Recent Comments

Prev  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  1869  1870  1871  1872  1873  1874  1875  1876  1877  1878  Next

Comments 93501 to 93550:

93501. johnd at 15:33 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Riccardo at 00:36 AM, frequency would only be irrelevant if the situation you originally described was the case, that being "Whatever the impact of one phase might be, the opposite phase would have the opposite effect and after a full cycle the system would be brought back to where it was at the beginning.", however that would be to assume opposite phases to be mirror images of each other. The PDO, or any other such ocean atmosphere systems are based around geographic distribution of warmer and cooler SST's, and the difference between each phase is the relative location of the warmer waters versus the cooler waters. In addition there is also the relative location to adjoining land masses. In addition, within each phase there is also a "front" and a "back" where the system also manifests itself in different ways. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is to consider that what El-Nino means to those on the eastern rim of the Pacific is what La-Nina means to those on the western rim. What then has to be also taken into account is that the surface of the planet is an irregular surface, with a very uneven distribution of land masses, and different ocean conditions, meaning that when the systems change phase, the physical environment also alters which then influences how the system interacts with the local and adjoining regions, thus determining how it ultimately manifests itself, and how that then controls the liberation or conservation of heat as it transfers between the ocean and the atmosphere, which then feeds into whether the ocean is gaining or losing heat in that particular location, during that particular phase. If identical circumstances were in play at either side of each phase, then perhaps I could see how things may balance out. But I suspect that they are not, and if that means things do not return to balance as each cycle completes, then a changing frequency becomes relevant.
93502. KR at 15:22 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       TIS - Keep in mind, "It's just a jump to the left, then a step to the right". Oscillations don't add energy; they just move it around. The PDO is a redistribution, not an added amount of total energy such as we see in global warming.
93503. jyyh at 14:52 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       An odd thought, while it's clear PDO (or AMO for that matter) cannot explain GW, could it relate to the speed of arctic amplification? This claim would base itself to the Bering strait flows, which at least in the summer are going mostly north for the warmer waters of the Pacific. Years back I thought that this PDO thing was somehow cleverly modified derivative of the overall GW signal, but looks like there is something else too, at least on regional (well continental) level. But still, if there's no predictive model there's not much use to an index.
93504. Marcus at 14:01 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Yes, Muon & Timothy, the point I meant was that the various ocean oscillations move heat energy around-both from one part of the ocean to another, & also between the ocean & the surrounding atmosphere-& vice versa. The point is that this heat energy isn't being created out of nothing-its heat energy that has already been added from another source. As an example, the 1998 El Nino was simply releasing a large amount of stored heat from the oceans into the atmosphere-probably accumulated over the previous decade or two-it didn't *create* that heat. Hope that makes more sense.
93505. Timothy Chase at 13:52 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       The Inconvenient Skeptic wrote:

       In the 1998 event the average global temperature increased by more than 0.5C. That energy was not simply moved around the surface of the Earth. The La Nina did not create the energy, but it added energy to the surface and the atmosphere that wasn't at the surface before. So these events do add (or take) energy to the system.

       If one's idea of "the climate system" is limited to the first couple of meters of the atmosphere and the first few centimeters of ocean, then yes, of course these events can add energy to "the system." However I doubt that this is what Marcus was thinking of when he posted his comment. By "climate system" I would assume he meant at least the first ten kilometers of atmosphere and more importantly the ocean that extends well below those first 10 centimeters where the temperature of the ocean is usually measured. On average the ocean goes down to a depth of over 2.6 miles and at its deepest 6.85 miles -- and unless you've found a wormhole its a pretty safe bet that the only way the ocean is going to heat up is if the rate at which energy is entering the climate system through the top of the atmosphere is greater than the rate at which energy is leaving the climate system through the top of the atmosphere. This is called "radiation balance theory" since the only way energy is going to enter or leave is as radiation. It is a cornerstone of climate science. But in terms of the balance of energy you can think of it as the principle of conservation of energy -- which Marcus alluded to when he said that climate oscillations cannot create energy -- they can only move it about. We know of course that other than the ups and downs of the solar cycle solar irradiance has been flat to falling since at least 1962. So it doesn't look like what explains the net increase of energy in the system lies with the rate at which energy is entering the system. So we have to look at the other side of the equation: the rate at which energy leaves the system. And we have a pretty good idea of what is happening there. Now if you are a regular here you have undoubtedly run into the essay Did global warming stop in 1998? (intermediate) which shows that more than 20X as much of the excess heat that has entered the climate system has gone into the ocean. Sometimes some of that heat comes back to the surface -- but as Marcus points out the climate oscillation didn't create that heat. The temperature of the ocean is increasing, including the deep ocean. And in fact the ocean is where the vast majority of the heating is taking place. If you just look at the surface or the atmosphere you are harboring a rather superficial view of the climate system. If so, you should probably venture a little further away from land some time.
93506. muoncounter at 13:51 PM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Blessthefall, "what good is it doing when China and India's emissions continue to rise?" US emissions are still 4x China and 10x India on a per capita basis. We have short memories. Fifty years ago the western US had terrible air pollution problems; thirty years ago it was eastern block Europe's Black Triangle. Both have cleaned up through tough emissions standards. If China et al admit that their Brown Clouds are a problem they can get started cleaning up, it will make the US even more unpopular.
93507. muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       TIS "La Nina did not create the energy, but it added energy to the surface and the atmosphere that wasn't at the surface before. So these events do add (or take) energy to the system." That's just plainly untrue, as even a Spencer graph shows: Temperatures after the '98 el Nino were the same as they were going in. No net heat increase. Oscillations have no input to the trend.
93508. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 12:50 PM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Marcus, Consider a strong La Nina event. The atmosphere starts neutral and the ocean starts to warm. As the SST increases and the area affected also increases the atmosphere starts to warm from convective and latent heat transfers. In the 1998 event the average global temperature increased by more than 0.5C. That energy was not simply moved around the surface of the Earth. The La Nina did not create the energy, but it added energy to the surface and the atmosphere that wasn't at the surface before. So these events do add (or take) energy to the system. I will also add that MacDonald's study was a tree-ring study that used results during a mega-drought. I would much rather trust a corral reconstruction for something like SST's.
93509. Marcus at 11:59 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       As far as I understand it, the point here is that the PDO-like the NAO & the AO-cannot actually *create* energy within the system-all they do is move that energy around. If that is the case, then the PDO can't really be a *cause* of warming-it must surely be responding to another source of energy entering the system.
93510. Marcus at 11:49 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       @BTF. If you will keep repeating the same fallacies-in multiple threads-over & over again, like an obstinate 5-year old, then that's exactly how I'm going to speak to you. That said, I didn't speak to you that way when I tried-very calmly-to explain why your claims are fallacious. You keep telling us that Coal, Oil & Nuclear are "cheap & efficient", yet at the end of the day all 3 energy sources consume a relatively expensive, non-renewable resource in a extremely thermally inefficient manner in order to generate energy. Given that the fuel sources also involve expensive & highly destructive extraction techniques-not to mention the extremely toxic by-products that their consumption generates-it becomes easy to see how your claims of "cheapness & efficiency" simply don't stack up. If they are so "efficient", then why is the majority of the fuel consumed without producing anything useful? (The most efficient Coal power stations only convert 35% of the energy released from the coal into electricity-the rest being lost as waste heat. The most efficient Nuclear Power stations (highly experimental gas-cooled varieties) only convert 50 % of the energy released into usable electricity. The most efficient Internal Combustion Engines only convert 20% of the energy released from petrol into forward momentum-the rest being lost as waste heat). If they're so cheap, then why do all 3 industries still demand massive subsidies from tax-payers-60-150 years after the technologies were first introduced? Modern Renewable Energy technologies have been around for as little as 30 years yet-with only a small fraction of the Government Support enjoyed by your "cheap & efficient" technologies-they've managed to achieve massive strides in efficiency, reliability & cost per kw-h. Now its true that some Oil companies might publicly promote a "belief" in AGW, or support for renewable energy technologies-but this is purely for PR purposes. Behind the scenes, the oil & coal industries are the biggest financial backers of those organizations most vociferously promoting "skepticism" about both AGW & the usefulness of renewable energy & energy efficiency measures-because whatever they might say publicly, they'll all do whatever it takes to protect their massive profit margins.
93511. Tom Curtis at 11:02 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       ranyl @43, the increased price of oil is driven primarily the increased demand from India, and especially China. The increased prices will put a dent in that demand, but won't eliminate the factors that are driving it. However, if you think that it does not effect car purchases, consider this graph:
93512. Rob Honeycutt at 10:59 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Blessthefall @ 38 said... "Rob, I don't see how one country reducing emissions will do anything if the rest of the world goes unchecked. It doesn't make any sense. Some say it's a "good place to start," but what good is it doing when China and India's emissions continue to rise?" I know this was for another Rob, but you might take note that China is putting huge amounts of money into renewable sources. Vastly more than we are. They want to develop those technologies so that they can sell them to us. We need to be doing the same in order to sell them the technologies they need. That's what we're good at but we're rapidly slipping in that area. Look, this is all a no-brainer. In coming decades the entire world will be involved in pricing carbon. Pricing it enables us to develop technologies for the future. By avoiding this we are risking our future standing as the leader of the modern economic world.
93513. Tom Curtis at 10:38 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       Williambaskerville @59, to answer my question of the prior post - evidently not. Trust you when shown the overall temperature trend once the influences of the solar cycle and ENSO to show the raw figures, and cherry pick the bit between the largest El Nino on record and a near record La Nina and talk about flattening.
93514. Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       williambaskerville, you may well like to look up the definition of "ad hominen". My comments indicated that a certain argument was silly, not that a particular person was. I also indicated that a particular activity was foolish. It is not ad hominen to say it is foolish to bang your head against the wall, even in the presence of somebody who is doing it. It is of course open to anybody to judge the foolishness or wisdom of that man if, after you have reminded them how foolish their activity is, they do not stop. Now on to your head banging ... The chart may only start in 1977, but you already have the comment of scaddenp @30 that the glacier's are in long term retreat. Also the comment of nigelj @45 (after your cherry picking post, but before your futile attempt to defend it) that, "Over the last 100 years the trend is most glaciers are retreating, or a nett decrease in ice mass. From NIWAS website." And, of course, and most crucially, you had from NIWA at the link provided with the graph where you foolishly cherry picked the upward trends, the comment that, " NIWA’s snowline surveys show an overall decrease in the glacier mass balance", and that:

       2. Despite the sensitivity of New Zealand glaciers to changes in both precipitation and temperature, the volume of ice in the Southern Alps dropped by roughly 50% during the last century. New Zealand’s temperature increased by about 1 °C over the same period. I would also point out that as you are trying to find an equivalent case to that studied by Koch & Clague, you needed a case in which there was wide spread regional glacier growth over the course of the century (such as they found in the MWP), and should yourself have checked whether NZ's glacier growth was century long, or just a few years or decades. Had you done so, you would have found out about the overall retreat of NZ glaciers: So, what I can find is not a trend downward that starts in 1998, but an overall 50% loss of NZ glacier mass balance starting in the early 1930's. Out of that massive decline, you were only able to find a few cherry picked upward slopes, the longest of which is less than 10 years long. Do you think it might be wise to stop banging your head yet?

93515. adelady at 10:24 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       ranyl@43 "But as oil prices have jumped since 2006, and fossil fuel use hardly blinked an eye...." Oil and total fossil fuel are not the same thing. Oil use is mainly related to transport and to rising living standards allowing more people to use cars rather than other transport. Fossil fuel used for power generation rises with increases in industrial activity and, with luck, associated improvements in domestic living standards. The balance of these factors is pretty well settled for advanced economies. But in developing economies, the increases in power generation precede the improvements in living standards (at least those that involve more use of oil based fuels.)
93516. Rob Honeycutt at 10:15 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       dana1981 at 13, responding to thingadonta #3: "these 3 coupled periods (sun+-PDO) correspond better than c02 does in the 20th century...implying that climate sensitivity to c02 is low." Dana: "Sorry no, you don't calculate climate sensitivity by looking at correlations." That was my thought as well, Dana. "CO2 alone" is one of the more firmly agreed upon figures for climate sensitivity at 1C.
93517. ranyl at 10:04 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       "ranyl @3, while a carbon price will not significantly reduce demand for energy, to which we are adicted, it will significantly change the best means of sourcing that energy. The only way this is not true is if alternative power sources are so inefficient as to by not commercially viable at any reasonable price (contrary to the claims of their advocates)." Hi Tom, But as oil prices have jumped since 2006, and fossil fuel use hardly blinked an eye, what evidence is there that a higher price unless much higher will make any difference to use really? Strikes me whatever the evidence CO2 emissions aren't stopping any time soon unless some miracle happens so all these discussions really are academic. Suspect it is probably prudent to start planning adaptation, with clear goals of carbon sequestration (this would a miracle or an enigma size effort), rapid transformation to a low energy use none fossil fuel society. Not sure renewables are the all saving grace, wind farms do heat and dry the land as well several other things, solar panels are associated with tri-nitro_floride release and rare metal mining, large dams casue huge CO2 releases from ecological effects and so on. Not using energy is in a real challenge but surely not worth taking the risk of CO2 levels over 400ppm for?
93518. Timothy Chase at 09:34 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Bob Tisdale wrote:

       The difference in the multdecadal variability of ENSO (NINO3.4 SST anomalies as a proxy) and the PDO should be a function of North Pacific Sea Level Pressure...

       It's not eye balling as they use statistics, but you might be interested in Di Lorenzo et al. (2010 ) ENSO and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation: an integrated view of Pacific decadal dynamics (presented at AGU 2010 Ocean Sciences Meeting) nevertheless.
93519. Bob Tisdale at 08:55 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Timothy Chase: The difference in the multdecadal variability of ENSO (NINO3.4 SST anomalies as a proxy) and the PDO should be a function of North Pacific Sea Level Pressure, with the SLP altering the strength of the gyre spin-up into the KOE.
93520. mspelto at 07:49 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       The variations of the Donne Glacier, Tasman Glacier and Murchison Glacier in New Zealand highlight the general response of NZ glaciers.
93521. scaddenp at 07:32 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       "If at 5pm tonight, you were provided with Peer reviewed, non-cherry picked, Scientific evidence that there is no mad made global warming...Would you be a)Happy ? or b) Angry ?" Well first I would be skeptical, because a claim that strong would need the evidence tested rigourly by other workers. Then I would be ecstatic. Who wouldn't be? But what has this got to do with glaciers and MWP?
93522. Timothy Chase at 07:21 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Sometimes I think the language used to describe "climate oscillations" is somewhat unfortunate. To many the term "oscillation" suggests periodic behavior. This is compounded by references to "climate oscillation's" "period." But the behavior of climate oscillations is generally not periodic. Instead there is a characteristic time scale that appears to be associated with a form of bistability where the system tends to be in either one state or the other. Your reference to "atmospheric noise" is suggestive of the nonperiodic nature of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation's non-periodic, or alternatively, quasi-periodic behavior. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a couple of characteristic time scales. Atmoz gives a detailed explanation of the correlation between PDO and global temperature in which he mentions two different characteristic time scales:

       Sometimes, it's said that the PDO has a characteristic time scale, hence the word decadal in the acronym. The UW website states that "Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years." To evaluate this, we can look at a wavelet analysis of the PDO with trend derived in the first part of this post. On the Relationship between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Global Average Mean Temperature Atmoz, 3 Aug 2008 http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature(emphasis added)

       The longer characteristic time scale is comparable to that which presumably exists for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Please see:

       Michael E. Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences, Penn State, and Kerry A. Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT, looked at the record of global sea surface temperatures, hurricane frequency, aerosol impacts and the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) — an ocean cycle similar, but weaker and less frequent than the El Nino/La Nina cycle. Although others have suggested that the AMO, a cycle of from 50 to 70 years, is the significant contributing factor to the increase in number and strength of hurricanes, their statistical analysis and modeling indicate that it is only the tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature that is responsible, tempered by the cooling effects of some lower atmospheric pollutants. Climate change responsible for increased hurricanes Tuesday, May 30, 2006 http://live.psu.edu/story/18074(emphasis added)

       Shorter characteristic time scales would be suggestive of oscillators associated with shallower ocean ocean phenomena that would be more easily influenced by interactions between the atmosphere and ocean whereas longer characteristic time scales suggest that bistability involves changes in deepwater ocean circulation. In addition to the correlation between PDO and ENSO phases over time you have the fact that the two are virtually identical in spatial distribution but for the fact that PDO is strongest in the North Pacific whereas ENSO is strongest in the Equatorial Pacific. But during their warm phases both are cool in the North Pacific and warm in the Equatorial Pacific. You can see this here: Figure 1 Warm Phase PDO and ENSO. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/pdoensoglobe_BIG.gif... from: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/aboutpdo.shtml So there is a bit more to go on than simply a temporal correlation between two scalar values. What we have is an areal and temporal correlation between two two-dimensional fields that vary over time. Essentially, over the entire area of an ENSO, the warm phase of the PDO would appear to result in constructive interference with the warm phases of ENSO and destructive interference with ENSO’s cool phases, whereas the cool phase of PDO results in deconstructive interference with the warm phases of ENSO and constructive interference with ENSO’s cool phases. So it shouldn’t be any surprise at all that El Ninos are typically stronger, longer and more frequent during the warm phase of PDO and La Ninas are typically stronger, longer and more frequent during the cool phase of PDO. Spatial destructive interference might also help to explain the existence of a lead-lag relationship where an El Nino will tend to cause the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to tip from its negative phase to its positive phase. Feedbacks, both positive and negative, are part of an integrated theory of ENSO put forward in: Chunzai Wang (March 2001) On the ENSO Mechanisms, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (Special Issue) Such feedbacks no doubt result in much of the observed quasi-stability of PDO states and would help to explain the observed lead-lag relationship between El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, e.g., an El Nino weakening or overwhelming the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, making it easier for the latter to switch to its positive phase. Positive feedbacks no doubt help to explain the quasi-stability of the two states of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. An El Nino may weaken or even overwhelm the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, making it easier for the mode to slip from its negative phase to its positive phase. PDO lags ENSO on the scale of several months:

       ENSO also leads the PDO index by a few months throughout the year (Fig. 1d), most notably in winter and summer. Simultaneous correlation is lowest in November–March, consistent with Mantua et al. (1997). The lag of maximum correlation ranges from two months in summer (r ~ 0.7) to as much as five months by late winter (r ~ 0.6). Matthew Newman et al (1 Dec 2003) ENSO-Forced Variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Journal of Climate, Vol 16, No 23

       ... and several years:

       There is potential a lead-lag relationship between the time variability of PDV2(i.e., the PC time series of PDV2) and N34Var although it does not exceed a statistical significance test. Figure 5c shows the lagged correlations of N34Var with the PC of PDV2. Note that the thick line indicates the 95% significant level and negative lags indicate the N34Var preceding the PC of PDV2. The maximum correlation occurs at lags of approximately 3~4 years with positive correlation. This indicates that the N34Varleads the variability of PDV2, suggesting that the Pacific mean state, which is identified by the PDV2, is due to a residual associated with larger or small ENSO amplitude. Sang-Wook Yeh and Ben P. Kirtman (May, 2004) Pacific Decadal Variability and ENSO Amplitude Modulation

93523. dhogaza at 07:13 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       "If at 5pm tonight, you were provided with Peer reviewed, non-cherry picked, Scientific evidence that there is no mad made global warming...Would you be a)Happy ? or b) Angry ?" I'd wonder why my CO2 laser still works, personally.
93524. williambaskerville at 07:05 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       @ DB Actually a bit "flattening": For example UAH Satellite-Based Temperatures until Feb. 2011:
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Images (hopefully) fixed. BTW, the difference is the "exogenous factors" that Daniel's caption mentioned. The article by Tamino is well worth reading.
93525. stevee3906 at 07:05 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       My question..was deleted !! If at 5pm tonight, you were provided with Peer reviewed, non-cherry picked, Scientific evidence that there is no mad made global warming...Would you be a)Happy ? or b) Angry ? Why was there cooling in the 70's, the C02 models demand that temp rise with C02, yet they did not, as you stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png Why stop at 2,000 years, try the period in the above link. Why are the Polar Ice caps on Mars melting ? Solar Activity.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I would be delighted. However it might be a good idea if you were to acquaint yourself with the responses to common skeptical arguments already documented on this site. Firstly models do not demand temperature rises with rising CO2 because CO2 is not the only driver of climate, you also might want to look at Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?. Secondly, we know it has been warmer in the past, see What does past climate change tell us about global warming? . Lastly, the climate change on Mars is thought to be due to changes in albedo, see Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting . It is unlikely to be solar activity, see the response to the number one skeptic argument it's the sun. The reason your question was deleted was that, again, it violated the comments policy, for the same reason your previous post was deleted.
93526. scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       On various periods of ice expansion in NZ. Is this because NZ got colder? No. The alps perpendicular to the predominantly westerlie flow (same in Argentina). A warmer Tasman sea increases snowfall and hence the advance. But the terminus warms too so this doesnt go on forever. In a Franz Josef response study, it was calculated that needed in long term to increase precipitation by 40% for each 1 degree of temperature rise in ablation zone (from memory - paper at work). Again, read glacial data with care.
93527. Rob Painting at 07:03 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Blessthefall @ 38 - Rob, I don't see how one country reducing emissions will do anything if the rest of the world goes unchecked. It doesn't make any sense. If one of the main polluters, like the US, decides to curb greenhouse gas emissions, others will follow suit. If the US proves it can be done without crippling their economy why wouldn't others do the same?. Mind you this is highly hypothetical, your political system seems to be in the thrall of the Sith. What doesn't make any sense is continuing to rely on a limited and severely polluting energy resource. Peak oil occurred around 5 years ago, so there's only one way the price of oil is headed and that is up,up,up. Not making the transition to renewables, is going to be one of the defining blunders of the 21st century. If you want to talk environmental costs, that's something completely different. Different in that the true cost doesn't have to be borne by those damaging the environment. Passing the buck to future generations will not be appreciated by said future generations. Or even current generations, when you factor in that the extra 4% of global water vapor and the extra heat that fossil fuel combustion has bought about. To pay their fair share, fossil fuel companies would have to cover a proportion of all damaging weather events around the globe. See what I mean about expensive?. Economists simply ignore this stuff and give it a fancy name "externalizing". Blaming global warming for food shortages is a non-sequitur. No, actually it's fact. Don't you remember the Russian heatwave last year?. You know where they banned exports of grain after huge losses from the heatwave?. And that's just one major event. I've argued for a long time on other blogs that the first consequence of global warming will be expensive food prices from weather extremes (principally drought). Joe Romm over at Climate Progress has been hammering home that point for a while now. And after experiencing the warmest wettest year on record (2010) global food prices are at an all-time high. You should keep an eye on the FAO index, sure there will be ups and downs, but long-term that is going to skyrocket too.
93528. Alexandre at 06:30 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Suggestion for a future post: fossil fuel subsidies.
93529. Camburn at 06:21 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Rob: If you think food prices are rising now, enact a co2 tax and you will see reallllll rises in food prices.
93530. Eric (skeptic) at 05:56 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Riccardo, you're right, you did. Sorry about that. Perhaps Spencer did indirectly consider the early 20th TSI increase in the sense that it is reflected in the PDO index.
93531. williambaskerville at 04:43 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       @ stevee I personally think that talking about a 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' does not really make sense. What does it mean to say this is a normal this an abnormal state of climate? We do not have the "view from nowhere" to do so. If we take the last 2000 years for example, than we find in some places evidence for a so called "Roman Warm Period" in most places evidence for a "Medieval Warm Period" in almost every places evidence for a "Little Ice Age" and at least a "Current" Warming (WP), starting something about 1850. Example: Are these periods anomalies? If we take a look on the last 100 years we see a warming from 1910 until 1940, a cooling until the 70s and a warming until the "peak" 1998, then a flattening of the curve. So I am convinced it is better to talk about a MWP and not a MCA.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Actually, not-so-flattened: 5 datasets, exogenous factors removed (Tamino)
93532. Paul D at 04:34 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       SNRatio: "It's much more complex. First, the simplest, way to cut consumption, in general, is using longer-lived goods." ---or increasing prices--- Quality = higher prices.
93533. Riccardo at 04:30 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Bob Tisdale you're right, that's what I wanted to say when I noted that the definition is USA-centric.
93534. Blessthefall at 03:59 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Marcus and rob: Just a note to Marcus, this is the last time I'll acknowledge you. If you want to have a civil debate about something I suggest not speaking to someone like they're a 5 year old. Continually associating my or anyone else's beliefs with the fossil fuel industry gets people no where and quite frankly, it's frustrating: I am all for renewable energy just as long as it's just as efficient and cheap as oil or coal or nuclear. I have some articles/books that you can read which shows that the fossil fuel industry is involved with you and your ilk. That's right, they're actually pro-global warming because they can make money. When you decide to grow up, let me know and I'll be happy to provide the books. On to my response: My point is that if there's any industry that can profit from renewable energy, if there is any industry that can possible produce renewable energy on a large scale, it'd be the fossil fuel industry. Why? They have a massive amount of resources. Whether they decide to invest that into renewable energy or buy the renewable energy companies, they win either way. Rob, I don't see how one country reducing emissions will do anything if the rest of the world goes unchecked. It doesn't make any sense. Some say it's a "good place to start," but what good is it doing when China and India's emissions continue to rise? As far as the cost of energy, the actual production and shipping of the energy is what I'm factoring in. If you want to talk environmental costs, that's something completely different. Also, you bring up the rising cost of food... farmers are paid to underproduce. The United States alone could feed the entire world. Blaming global warming for food shortages is a non-sequitur.
93535. SNRatio at 03:51 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       #33: "Ultimately individuals have to cut consumption, you can't do that just by moving things around. You either have to have a cultural change, or increasing prices, or rationing." It's much more complex. First, the simplest, way to cut consumption, in general, is using longer-lived goods. Building better things. Second, using mostly recycleable materials. Third, emissions per produced entity are by no means a well-defined quantity. Moving production around may be a very good idea, to have optimal locations. Producing Aluminium where there is a surplus of renewable energy, for instance. It depends on the rules of the game. Fourth, changing consumption patterns may be much more important than, generally, cutting consumption. Using fossile products only as industry raw materials and for special purposes, for instance. Substituting bio-products for fossile products may, by several criteria, actually increase consumption. But as long as it is sustainable, it may be the right thing to do.
93536. dana1981 at 03:42 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       thingadonta #3:

       "these 3 coupled periods (sun+-PDO) correspond better than c02 does in the 20th century...implying that climate sensitivity to c02 is low."

       Sorry no, you don't calculate climate sensitivity by looking at correlations. PDO does not cause long-term warming trends so it has no impact on climate sensitivity. Not to mention the fact that you're comparing a combination of multiple effects to just a single effect (CO2). CO2 doesn't act in a vacuum - you also have to take into consideration all other forcings in addition to CO2.
93537. dana1981 at 03:35 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       garythompson #15:

       "the purpose of this post was to show how carbon cap and trade improved business.

       No, it wasn't. I thought I pretty clearly outlined the purpose of the post - to debunk three myths related to carbon pricing. 1) That it will cripple the economy. 2) That it will kill jobs. 3) That it will make energy bills skyrocket. Cap and trade being pro-business didn't even make the list, let alone being the purpose of the post! As an added discussion, I noted that the New Hampshire House leader had claimed that killing cap and trade is pro-business, which is clearly not the case.
93538. stevee3906 at 02:46 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       The entire premise of "Icing the MWP" and suggesting that the name be changed to " the Medieval Climate Anomaly" must be based on changing temperatures/climate is an .. Anomaly. The climate is always changing. If climate stayed the same that would be an Anomaly. The Climate changed long before the any effect from manmade activity.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] See the response to the second most used skeptic argument Climate's changed before.
93539. stevee3906 at 02:23 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       As climate is the study of long term averages and trends, the MWP is essentially just noise. The earths temps have been documented to be much higher at times in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] By long term averages/trends, I meant sufficiently long to average out the weather noise. Climatologists generally take that to mean starting at about 30 years. The MWP ocurred over a long enough timescale to be 'climate' rather than 'weather' (noise).
93540. Marcus at 02:07 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Here's the thing Gilles. My current annual fossil fuel consumption is less than *half* what it was 10 years ago-yet far from being *poorer*, I'm now *richer*-because my energy bills are lower. This has not come at any cost to my standard of living-as my house still has access to all the mod-cons as before-just using the most energy efficient technology available. So I guess my point is that reducing fossil fuel consumption does *not* have to mean entrenching poverty-its about ensuring that development is achieved in the most CO2-neutral manner possible. I do find it odd, though, is that those who speak most loudly about the poverty which CO2 abatement will cause weren't too loud in speaking out against the poverty caused by corporations paying the people of these poor countries next to nothing for their labour & resources.
93541. stevee3906 at 01:51 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       Currently the Scientific Data shows the global satellite data at 0.02 below the 30 year average. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This appears to have little relevance to the article under discussion. Climate is the study of long term averages and trends; observations about current temperatures are essentially just weather noise and don't give a reliable picture of what the climate is actually doing. The same was true of the peak in 1998. I've made your link clickable to encourage others to view the data.
93542. stevee3906 at 01:39 AM on 6 March 2011
       Icing the Medieval Warm Period
       Why did you delete my post regarding Global Warming, MWP the IPCC errors ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Your post was deleted because it violated the comments policy (specifically the first item on the list). Keep to the science and your posts will not be deleted (provided it is not off-topic for the thread of course).
93543. Alexandre at 01:15 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Riccardo Thanks for your response. So the North Pacific has been warming, sometimes a bit ahead of the entire global ocean, sometimes a bit behind. When it's ahead we have a negative PDOI and vice versa (right?). Look, I may be just giving away my own ignorance, but I cannot grasp any physical meaning of this index to justify it "pulling" the Earth's temperature up or down. It's just an oscillation between two different temperature distribution patterns. A very positive PDOI does not mean a particularly warm ocean (Global, at least. I tried to find some SST time series of the Pacific alone, and could not find any.)
93544. Bob Tisdale at 01:05 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Riccardo: Your post misses a very important point. You defined the PDO, but failed to clarify it. The PDO data from JISAO does NOT represent the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N. In fact, on decadal timescales, the SST anomalies of the North Pacific (north of 20N) are inversely related to the PDO. The following graph presents the North Pacific SST anomaly residual (North Pacific SST anomalies MINUS Global SST anomalies) versus scaled PDO data, with both datasets smoothed with a 121-month running-mean filter. http://i52.tinypic.com/ipaxjr.jpg Now if we invert the PDO data (multiply it by a negative scaling factor) we can see how closely they are related. http://i52.tinypic.com/15oz3eo.jpg In other words, during epochs when the PDO is negative, the North Pacific SST anomalies are greater than global SST anomalies. For a more detailed discussion, refer to: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/inverse-relationship-between-pdo-and.html
93545. Paul D at 01:03 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       2010: UKs chief environmental scientist points out UK emissions have gone up, once exported emissions are taken into account: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11172239
93546. Gilles at 01:00 AM on 6 March 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
       e#97 : again, I don't think that a probability distribution based on a collection of heterogeneous models and measurements has any clear signification, especially if you're interested in the peak in the distribution ! just because the position of this peak will shift following the number of bogus models you add in the sample.
93547. Paul D at 00:58 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       Bern: "I think it's a *very* low bow to draw to blame the decline of manufacturing in western nations (including both the EU and the US) on efforts to fight global warming." That isn't what I wrote. The fact is companies have exported emissions to China in the race to reduce costs and compete. I didn't say it was a result of current efforts to cut emissions. However, if you include emissions produced by China for goods that would have been produced in the EU in the past, then, EU emissions haven't gone down much. In fact I think there was a UK report out last year that showed UK emissions had gone up or remained static once emissions exports had been taken into account. Ultimately individuals have to cut consumption, you can't do that just by moving things around. You either have to have a cultural change, or increasing prices, or rationing.
93548. Riccardo at 00:36 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       A general clarification related to some of the comments (johnd, Gilles, thingadonta). The point of the whole post is to show that the PDO alone cannot be the cause of current warming (Spencer's claim) and that what we know makes clear that it cannot even be considered as a forcing by itself. johnd frequency has indeed changed over time, as I showed, but as far as the PDO as a forcing is concerned it is irrelevant; it would anyway produce a tmporary warming trend. Lacking a long term trend in the PDO index rules out it's role. Fig 3 should make it clear. thingadonta I intentionally "faiiled to mention etc." because my point was exactly that, we can not use the PDO index this way. Moreover, how come you compare PDO+sun with CO2 alone? You can not play with the forcings you convenience, putting in the ones you like and leaving out those you don't like. Alexandre I do not have the figure you're asking for. Though, we know that the North Pacific Ocean is warming overall and that the PDO index tells us just if it is warming more or less than the global oceans. michael sweet I take your comment as a compliment. I'm not involved in any research involving climate, but I'm a scientist and I'm used to read the scientific litterature thoroughly whenever I find a scientific issue interesting. Eric (skeptic) I explicitly quoted the definition of the PDO index. Spencer, again explicitly, tried to show that the PDO index alone could explan a good part of the XX century warming. He added the CO2 forcing afterwards to account for the late XX century increase while the PDO index was decreasing. He didn't even considered the well know TSI increase durng the first half of the century.
93549. protestant at 00:30 AM on 6 March 2011
       Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Yes, Roy Spencer explained the warming trend with a weaker CO2-effect + the PDO. And then he is being attacked on "adding a trend to PDO" which is the human attribution in his simple model. He has done nothing wrong investigating alternative hypothesis'.
93550. Bern at 00:10 AM on 6 March 2011
       A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
       The Ville - I think it's a *very* low bow to draw to blame the decline of manufacturing in western nations (including both the EU and the US) on efforts to fight global warming. It's got a whole lot more to do with the cost of labour - the 'outsourcing' of manufacturing to nations with extremely cheap labour has been going on ever since Walmart imported the first container loads of cheap Japanese goods... (and probably a heck of a lot longer!) The interesting (& rather sad) thing as that many of the same people responsible for that shift are now screaming that a carbon price will adversely affect manufacturing in western nations...

Prev  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  1869  1870  1871  1872  1873  1874  1875  1876  1877  1878  Next