Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 Next
Comments 64551 to 64600:
-
andylee at 02:44 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Sapient @10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion Transforming 1kg of ice to water = 333.55kJ Therefore 1 tonne of ice needs 333.55MJ or 3.3355x10^8 J 4.3 trillion tonnes needs 4.3x10^12 x 3.335x10^8 J = 1.43405x10^21 J (1,434,050,000,000,000,000,000 J) Context: It would take a 1GW power station 45,439 years just to melt this much ice! -
CBDunkerson at 02:09 AM on 14 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Luke wrote: "I wonder if it might not be possible to map recessions (tied to lower energy use) to lower warming, thereby identifying delays in the system." Very unlikely. We can detect the impact of economic activity on GHG emissions, but the variations there are just too small to then in turn pick out their impact on temperatures. Keep in mind that it is the accumulated total GHGs in the atmosphere which determine warming. When a recession comes along we might see the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation drop from ~2.1 ppm per year to ~1.9 ppm per year... so even if the recession lasted five years we are only talking about around 1 ppm difference in atmospheric CO2 levels. Compared to the ~115 ppm total accumulated increase over pre-industrial levels that difference is going to get lost in the rounding. Thus, unless our ability to model the atmosphere becomes vastly better than it currently is (to the point that every storm can be precisely predicted weeks in advance) or we see a massive economic collapse, there is no way that we will be able to pick the 'decreased warming signal' of an economic downturn out of the uncertainty range. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:58 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Sapient Fridge, it takes 333 Joules to melt 1g of ice and IIRC there are 10^6 grams per tonne so a little over 10^21 Joules. From the energy chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29, that's about an order of magnitude less than the daily incident solar energy. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:14 AM on 14 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
30, Luke, The statistical methods used are far from perfect. They attempt to resolve the influence of the various factors, but can't do so perfectly, especially if the actual influence (or in some cases confluence) is not linear. So I think a lot of the variation you still see in the adjusted graph is simply unaccounted residue from volcanic (1983) and ENSO (1998, 2007) events. In a nut shell, there's still more natural variation within the natural variation. -
Luke Poliszcuk at 23:34 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Robert> That was my first reaction when I was skimming the article. But then I noted the key concept for the adjusted data was: "When the effects of ENSO and solar and volcanic activity are removed from the temperature data". Just wondering what is left after those three variables have been adjusted for. I thought that as the remaining forcing seems to be predominantly due to AGW there may be an economic footprint in there. -
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Camburn writes: "Educate people without the constant 'fear' factor." and: "The current projections show that an economic breakdown is only a few years away" Might I suggest that you read up on the concept of psychological projection. Last I checked, absolutely no one has been claiming the equivalent of; 'global warming will cause an economic breakdown in just a few years'. So who is the real 'fear monger' here? -
Robert Murphy at 23:18 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
"Does anyone know what are the remaining major variables? I note there is a particularly large dip around 1983." El Chichon, Mexico, erupted in 1982.
-
Luke Poliszcuk at 22:48 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Excellent illustration of the overall warming trend after teasing out natural variation due to ENSO, volcanoes and solar activity. Does anyone know what are the remaining major variables? I note there is a particularly large dip around 1983. What other variation could that be due to? Has anyone analysed the correlation between economic output and CO2 emissions, and any consequent variation in net warming? I wonder if it might not be possible to map recessions (tied to lower energy use) to lower warming, thereby identifying delays in the system. From wikipedia: The IMF estimates that global recessions seem to occur over a cycle lasting between 8 and 10 years. During what the IMF terms the past three global recessions of the last three decades, globaly per capita output growth was zero or negative. It would be interesting if there was a (delayed) statistically significant correlation between global recessions and the remaining variability above. -
DrJoju at 20:45 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Great summary by the way! Very clear and informative. I thought the silver lining comment at the end was pretty hilarious! -
DrJoju at 20:42 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
@owl905, at the 2:56 mark, Peter Hadfield comments upon the 30% figure. Glaciers and ice caps = 148 Billion tonnes (63Gt less) (excluding Antartica and Greenland) Peripheral glaciers and ice caps = 81 Gt (in Greenland and antartica) Ice sheets = 303Gt (in Greenland and antartica) Total = 532Gt The 30% figure is calculated from the loss from the glaciers and ice caps (excluding Antartica and Greenland). This figure is 63Gt less than previously estimated. previous estimate is: 148Gt +63Gt = 211Gt Therefore the 30% loss = (63Gt/211Gt)x100 The 10% figure is from derived from the total ice loss. Previous total estimate is: 532Gt + 63Gt= 595Gt therefore the 10% loss = (63Gt/595Gt)x100 -
Sapient Fridge at 20:39 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
How much energy is needed to melt 4.3 trillion tonnes of ice? -
gpwayne at 18:28 PM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
May I suggest that a colour key for the first set of images would help laypeople like myself to understand what the false-colours represent? -
jimspy at 17:31 PM on 13 February 2012The real doping scandal: Weather on steroids
Damn, why didn't -I- think of that analogy? Better than my measly stock market analogy. -
jimb at 17:23 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
dagold@6 I don't deal with it very well either. I was just finishing "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" by Dr. Mann, and couldn't help but compare the tone of his book to the tone of most of the adverse comments following this article (and everywhere else following many mainstream press articles on climate change). Surprisingly, Dr. Mann seems to hold out some hope that the contrarians may have passed their peak of influence- one can only hope he is correct. It is always telling to see what portions of the research papers are highlighted and what portions are either ignored or left to the end of the analysis. -
jmsully at 16:43 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
owl905, Or didn't cry Wolf! -
owl905 at 15:50 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Tom Chivers in the Telegraph is under siege by a swarming from the pro-pollutionists. They appear to be congregating at Bishop Hill's blog ... Not sure about Hadfield's shrinkage as a 10% reduction (3:55 mark); the Nature paper states: "The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html The news that the overall mass may be less volatile over a short-term really isn't big news at all - it's a repeat of mass redistributions noted for Greenland (elevation-driven), and Antarctica (east buildup, west loss). The real news may be the problem the study was built for - closing the budget on sea-level rise. CSIRO's claim of 'closed' takes a hit - http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Auditing-the-Earths-sea-level-and-energy-budgets.aspx and papers that support the 'missing GSL-rise components' gain leverage: www.igsoc.org/annals/v52/59/a59a019.pdf (Moore et.al. "The Historical Global Sea Level Budget", Annals of Glaciology, 2011) The itch that needs scratching is the sacred-cow acceptance of GRACE data revisions. UAH data has been reassessed multiple times. It's only a matter of time before someone refers to GRACE as the satellite that cried 'Wolf'. -
dagold at 15:27 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
jimb- I also went to the article and read the comments. I still can't help myself; I get reactive when I read the litany of breathtaking ignorance, will self-deception and outright lying that inevitably follow any and every article on climate change. Skeptical Science is an incredible site and resource- but, does there come a time, when patience and the didactic approach becomes a futile proposition...do not some of these folks need a bit more scorn or, at least, Stephen Colbert like satire directed towards them? How do you handle it? -
jimb at 14:39 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
It wan good to read the article, but depressing when I started going through the comments. -
Tom Curtis at 13:19 PM on 13 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @51, in your post @ 21 you claimed:"One problem is that even if the ice melting halted the oceans would continue to rise at about the same rate. The result of irrigation pulling water from aquifiers that had the water locked away and now going into the surface water balance."
You quoted a figure from the total ground water used as irrigation and determined from that a projected increase in sea level. You did not mention recharge, and did not attempt to determine recharge before calculating the impact on sea level. In fact, you concluded that:"So the water added to the system via irrigation is fairly close to the amount of water added by melting ice. Meaning the sea water will continue to rise regardless if the ice melting stops and the problems of the future will still remain."
For that to have been true, recharge must have been very small relative to withdrawals from ground water. If, as you now claim, "...I did understand the concept of withdrawal and recharge..." your failure to mention recharge in post 21, and your failure to allow for it in your calculation of the impact on sea level is a case of deliberate misrepresentation. You (claim you) knew about a relevant factor which would significantly effect your calculation, but chose neither to mention it nor to include it in your calculation. That, be definition, is telling a half truth, and a half truth is always a whole lie. You further state that "... I was showing how different aquifiers are being recharged at different rates." But you made no mention of different rates, and no mention of any aquifer other than the Ogallala aquifer. Generally when a person makes no mention of something, they are not trying to show people that thing. What is more, and this is the crux of the issue, you could have quoted the Edwards-Trinity aquifer* as easily as the Ogallala aquifer. That would as easily shown that you understood the concept and its relevance. It also would have suggested that recharge rates are over three times discharge rates, clearly indicating that may point @ 26 was well made, and that you did need to investigate and quote recharge rates in order to make the argument you were making. In fact any other choice of data from that site would have reinforced my point, and shown that failure to quote recharge rates was an obvious flaw in your reasoning. That is what makes it a cherry pick. Your continued defense of that cherry pick leaves no conclusion open except that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead. * The Edwards-Trinity aquifer is atypical of Texas aquifers in that it is the opposite extreme to the Ogallala aquifer. My point is that it is sufficient to show what Norman claims to have been his point, so there was no reason not to choose and discuss it. Certainly there was not reason not to discuss the state total, except of course, for the crucial point that it would have (again) shown the failure of Norman to present relevant data.Response:[DB] "Your continued defense of that cherry pick leaves no conclusion open except that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead. "
Agreed. Back to Norman for a final plea.
-
bill4344 at 13:00 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Full marks to Hadfield and thanks to John Russell for that great commentary from Tom Chivers. In The Telegraph! What truly disturbs me is that The Guardian performed as badly in this as they did over the CRU hack / 'Climategate' (where they were very bad indeed! And learned nothing, it seems.) As I noted on the other thread discussing this they even managed to turn this global satellite research into 'the Himalayan Glacier Study' and somehow ignore their own reporting of the manifestly evident lower-altitude glacier melt! And then run a sort of agony column about whether we should still believe in Global Warming and Glacier melt after this... Really, The Australian could scarcely have spun the tale more to the anti-science brigade's benefit! And I completely agree - if AGW were to ever be 'disproved' (or, more likely - but unlikely nonetheless - sensitivity was to be revised significantly downwards) it'll be real science that produces the research, not the fake-skeptics who only specialise in muddying the waters! -
NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman - "My original post made the claim that even if all ice melting were halted the oceans would still continue to rise because of the water removed from deep sources that is not being replaced at the rate of removal and will find its way into the ocean as the ultimate water sink on the surface." And that assertion is wrong. The link I provided to Milly specifically excludes ice melt both glacial and ice cap - discussing anthropogenic water movement. Their conclusion, including all the sources and sinks they could identify, the best information available, is that the best estimate for water usage contribution to sea level rise is: zero. -
Norman at 11:53 AM on 13 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Tom Curtis @ 49 Tom it is not me being the one lacking the understanding in this situation. I did explain it fairly well if you would take the time to read my post and not (-snip-) react to it. In post 31 I was addressing specifically your point in post 26. Reread the beginning of my post in 31, it is in this frame that I am bringing up the link to Texas. You make the claim in 26: "you make the assumption that extracted groundwater is not being replaced. That is not correct." In the Texas aquifier link I was showing you that I did understand the concept of withdrawal and recharge and I was showing how different aquifiers are being recharged at different rates. I chose the Ogallala aquifier to show you that some aquifiers recharge at very slow rates, it was not a deception I was making a specific point to address your claim in 26 the I made this assumption (which I did not) and that I was not correct in making this assumption which I had not made. Please read the post in 49 about the 8.9 figure. It was not included in my Texas link at all and is a totally seperate concept that has nothing to do with the link of the Texas aquifiers (again was only brought up to demonstrate that I did indeed grasp the concept of withdrawl vs recharge rates which you believe I do not understand). Please reread the posts if necessary but the 8.9 was a ratio difference between the work in KR's link that has the claim that withdrawal rates of water mining equal 61 km^3 per year but all other sources I look at indicate a much higher value than this. My original post was actually on topic, the defense of the original post has led to the off topic string of posts. My original post made the claim that even if all ice melting were halted the oceans would still continue to rise because of the water removed from deep sources that is not being replaced at the rate of removal and will find its way into the ocean as the ultimate water sink on the surface. Please follow the line of reasoning in my posts and you will see that it is not what you are claiming, mostly defending a postional statement that you have not proven wrong.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory trolling term snipped. -
John Russell at 11:45 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Great post from the Daily Telegraph on this subject. As the author, Tom Chivers, says, this is proof that 'AGW' is not some huge global scientific conspiracy. The research that the those in denial are crowing about was undertaken and published by a group of regular climate scientists without any axes to grind. If anyone is ever going to show that 'AGW is wrong', it won't be fake sceptic bloggers -- it'll be the climate scientists that they despise. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:12 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
"What on Earth could be causing that...?"
What, pray tell, indeed? -
Neven at 10:45 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Lovely! -
wild monkeys at 10:30 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
I think it should be noted that the current data are from a different instrument as the AMSR-E instrument is not working. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:06 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Chris G, I also thought that the strong polar jet bottled up cold air which then plunged into Europe, but that does not appear to be the case from these anomalies: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php After building an jet stream animation for January here http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/archive/jetstream_archive.html I have even less confidence the bottled up theory, but frankly I don't know how to evaluate the animation. -
Chris G at 09:31 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Hmm, if this year's jet stream pattern starts to repeat in the next several years, maybe arctic ice will last a little longer than the current rate of decline would lead us to believe. No doubt that would be small consolation. Plus, if the La Nina weakens, I suspect that might snap the pattern to something else. -
Chris G at 09:20 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
I was thinking about the unusual jet stream pattern that has kept arctic air out of the lower latitudes more than is typical. So, I'm thinking with less mixing of air across latitudes, there would be an opportunity for it to get cooler than normal within the polar cell area. That would kind of jive with it being bitterly cold when it did plunge south, and I think we have seen that with the cold snap in Europe. Plus, it would be consistent with Neven's blog on the Bering Sea. Just guessing; I have not been able to find anomalies for that region for just the last several months. -
Camburn at 07:31 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Greening of the Sahara-Sahel region: Effects on Africa Study of rice yields in response to higher CO2 Rice yields, varity selection results The forest is young, which would confirm other FACE findings: Forest growth at the Yatir forest To bad we can't keep the higher CO2 without the other projected negatives. -
Rob Painting at 06:58 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
layzej - "Of the three positions, I'm inclined to trust......" Not a very scientific approach eh? How about reading those studies I linked to? Full copies of all are freely available online - at least they used to be, that's how I got hold of them. The crux of the issue is that the CO2 fertilization effect, i.e a net increase of global land-based vegetation biomass, doesn't seem to be panning out in the real world. So the climate model simulations could be drastically underestimating the amount of warming we're likely to get. Scarily so, because the CO2 fertilization effect is a biiig negative feedback in the simulations. That John Nielsen-Gammon suggests that net land biosphere CO2 uptake should be prima facie evidence of the CO2 fertilization effect underscores his lack of research on this topic. He's failed his own litmus test. I think you'll be surprised about where a lot of that CO2 we emit is ending up. You shouldn't really be, if you think deeply about the amount of new buildings we humans erect. -
Camburn at 06:55 AM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica@73: My father is far from ignorant nor arrogant. Believe it or not, he is VERY concerned about the lowering of PH of the oceans. He sees this as a incontrovertible issue. As for myself, to get a feeling for the future, I study the past. I make decissions based on paleo records of climate concerning my growing region. When studying the paleo, I try to incorporate current happenings to get an idea of what the near term climate may/will be. This is detracting from CO2 and plants tho. If you can find a more appropriate thread, the discussion could continue. Thank you. -
Camburn at 06:42 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Sphaerica@99: "And yet you come to this site and post comment after comment encouraging people to ignore the science behind climate change, and as a result to continue living their lives the way they always have, fraught with waste and ill-advised/unnecessarily-wasteful practices." I don't post with the idea of encouraging people to ignore climate science. I post with the idea of increasing people's knowledge and perspective concerning climate, and the science. I agree, pass on the government spending/economics. It does however, play a role in the economic dynamics of achieving meaningful adaptation. -
william5331 at 06:37 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
The next solar maximum looks to be a mild one but will likely coencide with an El Nino. That should see off at least a few of the sceptics. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/gcs_fig_1_big.jpg -
muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
paulhtremblay#31: Isn't the idea that black carbon deposited on snow decreases ice/snow albedo? So it is two or more separate processes: aerosols increasing atmospheric albedo, BC as aerosol (short-lived) increasing atmospheric albedo, but decreasing albedo when on the ground. camburn#33: Always glad to be of service. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:32 AM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
72, Camburn,"Those young folks sure do not understand climate do they?"
A perfect example of what I term the "arrogant ignorant." Those people have been in this country since its inception. They're the same people who said "if man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings" and any number of other fallacies. Perhaps if his son explained to him how climate differs from weather, and that the science is a whole lot more intricate, detailed and well-considered than he understands or gives credit, then maybe he'd be a little more open minded. But your demonstration of your father's "when I was a kid" sort of ignorance means nothing. It sounds like he wouldn't believe in climate change whether he was told it was catastrophic or harmless. So what's your point? That there are people who are so arrogant, and so ignorant, that nothing will convince them? That's obvious. But for the intelligent, rational people -- and those who are young enough to realize that this is going to directly affect them, unlike your father who will never see how bad things can get -- the truth is the truth. You admonitions about "fear" are, from my point of view, a simple expression of your own wish that there were nothing wrong, and your own annoyance at being reminded that, no matter what you want to believe, something is wrong. I'm curious... what does your father say about ocean pH? And how do you respond? -
Camburn at 06:25 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
muoncounter@26: You have posted a paper that is contrast to Schmidt-Shindell. Thanks for adding to my confusion....:) -
Camburn at 06:24 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
paulhtremblay@31: Yes, because of the albedo affect. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:21 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
98, Camburn, Not "desolate." That's an unnecessary exaggeration. There are credible projections that climate change will result in reduced precipitation in the Southern US, and the Mediterranean, and other regions. You should be a little less cavalier about what does and does not concern you.I live my life as low in carbon emissions...
And yet you come to this site and post comment after comment encouraging people to ignore the science behind climate change, and as a result to continue living their lives the way they always have, fraught with waste and ill-advised/unnecessarily-wasteful practices.The result of government spending with no return of value...
That's an unnecessary foray into politics on which I will pass. Certainly budgets must be reigned in because we live on a planet that is living beyond its means in a lot of different ways. Finding the right areas to cut is the issue, but it's also politics that is OT here. -
Camburn at 06:16 AM on 13 February 2012The sun is getting hotter
A good research link to the sun: Dr. Leif Svalgarrd's Research page His current research shows that the TSI has been constant for well over 100 years. Lot's to digest on the link above. -
paulhtremblay at 05:40 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
@muoncounter30 >>There's a conspicuous bit missing from the quoted section on aerosols I'm just a bit confused by the Real Climate post. On the one hand, as aerosols decreased, the warming from CO2 increased. That's clear. But despite the overall decrease in aerosols, back carbon increased. In contrast to aerosols, black carbon increases warming. Why is that so--because of the albedo affect? -
Camburn at 05:20 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Sphaerica: When I see credible projections that the Southern USA is going become a desolate area, I will take that into consideration. And when I see credible projections concerning the actual response to increased CO2, other than oceans, I will also take that into consideration. As I have stated, the potential lowering of PH is a HUGE concern. I live my life as low in carbon emissions as economically possible. I understand very well the economic dynamics of the current period. They are starting to be played out in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, UK, USA. The result of government spending with no return of value has/will doom the changes required as the money is not there to do so. It has already been spent/consumed by government. -
Camburn at 05:09 AM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica: Fear factor Think about this for a minute: My father is a very active 86 year old man. When he sees an article, (he reads everything he can get his hands on as of yet) that mentions AGW and weather extremes, he just shoots back with this "Those young folks sure do not understand climate do they?" He will then go on to expand the weather extremes that he lived through. By using his life's experiences, he shows that climate has always been variable. He will also mention paleo climate, at least locally. He is a well read man... By extension, when he talks to other folks in his age group, they nod in agreement. Then they talk to their children/grandchildren. See how this is working? Folks talk about the Dust Bowl days of the 30's and blame farming. The farming practices of the time certainly did contribute to the dust, but a lot of dust was uprooted native grasses as well. My dad talks about watching a meadow slowly disappearing before his eyes. This was untilled soils. The static electricity developed by the dry strong steady wind burnt the grass, exposeing the roots, and just blew it away. No matter who one thinks, elders have knowledge to share. One must take that knowledge into perspective when addressing AGW. -
mspelto at 05:00 AM on 13 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
The snowline in 2011 was not particularly low in the Himalaya as seen on Milam Glacier, India or Petrov Glacier, Altai -
Camburn at 04:57 AM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica@70: (-snip-) We have a difference of philosophy. I live near EERC: EERC Website I also have a friend who is working on a Hydrogen Fuel Cell there. This work is/was exciting to me as it could provide a potential source of replacement for diesel consumeing engines. His research money came predominely from private sources till 3 years ago. Then some stimulus grants were awarded. The private money started to dry up, as the companies funding his research wanted the rights to it. Now the stimulus money is drying up and the private money is not replacing it. A complicated issue. His team thought they were close so many times, but have not been able to overcome the last hurdles yet. Soon I hope......soon. Ya see, I can put up a wind generator, produce H and not have to buy FF fuels, when and if, a H fuel cell is feasable. A pipe dream? I hope not. Solutions continued: I am also working on getting a wind generator co-op formed. You can make N fertilizer from H. There is lots of water presently in my area, wind area 4 as far as wind, below an escarpment so the geese don't fly through here often etc. Harness the water/wind and make N without using CH4 as a base feed stock. This is not a pipedream, as the U of Minn has a small scale experiment of this nature working right now. The funding for this has come from farmers who pay the Corn Growers Assn....private funding once again. The expertise in designing this came from education, but the funding came from private. As far as unfettered capitalism, that does not work either. I think one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century was Theodore Roosevelt. I am sure you know of his accomplishments against great odds. I have provided a solution that showed private funding to be very important. As far as the Tea Party, the function of that bunch is to show how fast spending has grown on the local/state/federal level with very little production to show for it. They do have their points and exercise their right to expand on them. I agree with a few, I disagree with as many.Response:[DB] OT snipped.
-
muoncounter at 04:56 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Sphaerica: There's a conspicuous bit missing from the quoted section on aerosols. This is from Shindell's RC post regarding Shindell and Faluvegi 2009: We also estimated that aerosols in total contributed 1.1 +/- 0.8ºC to the 1976-2007 Arctic warming. This latter aerosol contribution to Arctic warming results from both increasing BC and decreasing sulfate, and as both were happening at once their contributions cannot be easily separated ... -- emphasis added Blame the warming on that rascally EPA; first they made us decrease sulfate emissions, so they could come back and regulate our carbon. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:43 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
97, Camburn, Actually, if you're in ND, you may well be one of the few that benefits from climate change. The net loss will be huge, but you could be raking it in due to a combination of better productivity coupled with rising prices because of the desolation in the Southern USA. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:40 AM on 13 February 2012CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Camburn, You are kidding yourself by putting undo weight on what you like (CO2 is plant food) and ignoring what you don't like (temperature and precipitation variations that could more than destroy any benefits that might be derived from higher CO2 levels). Sadly, given your personal approach to the problem, you are going to have to take personal blame for your predicament if the practice of agriculture gets rough in your region in the coming decades (unless, of course, you've retired by then and sold your farm to some sucker). Climate change is not a variation on Chicken Little. It is instead a worldwide version of the Grasshopper and the Ants fable. In this case, though, the Grasshoppers don't mind working, they just don't want to adjust how they work and pay closer attention to the coming "winter." -
Bob Lacatena at 04:32 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Camburn, You can find a guest post from Dr. Shindell himself over at RealClimate here. I don't have time at the moment, I'm heading out, but I'll read it later tonight. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:29 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Dan, Camburn did provide the link above, to a NASA article from 4/8/9 discussing the paper.The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.
Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you for the correction. Tied one on last night and was more cranky than is my wont.
Prev 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 Next
