Recent Comments

Prev  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  Next

Comments 89101 to 89150:

89101. dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 13 April 2011
       Zebras? 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.
89102. Bruce Frykman at 02:13 AM on 13 April 2011
       There 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.
89103. KR at 02:13 AM on 13 April 2011
       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.
89104. KR at 02:12 AM on 13 April 2011
       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...
89105. Adam at 02:09 AM on 13 April 2011
       Zebras? 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.
89106. Alec Cowan at 02:07 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89107. les at 01:36 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89108. les at 01:30 AM on 13 April 2011
       There 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.
89109. Bruce Frykman at 01:23 AM on 13 April 2011
       There 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).
89110. Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89111. pbjamm at 01:12 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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...
89112. Bob Lacatena at 01:06 AM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       47, Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd

       So 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.
89113. Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       err by john, I mean Tom. Oops
89114. Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011
       How 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
89115. Ian Forrester at 01:02 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89116. Dan Moutal at 00:58 AM on 13 April 2011
       How 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.
89117. RSVP at 00:37 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89118. RSVP at 00:31 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89119. Marcus at 00:18 AM on 13 April 2011
       Christy 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*.
89120. Marcus at 00:15 AM on 13 April 2011
       How 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.
89121. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:10 AM on 13 April 2011
       The 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.
89122. Gilles at 23:58 PM on 12 April 2011
       The 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.
89123. MichaelM at 23:53 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy 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."

89124. Ken Lambert at 23:47 PM on 12 April 2011
       A 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."
89125. Tom Curtis at 23:03 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy 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 B_r, but on the strength of the activity which is also well represented by B_r."

       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.
89126. Bob Lacatena at 22:53 PM on 12 April 2011
       How 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.
89127. Gilles at 22:52 PM on 12 April 2011
       How 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.
89128. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:22 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy 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.
89129. Ann at 21:55 PM on 12 April 2011
       The 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 ?
89130. CBDunkerson at 21:12 PM on 12 April 2011
       How 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.
89131. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:08 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy 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.
89132. Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       My apologies to the moderators.
89133. Tom Curtis at 19:10 PM on 12 April 2011
       How 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.
89134. JMurphy at 18:25 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "He also wrote: "The lies of eco-warriors."" Getting back to the subject, especially regarding Christy's intellectual dishonesty, why is it that so-called skeptics prefer to listen to people like that who have such political/religious views which guide their opinions ? It's the same with the quote above, talking about "lies" and "eco-warriors" - it's almost as if the so-called skeptics need their 'experts' to have the same opinions as them, otherwise they don't trust them. In other words, they prefer subjective opinion (using emotive, political, aggressive language) over objective fact. And that is why many of them will never be persuaded to accept the reality of AGW...until one of their preferred 'experts' decides that going along with the consensus is a political imperative which will bring more benefits than negatives, and takes all his fans with him - who will then forget what happened in the past and carry on as if they always accepted AGW !
89135. Gilles at 18:21 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       ( -Snip- )
       Moderator Response: [DB] Portions of comment solely complaining about moderation snipped.
89136. Tom Curtis at 17:51 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       RSVP @41: No! That is not what I told you, and if you try to abuse my words by ignoring obvious factors in a complex system, that is your look out. Why you choose to neglect the fact that a substantial portion of heat in the arctic is transported there in the atmosphere and ocean from the tropics I do not know. Why you also choose to ignore the substantive absorption of energy by the ocean in the arctic in summer, with that heat being transfered to ice and ice shelf in part by evaporation warming the atmosphere which is then carried over ice and ice shelf by local winds, again I do not know. Why you choose to ignore the atmosphere being warmed directly by absorption of solar radiation (or reflected solar radiation) by clouds, again, I do not know. All I know is that you had to ignore an awful lot of facts to so misinterpret me.
89137. Gilles at 17:49 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Agnostic : there at least two flaws in your assertions : "Put another way, the cost of energy produced from renewable sources becomes cheaper relative to that produced from FF. " just think of what really makes the cost of renewable sources. It's not the fuel, because it's free. So it's all the rest. But what is the rest? what do you need to build a windmill? or a big dam? well you need steel or carbon fibers, copper, concrete, engines, roads, a number of various materials and commodities that are all extracted, processed, and carried by cheap fossil fuels. We're constantly bathing in a sea of cheap materials that seem totally naturally exist - nobody cares about the availability of steel, rubbers, paintings, asphalt, and so on.. I could cite you dozens of products that are necessary to build any power plant - and *their cost are directly impacted by the cost of FF*. So thinking that making FF more expensive would favor renewables is just wrong on this aspect. A second factor you think to totally ignore is that various form of energy are *not* interchangeable , and even all form of electric power are not equivalent. I do not know any electrical network that is not powered mainly by a non-intermittent source , as FF, nuclear or hydroelectricity - nowhere in the world. I have some reluctance to admit that no country, including those totally deprived of FF, would have applied an easy solution to an old problem. Thinking it is just because of FF lobbies doesn't obviously fit to the case of hydroelectricity, which has indeed be used when possible - so obviously WHEN renewable were usable , they have been used. There is no problem in powering a country with water, when possible, and companies can make big profit by selling hydroelectricity just like any other commodity. So you have to find another explanation for: a) why only hydroelectricity , and no other renewable source, has been used as a only source of electric power, in the whole world, despite huge differences in natural and social conditions b) why even those countries that have largely more hydroelectricity than they need haven't succeeded in replacing totally FF . If you can offer me a simple explanation of these two facts, I will be happy.
89138. Tom Curtis at 17:32 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @60, I have consistently calculated the effects of the average change of sea ice extent between 1979 and 2010. The following graph from Tamino shows the sea ice area, which is slightly different but exhibits similar changes over time: You will clearly sea that the 2010 sea ice area through the summer months is from two to three million square kilometers less than it was in the late 1970s. On the other hand, every year there is an approximately eight million square kilometer reduction in sea ice area from the maximum around mid March to the minimum around mid September. That eight million square kilometer annual fluctuation drives the annual reduction in sea ice, and the annual reduction in sea ice thickness of about one meter across the whole ice pack. It is the reason the sea ice minimum is in mid-September rather than closer to the peak insolation in mid-July. That effect would have been operating for as long as we have had arctic sea ice, but it cannot lead to a runaway effect because the winter months eliminate the insolation that drives it. In contrast, the 2 million square kilometer additional reduction in sea ice extent since 1979 did not exist before, and is an additional forcing of arctic melt back. As you can see, that additional reduction in sea ice is a new feature, not having been observed before 1950, and not distinguishable from background noise before 1960. You will also note that as the additional melt back is more extensive in summer than in winter, in the past the variation between summer and winter was about half what it is now, with a consequently much reduced summer feedback of the seasonal melt. If you are observant, you will also notice that the two million square kilometer figure I use is very conservative, with the actual figure being close to three million for sea ice area, and four million for sea ice extent (reduction from 1979 only). That is, of course, in keeping with my intention to give you everything you could desire to sustain your theory (which collapses for all that generosity).
89139. Riduna at 17:13 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles @ 159 If you price carbon and impose that price on the top 1,000 Australian companies directly responsible for CO2 emission, the FF sourced energy they produce becomes more expensive. Put another way, the cost of energy produced from renewable sources becomes cheaper relative to that produced from FF. In a bid to curb CO2 emissions, the carbon price (whether imposed as a tax, an ETS or a hybrid) is increased until a point is reached where, relative to the cost of producing energy from renewable sources, energy produced from FF is more expensive. When that stage is reached, FF sourced energy will cease to be used. Most businesses do not care where their energy needs come from, provided it is the cheapest available, is available 24/7 and is priced so as to enable them to compete internationally. The technology already exists for Australia to produce all of its 24/7 energy needs from renewable sources. So, you ask, why is it not being done now? Ans: because it is more expensive than energy produced from FF sources. However, increasing the price of carbon encourages emitters to reduce less of it and at the same time makes FF energy relatively more expensive than renewable energy. Further, the government intends as part of its carbon pricing policy, to provide assistance to trade exposed industries, enabling them to continue trading competitively. Government also intends to use part of the proceeds of carbon pricing to provide assistance to and otherwise stimulate development of new technology enabling cheaper, more reliable production of energy from renewable sources. A common misconception is that the technology of to-day is the technology of tomorrow but this is simply not so. It advances. To deny that FF will ever cease to be used for production of energy, as you seem to, is of course a nonsense.
89140. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 16:57 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Marcus see link (of Wikipedia) proposed by dana1981: “Przemyslaw Mastalerz - author of more than 120 scientific publications , three textbooks of organic chemistry ... He also wrote: "The lies of eco-warriors." And me is “a shame” that 10 years I taught students about the dangers of DDT residues - based on defective scientific papers ...
89141. Tom Curtis at 16:43 PM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Ryan Starr @137, I want to clearly note that there has now been a change in the logic of your argument. Whereas previously you were arguing that the chart together with accompanying information did not give the reader grounds to suspect who the chart was constructed, you are now arguing that some readers may over interpret the chart, and consequently discount relevant information provided by Jones along with the chart. Well certainly. Having debated creationists I know there is no limit to the bizzare ways in which people will interpret or neglect even the clearest statement. I will go further, Jones caption is not as clear as it could have been (with little extra effort) in explaining how the chart was formed. In other words, Jones did not follow best practice in developing the WMO chart and accompanying caption. But if that is the basis of your argument, the logic has shifted from "Jones withheld relevant information in a manner likely to deceive, and therefore his actions were deliberately deceptive" to "Jones did not follow best practice, and therefore his actions were deliberately deceptive." The latter is, of course, a complete non-sequaiter, but it is all that you have evidence to support.
89142. Gilles at 16:42 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan, I'd like to ask a simple technical question to Mr Jaccard : does he know technically how to build a cheap windmill and connect it to a cheap electrical network without cheap fossil fuels? that's not an economist issue, that's an engineer issue.
89143. Riduna at 16:35 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan @ 155 You are quite right – there are problems with an ETS, as discovered by the Rudd Government which put forward proposals seen by many as flawed, particularly regarding the issues you have raised. The result was rejection of the legislation and determination of the Gillard government to get the design of a cap and trade right and fully explained to the electorate before presenting it to Parliament. adelady @ 156 Yes, I have read your comments on an ETS before and I understand your views. However, the primary purpose of pricing carbon whether by a tax or cap and trade is: 1. To reduce carbon emissions and 2. To develop and replace FF with clean energy technology as rapidly as possible. A carbon tax is deficient in doing this since it excludes compulsion or penalty for GHG emissions, government pricing is only maintained at an effective rate if this suits political ideology of the day (imagine what Abbott would do to it!) and excludes the market from pricing carbon depending on cap changes. Bureaucrats are not best placed – or informed – to specify price, for either an ETS or a Tax. Tom Curtis @ 157 As I note above, getting the design of a cap and trade right and fully explained to the electorate – what Rudd/Wong failed to do – is important. You suggest it can provide for a hybrid Carbon Tax/ETS and I agree. I think this is what Gillard has in mind – a hybrid which combines the best of both systems and prevents the pitfalls which adelady rightly sees as loopholes for inefficiency and corruption and the measures which you regard as desirable. My hope is that the only involvement of government in pricing carbon is to set an annual floor price and that a Carbon Tax transits quickly to something with teeth and realistic reduction targets – and 5% reduction by 2020 is barely tokenistic.
89144. Gilles at 16:24 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphericae : I would modulate some parts of your presentation of what I'm thinking, but generally speaking, you got my point - it's that industrial civilization is not a mere cultural event due to our intelligence and our discovery of fundamental laws (which are indeed a key point), but also the by-product of the availability of abundant cheap FF, and that a tax will never change this feature. The implicit assumption behind the idea of a tax is that, as many of you seem to think, we could obviously build the same society without FF, weren't some little obstacles, prejudices, and lobbies , that could be easily overcome with some political decisions like a tax. (I hope that I describe correctly your general opinion). My opinion is different : it is that we *cannot* sustain the industrial civilization without a minimum amount of FF (of course this does *not* mean that we can't improve their use and reduce somewhat their consumption), and that the minimum amount is enough to be exhausted in one century or so at the current rate. I understand you can disagree with that - after all we're here to discuss. But I don't understand that you try to alter my opinion or my motivations, and emit judgements that would be considered as an insult by any normal individual. I am *not* working for any industry, I am *not* belonging to a right wing party or even voting for them, I am *not* defending the inequality of incomes - all that is totally irrelevant to my position. I am a mere academic scientist, with a modest salary, I live probably with a much less carbon footprint than the average american, and I just try to work on these problems like on any scientific one : building what I think being the most exact theory from known facts. I may do mistakes, but I don't allow you to doubt from my intellectual integrity.
89145. Bob Lacatena at 16:22 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       60, Ken, Ummm... what the heck are you talking about? Do you understand the current post at all? Are you really that confused?
89146. Bob Lacatena at 16:16 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       222, DB, Okay, that was scary. Please don't do that just before I go to bed.
89147. Bob Lacatena at 16:12 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       24, RSVP,

       Glaciers are generally white, and should therefore be least affected by IR, and yet these are the hailed global warming canaries. What gives?

       To give a more direct answer to that specific question, no, the glaciers aren't (and don't need to be) melting as a direct effect of IR to be the GW canaries. If you go back and read my comment 27 about the basic mechanics behind a glacier, you will realize that glaciers are very dependent upon two factors, precipitation above the snowline, and where the snowline actually is at the tail of the glacier. It's actually more complicated than that (as there are many factors that affect the speed of flow of a glacier, etc.), but for our purposes this is good. Year to year or month to month or day to day the snowline is going to change somewhat, but not enough to impact a mighty glacier, not unless the change is consistent. But if the change is consistent, if temperatures have really warmed by X˚ above what they used to be, then the snowline on average is going to retreat in concert with the temperature change. That in turn means that the tail of the glacier is going to retreat. So a retreating glacier is a sign of a regular, ongoing, local rise in temperature. A lot of retreating glaciers, all over the world, are the sign of a lot of regular, ongoing, local rises in temperature, which in aggregate equate to a regular, ongoing, global rise in temperature. And that's what makes them the canary in the coal mine. They're not canaries for anthropogenic or CO₂ induced warming per se, but they are an inarguable sign of any global warming (as if the satellite record, land based observational records, ocean records, changes in the Arctic ice melt seasons and extents, and changes in flora and fauna behavior due to earlier springs and later falls weren't already enough other canaries to convince most reasonable people).
89148. Gilles at 16:04 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Muoncounter , maybe we should spend a little time to discuss what is a "fact" and what is a "wishful thinking" - obviously we disagree somewhat on the definition since you present me what you think being "facts" - that are not for me. " Where the current price is only $20 more than the 1979 peak? " because higher prices do provoke recessions that destroy demand, and so you have a natural limit that cannot be exceeded (that's the essence of the origin of peak ! you *must* destroy demand at some point). The fact is this price has been reached twice in some years, without any violent geopolitic event like in 1973 or in 1979 - and without any warning or any forecast of any people you seem to believe in. Again, the main quality of a scientific paper is not the number of citations or the name of the authors - it is its predictive power.
89149. Bob Lacatena at 15:58 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       41, RSVP, In a way, yes. The way you present it is muddled and confused, and full of absolutes as if the system were as simple as adding salt to water and measuring the change in boiling point. But... The ice is melting partly due to heat absorbed from visible light (most, but not all, of which is reflected -- that which is not reflected is absorbed as heat). It's also melting partly due to the air temperature above the ice. The fact that the ice reflects visible light has little to do with the air around you being warmer, as air is primarily transparent to visible light (with the exception of moist air, but as you are at altitude over Greenland, it is likely to be dry there). To understand this properly, you need to study a bit about quantum mechanics, molecular degrees of freedom (i.e. rotational, vibrational and translational energy), and a bunch of other topics in physical chemistry and atmospheric physics. It's not as hard as it sounds, though, outside of the fact that no one (that I know of, yet) has really put all of it together in one place. You have to look around, and learn bits and pieces here and there. But it's no where near as magical (or confusing, or contrived) as you seem to feel (based on the tone of your post). Try educating yourself thoroughly on how energy is transferred into and through the atmosphere, and this will make sense.
89150. Daniel Bailey at 15:42 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       

       That was a peek into the future; now for a look back (that pesky albedo flip taking shape, I bet):

       http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003679/autumnTrend_28yr_IPOD.m4v

       The Yooper

Prev  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  Next