Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Next
Comments 92251 to 92300:
-
Harry Seaward at 00:41 AM on 19 March 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Sea level rise has historically been at 2mm/year. Has that changed? -
The Skeptical Chymist at 00:34 AM on 19 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
Thanks for the interesting post Dan, these sorts of interactive tools are really useful. That said, it looks like care is needed when applying it outside the USA where it has a "horizontal resolution of 1 km" compared to a much more accurate "30m" with the US. 1km is probably fine for large low lying areas but not much good for coastal cities based around low hills (Brisbane, Australia is a good example). Comparison the Brisbane prediction to data from much higher resolution maps from the Oz govt linked to by Bern (comment 10), shows good agreement for some areas; i.e.: with 1.1m SLR and a high tide Brisbane airport will either need a sea wall or sea planes. But low agreement in other areas; i.e.: some coastal suburbs suggested to be mostly underwater, will be still above water, though not unscathed by 1.1m SLR. So yes a useful tool but requires care outside the US.Moderator Response: [DB] Agreed. Brisbane was included as it was both topical (Queensland flooding) and where our SkS founder (John) lives. Mapped impacts also do not reflect ongoing adaptation efforts, such as in the Netherlands. -
damorbel at 00:29 AM on 19 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #580 RickG You wrote "The diagram is not about temperature. Its about incoming solar radiation expressed in W/m^2 and how it is distributed throughout the Earth's climate system, which is the proper unit of measure for that particular type of energy (Incoming Solar Radiation)." The thread is about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states the direction energy is transferred WRT temperature. Trenberth's diagram is all about energy transfer (W/m^2) without any reference to temperature anywhere, thus it says absolutely nothing about atmospheric thermodynamics or the possibility of CO2 having any influence on climate in any way. You write further:- "Why would Ternberth or anyone for that matter want to use 12 year old data when more up to date data is available? And again, the diagram is about the distribution of energy, not temperature." The age of the data has no relevance, Trenberth's diagram does not present any useful information for any discussion on climate change (anthropogenic global warming - AGW) because it is completely deficient in temperature information, the driving parameter in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. -
TimTheToolMan at 00:28 AM on 19 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
And then there's the issue of where the CO2 is coming from. The best case (lowest ice albedo @ 55%) requires 66,000 ppm CO2 to escape snowball earth. We're at 390ppm right now and we've burned about half our oil and quite a lot of coal too. Sure, there's plenty of coal left, but enough to get to 66,000ppm CO2? How about the worst case (highest ice albedo @ 65%) which is closer to 660,000ppm CO2?! Maybe the numbers add up and I'd be interested to see his paper to see what he says about that. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ >After all, the claim is reflected light (B from Tom Curtis's diagram) is twice the input. Why the discrepancy? Amount reflected off a surface is not the same as accumulated energy in the box. If a single photon "bounces" back and forth from one wall to another, then you are going to count multiple reflections even though the energy content is still a single photon. The amount reflected tells us how many times photons have bounced off the walls, while the accumulated energy tells us how many photons are in the box. Do you see the distinction? -
les at 00:19 AM on 19 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
28 Gilles: "the great majorities of people were poor peasants surviving with fluctuating crops and regularly decimated by famines, droughts, epidemics, and wars." Gilles, get a grip. The advances or otherwise of todays situation are clear to everyone. Many of which, we all know are due to plentiful energy supplies as well as a wide range of technical advances (as I point out above, many of which use power from oil etc.). None of which contradicts the fact that economic growth has happened at other times, in other places. But your 'defense' is poor... poorer than the peasants to which you allude. The point was that there have been many incidents of great wealth, technical advance, etc. before oil became ubiquitous. That is 100% clear. Those societies has some problems, ours has others. adding a 'yes but' doesn't change that. Instead of spouting the above rubbish, you could have pointed to some hard facts like the massive improvement in life expectancy across the world and given a link like this. But no, you just make it up as you go along... -
TimTheToolMan at 00:05 AM on 19 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
Is figure 2 really taken from Pierrehumbert's accepted paper? That graph makes no sense to me. Our global mean temperature is around 288K and according to the graph that puts us correctly in the partially ice-covered state (only just) at about 130 ppm CO2 and thats not right. Looking the other way, 390ppm CO2 puts us on the curve at 292K (too hot) and into the ice-free state (the polar bears and penguins might have something to say about that) -
andthorne at 00:05 AM on 19 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Yes we do need to sit down and evaluate this intelligently instead of allowing ourselves to be marketed by the producers of any given fuel source. That said: ( - Paragraph in All-Caps deleted - ) The source of the increase is methane gas. There is methane pouring into our seas from leaky oil wells and exploding methane hydrates, and there are tremendous amounts of land emissions. Before this site publishes another word on greenhouses gases you need to do the math. Given methane has risen in the atmosphere 140-155 percent depending who you read, and CO 2 has increased only 26% and methane's ultimate oxidant is CO 2, how much of the extra CO 2 in our atmosphere is methane oxidant. One scientist way back in 1972 said that methane produced 25 times the amount of carbon dioxide as cars, and methane has risen astronomically since then. Do you want to market a fuel or do you want to save earth. Make up your mind! And by the way the answer is and always has been WATER! Canadian energy companies are moving in that direction, so is Russia by inking a deal with Hydro Quebec to develope Russian water sources. The new development that Emera in Canada is putting together is utilizing two waterfall in labrador to produce a ton of mega watts daily. How about checking out the American Niagara Falls. Remember Tesla. The answer is water, macro and micro water power, in our streams, rivers waterfalls real and maufactuired, in our tides and waves. It is the lady, all the rest are tigers. Until I hear the word water out of this site, you are marketing, not trying to save Earth. Andrea SilverthorneModerator Response: [DB] Please limit the use of all-caps to perhaps a word or two (Comments Policy). Please also furnish links to sources (preferably peer-reviewed studies) that support your above contentions. Remember also the topic of this thread, as much of your comment, as it currently stands, is off-topic here. Thanks! -
Gilles at 23:51 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Marcus : the energy intensity in the 50's was not very different from the current one. It means that the "extreme wealth" of France or Great Britain is just the current one scaled by the energy consumption. Are you living here ? do you have parents or grand parents able to tell you how exactly they lived then? I have. In the 50's, they just escaped from the WWII, before the green revolution. France was still essentially an agricultural country, many people lived in farms with no electricity, no telephone, no car, no fridge, no TV of course. The great changes occured between the 50's and the 70's, with a considerable mutation in the society. Probably the energy consumption per capita peaked around 70's, before conservation measures following the oil shocks improved it. So i am not saying that all improvement is impossible. I say that the current way of life is not possible with a minimal amount of FF, well above the world current average. Concerning your figures : energy is measured in TWh or Gtoe, not GW - you must mix up with peak power capacity. M. Sweet : I know France - i'm French actually. The low CO2 production is obtained through the use of 80 % nuclear power (and a general better use in Europe than in US, due to their history and more concentrated cities and smaller distances between them). But note that if the whole electricity should be produced by nuke worldwide , it would exhaust the known uranium reserves in 10 years or so - not to speak of minor inconvenience of nuclear plants we can see currently. And despite this high level of decarbonated electricity, the FF consumption in France is by no means negligible - we still drive, heat our houses, and cook with oil and natural gas. Heating is interesting for instance : due to the high nuclear electric production , people were encouraged to adopt electrical heating (which is a heresy if electricity is produced by FF). The problem is that heating in winters produce spikes in the consumption in the evening, where everything is cold and dark outside. Often few wind , too. And nuclear plants cannot respond fast enough to adapt the production to these spikes - so we use .. thermal plants. Sigh , the total yield of producing electricity from FF for heating is much worse that the direct use of these fuels... Les : " Not to mention, for example, China - which was far more wealthy than Europe upto the 1800s, the Abbasid dynasty in the middle ages... ahhh Rome, the British Empire etc. etc. It is really, really important that people see the FF based age as just one age amongst many - not the first nor is there any good reason to believe it's the last." I agree with that - it's only that all these "wealths" were all of the order of that of the poorest countries in the current world, and in all these civilizations, without any exception, the great majorities of people were poor peasants surviving with fluctuating crops and regularly decimated by famines, droughts, epidemics, and wars. Check YOUR history. -
les at 23:48 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
27 adelady: Well, to twist an old phrase, We are born with some choices already made, some choices we can make, and some choices are thrust upon us. Oil is a fabulous product. It's one of those products (like e.g. MS Windows) which feeds into a vast number of markets from a point of supply which is relatively narrow and not very competitive (some are born with oil, some find oil, most don't have any). The result is a self catalysing market, the more it's used, the more ubiquitous it becomes, the more uses there are for it etc. You are right about the "fuels" point, of course, but that's one place there may new problems. The rest of the petrochemical industry depends (as an economic externality) on oil being extracted and refined to subsidize their raw materials. Once the use of oil in fuels collapses (I had the word tipping point, but that) these other industries will become much expensive. If we're really unlucky, that'll happen after all the easy to reach stuff is extracted, exacerbating the situation. Given the inevitability of F-Fuel use going down sharply over the next years - the rest of the petrochemical industry should be campaigning like crazy to preserve the hight quality, easy to extract sources! bit off topic. sorry. -
CBDunkerson at 23:47 PM on 18 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Another thing which always seems odd to me when considering cost comparisons between fossil fuels and alternatives is that they ignore the fact that fossil fuel prices will inevitably keep rising over time. For instance, to determine the 'cost' of electricity from a solar power plant you essentially calculate the construction cost, add in a small cost for ongoing maintenance, assume a lifespan of about 30 years and then divided the power to be generated over that timespan by the calculated cost. Cost estimates for coal plants are calculated very similarly, but there is one very large additional cost... you have to factor in the coal itself. Yet when doing so comparisons invariably seem to use the current cost of coal extended over the lifespan of the plant. Which is simply unrealistic. If one instead assumes that coal prices continue rising at the rate they have been and then uses an average price over the plant's lifetime then wind and solar power are already cheaper than coal power... even without considering the externalities described in the article above. They'd start out being more expensive, but by the end of the plant's lifespan rising fuel costs would more than offset the difference. That said, there are now a few places in the world (e.g. Hawaii, parts of Italy, Southern California) where solar power has dropped below even current fossil fuel costs (again without considering externalities). As solar prices continue to drop that'll be true of larger and larger areas. Most estimates put global average solar cost dropping below fossil fuel costs during this decade... again even assuming that fossil fuel costs were to magically stop rising. Factor in the inevitability of fossil fuel prices rising as supplies decline and the externialities and it seems inconceivable that people are still pushing fossil fuels. -
Harry Seaward at 23:38 PM on 18 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Sea level has been rising steadily at 2mm/year historically. Has there been a verifiable increase in that rate recently?Moderator Response: [DB] This thread is about the impacts of SLR. For an answer to your question, please see the sea-level-rise-predictions thread where that is discussed. Pertinent for thought is comment number 6. Thanks! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:38 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
What scientific "foundation" has the claim: ” The implications of all of this are disturbing ...” ? Ocean acidification, Gattuso, 2010.: “Surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 between 1751 and 2004 and may reach 7.85 in 2100.” “Although changes in the carbonate chemistry are well known, the biological and biogeochemical consequences are much less well constrained for several reasons. First, very few processes and organisms have been investigated so far (research in this area only began in the late 1990s). Second, most experiments were carried out in the short-term (hours to weeks), effectively neglecting potential acclimation and adaptation by organisms. Third, the interaction between pCO 2 and other parameters poised to change, such as temperature , concentration of nutrients and light, are essentially UNKNOWN." “It is not anticipated that oceanic primary production will be directly affected by these changes in carbonate chemistry because most primary producers use carbon concentrating mechanisms that rely on CO 2. Note, however, that primary production of some species is likely to be stimulated.” “Note, however, that some calcifiers either do not show any response to increasing pCO 2 or exhibit a bell-shaped response curve with an optimum rate of calcification at pCO 2 values close to current ones and rates that decrease at pCO 2 values below and above the current values.” (...) -
adelady at 23:29 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
les "... people see the FF based age as just one age amongst many - not the first nor is there any good reason to believe it's the last." Even more importantly, the FF era was a choice. When I was a toddler in the late 40s in a rural area, our neighbours used 'windlights'. Ordinary windmills ran lighting and recharged car batteries to allow lighting when the wind died down. Large wind power generators were around in the much earlier part of the 20thC in the USA. We "chose" to develop power generation by combustion of fossil materials rather than develop existing engineering capacities in other ways. The other thing we should do is stop calling them fossil "fuels". They're valuable carbon resources and the very worst thing we could possibly do with them is incinerate them. Now that we've seen the marvels of carbon fibre technology, we can only dream of what further marvels can be performed with these materials. We always have choices. We should choose more wisely. -
Gilles at 23:25 PM on 18 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] Adherence to the Comments Policy is not optional. You were previously told of the specific nature of this thread, that your comment focus was off-topic here and that other threads exist more suited to your comment focus & to place those questions there. Participation in comment threads at Skeptical Science is a privilege, not a right to do as one pleases. Thanks for helping keep our community streets tidy! -
Daniel Bailey at 23:22 PM on 18 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Creation of people = growing almost exponentially. Creation of new real estate (at all, let alone that above future SLR) = slim to none (outside of new volcanic islands). Instead of the mantra "Go West, young man" the new mantra shall be "Buy High (ground), young man". Savvy investors, take note. The Yooper -
Phil at 23:17 PM on 18 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom @640 Cool - thats shows it nicely - but hey I don't need convincing :-( Kudos has to go to KR, who first alerted me to the idea of using spreadsheets to do these sort of simple iterative demonstrations. On a more general note I wonder if the SkpSci team have considered trying to let contributers share "live" spreadsheets via "cloud" providers like GoogleDocs. It would need to protect the documents from abuse and hide users email addresses, but it might be a useful additional resource if it could be made to work. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:17 PM on 18 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Paper Lobell et al., 2011, this work is a fundamental flaw. It has a very poor literature. For example, I do not understand why there is not such a fundamental work as: Temperature dependence of growth, development, and photosynthesis in maize under elevated CO2, Kim et al., 2007.: “All measured parameters responded to growth temperatures. Leaf appearance rate and leaf photosynthesis showed curvilinear response with optimal temperatures near 32 and 34◦C, respectively. Total above ground biomass and leaf area were negatively correlated with growth temperature. The dependence of leaf appearance rate, biomass, leaf area, leaf and canopy photosynthesis, and C4 enzyme activities on growth temperatures was comparable between current and elevated Ca [carbon dioxide concentrations]. The results of this study suggest that the temperature effects on growth, development, and photosynthesis may remain unchanged in elevated Ca compared with current Ca in maize.” Conclusion in this paper: “Temperature optima for leaf Am and leaf appearance rate were near 34 and 31 ◦C, respectively.” “These results indicate that while many of the growth and photosynthesis parameters examined here were minimally responsive to elevated Ca, an acclimation process might occur in the C4 cycle by way of reducing the activities of C4 enzymes.” -
CBDunkerson at 23:12 PM on 18 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Any new coastline also likely won't have sandy beaches for a long time... unless we haul in the sand or the inland area was sandy to begin with. Beach decay has been a growing issue for many years now, but it is nothing compared to what will happen in the upcoming decades. Here's a thought for GW investing... look for high elevation points near the coast and buy those up. Eventually ugly rocky hill by the beach becomes your own private island. :] Just make sure the elevation is high enough that it'll remain above water for a long time. -
michael sweet at 23:06 PM on 18 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Johnd, I note that in this entire thread you have yet to cite a single paper, peer reviewed or otherwise, that supports your position. The paper cited in the original post reports data from about 20,000 trials. These are the best performing varieties during the period in questions and not "average varieties". Please suporting papers or data for your positions and stop hand waving. -
CBDunkerson at 23:04 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Chris G, I wouldn't take 'the great dying' to imply that everything died either... just that alot of things died. However, 'our planet is dying'.... there is only one planet involved. Either it is going to die or it isn't. Anyway, purely a semantic argument. We all agree on what is happening, but apparently there are differing views of what that particular turn of phrase implies. It was apparently intended to mean, 'much of the life on our planet is dying' rather than 'our planet is becoming devoid of life'. -
Marcus at 22:45 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
The point, Gilles, is that you're constantly trying to sell fossil fuels as the miracle ingredient in the creation of wealth & staying power-yet have provided not a *shred* of evidence to back your claims. There are many elements to creating a wealthy society, all of which are much, much more important than that society's energy intensity or reliance on fossil fuels-things like good education, a strong labor movement to ensure decent wages, proper emancipation, full control of one's reproductive rights....and so the list goes on. All you keep doing is trying to show that a very weak correlation "proves" causation, when it clearly doesn't. As a proof of your weak correlation, though, China & Iran both have more energy intensive economies (in MJ/$ of GDP) than the UK, yet their per capita GDP's are *lower* than the UK. You really do need to check your facts before repeating fossil fuel industry propaganda Gilles. -
les at 22:41 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
22 Marcus: " The nations of Great Britain, United States, Germany & France were already extremely wealthy prior to the 1950's" Not to mention, for example, China - which was far more wealthy than Europe upto the 1800s, the Abbasid dynasty in the middle ages... ahhh Rome, the British Empire etc. etc. It is really, really important that people see the FF based age as just one age amongst many - not the first nor is there any good reason to believe it's the last. Anyone who looks at our current struggles with FFs and cannot see a way forward clearly has little perspecitve on history in general nor technology development - for them I have (again) just one word horse-manure -
michael sweet at 22:40 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles: According to 2007 data, France generated 1/3 the CO2 per person as the USA, but has a comparable living standard. This shows your unsupported claim that FF consumption is required for generation of wealth is a false choice. Note that the average person in France takes twice the yearly vacation as the average person in the USA and has a longer life expectancy, yet still uses similar amounts of consumer goods. -
Marcus at 22:37 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Well, lets see-Wind already provides 160GW of energy world-wide (as of 2009)-the equivalent of 100 coal-fired power stations, up from only 6GW back in 1996. More than 100GW of energy is supplied by solar energy (photovoltaics & thermal). 270GW of energy is provided by biomass. 900GW of energy is supplied by hydro-power. In total, renewable energy currently provides about 10% of the world's energy needs, with the capacity to provide much, much more-especially with proper energy storage, where needed. Of course, clean renewable energy hasn't enjoyed the decades of *massive* government support that the coal & nuclear power industry has enjoyed in order to make them so "cheap"-so it will take time, effort & money to ensure that renewable energy is more attractive to developing nations who're seeking to improve their standards of living. -
TimTheToolMan at 22:36 PM on 18 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
" In figure 2, the slope of the (solid) lines represent climate sensitivity." And we've come full circle. I would put no faith in those figures because they're little more than guesses dressed up as science. We simply dont have any knowledge of how the climate will respond when its a long way from what we know about and have measured. Parameterisations are definitely going to be wrong in the models. What is this fascination with attacking Lindzen? -
Marcus at 22:27 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles, when are you going to cease with your constant, repetitive cheer-leading on behalf of the coal/oil industry? The nations of Great Britain, United States, Germany & France were already extremely wealthy prior to the 1950's-when the output of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels really started to take off. Not surprising given that, until the 1950's, coal-fired electricity was much more expensive, in today's dollars, than most renewable energy sources are today-or that cars were then only owned by the wealthiest people. It seems to me that, in spite of your claims, you know *nothing* about our world's history-or choose to ignore it in your desperate attempts to push fossil fuel industry propaganda down our throats. -
Tom Curtis at 22:25 PM on 18 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Phil, interesting point @639. I have included two new columns in my spreadsheet. One, titled Gain, is Bx-Dx for each row, x. The second, titled "Stored" is the sum of the values in the Gain column from row 2 to row x, for each row, x. The exact formula is "=SUM(G$2:G2)" where G is the column for Gain. As expected, with each progressive iteration, Gain falls to 0 while Stored increases to 400 when the number of photons exiting the box matches the number entering the box. When the incoming photons are reduced to zero, the Gain immediately becomes -100 before slowly increasing to zero, which it reaches approximately as Stored reaches zero and photons leaving the box reaches zero. -
Marcus at 22:16 PM on 18 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Seriously, Gilles, you're such a one track record &-as always-your claims rely on complete *false-hoods*. Neither Wind nor Solar are intermittent, as there is now this thing called *storage* (hardly new, as plenty of storage options have existed for at least a decade). Geothermal & Hydroelectric are also not as limited in their placement as you make out, when you include things like Micro-hydro, tidal streams power, Run-of-the-river hydro, Osmotic plants & hot-rocks. Also, you think that coal power stations can be built willy nilly? No, coal power stations have very strict limits on where they can be built, & usually have to be sited close to the source of fuel (coal mines). As to gas, well maybe natural gas is finite, but its also more efficient than coal power (2-3 times more efficient depending on the type of turbines used to produce the electricity), can be built at any size; to better match demand; is modular, so can be scaled to meet changes in demand curves, & added to slowly as demand increases-unlike inflexible coal power stations &-most important-natural gas can be substituted with methane from natural, non-finite sources, such as landfills, sewerage treatment plants & from algae grown from the CO2 waste generated from a gas-fired power station. Methane/natural gas is also a fantastic storage medium for various levels of solar thermal energy-from simply boosting the energy content of the methane (at temps of 60 degrees C to 100 degrees C) all the way to breaking down the methane into CO2 & H2 which, when re-reacted, generate heat & recreate the methane. So, as you can see, there are already substantial options for replacing coal as our major source of base-load energy, something which won't just reduce the amount of CO2 entering our atmosphere, but also reduce the amount of Radon, particulate emissions, mercury & cadmium which also gets into our air courtesy of coal-fired power stations. Now, have you got anything *new* to say? Or are you just going to keep boring us with Coal/Oil industry advertising? -
Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 18 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
TTTM @92 (First, do you object to TTTM as you do to TTT?)Right back on topic and using my favorite method of looking at an extreme, what would the sensitivity be on a hypothetical hard snowball earth? For the first many doublings, it would be very low. Maybe even approximately zero. Only once CO2 levels have got very high would they have an effect and then it will jump hugely. What does this mean to me? Well it means that sensitivity depends on the climate's "state" and the CO2 level itself. Some states will be more sensitive than others."
There is probably something in this. As it happens, in figure 2 above we have a means of testing this intuition. In figure 2, the slope of the (solid) lines represent climate sensitivity. By zooming in on the graph a bit, and laying a ruler along side, it can be determined that the climate sensitivity in the snowball earth case is 1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (and higher on the right of the graph). In the non-snowball earth case, the climate sensitivity is about 2.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (and again, higher as it gets warmer). So, let's consider what this means for Lindzen's testimony. First, it means that climate sensitivity in the non-snowball earth case is high enough to initiate a snowball earth in the event of removal of all CO2 from the atmosphere. So, in the no CO2 scenario, the global meant temperature would be closer to 240 degrees K then the approximately 284 degrees K he testified to. Second, it means even the lowest climate sensitivity is about three times the value he uses. And you have to have a snowball Earth to have a climate sensitivity that low. Third, the climate sensitivity is very stable over a large range of temperatures and CO2 concentrations. The major instability is an albedo forced bifurcation which therefore cannot be included as a climate sensitivity per se. So, Lindzen's testimony continues to look very shabby. -
Phil at 21:53 PM on 18 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CTruth @627 said I agree with RW1 and a few others that observational data seem to indicate the availability of a significant kinetic energy content in the lower troposphere than cannot be accounted for by the solar input alone. CTruth, my position (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think the position of Tom Curtis, KR, scaddenp et al) is this; ... that observational data indicates the availability of a significant energy content in the lower troposphere than cannot be accounted for by the solar input alone but is accounted for by an exchange of heat between the surface and the atmosphere. This heat has accumulated in the planetary system in the distant past in the process of reaching (approximate) thermal equilibrium If you tried the spreadsheet model I suggested earlier (and Tom Curtis improved @626), one thing you can discover from it is that at the time P(in) = P(out) then ΣTP(in) - ΣTP(out) is at its maximum and is equal to the capacity of the system to hold P (so as to conserve energy or matter) These statements hold true for Tom's half-mirrored box (where P is photons), KR's rivers running in and out of a reservoir (where P is water) and the earths energy budget (where P is heat). T is time, of course, and - heads up to les @623 - yes of course the summations should really be integrals ! -
Gilles at 21:52 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
and last questions (sorry for not combining them in the same post) "so many clean & renewable sources of energy are available to meet all of our energy needs." could you please give me the quantitative amount of energy produced currently by these "so many clean & renewable sources of energy", and the growth rate you're expecting reasonably from them ? -
Gilles at 21:50 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
"whilst many nations in South America & Asia currently consume large amounts of fossil fuels, whilst still being gripped by massive poverty." Same question : which nation are you referring to, on a per capita basis ? -
Gilles at 21:49 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Marcus : "I doubt it very much, given my own reading of history shows that the nations of Europe & North America had already reached extremely high levels of wealth *before* fossil fuels became widely available" Marcus, are you really serious ???? which epoch are you referring to , and how do you measure this "level of wealth" ? -
Gilles at 21:45 PM on 18 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
"If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, solar photovoltaic, and on par with solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly). Suddenly coal doesn't look like such a good deal." maybe, but hydroelectric and geothermal are possible only in specific places, wind and solar are intermittent, natural gas and nuclear are also finite and have their own drawbacks and external costs (what is the cost of the three major nuclear accidents ?). And none of these can replace coal or other FF in non-power generation applications, which means that we need anyway a minimum amount of FF , which also means that it is very unlikely that we stop extracting them before they're exhausted, which also means that alternative energies will not REPLACE FF , but simply superimpose on them. -
Marcus at 21:31 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles-the criticisms of you are because you've made these claims-like a broken record-without providing a shred of evidence to back you up. Can you honestly show that the growth of First World wealth began *before* large-scale consumption of fossil fuels? I doubt it very much, given my own reading of history shows that the nations of Europe & North America had already reached extremely high levels of wealth *before* fossil fuels became widely available, whilst many nations in South America & Asia currently consume large amounts of fossil fuels, whilst still being gripped by massive poverty. Of course, even if you *could* show that consumption of fossil fuels was necessary to create wealth-in the *past*-that is certainly *not* true now that so many clean & renewable sources of energy are available to meet all of our energy needs. -
les at 21:21 PM on 18 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
636 Ryan "One aperture to receive light the second to radiate light" Ah, some more thermodynamics... ... have you met Maxwells Demon? -
TimTheToolMan at 21:00 PM on 18 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
Well after all that I'm still unsure what you're saying. Are you saying that sensitivity has varied between 2.5C and 3.7C per doubling or something else? I dont know how much variation there is in sensitivity (nor do I think anyone knows or even CAN know with the data we have) but the following thought experiment might help in understanding where I'm coming from. Right back on topic and using my favorite method of looking at an extreme, what would the sensitivity be on a hypothetical hard snowball earth? For the first many doublings, it would be very low. Maybe even approximately zero. Only once CO2 levels have got very high would they have an effect and then it will jump hugely. What does this mean to me? Well it means that sensitivity depends on the climate's "state" and the CO2 level itself. Some states will be more sensitive than others. -
Gilles at 21:00 PM on 18 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
"Currently we're on track to reach 1 meter sometime between 2070 and 2090 in business as usual (the A scenarios), and even most likely by 2100 in Scenario B1 (which assumes a major move away from fossil fuels toward alternative and renewable energy as the century progresses)." could you be more precise about what you mean by "being on the track?" with an exponential extrapolation with uncertainty, it seems that we're "on the track" to reach anything between 30 cm and a few meters. Please note a convenient feature of exponential extrapolations : any increase of uncertainty increases more the high values than the small ones, so increases both the average estimates and the "probability" of highest estimates. This has the logical consequence that the less we know, the more we're urged to act.Moderator Response: [DB] One of the logical consequences of reading a Skeptical Science post and the previous comments on the posted thread is to realize that the focus of this thread is on SLR impacts. Discussion of SLR uncertainties & the "pacing" of SLR is best conducted on one of the many other threads. Please use the Search function to find one of those other threads where, no doubt, an answer to your questions exists. Thanks! -
Tom Curtis at 20:23 PM on 18 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J.Ryan @629, let us consider this step by step: 1) Consider the box as described, but without any lid. In this case all the light will reflect of the wall of the box and exit through the aperture where the lid was. Is that correct? 2) Now consider the case in which we place the lid on the box, but at an angle so that all light reflected of the lid will leave the box through some other aperture. In this case, the amount of light leaving the box through the lid will be half of that which enters, while the amount that is reflected by the lid and leaves through the other aperture will also be half of that which enters the box. Is that correct? Do either of these scenarios violate any law of thermodynamics? -
Tom Curtis at 20:11 PM on 18 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
TimTheToolMan @90, the only study I have seen on the effect of changes in forcing on climate shows only slight changes (12% or less) over a range of values, but with much higher and smaller forcings shows a much higher (up to 33% higher) value. Taking the modern best estimate of climate sensitivity of 2.8 degrees per doubling of CO2, that means the minimum value is around 2.5 degrees per doubling, and the maximum around 3.7.
If we consider the minimum value only, that would indicate a fall in temperature after feedbacks of 14.6 degrees C for the total removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. That is likely way to small a reduction, as shown in the post above. However, it is a best case for Lindzen and shows him to have an error of 83% at minimum.
An alternative approach would be to compare climate sensitivities determined from geological data for warm and hot periods. As it happens, climate sensitivities determined for the LGM and for the Pliocene (cold and warm periods respectively) are very similar; as indeed are sensitivities determined using GeocarbSulf by Berner for the whole phanerozoic.
Regarding the "not at all subtle references", they are too subtle for me. All I know is that TTT are the initials of you chosen name.
-
Rob Painting at 19:54 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Alan @ 30 - Sorry, my bad, misinterpreted your comment. Here's the FAQ page at EPOCA -
Tom Curtis at 19:02 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Agnostic @15, the Climate Vulnerabilty Index developed by Samson et al (2011) was developed using 19 different climate indices. They developed two different models using contrasting subsets of these 19 indices to ensure that their results were robust. They then developed a model based on agricultural density as a second check on the robustness of their result. There results held regardless of which of the three models they used, showing that they are indeed robust. If that were not enough, we have Mapleleaf's Climate Vulnerability Index,based on 42 different social, economic and environmental factors, which shows a similar pattern of vulnerability.
You reject these indices of Climate Vulnerability because you mention certain environmental effects from climate change without checking whether or not they were used in developing the indices, and without purporting to show how including them would have changed the indices (ie, you use pure hand waving).
You also reject the indices because they do not show countries which have high populations but little arable land as vulnerable. One might suppose that such nations (Singapore for example) might get most of their food by trade, and hence are not reliant on local climactic conditions for their food; ie, that they are amongst the least vulnerable of societies to climate change. One might also suppose that, having read the paper (you did read the paper, didn't you) you would have noted the key factor in the CVI is the predicted change in factors effecting agriculture as the climate warms. Having noted that, you would presume that nations with high populations and little arable land in which the climate is not expected to change adversely are not that vulnerable.
Cherry picking a single datum as an excuse to reject a paper is not scepticism - it is avoidance.
Finally, Global Warming arises from the emissions of Green house gases, not by countries, but by cars, and trucks and power stations. They are the individual mechanisms of the economy serving the individuals in the economy. So the only honest comparison of GHG emissions is on a per person basis. Our credulity is indeed being stretched in this debate, but it is being stretched by those who maintain (as you are doing) that the 18.9 metric tons of CO2 per person in the US does less harm than the 4.9 metric tons per person emitted in China (2007 figures). Even this comparison underestimates the US contribution (as it would other western nations) because it ignores the extent to which high emission products in China have their final use in the United States.
Agnostic's claim that CO2 emissions are properly considered a feature of nations carries some absurd implications. It implies that Monaco and Lichtenstein should be allowed the same net emissions as the US in any international treaty. It implies that if a nation should divide in two, then their joint permissible emissions should double. Conversely, it implies that if the EU should ever coalesce into a single nation, its permissible emissions should be divided by the current number of member states.
-
shoyemore at 18:30 PM on 18 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Charley A #51 As I said above "the data are what the data are". This alternative look at the temperature record in the main supports the generally accepted views of climate science. -
Gilles at 18:15 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
I don't understand your criticisms. It's not ME who is saying that the countries consuming the most FF are the most resilient to natural hazards, it's YOU (or them..) : "They found the countries most severely impacted by climate change contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions. It is quite striking that blue, less-polluting regions in the CO2 emissions map correspond to the red, highly vulnerable areas in the vulnerability map." This is a simple logical contraposition of the previous statement : countries with less CO2 consumptions are the most vulnerable < = > less vulnerable countries are those with the most CO2 consumption (which seems to be a rather obvious observation, BTW). Where is the problem ? -
Tom Curtis at 17:31 PM on 18 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
TTT @88, from your deleted comment, it is clear that you did not intend to say that climate sensitivity is arbitrarily variable in time; but rather that its potential variability is governed by some other factor(s). What other factor(s) is that, and what is the range of sensitivities you believe to be operable? And (given the topic of this thread) how does it make a difference in determining the after feedback mean global temperature in the situation of zero CO2 in the atmosphere? -
alan_marshall at 17:29 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Another video Just in case you missed the reference at the bottom of my article, I recommend interested readers view the 10 minute video form the Catalyst program showing damage to foraminifera. The link is www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2029333.htm. -
Riduna at 17:23 PM on 18 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
I challenge the validity of this study on 2 grounds: 1. Accuracy of the vulnerability measure used and 2. Country contribution to global warming. 1. Vulnerability of people to climate change is best measured as sensitivity of their environment to the effects of global warming, which includes climate change nut also includes changes in ocean chemistry, sea level and water supplied from snow and ice. In other words it must be a measure of the ability of the human environment to provide those living in it with the essentials of life. This is very difficult to incorporate in an index and the CDVI very clearly does not do so. If it did, it would not show countries with highest population/hectare of arable land as having medium to low vulnerability. It would show them as being highly susceptible and vulnerable to the effects of global warming because that is what they are. 2. Global warming arises because of the emission of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, by distinct socio-economic units called countries, permitted by the policies, practices and controls (or lack of them) imposed by their governments. It is a dangerous nonsense to assert that China contributes relatively little to global warming because it has a high population and therefore low per-capita emissions. Or that the USA contributes far more to global warming because of its much lower population. The fact is that in 2007 China emitted 6.538 and the USA 5.838 billion tonnes respectively, over 42% of global emissions of CO2 between them. Fig 2, shows countries of the world coloured on the basis of per capita emissions. It is therefore a nonsensical distortion, since it purports to show the relative importance of country emissions on global warming. It does no such thing. It defies credulity to assert that a thousand tones of CO2 released by China is far less harmful than a thousand tones of CO2 released by Australia. Yet that is what we are being asked to accept, even though both have precisely the same effect and make the same contribution to global warming. In Conclusion: by combining two defective measures to a map of the worlds’ countries, it is asserted that those contributing least to global warming are the worst affected by the results of global warming. Sorry, I do not buy it – nor dear reader should you! -
alan_marshall at 17:20 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Bringing politicians up to speed Over the past year I have enjoyed some modest success in a personal campaign in which I have written to all 226 members of the Australian parliament. Using old-fashioned mailed letters, complete with graphics and references, I have sort to contribute to their understanding of the science of climate change. The above article had its origin in a letter to parliamentarians about ocean acidification. It can be viewed on my web site at www.climatechangeanswers.org/campaign/OceanAcidification.pdf. I have received around 20 letters from politicians in response, and many of these can be found under Feedback Received. For example, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, former environment minister and former leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, wrote saying “I agree entirely with your concern about this issue”. I would encourage readers in the USA to do what they can to inform their representatives, particularly those Republicans trying to “repeal laws of physics”. -
alan_marshall at 17:14 PM on 18 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Rob Painting @ 29 I was not talking about a direct connection between atmospheric warming and ocean acidification. What I meant was that any projected emissions trajectory for CO2 that succeeds in keeping atmospheric warming under a given limit (currently 2 C) will also keep ocean surface pH above a limit. The correspondence between the two is therefore an indirect one, and does not take into account any change in the relative concentrations of CO2 and those greenhouse gases such as CH4 which do not contribute to ocean acidification. I still think the relationship is worth exploring, and that an internationally agreed target to limit ocean acidification is necessary. The FAQ section at EPOCHA is quite lengthy, Can you point me to the information you are referring to?
Prev 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Next
