Recent Comments

Prev  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  Next

Comments 76001 to 76050:

76001. Composer99 at 04:39 AM on 2 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Ken: With regards to your statement: I hope you do not think that analogies to poisons are scientific statements. I do not claim to speak for the author(s) of this article. However, I see the comparison to poisons as a rhetorical rebuttal to an unscientific, rhetorical attack on climate science: the argument from low CO2 concentration. Quite simply, the argument itself is a non sequitur, not an empirical argument. As such, all one is obliged to do to rebut it is to demonstrate that there exist in nature other cases where seemingly-insignificant (or even infinitesimally small) quantities can have effects entirely disproportionate to their concentrations (botulism toxin being a perfect example).
76002. Bob Lacatena at 04:35 AM on 2 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       37, DSL, "You're not looking." How often does that need to be said, especially when it comes to how models are constructed? A favorite denial meme seems to be to insist that the models have failed to account for something any layman is aware of, as if climate scientists are literally that blinded by their love of CO₂. Just amazing.
76003. eldorado2768 at 04:33 AM on 2 September 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       Hello, I am not a trained scientist, so I hope you guys can bear with me. I came upon a yahoo article, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism." The article referenced a study published in Remote Sensing in July of this year. The title of the study was "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance". Here is the link to the PDF of the study. I would be curious to see some of your feedback on this study. Is there any validity to the arguments made? Look forward to your comments.
       Moderator Response: It is debunked in this Skeptical Science post.
76004. John Hartz at 04:09 AM on 2 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Suggested reading: “Keystone XL Is Self-Destructive. Does the Obama Administration Need to Be Also?” Op-ed by Mark Bittman, NY Times, Aug 31, 2011 To access this thoughtful essay, click here.
76005. DSL at 04:07 AM on 2 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Ken, what is the atmospheric residence time of water vapor? If you haven't seen it in any atmospheric model, you're not looking.
76006. Dikran Marsupial at 04:06 AM on 2 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Ken Water vapour is not a long-lived GHG, it has a residence time of about a week (for water vapour the residence and adjustment times are the same), thus it is irrelevant to a discussion of greenhouse forcing as it only acts as a feedback. The complete science leaves out water vapour from the table for that reason. N, O2 Argon etc are not GHGs, which explains why they are not in the table. Both of these facts are well known to those who have taken the effort to read the litterature, so yes lets get the dialog back on track by leaving discussion of water vapour to a more appropriate thread.
       Moderator Response: Ken, use the Search field at the top left of this page to search for water vapor.
76007. Paul D at 04:01 AM on 2 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Veritas, many electric bicycles have a range of 20 miles and could easily be charged at work for next to nothing. You could leave the car at home and just use it for errands after work.
76008. DSL at 04:01 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Muon: "An overstatement of uncertainty gets to the same point via a longer, more torturous path. If Curry's conclusion is 'we can't be sure' because IPCC language is too fuzzy or climate systems are too chaotic or whatever the reason du jour, then others will come down on the side of doing nothing based on her words. End result is the same." And she knows that.
76009. Ken at 04:00 AM on 2 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       How about some complete science here! What happened to water vapor on Table 1? Water vapor does represent 95% of the greenhouse gases and without it we would not be living here. Or am I missing something here and someone has determined that water vapor no longer transports energy around the globe through the heat of vaporization. I have yet to see this included in any atmospheric model or discussion. Also, what has happened to the percentages of N, O2, Argon and the other gases if CO2 has to be measured to the fifth decimal place. Atmospheric gases have never been shown to these accuracies in the CRC handbook as far back as my first copy in 1960. I hope you do not think that analogies to poisons are scientific statements. Newton and others warned about overstating your hypothesis before you have conclusive data. Lets get this dialog back on track.
76010. muoncounter at 02:33 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       trunk#57: "Nobody writing here is unconcerned" There are some who feel it's not happening or it's not bad or it's not our doing. Those each lead to lack of concern, apathy and eventually denial. An overstatement of uncertainty gets to the same point via a longer, more torturous path. If Curry's conclusion is 'we can't be sure' because IPCC language is too fuzzy or climate systems are too chaotic or whatever the reason du jour, then others will come down on the side of doing nothing based on her words. End result is the same.
76011. Dikran Marsupial at 02:29 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       trunkmonkey wrote: "Skeptics are less positive that we can predict the outcome.". If that is what skeptics do, what do you call those who try and make a fuss about the models not being able to do something that nobody would claim they are able to do (such as not foundering when making decadal predictions)? There are those who are genuinely interested in communicating the uncertainty resulting from our current limited state of knowledge about climate physics, and there are others who merely want to disrupt the discussion with red-herrings (or indeed red, white and green flag shaped herrings).
76012. John Hartz at 02:24 AM on 2 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       Letters to the International Herald Tribune Politics and Science Paul Krugman’s “Republicans against science” (Views, Aug. 30) states that “odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively antiscience, indeed antiknowledge.” This line reminds me of the great H.L. Mencken’s words in the Baltimore Evening Sun in 1920: “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people....On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Woodrow Wilson was president at the time; to be followed by Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. We all know what happened next. Peter W. Gerrard, Kehlen, Luxembourg
76013. Stephen Baines at 02:10 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       trunkmoney The IPCC acknowledges uncertainty, too. Every scientist I know acknowledges uncertainty. That does not influence their opinion about whether humans are affecting climate. In fact, it generates even more concern, because we can constrain the upper bounds of possible change less than the lower bounds. As far as I can tell, skeptics are not arguing that there is uncertainty, they are arguing that there is bias. That is quite a distinct thing. As for Curry, taken to its logical conclusion her writing seems to suggest that 1) it is impossible to address complex multivariate phenomena without engaging in pattern-seeking "motivated reasoning" and 2) that scientists are somehow not aware of the pitfalls of confirmation bias in such cases. Those statements reflect both nihilism and naivete in turn. While her audience in accepting these arguments engages in their own form of confirmation bias or motivated reasoning, Curry conveniently fails to mention that there are well established ways to avoid the same problem - namely by making novel predictions that are open to test and by incoporating all relevent dependable information without prejudice. Climate scientists have, from I have seen, employed these methods repeatedly in their endeavors. I do not think the same can be said of Salby, Carter, Plimer etc...
76014. DSL at 02:09 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Now I'm eating red beans and rice, so we'll see what that produces. The last bite is the one remembered: "We have seen the models founder at the decadal time scale . . ." Without anything else to go on, the comment appears to be a "hey, models fail" type of attack. More context necessary. I don't think Curry's response to the uncertainty is reasonable. Why? The little bits of evidence here and there suggest that she's not interested in forming a professional opinion. She's more interested in selling a position. The "Wow" comment is just the latest little bit. When was the last time Gavin Schmidt blogged that type of unstudied reaction to an ill-considered claim with no available methodology? The problem has always been uncertainty. Indeed, that is the only problem. Yet there is an attitude on Curry's blog--in the comment stream (a comment stream she is responsible for correcting from time to time)--that suggests that the ultimate goal is to prevent movement toward certainty. How many people in the comment streams on the denial blogs would like to see the climate scientists who support the theory of AGW fired? And what would then happen to climate science? That second question is never considered, and it leads me to believe that the main goal of those people is not progress toward certainty but the silencing of scientific progress. As far as I am concerned, the entire universe in all its dimensions is the irreducable phenomenon. Any part must be read within the context of the whole. Sounds daunting, but there are patterns and regulations that work with regularity in most conditions.
76015. Composer99 at 02:08 AM on 2 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco, my admittedly rather snarky post #16 was in response to the following statement(s) of yours in post #11: Nothing else in the Universe accumulates heat without an energy input. Everything is perpetually cooling down and the hotter it is the faster the rate of cooling - at least I think that is what Newton said. I don't dispute that CO2 absorbs infrared energy and increases in temperature. But an equilibrium point is reached where input equals output and no further heating can take place without further energy input. So with no other energy source the maximum "blackbody" temperature of Venus with 2644 W/sq m input is about 465 K. If you are not putting the reply together in context with these statements, then I must wholeheartedly agree with Sphaerica & DSL and suggest that you get down to reading texts, papers & other posts on this site.
76016. trunkmonkey at 01:29 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       DSL You are correct that emergence was originally post structural. My comments were neither an attack nor advocating post modernism, which i agree quickly degenerates into a nihilistic ennui. I am interested in the possibility that some complex phenomena may be irreducable and that others might require models built at a size approaching the scale of the phenomena, ie clouds. This is not to argue that we throw up our hands and go home. We have non mathematical tools of inquiry far more valuable than collecting postage stamps. The issue is uncertainty. Nobody writing here is unconcerned. Judith Curry is concerned. Skeptics are less positive that we can predict the outcome.
76017. Rob Painting at 01:20 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       critical mass - "The stasis in surface temperatures is more difficult to explain in terms of standard AGW theory which posits an increasing warming imbalance" Not at all. The mid 20th century saw cooling caused by man-made aerosols - following the rapid industrialization and growth after the 2nd World War. And it looks like the rapid growth in East Asia (especially China) may have caused the same during the 'noughties'. See these Sks Posts: Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter? & Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols We'll have further posts on the subject, but the relevant papers are still awaiting publication in the scientific literature.
76018. John Hartz at 00:45 AM on 2 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       Suggested reading: “God’s Response to Rick Perry” PlanetSave, Aug 31, 2011 It’s a hoot!
76019. dana1981 at 00:31 AM on 2 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       Yvan, see comment #6 and the conclusion of the post. Once again, I'm not saying the original model worked. I'm saying the original model would have worked with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for 2xCO2. The SAR also ran models with sensitivities of 1.5°C and 4.5°C for 2xCO2 (though technically the sensitivities were 1.3°C and 3.8°C, for the reason discussed above). The former was much too low, and the latter was too high. Had they run a 3°C sensitivity model, it would have projected the correct amount of warming.
76020. Stephen Baines at 00:30 AM on 2 September 2011
       It's not bad
       EtR. There is certainly a lot under debate in climate science, but the basics (Temp is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 is increasing, humans are responsible) are in fact "settled science." By that I mean that no one in the scientific community thinks these are interesting problems anymore. The evidence behind those propositions is just too compelling. It has been for decades now. Also, let's be honest. This forum does not constitute a true debate on the scientific matters. To be part of the real scientific debate, we would actually have to be doing original research and actively publishing that research in peer reviewed journals, not just posting to blogs on the web. To be part of the scientific debate requires that we be informed and capable enough to convince other well informed and capable people that we have something substantial to contribute. People feel annoyed by this state of affairs, I guess because they feel like decisions are being made that affect them without their having a say. Of course, they might feel more annoyed if they were actually forced to go through the training needed to allow them to participate in the scientific debate! More pertinently though, this resentment is misguided. The only decisions that are being within the scientific community are with respect to what the evidence says about how the world works and our place in it. What we actually do as a society will have to be a much more public decision because that involves taking values into account. Without scientfic evidence, you can't have rational decision making -- it becomes impossible to determine whether any action actually serves the values it is intended to serve.
76021. critical mass at 00:28 AM on 2 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       muoncounter #49 "There may be differences in the numbers, but there is minimal uncertainty as to the mechanism and the cause. As Denning says, physics doesn't care what you believe. Arguing over the last decimal place is silly; it's real, it's happening. Stop denying that and do something about it." As a bit of a lukewarmer myself, I think that the differences between Drs Trenberth and Hansen are more than the odd decimal place. The stasis in surface temperatures is more difficult to explain in terms of standard AGW theory which posits an increasing warming imbalance. Dr Curry is certainly opaque in expression, but I see her position as an attempt to show that the uncertainties are more important than previously thought and 'motivated reasoning' is a nice term for exaggeration.
76022. John Hartz at 00:25 AM on 2 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Suggested reading: “What You Need To Know About The Canadian Tar Sands,” TreeHugger, Aug 30, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
76023. Tom Curtis at 00:13 AM on 2 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Eric the Red @160, the only debate which matters for the science is that which occurs in the peer reviewed literature. You, just as much as any other denier, are quite welcome to put your arguments into publishable form. That you are unwilling or unable to do so is a clear indication that your view point is not worthy of consideration by working scientists, and therefore not worthy of attention on a website whose stated purpose is to expound the published science of climate change. That you choose to 'debate' on the web when you clearly disagree with much published science, IMO, shows that you are not trying to learn the truth. If you where you would be trying to become involved in the debate that matters. Rather you are trying to persuade those who are ill informed on the topic in the full knowledge that you will be unable to persuade those who are well informed.
76024. Tom Curtis at 00:03 AM on 2 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Eric the Red @35, on the contrary, Jevrejeva et al, 2006 and Church and White 2006 (and 2011) both show that sea level rise as determined by gauges is within the error bars of that determined by satellite altimetry over concurrent periods. What is dissimilar is the current trend and those earlier in the twentieth century, which where lower. You evidently want it to be true that there is a mismatch, but neither you nor Steve Case have given us any reason to believe it.
76025. Yvan Dutil at 00:00 AM on 2 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       I think there is some circular reasoning here. Whatever model would gave a linear growth in temperature. Correcting those model for anything than actual CO2 curve compare to the real one is not a proof that the original model worked at all. For example, if the original model underestimated the temperature increase by a factor 2 and this could be traced back to a erroneous estimate of one constant, the model was wrong by a factor of two. That's it. Only correcting for CO2 curve make sense because this factor is unrelated to the physics of the model.Correcting for other factor that are directly related to the output of the model is another name for curve fitting, which will always work.
76026. DSL at 23:25 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Ok, Rosco, maybe a different strategy is necessary. I will re-post the contents of the link I gave you here in this comment stream, since you seem unwilling to read anything other than this comment stream. Will that work? In the meantime, radiation is the major energy transfer mechanism on Earth, because without it the Earth would heat just shy of infinitely. Any energy that convection and conduction move is necessarily a subset of energy already moved by radiation. And radiation is the overwhelmingly dominant (99.99%) way that energy leaves the Earth system. And here's a research question: why, over the last 30 years, would the stratosphere show a cooling trend and the troposphere show a warming trend? Can convection and conduction alone explain this phenomenon?
76027. Tom Curtis at 22:54 PM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @33, that is an interesting analogy. However, it is fairly obvious in that analogy that Church and White are the EPA, while you are the back shed mechanic gaping spark plugs with a ball-pein hammer. I wonder why you do not draw the obvious conclusion. Having said that: 1) The GIA may not effect the shape of the curve, but strong changes in the regional balance of your data will. What is more, failure to correct for barymetric pressure may also effect acceleration. Consider, for example, this chart of sea level rises by oceanic basin from Jevrejeva et al, 2006: The different basins to not rise or sink synchronously. The reason for this is that major weather patterns such as ENSO or the NAO shift pressure patterns over large areas of ocean, with a consequent change in sea level as water is pushed from one part of the ocean to another. If your data set shows a regional bias, and this phenomenon is uncorrected, that will result in a significant distortion of the result, a distortion that change the acceleration pattern. 2) The issue is the noise, in that a large part of your failure to reproduce Church and White consists of the fact that you have not successfully excluded noise, and indeed have decreased the signal to noise ratio with your reconstruction technique. 3) It appears you have never worked in a workshop, for if you had you would recognize that if your means of measurement significantly disagree, you have a major problem. We may not expect the micrometer and the steel rule to give us exactly the same measurement, but if they are not identical plus or minus 0.5 mm, then either at least one is faulty, or your measurement technique is error prone. 4) See you are the one who chose to attack the science on this point, it is hypocritical of you to then accuse us of "picking the fly specks out of the pepper". You add to that hypocrisy an egregious error. The current rate of sea level rise is between 2 and 3.2 mm per year, leading to an expected sea level rise of 200 to 320 mm per century if nothing changes. Even as a simple projection you 65mm is an obvious error. Such simple projections, are, however, significant underestimates both because they do not account for additional increases in temperature, nor for glacial melt water, which between them will push sea levels up by between 0.6 and 2 meters by the end of the century. Not the most serious implication of global warming, but not negligible either.
76028. Paul D at 22:26 PM on 1 September 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #13
       I think the problem is that people may be led into thinking that the same license would apply to the toons. SkS might be accused of promoting copyright infringement. It might be a grey area as far as the law is concerned. The context in which they are used is important and conveys a message or an intent. In fact some image libraries insist that images from the same library can not be grouped together on a single page. Context, presentation and the impression given is all important.
76029. philipm at 22:16 PM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       #12, #13: I used to get the same argument in Australia (and again here in South Africa). Brisbane allegedly has terminal urban sprawl making public transport non-viable, but public pressure (including the threat of a growing green vote) steadily improved things over the 9 years I lived there. There are many parts of Brisbane where it's hard to get by without a car, but it's a lot better than it used to be. Where I used to live, through much of the day trains to or from the city were at a frequency of every 10 minutes or better through much of the day. You wouldn't want to take a car into the city in that scenario. Putting on a few extra trains a day is vastly cheaper than building a new road. If electric cars have enough range for weekend use, one option is to park them at home (or somewhere on the grid) most of the time. A few hundred thousand high capacity batteries are a great resource for dealing with spikes in demand and smoothing out the kind of short-term capacity shortages that go with renewables. Look up vehicle-to-grid (V2G) for more.
76030. Eric (skeptic) at 22:05 PM on 1 September 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Some facts about "Green" Arlington, VA: the $4200 in per capita spending is proportional to energy waste. Taxes statewide are $4300 meaning that Arlington's waste is being paid for by the rest of Virginia. Parking is between $10 and $20 / day, the roads are in poor condition, traffic is pretty bad, yet the Arlington bus system is poorly utilized. Statewide education is $1600 per capita, Arlington is $2100 (almost $20k per pupil) which is bad enough, but the other $2100 per capita spending contains lots of waste meaning energy waste. On the plus side, they try very hard: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/environmentalservices/EnvironmentalServicesMain.aspx Some of what they do is exemplary such as promoting (passive and active) solar homes. They have a long way to go however if they expect anything like a 200 to 60 drop in kWH/p/d
76031. Bob Lacatena at 21:55 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       21, Rosco,

       What you have totally failed to explain...

       You have been given link after link to web pages that do explain this. I have no obligation to spend my time personally explaining it to you. Modern climate science is based on the logic and truth of the greenhouse effect. It's been observed, tested and proven. It's not my personal, pet theory. It's existing science, founded on hundreds of years of research and other science. I have unfortunately spent my time responding to the anecdotal examples you've given about various mechanisms (conduction, convection, latent heat). As I have told you several times, the fact that other mechanisms exist and apply in other situations (pistons, radiators, whatever) says nothing about what is going on in the atmosphere. If you want to continue this discussion, please (a) follow the links that have been provided to you, so that you can raise your level of discussion and (b) find an appropriate thread for whatever issue you find troublesome. As I said, if you demonstrate a willingness to learn, I can help you overcome whatever aspects of the science are confusing you. If you do not make a personal effort to learn, however, and simply want to stay stalled on the idea that only convection and conduction are meaningful because you've visibly encountered them in everyday life, then there's really no where for this conversation to go. Please follow the links and learn more about climate science and how things work.
76032. Eric (skeptic) at 21:39 PM on 1 September 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Scaddenp, HOA's are not all that common here either, and there are better and worse ones. But I mainly wanted a concrete example of lower costs meaning lower energy usage. Reading my previous comment, economic "armageddon" is over the top. The crux of the economic problem is that frictional unemployment is usually resolved in our country at least by personal transportation (along with moving outright, we are a very mobile country). I think that the immediate unemployment from the economic changes would be very large, but take a lot longer to resolve without the personal transportation options we now enjoy. I think there are a fair number of comments of mine on other threads here that show my skepticism to be scientific, not for protection of coal interests specifically or property rights in general. But taking your hypothetical as true, I would not only ban coal power plants, but would tax the coal based purely on CO2 released (as compared to natural gas which I would tax at roughly 50% and oil somewhere in between). I would use the Hansen 100% rebate system so people could pay their electric bills. Apart from electricity, my ideas above still apply which boils down to the fact that people are going to have to step up and exert local control to obtain the necessary efficiencies. The politics to pursuade people to do that is not completely clear, but reducing the central government would be a good start. A big reason I chose to live in a rural HOA is the control and efficiency. We have right-of-way access to all properties where central services make sense, but don't apply it where it doesn't. Contrast that to where I work in Arlington VA, countless examples of stupid stuff from the "solar-powered" trash can in the shade in front of my building to the street being dug up yet again to lay fiber to synchronize traffic lights (wireless seems to be a mystery to them), with the ulterior motive of connecting surveillance systems.
76033. John Brookes at 19:53 PM on 1 September 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       What a great talk. As he says, its pointless to worry about details. Its a big problem, and needs solutions. Interestingly lacking from his talk was typical "green" thinking. Not everything was doom and gloom. This is refreshing. Insisting that every effect of increased CO2 will be harmful will make your "opponents" dismiss you out of hand. If there are good effects from extra CO2, you can acknowledge them - even though on balance the effects will be negative.
76034. Mark Harrigan at 17:44 PM on 1 September 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #13
       @Paul D, Thanks but that really doesn't seem to have any bearing on their use on this site. They are used now as per above. The use I was proposing seems little different with respect to any licensing issues. If you think it DOES make a difference would you please explain how?
76035. Rosco at 17:06 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Sphaerica [inflamatory snipped] You have stated that radiation is the major energy transfer mechanism on Earth or anywhere for that matter. What you have totally failed to explain how radiation is capable of producing any of the effects you claim as the bulk of the atmosphere is transparent to it. Do you believe radiation heats the air in a car's engine driving the piston down ? How ? [inflamatory snipped]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please read the comments policy; keep the discussion calm and impersonal, regardless of the perceived provocation. This applies to everybody.
76036. Albatross at 15:56 PM on 1 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       jyushchyshyn @56, The Alberta government is hardly a shining example of environmental stewardship-- you chose to highlight/cherry-pick one example (i.e., flaring of natural gas). They are still stalling on the grizzly bear, despite very good science that indicates that this umbrella species should be classified as threatened. Go to Google Earth and look at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains-- note the huge swaths of clear cutting, and the rest of the province has been sliced and diced by access roads and seismic lines. You should also know that those canons are not effective and have failed on more than one occasion in the past-- how someone can defend tailing ponds is beyond me, and I doubt very much that you would like a tailing pond or a tar sands plant anywhere near your house or city of residence. Also it is ludicrous to try and claim that the oil form the tar sands is ethical because in addition to the points made above it neglects the following: 1) The ethical travesty of the negative impacts that this development is having and will continue to have on the First Nations. So sad that some people believe that the human rights of First Nations is not important in this. 2) The fact that the Alberta Government is quite candid that if the USA do not take the oil then they are happy to sell it to whoever is interested, and that includes China who has a very dubious human rights record. 3) The ethical travesty of destroying huge swaths of the Boreal forest and in the process potentially wiping out the Caribou, to mention but one species negatively affected by the development. That is effectively stealing from future generations folks. The tar sands are a blight on Canada's reputation, it is a national disgrace and an embarrassment. And last but not least, a sign of how truly addicted we are to FFs that we have to resort to such extreme and energy intensive measures to extract dirty oil to continue to feed our habit. How myopic and selfish.
76037. muoncounter at 13:52 PM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Joseph, I simply objected to turning a thread that deals with a wide range of important topics (those bold paragraph headings in the original post) into a testing ground for various specific predictions. I don't know how you read that as 'I shouldn't question anything.' Nor did I apply the words 'self-appointed' etc to anyone in particular. As to your claim that 'criticism is not welcome,' nothing could be further from the truth. However, criticism of what one person said is vastly different from a critical discussion of ideas. FYI, applying a critical eye to one side certainly looks one-sided, but that's just my opinion. It is a shame that a call for a more substantial discussion should provoke such ire.
76038. John Hartz at 13:51 PM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the solar segment of the renewable energy industry in the US is not fairing well in competition with China as evidenced in: “U.S. losing clean-energy race? Solar maker Solyndra bankrupt,” McClatchy News, Aug 30,2011 To access this article, click here. This article includes a graphic of US Trade in Solar Panels from year 2000 thru 2010
76039. John Hartz at 13:50 PM on 1 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the solar segment of the renewable energy industry in the US is not fairing well in competition with China as evidenced in: “U.S. losing clean-energy race? Solar maker Solyndra bankrupt,” McClatchy News, Aug 30, 2011 To access this article, click here. This article includes a graphic of US Trade in Solar Panels from year 2000 thru 2010
76040. Steve Case at 13:44 PM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       #28 29 30 31 Tom Curtis The GIA adjustment changes the overall slope of the time line, and gives it a boost of a bit over 0.5 mm/yr. It doesn't change the shape of the curve. That is to say it has nothing to do with acceleration rates of sea level change. The issue isn't the noise and fall at the 1883 mark, the issue is the shape of the two curves over the nearly 130 year time line, and the shape of the curve has everything to do with the question, “Is sea level rise accelerating?” But, many of your points are valid, what I did is usually described as quick and dirty back of the napkin figuring and leaves a lot to be desired and is certainly not the fine tuned product of an academic opus. Which reminds me of an analogy. Two guys buy the exact same type of car both EPA rated to get 30 mpg. One of the guys takes his car to a special mechanic for some fine tuning and now he claims to get 50 mpg. Doesn't add up. No one would believe it. (-Snip-) I’ve made that point several times now. I should give it a rest. We have two separate measuring systems, tide gages and satellites. That they report different numbers ought not be a big surprise. In a machine shop there are many ways to measure dimensions; micrometers, coordinate measuring machines, optical comparators, gage pins, bore gages, calipers, snap gages, rulers, and a host of customized gages. They all give slightly different answers and each has their own uses. Trying to get them to all give the same answers is a fool’s errand. But that's what we seem to be doing by trying to match tide gages with the satellites. And finally there’s an expression about picking the fly specks out of the pepper. Whether the rate of sea level bumps up 0.013 mm per year or not isn’t all that important. After all, if you run the numbers we’re only talking an extra 65 mm in 100 years.
       Response:

       [DB] Speculations of academic fraud snipped.

       "I’ve made that point several times now. I should give it a rest."

       Yes, you should.  Any more violations of the Comments Policy will result in automatic deletion of your entire comments.

       "After all, if you run the numbers we’re only talking an extra 65 mm in 100 years."

       You make the classic error of presuming SLR will be linear when history gives us ample examples that SLR is highly nonlinear.

       "But that's what we seem to be doing by trying to match tide gages with the satellites."

       That's what real scientists, like Dr's Church and White, do.  Amateurs struggling to replicate their work without a foundation in the science and a thorough understanding of the literature are the ones conducting the "fools errand".

76041. Eric the Red at 13:41 PM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Tom, I would agree that the most likely cause for the deceleration of SLR in the past decade is the slight cooling recently in SST.
76042. Veritas at 13:32 PM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       It would need more than a five-fold improvement in my town, and I'm not 100% convinced that personal vehicles couldn't be made sustainable with some improvements in technology and changes in our attitudes about them, but I do like the notion making it actually feasible to do without a car in more of the US. I don't think there's much of a chance we'll get people to stop driving everywhere until it becomes significantly more of a hassle to drive a car then not. I'm just happy to see the price range for sustainable options approaching competitive in spite of the huge differences in subsidies. Electric vehicles (be they cars, buses, trains, etc.) are going to be an even cleaner more sustainable option when we're not generating so much of that electricity with oil and coal.
76043. Joseph at 13:24 PM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Muoncounter, I thought the whole idea of this website WAS to debate these very issues, instead what I am hearing from you is that I shouldn't question anything you say because it is "difficult science" and it's not "climastrology", and who am I to question them (or maybe I should say, "you"), because after all I am just a "self-appointed, self-taught and self-righteous critic"?! You are correct in one assumption, I am not a scientist, but it is this website that invited debate from the general public (and aren't you a moderator on this site? you certainly act like it), but instead it seems to me more and more that criticism is not welcome on this site. And as an FYI, no I am not going to apply a prediction tester to the other side, simply because the other side is non-scientific, and therefore their predictions have no credibility to start with. I am out.
       Response:

       [DB] "I thought the whole idea of this website WAS to debate these very issues"

       The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.  While this site does invite discussion of the science, to characterize that discussion as a "debate" is to lend false credence/false equivalency to much of what comes out of the anti-science portion of the blogosphere (and traditional mass media, mores the pity).

       Essentially, the basics of climate science and global warming are indeed "settled science"; what is being discussed in the literature today is how much warming we can expect, how fast we can expect it, and how bad things will get.

76044. Bob Lacatena at 13:21 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       18, Rosco,

       You seem to dismiss convection and conduction as trivial mechanisms for energy transfer.

       No, I don't dismiss them, but I don't wave my hands and insist one must be greater than the other just because I'm more comfortable with it. Scientists have measured them all. Trenberth's energy budget (which has been duplicated with minor variations by various scientists) shows 17 W/m2 for thermals (convection), 80 W/m2 for evapotranspiration/latent heat, and 396 W/m2 for radiation. So stop waving your hands and pontificating about your understanding of the mechanisms, because those aren't the issue. What matters is the numbers.

       This isn't nonsense it is basic science.

       No, it's not science, it's throwing around scientific terms and definitions without properly putting it together.

       If you can't see that the shimmering effect of the hot air risisng off hot bitumen is due to the changes in diffraction of the air due to the convective changes in pressure then you are simply mistaken - no one can see infrared radiation but I have seen heat haze regularly.

       Go back and read what I wrote. The shimmering is from the diffraction that results from changes in air pressure, but those changes are not from convection, they are from heating due to radiation.

       If I radiate why can't oxygen and nitrogen ?

       Because you are made of a wide variety of complex molecules that in aggregate absorb and emit radiation in a broad spectrum. O2/N2 being simple diatomic molecules are extremely limited in the frequencies at which they absorb/emit, due to their limited vibrational and rotational modes, and those wavelengths are very, very high (and hence low energy) in the IR area of the spectrum. Please stop with the long, rambling diatribes attempting to demonstrate your understanding of kitchen science. You have a lot to learn before you can discuss this subject, or make an objective judgment about climate science. Until you do learn more, you are wasting everyone's time. Do not post discussions of this here again. If you insist on doing so, please put it on an appropriate thread. This thread is for discussions of the greenhouse effect on Venus. Moderators, please take notice.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Moderators, please take notice."

       Duly noted...and very correct.

76045. DSL at 13:18 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco, do you promise? because I can't tell you how many times I've seen solid science arrayed against doubt, and doubt just ignore it. You might start here, and post further comments there as well.
76046. Rosco at 12:53 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Composer99 - sorry I don't understand what you are driving at - I know the sun is the source of almost all energy in our solar system ? The fusion reactions in the sun generate energy - we all agree on that one. Sphaerica lets discuss latent heat :- When a gram of water evaporates it absorbs ~2500 joules of energy without increasing in temperature -hence the term "latent" heat - more obvious when water boils at 100 C - water absorbs ~2500 joules per gram of energy without increasing in temperature while converting to steam. In fact you have to increase the pressure of steam to get it to really useful temperatures for generation of electricity. No one can argue with this fact - it is well documented. When 1 gram of CO2 absorbs 2500 joules what happens ? Well, seeing it does not undergo any phase change it must increase in temperature in proportion to its specific heat. Surely you can't argue with that ? So with a specific heat of less than 1 joule per gram this ~2500 joules must raise the CO2 to over 2500 degrees C. If anyone can show me some documented proof that this is incorrect I'll be happy to read it. As water vapour is approximately 60 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.04% X 60 = ~2.4% water vapour) each gram is carrying enough an amazing amount of energy that would raise the temperature of the 0.04% of the atmosphere to 60 X 2500 degrees. How lucky we are to have water. My point is that we observe the effects of the latent heat everytime we see rain, watch a spectacular storm etc. All that energy from the surface of the oceans is convected high in the atmosphere and released to space. You seem to dismiss convection and conduction as trivial mechanisms for energy transfer. Well the latent heat example shows how unlikely it is that radiation accounts for other than a minor role in energy transport on earth - sure it is the only way in or out but on earth it is relatively insignificant. I say again a car's radiator works by conduction/convection. Hurricanes and tornadoes work by convection not radiation. You can work on your car while the engine is hot despite the radiation from it but accidentally touch and you'll burn. This isn't nonsense it is basic science. I've seen criticisms of the pressure / volume / temperature relationships as a mechanism to explain the difference between Earth and Venus atmospheres. These relationships are basic science that is demonstrable with everyday examples. An internal combustion engine uses these principles. Combustion releases heat which expands the mixture in the cylinder driving the piston down - radiation has nothing to do with this - it is the thermal expansion by the rapid oxidation of the fuel mixture. "How does a glowing ember cool... by radiating the heat, or by conduction, heating all of the air around it purely through contact?" Firstly I never denied radiation transfers energy - I simply say that on earth in our atmosphere it is almost inconsequential. Sure it is the only energy input to the earth but having warmed the earths surfaces - land and oceans - radiation plays only a minor role. The energy from the sun is wayyyy more powerful than the radiation the earth emits - this is obvious. Radiating the heat is a small part of it. Convection is the main reason. The air warms and rises rapidly taking energy with it and is replaced by colder air which does the same. Why do you think a flame rises up and flickers ? It is the rapid oxidation products - CO2 among them - which contain the heat of combustion rapidly riding the thermal set up by convection and being replaced by cooler air which is again heated and rises until all combustion ceases. You can prove this for yourself - put your fonger near the side of a candle flame and you'll feel a bit of radiation. Place your hand above the flame where the real heat transfer mechanism is operating and you'll be visiting the emergency room. If you really believe that the bulk of the atmosphere isn't heated primarily by conduction and convection and doesn't radiate according to its temperature then you are simply mistaken. Give me one example where I can prove radiation transfers heat more than conduction/convection on earth - just one. I've been quite near the lava in hawaii but I wouldn't touch it. If you can't see that the shimmering effect of the hot air risisng off hot bitumen is due to the changes in diffraction of the air due to the convective changes in pressure then you are simply mistaken - no one can see infrared radiation but I have seen heat haze regularly. If I radiate why can't oxygen and nitrogen ? And as they obviously do how are we to differentiate their radiation from the much smaller constituents of the atmosphere by volume or weight. If someone can prove my postulations wrong I'm more than open to listen.
       Response:

       [DB] "If someone can prove my postulations wrong I'm more than open to listen."

       You haven't proven this yet.  In actuality, you are well off-base with your misconceptions.  I would recommend actually studying a text on radiative transfer and working through the problems therein in lieu of continued postulating about things you lack a good grounding in.

76047. schmoepooh at 12:43 PM on 1 September 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       A quote from apiratelooksat50 at 02:04 AM on 8 February, 2011 "However, it takes a leap of faith to abandon the repetitive, observed natural climate changes over the history of the Earth (both on the short and long scales) in favor of climate change wholly induced by the actions of humanity." Faith has nothing to do with it. The variables that can be attributable to natural historical variation have been taken into account. The anthropogenic component equates convincingly with increased CO2 levels actually measured. Bear in mind that felling of forests is also a factor. Both factors are the result of human activity.
76048. scaddenp at 12:00 PM on 1 September 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Well Eric, I am concerned about your "cavalier dismissal of property rights" of those property holders affected by AGW (eg by flooding, drought, sealevel rise etc.) At the core of libertarian thought is that citizens are rights-respecting and yet you have not answered on the question of how to resolve the rights conflict. Not on climate, not on things like air pollution or passive smoking in the earlier thread. I assume that you are similarly horrified by the government interventions on asbestos? I simply don't understand your local government issues. For local government, their only concern is provision of services so surely straightforward translation of revenue to services. Here anyway, all local body elections come down to the tension between what services people want versus what they are willing to pay for. I gather you have different views on the service level to the majority of voters but then the cornerstone of democracy is the tolerance by the minority of the mandate of the majority. Back on topic - nice comments about your "HOA" (Home owners association??? - rare entities here) but do they translate to rest of country? Even so, with eliminating heating and all your cars (really want that?) you are still not even at the half way mark of reduction required. Only the hydro plant could get your further. It seems absurd to trying to turn lifestyle upside down to gain energy reductions because you cant accept any elimination of coal on principle. "crank up carbon taxes and see what happens" is not my proposal. My proposal is ban new coal generation outright (gives coal property owners a long time to change) which is much more straightforward and cheap to administer but I can imagine somewhat too leftest for the US. You have described what you dont want in carbon tax but still seem open to a pigovian tax like Hansen's. If a tax is revenue neutral, how can you suppose this would be economic armageddon? - that is unsubstantiated alarmism. Anyway, what I am asking is what effective policy, for whole country, you would support under my hypothetical case? While you struggle to find something effective within your political values, then I continue struggle to believe your skepticism is anything but politically motivated.
76049. Pete Dunkelberg at 11:54 AM on 1 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Badgersouth @ 13 (link to sod) - The commenters there show Dunning Kruger anger (tm). Evidently sod attracted them from a certain other place, and takes it all calmly. Meanwhile here at Skeptical Science this post is quite good and ought to answer the point. For my part I always thought the "It's a trace gas" argument to be dense. Nature has no feelings, so calling something a belittling name has no physical effect. But perhaps the underlying problem is that some people have no idea how CO2 has its effect. Then when certain professional miscreants get them angry, they are not able to learn. Sod's detailed explanation had no effect on those who think they already know science, but are now (without realizing it) ruled by their anger. Finally, I wonder if a better approach is to just show that our surface environment is much warmer than the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts, and ask how they explain it.
76050. muoncounter at 11:52 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Joseph#156: "wasn't much of a cherrypick." The point was this: You found a single example that showed you what you wanted to hear -- and you generalized it to 'there's a disconnect!' That's the 2nd part of the definition of cherrypick I cited. It is this logic that turns 'they got the weather wrong yesterday,' into 'they sure can't say anything about climate.' "global warming of 1 deg over a decade is the same as global warming of 1 deg over a century?" Your example was a glacier melting in a specific year vs another in the same decade or two. Please avoid these giant leaps from the small to the global. This is not 'the science of predictions,' which we usually call 'climastrology.' There are no crystal balls or tea leaves in climate work. This is difficult science, worked by serious folks who see their every word picked over by self-appointed, self-taught and self-righteous critics - who hardly ever have to answer for their own words. Instead, the scientists often have their own words turned against them. BTW, have you applied your prediction-tester to Bastardi's cooling forecast? To Watts on this year's minimum Arctic sea ice extent? If you want to keep a prediction scorecard, please be sure to check both sides of the fence. So yes, let's engage in more substantial issues. If you don't respect that, so be it. We'll let the readers decide on where the disconnect lies for themselves.

Prev  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  Next