Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 Next
Comments 61701 to 61750:
-
monkeyorchid at 05:27 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
"I was on your side until I found out how much it would cost" ... a perfect example of deliberately blurring the lines between science and politics. Inhofe appears to believe that the laws of physics will bend and change according to America's financial situation... -
Doc Snow at 05:13 AM on 19 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
So there's another shoe to drop, when the 'rethinking' has been done? I'm a bit surprised that glacial rebound wasn't more thoroughly factored in in the first place. It's not all that obscure an effect!--or so I'd have thought.Moderator Response: [JH]Science is a continuous process of discovery and learning. -
muoncounter at 03:30 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Here is the so-called 'article in Nature' that Inhofe touts. It is in reality a column by David Adams in Nature News. This column cites a report by Dr. Michael Nisbet, as evidence for the apparent 'closing of the funding gap' between industry-funded denial lobbies and environmental groups. Nisbet responds to Infhofe here. Nisbet makes it clear that Inhofe's presumptions about more spending by environmental groups towards climate change action are unfounded. He describes Inhofe as an ideologue: What explains the stark differences between the objective reality of climate change and the partisan divide in Americans’ perceptions? In part, trusted sources have framed the nature and implications of climate change for Republicans and Democrats in very different ways. ... In speeches, press releases, and on his Senate Web log, Inhofe casts doubt on the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other major scientific organizations, selectively citing scientific-sounding evidence. To amplify his message, Inhofe takes advantage of the fragmented news media, with appearances at television outlets, such as Fox News, on political talk radio, and Web traffic driven to his blog from the Drudge Report. Nisbet's report is sobering, as it documents the continuing failure of climate science communicators at winning the battle for hearts and minds (at least in the US). How surprising is that, as US climate action is apparently held hostage by readers of Drudge? -
Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Thanks, Glenn! It feels good to get it verified that my understanding of heat capacity, heat of vaporization and very large numbers is about correct. Hopefully I will be able to do the translation soon! BTW, the period of the winter with ice cover on my local lake here in the south-eastern Norway has decreased from about 158 to 148 days during the last 26 years according to the linear trend calculated in Excel. I’m not enough of a statistician to tell if that is statistically significant or not, but the climate has definitely changed here in Norway, too. -
fpjohn at 01:18 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
jmurphy@7 The FT is less a denialist than "hopefully" skeptical paper in regards to Global Warming. Effects of Climate Change and costs of action remain uncertain for them. Search "Climate Insight" on their site. yours Frank -
Phil at 00:24 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
JMurphy @7. What you didn't note about this article that Inhofe quotes, is the fact that it was written on 28th Nov 2009, i.e. just a few days after the CRU emails were "released", before the context of the emails was understood and long before the independent investigations that Rachel Maddow refers to were carried out. -
michael sweet at 00:05 AM on 19 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Glenn and Owl: In the most recent still warming thread the ocean heat content graph does not even show heat below 2000 meters. You are arguing that the heat that penetrates below where that article measures will not resurface for centuries. What about the 90% of the heat that does not go into the abyss? The dissolved CO2 that goes into the abyss will also take a long time to come to the surface, but this reference says old CO2 is already causing problems with commercial fishing in the North Pacific. The problem there is caused by CO2 that dissolved about 40 years ago. You said it would be centuries before that CO2 (along with the associated heat) returned to the surface. It is clear that some areas will take less time and others will take longer. Your argument that we do not need to worry until equilibrium is reached is incorrect. Since the great majority of the heat goes into the upper layers of the ocean, arguing that we don't need to worry since the abyss will not reach equilibrium for centuries completely misses the point. Most of the heat returns in much less time. -
Doc Snow at 23:15 PM on 18 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks, Doug. The plan is to continue to do just that. There may be pieces similar to this one, focussed on one researcher, and possibly also some pieces that are more synoptic (in the non-meteorological sense of the word!) in nature. -
Sapient Fridge at 22:13 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Dave123, that reminds me of this quote: "For a creationist to believe in evolution, no evidence is good enough. For a creationist to believe in a god, no evidence is good enough." I suspect something similar applies to AGW "skeptics" -
JMurphy at 22:04 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
I posted a similar comment on the Spencer Thread but, again, you can see what sort of rubbish Inhofe believes in when you look into the 'sources' he brings out at the beginning of the interview - the "liberal" British Telegraph (actually columnist-in-denial Christopher Booker in the famously right-wing Telegraph); the Financial Times (actually ex-blogger Clive Crook in the pro-business Financial Times); and the UN and IPCC, or some blustering, incomprehensible combination of the two, somehow (actually Hal Lewis's resignation letter from the APS, and Dr Philip Lloyd, MD of Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants company). As for the Newsweek 'condemnation' and the study (the link here is a response to Inhofe's assertions) in the "liberal" Nature : Inhofe is seeing exactly what he wants to see, rather than what is actually there in real life. What a surprise... -
Dave123 at 21:08 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
@5 Which just goes to show the kind of rigged game it is: A denier gets anything right (reads watch for time of day) and that proves everything they say is right A "warmista" gets anything wrong, and everything on the warmist side is wrong. Climate doesn't care -
Delmar at 20:58 PM on 18 March 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
I read Archer and Jacobson and their argument has a critical flaw. A&J stated that coal fired power had an availability of 87.5% and compared this with the availability that a wind power network of 19 interconnected sites spread across midwest USA can achieve. The comparison benchmark for availability for wind to achieve in the report became 87.5%. The critical flaw in the argument is that 87.5% is the availability of a single coal fired generator, it is not the availability of a coal fired power network!! So they are comparing a wind network with a single coal fired generator. How something like that passed peer review is astounding. If you still have any doubt that 87.5% availabilty is incorrect, well this would mean householders supplied by coal power would have blackouts for 1095 hours per year (12.5% x 365.25 days x 24 hours) Those households who have coal fired power would typically have blackouts less than 8 hrs per year, thats 99.9% availabilty, because the coal fired units are also interconnected and they have excess generators running at any time to pick up the load if one generator trips. If you refer to the A&J chart of "Generation duration curves for arrays", for 99.9% availability and 19 sites this means the available power per generator is about 30 kW, it does not give the about 250kW that 87.5% would imply. A significant difference!! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:09 PM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
HGK @45 Your calcs look about right. If lake Mjøsa is about 56 cubic kilometres - 56,000,000,000 cubic metres, then that is about 10 times Sydney Harbour at 562,000,000 cubic metres. So roughly 10 times the volume. So a boiling time of 5-6 days is about right. -
Tristan at 19:05 PM on 18 March 2012It's too hard
I think if the feedbacks played nice we'd more or less get away with this slowly coalescing slipshod approach to tackling climate change that we've seen over the past 25 yrs. If going to +2-2.5 triggers a substantial methane release or the collapse of the amazon basin we may find ourselves up fifth street without a camel. -
Roger D at 18:45 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Ms Maddow did well with respect to challenging most of Inhofe's "mythy" statements. And overall, she is also very good about not losing her cool with those who make up fake "facts". The only let down for me is that it turned out Maddow mistakenly called Inhofe to task for a reference he made about her in his book The Greatest Hoax: in short, Maddow told Inhofe that she never mentioned Inhofe's impending protest trip to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference in a Dec 2009 episode of her show, as he contends in his book. While watching the interview I thought wow, Inhofe really feels like he has to make things up in order to make it look like "the liberal climate change alarmists" in the media are aligned agaist him. But it turned out she had in fact discussed Copenhagen in the episode in questioin(simply gave the facts and maybe poked a little good nature fun). However, climate change deniers, if any watch the Rachel Maddow show, would see the interview as a he said/ she said affair regarding the climate change discussion and would believe Infhofe probably made sense with respect to that topic: And when they find out Maddow got a non-science related point wrong they'd interpret her mistake as confirmation Inhofe was correct about his contentions regarding the science. Otherwise, I agree with the other commenter's above. -
Fran Barlow2 at 18:32 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Rachel Maddow has long been my favourite on-air journalist. She's possessed of a sharp mind and the willingness to use it in her job without worrying who objects. -
owl905 at 18:07 PM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Michale Sweet 51 It' not peer-reviewed, just: "While variations close to the ocean surface may induce relatively short-term climate changes, long-term changes in the deep ocean may not be detected for many generations." http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/climate-variability/ "Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)." Gavin Schmidt, Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/ SKS: "Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. It is not involved in the heat exchange occurring in shallower layers." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Poised-To-Come-Back-And-Haunt-Us-.html hth. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:03 PM on 18 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Lovely article. I particularly enjoy having people and things put into historical context; the recent London sewerage piece and this article are prime stuff. Thanks! -
mohyla103 at 17:10 PM on 18 March 2012It's not bad
Yes, that's exactly the sentence I'm referring to. The wording here is tricky, so this is probably where the misunderstanding comes from. I find it strange that he mentioned summer months, then specifically referred to "summer flow" with the Ganges, but not with other major rivers. So I interpret this sentence like this: "a key source of water for the region in the summer months" Glacier meltwater provides water in the summer for the Ganges and other major rivers. The sources all confirm this as well. "as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges" This one's straightforward. The abstracts of Barnett's sources don't mention this but I presume this figure is in the full text and I'm not arguing anything here. "and 50-60% of the flow in other major rivers" What flow is he talking about? I interpret this as a yearly average, not summer specifically, especially since the sources all mention a yearly average figure around 50-60% right in their abstracts. Notice Barnett did not say "summer flow" like he did with the Ganges. Obviously, glaciers do provide water "in the summer months", so Barnett is not wrong to word the first part of his sentence this way, but I don't think you can assume this 50-60% figure actually refers to summer flow. I'm working on getting access to the full text of the Singh, Jain, Kumar paper and I'll let you know what it says in there as soon as I find out. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:58 PM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
michael sweet @51. I can't give you a citation but I can give you some basic numbers. To heat 1 kilogram of water by 1 Deg C takes a bit over 4 times as much heat as heating a kilogram of air by 1 Deg C. The total mass of the ocean is about 280 times the mass of the atmosphere. So roughly speaking the oceans need 1100-1200 times as much heat to warm by 1 Deg C compared to the Atmosphere. And currently the oceans are absorbing around 30 times as much heat as the atmosphere. So, on the back of a convenient envelope, that is 37-40 years for the oceans to warm as much as the atmosphere does in 1 year. So a significant time but not Eric's 1000's of years either. Since ocean overturning time is of the order 800-1000 years, heat can flow into the ocean faster than it can reach the depths. So we are likely to see an initial thermal equilibrium based on only part of the ocean in decades then a slower long term equilibrium that could take centuries. Hence the dividing of Climate Sensitivity (CS) into Transient CS, on the scale of a few years, Short Term CS on scales of multiple decades and Long Term CS on scales of centuries. -
muoncounter at 15:54 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
The Inhofe interview can be found on youtube. It should be required watching, as it fully illustrates the duplicity of this Inhofe character. 'I was on your side until I found out how much it would cost' is just the tip of the iceberg. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:35 PM on 18 March 2012It's too hard
19, Eric (skeptic), You are fooling yourself. No chance. None. -
michael sweet at 13:10 PM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Eric, What a wonderful suggestion. All the third world can change their economies into manufacturing from agriculture. Then they can eat the cars they build!! Think through your suggestions. What will people eat after their agriculture fails due to drought? You have been making a lot of these types of suggestions lately. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:00 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
How refreshing to see a member of the MSM actually seeking the truth! I'd love to see her debate Jo Nova, for example, but she makes a pretty good job of deflating Inhofe. I wonder how much hate mail she gets from the pawns at WUWT? -
michael sweet at 12:55 PM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Eric (skeptic) This is supposed to be a scientific discussion. Please cite a peer reviewed source for your wild claim that it will be thousands of years for the heat to return. In reality, it is estimated that it is only about 40 years for 90% of the surface warming to occur. (Since you do not provide references I will not bother either). If you are younger than 40 that heat will come back to get you. When you make wild, unsubstantiated claims people stop taking you seriously. You have made a number of unsupported opinion statements lately. Please try to reference your wild claims. You will find that many of your questions have already been answered. -
owl905 at 12:47 PM on 18 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Sincerest thanks to SKS for not making anyone sit through the interview with Senator Inhofe. The missing link in Ms.Maddow's terse deconstruction of the decline issue, was the revelation at the time that the divergence problem was known and peer-published before the temperature reconstructions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:47 AM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
william, you askWhat happens if we melt enough of the Greenland ice to shut down the overturn by the Gulf stream.
Could you explain that process to a complete layman, please? I had not realised that the one could cause the other. -
YubeDude at 11:09 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Sceptical Wombat Thank you for your reply. I am interested in the tonality of the message and not the content. All the charts and graphs, the science in general, sail way above my pay grade. I am one of those in the masses who is the target of the communication barrage. It appears to me that though the science community has the facts to support their position they don't have the catchy spin and subsequently lose ground to those that doubt. Arm wrestling the data should be a rather one sided affair but it is not and the reasons it is not is what interest me. The science side uses the data to lever their opponent while the other side uses smoke and mirrors to distract the audience; they make claims that kids will go hungry and old ladies will freeze if this Socialist restructuring happens. They turn the argument on its head and beat it with illogical non sequiturs I opened with a post wondering if Singer and his minions had started to rebrand their message in an attempt at re-positioning the argument. They can't fight the science so why not target the perception. Not wishing to invoke Godwins Law...let's not forget that the second most powerful man in the NSDAP was Dr Goebbels. I think Karl Rove and Sean Hannity were tied for third. Thanks again for your reply. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:07 AM on 18 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Doug H, I think they were assuming that all the proceeds would be used for emission mitigation and they did not count any economic benefits from that mitigation since they would presumably come much later. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:36 AM on 18 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Eric, you quote from the Heritage report, but miss the following passage in the OP:The reason the Heritage estimate was so high is that it evaluated the costs of a carbon cap, and then ignored the distribution of those funds. ... The Heritage Foundation report effectively assumed that the generated funds would disappear into a black hole. Their analysis was the equivalent of doing your household finances by adding up your expenditures while ignoring your income. It sure looks bad, but tells you nothing about your overall finances.
The economic cost of acting now is incorrectly represented in the Heritage report, which smacks of a scare tactic. Yes, there will be a cost to mitigation and everyone will share the burden, but there will be a greater societal and personal cost to be borne if we delay. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:01 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
JoeTheScientist, considering the entirety of the oceans, the equilibrium time you are talking about is 1000's of years, simply not worth caring about. The oceans are sinking heat that won't come back (i.e. water is being warmed from 35 to 35.1 or something along those lines). If that water comes back to the surface it will cool the atmosphere. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:56 AM on 18 March 2012It's too hard
The technology to sequester will be there, just a modest amount of government research funding and extensive cross-fertilization from commercial technology (e.g. nano-tech) will make it happen. What we will lack is the economics to perform the sequestering on a large scale anything close to the scale of the automobile and other fossil fuel burners. For that reason I don't see it happening either. But I do see a variety of things happening that will all add up. If, for example, we can build a space elevator or something like that, we can also build large chimneys to suck excess heat into space. The updrafts created in the chimney would provide alternative energy. That's just one idea off the top of my head. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:44 AM on 18 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Sphaerica and scaddenp: From the Heritage report (link in the OP):It is no surprise that the economy responds to cap and trade as it would to an energy crisis. The price on carbon emissions forces energy cuts across the economy, since non-carbon energy sources cannot replace fossil fuels quickly enough. Energy prices rise; income and employment drop....As the economy recovers and the caps tighten, the detrimental effect of cap and trade gets more and more severe. In the worst years, GDP losses exceed $500 billion per year.
As DSL said above: "The system [capitalism] requires poverty, desperation, and unemployment. It requires taxation without representation (capital is a tax imposed by property owners on "their" laborers). It lifts all boats, but it requires the water to rise faster and faster, but the boats are chained to the dock of material and historical reality--some with longer chains than others." The system of capitalism does have those features that DSL points out. It has one more, relevant to the discussion on the other threads which should be on this thread. Namely that the externalities of burning fossil fuel are not currently priced into the fossil fuel. The increase in those prices from any of the proposals listed in the OP will (to borrow DSL's phrasing) keep some boats tied to the dock as temperatures rise and the consequences arise. An example of a boat tied to the dock is a small pizza place. The current propane bill to run the ovens is $1000 / month and will rise under the proposals to where the business will probably shut down. Another boat tied to the dock is the long distance commuter, common in my area. I pay $250 / month to ride in the van and that would likely be at least $350 using the Heritage gas price rise of 75%. I don't have a problem with that but other people will. In the sensitivity thread Sphaerica said "40% chance of a cost of $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year for decades to centuries (or more, with higher sensitivity)." I don't think centuries is realistic, that would assume practically static technology. But Heritage points out the GDP loss of $500 billion per year which is guaranteed unlike the 40% chance of the higher cost. The biggest difference between the two types of expenditures are that the cap and trade money goes into offsetting emissions whereas the 1-2 trillion that I proposed goes straight into infrastructure (mainly better water retention systems to prevent floods and alleviate drought). With that infrastructure we all benefit from more water resources for public and farming uses. Note that I do not propose doing "nothing" but put forth solutions here. Some of those would in fact require a modicum of cap and trade, but many would be implemented by policy changes (e.g. we pay farmers and tell them what to do already). -
wild monkeys at 08:15 AM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Am I right it's more than 2300 tonnes of heat? -
william5331 at 07:44 AM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
The escalator graph seems to be a reflection of periods when there is more mixing in the ocean, absorbing heat and allowing the atmosphere to cool a little and periods when mixing is less (el Nino conditions?) and the atmosphere temperature jumps. We should be due for an El Nino very soon and it will likely fall within the present, fairly weak solar maximum. Perhaps the next upward lurch in the Escalator graph will convince the skeptics but I doubt it. Perhaps the accompanying Arctic sea ice melting will be more convincing. What happens if we melt enough of the Greenland ice to shut down the overturn by the Gulf stream. That could be interesting. -
jatufin at 07:44 AM on 18 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Perhaps this money thing would deserve its own article? Most people have very vague understanding of research funding. When it's told that some project has received so and so many millions of grant money, there might rouse suspicion individual scientists walk away backpacks full of greenbacks. If it were so, Harrison Schmitt would be one damned rich geologist, all the Apollo dollars in his bank account. -
JoeTheScientist at 07:08 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Eric (skeptic)40 Plotting CO2 vs T may give a climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 2.5C/doubling (e.g. http://i44.tinypic.com/m1wcm.gif) , but this is a non-equilibrium state, because there will be more warming as the oceans "catch up" even if CO2 stops dead in its tracks. I think what climate scientists report is "equilibrium sensitivity", which will inevitably be higher than what we can pull off a graph. Us amateurs have no way to estimate the difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, which is why we have to put some trust in professional scientists to do the estimates. Taking that into account, 3 to 4C/doubling sounds very reasonable. If any significant amount of methane disgorges from permafrost or deep sea methane ices, watch out! I agree civilization will not end, but consider that more than 50,000 New Orleans citizens were refugees from hurricane Katrina. Imagine the chaos that might result from the equivalent of 100-400 Katrinas (5-20MM new refugees) worldwide every year for decades (from flooding, storms, droughts, etc.). Civilization would certainly be strained! -
actually thoughtful at 07:01 AM on 18 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
The real problem with the analysis is it assumes costs to reduce emissions. Over the medium to long term, there are HUGE savings to renewables. And when you factor in the trillions saved in avoided wars - the ledger tilts dramatically towards renewables. We are in no brainer territory. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:01 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
88, Eric, So... 30% chance of 2.5˚C or more 10% chance of 3˚C or more 40% chance of a cost of $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year for decades to centuries (or more, with higher sensitivity). And your position is that technology is certain to improve and save us from this, so there is no need to take simpler, cheaper, and more conservative action now? -
JoeTheScientist at 06:35 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Sceptical Wombat 41 My skeptical "friends" would have called you a warmingista. (but I have a new set of friends now. ;) I don't think the Arctic Ocean ice sheet will melt in this decade either, but consider this: Right now the summer melt zone goes up to about 75N latitude, clearing a Northwest passage through Canada's arctic islands by the fall equinox. Once the melt zone gets as far as the top of Ellesmere Island though, winds and currents will push the ice into a melt zone whichever way they move and the last bit of ice will melt "catastrophically". -
scaddenp at 06:26 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
But I note Eric, that you seem very keen in past posts that the costs of adaption/geoengineering be paid by those affected by the issues, rather than those who are causing the problem. I would suggest though that this discussion belongs elsewhere. This doesnt seem like a discussion of why sensitivity could be lower. -
r.pauli at 06:05 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Singer is a paid lightning rod deployed to attract all our energy. His task is to deflect criticism and distract true science involving the tobacco indust... er, make that the carbon fuels industry. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:43 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
A correction to the above, the Army Corps budget for flood control is about 0.1% of US GDP not 1%. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:40 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
No, I don't include sea level rise. If you want to pick a thread for that, I will explain why I don't think I need to include it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:38 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Sphaerica, I don't know whether the Thai estimate was one-time or ongoing annual, but assuming the magnitude keeps increasing, your estimate sounds reasonable. In that case I would point out that the extra precipitation is a negative feedback, so it has the benefit of limiting warming, see my explanation here. The American SW is already partly a permanent desert. Perhaps Texas will end up in the same condition. The expanding Hadley cell theory is sound, but mainly applies to summer. Texas got a lot of unpredicted rain this past winter when the drought was predicted to continue. -
Joel_Huberman at 05:36 AM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Thank you, Glenn, for an informative, but alarming, article, and thanks to the commenters for their further refinements and contributions. I have one question: haven't meteorologists, atmosphere scientists, and climate scientists made measurements of the ratios of low clouds to high clouds over the past 50 years, or at least over recent decades? I'm surprised that data relevant to calculating the contributions of clouds to global warming do not appear to be readily available. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:14 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
85, Eric, Also... does your number include sea level rise? If not, no matter... no need to argue about how great that will be and how fast. We'll just stick with 3%-5%... that's more than enough for our purposes. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:11 AM on 18 March 2012It's too hard
17, Eric, Certainly, agreed, multiple incremental solutions will be needed. My point in the redwood analogy is to demonstrate the scope of the problem. That's what I'm afraid you don't appreciate. You're waving future technology like a magic wand that will make everything just go away in the nick of time, when I don't think the technology will ever exist to restore the balance. The problem is quite simply too large for that. We have spent a hundred years running uncounted millions of motors, small to large, that create energy by burning carbon and emitting CO2. The reverse process will at best require uncounted millions of filters, running for a hundred years, using energy from some unknown source simply to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and somehow sequester it so it can't get out again. I just don't see it happening. Ever. -
DMarshall at 05:05 AM on 18 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Is the rightwing trying to head off a backlash? ClimateCrocks.com report that Ann Coulter smeared Sarah Palin and other leading GOP loons as charlatan conservatives. I'll pass on the clear irony of Coulter's statement and comment that it seems the US Republicans might FINALLY be waking up to the reality that a leadership composed entirely of radical ignoramuses is no longer palatable on the national stage. I imagine Singer's remarks, given his history going back to the Acid Rain days, are equally ironic. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:58 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
85, Eric, Okay, so we have anywhere from 3-5% of USA GDP, which in turn is about 25% of the world GDP. The "civilized" world (USA, EU, Japan, China) all account for about 63% of the world GDP. Can we assume that all of those will be affected in roughly the same proportion, so that by ignoring the developing world, climate change will cost, per year, about 3-5% of 63% of the world's current GDP of about 63 trillion US $? That would mean an annual cost, not counting the effects of suffering and lost lives as being priceless, equal to about $1.2 trillion to $2 trillion dollars per year, every year, for fifty or more years, and potentially a whole lot more if it takes that long to clean up the mess, which is assuming that the mess can be cleaned up (that the American Southwest doesn't become a permanent dust bowl, that sequestration technology can draw down atmospheric CO2 levels on what amounts to a Herculean scale, etc.). Do you agree with this appraisal?
Prev 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 Next
