Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 Next
Comments 61301 to 61350:
-
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
"And if the answer is that it won't have any effect without everyone doing it, then there you have it." Limiting damage means limiting the rate of climate change. Almost anything helps. And you are ignoring that the emissions in China are heavily driven by manufacturing goods for the West. The west has simply exported its emissions to China. We can change that. -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk - repeating earlier comments - you assist the developing world be moving to non-carbon energy sources as fast as possible so they can grow emissions. And you put a high price on their goods produced with dirty tech. 'the reality that we do not have control over what the entire world does' And you have zero chance of cooperation while the western world makes excuses and delays. This has to be weakest excuse for inaction around. I also notice that the developing countries (the ones also most affected by climate change) are the ones clamouring for action on climate change. -
Paul D at 07:57 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk@38 "I have a feeling that people living with out refrigerators, automobiles, wash machines and gas stoves aren't living that way as a matter of choice." Well I haven't owned a car for over 10 years and didn't learn to drive until 24. It's out of choice. I have lived without a washing machine. I used to hand wash clothes in my early adult/student years. I don't think my grandmother had a refrigerator until the 1960s but most homes had a 'larder' which was designed to be naturally cooler than the rest of the house. Given that Einstein was around in the 1930s/1940s I don't think people were uncivilised without these things. "But China is building coal power plants as fast as they can because their people want out of that lifestyle." Absolutely incorrect. OK yes if you dangle the idea of luxury living in front of some young 20 somethings, they'll go running after it. Is that a decision?? No it isn't, most of the change has been dictated and many villages have been forced off their land and the land transformed into giant cities by government commands. There have been tens of thousands of riots in China by villagers happy with a very basic life but forced into an unknown urban future. -
dr2chase at 07:12 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
@jzk - Assume for the moment that we have a goal of reducing CO2 emissions. That will necessarily require that China and India reduce theirs. Several things seem obvious to me: 1) Reducing the rate of CO2 emissions growth is better than not. To the extent that the effects of high CO2 lag the emissions, this means that we'll be in for less future unpleasantness when we finally do see the "oh shit" event that causes "everyone" to agree that we really do have a problem, no kidding. 2) I do not see a scenario where our decision to reduce CO2 emissions makes it less likely that China and India will reduce theirs, or where our choice to not reduce makes it more likely that they will. This is especially true as long as the bulk of their emissions comes from cheap coal instead of expensive oil (if we reduce our oil consumption, arguably that makes oil cheaper, and they burn more -- but being so dependent on oil in a supply-constrained world is also an economic risk). 3) There is much greater consensus among climate scientists that we have a global warming problem than there is among economists that cutting CO2 emissions will necessarily trash the economy. There is a history of industry and conservatives in this country declaring that doing X (raising taxes, trading SO2 credits, whatever) will result in the destruction of the economy, and they have a near-perfect record of crying "Wolf!". Among your various straw men about the inevitable horribleness of a low-carbon lifestyle, I note you mentioned giving up automobiles. I know several people who have kids, do not own cars, and do not want to own cars. They view them as expensive, wasteful of space, and unnecessary. I've lived without AC (in Florida), without a dishwasher, without a clothes-dryer. Of all the items on the list, the one I agree that is most problematic is refrigeration; that is a heavy energy user, and also requires more lifestyle changes if it is foregone than most of the other items on the list. -
zinfan94 at 07:12 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Finally, a comment on the title of this post. It really shouldn't say the planet is warming... the measurements and data discussed in the post are units of heat, not temperature. The post should be titled "Breaking News...The Earth is Still Heating... And heating A LOT!" -
zinfan94 at 06:45 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
The other thing to keep in mind; during La NIna episodes, the planet is heating faster than during El Nino episodes, since the outgoing longwave radiation from the Pacific Ocean declines during La Nina episodes. So in 2011 and so far in 2012, planet Earth heated much faster than the average heating rate discussed in this post. The global heating rate in 2011 was likely +50% to +100% higher than the average global heating rate over a longer time period. -
zinfan94 at 06:35 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
I have this comment as a standard response to all this "no warming" nonsense: I think it is helpful to talk about global heating, i.e. the excess energy from the planetary energy budget that ends up as thermal energy which heats the oceans, melts ice, heats land and soils, and heats the atmosphere. In order to talk about the massive amount of thermal energy that is heating the planet, I think relating the annual thermal energy being absorbed by the planet to the annual thermal energy releasing by 'mining' and burning fossil fuels is the best way to show the significance of the global heating. When fossil fuels are mined and burned, the annual fossil fuel thermal energy (FFTE) released is about 4x10^20 J annually. Let us express all the other heating as multiples of this annual FFTE. Recent annual average SLR due to ocean water thermal expansion is using about 20 to 25 FFTE. Total land ice melt from ice sheets and glaciers as well as the heat absorbed by the net melting of the Arctic ice cap is about one FFTE. Land surfaces are heating up by approximately a half of FFTE released by burning fossil fuels. By contrast the entire atmosphere heating at a rate of 0.2K per decade uses only one quarter of the annual FFTE released by burning fossil fuels. -
Rob Painting at 05:28 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Owl905 - "Pretty unimpressed with the focus in this article. A lot of heat in total (so what, our civilization is on the surface skin)" Glenn makes a very important point here - heat is still going into the oceans. In other words the largest component of global warming has not skipped a beat. See figure 2. It's obvious that the rate of ocean heating has increased over the last two decades. That does not mean all that heat will remain forever buried in the deep ocean - that is a peculiar idea that you seem unable to shake, no matter how many times it is corrected. You are wrong. The surface layers of the ocean are gaining heat too. That heat has been buried in the subsurface ocean because of the La Nina-dominant trend over the last 5-6 years. That, however, is unlikely to last too much longer. The upward arm of the solar cycle and a return to El Nino dominance will likely see rapid warming over the next 3-5 years. -
Rob Painting at 05:13 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
From Peru - that's rather outdated work you are referring to there. See SkS post: Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'. Both of those earlier estimates of the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance were climate-model based. Based on measurements, Loeb 2012 has the imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, and Hansen (2011) has it at 0.58(±0.15)W/m2. But it is important to note the time frames involved. Glenn's figure is for 1961-2011. Note figure 2 in the post, especially the period from 1961-1990. Clear now? -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:11 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk... I get the sense you're only reading half the news on China. You say they are building coal plants "as fast as they can." They're actually also closing down older, dirtier coal plants as fast as they can. They're quite aggressive about it too. They give generators a time frame within which they can clean up. If they don't achieve the target government officials go in, tell everyone to leave, lock down the plant and then later raze it. Job done. IF you look at China's energy mix projections they are changing it almost on an annual basis. A decade ago they projected mostly coal with a mix of renewables and nuclear. Those projections have dramatically changed since then. They keep bumping up wind and solar and cutting back on coal and nuclear. The challenge here is, power generation projects are large, long term investments. You literally can not just shut down projects without losing huge amounts of capital and having significant economic impacts. The ship of energy generation won't turn on a dime. Given the incredible leaps in efficiency of solar and the falling costs of both wind and solar, China clearly sees the handwriting on the wall. They can't shut down all the coal projects that are moving forward but they can change the direction of their energy mix. And that's exactly what they're doing. Compared to the US... We're still stuck in the dark ages of "it all a big hoax." -
Bob Lacatena at 04:56 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk, Did you miss this statement in my post?China is building dirty, but...
You focus exclusively on China's growing carbon emissions without looking at everything. Once again you present a false dichotomy, one side of the issue to the exclusion of all else. This seems to be your MO. This is the third time within 24 hours that you've done it. Yes, China is growing fast, and yes, to do so they are using conventional, dirty means. But they're also planning for the future. Yes, if everyone would get on board it would happen faster and be more fair. But that's not the only solution available. Your ability to narrow your focus onto a single facet of the problem, and then to use that to dismiss all action (or appreciation of the situation in the Arctic, or whatever the subject is) should be a warning bell to anyone who reads your opinions. -
From Peru at 04:40 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
This is a rate of heating of 133 Terrawatts. Or 0.261 Watts/m2 0.261 W/m^2? Isn't that too little? Too little because Hansen expected a warming rate of roughly 0.8W/m^2 and Trenberth estimated it to be 0.9 W/m^2 based on satellite measurements of ingoing and outgoing radiation. -
jzk at 04:32 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Alexandre@59, China's CO2 output in 2010 was 6.8 tons per capita. The problem is the accelerating growth, not necessarily today's emissions. That is why this is such a big problem. It is not like we can just stop emissions and that China can take our place. China is going to double and triple our worst emissions very soon. And, India is not far behind. Go look at the numbers and the forecasts, then tell me what you really think. -
owl905 at 04:32 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Pretty unimpressed with the focus in this article. A lot of heat in total (so what, our civilization is on the surface skin); it's .1dC (using the joules scale to make it look heating-enhanced). As for the "Nothing Else Fits the Data" ... that's sending everyone out to come home on their shields - because the current pro-pollutionist angle is claiming the heat pulse is driven by diffusion from the Indian Ocean and cannot be accounted for in a GHG scenario. Why is the Indian Ocean Heating Consistently? http://www.springerlink.com/content/131362w27500712j/ There's focus and attention on the role of the Agulas System (the drain from the Indian Ocean to the southern Atlantic). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131809.htm If the goal is a decent global response to the pollution, it's damage in the places that matter - a few hundred meters below the surface to the top of the livable surface. Heat going to the vast deep oceans is a slam-dunk win for the pro-pollutionists with "see, it's sequestered naturally." -
Alexandre at 04:30 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
CBDunkerson at 04:14 AM on 16 March, 2012 re jzk's comment, I would also add that a safe way to impasse is a big emitter to stick to the position of refusing to reduce its own share. Or conditioning this to an "entire world" agreement. I remember some time ago the EU setting its own reduction target, and on top of that offering an even better one IF a number of countries made certain reductions*. As a move in the game of geopolitics, that's as good as it gets, IMO. *my googling abilities could not locate a reference for this. Can someone help? -
CBDunkerson at 04:14 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk wrote: "My position is that you aren't going to accomplish anything unless you get buy-in from the entire world." Yep, if Lesotho refuses to buy in to greenhouse gas reductions then whatever the rest of the world tries to do is meaningless. Heck... you say "the entire world". So, clearly if 'Bob Smith' from Woebegone, Arkansas declines then it doesn't matter if every single other person on the planet switches to solar power... 'nothing will be accomplished'. Or perhaps that's completely ridiculous. Who can say. -
Alexandre at 04:13 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk says The idea that the US is going drastically reduce CO2 emissions while the developing world doubles, triples and quadruples theirs just seems very unlikely. You seem to overlook the fact that US CO2 yearly emissions per capita is 17.9 ton, while China is 5.3 and India 1.5. A fair convergence fo these figures would necessarily imply in significant US reductions (as well as other big emitters), while allowing for poorer countries growth. Of course, somewhere down the road (some decades) everyone has to cut it down. The idea is not new, mind you. Do you have any alternative to offer? -
jzk at 04:11 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Sphaeric@57, China imported 175 million tonnes of coal in 2011, and estimates are that it will grow to 1 billion by 2030. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-14/news/31169216_1_coal-imports-coaltrans-thermal-coal India's 80 million tons imported is expected to double by 2015. Just do the math here on the CO2 emissions that will result. This is not information that I "support" or am "against" just information. This is a real problem that you face, and getting all upset with me isn't going to solve it. -
Phila at 04:04 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
R. Gates, I really wish Dr. Judith Curry would read this and stop using the skeptical meme of "no significant warming since 1998". It really does her reputation as a climate scientist a great deal of harm. Honestly, I think Dr. Curry's well past the point of caring about her reputation among mainstream colleagues. That boat sailed around the time she threw her weight behind Montford and Watts. While I don't think anyone's beyond redemption, I suspect Dr. Curry's going to have to do a lot more than acknowledge the obvious to earn back the respect she's forfeited. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:51 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
52, jzk,Highlighting a word in bold doesn't add to its truthfulness.
No, it highlights your mistake and misleading comment to other readers. China is faced with both developing quickly and not making the problem worse. China is building dirty, but also aggressively aiming clean in more than just one way and more than even just two or even three. In some ways they are better positioned because they don't have to give up on as much rotting fossil-fuel infrastructure as we do. But they're being aggressive about it, and your slams on the dirty, backwards nature of China's development are, quite frankly, uneducated and wrong (yes, that's in bold). That we're not doing more in a similar way is an absolute sin.My position is that you aren't going to accomplish anything unless you get buy-in from the entire world.
Your position is that you are happy to sit back and watch civilization crumble, because you can't think of anything else to do so you'd rather stick your head in the ground and pretend that because you can't think of (or accept) any solutions, there are no problems. The solution is to lead, one person, one industry, one country, one continent, one hemisphere.. whatever can be done. Your position is that no one should listen to you, because all you have to offer is droll sophistry. -
jzk at 03:49 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
dana1981@54, One that comes to mind is Daryl Hannah. While I personally don't agree with her ideology, I give her much credit for walking the walk. Much. I actually find Hansen's proposed solution very interesting, keeping the revenues out of the hands of the government. However, without worldwide buy-in, I am afraid the results will, again, be hard to measure. Again, this is a practical problem that isn't tied to ideology. I was just curious as to whether anyone here had a solution. The idea that the US is going drastically reduce CO2 emissions while the developing world doubles, triples and quadruples theirs just seems very unlikely. -
Roger D at 03:47 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Steve Case @3. Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I don't think it's contended that the measured increase in ocean heat is going to heat "anything, anywhere, anymore". The issue is not that that the ocean is going to heat the rest of the system. The point (among others in the article, such as GHG's being the logical reason for heat retention in the system) is that the magnitude and trend seen in ocean heat content is consistent with the mainstream climate science contention that global warming has not "stalled" in any sense. So a "skeptic" showing a graph of surface temperature change with a flattish line through the last decade or so of data is disingenuous and misleading with respect to the surface temperature changes we should anticipate for the next decades. -
Alexandre at 03:21 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk Perhaps. But the question is more of whether they are willing to. So far, they aren't. That interests me. Any references? -
dana1981 at 03:10 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk @48:"How do you solve the problem of the CO2 emissions of the developing world?"
You assist them in addressing their growing energy needs with renewable energy, for starters. Develop the technology to make it cheap, as is already happening with solar PV, which is expected to reach grid parity in the USA within the next few years. China is already installing tons of wind and solar energy."Gore, Hansen, Mann. How are they doing?"
I have no idea how Mann and Hansen live, but Hansen is doing a lot of good, being willing to get arrested in protests against Keystone and coal power plants, for example. Gore could certainly do more to walk the walk, but he has done a lot to make his home 'greener' (i.e. all his energy comes from renewable sources). -
jzk at 02:54 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Composer99@50, "Are developing countries inherently unable to adopt geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and other non-fossil forms of primary energy production?" Perhaps. But the question is more of whether they are willing to. So far, they aren't. I was just curious as to whether anyone had a solution to that problem. If the answer is no, then just say that. -
jzk at 02:50 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Sphaeric@49, Highlighting a word in bold doesn't add to its truthfulness. China is part of the developing world, and you would describe its contribution as minimal? China is outputting CO2 as fast as it can. It is building coal power plants as fast as it can. Its CO2 output growth is accelerating. Have you looked at the data? How is China doing the best it can? It doesn't even focus on "emissions," but rather it uses the word "intensity." We already know that China doesn't care much about traditional environmental problems, they care even less about CO2. What you are hearing is pr. I am surprised you give it any credence. My position is that you aren't going to accomplish anything unless you get buy-in from the entire world. -
Alexandre at 02:41 AM on 16 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru To be fair with economists, the kind of argument you find in AGW skeptic blogs is not representative of the state of Economy as a science. "Normal" economists will probably aknowledge externalities and the necessity of some kind of coordination to avoid at least the more serious ones. Only the far right wingers would say that emission standards for automobiles (which already exist, btw) are some kind of Marxist plot. A few years ago, I became almost obsessed about learning about some apparent contradictions between economic growth and well being, and why free market seemed not to be enough to solve some kinds of problems. Maybe it's the same kind of thing you're tentatively exploring here. If your looking for references, I could suggest the chapter about externalities in some basic Economics textbook, like Greg Mankiw's Principle of Economics. That's the very basics. I also found instructive to know more about wealth and well being indexes that are alternatives to the GDP. Like you already seem to have suggested, "well being" is a more finite and naturally limiting idea than an ever-growing economy. As for limits of the free market to solve negative externalities, I never found anything deeper and better articulated than Elinor Ostrom's work. As a businessman, I love the free market. I value freedom. My country (Brazil) was a dictatorship a few decades ago, and I remember as kid to have seen adults afraid to speak freely, even fearing torture, in a more crude and violent Latin American version of maccarthyism. But to leave those externalities to be solved for themselves equals to condemning people to the Tragedy of the Commons - an outcome no-one chose or wanted. The capability of the people of coordinating themselves to overcome this problem is an expression of wider freedom - and to prevent this is the exact opposite. -
Composer99 at 02:40 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk: Are developing countries inherently unable to adopt geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and other non-fossil forms of primary energy production? Are developing countries inherently unable to ensure their buildings and vehicles are energy-efficient, run off non-fossil power sources, and suitable for their local climates? Are developing countries inherently unable to deploy carbon capture & sequestration technologies, should these become viable on a large scale? Are developing countries inherently unable to use carbon-neutral fuels where fuel combustion cannot be replaced? Given reports shared here at SkS suggesting global reductions of CO2 emissions to near nothing are possible by 2050, are developing countries inherently unable to do all the above over the next 38 years (if they take 2050 to be their objective to achieve net zero emissions - or negative emissions with carbon capture & sequestration), even granting that in many cases they will initially be required to grow their CO2 emissions? (-snip-)Response:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:37 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk,Without developing world participation/solutions, the effects of the measures you suggest will be hard to measure.
False. First, their contribution to the problem is minimal. Second, even of the developed world didn't unanimously participate, the USA could do as China and Europe are doing as best they can, which is to evolve and engineer itself towards a more renewable and sustainable energy base. But unlike Europe and China, the USA could do it fast, efficiently, and make tons of money doing it. We're one of very few countries with the power to define the energy future of the world and to have the world come to us to help them get there once we've shown the way. Instead we're passing on that opportunity so we can luxuriate in the short-lived, seemingly luxurious lifestyle we've developed around fossil fuels. That's what's really laughable about your position, and that of others. This is an opportunity that we could make so much of, but instead you want to paint it as a disaster or an impossibility which would destroy our economy. This nation has retooled dozens of times as times and technology have changed, and it will retool again and again. The people resisting this change now are the same ones who have fought against inevitable progress throughout history, always by painting it as bad or naive or unattainable. And that's the bottom line. This change is inevitable. You do it now, as painlessly as you can, and maybe even reap huge benefits, or you do it later, scrabbling to stay afloat and keep a grip on one tenth of what you once had, because you refused to take action until it became an undeniable necessity. -
jzk at 02:16 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
dana1981@47, How do you solve the problem of the CO2 emissions of the developing world? If you don't, you aren't going to get much buy-in from the rest of the world. As someone that clearly believes in his cause, and is willing to put his money where his mouth his regarding lifestyle, how do you feel the rest of the AGW community is doing? How are the celebrities doing? Gore, Hansen, Mann. How are they doing? I am making no statement here, just asking your opinion. Can you say that they are "taking the lead?" -
Composer99 at 02:00 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
nitpick (echoing MA Rodger's comment): One Watt is 1 Joule per second (1 W = 1 J s-1) so the line with the lightbulb analogy needs to be retrofitted since I understand the point being made is trying to express a Joule in reference to Watts rather than the other way around. Overall: An excellent post that clearly and compellingly summarizes the very basic reason why we know global warming is real. -
dana1981 at 01:58 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk @43 - as someone who has done quite a lot to reduce his own personal CO2 emissions, I don't really appreciate the suggestion that 'all those who believe that AGW will cause considerable harm' are living lives of excess. -
Bernard J. at 01:42 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
At #38 jzk said:If there are people that prefer living without electricity, clean water and television, I have no interest in forcing them to do so.
and in so doing managed in one sentence to set up several straw men. I did not say, and I do not suggest, that people should be "forced" to "live without electricity, clean water and television". Further, our rainwater is perfectly clean, and much more palatable (and hundreds of dollars cheaper per quarter) than the town water which is available a bit closer to the city. It says a lot that you don't understand how easy it is to live simply, when one knows how to do so. Of course, it didn't stop there:I have a feeling that people living with out refrigerators, automobiles, wash machines and gas stoves aren't living that way as a matter of choice.
I did not mention "automobiles" or "gas stoves". More verballing. And for what it's worth, I know of at least three families that have chosen quite voluntarily to "live without" a refrigerator. It's not actually that difficult... But you persist in missing the point. If seven billion people, or nine billion people, all try to live as the Western world currently does, there will simply not be enough planet to go around, alternative fuels or no. There aren't that many choices available - either we keep our jackboots on the throats of the Third World, or we settle on a more equitable 'middle-road' of lifestyle, or we try to give every willing family in the world a widescreen TV and an SUV and then watch as the laws of physics and biology whack us in the solar plexus. Sooner or later that choice will have to be made - and the consequences faced......the issue I am trying to present is the reality that we do not have control over what the entire world does. Without developing world participation/solutions, the effects of the measures you suggest will be hard to measure.
As others have already pointed out, the developing world will do nothing if the Western world does not lead. Why should they? And with equivocators such as yourself making so much noise, the chance of Westerners actually working en masse to move forward to a more sustainable economic model is so slim as to make it almost inevitable that serious damage to human society and to the biosphere will occur. -
miffedmax at 01:38 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Wow. Thank you for an article than even a science/mathophobe like me could understand. -
John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
@jzk: The false dichotomies that you post ad naseum are patently absurd. The human race can individually and collectively take actions to curb GHG emissions and to mitigate the impacts of the warming that is currently built into the system. -
andylee at 01:12 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Terra and tera aren't quite the same thing! Semantically, Earth's geothermal flux would be 1 "Terrawatt", which is currently 47 terawatts. -
jzk at 00:54 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Daniel@44, This whole conversation assumes your premise, that we are on track for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. If we aren't then we don't even need to talk further. The point is that without participation from the developing world in a very meaningful way, CO2 emissions will not only continue to grow, but that growth will accelerate. That is a practical problem that you must face. I am not the emperor of China, so I have little say in what they do. [JH] SnippedResponse:[DB] Note: This comment was inadvertently deleted and has been restored.
-
DMCarey at 00:53 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Quite possibly my favourite post on SkS to date. Very sophisticated science broken down into layman's terms that utterly refute denier's substitute arguments while clearly explaining the sheer scale of the problem. The Sydney Harbour heating example was particularly effective I believe (even to one who has never visited that side of the world). All told an outstanding post Glenn, I'll be sharing it with a few skeptics I regularly come into contact with -
Daniel Bailey at 00:49 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
You offer sophistry. You profess delay. You practice denial. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the world is warming, the primary forcing of temperatures over the past 40 years is from our fossil fuel emissions. Period. Again, lead or follow, but get out of the way. -
MA Rodger at 00:35 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
You do illustrate the relation correctly, but you somehow introduce an oblique into the preceding 1 Joule = 1 Watt.Second. Steve Case @3 Echoing Sceptical Wombat @5. You will note your IPCC figure of 142 ZJ for 700m depth is not much smaller than to 159 ZJ for 2000m. If you delve further into AR4 you will find the global surface temperature change commenserate with these ocean warmings is far from insignificant for climate or for us humans that exist within that climate. -
jzk at 00:26 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Daniel@39, That is an excellent point that I often wonder about. Why is it that those that believe that AGW will cause significant harm to the planet are still "on the grid" washing their clothes and drying them with powered machines, watching cable TV, driving automobiles, using computers, and all the other "excesses" that are leading to destruction of our planet? Personally, I am undecided about what will be the effects of our fossil fuel use, but I would be much more likely to "believe" if the believers were taking the action that they advocate. If I found out that something I was doing was releasing a poison gas that would harm my children, I would never do another thing to release that gas ever again. And if the answer is that it won't have any effect without everyone doing it, then there you have it. -
jzk at 00:19 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Sphaerica@40, Much of what you say may be true, but the issue I am trying to present is the reality that we do not have control over what the entire world does. Without developing world participation/solutions, the effects of the measures you suggest will be hard to measure. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:10 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
39, DB,A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step...
But you see, that right there is the problem. People don't want to walk. They want to drive there. They don't even want to walk too far to get to the car. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:53 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
38, jzk, Except you offer yet another false dichotomy. The choice isn't "burn every ounce of fossil fuel and destroy the planet" versus "force most of the human race to live in abject, stone-age poverty." First, the problem is not that we use energy for our lifestyle, it's that we foolishly waste it. The amount of needlessly flippant waste in our economy is absurd. You don't need to be eating fresh fruit shipped in from 1,000 miles away. You don't need to drive daily to the store in a 4 ton SUV to buy bread. You don't need to live in a 70 degree, humidity controlled environment everywhere you go, at home, the office, stores, everywhere. It's nice, but you don't need it. Every other society before ours (say, circa 1970 on) has lived with a balance of pleasure and sacrifice. No one got to have everything. Their lifestyles were fine. Sure, everyone wants more, but that doesn't mean they should or could have it. Today's conservatives seem to think that this brief period of excess has become an entitlement. They love to cry about entitlements, but really the problem is that they will not give or sacrifice or moderate their behavior in any way now... they are entitled to rape the planet of natural resources for their own, short-lived lives and lifestyle. Huge advances could be made in reducing emissions simply by adjusting behaviors and living within our means (something that hasn't been done, either with energy or budgets, in the past forty years), not to mention making some sacrifices to use new technologies instead of just saying "it's too hard, it's not mature, nothing could truly replace fossil fuels." In every generation before ours, people have made huge, huge sacrifices to deal with the challenges and problems of their age. What we need to do is absolutely nothing like that, yet today's blind-folded conservatives find pathetic excuses like the welfare of the distant poor to do nothing at all, changing neither our destructive use of fossil fuels nor our social intransigence in addressing the plight of others that becomes their excuse for inaction. It's such a convenient, and empty, and incongruous line of reasoning. Secondly... how in the world can one justify damaging the habitability of the planet and the future of multitudes by putting forth the argument that today's poor must be given what you have? Burning fossil fuels at this (or an accelerated) rate is going to severely handicap civilization and that very ability to improve on the status of others. We will instead actually backslide from the gains we've already made, so that all of our efforts must go into simply finding a way to keep what we have, to feed more with less because agriculture will have to change and the bounty of the seas will diminish, and to build and rebuild as the oceans creep in and the land erodes. How can you justify a short-term, one-time advance for today's poor, in exchange for destroying that future for everyone, across the globe, for far too many generations? -
Daniel Bailey at 23:23 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step... Someone must be first, just as someone must be last. Lead or follow, but get out of the way. -
jzk at 22:35 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bernard J@36, If there are people that prefer living without electricity, clean water and television, I have no interest in forcing them to do so. But it ought to be their choice. I have a feeling that people living with out refrigerators, automobiles, wash machines and gas stoves aren't living that way as a matter of choice. Further if one wants to promote that lifestyle and disconnect their electricity, etc., I wouldn't stand in their way. But China is building coal power plants as fast as they can because their people want out of that lifestyle. That is the reality that someone needs to deal with. "Leading the way" is a meaningless, damaging, unmeasurable exercise without global participation. -
Sceptical Wombat at 22:01 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Steve Case But 0.10°C isn't going to warm anything anywhere anymore than something less than 0.10°C. That would only be true if the warming was uniform. -
chriskoz at 21:30 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Hi Glenn, I looked at other graphs from NOAA data centre where you courced your OHC. When you switch to "figures with error bars" and look at figure no 6 (Pentadal Global OHC (0-2000 meters)", you notice thet the error bars are quite small (rougly +-2E22J in 1960s and less than 1E22J in XXI century). +-2E22J is very accurate, considering the anomally of 2E23J from 1960 until today... I wonder how did they obtain such accurate estimate of OHC down to 2000m as far back in time while there is no direct temp data available. I understand they've been measuring temp only in 700m range. They've started measuring down to 2000m sometimes in 2005: that's why some short term average graphs of 2000m are shown for 2003-2011 only. -
Dave123 at 20:35 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Curiously, this has evolved into a political discussion about left vs right takes on things. What fascinates me is the faith vs evidence bit. One of the claims (or rather diversions) made by deniers is that AGW is like a religion. But as noted so many of the deniers are advocates of an Americanized version of the Austrian School of economics....something that lacks empirical evidence and is instead a series of rhetorical postures. Thus there are (at least) three articles of faith that they wish to hide from discussion: 1) Because pure central management of the economy (coupled with totalitarian governments) have failed, the opposite extreme of pure free market economics must be right. 2) Everything will be cheaper in the future. (and we'll have flying cars, moon and mars colonies etc.) 3) Since Erhlich and the Club of Rome didn't get the timing right for the population bomb, there will never be any limits to growth. And let us not forget in the context of Spencer, that not only does he run a website dedicated to 'conservative' economics, but he is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance declaration on God's beneficent managment of the environment and the impossibility of man mucking it up. -
JMurphy at 20:35 PM on 15 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 wrote : "As far as I can tell, Barnett was not talking about some peak melting time where glacier and snowpack melt contribute more to the river than usual, he was talking about their total contribution to river flow; therefore, an average yearly figure is what would be required as evidence, not a figure about a period of peak contribution. Maybe this is where our misunderstanding lies?" The misunderstanding would be dependent on whether you were referring to this statement in Barnett et al : The hydrological cycle of the region is complicated by the Asian monsoon, but there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers 40,41,42. (40. Singh, P. & Bengtsson, L. Hydrological sensitivity of a large Himalayan basin to climate change. Hydrol. Process. 18, 2363–-2385 (2004). 41. Singh, P., Jain, S. K. & Kumar, N. Estimation of snow and glacier-melt contribution to the Chenab River, Western Himalaya. Mount. Res. Develop. 17(1), 49–-56 (1997). 42. Singh, P. & Jain, S. K. Snow and glacier melt in the Satluj River at Bhakdra Dam in the western Himalayan region. Hydrol. Sci. J. 47, 93–-106 (2002).) If so, he mentions "summer months" and "summer flow" (peak melting time, perhaps ?); references the Chenab river, and writes "as much as...50-60%...". Which part of Barnett, specifically, were you referring to - particularly with regard to those particular references ?
Prev 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 Next
