Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
Comments 94001 to 94050:
-
KR at 05:47 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - Dynamic equilibrium, with energy flowing through the system, not static equilibrium; you have the wrong system in your example. Take instead a block of metal, heated on one side with 1KW of power, sitting on the other side on a huge block of ice. It will reach some dynamic equilibrium temperature, say 100 degrees. Now put a piece of wood between the block and the ice. The wood will reach a temperature between that of the block and the ice (and in fact will have an internal gradient), but the block (because of the slowed energy loss to the ice) will reach a temperature considerably above 100 degrees. A cooler object (wood) has warmed the warmer object (block) by reducing the energy lost, as that loss is only via the energy difference at the block/wood interface - much smaller than a direct block/ice interface. It has reduced energy loss by its presence, and hence warmed the block. Now substitute sun->1KW heater, Earth surface->metal block, GHG atmosphere->piece of wood, and space at 3K->huge chunk of ice. -
damorbel at 05:38 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #404 KR you wrote:- "Your claim that 'cooler objects cannot warm warmer objects' ignores that energy contribution, and hence breaks the 1st law - the energy from the cooler object doesn't just vanish. That means your claim is incorrect." So are you saying that, if two equal blocks of metal, No1 at 300K and No2 at 320K were put in thermal contact, No2 would be >320K ? -
KR at 05:34 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Dikran - I attempted to address that particular misconception here with spectra, but was ignored. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:31 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR@406 The "he's wrong" post also shows damorbel doesn't understand that the surface is heated directly by the sun, so the "insulation" explanation is perfectly reasonable. -
KR at 05:28 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
My apologies, I first directed damorbel that article in November, if not earlier. -
KR at 05:24 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
MichaelM - I pointed damorbel to that article here, several months ago. His reply? "He's wrong." Hence my comments about intransigence. -
MichaelM at 05:01 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Dr Roy Spencer, contrarian and topic of this recent thread, posted an item on his blog last summer titled "Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still" and I thought it might be useful for both damorbel and KR et al. For damorbel it shows a contrarian showing "well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER (sic)". For KR, and the rest, I thought it might be fun to read, in the comments, Dr Spencer trying to do your 'job' but without any reinforcements.Moderator Response: [DB] Please refrain from using all-caps. Thanks! -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:44 AM on 1 March 2011Meet The Denominator
Les... Obviously, all I can offer you is anecdotal evidence. I have heard from many pro-AGW folks that they also get heavily moderated. And I read comments from skeptics here all day long. Most of us are fairly accustomed to posting on unmoderated sites and have a habit of aggressive commenting. The heavy moderation here requires that we all think before we post. Stick to the science, stick to the topic and keep it civil. If we do that, regardless of our position, our comments won't get deleted. -
dhogaza at 04:44 AM on 1 March 2011Preference for Mild Curry
I would like someone to ask Curry about that 90%/0-10C sensitivity statement, in an arena where she can't dodge the question
We need to hang on to this, and to trot it out whenever she's quoted as believing we should do nothing. 10C globally implies what? 15C over North America and Eurasia? 20C in the Arctic? -
pbjamm at 04:41 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
How about the theme from Benny Hill? It would help point out the craziness of what we are doing to the climate. -
hank at 04:37 AM on 1 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, RW1 185 quotes himself. No other source for it. http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bdecrease+%2Btransmittance+"outgoing+surface+power"+"emitted+spectrum"+"absorbed+by+the+atmosphere" -
robert way at 04:35 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Hey all, Thank you for the kind words. I agree with the ending being slightly anti-climatic and I was trying to fix that. I'm only learning how to do some of these things so hopefully as I progress I will be able to fix some of these issues. O Fortuna would be interesting certainly :P -
hank at 04:30 AM on 1 March 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
For S. Dobbs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=arctic+amplification -
KR at 04:24 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - The issue with the 1st law of thermodynamics and your formulation is that you are ignoring the energy contribution of cooler objects (such as the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface), which increases the total energy in the surface and requires a higher temperature to radiate that energy away. Note that as long as the summed energy goes from warmer to cooler, which is true here, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is intact as well. Your claim that 'cooler objects cannot warm warmer objects' ignores that energy contribution, and hence breaks the 1st law - the energy from the cooler object doesn't just vanish. That means your claim is incorrect. My last comment is upon your intransigent position - you have received a great deal of input on this issue over the last 400 comments here and (looking around a bit) from numerous others over several years. Yet you still seem to think the radiative greenhouse effect violates physics. -
les at 04:20 AM on 1 March 2011Meet The Denominator
776 Rob Honeycutt: "Consider the moderation here at SkS to be a form of on-the-fly peer review." Yes, but do we have the numbers of how many deleted post where AGW alarmist and how many where AGW anti-alarmist; obviously counting ones which where just off topic as anti-alarmist, and objective and subjective ad-homonym attacks as alarmist? If we don't; what are they trying to hide?!?! -
michael sweet at 04:15 AM on 1 March 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Ken, In the USA deniers often make the argument that if we are the only ones who take action it will make no difference. This despite the fact that the USA has taken no action to reduce carbon emissions while some Europpean countries have taken actions. Spain generated 16% of its electricity in 2010 by wind, that would be 13 of your Ozzie units. Why are you claiming it cannot be done without "shutting down all of our coal mines"? It has been done without hurting the economy. As fossil fuel prices escalate the Spainish look better all the time. It is clear from your numbers that only by engaging all the countries in the world can this problem be truly addressed. If we want the Chinese to take action the developed countries have to lead the way. Your argument that we should wait for the Chinese to lead is simply a call for inaction. The Chinese make the same argument and say the developed countries should lead. Once the developed countries show how economies can function with less carbon the developing countries will follow. We can start with efficiency improvements and then add wind and solar electricity. We will see what the next steps are after we have started. -
dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 1 March 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Lou #24 - I got the distinct impression that Curry's comments with regards to climate sensitivity were no more than her "gut feeling". She provided no support for the statement, and as others have noted, it's a scientifically and statistically indefensible position. It seems to me that a lot of the things Curry writes on her blog, including with regards to 'hide the decline', are based on little more than her 'gut feeling'. It only took me about a half hour of looking through the TAR and AR4 to see that her accusations had almost no merit. -
muoncounter at 04:04 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Robert - that's terrific! Second Alb's suggestion of freezing the last frame. Do you take requests? Carbontracker set to the standard for scary music: O Fortuna! -
Peter Bellin at 03:56 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Thanks for doing this; I think it will perk the students up when this is shown in class, or embedded in a course page. -
Jeff T at 03:41 AM on 1 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
There are multiple aspects of this post that confuse me. The mass in Figure 1 (Schrama's Figure 2) appears linear in time, with a superimposed annual oscillation. The figure doesn't seem consistent with a mean rate of -252 Gt/yr and an acceleration of -22 Gt/yr^2. If I'm wrong, a segment of a parabola with that slope and curvature ought to fit the data well. I read the paper and the figure doesn't seem to match the text or the tabular data. Please ask Schrama to comment. Rignot 2011 is a pre-print. Shouldn't it be refereed before its results are used here? I think Figure 3 is the mass change rate and the units ought to be Gt/yr. Note that a negative mass loss would be a mass gain. -
Albatross at 03:33 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Robert-- fantastic work! Is there any way to freeze that last images for a few seconds? Just to let the message really sink in? i found it cutting away immediately also a little anti-climatic. wish I had the skills to do this kind of stuff. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:22 AM on 1 March 2011Meet The Denominator
Andrew... I didn't see any of your comments that were deleted but I have to say that I understand the heavy handed moderation. The climate issue is very politically charged and prone to easily go off topic. There have been a great many times when my own comments have been deleted on other threads, so you're not alone. When this happens I usually have to take a step back and figure out why I've crossed the line and how I can try to steer my comments toward the science at hand. Consider the moderation here at SkS to be a form of on-the-fly peer review. -
muoncounter at 03:20 AM on 1 March 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
#122: "there is more money to be made on the AGW side than the opposition. So, when one claims that there are riches to be made against AGW, I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve entered the Twilight Zone" Then why are so many corporate lobbies painting any financial controls on fossil fuel emissions as a 'carbon tax'? Why is there so much resistance to EPA regulation of CO2? Because corporate profits are at stake -- those are the riches that Koch Bros et al want to protect. Don't fantasize that these lobbies are concerned for middle class jobs - that would truly be living in the Zone. Which was a great show, by the way. #125: "Big Oil must actually spend money to make money. When the gov't gives away Billions of dollars" There's the core of NQA's argument: Big Oil profits are the fruit of honest labor; Big Science is living off the public trough. For that to be a legitimate equivalence, we'd have to include Big Military and the contractors whose sole income is government handouts. But that would be even further off-topic. -
funglestrumpet at 03:19 AM on 1 March 2011Prudent Risk
I appologise if this comment is off topic, but I think it is related. I have just been exploring ‘peak oil’ and it occurs to me that coping with it should be included in the benefits of tackling Climate Change. Clearly, if we as a species are going to have to wean ourselves off our oil dependency,’ business as usual is not an option. Reducing CO2 production will naturally result from a reduction in oil consumption. Therefore, we should draw people’s attention to the fact that tackling Climate Change will also have significant benefits in tackling Peak Oil. For any not familiar with the topic of Peak Oil (and even those that are), I can recommend 'Oil, Smoke and Mirrors' on YouTube (make sure you watch the interviews that follow the film), and 'The Crash Course' at ChrisMartenson.com (it is much better to watch all 20 sections rather than just the short introduction) - o.k., I know I should get a life! -
Lou Grinzo at 03:10 AM on 1 March 2011Preference for Mild Curry
I would like someone to ask Curry about that 90%/0-10C sensitivity statement, in an arena where she can't dodge the question. Specifically: What is it based on? What is her assessment of how that remaining 10% of probability is distributed -- is any of it below 0? Is it all above 10C? Unless she has an excellent source for this claim, which seems highly unlikely, given how quickly it would have come to light or even be widely known beforehand, how does she view the professional ethics of a climate scientist making such a statement in public? And how would she react if, say, Mann or Schmidt or Trenberth or Hansen did something similar? -
Daniel Bailey at 03:04 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Impressive, Robert! You've taken my favorite climate animation graphic and have improved upon it by adding the dimension of sound to those of color and motion. Inspiring effort! @ Dennis (7) As an FYI (in case some want an exact number), the maximum CO2 levels in the ice core data is 298.7 PPM, IIRC. The Yooper -
les at 02:47 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
397 damorbel: "Would you like to reccommend some passage?" I'm not sure I understand the question nor, indeed, that I need to. Just though some people (clearly you are not excluded) might like some sources for clearing up some of these basic ideas - let alone the more complex ones! Looks like a good list of texts and comments on that. Hoping some knowledge flows in and some errors flow out :) 401 KR - see 367! -
damorbel at 02:34 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #401 KR you wrote:- "My post on basic energy exchanges just demonstrated the principle of energy conservation, which your interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics breaks." 1st Law of thermodynamics "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." 2nd Law of themodynamics The second law states that spontaneous natural processes increase entropy overall, or in another formulation that heat can spontaneously flow only from a higher-temperature region to a lower-temperature region, but not the other way around. In this case I agree with the Wiki article (apart from 'heat flowing') on 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. PS you have noticed that I contribute to Wiki. But please be aware I personally am not the subject of this thread and I regard such comments as a waste of time and effort. -
Dennis at 02:33 AM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
What's particularly good about this video is it clearly demonstrates not only how CO2 has been rising since pre-industrial times, but that the current level is unprecedented. None of the measurements going back 600,000 years exceed 300ppm. But we are now close to 400ppm. How do deniers explain that? -
pbjamm at 02:25 AM on 1 March 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@773 What evidence do you have to support your assertion that it is C and not A? For this to be a non-conspiracy then you need to provide more to back up your claim than vague accusations of impropriety by faceless government officials.Moderator Response: [DB] I appreciate your tenacity on this thread, but let's please try & steer the conversation away from the dangerous waters of conspiracy & impropriety, where many dangers lurk to menace comment safety. Thanks! -
KR at 01:39 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - My post on basic energy exchanges just demonstrated the principle of energy conservation, which your interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics breaks. The more detailed discussion here simply extends that to the sun/Earth/atmosphere/space case. Gas compression is a red herring; irrelevant to the discussion. Temperatures and energy flows are deeply interrelated - more energy flows out of an object (or gas, or liquid) when it is warmer, less when it's cooler. Climate temperatures are the response and feedback to the total energy flows - net flows (summing all directions) as well as individual flows, such as the sun and atmosphere warming the surface. --- I did a bit of research, damorbel, and you have been pushing these incorrect ideas on the 2nd law of thermodynamics for at least 3 years. Given the number of people who have pointed out your errors without your understanding, I suspect you won't get the idea this time either. I would love to be proven incorrect - but educating you on this topic appears to be a Sisyphean task. -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper @29 Easterbrook treats a local temperature record as if it were a global temperature record, which is obviously a fallacious method. What is more, he treats the last data point in the ice core record as though it were very recent, whereas it is in fact 1855. Comparison with modern Greenland temperatures show that for most of the ice core record, temperatures have been below modern temperatures (and may have been below for all of it). Further discussion on this point should be taken here where they are already discussed in detail. -
damorbel at 01:24 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #398 KR in #392 you wrote:- "The purpose of my example is to demonstrate that a cool object can add energy to a warmer object, making it warmer still." It seems from your #398, where you wrote :- "The surface and atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium, as described by..." that you didn't really mean an 'cool object' but a gassy atmosphere. You really should be more clear because thermally speaking 'objects' and gas are very different. The really serious difference is that gases are compressible and their temperature changes when compressed. Also the Earth's gravity compresses the atmosphere while holding it on the planet. Trenberth doesn't consider this at all; none of his diagrams have any mention of temperature, it really is not at all easy to understand his explanations, perhaps you can help. -
Ari Jokimäki at 01:13 AM on 1 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
There's also Lin et al. (2010) who address Spencer & Braswell papers. -
JMurphy at 01:13 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper, what is it about "Dr Easterbrook" that makes you believe him above all others ? -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:03 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper: Dr Easterbrook concludes: "If CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, then global temperatures should mirror the rise in CO2" No, that would only be true if CO2 were the only thing that affects global temperatures. Nobody would claim that is the case. "In 1945, CO2 emission began to rise sharply and by 1980 atmospheric CO2. had risen to just under 340 ppm. During this time, however, global temperatures fell about 0.9°F (0.5° C) in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.4°F (0.2° C) globally." Sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect) also rose in the 1940s, but began to be phased out from the early 70s. Dr Easterbrook is just demonstrating his ignorance of the work that has been done on attribution of climate change in the 20th century. It isn't hard to find, there is a whole chapter on it in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report. Being skeptical is fine, but you do need to know what it is you are skeptical about. These two errors ought to be enough to make anyone skeptical of Dr Easterbrooks article, I suspect there are others. -
alecpiper at 00:53 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
Dr Easterbrook recently uses GISP2 data to show that over the past 25,000 years there have been more extreme fluctuations in temperature than that of the past 200 years. These changes are clearly not AGW. He also shows that there is no relationship to CO2 levels and that over the past 100 years CO2 have shown periods of inverse relationship. Easterbrook GISP2 -
mspelto at 00:35 AM on 1 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
The Zwally et al (2011) paper is excellent. Figure 8 in particular indicates that it is dynamic thinning that dominates the increase in volume loss. Also note figure 14 indicating the amount of loss around Jakobshavn from dynamic thinning versus melting in the areas beyond the ice stream margin. This is not to say melting has not increased and does lead to mass loss, note the Mittivakkat Glacier, just that is not as significant to date. -
Mighty Drunken at 00:20 AM on 1 March 2011Prudent Risk
@RSVP #10 "If on the otherhand a positive effect is very obvious, it is more than likely only a local benefit, whereas on a global scale, someone or some species is suffering in some way. And since it is impossible to predict all outcomes (in a global sense) until this is possible, "being cautious" is about all you can justify." -
KR at 00:12 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp - Actually, the response I expected to my post was a combination of over-interpretation, nit-picking, and red herrings, while ignoring the actual point. If only I was as accurate with the lottery... -
Tom Curtis at 00:12 AM on 1 March 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR @128, I do mean the Medieval Warm Period. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was an exceptionally low number of volcanoes, particularly at the beginning. Because of the reduced aerosol load that follows, there is significant warming (at least in Husserl's models). A similar, though not as extensive, lack of vulcanism occurred in the early twentieth century, and may partly explain the very warm temperatures in the 1930s and 40s. Volcanoes are short lived, but their aerosols can remain aloft in significant quantities for several years. As a result, if several volcanoes occur in a decade, it can significantly lower temperatures for that decade. Given that a single large voclanoe can depress temperatures by up to 0.5 degrees for three years or more, even one large event can drag down the average. In that context, consider the sulfate load in a greenland ice core during the Dalton Minimum:
As you can see, there were two very large volcanoes in that periods, and a continuous sulfate load in the atmosphere. The 1815 volcano (Tambora) is estimated to have generated 14 w/m^2 forcing. Assuming scaling is linear, the background sulfate level would have generated a forcing around -0.5 to -1 w/m^2, or enough for around a 0.5 degree equilibrium decrease in global temperatures after feedbacks. Half a century without volcanoes would remove that negative forcing, and could result (accordingly) in an increase in global meant temperature of up to 0.5 degrees, ie, the equivalent of the MWP.
-
KR at 00:00 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - The purpose of my example is to demonstrate that a cool object can add energy to a warmer object, making it warmer still. The surface and atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium, as described by the Trenberth 2009 energy budgets; the surface receives sunlight and back radiation (input), emits IR, convection, and latent heat, flow and sum flow of energy going sun->surface->atmosphere/space. The atmosphere receives sunlight, various inputs from the surface, and radiates that energy away, flows going sun/earth->atmosphere->earth/space, sum flow sun/earth->atmosphere->space with the energy flow to the surface considerably less than the energy flow from the surface to the atmosphere (thus satisfying the 2nd law of thermodynamics), while still adding some energy to the surface - and hence raising it's temperature to a higher level than it would have without the GHG containing atmosphere. Of course, we've covered this ever so repeatedly before... -
Tom Curtis at 23:32 PM on 28 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
ranyl, the blue crosses mark the 1850-1859 average and the 2000-2009 average at the GRIP site. These temperatures are taken from Box et al 2009. Because it is an average, it does not rise as high as the exceptionally warm 2009 temperature, but the GISP2 ice core, of necessity from how the ice is formed, also represents a multi year average, so we should compare it with multi-year averages rather than single years. Gareth Renowden has confirmed with Box by personal communication that the GRIP site is typically warmer than the GISP2 site, by about 0.9 degrees C. On that basis, you could argue that the modern GISP2 temperature would be about -29 degrees C. However, Renowden took the difference between the 1850's temperature and the 2000's temperature at GRIP and added it to the end of the GISP2 record, with that postion being marked by the grey line. I think that is a better procedure. It would probably be better still to say that the modern decadal average is between 1 and 2 degrees warmer than the end point of the GISP2 ice core. And to correct an error I made, Box et al reconstruct their temperature from local surface station records rather than an ice core. Regarding the Western Pacific data, it shows 250 year averages (see Adeladys'comment @18), so comparison with individual years or even decadal averages is misleading. Modern temperatures are significantly above the last indicated point, but included in a 250 year average, would not significantly move the end point. While there have been no warmer centuries than the current decade, there may have been warmer decades that have been smoothed out by the average, for all we know. That mere possibility is not evidence for BP's position, but we should not neglect it. -
Kevin C at 23:28 PM on 28 February 2011Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
New article adds the contribution from volcanic lakes Including this contribution, total volcanic CO2 emissions could be as high as 420Mt/y, or closer to 2% of human emissions if we use the 23Gt figure from the Skeptic's guide. Still negligable, but worth noting. -
damorbel at 22:55 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #396 les you wrote:- "Looks like SoD has some suggestions for people confused on this issue," Would you like to reccommend some passage? -
Ken Lambert at 22:39 PM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Bern #5 I have a better example Bern. Think of all Australia's current electricity generation capacity as 100 units - about 83 of which comes from coal, 6 from hydro and the balance from hydrocarbon gas, diesel and 'renewables'. China alone will build the equal of 100 units of coal fired generators each year for the next 10 years - that is 1000 units. China will also build vast nuclear and other energy generation sources including renewables (mainly for export to advanced economies). The Chinese already have coal fired capacity 14 times Oz's total generating capacity so in fact by 2020 China will have 24 x 100 = 2400 units of carbon emissions compared with our current 83. Our great leaders have a target of reducing all carbon emissions across the board by roughly 5% by 2020. I can't recall if that is 1990 or 2010 emission levels - but it makes little difference compared with China and the rest of the planet. Electricity generation is about 40% of total carbon emissions. So roughly 2% of the 5% must come from de- carbonizing (shutting down) coal fired power stations. That is 2 out of little Oz's 83 units of coal fired generator capacity. Net result in 2020; 81 units of carbon emitted from our coal fired generators. To do this PM Gillard has just sprung a carbon tax, and prior to that, ex-PM Rudd had an ETS, a great moral challenge, a great abandoning of his ETS and a great fall, resulting in political decapitation by his own Party. Meanwhile back at the ranch (mainly in Qld and NSW), vast amounts of coal are being dug up and exported to China and elsewhere. In fact Oz's main exports are steaming, coking coal and iron ore. All that carbon gets turned into CO2 by the Chinese (and Koreans, Japanese, Indians and other economies). Crucially, our Federal and several State budgets heavily rely on this 'resources' boom for revenue (taxes and royalties) and dare we say - balance. So in the next 10 years, Australia will put itself through a 'carbon tax' to save effectively 2 units of carbon, while the Chinese alone will add 1000 units of carbon to the atmosphere, in addition to the 1400 units it emits today - a large portion of which will come from Australian coal mines. By doing this we will save the Barrier Reef and damaging climate change all over our fair land, and launch ourselves into the new 'renewables' economy and lots of 'green' jobs. Although we love home grown products, our 81 units of C in our CO2 don't know they are Australian. Off they go and mix shamelessly with those 2400 units of C in all that Chinese CO2 and spread all over the planet. Looks more like Chinese CO2 will ruin the Great Barrier Reef, derived from lots of Oz coal which finances Oz prosperity. 2400 is a bit bigger number than 81? I am sure a clever lady like Prof Penny Sackett can do the sums just like me, however, my feeble brain just can't work out the bit about: "If we can change, then surely anyone in the developed world can change, and then we become leaders." Prof Sackett - how do we leverage our current 83 units of carbon emissions and 2 units of reduction via the Gillard Carbon Tax to stop the Chinese *alone* from emitting 2400 units in the next 10 years? Do we shut down all our coal mines? Shut all our coal fired power? Freeze to death in the dark? Or, having no nuclear technology or industry due to labor and green politics - do we instantly go nuclear? Please explain?? -
Kevin C at 22:33 PM on 28 February 2011Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Interesting new paper in Climate Change by Koch and Clague. Abstract: The Medieval Warm Period is an interval of purportedly warm climate during the early part of the past millennium. The duration, areal extent, and even existence of the Medieval Warm Period have been debated; in some areas the climate of this interval appears to have been affected more by changes in precipitation than in temperature. Here, we provide new evidence showing that several glaciers in western North America advanced during Medieval time and that some glaciers achieved extents similar to those at the peak of the Little Ice Age, many hundred years later. The advances cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and likely were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niña-like conditions that, in turn, may be linked to elevated solar activity. Changes in solar output may initiate a response in the tropical Pacific that directly impacts the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and associated North Pacific teleconnections. -
Paul W at 22:32 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
@MarkR I had to laugh at your post! Very funny. You have picked the only two points out of hundreds that could be miss understood if you ignore all the other results and obsess on just those two data points. I guess that is what it takes to be contrary when the data is presented so clearly. I do think you should write it up for WUWT. It belongs their and matches what that site is on about. What is so good about the graph in this video form is that it shows the natural seasonal cycle of the earth with the great line of intake at about 85N of CO2 and release of CO2 as the line of trees that stretch right around the world just south of the tundra lose and then regrow their leaves each autumn and spring. The CO2 signal from this regular event is unmistakeable that is unless you have a bent for obfuscation. We may end up having to use this kind of process of natural seasonal uptake of CO2 and then by a massive effort char as much as we possibly can of the waste leaves to draw down the CO2 if the contrary ones succeed in delaying effective CO2 reduction action and we over shoot what CO2 levels our planet can handle. The garden and domestic waste could be charred to similar effect. Of course coal would need to be completely stopped to make it worth while. Well done by the way for spotting the over lap. Even after 10 years of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels it matches just one seasonal fluctuation in the natural cycle at 85N. The graph very clearly shows we are at the very top of CO2 levels in the last 600,000 years. Human appearing ancestors only appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Full behavioural modernity only appeared 50,000 years ago. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:31 PM on 28 February 2011Prudent Risk
RSVP@18 No, for the species to adapt, the individuals need to survive long enough to find the right combination of genes that allow them to flourish in the new environment. If they are all dead because the environment changes faster than they have time to shuffle their genes then they cannot adapt. They don't need "millions and millions" of years, but they do need more than a handful of generations. The reason insecticides and antibiotics loose effectivenes comparatively quickly is becuase the time between generations is measured in days (which is why drosophola melanogaster is used for experiments in genetics) for insects and seconds/minutes for bacteria. -
RSVP at 22:09 PM on 28 February 2011Prudent Risk
muoncounter #17 "So we are doing calcite bearing creatures a favor by setting in motion the chemistry that dissolves their shells?" According to Darwin, those within the species with the right genes to adapt would survive. By the same token, its the creationist that should be more concerned, and yet, its the liberal scientist that seems to have very little faith in nature's plasticity, and the argument is that it requires "millions and millions" of years. And would these genes not already be there since the CO2 levels were higher at some point? Or, why do insecticides and antibotics loose their potency? Apparently every flu season, there is a need to innoculate people given that viruses are mutating continuously.
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
