Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 Next
Comments 113351 to 113400:
-
kdkd at 19:55 PM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
HR #47 "one prevalent idea seems to be that the very existence of human beings is a problem" I'm pretty sure that'a straw man argument. Humanity's over-exploitation of the environment is a problem, and if we don't do something rational about it, the decisions will be made for us. This stuff relating to population ecology dynamics is fairly well understood, and it's pretty clear that we're very likely heading into overshoot. So you can moralise all you like, but I'm afraid that the scientific basis of our knowledge is distressingly amoral. -
HumanityRules at 19:24 PM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
38.John Russell I wonder if you'd like to suggest the basis on which we start the cull? Or maybe forced sterilization? It seems the rational thing to do. I was going to read your link but the address made me feel sick. We live in a world were one prevalent idea seems to be that the very existence of human beings is a problem. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. As I said, Malthus was wrong about the natural limits of this planet. I think the present doomsayers are equally wrong. Both are misdirected in were the real problems lie and under-estimate the ingenuity of us. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:11 PM on 7 August 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Re #41, the effect of water vapor can be calculated as for any other GHG. After that, you need to look for increased water vapor, and of course confirmation is good to have. Increases in middle atmospheric water vapor as observed by the Halogen Occultation Experiment and the ground-based Water Vapor Millimeter-wave Spectrometer from 1991 to 1997 Increase in lower-stratospheric water vapour at a mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere site from 1981 to 1994 Radiosonde-Based Northern Hemisphere Tropospheric Water Vapor Trends Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology and Trends over North America: 1973–93 Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor Atmospheric Water Vapor over China Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite data Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor -
AlanR at 17:35 PM on 7 August 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
One doesn't need to be very sceptical to require an answer to topqquark's question at #41 : evidence for positive feedbacks. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:33 PM on 7 August 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Monckton News Flash: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords. However, allegations that he has claimed to be a member, and that he has used an emblem resembling the parliamentary emblem, have been drawn to our attention. The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof. FOGT Famed Pink Portcullis to be closed for good? -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 16:30 PM on 7 August 2010More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
This is an excellent presentation. Well done. I will add it to my Youtube favourites (my channel is www.youtube.com/user/Herecomesthefatlady - I've collected a decent selection of the best videos about climate change). I have many 'discussions' with people on Youtube - I'll be very interested to see what comments this presentation attracts. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:06 PM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
JohnD, you might want to take a look at what happens w/GCMs when they're challenged w/absurd perturbations such as instantaneous removal of all Antarctic sea ice. What you'll find is that without other simultaneous "knobbing" the effects of such perturbations are transient within a relatively brief time. For instance in the case of Antarctic ice being vanished by a "deus ex machina" the ice returns as of course it ought to do without for instance a massive load of C02 being dumped into atmosphere at the time of removal. This is what's expected from a faithful simulation and is a powerful hint as to how well the models adhere to reality. Stick w/clouds if you want to make a serious case about model limitations, that's my inexpert advice. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:49 PM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
I think you and I share a problem w/biting our tongues, GC. Often said to cab drivers, random guests at parties, etc.: "Don't get me started." They don't realize the gravity of my advice... :-) -
gallopingcamel at 15:16 PM on 7 August 2010Why I care about climate change
John Cook, As I suspected your really CARE. While I have no problem with that, you have bought into the idea that mankind is causing Global Warming and therefore mankind should be able to mitigate it. The mitigation idea fails on at least two levels. First, the warming is more beneficial than a cooling trend would be and you will never persuade a majority that the contrary is true. Second, you believe that the main factor driving Global Warming is the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere brought about by industrialisation and rising human populations. Even if this controversial hypothesis is correct you will not be able to persuade Joe Sixpack to give up his "Redneck Cadillac" or his HVAC system. It gets worse. Joe Sixpack is no longer your main problem. Vidya Patel (India) and J.K. Chang (China) want SUVs and electricity (mostly from coal powered plants). They will get what they want no matter how loudly you complain.Response: We'll have to agree to disagree on your two key points:
"warming is more beneficial than a cooling trend would be"
The full body of peer-reviewed research indicates the negatives far outweigh the positives, particularly for the poor and vulnerable countries least equipped to adapt.
"you believe that the main factor driving Global Warming is the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere brought about by industrialisation and rising human populations"
I wouldn't characterise it as 'belief', this is not a matter of faith. I'm convinced by the multiple lines of empirical evidence. That rising CO2 levels is the main factor is directly measured by satellites and surface measurements that find CO2 is trapping heat and the amount of heat trapped (in other words, the radiative forcing) is greater than any other radiative forcing. This is confirmed by a number of independent human fingerprints on climate change. -
gallopingcamel at 14:46 PM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
doug_bostrom, (#39) The filibuster only exists in the US senate. A simple majority gets the job done in the House of Representatives. Some people think that a super majority should be needed there too. Sorry, I won't do it again (stray "Off Topic"). -
gallopingcamel at 14:34 PM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Michael Sweet (#44), One has to look at the artificial dunes along the Dutch coast to get a feel for the huge scale of what the Dutch have been working on for centuries. Dunes over 25 meters high and running as far as the eye can see. Where rivers emerge into the sea, vast gates are in place to prevent water flowing in the wrong direction. You really have to see it to understand what has been achieved. You are probably right to suggest that creating similar structures to protect Florida may not be an attractive proposition. The perimeter may be too great in relation to the land area to be protected. -
gallopingcamel at 14:19 PM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
doug_bostrom, Please accept my apologies for encouraging the discussion of something totally irrelevant (individual and economic freedoms). In the past you have often directed me to a more appropriate thread when I stray from the theme. Even though we are clearly from opposite sides when it comes to politics, you may find that we often agree when it comes to actions for protecting the environment. -
johnd at 11:58 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
JMurphy at 10:55 AM, whilst the example I have linked to is focused more on seasonal outlooks, and at the moment the results are unusually reasonably well aligned, a check back through the recent archives will demonstrate just how much variation different GCM models can produce in their results. Over a period of time most observers will focus more closely on the results of one model rather than the combined results which more often to not becomes meaningless, especially when the range of results amongst all the models are wide. Personally I believe the experimental coupled GCM from SINTEX JMA of Japan is the most accurate, more so then the combined results of the ensembles. About 3 years ago it went completely against ALL other models that were predicting an imminent and large La-Nina and was the only one to have gotten it right. Modelled Climate and Ocean Predictions on page 2 -
johnd at 11:35 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
doug_bostrom at 09:43 AM, a couple of points should be considered. One is that climate modeling, though based on known physics and accumulated data is reduced to combining a number of interacting mathematical equations that is supposed to represent real world conditions, and then project them forward. As many tutors of mathematics will possibly agree, when the expertise of the students (modelers) is examined, it is not whether or not the class as a whole arrived at similar conclusions that matters, but who within that class made all valid assumptions and got the calculations into the correct relationship that determines the validity of the overall equation and the overall result so determined. A number of incorrect assumptions that may end up balancing each other out does not validate each of the processes, but that is what is being asked of us by taking the combined output of a number of different models as being a valid conclusion. Another point is that whilst mathematics is a precise science when dealing with absolute values, when real world data is introduced, the values come attached with varying degrees of margins of error. When such values are being used to establish trends, the margins of error are going to be magnified, increasing the further forward the projections are being made to the point the margin of error makes the projection useless. Therefore it is incumbent upon the modelers to ensure that their inputs and assumptions are free from such errors. Given various models assume different values and inputs, rather than giving more confidence that the science is settled, it only confirms the division that exists. Once we see that the number of models tracked by the IPCC being reduced as the assumptions being made in each are either validated, and so must be incorporated into all other models, or proved invalid so rendering the model itself invalid, then perhaps we can see greater confidence in climate models justified. As I watch the football each week, Aussie rules that is, I am reminded often that the team whose game plan is correct, and whose goal kicking is very precise with very few misses, are at times overrun by an opposition with a muddled game plan and atrocious goal kicking, but one that wins the game because the sheer weight of errors in kicking for goal still resulted in sufficient minor scores to scrape a win. Knowing some such footballers from my schooldays, they had as much trouble explaining how they may have inadvertently produced the right result in maths examinations as they have explaining how they happened to muddle their way to a win on the field. -
JMurphy at 10:55 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
johnd wrote : "Whilst the IPCC confines itself to tracking 20 something climate models there are countless other climate models from which they could have chosen." "Perhaps one of the models does accurately track the past and the present, and accurately project into the future, but which one? Only one can be absolutely right, but by being right it then invalidates many of the assumptions made in all of the other models. The only other alternative is that none are right." You should read what the IPCC actually do with the output of the models : Ensembles of models represent a new resource for studying the range of plausible climate responses to a given forcing. Such ensembles can be generated either by collecting results from a range of models from different modelling centres (‘multi-model ensembles’ as described above), or by generating multiple model versions within a particular model structure, by varying internal model parameters within plausible ranges (‘perturbed physics ensembles’). In order to identify errors that are systematic across models, the mean of fields available in the [Multi-Model Data set], referred to here as the ‘multi-model mean field’, will often be shown. The multi-model mean field results are augmented by results from individual models available as Supplementary Material (see Figures S8.1 to S8.15). The multi-model averaging serves to filter out biases of individual models and only retains errors that are generally pervasive. There is some evidence that the multi-model mean field is often in better agreement with observations than any of the fields simulated by the individual models. Ch 8, Climate Models and Their Evaluation The use of ensembles of AOGCMs developed at different modelling centres has become established in climate prediction/ projection on both seasonal-to-interannual and centennial time scales. To the extent that simulation errors in different AOGCMs are independent, the mean of the ensemble can be expected to outperform individual ensemble members, thus providing an improved ‘best estimate’ forecast. 10.5.4.1 The Multi-Model Ensemble Approach And, looking at the number of countries that were involved, it's difficult to see how many other models they could have looked at or used. Do you have any suggestions ? -
More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
James - Fantastic. I get tired of the "buried in bull" arguments, great to see such a large collection of actual data, with sources no less. Sometimes, when I'm feeling masochistic, I post something about actual data on JoNova's site. Then I go hide until the spittle level dies down... -
Bern at 09:56 AM on 7 August 2010More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
James, that's excellent. The powerpoint slides will come in handy, too, thanks. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:43 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
JohnD inadvertently presents an argument indicating the reasonably good utility of models we use. Outputs cluster reasonably well around a pattern of similar conclusions. The notion that variance among exact features of various model outputs is a mark of wholesale failure is actually diagnostic of misunderstanding on JohnD's part. Hypothesizing a myriad of other models does not serve as a functional argument indicating we should ignore the congruence among the models we actually do use. "Absolutely right" of course is not the metric used to determine if models are useful. Thus I think JohnD's endorsement of models is accidentally on the mark. Clouds are a bit of a wildcard but progress is in fact being made in that department and meanwhile folks with more expertise than JohnD (or myself) don't seem paralyzed by the fear that they're going to overturn current thinking. Helps to remember, the folks doing the science are way more circumspect than us in the peanut gallery. -
Jim Powell at 09:25 AM on 7 August 2010More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
Line 4 should read "...on the evidence..." -
LewisC at 09:03 AM on 7 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
batsvensson - there's also the factor of first presentation. When Creutzen proposed using sulphates as a replication of volcanoes' emissions with their proven cooling effects, there were only bizarre space-mirrors, etc, and ocean fertilization under discussion, so his seemed like a great idea and, (with the aid of coal-burners who foresaw a cost saving) it gained a lot of traction. In reality, regardless of popular assumptions, sulphates are not the automatic choice as distinctly preferable options have since come into view. Yet this is not to criticize Creutzen, who knows full well the potential catastrophe of the runaway feedbacks - against which even serious global sulphate pollution would be relatively small beer. Regards, Lewis -
johnd at 08:46 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Whilst the IPCC confines itself to tracking 20 something climate models there are countless other climate models from which they could have chosen. All of the modelers have access to the same range of data available as inputs, as well as, hopefully, the same knowledge of "known" physics as well as "unknown" physics, the big one of course being clouds, feedback in particular. Given that the output of most models differ to varying degrees, there are obviously variations in the assumptions being made by the modelers as to the combination of inputs and the relative importance, or weighting, each of the parameters are given in the equations that the model constitutes. The fact that each model differs somewhat is indicative that there is still a large degree of uncertainty and a wide range of opinions as to how all the known physics relates to the real world, and what all the collected data really means. Perhaps one of the models does accurately track the past and the present, and accurately project into the future, but which one? Only one can be absolutely right, but by being right it then invalidates many of the assumptions made in all of the other models. The only other alternative is that none are right. Given that the physics of cloud feedback is still an extremely large unknown, it is just as likely that a model that incorporates negative feedback into the equations has as much chance of being right as those which model positive feedback, given it is not known physics, but opinion only that is the determining factor in the face of such unknown physics. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:38 AM on 7 August 2010Greenland's ice mass loss has spread to the northwest
In the Northwest of Greenland, just another data point: An ice island four times the size of Manhattan broke off from one of Greenland's two main glaciers, scientists said on Friday, in the biggest such event in the Arctic in nearly 50 years. The new ice island, which broke off on Thursday, will enter a remote place called the Nares Straight, about 620 miles (1,000 km) south of the North Pole between Greenland and Canada. The ice island has an area of 100 square miles (260 square km) and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building, said Andreas Muenchow, professor of ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware. Muenchow said he had expected an ice chunk to break off from the Petermann Glacier, one of the two largest remaining ones in Greenland, because it had been growing in size for seven or eight years. But he did not expect it to be so large. "The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson Rivers flowing for more than two years," said Muenchow, whose research in the area is supported by the National Science Foundation. "It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days." He said it was hard to judge whether the event occurred due to global warming because records on the sea water around the glacier have only been kept since 2003. The flow of sea water below the glaciers is one of the main causes of ice calvings off Greenland. More. U. Delaware release here, includes imagery. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:29 AM on 7 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
Because they're desperate, batsvensson. The exact nature of their desperation varies from case to case. One person might want to continue a lifestyle, another an income stream, yet another may be concerned about other problems and failing to think it all the way through. Or a mixture of all three. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:25 AM on 7 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
I will do more research before posting further. A contrite acknowledgment from VoltairesDistantCousin that ought to be exemplary, could well stand some emulation. Has the level of rational debate degenerated so much that we are having skirmishes over basic facts such as this? Actually it's much worse than you may think. Read through ~200 comments and you'll get the picture. -
batsvensson at 07:44 AM on 7 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
Why would anyone sane like to suggest to pump something we been working very hard to get rid off for very well known reasons into the atmosphere? -
GeorgeSP at 07:40 AM on 7 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
The analysis of Fdykstra doesn't seem proper to me. Of course, if one adds extra variables, the R2 increases - by definition. R2 should only be interpreted if several models have the same number of variables - without any multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity. Representing a number of observations with any line is no science. The error he mades is that R2 should only be used if one has a theory (explanatory mechanism whatsoever) to be tested - whereas in this case the analysis is aiming at observation - is it getting warmer or not. R2 is then unnessecary - significance level is the only relevant thing and as remarked before, the 5 or 10% significance level is a convention. It are the outer parts of the normal distribution for the number of times somethings is happening. And, as Phil pointed out, the time span is too short to fall within the outer borders of any significance level. I guess that some denialist with good statistical knowlegde has given this question to the reporter. Because everyone knows that the period is short in proportion to the increase of temperature. But Phil gave the possible answer and he stayed within the right area. Right he was, regarding the guns that were targeting him. He couldn't permit any mistakes. -
tobyjoyce at 07:29 AM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
daisym @43, "The U.S. government seems hell bent on passing Cap and Trade but, without a full-time alternative energy source, how would it force manufacturers to stop using carbon fuels?" If that is a true statement, then why was the Power Bill dropped in the US Senate, without a vote, and without a squeak from the White House? In the 1980s and 1990, "Cap and trade" was touted as the "free market" solution to pollution and global warming. Now it is derided as "cap and tax" and is ideologically off-limits for any aspiring Republican politician, and many Democrats. I thought Jim Hansen has a good proposal in his book Storms of My Grandchildren. This was for a carbon tax to be paid at the point of extraction or import of carbon fuel. The tax would be paid as a dividend to taxpayers, which they could spend as they please (on carbon fuel, for example, if they so wished, but then they gain nothing). An alternative would use the money collected to offset payroll taxes, thereby creating jobs. This version has been adopted in British Columbia, and is working well. Carbon Tax Cap and trade just has too many complexities. Cap and Trade -
VoltairesDistantCousin at 07:13 AM on 7 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ned, BP: My apologies. Temperature does increase in the stratosphere due, I think to ozone's absorption of UV radiation. I was too quick with my correction. I will do more research before posting further. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:11 AM on 7 August 2010Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
Buying by scanning? That's nothing; I've been buying by impulse for years now! -
MattJ at 07:03 AM on 7 August 2010Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
Nokia phones? What about other Symbian phones? They are not all Nokia phones, you know. And as for buying by scanning, that is on both Android and iPhone now. Has been for a while, too. -
Mal Adapted at 07:00 AM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
BP:No, we are not just any remarkable species, one of millions, but spiritual and immortal souls, an absolutely unique kind, created in the image of God, given freedom and responsibility. We must remember that.
BP's belief, shared by billions, is at The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. I'm now convinced it's also at the root of his relentless denial of AGW. -
Jim Powell at 06:51 AM on 7 August 2010More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
Thanks for this posting, John. The sources of the slides, the script, and a PowerPoint set for the video can be found at my website. As John anticipated, several commenters on ClimateProgress and YouTube noted that I did not spend much time, or any time, or the evidence that humans have caused global warming. But I did cover that in the slide that starts at 1:27 of the video with the chart of carbon emissions, CO2 concentrations, and global temperatures from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. I also discuss the significance of that chart on my website. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:34 AM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Michael you might also look at the item linked from here which integrates the 2007 IPCC stuff. -
michael sweet at 06:25 AM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Doug, I posted a little fast before. The report was from 2006 and estimated a 25 cm rise in sea level by 2100. Still too low in my book. They suggest defending all developed areas. They do not estimate protection costs. Will it be economic to defend? For how long? It will be interesting to see what is done when the next IPCC report comes out much higher than the last one. I hope that action is taken before the rise is so fast we have no choice but to move. -
werecow at 06:19 AM on 7 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I think this is a great idea. It will allow people to get the intuition before they get into the nitty-gritty. In my experience as someone who loves learning about science, having that intuition explained in simple terms before diving into the real deal can really help steepen your learning curve, because when thrown in at the deep end, some people might struggle to understand the issue and give up in frustration, or at the very least, take a lot longer to figure out what is being said. It's something I frequently wish more textbook authors would do. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:55 AM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Michael the functional difference between the British approach to informed policy and ours in the U.S. is visible. We like things to be a little more like Mogadishu, the British less so. It costs money to be less like Mogadishu and lack of funds for doing things that can't produce a profit on a private balance sheet shows up in details such as knowing whether your air tube should be 10cm or 1m. In my humble opinion, heh! -
michael sweet at 05:54 AM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Galloping Camel, One problem in Florida, compared to Holland, is Holland only has to defend one side from the sea. In Florida we have the sea on two sides. In addition hurricanes, which occur frequently, have high storm surges which overtop levies. We all know what happens once levies are overtopped. It is a question of how long before we have to start moving everyone out of Miami- it cannot be defended from 2 meters of sea level rise. Hopefully sea level rise will be at the lower end of estimates, although those estimates keep rising. Tampa is higher. -
michael sweet at 05:31 AM on 7 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Doug, Thanks for the references. The Nature Consorvatory piece was interesting, although I expect that in the US people will say don't listen to the greenies. It is hard to see how they can keep the road above water after 40 or 50 cm sea level rise. The Tampa planning document uses a 1995 (!!) EPA publication that says there is a 50% chance of 10 cm rise in sea level by 2100 (the Antarctic is not expected to contribute to sea level rise until after 2100). Since current sea level rise is measured at 2.2 mm/yr here that seems a bit conservative to me. It is good to see that city planners are keeping up with the science. --> They have not even obtained the latest EPA documents. -
Rob Painting at 05:30 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Pete Ridley @58 -"Until that has happened climate models have no more validity that the fortune teller’s crystal ball." So crystal balls predicted planetary features such as stratospheric cooling, the polar ice asymmetry and oceanic stratification too?. -
It's the sun
GnDoty - read Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans for some info on relative CO2 rates. Volcanoes emit at a time averaged ~1% of current human rates - they aren't similar. As to solar influence - that's really pretty well understood. It's been decreasing since the 1970's, but over geologic/cosmic time it's been brightening, as per its life cycle. Stellar evolution is considered to be very well understood - we've got, after all, billions of examples to look at. There's a nice image of the solar life-cycle on Wikipedia. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:20 AM on 7 August 2010It's the sun
GnDoty, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, nobody can be crushed by the tree. We've no experience with having 7+ billion people on the Earth during (for instance) the Deccan flood basalt events, which in any case took far longer to mutate the climate than what we're doing. I'm a firm believer that we're not going to go extinct any more than are cockroaches, but by ignoring what we're doing we're going to end up living a little bit more like cockroaches. Why would we want to do that? Folks raising their hands "aye" to enjoying our present living standard should pay heed. Just ask President Medvedev of Russia. He's got a fresh perspective on "adaptation." -
Ned at 05:18 AM on 7 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
That said, I'm not sure why BP refers to emissions at 15 μm. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes relatively little additional reduction in OLR at 15 μm, and thus relatively little change in the height at which emission occurs. Most of the change from increased CO2 is at 13-14 and 16-17 μm, and overall it's going to lower the effective radiating temperature rather than raise it. -
Peter Hogarth at 05:16 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Pete Ridley at 02:23 AM on 7 August, 2010 Try to keep it short Pete. (I'll also try to follow my own advice). I think data and objectivity is fundamental to the debate rather than semantics and hyperbolics. "Because of those unfounded assumptions made as a result of the significant uncertainties in the underlying sciences upon which the models are based, any attempts at predicting global climates are little better than fortune telling through gazing into crystal balls" Please be explicit and specific, with science based references rather than opinions (or those of others). -
Doug Bostrom at 05:04 AM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
The cap and trade mechanism is a way of setting a cost on C02 thus bringing it into our accounting system so we no longer consider C02 pollution to be a "free" resource. As long as we ignore the accumulating cost of C02 while relying on the market to choose fuels we're not going to reduce emissions or provide sufficiently strong incentives to find alternatives to the biggest elephant in the room which is coal. Burgeoning exports of coal from Australia are an indicator of this very simple economic fact, one that even most economists themselves can agree on. Australian Coal Industry - Coal Exports Details Predicting the efficacy of cap and trade seems complicated, does not seem very amenable to simple scientific predictions because it collides with economics and politics(understatement!). I found these writeups pretty informative. They're both policy focused but have scads of references. CBO's An Evaluation of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions (long in the tooth but the basics of this approach are old) A meaningful U.S. cap-and-trade system to address climate change -
GnDoty at 04:59 AM on 7 August 2010It's the sun
I'd be interested in data on current CO2 output caused by fossil fuels versus the CO2 output of an active volcanic period. Both rapidly increase CO2 levels. Would everyone agree that if the output was similar, the earth and life would simply adapt as it has before? This is assuming we as a species will advance technologically to the point of becoming far less dependent on fossil fuels. In my opinion, we can't come to any realistic conclusion when too many variables such as solar influence are not fully understood. This leads a person with an open mind like me to wonder why such drastic measures are being proposed when the situation is still not factually conclusive.Response: Here is a comparison of CO2 levels and volcanic activity. The 3 largest volcanic eruptions over the past 50 years had an almost negligible effect on CO2 levels:
-
Hockey stick is broken
Eric - please read the last two paragraphs of this posting for an answer to that question. -
Ned at 04:44 AM on 7 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
VoltairesDistantCousin: BP was right and your "correction" of him is wrong. Temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere, increases in the stratosphere, decreases in the mesosphere, and increases again in the thermosphere:
-
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
I'm afraid, RSVP, that you are not following the analogy I presented. I DID state that the water pressure drove the outflow rate, with "if the water level rises, it drains faster, if it drops, it drains slower...For fun we can set the output rate to scale with the 4th power of water level". Your analogy of two buckets makes no sense - as has been covered before (repeatedly, by several people), there is only one bucket, one set of energy. It really doesn't matter if the AHF energy comes in fast, slow, through convection, radiation, conduction - the AHF rate is 0.028w/m^2, and it ends up depositing that energy into the mass of the Earth/water/atmosphere at 0.028w/m^2, or 0.028 joules/sec/m^2. That's a rate of energy input to the total Earth/water/air energy. Adding AHF to sunlight, in the analogy I gave, means adding to the water inflow. If 100 gallons per minute are pouring in from the sun, and you add 1 gpm of AHF, well then the water level/pressure (and by analogy temperature) will rise a bit until the output increases to match. If you reduce the outflow rate at the current water level to 90 gpm, water level and pressure will rise until the outflow is again 100 (or 101 with AGH) gpm. Again - there is only one system receiving energy; the sum of Earth+water+atmosphere. There is only one output for that energy, radiation to space. And changes in either the rate of input or output will change the radiative equilibrium temperature of the system. If you cannot understand that, and continue to insist that AHF somehow acts differently than solar energy (does it somehow produce a different flavor of joules - chocolate, perhaps?), then you have a conceptual issue I cannot help you with. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:32 AM on 7 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
I'm curious to know what Argus is really arguing about. W/reference to model predictions versus observations, Argus said: [dubious proof omitted] these climate 'forecasts' over-predict global temperatures when compared with observed temperatures. I am guessing there is a purpose behind this. What purpose do you believe that to be, Argus? I ask because this has a lot of bearing on the topic of this post. Quite a large body of research tells us that a given person's confidence in and ability to integrate new information is often dictated not by the quality of that information but instead how it comports with their beliefs about things not directly related but which instead may be affected by actions indicated by the new information. In this case you're harboring some misunderstandings about models that happen to allow you to dismiss them as having no utility in helping us to decide whether to change our actions. Your remark about "purpose behind this" sounds superficially like an irrational buttressing of your misconceptions about models. That's why I'm wondering about the specifics of the "purpose" you see in errors of models. -
daisym at 04:27 AM on 7 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
Do scientists believe that carbon derivatives trading will make significant reductions in carbon fuel usage? The U.S. government seems hell bent on passing Cap and Trade but, without a full-time alternative energy source, how would it force manufacturers to stop using carbon fuels? Should industrialized counties jointly conduct R&D to find a full-time energy source that would replace carbon fuels?
Prev 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 Next
