Recent Comments
Prev 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 Next
Comments 66501 to 66550:
-
Tom Smerling at 13:34 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Though written for Christian audiences, Katharine's book, ,A Climate for Change is a model of clarity, simplicity and accuracy for any audience. Similarly, her slideshow for Republicans for Environmental Protection, "A Climate for Change: What is happening to our world, and what can we do about it?" has some of the clearest slides found anywhere, because they strip away all the clutter to reveal one key point. It is difficult to imagine how anybody with the slightest familiarity with Katharine's work or videos could possibly be so filled with hatred. She nails it when she says that those who heap scorn on climate science are acting out of fear, and "God is not the author of fear." -
JoeTheScientist at 13:33 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Of course she was beset with hatred. That's because it's not about facts or science. It's about ideology, and she betrayed some evangelical folks who see themselves as the true representatives of "the faith". -
colinc at 13:27 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Not to be "picky," but perhaps a more appropriate term about the middles of the 2nd paragraph would be "solidarity." Feel free to omit/delete this remark from "publishing."Moderator Response: [JH] Typo fixed. Thank you. -
John Hartz at 13:00 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin: The Climate Change section of the Environment Canada website contains information about the costs of potential action steps for reducing GHGs emitted by Canadians. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:52 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ Colin Thank you for sharing your opinion, Colin. But as you admit & the others have already pointed out, it is one lacking in substance and foundation. To aver that there are "sides" in the rational science vs the fake-skeptic "debate" is to lend a false equivalency where there is none. One "side" has science, the scientific method, robust theory and centuries of supportive physics and empirical evidence. The other "side" has just the opposite. You then pile-on to that foundationless gimcrackery with (what amounts to) substanceless tone-trolling (in that you very likely have not read beyond the names of the series in question to the posts themselves). The website is for those seeking to understand what the actual science has to say vs what the fake-skeptics would like for you to believe. There is much for you to learn here, should your mind not already be closed to learning. -
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I find TOP's (@ 18) claim that "The use of the Bible in the ECI manifesto is "cherry picking"..." intriguing. The most prominent use of the Bible in that manifesto is to assert that Christian's have an obligation to "love their neighbour as themselves". The clear ethical consequence of "loving your neighbour as yourself" is that harm to your neighbours should figure as prominently, and with the same weight in your considerations, as harm to yourself; and that benefit to yourself should figure no more prominently, and with no more weight than benefit to others. This most onerous, and consequently most ignored, of Jesus teaching is recounted by Matthew as follows:“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
As Luke's account makes clear, in Jesus' view your neighbour is anybody on whom your actions can have an impact, regardless of traditions of animisoty (if any), and regardlessof the existence of any prior personal relationship. In a world of global consequences, this means that for a Christian their "neighbour" is everyone in the world. Of this centrality of love, as Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats makes clear, failure to satisfy the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself is equivalent to failing to love Jesus himself. John makes it clear that if you do not love your neighbour, you do not love God. And Paul makes it clear love is the most central aspect of Christian teaching. I could go on, but I believe that I have established the point. TOP's claim that the use of this passage is "cherry picking" is flat out false. So false, in fact, that nobody who has read and understood the Bible could honestly make it. Of course, most evangelical Christian's do ignore this passage for all intents and purposes. When they read Jesus' primary exposition of what it would actually mean to follow this central command, they say its all figurative, because they certainly recognize that it is onerous. Indeed, what is noteworthy about TOP's claim of cherry picking is backed by nothing but his own word. Apparently, it is a key part of TOP's theology that when TOP speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. -
Colin at 12:24 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin #116: This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? I wasn't suggesting an alternative... I think the rest of the quoted post explains my point. -
Colin at 12:14 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. I'm sorry you found my statement offensive. However, I don't think it's fair to summarily state that it is false. I made the statement from my own perspective as a non-scientific person. I was approaching the subject of "...obstacle to action..." from the perspective of someone who agrees with the need for action. I sincerely believe that more needs to be done to communicate the true cost of co2 reduction. Right now, that void is serving well the forces who oppose action by allowing them to make whatever outlandish claims they like to bolster their status-quo position. Our own federal environment minister recently stated that for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets in 2012, it would require removing every motor vehicle from the roads. That doesn't sound like a reasonable statement to me... but I don't have the facts to know. You can bet that a lot of people read that statement and without contradictory evidence were thankful we withdrew from Kyoto. -
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin #116:This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view.
Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? -
JosHagelaars at 11:27 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@muoncounter #14 "The Dutch are hardly standing still on climate change" The Washington Post has beautiful photographs of some places of my country, but I don't know where the phrase "spending billions of euros on floating communities" is based upon. I couldn't trace any data in Holland, but I'm quite sure it is not true. People who like to live in the neighborhood of water can built such houses on their own expense and only when it is allowed by regulations. The last sentence of your quote seems correct to me. In the 90's we had some threats of flooding in the Netherlands caused by high water levels of our rivers, like the Rhine. The government decided to deal with this and with future estimates of even higher amounts of water being transported by the rivers because of climate change. Part of the measures taken is directed at improving the riverdikes and another part is directed to give more room to the rivers when necessary. Maybe the "billions of euros" are related to this protection program, I checked the budget for this project (it is public) and it is estimated to be 2.2 billion euros. -
Riccardo at 10:43 AM on 16 January 20129 Months After McLean
12 months after McLean: credit: Hot Topic -
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. Now you may lack the background knowledge to distinguish between science and pseudo-science (the fake-skeptics), but that lack of information does not make the two sides equivalent. I hope you see the logic here. 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that global warming is real, based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence, and only 1% disagree. That should tell you something, even if you cannot distinguish between climate science and climate quackery. -
michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin, A quick check with the search function at the top of the page gave this article on Skeptical Science about costs. Perhaps if you read the article there it will answer your questions. If not, it is a better place to ask the questions you have. The short answer is that economic studies show it is much cheaper to reduce CO2 than to deal with the problems afterward. It is also much cheaper the sooner you start to reduce CO2. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:23 AM on 16 January 2012CO2 lags temperature
@ 129CBRider If I understand you correctly, you are of the persuasion that believes in cycles, and that the next cycle of an ice age is imminent. Of course, that would be ignoring a very great deal of established physics, based on centuries of research, by many thousands of scientists. Not to mention that these are the same physics that underpins the technology of today. So I recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture, plus The Big Picture Look at Global Warming. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. As an FYI, assertions lacking support in the science and the literature tend to get ignored. Failure to back up repeated assertions with source citations tends to get comments moderated or deleted. -
adelady at 10:00 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin "As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription." But being (un)willing to pay certain costs for particular prescriptions has nothing to do with the diagnosis. Surely our personal or social willingness to pay costs is related entirely to how seriously we take the diagnosis we've been given and the prognosis if we don't take appropriate action. Most of this site is about diagnoses and prognoses. -
Riccardo at 09:25 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin discussing the best cure and its costs is what we all would love to do. But how can we if one side of the political arena still deny the need of any cure? -
Estiben at 09:23 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP, 1. There clearly is consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real. I would venture to guess that you are correct that the ECI statement does not reflect the mainstream view among evangelicals. 2. The signers' position on biblical inerrancy is irrelevant. 3. There was no measurable AGW when the Bible was written, so one wouldn't expect statements on it. 4. The biblical passages used in the ECI statement were ones that support the ideas of caring for the poor and practicing good stewardship of Earth's resources. These principles are widely accepted as being in accord with the Bible as a whole, and with orthodox Christianity. -
JosHagelaars at 09:14 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I have just read the RTCC interview, the level of intolerance is unbelievable. The national anthem of the USA speaks of "land of the free and home of the brave". For me Hayhoe is clearly the brave one and it seems to me that a lot of people in the USA think that the "free" part is only applicable to others having exactly the same ideas as they have. This looks like the return of the Spanish Inquisition, another era of Enlightenment is needed. I'm not a believer myself, but it is good to hear that science and a personal religious belief don't have to exclude each other. I hope that Katharine Hayhoe doesn't give up and also will be able to enjoy her climate-work. -
Chris G at 09:09 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Interesting discussion. Regarding the use of "cognitive dissonance", I think it is being used incorrectly. I believe it more accurately means that feeling of confusion and discomfort when you have distinct bits of information in your head, you believe them to all be true, and yet they conflict with each other. It is a feeling associated with conflicting information, but is not the information itself, and it only makes itself evident when the conflict is recognised. For instance, if someone you trust tells you that a good friend has done something awful. It can be identified with statements to the effect that, "I just don't know what to believe." or, "There must be some other explanation." (Hmm, all of a sudden Merchants of Doubt comes to mind.) It provokes a response based on emotion; as Rob Painting has noted, an easy way out of the dissonance is to reject part of the information. I think Gingerbaker exemplifies the tendency to think in Us and Them terms. It is important to break the habit of doing this; otherwise, it the division only widens. Then you end up with irrational scenarios where whatever the other side says must be wrong because the other side said it. My guess is that Gingrich's views on other issues are compatible with Hayhoe's, and so she felt no compunction against helping him. In her mind, I'm guessing, religious faith, party affiliation, and belief in science are independent; that appears not to be the case for many people. -
dana1981 at 08:55 AM on 16 January 2012Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
MMM - we're considering doing an analysis of Michaels 2002. It's a relatively low-impact paper though - only Michaels ever seems to cite it, so it's just a question about whether it's worth the effort. It might be interesting though. Paul Magnus - there could be a small natural contribution to the warming (solar and/or volcanic). Gillett found a very small natural contribution from 1961 to 2010. -
Colin at 08:44 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Fair enough John, I stand corrected. But I think you've missed my point... This web site, and every other site I've seen is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data, bolstered by it's own interpretation, to convince the reader. Each side ridicules the other as being uninformed, biased, unqualified etc etc. This very web site has sunk to the adolescent level of name calling... "Baked Curry", "Christy Crocks", "Lindzen Illusions". However, my point is simply that nobody seems to want to discuss the cost of the cure. As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription. I can't understand why that concept seems so difficult... -
TOP at 08:26 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
In regard to her manifesto and the signatories:- The same standard regarding a Biblical position to GW should be applied as is presented here: There is no consensus. It obviously isn't settled in the evangelical community that one can hold to a Biblical position and the position presented in ECI Statement is certainly not mainstream.
- While there are 500 signatories, a few of which are well known, many come from the liberal side of evangelical Christianity which doesn't necessarily hold to the Bible being inerrant and inspired.That there are 500 isn not indicative of any kind of shift in thinking. 500 or 5000 signatures could probabably be obtained objecting to the manifesto and Hayhoe's position.
- The Bible itself makes no statements about AGW one way or the other.
- The use of the Bible in the ECI manifesto is "cherry picking" and not acceptible in the Biblical hermeneutics or science.
If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.Biblical Hermeneutics
-
129CBRider at 08:18 AM on 16 January 2012CO2 lags temperature
Which causes what it kinda irrelevant if you consider the direct relationship between average global atmospheric temperatures and atmospheric CO2 content tells us that the next glacerization will be as extreme as the current rise in CO2 content, throwing us into an Ice Age the likes of which history has never seen, possibly only leaving a band around the equator without ice. -
Rob Painting at 08:01 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Manwichstick - Tatoosh Island (at the entrance to the estuary containing Puget Sound) has seen a drop in pH much lower than fossil fuel emissions would suggest, so clearly there is some other aspect which is not yet understood. It happens to be a region of strong natural upwelling (of highly acidified deep water), but not just the 'imported' Pacific oyster is struggling there - wild mussel populations are poised upon the brink too. This is indeed very,very serious, and it's disappointing that an agency tasked with protecting the environment has to be taken to court to even acknowledge the damage being done. -
r.pauli at 07:14 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Yum oysters. We excel in denial. No problem here. We just ignore inconvenient facts. And that pesky EPA will soon be gone. The Puget Sound region is the land of falling bridge engineering failures and ignored science. Seattle is digging a below sea level traffic tunnel right on the waterfront and across an active fault. We are home to the Gates Foundation that heavily invests in coal. And Boeing is happily building planes for decades into the future - even tho US airports are starting to ground planes in summer heat. And remember it was a good thing Mt St Helens erupted on a Sunday - the very day that denialists like the sleep in. Move along. We call Seattle the Emerald City. Nothing to see here. No problems. Nothing to worry about. Pay no attention to that EPA behind the curtain. -
amhartley at 07:12 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Maybe some of you are aware of this effort http://creationcare.org/blog.php?blog=19 to "engage" with global warming, motivated by Christian concern for the earth & for the "least of these my brethren." -
william5331 at 07:00 AM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Spikes in methane at the end of the last an previous ice periods withing the present 2.5m year ice age were not observed but spikes in Carbon dioxide were. Since the end of these ice periods was in sinc with Milankovitch obliquity, it is unlikely that the rise in CO2 was the cause of the start of the interglacials but rather the result. Since methane, on a geological time scale, is instantly converted to CO2, we would be unlikely to pick up a methane spike (in ice cores) but rater to observe it as a Carbon dioxide spike. The likely source of this methane would be the accumulation of methane clathrate under the continental ice sheets with the methane, over the 100,000 year life of the ice sheet coming from underground shale, coal and oil plus the anaerobic break down of organic material This would be "0ld" carbon and so carbon dating from the end of the most recent ice period might show some carbon dating anomalies. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html -
Manwichstick at 06:48 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
I believe a .1 change in pH is equivalent to a 30% increase in concentration. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Gingerbaker... Actually, I think it makes total sense that she would write a chapter on climate change for Gingrich's book. Gingrich is also very religious and I think it's with the religious that she wants to convey the science of climate change. It's just sad that it's turned into yet another scene of hate-mongering from extremists. -
Manwichstick at 06:14 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Katherine has been fighting the good climate fight for a long time. She voluntarily spoke at the Ontario Association of Physics Teachers conference and did not ask for any money in return. Along with her parents, she has been in the science education business for her whole life as far as I can tell. She has been working "from the inside". Years ago she addressed the REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection) - I didn't such a thing existed - . Her lecture may still be available online somewhere. I'm not sure how religious she was before marrying her minister husband, but none-the-less she helps those in Texas to reflect on what the moral course of action ought to be. I am saddened to hear about her getting the hate mail. I think she is awesome and approaching this very nobly. I also think she maybe credited for the expression "climate weirding" in her efforts to help increase the climate literacy of those she tries to inform. I predict that she will keep doing what she has been doing and not slow down because of the personal attacks. -
muoncounter at 06:12 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Dr. Hayhoe might have been impressed by Newt's own words on the environment in "A Contract with the Earth," Gingrich and Maple, 2007: I am convinced, however, that the environment is an issue that transcends politics. Americans deserve candor on this subject: why the environment is so important to all of us, and why the time has come to act on what we know. But he was sitting squarely on the fence at that time: We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data ... However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn't be surprising, given the role that human beings have played in other environmental events ... He was, once upon a time, almost a radical green: The greatest dangers to biodiversity on the planet today are poor people cutting down tropical forests for money and killing endangered species for meat. Wealthy people can afford to protect the forests and protect endangered species. Only to find that this particular Newt could switch from green to red in a heartbeat: The candidate immediately stated that global warming “hasn’t been totally proven” and even if it were, he would still oppose a cap-and-trade solution to combat carbon emissions which, as Gingrich argued, would “turn over the entire economy to the EPA.” He offered the following analogy to explain his position. “The Dutch face the problem of oceans. They decided to build dikes instead of lowering the sea.” Poor choice of examples, as the Dutch are hardly standing still on climate change: As sea levels swell and storms intensify, the Dutch are spending billions of euros on "floating communities" that can rise with surging flood waters, on cavernous garages that double as urban floodplains and on re-engineering parts of a coastline as long as North Carolina's. The government is engaging in "selective relocation" of farmers from flood-prone areas and expanding rivers and canals to contain anticipated swells. Perhaps not being included in Newt's book will, in the long run, work out as a good thing for Dr. Hayhoe. -
Albatross at 06:06 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I sincerely hope Dr. Hayhoe is following this. This is obviously a difficult time for you and your family, but know that regardless of what mean-spirited, hateful and ideological people might believe, you have truth, honour, integrity and science on your side. You also have the support of many, many people who respect and admire you and your work. Thank you for everything that you do and for standing up to bullies like Marc Morano and Rush Limbaugh. Stay strong. -
Gingerbaker at 05:55 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Rob Honeycutt: "Gingrich previously had made very clear statements about AGW being a concern and there's even a commercial with Gingrich and Boxer talking about their common position on it. It's only since he became a presidential candidate that he shifted his position. " I understand that, Rob, but it doesn't help me to understand why she would donate her efforts to support Newt Gingrich, his political goals, or those of the Republican party. None of which have any history of the slightest inclination to help "...Our global neighbours, the poor and disadvantaged, the people who don't have the resources to adapt". Do you think Hanson or Mann would write a book chapter - for free - for any perennial Republican candidate? I wonder whether her motivations to do this were not exclusively to promote climate change awareness, but rather also included political motivations typical of evangelical Christians, who vote very strongly Republican. If so, then I would argue that her religious and political affiliations might well be in severe cognitive dissonance with her claimed humanitarian and scientific goals. Not that there is anything wrong with promoting the dissemination of the scientific facts surrounding climate change, but doing it in the service of the Republican party, which has demonstrated its anti-science biases to anyone's satisfaction, simply doesn't jive with Hayhoe's professed missions. -
John Mason at 05:45 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
She has my full support, although I am not an especially religious person. I believe in fair play. What Morano did was unforgivable. That is not the first time, though. Who on earth would actually want to be remembered in toasts, when they have departed, as a hate-monger? I do not recognise the motivations for this that he has. The world has always - when it has worked OK - followed science: this is how we started to cure diseases such as Smallpox. Morano's mode-of-existence, instead, seems to be to attempt to rubbish any facts that do not match up to his rather strange worldview. Hence Climate Depot. He should be ashamed of himself. I could not live with myself if I were responsible for that. And you are responsible for that, Marc Morano. You should, indeed, be ashamed of yourself, were it that you knew shame! So come - answer me - and justify your methods. Come and justify why you think encouraging hate-mail to hard-working people is somehow cool. Come and tell us why you splatter your front page with the email addresses of folk with the obvious intention of getting their inboxes cluttered with messages of hate. Come tell us why you think the whipping-up of hatred against gentle Christian folk is a bit of a laugh. And then we may have peace (as Theoden suggested to Saruman). Marc Morano, respond honestly. It's your call... John -
Carbon500 at 05:42 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
What sort of pH changes are being talked about here? -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
It's really a damn shame that certain people have politicized climate science so much that a good and smart person as Hayhoe could receive so much hate mail for doing nothing more than providing a requested chapter on climate science. Something is very wrong with this picture. Kerry Emanuel recently also received a lot of hate mail, some of it targeting his wife, for saying that the political denial reactions to climate science sometimes make him feel ashamed to be American. Sometimes I feel the same way. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:18 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Gingerbaker... Gingrich previously had made very clear statements about AGW being a concern and there's even a commercial with Gingrich and Boxer talking about their common position on it. It's only since he became a presidential candidate that he shifted his position. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:15 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I have to say, I think that people like Katherine Hayhoe and Barry Bickmore are very likely the most important individuals in the entire climate debate. They are so important for starting to address the cognitive dissonance we see with conservatives and the religious. I can rattle off scientific research all day long and there are people who will never ever believe me because I am a liberal atheist. But Katherine and Barry are in a very unique position that helps advance the broad public acceptance of climate science. If you read these comments, Katherine, thank you for your work! -
Gingerbaker at 05:07 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Why did an informed woman, who professes to have empathy for "Our global neighbours, the poor and disadvantaged, the people who don't have the resources to adapt" donate her efforts and expertise to provide arch Republican Newt Gingrich, of all people, with a campaign tool? -
r.pauli at 04:57 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Misanthropes are running the aslyum. Clearly the true problem is our self-contempt and species contempt. -
muoncounter at 04:31 AM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Eric#16, You raise an interesting point. In the graph of atmospheric methane concentration posted by Tom C in #6, the years 1999-2006 are conspicuously flat. Since 2006, there's an equally conspicuous change in trend. Compare that with the graph below, showing US natural gas production: --source advanced fracking technologies starting becoming available about five years ago and boosted domestic gas production by almost 25% since 2006. The boom in unconventional shale gas made America the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas, when it passed Russia in 2009. Your link to Howarth 2011 makes a strong case that methane emissions from hydro-fractured shale gas production is significantly higher than from conventional gas. ... 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. As you suggest, it would be a very interesting study (albeit off-topic here) to compare volumes released from these two sources. Is it possible that as new gas production continues increasing, we are doubling down on methane? The great science experiment in the sky continues. -
Alexandre at 03:38 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
My congrats to Katharine. I hope other scientists follow her initiative. -
muoncounter at 03:13 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
See the website for her book, A Climate for Change and the LA Times interview. Her book for evangelicals, "A Climate for Change," sells tepidly because Christian bookstores won't stock it. At a senior citizen center in Lubbock, a man shaking with rage shouted an expletive-studded monologue about how the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. At a talk for Texas Tech business school students, her arguments were simply dismissed. At the end of any given talk, perhaps one person might tell Hayhoe she's convinced him of the scientific consensus on global warming. Some might say that we're known by the company we keep. Hmm, Hayhoe on one side; the likes of Limbaugh and Morano on the other. No surprise, Gingrich picked the wrong side. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:23 AM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
For anthropogenic methane production, that is tracked by the EPA (along with other non-CO2 GHG and their sector emissions sources) and is available replete with projections through 2020 here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf The specific methane emissions data you wish are available in Appendix A-2, starting on page 155. Other useful info + eye-candy is here: http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf Apologies, but I lack the time to do the comparison you seek. -
whitelaughter at 01:56 AM on 16 January 2012It's not bad
Interesting article, thanks for the mental meal! A couple of questions: I'm in Australia - will we get *fewer* droughts as a result of global warming? (Thanks for the video link @muoncounter, was awesome). It's kinda important, given we've got a carbon tax as the current political football. Also, can it be predicted *when* (ie which season) increases/decreases in rain will occur? The true nightmare in OZ is a wet spring followed by a hot summer, as that means insane bushfires. However a dry spring/wet summer is awesome. Makes a huge difference! - What about refugees? How many millions of people are going to have to move? That's going to create a huge cost, surely. - Finally...ok, this one's creepy, but I have to ask. If (i) it's true that most human genetic diversity is in Africa, and (ii) Africa gets it in the neck, are we going to lose great wodges of genes that could be used for treating inherited diseases etc? I don't mean to treat people as harvestable cattle, but if it is a genetic loss, and pointing out the loss can reduce the likelihood of them being left to die, then it needs to be said... -
MMM at 01:38 AM on 16 January 2012Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
Er. What I meant to post was, given that Chip raised it, was that it would be interesting to look at Michaels 2002 and see how it held up with time. The last time I looked at it, I remember a third of the paper being devoted to how everyone was overpredicting the CO2 concentration increase because it had held steady at 1.5 ppm for the last 20+ years. Of course, in the 9 years since, CO2 concentration has gone up at >2 ppm, as many others were predicting beforehand... -
Kevin C at 01:01 AM on 16 January 2012Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
Tom: The data terminates in 2005 because I was trying to reproduce the BEST figure, which is a 120-month running mean, and therefore terminates 60 months before the end of the data in March 2010. The other datasets run until 60 months before Oct 2011, when I did the calculation. Sorry, I should have stated that. The land-masked CRU index does show substantial divergence from the BEST data over the last decade, if you look at the 12 month or even 60 month running means. In particular CRU gives substantially different results for any trend you calculate starting since 1998. However the differences are largely ironed out by the 120-month running mean. I suspect therefore that any calculation using the whole run of the data, such as the one described in this article, will be minimally affected by the choice of temperature data. (When I first started look at this a few months back you suggested adjusting the coverage the different gridded datasets to get an accurate indication of the effect of poor sampling in CRUTEM3 and ultimately HADCRUT. That was a good idea, since it is very simple and factors out all the complex issues of baselines and so on. I'm hoping to have the results in a week or two.) -
Rob Painting at 23:02 PM on 15 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
You can well understand why she's being targeted by the hate-mongers. She is gorgeous, confident, bubbly and very articulate. Are you sure she's a climate scientist? Doesn't fit with this stereotypical image I have. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:53 PM on 15 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Daniel Bailey, thanks for posting that graph, I didn't mean to suggest that there is not a large (over 2.5x) manmade hockey stick. But I was wondering how much is caused by our direct emissions perhaps in China and unconventional gas production (http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf) and how much from the rise in Arctic temperature as described in the article? It seems to me that direct methane production predominates for at least two reasons, the lack of prior interglacial rise and the recent pause perhaps corresponding to the decline of the former Soviet Union (http://165.91.85.82/class/atmo689-gs/lectureweek4/2003GL018126.pdf). But what about the more recent resumption? -
JMurphy at 22:46 PM on 15 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Disgusting how people can be so hateful and threatening when they can't face up to reality - especially those who would call themselves religious. Disgusting, too, how Gingrich dropped the relevant chapter just so he could appeal to the deniers within the Republican party. Hypocritical as well. Unfortunately, America is becoming a laughing-stock, politically speaking, where anti-science, religion and denial of reality is seemingly thought of as being the right qualities for a certain (largish ?) section of society.
Prev 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 Next