This is not good.

[blizzard1024]

How could one worry about wind mills and not complain about the massive amount of ecological and human damage fossil fuels have caused? House cats and automobiles kill about a million times more birds than all windmills in the world combined.

Sorry for the off topic.

The automobile when it become popular back in the 1950s and 60s is postulated to have wiped out certain species

of birds...and they have stabilized at much lower levels now. Cats too have wiped out a bunch of species and they

are now steady at a much lower level of population. Large buildings in cities have wiped out many

species and they are steady at much lower levels. Cell towers also the same...and now wind farms. It is

just nickeling and diming species downward and downward population wise. I have seen it over the last 30 years

and it is one more threat. Birds are doomed in the long run...or at least the biodiversity in birds.

we will always have the "walmart" birds... starlings, pigeons, house sparrows, and a few others. sad.

let's get back on topic.

[WeatherRusty]

So what do you propose we do? Cut down CO2 emissions and throw the world's economy back to the stone age?

There are 7 billion of us on the planet and most are extremely poor and destitute. They need energy and many

third world countries have coal, natural gas and oil but are being forced to use clean energy alternatives that

are not efficient. Hundreds of millions or more are living shortened life spans because they use

charcoal for heating and cooking. They abuse their local environment by cutting down all their trees for

charcoal and their average life span because of the smoke in their homes is in the 40s!! We have got

to let these third world nations develop a power grids. "Green" energy just is not efficient enough at this

time. Pure and simple. So basically we should continue to emit to keep the world's economy from

imploding (God knows we are close to this anyway) and let science work on making more efficient

carbon neutral energy sources...solar panels....geothermal....waves...and maybe wind. I hate wind energy

because it destroys the beautiful mountain tops where I live and is a bird and bat shredder. I see wind

as a mean form of green. We will have to learn to adapt to the changes in climate...however severe.

But climate change seem to be slow right now...what? around .2C/decade. I think this is the lesser of

two evils. World anarchy or a warmer climate? Winners and losers, that is what it will be. If you look at

history...there are always winners and losers as centuries go by for whatever reason. So this climate

change issue will introduce another factor that mankind will somehow adapt to.

But please don't wipe out the world's economies!!!! It's bad enough already....

Do you really believe the proposed efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels are meant to plunge us into poverty and deprive the world of energy utilization. That's just foolishness. That people go around believing we wish to cut off our nose to spite our face is propaganda spewed by the developers of the denier play book. Don't buy it, we seek practical solutions to our problems otherwise what's the point?

[dabize]

That is an ad hominiem attack. Rush Limbaugh is a right wing wacko who is a big reason why our middle class

is buying into the BS that lowering taxes on wealthy will solve our problems. He is disgusting.

Just because I view things differently than the mainstream climate folks...and still yet believe in GHG climate change...

still invites such attacks.

By the way, I am an operational meteorologist for 21 years published many papers on weather...have a

MS in meteorology too and have taken many climate courses including one recently at the graduate level just to learn...

not for any degree. And oh yeah...I got an A and was the top student in the class.

I have been monitoring our climate since the 80s. So don't write me off as a non climate scientist. I understand to a very

high degree how the atmosphere and climate system works including radiative tranfer. My GPA for my BS was 3.92 and for my MS was

3.95 while working a full time job and raising kids and I went to PSU a very tough program!!! I also authored a landmark paper on forecasting

heavy snowstorms that still gets referenced today. So don't write me off as just a meteorologist that knows squat about climate.

That is condescending. I remember when all the meteorologist who couldn't hack the hard core math changed majors and

became climatology majors back in the 80s! It is a lot different now and there are very very smart people working in climo

studies. So I take nothing away from their intelligence now...it is totally different. Some of the best and brightest students

go into climate studies and there is heavy duty math now....

Also I am an avid bird watcher and it kills me to see all these wind farms ruining habitat and killing many many birds.

There are very inefficient and not able to sustain themselves without government subsidies.

Yes I don't agree with the mining practice either and that pisses me off too. But coal, oil and natural gas

is the way to go for now until a better cost effective alternative is available unless we want too go

back to the 1800s....many many people would suffer and die. I know some of the radical left would

like to see the earth's population crash...humans are the scourge or cancer of the Earth according to them.

So let climate change happen and kills billions....

Man is this f'ed up.... you people have no clue what cutting back CO2 emissions would do to the world's economy

and our standard of living. I want my kids to enjoy a middle class existence not excessive just what they need.

anyway...this is a feudal argument.

I suppose it was..........but telling us collectively that stopping AGW is not worth redirecting economic activity (especially when such redirection is an economic PLUS) is outrageously counter to the facts (in a rather Rush - ite way) - and did rather invite derision.

Mea culpa then........I maintain that your opinion as stated is factually without support and logically flawed, but I take back implications that you are unfit to discuss the point.

BTW - its "futile", not "feudal"

[Vergent]

I suppose it was..........but telling us collectively that stopping AGW is not worth redirecting economic activity (especially when such redirection is an economic PLUS) is outrageously counter to the facts (in a rather Rush - ite way) - and did rather invite derision.

Mea culpa then........I maintain that your opinion as stated is factually without support and logically flawed, but I take back implications that you are unfit to discuss the point.

BTW - its "futile", not "feudal"

Freudian slip?

[Vandy]

Also I am an avid bird watcher and it kills me to see all these wind farms ruining habitat and killing many many birds.

There are very inefficient and not able to sustain themselves without government subsidies.

It's clear you haven't been keeping up with developments in the wind industry. Except for Altamont Pass, which was built decades ago, wind turbines have not been that harmful to bird populations. Special care is taken to ensure that new farms are not placed in migration locations, and bird deaths due to turbines on a yearly average are low enough to not be a concern to the health of the species. Bats on the other hand have trouble with turbines. That's something that requires more work and investigation.

Also, a wind turbine is very similar to any other turbine based generator. They are as efficient as the generators spun by fluid flow in a nuclear reactor or a coal power plant. And all energy sources require subsidies. Look up the amount of government money that goes into fossil fuels. You might be surprised.

[Entropy]

So what do you propose we do? Cut down CO2 emissions and throw the world's economy back to the stone age?

There are 7 billion of us on the planet and most are extremely poor and destitute. They need energy and many

third world countries have coal, natural gas and oil but are being forced to use clean energy alternatives that

are not efficient. Hundreds of millions or more are living shortened life spans because they use

charcoal for heating and cooking. They abuse their local environment by cutting down all their trees for

charcoal and their average life span because of the smoke in their homes is in the 40s!! We have got

to let these third world nations develop a power grids. "Green" energy just is not efficient enough at this

time. Pure and simple. So basically we should continue to emit to keep the world's economy from

imploding (God knows we are close to this anyway) and let science work on making more efficient

carbon neutral energy sources...solar panels....geothermal....waves...and maybe wind. I hate wind energy

because it destroys the beautiful mountain tops where I live and is a bird and bat shredder. I see wind

as a mean form of green. We will have to learn to adapt to the changes in climate...however severe.

But climate change seem to be slow right now...what? around .2C/decade. I think this is the lesser of

two evils. World anarchy or a warmer climate? Winners and losers, that is what it will be. If you look at

history...there are always winners and losers as centuries go by for whatever reason. So this climate

change issue will introduce another factor that mankind will somehow adapt to.

But please don't wipe out the world's economies!!!! It's bad enough already....

Good post. There is a lot of evidence in the paleoclimatic records to suggest that, contrary to popular belief, a warmer world would actually be beneficial on the whole to humanity. Of course, there would be winners and losers in a globally warmed world. By and large, however, the winners would outweigh the losers. The most obvious effect would be a sharp decline in injurious cold spells, and decreases in nuisance ice and snow events. The decline of arctic sea ice will open new shipping routes and allow for mineral and resource extraction from under the sea bed. According to the most reliable temperature reconstructions, the last time we've seen temperatures at present levels was about 5-8 kya, during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, also referred to as the Hypsithermal or Altithermal era. At that time, the Sahara was a much more hospitable place, far from the uninhabitable desert we've grown accustomed to. Likewise the Middle East and Southeast Asia is thought to have been much wetter. It was a different story in North America. Much of the western United States was desert, and semi-arid grassland expanded across the Plains and Midwest.

Climate models project a similar future, and we are already seeing evidence of these changes in real-time observations. Imagine how many bodies we could feed if the Sahara reverts to savannah and forested land, and we are able to cultivate that region for crops. Likewise, climate change will allow cultivation of vast expanses of previously inarable land in northern Canada, Siberian Russia, and north China. Siberia is larger in area than the entire United States! One would expect a warmer climate today to be even wetter than the climate of the Altithermal, since many glaciers, a relic of the last glacial maximum, were still in the process of melting at that time.

A warmer and wetter climate, coupled with enhanced atmospheric carbon, would also promote biodiversity. The increased plant life spawned by a future globally-warmed earth would increase global oxygen levels. We have millions of years of fossil records and climatic reconstructions that testify to this reality. During the early Eocene, 50-55 mya, tropical plants flourished in the Arctic and along the Antarctic coast! Far from being an uninhabitable hell on earth, the tropics were no more than a few degrees warmer than today.

It strikes me as more than a little self-serving when its the NATO countries and Australia that have expressed the most concern over climate change, even going so far as to promote geoengineering, when it just so happens that many of these countries are the ones that would lose the most in a globally warmed world! The United States, southern Europe, and Australia would all experience desertification. Meanwhile, southeast Asia, including parts of China and India, the Middle East, and northern Africa would become wetter and more hospitable! Russia would, likewise, be well positioned in a globally-warmed world. Of the NATO countries, only Canada and northern and eastern Europe would experience net benefits.

[Vergent]

Well stated opinion, but here is another well stated opinion:

#3 It's not bad

http://www.skeptical...s-negatives.htm

[Entropy]

Well stated opinion, but here is another well stated opinion:

#3 It's not bad

http://www.skeptical...s-negatives.htm

While Skeptical Science is a good source for many of the silly denier arguments, I don't really put a lot of stock into its assessment here. First, it appears to be at odds with the geological record. Deserts expand when the global climate is cooler, not the other way around. Certainly, some areas would become drier, but global precipitation would increase significantly. Second, it's based largely on computer models which are unable to successfully reproduce past climate or successfully model current climate changes. For instance, if one were to believe model projections, the Arctic would retain ice year round through 2100. Observational evidence, on the other hand, suggests the arctic may become seasonally ice free as early as 2015 to 2020.

[TerryM]

i suppose this is the next page in the Heartland Playbook, possibly entitled - Don't Worry, Be Happy

Ntrop has conveniently forgotten to mention a few things.

Farming has been tried in Northern Canada - it failed because of the lack of topsoil - same for Siberia.

The pluvial period in the ANE started with the Mousterian Pluvial (50Kyr BP-20KyrBP) hardly a time of global warmth.

Deaths from heat waves are orders of magnitude larger than deaths from cold snaps.

Could this be yet another iteration of BB?

Terry

[dabize]

It's an emotional thing, too.

I for one will mourn the passing of the Karri tree in SW Australia.

But what was the deal about "Walmart birds"?

Doesn't he know that we killed off the passenger pigeon - the ultimate "Walmart bird"?

[Entropy]

Well stated opinion, but here is another well stated opinion:

#3 It's not bad

http://www.skeptical...s-negatives.htm

Look at this article that appeared in Der Spiegel in May 2007. It makes many of the same claims that I did. I was aware of this article back in 2007, but I dismissed it at the time. Granted, there are a few erroneous claims in the article; for instance, the claim that Antarctica is gaining mass is now known to be incorrect, but there were a couple of studies in 2006 that said the same. But looking back at the paleoclimatic reconstructions and computer model projections, it's spot on. Why are we always told that the Sahel is becoming drier and the poor Africans are dying when, in reality, it's America that will become hotter & drier due to climate change?

"There is no doubt that there will be droughts in other parts of the world, especially in subtropical regions. But the widespread assumption that it is developing countries -- that is, the world's poor -- who will, as always, be the ones to suffer is incorrect. According to current predictions, precipitation in large parts of Africa will hardly decrease at all, except in the southern part of the continent. In fact, these same forecasts show the Sahel, traditionally a region beset by drought and famine, actually becoming wetter.

By contrast, some wealthy industrialized nations -- in fact, those principally responsible for climate change -- will likely face growing problems related to drought. The world's new drought zones lie in the southern United States and Australia, but also in Mediterranean countries like Spain, Italy and Greece.

All of this will lead to a major shift within Europe, potentially leading to tough times for southern Spain's mega-resorts and boom times for hotels along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts. While the bulk of summer vacationers will eventually lose interest in roasting on Spain's Costa del Sol, Mediterranean conditions could prevail between the German North Sea island of Sylt and Bavaria's Lake Starnberg. The last few weeks of spring in Germany offered a taste of what's to come, as sun-loving crowds packed Berlin's urban beach bars and Munich's beer gardens.

The predicted temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius would mean that summers in Hamburg, not far from the North Sea coast, would be as warm as they are today in the southwestern city of Freiburg, while conditions in Freiburg would be more like those in Marseille today. Germany will undoubtedly be one of the beneficiaries of climate change. Perhaps palm trees will be growing on the island of Helgoland in the North Sea soon, and German citizens will be saving billions in heating costs -- which in turn would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions."

Source: Der Speigel

[Vergent]

Look at this article that appeared in Der Spiegel in May 2007. It makes many of the same claims that I did. I was aware of this article back in 2007, but I dismissed it at the time. Granted, there are a few erroneous claims in the article; for instance, the claim that Antarctica is gaining mass is now known to be incorrect, but there were a couple of studies in 2006 that said the same. But looking back at the paleoclimatic reconstructions and computer model projections, it's spot on. Why are we always told that the Sahel is becoming drier and the poor Africans are dying when, in reality, it's America that will become hotter & drier due to climate change?

That's a question for Rush, Rupert, or the Koch brothers.

[TerryM]

That's a question for Rush, Rupert, or the Koch brothers.

Amen

BTW - has anyone looked into the methane situation recently? I foolishly thought it was the topic for this thread.

Terry

[Vergent]

The high insolation bleaches it out at a faster rate that the emission rate so far. which is not bad.

[blizzard1024]

It's an emotional thing, too.

I for one will mourn the passing of the Karri tree in SW Australia.

But what was the deal about "Walmart birds"?

Doesn't he know that we killed off the passenger pigeon - the ultimate "Walmart bird"?

why would you call the passenger pigeon a walmart bird? There were estimated

to be so many of them that they would literally darken the sky when they

migrated through. Now wouldn't that be awesome if we could see something

like that? anyway, this is not a bird forum...sorry I brought that in. It pains

me to see majestic eagles mangled by wind farms that's all. and yes it

is an emotional thing. so let's stick to methane and climate change

and science. facts. and what we perceive as truth.

[Vergent]

Giovanni CH4 these are uncalibrated so the raw numbers are invalid, but hot spots should show up.

No hotspot in the ESAS.

[Vergent]

This is today

This is a year ago. You can see there was already activity a year ago. You have to like the trend.

[Jonger]

Doesn't methane break down in 10yrs in the atmosphere?

[PhillipS]

Doesn't methane break down in 10yrs in the atmosphere?

A fast google search got the values of 10 - 12 years residency for methane.

[Vergent]

Doesn't methane break down in 10yrs in the atmosphere?

Yes, but its lifetime is concentration dependent, the more there is, the longer it lasts. Methane in the upper atmosphere protects the methane below.

There is an online model available here.

http://forecast.uchi...ts/methane.html

Edit: graphs were not showing up

[dabize]

Bumped for some truly crummy news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19410444

I sure hope this paper (the Nature paper that is the source of the article) turns out to be another case of Nature's famous "molecular memory" paper, where some people diluted a solution to nullity and claimed that the solvent "remembered" the solute.....................

[PhillipS]

Bumped for some truly crummy news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19410444

I sure hope this paper (the Nature paper that is the source of the article) turns out to be another case of Nature's famous "molecular memory" paper, where some people diluted a solution to nullity and claimed that the solvent "remembered" the solute.....................

Interesting article. After reading it I did a quick google scholar search of the authors of the Nature paper and found several related papers by Dr Wadham - so she has been researching this topic for a while.

What I am skeptical of is the huge reservoir of organic carbon they claim underlies the Antarctic ise sheet. The reason I"m leery is that glaciers, and ice flows within ice sheets, are very good at bulldozing underlying strata down to bedrock. So most of whatever organic material was present in the distant past was over time scraped into the ocean surrounding Antarctica.

But I may be completely wrong and their study will be corroborated by additional research.

[TerryM]

For those of us waiting patiently for words of comfort from S&S (before they make their presentation at the AGU), a publication a that spurious rag Nature has the latest.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11392.html

With a translation for the layman at

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8640

“Although this is a very remote region thousands of miles from the UK, considering the amount of carbon locked in this permafrost is twice the amount present in the atmosphere as CO2, the scale of the release of both CO2 and methane into the atmosphere will have a huge effect.

“This will have consequences for the temperatures all over the world.”

Was the take away quote.

Terry

[Jonger]

For those of us waiting patiently for words of comfort from S&S (before they make their presentation at the AGU), a publication a that spurious rag Nature has the latest.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11392.html

With a translation for the layman at

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8640

“Although this is a very remote region thousands of miles from the UK, considering the amount of carbon locked in this permafrost is twice the amount present in the atmosphere as CO2, the scale of the release of both CO2 and methane into the atmosphere will have a huge effect.

“This will have consequences for the temperatures all over the world.”

Was the take away quote.

Terry

So a warmed planet can release at least twice as much co2 than our current atmosphere holds? You do know what I'm thinking right?

[salbers]

To be blind to the atmosphere is 'not good'...

http://www.dailycamera.com/science-environment/ci_21453731/scientists-concerned-about-budget-cuts-boulder-based-air

[TerryM]

To be blind to the atmosphere is 'not good'...

http://www.dailycamera.com/science-environment/ci_21453731/scientists-concerned-about-budget-cuts-boulder-based-air

In Canada the cuts have been more dramatic - of course our Minister of Science thinks the world is 6k yrs old.(He's also my local MP & I've spent too much time and effort helping those that run against him)

The drop of in situ sampling was extremely bad, if they stop sampling altogether - disastrous.

I'll probably have to adjust the tin foil hat, but this indicates to me that there's data that's expected to arrive that will scare the heck out of everyone.

Will you be taking in S&S's presentations at the AGU? I'm sure the presentations themselves will be made available, but I'd like to have a feeling for the audience reaction.

Terry

[salbers]

Hard for me to say if the budget cuts are intentionally aimed at climate measurements, since there are pretty widespread cuts going on in NOAA.

I will try to attend S&S's presentations as long as they don't conflict with something else closer to the "official" purpose of my going to the conference (e.g. my own presentation). I agree the context of their presentations and any audience discussion would be interesting.

Steve

[TerryM]

New study from University of Vancouver, and an understatement:

"Rather large percentages of existing species become committed to extinction."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/09/11/science-uvic-permafrost-carbon.html

Terry

[Jonger]

New study from University of Vancouver, and an understatement:

"Rather large percentages of existing species become committed to extinction."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/09/11/science-uvic-permafrost-carbon.html

Terry

These articles really do damage to the chicken or the egg co2 arguement in past warming from ice cores.

Did co2 cause the warming or did warming cause the co2.

Dispute my hypothesis.

[PhillipS]

These articles really do damage to the chicken or the egg co2 arguement in past warming from ice cores.

Did co2 cause the warming or did warming cause the co2.

Dispute my hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is the logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy" - asserting that something must be either A or B when the real world is more complex.

CO2 is a GHG whose warming effect (the magnitude of its radiative forcing) on the Earth is dependent on its concentration in the atmosphere. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the globe. Any argument?

But CO2 is not the only phenomenon that can warm, or cool the Earth. Any argument?

Cold seawater can hold more dissolved CO2 than warm sea water - warming cold seawater can result in the release of CO2. So the ocean can be either a source or a sink for CO2 - depending on conditions. Any argument?

The ocean is not the only source for CO2. Volcanism, fires, anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels, thawing of permafrost and other processes all effect the carbon cycle. Any argument?

So there are multiple factors, including CO2, that affect the Earth's energy balance. And there are multiple sources of atmospheric CO2, including the oceans under some conditions.

So where is the chicken and egg paradox?