Recent Comments

Prev  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  Next

Comments 91951 to 92000:

91951. Marcus at 21:20 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Actually, John D, I'd say Gilles is doing extremely badly. All he ever does is keep repeating the same unfounded assertion, without ever once providing any evidence to back it up. If there is such a clear correlation between fossil fuel, then all he needs to do is post data-any data-that proves that correlation. We've shown here a major disparity between modern levels of fossil fuel consumption (per $ of GDP) & quality of life-even between First World Nations &-given sufficient time-I'm sure I can find the data from the Energy Information Agency that also shows little or no correlation between per capita energy consumption & per Capita GDP. I used to have that data somewhere, but now can't seem to find it. Anyway, at least you're correct about the amount of food waste we're currently seeing in the First World, but it goes further than that-even today, in the world of supposed "Free Trade", we see farmers dumping-or stockpiling-large amounts of food, in order to drive up prices, whilst farmers in developing nations are forced to abandon their own crops in favor of the expensive, imported variety. That represents a massive waste of resources too, in my opinion.
91952. cjshaker at 21:15 PM on 19 March 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Please take a look at the 100,000 year glacial cycle again http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png You can see the 100,000 year cycles. You will note that warming occurs very rapidly at the start of each interglacial. Subsequent cooling occurs very gradually. You can also see the temperature delta over those 100,000 years is only 10 to 11 C. You also see how repetitive the saw tooth wave form is. We are still 4.5 C below the peak temperature normally achieved during an interglacial. Ie - we are only just above half the temperature delta normally experienced during an interglacial. This source provides that number http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html Why is our climate still so cold during this interglacial? We are only about 6.5 C above the lowest temperature we normally experience during the 100,000 year glacial cycle. Chris Shaker
91953. michael sweet at 21:13 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Gilles, You forgot to read the post again. The third paragraph says "Five future reports are planned on how to eliminate emissions from other sectors (Transport, Buildings, Land Use and Agriculture, Industrial Processes, and Replacing Fossil Fuel Export Revenue)." It is good to have you point out that many developed economies have lower carbon intensities than the USA and Australia. If we all copy the features of these countries we can all reduce carbon emissions. And it has already been proved that does not reduce quality of living!
91954. Capoeiranick at 21:08 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       That is pretty weak Gilles. The Plan does not call for zero emissions tomorrow but rather once the generation is built. As for the other countries CO2 emissions, that would be off topic and beside the point. The title clearly states "zero carbon Australia". Scientists and engineers in other countries around the world are undoubtedly addressing their unique challenges in creative and ingenious ways and are not likely to be troubled with your pessimistic, can't do attitude.
91955. alan_marshall at 21:01 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       garythomson @ 39 Thanks for the links to these two papers. Regarding the graph of the lab experiment which plots calcification against pH, it is not clear to me what the context is. Specifically, you have not told us what is going on with CO₃^2-, which as I will discuss below, is the critical parameter. The other paper (Schneider & Erez 2006) is the one that relates to the mechanics of ocean acidification. I quote from the abstract: "In all of these experiments, calcification (both light and dark) was positively correlated with CO₃^2- concentration, suggesting that the corals are not sensitive to pH or CT but to the CO₃^2- concentration. A decrease of 30% in the CO₃^2- concentration (which is equivalent to a decrease of about 0.2 pH units in seawater) caused a calcification decrease of about 50%. These results suggest that calcification in today’s ocean (pCO₂ = 370 ppm) is lower by 20% compared with preindustrial time (pCO₂ = 280 ppm). An additional decrease of 35% is expected if atmospheric CO₂ concentration doubles (pCO₂ = 560 ppm)." This is entirely consistent with my article, which states “This reduces the concentration of CO₃^2-, making it harder for marine creatures to take up CO₃^2- to form the calcium carbonate needed to build their exoskeletons.” However, it is probably time to take the chemistry further, and include the extra material currently in my draft of the advanced rebuttal. If we combine equations (1) and (2) in my article above, and remove H⁺ from each side, we have: CO₂ + CO₃^2- + H₂O <=> 2 HCO₃^- An article on RealClimate.com (The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO₂ Emission) explains the significance of this equation: "Since this is a chemical equilibrium, Le Chatlier’s principal states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO₂, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO₂ goes up, while the concentration of CO₃^2- goes down. The concentration of CO₃^- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in CO₃^- is smaller than the changes are for CO₂ and CO₃^2-. It works out in the end that CO₂ and CO₃^2- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO₂ times CO₃^2- equalled a constant." The parameter that directly affects calcification is availability of CO₃^2- rather than pH. However, there is a relationship between the parameters as shown in the diagram below. The blue column shows the fall in pH since pre-industrial times. Note that more acidic conditions caused by rising dissolved CO₂ correlates with falling CO₃^2-. The source of the problem is the increase in dissolved CO₂ due to anthropogenic CO₂ in the atmosphere. The immediate agent of the problem is the reduced availability of CO₃^2-. A convenient way to track the availability of CO₃^2- is to monitor pH.
91956. johnd at 20:46 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Gilles at 19:40 PM, I'm not going to get into this exchange, you seem to be doing OK anyway. I wanted to add to your comment about reducing food consumption, at present there are about 1 billion obese people in the world with a similar number without sufficient food. About 25% of food is wasted, mainly by those who are already overfed. Not only is the food wasted but also all the nutrients, fertilisers and energy that went into producing it. It seems very clear where the starting point is.
91957. Marcus at 20:45 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "And I say that just through the simple observation that wealth is MUCH BETTER correlated with the use of FF than with the average temperature -and this is not a mere correlation of course, there are plenty good physical reasons for that. Cars and planes can travel by 30 °C or by 10 °C, but never without fuel." You can say it all you like-but it doesn't make it true, especially as you continue to fail to provide any *evidence* to back your assertions, just platitudes that sound like they were quoted from a fossil fuel industry pamphlet. We've already established that cars can run on either fuels derived from algae (grown up on the CO2 absorbed from power stations run on bio-gas), or directly from electricity generated by those self-same power stations. Its also been shown in the lab that the fuels derived from algal biomass can also be used as aviation fuel-so again your assertion that we simply can't get by without your beloved fossil fuels is just so much hyperbole. I suggest you don't bother posting anything more until you're prepared to back your assertions with something more than your *Beliefs*. Personally, I think everyone here has been more than patient with someone who-in spite of your protests-is not here to learn, but simply here to spread "The Good Word" about fossil fuels.
91958. Marcus at 20:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "sorry, I'm not thinking that " people are smart enough to find substitutes.""is granted : for the moment, it's just wishful thinking." We already have, Gilles, but weak-kneed governments-with the help of a lot of propaganda from paid-up lobbyists-have failed to make them widely available, because they've been sold the lie that only fossil fuels are a viable option for our energy needs. Perhaps if we cleared out our parliaments of all the fossil fuel industry lobbyists, & instead gave our politicians access to the best scientific evidence relating to renewable energy, then we would see a hastened demise of the most polluting & inefficient sources of energy ever invented-coal power stations & cars with internal combustion engines.
91959. Tom Curtis at 20:38 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR @676, I like the continuation of that quote:

       "Now, it is very likely that applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken. But if not, then 279 Kelvin constitutes the upper limit for the earth because such an estimate assumes a body that is perfectly absorptive, meaning that it can’t possibly absorb more light than the light it’s exposed to."

       You would have thought that Alan Siddons, having noticed that the mean global surface temperatues is 287-288 degrees, and that much hotter temperatures than that are to be found on the Earth's surface would have noticed his experimental refutation and concluded that it was indeed, not just likely, but in this case proven that "...applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken". This is particularly the case when the formula for the cavity based temperature requires that the cavity by isothermal, while the rotating sphere is known to be anything but.
91960. Marcus at 20:37 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "You can also easily without harm reducing your own food by 20 %, I guess. Many people live comfortably and eat much less than western citizens. Would you deduce that food is by no means necessary to life ? why not ? - well, the answer to this question gives the answer to the other one." Complete errant nonsense Gilles-much as we've come to expect from you so far. The reality is that agriculture can be done more successfully with a *reduced* carbon footprint. The Green Revolution has proven to be a double edged sword-wrecking the land which it initially helped, though rampant overproduction hasn't helped either. None of my family growing up in the early 1900's ever went hungry-& none of them were exactly wealthy people I might add. Also, its perfectly possible to have modern luxuries *without* having a massive carbon footprint to go with it. I've got a computer, a flat-screen TV, a fridge/freezer, an A/C unit, a stereo & a DVD recorder but-guess what? My energy consumption is less than 6kw-h per day, & *none* of it comes from fossil fuels. I'm also smart enough to know that using a car to drive during peak hour is going to leave more poorer-not richer-because I'll be wasting 20% of the fuel I put in the car to sit still in the traffic-something you seem to advocate. Seriously though, Gilles, when are we going to see hard facts from you, rather than your repetitive, unfounded platitudes? Seriously, if you have nothing sensible to offer, why don't you go off & hang out with your mates at Watts Up with That instead?
91961. Marcus at 20:30 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "What you're totally missing is that energy intensity worsened a lot during industrialization and after the war. Energy consumption grew faster than GDP. Subsequent improvement was only possible because we spoiled a lot of energy just before (and also, thanks to globalization, because we exported heavy and energy consuming industries, closed almost all our exhausted coal mines in Europe, etc...). Just take the numbers." At least I give *real* numbers-we're still waiting for you to present anything other than blatant propaganda. You still have failed to disprove my point-that nations which increased their energy intensity have not necessarily improved their GDP output (in almost 30 years), whereas 1st World Countries have reduced the energy intensity of their economies whilst still enjoying rising GDP growth-thus disproving your point about the apparent causal link between energy consumption (aka fossil fuel use) & wealth. You've also failed to show contrary evidence that it was the accumulated wealth of the 1st world which came *before* the rise in fossil fuel use-not because of it as you've constantly contended. There are other things which are far, far better correlated to wealth than fossil fuel consumption-like education levels, wage parity, quality of health care, access to abortion & contraception-all of which occurred in the West *before* the rise in fossil fuel consumption, in spite of your lame attempts to claim the contrary.
91962. Gilles at 20:07 PM on 19 March 2011
       And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
       Yvan : does it mean that New Orleans is expected to drop by 5-1 = 4 meters whatever we do against GW and SLR ?
91963. Tom Curtis at 19:47 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR @684: 1) My claim in 647 was about a particular model, model 2 in 677. It is true about that model. Model 3 in 677 is different, and analysis of that model in terms of photon numbers will not work. 2) All three models do accumulate energy, and all three do not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. However, if I am mistaken about that, and you are able to prove (not merely say, but prove) that the third model violates the laws of thermodynamics, it will not prove that the others do not. It may only prove that I am mistaken about their relevance to the debate. 3) If you prove that the third model violates the laws of thermodynamics, you will not have proved that no possible implementation of a greenhouse effect can exist without violating the laws of thermodynamics. You will only have proved it of one case, all though that may make it easier to prove of all cases. This works both ways. If I prove that the 3rd model does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, it is still possible that other examples of the greenhouse effect do. Whether or not the green house effect in the Earth's atmosphere violates them will still be up for debate. What will not be up for debate is whether the fact it is a greenhouse effect is sufficient to prove that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. What I strongly suspect is that every feature of the actual green house effect in Earth's atmosphere which people point to as a reason to suspect violation of the laws of thermodynamics will also be a feature of model three, which will thereby disprove the claim that that feature proves a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Which brings me to the main point. I have just proved that an example of the green house effect can exist without violating the laws of thermodynamics. You may not be able, or willing to follow the proof, but that is your look out, not mine. Given that, you persistence in concentrating only on complicated cases, and in trying to assume universal disproofs from particular instances suggests that you are just very confused. It suggests, in fact, that you cannot demonstrate your case, either to yourself or to others, in the simple cases. Consequently you must concentrate on complicated cases that allow maximum free play for misdirection.
91964. Gilles at 19:41 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       sorry, I'm not thinking that " people are smart enough to find substitutes.""is granted : for the moment, it's just wishful thinking.
91965. Gilles at 19:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Marcus : you argue that the wealth was already very large in the 50's, but you give only figures after 1980. Why don't you give the figures for the 50's ? What you're totally missing is that energy intensity worsened a lot during industrialization and after the war. Energy consumption grew faster than GDP. Subsequent improvement was only possible because we spoiled a lot of energy just before (and also, thanks to globalization, because we exported heavy and energy consuming industries, closed almost all our exhausted coal mines in Europe, etc...). Just take the numbers. You can also easily without harm reducing your own food by 20 %, I guess. Many people live comfortably and eat much less than western citizens. Would you deduce that food is by no means necessary to life ? why not ? - well, the answer to this question gives the answer to the other one. Besides, I'm happy to know that people living in Australia and UK lived with cars, electricity , or maybe TV and computers ? they didn't say they were "poor" just because poverty is a RELATIVE notion - of course they probably compared their standard of living with the average one of their time - not ours. But I'm not saying it is impossible to live like them - it is quite possible of course. What is impossible is to live LIKE US without FF. Michael : Gilles: By definition FF are limited in amount and will eventually run out. Is your contention that when that happens civilization will collapse? What will happen when the FF runs out? I think people are smart enough to find substitutes." OF COURSE I'm contending that - or I wouldn't be logical. That's exactly what I'm saying : the main risk is , by far, a collapse of civilization through the exhaustion of FF and NOT through a few degrees of warming. And I say that just through the simple observation that wealth is MUCH BETTER correlated with the use of FF than with the average temperature -and this is not a mere correlation of course, there are plenty good physical reasons for that. Cars and planes can travel by 30 °C or by 10 °C, but never without fuel.
91966. Gilles at 19:04 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       I'm sorry, I missed a point. A windmill is made of steel (or carbon fibers) and concrete. How do you produce them without FF (and even dissociation of calcium carbonate produce CO2) ? electricity is transported by copper (or aluminium) wires : how do you produce them without FF ? how do you carry and erect the windmills without FF ? how do you travel across Australia without FF ? how do you power trucks, boats and planes ? how do you make isolators, paints, elastomers, fertilizers ? you concentrate on power generation. May be you're ignoring that some countries have ALREADY electricity with a very low or zero carbon intensity : Norway, Iceland, some canadian provinces, thanks to hydroelectricity , France, thanks to nuclear. Here are their CO2 production per capita : Norway : 9.1 Iceland : 7.6 France : 6 Quebec : 11.1 the average is around 8 TCO2/capita. Note that 8 times the soon 8 billion people in the world are 64 billion t CO2 per year ( !!!!) so what do yo say to these countries to reduce this production ? forgive the electric power - it's already solved. What do you say them for all the rest ?
91967. Rob Painting at 18:56 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Gary Thompson @ 39 - just to clear up your confusion: 1. The Pelejero 2005 study does not suggest the PDO is the cause of ocean acidification, rather that natural variations in pH (read deep ocean upwelling here) correlates with the PDO at that site. Where do you get the idea about calcification and pH?. 2. As for Schneider & Erez 2006, you have that wrong too. They find that coral calcification correlates with carbonate concentration, not CO2. Increasing CO2 causes ocean pH to fall and carbonate concentration too. End result; more CO2 = very bad for coral.
91968. johnd at 18:55 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 17:52 PM, re "All due to selective breeding?" For goodness sake, read the whole statement so you don't keep taking things out of context. If you were not up to imagining what "many factors" might include, I would have thought the very next sentence would have given some idea.
91969. johnd at 18:47 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 17:55 PM, If you read the comment it was responding to Charlie A at 13:06 PM!!!!!!
91970. adelady at 18:34 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       "I imagine air-conditioning demand has been significantly lower than usual this summer..." I rather think that's an issue that needs to be publicised more. When we hear complaints that some renewable source or other 'doesn't work when...', more often than not that self-same condition moderates demand for heating or cooling. The more important thing is to look at the mismatches. When are conditions adverse to generation likely to coincide with demand increased by exactly those conditions. Not too many - but that's just my impression for Australia. No idea about countries or areas subject to snowstorms, ice, tornadoes and the like. Anyway, storage technologies should take care of most of it. And they will certainly advance to commercial rollout within this timeframe.
91971. L.J. Ryan at 18:30 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis677 I make reference to Kirchhoff's cavity experiment while you, without knowledge of my future post, are incorporating an example similar to my reference within your post...serendipitous. You have abandoned your position as stated in 647 that "The answer has to be in terms of photon numbers, not energy because the wavelength of the photons has not been specified. If we specify that all photons have the same wavelength, then the multipliers for photons in the answers above can be used for energy." In all three scenarios you are adamant about accumulated energy and just as adamant this in no way violates thermodynamic laws. So if one of these scenarios is shown to violate thermodynamic laws then all your scenarios do. And more importantly you said "The other interesting fact about this model is that it is an example of (not an analogy to, but an example of) the green house effect." So a violation within your examples PROVES a violation within GHG theory. Do you agree?
91972. Bern at 18:18 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Thanks for the article, James. A couple of engineering-type questions: 1) Do you know if the ZCA analysis looked at Brayton cycle generation for the solar thermal (as the CSIRO is looking at in their prototype plant at Newcastle), rather than steam generation? They give significantly higher thermal efficiency. I understand, though, they generally stuck with "off-the-shelf" technology, and thermal-powered supercritical steam turbines are exactly that - I'm not sure if there's an "off-the-shelf" Brayton cycle technology out there; 2) How would the generation output from the solar thermal be affected by a La Nina such as we're having now, with significantly higher cloud cover and cooler temperatures than 'average' for Australia? BoM data shows some of the sites have received 400% of their average rainfall for the past three months - particularly the Mildura area. I know that point 2 can be partially solved by over-building capacity, but that comes at a significant cost, if you're looking at an extended period with, say, 20-30% less insolation. Having said that, I imagine air-conditioning demand has been significantly lower than usual this summer...
91973. Rob Painting at 18:01 PM on 19 March 2011
       And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
       Charlie A - "That statement contradicts both historical record for both coral atolls" Errr, no. The ocean is littered with drowned coral atolls.
91974. scaddenp at 17:56 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Can I suggest that TC's little demonstration be reconstitued as a response to "GHE violates 1st Law" (along with link to SoD's articles on same subject), and that the comment stream be moved there?
91975. Rob Painting at 17:55 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       John D I found map(b) the most revealing with it's indications that the greatest impact on maize yields will generally occur in those areas which are already beyond where maize can be grown under present. conditions. Now you're repeating yourself. I responded to that @26.
91976. Rob Painting at 17:52 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Charlie A - A 1C global warming is small compared to normal year to year variations and doesn't present a major challenge, on the average, to the crops in the areas that are currently optimal for that crop. Not what the study & particularly the rather obvious graph in the middle of the post reveal. I also pointed out the trials were conducted over an 8 year period. John D - In Australia, we are now producing 3 times as much cereals from the same acreage as we did 50 years ago Citation?. All due to selective breeding?. John D -I think that many seed companies might disagree with you that significant improvements are not possible. If you had read the supporting literature you would realize that the maize from private seed companies (Monsanto, Pioneer etc) were significantly outperformed by the CYMMT varieties. So they've got some catching up to do.
91977. scotartt at 17:32 PM on 19 March 2011
       Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
       The map of Sydney is certainly wrong - a lot of the eastern suburbs are on 50 meter cliffs overlooking the sea, for example. Even on the shores of Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour) there are typically steep gradients to the water line. On the map linked at 19, click on "Edgecliff - Bondi" for example.
91978. damorbel at 17:27 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #649 les, you wrote:- "damorbel 648 - fine. We agree on so much including, it would seem, that the diagram is not "completely deficient in temperature information". " I think there is a definite problem there. I'm afraid I do not understand just what is it that makes you say:- " the diagram is not "completely deficient in temperature information". ? and:- "It clearly does "present ... useful information for any discussion on climate change " I'm not sure what you mean here. I am of course thinking of 'useful information' in the sense of scientific information, suitable for putting in reports called 'the Scientific Basis', the name of the sections of IPCC reports using this diagram. Trenberth has updated his diagrams at least once, mainly changing the numbers, so I think the numbers are important; it would be most interesting to know why the numbers are changed, I have not found this in any of the links given, can you help?
91979. Daniel Bailey at 16:50 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Pelejero's recent work strongly endorses the Anthropogenic component of oceanic acidifcation: "The anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 is driving fundamental and unprecedented changes in the chemistry of the oceans. This has led to changes in the physiology of a wide variety of marine organisms and, consequently, the ecology of the ocean. This review explores recent advances in our understanding of ocean acidification with a particular emphasis on past changes to ocean chemistry and what they can tell us about present and future changes. We argue that ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years, emphasising the urgent need to adopt policies that drastically reduce CO2 emissions." Apologies if this was already discussed. It's late & I'm tired. The Yooper
91980. garythompson at 15:59 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       i should have done more homework on the links and the moderator's reply to my comments in #36 are valid. i found the link to the article in question. here is the link showing the pdo correlation with pH and it also suggests no correlation of calcification and pH. i can only read the abstract without a subscription so maybe someone has the full paper with the data. i did have access to the data on calcification and i graphed it below showing no correlation between pH and calcification. it should be noted that this was a lab experiment. this paper also suggests that there is no correlation with calcification and pH but instead dependent on CO2. although the R-squared of all these lab experiments were not strong in my viewpoint.
91981. alan_marshall at 15:12 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       garythomson @ 36 In Fig 2 which you refer to, the increase in dissolved CO₂ adequately explains the drop in pH. However, there are other factors that may contribute to ocean acidification. When sulphur dioxide (SO₂) dissolves naturally in water, it forms sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃), not to be confused with the stronger sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄). However, much progress has been made in bringing emissions of SO₂, responsible for “acid rain”, under control. The key to control of SO₂ emissions in the US was a trading scheme similar to that now in use or being considered by nations in their efforts to control emissions of CO₂. The latter is the bigger problem. The “differences in calcification” between current and pre-industrial Globigerina bulloides relate to specimens collected in the Southern Ocean, far away from any coral reef. As the photos came from a report on an Australian television science news program, I cannot tell you the latitude and longitude, nor the pH of the seawater in which the specimens were collected. I agree such information would be useful. All I can tell you at this point in time is that the damage has occurred in ordinary seawater, not a laboratory acid bath.
91982. pbjamm at 14:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis @677 "As I assume that the scientists of the world are not part of a massive conspiracy to foist upon us "laws" that can be refuted by any primary school kid with a plate of glass and two mirrors, I will take it that this box does not violate the laws fo thermodynamics is beyond dispute." I had a similar thought over dinner tonight. The argument that AGW theory violates the Laws of Thermodynamics is a backdoor conspiracy argument. To accept this idea would require that all the worlds scientists are hiding such a fundamental error either through ignorance or willful deceit.
91983. Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I have just noticed that one of my posts has been deleted by a moderator. I believe the required response, as exhibited continually by deniers on this site, is to claim that it is censorship, and that the moderators are plainly biased against my point of view ;) To the moderators - keep up the excellent work you do.
91984. Tom Curtis at 14:27 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR @678 the lid is not transparent to the shortest wavelength photons emitted as black body radiation by the back and sides. Clearly whether this is the case or not depends on the total energy of the incoming light, and hence needs to be stipulated.
91985. Marcus at 14:22 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       So Gilles, when you consider the declining energy intensity of Western Economies & the growing proportion of energy derived from renewable energy sources in these same countries, then we see how weak your claims regarding "the dependence of wealth on fossil fuel consumption" actually are. If the developed nations of the world were sensible, though, they would be exporting their more than 30 years experience in energy efficiency & renewable energy to the 3rd World, to ensure that they can achieve-& maintain 1st world wealth *without* the need to consume more fossil fuels- ( -Snip- ).
       Moderator Response: [DB] The goal is to provoke you; do not allow it.
91986. L.J. Ryan at 14:17 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis 677 I compliment your thoroughness, though I see a couple problems with your examples. But first clarification. You said: "Importantly, the wavelength of the incoming light is less than the critical wavelength of the lid." Ok got it. "Also, for simplicity, the total energy of the incoming light is less than the amount at which the shortest wavelength of a black body emission from the back and sides of the box is shorter than the critical wavelength." Are you saying peak bb emissions are not transparent to the lid or the wavelength shorter then peak are not transparent or something else?
91987. Marcus at 14:17 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Also, a few facts for you Gilles. All First World Countries have actually reduced the energy intensity of their economies. The US, for instance, went from 15,000 BTU/US$ GDP in 1980 down to around 9,000 BTU/US$ GDP. France, Germany and the UK show similar downward trends in the energy intensities of their economies. Not only that, but France, Germany & the UK have energy intensities of between 5,000-6,500 BTU/US$ of GDP, yet Brazil, Panama & Argentina-for example-use closer to 7,000 to 9,000 BTU/US$ GDP, yet these nations are significantly *poorer* than the aforementioned nations of Western Europe. Indeed, when you look at a table of energy intensity of various nations-between 1980 & 2006 (which is all I currently have available from the Energy Information Administration at this point)-there is very, very little relationship between the change in energy intensity & change in wealth of the various nations over this time period-with many developing nations significantly increasing their energy intensity, whilst their actual GDP (total or per capita) has failed to increase in any significant fashion. Meanwhile, wealthy countries have reduced the energy intensities of their economies whilst still enjoying strong improvements in GDP growth. So really your claims, Gilles, lack any foundation in basic fact-even *before* you even consider the role of fossil fuel consumption in the equation of energy intensity.
91988. Marcus at 14:01 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Gilles, the point you keep missing is that the wealth of the First World nations *precedes* the rapid rise in the consumption of fossil fuels. How else can you explain the fact that, between 1900-1950, annual CO2 emissions remained between 1 to 2 billion tonnes? I'd go so far as to say that it was the pre-existing wealth of the First World nations which allowed them to invest all that money in the construction of such large energy networks, & the wealth of its individual citizens that allowed them to buy all the luxuries-post WWII-that allowed them to make use of the fossil fuels-so you've really put the cart before the horse in your desperate bid to "prove" the necessity of fossil fuels in the creation of wealth. Also, I too have relatives who remember the first half of the 20th century-in both the UK & Australia-and they don't tell me tales of grinding poverty or misery. Indeed, my family all enjoyed lives of well-fed, middle-class comfort-even those who lived a rural life never spoke of being poor, so again your claims of "proof" are actually extremely weak-something which is to be expected from what is, in effect, barely disguised propaganda.
91989. alan_marshall at 13:54 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak @ 35 You quote Jean-Pierre Gattuso, whom I respect. There are a variety of articles on the EPOCHA site. In the article published on 16 March, which I quote in comment 10, Hall-Spencer reports that “the area [near vents] where the pH is 7.8—the level that may be reached ocean-wide by the end of the century—is missing nearly a third of the species that live nearby, outside the vent system”. He points out that these missing species have failed to adapt, even though they have had thousand of years to do so. At least in this instance, Gattuso’s optimism about the “potential acclimation and adaptation by organisms” does not seem to be justified. A global loss of one third of species of calcifying organisms would have severe consequences. I find that disturbing. The projected end-of-century temperature rise of 4 °C under a business-as-usual scenario, coupled with an ocean surface pH of 7.8, will destroy almost all of our coral reefs. (Next to the tropical rainforest, they are the richest ecosystem on Earth. ) I find that disturbing. When James Hansen gave his famous congressional testimony in 1988, atmospheric CO2 was still around 350 ppm. The danger of climate change was well understood even then. If politicians had heeded his warnings we would not be confronted with the crisis we are facing now. I find that disturbing.
91990. johnd at 13:45 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Charlie A at 13:06 PM, Charlie, it's so obvious isn't it? One expects that anyone wanting to discuss this subject would at least have some basic understanding of how, this of all subjects, plays out in the working world. I found map(b) the most revealing with it's indications that the greatest impact on maize yields will generally occur in those areas which are already beyond where maize can be grown under present. conditions.
91991. garythompson at 13:42 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       from your graphs it's obvious that co2 concentrations in the ocean are correlated with atmospheric co2 concentrations and that makes sense. you show the pH declining but are there other factors in ocean pH other than co2 concentration? what else could affect the ocean pH? also, the pictures of the differences in calcification (i think that is the right word) is obvious but are there measurements taken at specific reefs over time to measure this and is this also correlated with pH? i seem to remember a post somewhere linking the PDO to the pH cycles as well. can you provide a link to prove or disprove that?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Perhaps it would be best if you would hunt down a link to this post to which you refer, then this could be discussed further.
91992. TimTheToolMan at 13:27 PM on 19 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       Yes, I have thanks Rob. Having contemplated the graph a little more I've decided its worse than I thought. If insolation was lower then CO2 levels must have been higher to compensate when looking at say 288K which is the equivalent of today's temperature. However, the CO2 level is quite a bit lower than today at around 130ppm. So its a double whammy on the graph being correct.
91993. Charlie A at 13:18 PM on 19 March 2011
       And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
       #16 Daniel Bailey "Creation of new real estate (at all, let alone that above future SLR) = slim to none (outside of new volcanic islands)." That statement contradicts both historical record for both coral atolls and large cities. It also contradicts the historical record for places like Bangladesh. Look at the outlines of past shoreline maps of San Francisco, Boston, New York or virtually any other city and you will see that even though the global sea level has been rising for the last 100+ years, that the vast majority of cities have expanded in size area, with large portions of sea becoming land. Whether delta areas (such as Bangladesh) are increasing or decreasing in area depends upon the balance of land subsidence vs. land generation from the deposition of silt carried to the delta by rivers.
91994. Charlie A at 13:13 PM on 19 March 2011
       And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
       #12 Yvan Dutil at 01:34 AM on 18 March, 2011 "In many place isostatic rebound is of the same order of magnitude as the sea rise rate. This means that some place will not see any increase, some will see decrease and some will see much larger increase." So what is the pupose of the paper. Without taking into account the local isostatic rebound it is not of much value for local planning. So that leaves the goal of the paper as educational/motivational?
91995. Charlie A at 13:06 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       #25 JohnD says "Map (d) shows the current maize growing areas Map (e), shows the present growing areas where yields will vary, up and down, shaded according to the degree of variation. You should note the positive or zero shading in relation to the two areas I mentioned." It is no coincidence that the areas that are now have the highest percentages of corn acreage are the ones where 1C of warming results in an increase in yield. The effects of global warming at any one location are small compared to the natural year-to-year variations. That's why global warming is evident only upon analyzing hundreds of locations rather than just one or two. For a crop to have good yields for a reasonable percentage of years, the climate has to be such that normal year to year variations don't often dramatically reduce yields. A 1C global warming is small compared to normal year to year variations and doesn't present a major challenge, on the average, to the crops in the areas that are currently optimal for that crop. On the other hand, in areas with marginal climate, there will be many years with crop failure. If the failures are mostly due to high temps, then 1C of warming will significantly worsen the situation. But farmers already "know" that .... if not consciously, then as part of the overall local body of knowledge of what crops are suitable for that area. The above is a long winded way of saying the the above report confirms what is already known by farmers. Except that farmers are also smart enough to change the planting time in response to changing climate, while the paper assumes such a trivial adaptation will not take place. If the climate changes are more extreme, then farmers will move to other varieties of corn or even to other crops. This sort of low cost, low tech adaptation is why there is such a wide variation in percentage of different types of crops in different areas.
91996. The Skeptical Chymist at 13:00 PM on 19 March 2011
       Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
       Alan (comment 18). The issue is that outside the USA the tool has a "horizontal resolution of 1 km" which might work ok for somewhere like Melbourne, but not Sydney or Brisbane (to keep it local). See here for some higher resolution info on the effect of SLR on Sydney. It only goes up to 1.1m so gives some indication of what will likely happen this century.
91997. Tom Curtis at 12:48 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       For anybody not convinced of AGW who has been following this discussion, consider the following model: In this model we have light entering a box (A) at an angle. It then strikes a mirror on the back of the box, is reflected of a mirror on the front of the box so placed that it does not block any incoming light. The now twice reflected light returns to the back of the box, striking the mirror once more. It then goes through a second transparent zone in the front of the box. Assume the ideal case in which all apertures are 100% transparent, all mirrors are 100% reflective and flat, and in which the light is so angled that neither the incoming beam (A) nor the outgoing beam (C) strike any part of the mirror on the top of the box. 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: 1) Incoming light (A) = Outgoing light (C) (by virtue of conservation of energy). 2) Light reflected from the lid (D) = Outgoing light (C). 3) Light reflected from the back = light striking the underside of the lid (B) = light transmitted by the lid (C) plus light reflected by the lid (D) (by virtue of conservation of energy). This may require a little clarification. The lid consists of three sections in this model, two transparent, and one mirrored on the underside. One transparent section allows in the incoming light (A). The other allows out the outgoing light (C). So the light striking the back of the lid equals the light striking the mirrored section plus the light striking the transparent section through which the light exits. Therefore 4) Light reflected from the back of the box (B) = light reflected from the back of the lid (D) plus Incoming light (A) = 2 x A (again, by conservation of energy. Such a box clearly does not violate any law of thermodynamics. If it did violate such laws, so much the worse for those laws, for the box could be set up as a primary school science project, and will behave as advertised. As I assume that the scientists of the world are not part of a massive conspiracy to foist upon us "laws" that can be refuted by any primary school kid with a plate of glass and two mirrors, I will take it that this box does not violate the laws fo thermodynamics is beyond dispute. However, having said that, we should notice that in each time interval equal to the time it takes a photon to travel from the lid to the back wall: 5) the accumulated photons at equilibrium is 4 times the number of photons that enter the light box at each time interval; and 6) at equilibrium the number of photons reflected in each time interval is 3 times the number that enter the light box in each time interval. Of those, 2 times that number are reflected of the back wall, and a number of photons equal to the number that enter are reflected of the lid. This ignores reflections of the side walls which are irrelevant to the overall issue. Now, reconsider this model: The description of the model is found in comment 615 above. Essentially, however, it is the same model as above, except the lid is replaced by a lid which lets in all light from outside and reflects exactly half of light from the inside, transmitting the remainder. The walls are perfectly mirrored. After equilibrium is established (ie, in approximately 20 times the time it takes for light to travel from the lid to the back of the box, see Phil's comment @624 and my comments @626 and @640 above), the equalities (1) to (4) above hold of this box as well (with appropriate adjustment of wording - for exact wording see comment 615 above). However, the facts (5) and (6) also hold of this box (see comment 647 above). Now, these two facts, according to some people, create a problem for this model. According to those people, they cause it to violate the laws of thermodynamics. But as we have seen, our first model (in this comment) has exactly these two properties, and does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore this model does not violate the laws of thermodynamics either. In fact, the only interesting difference between this model and the previous one is that this model takes about five times as long to reach equilibrium. So, having established beyond reasonable doubt that the simple light box does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, consider the following model: This model is quite different from the preceding two. For a start, (in the ideal case) the back and walls are perfectly absorbing on the inside, and perfectly reflective at all wavelengths on the outside. This means any light entering the box will be absorbed by the box, warming the back of the box. We also suspend the box in a vacuum so that energy can only escape by radiation. Because the outside of the walls and back are perfectly reflective, this means they have zero emissivity and energy can only escape through the lid. The lid itself has (in the ideal case)perfect thermal isolation from the sides, and back (which means the box contains a vacuum). It is perfectly transparent to all light below a certain wavelength, and perfectly absorbing for all wavelengths above that amount. It (and the back and walls of the box) is also a perfect thermal conductor so that its outside and inside have exactly the same temperature. Importantly, the wavelength of the incoming light is less than the critical wavelength of the lid. Also, for simplicity, the total energy of the incoming light is less than the amount at which the shortest wavelength of a black body emission from the back and sides of the box is shorter than the critical wavelength. Given these conditions, when you start shining light on the box, the back and sides will heat up and start emitting long wave length radiation. Because all of that radiation has a wavelength longer than the critical value of the lid, the lid will in turn start heating up and emit radiation. Eventually the energy emitted outwards (C) will equal the energy of the incoming light (A), at which time equilibrium has been reached. At that time, the following equalities will hold: 1) Incoming energy (A) = Outgoing energy (C) (by virtue of conservation of energy). 2) energy radiated from the lid inwards(D) = Outgoing energy (C) (by virtue of both sides of the lid having the same temperature and emissivity). 3) energy radiated from the back = energy absorbed by the underside of the lid (B) = energy radiated outwards by the lid (C) plus energy radiate inwards by the lid (D) (by virtue of conservation of energy). Therefore 4) Energy radiated from the back of the box (B) = energy radiated inwards by the lid (D) plus Incoming energy (A) = 2 x A (again, by conservation of energy). It will also be true that: 5) The accumulated energy in the box in the form of radiation will be four times the energy carried into the box by incoming light in the time it takes for light to travel from the lid to the back of the box. Indeed, an additional amount of energy will be stored in the back, sides and lids of the box depending on their heat capacity. That means the greater their heat capacity, the longer the box will take to reach equilibrium. That is simple a consequence of the incoming energy being diverted to heat the wall and lid, and therefore not being available to leave the box. It is only when the walls and lid reach a stable temperature that the energy is no longer used in the box, and will leave at the same rate it entered. Now, very clearly, these 5 facts mirror the first 5 facts in our first, and second model. Therefore, if those five facts do not cause the first two models to violate the laws of thermodynamics (which they do not), then these facts cannot cause the third model to violate the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, the only thermodynamically interesting difference between the first two and the third model is that in the first two, the leaving energy had an almost identical entropy to the incoming energy, whereas in this model, the leaving energy has a much higher entropy in virtue of its much longer wavelengths. The other interesting fact about this model is that it is an example of (not an analogy to, but an example of) the green house effect. It is a very simple example, but example it is none-the-less. And as this example does not violate any law of thermodynamics, it follows that the greenhouse effect does not violate any law of thermodynamics. QED
91998. johnd at 12:17 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       michael sweet at 11:35 AM, stop assuming, just show us where in the paper it is stated that all the trials were only of the top performers, which is what you are claiming. Top performers is relative, top performers as compared to what? Top in what aspect?
91999. L.J. Ryan at 12:09 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis 675 "the Earth will never be hotter than the surface of the sun" The Earth receives 240W/m2 from the sun. The blackbody temp resulting from this flux represents the maximum temperature...not the sun's surface. That is, regardless of reflection and or re-radiation, 255K is the pinnacle temp for radiation alone. It is this fact by which blackbody was derived...trapping light in order to discover it's maximum thermal energy. ----clipped from another blog: The idea of trapping light is intriguing, and Gustav Kirchhoff (1824-1887) conceived a solution: A hole in a cave. A beam of light could enter this hole but the walls inside would absorb any reflections and prevent the light from escaping. Thus, by confining incoming radiation, the thermal energy which light confers could be shown to its maximum advantage. Kirchhoff's scheme was superior to selectively transmitting glass because a cave absorbs and traps all wavelengths of light,thus creating a complete radiative imbalance. At least theoretically. Well, so what was found by cavity experiments? That a perfectly absorptive ("black") body rises to a temperature a bit higher than an actual black body that’s free to radiate to its surroundings. A theoretical blackbody thereby defines the upper limit of temperature vs radiant absorption. Try to grasp the implication, then. A blackbody cavity mimics the radiative restriction that"greenhouse gases" are said to induce. Indeed, virtually none of the thermal radiation generated inside this cavity is allowed to escape. It "re-circulates" instead, and is sampled through a tiny hole. Does this confinement lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, though? No, it only sets an upper temperature limit — the SAME limit that’s applied to the earth in the first place, for its estimated temperature is based on a blackbody
92000. MattJ at 11:52 AM on 19 March 2011
       How Suffolk County Community College students contributed to the Guide to Skepticism
       I love the cherry tree diagram too. But it doesn't illustrate anything about climate change, just what "cherry pcking" is and how misleading it can be. Of course, this too is important. It continues to amaze me how many people do not understand the dangers of cherry picking. Speaking of famous fruit tree metaphors, I cannot help but wonder if we could make this more relevant to the AGW issue by remembering the old legend bout Newton and his apple, drawing the cherry tree with a falling blue cherry falling on a certain famous skeptic's head. Then instead of discovering gravity like his countryman, he discovers 'evidence' that there is no global warming;) Yes, you can tell from this that I do not share ribwoods's aversion to ad hominem. Especially not when the fossil fuel lobby is using it so effectively against us all.

Prev  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  Next