Recent Comments

Prev  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  Next

Comments 56701 to 56750:

56701. dissembly at 11:32 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @ #44 Sphaerica; "I have no idea how your ideas would go over in Australia, but they'd never, ever get past square-one in the USA." The political party I'm affiliated with has a U.S. section that puts forward similar demands, and does get an echo for them. I'm not saying they're winning elections, but it wasn't that long ago in the US that these ideas did have a much greater influence. Times change. But the key thing is, if you get a solid plan in place, hold rallies, talk to people (in a way that takes their economic concerns into account), you'll get a response (and i'm not just talking out of my back-end here, this is exactly what me and a few others have started to do; we've had 400 people sign up to our campaign in 4 months, a pretty striking rate of growth). I've seen it happen; until the carbon tax came in, the anti-global warming movement was actually growing in my city. This is how governments are ultimately pressured to do anything at all, regardless of which party is presiding. You wrote: "What I did mean is that nationalization is inefficient. It is more prone to corruption and waste than the free market, because when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits." I don't believe the evidence backs that up at all. I know this is a common belief (especially in the US, but throughout the western world post-Reagen/Thatcher-era), but i've yet to see any empirical example that supports it. I live in a state (Victoria) in which both electricity and public transport have been partially privatised, and both have seen massive wastage, over and above anything seen under public ownership. I don't have the exact figures on hand for electricity, but for public transport, the cost of running the system rose by 200 million a year (just short of doubling) in the years immediately after privatisation, and has now blown out to around a billion annually (from a pre-privatisation level of about 350 million, adjusted for inflation). At the same time, services have declined, and, more frightening, assets have been sold off completely, meaning we'll have to spend even more to ever actually recover the infrastructural capacity that we once had. The country-next-door (New Zealand) had a similar experience with a raft of privatisations. They've actually suffered fairly significant energy shortages as a direct result of electricity privatisation (in the most famous case, private owners decided to sell off energy generating capacity while rainfall was high (and hydroelectric power was ample), causing energy shortages as soon as the first drought hit; interestingly for our discussion, some of the generating capacity that was done-away-with was geothermal power :/ ). On a smaller scale, the municipal council in which I live privatised (outsourced) previously in-house services, and we've seen dramatic drops in quality and service (one example involved mulch with fragments of glass and metal being spread onto playgrounds), while costs continue to rise. This isn't even using the model of public ownership i would advocate (a transparent, more democratically accessible one, with positions in the bureaucracy being publicly recallable); - this is comparing a typical Western bureaucratic model to private ownership, and the latter still costs more and delivers less in every case. You wrote, "when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits"; i don't think that's true at all. To begin with, the majority of people running any given service don't operate on a profit incentive to begin with - only the highest levels (and the owners) do so. I work within the public transport sector, and train stations were always run better when the staff where involved in decision-making. These people don't simply not-care about their work - apathy only sets in when all their say over their work is taken away from them, as it has been, increasingly so, as parts of the system have gone into private ownership. Then you see real apathy develop. My partner works in the public sector as well, and her entire department care profoundly about what they are doing. The idea that it is the profit incentive that inspires creativity or good work is just a legend, as far as I have seen. Whereas the idea that it encourages scaling-down necessary operations, losing co-ordination between different parts of a service, putting up prices whenever possible (regardless of any operational necessity), is something proven in practise time and time again. This is all extremely relevant to the goal of building zero-to-low carbon energy infrastructure!
56702. Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Dikran Marsupial @48, you are correct, I forgot to retain the condition that En-Un < 0. Try this: En = 0.5 k prior to 1850, and increases by 0.1k per annum after 1850. Ea = 0 prior to 1800, and increases 0.25 k at 1800 If En + Ea < 1k, Un = En + Ea If En + Ea > k, Un = (En + Ea - 0.2k) In this scenario, atmospheric concentration begins growing in 1851, and continues to grow thereafter; but at all times Un > En, and during the period of growth is always greater by 0.5 k. Never-the-less, the growth in CO2 concentration is, intuitively, caused by the growth in natural emissions rather than by the anthropogenic emissions, which are not growing. This, of course, is rather irrelevant. We both agree that bizarre non-physical scenarios can falsify the mass balance argument, and that therefore it is an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. We also both agree that no scenario that has actually been presented seriously does falsify the mass balance argument; and that alternative explanations to anthropogenic emissions are falsified by other evidence in any event.
56703. Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @47, you are ignoring the points raised in my post @40 and in my calculation @42. Had you paid attention you would notice that your argument does not fly. Using the formula corrected for an albedo of 0.3, the expected mean surface temperature would be 151 K; corrected to 0.1 albedo (less than the moons) the result would be 162 K, still equal to a reduction in global mean temperature of >120 K. I notice in your 59 that you continue to assume the existence of liquid oceans for heat transport, but liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum at Earth surface temperatures. Therefore with no vacuum, the Ocean must either boil away, or be frozen. In either event it will not longer contribute to heat transport; and in the later event it will massively increase albedo so that albedo is likely to be above 0.3. Even if you allow your model to be unphysical by retaining liquid oceans, you are neglecting the fact that bare rock has a much higher albedo than does grassland, which has a higher albedo than forest. In fact, observations have shown the Sahara (with effectively no clouds) to have the same albedo as the Amazon (with a massive cloud cover). Further, with any decline in global mean temperature, sea ice extent will increase, increasing albedo. Your assumption that albedo will decrease, is therefore dubious at best even in an unphysical model. Finally, even if the albedo were to decline to 0.1 (less than the Moon's albedo, so certainly a generous assumption) and with retained heat transport, global mean surface temperature would decline by about 20 C, more than enough to initiate a massive glaciation such as at the Last Glacial Maximum, and probably enough to initiate snowball Earth. In other words, any low albedo condition is dynamically unstable with cooling.
56704. skywatcher at 09:00 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience, you're demonstrating a fair bit of missing elementary knowledge on your part. Some examples - not understanding glacier mass balance (#158), confusing glaciers with sea ice (#158), not understanding what a feedback or forcing is and their implications (#159), or not having even read or comprehended the studies involved (apparent from e.g. #140, #148, #158). These may or may not be intentional, but in this light, it is hard to take seriously your various hints that Mann et al, and the dozen or so papers that followed his, have not just followed the data. You've suggested, directly or indirectly, that they have either deliberately muted the MCA signal, or that they have failed to take into account the full body of evidence, yet it's apparent that you're unaware of the contents of the full body of evidence. We have some idea of the forcings involved during the MCA - see Figure 6.13 in IPCC AR4. You might note that the forcings all have a magnitude in watts per square metre. That means that if we are to accept your hypothesis (despite the lack of supporting evidence) that the MCA was globally uniform and large, we still need to find a large enough forcing that operated in the MCA but not today. As detailed by many people, not least in some detail by the IPCC in Chapter 6 above (and more recent papers continue to support this), the MCA is now well-known to be spatially and temporally heterogeneous, consistent with smaller solar/volcanic forcings. Esper's recent paper, another regional study, didn't change this (good discussion at RealClimate). At least I'd agree with you that: "I would not expect that our best average estimates [of equilibrium climate sensitivity] would strain far from 3 degrees c for a doubling of CO2." I'm very glad we agree on that. I'll add a further example of a climate response that has been greater recently than during the MCA - Arctic glaciers and ice shelves, a number of which are exposing land or breaking up for the first time in several thousand years (see section 4.4 in Polyak et al).
56705. IanC at 07:20 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, The 12% figure is the average albedo over the entire surface, ocean included, so 270K will be the average surface temperature. When you cool the average surface temperature from 289K to 270K you are bound to significantly increase ice coverage over land and ocean, so the albedo will have to increase significantly as well. As for the rest of your argument, it appears that you are arguing that sea surface temperature must be higher than land temperature, but your argument is not correct. While the differential absorption in the ocean will affect the vertical profile, the sea surface temperature, which is relevant to sea ice formation, is set purely by the incoming solar radiation. You can go through a detailed model with layers, but the crux is that at equilibrium, whatever solar energy that is not absorbed by the top layer must be balanced by heat flux of an equal magnitude from the deeper ocean, so it is no different from the case where all of the solar energy is absorbed at the surface. Your last point doesn't really prove anything, as during the day the land the temperature is much higher than the ocean,
56706. Daniel Bailey at 06:36 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Would you like a red pill with that...or a blue pill?
56707. scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP" Not to mention relying on them believing what Idso tells them the papers say instead of actually reading them.
56708. Rob Painting at 06:13 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience - The best global paleo-temperature proxies, the great polar ice sheets and tropical glacial ice disagree. These are all currently melting at an accelerating rate and significantly contributing to sea level rise, yet in the roughly 500 year-long Medieval Period, global sea level never rose at all. In fact, sea level rise stopped around 4-5000 years ago and was static until humans began to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels - releasing planet-warming greenhouse gases. Current sea level rise, and consequently current global warmth, is anomalous within the context of the last 7-8000 years.This refutes the notion of a warm Medieval Period. I note that you dodged this issue when I previously raised it. For a person with such a pseudonym you don't seem particularly interested in real science.
56709. Flakmeister at 05:58 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       @47/49...JoeRG Maybe it's the sun or I am getting old and thick, but I keep getting 25% in my head and not 29%... What am I missing?
56710. Roger D at 05:23 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       sorry - just a clarification to my comments above: the report itself was from "the late 1980's or early 1990's", not the anticipated seriousness of AGW. That was in the future.
56711. Roger D at 05:19 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       An interesting observation (maybe) that I recall from reading Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's book "Merchants of Doubt": It is from a part of at the book about US government sponsored reports on the likely seriousness of AGW during late 1980's or early 1990's, and the response of those who got to write the summary (I'm going from my memory of the book, so apologies for not remembering specifics regarding specific personalities, committees, official report names). Anyway, what I recall is that the book documented that when the climate science was largely confirming what is more certain now some 20 years later, the then-proponents against contemplating mitigation did not argue against a synthesis of the science. Instead, they accepted it and simply attached a summary, without any references to support it, stating that we can just adapt by picking up and moving to more preferable living/ growing conditions. The difficulties and specifics involved with this "plan" were not elaborated on. Thanks to Mr. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil is back to where the anti-mitigation proponents where something like 22 years ago. It seems like Déjà Vu all over again.
56712. Daniel J. Andrews at 05:06 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       I feel a bit like a broken record, but we adapt to the consequences, not before the consequences. That means if adaptation is the plan, it will be after there's been massive floods, droughts, famine and loss of life--much of that loss could have been avoided if we decided to reign in our fossil fuel dependency.
56713. vrooomie at 04:37 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       For sphaerica@66...>;-) Head bangingly good!
56714. vrooomie at 04:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       muoncounter@55 and scaddemp@60...methinks you reference this, in your comments... 'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff," Some, "An ambulance down in the valley." But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became full of pity For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. "For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said, "And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much As the shock down below when they're stopping." So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would those rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he, "Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley." "Oh he's a fanatic," the others rejoined, "Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works in the valley?" But the sensible few, who are practical too, Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure, And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence On the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling. "To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best To prevent other people from falling." Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley. -- Joseph Malins (1895)
56715. Rob Honeycutt at 04:08 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience... My biggest objection to your comments is that you've inferred that Dr Mann was somehow attempting to hide the MWP. That's not at all accurate. If you read Mann's recently published book you find out that he was actually skeptical about global warming, like any good scientist. The whole point to his research was to understand what role natural variability played in climate change today. He says that the hockey stick is merely what arose from the data. And in fact, what he was trying to do with his work was to "contain" the MWP, as in, get statistically significant data that reached back to before the MWP. That is what Tom's chart at 153 shows.
56716. Mike3267 at 03:57 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       As the denier camp morphs into the staller camp the arguments for mitigation will get trickier. Economic models are not reliable. It is one thing say 97% of climatologists think X, but quite another to say most economists think we should do something about X. It is even easier to troll out pseudo-economists before the public than quack scientists. (Just look at the budget debates.) We've spent a lot of time thinking about how to explain the science but very little on how to explain policy choices. Among those who favor mitigation some are for cap and trade while others are against this approach; some are pro nuclear power while others are anti-nukes; some see natural gas as a helpful bridge while others do not. It will be very easy for the stallers to use divide and concern tactics.
56717. michael sweet at 03:22 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Realscience, As I recall, Mann used over 2000 proxies in his 2009 analysis. Do you really think that adding 3 more will make a significant difference? Will they overcome the hundreds of other proxies that suggest the MWP was a local anomaly? Your assertion that Mann is somehow in error because he does not publish a reanalysis every time a new proxy is published is simply uninformed. New proxies are published every month. Mann has undoubtedly added the data you like to his data base and looked at the new graph. It is not worth publishing yet. Mann will likely publish a new reconstruction around 5 years after his last paper (earlier or later depending on how interesting it is). He will include all the new proxy data. If for some reason Mann is not able to publish an update, someone else will.
56718. Rob Honeycutt at 03:11 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience @ 159... The papers I've read say that the MCA was "heterogeneous." So, while you can find proxies all over the globe that had a MCA you also find proxies that show no MCA, or you find temporal shifts in when the MCA occurred. What often happens, and is even presented on the Idso's CO2now CO2science website, without reading the literature people see regions of a strong MCA at widely distributed points around the globe and come away with the assumption that the MWP was global and warmer than today. They don't know enough to look closely at the time frame during with warming in each proxy occurs and they don't know that there are 100's of other proxies that show no warming or even cooling during medieval times. In that way, people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP. But what you never get is the Idso's or McIntyre ever producing a real multiproxy reconstruction.
       Moderator Response: [RH] Correction: The Idso's site is CO2science.org, not CO2now.org.
56719. Esop at 03:09 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       It truly is sad to see Giæver putting so much effort into thoroughly destroying his future reputation as a brilliant scientist. Interestingly, he only achieved mediocre to poor grades in college. Could seem that he is extremely talented in a very narrow field, but much less apt at absorbing knowledge in others.
56720. LarryM at 03:04 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Tillerson: "We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that." I wonder how farmers (not to mention coastal inhabitants and others) like the cavalier attitude that their individual livelihoods and lives don't matter at all...they can just adapt. Also, by analogy to the reckoning that ultimately came to the tobacco industry, one day there will be lawsuits assigning blame for the damage caused by industry obstructionism and lying, and we need to remember facts such as ExxonMobil's 20 years of climate modeling that indicate they knew what their product was doing to the planet.
56721. JoeRG at 02:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       IanC @48: As told, the 270K are only valid for 29% of the surface. Given the current conditions, the value for the other 71% would be somewhat higher because SW radiation is absorbed at greater depths down to several tens or even hundreds meters. Contrary, LW can be radiated to space only from the uppermost layer. So there must be a transport of heat to the surface before it can be re-radiated. The energy remains in the system and therefore the inner temperature raises to a level where a freezing is impossible for most of latitudes - remember, the cooling effect of clouds is not existent. Given that oceanic currents are running as we know it, this heat (OHC) is transported to the poles too. Therefore the albedo would not be as high as you expect. You can prove the behavior of water quite easily: Imagine a coast where the surface temperatures of water and the shore are equal at dusk. The water will always be warmer during the night because of the stored heat. With or without an atmosphere doesn't matter at all.
56722. BWTrainer at 02:13 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Good rebuttal, but one minor quibble... Saying that "Tillerson's job is to maximize the company's profits" undeservedly lets him off the hook for many people. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but it has that affect for some people. They say things like "well, it would be nice if the corporation could do something, but it's not allowed to because it has to maximize profits, and action would cost money". It grants an excuse for inaction. But there is no law declaring that the sole objective of a corporation is profit maximization. Milton Friedman popularized this line of thought in the 70s, but it has no legal basis. Corporations are capable of engaging in all lawful activities. It's inherently contradictory to say "profit maximization" anyway. For whom? A day trader wants maximum profits now. If I'm retiring in 20 years, I want it maximized at that date. If I'm a pension plan representing people retiring tomorrow as well as people retiring in 30 years, I want it as high as possible now while at the same time not preventing it from staying/rising higher for the 30 year period. By destroying the environment which allows his company to make money, Tillerson is doing a great disservice to his company's long term ability to not only maximize profit, but even stay solvent. These people need their feet held to the fire as much as possible, no excuses.
56723. IanC at 01:59 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, If the average temperature of the earth were to be 270K, much of the water will be frozen, and thus the albedo will certainly be higher then 12%.
56724. Composer99 at 01:55 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Tillerson appears to try to infer, given sea level rise predictions being "all over the map", that the lower estimates are therefore the most likely. Obviously, this is a non sequitur. Even assuming his premise is correct, without any further analysis any single predicted sea level rise by, say, 2100 is as likely as any other. And by that reasoning there are a lot more alarming, high end predictions (such as the .75 to 1.9 m range given from Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009, which I'm sure I was led to from here on Skeptical Science than soothing, low-end ones.
56725. JoeRG at 01:18 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       I'm really astonished how many of you came to the conclusion that an atmosphereless earth would be colder. You miss something important unnoticed: no atmosphere means no clouds and therefore a reduced albedo (about 12% according to Trenberth's Energy budget). This gives an absorbed energy of 300 W/m² for which the equilibrium is 270K - only valid for 29% of Earth surface, of course. For those who argue that ~240 W/m² were to use: guys, this value depends on cloud albedo! And don't forget that comparisons with the Moon will fail for 71% of the Earth due to the radiative behaviors of water are largely different between shortwave and longwave. So, the blackbody/graybody equations don't work at all. But, this is a different story to be told another time. -funny-
56726. Daniel Bailey at 23:32 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "I would completely discount the glacier study." I take it you refer to Kinnard, the study of Arctic sea ice cover. It is the height of irony for someone proclaiming skepticism to ignore data inconvenient to their position. "Would not glacier extent have to do with precipitation not temperature." Glacial advance and retreat is governed by mass-balance. Mass-balance is the balance between depositions in the glacial accumulation zone and losses in the ablation zone. It is a dynamic measurement and differs for each and every glacier in the world. It is affected by temperature, altitude, season, precipitation and insolation. It is quite possible for some glaciers to advance in a warming world or retreat in a cooling world. Given the volume of glaciers in the world, there is an ample record of advancement & retreat going back multiple millennia. Some support a warm MCA, but only in certain time periods, some the opposite. The overall glacial record suggests regional warmth for the MCA, with a varying temporal placement. It is thus most inconvenient to the fake-skeptics, who wish to ignore it or to wish it away. Between sea ice, stalagmites, glaciers (ice cores and moraines), trees, CO2 and CH4 proxies, there exists a converging and strengthening consensus of record showing the MCA to be a general period of warmth largely centered in the North Atlantic and Europe. Heterogenous, but not homogenous.
56727. realscience at 23:16 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Rob, As tom has corrected me, it was mbh '99 not mbh '98. I read them a long time ago and I'm not great with dates. tom and Skywalker, I am not accusing mann of a secret agenda. Jones and Mann talked about it, and defining the terms. It was discussed with cook. Esper publicly disagreed. We do have private correspondence that goes to reasons, but lets not rehash it. As to high MCA meaning high sensitivity, it does not follow. Let's go to the discussion of what forcings might be involved. First changes in albedo, but those are stronger today as there is less ice. Solar, volcanic activity, and ocean circulation and heating patterns. If these can be modeled better, then sensitivity can be nailed down better. More variability that is not well modeled does give more uncertainty to the range. I would not expect that our best average estimates would strain far from 3 degrees c for a doubling of CO2. I certainly am not saying that a hotter MWP means less forcings from ghg, only that the data seems to be going there. I am also not saying that the MWP was warmer than today, only that it likely was global, and that because of the high uncertainty in these temperature reconstructions we should not rule out that it was hotter than today.
56728. realscience at 23:03 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Daniel, Thank you for the studies. I would completely discount the glacier study. We have a much more direct proxy in ice cores that seem to disagree. Would not glacier extent have to do with precipitation not temperature. That would explain the difference. Perhaps with the ice cores the glacier extent can help with precipitation patterns. The stalagmite is more interesting. I have not sen that proxy before. Certainly this finding disagrees with sst of southern spain, but water and land temperatures often diverge. Thank you for that. I will look into it.
56729. jhint at 21:44 PM on 12 July 2012
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Why not include Tony Abbott's photo on this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php Why just limit these polis to USA? You have him here at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Tony_Abbott.htm
56730. Tristan at 21:19 PM on 12 July 2012
       Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
       yeah, ie Nigeria subsidises fuel alone to the tune of $8B.
56731. ajki at 19:27 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       When I read about Molina's presentation, I noticed he was talking at least in parts about concerns of scientists about public misrepresentations and severe misunderstandings, taking "climate change wars" as an example for this phenomenon (I remember Hansen talking about the same issues lately; SkS is currently running a support list for Jones, who was/is a target of hate&flame mails for just doing his job). Perhaps the Giaever presentation was meant as a practical demonstration of the before mentioned reasons. If so, the attending audience could indeed have learned something.
56732. Dikran Marsupial at 18:17 PM on 12 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Tom, as far as I can see your countexample is incorrect. Prior to 1850, Ea = 0; En = k/4; Un = k/4; C' = 0 In this case, mass balance tells us that the natural environment is neither a net source nor a net sink, which is the correct answer. After 1850 (first scenario) Ea = k/2; En = 2k; Un = k; C' = 3k/2 In this case, the mass balance tells us that the natural envrionment is a net source and is contributing to the rise in C (in fact we can see that it is responsible for 2/3 of it as net natural emissions are twice Ea). After 1850 (second scenario) Ea = 0; En = 2k; Un = k; C' = k In this case, the mass balance analysis again gives the correct result that the natural environment is a net source and is responsible for 100% of the observed increase. After 1850 (third scenario) Ea = k/2; En = k/4; Un = 3k/4; C' = 0 In this case the mass balance tells us that the netural environment is a net sink and has exactly opposed the rise that would have been caused by anthropogenic emissions. Which is correct. Now, as you say, it is possible to make a bizarre non-physical scenario where nature is set up in a way in which an increase in natural emissions were necessary for a rise in CO2, but in both of the examples you gave, when atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the natural environment was a net source. This is not what we observe, we observe that the natural environment is a net carbon sink. Can you give a counter example where the natural environment is a net carbon sink, but where the cause of the rise is natural?
56733. scaddenp at 15:11 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       Sphaerica - I heard enough of American rhetoric to believe you on chances of setting up a supertax in States. However, down here its harder for the rich to buy a government so a lot easier to get votes for eat-the-rich schemes. That said, I think the left in Aussie is way too weak to get the political capital for any kind of nationalisation. Too much evidence that it works badly for one thing.
56734. scaddenp at 15:05 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly "In an idealised, textbook-model world - which we don't occupy." There is almost no practical barrier to the pigovian tax other than government will want to take a portion to cover admin. Other jurisdictions have done it (eg BC). This is what you want to fight for. If you are on low income side, then probably not jetting round world etc. so very likely on the lower-than-average side of carbon usage. Works that way. "And every competitor is incentivised to do exactly the same thing right now." That's a "markets-dont-work-to-keep-prices-down" statement implying business conspiracies. I dont think you can support that. "I've outlined at least two substantial sources for it," Fair enough but I was objecting to your wartime-munitions model.
56735. Dave123 at 14:20 PM on 12 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Considering the long held position that somehow climate skeptics can't get funding Exxon's admission of funding climate model studies for 20 years at MIT is useful to note in rejoinder. More interesting is who there is doing the work (Lindzen? I didn't think he did GCMs) and whether they are publishing and whether they are acknowledging E-M as a source of funding. Project for John Mashey). But here's the real takeaway as far as I'm concerned: Exxon Mobil isn't saying/can't say that "we've done our own climate modeling and our rise is temperatures is due to X and not increasing CO2 in the atmosphere." You can bet the folks and Shell have been trying too. Where's the model that doesn't involve CO2? And in the 2nd largest privately held Oil Company (Koch Brothers), their foundation helped fund the BEST study that ended up showing that all those climate scientist were doing it right. As a starting point- in 2011 this was published: Reference Type: Journal Article Author: Prinn, Ronald Author: Paltsev, Sergey Author: Sokolov, Andrei Author: Sarofim, Marcus Author: Reilly, John Author: Jacoby, Henry Primary Title: Scenarios with MIT integrated global systems model: significant global warming regardless of different approaches Journal Name: Climatic Change Cover Date: 2011-02-01 Publisher: Springer Netherlands Issn: 0165-0009 Subject: Earth and Environmental Science Start Page: 515 End Page: 537 Volume: 104 Issue: 3 Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9792-y Doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9792-y Abstract: A wide variety of scenarios for future development have played significant roles in climate policy discussions. This paper presents projections of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, sea level rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melt, oceanic acidity, and global mean temperature increases computed with the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM) using scenarios for twenty-first century emissions developed by three different groups: intergovernmental (represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), government (represented by the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program) and industry (represented by Royal Dutch Shell plc). In all these scenarios the climate system undergoes substantial changes. By 2100, the CO 2 concentration ranges from 470 to 1020 ppm compared to a 2000 level of 365 ppm, the CO 2 -equivalent concentration of all greenhouse gases ranges from 550 to 1780 ppm in comparison to a 2000 level of 415 ppm, oceanic acidity changes from a current pH of around 8 to a range from 7.63 to 7.91, in comparison to a pH change from a preindustrial level by 0.1 unit. The global mean temperature increases by 1.8 to 7.0°C relative to 2000. Such increases will require considerable adaptation of many human systems and will leave some aspects of the earth’s environment irreversibly changed. Thus, the remarkable aspect of these different approaches to scenario development is not the differences in detail and philosophy but rather the similar picture they paint of a world at risk from climate change even if there is substantial effort to reduce emissions.
56736. Bob Lacatena at 14:17 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly, I have no idea how your ideas would go over in Australia, but they'd never, ever get past square-one in the USA. We have quite a different view towards "nationalization" (some of it appropriate, some of it fabricated by extreme-right-wing free-market-fascists). Similarly, you will never, ever get such a tax in the USA. Ever. The Republicans are still pushing to lower taxes on the rich, and you want to add one. It will never, ever fly, probably not even a flat tax and particularly not a progressive tax. I'm not saying either of those is right or wrong (although I certainly don't believe that nationalization can work as efficiently as you claim, or that the free market is as inefficient as you claim), just that they will never even be given a chance in the nation that absolutely must engage if the problem is going to be solved (the USA). [As a side note, my references to Soviet style 5-year plans were purposeful hyperbole. I never meant it literally. What I did mean is that nationalization is inefficient. It is more prone to corruption and waste than the free market, because when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits. The free market profit incentive siphons off resources, yes, but not as badly as the government controlled approach of simply investing those resources in the wrong directions and without adequate perseverance or commitment.]
56737. dissembly at 13:40 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @ #36 scaddenmp; "Working properly, a carbon tax should be redistributed back on a pure per-capita basis." In an idealised, textbook-model world - which we don't occupy. "If you are using less carbon than the average citizen (by, for example, buying electricity from renewable generation or using non-carbon methods of transport to commute), then you should be better off under such a system. Australians should be pushing for that." People want to know that they'll be able to support their families and live a decent life; they want to be able to do this while also addressing climate change, but the carbon tax doesn't provide an avenue for this outcome. It neither guarantees constructive change nor addresses quality-of-life issues that are already impacting on people. "Blaming carbon for price rises is only a viable business option if every competitor does exactly the same thing. Otherwise the consumer buys the cheaper product and you lose market share." And every competitor is incentivised to do exactly the same thing right now. "Using wartime spending has a model has the problem that Americans are still paying for it. The money has to come from somewhere." And I've outlined at least two substantial sources for it, in a more robust version of the mining super-profits tax and a more progressive income tax regime.
56738. dissembly at 13:19 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @Tom Curtis, perhaps you should re-read your own comments. I have never been dishonest in this conversation, and the written record is pretty much there for anyone reading this to see for themselves. You have continually approached my comments by assuming bad faith, and do so in your most recent comments as well. You seem to think that because someone disagrees with your political assessment of the compensation packages, they must be some sort of dishonest propagandist. In fact I have made my arguments, in good faith, and I stand by them, not yet having seen any counter-argument that I believe challenges them. I'm happy to let that stand. But I certainly am not walking away from this feeling that you have responded to my views with the assumption that you're talking to a real human being who is presenting his honest point of view.
56739. dissembly at 13:15 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @Sphaerica; - "you write so much with no clear statement of point or purpose that it's hard to follow exactly what you are arguing for" Well, to be honest I don't understand how that's possible, but I take you at your word, which is more than some other people have done for me in this discussion. Here is my clear statement of point or purpose: I initially posted to argue that: a) Opposition to the carbon tax is not simply a conservative plot, but something that touches average people, regardless of political persuasion, b) Most Australians are neither conservative, nor global warming deniers, but still have serious problems with the carbon tax, c) Objections to the carbon tax are valid, and not a result of short-sightedness or AGW denial. In the course of discussion, I expanded on my point of view, and argued that: a) The carbon tax has hurt the environmentalist movement; where once we had tens of thousands of people rallying, forcing governments into making promises on climate change that they didn't want to make, we now have almost nothing, with very little-to-no pressure on the government to act on climate change; b) A real solution involves public investment and infrastructural change to convert ours into a low-to-zero carbon economy, c) This solution can be achieved by returning to the state of the movement only a few short years ago, but this cannot be done by pushing the carbon tax. That is my clear statement of point and purpose. That is where I stand on these issues, what I have presented arguments for, and contains a practical statement of what I think is the way forward. You write: - "to allow the free market the maximum flexibility in addressing the problem (rather than the government-bureaucratic-5-year-plan-Soviet-style solution)" I don't think anybody has ever advocated a "5-year-plan-Soviet-style-solution". I advocate nationalisation and public investment, with democratic ownership, not bureaucratic dictatorship. You correctly wrote "In the USA, people are programmed to shake in fear at the word 'tax.'" - in the USA, people are also told to shake in fear at the words "nationalisation" and "public ownership". You responded to my suggestion by invoking a nightmarish dictatorship - I don't think that's a measured response at all. The only aspects of the "5-year-plans" that resemble what I argue for are the raw facts of national ownership and planning (as distinct from the massive top-down bureaucracy, complete lack of democracy, and horrific working conditions imposed on the people made to carry out the plans - contrast this with the fact that Australia is not a totalitarian dictatorship, and that I am arguing for this push to be made in the community upon the government, I believe i even specifically mentioned trade unions) - the only aspects of the Soviet system that actually had a constructive economic influence. As for allowing the free market to address the problem, i've given quite a few reasons why this is a bad idea. The free market encourages artificial price rises (we've seen it already with leaked information from three separate businesses in the first weeks of the carbon tax in Australia), it dis-incentivises investment in long-term, large-scale infrastructural projects (thus rendering global warming the textbook example of a problem that cannot be solved with a free market), it enables large-scale fraud with the trading of derivatives (and the idea of carbon permit trading is really a striking recreation of the sort of derivatives trading invoplved in the GFC), it is incapable of operating efficiently (with large-scale losses from the market in the form of profit), but particularly in times of recession (which encourage profit-hoarding rather than 'risky' investment). The various carbon market schemes suffer from specific problems in the nature of the schemes themselves, most obviously in the nature of purchase-able "offsets", but also in the fact that the very people who are currently blocking action on climate change are the ones who this scheme utterly relies on to 'do the right thing' in this very corruptible carbon market. The rest of your posts, I beleive, responded to arguments that I did not make - you are preaching to the converted! On taxes; I believe in taxes, so long as they are progressive taxes (not flat taxes). It is absolutely unnecessary for the poor to pay disproportionately to support our roads, public transport, welfare system, power grid, etc etc etc. And it is absolutely unnecessary for the poor to pay disproportionately to support real action on climate change. I've given some figures already. We recently had a mining super-profits tax implemented - a watered down version of an earlier proposal, which was killed because, rather than the government using this money for any public purpose, they simply advocated using the money raised to ease taxes on companies (Australia already has one of the lowest company tax rates in the developed world) - so nobody really bothered to defend the government when they came under attack from the mining companies. We should be pushing for that tax to be implemented, in an even stronger form - but for the revenue to be used to address global warming. That would get peoples attention. (Even better, we should calling for the nationalisation of the mining industry - but even without going this far, tens of billions of dollars would become available for new alternative energy infrastructure.) A recent study found that even a modest progressive alteration to our tax system - bringing it into line with the tax system in the decidedly non-socialist UK - would net a further $108 billion per year. The idea that any sort of flat tax is necessary to make this sort of thing happen is simply, factually, not true. On the impact of global warming; Yes, it would disproportionately affect the poor. I'm sold! Trying to convince me of this is like carrying coals to Newcastle, as they say.
56740. Tom Curtis at 13:05 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly @40, I have not at any stage impugned your honesty, and resent the accusation that I did. But I guess that is par for the course from a person who has continuously misrepresented my opinion; as indeed you continue to do in the final comment. I will note that had I chosen to impugn your dishonesty, you have certainly given me grounds to do so. Misrepresenting a tax plus compensation package that over compensates the poor, and leave the wealthy ($80,000 plus income) without any compensation, and hence facing the full burden of the tax as "resembling a flat tax" and saying that it will "affect you more by a disproportionately greater amount the further down the income scale you go" certainly represents either dishonesty or massive confusion. You give me no reason to give you the benefit of that doubt.
56741. Composer99 at 12:31 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       I think it's worth nothing that realscience has agreed here with the essential conclusions of climate science (essential in terms of informing present & future policy) before piling on too much over medieval temperature anomalies.
56742. Daniel Bailey at 10:07 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Aside from the Holy Hand Grenade, what other sacred relic proxy's are out there? How about Martín-Chivelet et al 2011? Abstract:

       Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.

       

       Fig. 7. Synthetic time series of relative δ13C values for the last 4000 years, based on the three stalagmites. The curve is based on the deviation of each δ13C value from the mean calculated in each stalagmite for the 1570–670 yr BP interval (i.e., the longest interval of coeval growth in the three samples). The smoothing curve is based on adjacent averaging (n=10) of the stacked relative δ13C values of the three stalagmites. The temperature scale is based on the linear model correlation obtained from the cross-plot of Fig. 6. According to that model, the error of the temperature estimates is ±0.26 °C.

       [Source] Proxy, proxy, my kingdom for a proxy...
56743. skywatcher at 09:51 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       And to add one more to DB's list, 'realscience' continues the erroneous accusation that Mann's group somehow wished the MCA away because they didn't want it. Lets think about that for just a second. In real science, who, exactly, whould benefit from a small, invisible MCA? Why, those arguing for low climate sensitivity of course! If Mann et al had an agenda, as has been insinuated, they would not have produced a 'hockey stick'. They would have produced a graph with very large wiggles for every significant natural climate event. That would be a graph supporting high climate sensitivity, and thus very great concern for the magnitude of our current anthropogenic forcing of climate. Fortunately, Mann and all the dozen or more others that followed him had the integrity not to do that - they followed the data and produced reconstructions that best suited their data. It supported slightly lower climate sensitivity! A large MCA = high climate sensitivity. There is so much irony in the fact that so-called skeptics ought to be lauding Mann, when instead they chosen to maliciously attack him. But then nobody ever said skeptics were actually rational in their arguments about climate! [and for those that don't know, it's "Medieval Climate Anomaly", rather than MWP, to account for the fact that there are precipitation changes in the time period, and regions with cool episodes, not accurately reflected in a 'Warm' name. Something else that has come out of deeper understanding as the science has advanced beyond the thinking of the great H H Lamb.]
56744. Daniel Bailey at 09:48 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Additionally, using the same logic, the warmth of the MCA should also be obvious in the global methane record. From Mitchell et al, 2011: Oh, there it is.
56745. Tom Curtis at 09:37 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Rob Honeycutt @151, how true your words are is revealed by this comparison of MBH 99 and Mann et al 2008 CPS method: As can be seen, MBH declines from a high point in the MWP which is about as high as that found in other more recent proxies. While there is some substance to the claim that MBH 99 does not show the LIA, there is no substance to the claim that it does not show the MWP. That it is the later, not the former claim deniers continuously shows well the substance in their arguments.
56746. Daniel Bailey at 09:36 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Of course, if one could somehow find a reconstruction of Arctic Sea Ice levels for, say, the past 1,400 years or so, surely that would help prove the non-regionality of the MCA. After all, Arctic amplification will help magnify any warming present during the MCA, so any reduction in sea ice cover should stand out like a sore, throbbing thumb with respect to the years between then and now. What's that? We do have such a reconstruction? Oh, yes, SkS covered Kinnard et al 2011 here, Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years Pretty bleedin' obvious, I'd say.
56747. Bert from Eltham at 09:08 AM on 12 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       As an ignorant physicist that worked in structural biology I have met Nobel Laureates in our field. My boss used to bring his international mates into the lab and then have to leave because of some administrative problem. They all asked more questions than even offering any advice or pontificating. They were genuinely interested how we did things in our lab. I was only introduced to them by name and had no idea who they were. It was only later at lunch or dinner I found out who they were. These were all very humble men who knew their limitations in spite of their success and obvious talents. I can only suppose that if the deniers cherry pick data they will cherry pick Nobel Laureates. Bert
56748. Rob Honeycutt at 08:11 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience... Your original comment was that the MWP didn't appear in MBH98, which is obvious because the data didn't go back to medieval times. MBH99 added 400 years to MBH98 and took the data back about the peak of the MWP. Mann's 2009 work of course went back even further and showed the cooler period prior to that. You are making an erroneous inference that somehow the MWP magically "came back into view." It didn't come "back" into view, it merely came "into" view.
56749. Daniel Bailey at 08:11 AM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       You are still calling for an "audit". Feel free. Still off-topic, so let it go on this thread. Or I will have to drop out of discussion into moderation for the remainder. Other moderators are of course free to step in right away & excise the offending bits as they see fit. The facts: -You opined that the MCA was global. -You were called on it & challenged to present evidenciary support. -You presented three sources. -You received strikes on all three. -You continue to ignore those strikes. -You continue to opine that some places today are cooling while some are warming, thus painting a picture inconsistent with the modern record. All without evidenciary support. -You still fail to provide a cohesive, evidenciarilly-supported framework that the MCA was global. You furnish ample rhetoric. Substance is needed to constitute intellectual victuals, however. No matter the spin, calling a dog's tail a 5th leg does not make it so.
56750. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 08:08 AM on 12 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       It amazes me how a scientist from any field can not grasp the basics of climate science. Does the scientific process work differently in other disciplines? All that is required is to pick up a copy of International Journal of Climatology, or similar standing climate publication, and read. You probably don't even have to read much more than the introduction to each article to realise the climate science community is well beyond the "is it us or not?" question.

Prev  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  Next