Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 Next
Comments 89451 to 89500:
-
Marcus at 16:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ?" Why exactly would you need *lots* of low GHG sources of power? You'd need a *hell* of a lot to equal the emissions of just a single coal-fired power station, especially when you consider the fact that most coal-fired power stations have to supply energy to large geographic areas-resulting in significant losses during transmission & distribution. Again I think you *really* need to check your facts in future. -
Marcus at 16:24 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Of course it is easy to reduce FF consumption if we lower the average income." There you go making false claims again. Plenty of Countries have *significantly* reduced their FF consumption *without* lowering average income-so please stop claiming otherwise, it doesn't assist your credibility. Also, the fact is that the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy significant subsidies in a number of Countries, & so they will keep using those fossil fuels as long as they continue to evade the full cost of their activities. -
Dan Moutal at 16:19 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles "Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ?" Obviously that depends on how low and how much they are used. But no. What I was getting at was that energy sources with low or no GHG emissions would (if the carbon tax was ramped up) provide us with a greater percentage of our energy and would buttress us from large price increases due to the ever increasing taxes. BTW I suggest you listen to the two interview I linked to above. This is discussed there, and what Jaccard's economic model finds is that we should roughly expect out total energy costs to go up by less than the tax (roughly 1% annually for the next two decades or so), due to these low carbon energy sources increasing in prominence. -
Dan Moutal at 15:45 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
BTW for anyone who is interested (and who is still following this long comment thread) Here are two interviews with Mark Jaccard that he did on the CBC science show Quirks and Quarks. Well worth a listen for anyone who is interested in Carbon Pricing. Carbon Pricing Hot Air -
Dan Moutal at 15:45 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles The figure is for emission of GHGs. Not the weight of oil. Remember the point of a carbon tax isn't to tax energy. The point is to tax emissions. That is what we care about. We also don't just care about the emissions from oil. Coal is just as important to deal with if not more so. So your number are way off. And I'll ask you again. What do you propose to do to reduce GHG emissions? And are you opposed to policy which looks to internalize externalalities? Please answer the questions. As for the Recession/oil price connections, there is probably something to that. BUT the effects of high oil prices (where money crosses national borders) and high carbon taxes (where money does not leave the country) are very different. Especially if the overall tax burden remains the same. -
Gilles at 15:41 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Low GHG sources of power would not be affected by this price, and would certainly provide us with a far grater percentage of our daily power requirements." Are you saying that burning a lot of low GHG sources of power lowers the total amount of emissions ? -
Gilles at 15:32 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
A side remark : as the customer and the industry does sees the overall cost of the energy, if it were possible to adapt rapidly to a high price to switch to renewables without any loss of wealth , there is no reason that this shouldn't have happened during the rallye of oil prices.Instead, we've got only a strong recession which explains basically the decrease of consumption - but at the expense of economic activity. Of course it is easy to reduce FF consumption if we lower the average income. The open question is if it possible without loss of income. Up to now, facts are saying : not so much. -
Gilles at 15:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
122 : I didn't ask you "why", i asked "what" . If you don't have an answer, how can you decide the amount of tax ? now you mention 200$/t . 1 t of oil is arount 7,5 barrels, so this means around 25 $ /bbl. Only 10 years ago, the barrel was sold 20$, now it's over 100 $, meaning a rise of at least 3 times the amount of the proposed tax that hasn't been yet decided anywhere - and much more rapidly. And of course it has had an effect on the consumption, that decreased by several % in all western countries, much more significantly that all what I heard about the effect of a tax. so what do you want me to "propose" since the natural increase of the cost is already doing much more than what you can dream of ? -
RW1 at 15:15 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
KR (RE: 57), "Regarding clouds, I suggest you follow up on the net feedback from clouds thread." Maybe I will. -
RW1 at 15:12 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
KR (RE: 57), "RW1 - Global warming must be due to decreased albedo? That's your theory? Seriously?" No, it's not. I mean the 'enhanced' warming outside the system's measured boundary to surface incident energy can only really come from a reduced albedo because COE dictates the atmosphere can't create any energy of its own. You can't simply create the remaining 10.6 W/m^2 out of thin air - it has to come from somewhere. If, as claimed, it's not coming from a reduced albedo (i.e. the Sun) and is within the system's internal boundaries, then it needs to be explained why it doesn't take more like 1075 W/m^2 at the surface for equilibrium (239 W/m^2 in and out). Remember, I agree the physics supports a likelihood of some effect (i.e. some warming) from 2xCO2. I'm mainly disputing the magnitude of 3C predicted by the AGW hypothesis. -
Dan Moutal at 15:08 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@Gilles I have to ask you, what do you propose to achieve the necessary reductions in GHG emissions? And are you opposed to policy which looks to internalize externalalities? -
Dan Moutal at 15:07 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles " what is an "artificially low" price for oil" I already explained why I say that FFs are priced artificially low. As I said above, the most significant costs are externalized. Giving you an exact number isn't really possible (one would need at the very least a proper economic model to do that), but it should be clear that the true cost of oil or coal should be a fair bit higher than say solar or wind (or even nuclear), because the the GHG emissions alone (to say nothing of particulate pollution or MTR mining) impose massive costs on society as a whole. Now obviously all the costs can't be internalized overnight, but over time the cost of FF should incorporate more and more of the externalized cost. As I mentioned in a previous comment Mark Jaccard (an environmental economist who has advised both the BC and federal government on exactly this issue) has mentioned that the price might need to go as high as $200/tonne. And before you freak out remember three things. 1) Low GHG sources of power would not be affected by this price, and would certainly provide us with a far grater percentage of our daily power requirements. 2) The price will be introduced overtime, with a corresponding decrease in other taxes. So while overall the amount spent on energy would increase the amount 'spent' on income taxes would decrease. 3) this wont work unless without buy-in from other countries. No one is suggesting that GHG be priced so high only in one jurisdiction. -
Ian Love at 15:01 PM on 11 April 2011Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
re Alexandre#3 I have the same problem, and have had in a few other SkS pages. I am running Firefox 4 and 3.6 (on different computers) but it isn't that. Surely it is because the images have not been imported into SkS but are linked through to imageshack, which has this peculiar practice of not letting you see images unless your site domain is registered. It is very annoying! Presumably it could be solved by the editor importing the images into SkS rather than linking through to imageshack - perhaps a nuisance, but hopefully not difficult?Moderator Response: [DB] This is being implemented as standard practice here. Hopefully future instances of this issue will then be rare. -
scaddenp at 14:52 PM on 11 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
We can adapt modern cities and build seawalls to protect densely populated deltas - given enough time and money. Time is uncertain but the money should be compared to cost of curtailing emissions. So far daniel has completely failed to address this other than ill-informed criticism of Stern. -
Gilles at 14:52 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"The actual cost you mean to say is no doubt 'replacement cost,'" I mean the extraction cost, not the replacement cost - this is only the cost of finding new reserves, not extracting them ! -
Gilles at 14:46 PM on 11 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM your link states that "He said there could be a beneficial outcome if the calving drifts to block the Nares Strait and effectively prevents the loss of more ice from the Lincoln Sea.", so If I understand well, the drifting ice could block the Nares strait ? Muoncounter , the bet wasn't that it was "underway", it was that it would be broken on April 7th+/-10. As far as I can judge, it's an illustration of the danger of "extrapolating trends" without taking into account natural variability.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, that is the way I read it. -
L.J. Ryan at 14:29 PM on 11 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 993 995 I read the SoD article and in fact was going to submit comments until the conclusions you list. That is, the model is wrong...but kinda works. I'll wait to see where SoD takes this simplified model stuff, before commenting. You said: "Your first table is better, but does not include a column for , an important term without which the equilibrium state cannot be determined. Equilibrium is reached when (and only when) (1-A)*S/4 = σTa^4, ie, AtmU in your first table" The constant input (1-A)*S/4 is assumed...but I get your point. Teq is, as I explained to e in the previous post, a time interval to mark surface equilibrium. That is, when SW flux to the surface equals LW flux out of the surface. Regarding your 995, I think you have double counted atmosphere radiation. Specifically: The entropy of the back radiation (AtmD) = 240 J/255K = 0.94 J/K The entropy of the radiation to space (AtmU) = 240 J/255 K = 0.94 J/K. Total atmospheric radiation 480J...confers 303K which is obviously wrong and/or it unbalances your conservation of energy equations. -
RW1 at 14:28 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
scaddenp (RE: 53), "Sigh, still trying to use the Trenberth diagram for prediction. The logical consequence of your argument would be that 100% cloud cover of venus would give it a cold surface." Also, another logical consequence is that the idea of clouds operating as net positive feedback doesn't make sense. For the feedback to be positive, more clouds would need to block more energy than they reflect away, but as I've shown, that isn't the case. If you want to argue that clouds operate as a positive feedback via reducing clouds, that doesn't fit with the relatively steady (or even slightly increased) albedo. -
Gilles at 14:26 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
for instance for BC, how high was the tax compared to the price of barrel of oil or a mmcf of natural gas ? -
Gilles at 14:22 PM on 11 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
#Dan 117 , and muoncounter: what is an "artificially low" price for oil, following you ? how much do you want to tax carbon, on an equivalent barrel basis for instance, and how does it compare with the recent rise in energy price ? -
It's albedo
RW1 - Global warming must be due to decreased albedo? That's your theory? Seriously? Shortwave absorptivity (inverse of albedo) is really not much affected by greenhouse gases. Longwave emissivity is, and the changes there are what drive the temperatures. Note that we can measure albedo; the changes there are fairly minor compared to emission changes. As to your El Nino event issues, keep in mind that a positive feedback is not a runaway feedback (if that is indeed what you are implying, I may have misinterpreted your post) - see the Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming thread. Regarding clouds, I suggest you follow up on the net feedback from clouds thread. -
L.J. Ryan at 13:52 PM on 11 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 992 Understand e, it is my contention energy, radiative or otherwise, can NOT increase itself due to reflection, re-radiation or insulation. So when the input flux to the surface equals surface output flux the earth is at equilibrium...255K. The 33o delta is do to non-radiative energy input. My calculations set out to disprove back radiation by using the very tenets of GHG physics. That is, by using proponents equations to confound GHG physics conclusions, I will prove my supposition. Start with a solar input 240 W/m2 SW. Due to my confusion of KR take on albedo and earths surface emissivity/absorptivity I applied .98 absorption a second time...netting 235 W/m2 SW absorbed by the surface. Nevertheless, the number workout nearly the same. For consistency within this explanation, 235 W/m2 SW input will be used. All of the following presumes GHG physics: With the understanding a white atmosphere will reflect all terrestrial LW, the white atmosphere will “force” the surface to accumulate energy faster then any other emissivities. When the input flux 235 W/m2 SW to the surface equals surface output flux 235 W/m2 LW the earth SURFACE is at equilibrium (not the entire system). It is this instant which is designated Teq. Since the subsequent instance receives more energy then the prior instance, the accumulation happens faster, followed by an ever faster instance...ect. That said; I= solar input 235 W/m2 SW E= earths radiated flux A=atmosphere flux LW AU = atmosphere up AD = atmosphere down A=AD+AU With ε= 0 Teq when E=I=A 1.5Teq E'= I+A and E'=A' 1.75Teq E''= I +A' and E''=A'' 1.875Teq E'''=I + A'' and E'''=A''' Assuming energy accumulation is linear, the time to reach 1.5Teqis half as long as time to reach Teq...1.75Teqis half as long as time to reach 1.5TeqfromTeq...etc. These calculation were continued some 20 times, as a geometric series 2Teq will never be reached. At the same time, surface flux will accumulate infinitum. Now, of course the visible spectrum will be emitted prior to runaway thereby achieving TOA equilibrium. When ε= 1 the equation are: 2Teq E= I+AD and E=A 3Teq E'= I +AD' and E'=A' The time it takes E=A=I, is twice as long as when ε= 0. When ε= .612 reflectivity equals .388 . This introduces another value: AR = .388 A = atmosphere reflected AD=AU AD= .5 (.612A)= .306 A E= I+AR+AD and E=A E'= I+AR'+AD'and E'=A' The Teq is found by dividing A for white atmosphere of a particular surface radiation by AR+AD of the same E (gray), then multiplying by the Teq for that white E interval. For example; for the 470 W/m2 interval: A (white) =470, AR+AD=182+144....470/( 182+144)*1.5Teq=2.16Teq. The Teq provides only a non critical time component of surface equilibrium. In hindsight, I should not have included this information, it only confused my conclusions. -
RW1 at 13:47 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
Tom Curtis (RE: 52), "What is more, the relative strength of the GHE of CO2 and water vapour changes with increased temperature. At very low temperatures, there is almost no water vapour in the atmosphere, and hence almost all of the GHE comes from CO2. As the temperature climbs, the water vapour concentration climbs logarithmically. This means the water vapour feedback increases approximately linearly with increasing surface temperature. Meanwhile, the CO2 forcing increases by a constant amount with each doubling of concentration." Furthermore, if water vapor in the system operates in this way - to greatly enhance a small warming through net positive feedback, then why didn't temperatures climb higher and higher during the large El Nino events of 1998 and 2010? In each case, the temperature came back down very quickly:
-
adelady at 13:46 PM on 11 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Well, the costs of seawalls and the like are one thing. What about modern industrialised cities placing important infrastructure at or near sea level for convenience. Power plants for cooling water, ports for shipping, sewage plants for effluent disposal, airports for the nice flat land. And you can't just shift a city one or ten kms from its current location the way you shift a sofa to a better position. You either have to knock down a whole heap of businesses and dwellings if proximity to the sea is important - ports being the obvious example - or leapfrog existing areas to find the next big piece of available, suitable land. And if there's none 'available', then suitable areas will have to be taken over and adapted to the essential use. The costs of seawalls pale into nothing compared to the costs for governments compulsorily acquiring land for essential infrastructure. (As it happens, I live in a city where the airport is a bare 2m above sealevel and less than 2km from the beach. So we're going to be in trouble by the middle of the century if things go the way I expect.) -
pbjamm at 13:41 PM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 11 April 2011There 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 thekooksdeniers 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. -
BoulderBob at 13:29 PM on 11 April 2011Geologist 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 -
RW1 at 13:28 PM on 11 April 2011It's albedo
scaddenp (RE: 53) "Sigh, still trying to use the Trenberth diagram for prediction. The logical consequence of your argument would be that 100% cloud cover of venus would give it a cold surface." No, the logical consequence is that 100% cloud cover on Earth would give it colder surface. -
RW1 at 13:23 PM on 11 April 2011It'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. -
scaddenp at 13:21 PM on 11 April 2011It'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. -
scaddenp at 13:18 PM on 11 April 2011Temp 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. -
Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 11 April 2011Temp 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. -
scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
Bruce Frykman at 12:38 PM on 11 April 2011Temp 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. -
Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 11 April 2011It'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. -
Tom Curtis at 12:22 PM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
muoncounter at 12:01 PM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
Alterna at 11:44 AM on 11 April 2011Zebras? 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. -
RW1 at 11:44 AM on 11 April 2011It'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. -
RW1 at 11:34 AM on 11 April 2011It'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. -
daniel maris at 11:34 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
daniel maris at 11:28 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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? -
daniel maris at 11:26 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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). -
ClimateHawk at 10:38 AM on 11 April 2011The 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"! -
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:29 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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 -
RW1 at 10:24 AM on 11 April 2011It'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? -
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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. -
muoncounter at 09:51 AM on 11 April 2011Has 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.
Prev 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 Next
