Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 Next
Comments 89051 to 89100:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:19 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam said... "for the past 70 years, as often pointed out by AGW believers, CO2 levels have skyrocketed. If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster, but it didn't." Really? Is that what we say? I would modify that to say "if there were no other forcings on the climate system..." then yes, you'd be right. But no one claims that CO2 is the only mechanism that affect climate. We only say that CO2 is the biggest control knob. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
174, scaddenp, On #1, absolutely, yes, I can't believe it even needs to be discussed... except for the political power of the FF industry, and other complexities in the issues, such as the fact that the issues are not that simple... if some tax breaks are taken away, the obvious business response would be to let American oil fields lie untapped and put more resources into tapping foreign oil, which many companies can do without paying US taxes and paying lower foreign tax rates. The net result would be the same oil production, lost American jobs, and a negative political fallout for the politicians that endorse it. Like most things, it's not as simple or as obvious as it sounds. On #2, you'd similarly have a lot of lobbies to fight through (coal miners, coal economy states, coal industry heavyweights, etc.). And again its not that simple. What if the new, cleaner (if not clean) coal plant that you want to prohibit is to be built so that they can shut down an old, inefficient and dirtier one? Do you force them to build nuclear instead? The reality is that we will never be able to turn any source of energy off like a tap. The economy is too complex and interdependent, and the infrastructure is too inflexible. That's why action needs to begin soon, in a variety of areas (changing that infrastructure, such as how power is delivered, how vehicles are fueled, etc.) We don't need dramatic solutions, so much as we need to begin concerted work on a variety of solutions, so that we have better options as things get worse. This is the whole reason for general solution tax mechanisms like cap-and-trade or fee-and-dividend. If you try to target specific items, that's the "communist, centralized economy" approach that tends to fail abysmally. There are always pitfalls that people didn't foresee, and there's no reason to be so single-mindedly focused, no matter how obvious the solution may seem to be. A broad brush attempt to try to make FF carry their full (including externalized) costs will lead instead to many different, but hopefully appropriate, solutions in different arenas, as is fitting in each case. -
dana1981 at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Alexandre - I actually hadn't heard that particular myth before Sam mentioned it. You're right, it might make for an interesting post. Thanks for the suggestion. -
Riccardo at 07:17 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
... and it can not explain a significant portion of the temperature variations during the last 2000 years, as clearly seen from fig. 2 and 3. -
muoncounter at 07:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam#34: "for the past 70 years, as often pointed out by AGW believers, CO2 levels have skyrocketed." If by 'skyrocketed,' you mean an increase of between 1 and 2.5 ppm per year. "If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster," Apparently you are unfamiliar with the way that radiative forcing works. 'It should have warmed faster' ... than what? There are ample threads here, all with pointers to the relevant literature, explaining this process in detail. Look at the rate of temperature increase in the northern latitudes since 1970 or so, they are increasing pretty quickly: 0.3C per decade in Europe, 0.5C per decade in parts of Canada, close to 0.6C per decade farther north. There are ample threads here for that information as well. -
Albatross at 07:05 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
This is beginning to be a case of 'anything but CO2' wishful thinking. Dana is right-- if certain predictor variables (e.g., solar parameters) are highly correlated with each other, and one is applying a multiple linear regression to explain the variance in a dependent variable (e.g., such as global surface air temperature), then one has to choose one of the correlated group of predictor variables. Interesting (problematic) thing about multiple regression is that as soon as one adds more variables the R^2 (variance explained) goes up, when in reality might not be explaining more of the variance in the dependent variable--that is why statisticians use the adjusted R^2 when using multiple parameters. And again, some caution, without a physical mechanism to explain a relationship, correlation does not imply causality. At the end of the day, solar can not explain a significant portion observed warming since circa 1880, and this is especially true for the recent warming. Pretty sad that so many people continue to believe that solar is the primary cause. -
Alexandre at 07:02 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana #8 I meant that alledged unreliability of the ice cores due to supposed contamination before proper compression. I think that's what Sam's claim is about, and also the excuse Ernst Beck used for relying on chemical measurements on his below-standard E&E paper, with this CO2 time series:
Richard Alley metions the ice core reliability on his Biggest Control Knob lecture, and I'm sure there are some early papers to back this up. I thought it could be a good subject.
Well, I'm going way off topic here. Just didn't know where else to suggest it. Feel free to delete this after considering the suggestion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:01 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam... Surely you jest. You are claiming that his published research is showing something completely different that what is expressed by his opinion? That's quite an alarming claim. -
dana1981 at 06:55 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
I didn't move any goalposts. The article clearly states "conservatively estimate". These are all estimates, but my approach was a mathematically reasonable way to incorporate indirect effects. And it's not sufficient to claim that some solar effect varies by 10% over some timeframe. You have to have a mechanism whereby this solar effect is impacting the global climate. You know, that damn causation thing again. -
Adam at 06:52 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"As both Dana and I have amply shown, current levels of warming in Greenland exceed those measured in the early part of the previous century. I can appreciate your not wanting to accept that, but that's the reality of the data." Daniel, I accept that 2010 was unusually warm for Greenland's climate (which was the big temp spike in Dana's graph), but as Dana's graph also showed, for all of pre-21st century climate, Greenland remained warmer 60 years. Now as shown by the papers I provided you (one of which was authored by two AGW scientists) Throughout the 20th century (1900-2000) Greenland was warmer in the 1930's. You have not answered what I have brought up. If all of post 1970 warming was due to humans, then it would have meant that the warming that occurred on Greenland during that period would have also been caused by humans. Yet, as shown by all of the papers I provided you and by Dana's own graph, for those 30 years Greenland temperature remained below what it was 60 years ago. This clearly contradicts AGW. "It's true that the rate of warming 1916-1932 was a bit faster than the rate 1994-2010, but so what?" Dana, for the past 70 years, as often pointed out by AGW believers, CO2 levels have skyrocketed. If anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of 1994-2010 warming, then according to the theory, that period should have warmed faster, but it didn't. Daniel, I am aware of all the policies at skeptical science. This may be my first time commenting, but I have been aware of this website for months. You do not need to tell me things I already know. Rob Honeycutt, Jason Box's opinion did not reflect on the data presented in his papers. Whether he believes what is in the IPCC's report is his choice, and has got nothing to do with what he presented in his papers. -
daniel maris at 06:48 AM on 13 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I'm beginning to think that we need to think of using solar and wind to create methane, as a way of fast tracking to 100% renewables. (The methane is made from water and air). Here's an interesting recent article on Caltech research. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3155436.htm Methane has lots of advantages: we already have transport and transfer networks for this gas and we already have the generators in place. We can make the methane in those sunny desert zones where solar energy works best. Then we avoid the need for huge Desertec-style grid schemes, that in any case are vulnerable to terrorist and other disruption. -
shawnhet at 06:37 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, I think you are moving the goalposts here, big time ;). We've gone from a mathematically identical relationship to a reasonable approximation. IAC, none of this changes the fact that there are many changes in solar effects that vary more widely than TSI. If TSI changes by .1% and another proxy changes by 10% over a certain period, we cannot use your framework to meaningfully calculate the total solar effect on climate. Cheers, :) -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:27 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam... I'm very curious how you can cite Dr Box in one post and then turn around and dismiss his conclusions in another post just 12 minutes later. -
daniel maris at 06:25 AM on 13 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Scaddenp - I think the point is that Stern does not cost positive effects in the same way he costs harmful effects. I didn't see any evidence that Stern had (a) costed value of additional crop yields and (b) incorporated such costings into the overall cost-benefit analysis. Tom Curtis - You're wrong. We're sinking in the South where I live(Scotland is on the up). But even so I have not noticed any serious effects. Of course, there must be effects and we must be reacting to them...I am just pointing out they haven't been catastrophic. -
dana1981 at 06:21 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Ah but shawnhet, as you already noted, various solar attributes correlate well with each other. TSI and solar magnetic field (which impacts galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth) are strongly correlated, for example. So I think lumping them together is a reasonable approximation. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:19 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam: You're new to Skeptical Science and how normal business is conducted here can be a bit confusing for the newcomer. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread. Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly. The Yooper -
scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I'd still love to see the results of doing 2 simple things before worrying about tax or ETS. 1/ Kill all forms of subsidy on FF. I just cant believe you have the right wing supporting subsidies in the US where its supposedly the home of capitalism. Evidence of corrupt government. 2/ Simply ban any new coal-fired generation. That concentrates the mind of energy sector. Now let capitalism do its thing. -
shawnhet at 06:18 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, just because one watt of forcing *might* equal another watt of forcing does not mean that the amount of indirect forcing changes linearly with the amount of direct forcing which is what your formulation requires. BTW, since you bring it up, you can find plenty of evidence that all forcings are not equal at all times if you want(compare the bottom curve with the temperature ones). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Cheers, :) -
dana1981 at 06:16 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, there is a difference between rate and absolute temperature. Box's data clearly shows Greenland is currently warmer than in 1930. It's true that the rate of warming 1916-1932 was a bit faster than the rate 1994-2010, but so what? There are no opinions presented here. Box clearly referenced the IPCC AR4 in his anthropogenic attribution statement. If you want evidence, go read the IPCC report. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:08 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam Again, the thrust of this thread is about the various responses of the different types of Greenland ice sheet outlet glaciers to the documented warming of the globe (of which Greenland is but part). As both Dana and I have amply shown, current levels of warming in Greenland exceed those measured in the early part of the previous century. I can appreciate your not wanting to accept that, but that's the reality of the data. The gist of your position is: 1. It was warmer than now previous 2. It's not CO2 causing the warming that is not happened (the logical fallacy that Dana spoke of) #1 has already been demonstrated to be false. For #2, you have multiple issues. Search for "It's Not Us" or one of the many myriad other skeptic favorite toys listed under the Taxonomy listing of skeptic arguments to further your knowledge. Unless you wish to discuss something actually pertaining to the topic of this particular thread, your positions are best discussed where directed previously (and as such are off-topic here). The Yooper -
dana1981 at 06:07 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - a forcing is a forcing is a forcing. They don't operate differently except for the slight variation in the climate sensitivity parameter for the various forcings. Mathematically I've got the possibility of indirect effects accounted for. Alexandre - we do have "How reliable are CO2 measurements?". Sam's comments are of course irrelevant here, since there was no reference to ice core measurements. -
Alexandre at 05:37 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
About SkepticalSam's claims: does SkS already have a post on ice core studies? I tried to find something on the arguments and did not find any. It would cover some "skeptic" arguments like Ernst Beck's... wouldn't it be worth a post?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Search 'ice core'. Also look at 'co2 lag'. -
shawnhet at 05:33 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, the point is, that there is a difference btw an indirect effect and simply multiplying the direct effect by some factor. An indirect effect(whatever it is) will operate how the indirect effect operates - not how TSI operates. The two things are only mathematically identical if you assume that they operate the same way(which there is no reason to assume). Cheers, :) -
Adam at 05:28 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana all I am asking is that you simply present proper empirical evidence that humans are the cause of the Greenland warming and glacial melt described in this article. I'm not being unreasonable. The hypothesis of AGW means that post 1980 Greenland warming was caused by humans. I have not seen any empirical evidence for this claim. All I am asking is that you provide it.Moderator Response: Discussion of the anthropogenic attribution of the warming observed in Greenland is off-topic for this post. Please follow the directions given in the next comment by Daniel. Thanks! -
dana1981 at 05:27 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - I'm not saying the TSI sensitivity is high. I'm effectively hedging my bets by including indirect solar effects as a feedback encompassed in the solar climate sensitivity parameter. Now, you can say that I'm not inflating the sensitivity enough to account for the full effects of these indirect factors (which I would disagree with - again, see the cosmic ray link above), but mathematically, there's really no difference. To account for the indirect effects, either you inflate the senstivity or you inflate the forcing. The mathematical result is the same either way. My calculation is really no different than assuming there's an indirect solar forcing ~20% as large as the TSI forcing. -
Adam at 05:25 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana personal opinions have know meaning in science. Jason Box's personal beliefs do not effect the actual data presented in his papers; that Greenland was warmer 60 years ago.Moderator Response: Dr. Box was quoting the IPCC and is thus not expressing a personal opinion. -
Adam at 05:24 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, the 2010 spike in Greenland temperature is most likely due to el nino, as it was with the rest of the globe. Dana, as your own graph shows, for all of pre-21st century climate Greenland was warmer from 1920 to 1940. Now anthropogenic greenhouse gases supposedly started having a major effect at around 1975. Therefore, the theory means that post 1975, Greenland should have been experiencing anthropogenic global warming. Yet, as your own graph shows, that for the 30 years of warming (1970 to 2000) that was meant to be caused by humans, Greenland had not exceeded it's previous period of warming. Once again, as your own graph shows, the 1920 to 1940 warming occurred at a much faster rate than the 1980 to 2000 warming. -
dana1981 at 05:21 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
It's also worth quoting Dr. Box on the causes of Greenland warming (emphasis mine):"The recent (post-1994) warming, is attributable to: 1) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since 1991; 2) recent warming phase of AMO; 3) an apparent reversal of the global dimming trend; and 4) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG), the elephant in the room, owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite other anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). The primary factor responsible for the warming trend is very likely to be AWG (IPCC, 2007)."
-
Adam at 05:16 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"This data on Greenland is an example of that data, which supports the AGW conclusion. Why does all the data point the same way?" Michael could you please explain that statement? Could you explain how data from Greenland support AGW? -
dana1981 at 05:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam - Greenland doesn't exist in a bubble. I have a hard time understanding how you can argue that the increased greenhouse effect, which we know is warming the planet, isn't warming Greenland. It's true that there was a significant warming event in Greenland in the early 20th century, in which human greenhouse gas emissions only played a small role, but the existence of a previous natural warming doesn't mean that the current warming can't be anthropogenic. That's a logical fallacy. By the way, your Jones and Briffa reference only contained Greenland temperature data up to 2000. Here's the up-to-date data from Jaxon Box's website.
-
Adam at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Now Daniel, the point of your article is that Greenland glaciers are melting rapidly due to global warming. But this is only evidence of warming and not anthropogenic warming. I have not seen any credible evidence that the current Greenland warming is caused by humans. It is very likely that the same amount of melting you describe in your article also happened 60 years ago. Dana is misunderstanding what I am saying. I' m not saying it's warmed naturally before, so it's current warming must be natural. I am just saying that the melting of glaciers that you describe is well within the natural variability of Greenland's climate, and is not likely to be caused by CO2. Really the only clear evidence that humans have got anything to do with post 1980 greenland warming is computer models, and as shown by Polyakov's 2002 paper, they have failed to replicate the current Arctic climate. I also suggest you read this paper, which supports the same conclusion that the current Greenland climate is not unprecedented: "Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability: 1840-2007” by Jason Box et al, published in the 'Journal of Climate (2009) http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf Look, when looking back at past temperature data for Greenland, you can see that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the past 20 years of warming. It is very difficult to detect any anthropogenic signal in Greenland's climate. A lot of the temperature and ice variations are very hard to be explained by CO2. I think that based on what we know about Greenland's climate, and it's history, the most plausible explanation is that it's current climatic changes are of natural causation. -
shawnhet at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Ok, but there is a difference btw saying that the TSI sensitivity is high and saying that some other factor related to solar activity can cause changes in climate. As such, simply inflating the solar climate-sensitivity doesn't reflect the wide and various correlations btw climate and solar proxies very well. Cheers, :) -
Daniel Bailey at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam Look again at the graphs I generated above on the polar projections for the Arctic, both for the periods covered by Chylek 2006 and the most recent 10 year trend. In both, Greenland is warmer in the recent interval than the earlier. It is the lack of data from the earlier timeframe that keeps us from concluding with very high confidence that the entirety of Greenland is now the warmest in the instrumental era. Your comments about CO2 levels relative to temperatures quite frankly betray a lack of understanding of the time lags involved in order for temperature equilibria from CO2 forcing to be realized. As that is off-topic here, you can find many more appropriate threads than this to further your knowledge. The thrust of your position, that CO2 is not driving Greenland (or any other) climate change, is similarly off-topic here. The Yooper -
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.
Prev 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 Next
