Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 Next
Comments 81701 to 81750:
-
Camburn at 09:52 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Ok.....the correlation to world wide global sea level was bothering me. Here is what Prof. Konrad Steffen says about sea level rise "In addition, as a result of the gravitational pull from the spinning Earth, if you add the equivalent of one metre of sea level rise to the oceans in the Northern Hemisphere, it will translate to about 1.6 metres sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere, and only about 40 cm in the Northern Hemisphere. He is the director of CIRES and should be an authority on sea level rise etc. IF the North Carolina data were anything but a local phenominum.....the sea level SHOULD be rising quit fast in the Southern Cook Islands. It isn't. This paper has to do with sea level and hydrology, an area that I have studied intently for 20 years. No I am not a Prof as Prof Steffen is, but this paper still shows nothing at all globally. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:42 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
rdmtask... In addition to the moderator's comments you need to be aware that you are coming to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the vast majority of the published literature on this topic. If you're genuinely interested in learning about the science of climate change you should spend time reading the articles here on SkS. And you don't even need to take the word of the authors of these articles. Almost every one of them fully cite the relevant research. You can follow those links and read the actual research for yourself. -
Camburn at 09:35 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Can anyone elaborate on the correlation between the rate from the Southern Cook Islands and North Caronlina? Being it seems North Carolina can all of a sudden become global....yet....sea level rise is negative in the Southern Cooks and positive in North Carolina. Tell me again how this paper is global in nature? -
rdmtask at 09:05 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
I find myself skeptical that the current trend of increasing global warming is currently sustainable reasons. 1) The current increase in global temperatures is a result of burning fossil fuels, releasing energy into the atmosphere. While the global may increase over a period of time, the heat emitted from burning fossil fuels is contained within the bounds of the earth. Eventually (and discounting any changes in solar output), the heat emitted will be reabsorbed back into the surface of the earth, reducing the atmospheric temperature back to near the original temperature of the pre-combusted fuel (the mass of gas surrounding the earth does not hold a candle to the amount of mass contained within the crust). 2) Fossil fuel supplies are limited, as is the amount of heat we can eject into the atmosphere is finite. At some point we MUST stop putting energy into the atmosphere. 3) While the heat island effect exists, it is a two way street. Energy is just as easily emitted into space as it is absorbed into the earth. Granted, there will be larger temperature fluctuations within the city than outside of it due to an increased surface area (sq mile to sq mile). The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is nowhere near significant enough to significant detract from that. 4) The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, while significant, are unlikely to have anything to do with global warming for the same reason as item 3 above. If it can contain heat well, it rejects it just as well. Energy from the surface of the earth is reflected with the same percentage as energy from the sun. This is not to say it cannot wreck hell on the earth’s ecosystems, just that it a political issue versus an actual energy issue. Essentially we are looking at an energy balance problem. All energy enters the earth via solar radiation, all energy leaves the earth via solar radiation. Unless there is a statistically significant solar change, the current temperature fluctuations are due to the energy revolution of the 1900’s. Recent increases in the global temperature can probably (not going do the work) be correlated relatively accurately to the number of cars in use around the earth (or number of people on the earth). So from where I stand, blaming temperature increases on CO2 is a fallacious argument, as it is a neutral player.Response:[DB] I'm not even sure where to begin...first-off, please read Newcomers, start here. Then take a gander at The Big Picture.
- The current global rise in temperatures is a result of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, due to rising levels of CO2. As long as we keep emitting more CO2, the imbalance will continue and so will the rise in temperatures.
- The energy being accumulated is not due to energy being released by us, but by the CO2 we release.
- UHI is immaterial as scientists measure anomalies, not absolute temperatures. See also CO2 effect is weak.
- How to put this kindly...this makes little sense as written.
Energy does not leave the system as solar radiation but as thermal emission from the Earth. CO2 lengthens the exit path by that radiant thermal emission, so the lower levels of the atmosphere heat up due to the increase in back radiation. See The Greenhouse Effect has been Falsified.
-
Tom Smerling at 08:48 AM on 23 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
You may have already seen all of Christy's talking points, but just in case you missed this one, here is a link to a presentation he made to a group that generally opposes government regulation, the American Chemical Society ("Chemistry for Life") http://www.softconference.com/ACSchem/player.asp?PVQ=GLHF&fVQ=FFJJJL&hVQ= You can download his .ppt at http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=215&content_id=CNBP_025739&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=497c1eaa-f868-403a-9c4a-9642bafea89eResponse:[DB] Hot-linked URL's.
-
Eric the Red at 07:55 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
can you elaborate on how the site shows the MWP and LIA.Response:[DB] Please read the OP above, paying particular attention to Figure 2.
-
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Can I suggest that John Cook adds the following update from the National Solar Association to the post: "Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement: "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age." There you have it. I'm sure WUWT, FauxNews and those in denial about AGW who have been propagating the misinformation surrounding this story will promptly correct the public record ;) Notice how Dr. Hill is reluctant to comment outside his field of expertise. In contrast, notice how "skeptics" routinely talk through their hats and pontificate on subjects way,way outside their level of understanding or expertise. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 23 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
rgriffin42... With regards to chaos theory Tamino has a very good recent post on this explaining that this issue is basically the difference between weather and climate. And on the issue of glacial-interglacial cycles... yes, there are very good and clear explanations on how this happens. Several articles are located here on Skeptical Science. And you can just try googling Milankovitch cycles. -
rgriffin42 at 07:08 AM on 23 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
The parts of chaos theory that worry me in the context of climate change involve phase shifts and Lorenz' "strange attractors." Heating a teapot full of water from 70 degrees (F) to 211 degrees (F) just means hotter water, but with just a little more heat making it one degree hotter, a phase change occurs and the water starts turning into steam. Strange attractors often occur in non-linear systems where huge numbers of observable data circle around one region of a graph, but then, either due to a slight pertubation or for no apparent cause, the data starts to circle around another portion of the graph. The implications for climate change could be profound, but not readily testable. While temperatures now are generally circle around a mean temperature with a range of about -10 degree (F) to 110 degree (F), these aspects of chaos theory suggest that it is conceivable that the next tiny increment of carbon dioxide in the air could cause a radical shift with mean temperatures and ranges far different up OR down. I'm not suggesting that this is true, but it is one possible explanation for another problem with climate models. Last I heard, we still don't have good models to explain either why the earth has entered ice ages or how it ever gets out of one. Chaos theory suggests that for some very minor reason or no particular reason other than the way the non-linear interactions operate, huge changes in climate could result. -
dana1981 at 07:00 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
I agree Stephen. A lot of EU countries are making those smart choices. China is actually doing pretty well too. But fossil fuels are very entrenched in many others (i.e. USA, Canada, Australia), preventing us from having the political will to make the smart choices. -
Albatross at 06:46 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Pauls @58 is correct. People arguing against that have not worked in disciplines when there are not a great number of experts to draw on. We try and avoid it of course, but sometimes it is neigh impossible. -
Albatross at 06:42 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
More inconvenient findings for the "skeptics" and those in denial, and yet another "Hockey Stick". Interesting how the site reflects the MWP and LIA, yet "skeptics" wish us to believe that the results are not applicable to a larger context. The larger context being that something unprecedented in the last 2000 years is unfolding before their very eyes. And I also find it quite ironical that 'skeptics' who abuse the GISP2 record, are now whining about the findings from this study, especially when the study's authors did place their findings in a global context and demonstrated that their data are consistent with global sea level reconstructions made by Church and White (2006) and Jevrejeva et al. (2008). But I understand that they have to imagine every kind of excuse to dismiss the paper's inconvenient findings. But doing so is not 'skepticism' it is denial. -
scaddenp at 06:26 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Inference of sealevel from single point is very different from inference of global temperature from a single point. Ignoring tectonic effects, there is an absolute relationship between global level rise and a local sea level rise - not so for temperature. The problem with a global inference of sealevel is quantifying local tectonic change which the paper believes is well-constrained. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:26 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana; 'political will' really means making political choices on what to spend public money on and what policies to push. Germany made a commitment to reduce emissions 80% and generate 80% of their energy from renewables by 2050. They've made that choice for economic reasons - to ramp up their low-carbon, super hi- efficiency technologies that they can sell to the rest of us. I call that a smart choice. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:25 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
81, Eric the Red, And what exactly would yet another record low (which would be the 6th such record in the past 20 years, meaning that each subsequent record broke the previous records) mean as far as a trend? At what point would a truly skeptical person start to say "whoa, what's going on here?" You think the trend is important. What is the trend in sea ice extent? What is the trend in your own repeatedly demonstrated belief system? At what point, on what issue, are you going to start demonstrating anything other than blatant denial?
Do you understand now?
-
dhogaza at 06:25 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
As far as this study, it is trying to extrapolate more from one single point than is justifiable.
They establish the correlation exists. Perhaps you might educate us as to why we'd expect the correlation to suddenly stop correlating for those years for which there's no overlapping data? Geologically we're talking about a short timespan here, it's not like the continents have been whizzing around the planet over the last couple of millenia. -
dana1981 at 06:22 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Eric - no question there, but when it comes to climate solutions, in most cases the biggest obstacle will be political. -
stefaan at 06:12 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn, can you please do some effort to read the article (its free) and the comments? -
Camburn at 06:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
dhogaza: Nope. Show me 100 points that are from different grids and we can talk. As far as this study, it is trying to extrapolate more from one single point than is justifiable. ( -Snip- ). So, nothing new.Response:[DB] Insinuations of academic fraud snipped. Please re-read the Comments Policy as well. Future comments will be expected to adhere and conform to the policy. Posting here in this forum is a privilege, not a right.
-
Eric the Red at 06:06 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
The Teske plan was the highest of the scenarios. Hence, it may be overly-optimistic. If it is feasible, then the biggest obstacle will be politcal. -
Eric the Red at 06:00 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael, Of course no one knows what the end of summer sea ice extent will be. That is the point. Currently (June 22), the sea ice extent is similar to 2010, and much lower than 2007. Yet, 2007 turned out to be much lower than 2010. Thus, the sea ice today is not necessarily relevant to what will happen in September. Do you understand now?Response:[DB] Why the fascination with extent when volume is the better metric? That's like focusing on HadCru data for Arctic temps when GISS is by far the better metric. Extent is not really relevant except for albedo flip & Arctic heat budget.
-
dhogaza at 05:56 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats." However, it does, over the period of time for which overlapping data is available. Gee, imagine that. It is a reasonable supposition that the correlation will extend into the past, which is all they claim. Meanwhile, I foresee a future where teams of researchers look for similar sites around the globe and perform a similar exercise. And when these efforts extend the window of overlapping data further into the past and confirm that they fit the NC data within a reasonable error bounds, Cameron will state "to suggest a dozen points would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats". And later 50 points ... And still later 100 points ... -
stefaan at 05:54 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
@Camburn, You are probably familiar with the difference between looking to something with the naked eye or with a microscope. The first one offers you a non detailed view of a large area while the second offers you a detailed view of a small area. What is presented in this work is a 'microscopic' study of a small area in North Carolina and they compared these results with other 'macroscopic' studies from around the world. "To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats" is correct but that is NOT what the autors of the article did! -
Camburn at 05:38 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Philippe: Feel very free to quote me. If the skeptic is educated, then he would understand regional does not make global. -
Eric the Red at 05:28 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
paul, In a 3-judge court, one judge will excuse himself if a conflict of interest is present. To say that there are not enough people qualified is a straw man. There is no reason why he had to take part. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn "The analysis suggests, but does not confirm. It is a regional analysis, not a global analysis. To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats." I will make sure to quote, attribute the quote and qualify it as coming from a "skeptic" whenever I run into this kind of suggestion from another skeptic, which is bound to happen sooner or later (likely sooner). -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:04 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
The most ironic thing about McI. is that his own paper does not withstand scrutiny when computer code is released and examined the way he claims should be done for all these evildoers like Mann and Jones. See the link I provided earlier to the analysis of the miserable piece of propaganda called McIntyre & McKitrick and the appending dismal work by Wegman. These people giving lessons on honesty, conflict of interest or integrity in science is about the most pathetic joke ever. -
michael sweet at 04:12 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, I know that 2007 was the lowest year at the end of the melt season. The problem is you are mixing up different measurements. You said "The melt pool may not be significant as the sea ice extent is essential the same as last year". This clearly is talking about the current sea ice extent, not the end of summer extent. Obviously you cannot tell what the end of this year will be since it has not happened yet. As CBD said, "Right now ice melt pond formation, extent, area, and total volume are all at new record values... ". If that is not a problem for you than that is how you feel. But to claim that the ice has somehow recovered is not true. -
Camburn at 04:12 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"This analysis suggests that our data can be expected to track global mean sea level within about ±10 cm over the past two millennia, within the uncertainty band shown for our analysis." The analysis suggests, but does not confirm. It is a regional analysis, not a global analysis. To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats. -
Camburn at 03:21 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
I did read it and the references. From the references, we have a range on -0.3 to +1.7mm/year. So North Carolina is rising at .9mm/year. It is cold where I live today. I do not deduce that it is cold everywhere from a regional deduction.Response:[dana1981] Please see the quote immediately above Figure 2
-
pauls at 03:20 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
54 - I'm going to disagree with you as well Eric, disagreeable chap that I am. The 77% figure was highlighted simply because it is the highest. There is no conflict of interest issue there. Perhaps there's an issue with an outlier being given so much attention but that's a different matter. About lead authors reviewing their own work, it's simply an unfortunate fact that there are only a limited number of people qualified to write reports on these specialist topics and most of those will have published work for consideration. While it may be technically a conflict of interest for a lead author to review his/her own work it's unavoidable in many circumstances. -
dhogaza at 03:15 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Albatross - I mostly agree with your post, but this: "3) It seems to have escaped McIntyre's attention that there were several FF industry people on the panel, and ignoring whatever influence they might have had. It is also lost on McIntyre and Lynas that many individuals and groups had to sign off on the report." assumes honesty on McIntyre's part (i.e. if he had noticed, he would've highlighted it) and good journalism on Lynas's part. I'd say that the evidence is strongly against either assumption. Of course, maybe you were just being sarcastic ... -
dhogaza at 03:13 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
"52, Philippe Chantreau - McIntyre may be highlighting this matter based on a double-standard but his arguments as written are not dependent on it." Oh, sure, just as his mountain-from-molehill "auditing" efforts of climate science papers don't rest on his double-standard of never scrutinizing denialist papers. He's cleverly dishonest. There's no way the IPCC, working scientists, etc can fully protect themselves from clever dishonesty. As I said earlier, you live in a fantasy world if you believe that anything the IPCC or the climate science community does will change things one iota. -
KR at 03:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn - Sea level rose quickly in North Carolina due to local isostatic rebound (dropping coastline), which was one of the reasons this location was chosen. A descending coastline in an area of heavy sedimentation accumulated more mud, giving thicker sections for each time point, allowing sufficient foraminifera collections for reasonable analysis. The foraminifera species distribution ratios are quite sensitive to depth, permitting estimations of what depth each time point corresponded to. Applying an inverse isostatic rebound correction allows extracting the sea level independent of coast level, which is reasonable to assume is a global sea level barring problems with the isostatic correction. I believe those uncertainties are a major part of the uncertainty bars in this paper. So, yes, Camburn - as the moderator pointed out, it's worth reading a post, and possibly the references thereof, before commenting. -
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
I imagine you think it's important to compare these results with data from elsewhere, then, Camburn. Hmmm, I wonder what that last graphic in the post is, if it's not just that? -
Camburn at 02:56 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Sea level rose in North Carolina. This does not represent global sea level.Response:[dana1981] In the future, please read a post before commenting on it. The relation to global sea level is discussed in the post.
-
Eric the Red at 02:55 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Tamboro was one of the strongest eruption in human civilization. The estimate of the global temperature drop varies up to ~3 C (locally more), but was relatively short-lived, and temperatures began to rise after a few years. There would need to be a prolonged series of eruptions over a few centuries to explain the temperature drop. -
Albatross at 02:54 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Some insightful and interesting comments thus far, the general gist seems to be that this is pretty much a storm in a tea cup. Just some of my own observations about this latest manufactured scandal: 1) I find it incredibly ironic that Lynas is accusing others of conflict of interest and driving their agenda, when he is clearly upset that the Teske scenario did not include nuclear. Lynas is a big advocate of nuclear, and him openly making false and misleading statements about the special report and then erroneously generalizing those to apply to the whole IPPCC on an issue that he has an axe to grind is nonsensical. 2) It should be clearly apparent to most reasonable and informed people by now that McIntyre and his associates are hell bent on bringing down the IPCC, and that they are willing to do so no matter what it takes. Really, McIntyre is nothing more than a cheerleader for conspiracy theorists and those in denial about AGW-- just read the Lynas thread or the threads at WUWT or ClimateAudit. This is how it works, McIntyre or someone else like Morano or Monckton make an unsubstantiated accusation of nefarious goings on, and it is then amplified and trumpeted around the world by all to willing people like Bolt, Delingpole, Gunter, Curry etc. Mission completed. And only then do they start looking into the matter closely and trying to weed out whatever scarps they can find to support their initial allegations, which by now are a well-established myth in the denialosphere. 3) It seems to have escaped McIntyre's attention that there were several FF industry people on the panel, and ignoring whatever influence they might have had. It is also lost on McIntyre and Lynas that many individuals and groups had to sign off on the report. This ultimately boils down to people being opposed to renewables period and reducing our GHG emissions, or opposed to the manner in which we reduce our GHG emissions (do we include nuclear or not), and/or trying to destroy the IPCC. It is incredibly disappointing that Lynas has tied his bandwagon to conspiracy theorists like McIntyre. Hopefully Mark Lynas will very soon see how he got this all so wrong and that by pursuing his own agenda, he ended up actually furthering the agenda of the conspiracy theorists and those in denial about AGW. Hopefully it is also an important learning moment for him too. I will say this though, the IPCC need to become a lot more street wise and they need to sharpen up on their media relations and public relations. This is no mean feat, because they will never (and I really do mean never) be able to appease people like McIntyre or Morano or Inhofe . So it is a bit of a fool's errand, but at the end of the day much improved PR and media relations cannot hurt. Pity that they do not yet really have the resources and means to do so. Finally, this must all come as a very welcome distraction and break for McIntyre, who has been implicated in the Wegman scandal. -
Eric the Red at 02:39 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Raymonds Wright's report was not highlighted when the claim that 77% of global energy demand can be met with renewables. As paul emphasized, there may be good reason why the Teske scenario would be chosen, but to include Teske in the decision making process is a definite conflict of interest. Lead authors do not peer-review their own papers or submit papers in their own sessions, so why should this report be an exception. You would think the IPCC would take extra precautions in light of the IAC criticism of the IPCC for conflict of interest issues. -
Camburn at 02:10 AM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom@150: The river study provides enough information to realize that river flow has not increased in the past 50 years. That tells us that even tho we have warmed in the past 50 years, climate has not responded as thought it should. One has to think global in regards to extreme events. A flood here and there is not out of the ordinary, as it is a common occurance globally. What should have showed in the study, to support AGW, is an increase in flow. It didn't. To people expeiencing flooding, it seems extreme. On a global scale, it is normal. As the study indicates, what we think should be happening and what is actually happening have diverged. To a thinking man, this indicates a deeper study of the models projecting an extreme event. Something within the parameters is not quit correct. -
thepoodlebites at 02:05 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Tom Curtis #85 Yep, +3.7°C (A1B scenario) by 2100 is another bold prediction. That's about 0.4 C per decade, we'll see. It's possible that the ITCZ migration may head back toward the equator, just like during the Little Ice Age. Seems just as likely to be another natural mode of climate variability. Just tagging this on, what volcanic eruptions occurred during the Little Ice Age that could explain the temperature drop (1400-1800)? Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (1883) but these occurred after we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. There's Kuwae (1452) and Huaynaputina (1600), but neither was as strong as Tambora and Huaynaputina was a southern hemsiphere eruption. -
pauls at 01:50 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
52, Philippe Chantreau - McIntyre may be highlighting this matter based on a double-standard but his arguments as written are not dependent on it. Yes, Greenpeace and the Jamaican Oil Industry were represented equally by lead authors but only one of these had their paper highlighted in the chapter they authored. Now, there may not be an issue with this. As dana1981 replied earlier there are good reasons why the Teske ER-2010 scenario would be picked, though I wouldn't say it is necessarily an automatic choice. I think if it was shown by the minutes that Teske was able to promote his own scenario using his position as lead author then questions should rightly be asked. As things stand McIntyre is just engaging in sensationalist speculation, as is his wont, but that doesn't mean there definitely isn't an issue. -
dana1981 at 01:33 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
I think it needs to be emphasized again that Teske's is just one scenario. It's technologically and economically viable, but it may not be politically viable to, for example, dramatically increase use of public transportation and decrease individual passenger vehicle use. As I said, this report doesn't evaluate what's politically viable. However, it certainly looks to me like we could meet the Teske plan if we had the political will to do so. -
Tom Curtis at 01:08 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka @36, it appears you are right. I apologise for my error. In this case, then, I will have to disagree with the CCC and you. It is certainly possible to design or refurbish buildings in Germany or Scandinavia to require little or not direct heating. If it works in Scandinavia, it will also work in Britain, so it is certainly feasible to reduce primary energy requirements by shifting to renewable heating. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:07 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
TC at 45, couldn't agree more. This is yet another example of the double standard of deniers (can't call them skeptics any more). Why has no skeptic protested against the inclusion of Raymond Wright? Just more nonsense from McI to fuel a non controversy and fool the gullible who buy his snake oil. It is obvious to anyone who has a bit of sense and has observed McIntyre's actions that nothing but the worst propaganda tactics can be expected from him, again and again. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:55 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
50, Eric the Red, On temperatures, follow the link I supplied. I didn't say they were merely warm because it's summer. That would be silly. How foolish do you think other people are? UAH temperatures yesterday were just a hair short of the 2010 level, and above all other temps since 2002, under ENSO neutral conditions. On sea ice, follow the link I supplied. Don't go by a simple graph that does nothing but display the sum of the areas of ice with 15% or greater. Look at how far back the southern line has retreated, and how many areas are above that 15% mark, but clearly breaking up and vanishing. Look at the holes. Look at the details. Go to the North Pole Web Cams and actually see the melt ponds forming a week or two earlier than normal. You are not listening. You are denying, down to the very last detail. Weather is definitely fickle, but climate is not. You can blame extreme weather on random variation for only so long. This may be a year that makes you finally sit up and take notice. It may not. It may be next year, or the year after. But unless thousands and thousands of very well educated and invested thinking people have it all completely wrong, then you are wrong, and you will sit up and take notice. It's inevitable. -
Eric the Red at 00:50 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
I would say that a given minimum or maximum is more telling than the ice at a particular date. But I agree that a single year should not be given too much attention or taken out of context of the larger trend. Yes, anything could happen.Response:[DB] "Yes, anything could happen."
Yes, anything physics-based. Which (at this point) eliminates a recovery of the ice to pre-1980 conditions.
-
quokka at 00:41 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#35 Tom Curtis You are misunderstanding the CCC report. This is the sort of Heat Pump they are referring to. Not something to circulate waste heat for district heating. -
Eric the Red at 00:25 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
DSL, Good post. Science evidence will prevail eventually. It make a year, it may take longer. History has shown that people like to hold their own beliefs sacred, and new ones take time to become acclimated. Sphaerica, The mercury is rising because it is summertime. Compared to last year, 2011 is still much cooler (~0.2C based on both CRU and NOAA data and 0.3C according to GISS). It may be due to the lack of an El Nino as you mentioned. Arctic sea ice is now greater than in 2010 according to several reporting agencies, so the week to three ahead can be scrapped also. Weather is definitely fickle. Probably the main reason that 2011 is very unlikely to approach 2010 in warmth. We will probably have to wait until at least next year.Response:[DB] "Arctic sea ice is now greater than in 2010 according to several reporting agencies, so the week to three ahead can be scrapped also."
Patently untrue for the metric that matters most, volume. The only reason extent and area are similar at all to 2010 is due to the record spring melt of 2010 (which period ended about this time last year; 2010 ice loss then stalled for all of July and part of August) and the much greater spreading of the thinner ice this year. With the majority of the melt season yet ahead, 2011 will show record ice losses in volume and likely in extent and area as well.
But that was a nice attempt to manufacture doubt and controversy.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:23 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka @33, I just reported on the claims of Teske et al 2010. However, your source estimates that waste industrial heat could supply "around 70% to 90% of non-residential space heat" in the UK. That is a very large amount of heating which requires only pumping (much less energy expensive), and if implemented would represent a large reduction in primary demand for electricity. It appears that your assumptions are exactly that, and are not supported by your chosen source.
Prev 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 Next
