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:
-
JMurphy at 22:37 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Christy says the same thing as the author Mastalerz) of Africa - DDT ..." So Christy likes to be in the minority (and a very small one at that) and you prefer to believe those scientific minorities over the consensus ? Why is that ? Does it conform to your political views or something ? Do you also reject Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, and think that the sun is made of iron ? All minority views, so you must accept them, presumably ? And you would also have to believe that '70s cooling' myth too ? -
Bob Lacatena at 22:36 PM on 11 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
57, Ken,Where is the purported forcing effect of CO2 taken account in your calculations?
What the heck is this supposed to mean? Do you really misunderstand the situation that much, that you can ask a question like this? Or is this just more gamesmanship? -
Marcus at 22:33 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"However, they continue importing oil, gas and coal, even if they're totally deprived of them - which would make no sense if your claims were true." Wrong again Gilles-you really do make a bad habit of that. First of all, nations like Norway & Canada don't *yet* have carbon free electricity. Countries that do-like Iceland-might still import oil for vehicular transport, but even they are in the process of developing alternatives to fossil-fuel based transportation. Iceland, however, does *not* import or consume natural gas or coal (or at least not according to the CIA factbook). Of course, just because these countries might *currently* import fossil fuels of one type or another, does not mean they *have* to do so. Unfortunately, as long as global energy policy continues to be dictated by the fossil fuel industry, then nations will go on believing that they *need* fossil fuels, when in fact alternative sources of energy will more than suffice. -
daniel maris at 22:33 PM on 11 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Scaddenp - You have failed to show that Stern has accounted for the value of additional crop yields in his report. I suspect he hasn't but - quite frankly - the whole report is a mass of supposition, assumption and presumption topped off with vague projection. I have already said that I take the precautionary approach and want to move rapidly to 100% renewables generation of electricity. So from your point of view I am not part of the problem. You are of course assuming that carbon addition is the cause of global warming and suspected sea level rise. If it proves not to be, then you will ahve been pursuing a very dangerous, risk happy policy. Again, using the precautionary approach, I would say if you can protect against sea level rise with sea walls you should because climate is too complex to be able to be sure of what is causing the sea level rise. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:32 PM on 11 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
24, RSVP, To add to Tom's point, and clarify: First, being white makes something reflective of visible light. That does not immediately extend to all wavelengths (e.g. the infrared), and in fact H2O in all forms (solid, liquid, vapor) has many ways of absorbing IR, more so than most molecules. Second, as Tom pointed, out, the warming comes from the surrounding air, not the sunlight. And to elaborate on that last point, understand that a glacier is not just a static hunk of ice. It is a more complex "living system of ice". Ice is added at the top, in the form of snow, deposited on a mountain peak at altitudes that are below freezing. The weight and pressure from the ice compacts it, and gravity tugs it so it very slowly flows down the mountainside -- basically a river of ice. Eventually it will flow down to an altitude where the temperature is above freezing, and the ice at the tail of the glacier melts. That's the basic formula: add snow at the top, change it to ice, slowly flow downhill, and reach an altitude where it is warm enough to melt. So a glacier can grow in one of two ways, by adding more precipitation at the head, or reducing the heat (and so lengthening) the tail. It can shrink and disappear with the opposites... either stop feeding the head with snow, or melt the tail at a higher altitude (shortening the glacier). Interestingly, in many cases AGW may in theory increase precipitation and add to glaciers, but overall the dominant effect is a global rise in temperature, which will in turn shorten the glaciers at their tails. -
Ken Lambert at 22:30 PM on 11 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis Thanks for your gracious admission that your incidence angle numbers were wrong and mine were right. This is your calculation form Post #54: "So, given these figures, and given that the top of atmosphere summer insolation at 75 degrees North averages 500 w/m^2, we can then determine that the average absorption by open ocean surface at 75 degrees North in the summer is 500*0.54*0.77*0.8 = 166.32 w/m^2. We can also determine that the average absorption by sea ice at the same latitude and time is 500*0.54*0.77*0.1 = 20.78 w/m^2. The difference, 145.53 w/m^2 is the additional power absorbed in the arctic for each square meter of sea ice that melts. Over the summer season, that means for each additional square meter of sea ice melted, and additional 1.1 billion Joules of energy is absorbed. The average change in sea ice area since 1978 during the summer is a reduction of 2 million square kilometers, or 2*10^12 square meters. That means the average additional energy received in the arctic summer due to global warming induce melt back is 2.2*10^21 Joules, or about a third of my rough estimate. Please note, because I have estimated conservatively at every step, this is definitely and underestimate of the real value. Also note, this estimate takes into account every single one of the factors Ken Lambert considers important." 1) Could you reconcile the corrected albedo numbers from your post #56 with the above calculation? 2) Where is the purported forcing effect of CO2 taken account in your calculations? -
mspelto at 22:10 PM on 11 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Increasing the meltwater discharge to the land terminating glacier does not lead to further acceleration automatically. If there is already sufficient meltwater to lead to high basal water pressure, than further melting as Sundal et al (2010)notes does not cause acceleration, it can reduce the meltwater further matures the drainage system. Mature drainage systems as exist on large temperate outlet glaciers in Alaska tend to limit the summer acceleration. As noted above it also not clear that any short term acceleration from such meltwater events does not lead to a following deceleration. In the northern portion of Greenland where melting is more limited is the only sector where there is good potential of more meltwater enhancing annual flow signficantly. Rain is a daily occurrence on many large Alaskan outlet glaciers and in amount it can rival and enhance meltwater, but it does lead to any acceleration of the larger glaciers, which already have plenty of meltwater and a high basal water pressure. Pelto et al (2008) looking at the consistent flow of Taku Glacier is a good example of this. The vecloity consistency observed from Jakobshavn Pelto et al (1989) noted also spanned several years with vastly different weather conditions. -
Gilles at 21:59 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Marcus : I think I'm able to download an excel spreadsheet and to draw graphs from it - and I assume you're, too. I just took the data provided by IPCC You can download them here too and check my graph. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/data/allscen.xls I don't see the relevance of your remarks : these are data for fossile natural gas and not biomass. "Between 1997-2010, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, Iceland & the United Kingdom have all achieved some level of GHG emission reduction-in spite of already having emissions below the global average in 1997. " Are you serious ? what do you think is the global CO2 production per capita in the world ? "Most of the poor countries of this world could achieve per capita energy consumption *equal* to that of most Western European nations *without* having to use fossil fuels." OK, tell that to the SRES team, because they don't think to know it. As I said, you persistently seem to ignore that many western countries have already achieved a carbon free electricity production : Iceland, Norway, several canadian provinces. France has also a very low carbon intensity for nuclear electricity. So they have already solved your problems. However, they continue importing oil, gas and coal, even if they're totally deprived of them - which would make no sense if your claims were true. -
dorlomin at 21:55 PM on 11 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
This may be o/t but what happens when/if it rains? There is no soil to soak up the water so does it become a serious flood? Will that accelerate the glaciers flow rate and ablate some snow of off the top layer? -
Tom Curtis at 21:32 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Arkadiusz Semczyszak @32, the most natural interpretation of your fist sentence is that you lack the willingness to understand what you write. This would certainly make a lot of your word choices more understandable if true, but it is hard to credit. Alternatively you are simply asserting, contrary to fact and without any supporting evidence, that there is no question about your English ability and willingness to understand your own writing. If so, it is a simple denial of what is plainly not true, followed by a complete non sequitur. Perhaps more logically you are accusing me of lacking that willingness (though the only subject in the entire sentence is you). Let me assure you that is not true. I have frequently been frustrated by your comments in that I think I disagree with you, but have simply not been able to discern your opinion clearly enough - due to the fractured English - to be clear what it is. Be assured that this is not a personal attack. I have great admiration for the multi-lingual, and the courage to tackle a complex subject in a second language is to be greatly admired. (The same admiration extends to Gilles.) But as you apparently intend to be a regular on this site, which again I welcome, I cannot simply let you assume that communication is going on when more often than not, it isn't. -
Tom Curtis at 21:13 PM on 11 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
RSVP @24, your point about the whiteness of glaciers is irrelevant because Glaciers are warmed primarily by ambient air temperature, and are only global warming "canaries" because their world wide melt back is undeniable evidence of increasing warmth. I say "undeniable", but deniers still give it the old college try. Your claim is also of topic, IMO. But worst of all, your claim clearly shows a lack of basic knowledge. Glaciers are near white because they reflect nearly all wavelengths of visible light. But like all forms of water, they are very strong absorbers of IR radiation with an emissivity/absorptivity around 0.98. It is very difficult to believe you have been around this forum as long as you have without picking up this simple fact. What gives?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Bold tags fixed -
Marcus at 21:11 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Again, there are plenty of poor people who need these FF- believe it or not, it's just plain facts," For the record, Gilles, *claiming* that something is "plain facts" doesn't make it so. Most of the poor countries of this world could achieve per capita energy consumption *equal* to that of most Western European nations *without* having to use fossil fuels. The nations of North Africa & the Middle East have access to solar energy resources that are the *envy* of most of the world. Most African nations could also tap large quantities of bio-gas, wind, hydro-power (both small & large scale) & Geo-thermal. Most of Asia & South America could also meet Western-style energy needs from a mixture of Geothermal, Wind & Solar. Then, of course, you have tidal power-which can be exploited by any nation-rich or poor-that has a coastal border. So you see, Gilles, that in spite of your "facts" the only people who really *need* fossil fuels are the corporations who mine & sell them. Technologically speaking, the rest of the world could very easily do without them. -
Marcus at 21:05 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"yes, but only those who had already a FF consumption much above the world average - and it has just allowed the others to increase a little bit more their own consumption, giving on average a continuous increase of global CO2 emissions." ....and again, Gilles, you make claims without *any* foundation. Between 1997-2010, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, Iceland & the United Kingdom have all achieved some level of GHG emission reduction-in spite of already having emissions below the global average in 1997. I'm curious, Gilles, do you *deliberately* not get your facts straight before you post? -
Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 11 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Ryan Starr @129, the caption accompanying the WMO graph reads:"Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov). (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office)
(My emphasis) So: The use of instrumental data in developing the reconstructions is explicitly stated in the caption of the graph. That use must, logically, have been in the construction of each of the three curves shown as there is now fourth curve of instrumental data alone. The reader is directed to another source which purportedly discusses the construction of the graph. (Unfortunately that source is not archived on the internet so I cannot confirm that.) The reader is explicitly directed to the article from which Fig 2 above comes from. In that article fig 2 above is produced as figure 5, and the text immediately surrounding the figure is a discussion of the divergence problem, including further references to two other articles which also discuss it. Finally, the reader is also directed to five people and one institution from which further information could be obtained if desired. So, Jones made a clear disclosure of the use of the instrumental record; and made clear citations to an article discussing the divergence problem. Curiously, to my knowledge no denier discussion of this chart quotes the caption of the chart. Not so much "hide the decline" as "hide the disclosure". -
Marcus at 20:59 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"I make you a gift : a graph that you never see anywhere, although it is a mere compilation of public data : the set of all SRES scenarios natural gas production forecasts." So once again, Gilles, you provide a graph *without* attribution & which-based on your past form-is probably completely doctored from its original source. Evidently you haven't heard of a little thing called *bio-gas*, which can be cheaply extracted from land-fill & sewerage treatment plants, amongst other places (like farms & plantation forests). These biomass power stations actually have a net *negative* impact on GHG emissions, yet are entirely capable of meeting base-load energy needs. Geothermal power stations also produce *very* small amounts of GHG emissions, yet have a capacity that usually exceeds that of a coal or natural gas power station. So, yet again Gilles, your claims are proven to be without *any* foundation. Please actually *check* your facts in future. -
dorlomin at 20:55 PM on 11 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Wow, I geeking out to this post. Ill pop over to nevens and drop a link. Its a corker. -
Gilles at 20:34 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
OK, yes I have my own answers : for A : a carbon tax can be useful to reduce carbon intensity - but it's role would probably be minor compared to the rise of FF prices that are necessary anyway to make the exploitation of unconventional resources profitable. I mean that if the above production curves are realistic (which is not granted), it can be only through an increase of the extraction costs -which would probably be much larger than any tax you can imagine, and help improving carbon intensity. Although the range of carbon intensities of SRES scenarios is very wide and doesn't always lead to an improvement
(a very weird aspect of these figures is that the range of carbon and GDP energy intensities in the past years is very large, although we KNOW rather precisely the real values of them, and were already very large at the beginning, in 1990 , although it seems fairly easy to extrapolate the smooth variation of the black line. I cannot figure out how these people are working : why do they start with obviously wrong initial data, thus automatically insuring that their curve are wrong ? and what's worth comparing them with current data if they've been already wrong for 20 years before ? I must confess that this kind of "science" is totally beyond my own capacities of understanding)
* concerning B : the annual production of CO2 - I don't see any reasonable way of insuring it will decrease at a global level, even with a tax. As I said, only rich countries can afford reducing their energy consumption , but the only result is to allow more poor countries to use them - that's actually what is really happening. I don't see how a tax can avoid that - because the increase of B is just due to the increase of GDP,and increasing GDP means richer people and so more able to pay any tax. So a tax has never limited the GDP growth - and isn't intended for that. Reducing A doesn't result always in reducing B - it may happen,but it cannot be granted.
The only way to limit B is to put strong quota to all FF consumption of ALL countries - needless to say we're very far from being able to do that.
* concerning C : still worse, because we have to insure that future people won't burn the FF we have spared now - people who will leave after us, who won't care about us, not more than we care about what people thought 100 years ago. It *may* be that they will give up FF because they have found better alternatives - or not. I don't see any sensible way to insure now they will. It would require at least a strict limitation of the FF resources (banning for instance totally any unconventional resources, such as tar sands, shales, clathrates, etc...). Again, we're very far to even think it would be possible to do that.
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Concerning C - it has already been pointed out to you that we don't need to ensure that future people won't burn the FF. Whether atmospheric CO2 rises depends on whether our emissions exceed environmental uptake (plus any sequestration we actuall achieve), hence it is the rate that matters, not the total integrated emissions. We can burn it all if we like, provided we burn it slowly enough. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:17 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
@Tom Curtis It's not a question of my English, and lack of willingness to understand what I write. A props DDT - is not "of topic"- about the truthfulness of Christy. However, I recommend this book The true story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin, professor P. Mastalerz (2005 - 226 pages). Publisher so encouraged to read this book: “This book attempts to unearth the facts about DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxins, which are contrary to general beliefs as well as to official politics and therefore are never talked about in the media. The relevant facts are deeply buried among library shelves and are not readily accessible to the public. Their exposure may help to improve public understanding of hazards resulting from the prescence of DDT, PCB, and dioxins in the environment. The environmentalists have accused DDT, PCB, and dioxin of all possible evils, from child paralysis to male infertility. The book contains a severe critique of such propaganda and shows that environmentalist scaremongering is based on very poor science. The distinctive feature of the book is that every word of critique is meticulously substantiated with references to original literature. This should make it harder for the environmentalists to disregard this book.” Christy says the same thing as the author Mastalerz) of Africa - DDT ... -
RyanStarr at 20:13 PM on 11 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
What disclosure was made when Jones created this chart for the 'WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate' in 1999?
This is the chart prior to having any tricks applied to it,
So he didn't just fail to show the decline he actually substituted it with data from an entirely different source and left it labelled as a continuation of the same proxy.
Not discussing motivations here.
-
dorlomin at 19:46 PM on 11 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
Great to see. Lifts the heart that so many people care. -
Gilles at 19:24 PM on 11 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"The word "flowing" in my opinion would have sufficed, since it means virtually the same as "circulating". I changed it, anyways, to match the word that was specifically used in the illustration's footnote; as you yourself emphasized. Do you find this satisfactory?" short answer : no, because it's wrong. We don't know well the energy flowing in what you're citing, at the required accuracy to test the models.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Discussion of the accuracy of the energy budget is off-topic here, responses to this post should be added here please. -
Gilles at 19:17 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"And I'll ask you again. What do you propose to do to reduce GHG emissions?" I carefully introduced the distinction between three different meanings of "reducing emissions" here precisely because I anticipated this question (which shows that my post wasn't OT, because it precisely addressed the question of what a carbon tax is supposed to "reduce" actually). So can you be more precise and specify which meaning A,B or C you give to "reducing GHG emissions" ? I cannot answer if the question is too vague. "we should roughly expect out total energy costs to go up by less than the tax (roughly 1% annually for the next two decades or so), due to these low carbon energy sources increasing in prominence." I don't see any hint that it is a reasonable hypothesis; remember that no economist had predicted the burst of oil prices, and ask yourself why .... Marcus#130 "There you go making false claims again. Plenty of Countries have *significantly* reduced their FF consumption *without* lowering average" : yes, but only those who had already a FF consumption much above the world average - and it has just allowed the others to increase a little bit more their own consumption, giving on average a continuous increase of global CO2 emissions. Again, there are plenty of poor people who need these FF- believe it or not, it's just plain facts, and all official agencies and governments reckon it. Marcus #130 : "Why exactly would you need *lots* of low GHG sources of power? " good question: why ? you should ask the SRES team .... I make you a gift : a graph that you never see anywhere, although it is a mere compilation of public data : the set of all SRES scenarios natural gas production forecasts.
dashed red line is the Hubbert fit of the amount of conventional natural gas reserves, all the rest is unconventional (so, a priori, NOT cheap !) resources. Why exactly do they think we need so much low GHG source of power ?
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Stop playing games. If you had already anticipated the first question, you will already have answers prepared for meanings A, B and C, so why not just give them. Asking for further clarification is just trolling for attention, and likely to irritate anyone making a genuine attempt to discuss the issue with you. -
Durhamite at 18:40 PM on 11 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Bern - Climatic warming could accelerate land terminating glaciers too. The main mechanism would be by increased surface melting causing an increased volume of meltwater reaching the bed of the glacier. This would help lubricate it and, effectively increase its "slippiness". Ice itself would not really become more fluid as the temperature warms, and I don't believe the basal temperatures would change very much. A lot of the glaciers identified in the marine terminating catagory are in fact ice-streams, the most dynamic sectors of ice sheets. These are of upmost importance to the wellbeing and mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet. -
RSVP at 17:42 PM on 11 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
The chart illustrates the widest band in the form of 333 back radiation coming from GHG. Glaciers are generally white, and should therefore be least affected by IR, and yet these are the hailed global warming canaries. What gives? -
Ian Love at 16:45 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
Thanks grypo for sorting the image problem - all is fine now! -
Bern at 16:36 PM on 11 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
An interesting article, thanks - despite the zebras giving me a headache... (too little sleep last night!) So, it seems that there are a number of different mechanisms involved as to why Greenland glaciers are losing mass. That Zachariae Glacier looks like a doozy, it might be able to move a *lot* of ice if it picks up speed appreciably. One question - with the land-terminating glaciers - is there any prospect of them accelerating and increasing in length with warming, as they continue to thin? I'm still a bit hazy on the dynamics of ice movement, and how temperature affects that - e.g. does ice get more 'fluid' as it warms? Or does -10ºC ice behave much the same as -40ºC ice? -
Marcus at 16:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ?" Why exactly would you need *lots* of low GHG sources of power? You'd need a *hell* of a lot to equal the emissions of just a single coal-fired power station, especially when you consider the fact that most coal-fired power stations have to supply energy to large geographic areas-resulting in significant losses during transmission & distribution. Again I think you *really* need to check your facts in future. -
Marcus at 16:24 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Of course it is easy to reduce FF consumption if we lower the average income." There you go making false claims again. Plenty of Countries have *significantly* reduced their FF consumption *without* lowering average income-so please stop claiming otherwise, it doesn't assist your credibility. Also, the fact is that the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy significant subsidies in a number of Countries, & so they will keep using those fossil fuels as long as they continue to evade the full cost of their activities. -
Dan Moutal at 16:19 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles "Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ?" Obviously that depends on how low and how much they are used. But no. What I was getting at was that energy sources with low or no GHG emissions would (if the carbon tax was ramped up) provide us with a greater percentage of our energy and would buttress us from large price increases due to the ever increasing taxes. BTW I suggest you listen to the two interview I linked to above. This is discussed there, and what Jaccard's economic model finds is that we should roughly expect out total energy costs to go up by less than the tax (roughly 1% annually for the next two decades or so), due to these low carbon energy sources increasing in prominence. -
Dan Moutal at 15:45 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
BTW for anyone who is interested (and who is still following this long comment thread) Here are two interviews with Mark Jaccard that he did on the CBC science show Quirks and Quarks. Well worth a listen for anyone who is interested in Carbon Pricing. Carbon Pricing Hot Air -
Dan Moutal at 15:45 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles The figure is for emission of GHGs. Not the weight of oil. Remember the point of a carbon tax isn't to tax energy. The point is to tax emissions. That is what we care about. We also don't just care about the emissions from oil. Coal is just as important to deal with if not more so. So your number are way off. And I'll ask you again. What do you propose to do to reduce GHG emissions? And are you opposed to policy which looks to internalize externalalities? Please answer the questions. As for the Recession/oil price connections, there is probably something to that. BUT the effects of high oil prices (where money crosses national borders) and high carbon taxes (where money does not leave the country) are very different. Especially if the overall tax burden remains the same. -
Gilles at 15:41 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Low GHG sources of power would not be affected by this price, and would certainly provide us with a far grater percentage of our daily power requirements." Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ? -
Gilles at 15:32 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
A side remark : as the customer and the industry does sees the overall cost of the energy, if it were possible to adapt rapidly to a high price to switch to renewables without any loss of wealth , there is no reason that this shouldn't have happened during the rallye of oil prices.Instead, we've got only a strong recession which explains basically the decrease of consumption - but at the expense of economic activity. Of course it is easy to reduce FF consumption if we lower the average income. The open question is if it possible without loss of income. Up to now, facts are saying : not so much. -
Gilles at 15:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
122 : I didn't ask you "why", i asked "what" . If you don't have an answer, how can you decide the amount of tax ? now you mention 200$/t . 1 t of oil is arount 7,5 barrels, so this means around 25 $ /bbl. Only 10 years ago, the barrel was sold 20$, now it's over 100 $, meaning a rise of at least 3 times the amount of the proposed tax that hasn't been yet decided anywhere - and much more rapidly. And of course it has had an effect on the consumption, that decreased by several % in all western countries, much more significantly that all what I heard about the effect of a tax. so what do you want me to "propose" since the natural increase of the cost is already doing much more than what you can dream of ? -
RW1 at 15:15 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
KR (RE: 57), "Regarding clouds, I suggest you follow up on the net feedback from clouds thread." Maybe I will. -
RW1 at 15:12 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
KR (RE: 57), "RW1 - Global warming must be due to decreased albedo? That's your theory? Seriously?" No, it's not. I mean the 'enhanced' warming outside the system's measured boundary to surface incident energy can only really come from a reduced albedo because COE dictates the atmosphere can't create any energy of its own. You can't simply create the remaining 10.6 W/m^2 out of thin air - it has to come from somewhere. If, as claimed, it's not coming from a reduced albedo (i.e. the Sun) and is within the system's internal boundaries, then it needs to be explained why it doesn't take more like 1075 W/m^2 at the surface for equilibrium (239 W/m^2 in and out). Remember, I agree the physics supports a likelihood of some effect (i.e. some warming) from 2xCO2. I'm mainly disputing the magnitude of 3C predicted by the AGW hypothesis. -
Dan Moutal at 15:08 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@Gilles I have to ask you, what do you propose to achieve the necessary reductions in GHG emissions? And are you opposed to policy which looks to internalize externalalities? -
Dan Moutal at 15:07 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles " what is an "artificially low" price for oil" I already explained why I say that FFs are priced artificially low. As I said above, the most significant costs are externalized. Giving you an exact number isn't really possible (one would need at the very least a proper economic model to do that), but it should be clear that the true cost of oil or coal should be a fair bit higher than say solar or wind (or even nuclear), because the the GHG emissions alone (to say nothing of particulate pollution or MTR mining) impose massive costs on society as a whole. Now obviously all the costs can't be internalized overnight, but over time the cost of FF should incorporate more and more of the externalized cost. As I mentioned in a previous comment Mark Jaccard (an environmental economist who has advised both the BC and federal government on exactly this issue) has mentioned that the price might need to go as high as $200/tonne. And before you freak out remember three things. 1) Low GHG sources of power would not be affected by this price, and would certainly provide us with a far grater percentage of our daily power requirements. 2) The price will be introduced overtime, with a corresponding decrease in other taxes. So while overall the amount spent on energy would increase the amount 'spent' on income taxes would decrease. 3) this wont work unless without buy-in from other countries. No one is suggesting that GHG be priced so high only in one jurisdiction. -
Ian Love at 15:01 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
re Alexandre#3 I have the same problem, and have had in a few other SkS pages. I am running Firefox 4 and 3.6 (on different computers) but it isn't that. Surely it is because the images have not been imported into SkS but are linked through to imageshack, which has this peculiar practice of not letting you see images unless your site domain is registered. It is very annoying! Presumably it could be solved by the editor importing the images into SkS rather than linking through to imageshack - perhaps a nuisance, but hopefully not difficult?Moderator Response: [DB] This is being implemented as standard practice here. Hopefully future instances of this issue will then be rare. -
scaddenp at 14:52 PM on 11 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
We can adapt modern cities and build seawalls to protect densely populated deltas - given enough time and money. Time is uncertain but the money should be compared to cost of curtailing emissions. So far daniel has completely failed to address this other than ill-informed criticism of Stern. -
Gilles at 14:52 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"The actual cost you mean to say is no doubt 'replacement cost,'" I mean the extraction cost, not the replacement cost - this is only the cost of finding new reserves, not extracting them ! -
Gilles at 14:46 PM on 11 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM your link states that "He said there could be a beneficial outcome if the calving drifts to block the Nares Strait and effectively prevents the loss of more ice from the Lincoln Sea.", so If I understand well, the drifting ice could block the Nares strait ? Muoncounter , the bet wasn't that it was "underway", it was that it would be broken on April 7th+/-10. As far as I can judge, it's an illustration of the danger of "extrapolating trends" without taking into account natural variability.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, that is the way I read it. -
L.J. Ryan at 14:29 PM on 11 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 993 995 I read the SoD article and in fact was going to submit comments until the conclusions you list. That is, the model is wrong...but kinda works. I'll wait to see where SoD takes this simplified model stuff, before commenting. You said: "Your first table is better, but does not include a column for , an important term without which the equilibrium state cannot be determined. Equilibrium is reached when (and only when) (1-A)*S/4 = σTa^4, ie, AtmU in your first table" The constant input (1-A)*S/4 is assumed...but I get your point. Teq is, as I explained to e in the previous post, a time interval to mark surface equilibrium. That is, when SW flux to the surface equals LW flux out of the surface. Regarding your 995, I think you have double counted atmosphere radiation. Specifically: The entropy of the back radiation (AtmD) = 240 J/255K = 0.94 J/K The entropy of the radiation to space (AtmU) = 240 J/255 K = 0.94 J/K. Total atmospheric radiation 480J...confers 303K which is obviously wrong and/or it unbalances your conservation of energy equations. -
RW1 at 14:28 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
scaddenp (RE: 53), "Sigh, still trying to use the Trenberth diagram for prediction. The logical consequence of your argument would be that 100% cloud cover of venus would give it a cold surface." Also, another logical consequence is that the idea of clouds operating as net positive feedback doesn't make sense. For the feedback to be positive, more clouds would need to block more energy than they reflect away, but as I've shown, that isn't the case. If you want to argue that clouds operate as a positive feedback via reducing clouds, that doesn't fit with the relatively steady (or even slightly increased) albedo. -
Gilles at 14:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
for instance for BC, how high was the tax compared to the price of barrel of oil or a mmcf of natural gas ? -
Gilles at 14:22 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
#Dan 117 , and muoncounter: what is an "artificially low" price for oil, following you ? how much do you want to tax carbon, on an equivalent barrel basis for instance, and how does it compare with the recent rise in energy price ? -
It's albedo
RW1 - Global warming must be due to decreased albedo? That's your theory? Seriously? Shortwave absorptivity (inverse of albedo) is really not much affected by greenhouse gases. Longwave emissivity is, and the changes there are what drive the temperatures. Note that we can measure albedo; the changes there are fairly minor compared to emission changes. As to your El Nino event issues, keep in mind that a positive feedback is not a runaway feedback (if that is indeed what you are implying, I may have misinterpreted your post) - see the Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming thread. Regarding clouds, I suggest you follow up on the net feedback from clouds thread. -
L.J. Ryan at 13:52 PM on 11 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 992 Understand e, it is my contention energy, radiative or otherwise, can NOT increase itself due to reflection, re-radiation or insulation. So when the input flux to the surface equals surface output flux the earth is at equilibrium...255K. The 33o delta is do to non-radiative energy input. My calculations set out to disprove back radiation by using the very tenets of GHG physics. That is, by using proponents equations to confound GHG physics conclusions, I will prove my supposition. Start with a solar input 240 W/m2 SW. Due to my confusion of KR take on albedo and earths surface emissivity/absorptivity I applied .98 absorption a second time...netting 235 W/m2 SW absorbed by the surface. Nevertheless, the number workout nearly the same. For consistency within this explanation, 235 W/m2 SW input will be used. All of the following presumes GHG physics: With the understanding a white atmosphere will reflect all terrestrial LW, the white atmosphere will “force” the surface to accumulate energy faster then any other emissivities. When the input flux 235 W/m2 SW to the surface equals surface output flux 235 W/m2 LW the earth SURFACE is at equilibrium (not the entire system). It is this instant which is designated Teq. Since the subsequent instance receives more energy then the prior instance, the accumulation happens faster, followed by an ever faster instance...ect. That said; I= solar input 235 W/m2 SW E= earths radiated flux A=atmosphere flux LW AU = atmosphere up AD = atmosphere down A=AD+AU With ε= 0 Teq when E=I=A 1.5Teq E'= I+A and E'=A' 1.75Teq E''= I +A' and E''=A'' 1.875Teq E'''=I + A'' and E'''=A''' Assuming energy accumulation is linear, the time to reach 1.5Teqis half as long as time to reach Teq...1.75Teqis half as long as time to reach 1.5TeqfromTeq...etc. These calculation were continued some 20 times, as a geometric series 2Teq will never be reached. At the same time, surface flux will accumulate infinitum. Now, of course the visible spectrum will be emitted prior to runaway thereby achieving TOA equilibrium. When ε= 1 the equation are: 2Teq E= I+AD and E=A 3Teq E'= I +AD' and E'=A' The time it takes E=A=I, is twice as long as when ε= 0. When ε= .612 reflectivity equals .388 . This introduces another value: AR = .388 A = atmosphere reflected AD=AU AD= .5 (.612A)= .306 A E= I+AR+AD and E=A E'= I+AR'+AD'and E'=A' The Teq is found by dividing A for white atmosphere of a particular surface radiation by AR+AD of the same E (gray), then multiplying by the Teq for that white E interval. For example; for the 470 W/m2 interval: A (white) =470, AR+AD=182+144....470/( 182+144)*1.5Teq=2.16Teq. The Teq provides only a non critical time component of surface equilibrium. In hindsight, I should not have included this information, it only confused my conclusions. -
RW1 at 13:47 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
Tom Curtis (RE: 52), "What is more, the relative strength of the GHE of CO2 and water vapour changes with increased temperature. At very low temperatures, there is almost no water vapour in the atmosphere, and hence almost all of the GHE comes from CO2. As the temperature climbs, the water vapour concentration climbs logarithmically. This means the water vapour feedback increases approximately linearly with increasing surface temperature. Meanwhile, the CO2 forcing increases by a constant amount with each doubling of concentration." Furthermore, if water vapor in the system operates in this way - to greatly enhance a small warming through net positive feedback, then why didn't temperatures climb higher and higher during the large El Nino events of 1998 and 2010? In each case, the temperature came back down very quickly:
-
adelady at 13:46 PM on 11 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Well, the costs of seawalls and the like are one thing. What about modern industrialised cities placing important infrastructure at or near sea level for convenience. Power plants for cooling water, ports for shipping, sewage plants for effluent disposal, airports for the nice flat land. And you can't just shift a city one or ten kms from its current location the way you shift a sofa to a better position. You either have to knock down a whole heap of businesses and dwellings if proximity to the sea is important - ports being the obvious example - or leapfrog existing areas to find the next big piece of available, suitable land. And if there's none 'available', then suitable areas will have to be taken over and adapted to the essential use. The costs of seawalls pale into nothing compared to the costs for governments compulsorily acquiring land for essential infrastructure. (As it happens, I live in a city where the airport is a bare 2m above sealevel and less than 2km from the beach. So we're going to be in trouble by the middle of the century if things go the way I expect.)
Prev 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 Next
