Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 Next
Comments 93751 to 93800:
-
johnd at 19:52 PM on 5 March 2011Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Riccardo, when you state "the PDO index has no trend" I assume you mean no trend in the magnitude of the index as it oscillates. But given it is an oscillation should it not be the frequency of the oscillation that is more relevant in the search for any trends rather than the magnitude of the index. Just looking at your Fig. 2: annual PDO index from 1900 to 2010, it appears that over that short time span, the index appears to have spent more time in the positive phase rather than the negative phase. Even in the reconstruction it appears as if the frequency of the oscillation has been increasing as we go. -
williambaskerville at 19:46 PM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
@ Tom Curtis "He does not help his case, however, by his clear propensity to cherry pick, as by using individual glaciers rather than data from glaciers for a particular region. And his comments @41 are just silly." What is my case? You've got the point in "I think ..." and "From ..." It is not a "Cherry Picking" at all. "Regional evidence" is the point. If you take it as an evidence on case A but not on case B. That is "Cherry Picking"! I only wanted to show that. "And his comments @41 are just silly. (On a side note, posting German (?) quotes on an English speaking site without translation is both discourteous and unhelpfull.)" The comments aren't silly at all. If Scaddenp argues "virtually all the rest of NZ glaciers retreat", and Rob Painting does post a picture to confirm, than I have imho the right to point out that in several years within the period 1977-2009 the glaciers advanced. The same right for all! Btw it is not my task to translate interviews. Google is in general a good "thing", I've learned from the post of Mr. Murphy, so why can`t you take a google-translator? Is it to silly to do so? My point is not that a MWP was warmer than the current WP. OK? -
Marcus at 19:37 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"It seems that anyone who disagrees with you or anyone else in the pro-global warming crowd is from the "pro-fossil fuel brigade." Actually, that's patently untrue. I save that label only for people who (a) use extremely lame arguments to "disprove" the anthropogenic link to global warming, (b) try & use equally lame arguments to "prove" we shouldn't take any action to reduce CO2 emissions or (c) refuse to engage in a proper debate on the issues. So you, Gary & Poptech will most certainly get labeled with that epithet-as I rightly think you deserve. Although I disagree with many other people at this site, I most certainly don't necessarily accuse them all of being pro-fossil fuel industry. -
Marcus at 19:31 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"Also, I'd argue that this study is done only after 2 - 3 the program was implemented. I think a long-term study would be more convincing." Gee, didn't stop your mate Gary from falsely trying to derive some kind of negative spin from the Forbes article-but I didn't notice you criticizing him (well, why would you, you're both on the same team). The fact is that this is a very good indicator of the potential benefits of such schemes. If you want more long term data to convince you-look at some of the beneficial outcomes in Mainland Europe. As to your criticism regarding the regional nature of this scheme-the whole idea is to provide a test-bed which other States-& Countries-can follow, & it does make a contribution to overall CO2 reduction-or would you rather we continue to adopt the "head-in-the-sand" approach that your mates in the industry keep pushing? Also, every tonne of coal or oil that remains unconsumed not only represents a reduction in CO2 emissions, it also represents a reduction in the emissions of benzene, particulate emissions, cadmium, radon, mercury & a host of other toxic chemicals that can lead to environmental damage on a local/regional level. It will also reduce the mount of environmental damage caused in both the pursuit of coal/oil & in the dumping of the millions of tonnes of waste generated from burning coal. -
Rob Painting at 19:30 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Blessthefall - "The last time I checked the "problem" that is being addressed is called "global" warming, not United States warming or Delaware warming or New Hampshire warming" True, but The US is the major polluter, both historically and presently. Seems like a lame excuse to do nothing. "There's a reason why we use coal and oil as our primary sources of energy: it's cheap and efficient" But it's not really cheap at all. Remove government subsidies and factor in the environmental cost (whoa!, that would be a biggie!) then they are in fact incredibly expensive. Depends how you choose to define it eh?. "if there is any company that could possibly benefit from a new energy source - whether it be solar, wind, or whatever - it'd be those evil guys from the "fossil fuel brigade." Dude (or dudette) that doesn't make any sense. The fossil fuel industry has an infrastucture worth trillions of dollars. Why would they be happy in that being rendered obsolete?. And now that global warming is causing world food shortages we are seeing societal upheaval in poor countries, like those in the Middle East. Have you even been down to your local gas station recently?. The price of oil is skyrocketing and oil companies will be making record profits. Why the heck would renewable energy interest them?. -
Marcus at 19:26 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"There's a reason why we use coal and oil as our primary sources of energy: it's cheap and efficient. Moreover, your comments seem to suggest that you believe the oil companies are fighting, or trying to prove global warming wrong because it affects their bottom line. If you stopped with the ad hominem attacks and thought about it, you'd know that, if there is any company that could possibly benefit from a new energy source - whether it be solar, wind, or whatever - it'd be those evil guys from the "fossil fuel brigade." Wow, just how much bunkum can you squeeze into a single post? I make those accusations of people who use any kind of straw-man argument to attack attempts to reduce our continued over-consumption of carbon-rich energy sources. As to your claims of about how "cheap & efficient" it is-total rubbish. (1) The limitations of physics means that coal power stations will *never* be more than 35% thermally efficient. (2) Almost all coal power stations have to produce the same amount of electricity 24-hours a day, & often have to push that electricity out over a distance of 20 kilometers or more. This means that, at night, large amounts of electricity are being generated that isn't getting used, & over long distances as much as 15% of the electricity being generated never reaches its destination (due to transmission & distribution losses)-so much for "efficient". As to being cheap-well it is *now*, but only after *trillions* of dollars of government support over the space of more than 100 years. Renewable energy has become cost-effective in a shorter space of time, & with much less government intervention. Even today, though, many of the costs of coal mining & combustion (the externalities) are covered by the tax-payer, not the coal industry. As to your final point, until every last ounce of oil & coal is depleted, the fossil fuel brigade will remain deeply opposed to renewable energy & energy efficiency-because every megawatt of energy not generated from fossil fuels is another dollar that isn't being earned by them. Still, nice to see you & Gary trying to double-team me on behalf of your beloved industry. -
Blessthefall at 19:07 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Also, I'd argue that this study is done only after 2 - 3 the program was implemented. I think a long-term study would be more convincing. -
Blessthefall at 19:01 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
I still don't understand why single states or countries are imposing cap and trade systems. The last time I checked the "problem" that is being addressed is called "global" warming, not United States warming or Delaware warming or New Hampshire warming. Whether one thinks humans contribute to climate change in any significance or not, myself being in the latter group, it's a waste of money and time to pass cap and trade systems when the entire global community isn't on board - the US can reduce emissions while China, India, and other growing economies go unchecked. Moreover, I think that a study similar to this one should be done during a period of economic growth, not economic decline. Then we can truly find out if these cap and trade systems work. Marcus, I've read your comments on this website for quite some time. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you or anyone else in the pro-global warming crowd is from the "pro-fossil fuel brigade." Why is that? There's a reason why we use coal and oil as our primary sources of energy: it's cheap and efficient. Moreover, your comments seem to suggest that you believe the oil companies are fighting, or trying to prove global warming wrong because it affects their bottom line. If you stopped with the ad hominem attacks and thought about it, you'd know that, if there is any company that could possibly benefit from a new energy source - whether it be solar, wind, or whatever - it'd be those evil guys from the "fossil fuel brigade." -
Same Ordinary Fool at 18:23 PM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
The time period (say, 1910 to the present) of current warming (global or hemispheric) obviously can be well defined. The same cannot be said for the skeptic's proposed warmer 'MWP'. How coterminous are their geographical data points? Which century is favored? Increasing snowfall (and its timing) explains many of the anomalously advancing glaciers. This is the explanation for the Karakoram glaciers that are growing, while the Himalayan glaciers are retreating. Some high latitude glaciers can benefit from the increased water vapor in the atmosphere, picked up over warmer oceans. And, as I remember it, Mt. Shasta glaciers in California benefit from both El Nino weather south of it, and La Nina weather north of it. -
Marcus at 18:19 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"the bottom 10 in 2008 remained in the bottom 10 in 2010 2 years after passing the cap and trade systems. that is what i call an *epic fail*." How can it be considered "epic fail"? No one ever said that Cap & Trade was going to reduce the cost of doing business in those States-only that it would not significantly *increase* business costs-whilst still generating additional income for the State Economy-a fact that appears to be borne out by the Forbes piece that you cited. I certainly don't expect Cap & Trade to miraculously reduce business costs in the space of little more than 2 years-especially not compared to the relatively low income States like those in the South. That you do-or seem to-just suggests that you're setting up a Straw-man. A tactic I've come to expect from the pro-fossil fuel brigade. -
Marcus at 18:02 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
So to summarize Gary-you tried to spin the Forbes data to insinuate that Cap & Trade had directly led to an increase in business costs in the States where it was implemented. Yet even a cursory reading of the figures you present don't even come close to proving your point-both because the majority of the States you mentioned either improved or remained unchanged & because you cannot actually prove that any increases in business costs can be directly associated with Cap-&-Trade (& Forbes, at least, is wise enough to to make such an unfounded assertion). Interestingly, many of the 10 States in that Forbes piece are ranked quite high on the Economic Climate & Growth Potential categories-which further undermines your already massively weak case. Like I said, I define that as an *epic fail*. -
Marcus at 17:56 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
"blue collar workforces have white collar employees (engineers, scientists, HR, managers, etc.) to support the manufacturing process" That might be true, but a factory employing 1,000 people is going to have the majority of that workforce be blue-collar (probably around 80-90%), whereas a financial planning or R&D business employing the same number of people-for example-is going to have close to 100% of that workforce be white-collar. So the only one showing his ignorance here is *you*. -
Marcus at 17:53 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Hey Gary, the only one attempting spin here is *you*-I was just telling it like it is. You chose to focus on cost of business, yet the "evidence" you presented *failed* to do prove your point-indeed, given that the majority of States you mentioned *improved* in their ranking, it actually hurt your point. The idea that States with high business costs pre-Cap & Trade will become areas with very low costs virtually overnight is the worst kind of straw-man argument, but one that I've come to expect of the hard-core denialist brigade (of which you're clearly a member). Seriously, when you can provide solid *evidence* that Cap-&-Trade has significantly increased the cost of doing business in those 10 States, then I might listen, but right now you haven't even got circumstantial evidence to back your assertion. I do find it funny that people like you are so "skeptical" of AGW, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yet expect us to swallow your rubbish claims on the basis of incredibly *weak* "evidence". Given that this is a frequent "Modus Operandi" of yours, I just figured you'd be better off on Watt's site-where such an MO is not only tolerated-its endorsed. -
protestant at 17:40 PM on 5 March 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
@ Moderator in message #133: So? NH extratropical includes europe therefore it is already accounted for. No reason to choose spesific locations which represent only a small fraction of the globe. -
garythompson at 17:05 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Marcus - you can spin this any way you want but the purpose of this post was to show how carbon cap and trade improved business. the bottom 10 in 2008 remained in the bottom 10 in 2010 2 years after passing the cap and trade systems. that is what i call an *epic fail*. if you call that a success then that is your opinion but i do not call that a success. the good news is that the northeastern states in the US will reduce their carbon footprint because businesses will be leaving those areas due to the high taxes associated with those policies. blue collar workforces have white collar employees (engineers, scientists, HR, managers, etc.) to support the manufacturing process so your argument reveals that you have no manufacturing/business experience. i don't know what WUWT has anything to do with my comments but if you need a villian to rally against i guess that is who you choose to represent your straw man. i choose to come to SkC because i view this as the premier site for debating the science related to climate change. -
apsmith at 16:23 PM on 5 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
A bit more of a write-up on this issue (thanks Kevin) here. -
Marcus at 15:54 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Also, why only focus on the cost of business aspect? Why not growth potential, or economic climate? The cost of business has a lot of factors associated with it-not least the kind of business & who they need to work there. A business with a predominantly blue collar workforce, which has little or no overheads, will have less costs than one with a white collar workforce with lots of overheads. Its no surprise that the States with the best rankings come from States known for businesses that don't require a highly skilled or educated workforce...again, epic *fail* Gary. Your point relies on a false correlation-& a correlation which doesn't even seem to exist to boot. They must love you over at WUWT, where opinion masquerading as fact is de riguer. -
Marcus at 15:41 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
So lets see then-New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey & New York all *improved* in rank; Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts & Delaware have all declined in rank-whilst Connecticut has remained unchanged. Which tells me that cap-and-trade has had *no net impact* on cost of business in the United States. I know it wasn't your intention, but thanks for effectively proving our point-namely that Cap & trade will not have any net negative impact on the cost of doing business-certainly no more than any other regulatory factor-yet it *will* have a positive impact on the environment. Talk about an *epic fail* there Gary. Time to go back & haunt WUWT where you clearly belong. -
dana1981 at 15:09 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Cam burn - maybe try reading the article you're commenting on. Garythompson - your argument strikes me as similar to claiming that Japanese people live relatively long because they eat a lot of rice. States that were ranked low by Foerbes prior to cap and trade are still ranked low by Forbes. Shocking! By the way, in California we haven't implemented cap and trade yet. -
garythompson at 14:55 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
For further clarification on my post #10, that ranking was for 2008, before the passage of many of these carbon cap and trade systems. Let's see how they rank now. Here is the link showing the ranking in 2010. and the ranking based on business cost rank is: 12th delaware 40th new hampshire 41st rhode island 42nd vermont 43rd new york 45th connecticut 46th new jersey 47th maine 49th maryland 50th massachusetts It should be noted that california is 44th - They also passed a cap and trade system since 2008. -
garythompson at 14:43 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
See the following link from Forbes magazine ranking the states in the USA based on several variables. Once you are on the page click the column entitled "Business Cost Rank". Here is the ranking of the states that were listed in this post. 3rd delaware 40th maryland 41st new hampshire 42nd rhode island 43rd vermont 44th maine 45th connecticut 46th massachusetts 48th new jersey 49th new york Note there are 50 states in the USA and delaware is ranked 3rd due mainly to its easy business incorporation laws (Many corporations in the USA are incorporated in this state although they reside elsewhere). It appears that all but one of the states you listed in this posting are among the worst states in the USA to do business in. Is there a correlation between this ranking and their use of a carbon cap and trade system? Mr. O'Brien from new hampshire isn't the only one who thinks carbon cap and trade systems are not 'pro business'. -
Camburn at 14:37 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
New Hampshire voted this week to leave the NE coalition on carbon. -
Chris3699 at 13:24 PM on 5 March 2011It's too hard
I'm all for a carbon tax but how do we stop companies from trying to protect their profit margins by passing the burden of the tax on to the consumer or by sacking their workers? My guess would be that if we had more government run businesses, who were on board with looking after the public interest, they could undercut the prices of the privately owned companies if they tried to pass the burden of the carbon tax on to the consumer, thus ensuring that the majority of the carbon tax would come out of their profit, as it should. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 13:18 PM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Dana #5 "Americans are deathly afraid of taxes...." I don't know that this is true of over half of Americans if there is good reason (and many think there is good reason in this case), but some are dead set against taxes, as are some in other countries. Australians can be as dead set as any. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:07 PM on 5 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
More warming is inevitable (resistance is futile!):
"Departure of sea surface temperature from average for 2010 from the NOAA Daily Optimum Interpolation SST Anomaly data set for October 2010. Areas colored red are warmer than the 1971-2000 average, areas colored blue are cooler than that average. A large region of record warm water temperatures extended along the west coast of Greenland, leading to record warm air temperatures and record melting along the western portion of Greenland in 2010. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, surpassing the previous record of 1.5°C set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s."
The Yooper
-
dana1981 at 12:24 PM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
HR #98: sensitivity refers to the average temperature change across the whole planet in response to a CO2 change. I suppose you could break it down geographically and figure out a region-by-region sensitivity (the poles would have a higher sensitivity than lower latitudes). -
nigelj at 12:11 PM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
I will clarify the glacier issue in New Zealand, since I live there. There have been short term periods of advance of most glaciers as in 1990, which has now turned into an extended retreat. Over the last 100 years the trend is most glaciers are retreating, or a nett decrease in ice mass. From NIWAS website "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." http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/glaciers-continue-to-shrink2 -
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
I think Williambaskerville as a point. Looking at the moderator's response @24, it is clear that the entire eastern Siberian peninsular was cooler in the 2000's than during the period from 1959 to 1980. No one here would want to argue from that that the world has not warmed during the interval. From the article, I gather there is firm evidence that Spain, and a significant area of the Rocky Mountains is much warmer now then during the MWP. However, this is again just regional evidence. We should not argue from just two regions that global temperatures in the MWP were significantly lower than current temperatures. In that much, WB is right. He does not help his case, however, by his clear propensity to cherry pick, as by using individual glaciers rather than data from glaciers for a particular region. And his comments @41 are just silly. (On a side note, posting German (?) quotes on an English speaking site without translation is both discourteous and unhelpfull.) Nor does he help his case be ignoring the fact that reconstructions of past hemispheric or global temperatures consistently show peak MWP temperatures equivalent in some decade in the period 1950-2000, with modern temperatures clearly exceeding that range. That is not a slam dunk for a cooler MWP once error bars are taken into account, but it does show that a cooler MWP is more likely than not on current evidence, and possibly even likely in IPCC parlance ( > 66% probability). What I do not understand is the rhetorical battle over the MWP. If peak global temperatures during the MWP were 0.5 degrees C greater than at present, what would it matter. The presumed forcings of the MWP are still absent today; and global temperatures are expected to rise by 6 to 8 times that on conservative estimates. The denier focus on the MWP seems to me to be futile point scoring based on an attempt to cultivate ignorance. -
HumanityRules at 11:37 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
Thanks Dana I've got another general question. Is global climate sensitiviity a real world phenomenon? What I mean is that with ideas such as polar amplification would actual climate sensitivity vary in different regions? -
Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Alexandre @4, A carbon tax is simpler to enforce, but has the disadvantage that it does not allow the trade of carbon credits. That trade is essential for the efficient allocation of carbon usage between industries, and between nations. Ideally, we should be working towards a world system in which each nation is allocated a portion of the maximum acceptable global emissions based on a per capita basis fixed at some reference year. We should then allow trade in carbon credits so that those with maximum current usage can reduce carbon usage at a more gradual pace, purchasing credits to compensate for their excess production of carbon. 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). -
robert way at 10:58 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
scaddenp at 08:30 AM on 5 March, 2011 Individual glaciers as a proxy can be dubious but widespread changes are a good indicator of climatic changes. Furthermore, ice caps in the high arctic such as those mentioned previously by me are extremely sensitive to climatic changes with a small climatic change soliciting a large response. -
malamuddy at 10:56 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Given that William O'Brien was talking to Americans for Prosperity when he made these comments, it is not hard to imagine where the pressure to repeal cap and trade in his state came from. If so, then the story has another significance for Australia. If the current government manages to introduce a carbon tax scheme, some businesses will pressure any subsequent conservative government to repeal it. The conservative side is already promising to do so. -
dana1981 at 10:53 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Thanks Alexandre. I agree, there are definite benefits to a carbon tax, especially in terms of simplicity. The benefit of cap and trade is the control that the cap gives you. The major problem with a carbon tax is the word "tax". It's why Republicans called US cap and trade proposals "cap and tax". Americans are deathly afraid of taxes, so a carbon tax is a non-starter here. -
Alexandre at 10:29 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Personally, I like the carbon tax better. It sounds simpler to execute, monitor and enforce. But it's great to know about these success stories with cap-and-trade schemes. About the export of emissions pointed out by ranyl above: AFAIK, the US (and many others) also buy loads of Chinese goods and have rising emissions all the same. The European success should not be so easily dismissed. Great post, Dana. It would be great to have more of these. -
ranyl at 10:12 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Not convinced there ahs been a drop in carbon emissions and European drops are false promise due to outsourcing of industry to China and the East and the resessional dip in power hungry activities. Carbon trading is claimed by many to be fundamentally flawed concept that will not cause CO2 to fall, read the Hartwell report http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/ and watch the story of cap and trade http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/. All systems are supported by offsetting and loop holes and how can carbon honestly be accounted for considering the complexity of the fluctuations involved. Don't get me wrong we need to sequester billions of tonnes of CO2 and get back to 350ppm to even to be able to adapt but creating money spinning trading scheme markets and marketers to heighten the inequality gap (wait until it gets expensive to buy fuel to see who has it), and produce little or no actual CO2 savings. Not sure how on earth fossil fuel use will ever possibly stop but prohibition through money, tax or law won't work, like they don't with drugs and humans are totally addicted to the benefits of fossil fuels. How on earth are 40ppm of CO2 (20 years or emissions) going to be removed from the atmosphere especially considering the current state of the eco-systems and tendency towards CO2 release as the earth heats up? -
Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
Gilles> the average value of the "1/1-f" (and hence sensitivity) factor will be larger than the 1/(1-f0)) When providing a probabilistic estimate of sensitivity, we are looking for the most likely value (the peak in the distribution), not the mean of the distribution. This value is not at all biased in the way you suggest. -
Rob Painting at 09:46 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
Williambaskerville - that's nuthin. The Franz Joesph glacier (a tourist spot) info centre has a number of photos of the glacier dating back over a hundred years. Despite periods of advance the long-term retreat of the glacier is spectacular. When you walk to the glacier face, there are pegs marking where the face/front used to be at a particular time in the past. I can't find copies online but here's an indication:
-
KR at 09:35 AM on 5 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples - My apologies, I'm mixing two examples in my last post. The isothermal atmosphere example you posit will increase in temperature due to increased GHG absorption, and will remain stable at that higher temperature unless the emissivity increases. That's a requirement of the S-B law. Temperature and emissivity are the two flexible values if emitted power is fixed - as one goes up, the other goes down. And in this case temperature is the dependent variable; emissivity is the driving variable. The actual Earth system includes both band widening/deepening as well as lapse rate driven cooling of the emissive layer. But both are part of the radiative greenhouse effect. Rock salt convective greenhouses are irrelevant to this - and the Woods experiments have been repeatedly debunked over time. -
KR at 09:28 AM on 5 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples - Even in the toy case of an isothermal atmosphere, absorbing/emitting greenhouse gases will increase the stable temperature. Power emitted must equal power received at equilibrium. Greenhouse gases do not affect power received (visible light window), while they decrease planetary emissivity in IR by radiating part of the energy back to the surface. Given the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship, if emissivity decreases power radiated decreases, causing an imbalance. An increase in greenhouse gases directly decreases emissivity by absorption band deepening and widening. This drops emitted energy to space. Power = emissivity * SB constant * Area * T^4 That imbalance will persist (accumulating energy, increasing temperatures) until radiated power rises to the level of incoming power again, at a higher stable surface temperature. The temperature will not drop again under those circumstances, because the emissivity of the planet remains lower. The only way to reduce the stable temperature of the planet would be to increase emissivity, by (for example) decreasing GHG's. Emissivity does not magically drop when the imbalance zeros out, which seems to be what you are asserting. Current Earth effective planetary emissivity is ~0.612, with ~240 W/m^2 entering and then going to space. Doubling CO2 creates an imbalance of 3.7 W/m^2, which is equivalent to reducing emissivity to 0.6026 by simple power scaling. Earth surface temperature is ~14C, or 287.15K. Calculating: ( 287.15^4 / ( 0.6026/0.612 ) ) ^ 0.25 = 288.27K The surface temperature under those conditions rises to 288.27K, or 15.1C, matching the 1.1C rise predicted for doubling CO2 with no feedbacks. -
williambaskerville at 09:01 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
@ Robert Painting Very interesting picture - especially the periods 1979-1981, 1982-1987, 1988-1989, 1990-1997, 2000-2001, 2002-2005 and 2006-2007. -
Fred Staples at 08:54 AM on 5 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I do not claim, KR, 337, that all AGW theories contradict the second law. It is just that many of them do. Most of them confuse heat and energy, which is where entropy comes in. One such explanation, which you can still find in modern text-books, (Houghton for example) is the original greenhouse radiative effect. Consider a greenhouse made of non-absorbing material, such as rock salt. It will absorb heat from the sun, the interior will heat up, and, with convective cooling eliminated, the internal temperature will be higher than the surroundings (G and T’s car interiors, for example). The greenhouse will radiate W watts per square meter, proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. Now replace the rock salt cover with glass, which absorbs infra-red radiation. Half of the outgoing radiation will return to the interior, which, so the story goes, will heat up until it radiates 2W. The original W will then be radiated to the atmosphere, and W will be returned to the interior. The ratio of the glass interior temperature to the rock salt interior temperature will be the fourth root of 2, or 1.19. An increase of 19% of the rock-salt interior absolute temperature, or about 60 degrees C. Does that argument sound familiar? You will find it in part 1 of the Rabett paper to which SOD contributed. It is, of course, wrong. Back radiation from the cooler glass cannot heat the warmer interior. It would breach the second law if it did. To check this R W Woods built two greenhouses – one rock salt, one glass – so that their convective warming would be identical. Any back-radiative effect would heat the glass green-house preferentially. Their temperatures were the same. “Higher is Colder”, is not “part of the greenhouse effect”. It is the only plausible way of explaining how increasing atmospheric absorption and emission can increase the surface temperature. Incidentally, it is a mechanism which G and T did not discuss, although it was current from 1900 onwards. Think about an atmosphere without a lapse rate – an isothermal atmosphere where higher is not colder. Add greenhouse gasses, increase absorption, and you suggest that the atmospheric temperature will increase. What would happen if it did? Apply the Stefan-Bolzmann equation to the radiation to space, and energy emission will also increase (proportional to the fourth power of the atmospheric temperature). But the incoming energy, from the sun, will not change. So the atmospheric temperature will fall back to its original value. With a lapse rate, you can suggest that the effective emission level moves up to a colder region, reducing energy emission. All the temperatures must then increase to restore the balance. The only snag with that argument is that the evidence from the last 30 years shows that it does not happen to any detectable extent. -
Rob Painting at 08:38 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
scaddenp -Virtually all the rest of NZ glaciers are in retreat, mostly very rapid retreat. Picking one or items is Cherry Picking. Look at the overall picture. You mean like this overall picture Phil?.
See NIWA
-
dana1981 at 08:32 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
Yes, the EU is another example, with a carbon cap and trade system in place since 2005. There have been some criticisms of the system though, that they started the carbon price too low so it hasn't been very effective. A good lesson for us to learn from in the USA, if we ever get a system of our own. -
scaddenp at 08:30 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
I would add further comment on glacier's as a climate proxy (though Mauri could say more). Glacier response varies depending on quite a number of variable. NZ West Coast valley glaciers in deep shaded valleys response to snowfall is marked. They have further complication that rock load from valley sides protect the ice from melting so may respond to earthquakes (increasing rock cover) as well. A better determination is done by looking at glacier system as a whole, or chosing glacier locations where response in highly dependent on terminal temperature. Either way, NZ is warming (as temperature records would also show), as is Argentina. Whether other glacier record in Asia support or defy a MWP cannot be taken in isolation without either surveys of larger system or data on response. -
Byron Smith at 08:30 AM on 5 March 2011SkS Housekeeping: navigation dropdowns, short URLs and monthly donations
I frequently link to the ten key indicators of a warming world post and the 10 key indicators of human fingerprints. -
Jesús Rosino at 08:13 AM on 5 March 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
A real real-world example is the European Union, they have reduced their emissions 7% (EU15) or 11%(EU27) since 1990, mainly with their cap & trade system, and they don't seem impoverished. http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-more http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2009_9/ghg-trends-and-projections-2009-summary.pdf -
robert way at 07:55 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
Mcshane and Wyner had about 8 comments on their study by climatologists, many found substantial errors. Mann et al (2010) in their response found that Mcshane and Wyner should have concluded based upon proper analysis that there was an 86% probability that the 10-year period from 1997-2006 was the warmest on record. -
scaddenp at 07:54 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
What I argue is that you cannot take isolated pieces of data and draw conclusions. The paper I pointed to did that and all proxy data used in supplementary data. Can you explain why you think the methodology used for regional reconstruction of temperatures in that paper is flawed compared to yours? As to global - I agree that LIA appears to be global. However, it also appears to have been much stronger in NH than in SH based on the patterns of glaciations in both. (Unfortunately papers on this at work). -
Kevin C at 07:50 AM on 5 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Arthur@19: Oh yes, you are right. You could have a big transient due to 20 years of strongly negative PDO from 1880 (although it looks implausibly strong). So the MacDonald data is relevant after all. -
actually thoughtful at 07:45 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
I recall a controversy over the McShane/Wynter (sp?) paper trying to show the confidence for the 1990s being the warmest decade. Does Martín-Chivelet et al effectively refute their claim that there was a relatively low confidence that the 90s were the warmest of the last 2000 years (at least for Spain)? Please, I am not asking for a rehash, just to understand if we are more or less past McShane.
Prev 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 Next
