Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
Comments 61951 to 62000:
-
New research from last week 10/2012
Flakmeister - Which paper, which Solheim? Note that there is a JE Solheim who frequently works with Dr. O. Humlum, whose papers have been roundly criticized and refuted. -
Flakmeister at 07:29 AM on 15 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
Whats with this Solheim paper making the rounds??? I did a quick perusal and it strikes me as mathurbation combined with perhaps cherry picking the data... Why did they not apply it to the whole globe??? -
Tom Curtis at 07:22 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
Henry justice @20, you are assuming that Otzi died in an ice free area that later became glaciated. That would be near impossible, and is contrary to the evidence. Rather, he died above the permanent snowline, and has remained above the permanent snowline ever since. -
dana1981 at 07:17 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk - he didn't ignore the ice melt, but he sure did do his damndest to make it look small (Figure 2 in the post above). -
Albatross at 07:16 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk @68, "Going through each year of the Arctic daily mean temperatures seems to bolster Lindzen's point that the summer temperatures are not changing while there is great variability in the winter temperatures." I find it incredulous that someone is defending Lindzen, especially when they appear to not grasp the obvious problems with his argument. First, those data are for 80 N, they are not representative of the Arctic. Second, they are model data and it has been shown that the ERA_40 data that he is showing have problems with the temperature. Third, the theory and scientific literature on Arctic amplification is very clear that the impacts of the ice loss should be and are felt primarily in between the fall and spring, with impacts that carry over into the next melt season. For exanple, Screen and Simmonds (2010), "The Arctic region has long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change owing to positive feedbacks in the Arctic climate system." Also, the reason that the warming is less during the short summer (note, not absent as Lindzen claims) is because there are changes in radiative frocing b/c of changes in cloud cover. Again fro Screen and Simmonds, "In the Arctic, this greenhouse effect dominates during autumn, winter and spring (Fig. 3), in agreement with in situ observations. In summer, the shading effect dominates in the lower-latitude regions of the Arctic basin whereas north of 80 N the two competing effects approximately cancel out (Fig. 3c)." So Lindzen's entire premise is wrong. Lindzen is also not providing his audience with a complete picture, nor is he providing any caveats as a good scientists should do. Additonally, research has shown that the length of the melt season is increasing significantly, see here. All these data and facts fly in the face of Lindzen's claims.Lindzen is playing games and doing his best to mislead people-- sadly that seems quite easy to do. -
Henry justice at 07:00 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
oneiota: Glaciers may or may not be a good indicator of climate change. Uniform melting of mountain glaciers, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, is an indicator. About 65% of all mountain glacial ice worldwide as noted above, is found in Canada. So, if Canadian glaciers are all melting, in unison,then, yes, a good indicator of global warming. It is my understanding that Mt Kilimanjaro's source of moisture for glacier building was a forest at its base, which had been cut down, so the glacier disappeared. Many glaciers have sublimated even when the temperature above the glacier was still below freezing. Can someone vouch for the temps over each of these declining glaciers? That data appears missing? So, the many causes for glacial decline are not even mentioned. -
jzk at 06:43 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Sphaerica@74, If all that is true, you ought to be able to calmly dissect his arguments. Going through each year of the data, it sure does seem to me that his premise is true. Summer temperatures don't seem to be changing while there is much variability in the winter temperatures. He didn't ignore the ice melt, nor any of the temperatures. His conclusion that because summer radiative forcing doesn't seem to be changing CO2 must not be a factor is subject to debate. However, nothing in your post @74 adds any clarity to this. -
Henry justice at 06:42 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
muoncounter:The finding of the ice mummy, Otzi, does this indicate the present melting of the glaciers are now back to the level where they were when this mummy was first frozen? So, this would represent natural climate variability. -
Composer99 at 06:32 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk: The physics quite clearly shows that action to reduce CO2 emissions must be taken, contra Roy Spencer's claims. The economics quite clearly show that (a) based on the current and expected costs of climate disruptions, action to reduce CO2 emissions must be taken and (b) such action will not cause economic harm to polities which undertake it, again contra the claims of Dr Spencer. The ethics of the situation (following from the disproportionate burden of climate change impacts) quite clearly show that "old rich" countries have an obligation to take the lead in reducing emissions (and as Rob noted, emissions in developing economies are often "outsourced" developed-world emissions) - yet again, contra the claims of Dr Spencer. Developing countries are designing & implementing their own emissions control regimes, so they will catch up. When there is a consilience of imperatives for action, endorsement by several bodies of relevant experts, and the means to track national emissions - which you acknowledge given you cite them in #22 - then there is both the obligation to proceed with emissions reductions, and the practical means of showing who is undertaking them and how effective they are. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:27 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk, Come on. How stupid do you think people are? Implying that summer temperatures are not changing, while ignoring the rapid, growing ice melt, is cherry picking. Suggesting that the false dichotomy of summer versus winter temperatures is all that applies is pathetic. His entire position is pathetic, as are all of his presentations and arguments. Lindzen is a joke, a bad one, and history will not treat him kindly, if it remembers him at all (which it should). -
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 15 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
Trent1492 - my humble apologies. I see your point and I agree that the tone of my response was completely inappropriate. It was a knee-jerk reaction without really properly at the context. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:01 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk... I'm certainly not an expert on the matter. I know what I've seen, which I believe is probably a tiny snapshot of the overall picture. But my observations are this... First, I'd say farmers in rural China are living pretty much as they have for many hundreds of years, at least. The region I visited was central China, outside of Chongqing, where my wife is from. The home we visited was similar to this. It was a multi-family home. The first floor rooms were all only three walls. No heating. These were the living and dining areas. I don't remember off hand if they had electricity. I think they did not. A side room on the first floor was a kitchen with two extra large woks for cooking. Fuel for cooking was coal. The surrounding farm was very well kept. They were very proud of the quality of their produce and we had fun going out into the gardens with the kids to help pick some of the food that was cooked. The people are very cheerful and happy, but I don't think it's lost on them that they are poor. They're clearly not suffering like poor people in other regions. But they've seen what other family members have achieved in moving to the cities and, I suppose, some are inclined to such aspirations and others are inclined to remain with the lifestyle they've always known. My wife and I have been married 10 years and she's very open to discussing the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't hear horror stories about factions of the family that live on the farms. I hear more horror stories about dealing with small town government officials who make it impossible for anyone to accomplish anything. The larger cities are more reasonable with respect to that. I know the government is intent on getting more people off the farms and into urban housing. I don't know any stories of this happening forcibly. I hear stories about farmers who do sell their leases back to the government (there is no private ownership, just renewable leases) and make a pot of money. They often have a hard time coping with the change. -
Andy Skuce at 06:01 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
bill@2 One example of a left-wing climate denier is Claude Allègre who is a scientist, is a member of France's Socialist party, was Minister of Education from 1997-2000 in Lionel Jospin's cabinet and is probably the most prominent climate "skeptic" in France. He was debunked by RealClimate in 2010. Allègre his fellow fellow-traveller, Vincent Courtillot, were debunked in 2007, again in RealClimate. Both Courtillot and Allègre are, in their field--ahem, geology--genuinely distinguished scientists and they are both still active. I attended a talk given by Allègre at the 2011 AGU Fall Meeting and spotted Courtillot in the audience. -
jzk at 05:53 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Sphaerica@72, Cherry picking is when favorable evidence is chosen while unfavorable evidence is excluded. Which evidence was excluded? I recall him discussing both the summer and winter temperatures. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:09 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
70, jzk, My point is that focusing on summer temperatures in the Arctic, while the ice is clearly melting further and further back each year, is disingenuous. His statement is one of misdirection with no merit. A discussion of summer temperatures is a cherry pick designed to mislead. There are many factors that affect summer temperatures, not the least of which is that melting the ice, a huge danger, is helping to hold those temperatures down. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:02 AM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
My opinion on solar cycles has changed a bit over time- I always thought that low solar would affect weather more than climate, but there are many influences in different directions even for weather, never mind climate. Anyways, it is OT for this thread. The sea ice influence is quite weak IMO and won't do much to influence weather patterns compared to other factors. The more obvious connection is that the weather patterns dictate where the sea ice gets melted and where it gets compacted (usually the same areas). This year that was the Barents sea. Although the warm anomaly could essentially have created a high to pull cold air down into Eastern Europe, it is more likely that other effects caused the pattern of the high which warmed the Barents sea and pulled cold air into eastern Europe. -
jzk at 05:01 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Rob@23, What are your thoughts about the "agrarian lifestyle?" -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:39 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bruce and jzk @ 19 and 22... I always like to point out that a large portion of China's per capita carbon emissions are the result of being, essentially, as "factory state." They're mostly making products for western consumption. Around two thirds of Chinese are still living an agrarian lifestyle. (I had the wonderful opportunity once to attend a rural Chinese wedding and see how farming was done and see the setting in which these people live.) There are a certain fraction of Chinese who have attained US style first world status and I'm sure their personal carbon emissions are similar to anyone in the west. It's just not the case for most middle class Chinese. I hold that a large portion of those per capita Chinese emissions should be assigned to the west since they are primary a result of us "out sourcing" our carbon emissions. Apologies for veering off topic. -
Esop at 04:27 AM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
True that there is some merit to it (Lockwood, etc), but this winter, the AO went very negative for a while, despite the much higher solar activity than the two previous winters. Interestingly, the NAO stayed positive when the AO went negative. They are normally closely linked. The deniers long tem forecast for the coming years is strong cooling due to the proposed weak solar cycle, but when we break the global temp record in either 2013 or 2014, they will explain that by pointing to high solar activity. They can do this because the press rarely points out their failed predictions. When 2010 broke the record, hardly anyone asked for an explanation for the failed denier predictions from 2008 of rapid cooling from that year. -
jzk at 03:14 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bruce@19, For 2010, China's CO2 emissions per capita were 6.8 tons, and the US was 16.9. The amounts are not as important, however, as the trend. I suspect that 2011 will come in 10% higher than 2010. Total output for China was 8.94 billion metric tons, and US 5.25. And, India hasn't even gotten started yet relatively speaking, as they are only at 1.5 tons per person. -
John Russell at 03:11 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I suspect that the essential difference between those people complaining that green measures will harm the economy and those who advocate action to limit emissions, is simply one of mind set. The 'business-as-usual' crowd are pre-conditioned to think short-term and will say that either something will come along to fix our problems (because something always has), or that we should let future generations look after themselves (like they always have). On the other hand those seeking to limit emissions are cautious (dare I say conservative?) and prepared to make short-term sacrifices for long term benefits. I'm convinced that essentially there are ways that the brain is wired (or programmed) that distinguishes these two personality types. Of course, confusing the issue, is the fact that there are also minorities on both sides who don't really care about the functioning of our biosphere but see the global warming issue as providing a focus to latch onto in pursuit of their personal ideologiocal agendas. -
chris at 03:06 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
thanks Paul D (re #9), I've had a look at some of Graham Stringer's statements re "climategate" and he does seem tediously ill-informed and way-over-the-top belligerent about this. ...how tedious... -
Bruce at 02:35 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Jzk, although China's per capita co2 emissions are increasing , current rates at 5-6 tons per person are far below U.S. Or Australian rates at 17 tons per person. -
dana1981 at 02:15 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
John Brookes @10 - yes, the 'CO2 limits will harm the poor' argument seems to be a favorite of Christy (who spent some time in Africa) and Spencer. Since they're 'skeptics' that CO2 will have much impact on climate, I suppose they have plausible deniability to the fact that they're actually advocating a path that will harm those same poor. jzk - as noted in the OP, the USA is most responsible for overall CO2 emissions, and thus is (or at least has been) expected to take a lead role in reducing them. The Chinese in particular have expressed concern about climate change, but you certainly can't blame them for waiting on the USA to take the lead considering our much larger proportion of historical emissions. Yes, we need China and India on board, but they will be. The problem is that the train isn't even ready to leave the station. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:12 AM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Related thread: Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html. Don't miss the great cartoon in post 50. -
jzk at 02:05 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
"Why does it matter?" Because without the developing countries on board, you won't be able to measure the difference that will result from a CO2 emissions cut. So then, it depends on your goal in implementing the policy. Is it a symbolic gesture? A "punishment" for past emissions? Or is it a policy that will have a measurable result? It is a practical problem that doesn't depend on one's ideology. Appealing to economic authority doesn't make that practical problem any less of a problem. -
Utahn at 02:05 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
About particulates/wind etc...I live in Salt Lake (the little red spot out in the intermountain west in the map!) where we oftentimes have auto/industry pollution trapped in our mountain valley. The wind comes from the West/SouthWest (where it is desert-think Salt Flats). Rarely we get a sandstorm that raises particulates (more often PM 10 than PM 2.5). More often we pray for wind to clear out the valley of our absolutely manmade particulates... As for the Eastern US, those "red zones" sure ain't coming from desert dust storms, but from all the coal plants out there (note scale difference in Red from World Map in OP).
-
Eric (skeptic) at 02:01 AM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
The "low solar" explanation has substance considering that the stratospheric influences are largely seasonal. Low solar, particularly low solar ultraviolet, has a strong influence on the stratosphere by inducing uneven cooling. In winter the decreased contrast in troposphere to stratosphere allows greater wave penetration so stratospheric waves can impact tropospheric waves and vice versa so that uneven stratospheric temperatures are more likely to result in negative AO. Over the next century however, the main influence of greenhouse gases will be to warm the troposphere, cool the stratosphere and reduce the influences of uneven stratospheric warming on tropospheric weather. The AO has been predicted to become more positive and winters like our past winter here in North America (very warm due to largely positive AO) will become more common. There are somewhat alternative explanations to the OP and the papers referenced in it. One is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3530.1 (The NAO, the AO, and Global Warming: How Closely Related? by Judah Cohen and Mathew Barlow) where they say:For example, they suggest that greenhouse gases cool the stratospheric polar regions relative to midlatitudes and the Tropics, refracting propagating tropospheric planetary waves equatorward, resulting in a positive AO. However, it is possible that greenhouse gases might cool the midlatitudes and Tropics relative to the polar regions, therefore refracting planetary waves poleward and favoring a negative AO.
I also like their explanation of the negative AO, a bit of a twist on the OP above, that the open waters caused more early winter Siberian snowfall which then caused negative AO which occasionally results in lower latitude snowstorms but those are mostly weather flukes. -
Composer99 at 01:52 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
And that is why they are doing so. No matter what the west does, China and India will soon surpass the west in CO2 output per capita. That's nice. Why does it matter? As has already been shown in the OP, a majority of US economists with knowledge of climate economics suggest US CO2 emissions should be cut without any regard for what other countries are doing. Are you suggesting that countries who have contributed to the vast majority of past CO2 emissions and who continue to contribute to a large portion of present emissions should wait for India & China to start cutting emissions? -
Phil at 01:44 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Re: Far Left Wasn't Martin Durkin, director of Great Global Warming Swindle, (self?) cast as a socialist? On SkS there was a long time poster called "HumanityRules" who proclaimed a socialist viewpoint whilst having denier tendancies. Perhaps the hijacking of the AGW denialism by the free marketters was made it less appealing to the far left now ? -
Flakmeister at 01:28 AM on 15 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
There goes Canadian superiority in ice-hockey... My son will be most disappointed... -
Tristan at 01:09 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Ironically the current level of poverty is precisely what's giving us a bit of extra time to deal with the issue of climate change. If the billion or so people living in conditions of extreme poverty were actually energy-demanding consumers things would probably be out of control already. Cold comfort to them though. Regarding the prevalence of libertarian views among deniers, one needs to look no further than the inhabitants of Nova's blog. It's all fiat money conspiracy and free market nonsense. -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I disagree as well, jatufin. It's not a planet. Ron Paul enthusiasts do share some of the same policy positions as some on the "far" left (is "near" the "right" place to be, then?). However, the reasons for those positions are diametrically opposed. Real world socialism encounters environmentalism in the same way that religious conservatives do: it's the right thing to do, but life under capitalism limits choice. It's an easier choice for university professors (including the academic left) and managerial class folk, but capitalism doesn't result in a class structure comprised of an overwhelmingly large middle class (regardless of typical middle class representations of the world). Most of the consuming world is made of people who live day to day, week to week, or month to month, hoping for a break, accepting their lot in life, or fighting to get the rest of their compensation (the working left). These people are not operating on a level field. Their representatives are not operating on a level field. The core mechanism of capitalism works to concentrate economic power (real power) into the hands of the few, and economy trumps democracy all day long. Economy trumps all, no matter the mode. Environmentalism is simply the higher-order realization that most economic modes (capitalism very much so) are short-sighted with regards to the relationship between resources and economic growth. Environmentalism is the alternator to the engine of economy. Take it away, and your engine runs with a little less drag, but then all you have left is a battery. Those in the trenches of class warfare don't have much time to think about the charge left in the battery. The owners of the means of production certainly do, as do the managerial classes whose comfortable lives are ensured by continued protection of property owners' interests. Yet, when faced with the scientific revelation that the battery is running out of charge, these folk go into denial (well, publicly anyway). Why? Why would an information manager like Jeff Condon seek to limit or cast doubt on the information that his ethics "chip" has access to? That is the bizarre condition of those on the economic right in the managerial classes, but it is a condition that they share with the religious right: living one's life according to the interests of one's master(s) allows a kind of freedom--the freedom to act with absolute certainty that one is doing the right thing and that it will always be (always will have been) the right thing. Quite different from the OS of the dialectal left, for whom life is a series of shifting probabilities, shifting as the evidence is compiled each minute, each day. If you want the mid-left on environmentalism, here's a shot. I'd like to get Ian to do a guest post on AGW and the left. -
jzk at 00:30 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
John Brookes@10, For anyone really interested in reductions of global CO2 emissions, solving the poverty issue is your main, and most problematic hurdle. China and India know that the fastest way to bring their people out of poverty is to build coal power plants as fast as they can. And that is why they are doing so. No matter what the west does, China and India will soon surpass the west in CO2 output per capita. "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. Poverty in Africa and Asia is not a result of attempts to limit CO2 emissions. It is because they don't have access to cheap power, yet. 20% of the world's population has no electricity. These areas have little access to clean water and very poor agriculture. How do you solve that without increasing CO2 output? How do you get China and India to stop increasing CO2 output? -
John Brookes at 00:13 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
A particular annoying theme of climate "skeptics" is their faux concern for the poor. They argue that any attempts to limit CO2 emissions will condemn the poor of Africa and Asia to eternal poverty. I have a suspicion that there are much more relevant reasons for poverty than attempts to limit CO2 emissions. -
Esop at 22:39 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Regarding the cold winter/low solar activity link: deniers liked to explain the cold 09/10 and 10/11 winters by pointing to the low solar activity. Then we had an extremely mild autumn in Europe, and that was explained by the more active sun. The severe January/February cold blast put the solar activity/cold winter theory in a sea of trouble. Of course, that does not prevent deniers from using the more active sun as the sole explanation for the extremely mild spring conditions, with March temperatures being more like May and smashing temperature records every day. -
Paul D at 22:25 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Chris it is Graham Stringer. In fact he was the only one that gave Phil Jones a hard time when he was interviewed by the committee. -
chris at 22:01 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Paul D which of the Labour party representative on the Committee is a "Skeptic"... Andrew Miller, Pamela Nash, Graham Stringer or Jonathan Reynolds? -
Paul D at 21:48 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Agreed with jatufin that there those on the left that either don't believe in AGW or struggle to support green policies when it comes to creating/protecting jobs. Examples: 1. Some major unions in the UK support the expansion of major CO2 producing industries, especially the expansion of airports, which would also lead to increasing CO2 emissions in other industries. I also don't see them complaining about the growing success of the UK car industry, especially petrol guzzling Landrover. 2. The organiser of the local 'occupy' campaign doesn't believe in AGW. 3. The Labour party representative on the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee is a Skeptic. In fact on the same committee there are probably more Conservatives that agree with AGW. 4. I also recently came across a lefty that was attacking the owner of a UK green electricity company for being capitalist because they were making electricity prices go up. Admittedly he could have been a troll with completely opposing views, pretending to be a lefty. But I have seen other mixed up views from those that are transfixed by left political ideology. All to often, like the right, if something doesn't fit their world view, then they suspect a conspiracy. -
Doc Snow at 21:41 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bill, there is a low-level wackaloon I run into regularly who peddles Lindzen, Spencer, Ernst Beck & G & T (despite the fact that they are not all mutually compatible), and who claims to vote Socialist--ie., New Democrat--in Canada. Other than that claim, though, he sounds pretty much like a Tory. -
bill4344 at 20:06 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jatufin @4; Hmmm, I know a reasonable number of solid old Lefties in Australia, and yet I know none who believe what you suggest they ought to. But I thought I ought to test it out, so I just went along to the Communist Party of Australia's website, and, lo and behold, the headline is 'Floods reveal twin scourge: Climate change and neo-liberalism'. No. 1 in the list of books they're selling? 'Hot Earth - the case for planning and regulation to deal with the climate crisis.' The Socialist Party of Australia's website yields 'Climate change: Dithering in Durban':"Once again, a United Nations-sponsored climate change conference has completely failed to address the issue of global warming." The International Socialists decry the Carbon Tax as a hand-out to major polluters and urge their followers to "get involved to demand real action on climate change." And no urban Australian who has ever rallied for anything even vaguely green can have failed to be exposed to the earnest young hawkers of the Democratic Socialist Party's Green Left Weekly, so further research not required there, methinks. So, as far as the, if you'll allow me, mainstream 'extreme left' goes in Australia - and, I suspect, much of the Western World - I'm still far from convinced of the whole 'so far Left they're Right' thing. I'm still putting up Alexander Cockburn. Any other names, readers? -
John Mason at 19:40 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Paul, I think the important thing to consider for a start is the difference in incoming solar radiation between solar max and solar min. It really isn't that great, and as you note the conditions in some parts of Europe were bitter this winter, yet the sun has been quite active. Also, it is important to record that the period 1980-82 was a solar max, yet the 1981-82 winter featured some very severe weather either side of Christmas, with temperatures down to double-figure minima and some historic snowfalls such as the Great Blizzard of January 9, 1982. -
paulchevin at 19:20 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
John, One of the favourite discussion topics of BBC Look North's weatherman Paul Hudson (who is a physicist) is the influence of solar activity on climate. There does seem to be a link between low solar activity and cold winters in Europe (eg. the very cold winters during the LIA) and Paul's view appears to be that this may have been responsible for some of our recent cold winters. I don't think the solar mechanism could have explained the very cold winter across much of Europe this year. It's also pretty obvious even to me as a biologist that removing most of the ice from the Arctic is bound to have knock-on effects on climate. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the possible "solar" influence and how it might interact with the effect you've described here. Paul -
jatufin at 19:13 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bill @2: Plenty of deniers in far left also. Environmental issues threaten their Marxist-Leninist vision of heavy industry heaven of the working class. Rare breed those old school communists nowadays, but there are some. Ideological map is sphere, as a planet. On the far side they all meet :) -
chriskoz at 18:44 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Interesting article Dana, My reflections to Fig3: The coal price on this figure maybe a little out of date. The recent prices on quality AU coal commodity market can be found see here. They've been volatile for last couple years but current 10¢/kg is a decent average. Given anthracite coal energy density and recovery efficiency of 32MJ/kg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density I've calculated the maximum 3kWh/kg, therefore the cost to produce your coal electricity at peak performance is only 3¢/kWh. On your graph is looks some 6¢: twice higher. That indicates the average coal power plant efficiency of ~50%, so the useful energy density from coal is only 1.5kWh/kg. On the other hand, the carbon tax in AU is initially set to AUD23/t (C; not CO2) which is ~US2.4¢/kg. Comparing that figure to my 1.5kWh/kg above, I deduce the coal plants in AU will be paying 2.4/1.5 == 1.6¢/kWh for their CO2 pollution. That is some 2 times less than even MMN11 external cost estimate on your figure. Less conservative external cost estimate by E11 looks more than 10 times as much as AU carbon tax. Conclusion: AU carbon tax is cheap: it is far from covering even the most conservative external estimates. Did anyone make calculation like that for other externals? For example how is EPA taxing PM2.5 pollution, given PM2.5 cost estimate? -
Trent1492 at 17:11 PM on 14 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
@Scaddenp, I think you need to reevaluate why I offered that link. Skeptical Science asked, "Have you come across any climate denier memes during the past six months that do not show up on the SkS list of climate myths? If so, what are they and where did you first see them?" And so I provided one that I had not seen before. I originally saw it pop it up on a thread over at Scientific American. After perusing the myths list and not seeing it I thought it deserved some mention. If we truly want to lead people over to what the science actually says I think a little courtesy at the start of conversation may well be more productive than coming down on somebody with the rhetorical hatchet. And yes, I understand that about 95% of the people on the net who ask "honest" questions are really disingenuous ideologues. Let us remember though that we are writing for that other 5% and most importantly the lurkers. Thank you for the link. @DSL, I did go over to the original article, but it is behind a paywall and I am nowhere near any kind of a expert to pronounce a judgment on it. I can say that comparing what CO2 Science says and what the abstract says I can see one problem already. In the abstract I found this "records of this type from one site alone cannot be used to determine the extent of ice involved."Moderator Response: [JH] I concur that your response to question I had posed was appropriate. Having said that, what, in your opinion, is the new denier meme contained in the paper you have cited. -
bill4344 at 17:02 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I've often wondered just how many Deniers aren't also Free Market™ Zealots? I can only offer Alexander Cockburn as the one anomaly that I can think of - the exception that proves the rule? In my experience the FM™Z figure runs damn-close to 100% among anti-'C'AGW commenters, commentators, and 'think'tanks, too. -
John Mason at 16:25 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Central, E and Southern Europe certainly had a severe blast this winter, but it was more like the classic pattern of cold air draining SW around the Siberian/Scandanavian High, AKA "Siberian Blast" (all UK tabloids) or "the Beast from the East" (snow-rampers on UK weather forums). -
Roger D at 16:21 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Dana -very informative article - thanks I think there's a typo about halfway down where you wrote "And of course, Spencer's argument that CO2 emissions will result in 'immense human suffering' is entirely without basis." Did you mean to say CO2 "limits" instead of "emissions" in that sentence.Response:[dana1981] Yes, thanks. Corrected.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 14:54 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
what happens when we have an ice free arctic
All the energy currently consumed by melting ice will have to go somewhere. The atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb energy, so will it go to heating the ocean? Will a warmer Arctic basin lead to the ocean releasing more CO2 than it absorbs? Will the spectre of the clathrate bomb come back to haunt us? These and more thrilling questions will be answered in our next episode of "Earth: The Human Waste Dump".
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
