Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Next
Comments 80401 to 80450:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:11 PM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Here is an example of the level of commentary at WUWT. Read it and weep (or laugh (or both)) "Phil – Visible Light cannot and therefore does not convert to heat the land and oceans of Earth. That comes from bog standard traditional science which I have outlined above. I have also gone to some considerable effort to show that “absorb” is used in different contexts, the context of “absorb” here is in the difference between Light and Heat electromagnetic energy. In this context, Visible is not absorbed to convert to heat as the AGWScience Energy Budget KT97 claims. Because it cannot. It physically cannot. It physically does not. It is Light. Light energies are used, affect, react with matter in a completely different way from the Thermal Infrared electromagnetic wave carrying Heat. Re my: ” These are LIGHT energies, which are REFLECTIVE, in contrast to HEAT energies which are ABSORPTIVE.” More nonsense there is no such distinction. But I’ve just given you the distinction. You don’t have any distinction in AGWScience fiction, because you’re one dimensional., you don’t have differences between properties of matter and energy. Read the wiki piece I gave about how real Visible light waves/photons act in the real world. Read the links to the pages on luminescence etc. That information has been gathered over considerable time by a considerable amount of people who have done real work and real thinking exploring the differences between Light and Heat energies. The myriad applications of this knowledge are in real use by real people who all live in our real world. That there is a difference is a CATEGORY distinction in REAL TRADITIONAL SCIENCE. mods – i THINK THE INTERFERENCE IS KEY STROKE HACKING. aND IT’S BLOODY Iirritating. " Lol (TeeHee (Jesus Wept!)) -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:04 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Berényi Péter While you are correct that some weather parameters are non-normal (for frontal precipitation a gamma distribution is approapriate, for convective rainfall an exponential distribution is the use model), you have not established that the distributions are not sufficiently heavy tailed for Tom's argument to be qualitatively incorrect. However, the point is moot as the statistical definition of an extreme event is based on the return period, not the standard deviation. -
Berényi Péter at 18:50 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
#214 Tom Curtis at 17:20 PM on 3 July, 2011 As another example, the rains causing the Brisbane flood had an Annual Exceedance Probability of 1 in 400 for the whole event, and for the peak rainfall of 1 in 2000. That works out as lying between 3 and 3.5 standard deviations from the mean. Right, a 1 in 2000 event is 3.29053 standard deviation (which is indeed between 3 and 3.5). But only if the phenomenon examined follows a normal distribution. However, it is well known that probability distribution of weather/climate parameters are very far from being normal, in this domain so called fat tail distributions prevail. This fact leads to risk estimate distortions. Therefore your analysis does not make sense in this context. -
andreas3065 at 18:25 PM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
@ dana I'm almost ashamed in defending Glickstein, but I think you are wrong with this: "to support a carbon tax when you have just finished arguing that carbon emissions are a net benefit is intellectually incoherent." It's not necessarily a contradiction. You can deny climate science and propose a carbon tax because of economic benefits e.g. by reducing oil imports. See for example Revkin's post about Charles Krauthammer "A Conservative's case for a Gas Tax" (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/a-conservatives-case-for-a-gas-tax/). And BTW there would be also a political benefit, because it would help to take some pressure out and would help to delaying tougher climate policies. Krauthammer's version is more intelligent, because he avoids ridiculous claims about climate science. Krauthammers approach is interesting. Should I criticize him of doing a good but using the wrong reasons? If you accept WUWT being not a science blog but having a political agenda, then you could find some coherence in all this craziness. -
Tom Curtis at 17:20 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric (skeptic) @210: 1) The point about the size of the event is valid but irrelevant. Specifically, the events under discussion like those catalogued by Munich Re, where a tornado outbreak over three days spawning 300 tornadoes counts as a single "event". 2) Your definition of extreme sets to high a bar. Take for example the Moscow heat wave of 2010, with an expected return interval, which lay just above 4 standard deviations above the mean for July temperatures, giving it an Annual Return Interval on the assumption of a normal distribution of 1 in 10,000 years. According to your proposed definition, that only just qualifies as extreme. As another example, the rains causing the Brisbane flood had an Annual Exceedance Probability of 1 in 400 for the whole event, and for the peak rainfall of 1 in 2000. That works out as lying between 3 and 3.5 standard deviations from the mean. This is a flood that sent twice the amount of water down the river as when Brisbane got hit by a cyclone in 1974, and as much as for Brisbane's breaking flood in 1893 (also cyclone related), but this was just from a line of thunderstorms. But according to you it is borderline as to whether it should count as extreme. Or consider the Toowoomba flood. The rainfall for that flood had an AEP of just over 100, equivalent to a standard deviation of just 2.6. Consequently Toowoomba's "instant inland tsunami" does not count as an extreme event for you. The clear purpose of your definition is to make "extreme events" as defined by you so rare that statistical analysis of trends becomes impossible. You as much as so so. In your opinion, " true extremes have small numbers of events which make it difficult to perform trending". But that is as good as saying your definition of true extremes is useless for analysis. In contrast, an event with an AEP 2 SD above the mean (a 1 in twenty year event) is certainly extreme enough for those caught in the middle. Further, those events are predicted to increase in number with global warming. So why insist on a definition of extreme which prevents analysing trends when the theory we are examining makes predictions regarding events for which we are able to examine trends? Why, indeed, is global warming "skepticism" only ever plausible once you shift the spot lights posts so that the evidence all lies undisturbed in the darkness. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:17 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman wrote: "I am only questioning the collection of severe weather events of 2010 and using this as proof that the warming globe is causing an increase in extreme weather that have caused more destruction and will continue to get worse as the planet continues to warm." It isn't proof, it is corroborative evidence. In science you can't prove by observation, only disprove, and constant calls for proof of AGW (which is known to be impossible, even if the theory is correct) is a form of denial. A warmer world means that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, and thus there will be a strengthening of the hydrological cycle. A consequence of that is likely to be an increase in extreme weather in some places. Thus an increase in weather extremes is what you would expect to see if AGW is ocurring, but it isn't poof. If you think that is not good science, then it is your understanding that is at fault. That warm air holds more water vapour is observable to anyone with a thermometer and a hygrometer, compare humidity in summer months and in winter months. That water vapour has to go somewhere, as water is constantly being evaporated from the oceans by the suns heat. More is evaporated in warm condisions than in cold. Thus more evaporation means more rain. It really isn't rocket science. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:01 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric Extreme events already have a good statistical definition, namely the return period, for instance an event might have a return period of 100 years, in laymans terms, a "once in a hundred year event". This definition has the advantage of automatically taking into account the skewness of the distribution. The small number of events does not pose a serious problem in estimating changes (trends) in return times. There is a branch of statistics called "extreme value theory" that has been developed to address exactly these kinds of problems. If you have a statistical background, there is a very good book on this by Stuart Coles (google that name to find tutorial articles). -
Tom Curtis at 15:58 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @192, several comments: 1) The graph is not directly comparable as the CEI graph uses a 1 in 10 year definition of extreme, while Kunkel shows 1 year, 5 year and 20 year return intervals. 2) The graph you indicate only shows the period to 2000. From the data from CEI, the period 2001-2010 shows a higher frequency of one day, 1 in 10 year return period precipitation events than does 1991 to 2000, which probably means it is equivalent to 1895-1900 for 1 year and 5 year return events, but less than 1895 - 1900 for 20 year return events. It is however hard to be sure as no direct comparison is possible (see above). 3) The first interval on the graph, and the only interval to exceed 1991-2000 and presumably 2001-2010 in any category (except for 1981-1990 five day duration/ 20 year return interval) consists of only six years. It is probable that has the full decade been included the values would have been reduced, possibly significantly so. It is, of course, also possible that they would have increased them. If the four excluded years had followed the mean of the entire record, then the 1 day/ 1 year return value would have been approx 12.6%, the 5 year return value would have been 11.4%, and the 20 year return value would have been around 28.8%, values lower than or equivalent to those for 1990-1991. That would mean they are also lower than the 2001-2010 values. These three considerations suggest we should treat the 1895-1900 data with considerable caution. That the period is also the most likely to be adversely effected by poor station quality, and/or record keeping, only reinforces that caution. For example, one explanation for the different patterns between 1 day, 5 day and 30 day records (see below) may simply be that records were not taken at consistent times in the early period, thus inflating single day values without altering multi-day values. A six hour delay in checking rain gauges could easily inflate daily values by 50% or more. Having urged caution, however, I will take the data at face value (because it appears to counter my case rather than support it). That is, I will treat the data conservatively with respect to my hypothesis. Doing so, I proceeded to check the whole paper. What struck me is that though Figure 3 (extreme one day precipitation events) shows very high values for 1895-1900, that was not the case for 5 day and thirty day events (figures 4 and 5). For 5 day events, the 1895-1900 figures where less than the 1991-2000 (and presumably also 2001-2010) in all categories. The same is true for 30 day events, but in that case the number of 1 year and 5 year return events where much less than those for the 1990's. Assuming the data is genuinely representative of the decade 1891-1900, that indicates that the high number of extreme rainfall events in that decade has a distinct cause form those of the 1990's and presumably 2000's. If they had the same cause, they would show a similar rainfall pattern to the most recent decades. The difference in causation may be something common to the two periods, along with some factor present in the recent decades but not in the 1890's. More likely it is entirely distinct in that the only thing truly common between the 1990's high rate of extreme precipitation and the 2000's even higher rate is high global temperatures. In any event, the data presented ambivalently confirms the notion that the most recent period is unusual. Confirms because in two out of three periods, the 1990's and presumably 2000's represent the highest frequency of heavy rainfall events, while in the third (1 day events) the 1890's are similar but neither conclusively greater nor less than the 2000's. The data certainly disconfirms the notion that some periodic oscillation is responsible for both the rainfall extremes in the 1890's and over the last two decades because of the distinct causal antecedents. Now, having given you what I consider to be a fair analysis of the data, I am going to berate you. Firstly, drawing attention to the 1 day return interval without also mentioning the different pattern for the other durations is without question cherry picking (yet again). It is cherry picking even though you where responding to a comment about 1 day duration events because it was relevant in general, and definitely relevant to your hypothesis because it undermined it. (The original comment was not cherry picked in that the CEI data only includes the 1 day interval.) Further, your analysis was shoddy in that it made no mention of the confounding factors. That's par for the course in blog comments, but it is shoddy analysis. It is particularly so from somebody who is so scrupulous in finding confounding factors in data that does not suit you. In fact, it shows you are employing an evidential double standard (yet again). All of this is exactly what I would expect from a denier in sheep's clothing. But if by some extraordinary chance you are what you claim to be, you can't afford that sort of shoddiness. You need to look out for the confounding factors yourself, and always treat the data conservatively, ie, assume it has the worst characteristics for your preferred hypothesis. Otherwise you will just keep on proving the maxim that the easiest person to fool is yourself. -
Phila at 15:53 PM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
I will continue to disagree with the premise that a doubling of co2 will result in a min of 2.0C temp rise. I'm sure you will, come hell or high water. As the old gag says, "you can't reason a man out of a belief he didn't reason himself into." In other not-very-surprising news, the rest of us will continue to get our information from experts who know what they're talking about, instead of non-experts who are proudly spinning their wheels in an ideological rut. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:59 PM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
My 2 +/- 2 cents on trends in extremeness is that true extremes have small numbers of events which make it difficult to perform trending. The extremes need to be more tightly defined than is the case above (some of the head post examples are extreme, some are not and some are ill-defined or not commonly measured). Tom's proposed definition up in post 110 which is two standard deviations from the mean for rainfall needs to be tightened up IMO. The extremeness will depend on the coverage area, time interval for the mean, and the distribution of that particular random variable. A normally distributed variable will have a relatively straightforward definition of extreme, 3 SDs in many cases and 4 SDs in most cases as long as the time period and arial extents are large enough. Here's an example of extreme rainfall events http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127%3C1954%3AEDREAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2 e.g. 10 SDs above the daily average in an Indian monsoon due to the skewness of the distribution making outliers more common than a normal distribution. The Tennessee floods mentioned above had a large area of 1 in 1000 probability so qualifies as extreme. In contrast the 2010 Atlantic season described above as "hyperactive" is not a strong statistical outlier (12 versus 7 +/- 2 hurricanes with some right skew) -
Camburn at 14:13 PM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
actually thoughtful: This thread is about the implimentation of a carbon tax and what some percieve to be the results of said implimentation. I disagree with the projected results. I have demonstrated changes that are occuring without a carbon tax. I will continue to disagree with the premise that a doubling of co2 will result in a min of 2.0C temp rise. As far as spending, all on and off budget items, being balanced in 2 fiscal years by eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts and the increase in medicare payments, well....you are totally wrong. -
JoeRG at 12:39 PM on 3 July 2011It's the sun
KR First is that natural variability means that on a short time scale (5-10 years) 'climate' models can only give an approximation of the 'weather', where on 20-30 years they do an excellent job of looking at trends. It's not a miss unless the observations go outside the envelope of model predictions, the orange and blue bands representing the multiple-run envelope.. Therefore the fit with anthropogenic forcings is quite good. If you didn't notice, the two peaks I mentioned are begin and end of a trend that lasted about 35 years and that, after removing the noise of ENSO effects, was as straight as a temperature trend could ever be. So I didn't speak about a short time effect but about a significant climatic scenario. Besides, it is a good example for underestimation of natural forcings, especially the solar forcing. Given that the forcings are to describe as a function like in comment #845 by scaddenp, the function for the natural forcings is: (nat)Temp = Func(Sun, Albedo(clouds), Aerosols(vulcans)). Looking at the conditions shows that in this period the albedo is to assume as nearly constant and the aerosols were slightly lowering with only a very small change after 1915. So the solar forcing remained as the main driver of the occured trend. As well, if only the natural forcings were considered, this trend should have been continued until 1963 because there were no significant changes. This leads to your next statement: Third, 'global dimming' shows up in both model and measurement data as change to a downward trend around 1940. I think your statement regarding that is unfounded. Excuse me, but where is it? In the measurements clearly, but where in the models? Given the circumstances that no natural forcing had changed that far that the trend could have been stopped (in the period from '45 until '63) results in the conclusion that anthropogenic forcings were at work in the manner of global dimming. This would mean that natural forcings must have caused higher temperatures as anthropogenic forcings in this time. But this never happens in the models. Summarized: We have a model that 1) doesn't consider significant trends, 2) underestimates natural forcings and 3) shows wrong values of anthropogenic forcings. Sorry, but 'excellent' is something different. Finally, as to models - they are an important tool for teasing out the contributions and effects of different forcings, as well as a good check on our understanding of the physics involved. Such models give the impression that the physics are not well understood, at least in the climate science. Second, given recent higher grade measurements of forcings, the post 1950's fit is accordingly better in the models. Not quite. Forcings are calculated based on measured physical values and observed conditions. I suggest you read the Models are unreliable thread if you have such concerns about the use of models as tools. I didn't mean to go too far off topic, but this model that you've presented is a proper example for an analysis how underestimated solar activities are in the climate models. As I see it, because of false trails that exist (and that are powered by such bad models), the research in possible amplifications of solar forcings is too little to get a better understanding. For example, as I told before the magnetic field of the Earth weakened by 10% in the last century while the solar magnetic flux nearly doubled. I found only a view studies about this influence on climate, but most of them were made by persons that you would call a 'denier'. In the IPCC documents I found nothing at all, regrettably. As well, an influence of number and intensities of solar flares is possibe (and can of course explain the unusual hard rise in the OHC in 2003). But as long as only the last 35 years of solar activity are considered (as in the 3 topics and the IPCC reports) there will be probably no change in research. And that is not only a 'miss', it is truly a mess. -
actually thoughtful at 12:11 PM on 3 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Camburn, The problem with your analysis is you are focusing on the wrong problem. While you are correct that oil will become fairly scarce in the next 2 decades, natural gas and coal are very plentiful. The chart below
(source:http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3M.htm) shows you the cost of natural gas - it spiked in 2008, but is now back to 2005 levels.
Once oil prices start their inevitable rise, the world will be at a crossroads - do we convert to natural gas and coal for transportation? Or do we get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. At this moment, even with President Obama's leadership, the politics of the extreme right in the USA will not allow the rational choice. This is a HUGE problem.
So it is important to solve the right problem. You have us solving a fuel shortage - that is not the problem.
The problem is CO2 - which says eliminate coal first, then other fossil fuels as soon as possible. I am in favor of a full court press to eliminate any fossil fuel I find in my life. I think being carbon free is the most patriotic thing you can do.
As for China - PLEASE! let's bring the debate above kindergarten "but so-and-so did X" - let's get our house in order, then profit like bandits helping the other countries (see Germany as but one example).
This is why it is critical to focus on the ACTUAL problem - which is warming due to CO2 - so you don't end up with bizarre policy solutions that have no relationship to the problem (with your model you could end up with the US government actually supporting "clean coal" - what could be a dumber policy!?
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] adjusted width of image -
Patrick 027 at 11:33 AM on 3 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
In the same vein as my 57, see fig 10 from source in 53. It is a global annual average. It shows solar heating generally almost in balance with net LW cooling. However, I think it may be showing the part of solar heating via chemical latent heat at the point where the chemical latent heat is released. Hence the location where solar radiation is absorbed may not be the same, althouth I think it has a similar general pattern in the lower mesosphere. Anyway, that's a bit different than conduction/diffusion of sensible heat and though circulation may be involved, it wouldn't be necessary to bring fluxes into balance there (temperature would adjust as necessary to bring net LW cooling into balance with the others). There is an interesting descrepancy between the cooling and heating rates higher up - I'll have to look again but I think it may not be balanced by conduction/diffusion; perhaps there is a fingerprint of convection in the global average? But a reminder that this is forced motion, not locally spontaneous. -
dana1981 at 11:00 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Chris - there's a forehead slapper. I guess being 40 years behind the times is an improvement over being 100 years behind the times. He also had a great barrier reef decline denial post, which mentioned Ove H-G, which is nice timing, because I'm about to publish a post by Ove H-G on exactly that subject. -
Tom Curtis at 11:00 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @104, yesterday I commented that"That post [your 69] contained some good advise by Hansen, and a stack of numbers use to build up emotional weight, but no analysis."
(emphasis added) I made that comment half an hour before you asked me to comment on Hansen. But seeing you have asked:"Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved grid deserve priority and there is a hope that they could provide all of our electric power requirements. However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power. Therefore it is important to undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. These programs could be carried out most rapidly and effectively in full cooperation with China and/or India, and other countries. Given appropriate priority and resources, the option of secure, low-waste 4th generation nuclear power (see below) could be available within a decade. If, by then, wind, solar, other renewables, and an improved grid prove that they are capable of handling all of our electrical energy needs, then there may be no need to construct nuclear plants in the United States. Many energy experts consider an all-renewable scenario to be implausible in the time-frame when coal emissions must be phased out, but it is not necessary to debate that matter. However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. Both countries project large increases in their energy needs, both countries have highly polluted atmospheres primarily due to excessive coal use, and both countries stand to suffer inordinately if global climate change continues."
(my highlighting) I still think the letter contains good sense - all of it. But I have to wonder, seeing you have introduced Hansen as an authority why you are ignoring those sections that I have highlighted? Why the bitter and unenlightening attack on renewables? You asked in your 81 if I am "a little anti-nuclear"? Well, not especially. I am cautious about nuclear, and have been unable to get satisfying answers from nuke boosters on key issues. But my immediate response to Fukushima was to post a comment on this site to the effect that it changed nothing, and that specifically AGW was so great a threat that nukes cannot be taken of the table. What disturbs me most about Fukushima was not the accident itself, nor the level the disaster has currently reached. These are, in the end, engineering issues, and engineering issues are solvable, at a price. It was the blaisé assumption that things would not get worse, and the jokes about the radiation levels in bananas. It is the same nonchalant attitude to safety that caused the problems at Fukushima in the first place, and which you exhibit in your responses regarding the risks of terrorists capturing a nuclear power station. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:34 AM on 3 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
We can only wish Wegman would be subjected to such diligent inquiry by his employing institution. As for McIntyre, he's not at risk, no institution employs him, so who will conduct an official investigation? It's good to be a skeptic; all the glory, none of the responsibility... -
Tom Curtis at 10:22 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @101: From 101: a) 64.6 trillion kWh of electricity produced by nuclear; b) 2 INES 7 events; Therefore, c) 1 INES 7 event per 32.3 trillion kWh produced by nuclear; From 69: d) 11.5 Terrawatts of clean energy capacity required; Or e) 100 trillion kWh of electricity if produced at peak capacity; Or 50 trillion kWh of electricity allowing for a peak to zero capacity cycle everyday; So F) An expected 1.5 IES 7 events per annum if fossil fuels are replaced by nuclear at current safety standards. But not to worry, the nuke boosters assure us the latest model reactors are much safer. And they have such a good track record of assessing risks:"2. No, quite the opposite. They have just performed robustly in the face of the worst earthquake ever to strike the Japanese islands. The risk of meltdown is extremely small, and the death toll from any such accident, even if it occurred, will be zero. There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure. Those spreading FUD at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces."
(Barry Brook commenting on Fukushima, March 12, 2011) Again you are throwing up a wall of numbers without carrying it through to an actual analysis, just as you did on your first full post on the topic. And with regard to those numbers (and your comment @103), I don't care whose numbers they where, you quoted them, and you drew an implication from them. Therefore either you defend them, or you withdraw the implication. You do not get to both disavow the "evidence" and retain it as bolstering your argument, at least not if your purpose is rational discussion or analysis rather than propaganda. -
actually thoughtful at 10:20 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn: Why are you on this thread? This thread is about the economic benefit of mitigating climate change - not at the level of catastrophe avoided, but at the level of ingenuity rewarded. In post 32, point 4 you express deep confusion about the physics of climate change. Please go to the myriad of threads on this very site that explain this and understand the basic issue. Once you understand why the CO2 doubling will lead to 2C or more temperature increase, we can start with you on equal footing with the rest of us. It isn't fair to the rest of us that you bring your confusion to this thread. You could start by understanding how, if it is 1C MAX, and we haven't even doubled yet, that we are at .8C increase. Something doesn't square in your physics and/or logic. Your points have very little merit given that you don't understand the basis of the discussion. PS - your points regarding the Republican debt are consistent with your understanding of climate change - muddled and mostly wrong. But I don't find any thread on Skeptical Science appropriate for discussing them. Suffice it to say you are wrong on that issue as well. -
John Hartz at 10:00 AM on 3 July 2011OA not OK part 1
I happened across the following article posted on redOrbit. Everyone reading this thread will find it interesting. Climate Change Could Turn Oxygen-Free Seas From Blessing To Curse For Zooplankton -
JMurphy at 09:45 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD : "You don't 'like' nuclear, but I don't believe renewables can even come close to the potential for displacing coal." Who told you that I don't like nuclear ? I believe it is an old, dirty and dangerous way of producing energy and that we should move as quickly as possible to renewable sources, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it shouldn't be used now, where there are no other options. It should only be a last resort, though, and only as a temporary stop-gap before renewables take over. I don't, however, like nuclear power evangelicals, who are prepared to lessen the dangers and constantly see the best - as the UK government and Brave New Climate did, literally days after the accident. That is called wishful, blinkered thinking. What you believe about the potential for renewables is just that, though - your belief. BBD : "You might want to ponder what a widespread and prolonged failure of the European supergrid might look like. How many fatalities would you expect?" I have no idea. Perhaps you have a number you can believe in ? BBD : "I had a feeling someone would bring up the news from Japan." Sorry to bring up uncomfortable news. That is life that cannot be swept under the carpet or PR'd away. BBD : "However, your anti-nuclear sniping requires an answer" Not being anti-nuclear, I can only assume that what you call anti-nuclear (without any evidence) is actually anti-nuclear evangelism. Guilty. BBD : "But nuclear has been around for longer than you might think." So why does it still need to be subsidised and secretly pushed by governments ? Can't it stand on its own feet and pay for itself yet ? How long more does it need before it can do that ? BBD : "Yet since the vast majority of reactors came on line in the last 40 years, there have been 18 incidents that merited a rating on the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES). It is important to remember that in operational terms, this is 18 incidents in 11,255 years." Very safe indeed but how many industries can you think of which require long-term evacuations from large areas, as well as intensive and expensive clear-ups, after an accident ? How do you think it feels to have survived a natural disaster, only to be told that you cannot live your life in some form of normality afterwards because a power source miles away means it is unsafe for you to return to your home ? BBD : "Anyone who says that the anti-nuclear lobby should not be allowed to make comparisons with Chernobyl is absolutely correct. It is a grotesque misrepresentation. There have been no fatalities and none are currently expected. In other words, such contamination as may have occurred is likely to be minor and transient." Something about your confident predictions of future non-deaths and minor inconvenience is very troubling and, again, marks you out as a nuclear evangelist. There is a very simple comparison with Chernobyl, though you may wish to lessen it : both were maximum Level 7 severity, involving a major release of radiation with widespread health and environmental effects. The fact that you try to lessen the seriousness, speaks volumes. -
JMurphy at 09:41 AM on 3 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette wrote : JMurphy, is this statement disinformation or false? "Michael Mann's conduct was examined by an internal, not independent, review board of the entity which employed him and stood to lose credibility if it were revealed he acted improperly." This is what I've been saying, it's all that I'm saying, (on that matter) and if you are going to accuse me of "purveying disinformation" please specify what about it is. It's very simple : The guidelines for such an investigation - acceptable to be used for any other individual except Dr Mann, according to the so-called skeptics, it would appear - are : The Committee shall consist of at least five tenured University faculty members, each of whom should have no conflict of interest and be competent, in the judgment of the Vice President for Research, to evaluate the questions before the Committee. In this case, the individuals involved came from the Departments of Biology, Chemistry and Physics, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Anthropology, and Human Development and Family Studies. Again, unbiased enough for any individual except Dr Mann, presumably. Ultimately, if Dr Mann had acted improperly, and it could be proved that he had, the university would have been more than keen to ensure that punishment would have been swift and proportional - if only to preserve the integrity and professionalism of the university itself. The fact that it found no such thing, due to the distinct lack of any form of evidence in the real world, still smarts with the so-called skeptics. Less of the disinformation and more of the facts, please. -
Tom Curtis at 09:34 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn @36, if you accept that "economics works", you would also accept that large, uncosted negative externalities distort the market and reduce overall wealth. Such uncosted negative externalities would therefore be anathema to you, and you would be looking for the most efficient means to either place a price on the externalities, regulate it out of existence, or ensure a payment from the producer of the externalities to those suffering its effects. In the case of GHG emissions, the most effective way to do that may be to introduce a carbon tax either with a dividend to end users on some basis (and there are different ways of paying the dividend), or subsidy to low carbon energy producers. It may be a cap and trade scheme. It may be a legal requirement for carbon emitters to fund expected payouts for damages arising from loss of habitat, and health effects from global warming going forward. But not doing it is not assuming that economics works, but that it doesn't. -
Camburn at 09:34 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
The rate of rise will slightly slow, but the debt will not lessen. -
Camburn at 09:32 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
actually thoughtful@31: Mr. Hansen has made predictions concering sea levels in the past that have not born out. 2. This is not a Republican "deficit". This is a mutual one. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were idiotic, but that is not the crux of what you said. I understand that you limited your comment to the constraints of a budget. SS is not included in the budget. When you add the increased funding required for SS and Medicare, even allowing the physician increase to lapse, the financial health will not correct itself by 2014. The rate of rise in the debt will slightly slow from present levels, but it will certainly not lessen. This is also from CBO. 3. The free market is already harnessed to decrease energy consumption, and it has started. As energy prices rise, you will see an excalation in this trend. 4. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics show approx 1.0 for a doubling of co2. I am in no way convinced that the temp rise will be 3.0-6.0C.; hence I am not concerned about long term effects. I am concerned about current economic distress which is becoming more apparant all the time. Point #7. In order for the US to service just the interest on its current debt, with spending projections from CBO used, will require a tax increase of 6-8%. Add another tax on top of this debt service will stiffle economic growth. The free economy is much better at inovation/invention than the government is. Concerning medicare. When I was inocculated it cost my parents $5.50. When I broke my arm, two days in hospital, xrays etc.....total cost was 114.76. My father still has the bill. Older folks who are now recieving medicare at current tax rates are exceeding the revenue stream. To substain that care, taxes are going to have to go up. Health insurance is a pool and off topic. We can debate that one at another time. -
BBD at 09:31 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 My apologies. I didn't realise you were an energy expert. -
Chris G at 09:25 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Watts posted a doozy today: "This makes me wonder if the temperature dip in the 1970′s where everyone was worried about global cooling wasn’t partially driven by atmospheric aerosols." I pointed out that Watts is where Schneider was 40 years ago. "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141) -
dana1981 at 09:22 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Hansen is a climate science expert, not an energy expert, so I don't defer to him on energy issues. -
actually thoughtful at 08:25 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn @26 Your points # 1 is easily disproved by looking around this site. Please do so. Hansen says BAU could produce over 2 meters of sea level rise this century. Point # 2 is mostly useless in this debate because the debt is a Republican issue, not a real issue. If we wanted to eliminate the national deficit in the USA - we just have to do nothing. The law calls for the end of the Bush era tax cuts, and the end of all the Medicare "Doc fixes" - these two things alone would end the deficit by 2014 (according to the CBO). Also, this post talks about the economic increase that accelerating the switch to renewables will bring. Economic growth will reduce the deficit, assuming spending is limited or reduced (which certainly appears to be the case) Your point # 3 is exactly the point - adding a carbon tax will harness the free market to mitigate climate change risk. You are presenting arguments for my perspective. Thank you. # 4 is, AGAIN, exactly the point! If we don't handle climate change and soon, "the economic distress will cause enormous human distress that will result in wars, famine, etc." We don't need to fix health care right now, we don't need to fix the deficit right now - we do need to fix our relationship with the environment, from where all wealth comes from. Thus the push for a carbon tax. Points 5&6 indicate a willingness to set the bar too low. Sure, we are seeing a small, slow growth in renewables. But compared to the overall energy puzzle, renewables are too small, and the current trend (BAU) leads to the planet shifting into a mode that is hostile to happy humans. Point # 7 is counter to the evidence presented in this post. It is counter to our experience with the ozone layer and with acid rain. What is your evidence (not ideology) to support this claim? Everything we know tells us the opposite is true - that a carbon tax will spur an economic boom by setting the conditions for economic expansion as we switch from carbon based to renewable based energy. It is interesting to me, given how well you understand things at point # 3 & 4, how your conclusions don't follow. You point out that government involvement in Medicare causes increased costs and poor execution. Where are the millions of seniors rising up demanding changes to Medicare? Oh, wait. Those millions of seniors are demanding NO changes to Medicare. OK - well what about the worldwide consensus that the US military is a paper tiger, and easily defeated? Oh, wait - the US military is the most respected fighting force in the world. So two of the largest programs the US government undertakes are incredibly effective, and whether they would be cheaper in the private sector is somewhat debatable, but I notice the private sector is not doing very well in these two area (Blackwater as one example in the military space -we know how effective they are, and health insurance - the most beloved industry in America... NOT). So, as near as I can tell, your conclusions don't follow from the evidence you presented, and are demonstrably false to boot. Care to try again? -
BBD at 08:19 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I really should have posted a link to this article on the Science Council for Global Initiatives site earlier. Please note the SCGI members list on the left of the page. -
Patrick 027 at 08:18 AM on 3 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
And if, at the same frequency, the tropopause and mesopause can both emit radiation, the would also absorb each other's radiation, to the extent the intervening space is transparent (which it isn't!) and to the extent they can emit (relative to the Planck function). Of course the whole upper atmosphere is nearly transparent over some spectral bands, over a broader interval than the 'atmospheric window' and more transparent than the 'atmospheric window'. (the atmospheric window, roughly 8 to 12 microns (interupted by ozone somewhere around 9 or 10 microns) is a band where a sizable fraction of radiation from the surface can reach space, absent clouds or high humidity levels. Aside from ozone, Most of the non-cloud opacity in the atmospheric window comes from water vapor and most of that is in the lower troposphere) But there isn't a particularly greater abundance of greenhouse gases near the tropopause or mesopause than in between (in fact ozone has a maximum in between), so at wavelengths where emission from the regions of the tropopause or mesopause is significant (relative to the layer thickness, which is extremely small for anything above the stratosphere), so would be emission and absorption from the intervening layer. -
BBD at 07:56 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 I have talked about nothing but practicality since I joined this thread ;-) The various counter-perspectives I have see here have not, so far, been convincing. Why do you think Hansen said what he said in his letter to President Obama? -
Camburn at 07:47 AM on 3 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Actually Thoughtful@18: I have made a suggestion in another thread that to take action does not require even talking about climate. 1. Base action on economics. We know that coal/oil/gas etc are finite. We know that in an expanding world energy use will continue to rise as that raises the standard of living. 2. We know that energy costs are going up. That premiss is born from pricing facts and is indisputeable. 3. We know the reason they are going up. Inelastic demand as well as inelastic supply. 4. The way to address the supply side is with another source of energy. 5. Given demand curves, given supply curves are easy to observe with the naked eye, and are indisputeable. The above items are well known. Rather than focus on an elastic sensativity, focus on the inelastic reality. It would be a very easily sold concept in the USA where the population as a whole is well educated. It will take leadership, of which the USA seems to be short on at this time. China is a different story. The Chinese have money, they are building 2 new coal fired power plants every week. India is not far behind. The environmental record of both of those nations is certainly not something to be proud off. To get the Chinese and Indian people to stop consuming coal at the present rate of increase is going to be extremely difficult. Rather than focus on co2, I still suggest focusing on finite resources, and the way to overcome the disadvantage of consuming these. -
dana1981 at 07:35 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I think 20% is at the low end of the likely renewable contribution by 2050. I suspect it'll be closer to 50%. Most of the rest will probably be natural gas and nuclear. Hopefully you're right about Gen III reactors. Looks like China is building a few. Time is still an issue, with at least 5 years of construction, and a number of years of planning before that. People may delay construction of certain renewable projects, but they generally support the technologies. That's a problem for nuclear power. Wind turbines have very little land impact - the ground between turbines can be used for other purposes. Solar can be placed in deserts and on rooftops. Wind turbines can also go offshore. And so on and so forth. Renewable land impact really isn't a concern. You'll get a few whiners complaining about individual projects, but not enough to make a significant difference. But a lot of people have major concerns about nuclear power. I'm not saying they're necessarily justified - many aren't. But that's the reality of the situation, as long as we're talking about practicality :-) -
Albatross at 07:30 AM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @208, "I am not debating the issue if the planet is warming" Good, but you miraculously manage still miss the point entirely...it was an analogy. "You need to prove that a warmer world will lead to more storms or floods or droughts by at least providing a mechanism on what a warmer world will effect." Strictly speaking one cannot prove anything in science. That is just how it is. Now, I am going to spend some time with my family. -
BBD at 07:09 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 I agree that there's no silver bullet. I agree that renewables will play a substantially increased role in the global energy mix - perhaps even as much as 20% by 2050. Which leaves 80% on the table. Which I think was Dr Hansen's point. I disagree that Generation III nuclear plant will be problematic in terms of cost or construction rate. I agree that there will be public opposition to new nuclear, which is why anti-nuclear lobbying is so dangerous from a climate perspective. I would like you to consider why you ignore the certain public opposition to the enormous environmental and landscape impact from the footprint of even a 20% renewables contribution to the global energy mix. I agree that we will build smarter grid infrastructure and increase energy efficiency (and applaud that thought). I am concerned about your last paragraph. You do not seem to have absorbed much of what has been said above, eg 96, 98, 99. -
Patrick 027 at 07:05 AM on 3 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Holton (1992), p. 405, (in contrast to/with the troposphere): "In the stratosphere, on the other hand, infrared radiative cooling is in the mean balanced primarily by radiative heating owing to the absorption of solar ultraviolet radiation by ozone. As a result of the solar heating in the ozone layer, the mean temperature in the stratosphere increases with height to a maximum at the stratopause near 50 km. Above the stratopause temperature decreases with height owing to the reduced solar heating of ozone." p.404, the troposphere: "Because very little solar radiation is absorbed in the troposphere, the thermal structure of the troposphere is maintained by an approximate balance among infrared radiative cooling, vertical transport of sensible and latent heat away from the surface by small-scale eddies, and large-scale heat transport by synoptic-scale eddies. The net result is a mean temperature structure in which the surface temperature has its maximum in the equatorial region and decreases toward both the winter and summer poles. There is also a rapid decrease in altitude with a lapse rate of about 6[K/km]." I should add that you can account for the solar heating of the air simply by using net radiant cooling (net LW cooling minus solar heating). And the small solar heating of the troposphere is in terms of K/day, or heating rate relative to mass. In terms of the total flux, solar heating of the troposphere is considerably larger than that of the rest of the atmosphere. The solar heating in K/day is smaller in the lowest part of the stratosphere than it is in the troposphere, but gets larger going into the upper stratosphere (Hartmann). -
Norman at 06:57 AM on 3 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatros @ 207. Maybe we are not connecting in points because from this post it seems you and I are not discussing the same issue. "My point is that one can always seek out locations or times when the data appear to go against the long-term upward trend in temperatures. But to use those data to conclude that the warming is either not happening or not significant is both wrong and misses the point altogether. And seeking out such data is not viewing the body of evidence, but is rather an elaborate form of cherry-picking and argumentum ad absurdum, something that you and both the NIPCC have both identified, perhaps even independently." I am not debating the issue if the planet is warming and that cause is mankind's abundant release of this gas via burning carbon based fuel. That would be "denier" as defined (closed mind) since the facts are obvious that man is burning, collectively, large amounts of carbon based fuel and it is proven empirically that atmospheric CO2 will absrob and redirect IR radiation omnidirectonal so that some will return to earth at the CO2 molecular resonance modes. I am only questioning the collection of severe weather events of 2010 and using this as proof that the warming globe is causing an increase in extreme weather that have caused more destruction and will continue to get worse as the planet continues to warm. We are on two different topics. I do not know if global warming is or is not increasing the intensity, duration or frequency of severe weather events capable of causing disasters that kill people and destroy property. There are vast amounts of articles claiming it is a fact. When I do searches for evidence to determine if this is true, many state it is true but very few provide any proof. A general concept that a warmer world with more moisture in the atmophere would automatically lead to more storms is not good science from my understanding of it. You need to prove that a warmer world will lead to more storms or floods or droughts by at least providing a mechanism on what a warmer world will effect. How will it alter the jet stream? It may shift it poleward but will that create more intense dangerous storms? It certainly may but I would like to see an explanation of how it would produce more storms, what will it do to cause the increase? That is what I am spending time on this site and others questioning. Just saying the events of 2010 are the result of a warmer/wetter world without any challenge nor a need to provide more detailed explanations of how each event listed was caused by the warmer/wetter world is not an acceptable state for science. For instance, the Pakistan flood. It was caused by a blocking pattern. That is the known science that can be determined empirically. Saying "well the earth is warmer and wetter and has more energy so it caused this flood" should not satisfy any scientist. What forces of the warmer/wetter earth made this blocking pattern last longer? Did the warm air push a front into this area that would not have been there had the Earth been 0.8C cooler? Long post but I hope that explains my position on this thread. It is not to deny AGW, if I felt strongly there was not sufficient evidence for this theory I would attempt it on another thread (as has been pointed out to do..keep the focus on topic). Topic here is Global Warming is causing more extreme weather. Only by looking at long term trends in weather and climate patterns will this question be answered to satisfaction. Who knows, maybe I will find enough evidence to see that it is indeed a case. Most valuable to me are the sites that include mechanisms like Rob Painting with his Amazon drought article on this web site. He linked warming North Atlantic waters to droughts in Amazon. A warmer earth would have more chance of doing this over a cooler earth so he is making a link to how a warming world can create a drought condition in a region. -
dana1981 at 06:52 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - there's no silver bullet here. Certainly not nuclear power, or interconnectivity, or storage or gas turbines. It's going to require a combination of all these factors, though I suspect nuclear won't end up playing a very big role due to cost and public opposition. And we're also going to need to increase energy efficiency, and build a smart grid. We also need to keep in mind that weather a few hours ahead of time can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy, so it can be anticipated when windspeed will drop, or the skies become cloudy above a solar plant, for example. -
Michael of Brisbane at 06:51 AM on 3 July 2011Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
Thanks for this article. I found it very entertaining reading. I especially enjoyed the link in the Research section at the bottom: "Evidence that cosmic rays seed clouds", although it was more "interesting" than "entertaining". Cheers everyone! -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:49 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Thanks for pointing to that caerbannog. All skeptics allowed to post here should be thankful that this site's standards are so superior to the lynch mob there. -
Camburn at 06:49 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
scaddenp@29: Yes, we heat from Sept to May, and this year most of June as well. I looked at installing a corn burning stove. When corn was less expensive, it was viable. At current prices it is questionable. Your last sentence is the crux tho, and the hardest to address. At some point, elec cars etc will provide more short term transportation alternatives. Even tho I live far from an urban center, I recognize that population density indicates a very good market for such a vehicle. But with that increased load, there will have to be more sources of baseload energy. Long stretches of HVDC lines have a substantial loss so are not feasable. As the price per kwh rises, they become even less feasable. I firmly believe that solar can provide electricity for the sw 1/4 of the US. Hydro should be providing power for the majority of the rest of the country. One of the forcasts of warming, (whether it be AGW or cyclical is not important in this discussion) is more precipitation. Some of these events are suppose to be extreme. There are ample basins to capture the result of this extreme, as it is really only a shift in energy on a pure raw physics sense, and use it for benificial purposes. I am familiar with the topography of the US. I am not sure if this is practical in the rest of the world, but it certainly is in the USA. I look at the bird deaths at the windfarm near me and am troubled by those. They have a great value in the scheme of life. A dam would not be as environmentally degrading and also provide mitigation responses as well as elec generation. A two fold win. If substantial battery storage improvements are not on the horizon, which at this time they aren't, the benifit of hydro/solar is that one can produce hydrogen. From all indications, my source I can't link to, a viable hydrogen fuel cell is not far off the horizon. I am hoping that project is fruitfull. One has seen items close to fruition before only to never quit achieve what had been hoped. These are solutions that can be done, the teck is here for those. By doing so, one could slowly take offline coal powered plants in the USA and have viable baseload energy. These solutions solve mitigation, environmental concerns, and are viable. Any leader worth his/her salt should be able to sell these to the general public. A non political item.....which from what I can see....is a requirement for any advancement on this issue. -
scaddenp at 06:27 AM on 3 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
"1/ No matter what happens, sea level will continue to rise. It has been doing that climatically for 100's of years. " 0.3mm/yr over last 2-3 millennia. "The question is, how much additional rise has AGW added to the rate of rise." See the appropriate threads. Evidence says quite a lot. I think a better focus would help. Unless we want to spend all our income on transport fuel, I think the difficulties in maintaining oil production will mean we will be finding alternatives without the need for further carbon pricing. Where you live, it sounds like heating might be a big cost - here it was economic to switch from gas to pellet burners. If it was colder, GSHP might have been better option. Finland and Sweden are into this big time. However, real focus is getting off coal. What does it take to get electricity production from other (clean) sources? Kill the subsidies on for starters. -
caerbannog at 05:42 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Something else to consider re: the CO2 "lag". Depending on the Earth's orbital eccentricity and the precession angle, there are times when the Earth's NH will receive a good bit more solar energy than the SH, and vice-versa (i.e., if perihelion occurs during the NH summer, then the NH will receive more solar energy than the SH.) But in the past, even during these periods of "asymmetric insolation", the NH and SH have always warmed/cooled together on Milankovitch time-scales. Why is that the case? If the Earth's temperature were driven mostly by changes in solar energy received by the Earth, as some deniers insist, then why haven't the NH and SH been "out of sync" temperaturewise during the times when precession/eccentricity caused the NH and SH to be "out of sync" with respect to solar insolation? Also (straying slightly off-topic a bit here with a "blast from the past"), folks may (or may not, depending on stomach sensitivity) want to look at how some of the WUWT team treated Nick Stokes when he very calmly and politely tried to explain to them the differences between absolute temperatures and temperature anomalies. For folks who understand this basic concept and haven't yet seen Team WUWT in action, the discussion thread over there will be a real eye-opener. -
dana1981 at 05:09 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
CW - wrong, it makes Mother Nature a "warmist". -
Albatross at 05:01 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Re #9, From the body post: "These categorizations are all well and good, but through his point #13, Glickstein has discussed very few scientific points, and not a single "science-based reasoned view". Where's the beef?" and note the logical fallacies and contradictions, arguing at the same time that AGW is some conspiracy and at the same time trying to claim to know what CS is. -
arch stanton at 04:56 AM on 3 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
>>"ubiquitous" Should be worthy of further citations. TY arch -
ClimateWatcher at 04:55 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Warmist: 2.0ºC to 4.5ºC. Lukewarmers: 1.0ºC to 3ºC. Skeptics: 0.2ºC to 1ºC. Makes Mother Nature a lukewarmer. -
BBD at 04:54 AM on 3 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis Yesterday I asked you to comment on Dr Hansen's cautioning President Obama as follows:However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power. [...] However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India.
I asked you: why do you think Hansen is so concerned about energy policy predicated on the dominance of renewables? You have not responded yet. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:48 AM on 3 July 2011Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
Albatross@6 The reaction to Ferdinand Engelbeen's series explaining how we know the post-industrial rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. It is the one thing in climate change we know 99.9% for sure (barring little green men stealing out atmospheric CO2 for their own nefarious purposes), but there were still members of the WUWT readership who cannot accept that, and think that it is from natural sources. Maybe rather than betting on when the arctic summer will be free of sea ice, we should be betting on when WUWT will have a post arguing that climate sensitivity is about what the IPCC says it is ;o)
Prev 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Next
