Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 Next
Comments 70651 to 70700:
-
Sasquatch at 03:40 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Sphaerica @ 65: Perhaps I should have used the word dependable. Right now neither wind nor solar sources are very effective in providing dependable power on a large scale. I hope that changes. And, don't be naive in assuming that the alternative forms of energy don't have ecosystem impact. Whether it is the impact to airborne wildlife, groundwater impact in the mining of rare metals, massive concrete bases, noise pollution, structural footprints, etc..., there is impact beyond that of greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is a very good intermediate solution. And, for the life of me, I do not understand why nuclear power is not considered feasible. Now, I am going to ride my bike home to eat lunch. -
renewable guy at 03:33 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
{How do we stay below a global rise of two degrees Celsius? According to a new study involving researchers various climate institutes, greenhouse gas emissions would need to peak during the decade and fall to 44 gigatons by 2020. Emissions this year are expected to hit 48 gigatons.} My interest is in clarification. http://www.skepticalscience.com/iea-co2-emissions-update-2010.html However, despite the slow global economic recovery, 2010 saw the largest single year increase in global human CO2 emissions from energy (fossil fuels), growing a whopping 1.6 Gt from 2009, to 30.6 Gt (the previous record annual increase was 1.2 Gt from 2003 to 2004). I see two different numbers here. Is there a mistake or do I need to learn something here. I see 30.6 gigatons co2 for 2010 and yet I see 48 gigatons ghg's for 2011. This difference stuck out to me like a sore thumb. I see an 18 gigaton difference here.Moderator Response: [Sph] These are references to two different measures. The first is actual CO2 emissions, while the latter is CO2e -- CO2 equivalents of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. See my comment below for more information. -
Albatross at 03:14 AM on 8 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #23
Great cartoons, both (the OP cartoon and @1) really do highlight the games being played by the "skeptics" and deniers of AGW. Encouraging that the media are picking up on the denial and highlighting it. The contrarians, "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW have taken quite a beating the last two weeks, and are spinning their wheels. They have lost control of their message/misinformation. A small victory. -
Tom Curtis at 03:03 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Sphaerica @65 it appears that you have correctly identified the source of Arkadiusz' quote. Never-the-less, he clearly identifies the quote as being from Hansen, and indeed as the conclusion of a paper by Hansen. In fact it is neither. Therefore he has misrepresented Hansen and based his argument on a clear falsehood. That some other person with a different name on a different continent actually said the words makes the quote no less fictitious when ascribed to Hansen. While it is possible that he made a sincere error, that error shows at the minimum that his understanding of the science of AGW is poor. He clearly relies on extensive reading of papers in English to understand the the theory; but equally clearly his English is so bad that what he understands shows greater resemblance to what he desires to believe rather than what was actually written. -
AussieinUSA at 02:58 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
In the above article it stated....... Avoiding rising above two degrees Celsius is entirely possible: a recent study in Energy Policy found that fossil fuels could be wholly abandoned by 2050 with the world's energy needs met by electricity produced 90 percent from wind and solar sources alone. The final 10 percent could be generated by geothermal, hydro, wave, and tidal power. Ground transportation would be run by electricity or hydrogen fuel cells, and planes would be powered by liquid hydrogen. Is there a reference for that statement at all?Moderator Response: [John Hartz] I will ask the author of the article to provide a reference. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:52 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
63, Sasqiatch, Until irrational resistance to forms of clean power (there's no reason to put "clean" in quotes) ceases, and until people stop ignoring the hidden costs of fossil fuel use, we'll be stuck where we are. And the hidden costs of FF use go beyond GHGs, pollution and ecosystem damage. The plain fact is that it is unsustainable in the long term, it is becoming increasingly expensive to find and recover, and it will never, ever provide enough energy for a continually growing and developing world. Sticking to fossil fuel use because it's cheap and easy (because we currently have an infrastructure that is 100% focused on FF energy) is a recipe for disaster. It's the modern, global equivalent of the Grasshopper and the Ants. Winter is coming, and instead of developing alternative forms of energy, the grasshopper is driving back and forth to the mall in his SUV. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:43 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
61, Tom, The actual quote can be traced to a widely circulated and re-blogged article about the paper "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change" by Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes. That article says:But new research from the Lancaster Centre for Forecasting at Lancaster University Management School (LUMS) does suggest that current forecasts can be made more accurate. Report co-author Robert Fildes, a forecast researcher...
(i.e. not a climate scientist, not even close, and from a school of management to boot) andHe stresses that his work should not be misinterpreted as being negative about climate modelling...
The quote in question, in context says:Fildes argues that policymakers need to be responding to a wide range of other climate forcings – not simply greenhouse gases – and considering their effects regionally as well as globally. The IPCC climate modelling process is unreliable because it does not do so, he says, adding that the focus on greenhouse gases has been driven by a priori assumptions in the models themselves. This will have to change in the future, he adds.
But that last bit is unsupported by any factual data. That's just his opinion. And a seriously poorly educated one at that. -
Tristan at 02:28 AM on 8 November 2011Springs aren't advancing
Are there any other such studies being done elsewhere at the moment? -
John Hartz at 02:03 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
@Tom Curtis #61: I completely agree with you. Arkadiusz Semczyszak has sunk to a new low by manufacturing a bogus quote. I believe he should be permnanently banned from posting comments on SkS. -
Sasquatch at 02:00 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Developed countries and developing countries require access to power. China and India are showing dramatic increases in their GHG emissions. Other nations are rising, too. The US actually decreased last year, partially due to the economic downturn and partially due to using more natural gas in place of coal. Until other forms of "clean" power (dependable = nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc...) (not-so dependable (yet) wind, solar, etc...) are available, GHG emissions are going to go up. The best immediate response where combustion is required is to replace coal and oil with cleaner burning natural gas. -
MA Rodger at 01:44 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
renewable guy @8 Your assumption that 48 gigatons is the figure for all GHG's combined is wrong. 2010 CO2 emissions = 10.5gtC = 38.5gtCO2. To achieve 48gtCO2 by 2020 would require a 25% increase over the decade. Over the last decade we mamanged a 29% increase. Some numbers I bashed off in a letter to my local paper a while ago was that we have emitted 2.4 trillion tons of CO2 in the last 150 years & emitting 1.2 trillion more would be seriously bad news, yet if we continue as we are we will achieve that extra 1.2 trillion in the next 20 to 30 years. There have been no skeptical letters in that paper since so perhaps its an effective message. -
Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Arkadiusz Semczyszak @58, although you quote Hansen et al, 2011 as saying:"The IPCC climate modelling process is unreliable ..."
those words appear nowhere in either the paper or the abstract. That you must resort to manufacturing quotes means you have sunk to a new low. There is no excuse for this, not even your fractured English. What is more, not only are you employing a fictional quote, you employ it in direct contradiction to Hansen's very considered opinion on the future trajectory of climate change. Those opinions are worth quoting rather fully:"Milankovic climate oscillations help define climate sensitivity and assess potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster. Polar warmth in prior interglacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today's climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming. Deglaciation, disintegration of ice sheets, is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. If warming reaches a level that forces deglaciation, the rate of sea level rise will depend on the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. The emerging shift to accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth's temperature has returned to at least the Holocene maximum. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed."
So contrary to your fictitious quote which makes Hansen into a skeptic about predictions of future events, Hansen is far from skeptical, and differs from the author of the above article only in being far more pessimistic about our future. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:36 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
And since Camburn, (-Snip-) to write about drought is that my post please treat - in this case - in addition to His comments. “ Western states happened to build dams and water systems during a period that was unusually wet compared to the past 6,000 years,” he said. “Now the cycle has changed and is trending drier, which is actually normal. It will shift back to wet eventually, but probably not to the extremes seen during most of the 20th century.”, “The change in cycle regularity Abbott and his colleagues found correlates with documented activity of El Niño/La Niña. When the patterns became more intense, wet and dry cycles in the Pacific Northwest became more erratic and lasted longer, Abbott said.”Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:36 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
I do not understand ... That Hansen corresponds best to the question - is it: “ ... world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating.” - whether we use the "draconian" cutting in A. CO2 emissions in 10 years? I think the article about the interview with Hansen perfectly complements the work Hansen et al. 2011. (this was already cited earlier on this blog). The authors completely agree with the AGW theory, but one of their conclusions, however, is this: “THE IPCC CLIMATE MODELLING PROCESS IS UNRELIABLE ...” This can not be changed! If so ... then all time periods calculated in the above-cited works here are too short - is a simple (and only possible!) proposal - no other interpretation is possible. The authors of the work cited above (and author of the post) should take into account the conclusions of Hansen's prior to the publication of their work and fasting. The same applies to the huge doubts about the carbon cycle - should be included in the forecasts. Both works have “nothing in common” with the correct process of estimation and quantification of risk - should be withdrawn in the process of reviewing - to fundamentally rework and essential additions. Permafrost shows us that (under the assumptions of the theory of AGW) we have no chance to avoid "doubling of CO2," even if we have already reduced their emissions today to 90 or even 100%! (since the publication of the fourth IPCC report concluded that the amount of C in the permafrost is not about 750 and at least 1,670 Pg). As we can see, the vast majority of other comments here is "off topic" but certainly not mine.Moderator Response:[John Hartz] Your use of all caps violates SkS posting policy. Please cease and desist.
-
Dave123 at 00:30 AM on 8 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
@Dikran 50- Brilliant...finally a distillation of what it's really all about.... natural variation/noise swamping the AGW signal vs the AGW signal disappearing. Making that explicit is really important...because I think Curry et al are blurring that distinction, perhaps on purpose to "feed the uncertainty monster". I can see a cartoon based on "little shop of horrors"...with Audrey II being labled "The Uncertainty Monster"...and Prof. Curry scurring around in response to its demands "Feeeeeeeeeed me!" -
muoncounter at 00:30 AM on 8 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
54 Camburn: "drought of 2011 in Texas is not the most extreme drought" Not the worst in history perhaps, just the worst since 1789. Texas’ average PDSI this past summer (June through August) was -5.37 – the lowest, indicating the most severe drought conditions, since the start of the instrumental record in 1895. ... Going back to 1550, the tree-ring reconstructions reveal that only in 1789 was Texas’ PDSI number so low But you can believe that it's all just chaos if you want. -
Jim Powell at 22:40 PM on 7 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Earlier, I took a look at two suggestions made above. 1) Compare the numbers of papers these skeptics have written that deny human-caused global warming or call it into question with the numbers for a mainstream climate scientist like Hansen, say. I did not find a way to make the comparison meaningful. I am not counting all the papers that Lindzen has written that are not directly about global warming, so what is the parallel for Hansen? If the point is how many total papers someone has written, it would be a rare scientist who has more than Lindzen. 2) Take a look at the citations to see who cited the papers in these new databases. Again, I did not find this to be practical. One of Lindzen's papers has 300 cites. The citations for some others seem to be a mixed bag, with some cites from other skeptics on the list but also other cites by people who seem not to be skeptics. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:13 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
There is a missing close quote in Camburn's post above....
Response:[DB] Fixed, thanks!
-
JMurphy at 21:32 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Camburn : "We have had periods within the Holocene as warm as the projections from the models and survived quit well. In fact, one period was called the Holocene Optimum." As usual, things are not quite as simplistic as some would like them to be. From Wikipedia :...increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south [Central Europe was in between] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3C warmer than present. Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia and Japan, and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America show temperature increases and drier conditions
Bit of a mixed bag there, especially with the ice-melt and extra rain, although I suppose that would be simplistically looked at as being good for plants, etc. And the human population then ? About 10 million people, going by estimates I have seen. Compare that to the 7 billion around today, all within national boundaries; many on land which will be under water. Will we still survive "quite well" ? In a simplistic, ideal world : perhaps. In the real world : only if you exist in a state of denial. -
Bern at 20:01 PM on 7 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #23
Actually, I liked the last panel best, but I agree panel 2 is pretty good. -
Sudden_Disillusion at 19:43 PM on 7 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
It seems that Camburn ran out of arguments as he completely vanished after having been sooo disproven it hurts! Classic skeptic behavior: misinform and vanish. Damage done! -
Camburn at 19:11 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Skywatcher: The drought of 2011 in Texas is not the most extreme drought. Did you read the climate history of Texas? Mississippi floods. History of Mississippi floods Yes, there have been extreme events in the past throughout the world. That is part of life and a chaotic climate. Will there continue to be extreme events in the future? Of course there will be. (-Snip-)Response:[DB] Fixed bad URL. Inflammatory snipped. Hand-waving noted.
-
Rob Painting at 19:09 PM on 7 November 2011Sea level fell in 2010
Post updated to include figure 5. Some extraneous text snipped. -
Rob Painting at 19:02 PM on 7 November 2011Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
Post updated to include figure 5. Some extraneous text snipped. -
skywatcher at 18:05 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
#52 Your first sentence is a strawman that nobody ever disagreed with. But at least you now accept that this drought is not, in fact "pretty normal". Though you then contradict yourself with your last two statements. It is of course part of a pattern of droughts. What you neglect to mention is that it is, in fact, the most extreme single-year member of that pattern of droughts. So in a USA which sees record highs outpacing lows by 2:1 (and very likely to increase), and a series of damaging weather events, including, but not limited to, the Texas drought and Mississippi floods, which all just so happens to be what is predicted as the climate warms due to GHGs, some Americans seem to think that everything is OK because there have been some extreme events in the past and the 1930s were quite warm in the USA. If the impacts were limited to America, I'd be tempted to leave the nay-sayers to it and see how they like being frogs in the hot water. Sadly, the majority of Americans that want action on GHG emissions (see #37) would also cook. Alongside the fact that the impacts are global, and so we're all in the soup, we all need to move towards solutions as fast as possible. Seeing how difficult it is to get a single person to accept a small point (Camburn here, finally accepting that 2011 was extreme contrary to his earlier statement), it will be a long road. -
Camburn at 17:39 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
skywatcher: It is normal for Texas to have droughts. Agree? Some droughts are worse than others. Is this drought extreme? Yes, it is. Is this drought extreme in the context of climate droughts? No it is not, it is part of a pattern of droughts in Texas. -
skywatcher at 17:29 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
#50 Goalpost shift. Do you still contend that your statement in #34 that the current drought is "pretty normal", despite the Texas state climatologist stating, with evidence from the past century, that it is very clearly not normal? -
Camburn at 17:17 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
skywatcher: So we have a repeat of extreme droughts, of which Texas has had many as documented in the historical link...and you are trying to say this particular drought is all of a sudden the result of AGW? -
skywatcher at 16:59 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
#46: Which post? The one where the Texas state climatologist is quoted as saying 2011 was the most severe one-year drought since at least 1895? Or was it John N-G's post spotting the outlier, in data since 1895? You suggested in #34 the drought is 'pretty normal', yet it is the most extreme single year of drought on record. Your #47 seems irrelevant, yes, Texas has droughts (surprise!), but 2011 was extreme. It should be a wake-up call to certain Republican candidates, but they prefer to pray for rain... -
actually thoughtful at 16:55 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
By all means Camburn, look at your link. Look at when the call for action spiked. It was exactly during/after the last strong El Nino (98/99). Which is my point from awhile ago. And the rest of the link supports that your 50% number is bogus. Try reading what you link to. This statement is completely false:"There are only so many dollars to go around." - Camburn The whole point is that renewable energy creates jobs, and jobs create money, and that new, never seen before money expands the economy which creates jobs. Lather, rinse repeat. If it really were a non-expanding pie, then each generation would have to split the exact same amount of money with more and more people, and the standard of living over the last century would have declined. Other than a few periods under right wing leadership in the US, the opposite has been true. There is, indeed, enough money to go around. But it matters how and where you spend it. -
Camburn at 16:50 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
skywatcher@42: Historical perspective concerning Texas climate -
Camburn at 16:44 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
skywatcher: Note I mentioned the drought of the 1950's. Note the 40 years in your post. Texas has droughts each and every decade. That is their climate. This drought is severe, and will prob continue as a result of the upcoming La Nina. If it does, it has the potential to exceed the 1950's drought. -
Camburn at 16:41 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
KR: The rate of rise in the early 20th century is statistcally identical to the rate of rise from 1970-2005. As far as the actual temperature, yes, it is warmer worldwide now than in the early 20th century. I expect that, and if it wasn't I would be really worried. We just exited a Grand Maximum. One expects temperature rise during and after a Grand Maximum because of climate inertia. If you want to comment more on this topic I will certainly respond, but not tonight, in the What caused 20th century warming topic. -
Camburn at 16:36 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
actually thoughtful@40: I don't think my numbers are bogus as this link provides insight to the poll as it is repeated anually. Long term polling results -
Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Camburn - "I didn't move the goal posts, I asked you to look at long term climate." You changed the question, avoiding the answer presented. That's moving the goalposts, pure and simple. Your original assertion is incorrect. -
skywatcher at 16:26 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
#34, the Texas State climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon disagrees with you, on the "normality" of the current drought. Texas Drought, the executive summary: "The 2011 drought in Texas has been unprecedented in its intensity." "This drought has been the most intense one-year drought in Texas since at least 1895 when statewide weather records begin, and though it is difficult to compare droughts of different durations, it probably already ranks among the five worst droughts overall. The statewide drought index value has surpassed all previous values, and it has been at least forty years since anything close to the severity of the present drought has been experienced across Texas." Some way from "normal"... -
Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Camburn - You've been pointed to What caused early 20th Century warming, and I would also add A new twist on mid-century cooling. Your continuing insistence that early 20th century warming was equivalent to current warming is not supported by the data - and I would personally consider it continued denial. The forcings were different, the temperature didn't go anywhere near as high, and the current rise in temperatures is going to continue due to the physics involved. As someone said recently, physics has more predictive power than statistics, which have more predictive power than statistics done badly. The physics simply don't care about your economic arguments or desires. -
actually thoughtful at 16:22 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
adelady - I don't actually now how to answer your question. I can assure you that Australian issues with climate change do not motivate the rank and file American (and I think it should -but for the Grace of God...). Texas, with a climate change denying Presidential candidate as governor, provides a delicious (although deeply tragic) marker for what climate change means for the US. My sense is that Americans think most about climate change during 1) hot summers and 2) dramatic weather events. Droughts don't seem to count. Floods are good. Tornadoes seem to alert people. Most Americans can't seem to reconcile "global warming" with anomalous cold weather. It seems to blow a fuse in the typical American's logic board, and they either ignore it or ridicule the notion of climate change bringing more snow, harsher winter storms. I think they are looking for the 20-50 year effects, when winter storms will be more energetic, but wetter/warmer. I am in a strange place, that our President calls an "Eat your peas" moment - I think we need some significant bad news on the catastrophic storm front to move this country to a position where the world (including the US) suffers fewer catastrophic storms over the long term. I also cheer energy price increases, as even the uninformed free market is shouting that "cheap" fossil fuel is a myth. I would much prefer if we sent the extra money from high fuel costs to Americans (through a tax) to research and create a carbon free economy, rather than sending the money to terrorists in the Middle East so they can buy weapons to attack my country. But this logic is lost on my fellow countrymen who prefer denying the whole thing exists because it is more complicated than "when you are spending more than you bring in you STOP spending" - which seems to be the amount of mental effort people in this country are willing to dedicate to the tough problems we face as a nation. While Camburn's numbers regarding support for climate change policy are completely bogus - your question might be better directed at him as he seems to understand the whole "do nothing" agenda, which I find inexplicable. -
Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
A proper link to that paper is Meehl 2009, Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. -
Camburn at 16:17 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
KR: The point you are missing is that we warmed back to the 1930's level. That is why I asked you to make your graph longer. I didn't move the goal posts, I asked you to look at long term climate. -
skywatcher at 16:16 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
On opinion polls, Camburn, you might be interested in this recent one, run by Republican firn Public Opinion Strategies. "Fully 71 percent indicate support for requiring reductions in carbon emissions, including a solid majority of Republican voters." [Sept 22nd] This Reuters poll shows "The percentage of Americans who believe the Earth has been warming rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last year in the poll conducted Sept 8-12." "Global warming could be an important issue in next year's election, because some 15 percent of voters see it as their primary concern". Camburn, do you have polls that support your point, because these ones from September completely contradict you. Source for record highs outpacing record lows in the US. At NCDC you can see the current pace of record highs vs record lows is 2:1 for the past year (as it was over the past decade too), reaching 5:1 in July. -
Camburn at 16:13 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Spaerica: I posted what is known as far as energy reserves of oil. I won't even get into the coal, lets say of just the Powder River Basin. I have no fear about renewables. I know their costs as our elec co-op owns part of a windfarm. Even with the subsidies, the cost of wind in a class 5 wind area, and I have a windfarm approx 14 miles west of me, is approx 2.3 times the cost of our coal supplied generating stations. Speaking from my operation, if you raise the cost of energy even more, it will only cause more contraction of food output and higher prices. This ripples throughout the economy. There are only so many dollars to go around. -
Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Camburn - The graph, and the paper involved, is Meehl 2009, as described in the link (which I'll note should be clear if you read it). The period of that study is 1950 onwards. I will point out that it clearly demonstrates that record highs exceed record lows over the last 35 years. Before that, in the 1940's to mid 1970's, during a cooling phase, lows exceeded highs - as expected. Looking at the historic records, I would also expect highs to also exceed lows from 1910 to 1940, with more variation before that. I answered your question - "Documentation that the highs are outnumbering the lows in the USA please?". You then moved the goalposts. That's quite disappointing, Camburn, trying to change the question. But your original question is well answered, and your assertion contradicted, by the data I pointed to. -
Camburn at 16:06 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
adelady: The current drought in the USA in the southwest, south central is pretty normal. The drought of the 1950's in that area was more severe than the current drought. The La Nina has stengthened the drought this year, and there is worry that this will turn into a two year drought because of NOAA's forcast of another La Nina. -
actually thoughtful at 16:04 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Camburn, you write of oceanic pH: "the science is very cut and dried with high certainty." This is also true of climate change (it is the same CO2 - from man's actions - that is to blame in both cases). The science is settled and the solutions are obvious. The latest research shows that renewable energy systems grow the economy (beyond the research documented at this site, look at Germany and China - the two world leaders in renewable energy). So please explain why all patriotic Americans/world citizens shouldn't be working/installing/promoting renewable energy now? Or provide links to peer reviewed papers demonstrating that it is economically adverse to decarbonize our energy supply. -
Bob Lacatena at 16:04 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
28, Camburn, Your need to tie short-sighted economic fear to a need to continue BAU (or, worse, start frantically trying to tap shale deposits) points to a major disconnect in your thinking. There is no reason why transitions to other energy sources could not only be done smoothly and efficiently, but economically. There's no reason why it shouldn't cost less to switch energy sources rather than more. Your unreasoning fear of doing so is inexplicable and unjustified. -
Camburn at 16:00 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Kr@27. Make you graph longer please. At least start at 1900. -
adelady at 15:58 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
actually thoughtful "I believe we will see record temperatures, even with a La Nina. But the El Ninos in the US tend to put impressive weather on display." Texas and the southwest suffer mightily under La Nina conditions. Just look at the records tumbling week by week this year. Or are Americans more impressed by vision of drought and wildfire in exotic Australia when El Nino bites. -
Bob Lacatena at 15:58 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
25, actually thoughtful, My understanding of the biology is that the color change comes when the trees stop producing chlorophyll, which gives leaves their green color. The remaining pigments as the chlorophyll vanishes are what give them their color, although they've always been there. The leaves fall, on the other hand, when the veins close up and trap the sugars in the leaves and promote the production of anthocyanins. Scientists do not entirely understand what triggers these changes, but certainly temperature and length of day are two factors. Taking a systemic point of view, it behooves the tree to keep producing chlorophyll for as long as it is effectively "feeding" the plant. If temperatures drop or days get too short, it's not worth the effort anymore. My supposition is that the warmer weather could be leading trees to be able to hang onto their chlorophyll longer, but it's a losing battle because even if the temperatures stay warm, the days start to get too short. At the same time, there are other reasons for losing their leaves, as we in the Northeast have just seen. The early, heavy, wet snow at the end of October has caused a huge number of power outages, because snow usually falls after the leaves are off of the trees. The branches are not strong or pliable enough to hold the weight of the snow that can be supported by a canopy of leaves. The result is a lot of broken branches and felled trees, which in turn fall across roads and onto power lines. So the period during which the chlorophyll has dried up but the leaves are still on the trees is shortened (i.e shorter periods of fall colors) while the leaves are staying on the trees longer. Finally, the chlorophyll starts to dry up and the leaves start their shut down process soon after. I'm not a plant biologist. This is my understanding and supposition only. But one way or the other, this fall is unusually warm in the Northeast, and the trees seem to be responding to that in a very, very unusual way. -
Camburn at 15:58 PM on 7 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
Sphaerica: A link to a 2011 poll concering environmental issues Environmental Issues Poll USA As far as fossil fuels, the USA has so many fossil fuel sources that have not been developed that this is really not an issue. The Rocky Mountain shale has approx 2 trillion barrels of oil, the Bakken has 25 billion barrels, and the Canadians have approx 2 trillion barrels in just the tar sands. As far as military, the spending for the offensive military of the USA is complety utterly nuts. President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, but most people are too young to remember, nor heed his warning. As far as moral standing, instead of having folks such as Solyandra in the news, I would much prefer having thorium salts in the news. That we have developed a reactor that is safe, efficient, and best of all, no co2 or very little co2 emmitted. This has been an integral part of my solutions for years, but I get a lot of resitance which I have never understood. The USA is close to a meltdown right now. In fact, the world as a whole is close to a meltdown. The sad fact is, when the economics of the world is precarious, the development of new technologies does not proceed at a pace that is condusive to well being.
Prev 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 Next
