Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 Next
Comments 61851 to 61900:
-
jzk at 22:52 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
The Tracker@70. "so why speak for them?" (-snip-)Response:[DB] The topic of this thread is Roy Spencer's Bad Economics. Please stay on-topic, cease with the ideological statements and the inflammatory digs.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Comments Policy violations snipped.
-
Doc Snow at 22:47 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
The bulk of Singer's publications are well in the past, though he was a co-author on Douglas et al 2004--the 'tropical troposphere' paper manhandled by Santer et al 2008. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/ -
Lars Karlsson at 22:45 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
The deniers are not very happy with Singer's piece. Just read the comments over at American Thinker. 153 comments loaded with hard-core denial and conspiracy theories. I think Singer will find it quite lonely in the "middle". -
Martin Lack at 22:16 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Many of you are wasting far too much time trying to win an unwinable war with jzk (-Snip-). Over a four week period he posted over 100 comments on my blog; some in excess of 800 words in length. He is a complete waste of your time.Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
CBDunkerson at 22:07 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
"To those who have been in this debate for a long time, some of the above are familiar, although the 19th Century one is novel." Actually, I suspect he was referring to Beck's 're-evaluation' of Callendar's work. This has previously been debunked in discussion threads here on SkS and Real Climate has a writeup on it here. Singer wrote: "So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out." Wait. Singer has done actual scientific research? Published results? News to me. I've only ever heard of him as the go to guy for 'scientize' nonsense. Need a 'scientist' to say that asbestos is safe for kids? Singer's your guy. Want to discredit that whole 'smoking and cancer' link? Fred's already on it. DDT. Acid rain. CFCs and ozone. He's been an all purpose denier for decades. I thus find this change of gears incomprehensible. Nobody who knows his history, or observes the many 'factually challenged' claims he continues to make in the same article, is going to be fooled... so what gives? I don't recall Singer ever having taken 'his own side' to task for insanity before. I wonder if, like Spencer, he made the mistake of digressing into discussion of actual science with some of his 'followers'. Anyway, this should be filed away with similar statements of reality by other 'experts' on the 'skeptic' (not) side as things to show people who go around citing them for claims that AGW is 'all a hoax'. It is long past time that the moonbats should be fighting >each other< over their countless contradictory claims rather than acting in unison despite the insanity of it all. -
YubeDude at 21:46 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Dikran Marsupial; "positioning skeptics as moderates" "is transparent rhetoric" Will the public perceive this positioning as transparent or will it appear to be a reasoned debate? The science community can see that the emperor has no clothes...the public will be dazzled by Singers spectacular fashion sense and controlled modulation. Magic is all about deception and debating the bottom side of an argument requires skills of a David Copperfield. -
Robert Murphy at 21:42 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
So, when Singer repeats over and over again that the satellite record shows no warming he's admitting that it gives "skeptics" a bad name? Does saying, "Climate science is not what we call real science. It’s not physics or chemistry" give "skeptics" a bad name? Does saying, "The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks" raise or lower the conversation, Fred? Fred Singer: “The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks.” Ironically, Watts posted a link to this Singer piece this week as a rebuttal to none other than Doug Cotton, who was trying to peddle his 6,000 word manifesto against the greenhouse effect. What people like Watts and Singer don't get is that it's too late to disassociate themselves from the Cottons and the Goddards (and in this case the difference isn't too big anyway). -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:18 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Prof. Singer's rhetoric is rather transparent, firstly saying: "On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; ..." and then positioning skeptics as moderates "In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications—just to make sure that no mistakes have been made." and then the actual moderates as extremists "But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels." In other words the IPCC are not proper scientists as they have fixed views (not actually true, their conclusions are based on an assessment of the evidence, if the evidence changes I'm sure they would be only too happy to change their conclusions) and that they conclude there will be apocalyptic MMGW (which isn't true either, AGW will have severe consequences for some parts of the world, but hardly "apocalyptic"). The attempt to represent climate skeptics as moderates is transparent rhetoric, they are nothing of the sort, mainstream science is the moderate position. There are extremists on both sides, but the skeptics, whether they like it or not are not moderates. -
Martin Lack at 21:16 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Well done, Dana - You are beginning to sound like me: Sceptical economists are intellectually bankrupt (10 August 2011) -
shoyemore at 21:07 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
There is a strong of "pot, kettle, black" about this. I would have expected the mass of deniers to eject Fred Singer because of his embarrassing connections to the Heartland Institute, Big Tobacco, and his long record as an anti-environment crusader. He gave evidence to Congress on behalf of companies denying Sherwood Rowland's research on the ozone hole. Rowland (who just passed away) won a Nobel Prize and continued researching (among other things) global warming. The relative merits of Rowland and Singer as scientists seems to have been missed by Singer's admirers. Singer argued for companies defending their right to cause acid rain. If anything, Fred is a prime exhibit for the anti-denialist case. I suppose it just emphasises just how much a chaotic crock denialism is. -
TheTracker at 20:20 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
""Leading the way" makes for a nice, costly symbolic gesture, but if you can't get India and China on board, the results will be difficult to measure." A few points about this: 1. The belief that we know all about what China and India will or won't do, what energy policies they support, etc., is ill-advised and, I think, sometimes a little prejudiced. We think we know what they "must" want or "must" do based on a very simplified idea of them as poor countries pursuing rapid development. We don't know what our own society is going to do, so why speak for them? 2. The US and Europe produce about half the carbon emissions in the world. We can make a measurable difference regardless, although we need China and India on board. 3. Leading the way is step one. Step two is stiff economic penalties on any trading partner who doesn't want to pull their weight in reducing global emissions. Check out this short interview with Arthur B. Laffer (he of the famous curve): http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2012/02/santorum-2012.html. -
Sceptical Wombat at 20:00 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
This is becoming a standard tactic among the more literate of the contrarians. In his presentation at Westminster Lindzen has a slide which says Carbon Dioxide has been increasing There is a greenhouse effect There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling) He then goes on to say Unfortunately, denial of the facts on the left, has made the public presentation of the science by those promoting alarm much easier. Emphases mine So much for the D word being a cruel attempt by the "team" to brand contrarians as holocaust deniers and so much for there being no such thing as settled science. Of course he then goes on to claim that none of this matters and there is nothing to be worried about. -
chriskoz at 18:46 PM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
owl905 @25, "...claim about the inevitability of escape into space is both technically incorrect about totality, and reduced to meaningless if the return from the its immediate destination is millennium in time-frame" I disagree. Firstly, most of the heat is going into the 0-700m. And it exchanges with atmosphere as the result of welling in a decal time-frame. Hansen 2005 estimated the climate lag time is between 25 to 50 years. I think this estimate still stands. Secondly, even if some of that heat goes into deep ocean and its eventual release to the surface may take centuries (maybe millennia according to your claim), there is no reason to ignore it. Even if not felt as elevated surface temp, it may have some undesirable effects such as SLR due to thermal expansion or decreased ability by the ocean to absorb CO2. Finally, your last (left-unsnipped) remark: "It is not better to talk about AGW in terms of OHC increase. It is technically-balanced ivory-tower nonsense" not only bears somewhat unnecessarily emotional language but may also be your misunderstanding. I see GW in a larger timeframe (note that I did not use AGW acronym contrary to your remark) and for me a warming imbalance in the system that lasts centuries/millenia is still a fast event in the geological timescale. Also, when I talk about something "global" I really mean "affecting the globe" and not just its surface as you seem to imply in your emotional remark. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:35 PM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Dale @21 11,000 TWh is the rough increase in total net electrical energy generated. However this is a per annum figure. Since there are 8766 hours in a year this is actually an increase of 1.25 TW. since 1980. However this is net generation - Input energy in the fuel might give us 3-4 TW change. Factor in other uses such as oil for transport, mechanical work, direct heating etc and it may be as high as 10-15 TW. I have heard a figure quoted (don't have a source for it) that total human energy usage is 40% of geothermal energy which would put the current total at 18.8 TW. So still much less than 133 TW. And the 133 figure is the average over 50 years, not the current figure. From Hansen, Trenberth etc, the current figure based on an approximate value of 0.5 W M^2 would be 255 TW vs 18.8. This might alter the numbers I have given somewhat but not the overall conclusions. Warming is still happening and it can't be a terestrial source. This is why I didn't include these extra numbers. They would have complicated a post that I wanted to keep simple, and not alterered the basic conclusion. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:00 PM on 16 March 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
Australian readers might be interested in watching a 15 minute interview of Michael Mann on our (Australian) ABC's Lateline program, 15 March 2012. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:36 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.
Just a few questions, Mr. Singer:- Who is 'we' exactly?
- What exactly is your 'theory' explaining all the evidence?
- 'Publish' in which respected journals, exactly?
- What 'truth' do you claim exclusive access to, exactly?
-
YubeDude at 15:50 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
It sounds like Mr Singer is suggesting a "rebranding" for the "skeptics". Creationism was losing ground until the Discovery Institute decided to rebrand the argument and make it one of scientific controversy. It appears Mr Singer is going to use the language of science and scientific methodology to seize the high ground in public debate. Front-line soldiers of science are not the intended target in this war; this is about winning the hearts and minds of our loved ones back home. A well thought out strategy and rebranding effort aimed at the public will easily convince that this is a matter of scientific disagreement between scientist. No one who is a regular to sites like this are going to be convinced by a change in semantics or tone but then regulars to this site are not the ones in the cross-hairs. This could be an opening fusillade where truth becomes the first victim and where science will be the ultimate looser. -
actually thoughtful at 15:25 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Does Singer's work justify his claiming the mantle of skeptic, or does he deserve the title of denier? -
actually thoughtful at 15:21 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Singer is pulling one of the oldest tricks in the right wing playbook - have your surrogates state things even more ridiculous then your own positions, so you look good in comparison. Mitt Romney is hoping to ride that tactic to the White House. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:58 PM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Dale: you're mixing TW (teraWatts) and TWh (teraWatt-hours). They are not the same thing. A TWh is one TW for one hour (i.e. 1TW*3600 seconds). It is an absolute quantity of energy, whereas TW is a rate of energy transfer. One TW over a year (or decade) dwarfs a TWh. It has been suggested you go to the "It's waste heat" discussion. I'd suggest doing a little reading (and learning) before posting again. -
ubrew12 at 14:45 PM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Over here in, oh I'm not going to say where, but you can probably guess, we're making a lot of noise about 'Seawater air-conditioning'. Where you pump up deep water (4 C, as y'all know, yes?), heat exchange it, and cool an entire downtown area without burning fuel. Early proponents being Cornell and the City of Toronto (not near the ocean but near large bodies of water). So, the inevitable complaint from, perhaps not surprisingly, the left, is about how you're going to warm the ocean with all that heat you're dumping into it. It makes me want to laugh (because its easier and more fun than crying). And, as most people reading this article should now know, wrong. The CO2 you DON'T liberate by seawater air-conditioning would do much more to 'blanket' the oceans and thus heat them, than the puny contribution of your sweatshop-overworked downtown. And, besides, I also like the idea of dumping my downtown heat into the worlds largest radiator, to be communicated to deep Space, probably saying, in Dr Seuss fashion, 'We Are Here!'. -
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
"You think Climate science is hard. Thats nothing compared to proof-reading: Nits picked - Joules are wattts x seconds, tera not terra. " Wattts? :) (couldn't resist pointing this out in a sentence that points out that proof-reading is hard!)Moderator Response: Whattttt. Are youyouyou makkking fun ooooff me now? -
Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Dale - What the moderator was directing you towards is an entire thread on waste heat, the byproduct of our energy use, the entropy of our energy use. That's all of it - transportation, electricity, etc. That energy represents 1% of that entrapped by increased GHG's, hence while it is a component of warming, it's small enough to be very minor in effect - a total of perhaps 0.01 C since the Industrial Revolution, small enough that if this was the only warming effect we probably wouldn't notice it. -
MA Rodger at 10:38 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Glenn Tamblyn @23 Spot on!! Proof reading can send anybody potty. zinfan94 @17 & andylee @20 The heat released by FF burning as a function of the heat captured from CO2 released by that burning of the FF depends on the fuel being burnt. The CO2 that remains in the atmosphere from burning coal (coal provides energy solely from burning carbon->CO2) captures the same energy in the atmosphere as from the burning in about 9 months. For gas (which includes more hydrogen than oil) the period is nearer 18 months. For your average Fossil Fuel the period is about a year & the energy released from FFs is currently about 2% of energy captured by FF released CO2 (we'll ignore other GHG here). So as andylee @20 says, it "is largely irrelevant." -
Dale at 10:15 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Mod @21 Your article is ridiculous. "Or putting it in plain English, the amount of heat being added to our climate." The GHE does not "add heat" to the climate. It stops heat from leaving. But that's beside the point. Adding 11,000 TWh's of electricity across the globe WILL alter the numbers. Even if it's only 1% that is converted to heat, there's 110 TW's of the claimed 133 TW's in the article. You can't say it doesn't have an effect as that defies logic.Response:[DB] Your claim is fully addressed on the It’s waste heat and on the interminable Waste heat vs greenhouse warming thread. Many.Times.Over.
Take it there or let it go.
-
owl905 at 10:06 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
@chriskoz - (-snip-) The claim about the inevitability of escape into space is both technically incorrect about totality, and reduced to meaningless if the return from the its immediate destination is millennium in time-frame. It is not better to talk about AGW in terms of OHC increase. It is technically-balanced ivory-tower nonsense. (-snip-)Response:[DB] Please cease looking for provocation where none is implied or intended.
Suggestion: Try asking for clarification on a remark before assuming the worst.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
-
Bob Lacatena at 09:37 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
scaddenp,The west has simply exported its emissions to China.
Very good point! -
Jsquared at 08:58 AM on 16 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Before the thread dies out completely, what about Judah Cohen, who has proposed very similar ideas (2009 or so - with predictions), but doesn't appear to have predated the first Wang paper? -
chriskoz at 08:54 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
owl905 @13, That depends how intelligent is the denialist you talk to. The article is very good in talking to a reasonable person who understands the basics of energy balance and the fact that this enormous heat must escape into the space sooner or later to put the thing back into equilibrium. So, the heat must be eventually transferred to the atmosphere in order to escape as an increased IR. Because of water's high heat capacity, it is better to talk of GW in terms of OHC increase rather than LST or SST increase where temperature signal is prone to relatively large and decade-lasting noise like ENSO. OHC signal is much clearer and will be even better as we improve the OHC measuring techniques in the future. On the other hand, the silly denialist, those "see, it's sequestered naturally" arguers, are just as mentioned by Dave123@2: hard to convince by this argument. For those, you have to use other, simpler arguments. We can only hope that the silly minds will become rarer in the future as people will gain better understanding climate science. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:53 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
You think Climate science is hard. Thats nothing compared to proof-reading: Nits picked - Joules are wattts x seconds, tera not terra. The thrust of this and the previous articles is focusing on the following points. 1. We can't judge what is happening to the Earth by just looking at the surface. 2. The Earth is still accumulating heat. It hasn't stopped as some claim, which would be quite strange given the continuous nature of what is driving it 3. The magnitude of the heat accumulation in the ocean logically precludes most explanations for that heat accumulation. chriskoz @4. Thats why I preferred to use the IPCC graph which shows error bars for most of the estimates. As far as how they could estimate below 700m, its not true that there is no data. Programs using measurement platforms lowered over the side of research vessels give some data all the way to the sea floor. But they don't have the coverage of the XBT system let alone the ARGO system. But they do allow some estimation of the deeper water, with reasonable error margins. Hence the error bars on the IPCC graph. Apparently there is a paper in production that will explain the methodology better. Should be an interesting read. From Peru. @14 Rob is correct. The forcing is growing over time as we add more CO2 so the total accumulated heat is the roughly the integral of the forcing over time. And this is then moderated by how surface temperatures change in response. During the past decade or so where sequestration of heat into the middle ocean seems to have restrained surface warming, the forcing will have grown more rapidly (apart from the uncertainties about aerosol effects) where as in the previous decade where surface warming was greater the net forcing may not have grown as fast. -
From Peru at 08:50 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Rob Painting: Hansen 2011 is this paper? Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications If there is no link to a paper, would be better give the title of it, not only the autor and date. The title is much better for a google search than the author + date info. -
Dale at 08:44 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
The author forgot one very important, and influential terrestrial heating source: electricity consumption. Electricity consumption has increased ~11,000 TWh's since 1980. This means more night-time lights, more winter heaters. This is going to have an influence on night-time and winter temperatures. Even if only 1% of that electricity is converted into heat (light and radiative heat) then that's a massive amount of heat added to the system. Source of consumption figures: http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/world_electricity_consumption_region.pngModerator Response: Nope. See It’s waste heat. -
andylee at 08:41 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
zinfan94, just to clarify, I think the amount of energy released by FF is largely irrelevant, (apart from a comparison) - it would would have normally just radiated away and any heating would be local, temporary and last as long as the fuel lasts. It is the unfortunate consequence of releasing vast amounts of CO2 that is causing the Earth to warm up, looking for a higher thermal equilibrium. -
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?
Prev 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 Next
