Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 Next
Comments 91601 to 91650:
-
les at 20:38 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
73 Gilles "wealth could be produced without energy" where did I say that? I did say "oil consumption increase is necessary for wealth"... Please cite me correctly ;) But really... Do you not understand the concept of factors of production? And, for pittys sake! You refer to a sophisticated concept like the gini coefficient - but think that the difference between "average" and "median" is obscure - while claiming to understand it?!?!? really? anyway, looking forward to moving things on via post 72... with facts, evidence and references please. -
Marcus at 20:36 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
"It doesn't mean at all that FF can be suppressed without harm - despite all fairy tales you're reading." The only one reading fairy tales here, Gilles, is *you*. If that graph you supplied is the best you can do to "prove" the correlation between fossil fuel use & Wealth, then you're really clutching at straws. According to that graph, GDP grew by more than 20 times, whilst total energy demand increased by barely 4 fold-not really a great correlation to begin with. When you consider that the share of that energy which derives from coal or oil has *fallen* over that time period, then your correlation becomes even weaker still. I've shown examples of nations whose energy use/$ GDP has risen over the last 30 years, without any real improvement in total GDP over that period, & I've likewise shown a number of nations which have increased their total GDP, whilst significantly reducing the energy intensity of their economy *and* the share of energy derived from coal or oil. So I'd argue that I have more proof of the *lack* of a correlation than you have proof of a correlation. Even if you *could* prove a correlation for the past, it would certainly not hold true that *future* wealth creation depends on fossil fuel consumption-no matter *what* your fairy tales tell you. -
Gilles at 20:28 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Les :Well, I thought that Summers' citation was introduced by you because it was important to state that wealth could be produced without energy , taking old american people as an example. I just said it was untrue - old american weren't richer than current chinese one , for their energetic consumption. Now you seem to use some obscure distinction between median and average (well I know the difference, but I don't think it's relevant here). Introducing a strong variation in average/median ratio should translate to a strong difference in repartition of wealth, measured for instance by the Gini coefficient . I don't have time right now to look at data concerning America in 1890 - I'm not sure it is that different. I didn't say that heating and low cost commodities produce "no" wealth, I said "not much". Please cite me correctly. -
Tom Curtis at 20:24 PM on 22 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan @723, actually I did not specify a rate. What I did specify was that, "In that case, after sufficient time for light to transit the box three times, and with a constant light source providing beam (A), then the box will have the following equalities." A single photon does not qualify as either a "beam" or a "constant light source". By reducing the case to that of a single photon, you are quite clearly trying to avoid discussing the model as specified. Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. That should come as no surprise - I certainly would not want to discuss my case on its merits if I held your purported beliefs.Moderator Response: [DB] It has been noted. :) -
Paul D at 20:21 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Bern, your comment about being unable to distinguish between a robo-troll and a real person is amusing :-) -
les at 20:21 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
69 Gilles - OK, two proper claims. 1/ wealth is globally well correlated with energy use Correlation - as the old adage goes - is not causation. Never the less, I think - as I said above - that most people (and in this place it's hardly credible what people will nit-pick and snipe at!) would agree that energy is a factor of production. So, correlation isn't the important issue: the question is how significant a factor is it compared with, e.g., education, communications, various technologies, processes etc. etc. (and before you say it, of course these use energy, but then energy production uses most of these). 2/ a minimum amount of FF is necessary to insure cheap and available energy throughout the world I would have agreed that a minimum amount of petrochemical produce have no substitutes in site - but the assertion that there are no substitutes for FF down to some number. I'm not sure from your word - are you saying that 70% of energy must, of necessity, be FF based? Why? -
Tom Curtis at 20:18 PM on 22 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @720:"Yes indeed. And so did Gustav Kirchhoff writing in 1862. From that he concluded that the temperature of a body black or or otherwise, is not affected by its emissivity as long as it has no internal heat source (or heat sink) i.e. it is in thermal equilibrium. This is the basis of his argument that emissivity and absorptivity are the same for any given body."
Kirchoff certainly relied on the fact that when to bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, altering their emissivity cannot change the temperature of either (for doing so would violate the 2nd law of dynamics). From this he then proved that emissivity = absorptivity at every wavelength for every thing. But the issue of an internal heat source or sink is extraneous to his discussion, and your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as "not having an internal heat source or sink" is false. On the contrary, two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if an only if, when heat can pass freely between them, neither loses heat nor gains it. As noted in the definition below, when two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they are at the same temperature:thermal equilibrium The condition under which two substances in physical contact with each other exchange no heat energy. Two substances in thermal equilibrium are said to be at the same temperature.
It follows that if they are not at equal temperature, they are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; and if not in thermodynamic equilibrium, Kirchoff's Law does not forbid a change in emissivity resulting in a change of temperature for one or the other. The Earth and the Sun are, of course, not at the same temperature. Therefore the special application of Kirchoff's Law you appeal to does not apply. I am, of course, very happy to concede that were the Earth heated to the same temperature as the Sun, the green house effect would not warm the surface (and likewise if the Sun was cooled to the same temperature as the Earth).The meaning of this is clear, the size of the albedo has no affect on the temperature of the Earth, the position of climatologists, that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is lowered by 33K from 288K to 255K has no scientific basis.
Having rewritten the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium to give yourself the semblance of an argument, you now do the same with the theory you are contesting. Climatologists claim that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth would be approximately 278 degrees K without albedo or greenhouse effects. Because ice and clouds raise the Earth's albedo at wavelengths at which it absorbs light from the sun, but not at wavelengths where it itself radiates, that cools it by about 23 degrees. Because GHG lower the Earth's effective emissivity at wavelengths where it radiates but not at those where it receives light from the sun, that raises the Earth's effective temperature by about 33 degrees. -
johnd at 20:11 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
h pierce at 18:38 PM, this paper may be of interest to you. Mechanisms for synoptic variations of atmospheric CO2 -
les at 20:04 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Indeed he didn't say which average he was using (real statisticians know that there are several kinds of average, "replace 'average' by 'median' isn't a meaningful statement; "use the median average" would be); and median is the only one which makes sense - and I do have something substantiating that, i.e. Cowen. I wasn't actually proving anything (unless you think hand waving is proof, which I never claimed) - just illustrating. My 3rd paragraph states clearly (I had hoped, anyway) what I'm trying to "prove" - or rather explore, which is the significance of various factors of production, in particular FF consumption, in the provision of wealth and welfare... mind you, if you really believe that "heating and the production of commodities" are not wealth producing, I think our understanding of economics is very divergent. -
Gilles at 19:43 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
note added : it is plainly contradictory to argue that energy efficiency has improved recently in western countries and that FF consumption has followed economic growth. If energy efficiency (defined as the ratio of GDP to energy consumption ) has improved, this can only mean that the energy consumption has increased first faster, and then slower, than economic growth , which is exactly the case, and so that economic growth has lagged energy consumption growth - and as the relative share of FF has increased in the past, FF consumption has increased even faster. -
Gilles at 19:18 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
les : I don't have figures for the "median american" and "median chinese " (especially in 1890 !) - but I think you should at least substantiate your claims. The point is that you used Summers' citation to deduce something about energy use - and now you're saying that "average" means in reality "median" , but you don't have anything substantiating neither that he meant "median", nor that the citation is correct even if you replace "average" by "median". So what do you try to prove exactly ? My claim is that on average, and despite a normal dispersion in energy intensity, the wealth is globally well correlated with energy use, and that a minimum amount of FF is necessary to insure cheap and available energy throughout the world (current figure is around 80 % when you include non marketed heating wood and 90 % if not). And that it is untrue to say, as Marcus said, that FF consumption followed the increase in wealth - actually that's just the opposite, because FF where first used for applications that do not produce much wealth, such as heating and basic commodities, and then the efficiency improved. It may be possible to further improve this number - maybe 70 %. It is quite unlikely that we could produce as much energy as now with a lower number. I don't see how this claim is non "pedagogical" - it's just based on simple inspection of simple figures. -
Gilles at 19:07 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Marcus : "HR, the warming rate for 1910-1940 was less than +0.12 degrees per decade. The warming rate for 1980-2010 was almost +0.17 degrees per decade. I'd call that a pretty stark difference in warming rates" Really a stunning statement , in my sense : I do not any field of science where this would be qualified as a "pretty stark difference" given the number of different factors that can interfere and the complexity of the system - usually the qualitative difference are measured by a number of sigma above the natural variability (Signal to Noise ratio). -
les at 18:46 PM on 22 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
726 damorbel: "your box is just fine, it is what J J Fourier described - it just doesn't describe the atmosphere - as Fourier himself noticed 'the air is not held still in the atmosphere'" Really, mate, I wasn't asking for your approval of the model! You know, a physicist doesn't need name-dropping to see what is and is not in a model. Clearly I did not include convection etc. It is redundant to point it out - unless your only aim is go take pot-shots at everything for no apparent constructive reason. I don't know. My point was to show how one would move from the model proposed to one closer to something describing radiation etc. Waving hands and naming theories didn't really help develop the model - so, no contribution from you on the physics front. Still, thanks for the remarks, however trivial. -
damorbel at 18:44 PM on 22 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 727 scaddenup you wrote:- "It seems that damorbel is not willing to be persuaded by experimental evidence on those terms." Having checked your link and scanned the thread, I am not at all sure which experimental evidence you claim 'does not persuade me'. I would appreciate your clarification. -
les at 18:39 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Giles: No I don't think the statement is false - because, as I hinted, "average" probably doesn't mean "mean" (as used by gapminder) but median - the point I quoted was made in a casual interview, not a rigorousness paper and it's not specified. Not even the median American is any richer then the median American a generation ago... despite a continued use of oil. I apologies for only hinting at the answer, maybe to subtle... But the reference to Cowen is a big clue! Or, are you are avoiding the point by concentrating on a point of view of a small detail which you think works for you? You wouldn't be the only one to take this approach. In so doing you avoid your responsibility to provide good evidence by sniping at other from the sidelines. It's a shame. The impact of various factors of production on the growth of wealth and wellbeing is a key economic issue and always interesting to discuss. No one would be so stupid as to put the various wellbeing improvements over the last century, world wide, down to just one factor or another; even harder - very hard - to identify a single factors as essential (oil in your case). That's a very strong thesis and, to all our disappointment, not one you've supported particularly strongly... ... unless you think sniping is a good pedagogically? If so, I pity your students. -
h pierce at 18:38 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
If I moved my comment to the CO2 measurement thread, nobody would read it. That video is for free CO2, and the conc is referenced to dry air. "Unless you care to cite some research that shows otherwise" Look at weather map on the TV. High pressure cells have more regional mass and more CO2 per unit volume than do low pressure cells. The map show there is no unifrom distributionn of pressure in space and time. Sat images show no uniform distribution of clouds in space and time. How much CO2 is in the droplets? it is not zero.Moderator Response: Yocta is right. Your detailed discussion of this topic belongs on that other thread. You are wrong that no one will read your comment there, because most regular readers monitor the Recent Comments page you can see by clicking the Comments link in the horizontal bar at the top of the page. -
Bern at 18:33 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
yocta - there are worse things than Comic Sans... (some of the PPT slides I've seen at work just make you want to cry!) I can't make up my mind whether cloa513 is a robo-troll, or someone who genuinely doesn't understand the basics of climate science. If the latter, then he/she would *definitely* benefit by watching the video, then coming back here to ask (meaningful) questions. -
Gilles at 18:18 PM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
les : you started with a citation , that "This quote from Larry Summers got me thinking: The average Chinese citizen is not nearly as rich as an average American was even two or three generations ago" do you agree that this sentence is plainly wrong, because average Chinese citizen is indeed as rich as an average American was even two or three generations ago ? (just the opposite of what is said ?) scaddenp : please understand me carfully. I didn't claim that "reducing carbon emissions will bring in a new dark age." I said that "suppressing FF would bring a new dark age". And I said that even if we improve the energy efficiency (which is a good thing anyway), there were no reason to limit the FF because a lot of poorer people need them anyway. In other words, I said that improvements of energy use have always led to a larger GDP for a given world energy consumption, and not to a smaller world energy consumption for a given GDP (this is linked to a subtle difference in mathematics between partial derivatives "keeping something else constant" - it depends of the "something else". At least, before continuing the discussion, do you understand the last point, and do you understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with a statement that we shouldn't improve energy efficiency, that I never made ? -
Gilles at 18:06 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
"Second, solar panels produce their greatest amount of electricity when demand for electricity is at its highest(between 10am & 4pm), which makes them perfect for peak power generation" well, that's different in France : peak consumption is during cold and dark evenings in winter - because thanks to cheap nuclear electricity , many people have electrical heating. Unfortunatly no sun and not always wind at this time. Worst, nuclear plant cannot respond quickly to spikes, so we must start again thermal plants. That may be different in hot countries , where the peak it due to air conditioning in summer. But, you know, there is a much simpler solution : air conditioning is not necessary for life - 99 % of mankind has survived without air conditioning. So the best thing is actually - good old houses with dick walls and fresh shadow. -
Gilles at 18:01 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Marcus : "Gilles, you've yet to provide any data that proves your claim that the fossil fuel=wealth correlation is either historical or mathematical-in spite of your multiple repetition of the claim." I really didn't think that you could ignore such an obvious thing. Here is an example for Japan : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_energy_%26_GDP.png (you could draw pretty much the same kind of graphics for all industrial countries). Of course you could argue that the slope is different and that they're have been times where GDP grew much more than energy consumption. But that's exactly the same for the effect of GW : you wouldn't find anywhere a definite relationship between temperature and any human indicator, with a constant factor, independent of history and geography ! things never work like that ! if you dismiss the correlation only by this simplistic argument, you dismiss also any effect of temperature on human societies. What is obvious is that both are correlated, and the different slopes could be also interpreted as a first part when energy was consumed with few consideration for energy efficiency , a lot of spoiling, and bad energy intensity, followed by a period where energy conservation took more importance following oil shocks. That's only because people were not very careful when the growth was important and energy was very cheap. So of course we can (and we must) improve our energy use. It doesn't mean at all that FF can be suppressed without harm - despite all fairy tales you're reading. -
Gilles at 17:49 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
"Gilles, you're forgetting the golden rule (well, one of them, anyway): Correlation does not equal Causation" sure, but it doesn't mean that there is no causation. Tell me : how can you estimate the cost of GW without using correlation ? I wonder why this argument is always forgotten in climate studies ! " Personally, my income level is by no means tied to my consumption of fossil fuels. Why, I managed to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by at least 20% just by putting a solar hot water system on the roof, and, gosh, my pay hasn't gone down in the three years since..." Personally, I managed to increase my average temperature outside (by going on vacation in the south of France) without any harm. So I deduce also that temperature is not a problem for human beings. And also, I adopted a diet that has reduced my caloric input by 20 % . So I deduce logically that food is not necessary for life. Just a question : what are you doing with your spared money? do you think that the things you're buying grow naturally on trees and walk to the stores ? do you think that public transportation work only with sun ? do you even think that the electrons that move in your electric wires do exactly know where they're from and carefully travel from green sources to your houses ? (although they vibrate at 50 or 60 Hz and don't travel a lot -actually they always stay pretty close to your houses) ? if you become ill, will you ask if the hospital electricity and the devices that could save your life are "green" ? -
Gilles at 17:36 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Dana, you say it's pure non-sense, but on the thread you're citing, figure 2 you clearly see that the black curve (proxies) grows only in the first part of the XXth century, and saturates just when anthropogenic influence is supposed to dominate. So , looking at proxies only, is the rise beginning in 1900 mainly natural, or anthropogenic ? in other words : do the proxies show something unusual associated with the anthropogenic component, or not ? -
HuggyPopsBear at 17:31 PM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Rob Honeycutt #34 And the Apple iPad (of course, that being the latest major advance in human-technology interface). ;-) LOL, I suppose it depends on how you view technology and how ones mental image interprets a statement made or what reference material you use. I am of course referring to solar, electric cars, the advent of reverse gravity which would be great to replace present day aircraft and in my humble opinion see as the biggest default for pollution and the probable pollutant effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Is this in the calculations we are being fed Mr Moderator? Anyway Rob for fear of being vetted I better cease here by saying again it depends on what reference material we use for how long mankind has been on the planet.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] 'Tis far better to cite reference material than to make vague reference to it. -
yocta at 17:21 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RE# 28 h pierce: Scientists have an increasingly better understanding of the transport properties of CO2 through space and time. Unless you care to cite some research that shows otherwise? I suggest moving discussion over to the thread: CO2 measurements are suspect Watch the animation video at the bottom to see how scientists can watch CO2 mix throughout the atmosphere. More videos and explanation here -
Marcus at 16:52 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
You make a good point Bern. Prior to my energy efficiency drive, my electricity bills were around $200 per quarter-even with tariff increases, they're now less than $150 per quarter. So, if anything, I can show an *inverse* correlation between my fossil fuel use & my personal wealth. Now, thanks to my Green Energy scheme, I use *no* fossil fuels at all for my electricity needs, & all for AU$0.01c per kw-h more-which amounts to a *whopping* $6 per quarter more for my electricity than what I was paying just 1 month ago-oh dear, better head off to the *poor house*. Similarly, if I used a car to get to work every day, I'd currently be spending about $40 per week on my petrol alone, but because I use public transport to get everywhere, I spend only $30 a week-meaning I save over $500 per annum-again, inverse correlation between personal fossil fuel consumption & personal wealth. Seems like Gilles argument really fails to hold any water. -
Marcus at 16:44 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Gilles, you've yet to provide any data that proves your claim that the fossil fuel=wealth correlation is either historical or mathematical-in spite of your multiple repetition of the claim. I've provided some other perfectly reasonable social changes-namely increasing wage parity (courtesy of trade unions), & increased contraception & abortion access-that far better correlate with increasing wealth in Western Nations than consumption of fossil fuels. Second, solar panels produce their greatest amount of electricity when demand for electricity is at its highest(between 10am & 4pm), which makes them perfect for peak power generation. Of course, alongside significant price reductions & improvements in efficiency, solar cells have also undergone massive improvements in terms of the amount of cloud cover required to stop *all* electricity production from the cells. Oh, & contrary to your statement, price of the cells-& energy storage-is the issue, because as the cost of both continues to fall, then the ability of householders to install enough solar panels & battery storage to both supply the grid *and* meet all their own power needs becomes infinitely more affordable. Still, you obviously don't care to hear that, because it goes so much against your mantra of "no wealth without fossil fuels". -
Marcus at 16:32 PM on 22 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
As impressive as the Solar Power Tower is, I reckon we should go for Big Dish technology-which uses a sterling engine to create electricity directly. As far as I'm aware, it can also be coupled with a secondary system through which you can run chemicals for heat dissociation. -
yocta at 15:36 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Great presentation (except for the Comic Sans font) I like Dr Trenberth's explanation of the 2003 European heat wave. -
scaddenp at 15:05 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Without maths you can claim (as a Perth resident did) that sea level rise is due to increasing obesity of Australians! As others have pointed out, you are misunderstanding "global mean temperature" and thus challenging a straw man. Please go to temperatures are unreliable as suggested. The GISSTemp site has a very extensive list of its published methods and papers. Start here for the methodology. More is explained in IPCC WG1. It appears to me you havent read it given the claims you are making. Care to tell us what your source for these claims are? -
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - look closer at the figure. The shaded portions are the error bars. Your comments about temperature make no sense. Please explain (but preferably in the right place on this site). The natural baseline is sum of known natural forcing (solar, volcanic aerosols etc). This is explained in considerable detail in IPCC WG1 and in the papers it links to. As to models not being able to produce testable results, well have a look at this In sum, you are believing things about climate science that are not true. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:34 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
The first two commenters have obviously (judging by their timestamps) not even bothered watching the educational video that is the subject and focal point of this post. Pity. If they had bothered to take that valuable time then perhaps they might have dwelt a bit longer on their learnings before posting as they did. "Invest the copper coins of your pocket in your mind and your mind will line your pockets with gold..." The Yooper -
scaddenp at 14:32 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - the pattern of your comments strongly suggests that you are uncritically assuming something you have read on a pseudo-skeptic source is true. How about picking up the claim you think most convincing, find the Argument from the top bar that matches it, and then taking it from there. But for goodness sake, read the rebuttal, read the linked papers and then tell us why think it is still wrong. (Preferably with data and peer-reviewed literature to support your claim). -
cloa513 at 14:32 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Energy flows are real. Energy is energy. Temperature is not temperature under different conditions. They should have error margins because of calculations, measurement error etc. I bet those errors margins are large and what is the natural baseline to compare this numbers with. Its impossible to produce a baseline that doesn't even larger error margins as the data was considerably less and less accurate. Instead they rely on models which can't produce real testable results using direct measurements. -
scaddenp at 14:28 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - please substantiate your claims if you want to make sense. Maths is the handmaiden to science, modelling known physics. You may wish to comment on Models are unreliable but I wouldnt bother unless you have some substance to your claim. -
h pierce at 14:28 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RE: That's why humans are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 year. The conc of CO2 is presently ca 390 ppmv, but this value is _valid_ only for purfied dry air (PDA) which is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen and the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and CO2. The conc in real air is always less due the presence of water vapor and clouds whose droplets contain CO2 and which alter the local conc of CO2. Real is the term for local air at the intake ports of air separation plants and contains the fixed gases, CO2, water vapor, reactive gases (e.g., oxides of sulfur and nitrogen), volatile organic compounds from natural sources (e.g., plants)and from human sources and activities (e.g., painting, gasoline, cooking, warfare, etc) and aerosols. For PDA at STP, there are 390 mls, 17.4 mmoles, 0.766 g,or 0.000766 kg of CO2 per cubic meter which has a mass of 1.2929 kg. For tropical air at 100% humidity and 32 deg C the density is 1.096 kg per cubic meter and the conc of CO2 is ca 372 ppmv. If PDA is cooled to 220 K, there is 21.6 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter at one atmosphere pressure, and the conc is 390 ppmv since there is no water vapor. It PDA is heated to 330 K, there is 14.6 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter at one atmosphere, and the conc of CO2 is 390 ppmv since there is no water vapor. The increase of CO2 in air is due in part to agriculture. For example, tillage of soil expose humus which oxidixes to CO2. Fertilization promotes the growth of microbes, worms and grubs which only respire and give off CO2 which they die and decompose. What does all of the above boil down to? It means that not only is there less CO2 in free real air than is indicated by analyses, we don't know the mass of CO2 in free real air nor its distribution in space and time. -
cloa513 at 14:23 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Figure 2 is absolute garbage- numbers coming off totally varying bases with no scientific credibility. Its maths only not science. You can do anything with maths. -
robert way at 14:23 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
ClimateWatcher at 05:16 AM on 22 March, 2011 Dana's chart (taken from my post) does include Cru. Cru=Hadley which is HadCrut (Land/ocean). Before you speak. Think. -
rhjames at 14:13 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Fig 5 certainly indicates how just a small change in cloud cover could have a big effect on the heat balance. I guess we only have to stand in the sun as a cloud comes over to appreciate just how significant this is. -
garythompson at 14:09 PM on 22 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
i think i answered my own question from above. i found a paper that appears (from the abstract and first page) to give me what i need. -
GaryB at 13:49 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Climatewatche: Your response is quite telling. The main thrust of my post was the relevance of past warming but you jump on fingerprints with a couple of denialist talking points. I take it from that you agree past warming is irrelevant to the current situation? cloa513: I take it you got that talking point from a denialist site? Care to expand a little on what it means? -
alan_marshall at 13:25 PM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Protecting The Global Commons I agree with Adler that the first and second principles of the Libertarian Party 2010 platform are not inconsistent with a united international effort to control climate change. Where I believe the libertarians need to go further is to recognise that property rights are not just the private interest of individuals, groups, and governments. Nation states have been with us for thousands of years, but their borders end at the sea. The major portion of the Earth’s surface, the oceans together with Antarctica, are not the property of any individual nation. Neither does our precious atmosphere belong to any one nation. That leaves us with just two alternatives. Either the oceans and the atmosphere are the property of no-one, in which case everyone can pollute them as they please, or they are the common heritage of mankind, often referred to as the global commons, in which case nations must act together to protect them. For nations to effectively act to protect the global commons, I believe some kind of global governance is needed. We have the beginnings of that in the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but as we saw at Copenhagen, if this remains just a forum for nation states to protect their own self interest, our common interest will be compromised. How global institutions for protecting the commons develop remains to be seen, We already have a World Bank and a World Trade Organisation. Perhaps we need something like a World Carbon Bank. I think Hansen’s tax-and-dividend approach is a good option. At some point in the future I would like to see it implemented by all nations, perhaps even as a global system. Where libertarians can make a positive contribution, as we work together to combat climate change, would be to provide checks and balances to help ensure such global institutions are grounded on democratic processes that respect the principles of their platform. -
malamuddy at 13:08 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Please delete this if my maths is wrong,but the denialist figure of a "mere 0.004 of 1%" always worries me. Surely 0.004 of 1% is the same as .00004%. But 400 ppm carbon dioxide (which is probably the source of the figure) is .04%. If we were talking blood alcohol, we would be talking almost illegal quantities. -
topquark at 13:02 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Thompson said:It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless.
Hey, just like carbon monoxide! P.S. "principle errors" should be "principal errors". -
dana1981 at 12:07 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Gilles - your claim that the hockey stick rise is almost purely pre-1960 is pure nonsense -
Bern at 12:02 PM on 22 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
ranyl @ 70: Sorry, no, you're not quite right. The natural sinks of CO2 don't care about where the CO2 is coming from - all they care about is the atmospheric concentration. If atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are higher than the equilibrium point, the sinks absorb more of it. Period. So CBDunkerson's comment that the sinks would continue to absorb 17 gigatons per year is correct. You seem to have missed the point, though, that this rate is by no means constant - it will decrease as the atmospheric concentration decreases, and will logarithmically approach equilibrium (i.e. it will take centuries to get there). You are correct, though, that some current sinks will turn to sources - e.g. as atmospheric levels drop, CO2 dissolved in the oceans will start to come back out. This is one of the factors that greatly extends the time to reach equilibrium, especially as the oceans seem to be absorbing the vast majority of human emissions. -
Bern at 11:53 AM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Gilles, you're forgetting the golden rule (well, one of them, anyway): Correlation does not equal Causation Personally, my income level is by no means tied to my consumption of fossil fuels. Why, I managed to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by at least 20% just by putting a solar hot water system on the roof, and, gosh, my pay hasn't gone down in the three years since... Has your employer told you that they'll cut your paypacket if you start using biofuels, or solar electricity? If so, that's certainly in breach of all manner of employment laws, at least here in Australia... -
Bern at 11:45 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513 - no, they talk about global mean temperature anomalies, which are by no means scientific nonsense. If you don't understand the difference, let me see if I can explain it simply for you (and any other readers who might be swayed by your words): If it's 1.3ºC warmer than average in Nairobi, and 1.3ºC warmer than average in Oslo, does that tell you something useful & meaningful? Even though it might be 35ºC in Nairobi but only 13ºC in Oslo? Obviously, you want to take more than just the values for any given day, to get a broader picture, and avoid "noise" in your data. That's done by averaging the values both geographically and over time. Otherwise, you'd be putting even more significance on things like a town in northern Canada having temperatures 30ºC above average back in January... (no, that is not a typo!) -
scaddenp at 11:29 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513, you seem to be trying hard to make this same point in the wrong place. How about posting this in temp record is unreliable, but be sure to read the resources there first. Especially, you should read the papers on how global temperature is determined. Its not done the way you seem to think it is and the methodology actually used is backed by a lot of actual research. Tamino's article pointed to there, can be found here (link in article broken).Moderator Response: [DB] I've just updated the Tamino links in the article you link to. Thank you for pointing out the bad links. -
adelady at 11:29 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513, I'm sure we've had this conversation before. Statistical averages are useful in many, many contexts. Number of children per family changing from 4.1 to 2.7 does not mean we've found a way to create fractional children. Reducing needed doses of a medication from 8.3 to 6.1 of a standard dose tablet does not mean that lots of people waste endless hours precision cutting tablets. Reducing the amount of land needed to produce a standard quantity of grain does not mean farmers are shaving slices off paddocks. But numbers like these do tell us really useful things about societies or medical practices or agriculture. Same for average global temperature. It's a useful indicator, it's not a detailed diagram of any particular thing.Moderator Response: [DB] You have a good eye and sharp memory. Checking, cloa513 has made 12 comments here at Skeptical Science on various threads. All 12 are variations on "we-can't-know-anything-it's-not-us-temps-are-unreliable-yadayadayada..." memes. Gold to adelady; Silver to scaddenp. :) -
ahaynes at 11:27 AM on 22 March 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
I updated the flashcards to use the new short URLs (link). But unfortunately (when you're Studying them online) you still can't click on the URL for the relevant SkS page, or even drag over the URL to copy it. A feature, say the flashcard folks; a bug, say I.
Prev 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 Next
