Recent Comments

Prev  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  Next

Comments 89201 to 89250:

89201. Bob Lacatena at 03:41 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       150, Gilles, So in the end your answer is that now tax will work, and there is no solution, because it's not possible to get off of fossil fuels until civilization is destroyed, and that every attempt to do so will simply result in more use, and we are bound by a system of global supply, demand and competition in which intelligence, scientific knowledge and social responsibility are of no value. Your position is that governments and peoples are unable to work in their own self interests because they are so wedded to capitalism, in one form or another, that they won't do what's good for them, even when facing the effective end of civilization as we know it. And since fossil fuels must inevitably run out and will do so precipitously rather than gradually, the end of (our) civilization is inevitable in that sense, regardless of the realities of climate change. And since people will further be unable to effectively adapt to climate change without adequate power, and in your paradigm fossil fuels are the only adequate power source, we are doomed in that sense as well. So your position amounts to "don't try to tax fossil fuel use now and attempt to get out of the corner we're in, because it won't work, and I'm just as happy to see the world end after I die, as long as it means I get to live the high life now, and with a clean conscience to boot because in my own mind there was never anything I could have done about it." My, how convenient.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I have told Gilles that his idea of the real issue is off-topic. I have left this post as is, but (i) Gilles feel free to reply to only the issues that relate to the topic of the thread and (ii) please can we all be careful not to tempt Gilles to revisit off-topic issues.
89202. daniel maris at 03:23 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       DB - I suggest you re-read my post. I wasn't seeking to substantiate a position - I was merely pointing to the variety of scientific interpretations of the data. All the references for the papers were set out in the Wiki link. I registered a personal preference for 0.8M but really that is no different from people who state a preference for 8M, despite that not being backed by the majority of scientists. I could have stated a preference for the study showing a reduction in sea level.
       Moderator Response: [DB] I re-read it. Again, you are lacking in properly substantiating your position: Upon what basis - other than guesswork and arrangement of internal organs - do you opt for 0.8 vs the latest best estimates of 1.2-2.0 meters SLR (the highest scientific estimate I've seen is from Hansen 2011, about 5 meters, so I have no idea where you get your 8 meter estimate)? The Hansen paper is in press, so it has not yet entered into mainstream consensus.
89203. JMurphy at 03:08 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       muoncounter wrote : "Nice. Take the easy way out; rather than endorse any course of action. Guarantees that you will hardly ever be wrong, at least in theory. However, like the broken clock, you're hardly ever right." Gilles's comment seems to be even more insidious than you may have noticed at first glance : he wrote that he wants to wait until he sees ("wait until I see"). This seems to mean that he can deny and discard anything unless he actually sees it personally for himself, i.e. projections and forecasts will not be accepted until they actually happen, and can be seen to happen to his own satisfaction ! Or is this just another case of Gilles's use of English as a second language creating a barrier between himself and the rest of us ?
89204. muoncounter at 02:40 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles #162: "Sorry for being irremediably skeptical, but I'll wait until I see." Nice. Take the easy way out; rather than endorse any course of action. Guarantees that you will hardly ever be wrong, at least in theory. However, like the broken clock, you're hardly ever right.
89205. Tom Curtis at 02:23 AM on 12 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan @997, the atmosphere has an upper side and a lower side. Because thermal radiation is the same in all directions, if the atmosphere were 303 K, then it would radiate 480 w/m^2 up, and the same down. That would violate conservation of energy. However, with an atmosphere at 255 K, it will radiate 240 w/m^2 to space and 240 w/m^2 towards the surface. It follows that there is no violation of conservationof energy, and I did not double count.
89206. dana1981 at 01:57 AM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Wow. The primary site my office is cleaning up is contaminated with PCBs and dioxins. I've never seen anybody actually try to claim that their toxicity is due to "environmentalist scaremongering". Not surprisingly, Mastalerz is also a global warming "skeptic". It always makes me wonder where the "skeptics" dig these guys up.
89207. Dan Moutal at 01:42 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @Gilles "the lack of cheap energy in the near future" I shouldn't but here goes anyways. And that is exactly what a carbon tax aims to solve. By making FF use more expensive, and providing a clear price signal going forward. This gives the free market the ability to get creative and find solutions to the problem. And before you go on about extraction costs, please read my comment #127. I would also recommend you so some research into the different signals sent by a tax increasing at a known rate and the wild price fluctuations we have seen over the past few years. And finally I recommend again that you listen to the Jaccard interviews, because he directly answers the question why higher extraction costs are NOT a solution to lowering GHG emissions. (hint it was the high cost of oil which spurred a massive development in the Alberta tar sands)
89208. Gilles at 01:32 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       sorry dan, I asked you to make clearer what you mean by "reducing emission", you didn't answer, so I gave 3 different answers for each meaning - what more do you want ? concerning "And are you opposed to policy which looks to internalize externalalities?" really : I don't care, it won't change the real problem - the lack of cheap energy in the near future. It's not that we disagree about solutions - it's that we disagree about the true issue.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It should be obvious to you that carbon taxes are intended to reduce the use of fossil fuels by those who are subject to the tax. If you are unable to work out what that implies for your A B and C criteria, perhaps you don't understand the issues as well as you think you do and perhaps should read a bit more and post rather less.

       The availability of cheap energy is clearly off-topic. If you want to discuss that, please do so elsewhere, and allow the discussion of the topic of this article to continue uninterupted. You have made your point.

89209. Gilles at 01:24 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Muoncounter : ( -Snip- ) Now I don't care about revenue neutral taxes. Actually I don't care about taxes - it's a normal way of smoothing inequalities and favoring good behaviors. I am *not* fighting against the principle of taxes. I'm just saying it won't reach the goal you seem to assign to it.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Off-topic thread derailment meanderings and moderation complaints snipped.
89210. Dan Moutal at 01:08 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @Gilles I strongly suggest you go back and listen to the two interviews I linked above with Mark Jaccard. You are lacking understanding of some of the basic principles of a carbon tax. I would also suggest to you read this (which I stole from Forbes a while back). But you still haven't really answered the questions I asked you (and raised a bunch more). All you did was explain some difficulties in reducing emissions. And you completely ignored the second question. I am loosing patience with you, and beginning to see why others were so quick to do so.
89211. Phila at 01:06 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem. Ingenious capitalists did find a way to solve the problem: By denying it exists. That's precisely why you can say that "many don't" accept a theory that has just as much evidence as theories they do accept. Markets depend on information. Bad information = bad decisions = bad outcomes. Why is it that the staunchest defenders of the "free market" always seem to overlook this basic point?
89212. grypo at 01:00 AM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
       @11 The first paper. (Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the Holocene, Varma et al., 2011) is about the sun's effect on ocean, which in turn has an effect on Southern Hemisphere Westerly Winds, which has several forcing/feedback components. The conclusions of the paper are fairly benign and very inconclusive in regards to how this would effect models, or indirect effects of of TSI in the Southern Hemisphere on century-long time scales. The underestimated effects (if true) could be positive or negative. For the second paper, I cannot get accces to the full paper, but if there is sunspot activity that is yet to be realized, and has an influence on climate, the future warming will be worse than we thought, and estimated projections will need to be adjusted upward -- if I understand the abstract correctly. But this thread is more about what we know and what our confidence is in certain statements. Neither of these studies, had Christy used them in his testimony, would have made his'jumping to conclusions' any more valid. I'm not sure what your last question is. Can you restate it?
89213. Tom Curtis at 00:54 AM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       johnd @131, Dikran covers the answer pretty well. I would just add specifically, using the instrumental data rather than the proxy data over the instrumental period makes the reconstruction more accurate as a reconstruction, not less. It is not desirable in normal scientific literature because, as you point out it would make validation of the data difficult. You could work around that by validating the data with the proxy data over the part of the instrumental period, and then constructing the actual reconstruction using the instrumental data in the area of overlap. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about that practice, except that it obscures the method of validating the reconstruction. Where the nuts and bolts of the method are more important than the actual data, ie, in the scientific literature, that therefore makes the standard practice better. But that is not innately better, just better for the particular concerns of the publication. Outside of the standard scientific literature (ie, on a popular WMO publication as cover art), different concerns are involved so a different standard can rightly apply. In fact, Jones would have done nothing wrong if he had used instrumental data from 1850 forward in the WMO "reconstructions", so long as the trail is left for those who want to follow up the scientific details. The trail was left - therefore there is no issue. In short, Jones method would have been out of place in an actual scientific paper or an IPCC report. But in those contexts, his practice is appropriate and exemplary. But even in those places, his practice would have only been wrong because it was unconventional - although there are good reasons for the standard convention.
89214. Daniel Bailey at 00:39 AM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       

       Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog highlights PIOMAS' predictions for the current 2011 melt season:

       http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e876618e4970d-pi

       Note that PIOMAS bases its predictions on average conditions.

       The Yooper

89215. Daniel Bailey at 00:20 AM on 12 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       @ HR Thanks for pointing out the link to Rignot and Steffen (2008)! I will amend the text of the post above to reflect that shortly. Remember the focus of Rignot and Steffen (2008) is on the floating ice tongue of Petermann glacier only. Reading the paper shows that actual confirmation of the basal melt was made. And no, it's not good for the long-term stability of Petermann (or any other similarly-structured floating ice shelf). The statement about recent ice area lost is due to the recent calving events of those glaciers, primarily that of Petermann ice island B last year. Since that event was subsequent to the publication of Rignot and Steffen (2008) it is not at all contradictory to it. Thanks for your input, The Yooper
89216. Utahn at 00:10 AM on 12 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       The website, linked above, also has a good FAQ section which should probably be linked as a nice "start here" reference...
89217. Gilles at 00:09 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       daniel 1. Nobody has said that natural gas and coal were about to peak - nevertheless if peak oil occurs now, it means that growth predictions like EIA's ones are over-optimistic and should not be believed like Gospels. And it also means that global peak follows closely that of conventional reserves - because unconventional reserves are nowhere near approaching the production capacity of conventional ones. Now if you apply the same idea to gas and coal, you would find a natural gas peak around 2030 and a coal peak may be around 2060- however the total will be of the order of the lowest SRES scenario, leading to around 550 ppm CO2 eventually. This may be too much for you - but I estimate it is unlikely it will be much less anyway. "2.The key factors are what technologies can be delivered at what cost. " That's basically a problem of supply and demand. "Certainly both Israel and Denmark are investing in the battery changing technology which I think will revolutionise road transport as the problem of range is now solved. " Sorry for being irremediably skeptical, but I'll wait until I see.
89218. Dikran Marsupial at 00:07 AM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       johnd@131 The instrumental data are also used to calibrate the proxies. Only a subset (the "hold-out" set) is used for validation. Personally I would have just truncated the proxy and put in the instrumental data in a different colour. Having said which, the whole thing is a storm in a tea cup. The plot was for the cover of a report, designed to make it look pretty and broadly convey the message that there has been rapid warming. The fine detail regarding the divergence problem is irrelevant at that level of abstraction. The fact that some can't let it go is just silly, where it matters the divergence problem has been discussed openly.
89219. muoncounter at 00:05 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles #137 "you persistently seem to ignore that many western countries have already achieved a carbon free electricity production : Iceland, Norway, several canadian provinces. ... 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." Your fascination with Iceland is touching, but irrelevant. Their percapita CO2 emissions are higher than the world average (Iceland approx 7.5 vs world approx 4.7 tons per World Bank figures), but are vanishingly small on a total emissions basis. Iceland's development of hydro - and geothermal - gives them one thing many western nations do not have and desperately crave: a measure of energy independence from foreign oil supplies. And you've forgotten that many countries still use coal and natural gas for heating and for industrial purposes. You've also forgotten conditions in eastern Germany and Poland due to excessive coal use prior to the '90s. Or maybe you favored the pollution of the Black Triangle as a symbol of Europe's industrial wealth? Once again, all of this absurdity drives the thread further from topic and closer to topics about which you enjoy pontificating. But you can make no case against the BC carbon tax presented here: it is revenue neutral. Any resultant reduction in carbon use under this tax does not alter individual 'wealth' at all.
89220. johnd at 23:36 PM on 11 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM, re "The use of instrumental data in developing the reconstructions is explicitly stated in the caption of the graph." It is accepted that instrumental data is normally used as the means to validate the modeling of any proxy data used to create the reconstruction. Therefore how can it then logically become an extension to the reconstructed data, replacing the data it is supposed to validate, or worse, part of it? The charting of instrumental data alongside the reconstructed proxy data would allow the validation of the proxy data to be substantiated, adding it as an extension does not.
89221. Bob Lacatena at 23:35 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sorry, in my above post where I said "more expensive prospect of mitigation" I meant "more expensive prospect of adaptation."
89222. Tom Curtis at 23:32 PM on 11 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @57: From my 56:

       "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 That is still nearly double the 9.25*10^20 which we can expect from the additional forcing as calculated by Flanner over that period. It is still sufficient energy to melt 1.9 million square kilometers of 3 meter thick ice, or 25% of the remaining icecap. And it is still approximately 3 times the energy annual energy influx that Ken Lambert insists, "Therefore the Arctic must absorb less (much less) than the uniformly distributed portion of 6.4E20 Joules/yr." And it is still 17 times greater than the energy which Ken Lambert misrepresents Trenberth as indicating is the maximum absorbed in the arctic."

       Emphasis added. Details of calculation in my 56 and my 54. I have not included in my calculations any of the effect of the original CO2 forcing. As is well known, this has a stronger effect at higher latitudes than as lower, so would tend to reinforce this effect. On the other hand, the water vapour feedback is stronger in the tropics. The strength of neither is relevant to the issue of whether the change in albedo due to arctic ice melt results in sufficient additional energy absorbed to be compatible with Flanner's calculated ice albedo forcing in the Arctic.
89223. HumanityRules at 23:27 PM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Interesting post. I only got as far as "Type 1: Northern, with Large Floating Termini" and got side-tracked into reading the Rignot and Steffen (2008) paper. Can you just confirm it's this one as there is no link for it? It would seem that warming water under the glacier is crucial here, are there any actual observations of that warming? I thought the Rignot and Steffen paper seems to actually highlight dynamical issues with regard to what is happening on this glacier. For example they highlight the role of channel formation at the bottom and it's potential role in "severing the glacier into large blocks". That can't be good for glacier stability. Secondly can you just help me reconcile your comment "The recent ice area lost by Petermann, Academy and Zachariae Ice Stream indicate these glaciers are being impacted by the increased melting at the surface and likely the base of the ice shelf for Petermann Glacier at least." with this from the paper "Ice velocity was mapped using Radarsat-1 InSAR data with a 10-m/yr precision at 50-m posting. We detect no interannual variability in speed averaged over 24 days between year 2000 and 2006...... Petermann Glacier has had stable flow conditions over the past decade." they seem to me to be related and contradictory.
89224. Bob Lacatena at 23:24 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Forgive the length of this post. I generally deplore long comments, but I couldn't help myself. 58, Harry Seaward,

       Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything.

       How about 5?
       • The U.S. Armed forces
       • Public education
       • Public police and fire services
       • he U.S. Center for Disease Control
       • The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       All of these invaluable services can only be provided through socialism... i.e. through taxation, and the collective use of the gathered funds for the general welfare of society, organized and provided by the state.

       If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem.

       This fails because by the time the climate effects are so strong that they are painful enough to create a profit motivation, it will be too late to do anything about them. Then capitalist efforts will instead go into the more expensive prospect of mitigation, which will in turn go only to those with enough wealth to pay for it, leaving billions of people to suffer unimaginable hardships. This fantasy that completely unrestricted capitalism is the only answer to all problems is not only silly, but obscene. Human history is a list of failed and imperfect systems. They are all imperfect. Some are useless (communism, anarchism), some are good for some things but not others (socialism, capitalism), some worked at some points in human history but we have outgrown them (absolutism), and some are downright evil (fascism, totalitarianism). As intelligent human beings it falls to us to find meaningful solutions to problems using our intelligence, not to develop knee jerk allegiance to some methods (capitalism) and knee jerk abhorrence to others (socialism) just because that's what we grew up with -- in a completely different world (the Cold War) -- or because that's what Fox News tells us to think. The fact is that some sort of tax (cap and trade, fee and dividend, something else) is the only solution to this problem that will have an effect soon enough to make a difference (eventually people will do it because they believe in it, once it becomes that obvious and painful, but as I've said, if we wait that long to start it will be too late). But what falls to us now is determining what tax mechanism will work best, not whether or not to do it. The capitalist minded should have been in love with cap-and-trade, because that's a capitalism modeled tax, but it wasn't good enough. Fee-and-dividend should have been a good next choice for the only-capitalism crowd, because it puts all of the power into the hands of the consumer and the economy, and leaves the least room for abuse. That was similarly assaulted. It soon becomes clear that it's not the mechanism, but the idea of regulating the indirect cost of FF (AGW) that is what bothers people. I will point out two more things. First is oil industry subsidies. If you are so in favor of market pressures, why are we helping an industry that already controls the energy and therefore lifeblood of the world? Why are we tipping the playing field toward fossil fuel use? Second is tobacco use. There is an unseen cost there, in health costs, that is paid for by society, the largest segment of which benefits from neither the "joys" of smoking, nor the profits of selling tobacco. I object very strongly to having to pay for "their" healthcare (through my increased premiums) just so that "they" could foolishly and callously smoke and tobacco companies could make huge profits. How does that fit into pure capitalism? This this is exactly the same as FF use today. Those who benefit from FF will suffer the consequences, as will everyone else, but there is no direct tie between the use and the consequences. Most people, like you, are thinking (your words) "If FF are truly the issue," and aren't ready to take action until we suffer a Pearl Harbor type event and things are undeniable. But unlike in WW II, in this case, that would be far, far too late to do anything about it. What distinguishes human beings from animals is our intelligence. It is our ability to see things like this coming, and to avoid it rather than trust to luck, that separates us from 450 million years of evolutionary dead ends. Or so I hope.
89225. michael sweet at 23:12 PM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Terific post. It is great to be able to read a carefully written and referenced account by people who know what they are talking about. Thanks a lot. Does the strength of the ice change much as the temperature changes from say -20 to 0C? How much difference is there in the flow rate of glaciers that are 0C compared to ice in the interior that is lower temperature? What is the temperature of the ice in the interior of Greenland and is it warming in response to AGW? Is there a reference to temperatures made during ice cores that I can read?
89226. clonmac at 23:12 PM on 11 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       I watched this last night. I thought it was pretty decent. I thought it was going to cover more of the science of climate change than the renewable options, but it was still good. The parts that were about the science were concise and irrefutable. I also liked how it looked at the renewable options from a military perspective. The video also made a good point about how the military generally leads the way when it comes to cultural changes and that left me a little reassured about the future.
89227. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:03 PM on 11 April 2011
       Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
       My Firefox runs fine, so ... Many times on this site, I cited peer-reviewed scientific papers - arising after the publication of IV report - which said that some - important - natural factors have not been properly estimated - “assessing” the "force of nature. " For example, the last quoted - by me - scientific paper: Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the Holocene, Varma et al., 2011.: “... we propose that the role of the sun in modifying Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation patterns has probably been underestimated in model simulations of past climate change.” Sub-Milankovitch solar forcing of past climates: Mid and late Holocene perspectives, Helama et al., 2010.: “If neglected in climate models, this lag could cause an UNDERESTIMATION OF TWENTY-FIRST–CENTURY WARMING TRENDS.” How much? And do not dominate (comparison - CO2 RF) "this [natural] lag" (inestimable well - before) currently?
89228. Harry Seaward at 22:59 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       DSL @ 55 Please explain what you meant with the following statement. Are you talking about a return to a more agrarian or even hunter/gatherer society? Are you implying population control? How is more sickness a good thing? How in the world is a carbon tax going to help any of this? "What we're doing with carbon taxing is paying for the sins of our grandfathers and fathers, many of whom are still alive. Had we had the collective foresight and the means to materially express that foresight, we'd probably have simpler machines, fewer people, less killing, more sickness, less medical fraud, a more effective democracy, less expensive but weaker armies, and certainly an atmosphere that isn't developing into a giant pain in the market."
89229. Bob Lacatena at 22:47 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       69, actuallythoghtful,

       ...there actually is a 4th way - social pressure.

       81, theVille,

       ...you missed out education from your list...

       Sorry, I had a bad flu bug all weekend and was totally incapacitated. But I'd put both of these as either variations or factors under my second method, a "moral imperative," since social pressure and education are the places we primarily get such more imperatives... although I'd agree that this ultimately would be the very best way to do things. I find it amazing that we glorify the role of America in World War II, where people made great personal sacrifices and the will and power of the entire country was single-mindedly bent on the greatest threat democracy had ever faced. Yet today, people are too selfish to give up their Disney vacations and flat screen TVs and SUVs to fight the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. Of course, back then we had great, focused leadership (Roosevelt) and Pearl Harbor to shove us into action. We lack any serious political leadership today, and if we wait for an impetus such as Pearl Harbor it will have been far, far too late to take action.
89230. daniel maris at 22:44 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Scaddenp - I'm not claiming to be a climate scientist or oceanic specialist (I wonder how many of you are). Looking at Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise it seems that you can take your pick of anything from a reduction since 2005 in sea level to plus 8 metres or more over the next 100 years - all estimates produced by reputable scientits. It ends up with a reference to a "more plausible" rise of 0.8M over the next 100 years, which if I had to choose would probably be my choice, purely because it reflects more the reality of my personal experience over a few decades. Of course the rise - if rise it be - might accelerate, but on the other hand perhaps the scientists who say it is going down are right.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Climate scientist/oceanic specialist or not, quoting Wiki on science blogs to substantiate a position is no way to gain credibility; links to peer-reviewed published articles supporting your position are best. Baseless and unattributed claims about "scientists", without naming names, similarly detracts from your credibility and amount to hand-waving.
89231. Marcus at 22:42 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "OK, tell that to the SRES team, because they don't think to know it." Wow, you really are completely *clueless* aren't you? SRES projections, as I've said time & again, are mostly based on *business* *as* *usual* scenarios. If you're simply not going to accept this basic fact, then I really don't see the point in debating the issue with you-as your understanding is so clearly & fundamentally *flawed*. Also, when are you going to decide which argument you actually support? After all, you've had *dozens* of posts where you've told us how fossil fuel use is going to increase well into the future-yet you equally claim that they're going to run out. Seems, Gilles, like you're *really*, *really* confused & contradictory. That's something very common amongst contrarians.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] AFAICS only A1F1 is strictly speaking "business as usual", i.e. fossil fuel intensive rapid economic growth. Others are clearly not "business as usual", for instance A1T (rapid economic growth with technological emphasis on non-fossil fuel energy sources). However this is not something I am that familiar with (I just gleaned that from p140 of Houghton's "Global Warming - The Complete Birefing" [sic] fourth edition). The B2 family also is not "business as usual" as it involved restricted economic growth in favour of environmental sustainability.
89232. CBDunkerson at 22:42 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Harry Seaward, your use of the word 'socialism' in relation to a carbon tax suggests that you are following the modern U.S. 'conservative' definition of the term. Basically, 'Anything which restricts generation of profits'. That is, setting a tax on carbon emissions would decrease the profit potential of the fossil fuel industry and is therefor 'socialism' under this definition. Historically, socialism has actually meant, 'Common ownership of means of production and distribution of goods.' This contrasts with capitalism which is, 'Private ownership of means of production to generate profits which can be used to acquire goods.' Given that a carbon tax is inherently tied to the concepts of 'profit' and 'wealth' it actually couldn't exist as such under a truly socialist system. Theoretically socialism would handle the same sort of issue by collectively determining that fossil fuels are harmful and transitioning away from them as a group decision. In practicality that sort of collective forward thinking is one of the many things socialism tends to handle poorly. However, all that being said, the benefits of 'socialism' under the 'conservative' re-definition of the term should be self-evident. Child labor laws and laws banning child pornography restrict the generation of profits from exploiting children... and are therefor 'socialism' per the same re-definition which makes a carbon tax such. Ditto laws preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into drinking water, all product safety requirements, all taxes on materials which can cause harm to people other than the user (e.g. tobacco & firearms), laws requiring people to have completed appropriate schooling to perform dangerous tasks (e.g. no brain surgery if you are not a doctor), et cetera. Just because something restricts the ability of some group to make a profit does not automatically make it 'bad'. U.S. 'conservatives' have advanced that argument for decades by calling it 'socialism', but by that (false) standard most of the institutions holding our society together are 'socialism'. Take away all restrictions on the generation of profit and what you have left is 'survival of the most vicious'. Hardly a foundation for the advancement of civilization. If we accept the proposition that carbon emissions are harmful to people other than just those causing them (and if you don't you should take it to one of the threads discussing the harm) then a carbon tax is the capitalist (historical definition) solution to the problem... imposing a penalty on emitter profits to compensate those harmed by the emissions.
89233. Marcus at 22:38 PM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Are you serious ? what do you think is the global CO2 production per capita in the world ?" According to the figures I've seen, its around 7t-8t per capita, but its almost certainly *higher* than that if you exclude the developing economies-which were the economies I was addressing. i.e. my point was that plenty of developed economies-in spite of having CO2 emissions below the average emissions of the developed nations-have still managed cuts in their CO2 emissions (&, therefore, a reduction in their fossil fuel consumption) without cutting their income. So again, in spite of your pedantry & hand-waving, you're 100% *wrong* yet again-which is going to keep happening as long as you put fossil fuel industry propaganda ahead of the *facts*!
89234. JMurphy at 22:37 PM on 11 April 2011
       Christy 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 ?
89235. Bob Lacatena at 22:36 PM on 11 April 2011
       A 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?
89236. Marcus at 22:33 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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.
89237. daniel maris at 22:33 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has 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.
89238. Bob Lacatena at 22:32 PM on 11 April 2011
       The 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.
89239. Ken Lambert at 22:30 PM on 11 April 2011
       A 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?
89240. mspelto at 22:10 PM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? 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.
89241. Gilles at 21:59 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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.
89242. dorlomin at 21:55 PM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? 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?
89243. Tom Curtis at 21:32 PM on 11 April 2011
       Christy 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.
89244. Tom Curtis at 21:13 PM on 11 April 2011
       The 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
89245. Marcus at 21:11 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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.
89246. Marcus at 21:05 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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?
89247. Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 11 April 2011
       Muller 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".
89248. Marcus at 20:59 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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.
89249. dorlomin at 20:55 PM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Wow, I geeking out to this post. Ill pop over to nevens and drop a link. Its a corker.
89250. Gilles at 20:34 PM on 11 April 2011
       How 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.

Prev  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  Next