Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 Next
Comments 105151 to 105200:
-
CBDunkerson at 22:03 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang #317: "You cannot compare on the basis of the raw numbers. You need to compare the subsidies on the basis of the amount of energy supplied." I cited that viewpoint, and explained why I consider it untrue, in the paragraph after the one you quoted. In short, I covered that point before you ever made it... yet here you are raising it again without bothering to answer my objection to it. Peter Lang #320: "We have to include the cost to make wind or solar able to provide power of equivalent quality and reliability. That means we need to include the cost of back up." I explained in the same post how wind and solar can be made reliable WITHOUT backup power plants. Add 'not reading what the other person says' to the list of things which prevent meaningful conversation with you. -
Peter Lang at 20:06 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
I just noticed I made an error in my post #310. The corrected sentence reads: "This shows that subsidies (just the ones included in your source document) for wind energy are 6 times and for solar energy are 110 times the subsidies for nuclear per MWh supplied. -
ranyl at 18:51 PM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Agnostic, "Are you saying we have already sown the seeds of our own destruction?" The seeds are sown but hard times only inevitable if we ignore the situation and leave things to carry on as BAU rather than taking this seriously and initiating actions that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and putting in place plans to adapt to what is already likely to occur. Although they are no easy tasks as removing CO2 does mean stopping using fossil fuels in a very short time frame (political suicide) and predicting what is actually going to occur isn't easy as new weather patterns are emerging. -
Peter Lang at 17:25 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Many people do not realise why the cost of nuclear is so high in the western democracies. Look at this and you might understand why. Greenpeace can barely contain themselves: DV82XL at BNC says: ...rumor has it that Entergy Corp. will announce this week that it plans to sell the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Note that while the State of Vermont cannot rule on this plant’s license, (such things are a federal prerogative in the U.S.) the company that owns it is fed up with the State and and has decided that continuing to do business there is not worth the trouble.. How high does the investor risk premium have to be to cover for having your investment shut down by changing political environment. This was built under a poitical environment when it was wanted by the people. Investors were attracted on the basis of promises at the time. Now politcs has changed. The investors loose. Under such a suituation, it wil be difficult (i.e. very costly) to get investors to invest in nuclear again without a very large public sector swag of money, adn the public lose it first. That is one of the main reasons nuclear is so much more expensive than it should and could be in the western democracies. -
Peter Lang at 15:06 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
scaddenp, I agree. I believe ExternE is the equivalent of IPCC regarding the comparison of the various electricity generation technologies. Google: "ExternE" for externailities "ExternE NEEDS" for costs, material requirements" "ExternE NewExt" for comparitive risk assessment -
Peter Lang at 15:02 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
A little bit of trivia: "there’s more than ten times the nuclear energy available from the [uranium in] coal ash than there is chemical energy available from the coal." -
Bob Guercio at 14:56 PM on 4 November 2010New podcast: The Climate Show
John, This is the first time that I've heard your voice and seen your picture. I now feel that I can personally thank you for this wonderful site dedicated to debunking the nonsense of the contrarians. Bob Guercio -
Bob Guercio at 14:53 PM on 4 November 2010New podcast: The Climate Show
Excellent show and I'm looking forward to the next one! Bob Guercio -
Albatross at 14:37 PM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
@Protestant In the Arctic report card they also discuss the melt season (see my post at 30). Those data go back to 1979, and show that "Along the southwestern ice sheet, the number of melting days in August has increased by 24 days over the past 30 years". Not far enough back? OK, how about this study by Jiang et al. (2010) , which shows this:
That graph shows the GRACE estimates of ice loss from the GIS along with estimates derived using two independent data sets. For example, shows an acceleration of ice loss from GIS over the period 1958-2007. Now most reasonable people would be concerned by the sudden increase in mass loss observed in recent decades and years.
It is not deceptive to show all off the available GRACE data, and especially when scientists make the effort to place those observations in context as is shown in the above figure.
We do not have to lose all the ice from the GIS for it to be a concern-- that is a classic argumentum ad absurdum. We have set in motion processes that are going to have some very undesirable impacts on future generations.
According to Hansen et al. (2007):
"Ice sheet demise may occur in pulses as additional ice sheets or portions of ice sheets (e.g. West Antarctica or the South Dome of Greenland) become vulnerable."
And
"It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem, but we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway. With GHGs continuing to increase, the planetary energy imbalance provides ample energy to melt ice corresponding to several metres of sea level per century (Hansen et al. 2005b)"
-
scaddenp at 14:30 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Whoa! this thread headed in political country but I dont think we need this. Perhaps we need something like IPCC for advising governments about alternative energy that has assessments audited for BS and industry advocacy from any source firmly tied back to verifiable facts. I really miss the peer-review process in making sense of these competing claims. Like climate, government processes need to be reliably informed so they dont just depend on which lobby group has the best tactics. (Sounds like this might be asking a bit much in the US though where politics appears to have gone tribal). -
muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
#44: "Note that todays instruments are VERY sharp" Yes, GRACE is sharp. But if you know anything about interpreting gravity data, the problem is complicated by isostatic rebound. Hence the differing interpretations -- which are not contradictory. See also the observation made by RH in #28. "Now you have just 8 years of data" Noooo. There's Arctic ice extent data back to 1972; the satellite ice mass data covers the last 8 years. The acceleration in ice loss is clear from extent as well as mass. Use the SkS search function 'Arctic ice loss' for context; the evidence of acceleration is overwhelming. -
archiesteel at 13:05 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
@Peter Lang: "We've discussed many of the issues already. "once it becomes cheaper to recycle the material rather than mine new uranium, whenever that is." I like how you claim that Nuclear power is needed *now* because renewables aren't ready, yet dismiss the waste problem as something that'll be solved by technology sometime in the future... "The waste from nuclear is no more toxic than the waste from other technologies." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make claims like this? How is waste from wind or solar power more toxic than nuclear waste? "It appears their Pro-Renewable Anti-Nulcear (PRAN) beliefs are based on faith" Who said anything about being anti-nuclear? Why do you keep misrepresenting the position of people who oppose you? This type of strawman arguments has no place in an honest, rational debate. This is *exactly* the type of comments that make it sound as if you're shilling for the Nuclear industry. I'm not saying you are, but putting words into other people's mouths only proves you're more interested in pushing your message than finding the truth. As many have said before, it will take a mixed solution. Your one-sided advocacy for nuclear, though it may or may not be self-interested, is counter-productive. -
Gareth at 13:01 PM on 4 November 2010New podcast: The Climate Show
Consider yourself asked back... ;-) No escape for you after your sterling effort in this show! -
Peter Lang at 12:54 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Stephen Baines, We've discussed many of the issues already. But they are continually regurgitated in the same sort of vacuous statments like: "Many people would prefer not to have to deal with a system that produces waste that requires a lot of babysitting (in some cases for centruries) and poses significant security risks over long intervals." 1. The 'waste' as you call it is once-used-nuclear-fuel. We've used just 1% of the available energy so far. It will be reused eventually, once it becomes cheaper to recycle the material rather than mine new uranium, whenever that is. 2. Only nuclear energy manages the toxic component of its waste. No other technology does. Why don't you do proper comparisons? 3. The waste from nuclear is no more toxic than the waste from other technologies. Furthermore, radioactive waste does decay over time. Most of the toxic chemicals released by other technologies do not decay. They last forever. Why don't you do proper comparisons - or refer to authoritative studies that have (such as ExternE)? 4. the quantities of waste from nuclear energy are miniscule compared with quantities from the alternatives that can provide our power (fossil fuels). They are also small compared with solar (per MWh generated over the life of the plant). I may have shown this picture before. The picture shows 16 canisters which hold all the once used nuclear fuel from the entire 31 years life of a now decommissioned NPP in New York state. The plant supplied 44 TWh of electricity. If that had been supplied by coal it would have released about 44 million tonnes of CO2, similar amount of mining waste, plus fly ash, particulates, heavy metals, benzenes, long chain hydrocarbons and about 10 tonnes of Uranium, all of which is released to the environment. If you are objective, as you think you are, why don't you do your homework before repeating all the anti-nuclear nonsense? If you are objective, as you think you are, why don't you tackle the organisatiosn that are blocking nuclear power? Why don't you (and the others that say they want to reduce emisisons) make a conserted effort to get these anti nuclear groups and political parties to change their anti-nuclear policies. I expect most here have never attmepted to do so, which suggests an inconsistency between what you claim and what you actually do. -
Riduna at 12:35 PM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
ranyl (38) Are you saying we have already sown the seeds of our own destruction? -
Peter Lang at 12:10 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Stephen Baines, I am well aware of all that. It's not as if it hasn't been said a million times. The problem is that most of the general belief about nuclear, renewables, energy security, distributed electricity generation is wrong and it is being perpetrated here. Someone mentioned up thread we need to educate people about DAGW. Well, why doesn't that apply just as much to the misunderstandings about nuclear and renewables? If we want to cut emisisons, surely we need to educate people about what solutions are actually viable as oppsed to be wishful thinking. I'll pick on just one of your points: Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. I agree with this statement "the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario." It is clearly true that environmental NGOs and Greens and most on the Left have tried to block nuclear totally. They do not want any of it. So clearly your statement is correct. It is not true that anyone has tried to block renewables, however. I want whatever is most economic. I argue that renewables, in most cases are uneconomic. They are economic in some situations, and where that is the case I strongly support their use. -
Peter Lang at 11:56 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
CBDunkerson @303 No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I believe that is what I am doing and I believe it is what the PRANs are not doing. For example, we cannot compare wind or solar with nuclear purely on the basis of $/MWh. We have to include the cost to make wind or solar able to provide power of equivalent quality and reliability. That means we need to include the cost of back up. Here is a comparison on the basis of average power (a very simplistic way to get a rough cost of energy for technologies where the upfront cost dominate). Nuclear = $4,500/kWy/y Wind (with gas back-up) = $11,800kWy/y wind with pumped hydro storage = $132,300/kWy/y This is admittedly simplistic, but the result is not too far off. Wind energy, when you include all the costs of the back-up required and all the extra costs of enhancing the grid to enable it to manage the fluctuating power supplied by wind and solar, costs around three times the cost of nuclear energy. The costs of energy storage at the scale required make it not viable now or probably ever. I'd urge people to try to see the big picture as a first step. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:44 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#306, JMurphy, you posted another link about subsidies. This time they determined the full price for nuclear power taking into account all capital and operating costs, plus insurance against meltdown. A total of 21 cents per kWh. The German price from my link in #192 is 52 cents. Nuclear provides fully-costed power at 2/5ths of the price. -
Stephen Baines at 11:39 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
At Peter Lang. I was following this debate with interest for a while. It has broken down a bit, but I think your leap from frustration to questioning the integrity of those who partake in climate science discussion at this site (including by extension John) is completely unecessary, logically unfounded and not even sensible given your desire to promote NP. This is the way I see it. Many people would prefer not to have to deal with a system that produces waste that requires a lot of babysitting (in some cases for centruries) and poses significant security risks over long intervals. Another simple fact is people fear radioactivity deeply. It has nothing to do with being an enviro anything. You should see the looks I get from parents and students (or my mother!) when I explain that I use it all the time in my research. The cold war seems to have etched that fear deeply in the minds of the public, in the same way that some seem to think that communists still exist and want to take over the world. Others also hope for a decentralized structure for power distribution rather than a centralized one, for a number of reasons. There might be a personal preference for the independence that implies, maybe there's a distruct of centralized political power that results from such structures, or a distrust that risks will be evaluated fairly once we're committed to it (I tend to share that view!) or maybe a sense that distributed systems would be more resilient, though difficult to engineer. These are legitimate concerns, though some are very hard to argue against, I admit. Finally, many think that renewable energy alternatives have not received the investment that other more centralized forms of power distribution have. We haven't seen that kind of funding for those technologies, and people want to see them given a far chance. I think you tend to undersell there potential a bit. Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. That typically hardens stances. All that has nothing to do with the goal of this site - which is to discuss the scientific bases underpinning our role in climate dynamics. -
Peter Lang at 11:35 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
CBDunkerson @303 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. You cannot compare on the basis of the raw numbers. You need to compare the subsidies on the basis of the amount of energy supplied. See post #310. -
Peter Lang at 11:14 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
JMurphy @306. You suggested the readers should "chew on" the Mark Jocobson paper: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 - Scientific American Nov 2009. Chew on and spit out is all that paper is worth. It is nonsense. You might like to chew on just one of the many critiques. Critique of a path to sustainable energy by 2030 -
Bibliovermis at 11:05 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
I have not questioned your veracity, integrity or credibility in this thread. I therefore bid you a good day. -
Stephen Baines at 11:04 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
@ protestant First, we only have only 8 years of good data. You have to take what you can get. Second, the point of the 30 year trend averages in temp data that "people" insist on is that climate varies significantly because of El Nino and other internal dynamics, as well as volcano eruptions. Looking at shorter time series can reveal short-term increases or decreases that are irrelevant to the longterm overall increasing trend. Now, looking at this series(and the CO2 series for that matter) can you really doubt the existence of a trend? There is a very repeatable seasonal signal, but other than that the decrease is virtually monotonic. Finally, I take the point that its hard to know the exact rate at which melting is increasing given the length of this time series, but is it really so unbelievable that melting rate will increase if temperatures get warmer? And while the rate of melting is not something to worry about now in and of itself, the point is that we don't actually want it to get to the point that it does matter. If a doubling of melting has occured over 8 years, that would be troubling to me. It's worth keeping a very close eye on rather than simply dismissing it. -
Marcus at 11:01 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Actually, protestant, no-one has said trends shorter than 30 years are not allowed-all that has been said is that trends shorter than about 15-20 years tend to lack statistical significance. Yet that never stopped the "skeptics" from claiming there was a cooling trend from 1998-2008(even though no such trend existed). However, whenever it suits them, the skeptics are quite happy to drag out "statistical significance" as a means of refuting the trends that don't suit them. Statistically significant or not, even Blind Freddy can look at the graph above & see a downward trend in the Greenland Ice Mass! -
Peter Lang at 10:51 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Credibility and Integrity Regarding the many comments about credibility and implied lack of integrity, I similarly have little faith in the credibility and integrity of many who participate here. It appears to me these people believe what they want to believe and dig around to try to get evidence that supports their belief. It appears their Pro-Renewable Anti-Nulcear (PRAN) beliefs are based on faith, rather than objective analysis. I wonder whether they have used the same approach to support their other strongly held beliefs. The demonstration on this thread of their phobia about nuclear power, tends to make me suspect such people’s beliefs and opinions about other faiths they hold so dear may not be objective either. If the PRANs want to regain credibility with me, they would need to do the objective research on how the world can cut emissions by the extent advocated; show how it can be done at least cost to the world ecoomy; and show how the proposed solution is practical (clearly getting an international, economically efficient ETS is not possible at the moment and may not be for a long time). -
Daniel Bailey at 10:27 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: Peter Lang (311) You left out the Don Quixote Society. I tilt at them all the time. As for my unlamented credibility, I think I shall still sleep well at night. The Yooper -
Stephen Baines at 10:26 AM on 4 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
The comment above now makes no sense...giving the offending post is now gone. My apologies. -
Stephen Baines at 10:24 AM on 4 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
@ protestant: How is it arrogant to plot those through time to see if they agree with records of past temperature? John has explicitly defined what he means by radiative forcings in the figure, so he's not being disengenuous. He is simply making the assertion (or repeating what has been asserted in the literature) that we do understand the main drivers of climate. He then produces a time series that represents a hypotheses for patterns of past climate change based on that assertion that can be tested against paleo data. This is what science is supposed to do. Present assertions or hypotheses and test them. Are you suggesting that we don't do so for fear of appearing arrogant? That would seem to be an abrogation of responsibility and lack of concern that itself would be a far worse form of arrogance, IMO. Also, I don't think climate oscillations from air-sea interactions can be classified as climate forcings in the typical sense -- they can't drive the climate permanently in one direction of the other. Rather they are redistributions of heat back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They can add to variability for sure. But much of variability on that scale has been filtered out of both the temp and the proxy data sets by a 40-year smoothing filter. That is intended to allow the comparisons among the temp records and the proxy data to be more apples to apples, rather than apples to oranges. The thermometer record on the graph that alarms you is for northern temperate land records (CRUTEMP3). The proxies in this particular graph are from that region of the globe so it makes sense to compare these temps to those proxies. That record shows more change in temp (~0.8) than the global average due to it being over land and in the northern hemisphere. You can also see the HADCRUT3 records that combine land and sea surface temps and they are, predictably, lower than the CRUTEMP data. Finally, you have it backwards in the end. The proxies do not confirm the paleo record. The paleo records are consistent with the notion that we understand the main forces driving climate, and that current GHG forcing is causing that forcing (and climate) to diverge from the trend of the last 2 centuries. The fact that the proxies are indirect measures that are sensitive to local conditions and some other factors, I think it's impressive that we can recover the patterns predicted from climate forcing reconstructions (recent warming, LIA, some medieval warming). -
Peter Lang at 10:07 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Daniel Bailey, @309 you said: I agree that NP should be a primary (short term and long term) replacement for fossil fuels. If you want to recover any of your lost credibility with me you will lay out here what efforts you have and are putting into trying to convert the the anti-nuclear, pro renewables policies of Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, and the Greens. -
Peter Lang at 10:02 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Bibliovermis @307 You quoted figures for US government subsidies for 2006. I have several observations after a very quick scan of the article you linked to: 1. It seems the main subsidies for wind and solar are not included. These are the cost that must be paid because wind and solar are mandated by government. They are “must take” generators (that is the utilities much purchase whatever they generate). There are also costs imposed on purchasers by feed in tariffs and by mandating the amount of energy that must be purchased. These amount to 100% to 150% mandated subsidy for wind energy and in the order of 1,000% subsidy for solar energy. In Australia we have guaranteed feed in tariffs for solar which are up to ten times the cost of power from conventional power stations. And that subsidy is guaranteed for 20 years. And we have and Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). Similar regulations exist in USA., Canada, UK, EU. None of those subsidies are included in the analysis you provided (as far as I can see). 2. You quoted the total amount of subsidies by technology. But you did not normalise these amounts by dividing by the amounts of electricity generated? Why not? If you had done so the figures you would have provided would have been: Estimated Federal Energy Subsidies in 2006 Techno;ogy $/MWh Nuclear: $1.42 Wind: $8.22 Solar: $156.33 Hydro: $1.05 Coal: $1.29 Oil & Gas: $3.61 This shows that subsidies (just the ones included in you source document) for wind energy are 8 times and for solar energy are 130 times the subsidies for nuclear per MWh supplied. 3. If you divided by the real value of the energy generated (solar and wind power is near valueless because it is not dispatchable and because of the extra cost required to manage it), then the subsidies for wind and solar are near infinite per $ value of the energy supplied by these technologies. Your post appears to me to be an attempt to mislead the readers. This is why I doubt the integrity and credibility of many posting here, and have shown a sense of frustration in some of my replies to some people, regretfully sometimes these responses have been addressed to the wrong person. Sources: Government Financial Subsidies IEA, Electricity and heat for USA, 2007 -
Daniel Bailey at 09:49 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Re: chriscanaris (17) In large part I think you are off-base a bit with your points about Marcus' comment. Calling a spade a spade is not ad hominem. When someone posts a comment that is wrong, it is then not wrong to point out the error. Where I think you have a bit of a point is in the bit about accusations of fraud and deception. In the process of pointing out error, sometimes it is in the error itself where fraud and deception may lie. "Skeptics" repetition of errors so soundly debunked that every subsequent re-emergence of the meme requires a "rebunking" of the myth rises to the level of fraud/deception on the part of the "skeptic". So in the case of Marcus' calling out of thingadonta, as pointed out by several, the meme being called out has been rebunked many times. In this case, I would posit allowing for a human reaction of vexation on the part of Marcus in his wording of his comment and let it go by. Note: I do not use "" when applying the appellation of skeptic to you, chris. For the most part, I find you to be internally consistent in your skepticism. I'll win you over to the side of light someday. ;) The Yooper -
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.
Prev 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 Next
