Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
Comments 68901 to 68950:
-
Fred Staples at 08:13 AM on 4 December 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Why is this point so hard to understand Sphaerica?. Next time you pass a power station,ask yourself why all that energy from the cooling towers is being wasted as evaporation to the atmosphere? Why is it not fed back to heat the boilers? The answer is that it is sink energy, and the boiler is its source. Sinks cannot heat sources. The energy in the sink is of a (much) lower quality than the energy from the source. Entropy increases during the energy transfer. The earth is the source of heat for the atmosphere. The back-radiation energy from the atmosphere (Trenberth diagram – sink to source) cannot be considered separately from the primary radiation (source to sink). The useful energy, to heat the atmosphere, is the difference between the two. They net off, as in the Petty diagram. If you still cannot see this, ask yourself what would happen if the atmosphere and the surface were at the same temperature? They would radiate against each other, but the energy transferred could not do anything. The net transfer, and the heating effect, would be zero. Remember, also, that at its effective emission altitude, the temperature of the atmosphere cannot change. It must be 255 degrees K to radiate the “bare earth” energy to space, and balance the incoming radiation. The composition of the atmosphere might change the altitude of the effective emission level, as in the “higher is colder” theory. That is why we must look at the mid and upper troposphere temperatures to detect an AGW effect. Have a look at the Met Office charts at the Hadley Centre new radio-sonde product, and the UAH satellit records. Can you see any supporting evidence to link warming to CO2? -
AnotherBee at 07:59 AM on 4 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
@26 Dorlomin, regrettably, I think that Lawson is doing more than fishing. He's playing the "science isn't settled" game. He does not have to win the argument, merely to spread sufficient doubt for the public to accept a policy of doing nothing. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:38 AM on 4 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
32, CW, The really sad thing about your hypothesis is that prior to the 1990s, arctic minimum sea ice concentrations were so great that the two major motions of the Arctic Ocean surface didn't matter one whit, because the ice was all locked up. I wonder how we got into a scenario where this is even a matter for discussion? 1979 September 15 extent:
1982 September 15 extent:
1985 September 15 extent:
-
muoncounter at 06:10 AM on 4 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
CW#32: "we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation." Note here that winter 2011 freeze-up is on track with 2007 -- and that is more than 2 std dev below the mean.
-- NSIDC News
... each decade, the October extent has started from a lower and lower point, with the record low extent during the 1980s (1984) substantially higher than the record low extent during the 1990s (1999), which in turn is substantially higher than the record low extent during the 2000s (2007).
That's not indicative of an accumulation underway. Maybe next year.
-
jimspy at 06:00 AM on 4 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Here is the Discovery Channel's response to my query on this issue several weeks ago: "Frozen Planet will not be airing on Discovery Channel in the United States until early next year and many programming and scheduling decisions have yet to be made. We do know that the stories, messages and essence of all of the BBC’s seven episodes will be represented throughout the truly landmark series." -
ClimateWatcher at 05:56 AM on 4 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
31 - John Russell, Yes, that animation, based on a peer reviewed study, demonstrates the motion of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. The ice moves with the bouys denoted by the red dots in the animation. Watch as they move out of the Arctic to the east of Greenland. There are two major motions of the Arctic Ocean surface - the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift:
If the through flow current dominates, more ice is lost.
If the gyre dominates, multiyear ice just spins around and accumulates.
To be sure, global temperatures have increased.
But when one looks at the temperatures of stations north of 80 degrees, 2009 and 2010 were actually cooler than normal during the melt season and 2011 witnessed remarkably normal melt season temperatures:
Arctic Temperatures
The Arctic Ice model referenced above indicates complete loss of summer ice within about five years and continued annual decline thereafter.
On the other hand, if dynamics are more significant, we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation.
The tests of these hypotheses are at hand in the coming years, regardless of what we may think about them.
Response:[DB] "But when one looks at the temperatures of stations north of 80 degrees, 2009 and 2010 were actually cooler than normal during the melt season"
Umm, no:
"and 2011 witnessed remarkably normal melt season temperatures"
And no, again:
[Source]
Readers should take note that the use of DMI (80° north temps) is a known skeptic diverserionary tactic for these reasons:
- 80° north is not global nor very much even regional
- The Arctic summer melt season dominates near-surface temps due to the enormous volumes of melting ice
[Source]
"On the other hand, if dynamics are more significant, we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation."
No. You ignore the extra warmth being accumulated in the Arctic due to increased transport of warming oceanic waters into the Arctic (via the North Atlantic and through the Bering Strait from the Pacific), not to mention the increased 24/7/365 warming from increased CO2 levels.
-
John Russell at 03:31 AM on 4 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
@Climatewatcher #21: I think this animation, based on actual data, tells all you need to know about your 'testable hypothesis'. -
dorlomin at 03:23 AM on 4 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Personally I think that all Lawson is doing here is fishing. He is not trying to land a blow on Attenbourgh but is trying to make some waves and get himself a bit of publicity and hoping to get in the papers and maybe the TV news. He is smart enough to know that when it comes to a battle over credibility he will lose this one, but this is about raising awareness of his think tanks and him as its spokesperson. He is likely to be continuing his effort to make himself the "go to" person for a sceptic quote whenever journalists are looking for a 'balance' quote. -
Tjall at 03:04 AM on 4 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Thanks for the warm welcome ;-), the explanations and all the links. Interesting stuff. A lot of reading to do for me. Tjall -
DSL at 02:52 AM on 4 December 2011It's the sun
In other words, Don, you're pushing failure. -
DSL at 02:35 AM on 4 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Side note (but related): I was watching Aqua Kids this morning on a FOX channel in the US. One of the news reports was on ocean acidification. It pointed out that the oceans have taken up at least half of the anthro CO2 released in the industrial age, threatening a number of species sensitive to changes in ocean pH. The clown fish was given as an example. The report finished by saying there was still time to do something. It's a dubious sort of silver lining: the news for kids is more honest than the news for adults. -
SocialBlunder at 01:21 AM on 4 December 2011We're heading into an ice age
Created this post to explain Milankovitch cycles. It uses links to NOAA and NASA sites instead of SkS as deniers are complaining about the bias and religiosity of SkS. Milutin Milankovitch calculated the effect of eccentricity cycles in the 1920's. This effect was validated by ice core samples in 1976. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch.php - follow links under "on the shoulders of giants" Astronomical calculation indicate insolation should increase _gradually_ over the next 25,000 years. We aren't due for a decrease in insolation from orbital eccentricity for 50-100,000 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html While Milankovitch cycles can explain centuries long changes, they do not explain the rapid greenhouse gas caused changes in the past decades. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.... I hope the fact that the Milankovitch theory you appear to be just learning has been well known and accounted for in climatology for over 30 years gives you the ability to better discriminate between scientific websites and dodgy ones. Hint: the dodgy ones wonder if the current warming is due to natural variation.Moderator Response: [John Hartz} It would be helpful if you could provide us with specific examples of what deniers are saying about SkS. Thank you in advance for your assistance. -
Riccardo at 23:23 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Nicholas Berini request made me think of the correlation between southern and northern hemisphere sea ice. Here is what I get:
A few numbers:
- the slope of the linear fit is -0.25 SH Km2/NH Km2 and (barely) significant;
- though, the determination coefficient R2 is relatively low (0.22);
- the Pearson correlation coefficient is -0.34, not much but it's there;
- strange enough, ice area (from the same source) shows a smaller and non-significant slope, R2 is just 0.07 and the Pearson correlation coefficient is -0.1
A correlation betweeen NH and SH sea ice apparently exists, though rather weak. If they both reflect the response to a warming world, the simple sum of the two extents makes no sense, let alone the trivial observation that SH sea ice is increasing. Rather, the sum of the absolute values of the anomalies would better represent the common cause. But we know that it's not that simple, we need the physical representation of the processes, i.e. GCMs.
-
John Russell at 21:27 PM on 3 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
I question the use of the title half way down the post, 'Other highlights', John. I'm not sure an extreme weather event that caused the death of thousands of people should ever be referred to as a 'highlight' -- that is, "the most exciting or memorable part of an event or period of time, to use the dictionary definition. And it does rather play into the hands of those who would cast us as wallowing in disaster. Perhaps 'notable events', 'lowlights', 'low points' or 'low spots' -- take your pick -- would be more appropriate? -
Paul D at 20:38 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Cornelius and nigelj I think Lawson is driven by ideology. If there are business links then it is because the leaders of those businesses share that ideology. I think it should be made clear that not all businesses and conservative politicians in the UK share the extreme views of Lawson et al. Zac Goldsmith is Conservative, but his ideas aren't a great deal of different from most people that have concern about AGW and the environment. The core issues are compatible with any political principles, the issue is how you achieve the goals. -
John Russell at 20:15 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
The statement in the post -- "Sadly, the BBC feels that sales in the climate denial-heavy United States will be more successful if it drops the climate change episode in sales of the series abroad" -- is not quite correct, Dana. From what I've read the BBC offers the last episode as an option. The decision to take it is purely for the buying broadcaster. On the subject of David Attenborough's comments. From what he's said about it, it would seem that last episode sticks very much to the facts about how climate change is impacting life in polar regions and, in his words, is uncontroversial. He appears to avoid controversy by not asking the question, "are we causing this?". That's why Lawson's ignorant attack is so inappropriate. More on this at Carbon Brief. -
Brian Purdue at 19:17 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
It’s quite likely that Lord Lawson’s information on global sea ice came from (Lord) Monckton. Monckton quote: “In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice.” -
oneiota at 16:54 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Further to #19 here is a link to a position analysis from the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre with regards to Antarctic sea ice. This analysis gives a clear explantion as to the particular dynamics involved and the impacts of change. -
Bernard J. at 15:20 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Keith Pickering's post at #3 and Dana's at #4 deserve to be highlighted. Lawson is ignoring (either though simple ignorance of basic science or through deliberate intent to obfuscate) the fact that Antarctica is sitting on a thumping great continental land mass, whilst the Arctic ice cap simply floats on ocean. He's also ignoring the thumping great ozone hole over the Antarctic. These factors greatly affect how much ice forms over each pole, over time. Consequence - the Arctic ice cover will essentially decrease consistently with global warming, whilst Antarctic ice cover will likely increase to a small degree in initial stages but decrease with more extreme warming anomalies. To say otherwise is to misrepresent the science: in effect, it is to lie about the science... I hope that Attenborough takes the opportunity to clear up the matter, and to show the public just how mendaciously Lawson is playing loose with the scientific truth. -
michael sweet at 13:17 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Daniel, I think your graph is mis-labeled and should ony read global sea ice area. Here is another graph showing the same data.. (source Cryosphere Today) The anomalies are the red line at the bottom of the graph. Two years ago at WUWT they used to use this graph to "proove" the sea ice was increasing, but since it is obviously going down now they no longer post it. Moderator Response: [DB] I will contact Neven to get more info on it (from his graphs page). -
Daniel Bailey at 12:29 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Amidst calls of RTFOP, apologies. Been a long day. Extraneous graph removed. -
dana1981 at 12:19 PM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Nicholas and DB - the final frame in the animated GIF shows global sea ice extent. -
Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 3 December 2011It's the sun
Sphaerica @944, and interesting if vague set of rainfall hindcasts/forcasts for Australia. As noted in the text, the hindcast of 1982 failed emphatically. What is more, the purported explanation of the failure (the intensity of the cycle) sits uncomfortably with predicted "minor cycle". How catastrophically the hindcast failed is seen below:
Further, the 1991-1993 predictions also fail as a prediction for Australia (as opposed to Victoria), lining up as it does with the 1991 to 1995 drought:
"By late 1991/92, very dry conditions were developing over parts of eastern Australia, though the southeast had some very wet spells and flooding in the winter of 1991 and summer of 1991/92. The 1991/92 Wet season failed over most of northern Australia -it was the driest Wet season on record in the Northern Territory. Generally dry conditions persisted through the first half of 1992. But between late 1992 and late 1993, El Niño conditions waned, waxed, then waned again, with heavy rain and flooding over southeastern Australia during the two waning phases. Over Queensland, however, the drought continued unabated through this period, and extended south over eastern New South Wales, setting the scene for disastrous bushfires in January 1994."
Indeed, looking at a chart of Australian rainfall, it is very hard to see any evidence of Gaddes' cycles at all:
In more detail, here are the years covered by the predictions:
1978 wet 525.6 mm
1979 dry 455.6 mm
1980 np 433.0 mm
1981 dry 535.1 mm
1982 wet 421.4 mm
1983 dry 499.2 mm
1984 wet 555.2 mm
1985 dry 398.8 mm
1986 wet 391.9 mm
1987 wet 453.4 mm
1988 dry 459.8 mm
1989 wet 483.7 mm
1991 wet 469.2 mm
1990 dry 417.6 mm
1992 dry 452.4 mm
1993 wet 499.3 mm
The mean over that period is 465.7. I have indicated wet years under the mean, and dry years over the mean by bolding. As can be seen, by this 1/3rd of predictions are false, and some by very large margins. (The probability is slightly worse if 1980 was supposed to be a wet year, as is likely.) Assuming all years where predictions, the probability of achieving that result by chance was 9.2%, so the results are not statistically significant. Given that at least half the results are retrodictions, the performance is singularly unimpressive.
-
nigelj at 11:05 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Cornelius Breadbasket #1 You inquire why are conservatives so sceptical about climate change? It may be business links or maybe its related to the fact that conservatism is by its very nature opposed to change. So climate change and society changing to deal with it are both resisted. -
Nicholas Berini at 10:44 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
I think the changing graphics are great, but I would love to see an area chart of the sea ice extent gained in antarctica vs. that lost in the arctic (similar to the "where is the heat going - the oceans" figure). Maybe this is accomplished more simply as a bar graph of "net ice extent change since 1979" - antarctic (small positive), artcic (large negative), global (larger negative). Great Post! -
Tom Dayton at 10:32 AM on 3 December 2011SkS public talks in Canada and AGU, San Francisco
It's unlikely I'll be able to attend the AGU conference this year, but I'd like to at least meet John and other SkSers for a beer in San Fran. I suggest The Monk's Kettle, but I'm open to other suggestions. -
NewYorkJ at 10:08 AM on 3 December 2011SkS public talks in Canada and AGU, San Francisco
For those who aren't attending these events, useful would be SkS summary writeups for these and other climate science presentations. The webcasts help, but there don't seem to be many of these. These events go largely ignored among the media (some silly Heartland Institute "conference" gets more coverage despite being orders of magnitude smaller and less credible) so there's a great opportunity to communicate climate science findings to the public. -
shoyemore at 09:39 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Just saw the Grand Old Man of natural history broadcasting, David Attenborough, interviewed on the BBC 10 o'clock news. He was clearly concerned, said the evidence for climate change was "incontrovertible", and that the changes "could be catastrophic". When asked about the dangers of being alarmist, he answered in a pained sort of voice "I try not to be". Apparently, the show on BBC next Tuesday is the one not being shown in the US, and is very much a personal statement by Attenborough. Sad that American viewers will not see this because the network magnates are chickensh*t scared of losing advertising revenue - that is the only reason I can think of for not broadcasting what should be the crown jewel of the series. -
Don Gaddes at 09:34 AM on 3 December 2011It's the sun
For muoncounter(943) The daily Rotation Rate of the Earth is included in the Ratios Principle equation as No. 1 Constant (Earth Period) For DB [Response] Yes, the Seasons (Obliquity) are included in the Equation as No.2 Constant. If the Forecasts (Past and Future) are proven to have veracity, then I am obviously not 'Pushing Failure.' -
Dibble at 08:33 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
@7"The GWPF have dubious and oft refuted people like Ross McKitrick, Plimer, Happer and Carter on their advisory council. Say no more...they are not interested in science at all but instead political and ideological spin." Not forgetting the politcal / sports scientist (and equally refuted), Benny Peiser -
Paul D at 07:53 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Attenborough interview about the Frozen Planet series and climate change. I think it should work outside the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15994284 -
John Hartz at 07:52 AM on 3 December 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
Nearly two-thirds of moderate or liberal Republicans believe there is solid evidence for global warming, Pew poll finds Source: “Changing climate of Republican opinion doesn't agree with Tea Party” Th Guardian (UK), Dec 2, 2011 To access the article, click here. -
Composer99 at 07:46 AM on 3 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
One good way of looking at it is this, Tjall: As of the start of the industrial revolution, the global mean temperature was approximately 6°C higher than during the depths of the previous glacial period. 6°C isn't much (you might notice a temperature shift of that magnitude without it impinging on your comfort), but in terms of global mean temperature it's the difference between ice sheets covering large chunks of continental North America, Europe & Asia and not. Thus, even the <1°C shift since the Industrial Revolution can cause (and has already caused) large-scale changes & disruptions. Hence the reason why there is an attempt to get nation-states to agree to prevent global warming greater than 2°C since pre-industrial times. -
michael sweet at 07:21 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
How can we work to gether to get the essay on climate ethics published in local mainstream media? -
Albatross at 07:03 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Actually Pete Dunkelberg has posted links to the Manabe paper's here. -
dana1981 at 07:01 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Yes, the GWPF is horrid. They appear to be the ones who originally made the 'hide the decline' accusation about BEST, later parroted by Curry. -
Albatross at 06:51 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Keith @3 and Dana @4, Indeed. Manabe's seminal modelling work in the early nineties predicted this asymmetrical response of the polar regions. Recently Richard Alley hinted that this may be about to change in the near future, but he was not more specific. Lawson works for the disinformation and lobby group GWPF. These charlatans are again playing the trick of accusing others of exactly what you are doing, in this case not being objective. This disingenuous trick of the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW is getting very tired and old. The GWPF have dubious and oft refuted people like Ross McKitrick, Plimer, Happer and Carter on their advisory council. Say no more...they are not interested in science at all but instead political and ideological spin. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:27 AM on 3 December 2011Southern sea ice is increasing
Manabe et al. 1991, 1992 Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part I: Annual mean response Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2 Part II: Seasonal response Want more? -
John Hartz at 06:12 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Riccardo #5: You're welcome. I highly recommend that SkS obtain permission to repost "An Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Is This A New Kind of Assault on Humanity?”. Climate deniers such as Nigel Lawson are indeed skating on very thin moral and legal ice. -
Riccardo at 06:01 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
John Hartz thank you for the link. I'd like to quote one more sentence:"We are here today to encourage greater reflection on the moral travesty of the climate change disinformation campaign. We will argue that this campaign is some kind of new assault on humanity."
Greater reflection, indeed. -
dana1981 at 05:56 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Good point keith. I recall a RealClimate post that pointed out that a delayed Antarctic ice response to global warming was predicted by climate models decades ago. I'm not sure why Lawson thinks one has to point out this expected Antarctic result when discussing the Arctic sea ice decline in order to be "objective." To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I do not think that word means what Lawson thinks it means. -
keithpickering at 05:48 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Another important point to make is that the slight rise in Antarctic sea ice is predicted by climate models and is an expected result of a warmer climate. That's because the Southern Ocean is at a lower absolute latitude that the Arctic Ocean, and is outside of the permanent polar high. This means that it's a wet area (a lot of precip) as opposed to a dry area. Increasing global heat drives a more rapid hydrological cycle, and the wet areas get more rain and snow, including the Southern Ocean. The temperature at which ice freezes is determined by the salinity of the sea water, and with more rain and snow the surface waters become fresher and freeze at higher temperatures. Thus more rain and snow makes the sea more likely to freeze, while the warmer temps make the sea less likely to freeze. In the Southern Ocean, these two factors nearly balance out, but not quite. The slight increase of sea ice we observe is the correctly predicted outcome of these opposing forces. It's expected to last another few decades, when increasing temps will win out. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:24 AM on 3 December 2011It's the sun
Don,...the current predilection for temperature fixation is just an attempt to 'prop up' AGW.
You must be kidding. Not only do you want to supplant all of climate science with your own vague, incomplete and unsupported hypothesis, but you even want to supplant the metric that global mean temperature is a good (the best) criterion on which to evaluate global climate, and to instead replace it with total precipitation? Except in your case you have only evaluated this based entirely on a simple binary wet/dry interpretation of rainfall in unspecified areas of Australia alone? Are you serious? I would very strongly suggest that if you want to supplant climate science with your own theories, you begin first by learning more about the theories that you believe are wrong but everyone else accepts, rather than focusing all of your energy on the one theory that you believe and everyone else rejects. Of course, sticking to what you know and blindly pushing it with complete and total dismissal of what other people say is the easy course. It's also unlikely to be remotely effective. You would like everyone (thousands and thousands of scientists) to abandon all of climate science based on hand waving about magnetic fields and pages and pages of this (which, again, simply ties magical cycles to yet-to-be-clarified "wet/dry" measurements of rainfall in Australia):
Your paper has been "peer reviewed." Address the issues or accept that you have failed. Continuing to push failure is not advancing science, it's just being a PITA.
-
John Hartz at 05:15 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
“An Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Is This A New Kind of Assault on Humanity?” is an ethical and moral critique of the climate change disinformation campaign. The critique was presented an event at COP-17 in Durban, South Africa on November 29th 2011. In addition to Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law at Penn State University, a number of philosophers, scientists, and lawyers who work on the ethical dimensions of climate change participated in this event. They included Stephen Gardiner from the University of Washington, Jon Rosales from St. Lawrence University, Katherine Kintzell from the Center for Humans and Nature and the IUCN Environmental Law Commission Ethics Working Group, Kenneth Shockley from the University of Buffalo, and Marilyn Averill from the University of Colorado at Boulder. To access this “must read” report, click here. -
muoncounter at 04:28 AM on 3 December 2011It's the sun
Don Gaddes#941: "I believe we are accompanied on this journey by our Magnetic Field." That is not what geomagnetism folks mean when they speak of 'drift.' Why not include the 'ratios' based on the earth's daily rotation: 360 degrees per day! "Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?'" If you base your ideas on magnetic 'drift,' it would be wise to take a serious approach to that concept - beginning with using the word drift as it is understood. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 3 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Tjall... If you are new to climate science this is a very reasonable question. Common sense would tell you that, hey, the temperature can go up and down 5-10C over the course of a single day. What's the big deal if the temperature is 2C warmer? The answer goes a little against common sense and I think is best explained by this diagram: Here. Even 1 or 2C of rise in the global average temperature can have significant impact on extreme events. We are already starting to see these extreme events around the world in terms of 500 and 1000 year weather events, both floods and droughts. There's a lot to learn about this issue and SkS is a good place to find solid information. And remember, you don't even have to take any of the SkS authors word for anything. Every article on this site is fully cited with the relevant published literature. If you get that niggling feeling something doesn't sound right, follow the published science. Ask questions. Be genuinely skeptical. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 03:42 AM on 3 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
I'm a Limey/Pom and quite familiar with Nigel Lawson. Although he is not quite as absurd as Monckton, his attraction to myths is very similar and his politics are never far below the surface. What is it with (C)conservative politicians and climate change? Why is a political tradition linked with conservation and good business based on hard-nosed facts being so misdirected? Is it because they are linked to the businesses that will have to change the most to combat climate change? Excellent article by the way. I'm quite keen on seeing Attenboroughs final Frozen Planet episode distributed as widely as possible. So far the series has been wonderful. -
Riccardo at 02:15 AM on 3 December 2011Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
cynicus I understand your point and you're right in the conclusions. Though, you're first graph is not correct. When you look for the trend in a cyclic signal and you have just a few cycles, you need to carefully consider the end-point effect. If you start and end at different phases of the cycle you may get almost anything you want. Here's is an example. -
les at 00:45 AM on 3 December 2011It's the sun
Modirator DB "Now you resort to trolling by argumentarium" regarding "Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above." I think you are being unfair. This understanding of magnetic fields, along with the above statements regarding gravity, clearly belong in the comments section of the 2nd law thread - just based on the quality of the physics.Response:[DB] Point taken. ;)
-
skept.fr at 00:04 AM on 3 December 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
Tom Curtis : «Otherwise your policy seems like an absurd risk to me » De facto, we are in a no policy situation – at least, no global policy with emission targets, many local efforts in cities or countries. I think perseus article points one of the main barrier to a global policy : a reform that could threat economic growth is unlikely to be adopted. Of course, this is a stupid gamble if a short term growth implies a long term poverty due to fossil depletion and climate externalities. Where we disagree is probably the cost-benefit analysis of climate reforms and their feasability in a sustained growth perspective. Perseus and I doubt that the most ambitious target (450) is compatible with such a growth because : a) empirically, we have no example of a massive decoupling between economic growth and fossil use in the past decades, even a local example (a country that would have achieved growth during 3 ou 4 decades without increasing its emissions in absolute term, and more, that would have significantly decreased these emissions) ; b) mean energy intensity/density or EROEI of renewable energy is for the moment less than fossil energy, except in the most favourable conditions that are not necessarily the most interesting conditions for installed infrastructures of production and consumption (concentration solar plant in a desert may be productive, but few persons live in the desert and far away distribution of this energy increase costs and losses). Look at the figure SPM 5 (p. 14) of IPCC SRREN 2011 . If you defend a global and immediate reform, the important factor is the global and immediate cost of RE, not just some selective and local examples of costs in the best conditions. You see in this figure that there are some substitution opportunities at the same cost, but neither solar electricity nor ocean electricity are of real interest on a global scale, even wind mean cost is a bit over the mean range of fossil cost. South Africa (for example) produces coal, so the coal-based electricity in this country has a very low cost and to choose wind or solar would be unrational and underproductive from a strict economic point of view. Of course, a reform is progressive and we will see the costs' abatments in 2020 or 2030, but it seems untrue to assert that globally, policymakers and economic actors would choose the ideal condition of short term growth if they choose massively RE energy in their current technological productivity. (In fact, if RE energy was really more profitable than fossil energy, they would be fool to ignore it, we are supposed to live in world obsessed by immediate profitability) ; c) relative costs are just one dimension : you must also achieve a total production of the same amount of energy that the fossil ressource you substitute (or you need for development). As we have discussed, there is no realistic plan for a biofuel production that would replace a large share of oil-products in transportation in the next decades, and the total mean RE annual production of 164 IPCC scenarios in 2050 is 248 EJ, just 50% of the actual ~500 EJ, and probably 30% or 40% of the total amount we would need for 2050 in a high economic growth scenario. In spite of these pessimistic observations, I think we need urgently a global climate-energy policy because a business as usual scenario would be far too risky. But no hope for me that the most ambitious policy will be compatible with a sustained economic growth for 7, 8 then 9 billion humans. And I bet these humans will in last resort prefer a 550 ppm perspective than a socio-economic stagnation. At least, this preference will partly depend on the reduction of scientific uncertainties for climate sensitivity and regional projections.
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
