Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 Next
Comments 89151 to 89200:
-
There is no consensus
Bruce, When you are sick, I presume you go to a doctor. Why not simply consult a bright engineer friend who reads about medicine as a hobby? After all, doctors are paid to heal illness; there are clear monetary pressures at play. They also possess the same "human weaknesses that the rest of us do." Why then should anyone bother listening to doctors at all? This is not a question of "are scientists perfect", it is a choice between opposing viewpoints. You can choose to listen to a) political pundits / bloggers / industry spokesman or b) scientists. Instead of telling us why we should not choose option b, how about you explain why you think option a is the more rational choice? -
shawnhet at 15:23 PM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
muoncounter:"I'm not sure what you think this means." It means that sometimes the relationship btw GCR and TSI is can be represented as TSI times a constant value and sometimes it can't. dana:"when you're talking about long-term temperature trends, which is what we're doing here, then it's the long-term trends in the forcings that matter. Short-term variations don't cause long-term trends." Well, I suppose that if you reduce all the data in a set to two linear trends then you can clearly represent value 1 as value 2 times a given factor. However, this value doesn't have a physical meaning. Further, there is nothing you can do with this. OTOH, by comparing the specifics of how these two values vary with respect to one another you might be able to tease their relative forcing values. Cheers, :) -
dana1981 at 15:21 PM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
HR:"Does your answer here not raise alarm bells for you?"
Nope. As I've discussed elsewhere, we've measured and quantified these effects in recent decades. For example, see here. -
Gilles at 15:18 PM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
villabolo : I don't really see your point - but maybe you didn't see mine ? where did you see that I thought that "the heat pulse travelling down the ocean depths is going to stop where our instruments just happen to be?" I never stated such a thing ! -
scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
Bruce. Bizarre I am sorry. In science you only get advancement and recognition by doing something different. If you found replacement for current theory of climate that got human's off the hook, then a noble prize awaits you. You also seem to have the mistaken idea that funding is for "pro" and not "anti". In fact funding is for finding out what we dont know and the funders of science (unlike SPPI, Koch, Cato etc) are indifferent to what the outcome of the research is. Your assumptions sir are flawed. -
Bruce Frykman at 15:15 PM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
RE: KR - 314 RE: "That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science." ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) I do hope that you will take this opportunity to disabuse me of my impressions in this regard. ( -Ideological/political statements snipped- ) RE: "I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) Tom Curtis - 310 "I can confidently tell you that your [my] theology is not better than your [my] science - which is deplorable." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) RE: KR at 14:37 PM on 13 April, 2011 "Space and time? Or lack of actual content?" The former, space and time. RE: "Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell;" Do you have evidence that Dr Landsea didn't have evidence? Silly argumentation isn't it. Please read Dr Landsea's letter of resignation and tell me why Dr Landsea needs to provide you more proof of what he said is what he said. http://sppiblog.org/news/dr-chris-landsea-leaves-the-ipcc#more-743 Oh, finally is Dr Landsea now a "kook" or a "denier?" http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea_bio.htmlModerator Response: [DB] Adherence to the Comments Policy is NOT optional. Further perambulations, both off-topic and ideological, will cause comments to be summarily deleted. -
Gilles at 15:14 PM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
58 - but the diagram cannot be about precise measurements - even the incoming Total Solar Irradiance isn't known with this accuracy? Look what a required 0.9 W/m^2 accuracy would really correspond to :
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Your diagram shows the raw output from the instruments on the individual satelites, without taking into account the biases and drift affecting each individually. That does not mean that the uncertainty in measurements in TSI is as large as the differences between the raw measurements. The differences between homogenised products e.g. ACRIM-v-PMOD give a better indication. Those differences are rather smaller (although quite possibly still greater than 0.9 W/m^2). -
HumanityRules at 15:12 PM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
35 dana1981 Does your answer here not raise alarm bells for you? All those same processes are going on now. For example we are presently in an extended period of low volcanism, land use changes have likely accelerated in the past 100 years, natural variability is, I assume, still going on. Why are these processes not accounting for 0.4oC of warming in the present day as in the MWP? This seems exactly where the disagreement between a large chunk of the skeptics (lukewarmers) and the concensus lies. Any chance that you might think the IPCC has failed to fully account for these processes for modern warming? Certainly Pielke Snr doesn't stop banging on about how land use change has been neglected. -
Dan Moutal at 15:09 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Harry Seaward "100% return with no administrative costs???" As has already been mentioned actually more than 100% has been returned. "these innovations were not taxed into existence. They were adopted because they were better than what they replaced. Ingenuity and capitalism rule... How can you ban what is cheaper and more dependable?" As has already been discussed, the only reason why FFs are cheaper is because of the externalized costs. Or as Wikipedia says "If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good." And sooner or later (actually now in some cases) those costs will rear their ugly head. Or another way to think about is is the tragedy of the commons: "The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen" Carbon pricing is just an attempt to internalize the costs of GHG emissions, which intern allows the free market to do its thing. Significant externalities lead to market failure. This is basic economic theory. And is the crux of the problem. "then no one should receive these subsidies I hate to break it to you, but externalities function as a de facto subsidy allowing FF producers to sell their products at lower prices than would otherwise be possible. So I have to ask, what is the problem with internalizing the costs of FFs? And do you have a better way fo doing it that a simple tax? -
logicman at 15:01 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Why are people so adamant that alternatives to fossil fuels are 'a bad thing'? Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor the horseless carriage, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable. Besides, I am reliably informed by scientists that these newfangled dirty, noisy, bone-jarring horseless carriages will require - purely for the comfort of their rich owners - smoother carriageways than the sturdy and reliable horse-drawn vehicles used by the common man. And who, pray, is expected to pay for such "essential" carriageways? The taxpayer, naturally! Yes, when Mr. Ford began to build his model T there really were people complaining about how this would impact their rights and freedoms, etc. etc. Plus ça change ... -
There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman - "Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science." Space and time? Or lack of actual content? Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell; if you have any, please provide it. As to your other assertions - no evidence presented means just that, nothing to take seriously. Assertions without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Harry, Capitalist does not equal no tax. Never has. However, while you have commented on my approach, at the base of it you stuck on idea that cheapest must be best even if isnt. You don't think climate change is going to cost us more than giving up FF. However, you still havent answered the more serious question on the linked earlier post - what IS the answer if you want to prevent FF usage? -
Marcus at 14:24 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"The US is no longer a truly capitalist society. There are now twice as government employees as there are manufacturing employees. That can't continue." Yes, but the Global Financial Crisis had *nothing* whatsoever to do with that. It was the appalling "self-regulation" of the US financial sector-which operates under the very strictest definitions of the "Free Market". -
Marcus at 14:22 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor alternative energy, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable." Didn't you read my figures for comparisons of renewable vs non-renewable energy Harry? Even with all the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel energy sector, new power stations won't be able to generate electricity much cheaper than the majority of currently available renewable energy technologies. This will only become *more* the case as economies of scale kick in for renewables on the one hand (thus pushing down capital costs) & as fossil fuels become even more expensive on the other (due to demand vs supply of fuel). They're also much more reliable than some people make out-thanks to advances in storage technologies over the last 15-20 years. Of course, certain elements of the mainstream press have become very adept at reporting on the renewable sector as if it was still the 1980's or early 1990's-i.e., as if the sector hadn't made huge progress in the areas of price, unit output & reliability over the last 30 years.....and on a fraction of the tax-payer funds enjoyed by the nuclear & FF industries I might add! -
Harry Seaward at 14:14 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Marcus @ 193 I agree with you. The US is no longer a truly capitalist society. There are now twice as government employees as there are manufacturing employees. That can't continue. A carbon tax only adds to the problem. -
Marcus at 14:08 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Harry Seaward. Though its off-topic, I'd hardly call the current state of the US a great advertisement for Capitalism. The GFC was born of a very strict adherence to capitalist principles, & look where that left the US. I'm *not* advocating a 100% Socialist system, but I equally think that a 100% Free Market Economy is just asking for trouble. My experience is that those nations that have achieved the best middle ground between Socialism & Capitalism are the ones that are currently thriving. -
Harry Seaward at 14:04 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Scaddenp @ 174 Point 1: I think (and I repeat think) those subsidies were put in place to encourage exploration because a reliable fuel supply is absolutely necessary to ensure the security of our country. But, surprise, I agree with you. If we are no longer allowed to explore and exploit our own resources, then no one should receive these subsidies. It is a complicated issue. Point 2: How can you ban what is cheaper and more dependable? Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor alternative energy, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable. My region of the US receives our energy from hydroelectric and nuclear and a small percentage from natural gas. We are very low carbon and I like that. (Even though I don't buy into AGW and I am a degreed and working environmental scientist). If a government tries to tax FF out of existence in favor of alternative energy sources, the lashback will be incredible. -
dana1981 at 14:01 PM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet#31 - when you're talking about long-term temperature trends, which is what we're doing here, then it's the long-term trends in the forcings that matter. Short-term variations don't cause long-term trends. HR and Charlie - there's natural variability, volcanic forcing, anthropogenic land use changes, etc. -
Bruce Frykman at 13:56 PM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
RE: Les - 312 "Do you have any evidence for that [politicization or careerism as a driver of climate science] or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? This is a target rich environment; I have proposed that the political authorities who fund climate science do not countenance appeals for funds to examine the proposition that human freedom is deleterious of the earth's climate. My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition. If you would like just one tangible example of political control of climate science, I would refer you to Dr Chis Landsea's resignation from the IPCC after politically appointed authorities put his name to the proposition that man's activities modulated both the frequency and severity of Atlantic hurricanes. Dr Landsea found no evidence to support such a claim, so his name was in fact fraudulently attributed to a proposition he would never have supported. This was not simply a mistake which would have been forgivable; when Dr Landsea asked the IPCC to redact the error they would not. We thus at least have some evidence that at one time at least some members of the IPCC were both honest and trustworthy to the extent they would not tolerate fraud committed in their name. I believe Dr Landsea is now classified by IPCC supporters as "a denier" Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science. -
Harry Seaward at 13:54 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sphaerica @144 The 5 examples you gave are good examples of where a capitalist society uses some technically socialist methods to improve society. I say technically because I think (correct me if I am wrong) that in our society (USA) even if you are in those sectors that you listed you are compensated based on your experience, education, seniority, etc... and not a common pay. Now to the rest of your post: the carbon tax that you are in favor of assumes that it will be voted into place. Right now most Americans aren't buying into it and the trend is increasingly negative. I don't know where you are from, or what your profession is, but the general public is not in agreeance with you. Solving problems by being a capitalist is not a knee-jerk reaction. Look at every successful and every failed society and tell me what they were. I think Russia is a prime example of failed socialist (communist) society that is actually out-capitalizing the USA. I've tried for a long time to keep the politics out of this discussion and the science about man-made global warming. But, when I see comments creep in like from DSL (who hasn't answered my question) @ 55 it does make one wonder. For the record, I do believe that CO2 contributes to global warming. Anthropogenic CO2 is a factor. Reducing pollution and becoming more energy efficient is something we should all strive for. However, a carbon tax is still a prime example of redistribution of wealth that is a tenet of the socialist dogma. Taxing all citizens - taxing carbon producers - sending the collected funds back out to the citizens (100% return with no administrative costs??? Even my liberal banker friends laugh at this) - giving the "poor" citizens tax breaks, etc... If that is not redistribution of wealth - then what is it? And, how does it help? If the purpose on putting a tax on FF use is to make other energy sources more attractive, and so we tax everyone including energy, but give the money back to public as subsidies to off-set the costs of the tax... Then we are basically taking money from the deep pockets and passing it back out. -
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Harry, I would still be interested in a response to questions at bottom of this post. It's not meant to be rhetoric, I'm interested in genuine solutions that are acceptable to political right. You can see at #174 what I think is a better starting point than tax or cap&trade. -
Marcus at 13:39 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"They were adopted because they were better than what they replaced. Ingenuity and capitalism rule." So, how many of the technologies that we've adopted over the last 150 years were done so *entirely* using private money Harry? How many of those technologies were rabidly opposed by the vested interests who profited from the old way of doing business? I think that if you check the history books, most examples of technological progress had to get at least initial support from governments/taxpayers, & that most of this progress was opposed by the vested interests of the day-so much for capitalism. -
Harry Seaward at 13:32 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sphaerica @ 168 Yes, your quote below is absolutely correct, but these innovations were not taxed into existence. They were adopted because they were better than what they replaced. Ingenuity and capitalism rule. "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." -
Charlie A at 13:14 PM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
#23 Dana1981 says "the other 80-90% were due to other factors, like natural variability and such. The solar feedbacks are included in the 10-20%." If I understand Dana1981's article and comments, he's claiming that the small changes in TSI means that the large observed changes in average temperature in the last 2000 years (exluding the last century or so) are mostly due to "natural variability". I'm surprised at size of the "natural variability" induced Northern Hemisphere land temperature changes. What are some of the "other factors" that are hypothesized for the NH land temperature variations of Figure 3 (prior to 1800 or 1900, of course)? -
Daniel Bailey at 13:08 PM on 13 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
The NAS has a new report out (story here): "National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces" FINDING 2.5 (page 69): "In the post–Cold War era, the U.S. Navy has had a very limited surface ship presence in true northern latitude, cold-weather conditions. According to information presented to the committee, the U.S. military as a whole has lost most of its competence in cold-weather operations for high-Arctic warfare." RECOMMENDATION 3.4 (page 84): "For risk management purposes, U.S. naval leaders would be prudent to err on the side of overestimation of future sea-level rise when renovating existing or planning new coastal facilities. The Navy and other branches of U.S. services that have historic commitments to HA/DR efforts for the United States and beyond need to consider as highly probable the need to enhance these capabilities to be prepared for increased damage from coastal storms." RECOMMENDATION 6.2 (page 119): "The Chief of Naval Research, the Oceanographer of the Navy, and the Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, should consider findings by the MEDEA Program (and take lessons from MEDEA actions within the intelligence community) to develop and support a Navy philosophy for providing access to previously classified information that can be used by the climate research community. Such actions would enhance the potential of these researchers to help the Navy better prepare for its mission in a future with a warmer climate." Acronyms: humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) The Yooper -
Marcus at 12:32 PM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles. A) Again with your poor reading & comprehension skills. It was abundantly clear to anyone reading my post that I was simply making the point that it is already technically-& economically-feasible to generate electricity, domestic heat & even industrial heat from 100% renewable sources. Of course the established energy generators (nuclear, fossil fuels & large-scale hydro) have done their level best to prevent this from being achieved. For the record, though, both King Island & Sorne Hill have apparently achieved capacity factors of over 60% using vanadium flow batteries. B) ...and again your poor comprehension skills come to the fore. I was making the point that, thanks to things like fuel cells, electricity & liquid fuels *are* effectively interchangeable. You claimed, falsely, that they were not. As to Arc Furnaces-I'm not across all the details, but I do know that there are already many mills which have already switched to this technology. Given that Reduction is essentially nothing more than gaining of electrons-& electricity is nothing but pure electrons-it certainly makes sense. I have read, though, that metal oxide reduction using arc furnaces uses 1/3rd of the energy of coke-based blast furnaces. C) Well Iceland currently has around 50 hydrogen powered buses, both at home & abroad-which isn't bad for a program only started in 2005. As for electric vehicles, I've had difficulty finding long-term figures, but I've seen figures to suggest that almost 90,000 electric vehicles were sold in the first quarter of 2011 alone. Of course, the one thing currently limiting production-& sales-of electric & hydrogen powered vehicles is the lack of an established "fuel" infrastructure. However, need I remind you that the same was true when the first petrol powered cars became available. It took several *decades* for petrol powered cars to be on the road in significant numbers, though I do expect electric vehicles to be more numerous in a much quicker time span-*assuming* governments don't allow themselves to be bullied by the powerful oil industry lobby. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:09 PM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Trane or GE really missed out on sponsoring the mission. Think of the ad campaigns they could've used: "GE, our air conditioners will outlast the Earth's..." 20 more to page 6... -
muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Then it's true: Arctic ice melt is caused by all those TV lights! Cue James Earl Jones: "This is CNN ... the Carbon News Network. We're the C in CO2!" -
Daniel Bailey at 12:01 PM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I hear the Catlin squad has dibs on that to keep their drinks cold (the CNN guys brought extra cups and tiny drink umbrellas)... -
muoncounter at 11:54 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Yooper#226: Well, that leaves an entire 10 cm of ice through the summer. No problemo! -
villabolo at 11:53 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please restrict images to width=500" Sorry, Muoncounter. I pasted the URLs from SkS and thought they would have already been properly sized.Moderator Response: [DB] I put some extra (hopefully useful) image code on the Posting Tips page. You can use any size up to 500; since the images in the comments will then be hot-clickable, clicking on the scaled image will then bring up the full image in all its glory. -
muoncounter at 11:46 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet#31: "for much of the graph TSI and GCR lie pretty much on top of each other" I'm not sure what you think this means. The phi parameter shown in figure 5 inverts the GCR flux, so that phi highs and TSI highs are GCR lows. Better graphs of GCR flux are available on the cosmic ray thread. Another version is Figure 1 in Stozhkov et al 2000, showing GCR peaks in 1965, '76, '87 and '97, which are all sunspot lows. Stozhkov also found a small negative trend in the solar cylce peaks of GCR flux over the 45 year period analyzed. Follow-up GCR-specific comments should go to the thread linked above. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:39 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
As an aside, one of the findings from this year's Catlin Arctic Survey is that the holes they've been drilling have been through 1.6-meter-thick ice. A typical Arctic melt season will witness about 1.5 meters thickness sea ice melt; more if predominantly new ice (first-year ice - H/t to Artful Dodger). The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 11:24 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Frohlich (2009), Total solar irradiance during the Holocene, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040142. SBF 2009 did a similar reconstruction. You can even access and have a play with the data (data file and readme file) They show a similar general result, i.e. millenial/centennial scale variation in TSI of approximately 1W/M2. Although the MWP is a period of relatively high TSI. Dana I'm curious about this statement of yours "Thus TSI appears not to have played a particularly large role in the MWP, accounting for perhaps 10-20% of its peak warming." What accounts for the remaining 80-90%? I'm guessing not external forcing. Internal variation? -
Marcus at 11:10 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"I remind you that Iceland produce much more renewable electricity than they need (they use a fair part of it in aluminium and ferrosilicon factories, but they could use it for their personal needs). So what is the "benefit" for them to use oil ? I don't understand."You really, *really* do have a listening & comprehension problem, don't you Gilles?We've already said that their oil imports are for *transportation*!!! { snip }Moderator Response: [muoncounter] DNFTT! -
Dan Moutal at 11:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Tom Curtis #157 The idea of issuing permits often (weekly or monthly) is interesting, but would require serious study to understand what effect that would have. I haven't heard this proposed before so for now I remain skeptical. And I still think a tax is simpler, which I think is very important when it comes to public policy. BUT I do think there is benefits is separating the flow of aid money to poor countries who will bear the brunt of global warming from pricing carbon. I suspect many people here will disagree with me on that. But the issue of aide is one that frequently ties up international co-operation in reducing GHG emissions. Would it not be easier to deal with these two important issues separately so that lack of progress in one of them doesn't hold up the other? And #158 I am not very familiar with the Australian carbon tax proposal so I wont comment directly on it. But I will note that it is certainly possible to implement a carbon tax poorly. I think it was France where the courts struck down a carbon tax proposal because there were too many exceptions. And Here in Canada in the province of Quebec there was talk of a carbon tax (not sure where it ended up) but politicians were making noise that power producers should eat the cost of the tax, which of course defeats the purpose entirely. @scaddenp I agree with you about the subsidies, but the nice thing about a carbon tax, if done right (and that means that some sort of price on carbon would have to be implemented globally) is that you don't have to muck around with banning coal, or thing like vehicle efficiency standards. The carbon tax allows the free market to handle this far more efficiently. -
shawnhet at 10:59 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
dana:"It's unclear whether you're talking about the variation or the trend. But it's the trend that matters, and there is no long-term trend in cosmic ray flux on Earth over the past 60 years, just like there's no trend in TSI. So my point stands." I'm talking about whether or not you can get a reasonable estimate of indirect forcing by multiplying the direct TSI forcing by some factor. Clearly, in that context, the variation is the important information. Anyways, you'd earlier asked me to substantiate the following claim:""Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI..." and I thought I'd answer that question(luckily I was able to find a relevant graph). ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/AGU-Fall2005/AGU_poster_Fall2005.pdf Please see the top panel of figure 5 - for much of the graph TSI and GCR lie pretty much on top of each other(which would be consistent with your approach), however, note the size of the blue and red spikes in the middle. GCR spikes much higher than TSI in relative terms. -
villabolo at 10:58 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@46 Gilles: "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." Please see my article on El Niño/La Niña events, and how their fluctuations are indicative of the fact that both El Niños and La Niñas are increasing in temperature (and this with a cooler sun starting in 2002!). What is the relevance of those "huge" variations of .5C when La Niña's lowest temperatures, as well as El Niño's highest, are both above those before 1995/1998? You can eyeball it here:
First note the green and pink lines and how they ratchet up. Then the brown trend line going up, "huge" variations notwithstanding.
These temperatures are increasing overall, irrespective of the variations you mentioned. Where does that heat go to? The oceans absorb over 90% of it. Oceans have been steadily rising in heat content with the usual fluctuations. Those fluctuations make no difference, no matter how large they are, to the long term trend; as can be seen here:
Now a reminder. You said:
"so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content."
@50 Ian Forrester said:
"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).
The ocean temperatures, of course, is what we can measure down to 900 meters. Do you seriously think that the heat pulse travelling down the ocean depths is going to stop where our instruments just happen to be?
Simple deduction indicates where the unaccounted for energy is going to be. In fact, since the heat pulse is obviously not going to stop at the 900 meter level, there has to be unaccounted for energy below it! In fact, it would be amazing if Trenberth did not have that accountability problem.
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please restrict images to width=500 -
The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles >Fine- what's the final result for both and with which accuracy ? I'll give you a hint: look at the diagram. -
Gilles at 10:18 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Ian #50 "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." Fine- what's the final result for both and with which accuracy ? -
Gilles at 10:16 AM on 13 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
so any news from the ice of Lincoln sea? -
Gilles at 10:01 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Other question about Mark Jaccard : did he forecast the spike in oil prices and the subsequent recession ? where?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Oil price forecasts are off-topic for this thread. -
Gilles at 09:59 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Marcus A) could you please indicate me a country reaching 70 80% of duty cycle with Windmills , or basing their power supply on biogas or tidal energy ? -but even if you found one, it wouldn't do better than the countries that I've cited, that have already 100 % renewable power, as I said. B) "Hmmm, clearly you've never heard of fuel cells, which can generate electricity from liquid fuels." Oh, yes, surprisingly, I've heard of them ! but I still didn't see any personal vehicle using them on a street. Again, technical possibility doesn't mean economical possibility. "Indeed, electric arc furnaces are able to reduce mixtures of metal oxides & scrap metal" I would be interested in knowing how an electric arc can reduce metal oxides, without carbon ... C) could you be a little bit more quantitative on the number of hydrogen vehicles in Iceland and electric vehicles in europe and america ? -
Gilles at 09:48 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"So when Iceland imports FFs, they get the benefits" I remind you that Iceland produce much more renewable electricity than they need (they use a fair part of it in aluminium and ferrosilicon factories, but they could use it for their personal needs). So what is the "benefit" for them to use oil ? I don't understand.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Let's try staying on topic; save Iceland for another thread. -
Gilles at 09:46 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
So, why am I "defeatist" following you ? which defeat ? which war ? what are you advocating against me ? could you please be more explicit on your final goal ? -
Riduna at 09:32 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sphaerica @ 168 I object. How can you possibly use the term “intellectual integrity” when commenting on Gilles “contributions”. Such an oxymoron! As Dan Moutal @155 notes, Gilles does nothing more than invite commentators into a warren of off-topic rabbit holes. That so many accept the invitation is absolutely astonishing! Sorry Moderators if this too is off topic. -
Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
From Peru @29, according to Hegerl et al the major driver of the MWP was an almost complete lack of volcanic activity in the 11th and 15th centuries (see their figure 2). I believe Hegerl has been the lead author of a more recent paper, but do not have the time at the moment to look it up. -
From Peru at 09:00 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
If variations in Total Solar Irradiance and their effects in temperature were so weak during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, then what else could have driven the warming then? It could not have been ocean cycles: both ENSO and PDO were in a permanent cool phase (La Niña + negative PDO) during the Medieval Warm Period. Maybe is solar effect after all, via cosmic rays. But if is not TSI nor cosmic rays (weak effect) and not ocean cycles (that were in a persistent cool phase), what else could have caused the Medieval and Roman Warming Periods? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:49 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
117, scaddenp, I agree, for the most part. And harsh regulations (in effect, a tax) on coal plants in particular would be good in so many ways. First we have to get past the "would you like some oil with your Tea" Party crowd. A hugely backward, Joe McCarthy style denial movement appears to be brewing in the U.S. Senate and Congress. I'm waiting to see what sort of nightmares it tries to create over the coming months -- or years, if the next election goes too poorly. -
shawnhet at 08:47 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
For the record, I was not attempting to discuss the GCR link, but I find it surprising that someone who is familiar with the proposed link would try and suggest that a reasonable approximation of it is to take change in TSI forcing and multiply it by some factor. GCR does not vary in lockstep with TSI. I will say (since it was raised by the moderator) that the evidence for climate effects due to GCR is primarily paleo in nature but there is plenty of it. Cheers, :)
Prev 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 Next
