Recent Comments

Prev  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  1726  1727  1728  1729  1730  1731  1732  1733  1734  1735  Next

Comments 86351 to 86400:

86351. chris at 00:37 AM on 8 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       It's been questioned what FKM's data might have looked like if they'd included 2010 melt. I decided to spend two hours of my life finding out. Here' FKM2011 figure 2 pinched from Rabett Run's blog: It's not totally obvious what FKM actually did, but I found I could reproduce their data fit pretty well by using a 10 year running average with a five year forward shift. (in other words "year 2009" is defined by the average melt index of the years 2000-2009 inclusive (if you think about it that's really the average of 2005 and the 4 years previous and subsequent). Note that this is not quite identical to FKM Figure 2 for 2 reasons: 1. I determined the values by eyeballing the data points(think I did a pretty good job - blew it up large on lined paper) 2. FKM2011's fit is to the modelled data right through 2009. My fit is a splice (my bad) that includes the modelled fit through 1978, and the empirical data from 1979-2009. I did this because I simply couldn't see the white circles undeneath the blue ones in FKM's figure 2. However, it's somewhat preferable since it is a comparison of the directly measured empirical data from 1979 with the earlier data. I also omitted pre-1840 data. Note how the fit to the empirical data seems to lie rather low, relative to the points. That's because of a rising data set, a 10-year running average has the effect of delaying/suppressing the rise. Here's what it looks like with an estimate of the 2010 data added. I assumed here that the 2010 melt index is the same as the 2007 (it seems to be close to that – see Figure 2 in Daniel’s top post): Here’s a curve fit that is really more scientifically-justified (5 year non-trailing running average). Since it’s a 5 year average you lose 2 years front and back; however the data isn’t rather foolishly lagged!). Not saying this couldn't be done better. However it helps in discussions of what the effect of including/leaving out 2010 might be expected to be. To my mind the smoothing usd by FMK isn't too clever but at least they were quite clear how they did this, and the reviewer gave them a pass....
86352. Daniel Bailey at 00:26 AM on 8 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       @ michael sweet Interesting dilemma. I would tell them: 1. They will not know the day nor the hour of His return, but are commanded to be vigilant 2. Likewise, they are to be good stewards, as the Earth has been given into their care as a trust. Since the poor and the weak (a population segment specifically given into their care) are most likely to suffer under the impacts of rising GHGs, any mitigation of release of those gases will also help mitigate their effects. HTH, The Yooper
86353. KR at 00:22 AM on 8 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       neil - Agreed, multiple equilibria are very possible. In fact, that was discussed here in the What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like thread. One important point about the dynamics, though - many times a particular equilibrium (a local minima in terms of the N-dimensional state space of the system) can be quite robust, stable through a fair amount of peturbation yet remaining in that region. Small perturbations shift the system a bit, but it tends to return to the local minima. Only upon a very large perturbation can such a system be moved over a ridge to another valley in the state space, another equilibrium, where it again will be stable until a large perturbation shifts valleys again. The thread I referenced shows that for a very simple model - there are three different equilibria for a single value of CO2, but the shift to a different valley of stability regarding CO2 concentrations takes a very large perturbation. I find it very interesting that this has now been shown for more complete models of the climate, although given state space behavior it's not entirely surprising. At the edges of the equilibria are the phase changes - glaciation, melt of the icecaps, severe thermohaline shifts, clathrate release, and so on. Large perturbations to watch out for...
86354. Martin at 23:51 PM on 7 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       Agnostic, having followed your link to Hansen's paper and read it, I have a few questions which you might be able to answer. Hansen makes a number of statements supporting his hypothesis that a sea level rise of 5m by the end of this centurey is plausible. Which of these statements is not close to the climate science mainstream? 1. The sea level rise is accelerating. 2. The increase in sea level rise is exponential. 3. The ice mass change and the ice mass change rate of Greenland and the Antarctic are compatible with a doubling period of 10 years. 4. Ocean cores are a much better guide to global mean temperatures than ice cores. 5. The Eemian and the Holsteinian interclacials were less than 1°C (probably only a few tenths) warmer than the peak holocene global temperature.
86355. Bob Lacatena at 23:41 PM on 7 May 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       On snow extent, four more interesting graphics, among others, from the Rutgers U. Global Snow Lab: Spring NH Snow Extent Winter NH Snow Extent Eurasia Spring Snow Extent North America Spring Snow Extent
86356. Bob Lacatena at 23:36 PM on 7 May 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       27, Ken,

       Just think of the INCREASE in albedo for all that record area of snow white snow covering the NH areas for a few extra weeks. Could lead to an unnatural cooling.

       Unlikely. First, extra snow on top of snow already there will not change albedo. Second, the snow exists primarily in the winter months when insolation is already low (much shorter days, low angle of incidence). Third, the extended snow cover could well be offset or even more than offset by earlier springs (i.e. it melts away sooner, and snow that was usually there at more northern latitudes also melts away sooner), or by later winters (i.e. what snow usually arrives does not accumulate on average until later in the winter). Fourth, snow that falls much further south doesn't last long, because temperatures there do not usually remain low for extended periods of time. Much of this snow won't last weeks, let alone into the spring. Certainly, I think it would make an interesting study, and a small negative feedback is possible. Without actual numbers and specifics I'd leave this in the "interesting" category... You can see the Winter (low insolation) versus early Spring (higher insolation and less snow cover, not more) using the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab. Compare November and March (less lower latitude snow) to December through February (more snow on top of snow, or snow reaching lower latitudes). ...but it's hardly going to reverse climate change, or have much impact on total climate sensitivity, which is founded on a lot more than a nit-picking accounting of every individual positive and negative feedback.
86357. RSVP at 23:24 PM on 7 May 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       KR 423 "Your opinion holds proof against both quantitative and qualitative evidence to the contrary." This discussion is only about two quantities. The amount of the Sun's energy (which is unchanging), and civilization's waste heat, which has only been on the increase over the last 150 years. You've consistently displayed what I consider a cardinal sin of intellect, not thinking for yourself, that is, uncritically parrotting GHG doctrine. It is one thing for temperature distribution to possibly change, and a very different thing for the total entropy of the Earth to go up or down. Since you dont appear to understand this fundamental difference (which has its basis in the second law of thermodynamics, not my "opinion"), it is quite understandable that all you can do is repeat yourself "over and over".
86358. michael sweet at 23:04 PM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       An article in my local paper claimed that over 40% of people in the USA believe that Christ will come and the world will end before 2050. Why should we take action to protect the Earth if it is going to end so soon anyway? How can you argue with that?
       Response:

       [DB] You should tell them that the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences has just issued a report, citing the moral imperative before society to properly address climate change.  News release here.  The report itself is here.

       Declaration by the Working Group

       We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses.

       We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.

       By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.

       We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

86359. Bob Lacatena at 23:03 PM on 7 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       Agnostic, I think you should certainly correct your post. You present the 5m "prediction" from Hansen and Sato 2011 as if it is such, when it is nothing more than an extreme upper limit... and an outlier, much as the upper limit on warming set by the IPCC is around 9.5˚C. Statements like yours can very easily be misinterpreted and result in a wild flurry of useless activity (as Jesus and I have done). In my book, it does qualify as alarmist, in that it presents the extremes of the science without clearly explaining the logic, or clarifying the middle ground (i.e. 0.8 to 2m sea level rise by 2100). Again, the actual, relevant text from Hansen and Sato 2011:

       Alley (2010) reviewed projections of sea level rise by 2100, showing several clustered around 1 m and one outlier at 5 m, all of which he approximated as linear. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007) suggested was possible, given the assumption of a typical IPCC's BAU climate forcing scenario. Alley's graph is comforting, making the suggestion of a possible 5 m sea level rise seem to be an improbable outlier, because, in addition to disagreeing with all other projections, a half-meter sea level rise in the next 10 years is preposterous. However, the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen (2005, 2007) argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible, pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095. Non-linear ice sheet disintegration can be slowed by negative feedbacks. Pfeffer et al. (2008) argue that kinematic constraints make sea level rise of more than 2 m this century physically untenable, and they contend that such a magnitude could occur only if all variables quickly accelerate to extremely high limits. They conclude that more plausible but still accelerated conditions could lead to sea level rise of 80 cm by 2100.

       I'd also point out that Hansen's Eemian statements are far less dramatic than is implied by the conclusion of this post. There are two important points there. The first is that the peak Eemian temperatures were only 1˚C above those of the Holocene, so reaching them is not going to be all that hard given current estimates of climate sensitivity. A second important point, relevant to sea level rise, is that sea levels during the Eemian were 5m higher than today, another indicator that if we allow temperatures to reach those levels, then at some point (not at all necessarily by 2100) sea levels could well reach those same heights.
86360. Bob Lacatena at 22:53 PM on 7 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       38, Jesús, Apologies. I misunderstood what you had written, thinking that "this blog" referred to whatever blog you were quoting, instead of "this blog" meaning Agnostic's post here. The confusion was entirely mine, and I apologize (although . On the issue of RC, however, I'd point out that they have pretty much posted everything short of an actual, explicit, unequivocal refutation of Hansen's 2007 statement. How Much Will Sea Level Rise (Sept 2008) Ups and downs of sea level projections (August 2009) Again, let me point to one line from the Sept 2008 post (emphasis mine):

       We stress that no-one (and we mean no-one) has published an informed estimate of more than 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100.

       I'm pretty sure that the crew at RC has read Hansen 2007, and maybe spoken with him from time to time at lunch, so I think it's pretty safe to say that this statement includes Hansen 2007, and that RC has not been silent on this. They later state:

       The nearest thing I can find is Jim Hansen who states that “it [is] almost inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale”. But that is neither a specific prediction for 2100, nor necessarily one that is out of line with the Pfeffer et al’s bounds. Thus, this media reporting stands as a classic example of how scientists get caught up trying to counter supposed myths but end up perpetuating others, and miss an opportunity to actually educate the public.

       And from the August 2009 post:

       And there are arguments (e.g. by Jim Hansen) that over time the ice loss may be faster than the linear approach suggests, once the ice gets wet and soft and starts sliding.

       Again, I would argue that his statement and his logic is being woefully misinterpreted. It is not a prediction of 5 meter sea level rise, it is an explanation as to why 1-meter sea level rise and lower is unlikely, and a warning against putting too much emphasis on linear sea level rise projections. Hansen admits that he has no firm ground for a real prediction, and so he doesn't make one: he restricts his statement to the more vague "meters" meaning more than 1 and less than a whole lot.
86361. Ken Lambert at 22:23 PM on 7 May 2011
       Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
       If the facts change and the measurements are robust - of course I would change my opinion. We are all searching for the truth here. My constant theme is that the AGW case is not as strong as projected by the 'enthusists' precisely because the measurement is deficient. 'Correcting' the CERES imbalance to match the theory and calling that supporting evidence is not science. Elements of the theory also have wide error bars - eg. clouds and feedbacks. I am not claiming that there are not bogus arguments on the 'denier' side as well. Of course there are. However two wrongs don't make a right.
86362. batsvensson at 22:00 PM on 7 May 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       Errata: "I do not see what relevance this comment has to what I wrote."
86363. batsvensson at 21:54 PM on 7 May 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       "Moderator Response: [DB] Where I live (in the northern snow belts of the Great Lakes of North America) snowfall totals have been down significantly for the last several years. So increases are not necessarily global or even regional." I do not see what the relevance if this comment is to what I wrote. And why is it made as a moderator response?
86364. batsvensson at 21:51 PM on 7 May 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       @JMurphy: You wrote "batsvensson, I haven't a clue where you get the "personal attacks" belief from, but if that is what you see, it isn't what I intended. Is English your first language ? If not, perhaps that is where the difficulty is. Anyway, no personal attacks intended. " You claim that I had not read more than "the head lines" and also suggested that I lack proper knowledge. I am puzzled about how you possible can have any knowledge of this? To fence of my comment you then suggest I do not have proper understanding of English. These are all comment about my person and not the subject at hand or do you disagree with me on this?
86365. mspelto at 21:44 PM on 7 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       Science is built slowly one step at a time building upon the references which are your foundation. In the case of FKM the lack of consideration of obvious key references such as Wake et al. (2009) and Hall et al (2008) indicate a poor foundation that allows an armchair scientist to offer up an appealing data analysis, but one that is not really cognizant of the science reality that has been developed. Stephen Mosher advocates for open science data. I had a paper published in the discussion section of the Cryosphere yesterday. At this site all reviews and author responses are public and the paper may or may not end up being published. It does have to an editors review to be published in the forum. Do I feel compelled to initially share all the data gained from the field work that is the ground truth? This paper was based to a large extent on insight gained from living for six months on the glacier, with the longest period without a shower being 42 days, there was no water to be had with a snowbank inside our living quarters. An armchair scientist may want complete access to hard earned data such as this, but the actual researcher has earned first crack at it.
86366. angusmac at 21:25 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
       Dana@73, "Your claimed dramatic drop in temperature projections is purely imagined." I disagree. It is not imagined it is fact. Let me explain as follows. In this blog you compare Hansen (1988) with Lindzen (1989). What Hansen and Lindzen said then is particularly relevant. Hansen (1988) in his congressional testimony described Scenario A as “business as usual” (see below). In effect, Hansen told Congress in 1988 that the temperature anomaly for 2019 would be circa 1.57°C. This is a fact. Later (2006), Hansen was economical with the truth when he re-worded his 1988 congressional testimony to be Scenario A, "was described as on the high side of reality." Dana the facts are that the 2019 temperature anomaly has been amended downwards from 1.57°C in Hansen (1988) to 0.69°C in this blog. Furthermore, your adjusted Scenario B has reduced the Hansen's Scenario B anomaly from 1.10°C to 0.69°C but you neglected to mention this fact. Surely this temperature drop can be described as dramatic? Finally, I would be pleased if I could have a response to my question in angusmac@70. Do you have a problem with declaring that your adjusted Scenario B is only slightly above Hansen's zero-emissions Scenario C? 0.69°C for your adjusted Scenario B and 0.61°C for Hansen's original Scenario C seem pretty close to me.
86367. Jesús Rosino at 21:16 PM on 7 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       Sphaerica,

       "you were just blindly parroting what you read on some blog somewhere (and yet you can't provide a link to what you read, and a Google search finds nothing)"

       As I've already told you before, I've read it here, Sphaerica, in "this blog post" you and I are supposed to be commenting on; you can scroll up and read it. Do you want me to link to the web page you are already reading and commenting on? I'm NOT atacking RC at all, quite on the contrary, they are the reference regarding climate change, and what I've said is that (for that same reason) the fact that they've just ignored this paper by Hansen & Sato (and Hansen 2007) on SLR suggests that it has no merit whatsoever (I'm with RC, not atacking them). Scientists as James Annan and William Connolley see it this way and say everybody else does (linked above). Your citations from RC on SLR are far from contradicting this. My point (from the very beginning) is that Hansen hasn't been able to persuade any scientist that more than 2 m. (up to 5m!) SLR in this century is a credible possibility. Your verbosity hasn't shown otherwise. Direct citations from Hansen and Sato 2011 that aren't shared by their colleagues:

       "BAU scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007) suggested was possible, given the assumption of a typical IPCC's BAU climate forcing scenario."

86368. Ken Lambert at 21:06 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Marcus #95 "Shows what you know Ken. Grid interactive PV's have a generation cost of about $0.33c/kw-h, even with the application of an unnecessarily harsh Discount Rate (much harsher than the ones applied to new coal-fired power stations). Even though this cost is much higher than the supposed $0.06c/kw-h for generating electricity from coal, it is *not* that different to the $0.26c/kw-h I currently pay for electricity from fossil fuels." Whereever you are Marcus - tell us what the life cycle costs of coal fired generation are compared with PV Solar. That includes the capital cost of the plant, fuel costs, maintenance and running costs divided by the total energy generated over the plant life.
86369. Ken Lambert at 21:00 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Marcus I must be in a parallel universe lately. Apart from the personal derogation: "Your comprehension skills seem awfully weak if you haven't figured that part out yet!" and "Shows what you know Ken" and "I've spent the better part of 15 years studying the history of the electricity industry, Ken, & the only one displaying ignorance here is *you*." Such comments made by me about you would surely have been snipped by moderators. I am happy to engage you on the numbers Marcus, not florid claims about 'subsidies' by governments who seem to be hell bent on helping out vested interests in the 'fossil fuel' industries rather than serving the people. That alone is a conspiracy theory of sorts - and accusations of conspiracy are banned on this site.
86370. angusmac at 20:44 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
       Moderator@69, a temperature trend of 0.26°C/decade pre-2000 and 0.15°C/decade post-2000 (GISS LOTI) is a dogleg. Your last chart also shows the dogleg with figures of 0.02°C/year for start dates of 1990 and earlier and 0.01°C/year for start dates of 2000 and later. A renowned climate scientist (Hansen, 2006) stated that we should be able to distinguish between Scenarios B and C within a decade (see below): Within a decade is by 2015. However, if you consider this period to be statistically insignificant then I suggest that you argue with Hansen. Incidentally the no-increase-in-emissions Scenario C gives an even hotter decade than real-world "hottest decade on record" (GISS LOTI).
       Response:

       [DB] This has been clarified for you multiple times on several threads.  Your persistence and determination in maintaining your narrative in spite of all evidence and physics to the contrary is admirable, but misplaced. 

       I don't mind continually reinventing the wheel to enable learning, but I draw the line at reinventing the flat tire.

86371. alan_marshall at 20:03 PM on 7 May 2011
       Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
       John, Here is an illustration that might be helpful at the book launches in Sydney and Canberra: Q. How many times could Sydney Harbour be filled using the ice that melts and is lost from Greenland in just one year? A. More than 500 times! Greenland ice lost in 2009 = 286 x 10^9 tonnes = 286 x 10^12 litres Sydney Harbour = 560 GL = 560 x 10^9 litres = 0.56 x 10^12 litres Ratio = 286 / 0.56 = 511
86372. scaddenp at 19:50 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       Completely stuffed that post... Trying again. That is an interesting paper Neil. Coincidentally, someone else I think has asked about at RealClimate I have posted the link to this paper. I would say stay tuned.Phil
86373. Barry Brook at 19:14 PM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       Hayden, when you say:

       The technological solutions exist, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, and we discuss these. We also discuss ‘false’ solutions such as nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, which involve their own denial of problems.

       ... are you trying to be ironic, or insulting, or are you simply misinformed?
86374. neil at 17:56 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       scaddenp @51 & KR @50 Thanks. Those were interesting discussions to read. I believe they confirm, as I was trying to point out, that there is indeed chaotic behaviour in climate models themselves. When one takes long averages of climate model output it does not appear chaotic - by rather reflects the forced response of the system - I agree. That is why climate models have performed well at predicting the forced response to CO2 so far. This success does not discount the possibility that the climate system could "flip" into a totally separate equilibrium, given enough forcing. This is the idea of abrupt climate change, and although the chances of this may be very small - it certainly should not be ruled out as a possibility. This type of chaotic behaviour actually exists throughout a hierarchy of models: Stommel's classic analytical model of the thermohaline circulation is very simple, yet demonstrates mutiple equilibria are possible for the oceanic circulation. People in the field have sometimes questioned whether this behaviour would exist in a complex-model: The new results from the MITgcm team confirm that it does. The MIT experiments use a state-of-the-art fully coupled AO-GCM, including a dynamic-thermodynamic sea-ice model. The model is therefore similar to any AR4 model in terms of the ocean-atmosphere dynamics (it had a simplified representation of the continents though). (The MIT study by Ferreira et al. ) I'm not trying to argue the predictability of the forced response to CO2 - its clear the models are capable of that. I'm suggesting that there are good reasons to carefully consider what uncertainties exist - because we may have underestimate the climate risks associated with our CO2 forcing.
86375. NickWare at 16:46 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Looking forward to the book launch in Canberra on the 16th. I'm trying to get some notorious local deniers along - but they're not biting.
86376. Mike Palin at 16:19 PM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       Some form of engineered carbon capture and storage - organic or otherwise - will need to be instituted at some point in the future even if we manage to slow the accelerating rate of GHG emissions. To ignore this reality is folly. Yes, the concept most commonly talked about is in connection with "clean coal" - an overstatement to be sure, but one that at least recognises ordinary coal is dirty! The magnitude of warming "in the pipeline" is extremely serious and getting more so every day.
86377. Riduna at 14:52 PM on 7 May 2011
       Brisbane book launch of 'Climate Change Denial'
       Congratulations John Is it true that you are going to be interviewed on the ABC's The Science Program about "Climate Change Denial" ?
       Response: Your sources are well placed :-)
       
       Except we already recorded the interview with Robyn Williams, just after the book launch (he had a mobile recording studio with him). I just looked up airing time, the Science Show just aired 12pm on ABC Radio today and apparently airs again on Monday 7pm.
       UPDATE: just got an email from Robyn Williams, our interview airs on the Science Show on ABC Radio at 12pm Saturday 14 May.
86378. Marcus at 14:49 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Additionally, from what I've read, depending on what you count as a subsidy, the US government pays out between $6 billion & $40 billion per annum to the entire fossil fuel industry. Globally, governments gave out more than US$300 billion in 2009 alone-compared to only US$19 billion for the far less mature Renewable energy industry. Does that sound fair to you Eric? Especially given the environmental cost that we're going to have to foot in the future, I'd say that's an emphatic *no*.
86379. Marcus at 14:43 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Well Eric, according to what I've read the amount of US subsidies for the oil & gas industry alone rank around US$10 billion per annum. Other reports suggest that simply cutting-not completely removing-the subsidies for Coal & Oil will save about $40 billion over a roughly 8 year period (so around $5 billion per annum). So based on the stuff you've shown me, I'd argue that taxes-subsidies, in the US at least, leave State & Federal Governments *out of pocket*. Given that its usually Governments who need to clean up the messes left behind by the fossil fuel industries when the resources dry up, I'd say that the fossil fuel industry gets a very good deal.
86380. Wibble at 14:29 PM on 7 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
       And another strange 'argument' - URL to http://columbia.edu/blahblah ...
86381. Wibble at 14:26 PM on 7 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
       Another comment: there's an odd 'argument' listed that I don't think should be there, text begins "OK! First of all I hope my observation won't be deemed friv..." (search the list for 'OK!' and you'll find it).
86382. Wibble at 13:52 PM on 7 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
       Nice tool! :) Suggestion for improvement: make it easier to input multiple arguments. A particular annoyance I'm experiencing is that after input of one argument, the list resets to the top, which means labourious scrolling down to where I was (with the entire list of 450-odd arguments, this becomes increasingly tedious; no fun -- the tool needs to be FUN to encourage use!) Possible solutions: 1) when a single argument is submitted, store current list index so as to avoid resetting to the beginning every time 2) allow multiple argument submission with (Windoze) standard Ctrl+click
86383. KR at 13:30 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       scaddenp - Agreed; those are well written, certainly better than I can do late on a Friday night. Ed Loretz was truly a genius.
86384. Eric (skeptic) at 13:28 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Marcus, thanks for the rapid response. Your point does remain, but your argument is not strengthened by leaving out the money flow directly back to the government. We get lease payments in exchange for the public or formerly public fossil fuels in the ground. We don'y get payments for use of wind and sunshine. We add production taxes like we add sales or excise taxes, for revenue purposes Income tax is irrelevant in this argument. I pay auto excise tax mainly in proportion to the services required for that property (emergency services and some road maintenance). The fossil fuel companies pay production taxes for no comparable services or benefits.
86385. Marcus at 13:25 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       "When you talk of PV Solar being economical in boutique applications now - that is not new. PV Solar has been the best choise for powering remote area small scale applications for many years." Shows what you know Ken. Grid interactive PV's have a generation cost of about $0.33c/kw-h, even with the application of an unnecessarily harsh Discount Rate (much harsher than the ones applied to new coal-fired power stations). Even though this cost is much higher than the supposed $0.06c/kw-h for generating electricity from coal, it is *not* that different to the $0.26c/kw-h I currently pay for electricity from fossil fuels. Of course, the latter cost is predicted to rise over the coming decades due to increases in fuel & grid maintenance costs, whilst the cost of the former is expected to continue to fall as the cost of panels drops, the efficiency increases & the amount of power that can be stored increases. So you see, Ken, this is yet another bogus argument on your part.
86386. Marcus at 13:18 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Eric, plenty of businesses & industries pay State & Federal governments money-in taxes & leases-even when they don't receive a single cent in tax-payer funded subsidies. I don't receive any money from my government, so maybe I shouldn't have to pay income tax? No, you don't agree with that assessment? So why should the fossil fuel industry be somehow exempt? My point still remains-that the fossil fuel industry is supposedly a highly profitable & mature industry, & so does not really *deserve* such large subsidies in the current age. Subsidies are only really meant to be available to help industries get off the ground, yet the fossil fuel lobby routinely decries such subsidies for the renewable energy sector whilst still quite happy to take money from the government themselves. That's hypocrisy, pure & simple.
86387. johnd at 13:17 PM on 7 May 2011
       CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
       chris at 18:51 PM, it's hardly up to the present time given the study period was only until 2008. Also considering the study supposedly focuses on Global grain production of the four major grains, wheat, maize, rice and soybeans, there are several major provisos that has to be taken into account, apart from the fact it is all based on modeling trying to tie production directly to temperature. Firstly the positive and negative impacts on rice and soybeans apparently balances out, so nothing there. Then America is noted as an exception as yields there and several other places have instead risen as indicated by the rather unscientific map accompanying the Scientific American article that fails to include Australia, making the global climate change impact on global cereal crops somewhat less than global in nature. One is then left wondering how the periodic overproduction of grains in the study period were accounted for. All this finally seems to fly in the face of the fact that nearly 3 times as much cereal grain is presently being produced from the same acreage as 50 years ago, and agricultural analysts believe that this can be repeated over the next 50 years.
86388. Eric (skeptic) at 13:07 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       #91 Marcus, if you ended fossil fuel subsidies, would you also end state production taxes (e.g. 7.5% http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/nat_gas/) and federal royalties (e.g. 12.5% http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2695&type=0&sequence=2)? If you think that question is off topic, that is fine by me, but your analyses appear to ignore some revenues when you only talk about subsidies. Also it would be good to have subsidies compared per kWh instead of gross amounts.
86389. scaddenp at 13:03 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       Aside from KR's answer, you might like to look at Realclimate here and here for comments from the people that do the modelling
86390. Marcus at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       "What technologies were available 100 years ago for large scale central generation? Answer - fossil fuel and hydro. In the absence of hydro resources and the availablity of relatively cheap coal - the choice of was one of necessity - coal." Again, at what point did I *ever* say that hydro & coal shouldn't have been invested in at the start of the 20th century Ken? Your comprehension skills seem awfully weak if you haven't figured that part out yet! My point is that (a) as a mature technology & (b) given what we know about the environmental damage it does, it no longer makes sense to keep funneling tax-payer money into the coal-fired electricity sector, especially when other, viable technologies now exist which-with a far smaller amount of government support-can produce a significant proportion of our electricity in a cost-competitive fashion. Of course, this fact flies in the face of the desire of people such as yourself who'd rather we continue our unhealthy addiction to a non-renewable source of electricity.
86391. KR at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       neil - In terms of multiple equilibria, when those have not been observed in nature, I would suspect that either there are some issues with the model, or that if accurate the climate may be moving to a transitional state, such as severe changes in the thermohaline circulation. I don't know the particular models you mentioned - I cannot opine as to which this might be. Although you seem to be stating that these are fairly simple models... If multiple models show several equilibria, given different modeling criteria, complexity, and assumptions, I would watch that particular aspect of climate rather carefully for change.
86392. MattJ at 12:43 PM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       @cloa513- You offer the thin veneer of a mere appearance of being scientific. But in reality, your entire 'analysis' here is extremely unscientfic. It is not true that "global climate science is not mature enough", it is not true that their evidence is 'rubbery'. The detailed proofs of these two assertions are all over this website, so I will not recapitulate them here.
86393. Marcus at 12:42 PM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       "That type of comment betrays a lack of understanding of the history of electricity generation in Australia and most of the first world." I've spent the better part of 15 years studying the history of the electricity industry, Ken, & the only one displaying ignorance here is *you*. When the first coal-fired power plants came online, in the US, the cost of power was about $3/kw-h in today's money. It really wasn't until the post-war era that the relatively "cheap" fossil fuel energy we know today became available. Yet, in spite of this, the global fossil fuel energy sector *still* receives enormous direct & indirect subsidies courtesy of the government, subsidies which dwarf those received by the *entire* renewable energy sector (not just PV's). As much as you desperately deny the truth, Ken, grid-interactive PV's, Wind, Solar Thermal bio-gas & Tidal Power are already cost-competitive with natural gas & coal, & are cheaper than nuclear (in spite of receiving equally large subsidies from governments) in a shorter time frame, & with far less dependence on tax-payer funded subsidies. So, in closing Ken, I'll take you more seriously on the subsidy issue only if you admit that the fossil fuel industry should have *all* its current subsidies stripped away. Otherwise I can only assume (correctly) that your real fear re: renewable energy subsidies is that it will eventually make them *more* cost-competitive than coal or natural gas-& thus force their demise. I'm afraid that your latest argument simply reveals your pro-fossil fuel bias Ken.
86394. KR at 12:41 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       neil - The difference between a chaotic initial value system (weather) and a boundary limited system (climate) is the difference between trajectory details and trajectory averages. Weather is highly susceptible to initial conditions, and predicting weather and it's details (rain or not, where will the pressure systems go?) requires detailed information and a lot of computing power to predict even a few days out. This is a very hard problem, as even a small error or approximation of initial conditions will inevitably cause the prediction to deviate from reality a few days out. Climate, however, is a boundary condition system. We don't know what days in March 2012 it will rain, but we can predict even this far out what the average temperature is likely to be with high certainty. When a particular bit of weather departs from the averages, it will (statistically) return to the average, and spend some time on the other side as well. So why is climate a boundary limited system? It depends on total energies. If energy leaving the climate exceeds energy coming in, we'll get colder, and less heat will leave - back to the average as determined by the insolation and thermal radiation. If we have a hot season, the climate will radiate above the average, and we'll cool down. The weather will vary around those averages in a difficult to predict way, but it will vary around the averages determined by energy conservation! And those averages are what climate predictions are about. Boundary conditions drive any deviations back to the averages for that system. So while we cannot state whether it will be sunny on your birthday - we can still note that winters will be colder than summers, and that reducing the amount of energy leaving the climate at any temperature (with GHG's) will make the average temperatures higher. --- In terms of modeling - regardless of the initial conditions of a global climate model (GCM), it will move fairly quickly to the averages determined by energy flows and conservation. The further you have run a GCM, the less sensitive to initial conditions. This is the reverse of weather predictions, as your prediction of detailed weather, while still within a few standard deviations of the averages, may be anywhere around that average once you've run your prediction for a while.
86395. neil at 12:16 PM on 7 May 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       @scaddenp I don't doubt the utility of climate models. However here, and elsewhere you have said that the mathematical systems representing weather (in GCMs) formally display chaos, but that climate models are not chaotic. Since the mathematical system of equations in weather and climate models are practically identical, I don't see any reason why chaotic behaviour should be formally excluded from the latter. The only difference is the length of the integration. Perhaps you can explain what you mean. As a practical example, in the UVic Earth Systems Climate Model we can show sensitive dependence to initial conditions for the MOC strength in long equilibrium simulations (i.e. multiple equilibria in an intermediate complexity climate model in 3000 year long integrations). The MITgcm, set up as a fully coupled AO-GCM with simple geography, has also demonstrated multiple equilbria ( see MITgcm website). There is also a Journal of Climate paper submitted on this. So, it seems to me that chaotic behaviour certainly is permitted by these mathematical systems (climate models). Whether this holds in the real climate system is another question. To me this does not imply that climate models are useless - rather that they warn us that abrupt climate change is a possibility (even if the chances are low).
86396. y-not at 10:56 AM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       I suggest cloa513 may benefit from looking at "scientific method" and "hypothesis testing" on wikipedia or elsewhere, to understand the role of hypothesis testing, statisitics, and uncertainty in the development of scientific "knowledge".
86397. Steve Bloom at 10:38 AM on 7 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       And here he is still at it after the second outbreak:

       "That's as big as it gets; that occurs rarely in the history books," climatologist John Christy said. "It's one of those systems that only comes along every few decades."

       Hmm, you'd hardly know that this was a record event. Headline:

       April's tornado outbreaks the two largest in history

       If Christy ever visits Oz, perhaps someone should take him to see the black swans.
86398. Alex C at 10:37 AM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       There is also the "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" argument, which covers this topic too and gives links to the inquiries or reports.
86399. Alex C at 10:35 AM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       chrisd3 @#1 - the EPA looked into the issue as well. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf...
86400. Robert Murphy at 10:26 AM on 7 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       "What a load of rubbish- true science comes to proof" No science comes to absolute proof. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

Prev  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  1726  1727  1728  1729  1730  1731  1732  1733  1734  1735  Next