy of scientific pursuit. In an age of corporate science, physicists tend to be the most reasonable voices of "science" around.
The NSIDC has reported temperatures as much as nine degrees above normal this past summer and fall in some areas, particularly the west near Alaska, if memory serves. This is very much related to the latent heat of fusion from the water giving up its heat to the atmosphere. This very strongly indicates the effect of albedo. With so much of the ice melted away, an awful lot of sunlight (80% vs. 20% for ice) got absorbed into the oceans.
Of course, my pet theory since summer has been that the additional methane in and just above the water is pushing this along nicely.
Expect very thin ice built this winter. If we get perfect conditions again, like this past summer, then melt should be similar to this summer is my (un)educated guess. Maybe slightly less melt if winds keep the ice in the Arctic Ocean. But if unfavorable conditions come along, then the latent heat in the water from last summer will combine for a new record, or very nearly so.
I think most lay people, and a lot scientists, are underestimating how much heat is building up in the water.
Cheers
ccpo - I think you're right. Most people seem to be oblivious. The people I know are regular people who have careers and families with the stress and strains of normal life. They are not inclined to contemplate Peak Oil or Climate Change. For the most part they see my views as "extreme". If I bring up a startling fact or trend that might interrupt their BAU they simply dismiss it with: "Well it doesn't seem like there is much we can do about that anyway." It is really a marginalizing experience when people dismiss you as "extreme".
But last year I decided to do something about it. In an effort to understand the Science I enrolled at a local college in Environmental Science. I live in coastal San Diego and I had the pleasure of local field trips to reserves and marshes as well as Ocean Environments. Besides gaining invaluable knowledge I also discovered groups that were not only aware of the impending ecological catastrophes but were actively doing things about it.
I now contribute my time and energy to environmental restoration projects such as the San Elijo Reserve. ( http://www.sanelijo.org/ )
I have in essence found my tribe which frees me from my compulsion to Rant. These people understand that the worlds' ecosystems are collapsing. They believe that through the action of saving core habitat areas that once the human systems collapse these precious Reserves might be able to re-seed the world.
Best Wishes for finding your tribe.
Joe
I'm offended! I don't rant! I apply two-by-fours upside the head! There's a difference!
;)
Cheers
ccpo - I apologize if you thought that I was directing my personal compulsion to rant in re: to you or your posts. When I read the Oil Drum I actually look for well-constructed Rants.
This is a place where it should be safe to rant (intelligently).
Cheers
Joe
Hi Joe,
That takes me back a ways. I spent my teen years in that area, living in Olivenhain and going on Manchester Ave practically every day to school in Torrey Pines or at UCSD. The map of San Elijo is stunning - when I was there, none of that "Lomas Santa Fe" existed, there being absolutely nothing East of 5 near Solana Beach or Del Mar. When you came over the hill northbound there was nothing but wetlands on either side of 5 and now it looks like - ugh - Suburbia, the kind of stuff Kunstler loves to write about.
I'm so sorry to see what overdevelopment has done to that beautiful area. We used to pull off the road and watch the sea birds there. Now, from Google Earth, I can't even find the places I lived - houses we built with our own hands in the 70's. I suspect they were torn down when they got to be too "old" - which means about 15-20 years old in that neck of the woods.
BTW - I don't think there's anything wrong with the occasional rant - yours or ccpo or anyone else's. Keep it up and good luck learning as much as you can about the science.
Chris
I used to surf North County in the 60's. Very quiet place. Nothing but Flower Growers, Avocados, and Marijuana Smugglers, along with the surfers. Now it is a suburban wasteland.
Bland and corporate strip malls.
"This is very much related to the latent heat of fusion from the water giving up its heat to the atmosphere."
huh ? you will need to 'splain that one or 'splain that it is a joke.
water gives up heat in melting the ice, so if anything, water would absorb heat from the air.
old man winter is about to whack the us in the head with some of that latent not-heat.
This one of the worst comparisons of things that are different that I can recall. And to have the nerve to call it science boggles the mind. Things that are different can not be compared, added, subtracted, multiplied or divided. If they are anyway the result is silly nonsense.
Heating a beaker of water on a hot plate is in no way the same as the way the sun heats the ocean. It is highly unlikely that the ocean currents are in anyway comparable to currents in a beaker of water. And inferences from one can not be applied to the other with any validity.
A more valid test, although still highly questionable due to ocean currents, would be to put the beaker of water with an ocean proportional amount of ice in it out in the sun just as it is going down so as to catch the effect of the night. It would still not be valid since the proportions of beaker depth to ocean depth are so far off.
Any scientific comparison must be between two things that are very much alike for any valid conclusions to be reached. This is the trap that so many who think they are scientific thinkers often fall into. Logic matters. Just because data can be collected and extropolated does not mean it is valid or scientific.
If the logic behind the experiment is false all the data and mathematical calculations are false even if they are done high accuracy.
The beaker with ice in it test tells us nothing about what would happen if all the ice melted in the ocean. It is a false analogy. And it is not science.
Oh, for chrissakes! It was a teaching tool to demonstrate a basic principle to people with zero ability to understand the underlying science. From a teaching perspective, there was NOTHING wrong with her demonstration. She was not "doing" science! Have you never entered a classroom?
You are absolutely wrong. An ice-free Arctic absolutely will heat up faster sans ice. That was her point.
You people have no shame.
Jeers
For once, I tend to side with Mr. "x".
While it's tempting to assume that the decline in Arctic sea-ice is entirely due to AGW and the ocean/ice/albedo differences, I do not know that this has been proven. There is another line of thinking which suggests that the extra melting is due to inflows of warmer waters which then melt the sea-ice from below. And, the difference in albedo between summer sea-ice with melt ponds and the waters of the Arctic Ocean is not as large as you have mentioned. Melt ponds have an albedo in the visible range which is close to water and the albedo of the water is high due to the large zenith angle of the incident solar rays. Both values would be similar for indirect light scattered by the atmosphere or by clouds and aerosols, but the scattered light does not represent as much energy as the direct beam. Once the melt ponds form, the surface albedo drops considerably. In the infrared, both ice and water are good absorbers, AIUI, so the increased down welling IR due to the CO2 increase may be a factor as well.
E. Swanson
I am not sure who you are talking to. I didn't say it is. I don't know anyone who has said that. Did this lady? I don't know. If she did, and she's knowledgeable, then, again, she was almost certainly speaking colloquially. Is it necessary to point out the obvious? You well know the entire AGW problem is often denied based on the simple facts of the role of water vapor. Need we add a disclaimer at every mention of CO2? No. It's treated as a given. So is albedo.
This is very strange coming from you. What is? E=MC2 was only "proven" this year, fer cryin' out loud. What's your point? You know better than to make such a pointless statement!
As well as changes in Arctic wind patterns. And storms play a role. And methane. What's your point? You don't seriously mean to imply that open water does not retain heat from summer, do you?
Well, that's what the scientists say, so... Maybe I read that from Serreze? RealClimate?
I didn't mention ponds. I stated what is, so far as I know, a fact: ice = 80, water = 20. Melt ponds? I bow to your superior knowledge. You'll have to come up with a surface area for melt ponds for it to mean anything, tho. But, really, does it matter? Similar to my question above, is there no ice in the Arctic in summer? Is there no differential? Do you mean to suggest ice vs. no ice = no difference in water and air temps?
Say it ain't so, cause I'd have to call you crazy.
You are missing the point. I was defending the use of the analogy in the context it was used. The scientific specifics are actually not important for the occasion. Besides, you've said nothing to show it was inappropriate. Zero ice WILL equal higher water and air temps. Period. Already does. I don't care what's provable; I care what's true. I have no more doubt about this than I had last summer when the first report out of Alaska about methane bubbling up out of lakes led me to conclude there would follow reports of methane bubbling up in other areas of the Arctic and that methane concentrations would show a rise.
'Twas right then, am right now. I'm not a scientist: I don't need to be able to prove it before I can say it. Logic suffices till proof (years from now) confirms.
Can you imagine having had to wait till this year to use relativity 'cause it wasn't proven?!?!?!?!
Albedo makes no difference... (shakes head from side to side) you two be funny.
Cheers
The demonstration was not especially relevant to AGW. What was demonstrated was the latent heat of ice. What was the point? Are we to think that once the sea-ice melts to zero at the end of one year's melt season that there will never be any more sea-ice and the temperature of the Arctic ocean will rapidly increase? But, in winter, when there is no solar energy reaching the Arctic, the sea-ice will reform. Sea-ice acts also an insulator, which limits the thickness of the ice by slowing the rate of freezing of the water below, once the ice forms. Even though the minimum summer extent has fallen rapidly, the maximum extent has remained about the same. Thickness appears to be decreasing, but the measurements are difficult to collect and tend to be local, thus it's not clear what's happening. So, again, what does that demonstration say about all this? Not much, IMHO.
E. Swanson
"All models are wrong...some are useful"...saying I've heard in the modeling & simulation world (feel free to find the attribution yerself if you are so inclined).
When I read the beaker/ice/heating-from-below 'demo' I had a reaction similar to Black Dog's and x's. This highly simplistic model is so far from reality in so many respects that I would be loath to wave my 'Dr. Science' wand and say 'tah dah, AGW effects for your viewing pleasure, wrt the North polar sea, QED" to my audience/class.
I have for several years held a provisional judgment that human emissions of certain gases have been changing the global climate from what otherwise would have been the case. However, that judgment doesn't blind me to the many significant deltas the beaker/ice/heater model has wrt to reality.
I bright child of ten would be able to point out the numerous disparities. If this were a school science fair project (with the objective of 'proving' something about the Arctic Ocean isolation/sea ice/sea temp situation) I would provide robust helpful feedback, but the sponsor certainly would not progress to all-city!
Here's hoping for better models and teaching tools!
"There exist systems of sufficient complexity such that the only predictive model of that system is the system itself".
I can't seem to remember the name of the scientist who said this - I heard it on the radio, and it stuck with me. I think he was a geologist.
This became my motto (i.e., excuse) back in the 80's when I was having problems modeling some very complex plant physiological processes. I believe it to be true.
That's one reason why when people talk about geo-"engineering" I get chills of terror down my spine.
That ship has departed.
See above:
'Climate fix' ship sets sail with plan to dump iron.
I thought they had already done some iron experiments with null results. I think this is another rather limited experiment - I don't think it will go anywhere.
Now, when they feel like they want to scale these things up, who decides it's OK? The UN? Do corporations just do it for profit? I don't think much thought has been given to that yet.
I predict that it won't work in any useful fashion. The eutrophied slime outcome seems most likely to me. That or the iron just sinks and nothing happens. We'll see.
Yeah, I know its just a small scale test...for now. Your question about who decides is very relevant. Whoever has the motive and opportunity most likely.
And what about moral hazard? If we think we can "fix" it why bother trying to stop it? I found this TED talk very interesting. I posted this once before here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_cli...
I know that feeling well. The danger from well meaning scientists is bad enough, but the garbage that is propagated by the media is even worse.
Last night on Discovery they were investigating the use of diffusion lenses above the earth to reduce insolation. Many billions of them.
The scheme involved launching them using an electromagnetic coil gun. A small prototype was built, consisting of a coil/barrel assembly and several capacitor banks. The narrator excitedly explained that the stored energy was enough to power 5000 homes for a year.
Later, the operator mentioned that the discharge was 10,000 joules in 1 millisecond. The "enough energy to..." analogy is so hopelessly flawed that I won't bother to pull it apart, but it has become painfully obvious to me that true science shows are few and far between. The director and/or staff clearly don't have an effing clue what they are talking about and apparently don't give a damn. This type of crap is pervasive, such as "enough concrete to build a wall from A to B" Apparently dimensions are irrelevant. It's just fodder for the 500 channel universe.
Critical thinking is a lost art and "back of the envelope" calculations are equally rare. God knows what idiotic schemes are going to be foisted on the dumbass public in the coming years.
Sorry for the rant, but it really, really pisses me off.
Oh, and BTW, there was never any mention about how to get rid of the lenses, if necessary.
Sometimes I think people blind themselves to simple common sense.
Is that an issue anyone is raising? No. You are attempting to make her demonstration look silly by attributing to it something that the context of the general conversation on sea ice doesn't include. It's unfair and a bit dishonest.
BTW, re: albedo, from NSIDC:
That statement is ludicrous.
http://www.nsidc.org/sotc/images/20080717_Figure5_thumb.png
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure4_thumb.png
Note this only goes to '07, which is way out of date, even with such a short time frame:
http://www.nsidc.org/sotc/images/rothrock_chart.gif
People, seriously: albedo makes a difference. Less ice, more heat. Someday, maybe all gone in summer. This is not only widely known, it is also widely anticipated. What, really, are you guys on about? She wasn't talking to scientists.
This is truly absurd.
Cheers
I can't help it that the NSIDC statement about sea-ice albedo is incorrect. I've tried to bring this issue out for discussion for more than 16 years. BTW, I DO have references. Here's a photo from the SHEBA Experiment. The image of the sun is rather bright. Notice how dark the sea-ice appears, as the camera lens is stopped down.
As for thickness, one must realize that the early measurements were taken from a few submarine cruses which did not sample the entire Arctic Ocean nor did they sample at the same time of the year and your new data from satellite is experimental with only a few years data available...
E. Swanson
It's NOT incorrect! You are just being picky as all get out. In both the case of the video and the NSIDC quote, you are treating their comments as if made in a scientific journal, rather than making general statements to the public.
It is you who is in error.
Criminy... what is your hangup with the ice? In just the "few" (30!) years they've been measuring, the changes have been massive. Just five to ten years ago there was a large percentage of multi-year ice. Very, very little of it is left. I posted the links. Did you bother looking at them?
Here's another:
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/ESSSSummaryPrint11262007.html
You'll forgive me if I trust Serreze's view over your view.
Cheers
I trust the data, which indicates that the albedo of water at high zenith angle (low elevation angle) can exceed 20% to as much as 30%. The photograph is a "graphic" demonstration of this truth, which was also found in measurements made more than 30 years ago. Other data shows that the albedo of sea-ice drops rather sharply once melting begins and ponds form on the surface. During the middle of the melt season, when it's warmest and the sun is highest above, the average albedo drops below 50%. The quote you offered from the NSIDC presents an incorrect comparison of the albedo of ocean and sea-ice. I agree that there has been a rapid decline in minimum sea-ice extent, which would result in more thin first-year ice and less multi-year ice. The decline in thickness of that multi-year ice is less startling. Sorry, but I think you've misplaced your trust...
E. Swanson
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our conversation. I am not arguing the science, you are. I am arguing you being very, very picky and applying standards to others' comments. Do you not understand this?
Look, we are on the same page on this issue, and the hair-splitting on the science is pointless. I am simply trying to encourage objective commentary. Were you responding to a paper, your critiques would undoubtedly be excellent, but you are not. Serreze knows a hell of a lot more about the ice than you do, I'd imagine. And I do not mean that impolitely, just realistically. I find it hard to believe he hasn't considered the difference in reflection between water and ice. I find it a bit silly you assume he doesn't know this.
Intent is everything in communicating. The two people you critique were not communicating what you are complaining about.
Lighten up.
Cheers
It IS science.
The energy going into the system is absorbed/used up/some other term in the conversion of the solid ice to liquid water. The solid ice 'prevents' the water from heating much over 0 degrees C, because the ice acts as a heat sink, absorbing that excess heat.
The same thing is seen at boiling point, even in a closed system; a pressure cooker with only water will remain at 100 degrees C for some time until all the water is vapourised (into steam) at which point the temperature will continue to rise.
This is why fatty dishes microwaved strongly will damage the plastic tupperware, but watery casseroles or soups will not, as the temperature can't rise as much.
In the case of oceans with abundant ice, the ice will melt, over time, holding the water temperature by absorbing available thermal energy. Once the ice is gone, the temperature can be thought to be 'released', and will bounce upwards.
Does it make sense now? Sure, the currents are different, and the salt makes the ice melt a bit faster, and so on and so on but these are minor effects as coefficients, and don't affect the overriding thermodynamic principles at all.
This is YEAR 8 science, for thirteen year old children, by the way.
Re: 'Climate fix' ship sets sail with plan to dump iron
Although it is a limiting micronutrient in the South Pacific, there is no scarcity of iron on earth's surface. The reason for the lack of it in ocean water is that it tends to form insoluble iron hydroxide, which simply sinks to the bottom. I wish these folks luck with their ferrous sulfate project, but it seems doubtful that they can actually alter the ocean's chemistry enough to make a difference.
And if they succeed in keeping iron suspended in the water, I hope they don't just get a eutrophicated zone of biological slime that rots and emits methane. :(
Thats why this one was "blessed" by the scientists. The scale is small enough that not much damage could be done, and the data may start to answer those questions. Even if this concept works as hoped, it will probably take decades of gradual scaleups, and data gathering analysis, to determine that it is in fact safe. Hopefully, this will get the more uncontrolled types, who simply want to make bucks from carbon credits from trying it on a large scale, before we know how it might backfire.
In any case, human activity ha greatly increased the flux of dust, and riverborne sediment into the oceans. This measures in the billions of tons per year. This will deposit far more iron (and other nutrients) into the ocean than any deliberate geo-engineering will do. The geo-engineering to really fear is the inadvertant type, that is a mere byproduct of some other human activity.
Like I was saying, I wish them luck. We probably should have tried this experiment a decade or two ago. If it works, it'll create coalbeds on the sea floor or something like that...
As for the carbon credits, I think the policy wonks need to work on something better, and quickly. Near as I can tell cap-and-trade is like the medieval system of indulgences, money paid to the Church to atone for sins, which does not in fact reduce the incidence of said sins.
What a crock of El Torro poop! Sea ice is growing in total.
No doubt it is, it's January. We need to compare September 15ths over next few years to see what comes to pass or not pass.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=2007&sm...
This year we had passage near the Siberian coast, last year through the Canadian Archipelago.
Try using 2 Sept 1st's and then 2 Oct 1 st's then try a few different years on the same dates.
But Sir,
this cannot be true:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/al-gore-north-pole-will-disapp...
He said it on German TV in December 2008 . And this man never,ever lies. And, after Hansen and Mann, he is the greatest living empirical scientist alive. All we have to do now is wait until December the 13th 2013.
rgds
dropstone
Personally, I don't much care what Mr. Gore said, since he is a politician, not a scientist. I suspect that he was referring to the rapid decline in minimum sea-ice extent, shown here in the red curve.
The other curves were produced by various computer models, most of which suggest that there will be a much slower rate of decline. Note also that this data presents the average for September, which will be greater than the actual minimum, which might tend to occur in October as things progress.
E. Swanson
Dear Black Dog,
Mr. Gore said that the Arctic Ocean will be free of Ice (I presume later summer only) by 2013. What is important about this predictive statement is that we now have a predicted and observable result and a predicted time. Personally I would be happy to give him an error of +2 years before I ask him to return his medal and oscar - since Climatology is not a precise science.
The fact remains he made a statement of predicted effect in time.He has nailed his colours to his mast,(or perhaps made himself a hostage to fortune). I should imagine many Scientists who advocate AGW will have groaned when this statement was made as the gravy train now has a timetable.
rgds
Dropstone
I do believe this is a flat out lie. Care to prove your quote?
Cheers
BTW, I agree with B-D: wth does Gore have to do with the science being done wrt ACC? Your stance is so weak you have to pretend Gore is a climate scientist?
He's saying minimum sea ice extent in 2013 will be 0 KM^2. What's so unbelievable about that? Personally, my money's on 2018, but 2013 is certainly plausible.
That would only be valid if the past four years is indicative of a tipping point having been crossed. Few climate scientists would be willing to climb out on that limb. Official forcasts still place the first icefree summer several decades off. So I think it is true that in this case Al has taken on the least supported extreme scenario. It is plausible, but unlikely.
Gatewaypundit is not your basic objective site. I think I'm going to go get that Yugo SKS I've had my eye on. Can't wait for the nice Chinese model.
Gatewaypundit on same page cites Michael Asher who wins 2008 "Most reckless extrapolation of short term trends" from Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-year-in-review/
Gatewaypundit quotes Joseph D'Aleo, AGW skeptic, associated with Frasier Institute See:
Exxon Secrets http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
MS Savitz is trying to find a way to explain conservation of energy and the thermal properties of matter (liquid and solid in this case) and phase changes... to a general public who either do not care or need more training in the very basics of critical thinking in order to appreciate the subtleties of Earth climate changes and the human perturbations thereupon.
The problem, as Eric has alluded, is that sea ice is such a complex system... and while governed by rather straightforward physics the complexity makes for a very difficult overall problem.
So we get the usual deniers (e.g., jbunt) chiming in with quips based only on their internal emotional state and not with any care for the greater truth and the actual data and science.
It is a testament to the overall poor skills in science and critical reasoning among our citizens (who are likely average or better than average compared to the whole population on Earth) that such straightforward issues get so easily obscured by political/social noise.
That is one of the reasons why I believe that little will be done wrt AGW... it is just too hard of a sell, unless mitigation efforts can somehow be tied to other, more obvious, causes.
But then again even a lot of poor people understand the benefits of phase changes. If your heat gets turned off, then fill up your bathtub with water and the room temperature will tend to at last stay above freezing as the bathtub turns to ice.
Always room for some practical advice :)