Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 Next
Comments 115351 to 115400:
-
Berényi Péter at 12:23 PM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#120 scaddenp at 10:30 AM on 13 July, 2010 "To supply every person in the world with an average European’s power consumption (125 kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000 km by 1000 km squares in the desert." Would you please calculate the effect on global climate of covering two million square kilometers of the most sunny places on Earth with a low albedo material? And the cost and environmental impact of creating huge temporary energy storage capacities close to points of consumption. Then come environmentalists to accuse you for killing all those desert snakes and scorpions. -
HumanityRules at 12:21 PM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
This article just highlights the fact that scientists are not always the objective beings they should be. They like the rest of us have the right to make whatever comment they wish but this article has nothing to do with science or them being scientists. Just on one line in the article. "We all call this man-made catastrophe "global warming" or "climate change" Which catastrophe? I don't see any catastrophe. There may be some future imagined catastrophe but there certainly isn't anything of the such at the moment. It's the fact that such casual alarmism is allowed to pass unnoticed that really worries me.Response: "Which catastrophe? I don't see any catastrophe."
When I first met with John and Ove earlier this year, they showed me some of the peer-reviewed research into global warming impacts on ocean ecosystems and the ripple effect that is affecting humanity. Some of it was their own research. I hadn't even heard of some of the impacts they were researching and it was sobering stuff. I would suggest reading into their research and the impacts of global warming on the ocean before pronouncing their comments as "casual alarmism". My first post on the subject was Ocean Acidification: global warming's evil twin followed by Earth's five mass extinction events. Unfortunately these only scratch the surface - I would like to go deeper into the peer-reviewed literature but finding the time is tough. -
KR at 12:17 PM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Here's a more conservative approach: AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION - Estimated 20% of US electrical needs, including environmental and land use exclusions. North Dakota alone could (theoretically) supply >25% of US electrical needs, this takes into account a lot of land use restrictions. -
KR at 12:09 PM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Berényi - even at low W/m^2 total land usage there are lots of places to put windmills. This link, which includes references to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (and which also has great maps for PV and CPV power availability) indicates that the USA has sufficient land with 300-2000W/m^2 wind energies (wind incident on the windmill), within 10km of current power lines, to generate an average continuous 734 GW. The USA used 474 GW of electric power in 2007. Throw in some PV or concentrated PV energy, at up to 9 kWh/m^2/day, and a few new power lines - there is no physical issue preventing generating sufficient power. -
Berényi Péter at 12:07 PM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#121 scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 13 July, 2010 when you burn the sugar to get energy, then surely you release CO2 back? This appears to me to be just high-tech carbon neutral biofuel, powered by the sun as well. Yes and no. If you had molecular nanotech, you could manufacture just about anything using carbon and little else. Sugar (or whatever) is just a temporary carbon storage. But most of the thingies needed for a hitech environment are pretty permanent. Including molecular machinery to convert light, water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar (L-glucose may be favored, it's not consumed by bacteria), then oxygen and sugar into water, carbon dioxide and electricity. Burning all the unoxidized carbon compounds in the crust may not be enough to supply the carbon needed for an advanced economy. Then some limestone should be exploited, creating a serious ocean basification problem by releasing untold amounts of lime milk into the environment. But these are problems for the day after tomorrow. -
snapple at 11:54 AM on 13 July 2010Czech translation of Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I wish someone would translate the book into Russian. They just had an article in Russia called "Pseudoscientific Genius." The article discusses how gullible Russians are about scientific charlatans. During Climategate, Pravda was quoting Fox News. The article stated: "Rasputin-style infiltration into the upper echelons of power remains a problem even in post-Soviet Russia. 'In the Kremlin there were whole groups of—I’m scared of calling them charlatans—but mystics, astrologists. These were prominent people—generals. The 1990s were an analogue of Rasputin’s time,' said [Eduard Kruglyakov, the head of the Pseudoscience Commission at the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Several appointments made by Boris Yeltsin suggested that he sought advice from odd sources. For instance, Yeltsin made General Georgi Rogozin, an ex-KGB officer and star-gazer, the deputy head of his Presidential Security Service. Rogozin led a team of 12 astrologers who would draw on their expertise to counsel the president."---RIA Novosti (7-8-10) http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/ria-novosti-criticizes-russias.htmlResponse: Noone has contacted me about doing a Russian translation yet but a past Skeptical Science blog post has been translated into Russian. I'll contact the translator of that blog post, ask if he's available to translate the handbook. -
Riduna at 11:52 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
Surprised the article does not mention the effects of increased absorption of CO2 creating carbonic acid, particularly in cooler seawater. These cause depletion of aragonite and other material on which calcifying marine life depends for production of protective shells. This is known to threaten a major marine food source, Pteropods (Thecosomata). Such a wide variety of fish depend on them as their main source of nourishment and consume them in such vast numbers that they have been appropriately described by Dr. Hoffmann (University of California) as ‘chips of the sea’. Extinction of Pteropods is likely with increased absorption of CO2 and their loss may well threaten marine life which depend on them and, ultimately, humans who depend on marine life as a major source of protein. While the presence of CO2 does stimulate seagrass growth, providing an enhanced nursery for some marine life, its ability to form carbonic acid poses a threat to corals which provide such an important environment for a wide variety of marine life. The loss of coral reefs endangers marine life on which humans depend. -
scaddenp at 11:18 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Just a further note on CSP. According this report 25% efficiency commercial CSP is available and close to 50% efficiency is expected in future. This should yield CSP with 40W/m2 or better instead of the 15W/m2 that MacKay based his calculation on. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:55 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP @ 99:http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=122&&n=266#18218 It's not the error that is a shame, it's the baseless accusations. The researchers of the papers you accused to be frauds are people, honorable people. They must be considered as such until proof of the contrary. You launched the accusations but dispensed from the proof. -
Zeph at 10:43 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP: "Therefore decarbonization is nothing else but the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that." BP, as a new reader of this blog, I was weighing your critiques for objectivity and merit. I am not really qualified to fully scientifically judge OHC or acidification; at best I might form semi-informed opinions. For a non-specialist it can be hard to really judge the science of a particular niche accurately in the "spare time" available. A key aspect is that it's often easy to follow a given thread of argument, but without deeper domain knowledge it's harder to weigh the balances and to be sure when all relevant factors have been accounted for. This is not specific to climate science - it could have to do with setting tuna harvest quotas in the south pacific - one side can show you the facts and analysis they want you to see, then the other can, and it takes a lot of time to objectively sort out the conflicting claims. So sometimes I look for who seems to have the most rational analysis with the least unconscious baggage; it's a matter of judging credibility rather than going into each discipline's science in sufficient detail to create publishable papers. However, with these posts (109 & 118) you strayed into territory where I have more knowledge, and your lack of objectivity becomes glaringly apparent to me. This causes me to give less weight to your pronoucements where you (appear to believe you) have more expertise than I have, like OHC. Just by the way, given that a substantial number of decarbonization advocates are supporting varying degrees of increase in reliance on nuclear energy (conventional or some form of breeder, particularly thorium), for either a transition period or for the long term, your black and white declaration in this area as quoted above is blatently inaccurate and far from objective. Likewise, you appear to be selective lowballing in your analysis of renewables + conservation (to be fair, many advocates of renewables tend to highball their estimates of what's possible - see below for why). However, the quote above does potentially explain the sense of a seething undercurrent of urgency mixed with despair which I sense behind your ostensibly rational presentations. I actually find that helpful - and familiar, as your sense of "impending doom" and the vital necessity of changing course before it's too late is remarkably similar to climate change alarmists. (By which I do NOT mean all hotties. I'm using the term selectively in regard to the urgency-to-avoid-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it aspect, justified or not - not as a broad brush or put-down). For those with viewpoints similar to yours, "decarbonization" would mean the end of the world as we know it; for the hotties with a similar psychological urgency, c02 driven global climate change would mean about the same - in both cases that urgency sometimes fuels some hyperbole and lack of respect for opponents. Understanding that urgency, I can cut both ends of the spectrum a certain degree of slack. But I'm more interested in the middle, and in the audience John Brooks is seeking to reach. De-escalating the names whenever is a step in that direction. I doubt that "hotties" vs "notties" will catch on, tho I applaud the effort. While it's hard for bloggers who type a lot and prefer quick terms and acronyms for efficient communication among the in-group, often when writing for others it's useful to just avoid the shorthand and expand the text. So for example, one could talk about "those who disbelieve in human caused climate change" or "those who believe that humans are changing the climate". Yes, those are not fully accurate (eg: "via CO2 or other means?") but they can be understood without demeaning or overly stereotyping. -
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
"However, as the main raw material for such tiny engines is CO2 in air, it's time to start worrying about irresponsible depletion of this resource up to a degree that plants would suffer" Umm, when you burn the sugar to get energy, then surely you release CO2 back? This appears to me to be just high-tech carbon neutral biofuel, powered by the sun as well. -
scaddenp at 10:30 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP. depends on what you use solar for. Solar hot water, more like 40W/m2 but then that is not the major use of energy. SCP is more like 15Wm2 and to quote from MacKay, "To supply every person in the world with an average European’s power consumption (125 kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000 km by 1000 km squares in the desert." Of course that solve problem of available desert (especially for europeans), nor of storage. Nuclear would probably be better. Nonetheless, this is a problem we have to solve sooner or later as oil demand outstrips supply. -
Berényi Péter at 10:09 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#118 kdkd at 07:52 AM on 13 July, 2010 obscures the poor quality reasoning enough to give a veneer of respectability That's vague. Which specific step you've found objectionable? Why? -
Berényi Péter at 09:30 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#111 KR at 03:26 AM on 13 July, 2010 there was a very interesting article in the Nov. 2009 issue of Scientific American detailing how wind, solar, and wave energy could supply 100% of energy requirements in the next 20-40 years Come on. According to this study nominal land use efficiency of modern wind power plants in the United States is 2.9 W/m2. Taking into account the intermittent nature of winds, the actual average power output is only a fraction of this figure. That's more than ridiculous. Wind power should be banned ASAP. Land use efficiency of solar power is not much better than that (at most 10 W/m2 in mid-latitudes, including losses related to storage). The only reasonable place for solar panels is on rooftops, but first the energy storage problem should be resolved (because the sun fails to shine at night and in the winter when most of the energy is used up). Even then this area is far too small to provide for a reasonable fraction of consumption. Costs should also be decreased by an order of magnitude to make this solution competitive with no subsidies on taxpayer's money. If roads would be paved with solar panels as well, captured energy stored locally in some non-toxic, not flammable but energy-rich chemical (like sugar) and microscopic fuel cells would produce electricity on demand, that could come close to a permanent solution. However, some R+D is still needed to make micron sized self replicating and self cleaning solar powered sugar factories and sugar powered fuel cells in quantity, durable enough to be used as pavement at a reasonable cost. I wouldn't bet on their large scale availability in the next few decades. That would require full scale molecular nanotechnology. However, as the main raw material for such tiny engines is CO2 in air, it's time to start worrying about irresponsible depletion of this resource up to a degree that plants would suffer. Also, MNT has its onw perils. Nuclear breeder reactor technology has the irrefutable advantage of existence. In fact it was available even thirty years ago. And its land use efficiency is simply beyond imagination. -
apeescape at 09:11 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
oops, John B, you're right. Somehow I read that wrong, and I'm obviously not an expert. BTW, if you search for the titles of the papers, there should be links to the pdf. -
KR at 08:52 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
andthorne - that's a fascinating analysis. Sadly, I haven't seen any evidence for large scale increasing formaldehyde levels or sub-sea seismic activity - do you have any evidence for your hypothesis of deep sea methane hydrate explosions??? That's one of the more entertaining alternative theories I've heard so far... and I agree with John B that it's baloney. -
John Bruno at 08:35 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
PatriciaW: I am curious why you say "It is unfortunate that the authors of this article still repeat the long since abandoned target of under 450ppm" Because it is too high, too low, unrealistic or because you don't agree with the idea of setting a limit of ppm goal? Also, that is a pretty sweeping statement you make... Also, I don't know of science predicting acidification will kill off phytoplankton. Some that secrete calcarious shells will suffer, but overall it is unclear how climate change will affect primary production (and I don't think falling atmospheric O2 levels are a problem). On the one hand, reducing mixing and upwelling appear to be reducing production in some places. On the other hand, warming and increased CO2 conc. should/will stimulate photosynthesis and primary production. Although, it gets even more complicated than that, as warming also stimulates animal metabolism, to an even greater degree, thus, we think we will be seeing more grazing of phytoplankton and reduced phytoplankton standing stock, but this would obviously increase net ocean photosynthesis. Ill do a complete post on this soon... andthorne: you are wrong. this is baloney. apeescape: an increase in chlorophyl in the oceans should actually be interpreted as an increase in primary production (although it is a bit less straightforward than that). I am unfamiliar with those papers... - John B PS: Sorry the Science papers are not publicly available. -
Riccardo at 08:19 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Surprisingly consistent, indeed. Good job Peter. -
andthorne at 08:00 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
The cause of rising temperatures and acid levels in the ocean can be attributed to the explosions in the deep sea bed of methane hydrates. They are recognized as the cause of mud volcanoes; the methane leaks through them, oxidizng ultimately to CO 2, using a lot of oxygen in the process. A long the oxidizing way it converts to formalin and water. Formalin is not very good for sea life and water raises sea levels an evaporation rates to our atmosphere. In the air it converts to formaldehyde and water vapor, again contributing to Global Warming. M -
kdkd at 07:52 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
I'm also impressed with the rhetorical approach that BP takes in post 109 given his repeated assertion that the only thing that is important is the evidence. It's becoming increasingly clear that as with Ken Lambert the only things important to BP are his preconceived notions of what the "correct" conclusions will be in advance. However this is usually hidden behind some technical sounding stuff illustrating small picture thinking which obscures the poor quality reasoning enough to give a veneer of respectability. -
kdkd at 07:45 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
KL#102 After BP#140: "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). In an ideal world this statement would be true but for complex stochastic systems with high levels of measurement uncertainty this statement is merely advocacy for impasse and the weight of the evidence be damned. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:12 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 12:31 PM on 12 July, 2010 I have also looked at what we can say about short term trends from the paleo data. If your hypothesis was “likely” we should see random or high variations in trend away from the overall trend when looking at any approximate 150 year period in the overall time period. These variations are not random and not large.
These are trends from every four consecutive paleo points. I have also taken gradients from three consecutive points, as a three or four point record from this data encompasses a period most similar to the tide gauge data (roughly 150 years). I have also added the shorter New London tidal series (running annual average) for comparison. We should be cautious with this crude approach, but it’s not a “trick”, we treat all paleo data consistently. We allocate a “centre” date for these mini-series, then finally add the measured trends from the two tide gauge series with a centre date for these (solid points below). I am aware I have argued against this breaking up of time series elsewhere, but on this occasion we are actually looking for any evidence of short term changes in gradient - whilst still honouring all of the points in the overall analysis by generating a series of overlapping trends. If deviation of the points from mean trend was high, we would expect inconsistent or noisy results. If large variations had occurred, we would expect to see some significant changes in gradient, especially on such short series. If there was no acceleration in trend, we would see a flat line, or an insignificant trend.
The results are surprisingly consistent, all linear fit trends are significantly positive. The derived rate of increase in trend (just from the paleo data) is clear and consistently positive. The addition of the tidal data confirms and increases this trend, showing late period acceleration and giving strong evidence that the most likely earlier and later trends are close to those suggested by Donnelly, whilst also suggesting short and medium term variability similar to the tide gauge data, (which is intuitive). The second order fits are not meant to represent possible variation, but simply to indicate the significant positive second order component, ie acceleration. This analysis supports the conclusions of the paper, and does not support your suggestion.
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
MP - I think you are being impressed by a denial tactic that "we saving the world from an ice age by adding CO2". This supposed touching concern for humanity thousands of years into the future is I suspect more motivated by concern about price of gas tomorrow but no matter. If this concern was genuine then it would make more sense to save every bit of carbon now for use in the future when needed. As to old saw about running out of rocks - maybe it would be better to say we will move to better sources of energy when we start paying the true cost for petroleum. Even removal of $500 billion of subsidies would be good start dont you think? BP - I find David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" a valuable analysis as to the potential for renewables. While he analysis would also suggest that nuclear has to be part of some countries needs, (Europe) he also makes a mockery of the statement of "Anyway, you can do the math, renewable energy is absolutely insufficient to maintain the necessary energy supply to world economy, even in the short run." -
Peter Hogarth at 06:53 AM on 13 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd at 06:09 AM on 13 July, 2010 John, thanks, but you misquote me. I did not dismiss CO2, nor would I. I was referring to the high correlation with temperature and lower correlation with CO2 found by many workers, and I justified this. The author of your first reference (I read this last year) should know as this is Buntgen !!!! Esper is also a co-author! The second reference doesn't link, but don't think I've read this one. I'll see what I can dig up on CO2 and growth. -
johnd at 06:09 AM on 13 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Peter Hogarth at 07:20 AM, following up on your dismissal of CO2 being a factor in increased growth, these two studies are interesting and relevant. Larch Budmoth Outbreaks in the European Alps shows how rising CO2 may be related to increased growth due to the lack of periodic growth depressions that characterise larch growth. Changes in needle quality and larch bud moth performance in response to CO2 enrichment and defoliation of treeline larches studies the effects in CO2 enrichment trials. -
KR at 05:08 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
And here's a better summary of the Sci. Am. article on renewables. The world will need an estimated 16.9 terawatts of power by 2030, up from 12.5 TW today. Available wind power is estimated at 40-85 TW, available solar power at ~580 TW. Cost per KW could be lower than building new coal power plants, even with the required long distance power lines. Bird deaths (an issue raised with wind farms) are estimated at ~1/10 that from coal plants (pollution), so that's not an obstacle. And wind/solar power generation is hugely less wasteful of water resources (no cooling towers or hot rivers) than coal, oil, or nuclear power, relaxing fresh water needs. Siting multiple wind/solar sources separated by a reasonable distance (~5 up and down the East Coast of the US, for example, or even a few hundred km between stations) overcomes regional wind/solar variations, allowing a fairly level supply regardless of weather. And if we move our transportation to an electric basis (that's difficult - batteries still *suck* for energy density), we could even drop our power requirements below current levels. It's not all simple, mind you - there are rare-earth resource limitations for motors/solar cells, mostly from China, and a considerable investment. But it can be done. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:35 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
"Inefficient wind turbines" Well, let's consider the efficiency of a wind turbine based on the ratio of the energy it actually produces for a given wind speed vs. its Beck limit. On the table below, we find, at 10 mph wind, a Beck limit of 37.70kWh/mo and a realistic turbine output of 22.36, whcih gives an efficiency close to 59%. http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Perfect_Turbine.htm In comparison, a coal power plant can be expected to reach about 31%. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_energy_efficiency_of_an_average_coal_powered_plant If I remember, combined cycle could possibly reach 40 or 45%. Not quite as good but still more efficient than BP's rethoric. BTW, BP, thanks for the pic, with all the oil covered pelicans in the news these days, it's nice to see something aesthetically pleasing. Just to clarify: I have stated on this forum many times before that I am in favor of using nuclear energy. -
apeescape at 03:54 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
(linked from original paper) SeaWiFS data show increase in chlorophyl in the oceans which links to loss of primary production. Polovina, J.J., Howell, E.A., Abecassis, M. (2008). Ocean's least productive waters are expanding. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(3) DOI: 10.1029/2007GL031745
Though more data is needed.
Henson, S. A.; Sarmiento, J. L.; Dunne, J. P.; Bopp, L.; Lima, I.; Doney, S. C.; John, J.; Beaulieu, C. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in satellite records of ocean chlorophyll and productivity. Biogeosciences 7 (2010): 621-640, doi:10.5194/bg-7-621-2010.
-
KR at 03:29 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Here's a better link to the Scientific American sustainable energy proposal. -
KR at 03:26 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Berényi - I would completely agree that nuclear power will need to be part of the energy mix moving forward, at a much larger percentage than it is now. However, there was a very interesting article in the Nov. 2009 issue of Scientific American detailing how wind, solar, and wave energy could supply 100% of energy requirements in the next 20-40 years. Not ethanol, mind you - that would require several times the area of the Earth to match up, not to mention several times the available world-wide fresh water. You might want to look up a copy if you can get your hands on it. I believe there's a lot more potential in renewable energy than you seem to. -
chris at 03:19 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
MP at 18:37 PM on 12 July, 2010 MP your argument is scuppered by a fundamental flaw unfortunately. The only one of your set of possible scenarios is your scenario #1. The reason is that there simply will not be "a new glacial period" within the next 10 millenia (analysis of the Earth's highly predictable orbital properties that govern the transitions between glacial periods indicate that the present interglacial might actually last another 50,000 years). Clearly we need to address the immediate problems (increasing global warming, sea level rise, major disruption of current hydrological cycles etc.) that impact during the coming decades, and the related longer term problem (an absolute imperative to realign the powering of our societies with sustainable energy sources at least within the next few hundred years), before worrying about what might happen many thousands of years from now! -
Alexandre at 03:12 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
apeescape #3 Thanks, I was going to ask for that. -
Peter Hogarth at 03:10 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 12:31 PM on 12 July, 2010 On data point 1, you state “It is also.... statistically speaking...... on the 1.2mm/yr trend” if we are talking just the non-tide gauge data, I agree, but we are not. “Therefore so is the tide gauge data”. This is incorrect. I have included error bars on the tide gauge data. Do the error bars on the paleo data overlap the tide gauge trend? Yes. Do they overlap the paleo trend? Yes. Could this point be on both trends, Yes. Do the error bars on the tide gauge data overlap the extended paleo trend? No. Could they be on this paleo trend? No. Clearly the trends diverge (and continue to do so). We must accept that the tide gauge record from close to the site in question shows a 150 year relative sea level trend which is in excess of 2 mm/yr. It is important to see that this trend is smooth at decadal timescales over the entire 150 year period. There is no inconvenience to me here, perhaps a basic misunderstanding on your part?
The light grey line is the paleo trend. Red is NY tide gauge MWL. Blue is New London tide gauge MWL. New London is relatively local to site. Next I will look at the paleo trends in more detail.
-
Berényi Péter at 02:56 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#98 MP at 18:37 PM on 12 July, 2010 just as the Stone Age ended, not because the earth ran out of stone or a stone tax was introduced, the carbon age will end because humans will find more appropriate or cheaper alternative sources of energy rather than being subject to further arbitrary carbon taxes that generate revenue that is more likely to be used to try and address sovereign debt rather than facilitate the research and development of alternative sources of energy That's it. In the long run there are only two scarce resources. One is the span of human attention, the other is land area for neither one is subject to expanded reproduction. Both are overexploited. The first one by the unrestricted flood of commercial and political advertisement (in fact the most serious case of environmental pollution), the second one is by the so called renewable resource policy. Which in fact lays waste to huge expanses of land, either by installing useless, inefficient and ugly wind farms (on taxpayer's money, of course) or abusing it in other ways like solar collectors, flatland hydropower or fuel crops.
Anyway, you can do the math, renewable energy is absolutely insufficient to maintain the necessary energy supply to world economy, even in the short run.
Therefore decarbonization is nothing else but the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that.
As for carbon taxes, it would be a best case scenario to address sovereign debt. In reality carbon credit fraud (158,000 hits) is fast becoming the most popular creative business opportunity.
Of course, as I have already mentioned, there is a solution. Just overemotional greenies should be sent home first, who were careful to remove the only viable alternative energy source from public discourse before going for carbon en force.
-
KR at 02:49 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Ken's and BP's arguments seem to center on a reductionist approach, or at least the "solid science" approach generally used by people I will (IMO) label 'denialists'. Note - I want to talk about the tactics, not label people whose discussions have from time to time shown elements of these tactics. An issue (real or not) with a single piece of evidence does not invalidate an entire theory - it never has. Yet certain groups have frequently claimed this. For example: risks of acid rain, risks of smoking and secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, DDT, shortcomings of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and now climate change. Each scientific issue has been faced with shouts about singular issues, with the claim that any error whatsoever invalidates the entire issue. And oddly enough, everything I just listed is discussed here in "Merchants of Doubt, where the authors point out that exactly the same people (S. Fred Singer, Robert Jastrow, Willie Soon, and others) have been involved in almost every one of these issues. That's not a convincing track record! I have a family connection with denialists - my brother used to be one of the major public faces for a large tobacco company, denying the effects of second-hand smoke. A few months after he started that job he handed me a copy of "Thank You For Smoking", and said "This is my job - I AM Nick Naylor!" He used every one of the tactics above repeatedly - and every day political decisions were delayed meant money for his company. He never did tell us how much a soul went for, though... "Sound science", calls for absolute evidence (More study! More study!), and nitpicking individual pieces of evidence as 'proof' that entire bodies of science are invalid are all examples of 'denialist' tactics. The evidence is never 'absolute', but when a massive preponderance of evidence accumulates, we can certainly be sure enough to act! -
Peter Hogarth at 02:45 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 12:31 PM on 12 July, 2010 I suggested the tidal data barely fits into the 2 sigma envelope and does not fit anywhere except where it is using the 1 sigma curves. I have extended these up to point 1 for sake of argument only. You state “Mere opinion, show it with an overlay”. My statement stands.
-
chris at 02:39 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Albatross at 02:08 AM on 13 July, 2010 "Correct me if I am wrong but the trend in global mean sea-level rise is 3.0 mm/yr +/-0.4 mm/yr from Uni. Colorado. Or are they referring only to the contribution from thermal expansion?" That's the directly measured sea level rise from satellite altimetry. It encompasses the contributions from mass change (land ice melt) and ocean warming (thermosteric volume expansion). With the improving abilities to obtain independent measures of land ice melt (from monitoring glaciers and ice caps, and now from GRACE satellite estimates of regional mass redistribution from their effects on Earth's gravitational field) and thermosteric contributions (from direct measures of ocean heat changes), efforts have begun to attempt to do some basic "accounting" of the Earth heat and sea level budgets. The basic idea is that the independently determined mass contributions and heat contributions should sum to the directly observed sea level rise. Not surprisingly this is not straightforward, partly since the directly measured sea level rise (lowish uncertainty in this parameter) is the sum of two contributions of greater uncertainty (not to mention the potentially large contributions to sea level variation from internal fluctuations like El Nino and La Nina). Areas of uncertainty are very interesting! Scientists like them since they define arenas for potential discoveries. On the other hand they're catnip to those that like to insinuate that bits and pieces of data are incompatible with our broader understanding... -
apeescape at 02:30 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
Nobody seems to be linking to the Science articles (18 JUNE 2010 VOL 328, ISSUE 5985, PAGES 1437-1598) -
JMurphy at 02:21 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Ken Lambert wrote : One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise. If you mean Leuliette & Miller (2009), it is only part of a host of measurements which, together, give a consistent picture. As they themselves state : While four years is a short period to interpret trends, the excellent agreement in observing systems demonstrates that the global ocean observing systems can be used to close the budget and verify the complementary observations. I know certain people like to pick out only one or two studies, out of the many, because they like what they see in them and then ignore all the rest, but it is always best to see what else is being said. How about more by Leuliette & Miller : here and here How about a round-up ((Contemporary Sea Level Rise) by Cazenave and Llovel : Recent results based on Argo show that since approximately 2003, thermal expansion is following a plateau (after correcting for instrumental drifts of some Argo probes: Early estimates of Argo-based thermal expansion, Lyman et al. 2006 showed a negative trend as of 2003; however, instrumental problems were subsequently reported on some probes, leading to cold bias, hence artificial ocean cooling). For the recent years, thermal expansion rates range from −0.5 ± 0.5 mm year−1 over 2003–2007 (Willis et al. 2008) to +0.4 ± 0.1 mm year−1 over 2004–2007 (Cazenave et al. 2009) and +0.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 over 2004–2007 (Leuliette & Miller 2009). The 2003 data coverage is very sparse and it is likely that the Willis et al. (2008) value is biased low for that reason. The recent flattening of the thermal expansion curve likely reflects natural short-term variability. Similar short-term plateaus are also well visible in the past. Or another one from Trenberth. Anyway, these were all given by chris here (did you bother to go and read them ? The links I give should make it easier for you) and yet you still want to highlight one particular short-term measurement. Why ? What's wrong with the big picture ? Do you also highlight problems with the Theory of Evolution ? -
chris at 02:10 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 13 July, 2010 Interesting, Ken. That illustrates quite a lot about certain approaches to science and knowledge, and especially efforts to misrepresent by focussing on minor areas of uncertainties. This entire thread started with a statement about context, and that (i.e. an informed consideration of context) would help you to understand, for example, the OHC measurement you refer to here: "One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise." Remember that that measurement was part of an analysis of the extent to which the sea level "budget" could be closed for a very short four year period [*]. Not surprisingly estimation of some the sub elements of this analysis (e.g. the thermosteric contribution to sea level) has a high uncertainty. That's obviously why we don't attempt to draw fundamental conclusions from analysis of very short time periods. What is the context in which it might be useful to determine an estimate of the thermostatic contribution at low precision, to a very short term period of sea level rise Ken? The answer is during a period following the introduction of new measurement technologies (ARGO for upper ocean heat measurement; GRACE for gravity perturbation based mass redistribution measurements). These analyses constitute an important initial test of the technologies and allow us to establish whether fundamental problems might exist (crudely put, if the sum of GRACE-derived mass contributions and ARGO-derived thermosteric contributions to sea level rise including error at 95% confidence overlaps with independently determined satellite-derived sea level rise, then we have confidence that there is nothing fundamentally problematic with the technologies and methodologies, although that doesn't prove that everything is working as well as we hope). So context is key. Obviously over the longer term the precision of our measurements improve (signal rises from noise as random measurement error and internal fluctuations average out). This (context) is where there are problems in your other statements: Peter: "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40)." Ken: "That is a profound statement of scientific truth." Well it certainly sounds profound Ken, but I suspect it may be one of those rather empty assertions that dissolve away when considered in the light of real world observations. Can you give us a relevant example? For example one in the context of the current discussion. "When an accurate and repeatable measurement of OHC is available, then we will know the true extent of global warming or cooling." There's no question that good OHC data will fundamentally improve our ability to test our understanding to the Earth response to radiative imbalance. But global warming can also be defined in relation to the response of the Earth surface and since (a) this is the bit of the Earth we inhabit and have a profound interest in, and (b) this is the measure that allows us to assess the relationship between changes in radiative forcings and surface temperature response in the near and deep past, it would be foolish indeed to consider that we require OHC measures before we can properly assess global warming. Remember that uncertainty in little bits of sub issues doesn't drive out certainty in the more fundamental areas of our knowledge. For example we have high confidence that radiative imbalance results in sea level rise due to land ice melt and ocean warming. We can measure sea level rise reasonably well and the measurements generally correspond to our expectations. The fact that we can only make an imprecise direct estimate of the thermostatic contribution to sea level rise during the period Jan 2004 to Dec 2007 doesn't negate our higher level certainties. [*] Leuliette E, Miller L. 2009. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36:L04608 -
Albatross at 02:08 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Ned, Phillipe et al., BP has repeated this figure on this thread, even though John Cook advised him here that he is comparing OHC for 0-3000 m with that from 0-700 m. That is not a valid comparison, and definitely not a valid reason to strongly assert that there are issues with the data. Someone else claims that "why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise" Correct me if I am wrong but the trend in global mean sea-level rise is 3.0 mm/yr +/-0.4 mm/yr from Uni. Colorado. Or are they referring only to the contribution from thermal expansion? I am all for people making the effort to understand and even to try and reproduce scientific findings. However, when our results do not agree with those in the literature, I would caution against making statements of data fudging or conspiracies. A much, much more plausible scenario is that we have made one or more errors. -
Riccardo at 01:37 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel, I'd not look for cutting edge research paper, it's just simple physics. Global sea level may rise due to thermal expantion of the ocean or to the melting of land ice; locally it may rise for a change in the ocean circulation pattern. It has nothing to do with AGW and the like. Add to this that even simple statistics would tell you that going from the lower to the higest end of the uncertainty range is statistically very unlikely. Beyond this, I might we willing to say that global sea level rose because of a rise of the ocean floor with respect to the continental crust or because of a giant movent of masses that locally produced an increased gravitational pull. In principle they are both possible, in practice they're both untenable. And this is also the line we should never cross if we want to talk about the science of any phenomenon instead of producing pseudo-scientific hypothesis. -
michael sweet at 01:32 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Ken Lambert (and others) Your post at 102 suggesting that we do not know the extent of global warming because of uncertainty in OHC is extraordinary!! The claim that we must have every piece of the puzzle exactly in place in order to understand what the picture is has been used for decades by deniers to argue that we should not take action about global warming. In the 1990's they said that we needed to know surface warming. Look at Watt's pictures! Forget the confirming satalite data. Now that surface warming is known beyond resonable doubt (as described above by Ned) the deniers want OHC. Once that is known they will want advance, certain knowledge of sea level rise, confirmed prediction of all rain changes or some other obscure item. It will never be enough. "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). What a waste of space. Some data will never be as sure as other data. OHC is very difficult to measure and will have uncertainty for decades. It is the combination of mulitple lines of evidence that is convincing. How many times has John said that we must look at ALL the data and see the whole picture, rather than focus on a single uncertain item and say that is more important than all other data combined. -
ProfMandia at 01:04 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
Two more links from these two scientists written for the general public: John F. Bruno: The Impact of Climate Change on the World's Marine Ecosystems Ocean changes may have dire impacts on people - UQ News Online - The University of Queensland Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences Selden, NY Global Warming: Man or Myth? My Global Warming Blog Twitter: AGW_Prof "Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group -
PatriciaW at 00:56 AM on 13 July 2010Must-read article on ocean impacts by ocean scientists
It is unfortunate that the authors of this article still repeat the long since abandoned target of under 450ppm. They also do not mention the effect on the planet's oxygen supply which ocean acidification will probably cause if it kills off oxygen generating phytoplankton. (I've also added this comment to the original article.)Response: Re oxygen, I'd hazard to guess John and Ove were doing the same thing I tend to do with my articles lately - hit the broad points and let the nitty gritty come out in the comments. In science writing, it's tempting to throw everything in there but effective communication requires you discipline yourself to the major points lest your message get diluted with too many details. -
daniel at 00:16 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Riccardo at 00:00 AM on 13 July, 2010 Well actually I would question whether your claim that SLR is so strongly linked to the percieved warming of the 20th century or if the temperature record is so reliable into the past, both over this period and beyond. But since this is a pro AGW website it is up to people like myself to disprove the unproven. Are there any papers you rely on Riccardo to undoubtedly satisfy yourself of SLR driven strongly by climatic factors and also the reliability of the reconstructed temperature record? Post a link and we'll discuss it. I've only just started to find some time to read some of Peter's links throughout the above discussion.Response: Might I suggest starting with Vermeer 2009 that examines the link between sea level rise and temperature, finding the two are closely linked:
Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
Of course, where the paper gets really interesting is when it uses these results to predict future sea level rise which we examine here... -
Ned at 00:11 AM on 13 July 2010The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
Mr_Obvious, it would help if you'd give some specifics -- when you just write "[t]he various posts above seem to abound with seemingly objective; but, in many cases, clearly slanted view points" it's difficult for anyone to respond meaningfully. Which post seems slanted, and how? The one specific fact you mention in your comment is By the way, something I noticed long ago, and posted on on a number of forums; but, have get to get a well validated response to: O2 and CO2 have nearly the same IR absorption spectra / levels. Why is O2 not considered a green house gas when CO2 is? I'm not sure where you are getting that from, but the absorptance spectra of CO2 and O2 are entirely different. Check out the bottom panel of this figure:
Note the CO2 absorptance peak ~13+ micrometers, within the range where the Earth surface radiates and the atmosphere is otherwise semi-transparent.
-
Riccardo at 00:10 AM on 13 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
Ned, sometime I think that whatever the amount of data one can provide there's no way to convice some, hopefully just a few, guys. Nevertheless, it's always worth trying and keep all of us up to date with these new findings. Thanks. -
Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 13 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP, JMurphy, kdkd "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). That is a profound statement of scientific truth. I have found BP's contributions very informative and obviously backed by a serious amount of work. I agree with much of his analyses. The OHC issue is critical to the whole theory of AGW by the enhanced CO2GHG effect. One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise. When an accurate and repeatable measurement of OHC is available, then we will know the true extent of global warming or cooling. -
Riccardo at 00:00 AM on 13 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel, step by step things are getting clearer in my opinion and your last graph is very helpful. Now, in light of this new graph, could you tell what should drive these sudden accelerations in the past? Known science can tell just for the last one, the one in the last century, it's mainly ocean thermal expansion and land ice melting. It's up to who's trying to cast doubts on the accepted explanation to provide evidence and reconcile it with other data that support his hypothesis.
Prev 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 Next
