Recent Comments

Prev  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  Next

Comments 115451 to 115500:

115451. SNRatio at 00:07 AM on 15 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        I think the issue of foundation of political action is more of a decision problem than a purely scientific issue. It can be extremely dangerous, at the very least counterproductive to accept the ordinary rules underlying scientific consensus as the basic rules in cases like AGW. There is an asymmetry built into science, in that we are much more afraid of accepting wrong hypotheses than rejecting correct ones. For building a corpus of secured knowledge, this is nesessary, but for the managment of a global civilization, it can be dangerous. Because the "alternative" hypotheses will always get the benefit of doubt, and that doubt may, in effect, paralyze us. The basic phenomenon, is that when we start large-scale irreversible experiments (they constitute a big part of our civilzation enterprise), we will, very often, not have enough knowledge and data for precise assessment of the consequences before it is too late to avoid them. This applies to a large number of environmental issues, AGW is a prominent one. We may, for example, be well past the point of no return for the melting of Greenland's ice cap, for considerable ocean acidification etc. And still, it is only during the recent years we have accumulated knowledge about these processes to such a degree that we should have a broad scientific consensus on them. And still, we don't have really narrow estimates for climate sensitivity, maybe the most important environmental parameter of all. This has little to do with lack of basic understanding, it is mostly mere real-world complexity. In such situations, the basic issue is not one of precise estimation and scientific penetration, but of risk assessment and management. Expected benefit/loss is the main parameter in the first place. It is a decision problem, and rather than producing precise predictions, workable prabability estimations are needed for handling them. For example, because the cost to society of a Greenland meltdown will be huge, it is enough to have a rather small probability for that in order to warrant drastic measures. Og course, some denialists will say that the probability is about nil, and here is where the game gets interesting. They must provide reasons for that, which not only implies that they must argue their case, but that they must argue against other explanations. And this agrumentation must be held within the observable and predictable. Now, we have a case where we handle everything symmetrically, in probability assessments nothing, in principle, gets the benefit of doubt. And wrong predictions and assessments invariably leads to the probability estimates based thereupon get weighted down. In adequate risk management, lack of precise knowledge directly results in larger safety limits, while in the AGW political debate, it results in NO safety limits. Think about it: There may still be quite a few unknowns, after more invstigation, the Greenland ice loss may seem to be partly periodic, with a larger time frame for complete meltdown, the climate sensitivity may turn out to be closer to 1 than expected etc. Which means that we may have some more time to fix things, but they still have to be fixed. But presenting this as solely a scientific problem, less drastic estimates are almost bount to result in less efficient measures - the result being that we lose life-saving time.
115452. enSKog at 23:59 PM on 14 July 2010
        Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
        When faced with the 'Antarctic sea ice is increasing' argument I have been tempted to respond with 'That will be all the ice sliding off the land into the sea!'. Does increased glacial calving actually make any significant difference to sea ice extent/area?
115453. Tom_the_Bomb at 23:26 PM on 14 July 2010
        Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
        This isn't to do with the post, sorry. Can I suggest that John moves the article "Peer reviewed impacts of global warming" into a more visible place? I think it is one of the most useful articles on this site, comparing peer-reviewed impacts of warming both good and bad, and it deserves more attention. Personally I think it should be up there with the two blue boxes on the home page, but that's just my opinion. Also, the version of this article on the iPod app, called "Global warming is good", doesn't show up on the unless you search for it. Again, I think it's one of the most important pages and should be as visible as possible. Can something be done about that? Thanks!
115454. F. Murdoch at 23:14 PM on 14 July 2010
        Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
        Excellent, very informative, and clearly written piece. Well done.
115455. Riccardo at 23:06 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        John Russell, the full report is not free but the Report in brief is. It starts with: "A strong, credible body of scientifc evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses signifcant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." You could have found it yourself before saying that "hese guest posts are little better than the sceptic's blogs that we rail about."
115456. John Brookes at 22:58 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Tony Noerpel @8, relativity is not so esoteric. The GPS satellites actually do have to correct for the time effects of special and general relativity. Without this correction, positions measured by GPS would drift by about 12km per day. The clocks are synchronised regularly as well.
115457. Ken Lambert at 22:52 PM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        Chris#33, BP#36 "In other words, some of the apparent shortfall in the thermosteric (ocean heat absorption) contribution to sea level rise during the period ~ 2003/4-2007/8 may be due to a larger than "average" transfer of heat to the somewhat deeper layers of the ocean" "May be due" is sheer speculation. At the time the paper was written (Aug-09), Dr Trenberth was not aware of the Von Schukmann paper which claimed to find a large chunk of the 'missing' heat down to 2000m. In fact I drew the Von Schukmann paper to Dr Trenberth's attention in February this year, and he has since used it in a banter with Dr Pielke in April - calling it a 'nice analysis'. Well, BP produced a pretty convincing demolition of the Von Schukmann paper and its 'bumpy' OHC chart elsewhere in this blog. Willis subsequently came up with a 'small' number for deep OHC of about 0.1 W/sq.m which is only about 16E20 Joules/year. The 1.22E22 Joules in the Trenberth paper is a typo - not a serious one - but I read this some time ago and could not make out the following 1.35E20 as a 12.5% increase on the former number. Who said this stuff was 'peer reviewed? Anyway, the essential point is that the SLR budget and the energy budget do not come close to consistency, and more ice melt component for a given SLR worsens the shortfall in the energy budget. In reality you can't have more ice melt and more steric rise at the same time for a given SLR.
115458. JMurphy at 22:43 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        John Russell, the nearest I could find to what you are looking for, is this - Open letter: Climate change and the integrity of science, in THE GUARDIAN. Supposedly the original is behind a paywall in SCIENCE. Doesn't seem to be exactly related, though.
115459. Sense Seeker at 22:08 PM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        Can anyone explain Figure 2 to me? First, it shows a very short timeframe - the sort of thing I would expect from denialists, not here. Second, it seems to show that up to mid 2006, the ice mass was actually growing. It cannot have done that forever, and the quadratic fit looks nice by I do not expect that will hold forever, either. As I see it, this picture could just be a small section in a process of random fluctuation. Any thoughts?
        Response: Figure 2 is a short time frame because that's as long as the GRACE satellites have been measuring the gravity around the Greenland ice sheet. Would be lovely to have more data but that's the hand we've been dealt. In fact, we're lucky that the latest data through to early 2010 fell into our hands in May, giving us an even longer data series than was publicly available until then.
        
        That's why Figure 1 is so important - it shows other estimates of Greenland mass balance back to 1960. The fact that the other estimates are consistent with the gravity data gives us confidence in the estimated rate of ice loss.
        
        I don't expect the quadratic fit to hold forever either. The ice melt has continued to accelerate because the ice loss has spread to the northwest but I expect the rate of ice loss will eventually reach a peak. So how do we know the current ice loss isn't just a random fluctuation and things will bounce back to mass balance?
        
        We get a good sense of Greenland's trajectory by considering all the evidence. We see accelerating ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica - similar patterns from opposite sides of the globe. We look at past sea level and see it closely copuled to changes in temperature. Looking at the Earth's past, we see that the last time temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than now, sea levels were at least 6 metres higher than present levels. This tells us that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are highly sensitive to sustained warmer temperatures.
        
        You're correct in identifying the dangers of looking at narrow pieces of data. You need to take in the full body of evidence to get an accurate picture. All this evidence taken together indicates Greenland will contribute sea level rise in the order of metres over the next few centuries.
115460. chris1204 at 22:04 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        The cancer example is very pertinent. We have excellent remission rates for some cancers and very poor remission rates for most. Much depends on early detection - however, once a cancer has metastasised, remission rates (measured as five year survival rates) are poor save for some of the leukaemias and lymphomas. Cancer chemotherapy/radiotherapy once a cancer has metastasised essentially buys time and relieves discomfort. However, most cancer therapies act by killing fast growing cells (malignant tumour cells are the fastest growing) whilst trying to avoid damaging other fast growing cells (which include out immune system which is part of our defence against infection and cancer cells). Chemotherapy/radiotherapy can thus cause major discomfort or even kill for example through infection following immune suppression. So really, much chemotherapy and radiotherapy may prolong life a bit and palliate some of the discomfort at the end often at a heavy price. Your best bet as an individual lies in avoiding cancer (lifestyle choices - eg quit smoking) and early detection. However, governments face questions as to resource allocation. Paradoxically, far more is spent on chemotherapy/radiotherapy than prevention and early detection (the former two are very expensive. However, if you're unfortunate enbough to develop a nasty cancer, you're likely to curse a government that won't fund cutting edge therapies for you. At the same time, much early detection involves difficult decisions around determining the true significance of screening measures at both population and individual levels. An equivocal biopsy result represent hard choices in the face of, say, surgical risks, for the individual, and for governments looking at resource allocation (surgery is expensive and for those without health insurance subject to waiting lists). So, coming back on topic, our current state of knowledge about climate may equate to early detection of malignancy calling for imnmediate action, a grey area in which the costs of intervention may or may not exceed benefits, or metastatic cancer in which we face likely catastrophic outcomes at best partially responsive to costly and burdensome mitigation strategies. The choices aren't straightforward. All I know as an outsider to climate science is that seemingly intelligent, honest, and articulate people espouse variants of all three positions.
115461. John Russell at 21:58 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        It's clear from the ellipsis that The US National Academy of Sciences' statement has been heavily edited. Is it possible for us to have a link to the original? Otherwise these guest posts are little better than the sceptic's blogs that we rail about.
        Response: Here's the full quote:

        Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

        The National Academy report comes from America's Climate Choices which is behind a pay wall.
        
        I know, it annoys me too.
115462. Tony Noerpel at 21:53 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        I'm not sure this is a good analogy. Newtonian mechanics (plus Maxwell's EMT) is exact and rigorous when dealing with virtually everything we have to deal with in our lives here on Earth (excluding all of our fancy electronic devices). We only need quantum mechanics when dealing with small particals and Einstein's general theory of relativity only comes into play if one is interested in a very precise description of the orbit of Mercury. But Newtonian mechanics is sufficiently accurate to getting a man on the moon. The force of gravity is 40 orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic force so gravitrons will likely elude discovery for another few years. I think this is Kip Thorne's view. We need to build a sufficiently sensitive device and be able to cancel out lots of noise. The uncertainty associated with climate physics is of a somewhat different nature. I think suitable analogies might be what caused dinosaurs to go extinct, did snowball Earth events happen? plate tectonics? ice ages? evolution? I suggest you might say that we are as certain about anthropogenic global warming as we are about plate tectonics and evolution. Which is to say there isn't really much room for uncertainty. :+) We can freely discuss and embrace plate tectonics, today, because it doesn't threaten anything (though it did threaten cherished scientific opinion back in the 20's and up until the 60's). Many folks find evolution to be very threatening to their entire belief system. And this is true of climate change as well. Tony
115463. Berényi Péter at 21:10 PM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #174 KR at 09:59 AM on 14 July, 2010 That's really rough with radon - it's estimated at 330 mCi/GW, and you really can't filter it. I don't see why. The radon isotope with the longest halflife is ²²²Rn (3.82 days). It's just emissions have to be delayed a bit (a month or so) to decrease radiation levels by three orders of magnitude. It is much easier than permanent sequestration.
115464. macwithoutfries at 21:04 PM on 14 July 2010
        Could CFCs be causing global warming?
        What I find very relevant and not discussed enough is the actual mechanism by which CFCs would need to act - the denier problem being that the atmospheric concentration of CFCs is 1000000 (one MILLION) times smaller than those of CO2.
115465. Berényi Péter at 20:49 PM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #172 scaddenp at 09:32 AM on 14 July, 2010 nuclear has waste issue Not really. Old technology apparently has it, because a lot of long halflife isotopes are left in spent fuel. However, advanced breeder technology with onsite closed system reprocessing can burn out all of it. In fact the huge reserve of present day nuclear waste can also serve as fuel, so not even mining is necessary for several decades. What is left behind is a mix of light short halflife radionuclides (a few thousand tonnes annually), which decay into stable isotopes in several hundred years. Therefore no long term (hundreds of thousand years) safe storage is needed. You can compare it to dangerous chemicals (like heavy metals) in some industrial waste that remain toxic practically forever, still, we tolerate them in quantity. Built in structural safety has also improved a lot. With modern designs neither explosion nor meltdown can possibly occur even in case of a serious system failure. It still costs money to bring such a system back online, but at least no dangerous stuff escapes. Nuclear proliferation issues can also be handled by designing the process in a way let's say ²³³U gets involved. It decays by emitting hard gamma radiation and it's extremely difficult to filter out (other than burning it along with the rest). As long as something like this is present in the mix, it's unusable for weaponry. BTW, I think this is the primary cause this kind of technology has got much less attention than it would have deserved. Earth as we know it can't last much longer than a billion years for solar radiation is increasing steadily. If we manage to nudge it gradually to ever wider orbits, its lifetime can be extended to five billion years perhaps. Nuclear breeder technology is capable to provide the necessary energy supply on this timescale somewhere around present day prices. Therefore it is a long term solution to the energy problem. In such a long time we may still have other problems though. Including the question of who we are supposed to be after the umpty thousandth transhuman extension, but these questions can wait. I dont see why the land use is such an issue Because land is the only resource which can not be increased by any means, not even with advanced molecular nanotechnology. Terraforming other planets is a rather long term project and there are not many candidates nearby anyway. We could build some surrogate land in space by constructing huge spinning cylinders, filling them up with air, water and soil and trying to inhabit the inner surface, but no matter how hard we try, it's still a far cry from the real thing. Security issues aside, it would always be a Disneyland with "oceans" several meters deep, no hills or skies. Real estate on Earth, even if it is undervalued now, will have a much higher price in the long run.
115466. sime at 20:16 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        "Hi I'm Doctor Fred, I'm a consultant cancer specialist." "I am sorry to have to tell you that my colleagues and I believe your mother has cancer... however because we can't be sure, and because we can't yet cure cancer, and because the science is not settled, and because it might cause disruption and change your family life style and because it will cost money, we have decided to do nothing for say oh... thirty years until we are really sure we have got the science right..." "What!, but she will die a horrible death, I want a second opinion and I want medical intervention now not in 30 years, you sir are an idiot!" -------------- "Hi I'm Dr Fred I have a PhD in Climate Science." "My Colleagues and I have determined that the planet Earth has the equivalent of climate cancer, however it is still treatable if we act now..." "Na, don't be silly, we can't be sure, and because we can't yet cure climate cancer, and because the science is not settled, and because it might cause disruption and change your family life style and because it will cost money, and because it will upset big business and because we have loads of fossil fuel to sell you suckers yet, we have decided to do nothing for say oh... thirty years until we are really sure we have got the science right, oh and I need a second opinion!..." "What!, we have given you hundreds of independent opinions and data sets and you are ignoring all of them, you sir are an idiot!" Sigh.
115467. Berényi Péter at 19:01 PM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        #33 chris at 08:08 AM on 14 July, 2010 you can find it stated rather explicitly in Trenberth's review Yes. But he also says in his review: "A 1 mm eustatic rise in sea level requires melting of 360 Gt of ice that takes 1.2×10²² J. Because the ice is cold, warming of the melted waters to ambient temperatures can account for perhaps another 12.5% of the energy (total 1.35×10²⁰ J)." That must be a misprint. 360 Gt of ice is 3.6×10¹⁴ kg. Heat of fusion for (freshwater) ice is 3.3355×10⁵ J/kg. Therefore the energy required to melt that much ice at 0°C and atmospheric pressure is 1.2008×10²⁰ J, which is a hundred times smaller than Trenberth's figure (his total of 1.35×10²⁰ J seems to be correct, at least as an order of magnitude estimate). What do reviewers do?
115468. Esop at 18:42 PM on 14 July 2010
        What's in a trend?
        #7: By "tweaked", I was referring to the new versions of the UAH data (5.3 etc) that conveniently dropped the anomalies so they would not beat the 1998 data.
115469. Chemware at 16:33 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Actually, the parallels to Relativity and the Nazi's attacks on "Jewish Science" are extremely strong. Einstein himself said in 1920: This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.
115470. John Brookes at 15:41 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        I think all the Relativity skeptics (who are cruelly and unkindly usually bundled together under the general term "nutter") should get their act together and start insisting that the Global Positioning System stop using Relativity to keep the satellite clocks accurate, because Relativity is "flawed", and Einstein was wrong. Seriously, HumanityRules, I believe we should act prudently and now. If the evidence that there is no need to act improves a bit, then we can reconsider the need to act. Right now, the evidence for inaction is insufficient.
115471. Peter Hogarth at 15:25 PM on 14 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel at 00:36 AM on 14 July, 2010 "The 1 sigma bounds are irrelevant Peter". This is not science, it is not recognisable statistics either. Irrelevant, or inconvenient? It fits the 1 sigma bounds where it is. It does not elsewhere.
115472. caerbannog at 15:16 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        If these few papers suggest we don't need to re-organise society should we ignore that? The few papers that I've seen like that would earn a freshman a grade somewhere south of a C- at any respectable university. So, should we ignore the few papers with freshman C-student errors that somehow managed to get through (half asleep) peer-review? Absolutely!
115473. HumanityRules at 15:04 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        The problem I see here is that you assume all the partial knowledge suggests we should act. In fact within the body of partial knowledge some data says maybe we don't need to act. If these few papers suggest we don't need to re-organise society should we ignore that?
115474. Rob Painting at 14:58 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Marcus, you are correct, the graviton is the carrier particle of gravity. All that Star Trek obviously paid off. Pity it doesn't mesh at all with the General Theory of Relativity, which posits that gravity is the curvature in space-time caused by mass/energy within it . Don't tell the skeptics though.
115475. pmain68 at 14:20 PM on 14 July 2010
        New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
        Whilst this is not specifically related to the artic ice methane release it is related to methane. Does anyone have any scientific evidence that supports the global catastrophe theory of massive methane release imminent in the Gulf of Mexico due to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil drilling accident. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622 http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event
115476. scaddenp at 14:04 PM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        Bern: IPCC AR4 WG2 would be good place to start, specifically here.
115477. Marcus at 13:57 PM on 14 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Hmmm, I always thought that gravity existed as both a particle & a wave-much like light. Though that might just be too many years of Star Trek talking ;)!
115478. Bern at 13:47 PM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        CBDunkerson @ #27: I would have thought that such an effect would be very minor - if you consider that oceans already cover ~70% of the Earth's surface, the maximum impact of the increasing area would be around 43% (1/0.7). But that would be the point at which *all* landmass was covered by water. I think, when we're still talking tens of millimetres, that the increased ocean area would be very, very small. A quick search didn't turn up any numbers for inundation areas with various sea level rises, I'm sure the numbers are out there, though.
115479. Marcus at 13:42 PM on 14 July 2010
        What's in a trend?
        What I don't get is why the Denialists rely so heavily on UAH data. I've read at least one paper that suggests that Spencer hasn't corrected properly for diurnal drift, which slices a good 0.02 degrees per decade off the trend. If you look at the data from RSS, you get a trend of +0.16 degrees per decade for 1979-2010 (June), & a +0.19 degrees per decade trend for 1990-2010 (June). The other thing though, is that none of these results (whether RSS or UAH) can properly account for the role that this decade's deep solar minimum has played on the trends. With Solar Activity picking up again this decade, I think it's fair to say that the trend will probably climb to +0.18/decade (or higher) for a 1979-2019 graph.
115480. HumanityRules at 12:24 PM on 14 July 2010
        What's in a trend?
        #13 You read the paper? Mail John, he has a copy. These graphes whole hemispheres? Chylek is looking at only high latitudes, poles.
115481. tomasyn at 12:12 PM on 14 July 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Thank you, Dr. Abraham, for doing this. You not only thoroughly exposed Monckton, you provided valuable teaching on how to find and evaluate information. It's perfectly absurd that Monckton, with his journalism degree and 0 journal articles, is trashing your credentials as not good enough to understand climate science. Can he not hear himself?
115482. KR at 09:59 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        Berényi - "...all pollutants from burning coal can be filtered out and should be required to be filtered by regulators": That's really rough with radon - it's estimated at 330 mCi/GW, and you really can't filter it. Most of the other radionucleotides (thorium, uranium, etc.) get removed by standard pollution controls. And then you have some really nasty ash... But I do agree with you on several points - nuclear and breeder reactors should receive much more emphasis. Proper breeder reactor approaches should (IMO) include local reprocessing, so almost none of the dangerous stuff ever leaves the site - it gets burned. Coal is a lousy, filthy power source, though, and we should just drop it entirely just on sanity grounds. Subsidies? Renewables receive ~4.9B US$, nukes 1.3B, while coal receives 3.3B, oil/natural gas 2.1B (5.4B total for carbon tech). But renewables ARE developing technology with a lot of promise. I believe (personal opinion, mind you) that the investment can be argued as worthwhile.
115483. KR at 09:40 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        Berényi - Yep, land use is proportional to total energy density. The nice thing about wind farms, however, is that the actual power producing density is ~300-1000 W/m^2 (including access roads), spread over a much larger area to space out the turbines, for a sum density of 3-4 W/m^2. And (!!!) the area between and under the turbines is completely usable for agriculture. Total land removed from use drops right back to 300-1000 W/m^2 levels. Of course, some wind farms (many in my area) are mounted along ridgelines, where effective land use otherwise is essentially nil. They don't subtract any otherwise desirable area.
115484. scaddenp at 09:32 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP - wont argue on cleanup wrt to coal - nuclear has waste issue. Hydro v wind is the issue here. But we still farm under windmills. I dont see why the land use is such an issue. I'll also agree with subsidies - apparently $550 billion pa on fossil fuels according to IEA. End that now. Disclosure: my section does research on CO2 sequestration. However, I'd say from research so far is that it remains an open question. Not something you can just fix every coal plant with but a possible solution for some plants. Of course, the added cost will make coal uncompetitive against many renewables in most places.
115485. Berényi Péter at 09:04 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #168 scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 14 July, 2010 And I'll add another defense for windmills. If you find another way to generate energy, then they are relatively easy to remove unlike say hydro. No, it is not the case. If you have wind farms with the same lifetime energy output as a nuclear plant, decommissioning costs are roughly the same. The big difference is that crap to be collected is spread over a couple of thousand times larger area. For hydro the cost may be more, depending on location, but land use is only poor for flatland hydro power (should also be banned). The real problem is subidies. In the US almost 15 times more public money goes to wind than to nukes ($23.37/MWh vs. $1.59/MWh). Even more to the post-normal craziness of clean coal ($29.81/MWh). Solar also gets its due share ($24.34/MWh). In Europe it is much worse. In a sane world all that money should go to R+D on nuclear breeder technology and none of it to production by whatever means. As for clean coal, carbon dioxide sequestration is plain silly. Otherwise all pollutants from burning coal can be filtered out and should be required to be filtered by regulators. Much better than a carbon tax, its main advantage being it makes sense.
115486. scaddenp at 08:22 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP - I thought you would have known where I came from due to recent email corresponse For 2007, the number for NZ is 94 (I misremembered), the 146 no. I believe includes directly exported energy (petroleum, coal). I did the calculations in gory detail for a MacKay style analysis from NZ Energy file.
115487. Berényi Péter at 08:09 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #168 scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 14 July, 2010 Your point? [...] The 91kWh/p/d I quoted was for NZ (consumption). Sorry, I've misunderstood you. I had no way to know you were from New Zealand. However, total primary energy consumption in NZ is 146 kWh/p/d, not 91. That's only the approximate portion coming from coal, oil and natural gas (more like 95 kWh/p/d). The 35% renewable is nice (15% in the US), but you are lucky. Low population density, high geopotential and precipitation makes hydro an option.
115488. chris at 08:08 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        Berényi Péter at 05:05 AM on 14 July, 2010 No, that's not correct Peter. Remember that the thermal expansion coefficient of water has a strong temperature dependence, and temperature obviously isn't constant as in your statement. The thermal expansion coefficient is larger for warmer waters than cooler waters. The consequence is that the deposition of 1 kcal (say) of thermal energy in the warmer upper mixed-layer of the ocean will cause a larger volume expansion than if the same quantity of heat is deposited in the cold deeper ocean (say below the thermocline). This effect of depth (temperature)-dependent thermosteric contributions to sea level rise have been described in early studies of sea level responses to warming: e.g. Wigley, TML and Raper SCB (1987) Thermal-expansion of sea-water associated with global warming Nature 330, 127-131. and you can find it stated rather explicitly in Trenberth's review that I linked to in a post above. e.g. see bottom of page 21 to top page 22:

        "Sea level rise from thermal expansion depends greatly on where the heat is deposited as the coefficient of thermal expansion varies with temperature and pressure. The warming required to produce 1 mm SLR if the heat is deposited in the top 700 m of the ocean can take from 50 to 75 x 10^20 J, or ~ 110 x 10^20 J if deposited below 700 m depth [14]."

        In other words, some of the apparent shortfall in the thermosteric (ocean heat absorption) contribution to sea level rise during the period ~ 2003/4-2007/8 may be due to a larger than "average" transfer of heat to the somewhat deeper layers of the ocean.
115489. villabolo at 07:45 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        For those who could use a few laughs please link up to WUWT where Steven Goddard is getting pummeled by several posters on that issue. I provide an example below. _____________________________________________________ stevengoddard says: July 13, 2010 at 11:52 am Jeff P I am talking about rates of sea level rise. If the rate of ice loss has doubled, then sea level rise would also have to double. ***************************************************** Jeff P says: July 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm “I am talking about rates of sea level rise. If the rate of ice loss has doubled, then sea level rise would also have to double.” ————— This is false. This would only be true if the cause of sea level rise was ONLY from ice loss. Clearly this is not the case. If ice loss has gone from something like 50 Gt a year to 100 Gt it has doubled but the impact on sea level rise would be tiny and far below the margin of error for the measurement of sea level rise. A 50 Gt increase in Ice loss would be less than 0.1 mm increase. If you’re saying that ice loss could not have possibly doubled (or even increased) because we aren’t seeing a 3+mm increase in the rate of sea level rise you’re way off base. ****************************************************** stevengoddard says: July 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm Jeff P Uhhmm… You might want to think your sea level argument through a little more carefully. Increasing ocean heat content will also tend to raise sea levels, and makes the the ice melting argument even less tenable. ***************************************************** villabolo says: July 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm Ahhhh . . . Steve, with all due respect. Thermal increase would simply be a CO-FACTOR with ice melt. And where would both come from?
115490. muoncounter at 07:28 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        NewYorkJ #21: Your map compares the 2000 decade with the 1930s; there's not much difference between those two decades on the graph I snipped from the WUWT article. It would be more informative to map the comparison between the 1980s and the current decade.
115491. scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP - you keep showing this graph as proof of something but you have yet to tell us of what. How does this prove fraud? How about you find us one station where you think the adjustment procedure has been fraudulently done and show us how the adjustment should have been done? "No. In 2004 US primary energy comsumption (achievement at primary energy carriers stressed on the average) was 10,460 Watts/head. If you do the math that comes out as 251.04 kWh/p/d." Which is close enough to 250kWh/p/d which I quoted. Your point? MacKay is giving everyone 125kWh/p/d which is obviously a problem for US citizen but an increase for most of the world. The 91kWh/p/d I quoted was for NZ (consumption). "Think globally, act locally. " Umm, I was. I dont think we are on the same wavelength. And I'll add another defense for windmills. If you find another way to generate energy, then they are relatively easy to remove unlike say hydro. A personal distaste for the aesthetics of windmills (you prefer the look of coal stations?) doesnt seem to stack up against the negative effects from rapid climate change.
115492. Berényi Péter at 06:35 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #165 Ned at 05:03 AM on 14 July, 2010 The relevance of this all escapes me Don't mull over it too much, I tell you. If wind power is to supply a significant portion of energy on a global scale, the area of industrial wasteland increases by orders of magnitude. Land use is inversely proportional to energy density. It's as simple as that. And Chernobyl does not belong here. It was an absolutely flawed & irresponsible soviet design with no built in structural safety whatsoever. Modern (30+ years old) models can't possibly blow up.
115493. dansat at 06:34 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        I am about to make my second trip to Greenland. This time to visit the NEEM ice core site. I can tell you there are very few people in Greenland (Scientist or not) who will tell you that Greenland is NOT melting. Dan S WHNT Huntsville AL
115494. muoncounter at 05:34 AM on 14 July 2010
        What's in a trend?
        I guess I'm not seeing the relationship between these ocean oscillations and the UAH temperatures. Here's a graph of AMO and SOI straight off the PSD data selection plotter. Here are UAH N hemi ocean LT temps with a smooth curve extracted in the same manner as the polar data in this article. Similarly, I found a long term trend in the AMO time series. Here are UAH S hemi ocean LT temps with the same curve fit and a long term trend extracted from the SOI. The two ocean oscillations are certainly out of phase (most of the time); they reach their respective extrema in the late 80's and their long term trends do indeed cross over from time to time. But when the AMO started down, the N hemi LT temps kept going up. And when the SOI started up, the S hemi LT temps also went up. Where's the connection?
115495. DarkSkywise at 05:14 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        ....and BP #163: Carrizo Plain Solar Power Plant – Southern California, USA Another "oldie"... but the photovoltaic panels are now in use elsewhere, which isn't too shabby either. So, um, your problem is that they haven't demolished the original sturcture yet? (Like Ned, I don't really get the point here.)
115496. Berényi Péter at 05:05 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        #25 chris at 04:00 AM on 14 July, 2010 the thermosteric contribution apparently went down a bit (either due to reduced absorption of heat into the ocean or a redistribution of heat to somewhat deeper levels where the thermosteric contribution is suppressed) What do you mean by "to somewhat deeper levels where the thermosteric contribution is suppressed"? In fact at constant temperature volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of seawater increases steadily with pressure. It also increases with pressure if kept at constant potential temperature (when sinking adiabatically). It means if you succeed to push down a body of water with a slightly higher temperature, the deeper it goes the higher its heat content anomaly pushes sea level. Therefore thermosteric contribution is not suppressed by redistribution of heat to somewhat deeper levels, just the opposite. You can check it yourself with this Sea Water Equation of State Calculator tool.
115497. Ned at 05:03 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        For the sake of completeness, here's an abandoned nuclear reactor: and here's a coal mine: and here's an abandoned oil field: and here's a failed dam: The relevance of this all escapes me, but it seems to be highly meaningful to Berényi Péter....
115498. DarkSkywise at 05:02 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        @BP #161: Kamaoa Wind Farm, South Point, Hawaii, USA I'm curious... what's exactly wrong with early model wind turbines breaking down after 19 years of service? Modern turbines have a life expectancy of 20-30 years, so for a 1987 model, I'd say they held up pretty good.
115499. Berényi Péter at 04:28 AM on 14 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        That's how abandoned solar looks like. Carrizo Plain Solar Power Plant – Southern California, USA
115500. chris at 04:25 AM on 14 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        CBDunkerson at 04:14 AM on 14 July, 2010 hmmm....I hadn't thought of that. The answer must be known, but a simple consideration of geometry would tend to support your point. I wonder how significant it is...

Prev  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  Next