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:
-
Norman at 23:32 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 203 My post at 195 was more for DB. He was asking that I would start doing some of my own statistical analysis. I was not doing an indepth analysis to make a point with this. I was just looking for raw data. After about 7 or 8 pages of searches the Perth Australia page came up with raw data. So I plugged the data into an excel spread sheet and made trend lines. It was more an exercise for DB to determine if I was on the right track with a small data set before I would work on a larger one. Entering lots of data on an excel spreadsheet is time consuming and one has to be very careful not to add a wrong data point (typing error). I enter it and check it over. If at least I was on the right track I could then tackle larger data sets. I have already been steered away from selecting one data point with my Omaha snowfall connection to temperature post. Now I am seeking regional areas and the longest data trends I can find. I think I would pale matched against your searching skills (a master at selecting the correct key words). I type in what I think will get me data and scroll 10 pages of the same material that has nothing to do with my search. You do have internet search skills I do not.Response:[DB] While I can appreciate wanting me to vette your methodolgy, I'm hardly a statistician (Dikran would be the person to ask on that). But I do know enough about stats, having followed Tamino's Open Mind for the past 4 years and climate science (and science in general) for about 30, to know that a focus on a few data points out of a larger set is improper, as I noted previously.
Depending on what level and scope of analysis you're trying to do will also determine the types of methodologies you need to follow to come to a proper conclusion. As you're dealing with climate science data, the link I gave you earlier to D Kelly O'Day's site should be of a great profit to you, as you can easily see how someone well-versed in analysis in Excel and R does it (replete with actual workbooks).
If you're going to do it, and I applaud the effort, do it right. Perhaps Dikran can suggest a primer on time series analysis to help. Dikran?
-
Camburn at 23:31 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
actually thoughtful@13: How about this scenerio: Looking at costs, I see my cost per unit of production has risen because of the price of energy. 1. I do an energy audit on my building and find several areas of leakage. I do a cost/benifit analysis and the payback of insulating, adding new doors etc is 5 years. I do the improvements and have now lowered my costs to less than my compitition and reduced my energy consumption per unit produced. 2. I do an energy audit on my machinery that runs in said building. By installing invertors on my larger motors I have an energy and cost of maintainence payback of 3 years. I quickly invest in invertors. 3. I look at my fuel costs and identify ways to cut gallon/acre useage. I incorporate those improvements. I have not paid an energy tax. I have lowered my unit energy costs. I have been able to maintain a profitable business and enhanced my long term viability. This is what is happening all around. The idea of a carbon tax is to provide incentive. The reality of it is that increasing energy costs are doing this effectively because there is already an incentive. Micheal: Why add another 3% cost to anything? Why redistibute revenue at all? I present you with facts from a real world economic model. That is not gibberish, that is facts. -
adelady at 23:25 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette "It comes down to people don't drive their kids to Disneyland." Why wouldn't they if they had an electric vehicle and there were recharge/replace facilities along the highways instead of servos? Or they could choose high speed rail powered by electricity (from renewable sources). You're confusing conservation with efficiency. Conservation is about using less of something in order not to waste it. Efficiency is about using the best resource for the task. For transport, using fuel that doesn't have to be mined, transported and burned is much more efficient. -
Riccardo at 22:40 PM on 2 July 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
The paper was submitted to Journal of Forecast but hasn't been published, not there at least. The statistics leave much to be desired, physics is absent; but even if they were sound, they discovered that the climate in Australia is sensitive to no less than the nearby ocean! How could they come to global conclusion and even make projections remains a mistery. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:27 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
P. M. Williams, "Modelling Seasonality and Trends in Daily Rainfall Data" (available here) will be of interest to those interested in extreme precipitation (it is more concerned with the statistical methodology than the data, but an empirical study based on this method would be really interesting). Essentially it alows you to model the probability of rainfall and the parameters of a Gamma distribution describing the plausible amount of rainfall as a function of time. This allows you to see how the distribution of rainfall has changed, see e.g. fig 2, which show that the probability of rainfall, the mean rainfall and also ranfall variability at Pomarico have all declined since the 1950s, especially the variability (as measured by the standard deviation). Integrating the upper or lower tails of this distribution gives an indication of the kinds of extreme events we might expect to see in the future. In the case of Pomarico, it seems likely that droughts are becoming a little more likely, but that heavy rainfall is becoming less likely (the Gamma distribution is skewed, so that if the standard deviation is reduced, the upper tail will come in more than the lower tail). IMHO this paper ought to be much better cited than it is. -
Tom Curtis at 22:25 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette @49, the review board was not from the same faculty as Michael Mann, and hence independent. As to the "other flaws", we have been through this before @29, 35, and 37 above. There we established that: 1) You just make up "facts" because they suit your argument; and 2) The allegations against Michael Mann where reviewed using the standard procedures as laid down by their by-laws for Penn State, procedures which are in line with those typically required in US and Australian universities. You had nothing of substance to say then, and the mere passage of time adds nothing to your attempts to beat up an issue where none exists. -
michael sweet at 22:06 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn, There you go with your wild, unsubstainted claims again. It is well known from Social Security that the government can collect a tax and redistribute it for less than 3% of the total revenues. Please provide data to support your gibberish that revenue cannot be redistributed. It is tiresome to have these deniers come in again and again with their gibberish and have to discuss it with them as if it were facts. -
kdkd at 22:02 PM on 2 July 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Yes I've come across this Stockwell and Cox paper before. Aside from the dubious affiliation (I mean has anything scientifically worthwhile come out of the Institute of Public Affairs?), it just seemed to me like a bunch of statistical description with a very limited attempt to place the data in the context of a credible physical model. -
Tom Curtis at 21:57 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @195, the increase in severe weather events expected from global warming at the moment is slight, and the occurrence of severe weather events sporadic. Consequently the noise is very large compared to the signal. So, if you choose just one, or a few locations it is unlikely that there will be a statistically significant trend, and whatever trend there is may be in either direction. That is the nature of noisy data when you do not have a lot of data to work with. In contrast, if you look at a lot of data, as for example, as done by Munich Re, a signal can be detected. Or you could look at the trend in the length of warm spells Australia wide:
You will then see that the trends you find in the Perth heatwave data are in fact artifacts of the noisy data. You can also check parallel information, such as the general trend in Perth temperatures, which would have shown you the same thing:
Frankly, I should not have to chase down this auxiliary data for you. If you were what you purport to be, you would be doing it yourself instead of seizing on any little piece of data you think could undermine the position you oppose and rushing in a post which shows no significant thought on the topic.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:46 PM on 2 July 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Having skimmed the paper, it looks to me like another case of someone thinking stats trumps physics; they are wrong, it is the other way round (I am a statistician, and I greatly prefer a model with a strong physical explanation than merely statistical support). The Chow test is not reliable in this case, as it is based on sum-of-squares errors, which implicitly assumes a Gaussaan noise process. However the noise process for climate data is non-gaussian; it has a quasi periodic cyclic component, due to ocean circulation such as ENSO. Now if they were to find a step change in the data after it had been adjusted for the effects of ENSO (i.e. look at the resudials of a regression of temperatures on MEI, as has been done frequently), that would be a different matter entirely. I very much doubt that the Chow test would identify a step change in that case, which would mean that surface temperatures are affected by ENSO, something we have known for decades. The reason that Easterling and Wehner find periods of low warming or cooling is exactly that - internal climate variability. Secondly, it is obviously cherry picking to start a trend at a conspicuous maximum. This is true even if you include statistical significance becuase if you optimise the start date to bias the result in a particular direction (e.g. by choosing to start at a maxima) then it invalidates the significance test anyway. Essentially you are performing many simultaneous significance tests, one for each start point. Each test has a probability of a false-positive or a false-negative. If you pick and choose the test to make the argument you want, you vastly increase the overall chance of a false-positive or false-negative, and hence it is cherry picking. In stats this is the "multiple hypothesis testing problem". Lastly, using the start point of the dataset is not cherry picking, it doesn't mean the results are robust to the choice of start point. It is not reasonable to expect a linear trend in temperatures on a centennial scale; climate forcings have changes in many ways over that period - solar forcing explains much of the waming in the first half of the 20th century, aerosol cooling explains a mid-century plateau and CO2 radiative forcing has become dominant from the late sixties. So the Chow test is a bit of a straw man. It is always going to find a break point, simply because the linear trend is known to be wrong. That doesn't mean that it is a step change though, that is just the only alternative offered to the straw man of a linear centennial scale trend. I suspect that if they had started in say 1960 (giving a period where CO2 radiative forcing is asserted to be dominant according to e.g. the IPCC), I suspect the Chow test would no longer identify a step change because a linear trend over that period is more plausible. The paper shows a lack of self-skepticism. Has the paper been published in a peer reviewed journal? If so, I'll give it more than just a skim, but as (essentially) a statistican, I am not impressed by it. -
les at 21:34 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
I can't be bothered to "define" smart consumption for you. You've don't it twice for your self I don't suppose anything I have to say will make any impact. And, yes, I can see you're lost; but as you say, you're not the subject of this thread so I'll leave that there. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:14 PM on 2 July 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
The abstract of Stockwell and Cox suggests a rather poor grasp of multiple hypothesis testing and the nature of cherry picking. Finding a statistically significant result does not refute the possibility of cherry picking. If you look at 100 independent events (e.g. trends at different site), at the 95% level you would expect to see five statistically significant events even if all trends were due to random chance. Cherry picking is about searching for events that make your argument, in contradiction to the broader picture; this is still possible if you restrict yourself to "statistically significant" events. Also it is rather unsurprising that there is a change in the datasets around 1997. In 1998 there was an extremely strong El-Nino event. It is difficult to detect the difference in a noisy dataset between a step change and a linear trend with a quasi cyclical variability (ENSO). Physics provides an answer, the linear trend model has a plausible physical explanation, can the same be said of the step change model? I'll comment again when I have read the rest of the paper. This is just my impression from the abstract. -
Marco at 20:58 PM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Ecoeng, thanks. I do note it is a regional reconstruction. Also note that it does discuss possible reasons for the observations, including several that have little to do with expansion/contraction. -
batvette at 20:55 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Les, now you've lost me. Is what I'm doing transparant or am I employing cheap tricks? Seems to me it's one or the other, not both at the same time. But WTH, I'm not the topic here, at least I hope not. So I'm curious, can you define "smart consumption" for me? While we would all believe this means stopping for groceries on the way home from work, not going home and the light bulb turns on and think "oh yeah I think I need groceries" and making a seperate trip, fact is high gas prices already drive this and the rest of us aren't as dumb as you'd like to think. It's not as simple as "let's cut out all that needless, wasteful energy use that we can easily eliminate by just being smart, because leaving that porch light on all night didn't employ anyone!" It comes down to people don't drive their kids to Disneyland. They stay home and watch a Disney movie on pay per view. People don't drive to the beach. They watch Baywatch on pay per view. (okay I ran out of analogies here) There really is no denying here that the overall message is "we need to consume less because it's been harming the planet" and there is truth to that but why would anyone enter a discussion on it by denying if people listened to that it would harm a consumer based economy? -
Mark Harrigan at 20:50 PM on 2 July 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
I would like to ask if anyone is aware if there have been any refutations of this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf by Stockwell and Cox? I have been following the climate debate for some time - especially on Drum. I really have no truck with Cox as I find his approach to be dishonest and dissembling. But I have to say I find this paper to be pretty sound? I really hate to give Mr Cox any credence or airtime at all if it's not justified. But I also believe in maintaining an open mind. My own approach to AGW was one of a genuine sceptic. When I first encountered suggestions of AGW back in the late 80's as a newly minted PhD in physics I was fairly dismissive - I felt in particular that the heat capacity of the ocean and solar irradiance variations would be much more powerful forces. But in the early "noughties" as the issue gained more attention I did my own secondary research (the wonders of the internet) and one by one my doubts were addressed by the evidence. Actually your site with the neat little thermometer down the side is a fairly apposite reflection of my own doubts that have been addressed. I am now convinced of the realities of AGW and have been since about 2003. Those who deny the science really upset me for their ignorance and blindness bias but I always try and maintain an open mind. I confess I've sometimes been fairly "direct" and forceful in some of my comments posted on the Drum. Over the years I've checked on many so called "refutations" of AGW in the "literature" - always to find that either the publication is highly suspect (such as "Energy & Environment" or anything published by Bentham Science) or if the journal is good the paper gets comprehensively refuted - such as the case with G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 - I'm AMAZED that even got published - complete piffle but I guess the technical "density" (pun intended) of it proves that "bullshit baffles brains". I'd like to think my "science bullshit" detectors are pretty acute but this paper by Stockwell and Cox actually seems sound to me. The journal is reputable. The Chow test is very valid, and whilst it was developed I believe for econometric data it can really be applied to any time series analysis. Also, looking at the temperature data one can reasobaly conlude that there do appear to be step changes and therefore it's not an "invalid" basis for forecasting. IF they are right it doesn't suggest AGW isn't real - only that the size and scope of the problem is much lower than we feared and most scientists have suggested. I can't see that they've made the usual "error" of cherry picking their data points (a la Carter) Given that this issue - how far/how fast will we warm - is I think the one genuine area where there is room for scientific uncertainty then I must, out of intellectual honesty, pay attention to their findings. Of course Stockwell and Cox don't explore what mechanisms might be at work that may have mitigated warming lately - they are only interested in creating doubt not genuine physics. I might even speculate that the recently reported grand solar minima may be at play, not to mention that aerosol effects may indeed be more than we had thought - but at this point have not been able to find any papers that have really examined that hypothesis - namely that warming may be temporarily in a reprieve due to such effects. I have found on New Scientist articles that suggests the solar minima phenomenon may at most mitigate things by 0.3 degrees - but I'm not a subscriber so can't access the full article Anyway - love this site. But in the genuine spirit of open minded sceptical inquiry I would really like to know if anyone is aware of any rebuttals of the paper above or can suggest any ideas? -
batvette at 20:37 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
@48 How was this review board "independent"? There are other flawss in that reply, but I'd love to see how you can explain how they were independent from the institution. Also please review the comments guidelines regarding use of the term "deniers". -
batvette at 20:26 PM on 2 July 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
actaully thoughtful... You took the subway everywhere because the streets were jammed with cars and there was nowhere to park when you got there anyway- additionally you had surface mass transit to complete the route to your destination. I've lived in the SF Bay Area and other parts of California, rail transit is not simply a matter of "if we want it to, it can work". It only works in areas of extreme population density where other factors work toward making people want to use it, like "why drive when youy have to spend an hour looking for a parking place and it's $5 an hour to park?". Furthermore having the surface transportation to transfer to is the deal breaker. San Diego has been implementing light rail with its Metro Trolley system since the '80', and it works okay if you live AND work AND only travel to destinations along its lines, which don't cover the city that well. Problem is providing the surface transit coverage for enough hours and distance to make trolley line travel appeal to people, has the city running a LOT of empty or near empty buses. Pollution aside, the city looks at this and cuts their bus coverage down by both times and routes. Now people get back in their cars.... In the end, hey you have the NY Subway System. Whoopee! Now how about the rest of us.... -
Tom Curtis at 20:09 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette @43, that statement is false. It is correct to say that: "Michael Mann's conduct was reviewed by an independent review board established by his employer, and entity whose reputation would not have been damaged by finding him guilty of impropriety, but whose reputation would be severely damaged by finding him not guilty when he was in fact guilty." I am aware that deniers will not accept any panel reviewing Mann's actions as being properly constituted unless it is chaired by McIntyre and recruited from the regulars a WUWT. I know also that if such a panel were to find Mann innocent, it would be promptly repudiated. That deniers have earned that reputation should be very concerning to you. -
batvette at 20:08 PM on 2 July 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Adelady, "fine in theory and patchy in practice" is a rather nonchalant and casual attitude to take considering this is the only "cure" for the patient implemented, the only type up for the future, and yet the patient's symptoms are ever worsening. So what were the failures in Kyoto's implementatation that were not in its underlying plan, which is providing restrictions against industrialized nations, little or none in "non-annex 1" nations, which invites industrial development and capital flow to third world countries which increases their GGE? -
les at 19:54 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
46/47 My observation is that you use framing and nit facts to make and bias your arguments. It's transparent. That's what I mean by "cheap tricks" and what skywatcher means by "no evidence". -
batvette at 19:35 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Les... @45: He accused me of purveying disinformation. I'd like to see his reply. -
batvette at 19:32 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Les: "Smart consumption" I guess that's what you would call a "cheap trick" way of saying people are staying home watching TV instead of driving to movie theatres? Thanks for making my "common sense" argument for me. -
les at 19:32 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
43 - how about this statement: "Michael Mann's conduct was examined by an internal, review board of the entity which employed him and is seen to be completely credible in the absences of evidence to the contrary." -
batvette at 19:17 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
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. -
batvette at 19:11 PM on 2 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
"If people lose their livelihoods because we are transitioning to a more sustainable mode, should we not blame ourselves for allowing the unsustainable mode to support the growth of a long-term unsupportable population?" Thank you for (unintentionally) supporting my position and providing the only rebuttal necessary. I believe the words of one Maurice Strong convey the sentiments of those who would obviously never publicly admit them: "If we don't change, our species will not survive... ...frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." -
les at 18:38 PM on 2 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
54 - Michele "Thus, the alarmists’ claims about the GW caused by CO2 seem to be physically unfounded" I'm seeing the physics words but not the physics. Do you have a link to a paper or proper analysis demonstrating your claims? There are plenty of links on this site showing how "greenhouse" gasses produce warming (e.g. the ScienceOfDoom pists) are well founded. So, equally, could you show where the errors (and thay must be very big and obvious) are? -
Rob Painting at 18:08 PM on 2 July 2011Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
Great round-up, thanks Mike! -
Rob Painting at 18:02 PM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Ecoeng - "If I am correct, this can surely only mean that the heat content of the oceans themselves has varied considerably in the recent past, on centennial to millenial timescales, thus producing sea level change of the order of up to 1.5 m due to expansion and contraction effects alone" Well either that or most of the sea level rise came from ice loss in the northern hemisphere during the period of increased solar heating there (the Holocene Climatic Optimum). The reduced gravitational attraction adjacent to the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere would have lowered sea level there, but caused greater sea level rise in the southern hemisphere, so it was not a globally uniform phenomenon. Ocean siphoning then would have lowered sea levels again, as too would the regrowth of northern hemisphere ice, as the solar heating in the northern hemisphere cooled. See the work of Jerry Mitrovica on this topic. It's hard going though - perhaps an easier explanation is here: Why sea level is not level I briefly touched on the mid-Holocene sea level highstand in the Pacific in this post: Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling -
Michele at 17:36 PM on 2 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
It is the case of pointing up some consequences that follow to the preceding simulation of the atmosphere. The CO2 affects heavily the behavior of the atmosphere but not in the way commonly claimed. It produces the arising within the Earth’s atmosphere of the tropopause and mesopause heat sinks where are collected all the forms of wasted energy which are sent to space once converted to EM radiative energy. Then the CO2 makes the atmosphere able to emit the heat which else would be continuously accumulated within it, thus producing a runaway warming. The atmosphere without CO2 would be very hot (I think it would be thermally vanished). The cooling effect occurs within the isothermal sinks because the conversion heat->EM radiation, in effect, is a phase transition because the excitation/disexcitation takes place as change of the internal molecular energy which doesn’t affect the translational molecular KE ant thus the temperature. The most important result is that the emission power is simply proportional to T^4, i.e., it is a purely intensive property, as moreover is explicitly stated by the Einstein’s relation F=1/(M0/M1-1) claiming that the photonic density is not an extensive property. We can assume whatever value for M=M0+M1, in this case the amount of CO2 present within the atmosphere, and M0/M1 will remain constant. This is also shown by the Earth’s and Venus’ temperature profiles. That means that even increasing about 4e5 times the atmospheric CO2 we don’t have any serious effect on the atmospheric temperature profile. Thus, the alarmists’ claims about the GW caused by CO2 seem to be physically unfounded and this matter would be totally upset. -
Ecoeng at 17:18 PM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Not a problem. I was expecting such queries. These findings have become ubiquitous in recent years as the precision of U/Th and 14C dating measurements on un-recrystallized fossil corals still in growth position has improved (as a result of the development of accelerator mass spectometric and laser-based plasma mass spectrometric techniques). Here is just one fairly recent example: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1855/ -
CBDunkerson at 16:57 PM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 wrote: "...remember these gas turbines are just intended for peak load production to fill gaps when renewables aren't meeting demand." The SEGS facility in California is designed this way. At 354 MW it is the largest solar plant in the world (though several larger are now being built), but generates just 10% of its power output from the natural gas backups. And that's using 20+ year old technology. -
Marco at 16:51 PM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Ecoeng, could you point to the studies that show global sea levels to have been up to 1.5 m higher than the present level and fluctuate so much in the period you indicate? -
Norman at 16:22 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 169 While I was doing a google search I found this presentation. It is a precipitation study that does go back several years and it does show cycles. Maybe there are these cycles that are longer than 30 years that climatologists have not entered into their models yet. Don't know if this is one but it a elaborate presentation and does indicate longer term cycles are real (variations of PDO and ADO). Drought cycles in Western US long term showing cycles. -
Stevo at 16:18 PM on 2 July 2011Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
No doubt some will disagree but the pattern continues and is totally in line with climate predictions. -
Norman at 16:04 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross @ 197 You are busy this weekend but I can demonstrate the validity of my claim that I am independent of the NIPCC report you linked to on the Tamino website. I don't clear my google searches so I checked back what words I typed to find this report on the 1000 year drought. First I was seeking information on Amazon droughts. I tried droughts in the last 100 years without luck and then I tried 1000 years but could not find any articles to show data. My next search was this "1000 year study of droughts in North America" If you google this you will see the order of files I posted. First one that came up was the British Columbia fires. On the same page was the drought article that was written by one of your friends. On my post they are in that same order as they are on the google page I brought up. I read through the articles, looked at the graphs read though some sections again to make sure I was understanding the content and then decided I could use these as a demonstration that current events are not getting more extreme when tested against a longer time frame. And most show some form of cycle that may be longer than the climate 30 year frame. -
sailrick at 16:02 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
cap and trade was used to reduce CFCs and sulpher oxides that cause acid rain. Didn't hurt the economy. Not having some kind of charge on carbon perpetuates the externalized costs of fossil fuels not being accounted for. -
Norman at 15:54 PM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 187 Thanks much for the links to Munich Re. I was looking around for this type of material but was unable to unlock its location. The detail that Munich Re employs to generate their graphs is impressive. On both links you posted, the 1 and 2 levels on the charts are not considered disasters. Loew & Wirtz call the first two "small and moderate loss events" the next four levels are various degrees of disaters. Munich Re lists the higher levels as catastrophes and not disasters but the meaning would be the same. The point I need to be clear on is it the events go into the graphs of increasing disasters (catastrophes) or are left out. It is necessary to know this for the point I am trying to make about earthquake disasters and weather related disaters (and the variable of population and monetary wealth). There is a question I have for you. In the Munich Re report you linked to, there is a graph of the aggregated disaters from 1980 to 2005 for each country: Same Munich Re report you already linked to. Topic I am wondering about. The USA and Chile have the highest aggregate disaster count at over 651 followed by many other developed Nations (Europe, Canada, Australia, expanding economies of India and China). Then you look at Africa and only South Africa is in the higher bands. Most of African countries have less than 50 reported disasters in 15 years. The strange thing about all this is US 30 year trend in deaths from natural weather related natural disasters is 575. US 30-year average death rate from weather related disasters. But you read this IPCC material on Africa and it states that Africa has the highest percentage of death from natural disaters...60% of the total 123,000 people killed each year by natural disasters, which would be 73,800 Africans die from natural disasters. Report stating the percentage of Africans killed in natural disasters. So many more than the US but US shows a much higher number of aggregate disasters. Africa does have severe weather, even tornadoes, but they have droughts and floods like the other countries. It makes me believe that the Munich Re reporting is based more on financial concerns than on human life for their reporting, but it gives a misleading view of disasters. Which could also be the reason disaster rate is rising. Americans have become more wealthy in the last few decades (or deeper in debt) and smaller storm events of hail or smaller tornadoes could reach the $50 million mark and be classified as a disaster on their chart. I looked back at your post 116 on the thread "Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming" where you posted the Munich Re Graph. I guess the graph shows about a 55%increase in 25 years in number of disasters (about 400 in 1980 to 900 in 2005, and annual rate of 2.2%) Here is a link on the yearly rise in home prices. National average was 2.3% but some areas were at 3% and more. A yearly rise of 2.3 in a home's value (not to mention the items in the house) will get you a 57.5% increase in value in 25 years. The value of property rose at a faster rate than the disaster rate. But the biggest thing is there incremental choices they picked for determining a disaster. From 1980 it was $25 million. In 1990 it was $40 million. In 2005 it was $50 million. The overall rate of determining a disater rose 50% in 25 year or at a rate of 2% a year. From 1990 to 2005 the rate of increase would only be 1.3% a year. The criteria to become a disaster was rising at a much slower rate than property values. The logic here is that events that did not count as disasters, because they did not cause enough damage, but were close, suddenly became disasters as the property values rose past the trigger mechanism. This logic explains the high rate of disasters for the US, and other advanced systems with much higher property values. It also shows that the Munich Re graph would be valuable as an insurance tool but may bear no reflection on the actual state of climate change or more dangerous weather events. US home price rate increase. Also your chart is a global one. The property values in China and India have gone up in the last 15 years. What the data may be showing you is a reflection of inflation in the growth rate. You would have to admit it would be the most valuable type of data for an insurance company. There bigger concern would be the financial cost of a disaster. Since -
sailrick at 15:18 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Off topic, but I thought you might want to know that when I try to share this article on Facebook, instead of a line or two from the article, it shows the summary of the book "Climate Change Denial: Head in the Sand". This has happened twice. -
actually thoughtful at 15:07 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn you seem to be short on the concept here. Let's take it bit by bit. You sell 100 thingies (made of pure energy) that cost $100 to make. But a cap and dividend program means your costs go up by 10% (and, even though many Canadians make use of solar and wind, you are in the "Camburn vortex", so are not able to). So know you sell for $110. If your pure energy product is perceived by your customers to be essential, with no substitutions, then your customers will fork over the $110. If they can trade to a cheaper product, they will. So now the gov'ment has $1,000 that they distribute to 100 people (but not identical to your customers). So some people, who don't use Camburn's 100% energy thingy, get a windfall of $10. Those who use a lot of your energy product pay a premium for their desire/need of the 100% energy thingy. Now - under BAU (business as usual) they are paying $100. Under the 10% carbon tax on scenario they are paying $110. Under which scenario do you think your company is more likely to innovate a non-carbon energy source for the pure energy product? Under which scenario is your customer more likely to find a way to rely on your pure energy product less? Which scenario is better for man's continued survival on earth with a very large population? -
adelady at 14:43 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
sorry camburn, shortened the quote too much, left out the 1970s car reference. I might add that the car I drove during the 70s was a very cute 40mpg mini - but I caught the bus to work. As for tech progress, my current car weighs the same as several minis, is 6 rather than 4 cylinders - and I get the same consumption on country driving. Not so wonderful in the city or pulling a trailer. -
dana1981 at 14:06 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
No Camburn, you're a year behind the times. And please take the time to learn about the BC carbon tax before commenting on it. -
actually thoughtful at 13:45 PM on 2 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Pete Dunkelberg, I appreciate you are talking to rational people, so you can your very true, simple statement. My statement was an attempt to stop the Camburns, Ken Lamberts RSVPs, Humanity Rules, Normans, BobJs, etc., etc., from focusing on this TINY little issue or that, and to admit, on balance, looking at the totality - that we need to take action. That action should be both personal as well as at the whole-economy level - ie both micro and macro economics. -
Ecoeng at 13:26 PM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
One fact which continues to fascinate me is that geomorphologists and paleaclimatologists etc., have long known that even in the Holocene i.e. the last 10,000 years, global sea levels have been up to as high as ~1.5 m above the present level for periods up to not only thousands of years but in addition have gone up and down again not once but at least three times! This is over a period stretching from about 7500 years ago up to about 3000 years ago. Yet we can point to neither orbital/precessional/obliquity effects (aka Milankovitch Effects) nor to episodic elevated CO2 or methane levels as likely drivers of those significant sea level changes. Note the rates of sea level shift involved have been typically about 1 – 2 mm/year over centennial to millenial timescales i.e. similar to what we see at present. I am happy to be corrected on this, but I also cannot recall any published evidence for major oscillations in the global polar/glacier ice inventory which suggests episodic Holocene melt water magnitudes have ever been significant enough (i.e. in the last 10,000 years) to cause 3 separate episodes of high seal level stands of the order of 1.5 m above present. If I am correct, this can surely only mean that the heat content of the oceans themselves has varied considerably in the recent past, on centennial to millenial timescales, thus producing sea level change of the order of up to 1.5 m due to expansion and contraction effects alone. Further, this suggests to me that perhaps both Roy Spencer’s simple model and the various AOGCMs may all be invalid (in respect of global oceanic heat contents) because they either cannot, or have not, been run, out to sufficiently long timescales to allow validation against simply the known sea level record of the relatively recent past? -
dana1981 at 13:01 PM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - remember these gas turbines are just intended for peak load production to fill gaps when renewables aren't meeting demand. I think it's a good intermittency solution. As for transporting biofuels, well there's the same energy issue with coal and even nuclear to a lesser degree. Carbon accounting depends on the source crop. It's a technology still in the relatively early stages of development. As for natural gas, sure it's still a fossil fuel, but better than coal if we need it as a stopgap while biofuels are being developed. Especially since it's just providing peak load, not baseload power (less required). -
Camburn at 12:56 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Dana: Why tax at all? Have you not noticed that co2 emmissions have dropped in the US. Yes, the economy is slow, but the biggest reason is that people are responding to higher energ costs. Do you forsee energy costs dropping in the near future? -
Camburn at 12:53 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
actually thoughtful: I own my business.....can't get any closer to work. I walk out the door and it is there. There is no bus transport. Sparse population......a bus would produce wayyyyyyy more co2 than present transportation infrastructure. I have a friend that has a hybrid. Seems the cold weather reallllllly plays havoc with it. It runs on engine after approx 7 miles when it is cold here. For each drop in temp under 32 the thing really goes south. So, not practical with current teck. The Nissan Leaf would suffer the same fate. The nearest town with population densisity is 80 miles one way. Might get by in summer, wouldn't make it one way in winter. And we do have to go in the winter at times. Dana: That is a redistribution tax and essentially wouldn't work because. I use a lot of energy....a lot. I would pay a lot more for that energy. I would have to pass the cost to the consumer.....just no way around it. Even a 10 cent rise in fuel costs results in higher end prices. A higher elec cost would result in higher end prices. The basic consumer would pay much more than the paltry refund he/she would get in higher costs. I can tell you that with the escalating costs of energy at present, which I do not see going down, people will continue to seek ways to reduce the consumption of energy. Remember also, those of us that live further north have limitied options. Solar won't work here, it has been tried. Not even close to being cost effective. Micro scale wind has been tried, doesn't pan out. Even tho I live in an area 5 wind production, when it is cold the wind dies, and when it is hot the wind dies. We call this the summer time blues: Summer time blues Same thing happens in the winter time. So BC subsidized the carbon tax. Why am I not surprised? Must be a negative administration cost up there. I do hear the British Columbians do work cheap tho. -
actually thoughtful at 12:32 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn - your options for replacing your car are (among many others): bus or public transport walk ride a bike move closer to work Hybrid Nissan Leaf I don't understand the claim that "nothing can be done" - many of us are, including using solar to heat our homes or power our devices (this, apparently in daring direct opposition to the all-powerful IPCC) -
dana1981 at 12:05 PM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Camburn - the carbon tax wouldn't just be returned exactly as collected. That would make no sense. It would be returned equally to everyone such that those who emit less and are taxed less would actually come out ahead. As for inefficiency, British Columbia actually returned more tax money than collected, so they've disproven your claim. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 11:40 AM on 2 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
“The body of evidence in climate science demands a mitigation response.” That jargon makes little sense to many people. Can you say "Burning carbon is causing a host of problems.... The logical conclusion is Stop burning carbon!" Eric (Gothic) Since you're into black paint, why not build yourself a hotbox or two (after De Saussure)? You could tell us how they work for both cooking and hot water. Here is another level of engagement. -
Patrick 027 at 11:35 AM on 2 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
That article again: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3829.1 "The HAMMONIA Chemistry Climate Model: Sensitivity of the Mesopause Region to the 11-Year Solar Cycle and CO2 Doubling" Schmidt et al.
Prev 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Next
