Recent Comments

Prev  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  Next

Comments 69851 to 69900:

69851. Riduna at 11:36 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       I have described the problems associated with development of CCS technology and its use in CCS: Investment in Futility at http://www.onlineopinion.co.au/view.asp?article=8899&page=0 Since 2008, very large sums of money (public and coal industry) have been allocated to overcoming these problems. Progress has been made on capture of CO2 but not on reducing overall cost of using the technology. In Australia, the only attempt at commercial application ended in the 2010 bankruptcy of the proponent company. The exercise did at least confirm earlier expressed views that use of CCS technology was prohibitively expensive, preventing its commercial use. During the same period, the cost of RE has fallen and continues to fall as technological improvements in this area made by the private sector in Australia (with limited public funding) and overseas. In Australia, legislation pricing carbon establishes an independent statutory fund for development of RE technology (specifically excluding CCS) and a fund to assist in its commercial application. By imposing a price on carbon emissions, the legislation ensures (and is intended to ensure) that the price of FFE rises and continues to rise relative to the cost of RE producing base load power – geothermal, marine and solar. As the price of FFE rises commercial use of CCS technology also becomes more affordable but it still remains significantly more expensive than RE and seems destined to remain that way – at least that is my assessment. As adalady points out, RE is being deployed in Australia now. Five solar energy power stations have been approved for construction and the first geothermal (hot rocks) electricity is expected to come on line in March 2012. Meanwhile the domestic and global price of coal continues to rise while pricing carbon emissions gives certainty to investors that RE is the way to go and provides for billions to be available for its technological development. Rather than representing a biased (pessimistic) view of CCS v RE, I suggest it is a view based on current realities.
69852. Eric (skeptic) at 11:18 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       adelady, this state? http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/0400-0031.pdf
69853. apiratelooksat50 at 11:18 AM on 23 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       John at 46 If you have a product that you can offer and make a profit, would you limit yourself? You need to think about the multitude of people who profit from a company that makes money. Workers, shareholders and executives. That is what a well-run business does. That is who we invest in. Is Coca-Cola evil because they make massive profits? Sure, successful companies can hire lobbyists and influence decision making on the political level. I'm no fan of that either, but I don't know of a better system worldwide. Plus, anything coming from alternet.org should be considered extremely biased.
69854. witsendnj at 11:04 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Pielke is correct: "The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from human activities is a warming influence in terms of reducing the magnitude of heat lost to space over time. However, it is just one of a number of warming influences including from soot (black carbon), ozone, and other aerosol effects." Where he fails (whether deliberately or stupidly) is in making explicit that the other warming influences are the result of the same processes of burning fuel. CO2 is the initial driver of climate change, but it is not the main tipping point. The main tipping point is the contributions of the effects of CO2 triggers, like melting ice and permafrost methane release. Most neglected is the effect of NOx precursors creating ozone, which is killing vegetation around the globe. The loss of the CO2 sink of plant live is already leading (anyone see it?) to the rise in the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/11/dodging-bullets.html
69855. adelady at 10:40 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       I suppose I should add that I live in a state that gets 20% of its power from wind already.
69856. adelady at 10:39 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       "...wind costs are not really reducing in the most recent years..." Well, according to this report the best windfarms are now competitive with coal, gas and nuclear. And they expect that by 2016 the average wind farm will be cost competitive. When we're looking at choices for investors, I'd not be putting my money into one that looks to be declining in competitiveness within the industry.
69857. skept.fr at 10:22 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       adelady : "It's not arbitrary. The glaringly obvious difference between them is that RE is being deployed right now. And the costs are reducing all the time. Plummeting in the case of solar PV." Well, "all the time", it depends. I take this 2009 document from a wind energy association (so, at least, we can suppose that it should be fair to wind, not a competitor-funded critics). If you look at the figure 0.3 p. 10, you can observe that wind costs are not really reducing in the most recent years (example of Denmark, whose aggressive policy and reknown savoir-faire is leader in Europe). Note also the 7.5% discount rate. Same is true in this 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report from US Dept of Energy / Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Look at the figures of pp 45-47, particularly figure 28 : costs are up if anything from 2001-2003 to 2011. (In the previous 2009 report, they announced that costs could drop in 2010, but they don't. In this 2010 report, they say costs could drop in 2011... and we'll see). IPCC SRREN 2011, in the chapter 7 dedicated to wind energy, don't give a decade trend for wind cost. But it emphasis that a deeper penetration (20%) would imply higher balancing costs (see 7.17, figure and explanations), even if there is also a hope for further technological improvement downing costs (no estimation, no date, as far as remember). So this is not a "all-the-time decreasing cost" for wind energy, even if it is presently mature and competitive in many conditions. It would be better to document such assertions when firstly introduced in the discussion, if possible from serious sources. scaddenp : "I do not think that we know the answer to enough questions to say with any certainty whether CCS has a role to play or not" I agree with you. That's why IEA scenario, and all energy-economy models' scenarios, should be taken with some caution. Unbiased skepticism is healthy in the energy debate.
69858. Albatross at 10:05 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       rpauli @30, I understand that you must be vexed by this, but please do not go there. That is not what is going on here, period. Watts and his followers might be compelled to try and make the bizarre connection between Mann and what happened with the Penn State football coach. But we do not have to invent reasons to find fault, we have science and facts on our side. So please stick to the facts at hand. It was not a lecture, he was answering some questions emailed to him by high school students at a school in Colorado. We do not know in what capacity Pielke was acting when he chose to mislead the students, nor do we know which school he chose to mislead.
69859. John Hartz at 09:55 AM on 23 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Never underestimate the ability of the fossil fuel industry to influence what happens in the Congress of the United States. Energy companies continue to rake in massive profits. They use this wealth to leverage elections, write legislation, scale back regulations and escape accountability. Source: “The 5 Most Toxic Energy Companies and How They Control Our (USA) Politics” by Tara Lohan, AlterNet, Nov 20, 2011 To access this in-depth and hard-hitting article, click here. PS: The five most toxic energy companies are per the article are: 1. Chevron, 2. Exxon Mobile, 3. BP, 4. Koch Industries, and 5. Massy Energy
69860. Hopeful at 09:55 AM on 23 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Thanks Bob Loblaw. I like your distinctions between observation, interpretation and conclusions and how you go about it. Based on your tip, I will attach John Cook's "Guide" to my brief introduction to the topic because it wraps up observations, interpretation and conclusions better than I can. My ability to articulate in such a reasoned way just flies out the window sometimes especially if someone tells me it is all rubbish. I will try to apply the distinctions you have made in the way I write and speak about the issue. I am hoping I might get better with practise. I see what you mean about where that quote could lead and plus I think it would place the listener in a defensive frame of mind possibly resulting in them not listening at all.
69861. r.pauli at 09:35 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       -snip- I am concerned more about the -snip- spirit of this lecture. "Don't you kids worry about your CO2 emissions" harms their future to be mislead about potential danger.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] Inflammatory text removed.
69862. Bob Lacatena at 08:15 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       28, Steve, How can you not see his response to #1 as misleading? He clearly is saying, by nuanced implication, that there are so many factors in warming that CO2 is minor and nothing to really worry about. How can that not be seen as misleading?
69863. SteveFunk at 07:49 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       re Albatross, #27 Question #1, not misleading IMHO. Questions 2, 3 and 4, probably misleading. Question 5, too nuanced, possibly misleading, but in some ways not too much different from what Bill McKibben is saying--we are in for a time of global wierding, which in some places will be manifested as cold, heavy precipitation.
       Response:

       [DB] The prudent reader would be wise to see Bob Loblaw's response to this here for deeper insight to question #2.

69864. scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       adelady, in fairness, you also need to note that CCS has only just started to have serious research. RE has been around for a long time. Disclaimer: my department (though not me personally) is involved in CCS research. I do not think that we know the answer to enough questions to say with any certainty whether CCS has a role to play or not. Hence the research.
69865. adelady at 06:39 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       "You can’t be arbitrarily optimistic with RE and pessimistic with CCS: at least, you must explain why there would be progress in one field and stagnation in another." It's not arbitrary. The glaringly obvious difference between them is that RE is being deployed right now. And the costs are reducing all the time. Plummeting in the case of solar PV. CCS has not yet been shown to produce CO2 free power at commercial scale. There's a lot of R&D still to be done. And the costs are not yet known, especially for a complete rather than partial sequestering process.
69866. adelady at 06:20 AM on 23 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       "... to halt population growth quickly it would be necessary to initially restrict fertility rates to well below two, which is a difficult policy to enforce." It's not just the number of children that needs to be the focus. It's the age of first-time mothers and spacing bitrhs thereafter. In many countries, and in some areas within many more countries, this age is far too low. There would be a huge impact on population numbers worldwide if age of first child bearing were increased by 5 or even 10 years. This is also related to longevity. The biggest population challenge is to reduce the number of years of generations overlapping alive at the same time. China is a classic example of restricting the number of children born without attending to a cultural preference for 4 generation families among significant parts of the population. There's no need to say that 4 generations is bad. It's perfectly OK for grandpa to see a great-grandchild born. The big issue is how many years of life of the oldest and youngest generations overlap. Increasing average age of first mothers .... by encouraging education and paid work (or at least work other than simple housework) .... can bring a population down quite quickly in areas where the average is currently below say 22, 24, 26.
69867. CBDunkerson at 06:01 AM on 23 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       imthedragn, where'd you get the 1.5% water vapor statistic? I think I've usually seen around 0.4%. In any case, all greenhouse gases are not created equal. You also say that 0.9% of 33 C is only 0.3 C... but what logic underlies the assumption of a Celsius scale for this 'analysis'? If we switch to Fahrenheit then 33 C becomes 59 F... or if we go over to Kelvin it is 306 K. 0.9% of 306 K is 2.75 K... which is also 2.75 C. :] In short, your underlying calculation (and most of the values) is clearly incorrect.
69868. Kevin3581 at 06:00 AM on 23 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       Unfortunately, this proposition creates confusion -- sustainability does not equal austerity. Reducing CO2 emissions does not equal austerity. Setting up this sort of frame creates a huge block to moving forward and lower emissions. The energy system can be modified to nearly eliminate CO2 emissions -- it does not halt economic growth (again, the wrong frame), it merely delays by a few months acheiving the same level of wealth as would have been met had we done nothing. Policies which try to do this that are non-market or don't put a price on CO2 emissions will however be much more expensive and will delay achieving the same level of wealth noticably further out in time.
69869. Christian Ryan at 05:54 AM on 23 November 2011
       How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
       FAO Daniel Bailey, Thanks for the comment at my blog. I'm not really finished on that matter, I'm now looking into what might be causing the positive skew, I have an idea but need to see if there's research that substantiates it. Furthermore as you can see I've done half the usual number of posts - that's due to work pressure (and anyway my ratio of posts to papers read is normally low). I will try to make the time over the weekend (barring the risk of forced overtime), but can't guarantee a rapid turnaround. Please feel free to email me: chris886222 at btinternet dot com Regards Chris R.
69870. Albatross at 05:43 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Steve @2 and 22, You seem confused regarding the context in which the relative radiative forcing of the agents is being discussed (one can look at the relative contribution of CO2 to all positive forcings, or as Shindell et al. did, the relative contribution of CO2 to forcing from LLGHGs, CH4 and BC, or the relative contribution of CO2 to the net anthropogenic forcings etc.). I would suggest reading Skeie et al. (2011) and this post here at SkS. Can you please state if you agree or disagree with Pielke's misinforming these students. I get the impression that you are not concerned that he misled students. Thanks.
69871. Phila at 05:38 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       SteveFunk: I was looking at page 47 of "Our Choice." The sources of Global warming are given as 43.1% CO2, 26.7% methane, 7.8% halocarbons, 6.7% CO & VOC's, 3.8% nitrous oxide, and 11.9% black carbon. Gore's book identifies these compounds as "the six kinds of air pollution that trap heat and raise temperatures." As such, the figures seem to refer to the volume of emissions. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that CO2 is responsible for roughly 40 percent of observed warming, as though every 1 percent of CO2 accounted for an equivalent 1 percent of warming. You may want to read CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
69872. dana1981 at 05:35 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       tmac57 @21 - aerosols have both warming and cooling effects, but you're correct that the net effect is in the cooling direction. That's why I don't particularly like parsing out just the positive radiative forcings, because it ignores the fact that although aerosols and black carbon have a significant positive forcing, it's smaller than their combined negative forcing, so on the whole they actually have a cooling effect. Frankly it just serves to downplay the magnitude of the warming effects of greenhouse gases. And yet even through this arguably flawed methodology, as Albatross notes @24, greenhouse gases are still responsible for well over 50% of the net positive forcing.
69873. imthedragn at 05:20 AM on 23 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       Help me with this one. The greenhouse effect if roughly 33 degrees centigrade which is the result of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The planet has warmed from an increase in greehouse gas concentrations from roughly 15,250ppm before human influence to about 15,385ppm today. (water vapor is in the neighborhood of 1.5%) That is an increase of 0.9%. So the planet should be roughly 0.3 degrees warmer as a result than it would be otherwise. Because there is a "human fingerprint" we have to assume that carbon dioxide traps more heat than an equal amount of water vapor. Has this ratio been determined scientifically or is it based on observed warming?
       Response:

       [DB] Thanks for taking the time to post a question/comment!

       "The planet has warmed from an increase in greehouse gas concentrations from roughly 15,250ppm before human influence to about 15,385ppm today."

       Umm, no.  The current atmospheric CO2 levelsfor October 2011 are 388.92 pp.  Pre-industrial concentrations were about 38% below that. Also, the planet has warmed due to a number of combining factors, just one of which is the rising CO2 levels.  It is fair to say, however, that the majority of the warming experienced globally over the past 40 years is largely due to GHG's, of which CO2 is the chief.

       "So the planet should be roughly 0.3 degrees warmer as a result than it would be otherwise."

       You assume an instaneous, or linear response.  There is a 30-40 year lag in effects, largely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, but also due to the effects of aerosols, which act to delay the onset of the warming effects of rising levels of CO2.  And actually, the planet has warmed some 0.6 degrees since pre-industrial (with another 1.x something "in the pipeline").

       "Because there is a "human fingerprint" we have to assume that carbon dioxide traps more heat than an equal amount of water vapor."

       Umm, you need to remember that rising CO2 levels cause warming, a forcing, which then act to increase water vapor levels (warmer air holds more moisture) which then act to also raise temperature levels (a feedback).  Further feedbacks (melting permafrost and changing land/use patterns due to human factors and drought) can also release more CO2 yet, further amplifying the warming.  Think of CO2 as the temperature control knob of planetary temperatures.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history and reading The Big Picture.

69874. Albatross at 05:11 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Dana, What I find particularly disingenuous on Pielke's part is that in discussion here with SkS, we demonstrated (with links to the scientific literature) that "CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases" account for 72.3% of the positive forcing in 2010 (Skeie et al. 2011), with 47% of the positive radiative forcing from CO2 alone and well over 50% of the observed warming from CO2 alone. Even Dr. Pielke's own calculations, when corrected for arithmetic and double accounting errors, show that CO2, CH4 and other long-lived GHGs accounted for 56% of the positive radiative forcing back in 2001. So yes, "CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases" are indeed currently the dominant positive radiative forcing. Somerville and Hassol are correct, and Pielke is wrong. Unfortunately, that has not stopped Dr. Pielke is still propagating an error that he is well aware is wrong and using it to imply that Somerville and Hassol are lying. He owes them an apology for slandering them and should remove that post.
69875. Phila at 05:10 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Pirate: On the first read-through, Question #2 is adequately answered. Interesting comment. The phrase "first read-though" implies that others are forthcoming, which in turn implies that your viewpoint may change as you learn or understand more. Which makes me wonder: If your first read-through doesn't represent your final, informed take on Pielke's answer, why waste your time and ours by reporting it here? Especially given that you could've done a second read-through in the time it took you to post your comment? Better yet, you could have researched his outrageous claim that "the global average temperature anomalies are cooling." Wouldn't that have been a better use of your time? As a science teacher, you should know that "sounds good to me!" isn't a legitimate argument.
69876. muoncounter at 05:10 AM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       What a distraction from the real issues; just what the deniers needed. But there's a bit of good news in the Guardian article: Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified. Wasn't there a self-proclaimed major news outlet recently involved in an email hack scandal in the UK? Seems like a trend developing ...
69877. SteveFunk at 05:10 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Dana1981@ #6 and Albatross at #7. I was looking at page 47 of "Our Choice." The sources of Global warming are given as 43.1% CO2, 26.7% methane, 7.8% halocarbons, 6.7% CO & VOC's, 3.8% nitrous oxide, and 11.9% black carbon. Original source was Drew T. Shindell etc in Science magazine.
69878. tmac57 at 04:55 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Pielke said

       However, it is just one of a number of warming influences including from soot (black carbon), ozone, and other aerosol effects.

       I thought that the net effect of aerosols was that of cooling.Also a recent study by Natalie Mahowald,suggests that we may be underestimating the cooling effect of those aersols: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov11/mahowaldClimate.html
69879. Phil at 04:32 AM on 23 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       Here we go again :-( More hacked emails released
69880. dana1981 at 04:27 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Pielke's comments in the blog post Albatross links @19 are classic psychological projection. I particularly liked this part:

       "The fundamental error made by the authors (as with the Sherwood article that I posted on last week), is their assumption of the dominance of added CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases in climate change."

       Ironic since one of the fundamental errors made by Pielke is his assumption that greenhouse gases don't have a dominant influence over climate change.
69881. Albatross at 04:19 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       Readers, Dr. Pielke just does not get it, period. He seems unable to differentiate between what he perceives to be disinformation, and truth and facts. Only today Dr. Pielke has posted a defamatory and disparaging article on his blog on an article written by respected scientist (Dr. Somerville) and lauded writer (Ms. Hassol). Perhaps he is trying to distract people from the main post above? Who know the best form of defence is offence? Pielke writes: "The authors use a disinformation approach to present their view" Absolute nonsense. First, they are not using "disinformation" (i.e., deliberately spreading intentionally false or inaccurate information). Second, he provides no evidence whatsoever other than his own opinion to substantiate that assertion. Third, Dr. Pielke is accusing them of "disinformation" when Dr. Pielke is in fact the one who has been shown yet again in the main post above to be guilty of misrepresenting/distorting facts and data. It is abundantly clear who is really engaging in disinformation.... He also essentially accuses Somerville and Hassol of lying when he says: "They deliberately confuse this statement." Dr. Pielke concludes: "It is an example of a set of individuals using an article (not an op-ed) in a professional science journal to promote their particular views on policy" Somerville and Hassol are speaking to the problem of communicating climate science, their piece is titled "Communicating the science of climate change". Dr. Pielke likes to pay the game of falsely accusing others who do not agree with his views as being disparaging towards him. Well that is exactly what Dr. Pielke is doing to Somerville and Hassol-- a clear double standard on Dr. Pielke's part. Additionally, Dr. Pielke is the one touting an opinion piece in the EOS newspaper as a peer-reviewed paper to the house of Representatives to push his own agenda; so another double standard by Dr. Pielke. This is enough, Dr. Pielke cannot expect to go around ridiculing his colleagues at will and now making unsubstantiated and defamatory accusations against his colleagues without being held accountable. Whose server does Dr. Pielke's blog reside on? I certainly hope that he is not launching these attacks from a server residing at a respected institution such as CIRES. PS: This is not the first time that the Pielkes have had a go at Ms. Hassol, the last time it was Pielke's son.
69882. CBDunkerson at 03:49 AM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       "Apparently there has been a fresh batch of emails release from CRU." Hmmm. The perpetrator claims to be deeply deeply concerned about transparency and openness... and is therefor anonymous.
69883. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:31 AM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Apparently there has been a fresh batch of emails release from CRU. Fresh round of hacked emails
69884. Bob Loblaw at 03:09 AM on 23 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Sally@12 the quote from John Maynard Keynes " When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?" There is something that bothers me about the concept that "facts change", although perhaps that is the convention in economics ;-) (which my brother the Economist might take exception to...) Of course, when we accumulate more "facts", then "the facts" en masse will have changed. But we don't want to leave the impression that "facts" are malleable, because that makes "facts" just another opinion, which is not particularly scientific. I've made this distinction before on another thread, but we need to distinguish between Observation, Interpretation, and Conclusion. There are shades of gray in the boundaries, but it is worth trying to distinguish between these parts of the process of understanding. It is relatively easy to get people to agree on observations ("yes, that thermometer read 12.3C at noon today), but interpretations of a collection of observations become more speculative, and the conclusions we draw depend on those interpretations. The process that I try to follow is to collect all relevant observations (and accept that there can be errors in these), consider all reasonable interpretations of those observations, and draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence. They key ingredient is the willingness to consider additional observations and interpretations, and to change the conclusions when warranted, and that is the intepretation I would put on Keynes' quote. The catch is that different people will have different ideas of what is "relevant" and "reasonable". The bad part is when someone takes the view that observations and intepretations are only relevant and reasonable when they confirm the pre-conceived and inviolate conclusions that were brought to the table. That's not science.
69885. Bob Loblaw at 02:42 AM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       apirate@10 "Question #2 is adequately answered." Question 2 isn't answered at all. There would have been just as much information content if he had replaced "natural forcings" with "pixie dust". Except that if he had said "pixie dust", it would have been obvious that he had no answer. It's just another case of handwaving, making it sound as if he had something important and constructive to say while actually doing nothing but avoiding the question. ...and to throw in the bit about "the temperature anomalies are cooling" is a shameful attempt to pretend that nothing is happening anyway - there isn't anything that needs explaining! In my experience, anyone that answers a question with something that amounts to "it's so complex I can't explain it here" is usually either trying to cover up their lack of knowledge, or knows something that they don't want you to know. Either way, don't trust them.
69886. Eric (skeptic) at 02:36 AM on 23 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       KR, nice, thanks.
69887. Tom Curtis at 01:15 AM on 23 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman @109: 1) As a technical point, your method of calculating standard deviations is flawed because you use whole of state averages. The smaller the area, the larger the potential variability because you are averaging fewer stations. Therefore it is no surprise that Texas and Montana have the lowest variability using your method. That is not, however, indicative of variability plotted over an equal area grid. 2) Again, as a technical point, if you were going to test the hypothesis that higher latitudes have greater variability you should use either an equal area grid mapped to show the data (as done by Hansen), or calculate variability for all stations in a region, in this case CONUS, and plot against latitude. The later would be preferable as a strict test of the hypothesis. 3) As noted, Hansen does plot the standard deviation for June-July-August in figure 2 of of his paper. I have reproduced a detail of the plot covering CONUS and adjacent regions below: Examination of the plot will show that the general hypothesis of greater variability with higher latitudes is correct. That is even more obvious on the plot for the whole globe. However, as you will certainly notice, my assumption that the general pattern would apply in Texas is false. Specifically, over large areas of Texas, variability is greater than that in more northerly states, presumably because Texas is at the boundary between arid hot lands to the West, and verdant, relatively cool lands to the East. Such geographically distinctive features can, of course, have a significantly greater effect than the effect of latitude, particularly in summer when the latitude effect is smallest. 4) It is, however, very worthwhile to compare Hansen's plot of Standard Deviations to the plots of the 1936 and 2011 heatwaves you provided in your post @94: When you do so you see that the effect of the 1936 heatwave is largely (though not exclusively) confined to regions having a SD between 0.8 and 1 degree C (1.44 and 1.8 degrees F). In contrast the 2011 heatwave extends over much of the South East of the United States in which SD are typically in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C (0.72 to 1.44 degrees F) and in some regions (notably Florida) are as low as 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C (0.18 to 0.36 degrees F). As a result of this, the area of Extreme Heat in 2011 extends well beyond the area of peak anomaly (Texas) along the Gulf coast and over Florida, even though the anomaly in those regions is a third or less of that in Texas. So, the 2011 heat wave showed a much larger area of extreme heat because it covered extensive areas with low variability in summer temperatures. In contrast, although the 1936 heat wave covered almost as great an area, it was largely confined to areas with large variability in summer temperatures, and so did not show as much extent of extreme heat. This reinforces the point that anomalies tell you nothing by themselves about how unusual a heat wave is.
69888. KR at 00:51 AM on 23 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Eric (skeptic) - You should read Tamino's Extreme Heat post. He examines the Moscow heat wave using extreme value theory, calculating that this was a 1/260 event under current conditions, about 8x more likely than it would be without global warming. The set of tests he applies clearly demonstrate a one-sided distribution. Given a one-sided non-normal distribution, heat waves like this aren't 1/10,000 year events - but they're still much more likely than before recent global warming, and becoming more likely all the time.
69889. skept.fr at 00:18 AM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Agnostic #51 : I agree with you, notably about conservative short-termism of the fossil-based energy system. But some observations: you say CCS is costly (it is), and seem to exclude it can improve (we don’t really know). But you adopt a double standard for RE energy : Sustainability is not a question of curtailing use of energy or limiting access to it. It is a matter of ensuring that energy needs are produced from renewable sources. We already have the basic technology needed to achieve this and in coming years it will be improved, made more efficient and cheaper to use You can’t be arbitrarily optimistic with RE and pessimitic with CCS : at least, you must explain why there would be progress in one field and stagnation in another. As I expose precedently when discussing with Tom Curtis (first page), we are not sure at all that renewable sources can meet energy needs of 9 billion humans in 2050 without seriously curtailing the use. The best estimate for RE supply in 2050 seems to be approx 250 EJ/y (IPCC SRREN median estimate), but we actually consume rather 500 EJ/y for 7 billion humans (492 EJ in 2008, IPCC source). For an order of magnitude, if you assume 9 billion in 2050, you would have to supply 640 EJ/y anything else beeing equal. If you have a 2% target of world growth, you need a 2% energy intensity gain each year for stabilizing this level (in fact, energy intensity gain are actually between 1% and 1,5% on 1980-2010). You can play with these numbers of course : a 3% economic growth with just 1,5% energy intensity gain would imply a huger energy production in 2050 ; a 1% economic growth with a 3% energy intensity gain would considerably lower the energy demand, etc. I think it would be misleading to suggest our readers that energy transition is an easy way, only blocked by fossil lobbies (de facto, we do know they tried and try to block any policy agenda detrimental to their interest, but it is not the whole picture). As I said, European countries met since the 1990s some favourable conditions : few denialism in public opinion, strong comitment of policymakers, modest economic growth (when compared to emerging countries), high level of scientific and technological knowledge… but the real progress in decarbonization are still modest, and the budget is even negative if you account for the carbonized goods we import from Asia instead of producing them in Europe (Peters et al 2011, see reference in page 1). In contrast, I would say an efficient energy policy in the USA would have very good results, because you start at a very high level of energy consumption (far higher than Europe in the 1990s or at any recent decade), with few private or public effort to change the fossil addiction of your economy.
69890. michael sweet at 23:54 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman, I am sorry, you are using Farenheit which makes your error smaller. It may be more likely that the problem is that the anomaly map you are using groups 2-4C together. Three standard deviations is only 0.8C greater than 2 standard deviations. Read the Hansen paper to determine where your error is. Keep in mind his argument is valid for a Global analysis. The large data set is required to show statistical relevance.
69891. michael sweet at 23:44 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman, Reviewing yor post here, you do not say what months your calculations are for. You conclude the standard deviation is about 1.5 degrees for the areas you picked. Hansen (2011) calculates standard deviations of the same area that range from 0.5-1.0. See the figures I cited in my last post. Since you do not say what you calculated it is not certain why you are wrong, but it appears to me from your other posts that you have only calculated the standard deviation for June, rather than JJA. You need to give it up and conceed that you have done the calculation incorrectly. It does not make your argument look better when you insist you have done the calculation correctly after it is clear you are mistaken. When you do not know how to do statistical analysis you cannot make convincing statistical arguments.
69892. CBDunkerson at 23:39 PM on 22 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       "Firstly, it's well worth nothing" should be 'Firstly, it's well worth noting'. Freudian slip (i.e. thinking Pielke's comments on ice melt were "worth nothing")? Has anyone tried to bring this commentary on Pielke's misrepresentations to the attention of the school (or CIRES)?
69893. Eric (skeptic) at 23:38 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       It seems to me that the way to avoid excursions about the statistics of temperature is to avoid over-generalizations like figure 1. The time period is far too short (since 1950) for a depiction of extremes. The distribution of temperature depicted is not symmetric and the Gaussian curve drawn on top does not really match the data. However, the gaussian distribution for daily temperature is supported, e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%281999%29012%3C1796%3ALSWRAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2, "The distribution of daily temperature is approximately Gaussian (Dettinger and Cayan 1992)". From what I have read at http://climate.met.psu.edu/www_prod/features/rainextreme.php and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.846/abstract, extremes in precip are best characterized with gamma distributions. In the same paper (first link) they say "Daily precipitation has a one-tailed distribution that is well approximated by the gamma distribution". My question is do the extremes follow the statistics of the regimes (large scale patterns)? E.g. fig7 in that paper. Since extreme heat is often driven by feedback (heat causing dryness causing heat and heat overcoming thermal inertia), then the regime or pattern has a great deal of importance and should be considered in the statistical analysis.
69894. Norman at 22:58 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       muoncounter @ 113 I want to point out it is not my claims about the Moscow heat wave and its causes. NOAA scientists are the ones who come up with the explanation and support of their ideas. So it is not "Norman" vs the "Experts" and Norman receives a knockout with the first blow because of a total lack of knowledge, and experience in the field. It would be one group of experts with another explanation to another group of experts. NOAA and 2010 Heat Wave in Russia. From this article: "The strength of the height anomaly at 500mb during July/August 2010 was 4 times the standard deviation of July heights—a departure amplitude similar to that in the region's July surface temperatures. Typically, there is little persistence of the circulation pattern from July to August, although the current block that formed in early July continued with great strength through the middle of August. The extreme surface warmth over western Russia during July and early August is mostly a product of the strong and persistent blocking high. Surface temperatures soared as a result of the combination of clear skies, sinking motion within the environment of the high pressure causing compressional heating of air, the lack of any temporary relief owing to the blocking of the typical cold fronts that cool the region intermittently in summer. Add to this scenario the cumulative effect of drought that began in early summer which caused soils to dry and plants to desiccate to wilting point , thereby causing additional surface warming via land feedbacks as the blocking condition persisted. These are all well-known and studied physical processes that have accompanied summertime blocking and heat waves in the past."
       Response:

       [DB] And with this you stand revealed as not having read the OP at top.  And thus continue to prosecute your agenda of contrarian for the sake of contention alone.

       Cease.

       Extensive quote that should have just been linked to struck out.

69895. Norman at 22:51 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       michael sweet @ 115, I obtained my data from the NOAA maps generated from the sources found in post 94. I did not pick one state or one month but 5 states and 30 years of summer temps for the state. I linked muoncounter to the summary page of how NOAA calculated the state average summer temp.
69896. michael sweet at 22:02 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman, You continue to use anomaly data in an attempt to deduce what the standard deviation of a result is. This is impossible. Then you say, based on the anomaly summary graph of a single month (from Hansen), the standard deviations must be lower than Hansen calculated. You calculate that the standard deviations are approximately 1.5 degrees. Hansen (2011), figure 2, center graph shows standard deviations as 0.4-0.8 in Texas and about 1.0 in South Dakota. Your claim that they are the same is simply wrong. His numbers are lower than yours because he averages June, July and August. Hansen, figure 1, shows a large area of Texas (but not all Texas) with an anomaly over 3 degrees. You looked only at a single month in South Dakota, typical cherry picking. The anomaly data does not contradict the standard deviations as you claim. Your monthly state by state calcuations are simply wrong. You are claiming a problem that exists only because you are incapable of following Hansen's directions correctly. Did you read Hansen before you tried to replicate his data?? If you cannot do the calculation corrctly you should presume that trained scientists, who have been audited by the web, have done the calculation correctly. Don't compare apples and oranges. The key to Hansen's analysis is to use large amounts of data. That enables him to make broad claims that cannot be made with small data sets. You are using small data sets. That is why you get the incorrect answer.
69897. Hopeful at 19:50 PM on 22 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       This has been helpful for me as a layperson - thankyou for the tips. I like the tips for handling the splenetic person, noble_serf. At uni we were taught that small group discussion is the teaching process employed if the learning involves attitudinal change ( eg we are individually responsible) . Also, I learn with information presented in visual form, auditory form, experientially and with time to reflect, to allow pennies to drop and dots to connect. I think in images and simplified, familiar concepts eg I see the pot of water steaming on the stove thinking about the ocean warming, water vapour and floods. I see the 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second heating the ocean. I conceptualise my changing level of understanding as a result of following the information on this website in a visual metaphor : Instead of appreciating "I am in a moving vehicle", I now appreciate that " I am in a vehicle travelling too fast,accelerating and on the wrong side of the road heading towards a semi-trailer with my brakes about to fail" - where is the paper bag in case I hyperventilate !!! I'm interested in how to help other lay people in my life who are not locked into denial and haven't read much on the topic to learn enough about climate change in 10-15 minutes ( I'm trying to write a summary of most potent facts as a cover note attached to the Critical Decade Report to hand out to professional women at work with the explanation that this is what I've learned, would you mind reading this, have a think and let me know if it makes sense and suggest ways to improve my summary) But what are the minimum and most potent facts required to arrive at the level of understanding/connected dots of the metaphorical semi-trailer collision ? Another question: I attended a lecture recently in which the speaker mentioned path-dependence theory to explain why people and organisations sometimes don't change in the face of new facts. The theory went something to the effect of: 1) an individual or organisation's decisions will tend to be influenced by previous decisions and understandings (prior path)and 2) if reinforced by "group think" supporting those understandings and decisions will cause the individual or organisation to become "locked-in" and unable to change. Part of the cause of the problem is a refusal by the organisation or individual to accept that they/she/he could be wrong. Some of us joked after the lecture when politely challenging each others different views "you're not being a bit path-dependent are you ?". It gaves us language/concept to examine our own and each others professional views and how it is that an idea can attract a following and maintain the following long after it had been proven to be relatively of limited value. Though the lecture was on a different topic altogether (not climate change) I wondered if path-dependence theory is relevant to understanding "locked-in" resistance to change in individuals and organisations in regard to climate change facts and action or is it an unrelated issue? The lecturer gave the quote from John Maynard Keynes " When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?" but I don't think that would go down too well with those of a different view.
69898. chriskoz at 18:17 PM on 22 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       The question 2 was formulated badly, as the consequence of wrong answer to q1 (if they've been asked in that order): student was seeking the primary cause of GW, because CO2 was suggested as negative. If the answer to q1 was: "CO2 - 48% forcing", then q2 would be redundant. And Pielke happily continues his theory of "climate complexity", "multitude of natural causes" blah blah. Deja vu classical denial attitude: obfuscate the simple outcome with confusing fringe factors of which general public has little knowledge. I think Pielke sounded more reasonable when he was discussing his points here on SkS. However this school interview shows that, assuming Pielke is just 'skeptic', not an intentional liar, he is also a very bad teacher, concentrating on talking his minute details while not paying attention that his audience gets the wrong message. Such person should not be allowed to teach kids.
69899. Riduna at 17:10 PM on 22 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       The door has closed on 2C and is barely ajar on 4C by 2100. We have sown the seed of our own destruction and are busily nurturing it with greenhouse gas emissions. The harvest we shall reap will be one which brings about socio-economic collapse and the loss of much that we have painstakingly built up because we persist in burning fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. We do so in pursuit of short term financial gain at the expense of long-term survival. Instead of moving to renewable energy sources, governments and industry cling to the hope that CCS technology will enable continued safe burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. In so doing they ignore the fact that the capital and recurrent costs of CCS technology are such that it makes cost of energy produced by burning fossil fuels more expensive than energy produced from renewable sources. In short, CCS is neither a commercial or environmental option. Sustainability is not a question of curtailing use of energy or limiting access to it. It is a matter of ensuring that energy needs are produced from renewable sources. We already have the basic technology needed to achieve this and in coming years it will be improved, made more efficient and cheaper to use. It is not more widely deployed because: • burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way of producing energy and • the most promising alternative technology is at a developmental stage and neither urgency or finance are attached to its development and • vested interests seek to prolong the use of fossil fuels. To its credit, the Australian government is one of the few to enact legislation providing for rapid and sustained investment in clean energy alternatives, a move which is likely to prove more far-sighted than its proponents realize. Even so, the need for urgency in development and application of clean technology and its rapid global deployment is fiercely resisted, not so much by electricity generators per-se, as by the oil, gas and coal mining industries. How much longer will our species survive on this planet if we pursue business as usual or policies aimed at placating vested interests and failing to limit CO2 emissions to a dangerous 450ppm? Beyond 2100?
69900. KR at 16:22 PM on 22 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman Please consider what is being discussed here - extreme events. By their very nature extreme events do not happen very often, nor in many places at once, or they would be common events. In order to characterize rare extrema events, you need a great deal of data. Not just a single city, not just a couple of states that are a tiny fraction of a country representing, what, 4% of the planets surface? Far less than 1% of the Earth's surface? You instead need to use every data point possible so that you can clearly examine whether extrema events are changing frequency. Over and over on this website you have looked at published papers, containing world data, and said (paraphrasing) "But I don't see that happening in X", where "X" is some limited area near you. And if it's not clearly happening in your backyard, it is (to you) not happening at all. This is myopia at its most severe, and a completely incorrect approach with respect to the larger set of data. Hansen and others publish their data, their methods, etc. If you disagree you need to either assemble and analyze a set of data with matching or greater extent, demonstrate different results, or point out some error in their analysis. You have done neither, despite repeated pointers to this fact. Backyard statistics simply do not, and can not, outweigh global data.

Prev  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  Next