Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 Next
Comments 93401 to 93450:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:54 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
Phillippe... I honestly think this is one of the biggest problems with the climate issue. Nearly everyone with a keyboard and access to the internet is suddenly an "expert." This bit about Carter really irked me. Writing this I really had to tone down my original dismay at the shoddy research coming from him. There are lots of folks out there who are computer programmers who fancy themselves climate scientists, people who have never written a paper on any aspect of physical science. Those guys you can discount as just not knowing what they're doing. But Carter has published before. He knows how to produce work that can get through peer review. But when it comes to this issue he somehow feels justified at not doing any real homework. It's just inexcusable. Heck, and all this just came out of the first 6 mins of a 40 minute lecture. -
Alexandre at 11:39 AM on 9 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
ClimateWatcher #21 You implied something diferent in your question: the measurements of solar, albedo, and output LW are all greater than CO2 forcing Now you say that it's the uncertainty ranges that still leave room for doubt. Please provide the references for those uncertainties (I'm not saying they're not true, I just want to discuss it based on facts). But picking the far end of ranges to construct some doubt is very different from "measurements of solar, albedo and OLR being greater than CO2 forcing". -
adelady at 11:32 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
@49 Fred Staples ".... can only repeat that there is no sign of any relationship to the increase in CO2 until the late 70's, by which time the CO2 concentration had increased from 280 to 350 ppm. (Climate scientists at that time thought we were heading for another ice age)." Any relationship?? The only measure you refer to is average global temperature. There is no logical or physical reason why a system as large and complex as the earth's atmosphere, land and oceans should show signs of a particular trend, first and worst, in the average atmospheric temperature. If you leave average global temperature aside, we could choose an assortment of other indicators. Mass and extent changes in land terminating glaciers, margin of ice around Antarctica, nighttime minimum temperatures, winter minimum temperatures, ocean temperature and several other items. (Sorry - on checking I've done something nasty to my list of references, but there are several on this site anyway.) But in the end that doesn't matter a lot. The evidence linking CO2 emissions and adverse temperature change is already in. Arguing about whether there were unnoticed signs 60 or 80 or 100 years ago is for scientists interested in excruciating detail. For living in the world, we have more than enough evidence to work with. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:19 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
Rob, as for not being a scientist, I have to say that it is by no means regarded as a hurdle by skeptics themselves. There is a large number of skeptic diatribes against argument from authority, what makes one an expert, the lack of necessity of having a degree in a field to reach that status, etc, etc. Considering that Monckton himself is anything but a scientist, Carter or anyone defending the SPPI's campaign could not possibly make such an argument in good faith. -
scaddenp at 11:07 AM on 9 March 2011It's albedo
Continuing from another thread RW1 - I am lost at what you are trying to do here but pretty obviously, you dont lose 48W/m2 for each m2 of cloud! You seem be trying to predict something about change in albedo associated with clouds but what about calculating the +ve change in DLR too? Clouds do both. -
Riduna at 10:58 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Hansen and Sato produced a brilliant Paper of research and scholarship deserving of far greater attention and the jangling of alarm bells. James Wight, through a lot of hard work has produced elegant summaries of that work in easy to understand language which should ensure that the Hansen Paper is more widely read and studied. The James Wight article is presented as a rebuttal of “Its not urgent” and there is no doubt it achieves this with its warnings of the perils associated with BUA, perils which I have warned against for years only to be ridiculed. In my view this article is a sound rebuttal of the linked concepts of “450ppm” and “less than 2C warming”. Politicians may love them but if pursued, they will prove lethal. Our problem is that emitters with vested interests (about 1,000 companies in Australia) will continue to resist moves to reduce carbon emissions, no matter what climate scientists tell us are the consequences. What they tell us is that if CO2 pollution persist at 450ppm or more for a prolonged period, result in melting of the WAIS and GIS with consequential SL rise of >2m by 2100, accelerating thereafter. The article goes further than Hansen and Sato in that it specifies action to reduce emissions. That process will prove very lengthy process because of the residence period of CO2 - unless we develop technology to extract it from the atmosphere and then use it for something useful like making oil for fertilizer and petro-chemical production. However, fossil oil is unlikely to remain a source of vehicle pollution beyond 2050 since Peak Oil was reached ~ 2008. The effect of Peak Oil is that thereafter the amount of oil extracted diminishes while demand for oil based fuels increases. The result: rapidly escalating prices putting the use of those fuels out of reach of ordinary consumers, possibly as soon as 2020 when electric vehicles will be de rigueur. Gas may become more widely used as a transitional fuel but it too is a finite commodity. Now don’t get me wrong. I fully support and in 2008 predicted/called for Australian coal to be phased out by 2030 (http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/coal.pdf) and I still expect that to happen. Even if other countries emulate our efforts, will that ensure that 450ppm is not exceeded by 2050 and double that by 2100? My critics (I have many) tell me coal is our mainstay, as it is in China, India, the USA and many other countries and there is no choice but to continue its use. My response is that Australia is blessed with the hottest, shallowest and most accessible hot granite in the world. Heat mining is well understood and underway and has proven capacity to meet Australia’s predicted needs for base load power for centuries to come. The world will be spurred to action when the first clear signs of impending catastrophe are so evident that they can not be ignored but not my stupid policies such as those advocated by the Opposition and climate change deniers – or by government targets of reducing emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.Moderator Response: I hope that peak oil will wake us up, but I fear the response is more likely to be burning tar sands and/or liquefying coal. A good argument has been made (Zero Carbon Australia 2020) that Australia's energy needs can be met by 100% renewable energy; we just need to convince our politicians of that. - James -
scaddenp at 10:48 AM on 9 March 2011CO2 lags temperature
This is continuation of argument in another thread. RW1 - Yes, I'm arguing the evidence doesn't support that GHGs (i.e. CO2 levels) are a significant factor in the glacial/interglacial cycle. Firstly, Timothy Chase (and the intermediate version here) challenges the idea evidence doesnt support it. Solar + albedo doesnt produce the same curve shape. Likewise how does NH change alter the SH as well? Second, this is an idea that only works without the maths. Like the idea that sealevel rise is due to more people and that they are obese. The change in DLR for the change in GHG can be calculated and the change in albedo can also be estimated. See the IPCC WG1 Chpt6 for the values of these forcing and source papers. Are you suggesting the albedo forcing is greater or DLR less? What papers support this? Actually the convincing evidence would be a physics-honouring model that can do it without GHGs but noone's been able to do that to date and they have been trying since Milankovitch. -
tjfolkerts at 09:05 AM on 9 March 2011CO2 effect is saturated
I know I am coming to this discussion late, but I wanted to discuss the statement from the advanced tab that states: "We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly." I have an alternate/additional hypothesis that I am trying to explore: * Raising the CO2 concentration should raise the effective altitude of the "last layer", since you need to go higher to get to a place where CO2 is thin enough to "let the IR escape". * Raising the altitude of the new "last layer" take us to a layer with a lower average temperature. * That cooler layer will radiate less energy. * To return to equilibrium, that new "last layer" must warm up, which will in turn warm all the layers below it. This mechanism is in addition to the effects of line broadening that have already been discussed. This fall apart a bit if that "last layer" is already at or above the tropopause. The temperatures in the model suggest that the "last layer" is still a little below the tropopause. Does any one here 1) have any links to the level of the effective "last layer"? 2) comments or corrections to what I am hypothesizing? -
RickG at 08:34 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred @ 49 I just can't let that go unchallenged Fred. 1) Measuring temperature in a plant environment and measuring temperature at an official meteorological station are completely different animals, not to mention the satellite data that is available. 2) Understanding cause and effect comes from studying the paleo-record and actual observations over long periods of time. Sure there is plenty we don't know. Conversely there is a lot we do know and we do know what those cause and effects are and every known attribute is taken into account, natural and anthropogenic. 3) The relationship of CO2 has been known since the mid 1800's and the physics is well known. 4) The reason for a slight decline in global average temps from the 1940s to 1970s was due to sulfate aerosols which are extremely short lived in the atmosphere because they are solid particles that get rained out. What changed was the regulation of sulfate emissions during the 70's. If you will look at the at the same temp trend for the southern hemisphere where massive industrialization and sulfate emissions were very low, they did not experience the slight cooling. 5) As for a coming ice age it was a media event. It was no where a consensus in the scientific literature. The over whelming published science was suggesting warming. 6) What do you mean "mid troposphere" where the CO2 is supposed to be? CO2 is an extremely well mixed gas in the atmosphere. Its not all contained in the mid troposphere nor does the UAH satellite measure it. 7) As for the temp difference of the mid troposphere and the surface, that is to be expected. What do you think affects us most, mid troposphere temps or surface temps where we live? -
KR at 08:33 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred Staples - "I can only repeat that there is no sign of any relationship to the increase in CO2 until the late 70's, by which time the CO2 concentration had increased from 280 to 350 ppm." Please take a look at CO2 is not the only driver, as well as Temp record is unreliable. You might also want to take a look at one of the UHI threads - use the Search box. CO2 has become the dominant forcing, but is still by no means the only one - nobody claims that except to make a strawman argument. As to the temperature record, we have enough data to make some very accurate measures of the temperature anomalies. And all of the measures (multiple land and satellite) agree to a rather astonishing degree. There's no justification for claiming the temperature record is unreliable. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
Fixed the link. Thanks! -
muoncounter at 08:05 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Harry S, "a basic timeframe on that statement?" Tamino's graph is the satellite temperature period only (since 1979), so it's no surprise it looks linear. Here's the full GISS record (130 years):
On this scale, the concave upwards profile can be seen quite clearly. The blue curves are different 'sensitivities,' although its been a while since I generated that particular graphic. So to answer your question, maybe it's already underway.
This was also demonstrated in one of the Monckton myth threads (linear warming). The lesson there was that even a constant annual increase in CO2 concentration results in a concave up temperature profile - because the forcing just keeps on forcing.
-
Fred Staples at 08:04 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Even if you accept, 47, the AGW theory, you must accept that not much happened while CO2 increased from 280 to 350ppm. I was once responsible for monitoring temperature and humidity in a nuclear power plant. The idea that it could be done with any degree of accuracy in one factory across the seasons was, believe me, absurd. So is the idea that you can not only measure but explain changes in the global average temperature (that's the average temperature across all the lands and oceans, across the globe). The best we can do is to monitor changes at varying points across the globe, at more or less regular times, day and night, and make crude corrections for urban heat island effects. To relate the variations in this data to cause and effect is impossible. I do not know why the medieval warm period happened. I have no idea why the globe then descended into the little ice age, or why it emerged during the 19th and 20th centuries. I can only repeat that there is no sign of any relationship to the increase in CO2 until the late 70's, by which time the CO2 concentration had increased from 280 to 350 ppm. (Climate scientists at that time thought we were heading for another ice age). If you are certain that the increase in temperatures over the past 30 years is permanent and not transient, compare the UAH satellite lower troposphere trend with the mid-troposphere trend (where the action from CO2 is supposed to be). Both sets of data are from 1979 to date: Lower troposphere : 1.4 degrees C per century Mid troposphere : 0.5 degrees C per century If you look at both charts you will see that most of their rather feeble increases depend on the 1998 peak and the subsequent 2008 to 2010 peak. On that set of data over the last 12 years depends the whole AGW edifice. I agree that those modest temperature changes happened, 43. I do not know why they happened. They provide little or no support for CO2 induced AGW theories.Moderator Response: Let's say for the sake of argument that the temperature record is rubbish. How do you explain the rising tropopause, cooling stratosphere, rising humidity, increasing intense rainfall and flooding, rising sea level, shrinking ice sheets and glaciers, expanding subtropics, migrating species, melting permafrost, and disappearing Arctic sea ice? And why isn’t the rising carbon dioxide having any effect? -
MattJ at 07:24 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
@JMurphy, #36: What your numbers don't tell us is even more important though: it was China and India who sabotaged the Copanhagen talks, refusing to allow enforceable limits, because their use of coal and oils is also growing. Worse yet, they are unwilling to slow that growth for the sake of future benefits. They would rather destroy the chance for a healthy economy for the whole world than give up on their rapid growth now. -
Mateo Panthera at 07:12 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
Your Miller 2010 link in the first paragraph is broken -
muoncounter at 06:59 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred S "The warming trend overall is just 0.45 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.4 and 0.5 degrees C." A straight line fit over that long a time run may look pretty and sound emotionally satisfying, but it is physically meaningless. You should start by looking at what has changed in the environment over that time period: solar output, aerosols, volcanic events, etc. Try to include all the so-called natural forcings you can find and calculate what they do to temperature. You simply won't be able to recreate the temperature record without adding in anthropogenic CO2 as a positive forcing. That's been demonstrated here time and again; you can find it using Search if you are so inclined. And btw, most graphs show ~0.16C per decade globally.
--from Assessing global surface temperatures
-
Harry Seaward at 06:55 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Muon @ 45, "Of course, that's not going to stay a straight line for long, as continued CO2 radiative forcing will result in concave up (accelerating) temperature change." Do you have a basic timeframe on that statement? -
muoncounter at 06:50 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
garyt, "I still see the period of 'flatness' in the last 11 years" It's hard to tell what can be seen in a graph with a linear fit yielding r^2=0.07; eleven years of temperature data just aren't enough. Perhaps you should look at a temperature analysis that takes out short-term bumps:
--from Tamino's Open Mind, 1/20/2011
A quick eyeball straight line gives 0.2degC/decade, which is convenient because you show ~20ppm increase in CO2 over 10 years. That gives 0.2/20 = 0.01 degrees per ppm increase, which is exactly what the graph from Grumbine showed. You'll no doubt see a stronger correlation coefficient as well.
Of course, that's not going to stay a straight line for long, as continued CO2 radiative forcing will result in concave up (accelerating) temperature change.
Moderator Response: [DB] Ah, yes, the next great "skeptic" meme: "I see flatness". We'll have to add that one to the rolls. -
Rovinpiper at 06:23 AM on 9 March 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
Is there a thread that discusses the potential for systems that are already well-established to be a part of a carbon-neutral power grid. Examples would be nuclear power fossil fuels with Carbon Capture and Sequestration? -
hank at 06:19 AM on 9 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
oh, and on the first link -- I point it out as one that needs to be looked at carefully on the question of climate sensitivity. The 'discussion' page is going to be very attractive to self-identified skeptics; it may be in the same ballpark as Spencer's "yes Virginia" or Curry's "Sky Dragon" attempts to explain the basic science in a way that will draw in people who don't want to believe there could be a problem. It may be well presented stuff with a denier core -- hard to say without reading every bit: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page46.htm But this doesn't look good (sigh) they're "Teaching the Controversy" (TM Doonesbury) on ocean pH, leaving out the rates of change and the observed results so far: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page50.htm -
Paul Magnus at 06:16 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Alan @ 8, I am afraid your interpretation is probably right. As a civilization we are basically toast. Add in peak oil for sting in the wound. We are in the beginning of a ME event right now and the biosphere is going to take a hit for a long time also. Ocean acidification is going to be nasty too, and theres not much we can do about that now. Its basically 'the end of the world' . Its a reset. We have to keep fighting for the best path through this though. Its all about survival. -
mspelto at 06:15 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
To be a participating scientist in the advancement of our collective science knowledge one is constantly accountable for being accurate in referencing other scientists, peer reviewing others research, and in the the reporting of your own research. If one is not then they will not be part of the enterprise of advancing science in the long term and their career as a scientist will be limited. If one's career diverges from being a scientist than you may prosper as a former scientist, by not acting as accountable to science. -
arch stanton at 06:12 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
So…Besides representing data in a misleading way, it would appear that Carter has lost the ability to make a proper citation; something that (hopefully) was a (minimal) equirement of his earning his doctorate... -
Albatross at 06:12 AM on 9 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 2 - Addressing Dr. Bob Carter
Rob, Nice work. Do not sell yourself short. Also, you are in excellent company and on the side of science, not ideology. That matters. -
Bibliovermis at 06:05 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Do you realize the fallacy of using a regional temperature to counter the global temperature average? if the temperature record had not increased relatively sharply after the 19seventies, no-one would have taken AGW seriously. True. If [physical effect] didn't occur, no would take [scientific theory describing effect] seriously. How is that tautology relevant? -
Geo77 at 05:59 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
It's puzzling that discussions of burning our fossil fuels don't seem to consider a time period going out beyond a couple of centuries. But then given a culture that is captivated by quarterly reports, annual earnings and that can't seem to plan more than a couple of years into the future I suppose that's not too surprising. Unless we see homo sapiens as a flash in the pan, doomed to go down in flames in the next couple thousand years - then the question arises what's our strategy once we start creeping back into an ice age? At that point wouldn't it be helpful to have fossil fuels to burn in a controlled manner to try to cancel out the cooling effects that are coming? If we're concerned about humanity's ultimate future shouldn't we be saving/stockpiling those fossil fuels for the many generations to come who could use them much more beneficially? So aside from the fact that reducing fossil fuel usage through alternative energy production is: 1) economically beneficial (an economy dependent on a depleting energy source is a doomed economy as prices eventually skyrocket with increased demand and reduced supply) and 2)the most reasonable way to mitigate the potentially disasterous effects of AGW - it also makes sense in the long, long run if we're really concerned with the future of our species. But then our track record for thinking rationally about our future is nothing short of abysmal.Moderator Response: (DB) On the bright side, we've probably skipped the next ice age en toto; BAU for another 20-30 years and we skip the next 5. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:40 AM on 9 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
#16. Trenberth meant that it's a travesty that we can't adequately track the heat energy in the climate system. Right. That means we cannot ascribe the observed warming to anything because the current budget cannot account for where the energy is going. Difference between 1997 and 2009? How about 12 additional years of intensive research. Science advances to create better understanding. Unfortunately, the numbers from '09 are significantly different from numbers in IPCC scenarios and a host of other published papers. Do you understand what he's saying about "turning around the null hypothesis?" He means it is clearly shown by the research that we are warming the planet. The evidence is overwhelming. No. AGW theory postulates that output will decline until surface warming boosts output back to match input. We don't know the input. We don't know the output. Therefore, we don't know if the theory is correct. -
logicman at 05:38 AM on 9 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
Re: my comment #78 - html link fixed, thanks. The profile needs a no tags url, unlike the comments pages. By putting in tags, I seem to have provoked your site's software into adding a no-follow. -
Fred Staples at 05:36 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Why, Bibliovermis, 38? Because it is a long, reasonably self-consistent record. It demonstrates the essential point about AGW very clearly. Which is that, if the temperature record had not increased relatively sharply after the 19seventies, no-one would have taken AGW seriously. You can see the same effect in all the other long-run records. HardCru3, quotes global temperatures over 161 years from 1850 - the period when the globe emerged from the Little Ice Age. The warming trend overall is just 0.45 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.4 and 0.5 degrees C. Most of that warming has appeared in the last 35 years (1.7 degrees per century). From 1850 to 1975 the trend was a very modest 0.25 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.19 and 0.3 degrees per century. Most of the explanations of AGW (and there are many) are not even plausible, but it is difficult to persuade non-physicists of that fact. It it easier to demonstrate that, if the AGW effect exists, it waited until the Western industrial revolution was over before making an appearance. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:17 AM on 9 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
#18 Alexandre, the errors of measurement ( as reflected by the range of published values ) of outgoing longwave and alebdo are each greater than the ~3W/m^2 modeled for CO2 doubling. The uncertainty of one quarter of Solar radiance is less but still large 1 W/m^2. Trenberth knows this - it is the travesty and it is borne out by his '97 and '09 papers which vary greatly, much more greatly than the 0.9 W/m^2 imbalance proclaimed by the '09 paper. CO2 should be causing a forcing, but we don't know this from observation because the measurements lack both the precision and accuracy. At its core, AGW theory is that outgoing IR will be reduced until the earth heats up and again balances output with input. But our measurements don't even reflect this. The outgoing longwave actually shows an increasing trend:
Undoubtedly there are problems with the measurements ( all the NOAA satellite data series strung together with orbital issues, etc. ) But that's what the measurements indicate.
Greater problems exist with albedo. Particularly since albedo has directional components and variation. Ranges of about 8W/m^2 exist in published estimations of what albedo is today and no one knows how albedo may have varied over the past.
CO2 should cause warming, but we do not know this from observation of the energy balance.
-
RickG at 05:14 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Just got through watching the "House Climate Science Committee". I am deeply saddened. -
garythompson at 05:12 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Thanks muoncounter in #33 for the reply. Even when looking at yearly averages instead of monthly averages I still see the period of 'flatness' in the last 11 years and the graph is shown below. I think the reason for this is the heat buildup in the oceans as this post alludes to so my point in posting this comment was to poll the team here and find out when this heat is going to be released.
-
Bibliovermis at 05:01 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Fred (#28), Why are you using Central England temperatures to counter global temperatures? Globally, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record; 1880 to present. December 2010 was the coolest since 2000 and 1982 & 1994 for 17th warmest on record. State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010 -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:16 AM on 9 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Gilles #96... If you kept up with this topic (electric cars) you'd understand that pretty much every car company is developing an electric right now. Nissan and Chevy are out in front with the launch of their first new generation EV's. Nissan sold out their entire first year of production in very short order. Tesla has now teamed up with Toyota to reopen the NUMMI plant in Fremont CA to produce their luxury EV. Freaking sweet car! 300 mile range. 0-60 in under 6 secs.
Mini has an electric in the works.
Smart has an electric in the work...
The list is growing very very quickly.
-
ranyl at 04:12 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
"Here we quantify the median γ as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html Arkadiusz Semczyszak From the paper you quoted and therefore my “... that some models suggest that the CO2 that gone into the sinks will be released and there is of course the climate warming CO2 feedback with gives out about 10-20ppm per 1C”; is as per that very same paper although it should have been 5-20ppm as their are very skewed. More from the paper, they constructed a temeprature ensemble of ensembles and found; "The warmest pre-anthropogenic period (1071–1100) was 0.38 uC warmer than 1601–1630, suggesting that recent anthropogenic influences have widened the last-millennium multi-decadal temperature range by ,75% and that late twentieth century warmth exceeds peak temperatures over the past millennium by 0.31 uC." The 80% comment needs to be read carefully as it is saying that as the CO2 rise per 1C is less by at least half and this reduces the amplifiaction of temperature rise due to this feedback by 80% less not that CS is any less at all just not due to CO2 release feedback and 80% seems high as previous CO2 per K feedback estimates were 40ppm. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1642.full#F1 So the 80% isn't is that climate sensitivity to a rise in CO2 is less in any way, just not to accelerating CO2 atmospheric concentrating. In Pliocene temepratures were 3-5C hotter compared to pre-industrial and CO2 was about 350-400ppm, which is a CO2 release/ storage of about 14-40ppm, which is probaly about right considering the values in the papers and the skewed graph in Frank's paper meaning higher CO2 per 1C are more possible. So the Frank paper wasn't looking at CS for temperature it was looking at how sensitive the world is at releasing CO2 per 1C rise in temprature which is a very different thing. It also taken in a time period when temepratures were colder than now and the possibility of large releases of CO2 from frozen ground and sea floor were a lot less. With CO2e hoovering at 450-60ppm (0.7 of a doubling) aren't you just a little concerned that 2C is a distinct possibility even if all CO2 emissions stopped today? -
dana1981 at 03:47 AM on 9 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
daisym #92:"Wind, solar, etc. won’t do the job."
Sorry, this is wrong. As the moderator noted, please see the rebuttal to the myth Renewables can’t provide baseload power (which coincidentally, I also wrote)."If as you say, California rates have increased as per capita consumption has decreased, you and I implicitly agree on these very dynamics"
Only one problem - that's not what I said. What I said was that California per capita consumption has remained flat while the rest of the country's has increased, yet our rates are not significantly higher than the national average."Let’s not forget that Californians are not paying the full cost for renewable energy, thanks to massive Federal subsidies."
As muoncounter noted in #93, every energy source in the USA gets federal subsidies, including oil and coal."I still insist that the “threat to humanity” is an overblown alarmist cry."
Insist all you want. As muoncounter also noted, insistance without evidence isn't worth much. I suggest you peruse this site to learn about the scientific evidence that global warming is a major threat. It's a great resource. Gilles #96:"You may imagine that electric cars could replace it, but they don't develop"
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Electric cars are already being developed, even by major car companies (see the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, for example). I already own an electric motorcycle. You're saying that something which exists doesn't exist. There's a word for that. It starts with the letter "D"."BTW , the electricity is mainly made from fossil fuels in the world, so even electric cars wouldn't change the CO2 production"
This statement is totally wrong. -
michael sweet at 03:45 AM on 9 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
GC, Hansen has proposed tax and dividend to get around your proposal for allowing bureacrats to spend all the money. If we dividend all the carbon tax to the people they can spend it on anything they wamt to. Why are you so insistant that we should give it all to bureacrats? Skeptics like you are against anything and do not care what has actually been proposed. find out what has been proposed before you are against it.Moderator Response: [DB] GC's comment was again deleted due to repeated violations of the comments policy. If you recognize comments containing obvious violations, keep in mind that replies to comments getting deleted are normally deleted also. DNFtT. -
JMurphy at 03:39 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
For those 'worrying' about India and China - don't : they are well ahead of you and actually doing things while you 'worry' about them : Renewable Energy in China, India To Hit $53.0 Billion, $14.4 Billion Respectively by 2016 The report ‘Renewable Energy Investment in China, India and Brazil’ concludes with a viewpoint on why there is no end to investment in the renewable energy market. India has a flourishing nuclear power program and plans to have 20,000 MWe of nuclear capacity on line by 2020. China has electricity demand growing at 20% per year and a rapidly-expanding nuclear power program. Nuclear capacity of at least 40,000 MWe is planned by 2020. India is already self-sufficient in reactor design and construction and China has become so for second-generation units, but is importing Generation-3 plants. India's uranium resources are limited, so it is focusing on developing the thorium fuel cycle to utilise its extensive reserves of thorium. China's uranium resources are modest and it is starting to rely on imported uranium. -
JMurphy at 03:31 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Harry Seaward wrote : "Until (read when and if) solar, wind, wave, or other forms of "clean" energy become reliable and readily available, fossil fuels are going to rule the roost." I can almost hear a voice from the 19th Century proclaiming : "Until (read when and if) oil becomes reliable and readily available, coal is going to rule the roost." And, before that : "Until (read when and if) coal becomes reliable and readily available, horse-power is going to rule the roost." See how things can change, given enough backing ? Fred Staples wrote : "But if annual temperatures fall back from an average of 10.36 in the decade ending 2009 to the 9.54 average in the decade ending 1979, the AGW alarm will fall silent. Last year the average temperature was 8.83 degrees C, the 90th coldest year in the record, exactly the same as the temperature in the first year of the record, 1659. December, 2010, was the second coldest December." If, if, if. Does that mean anything, when the year so far (Jan and Feb) is showing a higher average anomaly than last year ? Do you believe the anomalies are going to continue to show negative, or are going to be all less than last year ? And why would you think that this decade is going to fall back to the levels seen in the 70s, when every decade since has been higher than the previous ? What are you expecting to cause those cool temperatures ? Will you fall silent if it doesn't ? Also, what do you think you can prove from single years, or even months ? -
Gilles at 03:10 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
32 Actually thoughtful : again, you should explain that carefully to chinese and indian people. They don't seem to get it. -
muoncounter at 03:05 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
garyt, CO2 has an annual cycle, so your monthly graph is drowning in this noise. The graph in question should be one of annual temperature and average annual CO2:
-- from Grumbine, March 2009
And that's well before 2010 was tied for the hottest year on record, with CO2 in the high 380s. But whatever, its just a correlation and we all know that doesn't mean much these days.
-
actually thoughtful at 02:55 AM on 9 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Gilles, How about the introduction of agriculture into our civilization. Care to comment on the relationship between that development and temperature? I think your final paragraph goes miles past what the science shows us. -
actually thoughtful at 02:50 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Gilles at 6 - regarding your differential equation - you are assuming dC is based on cheap fossil fuel. You are incorrect. It is based on cheap energy. And fossil fuels, after you factor in global warming and other pollutions (asthma, the ravages of extraction, particulate matter from burning, etc.) are the most expensive fuels we have. Given renewables are, in reality, cheaper, you don't actually have an argument. -
Kevin C at 02:35 AM on 9 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Now that Arthur has shown us that the relationship between Spencer's forcing term (for which he uses the PDO) and his temperature series is a convolution, we can go the other way and predict what forcing would be required to produce a given temperature series, using a method called deconvolution. There is a slight difficulty in the deconvolution can be a bit unstable, however if we stick to reconstructing a smoothed temperature series rather than trying to fit every annual variation, then it is fairly easy. So here is the HADCRUT2v data back to 1856, supplemented by the CRUTEMP2v data back to 1781. I used the smoothed data from here. I've predicted Spencer's forcing required to fit the data, and then re-run it through Arthur's version of Spencer's model to produce the temperature series. Here's the result:
What forcing is required to produce this temperature series? Here is the forcing, compared to the actual PDO (11 year smooth) over the last century:
There are a few interesting features: The match in the mid 20thC is reasonable as you would expect. A much higher forcing is required to reproduce all of the steep rise after 1970.
More interesting is the beginning of the 20thC. We see the strong and prolonged negative PDO up to 1900 required to produce the cooler temperatures of the late 19th and early 20th century. Not only is this an exceptionally deep PDO (unlike anything in the measured period), it also bears no relation to the measured data from 1900 to 1920.
Going back further to pre-1950 we see wild fluctuations in the smoothed PDO, to produce the sharp changes in the instrumental temperature record. However the record back then is based on only a few stations, so these ripples may not be genuine.
-
newcrusader at 02:34 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Hansen feels that by 2100- 5 meters is a reasonable number. -
Yvan Dutil at 02:33 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
I dont know were you take your data but those are certainly not global.Moderator Response: Hansen et al accounted for their data not being global by multiplying by the probable ratio. They assumed temperature changes in ice core data were twice the global average. They assumed changes in deep ocean temperature were two-thirds the global average in the late Cenozoic, and allowed for the possibility that it was higher in the early Cenozoic. - James -
muoncounter at 02:29 AM on 9 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Gilles, "You may imagine that electric cars could replace it, but they don't develop even if the barrel hit 150 $" As usual, you've offered an authoritative-sounding opinion without evidence to back it up. In this case, there is evidence to the contrary from Scott et al 2007: ... analysis of purchasing decisions shows that at existing average residential electricity rates and over a range of gasoline prices, prospective vehicle purchasers could afford to pay a premium of up to a few thousand dollars over the cost of either a standard 27.5-mpg and/or high-efficiency 35-mpg vehicle and still break even on the life-cycle cost of purchasing and operating a PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle). The range of gasoline prices analyzed (in 2007) was $2-3.50 per gallon; we've just blown past those prices, making PHEV look even more economic. Couple that analysis with this news: China Announces Plans to Make 1 Million Electric Cars Per Year By 2015 and the game changes yet again. Perhaps its time to offer some facts instead of mere opinion-based pronouncements. "ALL facts show that our way of life is totally dependent on FF consumption, and NO fact shows that it depends strongly on average temperature." A very revealing declaration. I suppose that is partially true, depending on where you live. There are a number of threads here at SkS you can look at if you are interested in facts to fill in the supposed 'NO fact'-based void. But since you've made such a strong statement of denial, I'm guessing that facts aren't such a valuable commodity. -
garythompson at 02:26 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
So if I read this post correctly, the reason there appears to be no correlation (over the recent past) between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Temperature anomoly when CO2 is above 370ppm is because "there is further warming in the pipeline".
The oceans are storing up all this heat and once it is released there will be at least a doubling of the warming that the fast feedbacks are producing. When will this release occur? You state that if the current CO2 level remains at the 390ppm level that we'll experience sea level increases of 25 meters. We will most certainly be at and above that CO2 concentration for the forseeable future so what is the predicted year we'll see that 25 meters of sea level rise? There are many dire predictions in this post but they are all many decades out and very ambiguous on when they will happen. Can you be more specific with regard to time scales of say 5 years out?
Moderator Response: We don’t have a good knowledge of the timeframe; that’s one of the scary parts. The question is how fast can the ice sheets respond? On the upside, a 25 meter sea level rise wouldn’t happen overnight; it would probably take at least a few centuries. On the downside, there is a possibility of a few metres of sea level rise this century, and that possibility is looking increasingly likely. Even if Hansen’s ice sheet feedback doesn’t get us, there are still greenhouse gas feedbacks… – James -
hank at 02:13 AM on 9 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
The prior suggestions are 1) poptech redefining the laws of physics, a notorious outlier shows his stuff everywhere 2) Isaac Held has a blog, finally. If you don't know his name, read some of his papers and look for his rare posts at other climate blogs about his work. Very good news to see him start writing more for the public in this blog form. 3) Stoat on Spencer on climate sensitivity: Spencer thinks he can't possibly be wrong, and given that assumption, what else can explain why he's so alone? -
Fred Staples at 02:12 AM on 9 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Harry Seaward is quite right. The West in general, and the UK in particular, have enjoyed the benefits of an industrial revolution, which the East now seeks to emulate. It might be interesting to compare the direct evidence, the atmospheric temperature and CO2 records to see if it likely that China and India (or Amrica for that matter) might be persuaded to abandon carbon fuels. The Central England Temperature, measured by thermometers, illuminates the AGW argument. Anyone looking at he overall plot will be struck by the very modest rise in overall temperatures from 1659 to 1979, 320 years. In that time the CO2 concentratiom increased from 280 ppm to 350ppm, with almost no discernible increase in temperature. A linear regression actually gives the rate of increase at 0.19 degrees C per century - per century, not per decade. Between 1980 and 2010 the rate increased very sharply, to almost 3 degrees C per century, while CO2 increased from 350 to 385 ppm. The AGW alarm sounded and has reverberated ever since in blogs like this. Now statistics as a subject is silent about the future, and we cannot project either of these two rates. But if annual temperatures fall back from an average of 10.36 in the decade ending 2009 to the 9.54 average in the decade ending 1979, the AGW alarm will fall silent. Last year the average temperature was 8.83 degrees C, the 90th coldest year in the record, exactly the same as the temperature in the first year of the record, 1659. December, 2010, was the second coldest December.
Prev 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 Next
