Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 Next
Comments 78951 to 79000:
-
Tom Dayton at 12:21 PM on 20 July 2011Climate's changed before
But kropotkin, consensus has been reached, and the predictions to date have proven accurate. -
kropotkin at 12:00 PM on 20 July 2011Climate's changed before
I come to this debate as a philosopher and science layman. The thing that strikes me is that we have descended into a debate about the truth of facts. Without absolute verification possible in some instances of these facts we can only posit, as all good science eventually does, the most probable circumstance. If this depends on a consensus of scientific opinion, then authority rests with those with sufficient knowledge to debate what is the most probable scenario. In other words, whatever the layman thinks, the expert is the only one with real knowledge. But then another problem arises, endemic to this particular debate. We are talking about scientific theories about systems, not individual facts. The truth of this debate hinges on probabilities about complex totalities, and no consensus can be reached on such contentious grounds. If authority cannot be given to cognoscenti when the very object is too complex to predict or prejudge, then the argument must rest on faith. That is why this issue has sparked so much division and opinion-mongering. In which case, I side with Pascal and his wager. Not knowing the real truth, the total picture with absolute certainty, and having to rest content with mere probabilities about complex systems, it is better to err on the side of caution. If the worst case scenario is no habitable planet then we should opt for a sustainable future. -
quokka at 11:14 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
IMHO one thing that does characterize China is a leadership that looks further ahead than most. Nuclear power is a good example. While building significant numbers of light water reactors, they are also undertaking multiple lines of research into advanced nuclear power including the construction of a 200MWe high temperature pebble bed reactor, have an operational research sodium cooled fast spectrum reactor apparently largely based in the US Argonne Labs IFR and have recently announced a serious program for the development of molten salt reactors. It seems they are also buying a pair of BN-800 fast reactors from Russia which I guess is to obtain operational experience with fast reactors in a production environment. With this spread of technologies they are covering what are arguably the most important advanced fission technologies. Compare to the US which seems intent on remaining in a time warp of reactors fundamentally based on engineering developed for propelling submarines. -
Tom Curtis at 10:23 AM on 20 July 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rosco @1077: 1) Rather than ignoring the transfer of energy by collisions (conduction) modern green house theory absolutely depends on it. If it were not for that transfer, the equipartition theorem would be false, and energy could not transfer from oxygen or nitrogen to carbon dioxide, and in particular to those rotational modes of CO2 that spontaneously release their energy by emitting infrared radiation. In other words, without the transfer of energy by collisions the greenhouse effect could not work. The effects of energy transfer by collision are built into green house theory by its use of the ideal theory of gases, by its use of statistical dynamics, and by its use of quantum mechanics as it relates to molecular absorption and emission. 2) Transfer of energy by convection is essential to understanding the modern theory of the green house effect. In this case it is not essential to the effect itself, in that in principle you could have a green house effect without it. But in practice understanding the greenhouse effect cannot be divorced from understanding convection. That is because convection absolutely dominates vertical transfer of energy in the troposphere. Because of this domination, the change of temperature with altitude approximates the adiabatic lapse rate. As a result, any change in equilibrium temperature in the upper troposphere must be matched by an equivalent change at the surface. The equilibrium temperature is set by the fact that much of Earth's Outgoing Longwave Radiation comes from the mid and upper tropospheres, and that the total of the outgoing radiation from all sources must equal the total incoming radiation from the sun if the Earth's temperature is to remain constant. If CO2 levels increase, the result is that outgoing atmospheric radiation comes from slightly higher in the atmosphere. Because the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere is set by convection, that means it comes from a slightly cooler location. As illustrated below, the result is that both the temperature at that higher altitude, and, because the vertical temperature structure is set by convection, the temperature at the surface must increase until equilibrium is reached again:
Chris Colose, whose diagram I have used, provides a more detailed explanation.
3) So far we have seen that you do not understand the atmospheric greenhouse effect unless you understand the essential roles energy transfer by collision and by convection play in it. Of course, energy transfer by radiation also plays an essential role, because only by radiation can energy cross vacuums. Consequently (for practical purposes) all energy transfer from the Sun to the Earth, and all energy transfer from Earth to space is by radiation. Convection cannot vent radiation to space nor bring energy from the sun, no matter how many bad science fiction movies you have seen. As it happens the majority of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is also by radiation, but that is largely irrelevant to the theory.
So, our "ridiculous insistence" that only a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere accounts for nearly all radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space is based on a detailed knowledge of the physics of radiation, and on thousands of experiments mostly by the US Department of Defence undertaken with complete disregard of greenhouse theory. The DoD didn't care about global warming in the 1950's and 60's (when most of the experiments were conducted). They cared very much about which atmospheric gases absorbed IR radiation, and which didn't so that their IR heat seeking missiles, and their Forward Looking Infra Red could be effective.
And our acceptance of the atmospheric green house theory is based on a sound understanding of all forms of energy transfer in the atmosphere.
-
Camburn at 10:08 AM on 20 July 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
scaddenp: Nice that your brought up short term variability. The amount of thermal energy in the top 700 meters of the oceans dwarfs all the thermal energy of the atomosphere. At this time, the atmosphere has shrunk br approx 150 miles, which is a huge amount. My point is tho, that for the ocean to have even a minor change overall in temperature requires either recieving a lot of energy or expending a lot of energy. It is almost ocmical to see the step change in OHC graphs. The amount of energy required to either heat or cool the oceans that fast in that short of a time frame has not been observed. And it most certainly would have been observed. -
mothincarnate at 10:06 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Rob, Re:#59 - this is exactly what I was on about and again, it's a trap entirely off topic to the actual article. I honestly think a bunch of these character just have nothing better to do than find things to complain about... Glad there's more joy in my own life so as I don't need to force conversations onto topics so as I can feed my own negativity. Certainly all ghg emissions should be addressed and how we can improve our activities to reduce those emissions should be the target. But demonising someone for enjoying travel is absurd... -
mothincarnate at 10:01 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Rob, You're right - their agricultural needs are impressive, but more so is their ability to grow. We in Australia are lucky to grow a few ton of wheat per acre per year, yet in the NE of China, they pull in more than of wheat plus a maze crop in the one year! They're got great land there (especially compared to our ancient Aussie soils) but water to the region will increasingly become a problem. As you say - they are aggressive in meeting their needs! Some of their infrastructure is mind-boggling. I think there is little doubt that they will be a major player in 21st century global policy discussions. One only hopes their financial bubble too doesn't pop (they are building up a storm at the moment - here's hoping there is a market for it). To those who may have also replied to my previous comment to complain about my statement - sorry, I won't be reading nor replying to your comments. I've got better things to do with my time and feed the trolls, cheers. -
muoncounter at 09:34 AM on 20 July 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rosco #1077: "Is anyone really saying Oxygen and Nitrogen don't become heated AND they DON'T emit infra red radiation ?" Seems like you ought to go back several hundred comments in this thread or do some research on the vibrational modes of various gas molecules. "If radiation was such a dominant thermal transfer mechanism" Guess that bright light that appears in the eastern sky every morning doesn't use the dominant thermal mechanism? "I, and everyone else, also radiate infra-red radiation and there are many more of us now than 40 years ago" Maybe you ought to run some numbers on that; there are some great journals out there that might publish your 'global warming is people' theory. And I second Tom Dayton's final words. -
Byron Smith at 09:18 AM on 20 July 2011The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
@#3 - There is enough capacity in coal alone to send us well over the budget. While I'm actually a fan of your suggestion, it would need to be complemented by some very strict controls on how much coal we could exploit. Oil and gas are ultimately more useful than coal, so it would be best to leave the vast majority of the remaining coal and non-conventionals (which often have lower EROEI anyway) in the ground while still being able to use quite a lot of oil and gas. @#8 - Yes, getting the costs of renewables below those of coal is a crucial goal, which can be helped with a decent price on carbon (as well as other means) that reflects something of the true costs associated with burning fossil fuels. -
Polar Bear at 09:02 AM on 20 July 2011OA not OK part 7: Le Chatelier not good enough for ocean acidification
Probably off topic but our Dept of Environmental quality meets tomorrow(Oklaoma) .A cement plant want to burn hazardrous material..They will be adding tons of co Carbon monoxide to the air.woul it be better if they used Natural gas..the only other option..So what does co do in all this ??stability/ Just asking thanks so much Jean -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:08 AM on 20 July 2011Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
Did anyone watch the Monckton-Denniss debate yesterday? -
Tom Dayton at 07:35 AM on 20 July 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rosco, a greenhouse gas is one that impedes the transfer of energy from the Earth to outer space. Convection cannot transfer energy from the Earth to outer space, because there are (effectively) no molecules in outer space for the Earth's atmospheric molecules to bump into. Radiation is the only method. By the way, your attitude could use improvement. -
Rosco at 07:29 AM on 20 July 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Is anyone really saying Oxygen and Nitrogen don't become heated AND they DON'T emit infra red radiation ? If they do then they too are "greenhouse Gases". If they don't then they defy every law of physics and all our science must be completely wrong. Before you start showing me radiation absorbtion spectra charts to prove O2 and N2 don't absorb thermal radiation energy simply let me point out radiation is a very inefficient method of transferring thermal energy. Conduction is also poor but way more important on earth than radiation whilst convection is by far the most efficient and important. And you guys ignore both of these. If you don't believe it why is it that the old fashioned electric bar heaters have been replaced by fan dispersal models which heat spaces much more efficiently ? Similarly fan forced ovens. We don't rely on radiation to keep our car motors cool. A simple experiment should prove it and you don't even need to perform it - I recommend you don't - just think about it. If you put your hand near - not above - some heating element like a bar radiative heater you'll feel the radiative heat sure but you will probably be able to keep your hand near it for a long time. But would you touch the bar ? No, of course not - the heat transfer to your hand would be orders of magnitude greater than what is radiated. If radiation was such a dominant thermal transfer mechanism no child would ever scald or burn themselves on a hot stove because the radiative energy would be a clear warning - it isn't and they burn themselves - hopefully not too badly and only once. So the earth and oceans warmed by the sun heat up the whole atmosphere by conduction, the warmed air convects all over the globe moving thermal energy to the poles from the equator. The whole atmosphere radiates infra red radiation but this is only a small part of the thermal transfer mechanism. I, and everyone else, also radiate infra-red radiation and there are many more of us now than 40 years ago - perhaps that's the explanation of the temperature anomaly. This ridiculous insistence that only a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy and radiate infra-red radiation is absolute nonsense and deserves to die and be buried. -
RickG at 06:53 AM on 20 July 2011Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
If only Monckton's nose would grow when ever he makes one of those contradictory citations. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:40 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Byron... I think you're right. It is a topic that is sorely missing from the SkS site. It is a very important issue with regards to climate change. It just wasn't the intended topic of this article. -
Paul Magnus at 06:36 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Byron makes a good suggestion. A thread addressing flying and other high ghg emissions activities would be useful. This especially in the context of the fact that we only each have less on average than 2t per annum. Also given this, how do we eventually get back to 350ppm? A final note on the flying issue. I have been harping on to my friends, families and colleagues about GW for awhile. But it was not until I decided to drastically reduce my footprint, specifically to stop all non-essential flying, eg holidays did many start thinking about the topic more seriously. Reducing your footprint is not only hugely satisfying personally, but it has big leverage in highlighting the GW problem to many who consider it a background or minor issue. -
Byron Smith at 06:15 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
(OK, I can't help myself. Two brief observations. (a) As far as I am aware, all the calculations of GHG emissions in the above discussion do not take into account the total effects of flying on radiative forcing, which is considerably higher than the GHG emissions alone due to water vapour, contrails, NOx, etc.. See pp. 54-55 of the UK govt's official recommendations here, where it is suggested that a multiplier of 1.9 ought to be used while a more specific figure is being researched. (b) If we are not finding ways to imagine a world where the global average carbon footprint is at or below 1.5t CO2e per annum, then we are imagining a world heading well beyond 2ºC and all that that entails.) -
Byron Smith at 06:01 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
I suggest that a thread addressing the place of flying and aviation in the context of a full-orbed response to climate change may be a very useful addition to the site as it is a hot topic that really cuts to the bone of a lot of the debate about carbon mitigation. I won't say more here (and so contribute to the derailing of this very interesting post onto another very interesting topic). Thank you to Rob Honeycutt for posting it and thank you to Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr for raising an extremely important issue, which really ought to be addressed in a focussed way. -
arch stanton at 05:36 AM on 20 July 2011Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
Thank you for your research into these claims John. Nice post. -
Composer99 at 05:02 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
I don't perceive Rob Honeycutt as having substantially altered his position based on the two quotes you provided, Pierre. Also, for all your politeness, I do not perceive picking up on a minor point of an article and turning it into the primary driver of the comment thread as a civil criticism (also, on the matter of 'informed' - what is your source for your numbers?). It strikes me instead to be a form of concern trolling. Especially since, as posters upthread have noted, the chief problem with air travel currently (the use of fossil fuels for aviation-grade fuel) is a technical problem with an eminently achievable technical solution (biofuels). Let us be honest here: the vast majority of people already living in affluent polities are not prepared to substantially modify their behaviours on account of the exhortations of Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr, Composer99, Rob Honeycutt, or any other participant on this thread. And who are we to tell them so? The vast majority of people in the world, who aspire to live in increased affluence (whether through emigration to affluent polities or domestic socioeconomic development), are not going to accept being forced to remain in poverty while the affluent continue to enjoy living in wealth. And why should they? As others have already noted, setting up an adequate carbon price structure will do far more than all the exhortations we can muster to change people's behaviours to be more in line with the requirement of reducing (and eventually eliminating) CO2 emissions. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:49 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Pierre @ 52... I respect your opinion but you have completely ignored everything I've stated in the article except for 10 words. That is derailing any productive conversation regarding the observations of the article regarding China and how the lives of Chinese people impact upon the climate change issue. As well, I think you're misinterpreting my second statement that you've quoted. I'm saying, telling people they are bad for flying in an airplane does not help. You accomplish nothing with that. In fact, you are more likely to alienate people against the cause of addressing climate change. The logic that every single person should have a carbon footprint of 1.5t/yr ignores both the realities of people's lives and ignores real solutions to achieve real reductions in carbon emissions. All my friends who are product designers have to travel to Asia 5 or 6 times a year. Your solution is that they quit their jobs and do something else. Your solution says they have to completely give up their livelihoods, go back to school and learn a new skill. In the meantime, the companies these friends work for just hire new people to do those jobs. Net zero change in carbon emissions. And yet these conscientious friends all give up their incomes, potentially lose their homes, significantly lower their standard of living... for zero impact. That's not a solution. On the other hand, if we all work to get carbon priced in the marketplace that can have a very significant impact on their lives. The cost of importing products would go up. The economics of offshoring product tips toward domestic manufacturing. Then my designer friends don't have to fly to Asia. They keep their jobs. They keep their livelihoods and their homes. They get to apply their chosen skills in their chosen industry. This all while more investment becomes available to create more and better solutions for clean energy. That is a solution. -
Paul Magnus at 04:05 AM on 20 July 2011China, From the Inside Out
Heres a nice ditty on china and their solar roof heating in the as always must hear/see Climate Show.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SJvHakMbvw&feature=player_detailpage#t=4391s -
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/
Prev 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 Next
