Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 Next
Comments 83751 to 83800:
-
Charlie A at 00:40 AM on 4 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Kevin C @84. "Eschenbach's other mistake is that his model is too simple. His single time constant can't reflect the more complex response function of the real system." His simple single time constant lag model has 0.99+ correlation with the output of two different AOGCMs. Like you, he doesn't believe this is likely to be a good replica of the real, complex response fuction of the real climate system. That was the point of that series of articles. He was surprised at well the GCM model outputs (on a global average) could be replicated by simply multiplying the forcings by a constant, or multiplying by a constant and then a lowpass filter. The models parameterize things like clouds. So the models wouldn't show things like a change in the daily cloud patten so common in the tropics. Clear in the morning, clouding up and raining in early afternoon. It wouldn't take much of a time shift in the daily pattern to have a large, relatively fast feedback. -
Kevin C at 00:06 AM on 4 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
And here are the results with the original forcings to 1990, and Hansen's 2011 values from Charlie's post #81. (Misread Hansen first time, sorry). 0.861 0.491 0.808 0.792 0.525 0.584 0.817 0.194 0.811 Still worse. -
Eric the Red at 00:04 AM on 4 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Thanks Kevin, I am keenly interested in the aerosol research, and hope to see much more in the near future. Especially given the high uncertainties attributed to aerosols and clouds. Volcanoes have always been difficult to model for endless reasons. BTW, if you like simplicity, take the monthly CRU data starting from 1880 and subtract a trebnd equal to 0.005C/month (0.6C/century). -
RyanStarr at 00:03 AM on 4 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
I understand the red HadCrut line starts rising above the blue prior to its (the blue's) conclusion. However if we presume that the overlay has been performed correctly through the time axis (and I don't presume otherwise) then the point remains that Ljungqvist concludes at 0.07'ish degrees in 2000 and the HadCrut overlay concludes 10 years later at 0.8. Of course we expect some disagreement here, proxy vs instrument, but lets put this difference into some perspective. In the space of 2000 years the Ljungqvist reconstruction hits a low of -0.7 and a high of 0.2, suggesting a range of 0.9 for that period. That is to say, taking this as an arbitrary (though recent) climate window suggests min/max extents 0.9 degrees apart. Allow via subtraction 0.2 degrees for the 10 years and the difference is still 58 % of the 2000 year min-max range. HadCrut plots http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=168&&n=394 -
Eric the Red at 23:42 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn, While accurate, your choice of month and years renders the cooling trend almost meaningless. Long term, the temperature has increased, although most of the increase has occurred during the winter (even including the cooling trend of the last decade), and prior to the mid 1930s. If you check the seasonal trends prior to and after 1935, winter prior to 1935 showed the greatest warming, with almost no temperature trend in either the summer or fall from 1935-present. Not sure were we are going with this, except to point out the fallacy in determining trends over short time frames. It is interesting to note that ND has shown no warming over the past 30 years. Bucking the trend, are you?Response:[DB] Please, let us remove our focus from the weather and back to the topic of this thread, IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News.
Weather is now off-topic on this thread.
-
Camburn at 23:40 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Yvan Dutil: Note I said regional. The 30 year trend for winter is down as well based on the long term mean, and the last 10 years have shown an accelerated downward trend. I live here, I believe the trend. -
Yvan Dutil at 23:34 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn. Such short term slope are going in every direction. Anything shorter than 30 years make no sense for climate trend analysis. This is only basic statistics. This has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere.Response:[DB] This has been pointed out to Camburn many times previously. I believe the distinction to be lost.
-
Kevin C at 23:25 PM on 3 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
I tried a quick experiment with two choices for the reflective aerosol term. Here's the R2 values for the original forcings. I got the baselines wrong for the holdout stats, so I've redone them here. Sorry about the lack of formatting. Table rows and columns as before. 0.865 0.500 0.818 0.813 0.525 0.648 0.856 0.445 0.815 And here's the same data setting the reflective aerosol term to -0.5 * the well mixed GHG term: 0.852 0.482 0.786 0.790 0.522 0.579 0.809 0.212 0.779 Both the fitted data score (top left) and the predictive power (bold numbers) suggest this set of forcings is less good at explaining the 20th century temps using an empirical lag model. (But fitting on only 62 years of data is probably unrealistic. Should really run with 31/93, 93/31, and maybe 31/62/31 predicting the middle.) Eric: According to my (possibly flawed) understanding, Eschenbach's 'risibile fantasy' quote is hard to reconcile with the physics of the system. Radiative forcing is simply a measure of the extra energy being pumped into the system. Of course it is simply related to how the energy in the system varies over time. The only reason this isn't transparently obvious is that we don't have a simple way to measure that energy - we only measure the temperature of a subset of the components, which in turn have different heat capacities and are continuously exchanging energy among themselves. Thus, although there are annual variations, I think it is totally reasonable that the global temperature averages of the GCMs can be modelled with a simple lag model - and clearly so does Hansen, since he does exactly that in his 2011 draft paper. Eschenbach's other mistake is that his model is too simple. His single time constant can't reflect the more complex response function of the real system. This would be OK apart from the volcanoes, which are the only forcing with sharp discontinuities. As a result he has to fudge the volcanic forcing. (This was Tamino's point, but my alternative model parameterisation supports his conclusion.) -
Camburn at 23:02 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
With the economic numbers out this morning in the USA, I don't forsee much of an increase in CO2 coming from this area any time soon. I don't see any legislation coming any time soon either. There are too many current problems that need to be addressed before long term problems will find a foothold. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:48 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp, the coal-powered goods is a confluence of several problems, one of which is our exporting of carbon emissions. I don't like it and I avoid it, but other people buy those goods because it's their choice. If you are asking in the hypothetical if I would propose a carbon tariff, I'd have to see the details, and we'd have to (hypothetically) eliminate the political manipulations that usually accompany tariffs. The 3.7 W/m2 is radiative forcing from line-by-line models of CO2 doubling, not GCMs with water vapor. The 3.7 alone will produce about 1C rise, the water vapor feedback will produce the rest. I don't have a total here, but will put one in an appropriate thread at some point. -
Camburn at 22:45 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Djon: The more samples, the more reliable the mean. Take a look at our winters 2000-2010. We have been experiencing a cooling trend verses the long term mean which surprises no one living here. This is only a regional observation, and in no way implies that the world as a whole is not warm. I picked those months because the temp/trend is important to life here. -
Djon at 22:20 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn, According to the graphing function at the link you just gave the annual average temperature in ND increased from 1991 to 2010 at a rate of 0.26 degF/Decade. Also, if you think the cooling trend over Januarys from 2000 to 2010 is made more or less accurate by the choice of base period rather than being unaffected by it, you either need some remedial education in mathematics/statistics or the humility to stick to politics since numbers clearly aren't your thing. -
Camburn at 22:03 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Dana: Here is the link: http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/north_dakota_climate.shtml Jan, 2000-2010 shows a cooling trend of 6.6F. That is using the long term base temperature which makes the results the most accurate. I don't speak for all Americans. I am making an observation of the current political/economic climate of the USA. -
Eric the Red at 21:59 PM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
I would disagree with the ENSO arguements. One needs to look at the change in temperature associated with El ninos and La ninas. The last two La ninas produced some rather large temperature drops compared to previous years. The resulting absolute temperatures were higher due to the higher starting temperature at the La Nina onset. Although it is too early to make any warm year claims, 2011 is currently 15th warmest after the first four months, according to CRU data. It is the 2nd coldest since 2000, following the La Nina year of 2008. Long term, the overall effect is neutral. However, short term, la ninas could have a cumulative cooling effect, similar to the cumulative warming of the recent el ninos. -
CBDunkerson at 21:44 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
While the current trending is bad keep in mind that the 'worst case' scenarios discussed above assume that we continue nearly full out fossil fuel use all the way through 2100. I don't believe that is likely to happen. As others in this thread have noted, renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many small locales around the world and this is becoming true for larger and larger areas with each passing year. Within the decade this will become the case for the majority of the planet's population. According to most sources we also passed the peak of conventional oil production back in 2006. Optimistic projections have alternative oil sources providing a steady plateau of oil production for decades... but even that rosy view runs afoul of the fact that petroleum demand in China and India is exploding. There simply won't be enough oil produced to meet demand. The only thing preventing this currently is the global economic slowdown. These two factors will force conversion to renewable energy. The fossil fuel industry might be able to hold it off for a few more years, but by 2020 the process will definitely be in full swing. The only downside is that as more renewable energy comes online that will result in less demand for fossil fuels and thus falling costs... which will keep them affordable and thus used in many parts of the world. Unless renewables become radically less expensive or the political will to phase out fossil fuels is eventually found we are likely to keep burning them indefinitely. That won't be as bad as if we continued using them for nearly all power generation through 2100, but it still could make a mess of things. -
Eric the Red at 21:37 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica, I do not know if it was your abrasive responses or condescending attitude that got to me, but it appears that I am not the only one. I will ignore the statement where you imply that my "understanding is not up to par," and chalk it up to ignorance. Your "understanding" is apparently different than mine. Maybe it is due to the reading of different publications, association with differenet scientsits, or simply drawing different conclusions based on the same data. Your "understanding" of climate changes appears to be narrower than mine, with tighter constraints on cause and effects. It is not that I think the current understanding is "lacking," but that I do not so readily dismiss ideas that have not been thoroughly researched. This is not a backhanded slap, but an acknowledgement that the system is more complex than some (not meant to include you) portray. Your harping on semantics also irritated me. Sorry, if I am not the most eloquent writer. I am please to see your response that your understanding is constantly changing due to changing science, and that changes are occurring in increments. Interesting though is your statement that recent papers are showing worse climate change. I would have agreed with that statement a few years ago, but recently would have to disagree. Would you care to expound on what you have found that leads you to understand this? DO not bother to water it down, I will understand it. -
Eric the Red at 21:12 PM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Agreed Ari, My hypothetic paper was just to get a feel for where people thought neutral papers started, so that when I hear a certain percentage of papers are pro-agw, the understanding is somewhat clearer. There are several other effects that must be included in a complete analysis. I only changed to the climate sensitivity argument because some posters had difficultly the with original presentation of the question. -
scaddenp at 20:46 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, well it was only hypothetical question, but all that sounds like recipe for US economic revival buying more coal-powered goods from China with exception of killing subsidies (how fast can you do it!) and energy research. 50% reduction in 50 years? I dont think you would have a hope. As to 3.7W/m2, I point out that the published science, the evidence, the data is against you. The 3.7W/m2 from models is water vapour from current oceans, cycles etc. Since you get pretty much the same answer from something as primitive as Manabe's model in 1975 and from glacial etc. I would hazard that CC relationship is ultimately more to do with vapour than all those other factors. What's published that gives you less than 2? You are betting on hope. My city will loss its airport, it road links and substantial part of it area with 1m of sealevel rise. We're too small to raise the money to fight it. Excuse me if I dont feel so sanguine about mitigation. -
newcrusader at 20:46 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn I live in Connecticut- average temperatures over the last 35 years have increased about 4 degrees F in the winter. Absolute lows have changed my growing zone from a Zone 6 to nearly a zone 7. The zone 7 line is creeping north from the shoreline of Long Island sound about 1.6 miles per year. Anecdotal evidence? The ability to grow sub tropical plants here. Gardeners rejoice now at growing Giant Sequoia, along with Windmill palms in protected locations. Crepe Myrtle can be grown, and also sabal minor. Back in 1990 - this would be difficult- if not impossible. -
Alexandre at 20:37 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
Hi Agnostic, very nice post. I understant the graph with the largest emitters refers to fossil fuel emissions, right? It does not include agriculture or land changes? -
les at 20:28 PM on 3 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
64 - les Well, I'm always interested in what the great unwashed think "scientific method adhered to, and proper standards and procedures" might mean. Now we know. tall(snip) has: - posted something here which voilated the Comments Policy and got snipped. - as predicted, started his own blog post complaining that SkS does censorship and discourages open discussions. - Posts up a link to a paper in this blog post - so as to make it seem that this paper is an example of the kind of thing SkS suppresses (in fact the paper is presented in this post) - then, when the discussion gets to tough, (Snip) says "pbjamm: I won’t be responding to or tolerating inflammatory bullshit so take it home with you when you leave. Don’t let the door bang your arse on the way out now." - but, no, no censorship there. Yes folks, as the contributor in 70 says "... actions speak louder than words in encouraging people to follow good examples and practices." what a phony.Response:[DB] Fixed link; inflammatory terms snipped.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 20:07 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp, I should have noted that the 3.7 is known, but the water vapor feedback is not because it is determined by geography, ocean cycles, ice, and many other factors which changed from glacial to interglacial. Feedback is not the same as it was then. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:49 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Scaddenp, I would look worldwide at what would be both easy and effective, our needed smart gird, eliminating various subsidies, cut government at all levels (most gov projects waste energy), change monetary and foreign policy that pegs oil currencies to the dollar (making oil artificially cheap for the U.S,), and probably a dozen areas where we can help India and China (switch from coal to gas, etc). Also on monetary policy I would kill the Fed and their boom bust cycle that leads to incredible malinvestment (if you haven't seen U.S. tract mansion suburbs, you should). I would do some major basic energy research (note: my employer would benefit from this), encourage household energy independence in the countryside (note: that's where I live and that's really my responsibility), open up some spectrum so we can have some decent service out here and be able to effectively telecommute. As I have said or implied before, the main mitigation for CC or any other change comes from personal resiliency along with economic strength, I oppose measures that sacrifice economic strength in the hope that government can step in and save everybody. That especially applies to the developing world where we currently seem to favor authoritarian thugs (as long as they are our thugs) in place of individual freedom and economic well being. For some specific CC areas, I would privative flood insurance, eliminate the FEMA flood zone insanity, and let the insurance companies, local municipalities and other local entities work out how to mitigate floods Probably kill many of the upstream levees that exacerbate the downstream floods (just to save a small poorly located development) If it comes down to major displacement (something I view as unlikely and slow) I would encourage the various states to compete for climate refugees, return federal lands to private or state ownership, The possibility of more forest fires means we need forestry which includes roads, water storage, more adaptable trees, clearing programs where needed (we have VIrginia forest fire mitigation program). Personally fire is my only real problem and I have started to improve my situation regardless of CC. I'm sure there are odds and ends that can mitigate the effects in the rest of the world, but as I said, people ultimately have to be allowed, encourage and empowered to take responsibility for their well being. -
trunkmonkey at 17:28 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
Stephen Baines. Thank you. I wasn't aware that it was impossible to directly measure pCO2 en aqueous. Fig 3 in Le Quere et al measures the change in trend in pCO2 the ocean surface versus the atmosphere. I assumed that the positive values meant that ocean pressure was increasing faster than the atmosphere and the gradient would result in outgassing. In both the ocean and the atmosphere trend is everything. Air that is rising and cooling will "outgas" H2O in clouds and rain and air that is sinking and cooling will absorb the same. So it is with the ocean and CO2. Water that is rising and warming will shed CO2 and water that is sinking and cooling will absorb it. As the warm currents of the THC pass through the tropics they continue to warm, although considerable energy is expended in latent heat of vaporization as they evaporate and become more haline. I checked out Takahashi 2009 and Schuster 2009? to try to understand exactly what was being measured in Le Quere Fig 3 and I was astonished how difficult a seemingly simple measurement can be. I'm still not certain I understand it, but whatever it is, the red(positive)areas lie on the warm currents of the THC, would you not agree? I'm not sure what question all this is moot to. I keep getting shoehorned into positions I do not subscribe to. I'm aware that all this is just a CO2 shell game (although I wish carbonate shells would rain down with a vengance to be sequesterd for billions of years). I know the ocean Co2 sink is a sacred cow in this business, but what if the decline in pH were from subsurface CO2 derived from methane? Trunkmonkey say: When the science is settled, scientist not working hard enough!Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Just a word of advice, rhetorical phrases such as "I know the ocean Co2 sink is a sacred cow in this business" do not really encourage replies, as it implies closed mindedness on the part of those holding a mainstream view. Likewise your final sentence, there is very little science that is settled (other than that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, that we do know for sure). -
Tom Curtis at 17:19 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Jigoro Kano @37: 1) The average cost per passenger mile on the Subway in New York is 33 cents. That cost is inclusive of the cost of rolling stock, energy, and maintenance of tracks (calculated from figures in this report; 2) The cheapest urban driving cost per passenger mile in the US is estimated by the AAA as being 35 cents per mile. That cost does not include costs for building or maintaining roads; 3) So, even excluding the hidden subsidies, road passenger transport is more expensive than subway transport. If you include the subsidies that is very obviously so. This is true despite the (as you point out) massive organizational inefficiencies of some public transport operators, which if eliminated would improve the comparison; 4) This also does not include other costs, such as air pollution from the massive fleet of cars that would be needed if private transport was substituted for public transport; the relative mortality rates, with fatalities per mile being 6.5 times higher for car transport than for subway transport, or the very large cost of parking, a necessary addendum for private transport (in Brisbane, daily parking fees exceed daily rail transport fees for even the longest commutes, ie, from adjacent cities); and finally 5) It does not consider the real cost of replacing public transport with private transport in New York, with the shut down of the subway likely to result in 6.5 million additional car journeys (if not taken up by other public transport) on already notoriously congested roads. All of this uses New York as your chosen comparison. I will pass over the jingoism present in the automatic assumption that the way it is done in the US automatically represents worlds best practise. -
snapple at 17:10 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
The Washington Post has an article that cites Skeptical Science. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/yep-its-safe-to-start-fretting-about-carbon-again/2011/06/02/AGw96VHH_blog.htmlResponse:[dana1981] Yep, they used my graph from the IEA CO2 emissions update. Very cool!
-
actually thoughtful at 16:41 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Apirate - regarding mitigation - it depends where you are. Policy wise, we need to end coal fired electric plants immediately. This starts by not permitting any, then back filling to replace coal with nuclear, gas, solar, wave, conservation. I believe you are in Atlanta or some other Southern city. I would recommend you use a GSHP for you A/C, heating and water heating, with solar PV panels to create the electricity. If you are in a city, you should be able to manage your transportation without daily driver. If you need a daily driver, I would suggest a Nissan Leaf with 8-12 solar panels to create the electricity. At this stage of the game you can use the grid as your battery, without solving the grid storage problem. Another benefit of being an early adopter. That covers your hot water, space conditioning and travel. If your situation is different, give me some details and I can paint you a net zero, net positive or near zero solution. As others have pointed out, your point 6 is weak, and uses the wiggle room that my formulation denies you (ie what about some mystical "natural" forcing or super low sensitivity). If it doesn't sound condescending, I do commend you for being on this site, and for the fact that you seem to be clarifying your position (and I am heartened you are moving towards the accepted science). While tempers flare at almost any site discussing this issue, if you watch carefully, the science is front seat at skeptical science, more so than other sites which feature too much zany stuff for my taste or too much ego and grudge matches. That is why this site COULD be a one stop shop. Sure, if you don't get something after reading about here, and drilling down to the paper there is a WORLD WIDE WEB to brush up on your science. And obviously, by following the science, this site has a point of view. But it is a point of view that says - let's see where the science takes us. -
Stephen Baines at 15:59 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I would love to ask jiguro "who on earth suggests a real taxation rate of 75% for 250k?" and "aren't sin taxes about shifting relative costs?" and "didn't Bush II cut taxes, and didn't the surplus he inherited turn to a deficit?" But I feel I'm being baited into a rabbit hole. It's all a bit off topic for this post, and maybe the site as a whole? The post was about climate denial/skepticism afterall, not taxation schemes. -
Chemware at 15:56 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
@22 owl905 Incorrect version: "Civilization is Man's way of showing Nature who's boss." Correct version: "Weather is Nature's way of showing Man who's boss." -
Jigoro Kano at 15:31 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
dhogaza @ 271 273 You said "fight that doesn't recognize the far right that existed in Nixon's party at the time" The far right had no ability to stop or change legislation. So I'm not sure of your point. Not to continue the partisan parsing, but the Left does not view tax policy with dynamic scoring. For example, if tax rates were to increase to 75% for those over $250k, tax receipts in the short run will go up, but not long thereafter receipts will bottom out. As the risk/reward ratio nears one, the pursuit of income falls. Econ 101. Interestingly though, bureaucrats instinctively know this. Sin taxes are enacted to encourage people to stop that activity deemed unfavorable by politicians. To tax carbon is an effort to reduce it's productions. To tax income is to reduce it's production. Reducing tax rates encourages increase that ratio encourages work. You need only look at receipts during Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II to realize this truth. -
Enginerd at 15:24 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Thank you for this post. The information, as sobering as it may be, is very helpful for assessing our current trajectory in GHG emissions in light of the different IPCC scenarios. I also appreciate your ongoing efforts in demonstrating how various other trends (e.g., Arctic sea ice extent, sea level rise) are measuring up against earlier predictions. And I must echo the previous comment about Camburn not speaking for all Americans. While his or her statement about the U.S. not implementing cap and trade any time soon might be correct, the entire northeast has cap and trade through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). My experience has also been that there is a quite substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans on various mitigation policies, and I think most fair-minded Americans are aware of this. As for RGGI, two states now might be backing out of the program, due to actions taken by their Republican governors or legislatures. And my home state (Massachusetts) is on target to have its 2020 statewide GHG emissions be 25 percent lower than the 1990 levels, through various clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives--an action triggered by a law passed by the Democrat legislature. A more concerted mitigation strategy is definitely needed if we are to substantially alter the emissions trends mentioned in the original post. Camburn: I suggest you communicate the temperature trends you mention in your post to your state climatologist, because the January trends that you quote quite clearly conflict with what he reported on page 13 of this document (http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsco/publication/ndsco/bulletin/winter11.pdf).Response:[dana1981] Thanks. Yes I've previously written about the real-world success of RGGI as well.
-
Stephen Baines at 15:15 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
I meant "fly through JFK airport..." Having been to Europe, I echo adelady's point. -
CO2 limits will harm the economy
Jigoro, You've made a lot of assertions without providing a single concrete number backed with references. I'll help you out, and will even use a CATO Institute report as reference. Take a close look at Table 1. Light rail on average accounts for 0.36 pounds of CO2 emissions per passenger mile, while automobiles account for 0.61. This is of course dependent on the local methods of electricity production as the report points out. Combined with a move towards greener energy production, that number can come down further. Also note that the energy intensity in BTU's for light rail is entirely comparable to automobiles. Now of course, light rail is no silver bullet and there are other factors to consider. However, your claims that "the CO2 ton/rider ratio is abysmal" and "Inefficiency to a level unheard of within the private sector", are completely without merit, even when using sources subscribing to your point of view. This leaves your analysis unimpressive to say the least. -
Stephen Baines at 15:14 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Oh boy Jiguro...the MTA is more a necessity than anything else. In NYC it is taken for granted -- few in Manhattan own a car because of it. I wouldn't visit the city a quarter as much if it didn't exist. It's really really hard to imagine how NYC would be better off without it. I never used to fly through before they built a train to it. Too expensive otherwise. How are you calculating it's "inefficiencies." Inefficient with respect to what? And if you think it is easy to run mass transit system in NYC with its molding infrastructure, you're crazy. -
adelady at 15:04 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
'Mass transit is costly, dirty, non-green, a non-solution dream of the left.'?? So how do you explain Europe? -
Jigoro Kano at 14:47 PM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Tom Curtis @ 33 Sorry Tom, you need only look at MTA to prove you demonstrably wrong. High population density, high ridership, yet high inefficiencies. If NY can't make work no area of the country can overcome this problem. Mass transit is costly, dirty, non-green, a non-solution dream of the left. -
Albatross at 14:28 PM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Excellent point @24 scaddenp. Previously this record strength La Nina we have just experienced would have caused negative global SAT anomalies. Instead, 2011 will likely be in the top 10 warmest years, or very close to that. -
dana1981 at 14:21 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn - please don't presume to speak for all Americans. And don't pretend that Republicans aren't the only obstruction preventing a carbon pricing mechanism. If it weren't for the 40% minority of Republicans abusing the filibuster rule in the Senate, we would have had a cap and trade system in place over a year ago. ClimateWatcher - keep dreaming, but please stop spreading misinformation. As I've told you many times, the temperature trend is well within the range of model estimates. -
ClimateWatcher at 14:11 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
I dunno, sounds like good news. Emissions are high but temperature trends are lower than the best estimate for the 'Low Scenario'. Sensitivity is low?Response:[DB] "temperature trends are lower than the best estimate for the 'Low Scenario'"
Prove it. Sources with links please.
Or cease your dissembling.
-
dhogaza at 14:10 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Also, of course, Jigoro's proposed tax rates (close to flat tax with negative income tax benefits for the poor) would greatly reduce federal revenue compared to existing levels. We'd no longer be able to afford, for instance, to provide the global security umbrella that we do today, leaving Europe on its own. Part of me likes that idea ... rather than rant at Obama they'd be left ranting at Putin, who isn't quite as nice a guy. But then again, I have many friends in Europe and may live there in retirement ... -
scaddenp at 14:08 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro - that is to ignore the problem is not so much fuel but coal, (your measure would reduce emissions by maybe 2%) but even so how would propose that efficiency is gained given that there is already an incentive? Any other effective measure compatible with your political philosophy? (Congrats for even answering though - just wish someone would answer with a solution that is more like 50% reduction over 40 years). -
dhogaza at 14:07 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
"Yes Nixon did propose, it was the Democrats which refused to sign on." Talk about total simplification of a complex domestic political issue into a partisan "liberal vs. semi-liberal" fight that doesn't recognize the far right that existed in Nixon's party at the time ... Sheesh. Sorry, you flunk the history test. -
Alexandre at 14:04 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro Kano at 13:34 PM on 3 June, 2011 So your bet would be to increase efficiency of the existing motors and generators by 5~10%. (I have nothing against that, but it's not nearly enough. If you have enough interest in the subject, I suggest further reading to get a grip on the size of the problem. SkS can be a good starting point. Websites of respected research institutions like NOAA are excellent sources if you have some background knowledge.) But still on your idea: how would you achieve that increased efficiency in a way that would not hurt your ideological beliefs? a carbon tax? A directly regulated efficiency standard? Just hope for a cultural change in consumption patterns? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:04 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
266, J. Bob, First, as I have repeatedly said, I don't have an opinion, I instead understand the science. If there was some aspect of the science that I felt I did not agree with, then that would be an opinion (because I'm clearly not as strong at the science as a working climate scientist), but the only times that has happened in recent memory have been with Lindzen, Spencer and other "denial" science findings. Even then, I usually withhold my own judgment until rebuttals from professionals hit the streets and confirm my own insights (or not, if my own criticisms were mistaken). With that said, as far as anything like graphs showing a strong correlation of temperature... the issue is far, far more complex than one set of graphs could ever represent, and as I've said, my body of knowledge is that of science. I don't have my own personal approach to how or why climate is doing what it's doing, and I'd look pretty far askance at anyone else that claimed as much... and there are a few characters like that on the Internet (co2isnotevil being one big one). [I'd also point out that just the way that you phrased your question... a graph showing a strong correlation of temperature & CO2... rings all sorts of "this is a game" bells in my head. You'll never get that, because the system is too chaotic, there are too many conflicting factors and there's too much noise. That doesn't mean one can't understand what's happening, it just means one can't water it all down to a simple, obvious, indisputable correlation on a single graph of just two variables. So if that's what you need to be convinced, then your entire approach is too simple, and there's no point to continuing. It would be like trying to convince a small child that there are no actual miniature people inside the television. It doesn't work that way, but a child doesn't have the background knowledge to understand radio waves and image encoding and photon emissions, so the conversation there has to end with "trust me, there are no little people in the TV."] If you are saying that you honestly, really, are open minded, and want to learn more about the science (rather than to somehow convince me that you understand things better than all climate scientists), then you are welcome to join apiratelooksat50 with me (assuming he accepts my offer) on some other thread, to look at some focused segment of the science and to be sure that it is understood thoroughly and completely, so that it can become one set, indisputable piece of the puzzle. Then, progressing from there, when one has enough pieces, one can say that they understand. But if what you want to do is to engage in a mindless back and forth of tit for tat arguments, each of which is merely a microcosm of the big picture, and every time one side "scores a point" the other side just changes the subject and diverges into a different line of argument... well, that's a complete waste of time. -
scaddenp at 14:03 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob - the correlation you are looking for is with total forcings - no one claims climate is single factor. And the paper you looking for (apart from figs in AR4 showing match of models to recent climate) is Benestad and Schmidt. For a simple correlation of CO2 and Temperature see here but this ignores the other factors. -
Jigoro Kano at 14:02 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
dhogaza @ 258 You said "As an example of how far right the republican party has moved since the Nixon administration, Nixon gave serious thought to a negative income tax such as proposed by jigoro above as a replacement for welfare payments. As opposed to, oh, you know, just letting them starve. " This system of taxation was a construct of Milton Friedman. Yes Nixon did propose, it was the Democrats which refused to sign on. Letting go of that voting block would be to costly. What was passed, the Earned Income Tax Credit, giving the benefit so long as the recipients remained under the D's thumb. ie. straight up redistribution. If proposed now dhogaza, the only nays would be the donkeys and Obama. -
Ari Jokimäki at 13:42 PM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
One thing to note here is that apparently the argument of the classification seems to have changed. At least I understood from Eric the Red's original question setting that the argument would be something like "CO2 effect is weak" or perhaps even "it's the sun", but now you seem to be arguing about the argument "climate sensitivity is low". For that argument Eric the Red's original setting didn't give enough information so for that argument the hypothetical paper should be in "neutral" bin. Information missing from the setting are at least the effect of aerosols and the amount of warming that goes to warm the ocean and doesn't show in the surface temperature record. These both are effects that can mask lot of CO2 caused warming. You need to have total sum of forcings before you can determine how strongly feedbacks are acting. -
Djon at 13:41 PM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Camburn, You wrote "GISSTEMP says that where I live, the temp has risen 1.4C in the past 120 years. Yet, when looking at the past 20 years, using state climatological numbers, the trend is down by over .3F per degade." So with the GISSTEMP statement, are you comparing the annual anomaly for a grid cell covering North Dakota or part thereof in 2010 versus 1890 or fitting a linear trend to all the annual anomalies from 1890 through 2010 for a grid cell or looking at only the station nearest you used in their analysis or doing something else? Also, where are you looking up state data for the past 20 years? I'm not immediately seeing, when I search, that that's available from any state agency in tabular or graphical form. I'm interested in checking out the accuracy of your statements, if only because recent cooling at the rate you claim in an area where you also claim GISS says the warming over the past 120 years is quite a bit higher than the world average is somewhat surprising but I find it hard to believe it will produce anything other than a demonstration that there can be considerable regional variation about the global trend, partly because even the people here - http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html - who refer to the "IPCC. and its cohort of alarmists" appear to have concluded in 2004, using USHCN data, that temperatures had gone up by just over 1C in ND since 1900. That seems to be based on taking a simple average of all the available temperature stations in the state so the method is less sophisticated than the GISTEMP analysis. In any case, if even dedicated skeptics of global warming agree with GISTEMP that the temperature has gone up in ND by more than 1C since 1890-1900, then I can't see why I should believe that the GISTEMP numbers are somehow called into question even if you're correct about the trend over the past two decades. Or were you driving at some point other than to suggest that the GISTEMP results are untrustworthy? All of which leaves aside the fact that North Dakota is quite a small part of the globe.Response:[DB] I have looked at Camburn's claims in his comment and have found them...lacking in accuracy.
-
J. Bob at 13:34 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
dhogaza @ 254 I was carrying scaddenp @ 246 view to it’s logical conclusion. You might want to check that post. Sphaerica @ 246& 232, I simply asked if you posted some of your personal analysis to back up the opinion you present, like I did a J. Bob @ 52. I take it your position is that man (via CO2) is the primary cause of the global temperature increase, in recent, say 50 years or what ever. So I’m simply asking if you personally can produce some analysis ( like a graph(s)) showing a strong correlation of temperature (i.e. accelerating global temperature increase) & CO2, using the longest (150+ year ) reputable temperature records. That would help to bring me out of the skeptic camp. -
Jigoro Kano at 13:34 PM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Alexandre @ 262 My apologies, do to the redistributive context of my post, I thought you were speaking of indigent mitigation. First off, I do not view anthropogenic CO2 as a problem. So imposing legislation to fix an non-problem, seems a bit ridiculous. More importantly, cap and tax will only enrich the politicians and well connected. If the goal is to reduce CO2, the answer can only come from fossil fuels and oil in particular. No other fuel source has nearly the power density, save nuclear. So although a internal combustion engine is only ~20% efficient, it can produce several hundred time the volume/work as a battery. Increase that efficiency by five or even ten percent, US CO2 emission will plummet. It is this goal which enviromentalist should pursue.
Prev 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 Next
