Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 Next
Comments 54201 to 54250:
-
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. -
JasonB at 17:47 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Dale,And on the Federal front, the whole toxicity of "climate change" stems from one simple statement that Gillard made for the last election (no need to repeat it, everyone knows it).
Ironically, what really made me angry was that one simple statement itself, shortly after Rudd's backflip on the CPRS, because it represented a broken promise of the last election! However, looking more carefully at her position prior to the election shows it was a bit more nuanced than that. For example, the day before the election:JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term. [...] In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step. "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax." This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.
(Source) She wasn't opposed to pricing carbon. That was actually a message to the Greens that she wasn't going to support their model, not a message to the electorate that a carbon price was off the table. And she didn't support the Greens model! The fact is that the current "carbon tax" is actually an ETS with a fixed-price initial period, just like the CPRS was, but everyone called the CPRS an ETS while this gets called a tax. I suspect that her advisers have told her it's better not to argue this point because it looks too "tricky", but it's also true.The sad thing is, the whole "thing" around the Gillard agreement with the Greens and Indies to put a carbon tax on and then slamming it through, all with no involvement of the public (in fact quite the opposite as it was put through in an Authoritarian way), will set environmental policy (not just CC but any environmental policy) back 5-10 years.
"slamming it through"? You mean "passing it through both Houses of Parliament despite having a minority in both Houses, following the formation of a multi-party parliamentary committee to determine policy on climate change that spent months working out the details, following the failure to pass the previous legislation that was also worked out over months of negotiation between Labor and Turnbull's Liberals"? "put through in an Authoritarian way"? Exactly how should the government put bills through Parliament? We are a Parliamentary democracy, we elect representatives to sit in Parliament and act on our behalf. Are you suggesting that the public should have a referendum on each and every bill? It's not like this came out of the blue. An Emissions Trading Scheme was the policy of both Labor and the Coalition at the 2007 election. The Coalition reneged on their policy after months of negotiation over the CPRS with Labor following Tony Abbott's replacement of Turnbull. Gillard went to the 2010 election saying she was prepared to legislate a carbon price. Following the election, where the Greens won the balance of power with a carbon tax policy, she set up a parliametary committee that devised a scheme almost the same as the CPRS and managed to pass it through both houses. The only complaint that could be made is that she said she ruled out a carbon tax prior to the election but the ETS she introduced behaves like a carbon tax for the first three years before becoming a full-blown ETS. It seems to me that the rhetoric is somewhat overblown. -
Dale at 17:21 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
JasonB: The "Household Assistance Package" was a once-off initial payment, and then will be reflected from March 2013 as an increase in already existing Govt pensions/assistance programs (FTB, seniors, disability, etc) as well as tax breaks. It's not a once-a-year lump sum thing. http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/clean-energy-future 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. So it's a political problem in that the Govt set it up to be a political problem for a future Parl (of either party) and a budgetary problem because the public backlash to remove the carbon tax component from those programs will be high. -
P.T. Goodman at 17:13 PM on 12 September 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
@doug_bostrom Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many of the very early reviews of Mann's book were personal attacks, barely or not mentioning the book. It looks like Watt's' call to his followers unleashed a rabid pack---and he had to know what they would write. I'll read the book, then provide a review. Even if it is not a positive review, it won't be a personal attack. -
JasonB at 17:09 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Sceptical Wombat,The danger with cap and trade systems is that carbon allocations are in effect a form of money and (as with water allocations or money itself) there will be a strong temptation for governments to simply create more, which of course results in a lowering of the price. It is crucial that the integrity of the system be maintained.
Sure. But auditing each country's issued permits is straightforward, and if someone is found cheating then their permits can be declared invalid or worth less than face value by the amount of the over-subscription (a form of inflation, if you will). Also, my understanding is that Europe has moved to a centralised cap and registry so individual countries won't be able to do that anyway.Unfortunately Jason is wrong in thinking that a lower carbon price will result in lower compensation. The household compensation is fixed so a lower carbon price will result is a budget problem.
Well, that just means that rather than the compensation being automatically calculated each year it just becomes part of the normal budget-making process. Each year, Treasury could forecast the carbon price for the following year and estimate its impact just like they did when the carbon tax was introduced, then the government could add a buffer to minimise the risk that the price will rise higher than expected and the compensation would be insufficient, and then include it in the budget for the following year. This is true regardless of what the current legislation says. No Parliament can make a law binding a future Parliament (Tony Abbott wants to repeal it entirely, remember!), and the budget has to pass through Parliament anyway. (This is one of the things that always made me laugh about the GST legislation. Peter Costello made a big deal about the idea that the only way to change the rate of the GST was if every state parliament and the federal parliament agreed. This is of course complete and utter rubbish, the GST legislation is an Act of Parliament and can be modified by any future Act of Parliament no matter what the original Act says. The only thing binding Parliament is the Constitution.) So, it's really just a political question. If Labor is still in power by 2015 and the carbon price is still really low and this is going to be an issue for the budget, the obvious solution is to tell voters that they don't need as much compensation because it isn't costing that much. There is no reason that the carbon price should cause a budget problem. It could cause a political problem if the international price skyrockets during the year and the compensation thus calculated turns out to be insufficient, but mid-year reviews and additional handouts are not unknown. -
Bert from Eltham at 17:07 PM on 12 September 2012Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
As an atheist I find that we have a lot more in common than you think John Cook. I too have worked out that trashing our only home is a very dumb move. It is all about what we do now to stop this decline in our planet's health to sustain us all. It is my birthday today. When I was born there were less than three billion people on our planet. It was 1949. I do not care for myself. I have children and grandchildren. The saddest thing in life is getting a hold on 'all' knowledge just before you croak and then realising that it would have been really handy for the journey! Bert -
Dale at 15:22 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Stevo: I agree with you, but with caveats. For instance, the reason the States are removing the residential schemes is because of State debts. A lot of environmental policies have been brought in over the last 10 years in good faith, but bad economic planning. We're seeing the results of that now with increasing taxes, reductions in public spending, difficulties in balancing books and shrinking credit lines. Unfortunately no Govt can live on those parameters for a sustained amount of time. Just look at Queensland and how Newman is having to slash programs and departments all over the place. And on the Federal front, the whole toxicity of "climate change" stems from one simple statement that Gillard made for the last election (no need to repeat it, everyone knows it). I think largely that whilst good faith and intentions have been shown at all levels of Govt, things have just been approached the wrong way. There's a million BETTER ways it could have been approached. For instance, the whole topic of energy independence is of high importance to the people. If the Govt had of put the issue up as one of sustainable energy development, and the reduction on reliance on a diminishing resource and movement to an infinite resource, the public would not see it as an "environmental" program, but an "economic" program. That completely eliminates the whole CC debate as a factor as you're then at the plate with sound economic principles of guaranteed supply of resources to produce energy. No matter what anyone says, just keep repeating the economic line. The sad thing is, the whole "thing" around the Gillard agreement with the Greens and Indies to put a carbon tax on and then slamming it through, all with no involvement of the public (in fact quite the opposite as it was put through in an Authoritarian way), will set environmental policy (not just CC but any environmental policy) back 5-10 years. -
Ari Jokimäki at 15:16 PM on 12 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Well, I see that trace amount angle already got used, but I'll post my version of it anyway: "I didn't even notice bulb breaking because light from a bulb is just a trace amount compared to sunlight." -
scaddenp at 14:26 PM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
Barry, we have two different measurement systems, ICESAT and GRACE. If Zwally's results are correct, then there is a problem with the methodology, calibration or assumptions of one of them. For the moment, the published results say Antarctica is losing ice, and GRACE result indicate that it is accelerating. If it becomes clear that the ICESAT result is better, then obviously (and fortuitously), the conclusions will change. -
barry1487 at 14:15 PM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
No worries, Albatross. Maybe the bee in my bonnet is buzzing a little loudly. Anyway, I was scoping google scholar for recent assessments, and found one I'd read a few months ago that probably informed my comments here (as well as remembered SkS posts)."Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century."
Rignot, Velicogna et al 2011 [PDF] -
Albatross at 13:25 PM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
Hello Barry @131, "Those responses seem a bit cynical." I hope that you did not interpret my response that way. I'm just advocating caution, especially given the potential significance of this result. This is probably the first step towards Zwally et al. submitting a paper for publication and things can, and do, sometimes change a lot in the intervening steps. These types of data are incredibly finicky and all sorts of corrections need to be made especially for a long-term space-based monitoring platform. It would be nice to have Dr. Zwally post here, maybe once he has had his paper accepted for publication? If these preliminary findings hold true, this would be the first good news on the global warming front in quite some time. -
Stevo at 13:19 PM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Dale @ 27. I agree with you. Just because a tactic will make something more difficult does not mean it will become impossible.Whether it is the ending the monetary incentives which encouraged installation of solar panels, reversals in plans to buy off brown coal power stations, or any of the other incremental changes being made I cannot help but feel that now global warming is no longer a hot political topic the carbon scheme will be hailed as proof something was done. Now that the record shows some action as having been taken governments of both political stripes can dismantle any real ecological benefit one small step at a time. The economics are complex enough for any change to be argued as a positive or negative step depending on how you'd like to see it spun on the day. Sorry, but neither major Australian political party seems willing to state their actual conviction on this subject. I can only conclude this as meaning that neither of them cares enough to make a real stand for anything other than the next poll. -
Albatross at 13:17 PM on 12 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
This is very entertaining, and there are some great one liners here. Please share this as widely as possible and let others share (and join in on) the fun. There is a YouTube video too. -
eric.steig at 13:05 PM on 12 September 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
I agree that Rasmus's evaluation at RealClimate was too deferential. I'm not sure why he bothers, to be honest. Some papers are so obviously bad that they seem ludicrous to even comment on. Salby's is certainly in that league. If someone ever actually is able to show that the recent rise in CO2 is not anthopogenic, it will be on the cover of Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and Physics today simultaneously, and I will be the first to write to the Nobel Committee encouraging them to award the prize. Until those things happen, papers making such claims can safely be assumed to be not worth reading. -
barry1487 at 13:02 PM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
Daniel, first thing I've done is to check the papers referenced in the intermediate version of the top post. Velicogna 2009 [PDF] discerns comparable mass loss for Greenland and Antarcica, with comparable contributions for sea level rise. Chen et al 2009 [PDF] conclude with a mass loss for the whole of Antarcica of 190 +/-77 Gt/yr, comparable to higher Greenland mass loss estimates of ~220 Gt/yr. Chen posits that "Using a simple linear projection for the period 2006 - 2009, Antarctic ice loss rate can be as large as -220 +/-89 Gt yr." Sea level contribution is, again, comparable to Greenland. Inferences on sea level rise from Antarctic mass loss mentioned here (upper bound 1.4 meters by 2100 from Antarctic ice loss). I'll have a better look for papers specifically about sea level/Antarctic ice loss. A quick search of SkS articles on Antarctic ice mass balance yields a range of estimates from -26Gt/yr to -300 Gt/yr, and acknowledgement that new data showing Antarctic ice loss (as wel as Greenland etc) contributes to higher sea level projections. The main SkS article on Antarctic ice mass balance (and mentioning sea level) is probably this one. Watts cites it in his article, and for once I find myself agreeing with him (on SkS updating), particularly in light of the final comment on that page..... but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
-
Doug Bostrom at 11:44 AM on 12 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Before: "The IPCC is directing research results in pursuit of a political agenda therefore global warming is falsified." After: "I don't like be called a conspiracy theorist therefore global warming is falsified for reasons that have become impossible for me to mention without being laughed at." I'm not sure there's any input necessary at ArsTechnica. Once air is admitted into the package the process of decomposition becomes inexorable; people will read the article, then they'll read the comments, then they'll form conclusions. -
scaddenp at 11:21 AM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
Also to note in China, while building coal faster than retiring, they are also retiring old inefficient coal stations. According to our marketing people (got software for sale for thermal plants), "From 2006 to 2010, China retired almost 71 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, including 11 gigawatts in 2010, and it plans to retire an additional 8 gigawatts in 2011." -
Mal Adapted at 11:20 AM on 12 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Meanwhile, over at ArsTechnica, John Timmer's piece on the survey is attracting hordes of deniers, offering the full menu of denier tropes. Input from people who understand climate science is needed. -
villabolo at 11:18 AM on 12 September 2012Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
@Mark-US (#78) We both forgot ~1F down the pipeline although that's technically not a feedback. -
JasonB at 11:07 AM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
gws, Perhaps a better analogy would be: A head-on collision with another vehicle is imminent. You're travelling three times as fast as the other vehicle. Do you: 1. Brake as hard as you can to minimise the impact as much as you are able to? 2. Signal to the other driver that you'll only brake if he does? 3. Say "Braking won't prevent the collision so there's no point, let's just adapt to what happens afterwards"? -
scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
GRACE, Icesat and models all agree on that interior of Antarctica accumulates ices while there is iceloss on the margins. However, size matters and the mass loss or gain depends of the relative magnitudes. Any GCM model-based estimate of sealevel rise would be based on Antarctica accumulating ice. As far as I know, these have only very primitive icesheet dynamics (if any) so sea level results from such an approach are so uncertain that the AR4 statement excluded them entirely. Vermeer and Rahmsdorf instead a semi-empirical approach. This also doesnt incorporate any icesheet dynamics so I dont think this result has any bearing on the estimate at all. -
JasonB at 10:59 AM on 12 September 2012Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
M Tucker,I really think you have given India and China too much credit.
I don't think we give them enough. Seriously. It's a bit rich for people in Australia, Canada, or the US to complain about China's emissions when their per-capita emissions are only about 1/3 of ours and they are responsible for only about 9% of total emissions to date, which is what got us into this problem in the first place. I use "per-capita" there very deliberately because the only reason why "China" has a lot of emissions is because you've drawn a line around 20% of the world's population, added up all their emissions, and pointed out how big it is. Why stop there? Americans could draw a line around the US and then add up everyone else's emissions and say "Look, that pesky RoW is responsible for over 80% of the emissions, I think we should wait until they get their house in order before we start cutting." Each country should be focussing on their own per capita emissions. That way it doesn't matter if you're a big country or a small country, you're only being asked to take care of your fair share. We often hear that Australia is only responsible of less than 2% of global emissions, for example — that's fine, we're only being asked to take care of that 2%. Nobody is expecting us to counteract somebody else's emissions. What makes it even more ironic is that China really is doing a lot. They have 25 nuclear reactors under construction right now, and planning to have a nuclear capacity of 60 GWe by 2020, then 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050 (ibid.). Their growth in wind power has been absolutely phenomenal — over 60 GW added in six years, equivalent to about 20 GW of nuclear or coal capacity. Yes, they have also added huge amounts of coal power over the years as well, but they seem to be actually doing an awful lot more than many countries who actually should be doing a lot more.Do not confuse investments in wind and solar industries with actually constructing wind and solar plants in their own countries.
If other countries were actually constructing wind farms as quickly as China has been in China then that would be great.If you are willing to believe any of China’s “five year plans” I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.
Back in 2005 China set a target of 30 GW of wind capacity by 2020. 18 months later they increased it to 40 GW because they were ahead of schedule. They reached 40 GW three years later instead of 13 years later. Now their target is 150 GW by 2015 — an increase of 90 GW over their 2011 capacity. Given their history of under-promising and over-delivering, and the fact that they've managed 20 GW/year in the past, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:55 AM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
Barry, please do look up those projections. I suspect you'll find them weighted more to the Northern Hemispheric contributions and to the thermal expansion component. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:52 AM on 12 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Additionally, Arctic sea ice extent and area have been declining in every single month of the year for over 30 years.
What's up with that?
-
barry1487 at 10:49 AM on 12 September 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
Those responses seem a bit cynical. Yes, (AR4) climate models projected increasing mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet over the 21st century. Observational analyses since then have tended to discern a mass loss, which was a surprise result - although I can't remember anyone ever mentioning that recent results were in opposition to the models (and perhaps I'm being a bit cynical here myself). The "big deal", to my mind, is that if the ICESat analysis is robust, there are implications for sea level projections, which of late have been much higher than AR4. I need to go back and read some of those papers, but IIRC the recent hike in sea level projections is strongly rooted in the perceived loss (acceleration?) of Antarctic ice sheet mass balance. AR4 projected a negative sea level contribution from the Antarctic ice sheet. I don't think SkS should wave these results away, but present them as an update with the appropriate caveats. If Zwally was up for it, a post by him here would be terrific for all sorts of reasons.
Prev 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 Next
