Recent Comments

Prev  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  Next

Comments 70301 to 70350:

70301. macwithoutfries at 21:03 PM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Rob Painting @10 - very good point, I have missed that reference to 1360; however my experience with deniers is showing that they like to focus on the slightest detail and draw away the debate on it, so it is always better to avoid giving them any such 'distraction point' - like in this case saying " may have been the warmest in more than 500-700 years" instead of "almost 1000 years" - the impact on the reader is the same and deniers will not be able to cling on that point since they already have too much 'invested' in the story with 'little ice age'!
70302. quokka at 18:24 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       

       "Govt doesn't have a great track record of investing in anything!!!"

       Really? How about the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the largest engineering project ever undertaken in Australia and frequently cited as an example of civil engineering excellence. Still operated by a wholly state owned corporation and by the far the most important renewable electricity generator in Australia. On the related issue of "picking winners" think about such things as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme whose purpose is to "pick winners" ie effective medical treatments and ensure they are delivered at affordable cost.
70303. bill4344 at 17:37 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Phila, I think the word you're looking for is 'Gubmint'. As in 'the gubmint can't do anything right'. It's a little like wondering 'what have the Romans ever done for us?'
70304. Phila at 15:40 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       "Govt doesn't have a great track record of investing in anything!!! The amazing thing about this common-as-dirt received wisdom is that much of the energy-related status quo it's defending exists because of government investment. Surely, some folks in the "government can't do anything right" crowd have affordable electricity because of the TVA. Or Hoover Dam. Or the National Reactor Testing Station. Or the UK's Central Electricity Board. Or government coal and oil subsidies. And don't even get me started on the fact that they're issuing these complaints on the Internet. The cognitive dissonance is just astounding.
70305. Bob Lacatena at 15:15 PM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       15, Eric, The graph is of both named storms and hurricanes, the vast majority of which never reach landfall. Is the implication that no one was able to properly notice tropical storms which grew so large they required names -- without the advent of modern technology? Do you have a citation of a source that explicitly makes the case that hurricanes were under-reported prior to some selected date?
70306. skywatcher at 15:08 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Nice to see how the goalposts shift, Camburn from "shock value to GDP" to "we should expect to see significant growth in Australian GDP". Does that mean you'll consider the carbon price a failure if Australia's GDP does not grow? As if the carbon price is the only thing that will affect the Aussie economy...
70307. muoncounter at 15:08 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       43 Camburn: "the USA's emissions are more than China's." China passed the US in total carbon emissions in 2006, despite the fact that the US GDP is more than 2x that of China. US leads in per capita emissions.
70308. Camburn at 14:56 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Of course the USA's emissions are more than China's. Look at the GDP difference and it is self explanatory. The political reality in the USA right now is that no new schems of any kind will be put into effect. The hole that has been dug the past 10 years is so deep that we never in fact dig out of this one. We shall see how the Chinese pilot schemes pan out. Remember it is a few cities and provinces. We should expect to see significant growth in Australia's GDP as a result of passage of this.
70309. Bob Loblaw at 14:42 PM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       There is a whole class of 1-D climate models called "radiative-convective models" that combine realistic radiative calculations (in the vertical) with convective energy transfer constraints on the resulting temperature profile. Tom Curtis mentions the name of Manabe in #1133. Here is a link to one of the classic papers: Manabe and Wetherald (1967) Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere With a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity
70310. alan_marshall at 14:42 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Those who are cynical about the significance of Australia’s example probably feel that way because they are still in denial about the dangers of climate change. Contrary to Camburn @18’s opinion, China is getting its act together. Australia has received praise from Jiang Kejun, the head of the China’s Climate Commission, who explained that our scheme will be the model for one of six Chinese pilot schemes to be introduced in 2013. Jiang says: Some say what is happening in Australia is even better [scheme design] than in Europe, so in that sense Australia is leading. It is worth remembering that China’s per-capita emissions are still 60% below that of the USA, which bears historical responsibility for more than 3 times China’s total emissions. Unlike the USA, China is not burdened by a major political party in denial.
70311. muoncounter at 14:17 PM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       There is very strong evidence of increased extremes to be found in the Indices of Extremes in the European Climate Assessment and Dataset. The database interface is very user friendly: To generate maps, select 'trend maps,' pick an 'index category,' select a specific index and a time period. Particularly interesting are indices under the category 'Heat,' with maps comparing 1951-1978 to 1979-2010. Here is a two image animation, showing the pair of maps depicting the index TX90p - temperature greater than the 90th percentile of daily max - for 1951-78 and 1979-2010. This index is a measure of 'warm days.' -- source The map that is primarily green/blue (no trend - decreasing) is the earlier period; the map that is overwhelmingly red is the latter period. Other heat indices show that 1979-2010 saw increasing numbers of summer days, increasing 'warm spell duration index', increasing consecutive summer days and an increase in the max daily temperature. Both the number of warm wet days and the number of warm dry days reversed their 1951-1978 declines, increasing strongly over 1979-2010. This suite of indices demonstrates conclusively that warm days are becoming more frequent, warm spells are lasting longer and are warmer. However, the number of days with snow depth > 50 cm strongly decreased in Scandinavia while increasing in west/central Europe. This large contrast between nearby regions may exist because weather is becoming more variable, but they are fueling denials based on 'there's snow in my backyard!'
70312. Camburn at 13:17 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       skywatcher: Why do you think the shock value will be negative?
70313. Albatross at 13:11 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Camburn enough with the alarmism and fear mongering already...
70314. skywatcher at 13:01 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       I'm sure we'll watch Australia slide back into the Bronze Age while the rest of the world powers ahead... /sarcasm Meanwhile, the billions of dollars investment in renewables supported by the carbon price will have no impact at all on Australia's GDP?
70315. Camburn at 12:52 PM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       The USA is years away from implimenting a carbon emission policy. China is importing Aussie coal like mad and burning it. They are also years away from a carbon emission policy. Austrailia is 15 in the world as far as GDP. Will be interesting to watch the shock value to their GDP from the passing of the carbon plan.
70316. Eric (skeptic) at 12:46 PM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       Spharica, those numbers require some explanation of how hurricanes were and are now detected. Here are some interesting graphics: 1921-1980 and 1981-2000
70317. Bob Lacatena at 11:56 AM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       13, Eric, Here is a bar chart of Atlantic storms from the Wikipedia List of Atlantic Hurricane Records. I added the horizontal lines for easy visual comparison to previous years. Notice anything (click the image to see it larger)?
70318. Eric (skeptic) at 11:36 AM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       What I would put in the basic version is an explanation of the types of events that are more likely to occur: heat waves, extreme drought, and extreme rainfall; and those that are more ambiguous like hurricane: probably stronger but fewer; or events like 11/11/11: http://cafnrnews.com/2011/10/midwests-perfect-storm/ triggered by cold/warm contrast (may decrease over time).
70319. Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Fred Staples @112:

       "[A] sceptical person would do that (ask what was wrong with the multilayer model). He would conclude that he was looking at the problem the wrong way round – bottom up instead of top down."

       This is simply wrong headed. It does not matter where you start your calculations with multi-layer models (top or bottom) so long as you iterate until equilibrium is reached, the final result will be the same. Further, with multi-layer models if you want to solve for the equilibrium surface temperature algebraicly, you must start with the outer most layer. Therefore characterizing multi-layer models as "bottom up" models is at best meaningless, and at worst, simply false.

       "The lapse rate, the cooling of the atmosphere with height, something you can observe on your car thermometer, is about 6K per kilometer and it has nothing (or almost nothing, Tom) to do with radiation."

       The lapse rate is not a constant 6 degrees C/km. Rather, it depends primarily on the local relative humidity. If humidity is 100%, the lapse rate will be 5 C/km, whereas for dry air it is 9.8 C/km. The lapse rate is also effected by lateral heat transport, which is why in polar winters it is near 0, or even negative. In simplified one dimensional models, the lapse rate is treated as having a single constant value, but that is a simplifying approximation only. It should no more treated as reality than the assumption of point masses in standard Newtonian calculations of gravitational force should be considered evidence that the sun's diameter is zero. More importantly, the role of radiation is not neglible. At all levels of the atmosphere, gross radiative transfers of energy exceed those by convection or latent heat, although net transfers are typically smaller. Indeed, there is a complicated interplay between radiation and convection. Without the radiatively induced lapse rate, the atmosphere would be near equal in temperature at all altitudes, and convection would be limited. Convection is best understood (for these purposes) as a negative feedback on the radiatively induced lapse rate.

       "First consider a single shell model. Simple Algebra..."

       You have simply returned to the multi-layer radiative only, emissivity 1 model which I described as "unphysical" above. Why do you inist on this false dilemma of either a purely radiative model or a purely convective (higher is cooler) model. The world does not fit into simple compartments like that. Both radiation and convection are important within the atmosphere. Indeed, I have already described a model which includes both (and which because it does not fit your false dilemma, you ignore).

       "There is only one snag. For this model to be true the troposphere temperatures must rise earlier and faster than the surface temperatures as CO2 concentrations increase. In a multi-layer model it would be the other way round."

       First, there is no "uniquely correct" model of the greenhouse effect. There is a correct physics, the radiative-convective physics discovered by Manabe. That can be modeled by either multi-layer models which track both radiation and convection at each level, or by a simplifying TOA radiation plus lapse rate model. The second is a simplified version and so is not entirely accurate (although it is the best of the simple models). Because both approaches describe the same physics, there is no fundamental difference in their predictions. Second, the tropospheric hotspot is not a direct consequence of the greenhouse effect. Rather, it is a consequence of increased humidity at altitude which is predicted for all warming scenarios. Because the vertical transfer of heat in the atmosphere is rapid, taking days (for radiative transfers) and hours (for convective), the hotspot is most definitely not a consequence of which portion of the atmosphere heats first. And please note, as the lapse rate is a function of humidity, the hotspot is predicted equally by the multi-layer and the TOA plus lapse rate models once the lapse rate is allowed to adjust for humidity changes. To sum up, your entire post consists of nothing but a series of misunderstandings of climate science. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of the type of multi-layer models that are used in GCM's on a regular basis, insisting on a false dilemma between two crude models only used for teaching purposes. Because you insist on that false dilemma, you do not recognize the existence of the models actually most used in climate science, which are mulit-layer, but have the same general properties (though more accurately) of the model you insist we use.
70320. GreenCooling at 11:11 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       Steve, Philippe, Aussie et al, I couldn't agree more strongly, the denier psychology is hard to comprehend, and incredibly frustrating to confront. I've been engaged in a now lengthy debate with some HVAC engineers/technicians over at LinkedIn (on the "HVAC Professionals" group) that has diverged from a question on the relative merits of R410a vs R22 to whether global warming and even ozone depletion are real. These guys livelihoods will depend on their ability to adapt to the impending shift away from HCFCs and HFCs, yet in their processional opinions, everyone here at SkS are leftist propagandists, liberals, morons, politics and philosophy majors and all manner of other unsavory things. In hope of widening the debate, I've started a new discussion featuring the SkS site, probably not even a snowflake's chance in hell of changing the minds of the key protagonists, but the group has a broad audience, and it should help build awareness of the excellent work featured here. Would be great if anyone has time to drop in and lend your 2 cents worth? Steve, I'd love to quote your post 1 at an early point in this new discussion, unless you'd rather drop by yourself? My heartfelt thanks to all for all that you do, please keep up your great and valuable work. Brent
70321. skywatcher at 10:54 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Albatross, that figure is incredibly telling and quite chilling. Roll the dice. Who's next under the 3-sigma browns? Now it's a lot more people than it was 30 years ago. Soon enough it'll be common...
       Response:

       [DB] How about some more chillin', then?  From the same source:

       

       Figure 4. Frequency of occurrence (y-axis) of local temperature anomalies divided by local standard deviation (x-axis) obtained by binning all local results for 11-year periods into 0.05 intervals. Area under each curve is unity.

70322. dana1981 at 10:51 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       John H - thanks very much. Tom - I know, we discussed the incomplete final two data points in the blog post from which Figure 2 originated (linked above Figures 1 and 2). For the purposes of that particular graphic, it's a rather minor point (two data points out of thousands), and those two data points were included in "Curry's BEST" graph. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to remove them, if I have the time.
70323. skywatcher at 10:49 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Others have made the important point that it is not necessarily the global scale impact on climate of Australia's emissions cuts that is at stake here. It is the setting an example, or showing willing that will encourage other major economies to do the same. It's also the case that generally the first step is the hardest - and once investors see greater benefits in renewables than in fossil fuels, then momentum can be built. Another wee piece of good news - the Fossil Fuel Levy, which has been in place in Scotland since 1996, has finally yielded significant funds (£103m) for the burgeoning renewables industry in Scotland, despite some political wrangling. Another £103m is going to the Green Bank which is further supporting renewables investment. The Fossil Fuel Levy has now been replaced by the Climate Change Levy, which taxes non-domestic FF power in the UK - not quite the same as the Australian price on carbon, but a step in the right direction. Still more political will required to move carbon reductions forward still further, but it shows that if you get the building blocks in place, reductions can happen.
70324. John Hartz at 10:31 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       "What we are seeing is there are more floods, more extreme weather events, higher temperature, more variable rainfalls and we believe that is caused by climate change. And we should expect this to increase, sadly," Andrew Steer, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, told reporters in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi. Source: “Climate change to bring more floods,” Agence France-Presse, Nov 10, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
70325. Tom Curtis at 10:14 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       Dana, I have a significant problem with your figure 2. It includes the anomalously low figure for April, 2010 and also May, 2010. As has been well documented, those two data points are faulty and should not be included an any analysis. Indeed, Nick Stokes at Moyhu has shown that those two months draw their data from just 47 stations, compared to the 14,488 station used in March of 2010. In other words, the number of stations used has reduced by 99.68%. What is worse, Nick Stokes has also shown that all temperature data for April and May of 2010 in the BEST data set comes from Antarctica. It should not need pointing out that Antarctica is not the world, and so those to months should not be used in any serious analysis. In fact, when I contacted the BEST project about this issue, Robert Rohde, lead author of the methods paper replied, saying:

       "Yes, there is an issue with the availability and incorporation of very recent data not being uniform. As a result the last two months do have far less data, and analysis of those months isn't meaningful. We expect to update the data set to incorporate more recent data in the near future and hopefully provide more uniform coverage at recent times."

       (My emphasis, private communication) IMO, it is an indictment on Judith Curry's competence that, as a co-author of all the BEST papers, she was unable to recognise the inclusion of data which "isn't meaningful" if included in an analysis. Regardless of the fact that she was happy to pass over the inclusion of faulty data (if she even recognized it), no paper or graph from the BEST project shows evidence of including those data points in their analyses. Therefore inclusion of those two data points is unwarranted. As a final note, the people who prepared the graph which Curry so obligingly accepted for analysis must have known what they were doing. BEST publishes the uncertainty level of all data in all its published data. As Tamino has shown, the last two data points stick out like a sore thumb in that regard, and so there can be no excuse from ignorance in their inclusion in any analysis: (BEST montly dat uncertainties for 1/2001-5/2010) I know you have included those two months because they where included in the graph Curry commented on. However, given the very limited nature of the data set for those two months, and the fact that BEST does not include those months in any analysis, they should not have been included.
70326. Bob Lacatena at 09:53 AM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1129, Fred Staples,

       Yes, Spherica, a sceptical person would do that (ask what was wrong with the multilayer model).

       How could you so completely miss the point? The problem is not what is wrong with the model in general, but rather what is oversimplified in your mathematical representation of the model. [The answer, since you failed to find it, is that convection and evapotranspiration are still components of the system, and are not insignificant. They account for further heat transport from the surface up into the atmosphere, effectively cooling the surface below what an untempered greenhouse effect might achieve.]

       There, Spherica, you have a model which almost exactly fits what we see...

       Um, yes, the lapse rate successfully explains the drop in temperature with altitude, but it utterly fails to explain why the surface of the earth is warmer than 255K while the earth continues to emit into space at a perceived temperature of 255K.

       However, a true AGW believer, Spherica, would...

       This is just a transparent effort to be obnoxious and condescending, as well as an effort to try to diminish the science by implying that it is a religion. It is not, and any rational human being that understands the science knows it. You did succeed in being obnoxious, however. Sadly, rather than being annoyed, I am merely amused.

       Exactly the same results as before – another model which does not work.

       Which proves what? That you can create a lot of models that don't work?

       Why any AGW proponents fail to accept this model is baffling.

       It's not baffling at all. It is because the model you present is wrong. But you go on...

       Add CO2 to the atmosphere and the outward radiation will be resisted. The effective emission level will rise. The emission temperature to space will consequently fall, as will the outgoing energy. The Sun will then warm the whole system to restore the balance. The observable lapse rate will shift to the right.

       Yes! You understand GHG theory. Now you have it! So what's your problem?
70327. John Hartz at 09:48 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       Steve, Phillipe & Aussie: I highly recommend that you read “Capitalism vs. the Climate” by Naomi Klein. She offers fresh insights into what motivates climate deniers in one of the most well written articles on the topic that I have read.
70328. John Hartz at 09:37 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       Dana: You are the BEST author in the SkS stable. Thanks for all that you do.
70329. John Hartz at 09:07 AM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @Fred Staples #1129: Echoing what Composer99 said in #1130, What the heck are you trying to proove?
70330. Rob Painting at 08:34 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Eric (skeptic) @ 8 - "Not sure if extreme rainfall and extreme heat have the same statistical characteristics, although IMO they should be similar since they often result from the same blocking weather patterns." Eric, the first sentence in the Penn State page you linked to, contradicts your claim: "Rainfall does not follow a Gaussian distribution, so you cannot discern its extreme values simply by looking at the ends of a bell curve"
70331. Riduna at 08:32 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Victull @ 32 makes a valid point. If large emitters are not prepared to reduce their emissions and have their reductions independently verified, action taken by Australia will not count for much – except in economic terms. Where the economy is concerned, Australia will almost certainly gain a significant trading advantage from replacing fossil fuels with renewables. Any country replacing costly fossil fuel dependence with cheaper alternatives will gain an advantage. While USA emissions are reported to be falling, China’s are rising at an alarming rate and show absolutely no sign of peaking let alone declining. India is destined to increase its emissions and, despite declarations of good intent, so are those of Russia, Japan and Korea. Major emitters refusing to make verified emission reductions, must be persuaded to do so by adopting renewable technologies able to produce base load energy, even though it costs more than using coal. Australian legislation gives it the edge in developing and demonstrating this technology. It already leads the way in heat mining and could now become a leader in more efficient production and storage of electricity generated from solar energy.
70332. Rob Painting at 08:19 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       macwithoutfries @ 9 - "You might want to slightly edit the line" Mac, this is from the supplementary material of Barriopedro (2011): "On the other hand, proxy data suggests that the summer of 2010 in central Russia was likely the warmest since the early 1360s, maybe even further back to the 10th and 11th centuries, when similar magnitudes may have been experienced" Hence my use of the word "may". Barriopedro (2011) found that the 2003 & 2010 heatwaves broke 500-year long temperature records over 50% of Europe.
70333. Composer99 at 08:10 AM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Fred, this comment of yours: Add CO2 to the atmosphere and the outward radiation will be resisted. The effective emission level will rise. The emission temperature to space will consequently fall, as will the outgoing energy. The Sun will then warm the whole system to restore the balance. The observable lapse rate will shift to the right. seems to amount to an admission that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming. Was this your intention?
70334. Utahn at 07:19 AM on 12 November 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Not sure if this is directly on topic here, but Barry Bickmore has a great video of a lecture here in Utah, talking about his previous beliefs and how we fool ourselves. http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/#comment-5348 Maybe SkSci needs to have a button for "conservatives who were swayed by the science" stories with vids and links?
70335. AussieinUSA at 07:02 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       So very true Steve @1, as I have found these people will call an apple an orange, and no matter how many times you say it is and prove that it is an apple, they don't care, as to them it is and always will be an orange. And once again another well written and presented article.
70336. Fred Staples at 07:00 AM on 12 November 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Yes, Spherica, a sceptical person would do that (ask what was wrong with the multilayer model). He would conclude that he was looking at the problem the wrong way round – bottom up instead of top down. The atmospheric greenhouse effect starts near the top of the atmosphere, where outgoing radiation to space must equal incoming radiation and the temperature of the effective emission level must be 255 degreesK. If the atmosphere is capable of absorbing and emitting energy, that level will be high up, at about 5 or 6 kilometers. The lapse rate, the cooling of the atmosphere with height, something you can observe on your car thermometer, is about 6K per kilometer and it has nothing (or almost nothing, Tom) to do with radiation. There, Spherica, you have a model which almost exactly fits what we see, and you will find it derived from first principles on page 113 of FWTaylor’s Elementary Climate Physics. However, a true AGW believer, Spherica, would resist the obvious and seek an alternative bottom-up multi-layer model One model which avoids second-law “back-radiation” problems is a shell model which calculates energy flow as the difference between the fourth power of the temperatures from the surface to the first shell, from the first shell to the second, from the second to the third and so on to space. First consider a single shell model. Simple Algebra, (difficult to type) shows that the fourth power of the surface temperature equals 2 x the fourth power of the shell temperature, or 303K. Now add another shell. Repeat the Algebra, and the surface temperature will rise to 335 degreesK, and so on. Exactly the same results as before – another model which does not work. I could appeal to Occam’s razor, but I won’t. The only plausible explanation of global warming is “higher is colder”, which fits all the observations, and which depends only on the lapse rate. Why any AGW proponents fail to accept this model is baffling. Add CO2 to the atmosphere and the outward radiation will be resisted. The effective emission level will rise. The emission temperature to space will consequently fall, as will the outgoing energy. The Sun will then warm the whole system to restore the balance. The observable lapse rate will shift to the right. A few years ago all the major pundits, RC for example, supported these ideas. There is only one snag. For this model to be true the troposphere temperatures must rise earlier and faster than the surface temperatures as CO2 concentrations increase. In a multi-layer model it would be the other way round. Over at the “After McClean” thread I have quoted some of the evidence.
70337. Albatross at 06:45 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       SteveL @1, Just to echo Philippe's comments-- your post @1 is an excellent summary of what reputable scientists and policy makers are up against. Thanks.
70338. Philippe Chantreau at 06:37 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       Steve, this one nails it on the head: "it's unclear that policies will be made better by involving people who are willing to deny reality." The crux of the problem lies with these people who will stubbornly continue to deny reality until their last breath and are willing to wage an all out war against policies challenging their illusions. Eventually, when the damage is obvious beyond any kind of denial, they will deny any responsibility and shift the blame to others.
70339. Steve L at 05:59 AM on 12 November 2011
       The BEST Summary
       I think the BEST results have been important in showing that the problem with the acceptance of climate science, and more specifically anthropogenic global warming, is not a problem of data. It's not a problem of analytical method. It's not a problem of openness or peer review. It's a problem of our inability to leave the contrarians behind. Societies need the engagement of politically motivated individuals in sculpting policies, but it's unclear that policies will be made better by involving people who are willing to deny reality. We have to learn to move on without them, because one thing BEST has taught us is that fake skeptics will refuse to see the truth no matter how plainly it stands in front of them. PS You didn't mention the folks who, after BEST came out, newly claimed that Muller never was a skeptic. It adds another item to my list of what the problem is not -- it's not a problem of the messenger. Whoever tells the inconvenient truth will be demonized by these people. I'd like to see more experimentation done on this front, however!
70340. Bob Lacatena at 05:19 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       34, dana1981, I'd forgotten about that! I actually wrote a long series of posts last year specifically applying game theory to climate change policy decisions, culminating in the application of the Tragedy of the Commons: The Game of Climate Change -- Part 1 The Game of Climate Change -- Part 2 The Game of Climate Change -- Part 3
70341. dana1981 at 04:57 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       Sphaerica - a Tragedy of the Commons, as well.
70342. macwithoutfries at 04:13 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       You might want to slightly edit the line "... may have been the warmest in almost 1000 years" - the link goes to a very good paper, but that one only makes that claim since 1500, and that will just provide an attack point for the deniers :(
70343. Bob Lacatena at 04:11 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       32, victull, Yes, but if China uses Australia's excuse (the USA isn't cutting emissions) and the USA uses the same excuse (China and Australia aren't cutting emissions) and if Europe abandons its investment (we can't compete because China, Australia, and the USA aren't cutting emissions) then the world goes to hell and we all lose. Australia needs to do this, and to step forward and put pressure on other nations to follow suit, who in turn must also put pressure on other nations to follow suit. The USA should be considered a laughing stock and the black sheep of the world on emissions and climate change. Getting there means that the rest of the world needs to lead where the USA is failing to do so. The argument that Australia should stay in the herd and remain one of the sheep because other flocks are bigger and eating the same grass just doesn't cut it. This is a very, very dangerous game of chicken to be playing, waiting to see who will cut emissions first.
70344. invicta at 03:48 AM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       PaulD@11 How important is getting the message across to the disinterested public. I suggest that even your clear and not technically difficult comment would leave a lot of them yawning. How scientist talk to the public must be a factor in the equation. If eg Dr Phil Jones had said something like "No, I would say that the warming trend of 0.12deg C since 1995 does not quite achieve statistical significance....." a great many lurid headlines might have been avoided. But probably going OT
70345. Kevin C at 03:25 AM on 12 November 2011
       The Climate Show 21: Carbon, coal and BEST
       Sigh. I withdraw all of the previous comment. I was fooling myself by adjusting the baselines. Sorry. I now think that BEST have got the CRUTEM3 data correct. I can reproduce the BEST, NOAA and CRUTEM3 lines from their plot, although to do so I have to tweak the baseline for the CRUTEM3 value. (I suspect the difference between the weighted combination of hemispheres and the global cell average is the issue here). I'm still having trouble reproducing their GISS line though, even with the data Robert pointed us to.
70346. skept.fr at 03:18 AM on 12 November 2011
       Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
       Hello, Concerning the divergence problem, I suggest you should be more cautious in the formulation you choose. Two examples from d’Arrigo 2008, whose review is your main source : D’Arrigo 2008 : « Although limited evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more research is needed to confirm these observations » Your choice : « The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. » You are quite more affirmative than your source. D’Arrigo 2008 : « However, the relative scarcity of ring width and density records from the lower mid latitudes, tropics and Southern Hemisphere precludes making definitive conclusions about the spatial extent of this phenomenon, and more research is needed to more fully evaluate the extent of the divergence problem worldwide » So clearly, it’s impossible to say for the moment that DP is limited to circumpolar forest (your « mostly high tlatitude »). For example a well-known scientist of the field observes that mid-latitude tree-rings are also of concern, and that the phenomenon is quite widespread except for low-latitude : « Evidence for reduced sensitivity of tree growth to temperature has been reported from multiple forest sites along the mid to high northern latitudes and from some locations at higher elevation. This alleged large-scale phenomenon reflects the inability of temperature sensitive tree-ring width and density chronologies to track increasing temperature trends in instrumental measurements since around the mid-20th century. » http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Buentgenetal2009.pdf Hereafter, another example at mid latitude with a very recent analysis showing a divergence in Alpin Larch (since 1990) and rising some problems for temperature-calibration in order to reconstruct past climate variations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11004109 IPCC AR4 also mentions : "Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1 It means that if some trees are affected by such a non-linear treshold related to temperature/humidity pressure (no specifically anthropogenic-induced factors), the DP is not necessarily limited to modern era and that tree-growth may have been affected in some locally warmer period in the past. So I suggest you're a bit overconfident and selective in some preliminary conclusions of this very active field of research. Best
70347. victull at 01:23 AM on 12 November 2011
       Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
       About 83% of Australia's baseload electricity is generated from coal. The rest is Hydro (about 6%), Gas and other fossil fuels and renewables. China will have about 25 times Australia's coal fired capacity by 2020, so if Australia's Carbon Tax reduces its carbon emissions by 5 or 10%, we are talking about saving about 36 hours of China's coal fired emissions per year. The effect on the planet will be slight if not unmeasurable. Australia is a major coal exporter to China, and the Gillard Govt approves such exports. For the Australian Carbon Tax to have any global effect - the major global emitters need be on board. Perhaps contributors to this debate could assess the liklihood of the USA, Europe, China, India enacting similar carbon taxes which will have the effect of reducing global carbon emissions.
70348. Eric (skeptic) at 01:23 AM on 12 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Not sure if extreme rainfall and extreme heat have the same statistical characteristics, although IMO they should be similar since they often result from the same blocking weather patterns. This link http://climate.met.psu.edu/www_prod/features/rainextreme.php has a discussion of calculating the extreme value of "N-year events" from past rainfall events. That short discussion does not examine trends or attribution. But it does contrast somewhat with the Gaussian assumption in Figure 1. Also Figure 1 is too short a period of record to obtain a meaningful probability distribution IMO.
70349. Paul D at 00:35 AM on 12 November 2011
       Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
       Invicta@1 Assigning probabilities to single events should be possible now. A probability doesn't assign a direct cause to an event, it just states the likelihood of an event being caused by one of two possibilities. So even if it had a high probability of being caused by AGW, it doesn't actually mean that event was caused by AGW. Really what you are asking scientists to do isn't much different to what is already being done.
70350. chriskoz at 00:27 AM on 12 November 2011
       CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
       I took time to read the concluding remarks from Everett's testimony. I don't agree with his arguments about "plasticidity and resilience of affected organisms". The facts are: background extinction rate is just 1 per my. Our current human-induced extinction rate already is 10-100 times higher and as soon as by 2050, we can wipe off some 20-30% of all species as we discussed here. That matches the major extinction events. Does it make sense to boast about "resilience of organisms" up to that point and say that it's still "all right"? We are clearly causing such massive devastation of species diversity and it is good because such thing "happened in the past" (only four times many milions ya)? Even the moral part of that story aside, how can anyone draw a conclusion that "nothing bad happens" if it is repeated now? Another remark from Everett is even more disturbing, because it's simply insane, quote: Despite severe and abrupt ocean climate changes in terms of currents, temperatures, salinity, pH, and other parameters, the biology changes rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed the changes expected with human-induced climate change and occur much faster. The estimated 0.1 change in alkalinity since 1750 and the one degree F. temperature rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly changing system First of all, Everett confuses climate with weather here when talking about "abrupt changes" in months or couple of years. I assume climate scientist should know the distinction. But the last statement that global warming of 1F from 1860 is "noise in this rapidly changing system" irritates my sense of sanity. If you have high school level knowledge about signal theory, just look at those temp graphs, either BEST or GISS or HAD, you clearly see that this 1F or 0.6C is the trend. Noise is that Everett's "rapidly changing system". And the whole argument does not make sense. Being not an expert in this field, I don't understand why such incoherent rambling can be pronounced by a fellow who works in NOAA and IPCC. And why this rambling can be accepted by Congress as a "testimony". Can someone explain if Everett wanted to say here something sensible or should I be left with an impression that he does not understand what he's talking about?

Prev  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  Next