Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 Next
Comments 53901 to 53950:
-
skywatcher at 09:40 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
#15 KR - very interesting statement. I have to wonder if Soon and Briggs' graph at Washington Times is hand-drawn. Two graphical things lead towards that conclusion, one noticed by somebody else, the second by me (full resolution source, from newspaper article):
1: First, it is apparent that lines on the graph do not always join up smoothly, always progressing forwards in time, as they would if they were generated by a plotting program from a single series of data. This is most apparent around 1935 and 1953 in the "solar radiation" curve. In both cases, the line appears to go "backwards", or is not joined, and so is not a normal single time series. It may suggest multiple data sources, or poor tracing of a single data source; either is very poor practice.
2: Second, several of the line segments are perfectly vertical, despite both series being ostensibly continuous time series, and the resolution of the plot being sufficient (580 pixels/180 years) that lines of a year's length should all be non-vertical. Again, data should always progress forwards in time. No automatic plotting pachage that I am aware of would produce a plot like the one above. Examples are in the temperature plot around 1850 and 1895, and in the solar radiation plot at about 1960. The line segments frequently cover many years, and are clearly smoothed data, so there is no reason to think that what is being presented is monthly data (which would be of a resolution to allow vertical segments).
These very strongly suggest to me that the plot, uness it can be shown otherwise by the authors, is traced by hand, using a package such as Illustrator. The only other explanation is that there are multiple points for the same year, or even two points which go back in time, neither of which should exist in a timeseries plot like this.
These features, along with the lack of a source for the solar data, make me very suspicious indeed of the graph's provenance. It may just reflect poor practice (though what user of climate data cannot plot data from a spreadsheet?). The Comments Policy forbids me from speculating on other possible motives.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 08:56 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Dikran, your point is valid and i will need to address those reinsurer claims on the appropriate thread. -
villabolo at 08:47 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
I have a couple of questions for John C. I apologize if they were addressed in the video - I haven't had time to watch the whole thing. 1. Are you post-millenial? 2. Are you an "Old Earth" Creationist?Response: Sorry to disappoint you but I've never really taken the time to investigate eschatology and pre/post millenial theology. As for the age of the earth, this blog post should make my views clear. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:47 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Zeph, I made a general comment about model resolution here It's not an answer to trusting paleo climate models for sensitivity, I have a more direct critique of deriving CS from Paleo data in various threads such as here -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:35 AM on 13 September 2012Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
Here's an example of coupling regional and global models: http://www.clim-past.net/8/25/2012/cp-8-25-2012.pdf One advantage is being able to downscaling global model output to look at local effects (when looking into the future). There was an article here about the future of the Los Angeles basin using that technique. I thought this 2004 paper explained the advantages of combining high and low res models pretty well: NS Diffenbaugh, LC Sloan - Journal of climate, 2004. A key advantages is the availability of high res regional data, so it may not seem as applicable to the distant past. However I believe the regional models can still be validated against similar modern climate data (although I don't have a ref for that) and that would provide valuable input to the global model. My view is that although the papers mainly talk about the advantages of being able to handle topographic complexity in the regional models, the weather that is being simulated is often an example of "topographical complexity" without topography. That because the lifting in a front, although not fixed and unyielding like a mountain chain has many of the same small scale effects with the importance noted in the paper. -
dana1981 at 07:55 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
KR @15 - the correlation between local temps and TSI is independent of TSI? I think the 'statistician to the stars' may be losing it. I'm also glad that reputable media outlets have not published this utter nonsense. -
Zeph at 07:30 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
I have a suggestion re "models" for Eric and everyone. Let's not lump all models together. Reading Eric's posts earlier in the thread, I think that sometimes he is referring to AOGCM's and sometimes he is referring to other model (eg: paleoclimate). Computer models of one sort or another seem to be ubiquitous in science today. Of course at some level every equation and every statistical result is based on a model of the physical phenomena they seek to simplify and explain, and this goes way back. But since computer calculations are so easy today, computer modeling is now very common in everything from analyzing cancer cases to assessing avian biodiversity. Some things can inherently be better modeled than others, and the quality of modeling also varies. They have become essential tools, but can also be inaccurate or misused. If one is equally distrustful of all models used by science then one can discount much of what's been published in the last decade in many sciences. I think we need more nuance than that to meaningfully discuss the subject. In this context, paleoclimate research may indeed use some kinds of "models" in analyzing the data, but they need not be the same AOGCM's used by the IPCC and thus not subject to the same strengths or weaknesses. Eric wants GCM's to handle square mile grid cells and 100 years in 10 min segments before he (might conceivably) trust them. But what's that got to do with trusting paleoclimate estimates for CS? If the latter analysis uses models which he believes to be inaccurate, Eric needs to make specific critiques of those specific models, not just discount "models" in general. So let's all be more specific about which "models" we are referring to. If you mean a GCM, say so. If you mean some particular domain specific model used to analyze ice cores, say so. Let's avoid lumping them all together as simply "models". -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Now if Phil Jones had said something like that . . . -
M Tucker at 07:00 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John Hartz @95 I am flattered. I am not opposed to working up a post but I do all my writing here at work, in the free moments, some moments are more free than others. Of course I can do some work at home but no internet connection there. Feel free to contact me at my email address, which I’m sure you have on file, and I am happy to work with anyone to create a blog post on this topic. -
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"We don't need more light - you are being confused by the Urban Dark Areas..." -
John Hartz at 06:47 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Some afternoon delights... "Those light bulbs were made on an island in an urban area!" "From now on, we only buy lightbulbs made in pristine remote locations that have not changed in 200 years!" "The urban heat island effect casuses many to erroneously believe it is pitch black in here." "Light bulbs emit more heat than light. That's why it's getting so cold in here." -
John Hartz at 06:39 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@CBDunkerson #96: Bravo! -
william5331 at 06:39 AM on 13 September 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
The effects of the deepening and stalling of the Rossby waves of the Polar Jet stream will pale into insignificance compared to the effects that will result if the Arctic Ocean collects enough heat to reverse the flow of the Polar Hadley Cell. If this occurs, the Ferrel cell will extend to the pole, it will meet the Equatorial Hadley cell at about 45 degrees North and masses of heat will be transmitted poleward. The Polar Jet Stream will disappear and the next jet stream south will move to about 45 degrees North. Undoubtedly it will have Rossby waves which push weather around the globe but it will be temperate and tropical weather systems rather than polar and temperate weather systems. -
CBDunkerson at 06:21 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"Light bulbs violate the second law of thermodynamics." "Darkness is colorless, odorless, and naturally occurring." "Research shows that it got dark before humans developed light bulbs." "Studies show that occasional darkness is healthy. Therefor perpetual darkness must be even better." "Changing the light bulb would destroy the economy." "If God wanted us to have light bulbs He would have made the stars big enough to fit in a lamp." "The luminosity hockey stick, showing rapidly increased light when the bulb is turned on, has obviously been faked." "I don't believe in light bulbs." "The government took all our light bulbs away." -
John Hartz at 05:17 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@ M Tucker #94: Your response to the two questions posed in the OP is very much appreciated. Would you be interested in transforming it into a blog post artcle for publication on this website? I and other members of the SkS author team would be more than willing to assist you polish an initial draft. -
JohnMashey at 04:54 AM on 13 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
re: 128 Dikran See pp.523-524 of Golden Holocaust... Briefly Liggett invested a lot of money in a technique to make cigarettes "safer," and they came under terrifc pressure from other cigarette vendors not to ever market it. Since the cigarette vendors often acted together, there as a "gentleman's agreement" never to come out and say "safer" and if somebody screwed up, they got pressured. On the other hand, "light" cigarettes could give the impression without ever saying "safety." But, the bottom line of this was to assess CATO: it gets paid by tobacco companies to help them stay in business, which they do only by killing children children slowly. CATO {along with Heartland, etc} do this by invoking a legitimate general idea, personal freedom, which however gets kneejerk reaction among some people that makes cigarette company's actions just fine. If a thinktank is willing to help such efforts, confusing the public on climate science is child's play by comparison. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:32 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Willie and I are hunting around for other outlets (with more exposure than this small blog) to show the others.
Why? Have we grown tired of publishing scientific papers in science journals? -
WheelsOC at 04:24 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
The Cornwall Alliance is an excellent example of rejecting the findings of science in favor of ideology out of a religious, dogmatic approach. It seems that the signatories take it as an article of religious faith that humans can't wreck God's planet, because God wouldn't have allowed it. It's similar to the dogmatic, faith-based rejection of common descent by Creationist anti-evolutionists. It's telling that Roy Spencer is both, and has signed the statement of faith from the Cornwall Alliance which basically pins their beliefs about the climate to matters of sectarian religious belief rather than scientific evidence. -
M Tucker at 04:17 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Responding to John Hartz @66 I will take up both the “alarmist” moniker as well as the “warmist” moniker you also mentioned. How do I feel if so labeled? Just fine! I accept the labels. I am very alarmed and it is definitely getting warmer faster than ever before in earth’s history. I then refer to Michael Mann’s work and to Dr Lee R Kump. Dr Kump is a self described expert on planetary fevers. He has been working on reconstructing the events of the PETM event and is happy to point out that our current situation is moving much faster than nature was able to accomplish about 55 million years ago. As for “alarmists” in history…Absolutely, Winston Churchill immediately comes to mind. For both WWII and for how the Soviet Union would react once the war was over. I then think of Leo Szilard and the letter he wrote to Roosevelt, economist Alexander Sachs for being persistent in bringing the letter to Roosevelt, and I give President Roosevelt great credit for paying attention to the science. I also give Roosevelt and General Marshall great credit for getting the military in shape prior to Dec 7. Many forget the unprecedented peace time draft bill Roosevelt got thorough Congress in 1940 in spite of the anti-war, isolationist Republicans. Then I think of Rachel Carson (American) and Helen Caldicott (Australian). Being an American you might think I would immediately jump on old Paul the hard riding “alarmist,” he did raise the alarm along with a few others, but, after all, the Brits were already here. I would like to give “alarmist” credit to Sam Adams who raised the alarm about the sorry state the militia was in so they were ready to go when Paul made his ride. -
Solar cycles cause global warming
From the William Briggs blog, a rather curious statement: Luis Dias on 7 September 2012 at 11:34 am said:"Leif Svalgaard [refers to posts on WUWT] seems to take great exception to your solar radiation curve." He’s extremely up in arms about it. What do you have to say about what he says, mr Briggs?
Briggs on 7 September 2012 at 2:07 pm said:Luis, Asked Soon. He said “we can make this independent of any TSI curve. I really meant it when I said, we got evidence for Arctic, China and USA temperatures to very co-varying somewhat similarly.” I’ve seen several of these other plots and can verify. For instance, we sent four to the Washington Times; they printed just the one. Willie and I are hunting around for other outlets (with more exposure than this small blog) to show the others. Willie also asks, in the proper spirit, “Svalgaard knew his curve is correct?”
(Emphasis added) I find it quite odd, in an article on the relationship between TSI and temperature, to state that "we can make this independent of any TSI curve". Regardless of the (as yet not provided) provenance of their TSI data, that statement seems to call into question the entire Soon and Briggs article... -
Doug Bostrom at 03:46 AM on 13 September 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
An excellent comment at RC by Christoffer Bugge Harder, pointing out the failure by Humlum et al. to account for carbon isotope ratios and C02 uptake in the ocean that can only be termed as blatant disagreement with their hypothesis. Comment is here. Harder's final suggestion applies to a number of scientists who have compromised themselves over AGW. The scientific community as a whole could be of better assistance to the public in evaluating outlandish claims. Crank or liar? Sometimes choices funnel down uncomfortably tight; charitable instincts suggest the former as opposed to the latter. -
ajki at 03:33 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"What about Venus and Mars? Show bulb changing there first." -
dana1981 at 03:19 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Note that I've contacted both Soon and Briggs asking about the source of their TSI data. Neither has responded. Note also that the Colorado/Lean 2005 reconstruction shows no TSI increase on average over the past ~50 years. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:51 AM on 13 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Excellent talk. In addition to social justice, I would put truthfullness as a core Christian value, so even if AGW had no effect on the poor we should still have an aversion to specious rhetorical reasoning and on our guard against self-deception. BTW I note that I must be part of the conspiracy as I have a handlebar moustache! ;o}P -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz - The Washington Times article (not a peer-reviewed paper, mind you) authored by Soon and Briggs did not identify their source of TSI data, making it extremely difficult to evaluate. The second TSI estimate is based on Lean 2005 - Knopp and Lean 2011 downgrades recent forcings based on corrected satellite calibrations, noting that "Climate change studies that use published TSI time series to accredit solar responses must be cognizant of the possible errors in the record; otherwise climate variability is incorrectly attributed to solar variations that are in fact instrumental drifts." Finally, there are multiple papers indicating, as with Lockwood and Frohlich 2007, Recent oppisitely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, that:...the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
-
Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Tucker @24 I am a pessimist, so your seemingly stronger pessimism than mine caused me to make a comment. So, I agree that the forecast "we are all doomed" is far more likely than "it will be fine". But I have a son, and when he is older I want to be able to say to him: "I have tried, personally and by means of influencing others", and I would like him not to be in despair about his future. Every bit of CO2 emission avoidance helps, finger-pointing does not. Wishful thinking? Maybe so. But people have said that about many things that ultimately became true. -
barry1487 at 02:17 AM on 13 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
scaddenp, Rob, those posts are fine briefs for an article here. Envisat went offline in April. Lasted 10 years, twice as long as its planned operational life. Various groups are still reprocessing the data. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:11 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John Hartz @ 87: many of the toon balloon suggestions on this comment thread do not directly answer the question posed That's exactly the point: we deny that there is a problem... Why try to answer a question that doesn't need answering? -
John Hartz at 01:50 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
@vroomie #89: Pricless! You may move to the head of the class. -
John Hartz at 01:48 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
For your eyes only! A senior SkS author who is not authorized to speak on the record has informed me that this comment thread will be highlighted in the next edition of the Weekly Digest. -
vrooomie at 01:45 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
John, here's what *I* say, and I cannot believe I didn't get it, or otyh4rs didn't either! "How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, to hold the bulb, and 30,000 to spin the data ladder." -
John Hartz at 01:41 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
This morining's output was fueled by one cup of coffee and two cinnamon/raisin buns. I also slept in and was bright eyed and bushy-tailed when I finally awoke. Keep those ideas coming! -
Falkenherz at 01:38 AM on 13 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Two links with some differing findings, namely increasing TSI activity since 1850. What is wrong here? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/ (found matching with with USA daily max temp!) and http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm (see figure "historical TSI reconstruction"-> TSI increase!) -
John Hartz at 01:38 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Suggestion... Because many of the toon balloon suggestions on this comment thread do not directly answer the question posed in the title of Ari's Toon of the Week, I recommend that we use the following title in our follow-up series: "Overheard in the Darkroom of the Climate Deniers" This new title gives us a much larger tent to play in. What say you? -
Robert Murphy at 01:20 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"Once you start down the light path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will" -
John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Another theme perhaps... "The lights never go out in the SkS room because.." "...George Soros pays the utility bills." "...John Cook is filthy rich." "...Dana is really Data." "...SkS authors only work in the light." "...the designs of the lightbulbs they use are always peer-reviewd and published in mainstream scientific journals." "...lightness always trumps darkness." "...The Force is with them." "...they refuse to use lightbulbs with Watts stamped on them." -
John Hartz at 01:03 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Seriously... "We gotta lighten up!" This one applies to both denialists and warmists when we are sparring with each other. -
Robert Murphy at 00:58 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
"I see 5 light bulbs, Mr. O'Brien" -
John Hartz at 00:46 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Another day, another dollar... "In the 1970's they told us we were heading into a Lightness Age" "The darkness is only a temporary aberation." "It's been getting lighter since 1998." "I told you not to repsond to Lewandowsky's survey!" "John Cook and his SkS posse rode into town and shot out all of our lightbulbs." "Why can't we relocate to Planet B?" "The lights didn't go out in the SkS room." -
Kevin C at 00:11 AM on 13 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
When someone labels James Hansen, or me, or anyone else as an alarmist, they are playing a rhetorical trick - that by naming a position or argument you discredit it. We do the same when we label deniers. At the same time we need to refer to views and/or groups without spelling out their views in detail every time, so labels are inevitable. Some are implicitly derogatory (denier, alarmist), some are flattering (skeptic, realist). Sometimes groups adopt derogatory labels (quaker), although this may be associated with an unhealthy persecution mentality. We all use words in the way which we guess will be most effective in communicating to our desired audience. How effective we are depends on how well we gauge the audience. There can also be negative consequences when we don't take into account the response of incidental audiences. Or in other words, I can't get very excited about it. -
Mark-US at 23:57 PM on 12 September 2012Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
Sure its a feedback. Global warming is allowing an animal species to expand its range and to do things in that new range which will in turn produce more global warming. Even though we are human animals, we're still animals. Take the made-up example of caribou altering ground cover in such a way that it accelerates albedo loss.... we'd have no problem calling that made up example a "feedback", right? -
Kevin C at 23:37 PM on 12 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Very interesting video. I was disappointed not to see the questions, can you give us a rough and anonymous outline of the response? Interesting that you found the term 'dominion' so prominently featured in the Cornwall document. Their website subhead is 'For the stewardship of creation'. The two dominant views of creation care in Christian theology are dominion vs stewardship, with the former tending to be climate skeptical. They seem to be trying to claim both sides at once. Did anyone come back at you on theology? It's impossible to build a systematic theology of social justice in 5 mins. Some of the academics might have expected a citation to such a work instead of some, well, 'cherry picked' texts, but I don't think anything you said was exceptionable. I'm not sure I actually understood your Cornwall cherry-picking example, or wasn't there one? A quick scan of the Cornwall document didn't reveal an obvious candidate. They might have consciously tried to avoid cherry-picking and eliminated any obvious examples.Response: [JC] Typically, cherry picking involves selecting pieces of evidence that in isolation convey the desired message while ignoring the rest of the evidence that paints an undesired message. In this case, I chose a quote from Roy Spencer that ignores *all* the evidence that humans are causing global warming - albeit an extreme form of cherry picking. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:42 PM on 12 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Eric, there is no hypocrisy there. Free enetrprise has led to notable "ill effects" in some other industries doesn't mean it will cause ill effects in reinsurance. However, this is essentially an ad-hominem, you are unable to address the evidence provided by the reinsurers, so you question the reliability of the source. Besides, there is a big difference between reinsurance and say the tobacco industry. If reinsurer A over estimates the risks of some market, then there is likely to be reinsurer B who offers a lower premium and B is likely to get the contract. Thus it is not in reinsurer A's interest to overstate the risk in a free market. Tobacco is different, manufacturer C cannot argue that his cigarettes do not cause cancer, bit manufacturer D produces cigarettes that does, as any implication that cigarettes are linked with cancer will hurt both their sales. Thus in a free market, the pressure is on all cigarrete manufacturers to downplay the link with cancer, but the pressure on reinsurers is not simply to overplay the risks, as they need to keep the premiums competitive. So even if it were hypocrisy, it would be a pretty poor argument anyway. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:55 PM on 12 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
For JohnMashey (please note, this first paragraph is only to reply to him), I looked up CATO tobacco on google scholar and most of the articles are about how well-intentioned policy makes bad laws and bad legal precedents. All the articles are misleading in one simple way because they do not have a disclaimer about sources of funding for CATO at the time (most were written around 1997-2000). As for the ad that you linked, I believe the first claim of the ad is misleading and detracts from the ad (I have stated in this forum that global warming is ongoing and will restate it now). I agree with the second part that dollar amounts are not increasing and note some hypocrisy here and some reasons dollar amounts may appear to increase here and the post after that. I also agree with the third part of the ad about models. I have not made direct arguments that models fail (the point in the ad), but have made similar arguments here -
jyyh at 21:52 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
(including some not fully backed up speculation) Now that many of the climate models have been 'proven wrong', mostly for the more rapid disappearance of the arctic ice than projected, it would be nice to have a look on what the models have predicted for 2070s. For sure the rearrangement of the wind fields, f.e. in the models during a period of little sea ice (2070-90s in many models) might be a way to look how the weather patterns are likely to develop in the future (i.e. my estimate, during 2030s). Of course many of the models still lack f.e. the methane feedback system, and thus do not represent the realism (as in the art of scale modelling) one would like them to have, but anyway they are likely giving rough directions as to how f.e. the temperatures & relative humidities are going to change. As they are based on very basic equations and principles on how the turbulent flows behave on a rotating spheroid (simulated earth) and the basic thermodynamic equations they cannot be completely off on selected measures. The statistical models on the other hand maybe way off for there isn't too many occurrences of de-icing of the planet to take statistics from! Even further, it would be nice to take a look back on how the meteorology has explained the everyday weather phenomena, to better guess where the everyday phenomena might in the future happen with predictable regularity. Since a major rearrangement of at least NH weather systems due the disappearance of the Arctic Sea Ice has been a regularly proposed prediction since Rio1992, I think this could be a way to introduce people to the future climate. Of course, as it happens, the speed of the melt has surprised most so the projected tempereature ranges in the models for 2020-2070 are all in the table for near future imho. For how long does, and for how extremely, this messy situation in the weather continue, depends imho on how far from the equilibrium feedback the climate system is, so diminishing the emissions would be good in this respect too. jyyh @+20 ASL -
Rob Painting at 21:41 PM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
If published, with the same conclusion, it will be interesting to find out how Zwally's results compare to recent assessments using GRACE gravity satellites: 1. Antarctic ice-mass balance 2002 to 2011: regional re-analysis of GRACE satellite gravimetry measurements with improved estimate of glacial-isostatic adjustment -Sasgen (2012). 2. Variability of mass changes at basin scale for Greenland and Antarctica - Barletta (2012). And a forthcoming paper using satellite altimetry from (now defunct?) ENVISAT: Dynamic thinning of Antarctic glaciers from along-track repeat radar altimetry - Flament & Rémy (2012). The first two find mass losses are smaller than previous publications suggested, and Barletta (2012) finds a near-neutral mass balance trend in Antarctica between 2002-2007. It has since undergone rapid ice loss since then. -
Dale at 20:28 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
"There are much larger threats to the budget bottom line than this." Yes there are, the crashing economy and the brainless promises of billions more spent on the eve of a huge revenue drop. Oh well, such is life. :) -
Riccardo at 19:49 PM on 12 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
We don't even need light bulbs, just adapt. We have plenty of light at the poles ... seasonally ... just move north and south. -
Bernard J. at 19:37 PM on 12 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
I can't believe that we've missed the David Duff defense: "But I like the dark: the darker the better. These light summers are so miserable". -
JasonB at 18:02 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Dale,So it's not a case of "reducing the carbon tax compensation" as it is a case of "reducing family payment" or "reducing Commonwealth Disability Pension", etc. In other words, it's a lot uglier to force down as those existing programs are seen as essential to those who receive those payments.
This looks like a prime candidate: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/clean-energy-supplement I'm not eligible for any of the supplements so I don't know if they're broken out as a separate amount in the statements, but if so, it's only logical that if the amount of the supplement is more than it turns out is required to cover the actual costs then it can be reduced. The alternative is to simply freeze it or increase it at less than inflation to reduce it with less backlash. I think the possibility of a backlash is overstated, however. It's all swings and roundabouts, anyway; not all of the money collected from carbon permits goes into compensation, so if need be they can always reduce grants for clean energy research, which is also funded by the proceeds. There are much larger threats to the budget bottom line than this.
Prev 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 Next
