Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Next
Comments 86551 to 86600:
-
RSVP at 23:24 PM on 7 May 2011Waste 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". -
michael sweet at 23:04 PM on 7 May 2011Q 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.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:03 PM on 7 May 2011Why 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:53 PM on 7 May 2011Why 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. -
Ken Lambert at 22:23 PM on 7 May 2011Trenberth 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. -
batsvensson at 22:00 PM on 7 May 2011Video 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." -
batsvensson at 21:54 PM on 7 May 2011Video 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? -
batsvensson at 21:51 PM on 7 May 2011Video 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? -
mspelto at 21:44 PM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, 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. -
angusmac at 21:25 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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.
-
Jesús Rosino at 21:16 PM on 7 May 2011Why 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."
-
Ken Lambert at 21:06 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Ken Lambert at 21:00 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
angusmac at 20:44 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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.
-
alan_marshall at 20:03 PM on 7 May 2011Brisbane 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 -
scaddenp at 19:50 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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 -
Barry Brook at 19:14 PM on 7 May 2011Q 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? -
neil at 17:56 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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. -
NickWare at 16:46 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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. -
Mike Palin at 16:19 PM on 7 May 2011Q 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. -
Riduna at 14:52 PM on 7 May 2011Brisbane 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. -
Marcus at 14:49 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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*. -
Marcus at 14:43 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Wibble at 14:29 PM on 7 May 2011Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
And another strange 'argument' - URL to http://columbia.edu/blahblah ... -
Wibble at 14:26 PM on 7 May 2011Skeptical 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). -
Wibble at 13:52 PM on 7 May 2011Skeptical 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 -
KR at 13:30 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:28 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Marcus at 13:25 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Marcus at 13:18 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
johnd at 13:17 PM on 7 May 2011CO2 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:07 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
scaddenp at 13:03 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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 -
Marcus at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
KR at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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. -
MattJ at 12:43 PM on 7 May 2011Q 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. -
Marcus at 12:42 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
KR at 12:41 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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. -
neil at 12:16 PM on 7 May 2011Climate 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). -
y-not at 10:56 AM on 7 May 2011Q 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". -
Steve Bloom at 10:38 AM on 7 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Alex C at 10:37 AM on 7 May 2011Q 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. -
Alex C at 10:35 AM on 7 May 2011Q 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... -
Robert Murphy at 10:26 AM on 7 May 2011Q 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. -
cloa513 at 10:17 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
What a load of rubbish- true science comes to proof- not absolute proof with some uncertainly- relative high percentage not the vague qualitive evidence (they put numbers but those only really descriptors) that many climate scientist put as evidence. Nearly every science (chemistry, physics, medicine, material science) has to be checked all the line- only so-called climate scientist accept such rubbery evidence as some of proof. They are so not skeptical. The socalled global climate science is not mature enough to come up with anything like certainty. -
neil at 10:15 AM on 7 May 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
@CBDunkerson Thanks. I understand the concept of greenhouse gas induced radiative forcing. I note that in Arrhenius (1896) there is the prediction of reduced DTR, which has been confirmed experimentally. I submit to you that more recent research (like Stone and Weaver (2002, 2003) ) has shown that water vapour and soil moisture have an overwhelming effect on DTR - its not simply a direct radiative effect of anthropogenic CO2. So, it may be wise to note that (although I accept increased water vapour may be attributed to anthropogenic CO2). As for the ocean heat. Of course increasing ocean heat content itself does not prove anthropogenic warming - so if that's how my line read I apologize. The strength of the argument lies in that there is a measured decrease in outgoing long wave radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere - and a concomitant measured increase in downward longwave radiation at the earths surface - corresponding to the CO2 absorption bands in the spectrum. That is the anthropogenic link - and yields a radiation imbalance or anthropogenic radiative forcing if you will (with some error). The ocean heat content increase IMPLIES a radiative forcing which is in line (though smaller) than the observed radiative forcing, and also in line with that predicted by GCMs doing global warming experiments. Essentially my point is, the Ocean Heat Content Anomaly is a far more robust measure of global warming than the surface temperature record, because the ocean absorbs most of the heat. -
Steve Bloom at 10:11 AM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Self-pwnage from Christy (NPR interview recorded in between the tornado outbreaks):WERTHEIMER: So, John Christy, we're looking at the wild weather continuing? Mr. CHRISTY: The wild weather is part of what happens in the United States in spring. I would certainly say somewhere in the United States, you will see some more wild weather coming this year. However, I think the tornado outbreak that we experienced last weekend, you know, is a fairly unusual event. You just don't see those happening more than once a year. (emphasis added)
Oops. So, in addition to his long record of poor scholarship, Christy neatly demonstrates his poor physical intuition. Unfortunately, as a reliable contrarian he is as sh*t to the media flies. -
chrisd3 at 09:48 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Nice piece. Question: Apparently I'm missing a "Climategate" inquiry. Dr. Washington mentioned that there have been eight inquiries, but I'm only aware of seven: - UK Parliament - Oxburgh - Russell - Penn State (two inquiries) - UK Government - US Commerce Dept What inquiry am I missing? -
Albatross at 08:47 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
And last, but not least, in his CATO missive Michael's argue a strawman about the work of Rignot et al. (2011) and in doing so misrepresents their work. But first the quote: "And, this is important, the period of the lowest ice melt extent across Greenland for more than a century occurred from the early 1970s through the late 1980s – or very near the beginning the time period analyzed by Rignot et al." And another version here: "There was another paper on Greenland ice published by my nefarious research team at the same time as Rignot's. Instead of looking at recent decades (satellite monitoring of polar ice only began in 1979), we estimated the Greenland ice melt using a remarkable 225-year record from weather stations established there by the Danish colonists. We found that about the time that the satellites started sending back data the ice melt was the lowest it had been for nearly a century. In other words, Greenland was unusually icy when Rignot et al. started their analysis." Now here is what Rignot et al. (2011) actually did. From their abstract: "Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years." Specifically, all their figures (and trend lines) are for the period 1992 through 2009, much later than suggested by Michaels. Michaels has misrepresented Rignot et al's work. Also, the lowest SMB loss in the FKM study the minimum running mean in FKM was in the 70s, with the lowest three datapoints for that era in FKM's Fig. 2 occurring in a cluster in late sixties early seventies.Response:[DB] Fixed Link tag.
-
Riccardo at 08:31 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Yes, in a world of unbiased models and data the earth is younger than we thought, a few thousand years maybe ... I don't know what it is but don't call it science please.
Prev 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Next
