Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 Next
Comments 70051 to 70100:
-
chriskoz at 17:38 PM on 16 November 2011Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
As one of the commenters in abc site noted: Cardinal Pell is living in his anthropocentric paradise I cannot agree more. Christianity have been developed on top of the dogma that: "God created the world for man to have domination over". Irrational and transcendental denialism in a form of "God is almighty so he cannot let the destruction of the world he created" is the typical stance of conservative clergy. Pell, by repeating the long rebutted Monckton-like trivialisms such as "I have discovered that very few people know how small the percentage of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere..." confirms that his conservatism prevents him from learning the true nature of AGW. IMO, the religions, especially christianity need some change and it's important because they influence lots of poeple. Will see what Vatican would say about AGW, if anytime soon. Hopefully something better than what we've heart from Pell. We don't need to look far for good examples: the geo-centric model of James Lovelock's Gaia is enough, I would gladly see it adopted by this or next generation of theologians. -
Chris G at 17:17 PM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
The US state I live in posted $1.8 billion in lost agriculture yields due to drought; the US drought hit us lightly in comparison to Texas and Oklahoma. The surface area of the world affected by extreme heat (and I presume heat and drought often go together) is growing, and growing rapidly over the last decade. I wonder how much alternative energy we could have put into production for $1.8 billion. I suspect that economic losses in yields (and damages) will quickly overtake economic losses in pursuing more expensive energy; never mind that it is easier to live with using less energy than eating less food. Oh, I searched on Texas; it looks like losses there were about $5.2 billion this year. How much did France loose in 2003? How much did Australia loose in 2009? (Yes, I'm hinting that the costs of these events are not just economic and not just related to agriculture.) These are not individual events; they are part of a growing trend. Sure, we had heat waves and droughts before, but now they are many times more common. I wonder if you could correlate the losses under Dr. Hansen's 3-sigma warming events, and show an increasing economic loss over time. Might be an effective counter to any argument that mitigation will cost too much. Too much compared to what? Should we wait until 3-sigma anomalies cover 15-20% of the land mass, and then start making a transition which will take decades? -
Marcus at 17:00 PM on 16 November 2011Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
Wow, you mean that's an actual biblical quote? Thought I knew the bible, but must have missed those lines! -
muoncounter at 15:41 PM on 16 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Norman: He has left a large amount of wiggle room. Despite a strengthened GHG warming signal, the intrinsic variability of observed western Russia temperature during July is too large to permit detection of a change in temperatures, with high confidence, at this time. That sounds like the evidence isn't statistically significant, which can be translated to 'there's no evidence that it isn't GHG warming.' R and C (here) and the Hansen paper present evidence that we can indeed be seeing an effect of GHG. If you choose to read Hoerling as an absolute, please say so. That way we won't start going in circles on this again. -
Norman at 15:11 PM on 16 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Rob Painting, I am not sure if you have seen this draft. Dr. Martin Hoerling of NOAA is working on a draft paper concerning the 2010 Moscow heat wave. Dr. Hoerling's Draft paper on the Moscow 2010 heat wave. He is not as convinced that the Moscow heat wave was caused by GHG's. In his draft he asks this question: "3. What role did GHG warming play in the 2010 Russian heat wave?" The conclusion he has formed at this time: "3. Figure 5 indicates that the 2010 observed heat wave magnitude is greatly different from that expected by GHG forcing alone (compare black and blue curves). While recognizing the presence of a moderate amplitude GHG signal, the majority of the event's magnitude was very likely due to internal variability." -
Bibliovermis at 14:01 PM on 16 November 2011Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
"2 Tim 4:4 They will reject the truth and chase after myths." Indeed they are. -
oneiota at 13:39 PM on 16 November 2011Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
Excellent article and reposte John. I am astounded that Pell an expert in things theological should have fallen for the false prophets of Monkton et al. Maybe he should read his bible: "2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:35 PM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
DB, in the short time frame provided in the graph, there have been patterns of increased and decreased SLR. This current decline in SLR appears greater than the historical declines. That, in and of itself, means nothing at this point, but bears monitoring. There is still an upwards trend in sea level. -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:20 PM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
As a degreed scientist (M.S.) and a science teacher and a practicing environmental scientist and an AGW skeptic: I don't see anything significant in the 2-year or so dip in SLR. It doesn't really have an affect on the overall SLR rate. On the other hand, give it a few more years like that, and we may have another discussion on our hands. But, for now, it needs to be treated as a cyclical anomaly.Response:[DB] "it needs to be treated as a cyclical anomaly"
Please share with us the scientific basis for this assessment.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:45 PM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Revisiting the 1st link, cited about the influence of biofuels, I find this in the conclusion section: "We conjecture that index fund activity (one type of “speculative” activity among the many that the literature refers to) played a key role during the 2008 price spike. Biofuels played some role too, but much less than initially thought. And we find no evidence that alleged stronger demand by emerging economies had any effect on world prices." All quite speculative, but nonetheless interesting. -
Stevo at 12:39 PM on 16 November 2011Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
Great article, John. The baby in the bathtub (lets call him Enso) analogy from you rebuttal was brilliant. -
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr @15, it is a mistake to attribute high food costs to just one use of agricultural production as you are doing. If the only market for agricultural production was biofuels given 2008 production levels of each, prices would have plummeted. It is the total consumption that drives the price up, not just one item. In that context, the largest single discretionary item of agricultural consumption is no biofuels, but grain feed for animal stock. Some of that is necessary for animal production (chickens), but much is not (beef). If there is genuine concern about food shortages due to current consumption patterns of agricultural products, the single biggest problem is, therefore, not biofuels, but high meat consumption, and in particular high grain fed meat consumption in western societies - particularly the USA and Australia. Picking on biofuels as the problem is therefore, cheap and dishonest politics at best. (I make no imputation that you are the one being dishonest.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:32 PM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
I'm not sure I see how any of those links support your argument. The first link's introduction goes like this: "The paper also argues that the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/2008 spike." That amounts to saying that speculation by financial operators on commodity markets is a far worse influence than the push for biofuels. Nothing new there. I haven't read the whole thing, but it looks interesting and certainly not very supportive of your original assertion. The 2nd link expands at length on how oil prices have a far less severe effect on economies than generally thought, even oil importing economies: From the concluding paragraphs: "Our recent research indicates that oil prices tend to be surprisingly closely associated with good times for the global economy. Indeed, we find that the US has been somewhat of an outlier in the way that it has been negatively affected by oil price increases. Across the world, oil price shock episodes have generally not been associated with a contemporaneous decline in output but, rather, with increases in both imports and exports. There is evidence of lagged negative effects on output, particularly for OECD economies, but the magnitude has typically been small." Once again, quite interesting and not very supportive of your argument. One can easily infer from these 2 links that the world economy can quite safely absorb both more development of biofuels (as long as the financial industry's crooks are kept away from these markets) and higher oil prices. -
Tom Curtis at 12:20 PM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Eric (skeptic) @13, figure 3 is certainly worth attention, as is this similar figure (which I have presented because it indicates energy use in familiar units rather than in kg oe, ie, kilograms of oil equivalent):
The simplest interpretation of this graph is that per capita energy use is a limiting factor of HDI. That is, you need a certain amount of energy use per capita to achieve a given level of HDI, but using that amount of energy in no way guarantees achieving the HDI gain. Further, and very clearly, HDI gains for increased energy use above 4,000 kWhours are very limited for very large gains in energy. I suspect that there is still some gain, however. Further, changes in technology will no doubt shift the point beyond which gains are minimal with increased energy use.
As to your question, I think it is the wrong question. If energy use sets a limit on HDI, that limit exists regardless of education standards in a country. Education, however, is probably a significant player in how closely a nation approaches the limit of a restricted HDI index based on life expectancy and GDP alone. (Educational standards represent 1/3rd of the potential scoring of HDI, so it is trivial, and uninteresting that education and HDI are correlated.)
-
skywatcher at 12:01 PM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Not sure about your other question Eric, though angles from an orbiting satellite can be deceptive - you're seeing a relatively tiny fraction of the Earth's surface, but the eye is fooled by the circular horizon into thinking you're seeing a whole hemisphere. My guess is that it is not windows (the orange colour is often telltale of low pressure sodium and its twin bright orange emission lines), and that it is an effect of looking hundreds of miles sideways through the atmosphere? The camera view doesn't otherwise look very 'fisheye' to me too. -
skept.fr at 11:57 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Philippe : For biofuel and food crisis, see for example the p.11 of this document from World Bank, for the impact (less than announced in 2008 by WB, but real, debate among specialist) and expose the concern for future (in AIE 450 scenario, we must double the production of biofuel). http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/07/21/000158349_20100721110120/Rendered/PDF/WPS5371.pdf For oil price and recession, this document shows the sensitivity of national economies to oil volatility 1970-2010. Surprisingly, most countries GDP are not affected (either they export or they have tax-regulating system like France)… but it is not the case for USA. So I suppose the third shock of 2005-2008 (fivefold increase up to 145$ !) had a role in the economic recession. http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6905 Of course, I’m skeptic of economic models (much more than of climate models !). Shadow banking, financialisation, ideology-based deregulation, runaway private and public debts play the central role for the crisis of 2007-2008 and 2011. But it’s hard to imagine that intensive and importer economies are insensitive to energy and commodity price trends in the last decade. I think that our poor economic models (as you say) also tend to underestimate the physical (energetic and material) basis of wealth, so the limits of this planet. Thereafter, two analysis of these trends and the 'new paradigm' (second link). http://www.steeldistributors.org/portals/0/NewsAndViews/Q32011/credit-suisse.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/53865070 Eric : yes, beyond approx. 110GJ/hab/y (mean), you do not observe any correlation between energy and HDI (or specific data like infant mortality, woman mortality, food availibility, etc.). As far I as know, USA overconsumption do not translate in overperformance in these indicators of the quality of life. But for the majority of countries under 50GJ/hab/y, the problem is clearly inverse. And as climate is a global challenge, so is energy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:49 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Bern and skywatcher, thanks for the info (skywatcher now I know where your name comes from). I am lucky enough to live in a dark county in Virginia. Another question, looking the time lapse there seemed to brightness at an angle (although lights got brighter as they got closer). Are we seeing lights from windows at that angle? I suppose it could also be a fish eye lens effect and we are mostly looking straight down. -
skywatcher at 11:41 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
#9 Eric, you might find a lot of information at the International Dark Sky Association. They specifically do not advocate against lighting for safety. Most of the light you see in images like the ones above come directly from the lighting source. That is, it is light from fixtures designed to light the ground (the street, parking lot, whatever), but that have a significant proportion of their energy uselessly pointing sideways or upwards. You can effectively put a lower wattage bulb in each light if you have a simple shield to prevent light being wasted upwards, and that shield reflects the extra light downwards to where it is wanted, not sideways or upwards. The IDA suggest that 8% of US energy use is in outdoor lighting, so the saving may be measurable in numbers of power stations. Obviously as an astronomer that would have really good consequences, but the saving in energy is also considerable, with no loss in safety. -
Bern at 11:39 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Eric(skeptic): no, most of that light is coming directly from the lights themselves - comparatively little bounces off the ground, especially roads & parking lots that are (usually) almost-black asphalt. Different light fittings, that direct the light a bit better, can actually result in higher illumination levels on the ground, while also significantly reducing the amount of light going upwards. The same applies to many buildings & dwellings - many, many light fittings are very poorly designed, and actually result in most of the emitted light not ending up where it's needed. But they're oh-so-fashionable... (I was astounded, in the time I lived in the US, to find a room in my apartment with no less than three 200-watt light globes, which nevertheless appeared dimly lit to my eyes, compared to what I achieve with a single 60w globe here in Australia) -
Bob Lacatena at 11:25 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
13, Eric (skeptic),...does more energy use per capita lead to more education, or does more education lead to more energy use?
Or do they feed off of each other, leading to a death spiral, a runaway energy-education effect, if you will... :) -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:24 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Are there alternatives to street lights and parking lots lights for safety? (assuming that most of that light is bouncing off the ground) -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:05 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr, that is an interesting fig. 3 in your reference and is worth examining further. It suggests that per capita energy use can be cut significantly here in the USA without lowering the HDI. Also does more energy use per capita lead to more education, or does more education lead to more energy use? -
Albatross at 10:54 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom @36, "If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science." I agree. Kudos to you Tom, I had always assumed that you were a publishing scientist from your fact-filled and thoughtful and reasoned posts. Pielke and Curry could learn a thing or two from you ;) I am dumbfounded that the AGU and others continue to stand behind Pielke Senior after years of him misinforming. In my opinion, Pielke Senior is bringing the AGU (and CIRES his current affiliation) into disrepute and they should not stand for it. My dad was a professional engineer, he had to abide by certain principles and a code of ethics. Had he behaved as Pielke Senior has been in the public domain he would have no doubt had his professional status and privileges rescinded, or at the very least been hauled before a committee to explain himself. It is galling that these guys continue get away with this scot-free. -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
"Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus." And there we have the nub of issue. We have a large enough segment of the population who would rather believe in fairies than confront an uncomfortable reality, and are blocking effective action. Sadly, there is no way to ensure that the negative effects of inaction fall only on the stupid and their children. -
skept.fr at 10:52 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Concerning energy correlate, this document for example : http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/WEAOU_part_II.pdf As you can see in Figure 3 , p. 27, per capita energy consumption is linked to Human Development Index (which includes literacy and education). For more precise estimations, you can also read Vaclav Smill ‘Energy in Nature and Society’(MIT Press 2008, pp346-347 and references), or use Gapminder (wealth and health of nations in comparison of CO2 emission). Of course, people’s life in poorest countries can be improved by many ways including political and juridical reform without energy cost. Also, a 60-110 GJ/hab/y seems to be a very sufficient for numerous needs, and the extreme consumption of richest countries (especially USA !) is by no way a model. If energy is useful for human development and welfare, it doesn’t mean necessarily carbon-based energy. But the problem is far from simple : for example, Iceland gets 80% of its primary energy from renewable (geothermia and hydro), but nevertheless, its per capita emission of CO2 are greater than France or Germany. Even with very low-cost and abundant renewable (rare conditions that Iceland meets), it’s difficult to avoid oil use (and in this case coal for alu plants). And more broadly, I’m also attached to many humanitarian concern other than climate, because when people die or suffer or starve, you have no moral foundation for sacrifying them to future generations. I cannot blame South Africa for using coal as we did one century ago, but of course I would prefer CCS coal-plants if the technology is available. I strongly agree that we need an energy transition for this century (for different reasons including climate, but also fossil depletion, sustainable development, etc.) as well as a true evaluation / compensation of social and environmental cost of carbon. So AIE report is welcome. My concern is more the realistic pace of the transition and the sincerity / clarity of its discussion in public debate. The denial of climate change risks or coal/oil/gas externalities shouldn’t be answered by a denial of energy change risks or insufficient energy externalities. PS : For ‘modern world’, sorry, it must be a gallicism. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:44 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept.fr, I would like to see the following statements of yours substantiated: "2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels" "economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities" If this latter one refers to the recent economic recession, it was brought almost exclusively by poorly regulated banking practices and deeply flawed economic models used in the financial industry. I note that nobody (absolutely nobody) in the so-called skeptic camp had voiced doubts on the validity of these models before they crashed the world economy and skeptics are also eerily silent about them since, despite their proven track record of failure. And this is really a failure that cost trillions, verifiable, obvious for all to see, unlike the fictitious or hypothetical ones that skeptics always cry about when "debating" climate mitigating economic policies. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Albatross @33, the galling thing with Pielke (and Curry) is that while Watts may literally not know what is wrong with projecting short term trends, Curry and Pielke certainly do. When I first encountered similar arguments regarding the temperature record, and my knowledge of statistics could have been written on a business card, I just looked at the temperature record and saw very similar "pauses" in the temperature record in the past. Obviously, if the argument was any good now, it was equally good during those pauses, and therefore that if the short term trends post 1998 refuted global warming, then so did the short term trends post 1980 and post 1988. I proceeded on the assumption that climate scientists are not complete fools, that they were not promulgating a theory that had been refuted by obvious data 25 years ago. Ergo from short term trends must be bad. If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science. -
Albatross at 10:29 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom @34, Thanks for your post. Why am I still shocked by the blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations of the deniers? -
Moloch at 10:25 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
The IEA factsheets and key graphs links in the article point to the 2010 Outlook. 2011 Factsheets here http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf and key graphs http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf Cheers JeffModerator Response: [AS]Thanks! I corrected the links. -
Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Albatross @30, thankyou for the links. In particular John Kehr's breathtaking effort at WUWT says:"One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely."
gives perspective to pirate's claims @4 and Arkadiusz's claims @21. You will have noted that in defending denier honour they have only denied that deniers have taken the most extreme stance, ie, that 2010 was the start of a long term negative trend. Perhaps, but denier's have clearly drawn long term conclusions about probable trends from 2010. That leaves aside Kehr's persistent misrepresentation of the IPCC as predicting 1 meter of sea rise by 2100. In fact they predict only 0.425 meters of sea level rise (the mean of the worst case prediction, 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.59). Such flagrant misrepresentation must be why Roger Pielke Snr has such a high opinion of WUWT as a science site [/sarcasm]. Even more breathtaking are the claims at the site to which Arkadiusz links. Note the carefully placed qualifiers (underlined) in his claim that no denier "...says that: warming has no effect on sea level rise, or that the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." Perhaps not, but deniers are certainly glad to say warming has little effect, and more importantly that the decline in sea level gives significant reason to expect low long term trends. From Arkadiusz chosen site we see short term trends projected out to 90 years with the claim that:"empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels than what the taxpayer funded alarmist "experts" have predicted. Based on this real world data, it's highly unlikely that major coastal regions will be impacted by the wildly speculative higher sea levels."
(My emphasis) "Highly unlikely" based on a short term trend from a satellite data set in significant disagreement with four other satellite data sets, and with the tidal gauge record. Nothing uncautious about that [/sarcasm]. And that is the example Arkadiusz gives of the reasonable projections made by deniers from short term trends. -
Albatross at 10:18 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Hi Skywatcher @32, I know, annoying is it not? Pielke et al. just keep repeating the same old cherry picking and BS (bad science). They have a good recipe going: 1) Make a demonstrably false and/or misleading assertion, 2) Rarely, if ever, concede error or correct errors, 3) Repeat. Unbelievable that Pielke Senior is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, in other words he does know better, yet insists on embarking on misinformation campaigns. But I draw the line at him misleading impressionable students as shown here. I wonder in what capacity Pielke senior is engaging in this latest bout of misinformation? Was his Q&A part of CIRES outreach initiative or something else? Maybe the AGU should revisit their decision... -
skywatcher at 09:53 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
#30 Albatross, I had a rather strong case of deja vu reading your link to Tim Lambert there... -
skywatcher at 09:47 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
There's quite a few more of these kinds of time-lapse movies from the ISS at a NASA page here. Lovely! -
Paul D at 09:20 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr "Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity..." Education?? You also distort the use of the word modern. Modern does not equate to anything you have stated. All 'modern' means is that it refers to today as opposed to the past. Hence by definition a modern world can be anything that people want. So 'the very base' of a modern world could for all intents and purposes anything. What you have done is imposed what you think it should be and assume there is no negotiation. -
Andy Skuce at 09:01 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept.fr @2: Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. I fully agree, which is the reason that I lamented the fact (in the first paragraph, above) that this report is not freely available. And, as you say, the costs and risks of changing our energy infrastructure do need to be better defined. However much we find things to criticize the IEA for, I think we should be grateful that the organization is directing a lot of its resources to helping resolve the climate crisis. The original mandate for the IEA was to coordinate a response to the oil supply crisis in the 1970's. Given that start, it could easily have evolved into an organization devoted to maintaining the energy status quo, rather than, as it now does, proposing constructive pathways to a sustainable future. -
Kevin C at 08:41 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept@2:Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc.
Is that necessarily the case? This was a predicate of mid-20thC US economics, but I don't think that it is consistent with recent data. See for example this report.
-
martin porter at 08:34 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
This fantastic video shows just how much of our energy we are wasting! All the pretty lights, especially noticable in places like California, are just what astronomers call light polution. Think of how much energy AND money could be saved if we only lit up things to the extent we actually need! -
steve from virginia at 08:33 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Hmmmm .... Atmosphere, mighty skimpy. Better take care of it. Looks like a long way to other dots up there ... -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr @2, discovery of new conventional oil reserves are starting to fall behind production. What is more, world reserves of Oil and Gas constitute significantly less than a century's supply at current consumption rates. That means we are going to see an energy transition over the next 30 years regardless. Any risk involved in that transition will be there, whether we convert from conventional fossil fuels to unconventional fossil fuels such as the Athabasca tar sands, or opt instead for clean energy. I will note, on the side, that the adverse effects of coal on health are so large that even a Fukushima accident every 5 years (which is very unlikely) would still not match the harm done by coal. -
Albatross at 08:12 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Bickmore @35, Oh I am pretty sure that was the case, at least going by my wife's feedback :) She was astounded by the shenanigans that serial misinformers like Monckton have been up to. -
bbickmore at 07:38 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Albatross @32, I certainly hope so! -
dana1981 at 07:37 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
I think it was Lonnie Thompson who said climate change impacts will be split between mitigation, adaption, and suffering. The longer we wait to mitigate, the more we'll have to adapt and suffer. That's the main message from this report. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:18 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr Bickmore, Excellent presentation, but for myself I thought the missing slide/graph really hurt. If there's any way that you could update the presentation (maybe give it again at another locale) I would recommend doing so. -
michael sweet at 07:15 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept, There is no guarantee that that if we limit carbon we will all live in paradise. It may be the case that we are too late already. The evidence indicates that more carbon dioxide is bad. If we limit CO2 pollution we will be better off than if we emit more CO2. There remains the possibility of problems, both ones we know about and ones we have not anticipated. If we do nothing the carbon will run out anyway (WUWT had an article yesterday suggesting carbon emissions would peak in 2030) and then we will have no carbon and a ruined ecosystem. Wouldn't it be better to try to preserve soemmthing? If you are in the bottom of a hole the first step to getting out again is to stop digging. -
Composer99 at 06:57 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr Bickmore: A very well-done presentation indeed. I found it quite enjoyable and elucidating. -
skept.fr at 06:51 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
We must reduce our energy consumption, rise the price of fossil fuel, accept biofuels and nuclear… on one hand, these choices limit climate risks, and everybody agrees with that, but on the other hand, are they totally risk-free ? Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc. so it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario which can change in one generation this secular energy basis and guarantee there is zero probability of adverse effects, for 7 billions humans today and 8 billions in 2030 (not just the rich club of OECD). Because we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality, not models : Fukushima 2011 for nuclear, 2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels, economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities, etc. As a French citizen, I’m personally ‘habituated’ to a nuclear-based electricity, a highly taxed gazoline, a state control, etc. so a little more or less would not be a revolution (as it may be, say, for a Texan conservative owning 2 pick-up and 3 SUV). But I think a too manichean discourse (either climate hell or carbon-free paradise) will be hardly convincing. Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. We know the benefices (climate stabilization) but what are the costs and hazards? -
Albatross at 06:48 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Hi Dr. Bickmore, Thanks. I assume that they were gasping and laughing at the inanity of the tricks and tactics of the "skeptics" that you were speaking to? -
bbickmore at 06:38 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Albatross @29, I don't know what people think, but one of the people at the university where I gave the presentation said the students around him were either gasping or laughing the whole time. We live in a very conservative area, so odds are that many of those students were conservative, like me. That was about the reaction I was shooting for. -
wingding at 06:14 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
its funny how noone ever knows any skeptics -
muoncounter at 05:55 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Bickmore, Very well said! I note that the expectation that the average individual can become a self-taught 'expert' - or think they should be able to 'verify' mainstream science in their kitchen - is part of this problem. We have a large part of the population that is told 'you can't trust scientists' and yet they still drive cars over bridges, fly in airplanes and take medications; their electricity works (most of the time) as do their cell phones and computers. If they felt that had to 'verify' any of those disciplines before applying them, their lives would come screeching to a halt.
Prev 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 Next
