Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 Next
Comments 89651 to 89700:
-
Marcus at 22:55 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?" Well at least I *have* a point Gilles-you just seem to have a PR based agenda centered around repeating the same catch-phrases over & over, in the hope that we'll just finally accept your point of view. My point, though, is that as alternatives to fossil fuels become more attractive to energy consumers, demand for energy from fossil fuel sources will decline; when that happens, the profit margins for the fossil fuel industry will drop to a point where it will no longer be worth extracting fossil fuels at all. Indeed, my prediction is that a combination of a carbon tax, removal of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry & the naturally rising costs of extraction will lead to many companies switching their attentions to more sustainable-& profitable-areas. Of course in the meantime they'll fight tooth & nail to retain their virtual monopoly in those nations where they enjoy it-through both the media & political process. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:49 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Seaward,This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now.
A singularly uninspired, grossly exaggerated, insight-less and 100% false characterization of the issue, designed to cause a knee-jerk negative response in people who are (foolishly) still afraid of communism (primarily the 60+ crowd). -
Harry Seaward at 22:11 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now. -
Jessie Wells at 22:01 PM on 9 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
Thanks for the post + photos John! It was a beautiful day, for the music, signs, speakers, and crowds at the info stalls - and definitely a demonstration of the power of solar energy - from above, and reflected from the giant solar-thermal concentrator that is King George Square. Did you see the little kids in t-shirts painted with 'we are the solar generation' ? -
David Horton at 21:40 PM on 9 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
Disappointing to hear the Swan interview - climate change was a "moral and economic matter" I think was the phrase. Um, Wayne, you left out "environmental". Still, best not to sound like a Greenie in the Gillard government I suppose. -
Darcindora at 21:21 PM on 9 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
well done Brisvagas great signs, great sense of humour, and looks like a great bunch of people :D -
Ken Lambert at 20:24 PM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles et al I think Gilles needs to tighten up his arguments - a bit of advice from one who is on his side of the debate. Anyone who wants some really relevant numbers on this argument - head over to the Flanner thread here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Flanner2011.html#46658 where Sphaerica and Tom Curtis and me are in play. It is interesting to note that Moderator DM is very active in instructing Gilles. Having the power to delete one's opponents and not one's friends is wide open to abuse. I suggest Moderators need moderating themselves if this site is to be taken seriously as a contributor to the AGW debate. I have corrected some of the gross errors in other's numbers on this thread - without challenge from anyone including the Moderators who do know something about these numbers. If Moderators are to be pro-active and respected - they should suggest corrections to both pro-AGW arguments and anti-AGW arguments which are obviously factually wrong. That will discourage the tyre kickers, and trollers (a la Gilles), and lead to a higher standard of debate.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Do not worry about this site being taken seriously; that is not at issue. Further, demonstrate respect for the Comments Policy and the Moderators and perhaps you, too can contribute to a higher standard of debate. -
Gilles at 19:40 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Marcus :" Wow, you really *are* a broken record, aren't you Gilles? Nobody has suggested that a Carbon Tax-alone-will reduce the extraction or consumption of fossil fuels. The point is to make the *alternatives* more attractive by comparison." sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time? -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:00 PM on 9 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
johnd@127 That is what references are for. In scientific publications, you don't repeat information on issues that the reader ought to be familiar with every time a subject is discussed. Instead you give a reference, allowing the reader to look more deeply. Scientists (and the interested layman) shouldn't rely on looking at diagrams, you need to read the text and follow the references and do background reading. -
Annette at 18:54 PM on 9 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
It was a great turn out. Very positive. Wayne Swan looked a bit like he didn't really want to be there. He 'swanned' past me at one stage with his bodyguards. I have one interesting photo with him talking to someone while his was rubbing the side of his nose with his finger. Interesting body language. ;) Good to also see that there was attention given to the issues with CSG and the problems that landowners in Tara are facing. -
johnd at 18:43 PM on 9 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM, it's all very well to find justification now with the benefit of hindsight and the fact that most people have now seen the relevant graphs, but where are the graphs that accompanied the two extracts you provided? Without accompanying graphs or data of some form, anyone reading it at the time it was published would have had no way of quantifying or even visualising whether the divergence was rather minor, or significant. Certainly anyone reading the explanations cold could not be expected to understand just how dramatic the divergence actually was. Are you able to provide the graphs that accompanied the explanations in each of the assessment reports that allowed the readers to appreciate the scale of the divergence as they were reading about it for the first time? -
Megan Evans at 18:26 PM on 9 April 2011Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
"blinking step into the sun..." LOL Fantastic photos John, sorry I didn't get to bump into you (not much room to move really). The 'My Mom is Hot' placard is in response to the apparently serious placard present at the Canberra anti-climate tax rally the other week and subsequently parodied on Crikey . A great turnout today! -
Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM on 9 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Actually, Ryan, I believe that there are many deniers who either falsely believe that instrumental temperatures have declined since 1998, or falsely believe that the 1930's and 1940's where hotter than the 1990's and 2000's; and who further falsely believe that the temperature record has been deliberately massaged to conceal this truth; and who believe that his is what "hide the decline" refers to. Deniers who make this sort of claim may be in the minority; but it only needs a minority of a very large group to result in the claim being made often. I don't particularly care why the authors chose a particular terminology in their private correspondence. What I care about is their actual practise. For example, in Assessment Report 4, the authors "hid the decline" by writing:"Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired."
In the Third Assessment Report, they "hid the decline" by writing:"There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response."
So in both, their method of hiding the decline was to explicitly mention it, discuss the potential problems involved, and cite more detailed discussions in the scientific literature. So as regards timelines, they publicly discussed the issue in the two most important policy documents twice before the issue was even brought up by the hacking of the emails. This is not an attempt to save face. This is just a simple policy of publicly discussing the issue. The only issue about "hide the decline" is, why do deniers repeatedly misreport the practice of the scientists involved so as to impute a concealment of data that never happened? -
Marcus at 17:33 PM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
"Every time I have referred someone on the "warming side" being dishonest or ignorant, I get a bunch of moderators nagging? But then again, rant seems to be allowed for the SkS writers." No one accused Christy of ignorance-only dishonesty-a fact backed up by his false claims before the Congressional Committee. You get "nagged" by moderators because your accusations of dishonesty & ignorance are *never* backed up with actual evidence, are usually totally off topic, & are frequently serve no greater benefit than to be downright abusive. I'll tell you something for nothing, though, & that is that the tone of discussion at this site is a great deal less abusive & acrimonious than what I've seen at placed like WUWT-even on a *good* day. -
nigelj at 17:19 PM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
To me a better analogy for the effects of CO2 than blood alcohol or tiny doses of poison like strychnine is semiconductors. Tiny impurities and the movement of even just a few electrons can cause large changes in current. -
protestant at 16:38 PM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
"Christy's intellectual dishonesty while testifying before Congress under oath has misinformed our policymakers. Once again, Christy has done his country a disservice through his Congressional testimony." Every time I have referred someone on the "warming side" being dishonest or ignorant, I get a bunch of moderators nagging? But then again, rant seems to be allowed for the SkS writers. Play on your own rules if you want to be even a bit credible.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] As a public figure making on-the-record testimony, Christy subjects himself to scrutiny. Unsubstantiated name-calling, on the other hand, is not acceptable.Do not be concerned with the credibility of this site; worry more about your own credibility.
-
scaddenp at 15:29 PM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
" The idea they would find it difficult to move their cities say 50 metres away from their current coastline, or build metre high sea walls is ridiculous." And do you suppose that 50m away is just wilderness now? What about what's already there? We can do these things but they are extremely expensive. According to the economic studies done (eg Stern), way more expensive than not letting it happen in the first place. No one proposes that species is going to go extinct because of sealevel rise; what is stated is that sealevel rise will cost us in money and lives, more than cost of curbing emissions. You also seem to think that deltas, plains simply move. Not so. Fundamental to formation of those structures is that sediment budget is such that incoming exceeds erosion. If rate of sealevel rise increase, this equation changes and with it the nature of the coast line. Easily verified by looking at tectonically active coastlines. What you seem to be stating is that sealevel rise isnt a problem for you, but are ignoring those us for whom sealevel rise is already a problem. If you have a cheap solution for our city that ratepayers can afford, then we are all ears. -
RyanStarr at 15:25 PM on 9 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom I'm sure amongst the sea of skeptics you will find every conceivable view forwarded, a product of the large population. Just as there are believers who fear the earth is at risk of emulating Venus like conditions there are fringe kooks in both camps. However the quote in question refers to what is "often" cited. One doesn't need a PhD to understand a proxy is an approximation (redundant) and in this case it is contradicted by much more reliable instrumental readings. You suggest there are people who believe the declining proxy is accurate and the the instrumental record subject to a conspiracy to distort - do you "often" hear that cited? More often than the former understanding? You cast an even more spurious accusation than the article did and accuse others of disingenuity. Why do skeptics keep referring to attempts to "hide" evidence of flaws in the method? Maybe you should ask the authors of the papers in question why they used that terminology in their own private correspondance, rather odd terminology for people focused on transparency. And do take note of time lines and to what extent those admissions were reported in subsequent citations. -
Gilles at 15:21 PM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Obviously we have different conceptions of "ad hominem comment", then. concerning the precise topic of the opening post, as far as I can see, it is kind of weather forecast of the next month for arctic ice sea. I do not have definite opinion about weather forecast - and I'm not at all a specialist of ice sea. I just made very general comments about the use of a curve showing a trend, the significance to be given to numerical simulations, etc... that could apply to any field. So concerning arctic sea ice, my opinion is : well, wait and see. As the term is rather short, we'll have soon an opportunity to check the forecasts. I think the main interest of the present comments should be following them up. First we're already on April 9th, so what about the first one ? "The Nares ice bridge will be fragmented, and the ice in Kane Basin will be melting out by April 7th."?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Nobody has said anything about "ad-hominem comments". The comments policy is here, I suggest you read it carefully, "ad-hominem attacks" is only one item on the list, a more relevant item is "off-topic comments". It is unfair to repeatedly disrupt the discussion of the science with incorrect and irrelevant discussion of epistemological issues that have already been answered. If you want to discuss the science relevant to the topic of the article, the moderators would sincerely welcome that. -
ranyl at 14:28 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Ranyl, how would you measure it? If not through accounting? Is your question sensible?" It would take some calculating but not sure why supposed savings on paper need to counted to see if the policy is effective. Did the use of fossil fuels fall in British Columbia fall or not? And then has the amount of imported goods risen or fallen, if it has risen it is a carbon addition if it has fallen there has been a carbon saving, most likely. Add those together and shouldn't it give at least some idea if carbon emissions have fallen or not due to a price for carbon encouraging low carbon use and low carbon products. -
Marcus at 14:22 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Again the cost of the fuel isn't the issue. The issue is that John Hunter needs to analyse his life and find ways to remove £20 in Dec from other outgoings." Well yes, if Mr Hunter got past his *ranting* for 5 seconds & scrounged around for his old gas bills (pre-insulation & pre-thermostat lowering) he'd probably be shocked to find that-even with the $20 tax-he's still probably paying less for his gas bill than he was 10 years ago (excluding inflation of course). I know that's the case with me (though we don't have a carbon tax-yet-in Australia). 12 years ago I was using close to 15kw-h of electricity per day (at an average cost of 12c per kw-h), for an average cost of $54 per month. Now I use between 5 to 6kw-h of electricity per day (at an cost of 20c per kw-h), for an average cost of $33 per month. That means I'm currently saving around $21 per month in *spite* of an 8c per kw-h rise in tariffs in the interim. Of course, as I now am on a 100% green energy scheme-at a whopping 1c per kw-h extra-any future carbon tax will have *no* impact whatsoever on my household energy bills. -
Marcus at 14:11 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either." Wow, you really *are* a broken record, aren't you Gilles? Nobody has suggested that a Carbon Tax-alone-will reduce the extraction or consumption of fossil fuels. The point is to make the *alternatives* more attractive by comparison. The BC approach sounds like a good one because, its hoped, the company & income tax cuts can be invested in energy efficiency & renewable energy measures for homes & businesses. Another approach which should be considered is for governments to start phasing out the various subsidies currently enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector, & start re-investing that money into energy efficiency & clean energy measures instead. -
Marcus at 13:55 PM on 9 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
Also, RSVP, its worth noting that humanity has barely *begun* to tap the planet's clean energy potential. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal & Biomass energy-not to mention emergent technologies like osmotic energy-are all in their relative infancy, with *huge* potential for growth. Unfortunately that growth continues to be stunted by politicians & business people who are *obsessed* with so-called "cheap" fossil fuels. Apparently they're blind to the fact that these fossil fuels would never have *been* cheap without the massive public & private sector support, over more than 50 years, to make them so-a level of support they're determined to deny the Clean Energy sector. -
Marcus at 13:51 PM on 9 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
"If there isn't even enough clean energy for the people around today, how could there be "more and more" going forward? We seem to have a slight backlog issue." I'll tell you one thing RSVP, whatever challenges are faced by clean energy going forward is going to go *triple* for dirty, *non-renewable* resources like Coal, Oil & Uranium. Even with the current population & current global energy use we don't have enough non-renewable resources to sustain our population into the 22nd century. What do you think will happen in 50 years if we have 9 *billion* people-all trying to achieve the same energy density as is currently enjoyed in the First World? Of course, if we help the developing world to achieve 1st World standards of living in a *clean* & *efficient* manner, then history suggests that this will help to *plateau* the rate of population growth & avoid an epic energy crisis. -
Tom Curtis at 13:24 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
With regard to the slab model illustrated @993, and with (1-A)*S/4 = 240 w/m^2, then: The entropy of the incoming solar radiation per meter squared per second = 240 J/6000 K = 0.04 J/K. The entropy of the surface radiation = 480 J/303 K = 1.58 J/K 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. The challenge for the deniers is to find any partition of the system such that conservation of energy is maintained for that partition, and such that the Entropy decreases for that partition. That is, the partition must show an energy flow from E1 to E2 such that E1 = E2, but such that the Entropy of E1 is greater than that of E2. As an example, we have: 1) Insolation + Back radiation => surface radiation which in terms of energy (per meter squared per second) is 1') 240 J + 240 J = 480 J (so we have conservation of energy); but in terms of entropy we have: 1") 0.04 J/K + 0.94 J/K < 1.58 J/K so there is no violation of the 2nd law in this partition. There is in fact no partition satisfying these conditions in which the energy in has a higher entropy than the energy out. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated by this model. -
ribwoods at 13:09 PM on 9 April 2011Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
Re: my report on 2 November 2010 I found that the trouble is with my Zone Alarm Toolbar extension. When I disable that, the two SkS icons appear. -
ribwoods at 13:06 PM on 9 April 2011Call for beta testers of the latest SkS Firefox Add-on
So far, no trouble on FF 4.0 On FF 3.6.16, the Zone Alarm Toolbar 1.5.152.10 extension (for those who use ZoneAlarm security software) somehow does not allow the two SkS icons to appear. When I disable the Zone Alarm Toolbar 1.5.152.10 extension and reload FF, the two SkS icons then appear just left of the URL field as they're supposed to. -
Dan Moutal at 12:35 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Thanks everyone for all the comments. My responses are bellow: @ SNRratio Re: inverse Robin Hood effect Absolutely. It all depends on how the tax reductions elsewhere are structured, and is why people with low incomes get tax rebates. But this is now the main contention with the carbon tax. The NDP (the current opposition party here in BC) is asking for of the money to go to lower income people, and less to the rich and corporations. Finding the right balance is not easy, and depends on many value judgement where reasonable people may differ. @chriscanaris I think you missed my point. What I was trying to get across was that it makes no sense to get too far ahead of the pack in regards to pricing emissions, because doing so will only shift those emissions to a jurisdiction that isn't pricing carbon. SO a $100/tonne tax would only serve to drive emissions across the boarder to Alberta and Washington state. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing. One can lead the pack, just not by too much. Plus I think Australia is more isolated than BC making it more difficult for emissions to be shifted out. As for Pielke Jr, the problem with his proposal IMO is that the carbon tax he proposes is modest, with no plans to ever increase. It also isn't revenue neutral which would limit how much the tax could increase without damaging the economy. And finally Pielke Jr plans to use the revenue generated by the funds to fund research into new energy technologies. This sounds good, but it means that it would be up to the government to pick the winners and losers. I have more confidence in the free market's ability to do that. @Alexandre Re: Tax rate Mark Jaccard (who anyone interested in carbon pricing should look up) estimates that in order to achieve the amount of emission cuts we need the tax would need to eventually rise to $200/tonne. Now before people freak out, remember the tax wont start out at that level. And as it rises it will send a clear signal to individuals and corporations that energy efficiency needs to increase (this is exactly the type of problem where the free market really shines). SO by the time the tax reaches the level of $200/tonne we will all be emitting MUCH less CO2. And of course other taxes should be reduced to preserve revenue neutrality. And yes, the NDP now admits it was a mistake to oppose the tax. Most of the criticisms at the provincial level are fizzling out. At the federal level (where a carbon tax was introduced by the Liberals in the last election and who also ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen) no mainstream party will touch the issue. @Philippe Chantreau Whenever I get depressed about Canadian politics, I just look south and always feel a little better, at least until I realize that what happens in the US had large implications for Canada. @CBDunkerson Re: Rebate cheques That is what Hansen proposes (he calls it tax and dividend), but one then runs the risk of making the tax regressive. It also adds to the admin costs (printing and mailing cheques isn't free). But I am not sure what the costs of that would be. @RipVan Yep. Increases in efficiency aren't enough. @Steve L I think what RipVan is getting at is that if we only improve efficiency then people might drive more, or perhaps fly to more exotic locations, thus their emissions don't really go down. Think if it this way. Efficiency has been improving almost constantly, yet emissions continue to rise. So clearly something else is needed A price on carbon works to prevent this paradox. -
Albatross at 12:31 PM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
DB and muoncounter, You guys are too funny. Now all they have to is arrange some cheap slave labour and the are set to go ;) Seriously though, thanks for posting the Chruch and White graphic Daniel. -
Tom Curtis at 12:26 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Where I said second assumption, I should have said third. Sorry for any confusion. -
Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan @982, thank you for the greater clarity about the source of your calculations. From your comments, I understand you to be basing your calculations on the following model:
Science of Doom discusses just such a model in a recent post, and has this to say:
So in this first model, which is very common in introductory books on atmospheric physics, three things are assumed - and none of them are true: * the atmosphere is isothermal – a slab of atmosphere all at the same temperature * the atmosphere is completely transparent to solar radiation * the atmosphere is completely opaque to terrestrial radiation
The reason such simple but factually false models are used in introductory courses is the same reason frictionless surfaces are used in simple models of dynamics - it allows the introduction of important concepts without unnecessary complications. Because they do allow the introduction of important concepts, I am happy to work with such models so long as it is clearly understood that they do not represent any actual state in the universe. Attempts to calculate the surface temperature of the Earth are bound to be in error (and yours more in error than if the model was used correctly), and therefore are pointless except exposition of the relevant concepts. That is, they are not actual predictions of the real surface temperature. For a calculation of the Earth's average surface temperature using the simplest model of the GHE that is at the same time reasonably accurate to the actual physics, I refer you to equation six in my post 944 above. Having said that, if we wish to use the single slab model above for exposition, we need to carefully adhere to the assumptions of the model. Otherwise we just produce another example of "Garbage In - Garbage Out", and there are more than enough examples of that on the internet. Of course, the second assumption of the model is that it absorbs all outgoing radiation. Therefore any attempt to include a reflecting atmosphere with this model constitued GIGO, and in particular, this is true of your second and third tables. Your first table is better, but does not include a column for (1-A)*S/4, 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 failure to include a term for insolation probably explains why your terms do not stabilize over a certain time period (unless I am misinterpreting your first column). -
bill4344 at 11:48 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
The blood-alcohol analogy is missing the bit where you've got yourself decked in a fist fight and then spend the remainder of the night 'driving the porcelain bus' at .08 'Which ones do you want to party with?' Yikes - I think this is exactly the wrong way to message this. 'Hey, only uptight, uncool types want to do anything about CO2' is about as counter-productive a messages as could be imagined. Something that there should never be the slightest risk of anyone taking away from a presentation. But the message along the lines of 'if you don't think such trace amounts make any difference, tell it to the cops at the breathalyser' is a sound one. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:27 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Heh. I hear they've been stockpiling stone blocks in piles for millennia for just such an occasion... -
muoncounter at 11:21 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Yooper, What's an easy way to build a seawall 300 km long? Sandbags. And one thing Egypt has, it's plenty of sand. I'm thinking this is an investment opportunity: Print up millions of bags with slogans like 'Don't worry, it only has to be a 110 cm high.' -
Daniel Bailey at 11:12 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
@ muoncounter They can always fund the building seawalls/citizen relocation program by taking just half of the funding climate science research gets every year. You know, those uncountedtrillions, uh...billions, er...millions, um...thousands...never mind. Half of not enough is indeed not enough by far. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 10:42 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
dm#52: "All they have to do is a build a 110 cm sea wall. " As it only would need to extend from Alexandria to Port Said, a mere 300 km, that should be no problem. Of course, one has to excavate some depth to build a sea wall of any height, especially in a delta. Ballpark it at $1 mill per km if they start right now. But they'll probably wait a decade or two to start, because so many people keep saying not to worry about it. -
daniel maris at 10:32 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Logicman - I really think you are underestimating humanity's ability to adapt. China created cities of millions out of nothing in the space of 10 years. The idea they would find it difficult to move their cities say 50 metres away from their current coastline, or build metre high sea walls is ridiculous. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:24 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Here's the latest from Church & White 2011 (h/t to Peter Hogarth for the linkey):
Needless to say, definitely not linear. We've seen the like before (that makes it a natural cycle, doth it not?), so nuttin' to worry 'bout (unless ye be a unicorn).
The Yooper
-
daniel maris at 10:23 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
JMurphy - They don't have to move anything. All they have to do is a build a 110 cm sea wall. We have much bigger sea walls than that in the UK. It's all modelling. Modelling is not reality. I'll believe it when the port of New York reports some serious problems down at the docks (long shore??). -
JMurphy at 09:16 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise I haven't been able to find the original report, from the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna, so this BBC item should do for now. I suppose some would argue that there is nothing to worry about because America can afford to move everything important from New York to some other area nearby...probably. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ >it's rather a simple ratio of energy accumulation based on ε= 0 energy calculations. I'm sorry but your ε= 0 energy calculations also do not make any sense. If you meant emissivity as in total emissivity across all wavelengths, then ε= 0 would mean that no energy is absorbed or emitted. Your temperature and flux would be 0 across the board into infinite time. If you meant spectral emissivity as in the emissivity in the LW is 0, while other wavelengths have ε>0, then that just means the surface will get hot enough until the power is emitted in wavelengths other than LW. It would certainly not accumulate infinitely as you have depicted. Again, without even posting your derivations it is obvious something is very very wrong with your math. -
Steve L at 08:55 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
RipVan, maybe I should look up Jevon's paradox, because I'm not clear on what you mean. Energy use isn't really the problem; production of CO2 is. The carbon tax is meant to increasingly decouple energy use from CO2 production. -
Gilles at 08:50 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
it's rather difficult to have an open discussion with a gun laid at your face. Many of my posts have already been suppressed, and now you ask me questions that I am not allowed to answer. If this is your conception of scientific discussions, I understand that we can disagree....Moderator Response: (DB) Only comments that are off-topic or in violation of the Comments Policy or are complaining about having to comply with said Policy force the moderators to intervene. Participating in this forum is a privilege, not a right. A privilege that the vast majority here respect and enjoy. -
logicman at 08:38 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
#47 - Daniel "You aren't saying the Nile Delta has always been where it is now are you?" Of course I'm not! 'Always' is the age of the universe! "Deltas move and grow over time." Ah! A variant of the 'natural cycles' gambit. "is it really beyond the ability of Egypt to use its waste to build up those islands" They have been doing that for millennia. Since the Aswan dam was built they have had to do it more. The Aswan dam blocks about 12 million tonnes of silt that used to replace delta losses from sea erosion. The silt used to fertilize the region: agriculture now depends on artificial fertilizers. Sea level rise will compound Egypt's existing agricultural production problems. Most of the world's population lives in coastal regions. Sea level rise means that most of the world's population will see dramatic evidence of a predicted outcome of global warming before the year 2100. -
caerbannog at 08:14 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Claiming that bans on the agricultural use of DDT have caused millions of people to die of malaria is like claiming that restrictions on the use of antibiotics in factory farms will cause millions of people to die of bacterial infections. The whole "DDT ban has caused millions of malaria deaths" is really that stupid and dishonest -- full stop. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, BTW please do not post every single equation for every single value in that spreadsheet. Just show us the general equations you are using to derive it. >you said: "temperature does not increase past equilibrium time." Yes I agree. Your table clearly shows temperature increasing past equilibrium time. Since temperature / flux does not increase past equilibrium time, the fact that you are including Teq in your calculations suggests that you are doing something very very wrong. -
L.J. Ryan at 07:30 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 988 I will post the equations this evening...I'm pressed for time at the moment. But quickly, it's rather a simple ratio of energy accumulation based on ε= 0 energy calculations. you said: "temperature does not increase past equilibrium time." Yes I agree. My rather simple spread sheet did not include comparative functions. -
L.J. Ryan at 07:30 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 964 you said: If you feel that integrated spectra are not measurements, well, then, I'll pass that on to the spectroscope manufacturers I work with. Don't forget, when chortling with your work chums, "Effective emissivity" is a useful summary of surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, band blocking, emission altitudes, and the lapse rate. Ah...what knee slapping fun. As I said, ee is calculated...calculated explicitly to obfuscate GHG physics. Also, if effective ε= .618 and 1- ε= reflectivity, then .382 of incident power is effectively reflected. Or maybe, working beyond the gray slab model, the atmosphere is partially transparent...like a crystal. A crystal that DOUBLES the light flux which transverses it's body. Now tell me KR, if an enterprising fellow was to manufacture crystal with REAL (not effective) ε= .618, will it also double light input? Or is energy doubling process contained to GHG physics alone? -
vpski at 07:02 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Yes, the US military understands the risks. To add to the list, current JCS chief, Admiral Mike Mullen said, "we are in fact seeing evidence of climate change’s potential impacts on our security." http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1472 Next, in response to "The question is, why isn't the US government doing the same?", I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Most branches of the US government are indeed taking strong, if not unsteady, action on climate change. The Supreme Court's endangerment finding, the executive order to buy only electric/hybrid/or alternative fueled vehicles by the end of 2012, and a host of other examples show that positive action is being taken. Maybe its not enough, or fast enough, but the giant ship of state is turning around. It takes a while. Except the House, of course, which clearly has been bought by the fossil fueled denial campaign. Please join 350.org in our campaign to get your local businesses to say loudly that the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce Doesn't Speak For Me!" Once the sources of the dirty money are exposed, things will change. -
muoncounter at 06:26 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
dm#47: "is it really beyond the ability of Egypt to use its waste to build up those islands" For a country without a fully functional government and an economy in tatters, it may well be. Consider that things may get worse economically; such large reclamations may well be beyond all of our means. Look, for example, at how the lack of sustainable work done at the federal level to fix problems in New Orleans and points further south along the Mississippi. "Climate seems a pretty complex system, perhaps too complex for computer modelling ... " Ah, the old dodge: it's too complex to model. Suggest you look at the 'modeling is reliable' thread, the 'chaotic systems' thread, etc. Use the Search function. " ... especially when you go back into the past, times when animal and vegetable life might have affected outcomes. " What is this supposed to mean? And what relevance does it have to the measurable changes in sea level rise that are the topic of this post? Is your basic interpretation of this and related problem merely 'let's wait and see?'
Prev 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 Next
