Recent Comments

Prev  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  Next

Comments 69151 to 69200:

69151. Tom Curtis at 23:36 PM on 30 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       skept.fr @50, Royer et al, 2007 has shown that climate sensitivity between 1.6 and 5.5 degrees C has been a feature of the Earth's climate for the last 540 million years. More recently, Park and Royer, 2011 refines that result. As they state in their abstract:

       "As a result, our experiment maintains an agreement with ΔT2x estimates based on numerical climate models and late Cenozoic paleoclimate. For a climate sensitivity ΔT2x that is uniform throughout the Phanerozoic, the most probable value is 3° to 4 °C. GEOCARBSULF fits the proxy-CO2 data equally well, and with far more parameter choices, if ΔT2x is amplified by at least a factor of two during the glacial intervals of the Paleozoic (260-340 Ma) and Cenozoic (0-40 Ma), relative to non-glacial intervals of Earth history. For glacial amplification of two, the empirical PDFs for glacial climate sensitivity predict ΔT2x(g)>2.0 °C with ∼99 percent probability, ΔT2x(g)>3.4 °C with ∼95 percent probability, and ΔT2x(g)>4.4 °C with ∼90 percent probability. The most probable values are ΔT2x(g) = 6° to 8 °C. This result supports the notion that the response of Earth's present-day surface temperature will be amplified by the millennial and longer-term waxing and waning of ice sheets."

       Note that they are discussing the slow-feedback climate sensitivity, ie, the climate sensitivity with the Earth is allowed to adjust by changes of vegetation, and the melting of ice sheets etc. In contrast Schmittner et al discuss fast-feedback climate sensitivity. For comparison, Hansen has recently found a fast-feedback climate sensitivity of 2.8 degrees C per doubling, and a slow feedback climate sensitivity of 6 degrees C per doubling of CO2. Applying the same ratio to Schmittner et al' fast-feedback climate sensitivity from their best fitting model (2.4 degrees C per doubling of CO2) would yield a slow-feedback climate sensitivity of 5.14 degrees C per doubling. Most of the response of the slow-feedback climate sensitivity is due to melting ice sheets, so that in non-glacial worlds the slow and fast feedback sensitivities approximately equal each other (best estimate 3 to 4 degrees C ). Applying Hansen's ratio to the glacial slow-feedback sensitivity suggests a glacial fast-feedback as derived from Park and Royer in the range of 2.8 to 3.7 degrees C. That is a little rough, of course, but suggests that slow-feedback climate sensitivities are approximately constant across a wide range of geographical configurations and temperature ranges. To that it should be added that in discussing Schmittner et al, Real Climate report that Hargreaves and Annan find model simulations of the LGM show short-feedback climate sensitivity that is 80-90% of that found for a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial conditions across a range of models. So, some difference, but small. More importantly, and as discussed in my post @48, because the equilibrium warming ratio is a consequence of evaporation, either directly, or due to increased humidity and hence reduced lapse rates, in a cooler world (and hence a world with less evaporation) we would expect the warming ratio to be smaller. Indeed, there is some evidence of this in Sutton et al, 2007 which show the warming ration declining to 1 near the poles in models, and (less clearly) in observations. Hence, while I do think there will be some change in the Warming ratio in the LGM, it will be in a direction that makes my point (1) above more significant, and my point (2) above less significant.
69152. Marcus at 22:55 PM on 30 November 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       Yes, I love how he once again highlights how so-called "skeptics" will swallow every piece of nonsense they read on the internet *without* bothering to double-check the validity of the claims-the exact *opposite* of a genuine skeptic.
69153. skept.fr at 21:14 PM on 30 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       #48 Tom : on Real Climate, I read : The first thing that must be recognized regarding all studies of this type is that it is unclear to what extent behavior in the LGM is a reliable guide to how much it will warm when CO2 is increased from its pre-industrial value. The LGM was a very different world than the present, involving considerable expansions of sea ice, massive Northern Hemisphere land ice sheets, geographically inhomogeneous dust radiative forcing, and a different ocean circulation. The relative contributions of the various feedbacks that make up climate sensitivity need not be the same going back to the LGM as in a world warming relative to the pre-industrial climate. Sutton et al 2007 examined what the IPCC AR4 models give for land/ocean equilibrium change from our current temperate climate, not from glacial initial conditions. So I think their land/ocean ratio must not necessarily be used as a robust benchmark for LGM/Holocene transition. In other word, it is suggested (in the RC quote) that climate sensitivity for a doubling C02 (as well as local/global signatures of this doubling) should not be seen as a constant for the different climates of our planet over time.
69154. Felipe at 19:43 PM on 30 November 2011
       We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
       Stefaan, I understand your point but as I understand it, the argument regarding the LIA is more like "there is a normal temperature given the environment - there was an exceptionnal reason to change it - the reason is gone - therefore it goes back to the normal temperature". which doesn't seems so wrong in theory. Still I am no scientist. Nevertheless you don't always need to be one to take good decisions. I know that a man can die if he stays in a confined environnement with a car's engine on. It sufficient for me to believe that it's not a good idea to have millions of cars on earth without evidence of the absence of effect.
69155. Paul D at 19:22 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       There are more significant changes that can be made culturally and in legislation. 1. Build infrastructure that puts businesses closer to homes. Build communities where it is natural to walk and cycle etc. and the car is not seen as being essential. 2. Legislate for all new homes to be built to use the minimum amount of energy. This would depend on the location globally, but passive home design is a proven idea that works.
69156. Paul D at 19:07 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       uuurgh don't like vinyl windows. There is a Scandanavian company that makes soft wood/aluminium combo triple glazed windows which would be my preference. Not that it would make any difference in the UK, where many old houses are abused with fitted plastic windows and other plastic building materials.
69157. critical_billl at 19:00 PM on 30 November 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Is there a possibility that the earth's axis has moved marginally i.e the North Pole is now slighty closer to the sun thus warmer there but colder in the south creating more ice in the Antartic. Wouldn't this also explain the changes in the magnetic fields that some scientists have apparenty noticed? i do believe that the recent earthquakes in Japan were strong enough to move the axis of the Earth albeit a small amount.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] If you think about this you'll be able to answer your own question.  Any astronomer in the world can tell you that there's no evidence whatsoever for it.  GPS systems would be way off.  The tides would be different.  Satellites that measure earth changes to sub-millimeter accuracy would also provide evidence against it.  There is simply no physical evidence to cause such a shift that would not also be felt the world over.

       The crustal displacement/polar wander fancies of Hapgood are just that: flights of imagination.

69158. Doug Hutcheson at 18:59 PM on 30 November 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       Oh, how I wish I could get my local State MP to watch this video. She is a perfectly nice person who is, for some reason, a rabid denier - not a sceptic, sadly, or I would send her the link in hope that she would watch it. A great video and I thank you for putting it up here. I, too, have not read the original emails, so it is nice to now have some context.
69159. Don Gaddes at 18:58 PM on 30 November 2011
       It's the sun
       If you would like to contact John Cook, he can provide you with my complete 'proof',otherwise it is available from dongaddes93@gmail.com (-snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

69160. Sudden_Disillusion at 18:29 PM on 30 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Great work! Keep it up. This site has become my no.1 reference for trouncing "skeptics". Klimafakten.de will help even more as my target audience speaks German mostly. cheers
69161. garythompson at 17:57 PM on 30 November 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       [ snip ] And why was my original comments not included here? It was evident that it was here for a while as comment #149 quoted some of my original comments. I'm not sure where to post this current comment since, at first, you told me to go here and now I'm told to go elsewhere. snip this commment where you must but tell me where to post this and I will.
       Moderator Response: On your original comment I responded that it was off topic, and I left it up for a while so you could see that response. Relevant threads are pointed out by KR and a moderator in #149 and #150, and Philippe in #152.
69162. dana1981 at 16:09 PM on 30 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       Dr. Schmittner:

       "Your model is very simple dT=a*dF,but it still is a model. One that, in fact, assumes climate is in equilibrium all the time. Remember a is the "equilibrium climate sensitivity". So you model overestimates the transient temperature changes because it neglects ocean heat uptake."

       I respectfully disagree with your latter point. Please see the Figure 4 caption, which explains that I used an (admittedly very simple) estimated transient climate sensitivity parameter to create the figure. Fair point that it is indeed a model, and a very simple one, but it's a transient model, not an equilibrium model.
69163. John Hartz at 15:35 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Widespread degradation and deepening scarcity of land and water resources have placed a number of key food production systems around the globe at risk, posing a profound challenge to the task of feeding a world population expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, according to a new FAO report published today. The report, “State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture” notes that while the last 50 years witnessed a notable increase in food production, “in too many places, achievements have been associated with management practices that have degraded the land and water systems upon which food production depends.” Source: “Scarcity and degradation of land and water: growing threat to food security” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations news release, Nov 28, 2011 To access the entire news release, click here.
69164. Tom Curtis at 15:35 PM on 30 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       Andreas Schmittner @39, I'll join with others in thanking you for the time you are taking in responding here. Please do not think that we are trying to savage or unfairly criticize your paper. On the contrary, we think it a good paper. We believe the inaccuracy in the conclusion, if any, is due to the limitations of using only one model (due to budget constraints) and any limitations in the data used (inevitable with paleo-reconstructions) and do not reflect poorly on the authors in any way. In view of some responses you have received, I believe that deserves mention. Unfortunately, we are compelled to dispel the many myths propagated by fake "skeptics" of climate science, who have seized on aspects of your paper and distorted it through no fault of your own. As such our discussion focuses on those areas of your paper which can be so distorted rather than providing the more balanced assessment which in other contexts we would like to give, and which your paper deserves. In particular, we feel it necessary to show the reasons why your paper should not be treated as the last word on a complicated subject in a rush to conclude that climate sensitivity is low, and that climate change is not a problem. (When I say "we" above, it is because I believe I capture the sentiment of most SkS authors including Dana, although strictly I speak only for myself.) Having said that, I turn again to the particular point which I have focused on in comments. I thank you for your correction of my initial confusion about the difference in equilibrium response over land and sea. As you will see above, however, Pauls had already directed me to Sutton et al, 2007, and I had corrected my critique accordingly at 21:37 PM of the 28th. Discussion on Real Climate has further elucidated the issue for me. As I understand it now, there are two overlapping issues: 1) In your paper you state:

       "The model provides data constrained estimates of global mean (including grid points not covered by data) cooling of near surface air temperatures ΔSATLGM = –3.0 K (60% probability range [–2.1, –3.3], 90% [–1.7, –3.7]) and sea surface temperatures ΔSSTLGM = –1.7±1 K (60% [–1.1, –1.8], 90% [–0.9, –2.1]) during the LGM (including an increase of marine sea and air temperatures of 0.3 K and 0.47 K, respectively, due to 120 m sea-level lowering; otherwise ΔSATLGM = –3.3 K, ΔSSTLGM = –2.0 K)."

       As noted in my earlier post, this represents a warming ratio of approx. 1.76 and 1.65 respectively. Using the 1.65 value as being the most conservative, this is significantly higher than the mean of equilibrium warming ratios found in models by Sutton et al. Indeed, it is 2.46 standard deviations higher, so the disparity is statistically significant. This strongly suggest that either your sea surface temperatures are two warm, or your land temperatures are too cold, or both. If in fact it is the sea surface temperatures that are found to be in need of adjustment, then your climate sensitivity estimate will rise. If, on the other hand, it is the land surface temperature that needs adjustment, there will be little change to your estimate in that the sea surface temperature is already strongly weighted. Given this, I note that your reconstructed data shows areas of ocean north of Iceland as being warmer during the LGM than currently, which is counter intuitive to say the least. On that basis, I suspect it is the sea surface temperature which is in error so I expect an adjustment up. I further note that because the equilibrium warming ratio is driven by differences in evaporation rates and/or humidity effects on lapse rates, the equilibrium warming ratio would be expected to decline with colder temperatures so that the above discussion underestimates the discrepancy. 2) You also state that:

       "The ratio between land and sea temperature change in the best-fitting model is 1.2, which is lower than the modern ratio of 1.5 found in observations and modeling studies (19)."

       Note that the warming ration of 1.5 is for transient values, not the equilibrium warming ratio which I believe to be more appropriate for comparison with LGM values. Regardless, that the UVic model gives a low warming ratio is unsurprising in that it poorly models the hydrological cycle and lapse rate changes. More importantly, a low warming ratio in the model would explain a significant part of the small overlap between ocean and land probability density functions of the estimate of climate sensitivity. To some extent it appears then, that the spread in PDF's between land and ocean is partly the consequence of limitations in the data. To the extent that is true, and given that the UVic model handles the hydrological cycle better over sea than over land, this supports the heavier weight given to the ocean value and a low sensitivity. The upshot is that while I think there is significant reason to believe the sensitivity is higher than that you which you found (1), that conclusion clearly does not automatically follow. I would greatly appreciate your comments on these two points.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Requested correction applied.
69165. ahaynes at 15:10 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       ...or more generally, Greg Craven's "You do: everything you can to increase public demand for significant and immediate policy action to combat global climate change. (Here’s the part where you get creative)"
69166. ahaynes at 15:04 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Daniel Bailey, thank you for the work you do at SkS. And that's an excellent summing-up, at end of this post. From my "quotes" file (to which I've added your "we will be judged...") - === As Bill McKibben says: “The number one thing is to organize politically; number two, do some political organizing; number three, get together with your neighbors and organize; and then if you have energy left over from all of that, change the light bulb.” ===
69167. AndreasSchmittner at 15:04 PM on 30 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       dana: you are using a model. Your model is very simple dT=a*dF,but it still is a model. One that, in fact, assumes climate is in equilibrium all the time. Remember a is the "equilibrium climate sensitivity". So you model overestimates the transient temperature changes because it neglects ocean heat uptake.
69168. DrTsk at 14:43 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Mercury bioaccumulates. Dead CFL's must be properly recycled which I don't see that happening much. LED's prices have been plummeting. From one specimen two years ago, I see 10-15 types at hardware stores.
69169. adelady at 14:40 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       mandas, you're probably right. Though at the moment the gazillion cubic metres of straw/mulch and the gigantic bags of chook/cow/other poo we're bringing in to create something resembling soil here makes me think our first vegetable crops will represent a huge carbon investment. Lugging a trailer around does horrible things to fuel consumption. But it is an investment. Now that the 4m by 1m heap of potato crop (in straw and other goodies) is nearing maturity, even if the potatoes aren't that impressive, we'll also have a good crop of earthworms. (I'm not that desperate for protein, so they're going to keep on improving the soil for further crops.) I expect we won't be vegetarian but more like potatomatocapsicarian looking at what the garden's doing. And of course, there's what to do with zucchinis. Buying a freezer to store a chocolate-zucchini-cake mountain doesn't seem very sensible - but there are limits to how many zucchinis family and neighbours are willing to take on after weeks of gritting their teeth and smiling at you. The obvious solution is chooks. But they'll have to wait until sheds and tanks are done. As for people who don't grow their own, I think council waste collection systems that provide separate containers for food waste along with other compostables might get a few people rethinking their food purchases. They can actually see the volume of their 'waste' and maybe even compare it to the volume of their shopping. And reframing sell-by and use-by dating on many products would also cut down a lot of unnecessary discarding of perfectly good food.
69170. Stevo at 14:31 PM on 30 November 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       It is interesting to note that Hadfield's style in the Youtube piece is entirely consistant with the Debunker's Handbook. A clear and simple message has been expressed with straightforward clarity. Thanks for posting it Rob.
69171. bibliovore at 13:58 PM on 30 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Typographical error: Page 6, second to last paragraph, "This gap if filled" should be "This gap is filled".
69172. Dan Moutal at 13:58 PM on 30 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       I haven't had time to read it yet, but I just noticed that Lifehacker is featuring the handbook. Well done! One thing that might be worth considering is kindle (or other ebook) versions of this and The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. I find the kindle to be a much more convenient way of reading stuff, but most ebook readers don't do a great job with PDF file. Might even be worth while to sell them for 99 cents to put some money back into the SkS coffers. Either way, I might be able to try and create a kindle version, but I would need a non-pdf copy of the guide to take a crack at it. And since it I will soon be spending 6 weeks travelling mostly out out of internet range I might not be able to get it done until I get back. Just a thought.
69173. mandas at 13:50 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       A lot of the focus of energy saving concentrates on the obvious things - standby electric power, more efficent vehicles, low power fluoro lights, etc. But you can actually make a bigger difference by reviewing your not so obvious uses of energy. For example, the energy required to produce a couple of kilos of beef is substantially greater than that for the equivalent vegetables, so becoming a vegetarian is actually an excellent way to save energy (if you want to become a vegetarian). A less drastic solution would be to cut down your meat intake, or to stop eating fast food. A large part of the problem is over consumption and wastefulness. How about you ask yourself if you really need all the material good you possess, or whether you need to replace things so quickly. Have a look in the mirror. Do you eat too much? Do you waste food? It will be wonderful when all our energy comes from non-polluting sources. But the problem of too many people consuming more than they realy need will remain, unless we substantially change our approach to life.
69174. Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       adelady @37, for a while I went to school in Hamilton in Victoria, just across the border from South Australia. At every sports event you would see a small gang of children busily working the stands and scrounging any glass bottles left behind in order to collect the 5c refund when the bottle was returned to South Australia. Consequently, the sports grounds where essentially liter free, and this was in 1973. I was stunned when I returned to Queensland to find not such refund payable, and consequently heavily littered sports grounds, shopping malls etc. Consequently I am a huge fan of the South Australian system. On a similar but more general line, Germany has now made the manufacturers and sellers of goods responsible for waste disposal. I understand the effects have been good, although I have not seen a cost benefit analysis. The TV program from which I got this information indicated that cost wise the system was working well, but how reliable is any TV program? Regardless, in the absence of a cost/benefit analysis clearly showing the method to be inefficient, again I am very much in favour.
69175. Tom Curtis at 13:36 PM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       WyrdWays @34, apology accepted. I am not sure why you consider some of these options on "the wild side of techno-feasibility". Where I live, every time I go shopping I have a choice between normal, organic, or hydroponic tomatoes and NASA has been researching the possibilities of hydroponic wheat since at least 1989. Also where I live, we have a reserve filter base desalinization plant capable of providing 20% of the water needs of a major population center. Obviously that could be expanded at need at the cost of increased of water supply. To my mind switching to an electrolysis based system makes sense in a world of renewable energy. During the day solar power can split water into hydrogen and oxygen which at night is then burnt to provide power and pure water. I do not claim, however, to have costed this method, but see below. Harvesting 10% of solar power is, I believe a reach. In fact I suspect we will instead harvest much of the solar power in the form of wind power, thereby allowing nature to store energy for us at the cost of some efficiency. We will also harvest some of the wind power as wave power with the same trade of. This will be supplemented by geothermal, hydro, and tidal power. We may also utilize nuclear power and it is still conceivable that fusion will finally become a practical power source (although I believe the practical application of fusion has been forecast for 50 years into the future for the entirety of my 50 some years). The point is not that a particular technology will be our energy supply salvation. Rather, it is that there is abundant energy to meet our future growth needs well into the future, and indeed, to do so sustainably. As for orbital solar power stations, assume that I am wrong by all means. That still leaves us with approx 225 years of growth before we genuinely need to switch to a near zero growth economy. (Assuming of course that practical fusion power is still 50 years of in 2235 AD.) But in that event the switch will be made without the need for significant political argument because there will be little basis to sustain the growth. All of these comments come with a very important caveat. I am not a futurologist, and I do not predict the successful implementation of any technology. What I do know, however, is that there are many apparently technologically feasible ways to accomplish everything we need to sustain growth into the future. And while I do not need to predict of any of them that they will pan out, those who think long term sustained growth is impossible need to assume that all of them will not pan out. IMO that is not a viable position. Given that, and given that economic growth, all else being equal is a good thing, and given the clear political suicide of a party actually advocating zero (let alone negative growth), I believe tying the response to global warming to a zero growth sustainability model places an unnecessary hurdle in the path to tackling global warming. (That leaves aside the issue that I would consider a zero growth model potentially ruinous in and of itself.)
69176. Daniel Bailey at 13:24 PM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       @ Sphaerica You forget the fallback mantra underlying the "anything-but-fossil-fuel-derived-CO2" agenda:

       "It's turtles, all the way down..."

       And turtles produce... ...methane.
69177. scaddenp at 13:18 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       NZ - 91 octane is bouncing around NZ$2.02 - $2.10 (say US$1.60 per litre. Looks like UK citizen paying something like US$2.08 per litre.
69178. adelady at 13:11 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Speaking of lighting. We're planning to replace the decrepit late 60s/early 70s kitchen here, and I'm going to imitate something I saw in a cafe. A mirror! They've placed a mirror about 4ft long, 18in wide on the ceiling - basically it's directly above the area where customers stand to order/pay. It means they need very little lighting apart from the windows. All I have to do is line it up with the not very large window and keep it away from steam etc. Means I won't have to worry about lighting for new positions for oven and other appliances. Nifty! (Thankfully this house has conventional ceiling heights, not the 11ft+ monsters in our old (very old) house. Wouldn't have been anoption there.)
69179. Bern at 12:52 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Re gas pricing - it was $1.49 per litre here in Australia when I filled up last night. That was diesel, but petrol(gas) and diesel are similarly priced at the moment. One suggestion - diesel vehicles are generally far more fuel-efficient than gasoline / petrol engined vehicles. I used to fill up my previous car every 10-12 days, but the diesel I bought to replace it a few years ago only gets filled about once per month! Combine that with the high price of petrol/gasoline, and you can see why diesel cars are so popular in Europe (and are becoming more so here in Australia - I was the third person in my 40-employee office to get one).
69180. Bern at 12:48 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       DrTsk: yes, CFLs have mercury. It's a very, very small amount, though, and not a problem unless you're in the habit of breaking CFLs in sealed rooms. :-) (personally, I find all those mercury switch central heating thermostats used in some cold climates to be a far greater risk) LEDs are great - I replaced the halogen downlights in our kitchen with LEDs a few years back. Being early model LED downlights, they're not quite equivalent to a 50w halogen in light output, but they're more than bright enough (how bright does your house really need to be at night?) Cost-wise - they cost me, each, about 50 times the halogen bulbs I replaced. Based on the price I paid, I would have to run them for 4 hours a day for 7 years to make up the $$ cost difference. That's ignoring the fact that the halogens were burning out at the rate of 1 every 6-9 months, and I also had to replace one transformer that died (and another was clearly on it's last legs when I pulled it out to install the LED transformer). I will say, though, that costs have come down at least 50-60% since then, so the payback period is now only 3-4 years (or less!), for about 4 hrs per day of usage. We've had them for maybe 3 years so far, and I'm planning on replacing a few other light fittings with LEDs. One disadvantage - the halogens used to throw an enormous amount of light up in the ceiling space. Wasted energy, generally, but it was quite handy on the rare occasions that I was working up there... Now I have to carry an LED worklight up with me. :-)
69181. adelady at 12:23 PM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       'lets live with less banner' Being a fair bit older than most of you young whipper-snappers, I grew up in the era when bottles and jars were made with a now defunct impression. "This bottle always remains the property of Bickfords/Lion/whoever." Recycling bottles wasn't a matter of putting glass into a certain receptacle. It was returning property to its rightful owner. We'd be a lot better off rethinking our approach to material things than saying we have to make do with less. The reason this process is no longer used is that businesses decided they'd rather let their bottles go into the waste stream than pay wages to people to collect, clean and reuse them. We don't have to reinstate that process. But we should at least work out the costs and benefits of handling such things better than we do now. Of course, I speak from the lofty moral height of a state which has had container deposit/ return legislation for decades and recently outlawed lightweight plastic shopping bags. Remarkably, neither the economy nor the society has collapsed. We certainly have 'less' stuff in the case of the bags, and we're so used to the container rules that we're horrified by the ghastly piles of cans and bottles on roadsides and other public places when we go interstate. Cans and bottles vanish from our streets and public bins within minutes or hours. Keeps the place tidy, and lots of people with little opportunity get themselves some regular pocket money at the recycling depots. (The deposit recently increased to 10c per item. Yay!) Making do with less? Just go for this kind of low-hanging fruit, just like the first energy targets should be the low-hanging stuff - cost little, benefit lots. When we are more used to paying attention to certain kinds of material purchases, it's easier to move on to others.
69182. jimb at 12:19 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       re. #9 My 'back of the envelope calculation' shows that $3.00/gallon gas translates to about 80c per litre, a price most of the developed world has not seen in a long time. Here in Alberta for example, the average price per litre for regular gas is $1.09. A simple, but politically impossible task that might encourage the use of more fuel efficient cars would be to bring the price of U.S. gas more in line with the rest of the developed world.
69183. DrTsk at 12:11 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       CFL's have mercury, why not LED's ???
69184. John Hartz at 12:08 PM on 30 November 2011
       Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
       UEA's climate scientists have been hounded and falsely vilified because of the hacker's lack of understanding of basic scientific methods. Millions of decent people struggling to come to terms with climate change have been misled by his half-baked information. Most grievously of all, the billions of families who scrape by on less than $2 a day have had their lives put further at risk. What would most help these impoverished families is for the UN climate talks in Durban to result in a strong climate deal. This hacker attack, timed to derail the process once more by falsely undermining the science, is the last thing they need. If the hacker's moral purpose is to help the poor, then he has scored a spectacular own goal “Climategate Hacker Scores Own Goal” Huffington Post, Nov 29, 2011 Click here to access this article.
69185. tmac57 at 12:03 PM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Re-the skinflint approach,I think that this will ultimately be the thing that will turn the tide.I have heard many stories of companies that changed their business practices for what they considered to be the greater social good,only to find that they unexpectedly reaped finincial savings beyond what they expected. This kind of win-win is the message that needs to reach the ears of CFO's and shareholders of companies worldwide.
69186. adelady at 11:45 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       The skinflint approach is now being used as an advertising tool for solar PV in Australia. "I'm not trying to save the world. I'm saving up for ....." In fact anyone living in a region with reasonable solar incentives / FIT could justify installation as simply an investment option rather than a save-the-world choice. The cash return for capital outlaid can be much better than normal investment. With a very nice backup that the returns are stable, increasing and near permanent even when the bonus FIT reduces, a reassuring alternative for those worried about their savings, shares or superannuation. And for those concerned about 'over-capitalising' their house, solar PV is a much, much better option than a granite benchtop in the kitchen.
69187. John Hartz at 11:44 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Suggested reading: Oxfam, WWF and the International Chamber of Shipping (which represents over 80% of the world merchant fleet) call on delegates to COP 17 to give the International Maritime Organization (IMO) clear guidance on continuing its work on reducing shipping emissions through the development of Market Based Measures (MBMs). “COP 17 Climate Change Conference: Oxfam and WWF join with shipowners to urge agreement on way forward for tackling greenhouse gas emissions from ships” Oxfam International news release, Nov 29, 2011 To access the entire news release, click here.
69188. Marcus at 11:12 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       "can be avoided by simply explaining that I'm a cheap skinflint." LOL Stevo. This is a point I often make myself. Yes I'm a "do-gooder" who wants to cut his CO2 emissions, but I'm also trying to cut my costs & save money, & what better way to do it than to cut my energy & fuel consumption?
69189. Marcus at 11:09 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Switching from electric hot water storage to continuous flow gas hot water has probably been the single biggest impact on my personal CO2 emissions. My electricity use went immediately from almost 13kw-h per day to less than 6kw-h per day, with only a very small increase in my gas use. I also have nothing but CF globes in my house, am on a 100% Green Energy Scheme & use nothing but public transport to make my daily commute.
69190. Jsquared at 11:04 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       PPS the correct link to the large version of the figure is http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee395/Jim264/mckinsey-ghg-abatement-curve.png. Don't know why the link in the original post contains an extraneous 'current='
69191. Jsquared at 10:25 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       PS That graph is from https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx
69192. Glenn Tamblyn at 10:23 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       bit_pattern @12 For me the simplest answer to this is that it is about our responsibility at a personal level. If my personal life is good and my income is high and this all comes as a consequence of a high per capita emissions level then I have a more responsibility to act than someone on a much lower income. If I earn $1000/week and someone else earns $50/week, how can we argue that the other person should do more than I do? Then when we project this up to nations, why should a nation of people on $50/week have to do more per person than a nation of people on $1000/week?
69193. Jsquared at 10:22 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       Regarding bullet 3: use tufts of leftover fiberglass insulation instead of spray foam to fill those exterior outlet boxes - you or your electrician will be glad you did when it comes time to replace the outlet. Regarding several posts about small improvements not making any difference: don't forget to include the multiplier from application of cheap fixes by large numbers of people. See the left end of this graph.
69194. WyrdWays at 10:13 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @ Tom C: Apologies for any offence caused, certainly none intended! But... Mining space for resources, orbiting solar power stations, electrolysis of the oceans for water, hydroponics for food, 10% harnessing of incoming solar radiation. They do all sound a little on the wild side of techno-feasibility to me. But probably no more so, to you, than my insistence that the world can voluntarily enter into a planned reduction in material wants. It seems like the only hope to me, but I don't see a queue of politicians forming under the 'lets live with less banner' yet. I sincerely hope one of us is right. But I suspect both views will be proved wrong - Gaia will secure her future, and it'll be one without homo sapiens (as we know ourselves anyhow)
69195. John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 30 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Suggested reading: “Table Talk: Inside the 'pizza is a vegetable' controversy; climate change and food prices” OregonLive.com, Nov 29, 2011 To access this timely article, click here.
69196. Stevo at 09:42 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       First of all, DB, please don't think we are ungrateful to you for your efforts as moderator. My list of personal efforts is mainly similar to yours with a couple of exeptions. Living in a much warmer climate and having far less distance to travel for work purposes, I drive an energy efficient vehicle and am hunting for something even less thirsty to replace it with. Unfortunately, public transport is not an option for me as no services run from where I work to where I live. I find that any perceptions of me being some kind of do gooder who wants to save the world (a bad thing to many people)can be avoided by simply explaining that I'm a cheap skinflint. I don't use airconditioning because it is expensive. I use room heating only on the coldest of evennings. It seems cheapskates are more socially acceptable.
69197. Zen69 at 09:25 AM on 30 November 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Thanks to all for the feedback pbjamm - Have checked out your references and am guessing that's probably it. Cheers.
69198. skywatcher at 09:11 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       #12, indeed, but it is also good to see positive examples - this can show to some, and hopefully eventually to policymakers, that leading a more energy efficient lifestyle does not equal living in a cave. So kudos to Daniel, pirate and others who have made conscious positive decisions.
69199. scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 30 November 2011
       Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
       On the other hand, I do agree though it is not enough for say Pirate and Daniel to do the right thing. There has to be a plan that gets everyone on board to make a real difference.
       Response:

       [DB] "There has to be a plan that gets everyone on board to make a real difference."

       To train up a legion to effect change:  part of the long-term strategy I have.

       

       Meh.  But more positive than this.

69200. Bert from Eltham at 08:46 AM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       The real issue is that our CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the Earth towards tipping points, so called because once they are underway they are irreversible. Is the next retreat of the deniers to blame global warming on these tipping points once they are underway and thus label them as 'natural'? My current fears for the future habitability of our Space Ship Earth were already dire. With embarrassingly stupid thinking and shouting by deniers in general the very real warnings are falling on the now deaf ears of the uninterested public. As a lowly Physicist I think that when all of this equilibrates the conditions on Space Ship Earth will not be recognisable by some of our current generations alive today. It will be the youngest that will see the worst changes. The science has given us a measure of the situation we are all in. Only real action will avert us damaging our planet beyond repair. The time for squabbling is long past. We all need to take remedial action before it is too late. Bert

Prev  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  Next