Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 Next
Comments 58351 to 58400:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:43 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Aerosols from China, India and similar countries are certainly a cooling factor at the moment but we don't have good enough data on their distribution and what the mix of aerosol types is to quantify the effect that well. Infortunately we haven't been able to successfully launch a satellite to start measuring. Current moves to gas instead of coal in many parts of the world may have some interesting implications if the scale keeps ramping up, especially if gas is actually replacing existing coal plant. Gas produces less CO2 than Coal for the same amount of net energy produced. So a modest positive in reducing emissions. But Gas burns pretty clean, without generating the same levels of aerosols. So it would contribute to drawing down aerosol levels in the atmosphere and thus removing some of their masking cooling effect and revealing more warming. Personally, I think that is a positive occurance. Not that there is more warming, because that warming is already locked in, it will be revealed eventually when we stop burning fossil fuels. Rather the more the eventual warming occurs sooner rather than later, the more that can help influence public opinion towards action. Ultimately it is the eventual warming that is the issue. But action seems to need warming now as the basis for action. Kate's post also highlights one of the problems with GeoEngineered mitigation of AGW. Even if GeoEngineering results in mitigation of global average temperatures, there will still be substantial regional climate changes. This is potentially a legal (and even military) mess. Country A unilaterally starts some GeoEngineering activity, injection of aerosols into the atmosphere being an obvious example. However, even though A's efforts do bring about a net positive benefit globally, County B happens to be a big loser in this, with negative climate changes being dumped on their region. What does Country B do? Just live with it? International legal action against A? Military strikes against A's aerosol dispersal infra-structure? How does B weigh up its responsibilities to it's own citizens vs it's responsibilities to the world as a whole Messy! -
scaddenp at 17:32 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
"However, it is indeed possible to identify some earlier statements that have been made about predicted climate change effects, which so far have not eventuated." Hmm, to which papers are these predictions that refer to? Some early statements had climate sensitivity too high (for well-understood reasons), but the papers noted these assumptions and limitations so are hardly "disproved" by data. I would still you like to describe your process for dealing with conflicting commentary. This seems to me to be the most constructive way to continue a discussion. The decision making outlined in the Chris-G nature paper (conformance to group values) is not what we want to guide our future. -
Peter42 at 15:51 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @33 & #36, (13.40 pm and 13.51 pm 3 June 2012): Thanks for the background (from yourself and others) on the use of “catastrophic” in this context; I now understand better how the term has been used derogatively, and as I’ve noted elsewhere, the terms “alarmist” and “denier” are similarly unhelpful. My apologies to all. On the data records, yes, I do read interpretations of the significance or otherwise of these records. However, it is indeed possible to identify some earlier statements that have been made about predicted climate change effects, which so far have not eventuated. I do accept that the latest official statements are those we should reference today, not yesterday’s. On the issue of assessing the significance or otherwise of flat or declining temperatures, I’ll read thoughtful analyses from both sides, and continue to note progressive observational data. To Sphaerica @37 (14.29 pm 3 June 2012): An interesting paper noted by Chris G @7 (5.24 am 3 June 2012) “Modelling the Apocalypse” discusses the point you make about differing views on global warming. Worth reading. The analysis included the educated. Are we to conclude they are all ill-motivated? Also, there is indeed at least one place between acceptance and disagreement on any issue – in a religious context, it is known as agnosticism. I see on sites supporting one side or the other, the tendency for like views to gather, with opposing views treated dismissively. That doesn’t help either side. -
dana1981 at 15:11 PM on 3 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Hi curiousd. I believe Figure 6 is a plot using Model 4, actually. If you look at the top of page 3 of the paper (page 959 in the journal), it says Model 4 has the climate sensitivity they're using of 2.8°C for doubled CO2. Prior to that they note that they didn't have enough knowledge at the time to include the vegetation feedback for Models 5 and 6, so 4 was advanced as they could get with reasonable confidence. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:29 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, CAGW is only used as a debating tactic, in an effort to cast the science in as a "Chicken Little" exercise. There is no point whatsoever to including the C unless you wish to subtly imply that it is something so outrageous as to not be worth consideration. And the "disagreement," "debate," or any other faux-polite term you want to use doesn't exist, except in the minds of uneducated or ill-motivated people. The science is very, very solid, and now the only questions that remain are "when" and "exactly how much" and "what how much will actually mean." Most of your comments seem to imply a tone of "well, yeah, the science looks interesting... but the data doesn't show enough warming yet..." Spoken like the man who jumped from the top of a skyscraper, and was heard to say every time he passed an open window, "so far, so good." Please look up the definition of "concern troll". -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, a further thought. If you read a blog commentary that says AGW is wrong because temperatures are flat or declining and then read a commentary that says temperatures are doing exactly what climate theory expects them to, then how do you decide which one is correct? What is the process? -
scaddenp at 13:49 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Eric, well the sensible sustainable solution is live close to where you work, or vice-versa. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:46 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
scaddenp, we sometimes have a peculiar definition of poverty in the U.S. which includes what other people consider luxuries or gross inefficiency. People in my area will drive to work in a truck getting 15 mpg or less and drive 40 or 50 miles each way for a job paying $10/hour. At the recent $4 per gallon, fuel eats up 30% of their gross income. So they might switch to an old 25 mpg sedan or just work some odd jobs locally. -
scaddenp at 13:40 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, "Catastrophic" is a highly subjective term. To one person it may mean enhanced mortality from droughts and for another its more government/tax. Instead it is best to separate the science (that anthropogenic forcings are the dominant player in current climate change) from the effects, which are also described by the science (the IPCC AR4 report being the best current reference). Whether you think the effects described there are catastrophic is up to you, but lets stick to what those reports state not what Greenpeace or any other group says. As to why ask, well because any useful discussion of the science requires that the science be read. When you say that the temperature records (which all show warming) give you pause, then you are demonstrating that you do not know what the published science expects from these records, and are believing misinformation about significance of short term changes. If you read what the science actually says (and that is what counts), then you wouldnt be rehashing same arguments. -
Ger at 13:15 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Would local heating at the south pole and local cooling at the north pole not introduce more transport of heat from south to north? It will take quite some time, sure. Assuming the whole 'rich' world did economical collapse and there is hardly economical activity which is burning fossils. Tanker ships will still be around going from unfriendly (for humans) areas in the south to almost even unfriendly areas in the North. One way of enhancing the transport from north to south would be creating liquid NG from coal deposits and store it up north in empty gas fields.Power to create (hydrolysis of coal with hydrogen) the LNG derived from sun and wind in the south (guess weather does get more violent, so more wind to harvest). Driver to make sense is the temperature difference, a 4 to 5 degrees on the whole range of a 210 degrees difference (from liquid CH4 to room temperature) just a 4% to compensate for transport. -
Peter42 at 11:59 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To Daniel Bailey @29 (09.25 am 3 June 2012): Sorry, I didn’t realise CAGW was evidently pejorative, nor that I used it with zeal; I had simply thought that most scenarios predicted as a result of continuing and greater emission rates, indicated catastrophe, and that the acronym was simple and accepted use. As for the term “debate”, would you prefer the term “disagreement”? I certainly find great disagreement across the internet, as well as in discussions with those around me. Please also see my note on polarization below. To scaddenp #31 (10.18 am 3 June 2012): May I refer you and Daniel (above) to my Post#10 (10.34 am 3 June 2012) on polarization (Modelling the Apocalypse) on this site? I don’t see any point in citing contrary references I find of interest, because you and others can all find them readily, and have probably been through them. They are all probably refuted on this site at least, and so a continuing discussion of those would be a re-hash of the same arguments, with perhaps quite a deal of emotive disparagement thrown in. What’s the point of that? Part of what gives me pause, are observational data, such as CRUTEM4, GISS Surface Temperatures, NOAA Global Mean Temperatures over Land and Ocean, UAH Satellite-based temperatures over the Global Lower Atmosphere, and RSS Middle Troposphere Temperatures. These are not the only official sources I peruse. I find this NOAA site interesting: http://tidesand currents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html . I’m looking forward to more objective data from the ARGO floats, so we can see over a reasonable period what’s really happening in ocean temperatures from 2000 metres to the surface. (Ice? I’m putting it on ice for the moment, but it does appear there is a continuing decline in Arctic ice coverage, whereas it appears coverage is stable at present in the Antarctic. There’s dispute about volume, and I need to investigate that more.) -
YubeDude at 11:48 AM on 3 June 2012Toxic mercury, accumulating in the Arctic, springs from a hidden source
Hasn't the planet always had cycles where mercury levels in the Arctic Ocean spiked? Isn't this just another benign natural process that's just earths way of telling us don't worry, be happy? Will I have to cut back on the amount of Arctic Char or King Crab that I consume? Is my post totally facetious? -
Peter42 at 10:34 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
To Chris G @7 (5.24 am 3 June 2012) Thanks for the reference to the excellent paper on belief polarization, which I’d also recommend for helping us to understand better how others (and ourselves) might think about (-snip-) AGW. (-Snip-) (-Snip-). To PhilMorris @8 (05.59 am 3 june 2012) I agree very much that R & D on thorium should be pursued vigorously.Moderator Response:[DB] Offensive terminology snipped.
Off-topic snipped.
-
curiousd at 10:25 AM on 3 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Newbie physicist here, not climate guy, trying to understand. Try as I might I cannot figure out which of the models are used in the important Fig. 6 of the seminal 1981 result (Science, 213, pp. 957-966)I have read the paper a lot. Is the "model two" plotted which uses the CO2 temp increase then constrains relative humidity to be constant? Or 5/6 models which have albedo feedback? Apologize for the fact this post duplicates another I made in a less appropriate thread. I teach kind of a "Physics of Environment 101" at a University and am trying to sharpen up. -
Lou Grinzo at 10:21 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Someone please correct me if I have this wrong, but as best I can tell from when I last dug into the aerosol whiplash issue, the EU and the US have made some very good progress in reducing sulfate aerosol emissions, and China is (much more recently) getting serious about controlling them. (I don't know off-hand what the story is with India on this point.) This is very bad news, despite the obvious and positive effects from lowering air pollution and acid rain, and it's one of the purest examples I know of the phenomenon I describe by saying "timing is everything, and it's not on our side". Probably the least convenient fact of all is the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2, making those emissions a one-way ratchet in terms of normal human planning horizons. -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, until you can nominate some science that you consider supports an alternative to the consensus climate theory, then I find it very hard to accept your sincerity about alternatives. "Commentaries" in my experience are misinformation foisted on those unwilling or unable to check the scientific sources. Do you have published papers or dont you? Just pick one that you think convincing. -
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Eric, high-priced petroleum is inevitable whether you hasten the process with carbon pricing in some form, or take it later as production squeeze continues. Either an alternative is developed or you accept the structural changes- that what you are seeing around is the consequences of development based on unsustainable resources. Rather like ghost towns that follow a mine running out. However, managing climate change is mostly about coal not petroleum. It's a little ironic talking about fuel poverty in the US compared to rest of world when you look at the price paid.In UK US$2.07/l. In New Zealand, US$1.46/l while in the US it's US$0.99/l -
Daniel Bailey at 09:25 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42, it is noted the zeal with which you continue to employ the denier term CAGW and to continue to intimate the existence of a (scientific) debate. The first term is a non-sequiter strawman, considered derisive in scientific forums. The second postulates a false equivalence by framing the discussion as a "Debate". In reality, those who embrace science, the scientific method and centuries of research also embrace that global warming is a fact, and that humans are the primary cause of that warming over the past 40 years, on a level of certainty equivalent to the "theory" of gravity. Those that deny the science, the scientific method and centuries of research supporting it are bereft of position in scientific forums and are considered the functional equivalent of shaman poking at chicken entrails. On that there is no debate. -
Peter42 at 09:12 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @#24 (12.31 pm 2 June 2012): The polarisation in the CAGW debate is quite dispiriting. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the physiological human need of tribalism, at the more extreme end expressed in xenophobia, at the more cheerful end (generally), in sport. After reviewing quite a number of contrary opinions some time ago, I decided I would concentrate on data sources and some of the scientific papers in IPCC reports. I use scientific commentary from both sides of the debate, to broaden my understanding. What I have reviewed so far is only a very small part of the literature. I imagine that many of the more substantial contrary sources have been reviewed under this site’s “Climate Myths”. There’s little value in my nominating any particular contrary sources, as that will lead to restatement of arguments, or references to their rebuttal. For data sources, I seek out clear and accurate presentations of the formal published observational data, the same data used by the IPCC. Re CBDunkerson @18 and 27, and Eric (skeptic) @26: Thanks to the former for your clarification. I see there’s an OECD project to analyse fossil fuel subsidies, and develop options for phasing them out. Eric’s point about complexity is sound. Timescale is another. That prompts my recollection of a seminar I attended at a nearby university recently, on carbon dioxide emissions tax schemes. At question time I asked “If we were to find that the rate of global warming, for whatever reason, was not changing as fast or as much as we expect, or even not in the same direction, what should we do differently (to the proposals so far discussed at the seminar)?” One response from the seminar panel was that such taxes were a form of risk management (the participants were mostly economists); another expressed how excellent were that to be so (i.e. reduced, slower or nil further global warming). Neither appeared to consider the substantial impacts of such change in energy sourcing over a short period (and the focus of the seminar was on carbon dioxide pricing in the developed world). Another was more pragmatic: the response was “that is why I propose we move in small steps”. It does seem to me that the more convinced that people are about the existence and urgency of a problem, the more they propose what appear to be simple solutions, which in fact are bound to be very complex. -
Tom Curtis at 07:54 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
Justin @14 below is a chart of the aborptivity of the most common green house gases in the atmosphere at different wavelengths:
(Source)
You will notice at about X 3 & 11 micrometers X some "windows" in which the absorptivity of all gases is very low. It was USAF research that mapped the absorptivity functions of the various GHG. It was, consequently, USAF research that enabled them to design heat seaking missiles and IR imaging equipment that exploited the window they discovered to give them maximum range and clarity. Consequently, it was also USAF research that shows the "windows" in the absorptivity function of the various GHG narrow with increased concentrations, thereby proving that the greenhouse effect was not saturated.
It appears that your post was necessary, not because muoncounter left him self an easy target, but to reveal the depth of your ignorance of the relevant science.
Edited to provide clearer examples.
-
Rob Painting at 07:41 AM on 3 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Justin - your comment falls under characteristic No.5, the logical fallacy. More specifically, you have put forth the argument of false equivalence. Can you provide one example where a mountain of congruent scientific evidence, like climate science today, has been overturned by an individual, or group, that doesn't even have a competing hypothesis? -
michael sweet at 07:24 AM on 3 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
Curiousd, There is a nice article on climate sensitivity here by Dana1981. As Spherica said, short term (perhaps 50-100 years) climate sensitivity is about 3C per doubling. Long term (hundreds of years) is estimated at double that. Usually only the short term sensitivity is discussed. If you care about life in 300 years the picture is worse. -
PhilMorris at 05:59 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
chriskos@4 Fusion energy go uncontrolled? It cannot happen! Fusion is entirely different from fission (which for current designs in production can and have gone uncontrolled). Fusion requires energy to maintain reactions. But there are fission reactor designs that are inherently safe, such as the Liquid Thorium designs, but they were not supported by the US military in the 60's because thorium reactors are very poor at producing the raw materials for nuclear devices. Yes we do have an insatiable appetite for energy; that is a natural consequence of humans wanting to better their living conditions, and the inevitable growth in populations (inevitable because that is the nature of life, even human life). Short of a non-greenhouse gas emitting source of energy, no matter how much we reduce consumption, without a dramatic, no, apocalyptic collape of human society, we won't significantly affect the generation of greenhouse gas. So better hope that fusion, and/or a major investment in throium based reactors happens soon. -
Chris G at 05:24 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
On the odd chance that it is of any interest, here is a cross-ref to my blog in the local paper. It is a repeat of this comment, plus contains a link to a paper on the polarization of beliefs at the start, which I thought interesting, as well as guesstimates of local climate change impacts, at the end. -
Justin at 05:22 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
I'm sorry; that last post was unnecessary but muoncounter made himself an easy target. The objective is to remain 'on-topic' and answer the question as to whether or not burning fossil fuel effects the future of the Earth as we know it. Does anyone have a problem with this? I mean, will I be 'snipped' if I try to address some of the issues by asking a few questions such as, where does the free oxygen we breath come from?Moderator Response:[DB] "that last post was unnecessary but"
Yes, very unnecessary (no "buts" about it). As unnecessary as your posting privileges will be if you continue to ignore this site's Comments Policy; adherence to which you shall receive no more warnings nor admonitions...
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:17 AM on 3 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
curiousd, The short answer is "both." The way it works (and remember that 3˚C is an estimate that doesn't apply exactly in all cases, but each case could be a little more or less) any doubling will increase temps by 3˚C. So if temps were at 288˚K at 280 ppm (the pre-industrial level), then if we double that to 560 ppm then we should expect temps to be at 291˚K (add 3˚C). CO2 levels are currently at 400 ppm. This implies that we have already committed ourselves to an equilibrium temperature increase of 1.54˚C, or a new "setting" of 289.54˚C. The planet hasn't reached this temperature yet, but if we held CO2 levels constant starting now, that is the temperature we'd expect the planet to reach. Given that, if we then doubled CO2 levels from the current 400 ppm up to 800 ppm, we should expect to add another 3˚C when the planet reaches equilibrium, for a final temperature of 292.54˚C (289.54˚C + 3˚C)... a total increase since pre-industrial levels of 4.54˚C. -
Justin at 04:50 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
Dear muoncounter, That Heat Signature on the Chinook; tell me, what was the CO2 content of the air at the time when that locked-on? Was it 0.03954% or 0.03953%? Does it matter? Well, here's a tip: You might get a very large grant from the Government to find this out. Lockheed itself might have once paid you a lot of money to find this out. Problem is; they know already. CO2 has no effect on missile performance whatsoever. But you would have known that. -
Chris G at 03:49 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
I have a variation of these models in mind. Let's imagine that the leading industrial nations, China, the U.S., Germany (God bless you for your self-imposed limits to growth (gaseous fuels at least) so far.), etc., decide this year to take aggressive action to shift off of fossil fuels. How long would that take without wrecking their economies, which we can assume they are unwilling to do? I'll ballpark 2-3 decades to shift the energy infrastructure to a new paradigm. Let's assume that these leading industrials influence others to follow suit, and so we can map global emissions along the same path. As a rough estimate, we can say that for this approximately 25 years, emissions will be half of what they are now. (Just figure a steady decline from where we are now to zero.) Currently, we are increasing CO2 ppm at a rate very close to 2ppm / year, and in context. So, assuming action this year, halved CO2 output, over 25 years, leads to a ballpark of 425 CO2 ppmv by the time we could level it off, even given a strong desire to do so. Climate sensitivity estimates are narrowing in more and more toward about 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, based on both models and paleoclimate studies. Another source for this estimate is here, complete with about 30 peer-reviewed references. That amount of CO2 puts us close enough to 2 degrees C of warming to make me nervous, and does not factor in any feedbacks, like melting permafrost or destabilized clathrates. Judging by the lack of any real progress at any of the recent climate change talks, it will be some more years before we get serious about reducing CO2 emissions. So, we are likely going to hit 2 C warming, plus whatever feedbacks ensue. I'm not trying to give credence to those that say there is no point in attempting mitigation, because it is not the case that 2 C of warming will be as bad as 3 C, or 4 C, and so on. -
CBDunkerson at 03:20 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42 wrote: "Incidentally, in comparing subsidies for fossil fuel and renewables (where you consider subsidies for the latter as negligible), do you mean total subsidy costs, or subsidy rates in proportion to energy produced?" The 'in proportion to energy produced' comparison does indeed go in favor of fossil fuels.... it's just a ridiculously invalid comparison given the developing nature of solar power vs the long established use of fossil fuels. Unless you are going to pretend that solar subsidies would require the current 'subsidy dollars per unit energy' rate forever (which declining solar costs clearly indicate to be false) such a construct serves only to present a distorted result. When fossil fuels were first introduced the subsidy costs per unit energy were much higher there as well. Solar subsidies are currently much lower than fossil fuel subsidies in total monetary figures. They are also lower than the (inflation adjusted) initial start up costs of building fossil fuel infrastructure. Finally, the total subsidy dollars which will be spent to make solar power a viable worldwide power source are vastly lower than the amounts already spent on fossil fuels or the additional amounts which will be spent if we continue to use fossil fuels through 2100... yet the total amount of energy which solar power would then be able to provide is vastly greater than all fossil fuel power past and future. -
curiousd at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Never Mind......Newbie here...I was digging around in another part of this web site and I think I am correct that eventually the CO2 already there is expected in the long term to drive up temperature to about 3 degrees. This is a great web site but it is getting hard to keep track of who says what on all the different threads. One practical question.....now that the nay - sayers - at least perhaps the published ones - have ceded there is AGW, haven't we reached a point where: (1) Those who have an idee fixe that nothing should be done will never advocate action. (2) But people open to the evidence will be sure action is much needed? Thus, Spenser originally published an estimate of climate sensitivity of about half the 3 degrees? He was wrong but even 1.3 degrees instead of 3 degrees only delays any particular nasty consequence by about a factor of two?? The scary thing to me is the fear people will continue as at present, eventually burning through all the oil, all the coal, and all other fossil fuel sources to the last drop. If this fear is justified, what difference would a factor of two in climate sensitivity even make?? -
Justin at 02:16 AM on 3 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The important thing to remember with the "The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism" is that all five characteristics can be equally applied to people on both sides of the argument. Denialism (or 'repudiation' to use the correct English term) is absolutely essential to the advancement of knowledge. All the great discoveries were made by individuals repudiating the scientific consensus fashionable at the time. -
Composer99 at 02:07 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
IMO phrases such as: claim made by AGW advocates shows the degree to which climate pseudoskeptics are prepared to misinterpret or misrepresent the science and those who support it. While doubtless there are some limited exceptions (people who seriously believe the Earth as a whole is a living entity bent on destroying humans as payback for ontological misdeeds), no person accepting the science behind global warming or the imperative for action the science reveals actually wants global warming to happen. Given that, calling a supporter of climate science an "AGW advocate", as if such a person found the unwelcome changes brought on by climate change to be desireable, is IMO simply ridiculous. As a final note, I would like to wish Justin the best of luck with: I will, in due course, try to present a cogent argument why I believe you, and all those who believe that the climate of the Earth is being affected by the burning of fossil fuel, are mistaken. Many have tried, and none have succeeded. -
Bruce at 01:29 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
If models predict 8 degrees antarctic heating for our 550 gt carbon load what projections for Antarctic heating can we expect for the additional 450 gt we will likely emit within the next 3 decades? -
climatehawk1 at 01:17 AM on 3 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
You might want to consider changing the title of this post. It unintentionally suggests a purposeful agenda. "In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Gain" would actually be better. -
Justin at 01:05 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
No, I am not just passing through. I read everything and take all your arguments very seriously and give them a great deal of thought - hence the delay in replying. Nothing I say is 'off pat' or a stock riposte to any claim made by AGW advocates. I will, in due course, try to present a cogent argument why I believe you, and all those who believe that the climate of the Earth is being affected by the burning of fossil fuel, are mistaken. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
Note: To be considered a cogent argument you must present evidence (based on the peer-reviewed, published literature) to support your assertions. Which you have not done.
-
Jim Eager at 23:54 PM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
I told you you would be wasting your time. Clyde isn't really answering your questions and he isn't allowing himself to be pinned down. When you do so he just switches to another argument (which is then deleted). He's not here to learn.Moderator Response: TC: Indeed. If Clyde does not very shortly answer some of the questions directed at him with answers that would actually substantiate his initial claims, or else acknowledge those initial claims to have been in error, or misinformed, this discussion will be in danger of violating the "no excessive repetition clause" of the comments policy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:52 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Tom (16), Your point has some validity but is quite oversimplified. Unlike cap and trade, a carbon tax with a 100% domestic rebate (Hansen style) is not a "scheme to enrich the third world", on the contrary a tax on imports based on carbon intensity would reduce trade and help to impoverish the third world. That effect would only be partly offset by the lower fuel prices to third world. Also your dichotomy does not address the second world, rapidly industrializing countries, nor the economic disparities in regions within countries. For example I have already seen the consequences of fuel poverty in my part of rural Virginia such as fewer available jobs due to high commuting costs, indoor heating with diesel, abandoned farms and farm animals, etc. -
curiousd at 23:09 PM on 2 June 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Question: I was interested in the comments by Chris G, (number 23 above). Lets assume the three "summary statements" of Lindzen as quoted by Chris G are correct, but Lindzen merely omits a long time constant to equilibrium from his list of "possibilities" as quoted in post 23. Does this mean that one would expect a long term increase in temperature over pre-industrial levels of roughly (3/4) x 3 degrees, even if we could instantly stop burning fossil fuels? If so, does anyone have an estimate of how long this would take? -
chriskoz at 22:52 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Sceptical Wombat @2, My hopes are different. Fusion does not help at all other than satiate the narcisitc quench for energy. IMO such possibility's less realistic than the improvement and expansion of PV panels (or other technology capturing insolation enegry) so that they provide the baseload power. But that's besides. My hopes are: they don't keep increasing the energy imbalance (harnessing fusion would just add energy and possibly bigger disaster if it went uncontrolled) but start reversing it. CO2 already in gthe air creates the imbalance of, as Hansen says, 2 Hiroshima explosions/sec. And this is the imbalance that will continue to warm Antarctica. For example, I would dream (this article is about SF dreams isn't it?) they invent an industrial scale artificial photosynthesis, which would cool things by both drawing down CO2 and using sun's irradiance. -
Tom Curtis at 22:40 PM on 2 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
curiousd @53, across a wide range of CO2 concentrations, including all those that have been experienced on Earth in the last 600,000 years or are projected under anthropogenic emissions, doubling CO2 results in a 2-4 degree increase in temperature if we ignore slow feedbacks such as melting of ice sheets. The IPCC best estimate for that figure is 3 degrees C. -
esjope at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
It is quite worrying that reducing aerosol emissions seems to be happening before reducing GHG emissions. Therefore it looks like we’ll get both increasing GHG warming and reduced cooling due to cleaner emissions. -
chriskoz at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
rpauli, This article is about Ian Plimer's misrepresentations. I don't see any misrepresentations about CO2 in his gish gallop discussed here, therefore your post is a double-violation of comments policy by being off topic and an unqualified statement. So I'm surprised Tom acted as a commenter rather than the admin on it. Just look around. You do not have to search far to find OnT thread: just 2 days back where your comment would have been perhaps excplicitly qualified and could draw interesting discussion...Moderator Response: TC: rpauli sort to correct what he thought was an error in a factual claim in the OP. Therefore his comment was on topic. As it happened, however, while his claim as factually correct, so was that in the original post as explained in my comment. -
curiousd at 20:24 PM on 2 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
I want to make sure I have this right. In a statement such as, "Doubling the CO2 increases the temperature 3 degree C (eventually)" are we talking about doubling the CO2 from pre - industrial levels, doubling the CO2 from what we have now, or what? -
Sceptical Wombat at 18:45 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
On the face of it this means that, irrespective of what we do from here on, someone is probably going to have to do some serious geoengineering sometime in the next couple of centuries. Let's hope they crack controlled fusion before then. -
skywatcher at 15:13 PM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde #541: And with that, you show unequivocally that you really don't have an understanding of what a modeller does, and how a modeller goes about their work. In your #537, you exactly did not answer the specific questions, as you stated that a modeller is someone who can "write the code". Climate modellers around the world can "write the code"! That part is easy! The hard part is validating the code. But you have, as yet, given absolutely no explanation as to why all these people who can "write the code" cannot write and validate a good climate model. You additionally, as Bob says, give no explanation as to why checking/changing a model, having found a discrepancy with real-world data, is anything other than good science. I wonder if you can furnish us with a specific example of the occasions where adjustments "make the temp higher", because to me it sounds like you are confusing temperature reconstructions with climate models. You also are, by this statement indirectly attributing deliberate motivations to the approaches of scientists. Do you actually believe anybody wants temperature to be higher? In other respects, I concur entirely with what Bob says -
scaddenp at 12:43 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
I should also point out that some credible science that lets us off the hook, especially if means we will cool again, is really good news. It would also ensure that funding to my area of interest (petroleum basins with a side-dish of coal) is assured. Sadly, I fear the climate theory is right and we must do what is necessary to protect future generation by moving away from fossil fuel and developing new alternatives. -
scaddenp at 12:31 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
" I read well-argued material on both sides of the argument, and am still learning". So care to share (on the appropriate thread), the well-argued material (based on published science) againt current climate theory? -
Bob Loblaw at 11:49 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde @ 541: You say "That's part of my reason for not trusting models. Correct their code or adjust uncertainties." Are you really telling me that if I write a model, and I find that there are difference between it and measurements, and I either - figure out what my model is doing incorrectly, and make it better ("correct the code") - decide that this means that the uncertainties in my model are greater than I thought they were when I had the more limited (and less different) measurements to compare it to ("adjust uncertainties") ..that you would decide that I am a bad scientist and not to be trusted? What actions or characteristics would make you trust a scientist faced with data that differs from a model? -
Bob Loblaw at 11:41 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde: I'm not interested in going to Pielke's web site. Please provide a short description of what you think his "challenge" is, and I will discuss it with you here. ("Here" being subject to the assumption that it is relevant to this particular topic, which is the reliability of climate models. If it isn't, please pick another thread and point me to it.) -
Bob Loblaw at 11:36 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde @537: 1) You are still just providing a circular definition of "computer modeller". If you don't know what a circular definition is, look it up in the dictionary under "definition, circular". Or admit that you don't have a definition. 2) I'm not interested in analogies with heart surgeons or doctors. I want you to identify an actual, real "climate expert" that you know of, and explain why that person is not "knowledgeable about computer modeling, and how would this affect the work that they are doing" (to quote my original question). In other words, what is it you think that they are doing that is weakened by your belief that they have insufficient knowledge of "computer modelling"? Or admit that you don't actually have any specifics that you can use to back up your claim. 3) You said that I "don't know enough about computer modeling" in this comment here, where you said "Why is it that folks who critique AGW are dismissed if their not experts in climate science, but we should just accept a climate scientist's work on models when their not experts in computer modeling?" You've cast a pretty wide net with that general claim, and as the old saying goes "I resemble that remark". - I have studied climatology through a Physical Geography program (B.Sc. and Ph.D.). - I have taught climatology in a major Canadian research universty (in a Geography department) - I have published journal papers on my research in reputable scientific journals - my research included writing/coding and using "climate models" I think this is sufficient to be called a "climate expert" - I took one first year "computer science" course in the 1970s. - I stopped taking mathematics course after first year calculus and algebra. I think that makes me someone that you might think of as "not an expert in computer modelling" Yet, somehow I still wrote computer models of climate. Please, tell me what it is you think I need in my background to convince you that I actually knew what I was doing? Surely, with my weak "computer training", I must be an easy target for you to criticize. If you can't argue that I fit your broad, sweeping generalization, then who does? (Which takes us back to point 2.) Back up your claim, instead of just avoiding it. Or admit that you're wrong.
Prev 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 Next
