Recent Comments

Prev  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  Next

Comments 89451 to 89500:

89451. KR at 14:17 PM on 11 April 2011
       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.
89452. L.J. Ryan at 13:52 PM on 11 April 2011
       2nd 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 33^o 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 T_eq. 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 A_U = atmosphere up A_D = atmosphere down A=A_D+A_U With ε= 0 T_eq when E=I=A 1.5T_eq E'= I+A and E'=A' 1.75T_eq E''= I +A' and E''=A'' 1.875T_eq E'''=I + A'' and E'''=A''' Assuming energy accumulation is linear, the time to reach 1.5T_eqis half as long as time to reach T_eq...1.75T_eqis half as long as time to reach 1.5T_eqfromT_eq...etc. These calculation were continued some 20 times, as a geometric series 2T_eq 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: 2T_eq E= I+A_D and E=A 3T_eq E'= I +A_D' 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: A_R = .388 A = atmosphere reflected A_D=A_U A_D= .5 (.612A)= .306 A E= I+A_R+A_D and E=A E'= I+A_R'+A_D'and E'=A' The T_eq is found by dividing A for white atmosphere of a particular surface radiation by A_R+A_D of the same E (gray), then multiplying by the T_eq for that white E interval. For example; for the 470 W/m² interval: A (white) =470, A_R+A_D=182+144....470/( 182+144)*1.5T_eq=2.16T_eq. The T_eq provides only a non critical time component of surface equilibrium. In hindsight, I should not have included this information, it only confused my conclusions.
89453. RW1 at 13:47 PM on 11 April 2011
       It'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:
89454. adelady at 13:46 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has 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.)
89455. pbjamm at 13:41 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris@84 If it is possible for cities to build massive sea walls to protect against rising waters, or move inland (as you have suggested) then certainly it should be no problem to build or extend their docks on the new unclaimed land created by rising continents. New land created over a much longer time than what we are discussing WRT sea level rise.
89456. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 11 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce Frykman @310, having studied both theology and science, I can confidently tell you that your theology is not better than your science - which is deplorable. In neither field does simple declaration make something true. In theology, the source of truth is a 'revelation' from a divine source, which is closely studies to determine which theological view most closely conforms to it. If a theological theory does not conform to the revelation, it is thereby refuted. In science, the only 'revelation' is observation. Scientists have the advantage over theologians in that they can multiply observation by experiment; thus quickly determining which of even subtly different theories are true. Modern scientists have a further advantage of a centuries old tradition in this practice, and a very competitive framework in which reputations are made by showing somebody else has made a mistake. In that environment, the natural conclusion when a theory commands a consensus is that the theory cannot be shown to be a mistake, and that no rival theory can claim the same virtue. We all, including you, acknowledge this in our everyday lives. We believe the Earth orbits the sun even though most of us could not tell us why that is true. We believe Newton's laws of motion even though our everyday appearance appears to contradict that, because there is a scientific consensus behind the theories. We believe that man walked on the moon. Well most of us do. Some of us would rather develop conspiracy theories than either accept the scientific consensus or seriously examine the claims of the scientists. In most areas, we call the people who won't accept the science kooks, and ignore them. In climate science we have their opinions thrust daily in our face by an industry funded PR campaign. Of course, we accept the consensus view of science because we know (and I have checked) that it is based on observation, not simple declaration. In that it contrasts sharply with the views of the kooks deniers who base their objections on simple assertion. As to how the deniers are to be dealt with? My hope is that we will persuade the world of the truth as soon as possible. In that case, the deniers will simply be dealt with by derision.
89457. BoulderBob at 13:29 PM on 11 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       I've just watched on line, and I think this is great, upbeat presentation. The military angle helps with the part of the american public that has problems with references to Weart's history. Cheers
89458. RW1 at 13:28 PM on 11 April 2011
       It'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." No, the logical consequence is that 100% cloud cover on Earth would give it colder surface.
89459. RW1 at 13:23 PM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       Tom Curtis (RE: 52) "RW1 @49, the water vapour feedback, ie, the increased GHE from increased water vapour in the atmosphere as temperatures rise is expected to be the dominant feedback mechanism, therefore your assumption that the difference between the power radiated by the surface and the power radiated from the top of the atmosphere to space can only come through changes in albedo is false." That is not what I'm claiming. I'm simply saying the enhanced warming effect (the 4.5 amplification factor needed for a 3 C rise vs. the system's measured 1.6) can only really come from a reduced albedo. If the water vapor feedback is not already embodied in the system's measured 1.6 amplification, then why have temperatures remained relatively stable for so long? Why also then doesn't it take more like 1075 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun? Yes, there is a slight increase of about 1% in the amplification factor of 1.6 from the additional 3.7 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere, but it's far too small to get the 4.5 needed for a 3 C rise. "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." We are only talking about a small 1 C rise from 2xCO2. If, as you say, an additional 3.7 W/m^2 at the surface from 2xCO2 is to become 16.6 W/m^2 largely through water vapor feedback, quantify specifically how the feedback causes this much change while it doesn't for the original 98+% (239 W/m^2) from the Sun.
89460. scaddenp at 13:21 PM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       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.
89461. scaddenp at 13:18 PM on 11 April 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Bruce, see comment #144. Hansen agrees with you about global mean temperature. That's why they dont track temperature trends that way. Read up and how it is actually done and the evidence supporting the methodology. You are attacking a strawman.
89462. Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 11 April 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Bruce Frykman @169, it is very plain that like the mean number of children per family, mean global surface temperature is a statistical concept. That does not mean it conveys no useful information, or no physically significant information. If the mean number of children per family in the US rises from 2.3 to 2.4, then all else being equal we can predict both that the US population will grow, and that the ratio of elderly to younger people will reduce, if the pattern persists. The increase in population is a real, physical effect even if we are certain that there is no household in the US containing 0.4 of a child. In like manner, if the mean surface temperature of the Earth increases, we can confidently predict that there will be a reduce mass of water stored as snow and/or ice; and that there will be an increase in the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere. Those are real physical effects, and that their prediction is based on change in a statistical measure makes no difference to the real physical consequences of that change. So, at the very best, your position has the same intellectual poverty as that of a person arguing that there cannot be a mean number of children in a family because there is no such thing as 0.4 of a child. In fact, your position is substantially worse. Climate scientists make predictions by taking a variety of well evidenced physical laws, taking data of actual humidities, precipitations, atmospheric temperatures and compositions, and temperatures at particular locations, and determining the consequences of that set of laws with those initial conditions. Some of the consequences are predicted values for statistical measures. Those values can be compared with values for the statistical measures determined by observation, to either refute or confirm the predictions. One of those statistical measures is the mean global surface temperature - and the agreement between the value determined by measurement and that determined by theory is confirmation of the theory. So your argument is not only wrong headed, showing a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature of statistical measures - but it is simply obscurantist. It has all the intellectual merit of a head in the sand. The sad thing is that by dressing your obscurantism and ignorance up in a semi-plausible rhetoric you may well fool some people. Just not those who think.
89463. scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, I am working on 0.75-1.9m possibility as per Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009 . This does obviously imply accelerating sealevel rise and is quite dangerous enough. However, if globe doesnt stop warming then, then 6m in next 100 years is easily foreseeable. Your idea that it isnt that bad is still unsubstantiated by any citations from anyone who has studied the problem.
89464. Bruce Frykman at 12:38 PM on 11 April 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       I do not wish to engage in an esoteric argument over the reliability of data sets that support the abstraction called global mean temperature. { snip - Several paragraphs of esoteric argument over the ... removed, as per your wish. } As a skeptic I do not wish to engage in arguments over just how to interpret the chicken guts but to ask a more fundamental question: Prove that it exists and that you can measure it. { snip - several paragraphs of arguments over chicken guts removed as per your wish } This is very powerful stuff. {snip }
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Read the Comments Policy and refrain from quasi-religious ranting. Form an argument based on science and evidence and we'll have something to discuss. Off-topic comments are deleted.
89465. Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       RW1 @49, the water vapour feedback, ie, the increased GHE from increased water vapour in the atmosphere as temperatures rise is expected to be the dominant feedback mechanism, therefore your assumption that the difference between the power radiated by the surface and the power radiated from the top of the atmosphere to space can only come through changes in albedo is false. 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.
89466. Tom Curtis at 12:22 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris @82, from the same source, Dutch expenditure on flood protection (excluding sea defense) is about 550 million Euro (790 million US dollars) a year. That is expected to rise over the immediate future to 1.2 to 1.6 billion Euro (1.7 to 2.3 billion US) a year as part of a particular project, which includes additional sea defenses.
89467. muoncounter at 12:01 PM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       dm#84: "Assuming your policy prescriptions were followed and sea level rise was stopped" My prescriptions? You're the one suggesting that the Chinese can move their cities and the Egyptians would be whistling while they worked on a 300 km seawall. And nothing said here is stopping sea level rise. As for your 3% solution, more nonsense. The bad effects of AGW will cost way more. You really need to do some reading; these unsubstantiated opinions based on your 'personal experiences' are just sad.
89468. Alterna at 11:44 AM on 11 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Great post. However, I think coverage of fauna should be subject to the same scientific rigor as the wonderful climate arguments presented here. So, I submit that there is no argument regarding striping in zebras (are US conservatives behind this, too?), they are black with white stripes (Bard, J. 1977. A unity underlying the different zebra striping patterns. Journal of Zoology. 183:527-539.). Further, I would point out that the scientific name in the caption should most likely read Equus quagga (italicized - which is beyond my posting ability). Hippotigris is the subgenus. Yes, a bit nit-picky, but it helps me take my mind off of the pending climate disaster for a bit...
       Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! I actually wanted to use the shot of the zebras congregating around the waterhole from Madagascar 2, but couldn't find one I was happy with...As for jazzing up the comments with HTML Tags, see here. I've also added a bit to the Posting Tips section of the Comments Policy page.
89469. RW1 at 11:44 AM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       RE: My #48, The missing 5 W/m^2 is probably due to Trenberth having greater than 50% of the atmospheric absorption being emitted up out to space.
89470. RW1 at 11:34 AM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       RE: My #48, If anyone doubts my calculations, I have backed check them by assuming that if half of the absorption is directed up out to space, then the weighted average totals should correspond to a temperature of about 255K. 0.69/2 (absorbed clear sky) + 0.31 passing through the clear sky = 0.66 and 0.89/2 (absorbed cloudy sky) + 0.11 passing through the cloudy sky = 0.55; 0.66 x 0.33 (clear sky) = 0.22 and 0.55 x 0.67 (cloudy sky) = 0.37; 0.22 + 0.37 = 0.59 emitted to space from the surface; 396 W/m^2 x 0.59 = 234 W/m^2 (about 254K), which is pretty close.
89471. daniel maris at 11:34 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Muoncounter, Assuming your policy prescriptions were followed and sea level rise was stopped then some parts of the globe where land is rising will gradually find their port facilities are further and further away from land. They will be a casuality of your policy proposals. Whatever you do will have some negative effects. If you divert 3% of your GDP to tackle global warming, that's 3% less to spend on hospitals and so on. Someone somewhere will probably die prematurely. But you're prepared to take that risk.
89472. daniel maris at 11:28 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Scaddenp, I am not disputing sea level rise as a likely scenario, so there is no need for me to offer alternative scientific analyses. I am denying that sea level rises of 6 or 9 M in the next 100 years have a scientific consensus behind them - are you claiming they do have a scientific consensus behind them? If so, where's your evidence?
89473. daniel maris at 11:26 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Tom Curtis, I think you'll probably find that Dutch estimate is misleading as it probably relates to just sea wall defence. But to inhabit a below sea level area requires a lot more effort: pumps, canals all over the place. I think if you factor that in, the Dutch probably spend several billion Euros each year, but of course the benefits they obtain justify it.
89474. Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       scaddenp @80, James Koch estimates a cost of around ten million US dollars per mile (7 million Euro) to construct levees, and 35 million for sea wall (24 million Euro). A proposed project to protect Houston would cost around 50 million US dollars (34 million Euro) per mile including the necessary sea gates for a 5 meter wall. Of course, such capital works can be defrayed over time. The Dutch program, for example, includes 63 million Euro (90 million US dollars) in maintenance costs with the rest (270 million US dollars) being for new capital works. These costs are well within the capacity of any modern industrial society to pay, and are probably cheaper than relocation of cities in most cases. (Parts of cities, on the other hand, may be better abandoned to the sea.) They are certainly affordable for a nation like Egypt (GDP = 216 billion US dollars) although the low per capita income means such an expenditure will certainly have a social cost in that the expenditure will have to substitute for other services. For Bangladesh with a GDP of 105 billion, and a per capita income of 641 US dollars per annum, the costs would be exhorbitant. Again, however, it would be cheaper for the West to build sea walls for Bangladesh than to curtail carbon emissions, at least in this century. That is assuming sea level rise were the only imposed cost, which it is not. To put that in context, with a temperature increase of 4 degrees (expected by the end of the century with BAU), Bangladesh can expect to experience local temperatures which exceed the level at which the human body can get rid of heat. The consequence is sustained a few days without preventative measures is 100% mortality of both humans and livestock. Preventative measures can be as simple as cooling of in the delta waters, but such events will lead to national mortality rates in the tens of thousands. If climate sensitivity is currently underestimated, or CO2 increases follow the current trends (pre-recession) rather than the lower IPCC predictions, large areas of the tropics may become uninhabitable to humans, livestock or wildlife several times per decade. I do not know how you would cost this potential, but compared to it, the cost of sea defenses is inconsequential. (This may be the greatest potential human cost from BAU, but is probably not the greatest cost as measured by economists).
89475. ClimateHawk at 10:38 AM on 11 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       I think the explanation could be improved by providing a bit more context. The Trenberth email can easily be interpreted as referring to a long-term cooling trend that we cannot explain at the moment, but with a bit more context it becomes clear that "at the moment" is referring to a cool 2008. Only 2 clicks away from this article is one by Trenberth: "The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Figure 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the temperature not continuing to go up?" "Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Nin˜ a led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, do we not? Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not. But we should!" It's hardly news when a scientist says "more research is needed"!
89476. scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Thanks Tom. What about the cost of building them in the first place though? My city (Dunedin NZ) needs about 7 kms of dyke to prevent losing a major portion of city that is at sealevel, currently protected by an eroding dune barrier. The airport (25km from city) is on only flat land for miles and miles, but its only 1m about sealevel. The farmland around already has salt incursion. These are tough problems for a city of only 128,000. Government help? Well the major cities here have same or worse. So thats one tiny, wealthy part of planet. Scaling that to nile, Ganges, Mekong? Daniel's opinions seem to be based an fact-free assessment so I was hoping that he could support his stance with the some actual studies, and hard numbers.
89477. Daniel Bailey at 10:29 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       A dyke for 1m is one thing. A dyke for 6m? I hear tell that was tried, once. It may be that they're finally locating where it used to be, once upon a time... The Yooper
89478. RW1 at 10:24 AM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       The main point I'm getting at here is if the albedo is NOT decreasing (or has even slightly increased), where is the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the warming? If, as you claim, an additional 3.7 W/m^2 at the surface is to become 16.6 W/m^2 then why doesn't it take more like 1075 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun (16.6/3.7 = 4.5; 239 x 4.5 = 1075)?? Looked at from another angle: In energy balance terms, it takes about 390 W/m^2 at the surface to allow 239 W/m^2 to leave the system, offsetting the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun (power in = power out). If, as you claim, it will take an additional 16.6 W/m^2 at the surface to allow an additional 3.7 W/m^2 to leave the system to restore equilibrium, then why doesn't it take 1075 W/m^2 emitted at the surface to allow 239 W/m^2 to leave the system to achieve equilibrium? What is so special about the next few watts at the surface that the system is all of the sudden going to respond to them nearly 3 times a powerful as the original 98+%? Furthermore, since the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, the remaining difference of about 10.6 W/m^2 (3.7 x 1.6 = 6 W/m^2; 16.6 - 6 = 10.6 W/m^2) can only come from a reduced albedo. So again, where is all the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the warming?
89479. Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       scaddenp @76, on average around 250 million Euro's a year are spent by the Dutch on sea defences. See table 21.2 (page 12). The estimated net loss to national income of an emissions trading scheme in the Netherlands with a carbon price of 95 Euro per tonne and a 12 million tonne reduction in emissions is 0.3%, or 1.65 billion Euro*. Therefore, for the Netherlands, sea level rise alone is insufficient reason to restrict the carbon price. It is, however, just one cost amongst many, and probably the lowest of the significant costs. *I needed an exhange rate conversion to calculate this, and the exchange rate may have not matched that at the time the figures were published.
89480. muoncounter at 09:51 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       dm#72: "I tend to focus on personal experience." Perhaps that is not the best way to approach a global scientific problem. #74: "There may be some casualities of such a rate of change (just as there will be casualties from not letting sea level rise, given that land everywhere is either going up or down relative to the sea), but not many. " That's a rather astonishing statement. Sounds like 'it's OK with me as long as it happens to the other guy.' If that is the outcome of focusing on personal experience, it's time to start doing some actual research.
89481. muoncounter at 09:46 AM on 11 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Gilles#218: "any news from Nares " Obviously Gilles missed the link here, with photos dated 2 April.
89482. muoncounter at 09:41 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles#116: "the high price of FF will lead to a reduction of their use anyway, with or without tax " It's purely wishful thinking that increased 'extraction cost' is sufficient to decrease demand. The actual cost you mean to say is no doubt 'replacement cost,' the cost to a company to find new reserves equal to the volume they've produced in a year. And that's not moving up fast enough to dent anyone's thirst: El Paso Corporation Reports $1.40 per Mcfe Reserve Replacement Costs With an average natural gas price of $4.50/mmcf last year, we will have to wait a long time before finding cost has much of an effect. You're really just proposing another 'do-nothing' approach.
89483. scaddenp at 09:21 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, the issue is cost of adaptation versus cost of emission reduction. Checked out how much a Holland solution cost and project that? You also seem to ignore that it is not theoretical - its a problem right now for some of us. How a small city is going to find money for dutch solution is no small task. And is there any point if sealevel will just keep on rising. A dyke for 1m is one thing. A dyke for 6m? And by the way, I also think sealevel rise is not the main problem. I am guessing hydrological cycle disruption is/will be main issue. Just a lot harder to predict an quantify.
89484. RW1 at 08:53 AM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       scaddenp (RE: 46), Let's run the numbers on how much energy incrementally more clouds trap: If, according to Trenberth, the cloudy sky has a transmittance of 30 W/m^2, and the surface emitted through the cloudy sky is about 265 W/m^2 (396 x 0.67 = 265). 265 W/m^2 - 30 W/m^2 = 235 W/m^2 absorbed by the cloudy sky. The clear sky has a transmittance of 40 W/m^2, and the surface emitted through the clear sky is 131 W/m^2 (396 x 0.33 = 131). 131 W/m^2 - 40 W/m^2 = 91 W/m^2 absorbed by the clear sky. 91 W/m^2 divided by 131 W/m^2 = 0.69; 235 W/m^2 divided by 265 W/m^2 = 0.89. 0.89 - 0.69 = 0.20 difference between the cloudy and clear sky. 0.20 x 396 W/m^2 = 79 W/m^2 additional absorbed for each additional m^2 of cloud cover. If we assume that roughly half of the absorption and re-emission is back toward the surface (Trenberth actually has this being less than half), that comes to about 39 W/m^2, or about 10 W/m^2 less than the 48 W/m^2 reflected away.
89485. RW1 at 08:26 AM on 11 April 2011
       It's albedo
       scaddenp (RE: 46), (Sorry I'm late on this) "RW1 - I am lost at what you are trying to do here but pretty obviously, you don't lose 48W/m2 for each m2 of cloud!" According to Trenberth's numbers, you do: Clouds cover about 2/3rds of the surface, so 341 W/m^2*0.67 = 228 W/m^2 average incident on the clouds. 79 W/m^2 divided by 228 W/m^2 = 0.34 average reflectivity of clouds. 1/3rd of the surface is cloudless, so 341 W/m^2*0.33 = 113 W/m^2 average incident on the cloudless surface. 23 W/m^2 divided by 113 W/m^2 = 0.20 average reflectivity of the cloudless surface. 0.34-0.20 = 0.14. 341 W/m^2*0.14 = 48 W/m^2 loss for each additional m^2 of cloud cover. "You seem be trying to predict something about change in albedo associated with clouds but what about calculating the change in DLR too? Clouds do both." I'm well aware clouds do both. The whole point is incrementally more clouds reflect away more energy than they re-direct back to the surface; thus, the energy needed to get the 16+ W/m^2 for a 3 C rise can only come from a reduced albedo.
89486. villabolo at 08:14 AM on 11 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Major blooper. The illustration's footnote reads "flowing". Sorry, not enough coffee. :-)
89487. villabolo at 08:08 AM on 11 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @19 Gilles: Gilles you'll be happy to know that I changed the word, in the last statement of my rebuttal, from "flowing" to "circulating". 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?
89488. Dikran Marsupial at 08:02 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris@72 smog is an urban phenomenon, I can't see how its removal can account for the warming of the U.K., which is also evident in rural locations. As for sea level rises, the Netherlands are wealthy and can afford to take measures to guard against sea level rises, Bangladesh is another matter entirely. The comment about dinosaur methane was about 10 days late, but it did make me laugh! ;o)
89489. daniel maris at 08:02 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Muoncounter - Referring to past times, I was meaning that climate modelling is pretty dodgy if you have no way of estimating say methane generation from dinosaurs (that's just one example). Climate modelling can only be valid I think on the basis of current data. My position on sea level rise is clear: that if it is in the order of less than say 5 mms per annum, then humanity can adapt to it without too much trouble. There may be some casualities of such a rate of change (just as there will be casualties from not letting sea level rise, given that land everywhere is either going up or down relative to the sea), but not many.
       Moderator Response: See, and comment on, the post "It's Not Bad." Enter that in the Search field at the top left of this page, or find it by browsing the Arguments you can see by clicking the "Arguments" link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of this page. Further off topic comments will be deleted, even if parts of them are on topic. You've already been politely warned, so now you're just getting on my nerves. [Dikran Marsupial] You also ought to read Are surface temperature records reliable?.
89490. Dan Moutal at 07:54 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @Gilles "the high price of FF will lead to a reduction of their use anyway, with or without tax - and much likely much more than with a tax." Eventually yes. We certainly agree on that, but the fact that eventually the price will be high enough to discourage FF use is mostly meaningless. At least in the context of climate. What matters is will that happen fast enough to avoid the significant costs associated with climate change? The answer is almost certainly no, because the price is artificially low (see my previous comment).
89491. daniel maris at 07:51 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Logicman, I think we have to move away from big hydro schemes. However, are you saying that agricultural production is LOWER now in Egypt following the Aswan Dam opening compared with before? I very much doubt that is the case, and that really is what I am saying - humanity is v. adaptable and will adapt if the rate of change is slow enough. You're making a prediction about what will happen over the next 90 years, which is fair enough, and we or our heirs will see whether and to what extent it comes true. As it is (I live in a tidal area) I have seen no evidence of the effects of sea level rise at all and have not read of any specific effects in the media (although you get erroneous connections made with such phenomena as coastal erosion which is always with us).
89492. daniel maris at 07:44 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Albatross, AS for Tamino's analysis, well it could be correct, but of course Tamino is arguing against a paper by "Houston and Dean" published in the Journal of Coastal Research I think. Presumably Houston and Dean are reputable scientists and would in turn come up with lots of counter-objections to Tamino's analysis. I know enough about statistics and surveys to know that by asking the right sort of questions in the right series and by tweaking confidence levels you can come up with the answers you want. I think there are just so many variables involved in this debate that it is impossible to say at the moment whether major AGW is taking place. I tend to focus on personal experience. There's no doubt that the British climate is a lot warmer than 50 years ago. But that might be explained by the removal of smog through air quality legislation. I am also aware through personal experiecne that London is much, much warmer than surrounding parts and also that weather stations taht were once in the countryside or in fairly isolated airports are now in built up areas. My main issue though with the sea level rise discussion was the assumption that it would have a catastrophic impact. I don't see that the rises most scientists are talking about would have such an impact. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to point to the Netherlands - a fact in itself - as a country that suffers no discernible negative effects from being located in large part below sea level. What can be done in the Netherlands can be done elsewhere, if the worse comes to the worse. Of course a 9 metre rise over a short period would be a different matter. But most scientists don't seem to think the ice sheets will melt. So if we are sticking with majority scientific opinion, that has to be set to one side.
89493. Gilles at 07:41 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "But it sounds like you are arguing that higher prices wont lead to a reduction of FF use. Is that correct?" Well, obviously I have some difficulties to be understood - because I'm arguing exactly the opposite - the high price of FF will lead to a reduction of their use anyway, with or without tax - and much likely much more than with a tax. The contradiction is by those who claim that a tax would be efficient to reduce it, but not the rise of extraction cost - because for the customer, the effects are the same and it is illogical to think that the demand would decrease in one case and not in the other one. So actually the tax is useful to avoid using FF... that wouldn't have been used anyway because they're much more expensive that the tax could produce.
89494. daniel maris at 07:01 AM on 11 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Muoncounter, You are making an assumption there. I have already made clear I support a rapid move to renewable energy production supported by carbon capture gas. So if CO2 is the cause of global warming then I am on your side of the argument. For me renewable energy is attractive for a wide variety of reasons but the precautionary approach to carbon addition is one. However, I am simply not impressed by a lot of the climatist arguments and the idea that a slow sea level rise will be a catastrophic I find unconvincing. I mean, we've already had a slow sea level rise according to you with absolutely no discernible effects. (Not to say there haven't been effects, just that they have not impinged on our national life.)
89495. JMurphy at 06:51 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Howard Seaward wrote : "Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything. 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." Coincidentally, I am currently watching a programme on UK TV about the Soviet space program and next week is the 50th anniversary of the first man in space - accomplished by the same country that put the first satellite in space. Can you remember what form of government they had then ? And I believe China is now leading the world in investment in renewables and is fast increasing the share of its energy coming from renewables. That should solve some problems. What system of government do they have in China and how do their figures compare with the Capitalist West ?
89496. Dan Moutal at 06:25 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles " in other words, if a carbon tax is efficient to reduce the consumption, why wouldn't the consumption decrease with the mere influence of growing extraction costs - even without a tax" There are many reasons. First there is already a global infrastructure set up for FF use, which brings with it a whole lot of inertia that resists change. Add to that the massive political pressure that FF companies exert on politicians. And finally the cost of FFs are artificially low (even though they are rising), and still cheaper than the alternatives (which not only need to be cheaper but need to overcome the FF inertia). Why artificially low? Because the true cost of FF is externalized. No one (except in a few ares which have implemented carbon pricing) pays to dump GHG emissions in the atmosphere, despite the well established science that indicates that this will have severe costs in the not to distant future (actually there are costs even now). Add to that the cost of particulate emissions (mainly from coal) and you have massive externalities which are not reflected in the price of FF. That is the crux of the problem. But it sounds like you are arguing that higher prices wont lead to a reduction of FF use. Is that correct?
89497. logicman at 05:33 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Re: Canada fossil fuels. If it helps anyone, here are some resources: map of oil and gas producing areas: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/economic/energy/oilgas energy sector statistics: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/statstat/index-eng.php energy use database 1990 to 2008. http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0 I have noticed that many Canadian science-related sites are slow to update. I get the impression that this is a funding problem.
89498. les at 05:00 AM on 11 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       If anyone is interested in a little easy listening, here's an interview with Shai Agassi of Better Place electric car battery swapping station fame; and a CNN article for food for thought.
89499. villabolo at 04:55 AM on 11 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @19 Gilles: "Moderator : the only figure of this post has the following legend : "Figure 1. The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for the March 2000–May 2004 period in W/m2. The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance. From Trenberth et al.b"" Gilles; thank you for pointing out a typo in my footnote. It's been fixed.
89500. Paul D at 04:18 AM on 11 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles: "Marcus, but after all, if you're posting here, is it not to convince unconvinced people? because you would agree that it is a waste of time to convince already convinced people !" You are wasting time. You also contradict your own argument/views in your statement.

Prev  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  Next