Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 Next
Comments 105101 to 105150:
-
ranyl at 09:46 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
"The PETM carbon release rate was estimated using our initial carbon input of 3,000 Pg C and an input timescale of the order of 5,000 years (ref. 29), giving a rate of 0.6 Pg C y-1. The average carbon release rate from fossil-fuel burning and cement manufacturing from 1954-2004 is 5 Pg C y-1 (ref. 30)." Zeebe 2010 as above. ref.29. Röhl, U., Bralower, T. J., Norris, R. D. & Wefer, G. New chronology for the late Paleocene thermal maximum and its environmental implications. Geology 28, 927-930 (2000). 30. Marland, G., Boden, T. A. & Andres, R. J. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions (CDIAC, ORNL, US DOE, 2007). Interesting facts, the rate of CO2 pulse in PETM was 0.6yr compared to 5yr currently (and increasing) so that is rate of 8.3x as fast at present. CO2 levels have risen by 40% of a doubling, although this rises to ~65% with CO2e, and the total rise in the PETM was 70% of a doubling, so basically equivalent, but the rise in the PETM took 1000-5000yrs and now it has taken 200yrs although >50% in the last 30years. The rate of temp. rise as pointed out already was 0.06 per decade then and is now 0.2 per decade, or 3.3x as fast for the last 30-40 years. Also note that the temp. rise in the PETM was 5-9C, which gives a climate sensitivity of 7.1C to 12.8C which is interesting. So basically the same degree of heating force has been added to the earth's system at rate 8x higher than at any other time noted so far and if that rate is translated into the same increase in rate in temperature change that would be 0.06Cx8 = 0.48C per decade, considering there is 30-40 year lag in the system (meaning the current rate of rise is most reflective of CO2 conc in 1970-80 so about 330ppm) maybe things are about to speed up and the rate of current warming does seem to be accelerating in general trend over the last 50 years or so. Also it seems when something is heated slowly things occur steadily yet when heat is added quickly things seem to occur in a more choatic way and the harder you push a choatic system the more interesting and dramatic the changes of state are. In the case of earth's chaotic system these interesting changes mean interesting weather patterns and it does appear that new weather patterns are emerging or rare ones occuring more often (Arctic dipole and continental winter cold pattern (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf)). Anyway time will tell exactly how fast the earth can warm to a very sudden and very large (in terms of % of doubling) increase in one of its a basic warming influencing. And it is rate of rise that seems to be related to mass extinction induction and at present the earth's eco-systems aren't that healthy. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:36 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Re: Mike (36) Thanks for the link. Reading it, one can clearly see that it erodes the basement rocks upon which skeptical geologists rest their foundations. :) The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 09:33 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
The website could not have been copied from the report because the report came after the website Well, you are correct on that point only (re-reading on my part), however the WWF report is as follows (link provided above): " Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. "(46) 46 = D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. A l e n c a r, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. S c h l e s i n g e r, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large - scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505 Nepstad 1999?. I'm sure there a few copies of that lying around. See above. Secondly, I reiterate, the IPCC and the WWF report claims are different - it is even evident in the small portion of the claim you have reproduced above. I must admit, I've known for a while, where you were heading with that particular "gotcha". Ho-hum. See Nepstad's comments reproduced in my previous post @21. The IPCC rules for use of grey literature (found in Principles governing IPCC work) state that authors should critically evaluate grey literature and the requirement for its use in its reports From the IPCC principles appendix: Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source are requested to: a. Critically assess any source that they wish to include. This option may be used for instance to obtain case study materials from private sector sources for assessment of adaptation and mitigation options. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report. b. Send the following materials to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs who are coordinating the Report: - One copy of each unpublished source to be used in the IPCC Report - The following information for each source: - Title - Author(s) - Name of journal or other publication in which it appears, if applicable - Information on the availability of underlying data to the public - English-language executive summary or abstract, if the source is written in a non English language - Names and contact information for 1-2 people who can be contacted for more information about the source. Critically assess, seems somewhat subjective don't you think?. Public availability doesn't seem an issue either. Could the IPCC have handled this better?. Absolutely, they should have simply referenced the peer-reviewed literature, for starters. The crucial issue is whether the IPCC statement on the Amazon susceptibility to drought is correct - it is. There's ample research carried out since the 2007 IPCC report that strengthens this view (to be covered in a later post) and as a matter of fact severe drought is currently affecting the Amazon: Drought strikes the Amazon rainforest again -
Marcus at 09:19 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, Chris Canaris, you will note that I have *never* resorted to ad hominem attacks against you-or ever accused you of deception-largely because you seem willing to have an intelligent debate about the issues. Thingadonta-& several others who post here-instead resort to the usual tactics of denial for its own sake-even to the point of repeatedly misrepresenting the science. My ultimate point is still valid though-that in spite of any uncertainties, the warming of the last 30 years alone (against the backdrop of a relatively quiet sun) suggests that a BAU approach is extremely unwise-if not downright fatal-especially as most of the negative feedbacks we know of from geological time take centuries to millenia to take effect-wheras the positive feedbacks (like reduced ice-albedo, reduced CO2 uptake by a warming ocean & the melting of clathrates) occur in the space of decades. If I were a gambling man, that knowledge would make me very wary of betting on a "She'll be right" outcome! -
Daniel Bailey at 09:19 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: gallopingcamel (272), Barry Brook (277), Peter Lang (254, et al) Apologies for not attending to this earlier (still Internet-access-challenged for a few more days). Several posters upthread had queried Peter as to his position on AGW (for various reasons I, which I won't dwell on here). Curious, I asked Peter myself in my comment at 249. My reasoning for doing so was stated there. Peter was kind enough to respond to me in his comment at 254, wherein he spelled out what he would talk about INRE: Co2"I’ll talk about cutting CO2 emissions, costs of doing so, security of supply etc, and leave others to join the dots in the way they want to."
But he again declined to specify a position on AGW. Very curious. Why have CO2 emissions reductions as an area of concern when Peter won't even acknowledge the veracity of the science behind it (which says it's a profound problem)? And if he is indeed truly pro-AGW on other websites, why the sudden reticence here? I do not dispute his knowledge on NP (far in excess of mine). Heck, I agree that NP should be a primary (short term and long term) replacement for fossil fuels. But, given the current prevailing public sentiments towards NP, pragmatism dictates an inclusionist perspective at the "lets replace fossil fuels as energy sources" dinner table party. I was not dictating any specific mix, but in my response at 267 I did specify that NP should be central to the equation. So, why does Peters silence on AGW matter? It revolves around the fundamental crux of education. Without acknowledgement of a need to change, change cannot readily take place. For example, alcoholics will not begin to recover until they admit they have a problem. Our world has a problem with excess CO2 emissions. That is what the science tells us. The role of educating the world on the dangers of excess CO2 has to be filled somehow, by someone or something. That is the role for SkS: convincing those who will convince the world of the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, where they can do no further damage to the world on which all of us depend. Given success in that educational path, a replacement stategy for coal as a source for energy production has to then be developed and sold to the public. In that area, Peter's knowledge and expertise would be valuable. But if he's unwilling to be transparent about potential conflicts of interests and motivations here, among a more friendly and receptive audience, how much sway will he have convincing the public at large? One more thing: even if a full-NP solution is implemented, rollout will take time. Without the education to convince areas without NP to replace fossil fuels, do you really think people won't continue to burn what they have? Even a full-blown implementation of everything we have, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, wind, NP...all will take years to roll out and implement. During which CO2 will still be injected into the carbon cycle. How much is too much? How much time do we have? At some point, where do we cross that line in the feedback process where methane clathrate/hydrate releases from permafrost go from a remote possibility to a real possibility? To an eventuality? Can anyone say that we haven't already crossed that line? Bueller? Disaster planners speak of planning for the worst possibility, not the worst expectation. A PETM-style methane release from permafrost hydrate/clathrate stores is still just a possibility at the moment (from my understanding of the literature). But given the uncertainties, to avoid a shift into it becoming a probability, every effort to avoid more CO2 releases by humans should be undertaken wherever and whenever possible. This experiment we are in the middle of can only be done once. There are no do-overs. No extra lives. Who amongst you feels differently? On what knowledge do you base this? Please do share, if so. Peter, I care about my children, my neighbors, my countrymen, my race. As I'm sure you do as well. I respect your obvious knowledge and expertise on NP. I feel NP must occupy a central role in weaning the world off fossil fuels, with time of the essence. But I don't need you compromising your potential role in the upcoming educational process with the public, which must take place, because you feel reluctant to take a stand on AGW here, among a friendlier audience than you'll find in the world at large. I need you to step up here, for me, my children and yours. And everyone else. The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 09:14 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
I have read Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004. They do not support the IPCC's claim. Shub, Your posts thus far, (aside from the South Park - Chewbaccan logic) have consisted of taking your word over that of Daniel Nepstad. I find it notable that you never provide references for your claims. This is the internet remember? Anyone can write anything, which is why we prefer posters to provide legitimate references. Notice the difference between my posts and yours?. I've read Nepstad's papers, and a whole lot more besides, I agree with Nepstad. I'll recap, here's what Nepstad (a scientist who has studied the Amazon for decades) and the lead author of those cited studies had to say (from the link provided above): "The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.[Nepstad et al. 1999]" (Rowell and Moore 2000)" "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007. In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct". -
protestant at 08:55 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Like John Kehr pointed out at #26, there is also a recent study which cuts the melting in half. Yet your graph shows a double loss without any explanation why you picked this information over another. At #29: Yeah very significant. With 103+-24Gt loss / year doesnt sound very significant considering Greenland has 2 600 000 Gt of ice. But of course when the plots are zoomed 1300x the original size it seems significant. Note that todays instruments are VERY sharp and just because we find a result on a direction or another it doesnt yet mean squat. If you would print the data on A4 and then plot also the rest of the scale (whole 2 600 000Gt) you would get 273meters of A4's on top of each other. With the current speed it will melt in just 25 000 or so years. And claims of "acceleration" are pointless when coming from people claiming no shorter trends than 30 years is allowed. Now you have just 8 years of data and instantly claim it "accelerating". Thats a very unsound and hasty conclusion. -
scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta - Please lets have some clarity about what I claim (or more importantly the published science claims). "1. We don't know it went up 6 degrees in 1000 years at 55Ma. The resolution is not <5,000 years." The resolution claimed by Kennett and Stott (data source for Zeebe) is about 800 years. However there are a lot of factors to consider in the both the temperature and CO2 proxies and I would say that it is safer to claim that both the CO2 and temperature rose together over a time period of less than 5000 years. "2. .... Shouldn't it be 5,000/1000 years?" I am claiming that climate response for that impulse of CO2 was 6 degrees and that the record such as we have is consistent with known physics. I see no evidence in the record for some negative feedback that might save us. I do not claim that you can infer maximum rates from this record - I infer those physical models. "He takes linear projections of current rates" I do nothing of the sort. I would infer rate from climate modelling and these do not give any support for linear projection. "The geological record generally indicates that major climate changes associated with c02 generally occur slowly" They do? Where is your evidence? The PETM data I pointed to show warming was rapid to point of stretching the resolution of the records. Have you looked at that data? The trouble with geological records is that resolution issues constrain lowest possible rate of warming but make it hard to constrain the highest possible rate. If temperature jumps from x to y in between two samples then rate must be faster than (y-x)/sample resolution but you cant tell how much faster. What you can say is that they are consistent with physics which would predict a rapid rate. "AGW proponents, see this past geological data, and the last several decades of climate changes and emission data, and based on linear projections" I havent seen such assertions. Can you point me to publications making such linear projections please? "there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change, which negative feedbacks have not yet been observed, understood or incorporated into the IPCC models." This is entirely possible but where is the evidence for them? Certainly not in the PETM data. "But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks," No, a recognition that while they exist, they operate on timescales that do not prevent mass extinctions and not fast enough to prevent climate disruption to human activities. "The catastrophists (for mine, similar to today's AGW proponents) were the ones who were resisting evolution by natural selection, not the gradualists" This is completely irrelevant to climate change. The rapid acidification of ocean at PETM isnt catastrophic enough for you? For my money, climate theory rests on known physics. Geological records support the inferences of climate theory. -
Bibliovermis at 06:29 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Cato Institute: Hooked on SubsidiesPro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. ... How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors. The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal.
-
Bibliovermis at 06:16 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter,My impression is that the anti-nuclear and renewable advocates have dominated energy policy for the past 40 odd years.
Your impression does not square with recorded history.society in the western democracies will have to take the necessary steps, including some subsidies to nuclear until it can be competitive again in the western democracies. The precedent has been set with the massive subsidies we’ve paid to renewables, so arguing this case should not be opposed.
This claim is wrong. The US Federal government subsidized nuclear power equivalent to all subsidies on solar, wind & hydro combined in 2006 (most recent complete data available). Energy Report - Government Financial SubsidiesEstimated Federal Energy Subsidies in 2006 Nuclear: $1.19 billion Wind: $458 million Solar: $383 million Hydro: $295 million Coal: $2.75 billion Oil & Gas: $3.5 billion
BP, Point 1: Facetious. Solar energy production does not require sole use of the land. Sole-use facilities can be built where land is plentiful and unused for other purposes, e.g. a desert. They can also be deconstructed without centuries-long containment procedures & extensive land reclamation. Point 2: This is not a difficult problem in widescale deployment mixed with other technologies. There are many storage methods currently available & viable. It is facetious to claim that hydropower can be distributed, but that solar & wind cannot. Point 3: Beyond the pale ludicrous. This point is wholly indicative of straining to validate a belief. I must congratulate you on coming with a point that I have never heard of before though.The only reasonable way to spend public money on energy issues is by supporting basic research (with no political pressure on its supposed directions whatsoever).
I agree. -
Mike Palin at 06:08 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
The statement by the Geological Society of London now makes it "two for two" from the oldest, most prestigious professional organisations of geologists on the issue of climate change. Read this policy statement from the Geological Society of America, recently revised and released in the April of this year and here for further details on development of the statement, references, and responses to criticisms made by some members prior to release. These statements reflect the fact that many, many geologists recognise the immensity of changes to Earth's climate and oceans that will result from the burning of fossil fuels in the recent past, present and foreseeable future. -
Phila at 05:33 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta #21 It is the same sort of inconsistency with Lovelock's recent statements (and his recent book) about his Gaia hypothesis. He originally claimed the Earth was (like) a self-regulating organism-meaning there are negative feedbacks that negate pertubations within the Earth system. But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks, and claims, in contradiction to what he said before, and the basic foundation of his whole idea, that the Earth, essentially doesn't self-regulate and there are essentially no effective negative feedbacks. This strikes me as a frivolous misreading of Lovelock, who was talking about homeostatic mechanisms in terms of preserving planetary conditions that are suitable for life per se, rather than preserving specific species, let alone a specific level of human civilization. As far as I know, he has never claimed that homeostatic imbalances are impossible, or that negative feedbacks can't be overwhelmed, or that having created dinosaurs, Gaia was obliged to nurture them forevermore. Echoing DSL @28, Lovelock's response to your criticism would probably be that one possible "negative feedback" in this case would be the collapse of industrial civilization, after which earth would eventually stabilize in a new homeostatic state. You may disagree with that idea, but it's not inconsistent with Lovelock's theories, which he's taken some pains to argue are not teleological in the sense that your human-coddling concept of "self-regulation" seems to be. -
Phila at 04:45 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
chriscanaris #17 I'm sorry to say it but none of this passes for civilised discourse. It certainly doesn't fit in with my interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, it's pretty normal for the blogosphere - hence, people are desensitised. I'm picking out Marcus today but other commentators on other threads can be just as feral. Does misrepresenting the stance of the Royal Society also count as an affront to "civilised discourse"? Or do these lamentations apply only to commenters who are irked by the reiteration of a thoroughly debunked talking point? I agree with Albatross @26. The patience on display in this thread — and at SkS generally — is remarkable. There's a lot to be said for maintaining a civil tone, but as I see it, making a consistent effort to get one's facts straight is equally essential to civilized discourse. Also, there's a basic inconsistency in lamenting the decline of civilized discourse online while referring to other commenters as "feral." That's a rather aggressive and basically uncharitable characterization, isn't it? Perhaps even "inflammatory" or "overheated"? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta... It also strikes me as a foolish strategy to bet the farm on factors yet to be observed, or understood, on the chance that these are going to somehow kick in to save us from a major crisis. It's rather like living the big life, racking up charges on a dozen credit cards, with the assumption that you're going to win the lottery at the last minute. -
JMurphy at 04:28 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
More figures to chew on : Nuclear Subsidies A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 - Scientific American Nov 2009 Those should be understandable, whether you are an engineer or not - although, is anyone else surprised by reading engineers proclaiming the wisdom (virtual infallability, even) of their own branch of science, while sneering at and belittling what have been previously described as 'scientists' who work in Climatology ? -
Alexandre at 04:26 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Good for the Geological Society. I consider is to be a duty of every scientist to come out to inform the public about their findings on this critical issue. -
JMurphy at 04:12 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Shub, have you read the Intermediate version of this argument ? There, you can read the following : The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 - this figure comes from Nepstad 1999. However, the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement that 'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall' To really see the connection, you have to differentiate between "Amazonian forest", "Amazon basin" and "Brazilian forest". -
Berényi Péter at 03:39 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#276 scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 3 November, 2010 A blanket "solar energy is not economically viable" is false. Do you object to the idea that all subsidies on fossil fuels should be dropped for starters so we have a level playing field. It is not false. There are three problems inherent to solar energy that are difficult if not impossible to overcome in terrestrial installations.- Power density is small, therefore land use is wasteful
- It is intermittent, needs temporary storage capability
- Competes with plant life for the resource
-
DSL at 03:19 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta: "there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change." You're absolutely right. The source of the problem dies. -
actually thoughtful at 03:13 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadota - You are trying to have it both ways. If fast changes in the past triggered fast warming - that is the likely scenario now. If slow gradual feedbacks brought earth back to what we would consider a temperate climate over 100s of thousands of years, that is the likely scenario now. Yet you would like us to believe that there will be FAST feedbacks, and SLOW changes (even though we are ALREADY witnessing fast changes). So do you have ANY published science to back this up? Or should we relegate this to the "wishful thinking" bin? I admit I like your ideas - you lift the rather harsh penalties that mother nature seems to have in store for us. But acting on your theories, when reality is otherwise, would be the height of folly. -
Shub at 03:05 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, I have read Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004. They do not support the IPCC's claim. The website could not have been copied from the report because the report came after the website. The website in question, is extensively cited in the WWF report in several other contexts. Secondly, I reiterate, the IPCC and the WWF report claims are different - it is even evident in the small portion of the claim you have reproduced above. Thirdly, The IPCC rules for use of grey literature (found in Principles governing IPCC work) state that authors should critically evaluate grey literature and the requirement for its use in its reports. Additionally, it states the lead authors should archive a copy of any such material available for general use. The IPCC did not archive a copy of the website page. Moreover, the passage you quote, is not part of the rules (or governing principles) - it is just a description of its methods. And lastly, I am not Richard North. :) -
Albatross at 02:21 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Chris @17 Actually Chris, I think people's responses here have been quite tempered in light of the inflammatory and highly misleading posts made by Thingadonta on this thread. Thingadonta also seems to be trying to insinuate that the Geological Society is purposefully omitting some key components/processes of the earth-atmosphere system with the intent mislead people or that they do not know what they are talking about. In reality though, it seems that it is Thingadonta's misunderstanding of the science which actually seems to be the problem here. Rather ironic....and so the faux debate and manufactured doubt continues. -
Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang has got it spot on. Anyone in the power engineering field knows these numbers. Fossil (coal, oil, gas) fuel, nuclear, hydro and geothermal are the only short to medium term available sources for base load 24/7 electricity generation. Windmills and PV Solar are probably energy black holes due to the low energy density tapped, storage devices required and distance from major loads. What is never discussed seriously is the fact that Windmill, PV Solar and other renewables have existing costs based on an industrial infrastructure mainly powered by fossil fuel (coal) and nuclear, hydro which are all relatively cheap. What would be their costs if produced by an industrial system powered by Wind and PV Solar? Low availability of Wind and to a lesser extent Solar (seasonal and weather) requires baseload backup plant to cover for periods of no or light wind and cloud/seasonal lows over large geographic areas. Molten salt (and pumped hydro) and similar storage devices significantly add to cost and though smoothing out the fluctuations, still have no effect on the general problem of low availability. -
CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang #282: "At the same time they are forcing governments to waste extraordinary amounts of money and national wealth on subsidising renewables. For no significant benefit. That is the political and policy environment we are in." None of this seems remotely accurate to me. Subsidies on renewable energy have been tiny. If you add it all up renewable power gets LESS public funding than nuclear... and those two combined are insignificant compared to the subsidies fossil fuels have received. If you've got a study which says otherwise I'd love to see it because every one I've ever looked at makes it very clear that this claim that renewables get the most funding is pure nonsense. The closest I've seen on that would be studies showing that R&D subsidies for renewables are about the same as those for fossil fuels (but about HALF the R&D subsidies for nuclear) or studies that look at current subsidy amounts divided by the total energy production of each energy type... which is misleading since it ignores all the past subsidies which went into developing the massive fossil fuel infrastructure. "My position is I want to see an economically rational level playing field." No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. "1. coal generates about 80% of Australia’s electricity. Baseload amounts to about 75% of our electricity consumption." I've read alot more about US, European, and global energy use than I have Australian so that may be part of the disconnect. Has the Australian government provided inordinate amounts of support to renewable energy? I wouldn't know. Seems unlikely given the strength of the 'global warming is a myth' contingent in Australian government. That said... Australia has huge amounts of sun drenched little used land in the interior. I believe the south coast also has decent wind power potential. So what would be wrong with developing such resources in the areas they are viable? "3. Nuclear and pumped hydro could meet all our requirements now. That would provide very low emissions electricity, and at the least cost (if we removed the impediments)." Consider for a moment a small isolated community in central Australia. They have low electricity needs, but they are far away from any large waterway or existing electrical grid. Which is going to be least expensive: 1: Building them their own nuclear power plant. 2: Building the electrical grid out from a major population center hundreds of miles away to their small community. 3: Building a small solar thermal power plant outside town. If you didn't say 3 then you are lying to yourself. If you did then you must see that 'nuclear and hydro would be least expensive' is false... there are situations where other power sources will clearly cost less. There are many isolated mountain communities around the world where the same issues make wind power the best choice. Ditto islands all over the world. Then add in all the places which will refuse nuclear power. You may not like it, but it is REALITY. Refusing to accept reality is a poor foundation for any plan of action. "4. Solar and wind cannot provide baseload power. They are unlikely to be able to for a very long time, if ever. I doubt solar will ever be viable for baselod generation." Simply not true. Setting aside space based solar and high altitude wind as technologies not yet ready for the mainstream (like thorium reactors for instance) it is still entirely possible for wind and solar to provide stable baseload power. This can be accomplished by storing energy during peak generation periods for use during peak demand periods and/or by having a large enough grid with enough excess capacity to meet demand even during low production periods. How can you advocate pumped hydro and not see how that, amongst MANY other options (e.g. molten salts, graphite heat sinks, compressed air, actual batteries, et cetera), can solve the supposed 'baseload problem'? Wind blows more than needed somewhere on the electrical grid... the excess is directed towards pumping water uphill... some part of the grid later doesn't have enough power... that pumped water is allowed to run downhill through a hydro power station... required energy is supplied. No amazing new technology or massive investment required. Simple application of existing technologies. -
Rob Painting at 22:47 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. Incumbent?. No not really. But read Nepstad 1994, 1999 & 2004. Links are provided above. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. Have you considered the website was copied from the actual report?. No?. The WWF document is linked to above, you'll find it was produced by the authors after consultation with a few "experts' including one Daniel Nepstad. See the acknowledgements section. these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? See Nepstad papers above. Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. IPCC - "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" WWF - "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount rainfall And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by........clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature Which rule was violated?. Tell me, are you Richard North?. -
boba10960 at 22:24 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#22 Stephen Baines "As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there." You are absolutely correct. Why would anyone say that formation of dolomite would offset acidification of the ocean by CO2? -
roundton at 22:02 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Also worth reading are some recent 'Geoscientist' letters responding to the Geol Soc position statement. See www.geolsoc.org.uk/letters -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:55 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
In #299, JMurphy posted more links about subsidies to nuclear. The "Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity" link mentions a study by Greenpeace that found that in Germany "total (direct + indirect) subsidies from 1950 to 2008 amounted to 165 billion euros (US$235 billion)" In 2009, German nuclear power generated 149 billion kWh. Applying the subsidized solar price (my link in #195), "green" nuclear power is worth $77B per year. Either nuclear is an extreme bargain or the solar subsidies are way too high (or both). -
quokka at 21:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#297 JMurphy There is an international treaty governing the use of nuclear power called the Non Proliferation Treaty. Non nuclear armed states that sign up are entitled to do what they will for the peaceful use of nuclear power in return for forgoing nuclear weapons. No state that has signed and not subsequently withdrawn from the treaty has ever developed nuclear weapons. The IAEA will provide assistance to states new to nuclear power for such purposes as establishing appropriate regulatory structures. I don't know what all this "going it alone" business is about. The Bushehr reactor is a Russian built VVER-1000, Russia is supplying the fuel and taking back the spent fuel. To my knowledge no nation that is planning for new nuclear power is going it alone. They are all forming agreements with foreign suppliers and building established designs. eg Vietnam/Russia UAE/Sth Korea. All suppliers have a vested interest in not seeing their products go bang. If Iran wished to "go it alone", it would hardly be surprising considering the constant harassment and "all cards are on the table" threats. Especially as the harassment has a long history, most notably the CIA (cheered on by the Brits) engineering the overthrow of a social democratic government and installing the Shah. Who knows, without that there may have been no Islamic revolution and possibly a secular social democratic government in power today. Will Iran build nuclear weapons in the future? Who knows, but the more they perceive they are being threatened, the better then chances are. -
Shub at 21:28 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, You say: "And your stipulation originates from where exactly?." I believe you do understand how these things work. If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. I cannot prove a negative, i.e., I cannot show where the Amazon claim did not come from. Let me help. You say above (in post #12): "The omitted citations, supporting the WWF document & the IPCC claim, are peer-reviewed literature." This is incorrect. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. It omitted to cite the website. Both these sources are not peer-reviewed. If as you claim later down, these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. Ultimately, let us remember, it is the IPCC statement is what we are interested in. And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by. Your point above #16, clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules. I liked your Chewbacca link. Pretty interesting. :) -
JMurphy at 21:24 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang wrote : "I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it." No, the choice is that simple in your view. Cutting emissions is the most important need - the choice in the immediate future is whether we want to pay for that necessity while continuing to waste energy, or whether we want to cut back on the profligate use of the energy we are already producing. The simplest choices are those that are available right now : efficiency of production and use of energy, to reduce present CO2 production; use of available renewables as much as possible now; planning for and use of nuclear where necessary, to plug any gaps between the carbon-based supply of energy of today and the future renewables-based supply of energy; closure of CO2 emitting energy production as soon as possible - all depending on how serious we are (as nations) to pay and to reduce use. That, simplistically, is what we should be getting to grips with but I'm not going to harangue anyone, or dogmatically push any political agenda to get there. I am prepared to compromise to get to a low-carbon economy : are you ? Extremism (whether pro- or anti-nuclear, in this case) will get you nowhere fast. -
Stephen Baines at 20:44 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
We posted those last notes at the same time. So I hope we're not talking cross purposes. But I still don't get how scaddenp is talking about linearity. In fact, it seems to me he is talking by definition about non-linearity. Look, the geological record suggests that our estimates of the equilibrium sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 are correct. It doesn't really have much to say about the time frame over which that new equilibrium is reached because of the poor temporal resolution of that data. Our current experience would obviously be more pertinent to that problem and it suggests we could reach equilibrium quickly, then stop thereabouts, unless we've changed something pretty drastic. It seems Thingadonta is the one assuming linear change, just over a longer time scale ala gradualism. Much geological action is gradual, like erosion, weathering, sediment deposition. But some processes aren't, like meteor impacts and hydrate releases. I don't see why we must assume all processes are gradual simply because the geological record is too coarse to reveal faster dynamics. BTW...while Lovelock claimed that certain negative feedback mechanisms related to life maintain the earth's climate within a range capable of preserving life, he was largely talking microbial life, not human life (or dinosaurs for that matter). -
Maarten Ambaum at 20:39 PM on 3 November 2010On Statistical Significance and Confidence
This is a very nice article - and all very true. I spent some time myself studying the use of significance tests in climate science. The result? There is a real problem! Significance tests are misused by many, perhaps most, climate scientists. There will be a paper appearing in the Journal of Climate which analyses the precise problem, using Bayesian statistics. In a nutshell: significance tests are generally used to quantify the validity of some hypothesis while it is is nothing like it. In fact, the significance statistic is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, misuse of significance tests is widespread. Not only climate science suffers, also economics, medical science, social science, psychology, biology. I am afraid that significance tests have muddied the waters of several climate papers and there is a real communication problem here. We need to accept that statistics alone cannot usefully quantify the truth of some hypothesis. And significance tests are possibly the worst in this respect. For more details read Significance Tests in Climate Science. -
JMurphy at 20:36 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Berényi Péter wrote : "Conclusion: in order to make solar panels a viable option, we need government support. In other words, solar energy is not economically viable at all. For government support is not for free, it is financed by tax money." Adding to what others have already highlighted about that irony, it's lucky that nuclear has had so much government money pumped into it over the years, otherwise it would never have got going and would not be continuing now. And, having read what others have written about how essential nuclear is now, it makes you wonder whether some believe that a free market should only apply to certain energy supplies and not others. Another report to add to the long list of others posted : Despite 50 years with huge accumulated subsidies, the true economic costs of generation II nuclear energy are consistently far higher than admitted by proponents, who use misleading presentations to hide its very high capital costs. The vast majority of nuclear power stations built to date have been over time and over budget. Furthermore, since 2003 the estimated capital cost of new nuclear power stations has escalated much more rapidly than the capital cost of renewable electricity, with one recent estimate of the projected cost of new nuclear electricity being comparable with that of solar PV power stations. Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity The following I add because of its discussion of various assertions made, particularly with regard to Denmark (and I like the title !) : The Base Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers More available, especially with regard to the energy-production response to global warming, at energyscience All I have read on this and other sites points to a balanced mix of energy production (including a role for nuclear), with renewables being the most important in the long run. -
Peter Lang at 20:15 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
JMurphy, I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it. If you are on this web site you clearly believe you are capable of objective research and analysis. So this is a new topic to get your teeth into. How can we cut emissions by the amounts and on the time scale I presume you believe is necessary, realistically? -
Stephen Baines at 20:12 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
I actually don't get what Thingdonta is on about here at all. As scaddenp says, it's clear from the data that the run up in temperatures was faster prior to the PETM than was the reduction was slow afterward and that ocean chemistry changes were relatively fast. If Thingdonta is going to question those points he/she needs to provide some references for us to look at. I also don't get the whole argument that the geological record reveals that things always chagne slowly. The sudden changes in northern hemisphere temps during the last glacial cycle (ocean current shifts) clearly shows that the geological record, when sufficiently time resolved, can reveal very fast and large dynamics - faster even than todays. That such sudden and large changes are not often observable in much of the geological record says more about the limits of that record than it does about the time scale and amplitude of actual dynamics. I also thought the report was pretty clear on a number of points that thingadonta seems to think it ignored - like the role of CO2 as an amplifier rather than a driver of glacial interglacial dynamics, of the fact CO2 has little to due with sudden climate change in Greenland. Both are completely consistent with our current thinking on the current effects of CO2 and mentioned in the text. As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there. -
JMurphy at 19:58 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka wrote : "Apologies for being off topic, but I find it difficult to take neocon beatups targeted at the next Middle Eastern war." I don't know what you mean but the political aspect of nuclear power is one of the drawbacks that its most ideological supporters always fail to mention. A country like Iran wishes to produce nuclear power under its own control and without any assistance from other countries, as a means to provide a replacement for oil. Presumably it is also doing so without the so-called restrictions of health and safety regulations, planning, etc. so despised by the fans of nuclear. This would seem to place Iran firmly within the 'nuclear, do or die' fan-club. Also, if it does come to pass that nuclear is allowed to be expanded without petty restrictions (although who decides which are petty and which aren't, is another question unanswered), then who decides which countries are allowed it and which countries aren't ? Or does that not even have to be considered, because it is so essential that we build nuclear now ? Are we are going to 'get into bed with anyone', as long as they are pro-nuclear and willing to build ? Where is the dividing line and who decides ? So, going all-out for nuclear allows Iran to build nuclear too, yes ? -
thingadonta at 19:19 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
My main point is this. Strong AGW proponents generally look at the geological record and claim that what is going on now is faster than before, so things are generally going to get worse then before (or just as bad as before, but only if it was bad enough before). There are several major problems with this reasoning. Take a look, for example, at scaddenup's post in #4 "If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse (at 55Ma), then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse." 1. We don't know it went up 6 degrees in 1000 years at 55Ma. The resolution is not <5,000 years. 2. Even if it did, then how will it go up 6 degrees in the next 200 years (a five fold rate of increase, or a 25 times rate of increase from 5,000 years) with the same size pulse?. Shouldn't it be 5,000/1000 years? He takes linear projections of current rates, compares them with past unknowns up to 25 times or more that rate, and claims an outcome worse than ever. This is self-reinforcing reasoning, like a stereo mic screeching on feedback. The geological record generally indicates that major climate changes associated with c02 generally occur slowly, even under similar size emission rates as human c02 today. AGW proponents, see this past geological data, and the last several decades of climate changes and emission data, and based on linear projections, conclude that what is happening now has therefore never happened so fast, and so things, by inference, are going to get a whole lot worse than before. But there is another (more valid, for mine) possibility; the reason that climate changes haven't occurred as fast before, even with similar size c02 rate pulses (e 55Ma, 183 Ma, Zeebe et al 2009), is that there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change, which negative feedbacks have not yet been observed, understood or incorporated into the IPCC models. The time frames within the geological record, rather than imply that things are 'much worse' now, actually support this contention. It is the same sort of inconsistency with Lovelock's recent statements (and his recent book) about his Gaia hypothesis. He originally claimed the Earth was (like) a self-regulating organism-meaning there are negative feedbacks that negate pertubations within the Earth system. But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks, and claims, in contradiction to what he said before, and the basic foundation of his whole idea, that the Earth, essentially doesn't self-regulate and there are essentially no effective negative feedbacks. He also can't claim the rates are now too severe for the Earth to 'cope', because these same feedbacks operated in previous similar climate perturbations, which he himself has described. These sort of inconsistencies will come throuh the major journals with time, because they are irrefutable. The mics are screeching too loud for people not to ask the sound be turned down. The basic foundation of the geological record, as noted by Darwin and Lyell, is gradualism. The geological record is fundamentally a slow process (yes, with major pertubations, described like a soldier's life-long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of terror). The catastrophists (for mine, similar to today's AGW proponents) were the ones who were resisting evolution by natural selection, not the gradualists, partly because they wanted to speed things up, and partly because they couldn't handle natural change, as opposed to human-controlled change. For mine, the same sort of mentality has unfortunately infused today's climate change science. -
scaddenp at 18:54 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Oh, and further on projecting linearly. You seem to be assuming that rates of temperature will DECREASE because of some possible negative feedback. However, the evidence is that most of the feedbacks are positive. Furthermore AR4 models mostly didnt include carbon-cycle feedbacks as they are slow (but positive). So no, cant project linearly - the heating rate may INCREASE as carbon-cycle feedback cut in- and they come into play long before geological negative feedbacks do.We sure hope that current thinking on methane hydrates hasnt over-estimated their stability. -
Peter Lang at 18:41 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Australia prohibits nuclear energy and subsidises coal, gas, and renewables. The NSW Government is attempting to privatise its government owned fleet of electricity generators. To try to get the maximum price on the sale it is guaranteeing coal at about half price and is opening a new government owned coal mine to supply it - for $1.3 billion (that's a lot of money in Australia). Wind power is subsidised by well over 100%. Solar is subsidised by about 1000%. Government is subsidising transmission to wind power sites (by $1 billion). That is what the anti-nuclear and pro-renewable forces are achieving. The fossil fuel industry loves renewables. It means fossil fuels will continue. The fossil fuel industry realises, even if the general population doesn't, that renewables are just a useless token gesture and they cannot operate without fossil fuels. -
dorlomin at 17:37 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta at 14:54 PM on 3 November, 2010 This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently, = = = = = = = = = = = You may be working to a different definition to retraction to me, all I seen was a clarification. -
dorlomin at 17:35 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
IIRC the 120 and 183 million year ago events referenced in the article are closely related to anoxic oceanic events that created the conditions for the formation of some of the worlds most famous oil provinces. Ironic really. -
chris1204 at 17:25 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
From the comments policy: 'No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. •No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice.•No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. •No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.' Now from Marcus: 'What a load of hogwash, Thingadonta.' and 'Now, *you* might be prepared to gamble our future in order to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, but many of us would prefer to adopt a more rational position!' I'm sorry to say it but none of this passes for civilised discourse. It certainly doesn't fit in with my interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, it's pretty normal for the blogosphere - hence, people are desensitised. I'm picking out Marcus today but other commentators on other threads can be just as feral. -
Peter Lang at 17:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka, I also checked the 200,000 figure but I calculate the equivalent would be about 30,000 wind turbines (on an equal total energy basis). I suspect my figures is higher than yours because you may have forgotten that the wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years and the NPP 60 years, so you need to multiply your figure by 3. -
Peter Lang at 16:51 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka's comment: "The figure in the article of equivalence to 200,000 2GW wind turbines is wrong. Probably more like 10,000 which is still a lot." gives me the opportunity to explain another point that is often not properly understood. It's pedantic regarding quokka's comment but an important point for those who think wind and solar can provide our electricity supply. Wind turbines on their own cannot replace any (virtually any) nuclear or fossil fuel capacity. The reason is because wind power is not 'dispatchable'. What this means is that wind cannot be 'dispatched' (or directed) by the electricity market operator to supply the power needed at the time needed. The confusion comes because of the commonly made claim "the wind farm will provide the energy to power x homes". The statement is false. This is on the basis of energy. But we also need the power at exactly the time it is demanded. Wind and solar cannot provide that. The statement should say: "the wind farm will generate sufficent energy over a period, so that if the energy could be stored and dispatched on demand, it could provide the power demanded by x homes at all times." -
gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Barry Brook (#277) is pointing out that if you want to get something done (as opposed to exchanging hot air with one another) you need to welcome all kinds of people into your tent. Yes, even camels! -
gallopingcamel at 16:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Rob Painting (#283), Forcing governments to waste money is not a problem. The problem is to persuade those in government to spend our tax dollars with the same restraint as they spend their own. -
Marcus at 16:13 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, Thingadonta, a retraction would read like this: "we unreservedly apologize to the people of the world for asserting that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global warming. There is, in fact, insufficient evidence to back this claim. We also apologize for asserting that global warming will persist into the future-if CO2 emissions fail to be curbed." Now, I've read their document fairly closely, & I see no such retraction. So if you're going to make that claim, could you at least quote the relevant passage? -
Peter Lang at 15:54 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Could those advocating solar power and wind power - as the better way to reduce CO2 emisisons from electricity generation - please show me the effect of solar power and wind power on a country's CO2 emissions; and also show the cost per tonne CO2 saved. -
Marcus at 15:50 PM on 3 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
Ken Lambert, it may well be that you could get a good correlation between Chinese GDP & Delta T (actually, you wouldn't, because the upsurge in GDP has only been in the last 10 years-whereas the warming upsurge began in 1979, & can be traced back to 1950), but that would be insufficient; you'd then need some kind of scientific theory that showed the correlation was meaningful. In this case we have basic chemistry (burning C(x)-H(x+2) in oxygen generates CO2) & basic physics (the C-O bond in CO2 is very good at absorbing long-wave radiation as it tries to escape out into the vacuum of space). We also have the negative correlation between CO2 emissions & stratospheric temperatures-which further backs up the original positive correlation between CO2 & tropospheric temperatures. Certainly, when it comes to the regurgitation of material, the Denialist Cult has everyone beaten-hands down-& that regurgitation is usually of the same, pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been debunked elsewhere. I guess though that, in the absence of any *alternative* theory for why global temperatures are rising in the face of falling sunspot numbers, that's all the Denialist Cult actually has!
Prev 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 Next
