Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 Next
Comments 90701 to 90750:
-
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:35 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I think all that has really been accomplished is that a problem has been identified. I think the solutions that have been offered up are rotten. Does anyone have a plan that does not involve raising taxes on gasoline prices? The newest thing I have heard about is building flexi windmills that are floatable, which would be floated out to the deep ocean to catch the more powerful winds. The problem is that operating costs would be very high. -
Ken Lambert at 00:29 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
dana1981 #Original Post "We recently examined how Australia can meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020" Not very successfully I would suggest. [inflammatory comments snipped] Any energy technology might be technically possible, and some well proven and very good ideas (kite pulled ships for example) - the real question is cost. I could not see any mention of costs in dollar terms in the above article. -
Gilles at 00:10 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
And you're also saying that projections of fossil fuels reserves are made by civil servants who just take the material coming out from governments and combine them without any critical assessment - right, too ? -
clonmac at 00:07 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Your "How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural" post is easily my favorite post on this website. I show that to anyone who tells me that it is "natural" and it certainly gives them something to think hard about. Thanks Dana for all your hard work. -
Gilles at 00:03 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Marcus : this graphic and many other can be found here http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/key_graphs.pdf Les : so you're saying that the set of SRES scenarios is far from encompassing all possibilities, right ? -
Alexandre at 22:39 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd #92 I'd love to carry on the discussion, whenever you have the time. You say: Examining the uncertainties and limitations of our current far from complete understanding, and how those limitations has a substantial impact on the global climate predictability. Those uncertainties are well known and openly discussed, too. Those who use the available mainstream science are able to make some pretty good projections. The competing theories have trouble fitting in all the data. John, I'm no expert. I don't even work in this field. After your last post I think you don't either. If you do not understand the relevance of those questions, I suggest you at least try, or ask. There are lots of pretty qualified people here that have shown to be delighted in answering any honest question asked. -
Bern at 22:34 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Marcus, lack of consistency and self-contradictory statements are the hallmark of the "climate skeptic". I, too, was particularly suprised by Gilles' assertion that there's not enough fossil fuels to raise CO2 enough to cause a problem, given the ardent promotion on other threads of FF as the *only* way to generate wealth. Then again, it's consistent if the message you're trying to push is "drill, baby, drill!", and bedamned with the consequences. Given that the alternative involves the capability of providing clean energy worldwide that doesn't require a continuous supply of (soon to be increasingly rare & expensive) fuel, and has significantly less environmental impacts quite apart from climate change issues, it sometimes is really hard to understand the almost dogmatic resistance to the idea of weaning the global economy off fossil fuels. -
les at 22:24 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
107 - DB/Moderator - fair comment. 106- Gilles I think the point about the IPCC/SRES and the IEA that you are missing is that such bodies are not innovative research units. Their job is to take material coming out from research or government and combine such material to study outcomes. Such bodies loose credibility when they introduce stuff that is outside their brief.... they are, really, civil servants with commitments to transparency etc. - it's not like the blogosphere where people are free to bring in 'facts' from where ever they like to try to direct the argument in which ever direction they like. -
Marcus at 22:22 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles, you want to provide a *link* to that graphic? -
Marcus at 22:20 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Oh so, hang on Gilles, now you're telling us that oil consumption *will* increase over the next 25 years? Weren't you saying just a few posts back that there was insufficient oil & coal to achieve the doubling of CO2 scenario? Are you really that inconsistent in your rants, Gilles, or do you genuinely suffer from an MPS? -
les at 21:44 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
105 Gilles - I escaped no such question as that was not what you asked. For all I know, it wasn't the IEAs brief or job to take into account all possible scenarios... who knows. All I said was that to the best of my understanding "New Policies" means what I said it means - what policies are being undertaken. As such, the evidence you presented neither confirms not dismisses the feasibility of Ecofys, nor any proposal. p.s. don't worry, being an idiot is not violating the rules of the forum AFAIK.Moderator Response: [DB] Do not play his game. -
Marcus at 21:22 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Gilles, yet again we see your ability to make utterly ludicrous & totally unfounded assertions. We also see your unerring ability to "believe" that you know more than the world's climate scientists-who've been studying the issues of climate science for several decades-even though you admit you're not a scientists. Well, take it from someone who *is* a scientist Gilles-your claims are without any basis in *fact* &-unless you're prepared to provide....oh, I don't know....some *evidence* to back a single fallacious claim you've made, then I think its for the best that everyone here just ignore your rants. For the record, even a very modest 0.6 degrees of warming is already causing rapid loss of multi-year Arctic Ice & accelerating loss of the Greenland Glacier. Another 0.6 to 1 degree of warming will almost certainly be sufficient to melt both the tundra ice & clathrates-both of which will lead to a release of *dangerous* amounts of methane-which will drive temperatures well past the ranges put forward by the IPCC, without the need to extract every last ounce of coal or oil. Of course, you don't help your own case when in one breath you claim we're going to increase our extraction of "cheap" coal & oil, then in the very next breath claim that there isn't sufficient fossil fuels to cause a doubling in CO2 (though you don't provide solid evidence to back either assertions). If you can't even be consistent, Gilles, then how can anyone here take you seriously? I'd suggest you stop wasting time here until you have something substantial to add to the debate, Gilles. -
SNRatio at 21:15 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
# 26 Given the fact that "probability distribution" is just an a posteriori comparison of various estimates, I can't understand at all what you mean by "independant judgements end up with similar probability distribution". It's just like saying "each person size ends up with the same probability distribution - that's an impressive agreement". This is pure nonsense. another piece of "obvious good science " ! !!!!!! I suggested you work through these types of estimation problems. You _might_ understand it then, but you can't understand that it is relevant and important that using different data, methodical approaches and judgment criteria end up with the same conclusions re probability distibutions, I don't think I personally am able to help you. -
Gilles at 21:05 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
BTW : how do you explain that despite of a very broad interval of energy consumptions and energy intensities, Ecofys scenario is also very far from the all sample studied in the SRES? does it mean that the SRES has simply forgotten the whole interval of possible scenarios between Ecofys and its own set ? which makes a lot of forgotten scenarios !!! again, where are the clowns ? Sorry for the mirror, but I wasn't personally involved in any of these works. I just try to understand the huge discrepancies between them. -
alan_marshall at 21:03 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, I want to say how much I have enjoyed your posts, and appreciate your selfless dedication to the task. Given his importance in your own life, it is also an opportunity for me to pay tribute to Al Gore, whose film “An Inconvenient Truth” was the culmination of years of tireless work taking his message around the world. But for a few votes in Florida in the year 2000, amidst allegations of Republican shenanigans, he would have been president of the United States. Those who admire him may feel this was a great loss, but I have come to see something providential in the outcome. In the years that followed, Gore was able to speak with a freedom and conviction about climate change in a way that may have not been possible from the Oval Office. Gore was too good to be president. He was and is a prophet of our time. We ignore him at our peril! -
perseus at 21:02 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Eric L briefly mentioned Biofuels. Surely Biogas is the key to any strategy attempting to run an economy on renewables, since it can be pumped into tanks or reservoirs and therefore released to provide on-demand power. Anaerobic digestion techniques can be used to generate bio-methane and produce fertiliser as a by-product, with limited carbon emissions. I'm afraid both Biofuels and nuclear have had a bad press, albeit for different reasons. I'm not sure why J&D excluded biomass, since this is used on a small scale today. It is certainly wrong to exclude technologies based on ideology, since there are many biotechnologies and processes, some as environmentally compatible as others are destructive. The same could be said for nuclear. Biomass is the Cinderella of renewables, but probably the most important due to its ability to meet demand surges. It is being sidelined and we need every ally to stand a change of going carbon-neutral. -
Gilles at 21:00 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
"Gilles, I suggest you work through probability assessments. When different methods, independent data and independent judgments end up with similar probability distributions, it _is_ rather impressive agreement" Given the fact that "probability distribution" is just an a posteriori comparison of various estimates, I can't understand at all what you mean by "independant judgements end up with similar probability distribution". It's just like saying "each person size ends up with the same probability distribution - that's an impressive agreement". This is pure nonsense. another piece of "obvious good science " ! -
Gilles at 20:55 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
les : you still escape the question. Why is there a "demand" if it is so easy to avoid them? why didn't IEA elaborate the "New policy" possible scenario as Ecofys ? is Ecofys scenario obviously reliable, and undoubtedly doable, yes or no? if yes, why does absolutely no official agency include it in their possible roadmaps? ` if no, why are you accusing me of being an idiot when I doubt it is feasible ? (BTW, obviously violating the rules of the forum, IMHO).Moderator Response: [DB] In which comment did les call you an "idiot"? Point it out please or cease crying wolf. -
SNRatio at 20:53 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Gilles, I suggest you work through probability assessments. When different methods, independent data and independent judgments end up with similar probability distributions, it _is_ rather impressive agreement. By all indications, the sensitivity is a stochastic variable, meaning that it could take (and in fact does) any in a range of values. We take the expected value as the most likely estimate for medium-long time feedbacks, but different factors may put the actual, realized value higher or lower. That further research may change the probability distribution, dos not mean that the distribution we use today is "wrong", simply that with more knowledge, we can make more precise assessments. You may think about domestic energy consumption as an example - it may look rather random with enormous variance when you just plot readings from different houses over the world together, but identifying the most important covariates, you can make much more precise estimations about actual energy use. AND - the important thing here is the integral of the sensitivity pdf for a given set of GHG (mostly CO2)parameters and the costs - which represents the best total cost estimate. It is very tempting to truncate the range of integration here, as some outcomes may seem very unlikely. But, as the Fukushima disaster illustrates, it is not acceptable to disregard some outcomes just because we consider them unlikely. This game is exactly what lots of "skeptics" play, which is why it is difficult for me to take them completely seriously: You can't just omit values you don't like, and you are not entitled to set probabilities to zero if it can be argued they are not. -
Alexandre at 20:49 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Great job, Dana. Hope there will be much more. About those so addicted to oil that can't think of any alternative:
-
les at 20:21 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
102 Gilles To explain "to be". "New Policy Scenarios" means something like that all G20 carry through their commitments to renewables, GHG reduction etc. not that everyone or, indeed, anyone puts in place the Ecofys proposals. "yet to be" means, given demand projects, prices, cost of exploitation and discovery. Given which, the IEA puts in place a projection of what would have to happen in terms of exploitation and discovery to keep up with demand... (again) assuming current commitments are carried through. Sooo, Gilles, if you want to know "So I'd like to have your opinion. Who are the clowns here ? IEA ? or Ecofys ? " The answer must be to look in the mirror. -
Gilles at 20:19 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Jesús, taking a precise example, you think that qualifying a factor 3 of uncertainty as "impressive agreement" is a piece of "obvious physical science" ? Obviously, "obvious" has not the same meaning for everybody. -
damorbel at 20:03 PM on 28 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #865 I wrote:- "they are thermally linked by the exchange of photons" Which is true. But the link does't have to have a thermal spectrum according to the Planck law; even if there was a filter that allowed only part of the spectrum to pass between the two bodies (there normally is a filter of some sort) they would eventually reach the same temperature, the filter just slows things down; it slows them down a great deal if the filter is a highly reflective mirror. -
adelady at 19:32 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Well, fancy that! I'm sure that I could (but I won't bother) find a graphic displaying Australia's abundant asbestos resources. The reason we walked away from the mine at Wittenoom and everywhere else was - we didn't want it any more. Asbestos still has its insulating properties and it does have some specialist applications. But we decided it was just too dangerous and we could find other ways to do the things that we had been using asbestos for until that point. I fully expect that we'll reach that point with coal and oil. I'd prefer sooner than later. -
damorbel at 19:29 PM on 28 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #861 RW1 you wrote:- "Do you know that the 2nd law does not apply to photons? Thermal energy by definition is kinetic and not radiative" I suggest a few moments contemplation will reveal that it does. Anything that radiates heat also absorbs heat and, if two bodies are near each other, they are thermally linked by the exchange of photons, in the absence of other heat sources (and heat sinks) the two will arrive at a common temperature, purely by means of radiation. However radiation is not heat, it is a way of transmitting energy that does not involve mechanical contact, so to that extent you are correct. -
Gilles at 18:34 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I have a question for you, ladies and gentlemen. Here is the last forecast of the International Energy Agency, the respectable "watchdog" of OECD, concerning the future of oil production (WEO 2010)
Note the 40 Mb/d "yet to be developed" or "yet to be found" (meaning that we actually don't know where the hell we could find them.
Could you please explain me the "to be "? if there is no problem in suppressing totally oil in 2050, WTF do we care about missing oil ? are the experts of IEA unaware of how easy it is to suppress oil ? and no - this is not the baseline BAU scenario, it's already a "new policy" scenario.
So I'd like to have your opinion. Who are the clowns here ? IEA ? or Ecofys ?
to be or not to be
-
Jesús Rosino at 18:26 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I'm afraid that, if the so-called skeptics are so skeptical of the obvious physical science, they'll surely be much more skeptical of impact assessments... My motivation is to move the debate from the absurd place in which it is now, toward impacts and mitigation/adaptation options, but I think the battle in that field will be much harder... *I also began to investigate and communicate about climate science as a result of An Inconvenient Truth. -
Gilles at 18:22 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I respect your involvement in the cause you're defending, but I cannot agree with some of your assertions "And climate sensitivity is the major key to determining the threat posed by climate change." No, it's just only ONE of the major keys : at least two others are the amount of FF we can really extract from the Earth, and the real impact of 1°C warming on mankind. You seem to assume that these two factors are much better known that climate sensitivity (in this case determination of CS would indeed be the crucial step)- but they're obviously not. " That being said, climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which we are on pace to reach in about 50 years, is very likely between 1.5 and 4.5°C. I've always been impressed about the agreement between numerous different estimates of climate sensitivity, from empirical data from recent changes, to paeloclimate measurements, to climate model runs." well you're easily impressed : if a range of a factor 3 is called an "agreement", then many fields of science become very accurate suddenly ! how can you call that a scientific assessment ? and I recall that's only ONE of the factors - the two others are not better determined. So by multiplying three ill-known factors , we could reach the accurate determination of a "2°C "danger limit"" and know exactly how much FF we should extract to reach it, notwithstanding the uncertainty of a factor 3 in the sensitivity ? I still to understand how this miracle occurs. And the point is that you totally overlook the real problem, which will be the LACK of FF Like you, I think that " a lot of people are in denial about the magnitude of this threat, but many others are simply unaware of it." -
Gilles at 17:48 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
This discussion shows how bad indicator the average temperature is. In many systems, average surface temperature is not directly correlated with internal energy, barring the case of an isothermal copper sphere (and the Earth is obviously not an isothermal sphere). * plug a fridge : the average surface temperature will increase and the internal energy content will decrease * red giants are cooler than main sequence star but their thermal content is higher of course Earth temperature will not vary so much, but still, variation of tenths of degrees can occur without net energy change and even without energy budget change (people often confuse the energy content with the energy flow ) During an intense El-niño -La Niña cycle, average temperature vary by 0.5 °C or more - that is 40 years of supposed anthropic warming ! this can not of course be attributed in a change of the same energy content . Discussing whether the energy content has varied or not is immaterial : it's just uncorrelated, because variations occur mainly through redistribution of temperatures. The point of climate models is that they assume that above 30 years, no spontaneous variation can occur without a change of forcings. But, to my knowledge, there is absolutely no scientific demonstration of this - it is just an assumption. -
adelady at 17:32 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana. Thanks for 50 lots of good reading. Hoping for 50+ more, sooner rather than later. -
citizenschallenge at 17:19 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, Congratulations on fifty excellent posts and on your fiftieth post!! It did a very nice job of summing up the story. And I always love those relevant hot links. I have benefited from reading your posts and look forward to many more. peter -
citizenschallenge at 17:14 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I find it a tragically funny that Miekol finds the following so offense it needs to be censored: "if you're so *genuinely* concerned about the welfare of those 9/10ths living close to the poverty line, then I'm sure we'll here you *loudly* demanding that Western Political Parties impose penalties on any corporations that fail to pay 3rd world nations the same wages for their labor as they pay western workers?" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It is the Free-wheeling Free-Market that has created this crisis - yes change will be tough, and with every season we continue to ignore Earth's reality, that change will become even tougher. As for Miekol suggested solution here's a case in point for how business-as-usual benefits the plight of the poor: "Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority." http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/georegions/northamerica/china03.htm -
Marcus at 17:03 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
After all, John, Miekol explicitly accuses Dana of having a vested interest in calling for controls on carbon emissions-thus calling into question her integrity. I was merely questioning Miekol's compassion towards the world's poor. Seems a fair trade to me. -
OPatrick at 17:02 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
johnd, you have a seriously skewed idea of what is offensive. Miekol suggsts that all that matters is that a tiny vestige of humanity survives, but you think it is Marcus' post that is offensive. -
Marcus at 17:00 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Well in that case, John D, Miekol's post should be deleted too-as he is being deeply offensive. Exactly *what* do you find so offensive about my post John? The "concern for the poor" meme is a common argument I hear from those opposed to action on climate change. If you can *prove* me wrong, John D, then I'll happily retract my post, but I fear your objection to it is that it tells some harsh truths about the Contrarians. -
johnd at 16:57 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
The post Marcus at 16:46 PM on 28 March, 2011 is so offensive that it will likely be deleted. Perhaps it should not be deleted to remind us of that old saying-- "What Peter tells me about Paul, tells me more about Peter than it does about Paul" -
Marcus at 16:53 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Glen @ 100. Anyone counting on the northern tundra to save our collective bacon is *really* living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Even after the permafrost melts, the soil will be massively nutrient deprived. Second, almost *all* our crops (certainly grain crops) have been bred for the last 8,000 years to thrive in areas with a proper 4 seasons with ample sunlight throughout the year. Trying to grow these grain crops in areas that don't see the sun for more than 3 months at a time are hardly going to be ideal. -
Marcus at 16:46 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
"Nine tenths of humanity is already hovering just above the poverty line. Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line." Well, Miekol, if you're so *genuinely* concerned about the welfare of those 9/10ths living close to the poverty line, then I'm sure we'll here you *loudly* demanding that Western Political Parties impose penalties on any corporations that fail to pay 3rd world nations the same wages for their labor as they pay western workers? I'm equally sure that you'll demand that Western Corporations be *forced* to pay 3rd world nations the same price for their resources as what they'd pay in the 1st world too. You really do have to *love* the selective "compassion" of the contrarians like Miekol-they're happy to leave the majority of humanity near the poverty line if it means their corporate buddies can bring home record profits, but the moment you talk about saving the environment, the hue & cry becomes "think of the poor". What contrarians hate is the idea that poor nations *could*, with help from Western Nations, supply their energy needs in a low-carbon fashion &-in the process-avoid having to buy carbon-based fuels from wealthy corporations at highly inflated prices. After all, a nation locked in a poverty cycle due to dependence on fossil fuels is much easier to manipulate & exploit. -
IanC at 16:23 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim 108, That statement is made in the context of the discharge oscillator model, where heat is transported in and out of the equatorial region horizontally. The build up is due to heat outside the equatorial strip transported into the strip, so if you add up the heat content from region where WWV is calculated, and the heat content of the ocean outside the region there should be no change. P.3 of Meinen and McPhaden 2010 contains a diagram that explains the discharge oscillator theory. The svendrup transport is a transport in the meridional (N-S) direction, which transports the warm water outside the equatorial region that results in the build up of heat in the equator. -
dana1981 at 16:07 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for the nice comments all. miekol -"Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line."
Nope. Please see CO2 limits will hurt the poor."You have a vested interest, your job."
Sorry, what exactly are you suggesting my vested interest is?"On the other hand if the skeptics are wrong, what is going to happen?"
That's kind of the point. If the "skeptics" are wrong and we behave as though they're right, we're screwed."What matters is that a tiny bit of humanity will survive."
Survival of a tiny bit of humanity is a pretty damn low bar to set. I'd prefer to aim a little bit higher.Moderator Response: [DB] Dana, did you mean this post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Those-who-contribute-the-least-greenhouse-gases-will-be-most-impacted-by-climate-change.html? -
miekol at 15:55 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
What a marvelous post Dana. I rarely post, but I enjoyed yours so much I felt it deserved a response. You say,"the minimal economic impacts of carbon pricing" What? Are you kidding me? Nine tenths of humanity is already hovering just above the poverty line. Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line. You say "I'm an environmental scientist and risk assessor, and when it comes to public health and welfare, we don't mess around. If there's a chance a site is contaminated and poses a threat to the public, the site owner has to either prove that it's safe or clean it up." But that’s the whole point isn’t it. You have a vested interest, your job. You say, “It's true that there is a chance that the "skeptics" are right and the consequences of human greenhouse gas emissions won't be dire.” On the other hand if the skeptics are wrong, what is going to happen? Have you read “Man’s search for meaning,” by Viktor E. Frankl. If not, you should. Vikto E. Frankl was a highly intelligent human being. Probably more intelligent than you or I. If you are right when you say, “we are driving the climate towards potentially catastrophic consequences for much of life on Earth.” It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a tiny bit of humanity will survive. Like Darwin says, it’s the survival of the fittest. Believe me humanity will survive. I know it will :-) http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/smith-michael_on-globalism.html -
keithpickering at 15:44 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for your great work in this forum and others. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:35 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
scaddenp Fig 2 from Lyman is interesting. Looks like a plateau in the mid 90's, a rise then another plateau in the late 2000's. Could that be the solar cycle? Obviously dangerous to read too much into eyeballing short range graphs. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:28 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
TimTheToolMan @108 "variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific" The surface layer of the equatorial Pacific isn't the entire volume of the ocean. And if heat is being exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere this doesn't necesarily mean a change to Total Heat Content. That said anything that causes a heat flux into/out of the atmosphere is likely to have implications for atmospheric phenomena that impact on the heat balance to space. So a more permanent ENSO switch could possible cause a change to THC, a set point change if you will. But I can't see how this could lead to a longer term change in OHC TREND! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:18 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles. 'A few degrees' has one major and overriding implication. Food Supply. Water Stress, Desertification, Erratic Weather and thus unreliable water supply, melting Glaciers etc. Yes we might be able to open up new farm land at higher latitudes but there is less land there and the transition to making previously unfarmed Tundra for example workable may take time. In a world of 9-10 billion people it doesn't take much disruption to existing farming regions to trigger massive famines. Whereas significant cuts to energy consumption? So some of the consumer society goes away - no loss. Did our grandparents have such terrible lives 50 years ago?. Of course in any energy reduced world we could still prioritise the important stuff - hygiene, health care, medicines etc. No more SUV's, $20 air fares, mountains of pointless consumer crap. Who cares about lossing the detritus of life? -
scaddenp at 15:14 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, I saw your exchange with Gavin. I understood your comments about "where's the modelled results for OHC post 2003" to imply that Gavin knew what they were and was deliberately not publishing them because he thought they would be embarrassing. You obviously did not accept the response he gave you. It appears that moderator thought similarly. If this was not what you implied, then I fear you have expressed yourself badly. IanC, I stand corrected, I should have examined the data more closely before expressing an opinion where I know so little. -
TimTheToolMan at 15:06 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
@IanC : NOAA was quite specific about their understanding of ENSO and OHC. ""El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific (Wyrtki, 1985; Cane et al, 1986; Zebiak, 1989). " Hence if ENSO biases one way or the other in the future we can expect a related change in trend for OHC. -
IanC at 15:02 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim 101, The warm water volume plotted there is only limited to a narrow band along the equator, according to the discharge oscillator theory the warm water discharges out of the region, and it doesn't mean that the overall OHC will change. scaddenp 102, From fig 2, I can see that there is a dip around 1997-1998, but then around 2008 there is a dip too, but that is a la nina year. Also from 2002-2005 there is an El Nino, but the mean looks flat there. -
SoundOff at 14:55 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, 50 more blogs, please. I've read them all and found many of them helpful in clarifying my climate understanding. -
adelady at 14:36 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
scaddenp, I hadn't thought of that. North Africa is a lot closer to Europe than any part of Europe ever was to Oz or USA. Make a choice. 1) Offer a few North African countries some set number of millions of dollars to host CSP (and storage) and export it to Europe. Use this power for everything including transport. 2) Spend unknown millions of dollars dealing with economic and climate refugees from Africa and within Europe at the same time as finding the cash for untold millions of adaptation costs for your own country. Keep on trying to spend at this rate while facing up to increasing costs of absolutely everything including power and transport fuels as well as relocating your own citizens and important facilities like sewage plants away from rising sea levels. Which option sounds better? What other options are available?
Prev 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 Next
