Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Next
Comments 98651 to 98700:
-
Albatross at 05:01 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
HR @48, "Apologies Albatross for mixing up denier and skeptic but it makes little difference." Actually, it does make a difference, but whatever. With regard to you're personnal observation about Mauritius in 2001. There's a report here covering the period you were there. They seem to rule out ocean changes associated with climate change. Again you misrepresent what I said. I said "The reefs were not in good shape-- I did not blame that on AGW. Thinking about the poor health of the reef and the abundance of urchins made we wonder about the potential role of urchins taking advantage of the unhealthy corals. That is why I asked Rob and MikeG, who clearly are very well versed on the subject. To be candid I am having trouble accepting the sincerity for your apology, especially when it is followed by another misrepresentation of what I said and even an incredibly cheap shot about my honeymoon. In fact, I would argue that the latter breaks the comments policy. -
dhogaza at 04:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I like the color box graphic, as it makes very clear why denialists like to focus on UK temps as a proxy for the global record (you know, all these comments that claim that the UK historical record shows warming fears are exaggerated, etc). I pointed out recently somewhere that the UK is an island, so would be expected to show warming trends that are diminished (as is the trend for atmospheric temps over the oceans) compared to the interiors of North America and Eurasia, and was tsk-tsk'd for it by the denialist involved. -
dhogaza at 04:46 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"I always thought that Winter started on 21 Dec and finished on 20 Mar. Or that it is the months of Dec, Jan and Feb." For north america and eurasia, meteorological winter is Dec, Jan, Feb. 21 Dec marks the beginning of astronomical winter. -
Albatross at 04:45 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
MikeG and Rob, Thanks for your feedback regarding the urchins. Wish that I had taken the time to look at the urchins closer, but at the time I was more concerned about avoiding their spines ;) -
Tom Curtis at 04:44 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Albatross, This is a perfect place and time to argue the point. In the coming months, various governments in Australia are going to decide how to respond to these floods. If they think there is no AGW, they will conclude that Wivenhoe and Somerset functioned well, that perhaps a slightly improved algorithm for timing and quantity of water releases from Wivenhoe is called for, but that all in all it was a freak event that we probably won't see again for another 50 odd years. It might provide some impetus to look again at some of the canceled dam proposals such as Wolfdene and Traveston Crossing that would not have helped with flood mitigation anyway. Any serious responce will be considered without merit given the infrequent nature of the risk. In contrast, if they think AGW is a threat, they will think that events like this, and worse will become relatively frequent in the future. They will give very serious consideration to improved infrastructure for flood mitigation, and plan for rainfall episodes significantly worse than this. The view will make the difference between whether they consider this a typical scenario for the future (AGW) or a relatively rare near worst case scenario. If they take the later view, they will be wrong and it will cost lives. And if you think the opponents of AGW will hold of on this debate out of any sense of decency, you just need to check out the lies on Andrew Bolt's blog to be disillusioned on that point. -
Albatross at 04:36 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, "2011 might well be on a par with 1974, and AGW (a very strong La Nina) could have a part, but this is not strong evidence for AGW when the limits of natural variation are still largely unknown." Good, so you concded that AGW might have had a hand in this. That was the entire point. I'm not aware of people here citing this events as evidence that AGW is real. We know AGW is a reality, this event is likely evidence that the hydrological cycle is accelerating, especially when viewed together (as one should do) with the flooding in China, Pakistan, Brazil, N. America. -
Tom Curtis at 04:33 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, Re: Wivenhoe At the end of September, Wivenhoe recieved sufficient inflow to boost to to 126.2% of capacity, which was then released back to 100%. Then in the week before Christmas it was boosted to 111.7% of capacity, which was then restored to storage capacity. In the week after christmas it was boosted to 120.5% of capacity which was then released. It then retained excess water continuosly from January 5th until reaching a peak at 188.5% of capacity on Wednesday the 12th. In other words, it was not "near its stops" but on its normal setting prior to the rain that brought the flood. Even had it been at the end of drought storage of 15%, it would still have been restored 73.4% by the post September 2010 rainfall. At a more normal dry period storage capacity of 70 to 80% (as through the 90's) would have brought it to 100% and made no difference. At its peak discharge, Wivenhoe was releasing 56% of normal storage capacity per day. Another 4% of storage capacity entered the Brisbane River from Lockyer Creek and other creeks between Wivenhoe and the city, with another 15% of capacity flowing in from the Bremer. So, had we gone straight from drought to flood, the total discharge down the Brisbane at the city would have been reduced to 48.4% of capacity, a reduction of 35.5%. That would, of course, have prevented major flooding, but the river would still have broken its banks at Graceville, Chelmer, and the West End. That should give a clear indication as to just how exceptional the current rainfall event has been. Brisbane never went straight from drought to flood even when it didn't have dams. That it could have done so with both Wivenhoe and Somerset as flood mitigation is extraordinary. (Data from Courier Mail and SEQ Water web site. To express figures as percentage of a Sydney Harbour, multiply by two.) With respect to the Lockyer Valley, intensive agriculture did not extend up the sides of the range, which remains forested. As the two most heavilly effected towns (Murphy Creek and Grantham) are close under the range on different creeks, the intensive agriculture had little effect on the outcome. Granted that after passing these two towns, a natural forest would have resulted in a slower runoff, but the damage past these two towns was not caused by the speed of the water. Returning once more to variability, I note that you again concentrate your discussion entirely on Brisbane, and leave out the truly extraordinary features of the 2011 floods. With regard to Brisbane, I note the following facts: "The" flood of 1893 (in fact the first of three) was brought about when Brisbane fell under the rain shadow of a third cyclone in succession. Another cyclone within a week caused minor flooding. A fifth and final cyclone caused major flooding that came within 0.27 meters of the first flood in depth. That means that flood was only 0.45 meters less than the heighest recorded flood since stettlement (ie, in nearly 190 years). The report into the 1974 flood notes that more rain fell in the Brisbane River catchement in the lead up to the 1974 flood than fell in the catchment leading up to the third flood in 1893 (they refer to the second flood on the table). Preliminary reports suggest the rainfall leading to the 2011 flood was twice that leading to the 1974 flood, suggesting that without flood mitigation the 2011 flood would have set a new record since settlement. Floods up to 2.5 meters higher than this again have been detected from geological evidence, which is consistent with aboriginal oral history. My point is obviously not that the 2011 flood is outside the range of natural variability (which it oviously isn't). It is that it is plainly pushing towards the upper limit of natural variability. On the assumption of no Global Warming we should find the 2011 Brisbane floods slightly surprising, both because they are only an (approx) one in 50 year event, and because they have occured without a cyclone. On the assumption of AGW we should find it less surprising, both because we expect such floods to occur more frequently, and because we expect them to occur with more normal (ie, non-cyclonic) rain conditions. Of course, AGW is not an assumption but a well evidenced theory with no coherent challengers. -
Albatross at 04:32 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Eric, kdkd and Tom, Thanks for your posts. I have had a quick look at the data and run into some of the same problems that you have identified. Let us regroup. The record high SSTs were brought up in the context of the floods because research has shown that higher SSTs lead to higher PWV contents (e.g., Trenberth et al. 2005). That was the whole point of bringing up the SSTs. Whether the warming occurred 2000 years ago or presently (most likely b/c of AGW/ACC) is not in question here, b/c those historically warmer SSTs would have likely contributed to the acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Eric then seemed to decide to argue the strawman that "The AGW explanation is not in question here, just whether the variation is unprecedented.". Framing the argument that way entirely misses the point. Not to mention the vagueness of the period in question. Unprecedented in the last 2000 years? During the Holocene? Since the peak of the last interglacial? The PETM? The same argument (and a similar one trying to attribute the recent warming to natural variability) has been used by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW/ACC to disregard the significance of the warming observed in the global SAT records. Anyhow, I feel a little awkward arguing about this on this particular thread given that the flooding has taken lives, destroyed and livelihoods. -
Mila at 04:16 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I am in the middle of my regular evening consolidation of Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org and discovered a very fitting conclusion of an article (Ocean heat content increases update): As usual, this is unlikely to be the very last word on the subject, but this is more evidence that the planet is basically behaving as the scientists think it is. And that isn’t necessarily good news. -
Climate sensitivity is low
thepoodlebites - My "favorite paper"??? All of them are interesting. Some of the more directly relevant ones from your question (observations) are Hansen 1993 (energy changes since the last ice age), Tung 2007 (sensitivity from climate response to solar variations) and Bender 2010 (responses to the Mount Pinatubo eruption). All of the papers listed on the intermediate page are worth reading, though. I will not continue the climate sensitivity discussion on the "Is it the sun" thread - that's off topic. -
RW1 at 04:11 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
archiesteel, "The simple fact is that the 3.7 W/m² figure is already halved. This represent the net forcing of 2xCO2. The burden of proof is on you to provide clear evidence it isn't." I've simply asked (on numerous occasions) for a source documenting that the total increase in absorbed power for 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2, which is then halved to get a net of 3.7 W/m^2. I've looked all over and haven't found one and no one here has pointed me to one. -
thepoodlebites at 04:04 AM on 15 January 2011It's the sun
#787: Please, not the shotgun approach. Pick one or two papers, give me your favorite, an observationally based estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. The Feulner and Rahmstorf paper used 3.4 C, from A. Levermann, private communication, 2010. -
Phila at 03:53 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
cruzn246: Anyone who says they have that all figured out is full of hooey. So if I've got this straight, your basic position seems to be: "Ignore all those scientists who've been studying these issues for their entire professional lives. Instead, listen to me, even though I present no credentials and no evidence, and routinely get basic facts wrong." Hmmm. I wonder who to believe? -
It's the sun
thepoodlebites - I've replied over on Is climate sensitivity low, the appropriate thread for that discussion. -
Climate sensitivity is low
thepoodlebites - If you look at the "Intermediate" tab of this discussion you will see half a dozen empirically observed estimates of climate sensitivity, along with another half dozen model based ones. Does this address your request for observational data? -
thepoodlebites at 03:20 AM on 15 January 2011It's the sun
#785: Thank you for the link to the Lindzen and Choi 2009 paper. Sorry, my bad. I have found a pre-print of the 2010 update submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. I think that the revised estimate is 1 C. I prefer an observational based determination rather than model driven predictions. Do you have a cite for your empirical evidence for climate sensitivity to CO2? As to circular reasoning, finding problems with Lindzen's 2009 approach does not address the problems with Feulner and Rahmstorf, assuming the conclusions in the premises. How about the uncertainty in the 2100 temperature predictions? How about the NASA study, the Sun does contribute to global warming, 25%. I still think that your predictions are a bust based on the surface record to date. And "business as usual" is a very important point, but it is off-topic here and best left unsaid. -
From Peru at 03:10 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
The graph "Temperature Cahenge for three latitude bands" http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf seems odd: 2010 is not record warm in any of the 3 latitude bands. However, it is record warm in Northern Hemisphere: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.pdf And tied with 2005 globally: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.pdf Isn't this a contradiction? -
Grim_Reaper at 02:51 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Marcus, I believe renewable energy is very much IN the game and nothing anyone can do will stop that. I am extremely excited by the promise shown by some of the tech that's out there but what I'm asking is whether what we have now (and will have in the near future) is scalable enough e.g. Is energy storage ready to allow wind to contribute more than 20% of any nation's electric? In the UK, we're throwing a lot at wind power, using feed-in tariffs to encourage solar and renewable heating, we're developing tidal, wave power, and biomass, but I don't see anything coming up that's going to replace large numbers of coal-fired power stations before, say, 2030. Can we wait that long? Looking across the English Channel at France, I see a country that has very low carbon electric and energy security because 75% of their electric is from nuclear. It does me wonder sometimes. -
archiesteel at 02:42 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
@hfranzen: don't be discouraged by the onslaught of contrarians trying to cast doubt on your paper. The fact that they are so relentless in their critics (all without evidence) probably means you did a good job. I would recommend against trying to convince people like RW1 and co2isnotevil, though. I don't think *any* amount of evidence would convince them, as they have already decided they were right, and everybody else was wrong. They are not interested in a rational debate, but rather in pushing their beliefs. I guess it depends on how much time you have to waste on such fruitless pursuits... -
archiesteel at 02:36 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
@RW1: "The IPCC says a doubling of CO2 results in an intrinsic increase in surface power of 3.7 W/m^2. I've said before on here that if only half of the absorbed power affects the surface, the actual is only 1.85 W/m^2." You have failed to provide evidence that supports this assertion, even though you keep repeating it thread after thread. The simple fact is that the 3.7 W/m² figure is already halved. This represent the net forcing of 2xCO2. The burden of proof is on you to provide clear evidence it isn't. -
archiesteel at 02:33 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
@TerryG is probably referring to the study by CEPOS that concluded Danes pay the highest price for electricity in the European Union. Of course, what TerryG may not know is that the CEPOS is a conservative think tank and that the study was commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research, a Houston-based organization which the Los Angeles Times described as "a Washington-based hotbed of global warming denial supported by oil and coal interests." Never mind the fact that wind power has been a tremendous success in Danemark... -
OPatrick at 02:13 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Thanks scatter. Everything I hear about high-altitude wind systems seems so positive - I've always assumed there's some flaw to make it unworkable on any sort of commercial scale, but haven't come across one yet. Possibly interference with flight paths, but it's obvious who should win that battle! As these systems use so little land area I wonder if there would be potential to site them with large solar arrays to reduce infrastructure requirements. They also just look fun - maybe that's why everyone involved always seems so enthusiastic. -
Paul D at 02:05 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Terry said: "Ask the Danish what happens when you rely on wind power." They work on the basis of system design that reaches across borders. Norway and Sweden have a large hydro capacity that can be easily regulated, so Denmark exports electricity when they have 'to much wind' and Norway/Sweden switch off the taps. The reverse is true when the wind is down. As I stated in my previous comment, part of the investment in Europe is a supergrid/interconnectors. Of all the technology and systems required, interconnections between nations is well established. Some see this as being negative, because they visualise nations as needing to be independent and self contained entities?? Yet as far as other issues are concerned trade is fundamental and accepted, including trade of fuels. But for some reason trade in electrons in wires, doesn't register as being appropriate. -
JMurphy at 02:03 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
With regard to the UK figure for December, it is worth reading what the Met Office has to say : Provisional figures from the Met Office issued today reveal that December 2010 has become the coldest December across the UK since the national series began in 1910. The previous coldest December in the series was 0.1 °C, in 1981. The provisional UK, England and Wales figures for December 2010 show that the month was the coldest month since February 1986. In Scotland it was the coldest month since February 1947, and in Northern Ireland the coldest month on record. More here. It was abnormally cold weather for about a month but since then it has been very mild and approaching April temperatures. -
tobyjoyce at 01:49 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
@Arkadiusz Semczyszak Marcus has alrady responded to you, but just let me iterate: Here in Ireland we had record December snowfalls, & record low temperatures. January has been distinctly average -in fact where I live the outside temperature is 10C, and I can see grass growing already between the bricks inside my front gate! Much the same seems to be true for the UK & France. December saw a shift in the jet stream that brought Arctic air over Europe. This will no doubt be looked upon as a cold winter, but a "record"? Doubt it. If it was, why would that be significant? You should think about Marcus' comment about single weather events. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:47 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
@Marcus That perhaps we are at the beginning of a new trend. Perhaps the exceptionally severe winter is not only a "single weather - hot summers and a signal continentalization climate - cool. As a rule, such a unique individual events are an indicator of the coming changes.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As others have pointed out already, you are speaking about weather. Climate change is about long-term variations. What may for some has been a severe winter thus far, for others has been exceptionally mild (with several months of variation yet to go). Highliting this current winter's "weather":
-
Yvan Dutil at 01:47 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
In my mind this picture make the whole statement about the uneven temperature variation very clear.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Nice chart, one of my fav's. Superbly illustrates polar amplification like no other. Thanks for sharing! -
JMurphy at 01:40 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I always thought that Winter started on 21 Dec and finished on 20 Mar. Or that it is the months of Dec, Jan and Feb. How can anyone be calling this the "coldest since 327 years" when we are only about half through the current Winter ? Also, what exactly was the temperature in 1683 ? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:40 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
According to data from paper Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef, De’ath, Lough and Fabricius, 2009., GBR calcification decline looks like this. -
Marcus at 01:39 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Grim_Reaper, your claims are just the repetition of propaganda from those who are desperate to keep renewable energy out of the game. Photo-voltaic cells, for example, have increased in efficiency from less than 6% to more than 20% in the space of only 20 years-whilst the price per watt has dropped from $25 to less than $5 in a similar time frame-all on a *fraction* of the money received from coal & nuclear power. Battery storage, thermal storage, pumped storage, redox cell storage & compressed air storage are all viable *right now*. Biomass energy-particularly from land-fill & sewage gas is equally available *right now*. Tidal Power, Run of River & Tidal Stream Power are also available right now-as is Geothermal. Though new, Osmotic Power is also looking extremely promising, as is hydrogen. Even without any major breakthroughs, a variety of renewable energy resources-combined with demand management-could easily meet the vast majority of the energy needs of most Nations. All that is lacking is the will to stand up to the vested interests who currently hold our energy & fuel distribution networks to ransom! -
Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom Curtis #50 You are correct in the difference between flood levels at the Port Office and the City Gauge. The Port Office level should be reduced about 1.4m to equate to the City Gauge. 1974 would have been about 0.5m higher that 2011 and 1893 over 3m higher than 2011 at the City Gauge. Every event has different characteristics, and the effect of the 'shock absorber' dams is generally one of mitigation. However, the strongest La Nina (probably on record) in Australia has produced a very wet year for most of the north and east except for the south west corner of WA. This is a similar pattern to 1974. Floods in Dalby and the shocking Lockyer Valley 'tsunami' also must take into account intensive agriculture of these areas which has a large effect on runoff behaviour. Rainfall in the Brisbane catchment heavily since September has been absorbed by Somerset and Wivenhoe; so the shock absorber was up near its stops. Half the water flow of the 2011 flood in Brisbane was from Wivenhoe, and the other half from below. A difficult decision had to be made to release water or exceed the dam's extreme capacity. Had the droughted dam (at 17% capacity about 18 months ago) received this recent deluge, we might have had a small flood if at all as Wivenhoe probably would not have released water over the critical couple of days. The point remains from the 1974 BOM report: "Meteorological studies suggest that rainfalls well in excess of those recorded in the floods of 1893 and 1974 are possible". This is a pre-AGW report which suggests that the limits of natural rainfall events could be well in excess of the 1974 and 1893 floods. 2011 might well be on a par with 1974, and AGW (a very strong La Nina) could have a part, but this is not strong evidence for AGW when the limits of natural variation are still largely unknown. -
Marcus at 01:32 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Like I said, adelady, with Vanadium Flow Cells, you could potentially store several Gigawatt hours of night-time wind power for distribution during the day-time, when wind-power is often slightly more scarce. -
Marcus at 01:29 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"P.S. Newspaper in Germany, France and Britain have announced that this winter is the coldest since 327 years (in Poland at the moment is thaw ...)" Factually incorrect again. Germany had its coldest *December* since 1969, the UK had its coldest December since 1979. Only France had truly *record* cold weather for December. I think you need to check your facts a little more carefully in the future. Of course, the next question is-what's your point? Since when does a single weather event constitute a trend? Was the record heat wave in Europe during the summer *proof* of global warming? -
Marcus at 01:20 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"In a semi closed system, like we are in, warming or cooling can occur with a relatively steady solar irradiance." It appears that cruzn246 is unfamiliar with the basic principle of Conservation of Energy. If the amount of energy entering & leaving the system remains unchanged, then so will long-term temperature trends. However, change the amount of energy coming in-or going out-& you get a change in the long term trend. What is interesting, though, is how we continue to get a long term warming trend even though the amount of incoming energy has been dropping at an average of 0.02 Watts/meter squared over the last 30 years. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:01 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Very interesting work. One note. Is no “real” correlation - causal association - between anthropogenic aerosols and NH temperature (it is coincidental) - Consistency of global satellite-derived aerosol and cloud data sets with recent brightening observations., Cermak et al., 2010.: “In a period from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, aerosol optical depth is found to have started declining in the early 1990s, while cloud data sets do not agree on trends.” Can aerosol decrease cloud lifetime?, Small et al., 2009.: “... (ii) the “lifetime effect” whereby anthropogenic aerosol suppresses precipitation and results in clouds with more liquid water, higher fractional cloudiness, and longer lifetimes. Based on new observations presented here, and supported by previous fine-scale modeling studies, we suggest that the balance of evidence shows that non-precipitating cumulus clouds can experience an evaporation-entrainment feedback, and respond to aerosol perturbations in a manner inconsistent with the traditional “lifetime effect.” It is rather a weakening of the AMOC. P.S. Newspaper in Germany, France and Britain have announced that this winter is the coldest since 327 years (in Poland at the moment is thaw ...) -
Grim_Reaper at 01:01 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Are there any credible studies out there that try to map out what proportion of world electricity needs to come from renewables year-by-year to give us a chance to stabilise CO2 emissions? I get the feeling that renewables will fall short of whatever's required (even if we go all out) for decades: So much of the technology is still 'growing up' (like solar and biomass), or has limitations (such as the intermittancy of wind), or is still under development (Energy storage would be a game changer but is still years away). Is there a gap opening up between where we need to be and where we actually are? If so, and it pains me to say this, could there be a case for using nuclear to plug that gap while we catch up? -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - O2 and N2 will emit at characteristic line spectra based upon their molecular properties. They do not emit significant amounts in the thermal IR region, and hence do not factor into energy loss to space at Earth climate temperatures. Their emissivity at surface and atmospheric temps is essentially zero. In a hypothetic world without greenhouse gases the radiative energy going to space would be emitted from the surface, ground and ocean, emissivity ~90-95%, very close to a blackbody curve. Your question here is unclear to me - regarding the observed gaps in the emission spectra of the Earth, those are the GHG bands where IR is being re-radiated to the surface rather than space, and where the final emission to space (upper troposphere for H2O, stratosphere for CO2) is from much colder gases with correspondingly lower emission values than the surface. -
AlexanderAc at 00:35 AM on 15 January 2011Slovak translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Hi Matt, well, there are cca. 5 000 000 Slovak people and many of them do not speak english. (AFAIK) And also every person who knows more about climate is useful, I think. But I agree absolutely with you that it might not be the most productive way to reduce emissions, but maybe it is necessary. China - at the per capita basis is still (though rising dramatically) lower than Slovakia, much less than US.... India is even less... Nobody said that knowing about global warming will reduce CO2. One person can only do what he/she can. And see the comment above :-) -
Mila at 00:34 AM on 15 January 2011Slovak translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
#1 CIA World Factbook: 5,470,306 (July 2010 est.) - 90%+ of them will have problems with English texts of this complexity; I do not know the translator whose work you so splendidly appreciated and maybe this is the reason that I see really red and cannot resist an ad hominem attack: how many foreign languages do you know in which you can read a material like this? -
scatter at 00:31 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Heraclitus, NASA now have a research programme looking at airborne wind energy: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=39102541# The potential is enormous, capacity factors high and embodied emissions low. It's a strong contender for being a hugely disruptive technology. In my view this area should get a massive R&D injection quick sharp. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:22 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
@ Mike G As we can see and the various works - showing a different response of corals to temperature and reduce the alkalinity of water - I have presented only saying that the corals “will cope”. This is a "cherry picking", but only because they lacked the cited work - by me - above. Are coral reefs "will cope"? The worst of the corals will be very close to the pole (there are only 1-2 species of reef-building a whole), but: Lough and Barnes, 2000., comparison the two 20-year periods 1903-1922 and 1979-1998: "the SST-associated increase in calcification is estimated to be less than 5% in the northern GBR, ~12% in the central GBR, ~20% in the southern GBR and to increase dramatically (up to ~50%) to the south of the GBR." Is today's coral species survived similar changes in pH of the oceans - and temperature - as it is today? CO2 emissions causing ocean acidification to progress at unprecedented rate, National Research Council US: “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says.” “The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs.” It is true that we have only regional (but based on a consistent method of research) work in identifying variation in the pH of the oceans during the Last Glacial Period and the Holocene, but probably they may be representative for the whole ocean. Abrupt sea surface pH change at the end of the Younger Dryas in the central sub-equatorial Pacific inferred from boron isotope abundance in corals (Porites), Douville et al., 2010.: “Modern coral 11B values and the reconstructed sea surface pH values for different Pacific areas match the measured pH expressed on the Sea Water Scale and confirm the calculation parameters that were previously determined by laboratory calibration exercises. Most ancient sea surface pH reconstructions near Marquesas are higher than modern values.” ... but: “This last finding provides further evidence of the marked changes to the water mass pH and temperature properties in the equatorial Pacific at the Younger Dryas- Holocene transition and the strong impact of oceanic dynamic on the atmospheric CO2 content.” “An abrupt pH drop to 8.05 [-0,2 pH - unit] was observed at the end of the Younger Dryas around 11.5 kyr BP.” I recommend Figure 6 - circa 8.1 pH was the case 2 and 6 thousand years ago. In paper Instability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the mid-late Holocene : Evidence from boron isotopic composition of corals, Liu et al., 2009. On this figure, we see a rapid decrease in pH of seawater circa 4,000 years ago and a pH lower than today - 6 thousand years ago. The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems, Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno, 2010.: There is a sentence like this: “Marine ecosystems are centrally important to the biology of the planet, yet a comprehensive understanding of how anthropogenic climate change is affecting them has been poorly developed.” ... but also a this sentence: “Recent studies indicate that rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation.” -
muoncounter at 00:21 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#8: "Tell us something we didn't know" Thanks, I take it from this remark that you are in agreement with faster than reported warming. You don't have to look far, even here on SkS, to find those who do not agree -- so 'something we didn't know' depends on what you mean by 'we'. "Thought is long from proof." Ah, that must be the sound of moving goalposts. If you have issues with either a solar cause for the early 20th century warming or the aerosol cause for mid-century cooling, see the relevant SkS posts. The rest of your last paragraph is a mass of confusion: for example, what's a 'semi-closed system'? Boil it down to the final 'world just doesn't seem to like to stay the same,' which is just another version of 'we don't know' or 'we can't know' or the usual ascientific tripe. Try harder next time. #9: JMurphy, input boxes? Don't see 'em here in Firefox. -
JMurphy at 00:11 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I can see three input boxes within the post, which cannot be clicked on or anything, and with greyed-out scroll bars. Is there meant to be anything in them, or is it just me and my computer/browser ? cruzn246, rather than constantly posting what you believe and don't believe, why not actually provide some data, evidence (whatever) so everyone can test the veracity of those beliefs ? -
sime at 00:09 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
For those of you who like a project this site will help you figure out how to lower your bills via - Solar, Wind, thermal, bio fuel etc. http://www.builditsolar.com/ Have a look at some of the big projects - I am on large cansolair build number 2 similar to this http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/GregCanCol/GregCanCo.htm and will be doing a hot water system this year ready for next winter very similar to this http://www.krystofiak.com/solar/intro.html and this http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/24by8Collector.htm For those who have doubts about heating from the sun try here http://www.youtube.com/user/richallenmusic#p/u/23/2Cm-cbOWvSs These systems work, they save you large amounts of money on your bills, and more to the point by actively participating in this you are actively reducing you carbon footprint. This is one of those rare hobbies that will save you money rather than cost you a fortune and can involve the whole family, can be great fun to build, and be a very effective way of teaching your children about alternative energy sources and their associated benefits and how to use them. -
cruzn246 at 00:07 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
So what. Tell us something we didn't know. Here is the part that makes me wonder. "We know that early 20th century warming, thought to be largely driven by increasing solar irradiance, was followed by a mid-century cooling episode thought to be due to increasing aerosols." Thought is long from proof. We are still fuzzy on drivers and their net effects historically and presently. Anyone who says they have that all figured out is full of hooey. By this you would almost think that solar irradiance had to increase to have a warm-up. Not true. In a semi closed system, like we are in, warming or cooling can occur with a relatively steady solar irradiance. About the only thing that is unlikely during fairly steady solar times is steady temps. This world just doesn't seem to like to stay the same temp for long.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] For someone studying climate science you demonstrate little command of the subject in your numerous postings here at Skeptical Science. Please be a positive resource to this discussion by providing links to peer-reviewed sources which support your position, rather than the dismissive handwaving which you do currently. Thanks! -
TerryG at 00:02 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Ask the Danish what happens when you rely on wind power. -
adelady at 23:59 PM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, hope things are starting to get a bit cleaner for you now. Just a management question. Will businesses get priority for electrical certification to reconnect? I'd hope so, but it'd be nice to be sure. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:57 PM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom Curtis, an apples to apples comparison would be a wide area of proxies to a wide area of measurements (the BOM area is a bit small). Bob Tisdale's site had this chart http://i55.tinypic.com/2udz7yh.jpg showing about a 0.5 C rise which seems to agree with the BOM data. The AGW explanation is not in question here, just whether the variation is unprecedented. Here's a link to a (perhaps) better paleo proxy temperature study. Still only a few sampling locations, but they are spread out and their broader trends are comparable. Excel is also provided, here's the study http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7004/full/nature02903.html Since there is virtually no modern data in this study, it cannot be used to compare modern changes, only past changes. It shows about 0.4C of rise and fall (figure 3b) from 2k ybp to a peak at 1k to preindustrial where the chart ends. There's not as much support for my "meme" here, but I need to find studies with more collection points, better resolution and modern data to be more certain. -
adelady at 23:41 PM on 14 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
The Ville, thanks for those examples. Here we already have some airconditioning units set to respond to remote adjustment to temperature when the grid is overloading. My view is that we already have the technology to allow airconditioning, water heating, refrigerators and freezers, industrial lighting - and we will soon have carparks fitted with plugin for electric cars - to be remotely switched on or off, or up/down depending on the grid situation. Instead of those German wind generating systems having to pay people to leave lights on at night when the wind is *really* blowing, we could have all such units built (or retrofitted) to feed into the grid if possible (cars) and to use up surplus generation where necessary or reduce demand by adjusting temperature settings or turning units on or off on a rotating basis. Once we change the engineering focus to the grid away from the idea of central supply and passive distribution, a whole lot of new approaches will follow quite naturally. -
Ned at 23:22 PM on 14 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Hey, nice post, muoncounter. (And thanks for the links to my older posts....)
Prev 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Next
