Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 Next
Comments 86701 to 86750:
-
Marcus at 16:17 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"'Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do.' And sadly, noone likes paying for the mess they have created either." TTTM's response is a complete straw-man. By his perverted logic, I could say that no-one should have to pay for destroying someone else's personal property, or pay the price for physical assault, or murder, or rape....you get the picture. Yes, people don't like to be told what to do but, in a civil society, people also recognize that they have certain Rights & Responsibilities. We know we live in a land of laws & that sometimes we're required to make recompense for the the messes we make-except, apparently, in Denial land-where everyone just does as they please without any responsibility, & apparently where magical fairies maintain the infrastructure of their entire society. -
owl905 at 16:09 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
CB Dunkerson quoted & wrote:- "owl905 wrote: "Why have you written an article about 450ppm CO2 when the issue is 450ppm CO2e?" Which... is one of the points made by the article." No it isn't; not in the least. The article is pointing at the 450 mark for CO2 and adding subjective inclusions from the rest of the pollution problem. "As the article notes in the second paragraph, CO2 ppm alone is often used" No it isn't. That's the point of my objection - the 'often used' is CO2e - and that's the correct framework. "... on the grounds that aerosol cooling offsets warming from other greenhouse gases." There's no such grounds, no such basis, and no science claiming a past equilibrium that extrapolates to a 'CO2/450ppm.' The statement appears to be a misinterpretation of the Radiative Forcing historical chart used by the IPCC (AR4-WG1-Ch2, p.136). From the article: "At present we use the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as the indicative measure of future temperature." Untrue. CO2e is used literally everywhere. The CO2 focus isn't because of a preeminence in temperature rise, it's because of the long residency in the source/sink cycle. -
dana1981 at 15:53 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - I still don't see your point. Yes, scenario C coincidentally fits observed temperatures pretty well. We know it's coincidental because that scenario in no way matches reality. The forcing is lower and the sensitivity is higher. Those two opposite inaccuracies just happen to cancel eachother out. If we bump our adjusted Scenario B up to a sensitivity of 3.4°C, it would match observations better. But I decided it would make more sense to use the IPCC most likely value (3°C). So it seems like if we boil it down, you're arguing that real-world climate sensitivity is on the high side. -
dana1981 at 15:48 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, please work on your reading comprehension. I don't like having to repeat myself."Plus rather than blowing past the danger limit with CO2 levels continuing to rise rapidly, we'll have set up the technologies and infrastructure necessary to continue reducing emissions to safe levels."
450ppm likely isn't immediately disastrous. It's dangerous if we remain at that level for many decades, allowing ice to continue melting. We first need to stabilize at 450ppm before we can work on reducing CO2 below that level. -
angusmac at 15:01 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana@65, I describe Lindzen's as the worst of all the scenarios presented by you; even the massive overestimate that is Hansen’s Scenario A performs better. Scaddenp@64, my Figure@63 does show Dana's adjusted Scenario B with a sensitivity at 3. However, Scenario C with a sensitivity of 4.2 still gives a better fit with actual temperatures. I agree that the models use comparatively simple physics but this is also why they are extremely useful. There would appear to be something missing in the post-2000 behaviour of Scenario B that is (coincidentally?) captured very well in the excellent empirical performance of Scenario C.Moderator Response: [DB] And you base this on what model of EyecrometerTM...? -
scaddenp at 14:54 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, nature soaks up half of our emissions at moment. We dont have to go to zero. But you do have to start! The kill the subsidies, proposed at moment would be something. Extend it coal would be even more important. Real leadership in my opinion would be kill all subsidies on anything industrial, ban construction of new FF power unless emission sequestered and then let market figure out the best solution going forward. However, so far any attempt to wean off subsidied energy (which obviously means a hike in FF price) gets strenuously opposed. Let anyone pay (especially non-westerners and grandchildren) except us is catch-cry. -
TimTheToolMan at 14:43 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Dana1981 writes "seems to also have missed this part of the article: ...Instead of committing ourselves to 2.9°C warming above pre-industrial levels as in business as usual, we're only committed to 2°C, which keeps us right at the cusp of the global warming "danger limit." Apparently you missed the ENTIRE following article that suggested that "goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster" And that Hansen says that even 350ppm is too much. Well we missed the boat on that one. And then Tom Cook believes, not in your article dana1981, but instead that we can effectivel reduce emissions to zero AND sequester ourselves back to 350ppm. And you think I'M ignorant of whats real? -
scaddenp at 14:18 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do." And sadly, noone likes paying for the mess they have created either. -
scaddenp at 14:14 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM - when in human civilisation have we dealt with 1m in hundred years? Its already an expensive problem. Nightmare going forward. Chances of us getting in adaption money from polluters? nil. So far "my perspective" doesnt cut it for me. Can I go to city hall for that? Care to back that with proper analysis or is your perspective based on betting there won't be 1m in 100 years? Now if we weaned off CO2 emissions so that we could be confident that ONLY 1m sealevel was going to happen and that sealevel would stablise again, then I think we could live with it. Otherwise,1.5-2m in the next century means abandoning my city. -
dana1981 at 13:55 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
I thought it went without saying that a bad result is better than a catastrophic result. But apparently some people need it said. TTTM seems to also have missed this part of the article:"Instead of committing ourselves to 2.9°C warming above pre-industrial levels as in business as usual, we're only committed to 2°C, which keeps us right at the cusp of the global warming "danger limit." Plus rather than blowing past the danger limit with CO2 levels continuing to rise rapidly, we'll have set up the technologies and infrastructure necessary to continue reducing emissions to safe levels."
It's also worth noting that economic studies consistently show that TTTM is wrong, and mitigation costs far less than adaption. -
Marcus at 13:30 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
So tell us Tim, who is going to pay for those pipelines, dam walls & relocation of people impacted by climate change? The fossil fuel industry has contributed the most to the problem, so I think they should be contributing to the *solution*-be it mitigation or adaption, or both-but hark at the outrage from Denialist Camp when you suggest that. -
Marcus at 13:28 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"The irony is that as an AGWer this is your job, not mine." Sorry, but what is an AGWer exactly? Do you mean someone who has a very realistic idea of how bad things will get if we don't start adopting some key CO2 mitigation strategies ASAP? Now contrast that with the Denialists, who would seem to suggest that even 1kw-h of electricity *not* derived from fossil fuels somehow represents the end of civilization as we know it-which is about as panicky & alarmist as you can possibly get. -
Marcus at 13:24 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Because I believe I have a better sense of perspective than most people." Ah, & like a true Denialist, TTTM believes he knows better than everyone else-how *typical*. Also, it is the Denier Camp who keep moaning & whining about how "Rooned" our economy will be if we adopt a more efficient, zero-carbon economy. Of course, what the Denialists are *really* saying is "better tax payers be forced to pony up the cost of adapting to climate change than the fossil fuel industry should lose even a single dollar of profits". I'd say that pretty much sums up your entire attitude TTTM. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:22 PM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I'd like to thank Chip for taking the time to come here and discuss the paper that is the subject of this thread (FKM 2011). I'd also like to thank each of the contributors for their interest displayed and for their zeal displayed in the furtherance of science. Participants displayed keen interest and depth of knowledge; even when things got heated, restraint and decorum ruled. The passion for learning on display was gratifying to see. For that is why science is done: to learn things and to then share that learning. (I wish I could have participated more, but an ill-timed multi-day bout of BSOD kept me busy recovering from repeated system crashes. Fingers crossed...) It is that passion for learning and zeal for knowledge that finds it's embodiment in the advancement of the science through the formulation of hypothesis' and studies and experiments designed to test them. In the case of climate science and global warming in general, and the Greenland Ice Sheet in particular, glaciologists like Dr. Jason Box and Dr. Mauri Pelto (and many others over the generations) have built our knowledge of ice sheet dynamics based on observational data (what the various forces acting on the ice sheet are and how the ice sheet has then responded to them) which has then led to a robust understanding of the underlying physics of the ice sheet response. The meta-analysis of existing GIS data undertaken by Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels was an interesting method of using existing data to draw various insights into past modeled GIS response to temperatures at various times in the past. A shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of context into the manifold forces acting on the GIS that help then determine the response of the sheet (for example: the effects of the loss of ice shelf buffering and reduced sea ice and landfast ice along the Greenland perimeter, the effect of each is to reduce backpressure along the calving/ice-egdge front, leading then to thinning of the ice streams due to increased basal melt resulting in ice also then moving more quickly along the glacial bed of the streams; this vector change then propagates upglacier, etc). This lack of context reduces the overall value of the FKM methodology to one of evaluating the impact of the new method itself, which (given the above mentioned limitations in this comment and others) is of little interest to those already aware of the state of knowledge of the GIS, such as working glaciologists and other interested parties. Why? Because to them, FKM 2011 adds nothing to the science and is thus obsolete. Where the authors truly missed on an opportunity to both add impact and also advance the state of the science was the record melt of 2010. By September of 2010, the melt season which was the focus of the FKM study (June, July and August, or JJA) was "in the can". Not only were glaciologists everywhere aware of the record melt, but the news had already penetrated the lay news outlets. Had the authors then obtained this data (which surely would have been available upon request even if in rough form only), incorporating it into the FKM study would have pushed the study to the forefront of the field. No, the data would not have been in the proper format the authors were accustomed to dealing with. But that is merely a technical limitation and could have been dealt with. After all, the Muir Russell Commission was able to replicate the entire "hockey stick" from original data in a mere two days (something the auditors still have not yet completed themselves), pronouncing it something easily accomplished (cf page 48 of the report) by a competent researcher. Given the providential opportunity to make a meaningful, lasting contribution to the science by stepping up and making the most of the opportunity, the FKM authors instead took the opposite tack, and further themselves relegated their study to the dustbin of science; of interest to statistics mavens only. That zeal for learning, the desire to increase the state of the science in a specific area, was critically missing in the final form of the FKM study: a 2010-shaped void left its mark by its absence. On the whole I'd say that most of what else I'd planned on saying already got said. Those of who said it must know who you are, so thanks for that. :) A few general observations, then. The regional warming notable in GIS data in the early-to-mid 20th Century certainly could only add little contribution to SLR due to the confining limitations of both the buttressing ice shelves, thick landfast ice and the widespread existence of heavy pack ice. A few illuminating historical charts of Arctic Sea Ice edges, courtesy of Patrick Lockerby's Chatter Box blog:
[Source: Philips' Handy Volume Atlas 1930 Arctic map]
[Source: Russian map of Arctic, 1955]
Compare and contrast the ice edges defined in those images to this recent image:
[Source: September/March ice edge(1995-2009 mean)]
Left unexplored, and a topic of a future comment by me: The editorial and decision making process at the heart of the publication of an obsolete paper.
Best,
The Yooper
-
Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM @36, I believe the two articles are quite clear that a 450 ppm plus world is likely to be two degrees or more hotter than preindustrial levels, while a 350 ppm world will not be. If we reduce CO2 emission levels fast enough, we can stabilize between the two values; and with various carbon sequestration techniques (biochar or similar) can reduce the levels below current values. So my approach can avoid the train wreck. In contrast, with your approach CO2 levels will continue to rise in perpetuity, or at least until the breakdown of civilization puts a stop to the madness. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:11 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"the deniers oppose them because it they smell of 'carbon tax." Nobody likes being told what they can and cant do. Ultimately price will bring the US back into line with regards their fuel usage, car sizes and associated efficiencies but they've got a long way to go to get down to say, Europe's fuel prices. -
muoncounter at 12:56 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM#40: "We're better off building infrastructure to manage those events than to pretend we can make them go away" Unfortunately for that hypothesis, rampant denialism has turned even the most minimal attempts into political punching bags. Look at the controversy over US EPA mileage reduction proposals -- even as watered down as they are, even though they will save consumers money in the long run, the deniers oppose them because it they smell of 'carbon tax.' Thanks for that result. -
sgmuller at 12:49 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Skywatcher, It is unfortunate that what Lindzen says is important simply because he so often quoted by skeptics and denialists in the mainstream radio and press. In Monktons article in the Australian he exclusively referred to Lindzen (effectively denying that anybody else has any expertise in CO2 sensitivity). In the latest edition of Quadrant (a right-winger favourite) there is an article that refers to Lindzen as THE expert on CO2 sensitivity. Essentially these publications deny the existence of the other scientists who have published on CO2 sensitivity, and they wonder why they get called denialists rather than skeptics. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:47 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Your problem, I think, is that like many contrarians you adopt an unrealistically panicked and alarmist approach." The irony is that as an AGWer this is your job, not mine. I also agree we should move away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy sources but notice I said "sustainable" rather than "polluting" which is your mantra. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:38 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, Your problem, I think, is that like many contrarians you adopt an unrealistically panicked and alarmist approach. You equate simple, effective action now (to replace fossil fuels) with some sort of crazy, anarchist surge to completely wipe civilization and our modern economies from the face of the earth. That sort of cartoon view of the actions that we should be taking hamstrings your ability to consider mitigation from a rational perspective. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:38 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, why do you believe that this is a better use of money than CO2 reduction? Because I believe I have a better sense of perspective than most people. The cities of today are radically different to those of 100 years ago. And the same will be true in 100 years time. We dont need to change it all at once, we do it over many generations and we wont even notice the costs. Do you think we've been hit with exorbitant costs over the last 100 years from sea level rise? I mean it rose and we dealt with it didn't we? I doubt you've even thought about previous rise and the associated costs because its not a worry to you. Floods happen. Droughts happen. We're better off building infrastructure to manage those events than to pretend we can make them go away by reducing CO2 emissions. I am 100% correct in saying building better infrastructure will help protect us from future weather events. Your probability is much lower by focussing on the reduction of CO2 emissions. -
barry1487 at 12:34 PM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Then leaving it out there to dangle for the “skeptical” echo-chamber to morph it into another “aluminum tubes into nuclear weapons” distortion, then blast the soundbite through their media machine.
It's not Chip's business to second guess the 'skeptical' blogosphere. Comments implying or directly accusing the authors of dodginess are combative and counter-productive, particularly when Chip has engaged so fulsomely and with good spirit. Please let's stick to facts and figures. Chip has said: "Granted, incorporating the melt extent for the summer of 2010 into the methodology as described in our papes may have required a few minor tweaks to some of the wording (and a few specific numbers). But, by and large, as I have said many times, I strongly believe (although I have not done the analysis) that the changes would not have altered the general nature of our conclusions (as we explained to the JGR editor)." I realize there are issues with the methodology amongst some, but getting a fix on inclusion of 2010 data with the methods used in the paper would be a good next step, no? Can this be done by the good people here questioning the paper? Quantitative analysis beats speculation every time. -
scaddenp at 12:31 PM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Eric, I would also have to agree with you. Also note that article at realclimate and the papers referenced therein. While I recognize that methane is a risk(think PETM), so far there isnt that much evidence for getting seriously worried. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:27 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
36, TimTheToolMan,So my approach actually helps whereas yours doesn't.
Actually, no, I think your approach fails, in that you will ultimately find that there are many things to which you simply can't adapt (like massive famine, if temperatures are allowed to rise to a point that dangerously impacts food production), and more importantly that the cost of such adaptation (or alternately minimalistic, hope-for-the-best mitigation) is far in excess of what it would cost to simply carefully and conservatively but efficiently and deliberately retool our energy infrastructure, starting as soon as possible. -
muoncounter at 12:26 PM on 5 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Yet another report on the deteriorating Arctic: ... so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. ... One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change. ... The report “Impacts of climate change on snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic” has been compiled by close to 200 polar researchers. It is the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge about the Arctic that has been presented in the last six years. 200 researchers agree? Surely there's a lone voice of sanity somewhere out there to buck what could only be called a 'consensus.' -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM, why do you believe that this is a better use of money than CO2 reduction? The costs per person of protecting my city from 1m of sealevel change are extremely challenging. And if you dont limit CO2 at all, then eventually have cope with many meters of sealevel rise, so is that realistic? Now what about risks to water cycle (floods/drought)? Costed those? I've yet to see a report that makes realistic assumptions about climate change effects that suggests adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation. I'm all ears if you have a link though. -
Marcus at 12:24 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM. Of course, most of us here would argue that no-one from the Contrarian Movement has been able to show that the cost of CO2 mitigation will be greater than the cost of Adaptation. In fact, all available studies show that Mid to long term costs for mitigation approach zero, whereas adaptation costs will continue to grow over time. Secondly, the starting & finishing costs of adaptation are going to be *much* higher in a 560ppm world than in a 450ppm world. Also, the time for climate stabilization & eventual normalization will be a lot greater in the 560ppm scenario. None of which means that we shouldn't *try* to avoid reaching 450ppm too. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:17 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"I fail to see how my not living in a flood plain will save the Great Barrier Reef from destruction, the Amazon from turning into grassland, or the Arctic from melting. All of these are probably consequences in a plus 2 degree world." The thing is Tom, the two SkS articles have suggested thats where we're heading with or without global reduction in CO2. So my approach actually helps whereas yours doesn't. Apparently. -
scaddenp at 12:17 PM on 5 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Ken, I have responded to you here -
Tom Curtis at 12:13 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM @32 - good analogy - the passengers survived; but they wouldn't have if the brakes had not been applied. @34 I fail to see how my not living in a flood plain will save the Great Barrier Reef from destruction, the Amazon from turning into grassland, or the Arctic from melting. All of these are probably consequences in a plus 2 degree world. -
scaddenp at 12:08 PM on 5 May 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
So Ken, do I understand by "missing heat", that you mean that you will accept AGW if better measurements can close the energy budget, but in the meantime you will choose to believe that "missing heat" means that energy imbalance isnt real and we are not warming? I must it is refreshing for a skeptic to give an unequivocal statement of what data would persuade them to change their mind. Well done. (This is response to comment in another thread -
TimTheToolMan at 12:02 PM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Why is it you think that I believe we should do nothing? What you and I believe have different drivers. My driver is having a sustainability based focus with and mitigating actual risk associated with "weather" by doing things like building pipelines and dams, avoiding floodplains where possible and so on. This is where I'd spend my money. Your drivers are focussing on reduction of CO2. This is where you'd spend your money. -
David Horton at 11:54 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
Thanks dana, not just me then! My last sentence of course was both rhetorical and sarcastic. -
muoncounter at 11:52 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM#32: "we all pull the brakes on CO2 emissions ...and then apparently all die in the upcoming "disaster" anyway. " OK, then, you've got yet another argument for doing nothing. What new heights of illogic will we find along this path? A crash at 60mph will kill you, so why not go 100 mph? -
muoncounter at 11:43 AM on 5 May 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Bruce#92: "Did the models predict this "strongest in a decade" La Nina" What an utterly irrelevant question. Climate forecasts deal with long term trends, not transient weather events. To answer the question of this post, see Tamino:
No, global warming did not stop in 1998:
"Big wheel keeps on turnin'"
-
citizenschallenge at 10:57 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I just did a better job of explaining what I was trying to earlier in this thread. But, I posted it over at the Center For Inquiry forum. And since it might be straining our SkS moderator's patience, allow me to share the link: The Arctic as a Messenger for Global Processes Climate Change and Pollution -
dana1981 at 10:57 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
I'm not sure how to answer that, David. I agree, it's a fundamental flaw in the low sensitivity argument. -
Bern at 10:44 AM on 5 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
Received my copy yesterday - only got through the forward & Chapter 1 last night, but looking forward to reading the rest. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:42 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
@ Tom. Bad analogy, Tom. Casy Jones died. And so following on with your anaogy, we all pull the brakes on CO2 emissions ...and then apparently all die in the upcoming "disaster" anyway. -
Tom Curtis at 10:41 AM on 5 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Oh dear. It turns out that despite Lambert's best efforts to get this thread back on topic on post 64, Sphaerica just went an opened up that whole can of worms again @48. How inconsiderate of him. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:41 AM on 5 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
This post should be labeled "speculative". It is contradicted by the more recent post by dana1981 which points to the HK08 paper stating that 450 ppm will result in 2C of warming at equilibrium (i.e., less warming sooner than equilibrium) using their best (3C) estimate of sensitivity. This paper http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1hq91854.pdf points out several facts about methane not mentioned above, such as the fact that the clathrates are stable below 440m in the Gulf of Mexico (a long way from the Arctic) and that there is a huge amount uncertainty in the estimates of clathrate stability hence the label of speculative for this post. -
Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTTM @29, to use an analogy, 450 ppm is like an express train running into some freight cars. 550 ppm is like an express train running into some freight cars when no-one has applied the brakes! The question is, why are all the deniers advising our analogical Casey Jones to jump? -
Albatross at 10:19 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
TTT @29, Well, now we are both laughing. I'm sure Dana, and others, are going to have much fun with your post @29. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:14 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Had to laugh On the one hand you post that Lindzen and Christy are wrong about whether cutting emissions will make a difference. "...So Lindzen and Christy have a point here, right? Well, no. In particular, Lindzen claims that global emissions cuts "wouldn't make a lot of difference." But let's say international negotiations succeeded in convincing countries all around the world to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Now suddenly instead of 2,200 Gt CO2 emitted in the next four decades, it's only about 820 Gt. Now instead of 550 ppmv in 2050, we're looking at about 450 ppmv." Where you point out that if everything went right and everyone followed along , globally we might cut emissions to 450ppm And in your very next post you tell us that 450ppm means disaster. "Prior to these developments atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450ppm was equated as limiting average global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. This can no longer be maintained. Hansen and Sato (2011) using paleoclimate data rather than models of recent and expected climate change warn that “goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster”." It seems Lindzen and Christy were right afterall. Or 450ppm doesn't spell disaster. Pick one. -
Ken Lambert at 09:33 AM on 5 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Sphaerica #48 "This is probably the crux of Ken's problem, and why he gets so much wrong. His efforts to do so are clearly handicapped by his own preset desire to arrive at a chosen result. He even admits to this when he says: it might not be there.. He doesn't know. It's just a possibility, and one that he'll wager on because he hasn't considered the rather deep and detailed science which reasons that it should be there and almost certainly is... it will be shocking if it's not. But for him, it's only a short step to go from "it might not be there" to closing his eyes and insisting that it isn't there, even though all of the evidence says that it is. It's climate change denial in a well wrapped package, with a nice, shiny bow." I am glad that the package is presentable. Spare us the amateur psychoanalysis Sphaerica. This thread is about John Cook's efforts to deliver the planet from 'deniers'. When the scientists have found the 'missing heat', then reasonable persons like me will accept the facts. When facts change - so does my opinion - what do you do sir? Until then, "the quantity of belief is the difference between what we can measure and what we think is there." -
Marcus at 09:32 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Use of PV Solar panels with huge taxpayer subsidies is not one of them - and State Govts in Australia are winding back or abandoning such costly schemes." This claim is long on propaganda, but very short on fact. The subsidies for PV solar panels are actually quite small-compared to many other subsidies provided to Middle Class families in Australia. Also, the WA & NSW currently provide an overly generous solar energy subsidy for *all* electricity generated, & so these 2 governments are currently looking at bringing them in line with the schemes provided by most of the other States-namely a subsidy *only* for the energy fed into the grid-a move I happen to agree with. Also, wherever they are in place around the world, feed-in tariff subsidies were *never* designed to be permanent. As their goal of making renewable energy more cost competitive with fossil fuels is increasingly achieved, the feed-in tariff subsidies were always designed to be *phased out*-unlike the very generous subsidies that still remain for the fossil fuel industry. -
Marcus at 09:25 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ah, another textbook Denialist Argument from Ken-in 2 parts no less. Part 1 is to decry the "evil" subsidies enjoyed by the still relatively young renewable energy industry, whilst remaining deafeningly silent about the much larger direct & indirect subsidies still enjoyed by the *mature* fossil fuel industry. What's the matter, Ken, afraid of having to operate on a more *level* playing field? Part 2 is the claim that "some consumption is inelastic" because there are "no short term alternatives". Well if there is any truth to that, its because the fossil fuel industry-with the help of complicit governments-have worked very hard to make sure that there *aren't* any alternatives available. In strict technical terms, though, there are numerous options for reducing the current consumption of fossil fuels-be it switching to alternative fuels (algae derived bio-diesel, diesel-electric vehicles, blended fuels & transporting of freight via trains instead of by road). Price signals will definitely help put pressure on government agencies, vehicle & fuel suppliers to get off their collective *you-know-whats* & start making these alternatives more readily available. -
David Horton at 08:45 AM on 5 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
I may have missed it, or misunderstood something fundamental about the LIndzen approach, but has he ever been asked, or addressed voluntarily, the obvious question - if cloud negative feedback is so effective then how did climate change markedly in the past? Or does the iris effect only swing into action when the human release of CO2 causes an enhanced greenhouse effect? -
Albatross at 08:22 AM on 5 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I second Skywatcher's assessment @132 of Rob's excellent and astute post @130. As I mentioned yesterday, there are some other peculiarities in the curious statements made by Chip and Pat concerning the role of internal climate variability in modulating the melt over the GIS (Greenland Ice Sheet), as well as the "moderate" contribution of the recent GIS melt to global sea-level rise. A new report has just come out that challenges the aforementioned claims-- for example, it suggests that the contribution of ice mass loss from GIS to global se level rise may have been too conservative in the most recent IPCC report. More soon when I have some time to put everything together. -
Albatross at 08:07 AM on 5 May 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Bruce @92, The forecasts for 2010-2011 can be found here for IRI. Also see here for CPC.
Prev 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 Next
