Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 Next
Comments 78851 to 78900:
-
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 04:02 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Honeycutt, 19 July: "I highly recommend to anyone who has the opportunity" to "travel to China on holiday or for business". Honeycutt, 20 July: "Telling people they are bad for flying does "zero." In fact, it likely makes things worse (...)". I guess this discussion was not totally unproductive. We went from an incentive to using a machine that adds -in a matter of hours- huge amounts of CO2 pollution to a citizen's yearly emissions... to a half-recognition that it might be a problem. This is my last comment on this article. I find it unfortunate that a civil and informed (including on the numbers...) criticism should have been treated as "trolling" and "hijaking". Polite criticism is healthy. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:48 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
If I may, Pierre, I certainly see your point, but I also need to caution against fueling the image that those of us that understand the gravity of climate change would like society to revert to some sort of Amish, pre-technology agrarian state where we commune with nature and eschew all modern conveniences. The fact is that modern air travel, and the ability of so many people to visit wonderful places, is what I consider to be one of the true gems of modern technological society. So much that we have and use is really not worth the cost, from the behemoth SUVs that Americans adore to their overlarge and inefficient living spaces to their need for round the clock climate control. I don't know which of these items must, in time, fall by the wayside, but the problem is much larger than simply cutting everything... even the worst offenses. If people changed their habits so that everyone did not try to commute to and from work during the exact same hour of the day... If American cars shrunk dramatically... If fuel vehicle efficiency improved... If manufacturing were kept to what is reasonable and useful, rather than the frivolous and extraneous and as much of it as can humanly be produced... If local goods were more attractive, because long-distance transport is more expensive... If renewable fuel sources begin to carry the size of the burden that they could and should... If companies made better use of communications technology, instead of shipping their employees all over the globe at a huge cost in carbon and human time... If, if, if... there are lots of ways to skin this cat, and I believe that if we do it right, we can leave air travel in there and continue to enjoy the great, 21st century luxury of being able to explore and see the world. So I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with your position. Travel is and should be important to people, and there is room in there to leave it be. At the same time, asking people to forgo such travel when the other, bigger things aren't yet being done is not only draconian, but it is going to alienate the very people that are sitting on the fence, and looking for any reason they can to ignore climate change. If you don't want to use air travel, don't. If you want to raise awareness about the cost in carbon, do. But I don't think a hardline, all-or-nothing position on the issue is wise, or necessary. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:40 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
HH @ 47... Exactly. Telling people they are bad for flying does "zero." In fact, it likely makes things worse by alienating people. No one is going to reduce their flying because Pierre says to. But pricing carbon into the market will absolutely affect people's behavior and will absolutely generate money required to bring solutions to market. Telling people they, instead, should vote for cap and trade... if you want to have a real impact on the future of the planet, turn that into a movement. The BIG challenges we face are political. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Pierre... I've written a 1600 word article here. You are focussed on 10 words.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] added a "word" -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 02:17 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Mr Honeycutt, as a human being equipped with a brain and a sense of irony, I'm real sorry but: it is ironic for someone who reports on the climate to "highly recommend" the use of a machine that's higly polluting for the said climate. As a French citizen, I would add to my yearly 5 tons of CO2 no less than 3 tons of CO2 in a matter of hours if I was to follow your advice. If you cannot see the problem, if you do not want to hear the different reports of aviation being one of the fastest-growing global sources of GHGs, please continue to highly recommend the use of planes to China. Personnal attacks re. "trolling" or "hijacking" are simply diversions that do not honor you. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:13 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Perhaps if aviation fuel was taxed at the same rate as petrol it would encourage people to fly less. Use the extra tax to subsidise cleaner forms of transport. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:11 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Kevin C @ 36... That is exactly my point. I think the biggest mistake the human race could ever make is to stop going out to experience other cultures. I think it's one of the big challenges for Americans because, on the whole, most Americans don't get out much. There is a kind of isolationist mentality here. That breeds xenophobia. The challenge there is, how to retain that ability for people to travel and visit far off lands and experience their cultures, and keep carbon emissions to a minimum. Technologically this is not one of the biggest challenges we face relative to carbon emissions. The biggest challenges are political. In order to solve real problems we need to have a serious cap and trade platform. This is exactly where Pierre irks me. He is claiming that me suggesting that people ride in an airplane that I'm not being serious about what is required to address climate change issues. I think reality is quite the opposite. Telling people they are bad only serves to push them off the other side of the fence. He's making enemies, not allies. The most effective path to getting to where we want to be is to be vocal about pricing carbon emissions. Get to the polls and vote. Make flyers saying that pricing carbon will drive innovation, jobs and the economy. Don't make flyers telling people they're bad for flying. Tell them they're good for voting. THAT is how you make a real difference. -
Eric the Red at 02:07 AM on 20 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, We agree on the problems associated with the tornado data, on both strongest and total. I see now that it was a simple typing error, so forgive me if my comment seemed overly harsh. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:55 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
quokka... re: per capita emissions rising in China. That makes sense due to the fact that still nearly a billion Chinese live an agrarian lifestyle with exceptionally low carbon emissions. More and more Chinese are entering the new economy in China. In fact, the plan in China for that entire region from Zhuhai to Guangzhou to Shenzhen it to be turned into the world's largest mega-city, anticipated to have a total population of 42 million people. While those per capita numbers are currently rising I would anticipate they will peak and fall off again as the Chinese build out their energy infrastructure. Today (like us) very little of their energy comes from clean sources but they are rapidly (much faster than us) building out that infrastructure. -
Tom Curtis at 01:50 AM on 20 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric the Red @356, on rereading my previous post I found that I mistated my point. Where I wrote:" In this case the data is showing a clear trend to more tornadoes, but significant trend for the strongest categories of tornadoes. Other forms of storms also show a positive trend. In other words, both data and models agree."
I hand intended to write:" In this case the data is showing a clear trend to more tornadoes, but a significant negative trend for the strongest categories of tornadoes. Other forms of storms also show a positive trend. In other words, both data and models agree."
Evidently my thought got ahead of my typing and some words dropped out as sometimes happens. I apologize for any confusion, and ask that the moderators correct the original if convenient. For what it is worth, the data on the strongest tornadoes is problematic in the same way as the data for all tornadoes. Specifically, the Fujita scale classified tornadoes based on the damage that they did. With improved building standards, equivalently strong storms would cause less damage resulting in under reporting of strong storms in later years. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:43 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Pierre... "I did not write we should all be "living like Cambodians"." When I said this before your response was "no problemo." -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:42 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Pierre... The point here remains that you have yet to say anything that addresses even one point or observation I've made in the main article. Instead you have hijacked this thread to discuss your own issues revolving around air travel. -
Camburn at 01:36 AM on 20 July 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
scaddenp: Being no one that reads this seems interested, I will make a stab at it. According to ARGO data, the OHC of the top 700 meters has a cooling bias at present. The sea level rise has slowed, which would confirm that data. I think the ocean is stabalized and that evaporation is enough to keep the temperature flat. -
David Lewis at 01:12 AM on 20 July 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
I don't say short term changes in the average global surface temperature chart have been given too much attention. The discussion in the literature shows where some of the attention of some of the best scientists is, i.e. Solomon, Hansen, Trenberth, now Kaufmann, etc., and I don't have a comment anyone should pay attention to about whatever those people want to devote some of their attention to. What I'm saying is many non-specialists have misunderstood what the significance of this discussion is, and there is a way to address part of that, which is to be very clear when discussing the issue. Lovelock for instance, after he read Trenberth's original "missing energy" Perspectives piece in Science, decided "something unknown is slowing global warming". He writes Stewart Brand (the Whole Earth Catalog guy) about it, and Brand changes his standard talk as he tours his book Ecopragmatism and started to say maybe "nothing" would happen in the future as a result of the accumulating GHGs, mentioning the possibility that some mysterious force might counteract it all. Both Brand and Lovelock started touting a book (The Climate Caper) which has a Foreword by Lord Monckton. Brand calls the author, Paltridge, a "sensible skeptic" (Paltridge is just a standard issue, preposterous denier who says things like the IPCC is the worst thing that has happened to science itself in the last several hundred years), and Lovelock complains to Brand he can't understand why his climatologist friends are shunning him now that he is "consorting" with skeptics (i.e. Paltridge). All this, because Lovelock misunderstood what it meant when Trenberth expressed his frustration because the scientific community can't nail down what he's calling his "missing energy" given the "revolution" in observational data that is becoming available. As scientists zero in on being able to explain a lot more than they used to be able to do, instead of resorting to having to say things like its "natural variability" or they don't know, their discussion of how best to proceed in the quest to understand is leaving more room than necessary for non-specialists (especially those who don't understand how little value is in what deniers say) to start giving credence to the idea that climate science is getting less certain about basics such as its far past time to do something about the accumulating GHGs. Solomon, in Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming for instance, wrote about the last decade saying “the trend in global surface temperature has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well‐mixed greenhouse gases", Hansen then uses that quote to set up his announcement in Global Surface Temperature Change that what Solomon writes ”is not supported by our data. On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15°C– 0.20°C per decade" which would lead anyone to believe that Hansen thought Solomon was saying there had been a reduction in the global warming signal. Maybe she does think this, but it isn't clear to me. What's clear to me is people are talking about short term trends and long term trends in confusing ways. Regarding short term trends, if a ten year trend was meaningful in the sense Trenberth is using, a lot of ten year trends randomly selected out of the dataset would tend to agree on the big picture, i.e. an accelerating long term warming trend, which they don't. If you carefully select the start and end date you can get a ten year trend to show just about whatever you want, a fact the deniers are exploiting. Hansen points to aerosols repeatedly with increasing emphasis - eg his May 5 2011 Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications paper's Abstract, sixth sentence, "Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change". He compares how likely it is that anyone could be accurate, who for modelling purposes selects a number or range to represent aerosol forcing, by saying that asking his grandchildren, one of whom didn't understand that numbers could be greater than 1, is as grounded in the scientific method as what anyone else is doing. -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 00:48 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Inventing an argument by somebody to then kill that supposed argument should not be part of an honest discussion. I did not write we should all be "living like Cambodians". I gave a number to have an idea of the context re. this little thing called the world outside the minority of rich people using cars and planes (yes, it's a minority, check... the numbers). On average, a French pollutes the climate with 5 tons of CO2 per year. If you think it makes sense, in 2011, to "highly recommend" to "travel to China on holiday or for business", that is, to add 3 tons of CO2 in a few hours to the yearly 5 tons, you are not serious about stopping the destruction of the planet. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 20 July 2011It's the sun
Dikran, I think Tom explained it pretty well in 884. Past CO2 forcing plus thermal intertia (to warming) have produced an unrealized forcing which exceeds any natural forcing since secular natural forcings are all very small. Thus the GAT effect of such a forcing is much larger than the GAT effect of any cyclical natural forcing like TSI. -
skywatcher at 00:31 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
My bad on the numbers - that is embarassing! The point remains that killing air travel is not the solution to solving climate disrution - the problem is dominantly the other 96% of global carbon emissions. A problem that Pierre is not willing to accept. If Pierre thinks that we'll solve the CO2 problem by all living like Cambodians, well good luck to him on that. -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 00:03 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
@ skywatcher "It's only 3 tons to your carbon load if you're the only person on the plane." Now I understand the problem. A single flight between North America and China -the example I took- pollutes, all in all, with hundreds of tons of CO2 in a few hours. It's by dividing by the average number of passengers that sources such as the French government (hardly a bunch of eco-extremists), as well as all other serious sources on the matter, give an estimate of 3 tons of CO2 per person. The fact that you thought the plane would spew out only 3 tons of CO2 for an intercontinental flight is embarrassing. -
Kevin C at 23:59 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Skywatcher: Pierre is right on this one. Great circle distance LAX-PEK: 10200km Most optimistic plane efficiency from above links: 200 g/(passenger km) assuming typical loading factors. CO2e for flight: 2 tonnes per passenger, assuming typical loading factors (not a single-occupant plane). -
skywatcher at 23:50 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
#33. It's only 3 tons to your carbon load if you're the only person on the plane. Back in the real world, learning about combatting climate pollution starts with a reduction in the intensiveness of our energy use, and a transition to a renewable electicity supply that can fuel transport as well as other uses. Until we invent an electric plane, we will have to use liquid fuel for jets, unless we wreck the world economy by hammering aurcraft usage. I presume you are not for crippling the world economy before we tackle the 96% of emissions that do not come from planes? It is interesting to ask what proportion of China's emissions comes from the production of goods consumed by the Western world? And how would the carbon emissions per capita of western countries look by comparison to Chines per capita emissions if this part were removed from Chinese emissions and added to Western emissions? -
Eric the Red at 23:45 PM on 19 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, I do not know where you are getting your data, but as shown previously on this thread, the stongest storms are not increasing. Violent tornadoes decreased over the past half century. Even tropicla cyclines have not shown this. While I admit that my analsis may be incorrect, at least I am looking at the correct data. -
DSL at 23:37 PM on 19 July 2011Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: didn't the bourgeois revolution a few centuries ago get rid of the legitimacy of lordship? And didn't the U.S. fight a war against such idiocy? That the US Congress (and any other red-blooded, flag-waving, True American opponent of the Great and Terrifying Global Warming Hoax) would allow testimony on science from a minor, non-scientist member (a Peer, not a Lord) of the false authority that they once went to war against, and to do so in order to provide legitimacy for an error-riddled (if it were swiss cheese, there would be no cheese -- only holes) and unscientific argument against what is perhaps the defining crisis of the 21st century . . . well, there are days when I think we're going to beat this thing, and then there are days when I think we're so screwed that our heads have been torqued off and we're left stuck in the wood with no way out (and all I hear from the outside is "drill, baby, drill"). -
Eric the Red at 23:13 PM on 19 July 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
David, Nice post. I agree that short term changes in temperatures have been given too much attention, and may not be indicative of longer term trends. However, that does not mean that we should not investigate the reason for these short term changes and determine whether they are due to aerosols, volcanic eruptions, oceanic decadal cycles, solar cylces, or any other cause. Better understanding of the variables which influence climate will only lead to better understanding of the climate as a whole. IMO, too many people are making too much of the difference between the GISS and CRU datasets. While GISS may be more accurate, it has a higher uncertainty due to the estimate of polar temperatures. Consequently, I prefer to use the CRU dataset for analysis, acknowledging that I may be substituting accuracy for precision. Either way, the trends are similar. We should also not neglect longer term influences when determing temperature trends. As pointed out in the previous graph, the 25-year temperature trend was the highest. However, was it the most accurate? The 15-year CRU temperature trend is similar to the 130-year trend (~0.06C / decade). While many of the arguments put forth recently are plausible explanations for the observations, we do not know yet whether they have any significant contribution at all. That said, I am leaning towards aerosols at the moment; all aerosols, which includes your volcanic arguement also. -
quokka at 22:46 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
A bit of a reality check on Chinese per capita emissions. They are now equal to low emitting Western nations such as France at ~6 tonnes CO2 per year. Per-Capita Emissions Rising in China No doubt being the world's factory has something to do with it as well as using predominantly coal fired electricity generation. One can speculate about cultural differences, but perhaps more important in the long run is China's enormous and still developing industrial capacity that could potentially be directed over time to churning out low emission technologies in bulk. -
Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 19 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
DLB @12, across a range of studies of reef formation on the Great Barrier reef, first reef formation in the Holocene commenced around 6000 years BP, or towards the end of the HCO, although some formed earlier, and one formed at least 9,000 BP. The reason for the late formation of the majority of the reefs is not obvious, and may only be due to delayed sea level rise. On the other hand, I can come across no clear evidence of elevated temperatures on the GBR during the HCO. Current global temperatures are comparable to peak global temperatures during the HCO, and temperatures where significantly warmer in the NH than in the SH at that time. @14 I think you are missing at least two significant points: 1) My major concern (and I suspect that of many others) is not the survival of individual coral species. Ignoring the effects of Ocean Acidification, some individual species of coral will undoubtedly survive, but they will survive in small refuges like Moreton Bay (possibly) and various headlands and submerged rocks of the northern NSW coast. Each of these habitats will be fairly small, and relatively isolated, and small isolated habitats support only limited biodiversity. It is not, therefore, the survival of individual coral species that is under threat. Ignoring OA, many will go extinct, but many more will not. Rather it is the loss of the complex ecosystem that has developed on the Great Barrier Reef. (More pragmatic people might also be concerned about the economic catastrophe the loss of the reef would represent to Queensland.) 2) All this ignores OA which will stress corals no matter how far poleward they migrate. Indeed, based on figure 4 above it will stress corals more the further poleward they migrate. Consequently if CO2 levels go much over 500 ppm, even the widespread survival of coral species must be considered seriously at risk. -
Kevin C at 22:18 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Pierre: I can see where you are coming from. But it looks to me like you have taken a comment from Rob's article out of it's original context. Taken out of context that comment is indeed provoking, but I think the context is important. My reading of Rob's context is that he was suggesting that there are aspects of Chinese society which make it far less carbon intensive than US society - e.g. dense population centres with all amenities in walking distance. I took his suggestion to be that if people were to experience this for themselves, they might be more willing to live in similarly communities. The resulting reduction in carbon intensity might more than make up for the initial air flights. Now that is a huge 'if', and Rob only offers anecdotal evidence for it. Nonetheless, he might be right. -
Mighty Drunken at 22:18 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Interesting article. As China develops its economy it will almost inevitably increase its CO2 emissions. Looking at their energy intensity shows they are doing better and better and with some more to go before they reach Western "standards". China has pledged to cut their carbon intensity by 40-45 percent by 2020, lets hope they keep up the momentum. Hopefully this post is formatted fine, the preview is not working for me... -
sime at 22:04 PM on 19 July 2011Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
His lordship just got a good slap again... http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/ -
mspelto at 22:02 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Rob: Thanks for this thought provoking look of China's energy use from the chinese consumer level. Air quality as an issue that is now important to the central government is key. -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 21:00 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
@ skywatcher "(...) using a mode of transport no worse for the climate than the car" If you put the bar that low, not much in terms of climate pollution must strike you as unsustainable, obviously. If that is your "reasoned argument" on the subject, I don't have much to add. Effectively, it doesn't take much, then, to accept that a minority of people pollute the climate with 3 tons of CO2 in a few hours. Furthermore, you do not seem to be aware of the fact that aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of GHG pollution worldwide. To dismiss these facts as a lack of interest in "reasoned argument" is unpolite. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 20:18 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
I agree with motherincarnate, the next wars will not be fought over oil but water. By 2030 China will have a demand supply deficit of 30% and India 50%. That's a shortage in just two countries of almost 1000billion m3. Globally by 2030 there will be a water shortage of 2,700 billion m3. Obviously climate change will have a significant impact on this water shortage but the primary problem is demographics and very poor water management. A more integrated approach is required on the basin scale with full stakeholder involvement. In terms of CO2, control needs to be done at source and the cost past down the chain. Emission credits need to be auctioned on a global market and revenues used to help those most in need. The credits should not be sold to countries but companies. This will make the whole system much more efficient. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:11 PM on 19 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
chris1204 You are missing the point. It is for Arkadiusz to provide the proper context for the graph he used; as it happens the article it comes from doesn't really support his contention as Broecker's projection was based on physics, and was pretty accurate given the known uncertainties in natural variability. Essentially I was hinting (perhaps too subtly) that Arkadiusz was posting in a style indistinguishable from trolling. If he wants to make a scientific point, it is better to do so explicitly so that a scientific response to the point can be made. -
skywatcher at 19:56 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
#29... and on that plane there will be maybe 300 other people (so as mentioned before the per-person-mile emission is not excessive). Perhaps one of those people will bring with them a business link that leads to greater energy efficiency in one sector of the Chinese economy, or perhaps in the other direction, a business deal will be done to import renewable energy technology manufactured in China to the USA (!). Many business deals will be done, some good, some bad, as well as the holidaymakers and people visiting family, and using a mode of transport no worse for the climate than the car. The impact on the human quality of life will be far worse if we unilaterally cut off the air links as a knee-jerk reaction, before we try and take action to deal with the other 96% of the worlds carbon emissions. But then you don't actually seem interested in reasoned argument, and keep trying the same point over and over again. Thanks Rob for a really informative article about the situation in China. As others have said here, it's interesting to see what is happening from the perspective of somebody who is both climate-aware and who understands China much more than the average Westerner! I often wonder how fast China could change if its decision-makers decided that carbon emissions were a really bad idea? It could quickly become a world leader in renewable technology development and implementation, and strategically place itself very strongly for the later 21st Century... -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:52 PM on 19 July 2011It's the sun
Eric (skeptic) wrote: "Dikran, you are suggsting that the earth has a different thermal intertia to TSI changes than to CO2 changes. I don't see how that can be true." No, I am not suggesting any such thing. The thermal inertia of the earth has the same effect on warming due to TSI changes as it does on CO2 changes. The point is that you are comparing the equilibrium response to CO2 forcing with the transient response for TSI, so you are not comparing like with like. If TSI forcing was steadily rising just as CO2 radiative forcing is, then there would be a transient response (the Earth would start warming essentially immediately), but the full warming would not be realised for some decades (the equilibrium response). However, TSI is not steadily rising, it is oscillating, which is why the delay being discussed in relation to the 11-year solar cycle is not the delay before equilibrium is reached, it is a phase shift caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans. Until you understand the difference between a transient and an equilibrium response in a dynamical system, you are unlikely to resolve your confusion. -
SNRatio at 19:46 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
I tend to think that the airplane discussions belong on a sidetrack in the climate debate. This is a real simple example of "polluter pays" solutions: Already, jet fuel is so expensive that carbon-neutral alternatives are becoming economically interesting, so for relatively little more money, we could get build-up ofsecond- and third generation biofuels production capacity to allow for a rather smooth transition. Rob may have to pay quite a bit more for his China trips than he does now, but that's all that is to it. paulm: Driving your car and having the hot showers - it's the high investment costs, not the availability of the technology, that keeps you from doing that in a carbon-neutral way today. Make carbon-neutral living a political request, and you'll see things may change rather rapidly now. So many elements are already in place. Rob: Surely, China may soon become a huge net importer of food. So prepare for much larger costs for those food stamps 1/6 of US population is currently dependent on. -
SNRatio at 19:00 PM on 19 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
Follow-up to myself: Huge uncertainties are very relevant to the actual estimation problems, but focussing on them, which is a well-known defensive tactics nowadays, completely misses the important point: Having established a phenomenon, the important issue is no longer one of precise estimation (in which case I, among others, would not have been qualified to comment), but of science-based risk management. And in that context, the significance question turns the other way round: It's not about establishing the theory beyond doubt, but about refuting it. For example, when in vitro studies strongly indicate carcinogenicity of a substance, regulations are indicated, only to be lifted if strong in vivo/population studies show notihing of the expected effect. This is quite analogous to the climate issue: Ever since the first theoretical and practical radiation studies on CO2 ("in vitro studies"), there has been good reason to expect a CO2 climate effect, and regulations on the release of CO2 have been indicated. This concern could only be set aside by _repeated_ failures to detect the expected effects "in vivo" (e.g. observed effects on actual radiation spectra) or "population" - observations on climate changes. But "population" studies, generally, only establish associations, not causality. If CO2 was about carcinogenicity, the mass of evidence would leave no regulatory body in any state of doubt about it: This must be kept in check. Serious risk management is not about established facts (then it's too late), but about suspicions and probabilities. It should also be kept in mind that uncertainties, generally, is a two-sided business. So stressing the uncertainties in a risk-management situation could in fact imply stronger measures to be taken. "So, you say, the standard deviation of the estimated pdf for sensititity (expected=3) is 1.6? Gosh, then we must regulate even harder: It's a >5% chance it will be >6, and we can't live with a CO2 doubling or more in that case." -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 18:56 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Mr Honeycutt, in your article, you "highly recommend to anyone who has the opportunity" to "travel to China on holiday or for business". A trip between North America and China pollutes the climate with approximately 3 tons of CO2 in a few hours. If you seriously think that kind of activity should be encouraged, you do not have serious data about what can be considered safe in order to avoid destroying the climate of the earth. Insulting me by treating me of troll will not change these facts. -
Paul D at 18:46 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Bern said: "I think air travel is an essential part of the modern global economy." I'm sorry but that is brushing aside two of the most important factors that are causing the vast environmental problems we have. The 'global economy' is the primary villain as it were, producing massive environmental damage. You name a big environmental problem, and you'll probably find global trade behind it. Air travel is so convenient that aircraft are used like taxis in the US. One has to be incredibly naive to think that the worshipping of air travel has not done incredible damage. Make something convenient and cheap and you'll have a lot of abuse of the system. Is this 'commie' or 'leftist'? Hardly. They are the ones that want cheap public transport or in many cases free public transport. The left have an unrealistic desire to allow everyone to have a utopian life where everything is free. So in reality, the left are just as deluded as the right, and neglect the consequences of unrestrained access to resources. What needs to be done is a realistic appraisal of alternatives to 'global economies' and cheap transport. I'm all for developing new technology to reduce emissions, but it most definitely must come with personal responsibility for reducing personal GHG emissions. Technology will never take away the need to cut personal emissions or a reduction in personal resource use. -
quokka at 18:45 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
#26 paulm Surely the point is to convince enough people to apply enough pressure to enough governments and other policy makers to put into practice the economy wide engineering and technological transformation required to dramatically reduce GHG emissions. Nothing short of this has an iceberg's chance in hell of succeeding. If we hang about waiting for people to become more "moral", the battle is already lost before you start. Partly because with the current energy infrastructure, the opportunities to be more "moral" are strictly limited. -
DLB at 18:20 PM on 19 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
Ok, here is some very recent evidence for fast migration in coral: "Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures" Yamano H., Sugihara K., Nomura K. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Vol38 Art. L04601 FEB 17 2011 Part of the abstract says this "Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction." They don't give a mechanism but it is probably related to very fluid larval dispersion. -
David Lewis at 17:33 PM on 19 July 2011Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
I'm sorry for the antagonistic tone. I've been struggling with the ideas put forward by Hansen for some time. But I studied Trenberth some months ago and now when I read Kaufmann the same issue came to my mind. I am trying to write a piece about the point also expressed here by "barry" in comment #10, i.e. "the mainstream has consistently said that a decade is too short to establish a meaningful (statistically significant) trend, so when the article [your post] heads up with; "the rate of global warming has slowed" it looks like we've finally admitted what the skeptics have been saying.... So I forcefully express my agreement with comment 10 using my own argument, and I agree it sounds very antagonistic. I spent some more time with the Kaufmann piece - I tried to read the Supporting Appendix but it is too technical for me to get very far. They did use GISTEMP data and run their simulations - they say so in the appendix. I wonder why they restricted all mention of GISTEMP to the Supporting Appendix and stayed with the Hadcrut3 1998 2008 data which they referenced in their main article. Its like they wanted to use the dataset most in line with their opening sentence "data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008". Re: you say Hadcrut3 "shows less global warming" because it "excludes measuring the Polar regions". Two points: first, its a global average surface temperature chart. If people use words like "it shows less global warming" they know what they mean and I know what they mean but there is room for confusion. I.e. going back to that quote from Trenberth: "the anthropogenic global warming signature is not large enough to overwhelm natural variability and so the trend from increased GHGs is only clear on time scales of 25 or more years. We used 25 years in Chapter 3 of IPCC as the lowest trend we provided that was meaningful…" So if the global warming signal can't be seen in a ten year dataset, that HadCrut3 dataset can't show less global warming. Trenberth's stolen emails were distorted by deniers exploiting a similar imprecise use of words. Second, Hadcrut doesn't "measure" the polar regions, but neither does anyone else. Hadley Center explains: "There are very few observations in the Arctic and Antarctic. GISS attempts to estimate temperatures in these areas, HadCRUT3 does not. This is the major source of difference between the analyses, which can be seen if, instead of a global average, one takes the average temperature anomaly between 60S and 60N. Over this slightly smaller area, the GISS and HadCRUT3 analyses give very similar results." So GISS is making an educated guess, it seems to me to be a better way short of taking the measurements, but the fact is they aren't taking measurements. I went back to the Hansen Lecture around minute 44 as you suggested. He points to a chart
he calls it "the sum of the GHG and the aerosols, where the aerosols have been specified to be that which gives the agreement with the medium response function and what you see is that these two, the two principal forcings, greenhouse gases and aerosols cause this imbalance, [and] they cause the temperature change which is the major part of the observed temperature change, but they also cause this energy imbalance, which flattened out"
"because of that decrease in the greenhouse gas growth rate." By "decrease in the GHG growth rate", I'm thinking he means this chart from Perceptions of Climate Change:
which he used to show that the rate of increase in total GHG is actually less now than the peak rate of the mid 1980s. Back to Hansen: "But because it flattened out like that that allows small forcings to have a noticeable effect." So Kaufmann says Chinese aerosols masked the total global GHG forcing power for a while allowing smaller forcings to have a noticeable effect, and Hansen points to a lesser rate of increase in the total of GHG, if Hansen is talking about the same thing when he points to this flattening on this graph saying this allows the smaller forcings to have a noticeable effect. He finishes the talk with something I don't understand about Pinatubo: "And one of the interesting effects is the volcanoes. The Pinatubo aerosols gave us this big negative forcing and a cooling factor in 1991, and that only lasted for a couple of years. You wouldn't think it would be affecting things in the last ten years, but actually it does. Its because after the aerosols disappear, they're no longer influencing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the planet, but they're still influencing the heat radiation to space because they caused a cooling of the ocean, and therefore you continue to get this rebound effect after the volcanic aerosols are gone and that then causes a decline in the radiation imbalance in the last decade. And the other thing the solar irradiance…. ….So I think that the planetary imbalance is about 5 or 6 tenths of a watt. And if it's half a watt then in order to restore planetary balance and stabilize climate you'd have to reduce CO2 to 360 ppm other things being equal. And if its 3/4 of a watt, and I think averaged over a solar cycle it might be more like 3/4 of a watt, if that's the correct number then you'd have to reduce to 345 ppm. … In order to understand this we would like to have a model that really simulated this correctly. And I think that requires an ocean model that mixes ocean water and heat more realistically. That's what we're hoping this collaboration with …. Maybe we can get a more realistic ocean, if in fact I'm right that our ocean is mixing too much, but anyway, that's the story …." Kaufmann et.al. supporting appendix contained a reference to work at Princeton by Yuan Xu regarding the trend in Chinese SO2 emissions:
The Chinese SO2 may have peaked around 2006. Their total coal generation is slated to double by 2035 or so it seems, but they are replacing inefficient plants with more efficient ones even as they expand their overall fleet, while applying sulphur mitigation measures at fantastic rates to lower their emissions. Here's three equal sized areas, in the US midwest, Europe near Italy, and China around Beijing, data by Ozone Monitoring Instrument Group which is detecting SO2 concentration averaged 2005 - 2007 the peak of Chinese emissions, keep in mind that tiny dot in Sicily is the Mt Etna volcano, then look at China
[Source]
Moderator Response: [RH] Rescaled image to 450 and added link to source image. Try to limit your images to 450 because it breaks the page formatting when you use larger images. ...Thx. -
scaddenp at 17:18 PM on 19 July 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
Fair enough, good questions and I would like to know some answers as well. I found some other interesting puzzles with spatial distribution of sea level rise that dont have easy answers either. However, I would guess at short term variability, which is what Trenberth is also interested in. -
Paul Magnus at 17:13 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
mothincarnate, this is no trap. I really don't want to detract too much from Rob's great article. I just wanted to point out that as climate advocates it's hard to convince others to reduce their footprint or support mechanisms to do so unless we practice what we preach. For me, I look at it as a moral issue and every activity I do the first thing that comes to mind is what my emissions are. I still drive a car and have hot showers... and emit more ghg gasses than I want to. It saddens me to think of peoples already affected by CC and what the future holds for my three kids and for that matter all others and the rich diversity of life out there. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:53 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Thanks Moth... One of China's other major challenges (actually a related challenge) is agriculture. They pretty much already farm every bit of arable land they have available, and have even given up a good bit of arable to factory use. If there are climate driven changes to the amount of land they can farm they will have to become a net importer of food. That could be difficult if the rest of the world is also experiencing similar challenges. Overall what impresses me is that the challenges China faces are many times greater than what we face in the west. But they are aggressively addressing them while we flail about with idealogical infighting. -
mothincarnate at 15:45 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Rob, What you’ve encountered here is a typical technique, whereby they’ve disguised an attack on you as what appears to be a reasonable argument. If you advocate modern technology at all, you’re a hypocrite. If you don’t, you’re a hairshirt hippy who doesn’t understand the fabric of economics. Indulging with such “debates” (if you can call them that) is simply a trap where you’re effectively been demonised and simply cannot win. It’s not reasonable nor should you waste your time on it. At best expose it for what it is and simply get on with the fundamentals. Of course you, like many of us also concerned about GHG emissions, want that to stop, but you do not want the greater achievements of the technological era to be dropped – nor is it even possible. We couldn’t feed the 7 billion of us without mass transport and changing that fact will take a few generations to come. Likewise we all should enjoy comfortable homes, convenient technology and great holidays. But we must get smart about how we achieve this; which is exactly why so many of us work in related fields and some even communicate that to the wider public. What these character here are doing is a mockery of informed debate – barely a sideshow – when the essence of the article above is about change in activity and how that relates to life in China – all intended for the reader outside of that country. It’s all part of questioning how we can improve our activities to enjoy a high standard of living – not just for us lucky few, but for all members of our species – without such a detrimental cost to the supporting spheres. How can we reduce our footprint, without losing a comfortable standard of life. What concerns me about China is their water. The lengths they are going to in order to bring water from the south to the north to compensate the lowing height of their ground water is immense. Water management is by far their biggest problem. -
Albatross at 15:05 PM on 19 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, As you probably know, given that you referred to 700-500 mb lapse rates, there is very good reason why severe thunderstorm researchers are interested in low-level buoyancy: "Research has shown that low-level CAPE and or corresponding lowlevel CIN may have relevance to tornado production. More CAPE in the lowest levels (and thus lower LCF heights) above the ground suggests stronger potential for large low level vertical accelerations and enhanced low-level mesocyclone intensification, and thus increasing likelihood of tornadoes in supercells......Simulations of storms with small CAPE (~ 800) squashed into the lowest 5 km indicate that pressure gradient forcing from rotation in mid levels is the primary force for accelerations below 500 mb. Above 500 mb, buoyancy forcing becomes more important (Wicker and Cantrell, 1994). Low-level buoyancy is also related to LCL/LFC heights (RFD characteristics)." [Source] -
Bern at 15:01 PM on 19 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
paulm: I've seen some estimates of the external cost of carbon at around $170-$240, but $893 is pretty amazing! Then again, the total social cost depends strongly (and possibly exponentially) on exactly how much carbon is emitted. Small emissions = not much cost, large emissions = extremely high costs, possibly total collapse of ecosystems & the economies that depend on them. -
ianash at 14:25 PM on 19 July 2011Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
Twice I have written to the Vice Chancellor of James Cook University stating that Carter has (a) misrepresented the science and (b) used the JCU logo to add credibility to his talks. Not so much as a single word reply. Are they so scared of Carter at JCU that they wont take any action? -
Norman at 14:04 PM on 19 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 348 Thank you for explaining the Trapp et al (2009) insignificant lapse rate increase. I don't know why they chose that height as significant. Supercell storms reach up to 20,000 meter (20 km) and can even go as high as 23 km. The lapse rate at the 3-5 km is not significant for severe thunderstorm ultimate CAPE value. Look at what happens above the 3-5 km level in your graph. Now the air is getting much warmer in the future. Oklahoma City has a latitude of 35.5 North (Tornado alley) and if you look at your graph, Oklahoma city would be under air that is much warmer. The stratosphere starts at around 200 millibar level. The really warm spot goes up to the stratosphere. This would make a really postive lapse rate depending upon how much the warming actually is (can be 3 to 14.6 which is a large range). Wouldn't this warmer layer of air suppress the upward motion of an air parcel? -
Albatross at 13:54 PM on 19 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, I admire your patience. I am still following this and pulling my hair out-- kudos to you. Given that you are sincerely trying to get to the bottom of this. I'll engage you. Perhaps you can explain to Norman how it is possible to obtain a near adiabatic lapse rate to almost 500 mb above the southern great plains without a wiff of modified Arctic air in sight. Two hints: The Mexican plateau and strong diabatic heating. From Grünwald and Brooks (2011, Atmospheric Research): "This is a result of the generally lower values of CAPE in Europe (Brooks et al., 2003b). This is because the generators for high CAPE, which are high lapse rates in the mid-troposphere and high values of boundary-layer moisture, usually do not occur in Europe as often as in the US. The reason for this is the presence of the Rocky Mountains which high terrain accounts for the creation of high lapse rates and the presence of the Gulf of Mexico which is big and warm enough to provide abundant moisture on many days of the year." From Brooks et al. (2003, Atmospheric Research): "From an ingredients-based approach (Doswell et al., 1996) to severe thunderstorms, abundant lower-tropospheric moisture, steep mid-tropospheric lapse rates, and strong tropospheric wind shear are important. The central United States is in an ideal location for the juxtaposition of those ingredients with the high terrain of the Rocky Mountains providing a source for high lapse rate air and the Gulf of Mexico providing the moisture. Winds from the surface from over the Gulf (southerly) and from over the Rockies in the mid-troposphere results in strong shear at the same time it brings the thermodynamic ingredients together. Other regions near high terrain with moisture sources on their equatorward side (east of the Andes and south and east of the Himalayas) show up as well." From Brook s et al. (2007, Atmospheric Research): "High values of midtropospheric lapse rates are associated with air that is heated and dried over the elevated terrain of the southwestern US (Doswell et al., 1996), approximately 800 km to the west. Starting with 1 January, the atmosphere is dry (3.7 g kg−1) and relatively stable (6.3 K km−1).....During the spring and early summer, the lapse rates stay relatively constant, while the mixing ratio increases to over 13 g kg−1 by 1 July." Now as you can clearly see, the word Arctic did not appear once in those quotes. Tom your opponent is arguing a strawman. Also, in the future, so long as the surface warms as fast as the mid-levels, the lapse rates should remain largely the same for a given time of the year. I am not aware of any reason as to why the mid-or upper levels will warm faster than the surface over continental areas outside the tropics during the warm season. To wit, from a meta analysis conducted by Church: "But all current radiosonde datasets agree that globally, over the longer term (1958 to 2000) the surface and 850-300 hPa layers have warmed at comparable rates, but since 1979 the surface has warmed relative to the 850-300 hPa layer with the estimates ranging from 0.04 to 0.14 deg. K/decade for the various datasets (Angell, 2003)." [Source] Also from Church, "Despite the differences, there is general agreement among radiosonde products that the long-term record (1958 to 2001) shows little difference between surface and tropospheric warming rates, but the shorter records are more complex. The troposphere warmed with respect to the surface between 1958 and 1978, and cooled with respect to it thereafter during the satellite era." Note that the planet has warmed about +0.5 C during the satellite era without a decrease in lapse rates. Trapp et al. find that their is no marked changed in the lapse rates in their model simulations for the USA, consistent with the findings by Angell (2003). "The datasets also agree that the global warming of the surface and the troposphere were basically the same during 1958–2000, but that during 1979–2000 the global surface warmed more than the troposphere. The latter is significant based on the 54- station network." So in fact, it is expected that over land outside the tropics the surface should warm slightly faster than the mid troposphere. As stated by Dr. Gavin Schmidt from NASA: "The land-only ‘amplification’ factor was actually close to 0.95 (+/-0.07, 95% uncertainty in an individual simulation arising from fitting a linear trend), implying that you should be expecting that land surface temperatures to rise (slightly) faster than the satellite values." [Source]
Prev 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 Next
