Recent Comments

Prev  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  1869  1870  Next

Comments 93101 to 93150:

93101. JMurphy at 01:40 AM on 12 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       True enough, RickG, but the so-called skeptics would like to extend that to hundreds, thousands, etc. so that they can then say that we won't know, until that amount of time is over, whether AGW is happening or not. However, from the WMO link I gave previously, they do state that less than 30 years can be used to determine certain trends, but that is even worse news for the so-called skeptics : first, because it means we know now how AGW is affecting the globe, and secondly, because they will get very confused from year to year to decade - proclaiming global cooling one year/decade; 'flattening' temperatures the next year/decade; uncertaintly the next year/decade, etc. as they try to use whatever time-period they can to try to make different claims depending on what they think they can get away with. Oh, they already do that... Anyway, perhaps we should leave it to the particular experts in that particular field (i.e. those at the 'coal-face', so to speak, who know what they are talking about) to determine what they consider the best time period to use. It won't please the minority in other fields, who like to claim some sort of right or self-proclaimed expertise but who are on the outside looking in, but such is life.
93102. WSteven at 01:18 AM on 12 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Dana, I applaud your efforts. Denialists can't be allowed to carry on unchallenged with their misinformation campaign. The few people undecided on the issue must be disgusted by the whole "Debate", but at least you give the scientific facts a fighting chance. As I discuss Climate Change with more and more people it's becoming apparent, at least to me, that most people are polarized on the issue. There's no point trying to convert a denialist or vis-a-vis for them as it just ends in a shouting match. I think that it's more important that laypeople and scientists alike try to make our voices heard to our political representatives. The work that you and others do on sites like SkS will be important in carrying our message to our political representatives. Continue the good fight and maybe we will be able to give the up-and-coming generations a fighting chance.
93103. muoncounter at 00:52 AM on 12 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       TOP, "Monckton was apparently right." Not so much. Let's look at the rest of the NOAA report: While a contribution to the heat wave from climate change could not be entirely ruled out, if it was present, it played a much smaller role than naturally occurring meteorological processes in explaining this heat wave's intensity. The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region’s future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Prior analysis showed that climate change increases the probability of these extreme events; as this report conflicts, why do you arbitrarily buy this one?
93104. RickG at 00:46 AM on 12 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       johnd: "I was hoping for some genuine comments on whether 30 years was still relevant or not...... I think the important thing to understand about the 30 year period is that it is a minimum period of time needed in order to establish a recognizable trend which filters out the noise, especially those of oscillations which are known not to be drivers of overall trends.
93105. muoncounter at 00:43 AM on 12 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Camburn, "This is not about denial. This is about solutions." How can the folks who believe there's no problem be suddenly interested in solutions? "cyclones/hurricanes have decreased in number and intensity." The ACE index used by FSU is wind speed-duration only. By omitting precipitation events, it is highly biased. "precip patterns in the US have not really changed." There's data to show they have in fact become more intense - not necessarily frequent, but more rain in short time periods. In my part of the world, we have weeks and weeks of no rain, followed by a gully-washer. The intense rain in a short period doesn't soak into the ground. Ask around parts of the US right now, where all that snow is in the process of melting -- and there was just a late winter rainstorm. "winters are not unusual" Tell this to your denial-blog buddies, who were screaming 'worst winter in 1000 years' not all that long ago. Which side seems to now be arguing out of both sides of their mouths? SkS threads for all of these topics, with links to supporting documents, can be found using Search, but you already know that.
93106. johnd at 00:23 AM on 12 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       JMurphy at 20:04 PM, I was hoping for some genuine comments on whether 30 years was still relevant or not, not a paranoid search for hidden agendas. As for the remark about, "about 100 years", rather than being a generalities, "about 100 years" rather precisely dates the time frame in which "after much international discussion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, 30 years was settled on as a suitable averaging period."
93107. Camburn at 00:11 AM on 12 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       scaddenp: This is not about denial. This is about solutions. I have shown by the link to Florida State University that cyclones/hurricanes have decreased in number and intensity. I have shown by link from NOAA that precip patterns in the US have not really changed. I have shown by link that the winters are not unusual, contrary to some folks who think so. This is not denial, this is accepting what the data is showing. I have proposed a solution to a high percentage of carbon that is feasable and acceptable to the general public. More regulations/taxes are not the answer.
93108. TOP at 00:08 AM on 12 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       @2 Albatross Actually, GW would suggest the blocking highs move farther north and these extremes would become less severe. Monckton was apparently right. Quote: "The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found." NOAA NEWS 3/9/2011 If you look at the region's anomaly for 2010 it is colder in winter and hotter in summer suggesting a local, not global phenomenon.
       Moderator Response: [mc] Fixed open link.
93109. TOP at 00:00 AM on 12 March 2011
       NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
       NOAA NEWS Quote: “Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia,” said lead author Randall Dole, deputy director of research at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). “Nor did ocean temperatures or sea ice status in early summer of 2010 suggest what was to come in Russia.” Quote: "The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found." Now the authors do pay obeisance to GW by stating that this event gives us a glimpse at what the effects of GW might be in the future. It is just that this wasn't it. The GW hypothesis did not help in predicting this event. It is not that they are denying GW, just pointing out that it is meaningless in the context of the Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed broken link. And if you're going to quote chapter & verse, cease with your cherry-picking & provide relevant context:

       "The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region’s future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Climate models evaluated for the new study show a rapidly increasing risk of such heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century.

       “It appears that parts of Russia are on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.

       Dole called the intensity of this heat wave a “climate surprise,” expected to occur only very rarely in Russia’s current climate. With the possibility of more such events in the future, studying the Russian event better prepares scientists to understand climate phenomena that will affect the U.S. and other parts of the globe."

93110. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:44 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       @Marcus I recommend Wikipedia especially this subparagraph: Theory incomplete “The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages ... “
93111. johnd at 23:44 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Marcus at 22:06 PM, all very interesting. As someone who demands of others that they provide something tangible to support their assertions, perhaps you can do the same. Have you had anything published, the results of those field trials for example, that illustrate the work you have been involved in? Generally the results of such work, even small trials end up published in one form or another to allow the information to be disseminated to interested parties such as those in the industry, either in trade journals, newspapers or newsletters. As you should know much information transfers informally with the only "peer review process" being the number of people who adopt the practice and recommend it to others. The use of CO2 fertilisation in the tomato and other hot house enterprises being a prime example. Even now, decades later, there are experts doubting the effectiveness of the practice. IIRC you are one such person, am I right? Given that your meetings with real farmers has apparently only come about through your work, that more or less confirms the impression left that you are not from an agricultural background. If you had been then it would also not have been necessary for me to illustrate just how different the conditions have been between the present generation of farmers and their grandparents. It's things like this that are taken for granted as being understood by anyone involved in agriculture at a practical level.
93112. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:34 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       More and more, moreover, the work - paper (not just Lindzen) draws attention to the possible advantages of negative feedback - over positive (a doubling of CO2). 'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming, Lynch - NASA, 2010.: “A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters . Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled. “ 1.34 degrees C over the land ... instead of 3-4.5 degrees C ... Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation, Jaramillo et al. (28 coauthors !), 2010.: “We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora.“ “The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.” If someone wants invoke on the paper: Fossil soils constrain ancient climate sensitivity, Royer, 2010., and Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100, Breecker, Sharp & Mc Fadden 2010., the paper suggesting that the data from the Phanerozoic prove a significant advantage of positive feedback - over negative (up to 6 degrees C in response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere), I noted here that the former terrestrial plants was significantly different than now ..., and propose to work: Does burial diagenesis reset pristine isotopic compositions in paleosol carbonates? Bera et al., 2010.: “... it is inappropriate, as proposed recently, to reject the paleoclimatic potential of all paleosol carbonates affected by burial diagenesis. Based on pristine δ13C value of − 8.8 ± 0.2‰ in soil carbonates an atmospheric CO2 concentration between ~ 764 and ~ 306 ppmv is estimated for the early Oligocene (~ 31 Ma) Dagshai time. These data show excellent agreement between two independent proxy records (viz. soil carbonate and marine alkenone) and support early Oligocene survival of the Antarctic ice sheet.” Paleosol carbonates, however, probably tell us more (and more precisely) about the old CO2 - than even the stomata - their density on a leaf, or their size (moss).
93113. Marcus at 23:15 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       “Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect.” If that were true, then how does one explain the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg I could be mistaken, but this image seems to suggest that changes in insolation-as caused by Milankovitch Cycles-precede the large-scale changes in temperature.
93114. Chemware at 22:46 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned our sister planetoid: the Moon. The simple fact is that the Moon has no CO₂ - and as a consequence, has an average surface temperature about 33° C lower than the Earth, despite having exactly the same insolation. Even a congressman could understand that argument.
93115. Wibble at 22:43 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Moral: Don't believe anything you read on the innerwebz.
93116. Marcus at 22:09 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Oh, & lets not forget the impacts of CO2 & related climate change on soil-borne pathogens, insect pathogens & weeds-all of which can significantly offset any marginal benefits of CO2-induced biomass increases.
93117. Marcus at 22:06 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       "It is easy to see that you don't understand agriculture as it is presently practiced." That's quite a hilarious accusation, Camburn, given that I've been working as an Agricultural Scientists for around the last 11 years-dealing with everything from molecular biology & physiology, right up to & including full-scale field trials (which is where I've met with *real* farmers-across Southern & Eastern Australia). So in spite of your snarky claims, I'm guessing I probably understand present-& future-agriculture a lot better than you do. As to acclimation, it has a very basic, physiological basis-namely that the plant won't continue to expend the extra energy needed to fix the additional carbon dioxide unless there is some long-term benefit to the plant-which is especially the case when plants are grown in soils relatively low in moisture, nitrogen, phosphorous or trace elements. This acclimation is exactly what is being seen in long-term FACE trials across the world. Here's another thing to consider, though-at higher temperature, the amount of CO2 dissolved in the moisture of the leaf tissue is decreased, meaning less CO2 to enter the Calvin Cycle & be fixed as carbohydrate. So CO2 induced warming-all by itself-can actually undermine even the short-term benefits of higher CO2, by making less CO2 available to the plant in the first place. So, when coupled with the climate change impacts on water & senescence, this represents yet another nail in the coffin of the "CO2 is plant food meme".
       Moderator Response: How about asking John Cook if you could put some of those great details into either the It's Not Bad or CO2 is Not a Pollutant arguments?
93118. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:05 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Thanks for highlighting this, Dana. I wasn't aware how bad things were on answers.com - almost as if they were making the answers up without bothering with fact checking. Climate change denialism like a never-ending stream of rubbish, or a Lernaean Hydra-type monster. It's a bit disheartening at times.
93119. Alexandre at 21:00 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Most of the "skeptics" I usually talk to first "learned" about the scientific process reading denialist articles. They're usually guys from the social sciences, for whom peer review means just that "someone else has read it". With this background, there is really not much difference between religion and physics. There is no measurable, verifiable answer because they don't really grasp what's being measured or why. Apparently, that's the case of the answers.com staff.
93120. scaddenp at 20:46 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Camburn - evidence would suggest otherwise - more that people uncritically accept disinformation than taxes. So you dont like taxes? Fine, choose other solutions, go nuclear, find something that matches your political philosophy. How about ending all subsidies on fossil fuel for starters? Denial is no way to approach problems however,
93121. daisym at 20:30 PM on 11 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       dana1981: You claimed (in #69) that “Californians use less per capita energy than most of the rest of the USA, but our rates aren’t significantly higher than the average.” The U.S. Bureau of labor statistics Report #BLS 11-18, February 17, 2011, says that electricity rates in the Los Angeles area have exceeded the national average for the past 10 years. The report says that electricity rate comparisons for December, 2010, showed that rates in Los Angeles were 62% higher than the national average. Unless Los Angeles is atypical of California as a whole, my original contention that energy conservation causes rates to increase seems valid. Energy conservation causes rates to go up. muoncounter: You astutely pointed out (in #93) an excellent reason why government search for replacement fuel is so slow… that there’s a massively funded lobby against that initiative. The reason industry lobbies for wind, solar, etc. is because “the free (taxpayer) money is too good.” Perhaps the problem with finding the perfect full time energy to replace carbon fuels is that it would vest too much power in one corporation (at the expense of today’s energy cartels and their thousands of carbon fuel jobs). Many people are OK with renewable energy technologies that will only reduce the rate at which mankind emits CO2 into the air. But how do we know whether these reductions will be enough to save humanity? Saving humanity is still the reason for reducing CO2, right? Is there a scientific consensus on what the ideal global temperature should be? Have scientists calculated the maximum amount of USA-made CO2 we can emit without raising global temperatures above the ideal (based on, say, our prorata share of the world’s GDP)? It’s generally conceded that the government has no coherent national energy policy or goal. Neither does it have a plan which shows where wind, solar, etc. will take us toward reaching the maximum CO2 emission target, (the “goal,” whatever that may be). Government throws $billions at companies which produce part time energy devices, creates a few new jobs in the process, and yet has no clue where this will take us toward reducing global temperatures. In the meantime, you guys are OK with wind, solar, etc. You (and the Moderator) cite “studies” which conclude that part time renewables can (one day) replace our need for full time carbon fuels… studies that also say that millions of retired electric car batteries could be hooked to the grid to augment power on cloudy or windless days (I'm skeptical about this). I cannot understand why you guys always shout down anyone willing to “throw the skunk on the table” by asking where we need to go, how we’ll get there, and when we can expect to arrive at our destination… if saving humanity is still what this is all about.
93122. michael sweet at 20:29 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       RSVP, It has been explained to you many times that CO2 can lose energy in many ways besides emitting it as IR. Molecular collisions rapidly exchange energy in the atmosphere. The CO2 does not carry its energy around forever. I teach this to my High School students, it is basic science. Since you do not understand the basic science you should not make statements like "shouldnt these regions now be cooler in the winter". As you have been told numerous times, AGW predicts that winters will warm more than summers and nights will warm more than days. We all see your suggestion that your "waste heat" explaination needs to be considered again. Give it up. Hundreds of posts have tried to explain the basics to you, read what they say.
93123. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:23 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       Lindzen, once again draws attention mainly to the complex issue of feedback, knowledge of which (even the major) is still small (especially negative). Very interesting - the easy way (understandable for all of them) - it is a "phenomenon" described here: Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought', BBC 2010 It is noteworthy example of this great area of uncertainty: Effect of soil moisture and CO2 feedbacks on terrestrial NPP estimates, shows that both reduce to zero (CO2-free) - and the doubling of our CO2 emissions - can be far less important - than previously thought (though I must admit that, and fourth IPCC report gives a very wide limits for response to a doubling of CO2). “Often, despite dramatic leaf level impacts due to climate changes, the natural ecosystem tends to buffer and does not show a dramatic response. Our analysis suggests that the interactions between the biotic and abiotic changes tend to have a compensatory /antagonistic response. This reduces the effect of the variable change on the overall system response. Our results indicate that the effect of soil moisture availability (and drought) is an important modulator of the terrestrial carbon cycle, and its impact for both present day as well as climatological feedback (under doubling of CO2 or ENSO like events) needs to be investigated.” And climate change has never simply failed to associate with the Sun. Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?, Bard and Frank, 2006.: “Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect.”
93124. RSVP at 20:19 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       CO2 emits IR as much as it absorbs it. (If this were not the case, CO2 molecules would be trapping energy indefinitely.) So in having more CO2 in the atmosphere, while more IR is absorbed, you also have a greater channel for outward cooling. This tendency balances itself out for any latitude throughout the year, but what of the polar regions where the sun doesnt shine for over three months of the year? With more CO2, shouldnt these regions now be cooler in the winter? Yet if polar winter temperatures are observed to be generally warmer now, it could only be due to other sources of latent heat,... which of course, could not be from extra mid-latitude warming, since this would cause cooling in these areas, and they are supposedly warmer now.
93125. Dikran Marsupial at 20:09 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Albatross@25 Troubling indeed. The statistical error in the Douglass et al. paper is pretty fundamental, it is rather surprising that the paper made it through the peer review process. The statistical error was a bit like rolling a die 100 times and getting a mean of 3.91 with a standard error of the mean of 0.1634, and then claiming that this is statistically inconsistent with the next roll of the die that gave a two. Yes, the statistical error was that bad!
93126. JMurphy at 20:04 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       johnd wrote : "With regards to the 30 year period you mentioned, which is generally taken to be the length of time that will represent a climate cycle rather than weather cycles. I think it is about time that this is re-evaluated as to whether it is still appropriate or not. When it was adopted about 100 years ago, the knowledge of weather and climate, both of then and past, was somewhat limited compared to today, as was the ability to measure and quantify all the relevant parameters." Ah, do we have the next tactic from the so-called skeptics ? Previously, with regard to temperature, the claim was that the satellite readings were better than those on the ground....until the satellites became inconvenient - now, satellite readings are suspect too. So, because those in denial can't rationally argue against the Weather/Climate difference, they now have to try to undermine the 30 year definition of climate. Why ? Because they need longer time-periods to try to argue their 'What if/Maybe' beliefs - time periods measured in hundreds, thousands, even millions of years if necessary. And the 30 years concept was adopted in 1935. To anyone who deals in generalities, that is indeed "about 100 years ago".
93127. Dikran Marsupial at 20:00 PM on 11 March 2011
       It's too hard
       Giles@8 It may (or may not) be true that "temperature has no effect on the standard of living", but either way it misses the point that the major problem with climate change is the change. Our civilizations, and especially our agricultural practices, are optimised to the particular climate in which they have developed. Any change in our way of life and especially our agricultural practices, will involve adaption, which has a cost. Us in the first world (that are primarily responsible for the problem) can cope with this adaption without great suffering as we have the resources; the same is not the case for the third world, where they don't have the resources to adapt, and where argriculture is often quite marginal to begin with. The relationship between temperature and standard of living is a red herring.
93128. From Peru at 18:25 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       What is the radiative budget, both shortwave(cooling) and longwave(warming) for clouds, measured in W/m^2 ? In particular for: -Low altitude clouds -High altitude clouds -Total cloud cover Does anyone has the data?
93129. Gilles at 18:23 PM on 11 March 2011
       It's too hard
       Mucounter : if you want data, you can go to the excellent site gapminder http://www.gapminder.org/world/ now you can choose for x-axis : CO2 production per capita (log scale) and for y-axis : any wealth indicator you want (GDP, life expectancy, literacy, and so on...) unfortunately they don't have "average temperature" in their data - so I can't check the influence of average temperature on the living standard.
93130. Gilles at 18:16 PM on 11 March 2011
       It's too hard
       "Gilles: According to this Wiki page almost all European countries and Hong Kong produce about 25% of the CO2 per capita as the USA. My observation is that their living standards are about the same as the USA" according to meteorological data people in Hong Kong live in a average temperature of 23 °C ( 73 °F) but in New York city, it's only 12 °C (55°F). So I conclude that temperature has also no effect on the standard of living. Please use the SAME methodology to compare the influence of FF and the influence of GW - the discussion will be more scientific. bern : "It's a bit of misdirection at work.What makes for a high standard of living is not ready access to fossil fuels. It's ready access to energy." no, it is access to cheap and convenient energy and all energies are not equivalent. Carbon is used to reduce chemically oxides, for instance, much cheaper than electricity. oil is a liquid - much more convenient for transportation. the other point of my argumentation is persistently ignored : even if you raise the EFFICIENCY of the use of FF (diminish the energy intensity), there is no way to prevent people from offsetting this efficiency by an INCREASE in the numbers of goods - for instance more EV would produce MORE CO2 than few thermal engines - and yes, there is plenty of potential demand for a western life of style - just 5 billions of people are more or less excluded from this way of life, and they will be 8 or 9 in 50 years. And there is no moral justification - or even practical possibility to let them eventually use all FF we have spared - for CO2, it won't matter WHO has produced it !
93131. logicman at 17:59 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       "Now that we know that the Arctic ice is recovering ..." Now that you have stopped beating your wife ... Answers.yahoo.com gives you slightly better answers about climate than you might get from consulting chicken entrails. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100604092516AACQcj6
       Moderator Response: (DB) Fixed link
93132. actually thoughtful at 17:25 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       This appears to be political theater. We are LONG past the time when the physical evidence doesn't carry the water for AGW. You need only look around and you see the models and climate science predictions confirmed.
93133. Albatross at 17:07 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Dana, You have probably seen this message Dr. Santer has posted regarding Christy's misleading testimony: "I have had a quick look at John Christy's recent Congressional testimony. Many aspects of it are deeply troubling. From my own personal perspective, one of the most troubling aspects is that Christy cites a paper by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and S. Fred Singer. The Douglass et al. paper appeared in the online edition of the International Journal of Climatology (a publication of the Royal Meteorological Society) in December 2007. Shortly after its publication, it became apparent that the authors of the Douglass et al. paper had applied a flawed statistical significance test. Application of this flawed test led them to reach incorrect scientific conclusions. Together with a number of colleagues (including Gavin), I prepared a response to the Douglass et al. paper. Our response was published by the International Journal of Climatology in October 2008. (DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756) I am also appending a "fact sheet" providing some of the scientific context for both the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology papers.) To my knowledge, the Douglass et al. International Journal of Climatology paper has never been retracted. Nor have the authors acknowledged the existence of any statistical errors in their work. The fact that John Christy has now cited a demonstrably-flawed scientific paper in his Congressional testimony - without any mention of errors in the Douglass et al. paper - is deeply disturbing. It is my opinion - and the opinion of many of my scientific colleagues - that the Douglass et al. International Journal of Climatology paper represents an egregious misuse of statistics. It is of great concern that this statistically-flawed paper has been used (and is still being used) as crucial "evidence of absence" of human effects on climate. " [Source: here] What Dr. Santer demonstrates above is incredibly troubling with regards to Christy's actions and his testimony.
93134. dana1981 at 16:48 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Camburn, please try to get on topic. We're talking about Christy's testimony, and whether GHGs pose a threat to public health would also be a relevant topic. Random criticisms of the EPA are not on topic. Nobody has proposed a carbon tax in the USA. EPA regulations are not a tax. A cap and trade system is not a tax. Also, nobody accused Christy of "fiddling with the data".
93135. johnd at 16:31 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Camburn at 14:54 PM, most people with any understanding of the Australian climate will agree with you entirely. Whilst official records only go back to the late 1800's making it difficult to appreciate longer term variations, there has been a wealth of unofficial records and anecdotal accounts they go back to first settlement. A project has been underway for the last couple of years that is compiling all such relevant information from journals, newspapers etc that will be used to reconstruct the conditions between first settlement, and even further back, and the beginning of official records. It is called the SEARCH project and all information is being fed into the OzDocs volunteer database. Most kids did early Australian history at school and should generally be well aware of the conditions that prevailed in those early days through what was taught of the early explorers and pioneers who opened up the country. This SEARCH project will help legitimise such anecdotal evidence and has already revealed much that had previously lay hidden, only known through stories.
93136. Camburn at 16:28 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Albatross: I gave a link to world wide cyclones/hurricane strength, number etc. The link of extremes in the USA are all within climatic norms for our country. UAH and RSS are both well within error bars of each other. The idea that Dr. Christy is fiddling with the data is unsupported. When there was an error detected he was very open about it and corrected it. This post was about US testimony. I am trying to show why AGW is not a concern in the USA. In reality, we have not been affected for some reason.
       Moderator Response: [DB] In reality, people who have taken the time to read and understand the science and the primary literature in the field disagree with you most severely.
93137. angusmac at 16:24 PM on 11 March 2011
       Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
       

       Albatross @67

       I am not aware of any misinformation in my post. All of the data presented by me is in the public domain and is available from the links in my post. Please point out where I am "perpetuating misinformation" and I will make appropriate corrections, otherwise a retraction from you would appear to be appropriate.

93138. Albatross at 16:18 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       Camburn can you please specifically address Christy's testimony, and if you think what Dana (and others) have noted, then please address those specific points. Quite frankly your posts thus far have been off topic and I'm surprised that they have not been deleted. FWIW, those interested in seeing for themselves the trends in extremes are doing for the USA, go here.
93139. johnd at 15:55 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Tom Curtis at 14:53 PM, again go back and read the exchange between Marcus and myself. Clearly the trend maps are totally relevant for the point being made.
93140. dana1981 at 15:54 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       By the way, I think the Yahoo Answers system is much better (though full disclosure, I'm the top answerer in the global warming section on that site). On Yahoo Answers, anyone can answer any question, but all answers are posted, whereas on Answers.com, you simply edit or replace an existing answer (if there is one). With Yahoo Answers, you get a lot of really bad answers, but you also get a lot of really good ones. With Answers.com it's really a crap shoot whether the answer provided to any given question is accurate. You only have one to choose from. The layout of Yahoo Answers is much better too. Questions are listed chronologically, so virtually every question gets multiple answers.
93141. Albatross at 15:54 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Camburn, In contrast to my previous statement to Tom Curtis, you (like your fellow "skeptics") do not impress. Why? Tom presents facts, links and data...you on the other hand present unsubstantiated opinions. Even though plant physiology is not my field of expertise, my latest research has required that I read quite a bit about it, and the two papers that I cited @51 were from 2010, and were based on real-world data (surface-based and satellite based). Now, if you are willing to make the effort to provide some credible peer-reviewed literature to back up your assertions we can go from there. And Marcus @56 makes some very valid points which you apparently choose to ignore.
93142. johnd at 15:53 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Tom Curtis at 14:59 PM, as you apparently have not been following this discussion, go back and read my post-johnd at 21:21 PM and subsequent ones. Most recently, the deliberate usage of the phrase "variable climate" by the outgoing President, and the general thrust of the new President in wanting to see more evidence is a definite shift from their earlier stated position of climate change being the greatest challenge facing farmers over the next century. Perhaps they might revert if sufficient evidence is forthcoming, but apparently what there is so far is not considered clear cut enough. My impression from listening to Jock Laurie is that they should stop and look carefully at all the evidence before rushing in and implementing any new measures as the government is want to do in various ways. It is not unknown for people or organisations to reconsider earlier positions as knowledge and events evolve.
93143. dana1981 at 15:48 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Chemware #1 - as rocco (#3) says, Wikipedia has a good editorial system. Answers.com does not. Anyone can go in and edit any answer in any manner they want on Answers.com, unless a Supervisor has locked the answer. It's just a bad system. rocco #3 - I don't think there's much that we can do, other than expose the flaws of the site and encourage others not to use it unless they're fixed. Several of us have appealed to the higher levels at Answers.com to no avail. It's a matter of choosing our battles, and we felt that the most effective way to respond to the misinformation at Answers.com was simply to expose it in a blog post. MattJ #4 - thanks. I had help from other Skeptical Science authors in compiling the examples of horrible Answers.com answers, although they're sadly not hard to come by. I agree, if you're going to call your site Answers.com, you'd better be able to provide accurate answers.
93144. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:42 PM on 11 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       I disagree with the aspects of trying to include feebacks to determine the answer to what would the temperature be if the Earth was the same and stable EXCEPT for CO2. Same insolation, same cloud, albedo, the works. What would the greenhouse effect be in that situation? A net energy transfer to the atmosphere is one method that could be used. If one analyzes total energy transfers to the atmosphere by the different components the following table is arrived at: Latent Heat: 80 W/m2 LW Absorption: 23 W/m2 Convection: 17 W/m2 If I use Gavin's paper and the CO2 contribution of 20% to the LW absorption which contributes to 19% of the total energy transfer to the atmosphere from the surface, then CO2 contributes 1.3C of the total GHE. Total energy transfer causes the total GHE. Trying to assume that only the energy transferred by LW absorption causes the GHE is a poor simplification. One could also consider the SW absorption to the total, but much of that takes place in the ozone layer which is independent of the troposphere. So I leave that out of this comment, but I have more here.
93145. Albatross at 15:27 PM on 11 March 2011
       Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
       Tom @62, You continue to impress :) The maps that johnd showed are really quite meaningless for the point he is trying to make, although his point is not that clear either.
93146. MattJ at 15:26 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       I noticed before on other topics, now poor the quality control is on Answers. com. But I never noticed that it was THAT bad! But I am glad that dana1981 has put so much effort into exposing them for their incompetence and really, dishonesty. For yes, claiming that the way to handle 'controversial' topics by giving equal time to "multiple viewpoints and opinions" really is dishonest. Especially for a site whose very name makes the presumptuous claim to have "The answer".
93147. rocco at 15:18 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Chemware: The main difference is that Wikipedia actually has at least some level of editorial control, which is something that most "citizen scientists" avoid like plague. dana1981: The obvious question: what do? The problems you describe are symptomatic for the entire "debate". We can't possibly be there every time somebody propagates misinformation.
93148. calyptorhynchus at 15:16 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Answers.com is just not a very good site and never has been. Don't bother to try to reform it, just put about the information that it should be avoided.
93149. Camburn at 15:12 PM on 11 March 2011
       Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
       It would seem that North America is exempt from weather extremes caused by AGW: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/1 http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e2e84bbd970b-pi Note, the above link is from NOAA And of course, we have the tropical storms. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ It would seem that the testimony given by the AGW proponent is slightly scewed.
93150. Chemware at 15:05 PM on 11 March 2011
       Wrong Answers dot com
       Curiously, Wikipedia does not suffer from the same problems to anywhere near the same extent. Perhaps the private sector has a vested interest ?

Prev  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  1869  1870  Next