Comments for ClimateSight

Comment on Cumulative Emissions and Climate Models by climatesight

climatesight — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:40:47 +0000

Here’s the Zickfeld et al paper too: http://climate.uvic.ca/EMICAR5/PNAS-2009-Zickfeld-16129-34.pdf
I’m pretty sure the full text is already free at PNAS, but it’s hard to tell on the campus network.

Comment on Cumulative Emissions and Climate Models by Andy S

Andy S — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:37:40 +0000

Thanks for an interesting post, Kate. I recently came across this methodology when looking at the climate effect of the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands at Skeptical Science. I’ll insert a link to your post in my article, since your explanation explains the methodology nicely.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/SW12.html

It is fortuitous (computationally, at least) that the effects of the diminishing carbon sinks and the infra-red band saturation roughly cancel out to make the climate response to cumulative emissions linear. (We would be better off in terms of climate effect, though, if the effectiveness of the carbon sinks did not decrease with increasing emissions.) Thinking about cumulative emissions as the key parameter does simplify the metrics for the mitigation response we need to make. It’s a pity that the slopes can’t be better constrained, but I look forward to hearing from you if you make some progress on this.

For those of us without subscriptions, free pdfs of the Matthews et al and the Allen et al papers are available here:

http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf

http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/climate/allen_2009.pdf

Comment on Cumulative Emissions and Climate Models by Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:23:03 +0000

At the risk of seeming like an insufferably smug bar steward, here is what I said on this subject (referring to the work of Dr Myles Allen [2009]) almost 9 months ago:
“The fact that AGW may suffer from issue fatigue, and the fact that I sometimes feel like an old-style street preacher being completely ignored by passers-by, does not change the fact that, on well above the balance of probability, we face an environmental catastrophe if we fail to take significant action within the next 5 years. Furthermore, every year we fail to act, makes taking effective action much, much harder. This is because it is the total (i.e. cumulative) amount of fossilised carbon that we (have and will) put into the atmosphere that will determine the temperature change we will see over the next 50 years or so.”
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/why-are-we-still-waiting/

See also Wikipedia‘s exhaustively-referenced summary of the 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference in Oxford in 2009 (at which the work of Allen and many others was first presented).

Comment on Denial in the Classroom by Lucien Locke

Lucien Locke — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:09:50 +0000

Kate,

I have been aware of this educational lapse of quality and accuracy regards Mr. Harris from other reports on the internet. Your article fills in the gaps very nicely. What happens next? It is very often the question I ask after an expose of climate misinformation. So having asked that question of myself ….why not ask the Carleton University the same question …..what next?…Enclosed, is my e-mail to those who may reply….

Dear Sirs & Madams,

I recently received a update for a blog called ClimateSight reviewing the investigation by your organization regards Mr. Tom Harris and his teaching syllabus at Carleton University. I also am aware of Mr. Harris and his controversial climate dictums from other online sources and media exposures. Following the release of a report of an audit of the course taught by Mr. Harris, ref. (A), by CASS, ….what will the policy of Carleton University be for the content of future courses taught by Mr. Harris? I am interested in how universities with high scholastic standards react to criticism of the quality of education within their curriculum. Thank you in advance for the time taken to address this inquiry.

Regards,

Lucien P. Locke, Jr.

reference (A): http://scientificskepticism.ca/sites/default/files/pressreleases/CASSREPORTClimateChangeDenialintheClassroom.pdf

Comment on Cumulative Emissions and Climate Models by sailrick

sailrick — Thu, 17 May 2012 04:49:56 +0000

Well Kate, you sure do a good job of communicating the sceince. Thanks. I learned something

Comment on Cumulative Emissions and Climate Models by dana1981

dana1981 — Thu, 17 May 2012 02:20:35 +0000

That’s an interesting point about diminishing carbon sinks. It will be interesting to see what values you get for the slope.

Comment on Summer Research by climatesight

climatesight — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:38:38 +0000

The UVic ocean heat uptake is high compared to other models.

You’re right, we can’t know for sure if the models are systematically under- (or over-) estimating future OHU until the future actually happens!

Comment on Stalin believed in gravity. Do you? by pendantry

pendantry — Sun, 13 May 2012 08:21:44 +0000

The story of 'the unabomber' makes interesting reading. Personally, I think the way that Ted Kaczy(i)nski's story was slanted by the media at the time was as tragic as the story itself. I find it very telling that his 'Industrial Society and Its Future' piece was relabeled 'the unabomber's manifesto'. One man's mathematical genius is another's terr(or)ist. As for your conclusion that Heartland is on its way out, I thought the same of the prevaricating peer a few months back; but he still keeps doing a bad penny imitation.

Comment on Stalin believed in gravity. Do you? by Lazarus

Lazarus — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:06 +0000

Good bill board – should have used it with my alternatives;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/hitler-liked-dogs-do-you.html

Comment on Stalin believed in gravity. Do you? by roger

roger — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:11:04 +0000

Just shows what oil money can do.