Recent Comments

Prev  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  Next

Comments 51701 to 51750:

51701. quokka at 20:31 PM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       @Speedy Combustion of methane is 178g/kWh at 100% efficiency Thanks Speedy. I should have looked it up, but it is kind of obvious that this is in the ballpark that one would expect from quoted thermal performance of CCGTs.
51702. Speedy at 19:39 PM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       Martin @32: ...and in Figure 3 it says, that the heat produced (in combined heat-power mode) is accounted as replacing oil heating. (-snip-). (-snip-).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Accusations of deception and impropriety snipped.
51703. gws at 19:06 PM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       Pete at @30 "China is following France's example " Sounds like a leap. While the article you list sounds like China plans to make nuclear its main power source, current production largely satisfies increasing demand. And all PWR. Hmmh, possible in (non-democratic) China maybe, but the world? And oh, it happens so that China does renewables with similar speed and determination. So it follows Germany's example, right? Right. This and your comment @34 suggest that you have not considered the issues I listed @27, and explained in the source I gave. Maybe China has. quokka Good to be skeptical (about lines 5 (CCGT) to 7 (block-CHP on biogas) in that table). Shoot the Oekoinstitut an email and ask, they will answer. These numbers go back to about 1997, so if they were seriously flawed, I am sure the nuclear industry had pointed that out yet.
51704. ChrisJJ at 18:14 PM on 7 November 2012
       Book review: Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact by Hunt Janin and Scott Mandia
       Here's an interesting thought. Any improvements to coastal defences taken to protect against future tidal surges will involve heavy use of earth moving machinery, cement production, quarrying, dredging etc. This will involve the burning of considerable quantities of fossil fuels :-(
51705. Brian B at 17:13 PM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Since Pielke has chosen not to comment here, I'll add a few points. Many people claim to see the effect of AGW on disaster losses. With Sandy the claim has focused on hurricane losses in particular. But Pielke is right that the peer-reviewed literature is clear that attribution of disaster losses to AGW simply is not possible right now. The signal, whatever it might be, is much smaller than the noise. This will remain true for at least a century. No amount of wishing is going to make it so. With regard to hurricane losses, the following point can't be stressed enough: There can be no AGW signal in hurricane losses in the U.S. because there has been no change in landfalling hurricane frequency or strength since record-keeping started. The trends, though not significant, are both down, in fact. Until you accept and digest this basic reality, you cannot intelligently address the issue of losses. Pielke's work on normalization of losses is carefully done and has been fully accepted and undisputed in the peer-reviewed literature. It independently confirms what one expects from the data on hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., namely that no trends in weather data imply no increase in normalized, weather-related disasters. Emanuel's work is interesting but not relevant to the issue of LOSSES if the hurricanes don't reach land. Keep in mind that Emanuel argues that the more extensive Atlantic basin data set allows him to detect a trend that is not yet evident in the landfalling data. Whether that detected trend is true or not, he agrees that no attribution of losses can be made to hurricanes since the signal is missing in the landfalling data. Unfortunately, Emanuel's data has problems as well, since long-term coverage of the Atlantic basin storm record is spotty at best and suffers from measurement bias induced by the satellite era. Emanuel's improved statistics are of questionable value given the uncertain status of systematic errors. Please note that the graph given above for Atlantic basin ACE appears to have no statistically significant trend with the noise as large as it is. If you think the trend is significant, please provide the uncertainty. The arguments repeatedly made above about improvements in adaptation, such as better building codes, having an effect on losses are misguided. While substantial improvements in building codes have indeed been made, few of these adaptations are aimed specifically at hurricane losses, but rather at improved day-to-day safety, environmental impact, and cost. Unless structures are designed and built specifically for hurricanes, there's no reason to expect buildings to withstand hurricanes any better. Consider that a colonial-era fieldstone structure is more likely to survive than a modern lumber and siding structure. Is this so hard to understand?
       Moderator Response: All-caps converted to italics in accordance with the comments policy.
51706. Uncle Pete at 15:26 PM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       Energy from fission, energy from fossil fuels. Apples and oranges. Biofuels , at best a niche product. For the heavy lifting in emission free energy the only answer for now is nuclear. I shall again quote my personal prophet Bob Dylan . "Let us not speak falsely now , the hour is getting late" (From all along the Watchtower)
51707. markx at 12:16 PM on 7 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       [SNIP]
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) - See my previous moderator comment. The fallacy in your claim has not been addressed, and you have simply persisted with this nonsensical notion. This is your 2nd warning for sloganeering (and note that this applies to reasonable dialogue peppered with sloganeering). No more warnings will be given, so please take the time to acquaint yourself with the comments policy
51708. quokka at 11:56 AM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       @Martin Vermeer, If you are going to account for emissions by how much oil heating (or gas heating) is displaced, then you need to consider the whole picture. In France, about a third of homes are electrically heated and about 90% of new homes. It's viable due to the low off peak electricity costs due to nuclear power. If you then subtract the emissions saved in heating from the life cycle emissions of nuclear power you will end up with a very attractive figure - possibly negative. This would be a fair comparison with micro gas CHP. The above attempt to show that even gas CHP has lower emissions than nuclear is not valid because it's terms of reference are too restricted and designed to reach a particular conclusion. There are also a number of places around the world where nuclear is used to provide district heating as well as electricity. The UK CCC devotes a large section of the "The Renewable Energy Review" to renewable heat. Their clear preference is for electrification where possible by heat pumps and where not possible by resistive heating. They did consider CHP and district heating, but reserved it as a topic for further study with fairly limited potential.
51709. dana1981 at 11:33 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Sphaerica @12 - somewhere in the post I linked a back-and-forth with Pielke commenting on Emanuel (2005) and Emanuel commenting back. Pielke made his 'no normalized US hurricane damage trend' comment and Emanuel came back saying that in looking at all Atlantic hurricanes he was using far more data. This is my point, that we know Atlantic hurricanes are becoming more intense, so if that hasn't impacted the USA yet, what's to make us believe that fortune will continue? In a changing climate, Pielke's argument seems like a 'fingers crossed' hope we get lucky when the evidence suggests we won't.
51710. Alpinist at 10:17 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Michael, agreed all weather has a socioeconomic compononent. My point was that: you can argue we have more declared disasters because it's a "political" response, we have more billion dollar weather events and more insurance paid out because we have more infrastructure at risk etc etc. More precipitation falling as intense events, more droughts, more forest fires, more extreme heat events are simple physical measurements, there is no socioeconomic component to their measurement. Obviously Munich Re doesn’t believe the insurance risk is higher because “there’s more stuff in the way”, and I don’t either.
51711. Bob Lacatena at 09:33 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       10, dana1981, I was looking at historical storm tracks (see here and here.), wondering if there has been a change in the tracks of storms so that fewer hit the USA. It's possible, but I'd need to download and analyze the data to see. But I don't think it's worth the time. After just perusing the data, it looks to me like so few storms hit the USA mainland that it's just a "sparse data cherry pick." That is, without decades upon decades of data, you won't get enough to say if there's been a change. It's a very easy thing to do, to say "no change" because so few storms hit, and without a 100% increase in the number of storms, you're not going to see a big change in that 0-3 storms making landfall average. Interestingly, storms seem to take one of 3 tracks. If they form far enough south, they go straight and stay south and hit the Caribbean and Mexico, and maybe turn up to hit the USA Gulf Coast. If they form west or north, they turn sooner, maybe skirting Florida and then heading out to sea. And if they form in the "sweet spot", where they turn late, they'll hit landfall in the Gulf or East Coast. But that sweet spot is so small that very, very few storms form there. Of course, now we have a fourth category, the "zig zagger" that turns north, then turns back to the coast. Anyone know anything about this (the science behind predicted storm tracks)?
51712. Martin Vermeer at 08:24 AM on 7 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       > I've got to be skeptical of that emissions figure and would > like to know how they are doing their carbon accounting. Documented here. "Die rechnerisch negativen Emissionen des BHKW mit Biogas ergeben sich, weil die Gutschrift für die in Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung erzeugte Wärme größer ist als die Gesamtemissionen des BHKW, das CO2-neutrales Biogas einsetzt. Dies zeigt die fol- gende Abbildung nochmals grafisch." ...and in Figure 3 it says, that the heat produced (in combined heat-power mode) is accounted as replacing oil heating.
51713. michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Alpinist, All weather has a socioeconomic impact. It just depends how hard you look. Heavy rain events cause more floods. Google Duluth Michigan earlier this year. Fire acreage affects logging, a prime employer in many rural districts, and tourism. My food is more expensive today because of the midwestern drought last summer. It will continue to get more expensive until there is a good harvest. A portion of the unrest in the Mid East is due to increased food costs, caused by drought. The deniers claim no effects are happening. You just have to look more carefully. That is why Pielke is so selective in his measurements. If he chooses broader measurements, like Munich Re does, the pattern is clear.
51714. dana1981 at 06:36 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       I invited Pielke Jr. to comment here but he has declined. Apparently he prefers to toss insults at SkS from the comfort of his own blog. Several commenters there have done a good job holding his feet to the fire though, so he's clarified his position a bit. Esentially Pielke argues that hurricane power dissipation index (PDI) within the USA has not increased, at least as of 2005 (citing a 2006 paper by Landsea) - I would love to see if that's still true given the high hurricane activity this decade. This despite the fact that Atlantic basin PDI has increased, per Emanuel's work. If both are correct, then despite Atlantic hurricanes becoming more intense, for some reason the average intensity has not increased once they reach the US coast. My response to that would be that if Francis is right and the Arctic sea ice decline is going to cause more blocking events near Greenland and thus more hurricanes turning toward the US coast like Sandy, why should we expect that trend to continue? This is an issue Pielke has not addressed at all. Nevertheless, his argument is that since US PDI has not increased, normalized losses should not have increased either. Thus if his normalization shows no trend, he's gotten the right answer, so his methodology must be right, even though he entirely fails to account for technological improvements. Pielke hasn't made this argument explicitly, but it's what I gather from what little defense he's willing to put forth and what few questions he's willing to answer. And if this is his argument ('I got the answer I expected therefore I'm right'), it's just plain bad science.
51715. Paul Magnus at 06:20 AM on 7 November 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Interesting... (my last post on this topic here:) New Jersey Earthquake 2012: Small Quake Rattles Ringwood Community http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/new-jersey-earthquake-2012_n_2075620.html N.J. - Some residents in northern New Jersey awoke to a small earthquake early Monday. The temblor, with a magnitude of 2.0, struck at 1:19 a.m. and was centered in Ringwood, a community that's still dealing with downed trees and power outages from Sandy.
51716. Alpinist at 06:16 AM on 7 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       The focus on what’s “sexy” at the moment, be it hurricanes, tornadoes, derechoes, or what have you does miss the point. There are a variety of extreme weather events that happen and do not rise to the level of getting a name or a title. There are a variety of metrics to approximate this; declared disasters, billion dollar weather events, forest fire acreage, drought severity, disruptions to the electrical grid, insured losses from catastrophes etc. Some of these have a socio-economic component which is hard to avoid. The observed increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy precipitation has no socio-economic component, forest fire acreage burned can be complex, but it doesn’t have much of socio-economic component, nor do extreme heat events/drought. If Pielke wants to focus on hurricanes, not only is he cherry picking the data, he’s cherry picking the events. Cross posted @ Tamino's...
51717. M Tucker at 10:27 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Since we all know what Pielke Jr’s agenda really is this is no surprise at all. That it would be published in WSJ is no surprise at all. We all recognize the standard tactic of cherry-picking the data and obfuscation. I wonder why the US experience is the only one that should matter since, after all, we are talking about GLOBAL warming. I wonder what the Texas farmers who have experienced two consecutive growing seasons of drought would have to say about Pielke Jr’s claim that droughts have become less frequent. I am just grateful for SkS, Dana, and all the others who provide a site where science, truth and reason can shine through!
51718. Tom Dayton at 10:21 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       In Firefox the only two images I can see are the Bloomberg cover and "The 2012 Atlantic...". When I click on those empty spots I get file not found. I tried hard refresh to no avail. Works fine in Safari.
51719. dana1981 at 10:17 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Hah, I like the 'bazillion-word' comment. This post is a little bit on the long side, but 2700 words is hardly a 'bazillion'. Personally I prefer a bit of long-winded technical detail to a trite one-word retort. For now my default assumption is that Pielke doesn't have an intelligent response to these criticisms of his comments in the WSJ.
51720. Magnus W at 08:58 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Are you not being a bit to "nice" from the post about Grinsted et al. "Grinsted et al. have identified an important and reliable indicator of landfalling storms in the U.S. southeast, and have found clear (and statistically significant) evidence of increase in activity over time and association with warmer temperatures. As the world continues to warm, expect the trends to continue."
51721. Albatross at 08:52 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Wow, what a compelling refutation by Roger Pielke Junior in response to Dana's post(/sarc): "Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish." Here Pielke Junior is grossly exaggerating and trying to invert reality. Ironically, he made this baseless statement in a post that included "Technical Thread" in the title. Yet, his blog post consists almost entirely of unsubstantiated statements and no technical dioscussion or analysis whatsoever (and no, the figure use as a prop at the top of his post does not count). If one wants a technical discussion, with some statistical analysis, then go to OpenMind or RealClimate or SkepticalScience-- pretty much anyone's site except Pielke's blog. Heck even the folks at WUWT try and undertake some technical analysis now and again. Roger Pielke Junior seems to think that he is above the fray and that all he has to do is simply assert something and voila, it is true and beyond dispute. That attitude strikes me as being not only arrogant, but the antithesis of how good sacience is done. Just for good measure, Roger refers to SkS as "clueless" in the comments thread. Of course he states that without offering any analysis whatsoever to try and back up his juvenile (and unprofessional) jab. Now Roger will probably take exception to my wording here and feign offense or worse yet, use it as an excuse not to debate the science. But if he does, he will be guilty of holding a double standard and hypocrisy-- he is all too eager to insult and ridicule people on a whim, but then elects to take exception when people criticize him (or his work), even when they have good reason to do so.
51722. Doug Bostrom at 08:42 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Rather than "42," Pielke's considered answer to climate, hurricanes and everything seems be "a bazillion." That is to say, here's the rejoinder offered by Pielke: Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish. There are a few loose ends in that argument, starting with how many zeros are in an even bazillion?
51723. dhogaza at 08:41 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       "Billions of dollars were also saved because local governments had time to minimize the storm's impact on infrastructure." One could make an endless list of savings due to better detection and tracking of storms. For example, think how much has been saved by airlines being able to move their airplanes out of harms way starting late sunday through early monday, while scheduling them to return on tuesday? They managed to keep a tight window because of accurate tracking, minimizing damage to their equipment *and* downtime. One can go on and on with such examples.
51724. littlerobbergirl at 08:35 AM on 6 November 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Nailed. Yes 'why not better now' is exactly right especially for developed countries; no great population increase, no new shanty towns, little 'natural' coastal sinking, all the counter argument used for somewhere like bangladesh (although even there they now have hurricane shelters and swimmi g lessons for ladies) and still the losses increase The insurance comPanies surely know bettr than any how to assess risk by definition - it was reading a 2007 Lloyds of london report anticipating minimum 1 metre sea level rise this century around uk that started my 'oh shit' phase ...
51725. idunno at 08:25 AM on 6 November 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
       I've just run across this... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/letter_paxman.pdf ...which may be worth sticking on the to-be-debunked list.
51726. quokka at 07:48 AM on 6 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       Actually, no. "Erdgas" is not "biogas", that is the next line down in that table and shows a negative number due to it offsetting FF emissions. "Erdgas" is good ol' FF natural gas I've got to be skeptical of that emissions figure and would like to know how they are doing their carbon accounting. If a CCGT running at about ~50% thermal efficiency generates electricity with emissions of about 350 g CO2/kWh, I really cannot see how any sort of CHP plant could manage < 50 g CO2/kWh.
51727. scaddenp at 06:46 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       "No, but all are interlinked. Each is used to justify the value obtained for the other." Sorry, please show me where the measurement of SLR is dependent on CERES or Argo? Attributing sea level rise requires estimates of the all sources and the errors is involved with doing this is discussed in detail in the original Trenberth paper which I assume you are alluding to. However, the sealevel rise, (which like any measurement has error bars but there is no way to "uncertainty" away the reality) is a fact. To account for it you must consider all the contributors for it. To say the OHC measurement is invalid takes other contributors outside the realms of physical possibility. That is the "sniff test".
51728. Uncle Pete at 05:54 AM on 6 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=320&terms=loading%20%20%20fuel China is following France's example
51729. vrooomie at 04:51 AM on 6 November 2012
       A Sunburnt Country
       *Entirely* off topic, but at least closely related to Glenn's wonderful recitation of MacKeller's wonderful poem, I hope the mods will allow me this small conceit of a post, if only to lighten the "mood"... As some here may not know, I was married to an Australian, who introduced me to an Aussie singer/songwriter, John Williamson. It was, in the end, the greatest gift that the marriage gave to me. Given the majority of my world-view, from political to cultural, to socio-economically, is largely informed by my being a singer and guitarist, this was a huge turning point for me: John's music 'grabbed my soul' in a way few other singer/songwriters have, outside of my fellow countryman, John Denver. Benefiting from my "graduate seminar" of learning Aussie lingo during the short duration of my marriage, coupled with my insatiable thirst for music that not only conveys a person's soul, but represents the soul of the country that the singer sings from, Williamson has been an invaluable aid to me understanding your "Sunburnt Country." John uses imagery from MacKellar, Banjo Paterson, and Henry Lawson, and a host of other 'true blue' Aussies, all of whom do a masterful job of summing up the Aussie spirit and life force, of which I've been a lifelong fan. In my relatively recent 'role' of scientist, my knowledge of the "aussie glossie' has been of extreme importance, for I view Australia as the country we Americans most identify with, and whose force to do good in this rapidly-changing world is second-to-none. I now incorporate a number of Williamson's songs in my band's act: though some take a bit of 'interpretation' before performance, this one always seems to get 'across,' despite the wide gap in language. Glenn, thank you for the method in which you presented the science, in a lyrical and soulful way. I strive to do the same, in my journey as a musician and a geologist, trying to get folks to wake up. The song that so vividly gets through to folks, the "truth" about your country, was one of the first my countrymen were exposed to, when he performed it for Steve Irwin's memorial in 2006. Let us hope we ALL are not disappearing......
51730. dhogaza at 04:29 AM on 6 November 2012
       Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
       Bernard J: "I too appreciate your analogy. I hope you don't mind if I shamelessly plagiarise it in future posts!" Certainly! It amazes me how many people interpret "X not shown to be statistically significant" is the same as saying "X refuted". Must be careful of educating people about probability/statistics, though, would hate to be blamed for putting casinos out of business! :)
51731. M Tucker at 04:14 AM on 6 November 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
       The urgency implied by the cover will quickly fade. Most TV media have moved on. Global warming is a very distant issue for most voters and sea level rise is still being used by Republicans as a laugh line with their constituents. Those still trying to recover from Sandy will have a nor’easter to deal with Wednesday and Thursday and we all know that no one can do anything about it. Just have to take another hit. We have to live with the sea level we have and just have to accept the sea level rise built into the warming we have created.
51732. gws at 03:43 AM on 6 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       quokka "I presume "natural gas" means bio-gas. " Actually, no. "Erdgas" is not "biogas", that is the next line down in that table and shows a negative number due to it offsetting FF emissions. "Erdgas" is good ol' FF natural gas. I did not go into biogas, although that is an obvious contributor to a renewables portfolio. Here as well, there are challenges: Food production should not be affected. But that is a straw man. 30-yr old technology is used in many places already to convert animal feces into biogas. One just has to multiply that effort. We need to highlight these positive efforts, not talk them down. So where are those nuclear 60 GWe installed and why? (Hint: highlight the positives!) Carbon targets? Good for planning! Not much moves until you set a goal and the rules of the game, such as a price on carbon. Making a start is crucial ... we are waiting for that in the US ...
51733. Doug Bostrom at 03:38 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Come to think of it, as an exercise I'd like to see Markx apply the same method he's using with climate data to the kilogram. After all, it's arguable that the stability of the world economy and much else depends on the kilogram; an iota of error would be unacceptable. Compared to certainty of the kilogram global warming is just a minor detail-- thinking of the present case ocean heat measurements are derivative of our confidence in the kilogram. Markx, care to give it a whirl?
51734. Ari Jokimäki at 03:09 AM on 6 November 2012
       New research from last week 44/2012
       Fixed, thanks. :)
51735. Doug Bostrom at 03:03 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       The point is, Markx, that Argo is not calibrated against CERES, which seems to be the feature you're trying to convey in your attempt to show circularity. -Some- floats were discovered to be malfunctioning thanks to having an alternate observation source available, but the data produced by the Argo array does not employ CERES data as its reference standard, which I think is the misperception you're laboring under. In any case if you're bothered with calibration in general then I suppose a kilogram is suspect as well. After all, the kilogram is observation fitted to models, right? And it's only gotten worse as our understanding of physics has improved. 200 years ago a kilogram was very simple; now we know more and a kilogram has become very complicated. Do we know less, or more? Is the kilogram more less useful now, freighted as it?
51736. DSL at 02:42 AM on 6 November 2012
       Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today's
       This thread seemed lonely, so . . . Adventurers return home after historic trip through Northwest Passage Quote: "Since their return home, the office of former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has contacted the group and asked to use some of their photos in Gore's presentations on the effects of climate change. But instead of taking money for the photos, the group asked Gore to compensate them by offsetting the carbon they used on their journey, meaning the trip is effectively carbon neutral."
51737. markx at 02:34 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       doug_bostrom at 01:50 AM on 6 November, 2012 re: "errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." Hi Doug; I got that information from an article mentioned in a previous post. (-snip-). From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey) November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

       “Our team has been involved for many years in constructing time series of net flux from satellite data, going back to the 1980s,” says Wong. The observations started with a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and today are being made with Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.... ....From 1993 to 2003, measurements of heat storage in the oceans agreed with satellite observations of net flux. After 2003, however, surface observations suggested that the ocean was losing heat, while satellite measurements of net flux showed the Earth was still slowly gaining energy. This mismatch was a hint that there might be a problem with one of the data sets.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] If you are indeed the same markx posting comments here as at Shaping Tomorrow's World (here, for example), please note that SkS has a Comments Policy forbidding sloganeering and accusations of deception. Moderation has already had to be enacted on your previous comments as a result (Note that similar to STW, all comments placed at SkS are audited for compliance).

       Your referenced source is very shelf-dated. For OHC, Levitus et al 2012 is considered the more reliable source on OHC, as it contains actual data to December 2011, rather than on speculation.

       Discussions of Earth's energy imbalance are more proper on a more appropriate thread (the Search function yields this as a suggestion). Off-topic comments will be removed. Thanks in advance for your compliance in this matter!

       Sloganeering/intimations of impropriety snipped.

51738. Composer99 at 02:12 AM on 6 November 2012
       New research from last week 44/2012
       The citation information at the end of the abstract of the Brysse et al (2012) paper is for the subsequent Guangliang et al paper.
51739. Doug Bostrom at 01:50 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Here's what you said about Argo, Markx. This site doesn't rely on an oral tradition; there's a database so it's possible to have retrospective. Markx: "It was interesting to note that the errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." But you were wrong. Were you simply asking a question? No, hardly. Quite the opposite; you were not just saying "I doubt it" but making up stories to justify that doubt. Silly. I suggest you use the search function and look up a fellow who used to appear here, one "Berenyi Peter." He'll show you the way to do a really baroque and quality "I doubt it."
51740. KR at 01:39 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       markx, various... - One underlying theme that you appear to be overlooking (IMO) is that given multiple measurements (ocean heat content, tidal gauges, satellite TOA radiation and sea altimeter measures, etc.), the combination of multiple measures with their own constraints and overlapping observation times (as with CERES and XBT/ARGO transitions) allows us to refine the accuracy of all measurements. The more data you have, the more accurate and precise your measurements. That's basic math - the signal to noise (S/N) improves relative to the square root of the number of observations. Multiple overlapping instruments also permit calibration across instrument transitions. So yes, we can indeed determine temperatures with hundredths of a degree, even with 1/10 or single digit accuracy thermometers - because we have a lot of data, from many different instruments and modalities.
51741. markx at 01:11 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012 "... dredged google..." I confess that is the first place I go these days for information; however both the Loeb paper and the Levitus paper have been on my computer for quite some time. On Levitus the 0.09 degrees C change measured over a 55 year period caught my eye. I had earlier been interested in TOA radiation measurements (Loeb)as they in earlier times were put forward as the proof of role of the greenhouse gases, but unfortunately the degree of precision required is perhaps lacking at this stage. The NASA "correcting Ocean Cooling article I found a few days ago, and searches on TSLR sent me to: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf Showing the imprecision of current satellite data (Icesat, Grace, Jason..) ... (imprecision of 1+ mm/yr) ... hence the proposed GRASP mission to rectify those problems. All of these topics; Argo, Ceres, TSLR, Jason, Grace, and later GRASP, are interlinked. Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012

       Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations.

       I have no problems with that theory. But I am interested in how precisely we are measuring all this. If all the basic data has some degree of imprecision, and it seems to, we still have a lot of data to collect.
51742. quokka at 01:09 AM on 6 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       @gws Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now. I presume "natural gas" means bio-gas. At least in Australia, it normally means fossil gas. Whatever the life cycle emissions are, this is a self limiting technology unless you wish to cover the planet in maize farms. Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. You claim this, but it is not necessarily true. There is, for example, considerable resistance to on-shore wind in parts of the UK. It is hard to see this not increasing, simply because of the large land requirements of wind (and other renewables). But in the end, the bottom line is cost regardless of how many people are employed. As for build rates, France managed to displace fossil fuels in electricity generation far faster than any deployment of non-hydro renewables has in any nation. Of course it is very challenging, but that applies to all technologies. Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh There is about 60GWe of new nuclear capacity under construction world wide. There is, as I understand, about 70GWp of PV installed worldwide. Given their respective capacity factors, PV would have to grow by a factor of 5-6 just to generate as much electricity as that new nuclear capacity. Perhaps it will, but it needs to be reality not promises. Meanwhile, industry associations in the UK for nuclear, renewables and CCS have joined forces in a letter to the government calling for specific carbon targets supported by investment in nuclear, renewables and CCS Industry letter calls for decarbonisation target in energy bill Somewhat to my surprise, Greenpeace has supported the letter. (Maybe they didn't read it properly). A step in the right direction and an important development. It doesn't have to be renewables OR nuclear. It can be renewables AND nuclear and we get the job done sooner. And worldwide, that is by far the most likely outcome.
51743. markx at 00:31 AM on 6 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Looks like my post got lost (not too sure of my maths below, but it's be ballpark correct I think): doug_bostrom at 19:29 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..Markx's Argo error. ..." I didn't think I was in error there, I simply asked a question. The 0 to 700 meter level of the world's oceans have risen 0.18 degrees C in 55 years (early measurements were taken from ships decks using a reversing mercury thermometer calibrated in 10ths of degrees C, by a line ... thanks Rob) And the total 0 to 2000 metre range of the world's oceans has been measured to have risen 0.09 degrees C over 55 years... So therefore the 701 to 2000 meter ocean depth must have risen a measured 0.00415 degrees C in 55 years. Is my maths correct?
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) - No need to even bother checking your math. You are simply repeating a fallacy, and one that was corrected by SkS commenters previously -see comments 72 & 73.

       The precision of the measurements cannot not be determined by taking the warming of the whole 0-2000 meter layer and dividing that into the ocean volume (assuming that is what you've done).

       Following on from Doug Bostrom's comment, here's a simple analogy for readers benefit:

       A University experiment is carried out to determine whether staff/students are gaining or losing weight over time. Regular weighing is carried out and at the end of the experiment it is found that all involved have gained a total of x kilos.

       "Whoa! Wait a moment!" says Markx "How can we be sure? When I take x (the total weight gained) and divide it by the number of people weighed, the number is 0.000x. There is absolutely no way the scales have that sort of precision. How can we be sure that anyone gained any weight at all?"

       Thus the illogicality of your thinking is illustrated such that even the non-technically-minded can understand.

       Also please note that constantly repeating a myth/fallacy is deemed to be sloganeering. This therefore constitutes the first of 3 warnings. Please familiarize yourself with comments policy.
51744. gws at 22:03 PM on 5 November 2012
       The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
       Oh the memes ... It is, unfortunately, not true that nuclear is a CO2 emissions free technology, aside from its other issues. Uranium mining, and building, maintaining and deconstructing nuclear power plants safely, has a significant CO2 footprint. Source: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1157/2011-031-de.pdf Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now. Currently, nuclear produces about 6% of global energy consumption, and only as electricity. You can check the source above or calculate on your own how many nuclear plants you have to build to make a serious dent in CO2 emissions, with or without electrifying transportation ... with current nuclear technology (PWRs) you quickly run into resource issues of - building safely, high quality parts fast enough - finding qualified personnel for construction and operation - finding enough uranium - storing waste - preventing proliferation - operating safely under competing water demands. Does France consider this a serious option? I doubt it. They imported electricity from Germany last year when it got too hot in France and cooling demand exceeded availability (a problem all such plants face during heat waves). So no nuclear? The industry's announcements have almost always topped reality. Once they actually achieve what they claim, e.g. build and successfully operate the new generation reactor that will use nuclear waste, we can talk again. So I come back to my original comment: Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh.
51745. Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Uncertainty is a topic for legitimate discussion. We've seen little of that from you so far. You started with ropes and buckets, and appear to have dredged google in order to throw up research which, you believe, casts doubt on the very obvious warming of the planet. Uncertainty is discussed in the literature, and observationally-based studies do quantify this. It is no great secret. Now if you want to start quantifying this yourself, and/or actually engage in meaningful discussion, then do so. Needless repetition of memes or myths constitutes sloganeering, and may result in future comments being snipped accordingly. Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations.
51746. markx at 20:25 PM on 5 November 2012
       Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
       Full reference for above post: Nature 413, 508-512 (4 October 2001) | doi:10.1038/35097055; Received 20 February 2001; Accepted 21 August 2001 High frequency of 'super-cyclones' along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years. Jonathan Nott & Matthew Hayne http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html
51747. markx at 20:24 PM on 5 November 2012
       Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
       doug_bostrom at 15:41 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..... ever in its region what's the diagnostic of the obedience, the fingerprint of "normal?" ..." Worth thinking about: Here is an Australian report showing we should expect a 'super-cyclone' every 200 to 300 years, not every 1000 as previously suspected. Now, Europeans have only been recording such things in Australia for 200 years or so... so we are not sure when the nest one is due. But when it comes along I am sure we will blame it on AGW. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html

       Here we determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces that have been eroded into coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits. ...... We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa). Our estimate of the frequency of such 'super-cyclones' is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..).

51748. markx at 20:07 PM on 5 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       scaddenp at 19:49 PM on 5 November, 2012 "...So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements..." No, but all are interlinked. Each is used to justify the value obtained for the other. As is pointed out, that does not mean any of them are incorrect. And, on the other hand it does not mean that all, or any of them are entirely correct. We are really still in the very early stages of data collection here, with ocean temperature data being collected in detail and depth only since 2000, and satellite data for both TOA radiation flux and sea level rise needing better technology and better data. This is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion, and I am surprised you find it heretical; Topic: Just how precisely measured are all these parameters?
51749. scaddenp at 19:49 PM on 5 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       "But is there a really tight agreement between calculated and TSL, measured OHC and TOA? " So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements. There are many problems in determining heat imbalance from satellite measurements. Argo is quite definitely the best instrument for that but it's short term data. On the other hand, the problems is closing the heat balance would point to MORE heat being stored in the ocean to close with the sea level curve not less.
51750. Rob Painting at 19:39 PM on 5 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Doug, there's an SkS post about Loeb (2012) here: Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline' The Levitus methodology, upon which Levitus (2012) & Nuccitelli (2012) are based, actually shows the smallest warming rate over 2004-2008, for the upper 700 metres of global ocean. This is largely down to differences in how to handle sparse sampling in the datasets. Contrary to Markx's insinuations, uncertainty is like a dagger - it cuts both ways.

Prev  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  Next