Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 Next
Comments 89001 to 89050:
-
michael sweet at 05:09 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, If you wish to take a single piece of data and claim there is a small problem with it, you can challenge many things. The point is that all the data leads to the same conclusion: that humans are causing the temperature to raise. Can you suggest an alternate mechanism for the entire globe to increase in temperature? This data on Greenland is an example of that data, which suports the AGW conclusion. Why does all the data point the same way? If it was not from the same cause the data would point in different directions. You are extrapolating the Greenland temperature to the rest of the Arctic which is incorrect. The rest of the Arctic was not warm in the 1940's. See the link I provided above for the Arctic data. -
dana1981 at 04:54 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - please see "it's cosmic rays" and note that I was very conservative about the solar climate sensitivity parameter for that exact reason:"However, since there may be indirect solar effects not accounted for in the direct solar radiative forcing calculation, we'll conservatively estimate the solar climate sensitivity parameter..."
-
Adam at 04:53 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, no that is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is that the Greenland climate is simply not unprecedented. Co2 is higher than it was in the 1930's, yet the ice sheet was warmer back then. Michael Sweet the link you provided did not focus on the greenland ice sheet. It focused on the entire Arctic ocean, which is not what I was referring to. I agree that for the past 5-10 years, Arctic temperature has slightly exceeded the 1930's warming. However, Greenland's temperature data shows that it was still warmer in the 1930's. What I have said is correct. This article focuses on Greenland glaciers, so therefore that is what I'll be focusing on. There are many other papers, which show that the ice sheet was indeed warmer back then, and therefore it's current state would not be unprecedented. I am not 'cherry picking'. The paper I provided was published and peer reviewed by other scientists, and there are many others which confirm it's argument. “In addition, in 2010 records were set across Greenland for heat so your linked papers are out of date.” Michael, one year is not statistically significant. You have to look back, and look at the temperature variations on decadal scales. One year is not going to tell us anything about Greenland's climate, or the causes of it's temperature variations. “Your comments about the entire Arctic having been as warm in the 1940's are simply false.” No it's not. Once again, read the paper I provided. Here is another one: “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century ” by Vinther et al (2006) http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf It examined Greenland temperature records for the past 250 years, and concluded “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades." Now this paper was not written by skeptics. Two of its authors were Phil Jones and Kieth Briffa, who both play a major part in supporting AGW. Therefore, since this paper is written by two AGW scientists, I think that paper would be the best one to use to show that Greenland was indeed warmer 60 years ago. Daniel Bailey “nor is it normally particularly meaningful to make decadal comparisons of data, as the results are highly dependent on the choice of the starting periods.” Decadal comparisons are actually the best you can use, for finding out about current periods. Now, in theory the anthropogenic contribution to global warming, supposedly started around 1975. Therefore, according to the theory, the Greenland warming of the past 20 years, must have been human caused. But Daniel, if you look back on a decadal time scale, you will see there is nothing significant about how Greenland is today. Like I said, CO2 is much higher than it was 60 years ago. If you look back for say 100-200 years, you'll see that it is likely the current Greenland climate Is not driven by CO2. Michael Sweet could you please explain your statement “By itself the retreat of glaciers in Greenalnd is not proof of AGW. It is a piece of the puzzle that all adds up to proof.” How is it a 'piece of the puzzle'. All it provides is evidence of warming, and says nothing about the cause of warming. -
shawnhet at 04:49 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
"Therefore, directly at least, the sun appears not to be responsible for significant global temperature changes over the past 11,500 years, and certainly not over the past half century." Good article, but, of course, the issue is whether the sun can only heat the Earth directly. IMO, there are way too many correlations btw solar proxies and climate for that to make sense. see here, for instance. http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf Cheers, :) -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - Gah, you are still holding to this argument. I'm saddened. By "Industrial heat" I mean (as does the post that this thread is based upon) all energy usage, as it goes it's inevitable way towards entropy and heat. That 1% extra energy has been added to the climate, and leaving, as long as we've been pumping out greenhouse gases. Heat generated at ground level; much like sunlight warming the ground level. Both are components in the energy budget, both are eventually radiated out to space. Readers (other than RSVP) - the argument(s) presented through this thread by RSVP are that there are somehow differences between heat from our energy use and heat from sunlight, with the former in some fashion immune (in some undefined fashion) to radiating to space. What that difference is has never been explained to anyone's satisfaction, and there have been zero references presented to support that odd contention. It's a forcing, RSVP, like any other forcing, and it's tiny by comparison to the ones we're actually worried about. Energy raises temperature, raised temperature radiates more to space, things head back to equilibrium. There is no plausible mechanism for industrial energy to "accumulate". I suggest you re-read the thread. Heat from our energy expenditures is part of the energy budget - at 1% that of greenhouse gas forcing, accounting for rather under 0.01C total of warming. It is, hence, rather irrelevant to current warming concerns. -
RSVP at 04:27 AM on 13 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Another way to look a this problem. Picture yourself in a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its ability to cool will depend on an initial design. If on this satellite you have some interal heat sources that are not regulated by any "thermostats", after a while you will be calling Houston. -
RSVP at 04:22 AM on 13 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR I hope you are not confusing the term "waste heat" with that portion of the energy liberated by fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources that is not serving some "human purpose". The term waste may be misleading in this sense. It should be understood as all energy delivered by all fossil fuels and nuclear reactors since the start of the industrial revolution. And if you wish, you might also add the burning of trees for steam engines as this perhaps marked the beginning of an inbalance etc. What you dont seem to want to admit is that this energy is in backlog of whatever is considered equilibrium and therefore constitutes an excess which can only have been accumulating. Before considering any GHG effects, you must consider this energy from a cumulative standpoint. Any heating above this perhaps is due to your sold called GHG effect. -
SkepticalSam at 03:50 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Are these temp-records based on ice-core samples again? You KNOW that those are worthless above 99 meters, due to lack of compression, right? And that this VOIDS any claims within the past 2500 years? And surely you ALSO know that this consequently SKEWS any claims after 500 B.C. toward higher current levels, right?Moderator Response: [DB] Please. No all-caps & no unsubstantiated handwaving. All you've accomplished is a poorly-executed drive-by case of trolling. -
michael sweet at 03:26 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Whoops, posted my link too fast. The link in 17 talks about the AArctic and not Greenland specificly. It appears that your specific argument has not yet been addressed. In any case, 2010 set records across Greenland and your generalization to the Arctic as a whole is incorrect. By itself the retreat of glaciers in Greenalnd is not proof of AGW. It is a piece of the puzzle that all adds up to proof. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:10 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam (12, 14, 15) Appreciate your concerns, and the links to published data. However, Greenland does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it normally particularly meaningful to make decadal comparisons of data, as the results are highly dependent on the choice of the starting periods. Chylek 2006 did the best they had with the limited scope of their paper and their source data. Chylek 2009 (IMO a much more meaningful paper) looked at arctic amplification over more robust periods of time and found that the ratio of the amplification in the earlier timeframe to be higher than the latter (not specifically your point but a heckuva read nonetheless). But, to Dana's point, we know the globe is presently warming more now overall than it did earlier in the 20th century (indeed, current temps are equivalent to those reached in the Holocene Maximum/Altithermal) and for differing (read:anthropogenic) reasons. Looking at the best available data:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data. Graphics bug: Occasionally the color for the .5-1C range is replaced by gray. Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station. 
1995-2005_Zonal_Mean 
Note: Gray areas signify missing data. Graphics bug: Occasionally the color for the .5-1C range is replaced by gray. Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station. 
2000-2010_Zonal_Mean Note in all cases the greater recent warming of Greenland (where data exists to make a comparison) than during the earlier periods. HTH, The Yooper -
michael sweet at 03:02 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, Please review the thread Greenland was warmer in 1940 and post your claims there. You will see that the data you are presenting has been cherry picked. In addition, in 2010 records were set across Greenland for heat so your linked papers are out of date. Your comments about the entire Arctic having been as warm in the 1940's are simply false. There was always much more ice in the Arctic from the time Cook explored there in the 1700's until the catastrophic decline of the last 30 years. -
dana1981 at 03:00 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam - "I am not claiming that the planet has warmed naturally before, so therefore current climate change is natural." Actually that is precisely what you are arguing. By the way, although polar amplification is obviously a reality, given that the Arctic is the fastest-warming part of the planet, I don't think it's a specifically anthropogenic signal. Polar amplification is due to the feedback from melting ice. Would you care to explain why polar amplification is specific to greenhouse gases? -
JMurphy at 02:55 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman, if you have anything at all to back-up your accusations, why don't you show it. Any links to evidence or facts at all ? Or do you only have your own personal and ideological prejudices and bias ? If you have no evidence, I'm sure you'll be man enough to come back and admit it... -
Dan Moutal at 02:44 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I an getting through the comments slowly. I an at work and replying on my phone. @Gilles "Now again if you're convinced that it is lower for FF, you're saying that people like Icelandic one are totally stupid, because they add the cost of importing FF to their externalities, which should produce no benefit at all. And I don't think personally they're that stupid." This statement makes it clear that you have a poor understanding of the issue. Perhaps you haven't been thinking about the problem for very long. By definition externalities are felt by those not involved in the economic transaction. So when Iceland imports FFs, they get the benefits. Yet the externality costs are spread around the entire planet. This is why they continue to import FFs. And this is why we have a market failure. The point of a price on carbon (for the millionth time!) is to internalize those costs so they are payed by the people who are emitting GHGs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax for more -
Adam at 02:41 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
I also suggest that you read this paper: “Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming” http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/MattCronin-Mar21-07-d/Polyakovetal02-PolarWarmingGRL.pdf The abstract “Arctic variability is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations. Incomplete sampling of these fluctuations results in highly variable arctic surface-air temperature (SAT) trends. Modulated by multi-decadal variability, SAT trends are often amplified relative to northern-hemispheric trends, but over the 125-year record we identify periods when arctic SAT trends were smaller or of opposite sign than northern-hemispheric trends. Arctic and northern- hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variablity had little net effect on computed trends) are similar, and do not support the predicted polar amplification of global warming.” conclusion “Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends over the 20th century, when multidecadal variability had little net effect on computed trends, are similar and do not support the hypothesis of the polar amplification of global warming simulated by GCMs. It has been hypothesized that this may be due to the moderating role of arctic ice. Evaluation of fast- ice melt required to compensate for the two-fold enhance- ment of polar warming simulated by GCMs shows that the equired ice-decay rate would be statistically indistinguish- able from zero, given the substantial intrinsic variability observed in the data. Observed long-term trends in arctic air temperature and ice cover are actually smaller than expected, and may be indicative of complex positive and negative feedbacks in the arctic climate system. In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not support the hypothesized polar amplification of global" Dana, if greenhouse gases were warming our planet, the first signs we would expect to see of it would be at the poles. Polar regions are very sensitive. All of the climate models predict that polar areas would amplify the heat from greenhouse warming. Yet, as shown by that paper, real world data does not support the theory of predicted polar amplification of global warming. This is strong evidence against AGW. The Arctic/Greenland climate changes are not anthropogenic.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not quote large sections of linked papers. The link and a key sentence or two should be sufficient to get your point across. -
Adam at 02:33 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, I think you'll agree that Greenland is very important for the whole climate change issue. News medias have constantly cited Greenland's melting ice as clear evidence for AGW. The theory that the Greenland warming is caused by humans, is a major part of the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming. Polar patterns are especially important. They should show more sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gases if the theory was correct. Now CO2 is much higher than it was in the 1930's; yet in the 1930's Greenland was warmer than it is today. Therefore, simple logic should show that if Greenland was naturally warmer in the past, then it is plausible that it's current heat wave is natural. I am not claiming that the planet has warmed naturally before, so therefore current climate change is natural. What I am saying is that current Greenland climate change is not unprecedented. The same amount of melting Greenland is experiencing today, it also experienced 60 years ago. I think you should read the paper I gave you. It explains about both heat waves and why there is nothing unusual about the current state of Greenland's climate. -
There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman - That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science. I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy. Most of the political pressure in the US over the last decade or so has been to deny anthropogenic global warming, not to promote it. And yet the science has continued, and the evidence is even more solid now than a decade ago. Unless you have evidence of such political kow-towing, you are making wholly unsupported accusations. It's obnoxious, outside the comments policy of this site - and utterly unconvincing. -
dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam #12 - first off, Greenland isn't the world. The planet is much hotter now than it was in 1930. Secondly, the fact that the planet warmed naturally in the past doesn't mean it's warming naturally now. We know current warming isn't natural because that's what the physical evidence clearly shows. -
Bruce Frykman at 02:13 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
RE: "lose the ideological bias" I apologize, please strike the word "honest" from 311 and substitute the word "accurate"Moderator Response: [muoncounter] No difference. A fact-free argument is usually the hallmark of a troll. Please peddle that soap elsewhere; no one's buying it here. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - You should be intimately familiar with this thread, as you account for a fair number of the >350 posts on it. Industrial heat accounts for ~1% that of the greenhouse effect, and hence is just about irrelevant. Which you should really know by now. I cannot understand why you are still going on about this disproven argument. -
The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
RSVP, others - I've replied on the Waste heat vs. greenhouse warming thread. Please take that discussion there, where it's appropriate. If not beaten to death... -
Adam at 02:09 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Might I just point out that evidence of warming, like melting Greenland glaciers, is not evidence that it was humans that caused the warming. The Greenland climate is pretty complex, and there is plenty of evidence to believe that it's climate is not driven by CO2. Look, the current Greenland warming is very similar to a previous period of warming in Greenland. All of the Greenland temperature data showed that it was warmer or at least as warm as it is today, in the 1930's and 1940's. I suggest that you read the following paper: "Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005" by Petr Chylek et al, published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2006) http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf Abstract- "We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995– 2005) warming period with the previous (1920 – 1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920 – 1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005." Conclusion- "iii) Although the last decade of 1995 – 2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and the southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland. [18] iv) The Greenland warming of the 1995 – 2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920 – 1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920– 1930 warming period. ...... To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930." Now if Greenland was warmer 60 years ago, when it couldn't possibly have been us back then, then surely it is reasonable to believe that humans are not the cause of it's current heat wave. The 1930's heat wave was driven by natural causes (agreed?), which means it is equally possible that Greenland's current warming is of natural causation. The fact that the ice sheet was warmer 60-70 years ago shows that all of the dramatic melting it is experiencing, isn't unprecedented in it's history. It's like a cycle. The Arctic/Greenland has heat waves about every 60 years, and in between that, it has colder periods, which is what has been observed. There isn't any actual proper evidence that the current Greenland warming has got anything to do with CO2. Greenland's climate doesn't show any anthropogenic signal over the past 100 years; and the current ice sheet loss can indeed be explained naturally. Most of what has been presented in this article, about the melting glaciers, I do agree with, I just don't agree with the claim that it is caused by humans. -
Alec Cowan at 02:07 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Sphaerica #51 I'm afraid that Dr. Phd was trying to pull up that kind of "Yes", but the manipulative technique in #47 is pretty obvious: First: A quotation from the post's author. Second: A second quotation, this time an independent one from Trenberth, not linked to the first quotation. The "Okay" and ", and..." are intended to show some appearance of being logically chained. Third: The fallacy containing the preformatted "information" which promotion is intended, including the use of "can conclude" as if 1-2-3 were an inference, and that "We" so often used to foster an uncritical acceptance of it. So answering that is pretty much -to use a Hollywood analogy- let the portrayed John Nash to argue with Charles, the little girl and that spy-like Parcher dude. I don't feel happy with this site because of the things dealt in the comment section. Some characters simply swarm around because nobody cares about making them substantiate their claims and mind their Ps and Qs, and mainly, making them use the proper techniques and information. Their preaching reminds too much those healing by faith carnivals, mainly by too much of "blah, blih, bluh" where "1, 2, 3" is required. I came here often to get material from the comments for classes in High School and Community College level, those activities that combines hard science with social science. I came here because the local denialists commenting in Argentine newspapers are very repetitive and unskilled and I need dozens of original cases each year for the students to do their works. Climate change is a great opportunity in many ways. In Education, a terrific way to teach abilities everybody need to became an successful adult, something that doesn't include much climate science but a lot of how people is manipulated all the time and how to spot the wrongdoers. -
les at 01:36 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
54 Spaerica (with apologies to moderator) waste heat is, of course, discussed in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy", by Kevin E Trenbert which is, Oh! linked at the top of this post and the subject of discussion... Sooo, I guess you shouldn't really have expected RSVP to actually have read it. In fact, strikes me, a lot of people on this thread are doing no more than a poor job of actually reading the paper... even those with "scientific" backgrounds. -
les at 01:30 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
311 Frykman - Do you have any evidence for that or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? In my limited experience of folks working in relevant disciplines is that they are interested in things like climate, ice caps, satellites, etc. And apply their academic interests to what ever is interesting. it's not a great career choice - little money, few academic positions etc. same as most sciences. But if you have evidence to back up your thoughts, lets have them... ... that or a retraction; if you're man enough. -
Bruce Frykman at 01:23 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
Wouldn't it be more honest to say that 97% of all people who make a career out of the idea that man's behavior must conform to that required by the same politicians who fund their careers. What are the career prospects for deniers within the EPA? Are their any job openings for research leading to the concept that were are spending to much treasure studying climate?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please lose the ideological bias if you want to be taken seriously. Unless you can substantiate the statement in your first paragraph, it must be considered purely an opinion; it is also a borderline accusation (which violates the Comment Policy). -
Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
49, RSVP,This was the purpose of the parody and please do not take it personally.
This is further evidence that you do not discuss fairly and openly, but rather play games and seek to discredit others using tricks and shenanigans rather than information and intelligence.My thesis has and will always be that industrial waste heat is the main culprit to global warming and your response has made this obvious without your even realizing it.
Which is an absurd thesis. Do you really think no one could have done that simple math before now, and had a Eureka moment from it, along with weeks of spots on television shows, followed by nothing, because the whole climate change debate would have been entirely different for the past decade? You always demand numbers from others. Now how about you? What is the total amount of heat generated from one day of worldwide fossil fuel use (not just industrial, but everything), measured in W/m2?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Waste heat has its own thread, where it is shown that there's 2 orders of magnitude difference between the waste and the GHE. -
pbjamm at 01:12 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
RSVP@49 I see nowhere in Tom Curtis' comment @44 where he mentions Industrial Waste Heat (IWH) being a source of warming. I look forward to his rebuttal, though I doubt his time would be well spent penning it. On a related note, a Grade A Denier I have had numerous 'discussions' of AGW with once told me that the theory was bunk because the amount of IWH was not adequate to cause warming. I was incredulous that he thought that AGW was in any way based on this premise and told him that if he thought so then he was arguing from a position of complete and total ignorance. I may have used more expletives... -
Bob Lacatena at 01:06 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
47, Dr. Jay Cadbury, phdSo we can conclude that Trenbirth does not know where some of the warming has gone.
Yes. And it's a travesty. It's a travesty that the $100 million earth-monitoring satellite DSCVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) to be launched in 2001 was mothballed... the only satellite ever built and never launched, even when the Ukraine offered to launch it for free (turned down because of fears that they would lose the satellite in launch, if you can believe it). It's a travesty that NASA's Glory satellite was destroyed during an attempt to put it into orbit. It's a travesty that the aging satellites in orbit are now malfunctioning, further reducing our ability to gather data. It's a travesty that we've had a decade to launch dozens of satellites and other initiatives to help answer the important questions, but have done nothing except listen to Watts whine about his own misunderstandings of the surface temperature record. The travesty isn't that we aren't able to know, but rather that we haven't invested the (trivial) effort into seeking the knowledge, and that is going to come back to haunt us big time. So I hope that you now understand the full context and content of Trenberth's statement, rather than picking a few words out and presenting them as if they represent something nefarious. -
Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
err by john, I mean Tom. Oops -
Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles "OK but you didn't prove that you can increase the cost of FF enough to make renewables more profitable without crushing the economy" Perhaps john didn't. But already posted links to an interview with Mark Jaccard who has looked at this extensively. And guess what he found? Yep, that's right. You can increase the cost of FFs via a price on carbon enough to phase them out, without destroying the economy. But we already knew that, you just fail to follow up on the sources people provide. But more importantly your 'analysis' fails to consider the cost of inaction, which makes it meaningless. Look at here for more info -
Ian Forrester at 01:02 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Giles said:so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content.
Who has ever said that it was? The energy content of the globe is found in a number of places some of which are accurately measured (surface and oceans down to 700 metres) and others which cannot be accurately measured with today's technology (deep oceans). You are incorrect when you state that we cannot measure energy in and out. We can. Incoming energy has been measured for some time and outgoing energy has recently been measured using satellites. In addition to measuring the amount of out going energy a finger print (spectral analysis) shows that the missing energy corresponds to the wave length of EM radiation which is absorbed by green house gases. Thus your argument is completely fatuous. -
Dan Moutal at 00:58 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles Thanks for finally admitting your defeatist attitude. You could have saved us a lot of time by being upfront about it, instead of being cagey and obstructionist. You sound similar to the people predicting doom and gloom when the Montreal Protocol was proposed. And when the Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol was proposed. And there are many more examples. In all cases people such as yourself have been wrong. And currently you stand in opposition to a rather large majority of economists (PDF). And it doesn't matter that they don't know how to build cheap wind farms. -
RSVP at 00:37 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Tom Curtis 44 In earlier posts, I was grilled for proposing the idea that heat is flowing northward to the poles from warming mid latitudes. This was the purpose of the parody and please do not take it personally. My thesis has and will always be that industrial waste heat is the main culprit to global warming and your response has made this obvious without your even realizing it. Thanks. -
RSVP at 00:31 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Ann 45 Working with your theme park analog, AWG has to do with a queue that is forming at the exit turnstiles, (perhaps they are interviewing each child for a survey). They are still "technically in the park", but by nightfall the average number of kids is the same. -
Marcus at 00:18 AM on 13 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
“Przemyslaw Mastalerz - author of more than 120 scientific publications , three textbooks of organic chemistry ..." None of which makes him knowledgeable about the biological impacts of DDT, Dioxins or PCB's-an area which has been heavily researched by hundreds of experts over several decades-yet you dismiss their work as "defective", based on the non-peer reviewed work of a single individual-an individual whose book was probably bank-rolled by the very industries who stand to lose the most from a ban on these highly dangerous chemicals. Still, good to see you're sticking to the pseudo-skeptic credo of only accepting the views of those of the same ideological bent, even when said views are not backed up by *hard evidence*. -
Marcus at 00:15 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Wow, Gilles, way to be *wrong* on all counts. Lets deal with them in order shall we? A) this just smacks of 1980's thinking. The majority of Wind Farms built since the late 1990's have a capacity factor of between 30% to 40%-even without storage. Add in a grid storage mechanism (like compressed air, pumped storage of Vanadium Flow Batteries) & you can get it to between 70% to 80%. Also, who says you need fossil fuels to fill any gaps? Bio-gas from land-fill or sewerage treatment plants are just as effective at producing base-load power as coal power stations are (actually better, because they're more efficient & can be scaled better to meet demand). Also, why focus on Wind Power alone? Geothermal, bio-gas & Tidal Power are all capable of producing base-load power, as is solar thermal with heat storage built in. Also, you mention hydro-power but, like coal & nuclear, their reliability can drop very sharply in situations of prolonged drought (like the European Heat Wave of 2003). Also, the over-centralized nature of coal, nuclear & hydro-electric make them more susceptible to large scale black-outs, which is not true of the smaller, more distributed renewable energy generation systems. b) "no, liquid fuels aren't the same as electricity, you need coal to reduce mineral oxides, etc..." Hmmm, clearly you've never heard of fuel cells, which can generate electricity from liquid fuels. Also, you don't need coal to reduce mineral oxides-any material with a sufficiently high Reduction Potential will suffice. Indeed, electric arc furnaces are able to reduce mixtures of metal oxides & scrap metal-more efficiently than coal. Also, its only because coal is *carbon* that its able to reduce metal oxides-other forms of carbon, potentially of a biological origin, could be substituted. C) Again with your beloved Iceland. How many time do we need to remind you, though, that Iceland *only* imports oil-& only for its transportation needs. No, they're not stupid though, because since 2005 they've been looking into ways to increasingly substitute their oil dependence with locally produced hydrogen instead-so clearly *they've* recognized the low, long-term value of importing oil. Other nations are also looking into non-FF substitutes to power their transportation sector. Increasing numbers of Americans & Europeans are looking at electric & hybrid vehicles, whilst both China & Germany are going big on bio-fuels (Especially bio-diesel). So you see, Gilles, that yet again you've provided us with a rant that's long on error, but short on facts. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:10 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"Therefore, Trenberth was talking about where some of the warmth has gone, not that there is a lack of warmth. The illustration below shows what the situation is. Please note the lack of information from the deep oceans." Okay, and Trenbirth said, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." So we can conclude that Trenbirth does not know where some of the warming has gone. -
Gilles at 23:58 PM on 12 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Again Ann and others : we don't know that the warming exists because we measure it carefully at the system boundaries - there is no such precise measurements. It is only a theoretical prediction based on models. Trenberth actually compares the global energy budget theoretical deficit with the observed variation.This is not about a discrepancy between two measurements, but between a theory and measurements. Interpreting it as "the theory is right but the measurements are wrong" is obviously only one possibility - the other being quite admissible. The "observed" warming is only indirectly followed by the variation of average surface temperature, but it is only an indirect and somewhat inaccurate proxy for the global energy content (which is the only conserved quantity). A piece of evidence is shown by the fact that during intense El Niño/la Niña events, like in 1998, 2005, or 2010, the average surface temperature experience "huge" variations of 0.5°C or more, corresponding to several decades of "average" trend, in only some months - but of course the energy content of the Earth has not been able to vary so much , so rapidly ! so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content. -
MichaelM at 23:53 PM on 12 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
I think AS@13 in his quote mining from Steinhilber and Beer, 2011 skipped a previous nugget of truth:"With the beginning of industrialization in the 18th century, the importance of solar and volcanic forcing decreased while the influence of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect due to fossil fuel burning began to increase and is currently playing the dominant role."
-
Ken Lambert at 23:47 PM on 12 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #59 "Making this adjustment reduces the additional energy absorbed over the summer according to the conservative estimate from 2.2*10^21 to 1.7*10^21" Run me through how you calculate the 1.7E21 Joules? I notice you keep using the reference date for your sea ice extent as 1978. Forcing is quoted in W/sq.m (power) or Joule/sec-sq.m which introduces the unit of time. The compatible Trenberth unit is E20 Joules/year. You must therefore quantify the ice loss on a per time (annual) basis.Moderator Response: Later in the same comment (from which you quote) Tom says this: "Emphasis added. Details of calculation in my 56 and my 54." -
Tom Curtis at 23:03 PM on 12 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
AS @13: Steinhilber and Beer 2011 do state that the sun has been in a state of high activity, but their own graph shows that it is not "the greatest solar maximum for thousands of years":
(From Steinhilber and Beer, modified to easily compare levels of TSI)
As can be seen, the total TSI has been higher than at any time in the last hundred years at least twice before in the preceding 1100 years, and has shown similar levels of activity to the modern era many times before. Modern solar activity is at the high end of the range, but not unusually so - and the claim that it is so is of AS's manufacture rather than any claim made in the paper from which he quotes.
Worse for him, the paper from which this data comes (Steinhilber, Beer and Frohlick, 2009) concludes that:
"Our estimated difference between the MM and the present is (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm-2. This is smaller by a factor of 2– 4 compared to records [Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000] that have been used in climate model studies. Although our result is similar to the values of other more recent reconstructions [e.g., Wang et al., 2005; Krivova et al., 2007;Tapping et al., 2007] (see Table 1), the derivations are based on completely different assumptions, e.g., both Wang et al. [2005] and Krivova et al. [2007] use either the total photospheric magnetic field or the sum of the open field calculated from flux transport models using sunspot numbers and the fields from the ephemeral regions for the longterm change and determine TSI assuming that the change depends on the magnetic field in the same way as for the 11-year cycle modulation. In our approach the long-term changes of TSI do not dependent directly on Br, but on the strength of the activity which is also well represented by Br."
So, rather than evidence of the dominating influence of the sun, this paper is evidence that the sun is much less influential on climate than was believed during the preparations of the IPCC Third Assessment Report and Assessment Report 4. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:53 PM on 12 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
159, Gilles,...or my motivations, and emit judgements that would be considered as an insult by any normal individual.
Sorry, but you get what you pay for, and you do not get a free pass. You don't get a pass by trying to prop up your position by declaring yourself as some sort of cool headed academician who's just being honest with himself. You don't get a free pass by (like Watts) claiming on the one hand to be "living green" while on the other sabotaging efforts of society as a whole to do the same. Whether or not people doubt your intellectual integrity is determined entirely by what you post here, and how you respond to others, not how insulted you feel. Whether or not people doubt your motives is determined entirely by how your objectives are interpreted by each individual who reads your posts, and the responses to your posts, not by how you insist they be interpreted. Hand waving, lack of citations, tricks and games do not earn confidence in one's intellectual integrity. Beyond this, you've adopted the very convenient position of saying that we should do absolutely nothing, which coincidentally lets things continue on their merry way, even though you've admitted that at the end of that path lies catastrophe, even though your only reason for not even trying is because your opinion is that it won't work. You dismiss the obstacles as insurmountable merely by declaring them as such, as being more than "some little obstacles, prejudices, and lobbies." Some points of fact: First, in the past centuries, the world has adopted railroads, steamships, the telephone, satellites, and a host of other technologies. Each has replaced something unimaginably irreplaceable that had come before it. This isn't an argument of the magic of technology, but rather against the fantasy of stagnation. The idea that "this is the only way, take it or leave it" is foolish and naive. It's been held by many, many people in history before you, and they've always been wrong. Second, as I've said repeatedly, one need only look back at the sacrifices made in the Second World War to see how far civilizations can and will go to defend themselves. It's not only possible, it's easy. It just requires some personal sacrifice. I'm not saying we can do it overnight, or that we can even completely abandon fossil fuels within the next century, but we could certainly cut their use if people were motivated. They aren't motivated, because of a plethora of characters who keep screaming (using various, disparate approaches) for people not to do anything. A tax is a step towards getting things done, a necessary first impetus to get people moving in the right direction all by themselves. And if people listen to positions like yours, the sacrifice that must be made will be equivalent to that paid during World War II. If people ignore positions like yours, take the problem seriously, and put effort into it, the sacrifice will be almost trivial. This last point is the one that really, really bugs me about positions like yours. With a wave of the hand you dismiss any attempt to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as harmful to the economy. In what way? How will it hurt the economy if people are motivated to put their energies into building wind turbines instead of billion dollar special effects for movies? How many jobs will be lost because efforts are put into designing a new breed of fuel efficient (maybe electric) vehicles instead of gas guzzling SUVs? How long will the "food lines" be if people are employed creating a new, more efficient fuel infrastructure instead of serving double espresso lattes? This is the real problem with your position, that an economy is only healthy if it doesn't change and retool, and that any effort to change and retool represents a loss, rather than a gain, in wealth. To me, a society or civilization that rips out the rusting, cancerous, archaic parts of its own framework -- that can see what is not going to last, and take action to change -- is the healthy, happy, wealthy society. Clearly the only people that will be hurt by such a course of action are the people who already have everything they could want in the current society. Even they should not be foolish enough to completely resist change, unless they care so little for their children and grandchildren that they are willing to go to their own graves knowing that their progeny will too soon follow them, having lived a short, hard life of famine, squalor, and bare existence. Sorry, but even if I believed what you believe, I'd never admit to it, or surrender to it, no matter how comfortable I was in my own quiet, green little life. -
Gilles at 22:52 PM on 12 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Tom A) OK but you didn't prove that you can increase the cost of FF enough to make renewables more profitable without crushing the economy. Furthermore, the cost of renewables is very dependent of what you exactly ask them. Producing 10 % or even 20 % of wind electricity in a FF based network that can compensate any time for intermittency is very different from insuring 80 ou 90 % of the power by intermittent devices without black outs - requiring sophisticated and expensive storage devices. Again compare simply hydroelectricity and other renewables and ask yourself why the former can sometimes provide 100 % of electricity, but not the latters - this has nothing to do with FF lobbies. B) there is no law of physics governing the economic productivity of energy - no, liquid fuels aren't the same as electricity, you need coal to reduce mineral oxides, etc... C) externalities are not the only criterion again - taking into account that you cannot produce the same wealth with different energy. If you compare something, it is the economic productivity minus externalities. Now again if you're convinced that it is lower for FF, you're saying that people like Icelandic one are totally stupid, because they add the cost of importing FF to their externalities, which should produce no benefit at all. And I don't think personally they're that stupid. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:22 PM on 12 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
@Moderator These sentences (with final conclusion) - definitely - yes: “At decadal to multi-century timescales, climate variability shows a complex picture with indications of a possible role for (i) rapid changes of the natural forcing factors such as solar activity fluctuations and/or large tropical volcanic eruptions; (ii) internal variability including ENSO and NAO; (iii) changes of the thermohaline circulation; (iv) complex feedback mechanisms between ocean, atmosphere, sea ice and vegetation.” Those sentences - certainly not definitive - no. “However, there is scant evidence either for the cyclicity of climate variations on this time scale, or for the large-scale synchroneity of abrupt events. There is evidence for ‘‘Bond events’’ in some NH records although their cyclicity is doubtful (they may or may not be analogous to Dansgaard–Oeschger events), and their origins obscure.” "obscure" - does not mean: non-existent ...Moderator Response: [DB] "These sentences (with final conclusion) - definitely - yes" Umm, still no. I'm swamped with deadlines today, so if anyone else wants to help Arkadiusz on this one, feel free. If not, I will deal with it tomorrow. -
Ann at 21:55 PM on 12 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Another analogy, perhaps better than the money – because with money in a corporation anything is possible :-) : In a theme park you register the number of children entering and exiting through the gates. Once inside, they spread to the different attractions. At any time the number of children that is in the theme park should be the number of children who entered minus the children who have left the park. They should be somewhere inside. If the total number of children on all the different attractions is less than the count you did at the gates, you should get worried. That’s what Trenberth’s statement was about: we know the warming must be somewhere (we observed it entering through the system boundaries), but we can’t locate (part of) it – where did it go ? -
CBDunkerson at 21:12 PM on 12 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Tom Curtis #157: Overall I'd agree with your analysis that an 'emissions trading scheme' / 'cap and trade' type system theoretically could be a more efficient solution than a carbon tax. However, practically I don't believe that is the case. Cap and trade worked fairly well for dealing with sulfur dioxide and other components of 'acid rain', but there we were dealing with a much smaller segment of industry with much less political power (though their shills still insisted that fixing it would bankrupt the economy). With the entire fossil fuel industry, and various industries dependent upon them, involved, we are looking at an environment which basically guarantees legislative salad. Every 'cap and trade' scheme I have seen suggested has quickly morphed into a Frankenstinian monstrosity. That said, there isn't really anything which prevents the same kind of insanity with a carbon tax... except that the fossil fuel industry is so steadfastly against one in any form that they can pretty much only be passed if there is a sufficient majority not to need the votes of any FF-favoring reps. At which point there also isn't a need to compromise and allow in the legislative salad. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:08 PM on 12 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
@grypo A well. The last sentence (in my comments) is really too "condensed”. You're right. The papers cited by me was only served as proof - the reasons for objection - that is too weak account of the pre-2007 models, the natural factors of climate change (what says Christy) - particularly lags - by feedback associated to solar activity. Accordingly of too restrictive - use of "off-topic" on this site (in my opinion unnecessary makes it more difficult discussion), "I'm scared" to answer the second part of your doubts. But oh well - who does not risk ... and I'll try to as short as possible. If there is a lag in climate response - to changes in the TSI (cited paper offers c. 100 years, Swingedouwet al., 2010. 40-50 years - regional NH), it already (not just the future - the same claim the authors, writing about the present time: “... not yet have manifested itself fully ...”) we already have to do - with much more than we thought - the present result of such “lags”. And yet recently we had the greatest solar grand maximum from thousands years. Solar activity – the past 1200 years Steinhilber and Beer, 2011.: “The 9300-year long composite of solar activity (Steinhilber et al., 2008) shows that during the past six decades the Sun has been in a state of high solar activity compared to the entire period of 9300 years.” “Lags” in the response of climate to changes in TSI know (better) only recently. The most - comprehensively - it describes the paper: The influence of the de Vries (∼200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link, Raspopov et al. 2006.: “An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can differ from the solar signal sign. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation.” Varma et al. writing that - really - we do not know how to: “Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and additional feedbacks are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.” - yet having a significant impact on the global circulation. Still too poorly we known mechanisms for this significant change is responsible. Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an overview, Wanner et al., 2008: „On decadal to multi-century timescales, a worldwide coincidence between solar irradiance minima, tropical volcanic eruptions and decadal to multi-century scale cooling events was not found..” And about these doubts says Christy. Estimating a 10% impact on the Nature - the Sun; of the current warming can be affected by the error about which too little is known - “jumping to Conclusions” - that to make strategic decisions in politics and to the economy.Moderator Response: [DB] The Wanner study you link does not support your position. -
Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 12 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
My apologies to the moderators. -
Tom Curtis at 19:10 PM on 12 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles @163: A) You assume that fossil fuel based power generation will not have its construction cost increased in a similar way. Without that assumption, you find that capital costs for both fossil fuel and renewable energy will be increased by a carbon price; but the fuel costs of fossil fuel power generation will also be increased, thus leaving renewables with a competitive advantage. Further, even is we just consider capital costs, renewables will still have a competitive advantage. Assume for example, that power costs rise 20% due to a carbon price, and that power constitutes 50% of the cost of capital costs. Then the capital costs of the renewables will rise by 10%, or half the increase of power costs for fossil fuels. So even treating capital costs alone, renewables will gain a competitive advantage from pricing carbon. And, the renewables can increase their competitive advantage by sourcing their energy costs from renewables. B) That various forms of energy are interchangeable was one of the great scientific discoveries of the 19th century. It has not been refuted. Therefore the interchangeability of power sources and fuels is a technical issue only. This certainly means that small countries such as Iceland cannot afford the capital cost of converting to an electrical vehicle economy when they would be effectively the only market for such vehicles. That does not mean such a conversion would be technically or economically unfeasible given a suitable mass market. C) It is well known that fossil fuel driven power generation is cheaper than alternatives if you do not price in externalities. It is also true that if you do price in externalities, most renewable energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuel use. The fact that negative externalities have until now not been priced into the market explains the current dominance of fossil fuels in the energy market. It is no reason to continue making others suffer for our cheap power. As my (B) and (C) provide simple explanations for your (b) and (a), you should now be happy. Why is it, then, that I suspect you will reject the simple explanations without due consideration?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed tags.
Prev 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 Next
