Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 Next
Comments 115801 to 115850:
-
Marcus at 23:47 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric, it didn't harm their economy because they enjoyed a 32% growth in their GDP over that same time period. Again, that's not *speculation*, that's a matter of FACT! It's also a far cry from the "we'll all be rooned" spiel of the Denialist Industry, who'd love nothing more than to keep us chained to an ongoing, inefficient use of fossil fuels (in part at tax-payers expense). This last bracketed point is very important-according to an IEA report from 2009, direct & indirect government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry amounted to almost $600 *billion! This in spite of the industry ranking as *mature* (coal & oil have now been mined & used for fuel & electricity for over 100 years). This compares with the Renewable Energy Sector, with barely a 30 year history, which still receives far less than 10% of the same subsidies-yet its always the Renewable Energy subsidies that get the Denialist Industry kicking & screaming. Now if that's not political, then I don't know what is. -
Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 4 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris #124 Chris; this SLR reconstruction is not "any dataset". It is a splicing together of data from 2 different satellites; Topex and Jason 1. These have different precisions and accuracies. Hopefully the latter (Jason 1) is better than Topex due to improvement in technology. It is quite legitimate to curve fit to each separately, be it linear or otherwise to see what the individual differences are. An offset might indicate a real jump in SLR, or it could mean that linearization is not a good fit and some other relationship is applicable; or it could be an offset. Nine years for Topex and 7 years for Jason 1 are not 'very short time periods' when the whole AGW theory really has a 30 year history (1980 onward). And please expound on the theoretical SLR which we agree is non-linear with OHC rise (or TOA imbalance) when the major driver of TOA imbalance is a logarithmic function. What is the theoretical SLR-TOA imbalance relationship? There is no established mechanism nor decent measurement to support the idea of short term heat imbalance being sequestered below 900m. How do you get it down there without it showing up in the top 700m? The time lags are reputedly large due to relatively low thermal conductivity. The Solar cycle argument I have dealt with elsewhere - but with 0.25W/sq.m reputedly as the top to bottom range of the 11 year cycle, if at the bottom the overall TOA imbalance disappears (as shown by flat OHC for the last 6-7 years); then at the top, the imbalance must be about 0.25W/sq.m. This implies an underlying imbalance of half the range which is about 0.125W/sq.m. This is a long way short of Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m imbalance. -
LukeW at 22:47 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
JohnD - as I said in my post. "Of course much of contemporary thickening is probably due to fire suppression but CO2 can increase the trend further." In Australia at least - the Kimberley, Top End, and Cape York probably burns too much and too hot, while our southern grasslands burn too infrequently. Many of savanna ecosystems have been described as "fire mediated sub-climax ecosystems" - i.e. increase the fire and reduce the grazing pressure - light by human hand or do not prevent natural fires - the balance is maintained - less natural woody shrubs and trees. Overgraze and prevent fires - little grass as fuel to burn - woodies get a foothold and more tree competition for water, nutrients and light means less grass growth and this feedback cycle "thickens" up the woody vegetation. Areas can go from open woodlands the veritable thickets in 30-50 years. The massive Cobar woody weeds region, the Pilliga forest, central Queensland woodland thickening, and SW Queensland Mulga forests being examples. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will preference the C3 woodies even more. SO CO2 fertilisation isn't a totally positive one way street. Although the woodland thickening probably puts the northern Australian grazing industry into a net sink rather than source of emissions - albeit with reducing grazing potential from less grass area. The issue though is to get a map and see how much of the world are covered in savannas. How much will change with the combination of changes in fire regime and CO2? How many people depend on these ecosystems? http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/srs/images/global_savanna_ecoregions_main_hr.png -
Peter Hogarth at 22:41 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (skeptic) at 22:23 PM on 4 July, 2010 In the real world, 0.4% could be highly significant. Let us say you reduce total manufacturing costs by some small but greater than zero percentage whilst your overall manufacturing output increases and your supplier and component costs have risen. That would be remarkable? -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:23 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
It is true Marcus that it was a 700Mt reduction over that 11 year period. Over those same 11 years, the world produced about 286Gt. That's about a quarter of one percent reduction. "Without harming their economy" is an argument without substance. It may have helped their economy, it may have hurt their economy. Unless you present facts, it is just speculation. To encourage other countries to follow suit is a political argument. It may be valid and I am not going to argue against it, but I would like to see a little more rigor if that is possible. -
SNRatio at 22:23 PM on 4 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules: Are you sure you have understood Wild's methods and reasoning? To me it seems not. First, the TOA and SSR changes are not model results, they are inferred from analysis of measurements, and different methods provide comparable estimates. Second, the surface effects of long-term TOA trend might be measurable, but, unless you postulate some dramatic kind of feedback, they must be of the same order of magnitude as the signal, that is, very small. Third, Wild notes in the abstract: "The relative importance of aerosols, clouds and aerosol-cloud interactions may differ depending on region and pollution level." Which indicates that there is no simple answer to your question about where the difference arises. And the volcanic record clearly shows us that the observed effects are possible. Maybe it would be helpful if you notice that solar irradiation not reaching the surface, may not be entirely "lost" to Earth, and that it is not really the SSR that counts, but the actual radiation balance. I'm not sure we would have had that much more warming without the global aerosol dimming. -
Marcus at 22:20 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Now, just to show how non-speculative the BAU argument is-consider the following example. The United States generated a *total* of 62.5Gt of CO2 between 1997 & 2007. Now, even if they'd only *stabilized* their emissions at 1997 levels (they've risen from 5.47Gt per year to 5.83Gt per year) then they'd only have generated 60.2Gt of CO2 over that same period-which would have amounted to a 2.3Gt cut in CO2 (roughly 10% of the global total). Now if Germany could *cut* its CO2 emissions compared to 1997 levels with no economic cost, then I see no possible reason why the US couldn't do the same (especially when one considers that the US currently generates 0.45kg of CO2/$ of GDP vs Germany's 0.3kg of CO2/$ of GDP-which speaks of an energy inefficient economy). -
JMurphy at 22:18 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Good, relevant comment from JBowers over at the GUARDIAN 'Comment is Free' : "Citizen Audit failed to classify book chapters that are actually peer reviewed papers as "peer reviewed". They also fail to place IPCC self-citations, which are peer reviewed, into the peer reviewed category. The IPCC self-cites are some of the most expert reviewed literature ever. Example: Wg3 Ch1 ‘Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change’ is classed as not peer-reviewed. The chapter is a reprint from the highly refereed journal Energy Policy, and has itself been cited 138 times to this date. A truly sceptical Citizen Audit Audit is clearly required, but that's something we can never expect from the Denialsphere." I notice that isn't one of the papers that Willis copied and pasted unsourced - and he wonders why his fellow so-called skeptics like Richard North get annoyed with him not acknowledging all their 'hard work', and have handbag fights with him. -
Peter Hogarth at 22:12 PM on 4 July 2010What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
Baa Humbug at 03:24 AM on 30 June, 2010 My apologies for not supplying details, this was actually an image from 1979 to 2005 composite MSU/AMSU data, (I’m afraid my image database is not as well indexed as it should be on older data, and I allowed the NASA filename - with amsu reference, to mislead me. The earliest AMSU was launched 1998). Also a belated thanks to e for posting the RSS image with the time series. This updated image might help visually clarify a number of points about trends and short term lower tropospheric latitudinal variations. The possible evolution of the short term tropospheric tropical hot spots (towards higher latitudes) is interesting.
-
Marcus at 22:03 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (Denialist), unless you can provide any science source that backs your claim that the BAU argument is purely speculative, then it sounds like *you* who is making political arguments. Though this is proven by the fact of your constant ignoring of my simple point that the drop in air flights during that period already cancels out the emissions from your beloved volcano. However, that aside, you are comparing annual emissions cuts to total emissions cuts-& you deliberately misrepresented your source materials whilst doing so-both of which are common tactics of those from the Denialist Industry. What part of the: Germany produced around 900Mt of CO2 in 1997, & would have generate a total of 9900Mt of CO2 by the end of 2007 had it continued to do so? That's not *speculation*, as you claim, that is a matter of SIMPLE FACT-a matter of SIMPLE MATHEMATICS. Instead, though, by cutting their CO2 emissions steadily between 1997 & 2007, they generated only 9200Mt during that time period-which amounts to a saving of 700Mt over a 10 year period-not 111 as you now claim (seriously, Eric, simple MATHEMATICS really isn't your strong suit, is it?) It may seem only represent only a small fraction of the global total on a per year basis (which is apparently your new argument now that you've clearly lost the other one-another common tactic of the Denialist Industry) but the whole point is to encourage other developed economies to follow suit. That Germany achieved such a large reduction in CO2 emissions without harming its economy should convince other nations to follow suit, but unfortunately denialists use much the same erroneous arguments as you present here to prevent or delay such actions being taken. -
Marcus at 21:39 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Its *not* meaningless at all John D (though how did I know that it would be *you* that would take issue). What matters is that those citing deaths of birds as a reason for banning wind farms obviously don't care less about birds, or else they'd be seeking a ban on other activities that put birds at risk. The numbers only becomes meaningless if-like the other denialists-you're just afraid of a shift away from fossil fuels as our primary source of electricity. What ultimately matters is the *total* potential for bird fatalities from additional Wind Farms vs the total deaths from other human activities. After all, if more than 300 million birds are dying from collisions with cars, buildings & power lines every year, then what is even an additional 1 million bird deaths per year (which would require 500,000 of the pre-1990 wind turbines, sufficient to generate around 300GW of electricity)? That, said, I do have the numbers of fatalities for wind turbines on a per turbine, per year basis-based on a 2001 study-which amounts to an average of 2 deaths/turbine per year. As I said, though, this number has been falling due to a shift towards better siting policies & a shift towards turbines with slower blades-& as a result of birds becoming accustomed to the farms & changing their flight patterns on the population level. By comparison, in the US, around 1.5 animals (primarily birds & mammals) are killed per car in the US & between 200 to 400 birds are killed per km of electricity transmission lines (there are 180 million bird electrocution deaths per year & 300,000km of electric transmission lines in the US). I don't have figures for deaths/window, but my rough calculation puts collision deaths at around 20 to 50 bird deaths per commercial building. Let me add some additional perspective by saying that US oil & gas extraction-alone-kills between 1 to 2 million birds per year-not including those killed in disasters like the Deep Sea Horizon accident. No doubt your compassion for birds will cause you to demand an immediate cessation of all oil & gas extraction activities? Also, according to B.K Sovacool, 20 times more birds die-per unit of electricity generated-as a result of coal-fired electricity than by wind (5.2/GWh for Coal vs 0.3 to 0.4 per GWh for wind). -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:31 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Marcus, a minor correction to your last post. From your link: 899 (1997) - 788 (2007) (from CDIAC) 914 (1997) - 841 (2007) (from UNFCCC) The difference 1997-2007 is not 125 (913-788) but 111 (899-788). The BAU argument is speculative, only real cuts matter in the real world. So there is 111 Mt less CO2 annually out of 29000 Mt total or 0.4% Still pretty small although apparently your argument is that this is equivalent to life saving surgery? If you can present a science source that shows that a 0.4% reduction in any sort of process matters at all, I would be interested. Otherwise I have to assume the cuts are symbolic and your argument is political. -
johnd at 20:37 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Marcus at 19:39 PM, the statistics as provided by you are totally meaningless. To put the risk of bird deaths into it's right perspective it must be bird deaths per unit cause of death. How many dead birds per car etc. etc., or perhaps bird deaths per mile driven would be more exact in the case of motor vehicles. Deaths per mile of powerlines, per gallon sprayed, or sold, of toxic pesticides, per window etc are the other relevant units to be compared. -
Marcus at 19:39 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Whilst I'm taking time to debunk the the favored myths of the Denialist Industry, I'd very much like to tackle that of Mizimi, above, regarding the Bird-o-matic Wind Farms. Now it is true that Wind Farms do cause bird deaths, but so do a *lot* of man-made structures & activities. To put this into some kind of context, studies show that US Wind Farms kill an average of 10,000 to 40,000 birds per annum. By comparison, in the US car collisions account for between 60 million to 80 million bird deaths per annum, power lines account for 130 million to 180 million bird deaths per annum, pesticides account for 60 million bird deaths per annum, lighted communication towers account for about 50 million bird deaths per annum & collisions with windows of domestic & commercial buildings account for well over 1 million bird deaths per annum. So we immediately see that, compared to other human activities, Wind Farms have the smallest impact on bird populations by several orders of magnitude. Even that number, though, ignores the bias caused by the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California-which are responsible for the bulk of the bird deaths in the US. This is because this wind farm was built in the late 1970's, when the number of turbines needed was far greater (because the maximum rated output per turbine was less than 1MW-compared to 1.5MW to 5MW today) & when the turbines had longer blades which needed to rotate faster in order to produce that rated output. Modern turbines have smaller blades with a larger surface area-meaning that they turn much slower than older turbines in order to produce a greater output. Also, as each turbine generates a higher output, the number of turbines needed to supply a given area is smaller than what was needed 30 years ago. Both of these factors mean that modern wind-farms (those built in the last 15 years), have a much smaller bird mortality rate than those built 20-30 years ago. With improvements in the siting of new wind farms, the mortality rate falls even further (as part of the M=HxE formula, or mortality equals individual hazard times exposure). So *yes* Wind Farms cause bird deaths, but not as many as those in the Denialist Industry would have us believe-& certainly not enough to put a kybosh on new wind farm construction. Indeed, isn't it strange that these supposed "bird-lovers" trying to stop wind farm construction aren't calling for an end to oil exploration after the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? -
Dan Moutal at 19:04 PM on 4 July 2010Irregular Climate podcast: episode 6
Thank you for the many plugs you have given. They are all very much appreciated -
apdavidson at 18:33 PM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I think the author has been misled. Figure 1 in the 'Scientific Guide' should be looked at very carefully because the temperature scale is red at zero. That means if there had been no heating at all in the claimed 'hot spot' it would still be red! -
Doug Bostrom at 18:12 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis persists with his error regarding the IPCC and "grey literature." Here we can read how use of this source of information in the IPCC synthesis has been routine, not a secret, not an error, not a "violation of rules: TS.1 Scope, approach and method of the Working Group II assessment In the item at the link, we read: The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.[2] -
villabolo at 17:25 PM on 4 July 2010Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Gianfranco at 20:14 PM on 31 January, 2010 [. . .]One point still puzzles me, though, perhaps because I’m Italian: the word “travesty”. [. . .] I understand in private informal correspondence one doesn’t care much about wording, but, why didn’t he use pity or shame or bad luck? ************* Trenberth was probably thinking of the word tragedy. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:06 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Ho-hum, Willis has gone off down the Amazon rabbit hole yet again. I suppose it would best to get Nepstad's entire statement out here so Willis can deal with it in detail. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been recently criticized in media coverage (e.g. Sunday Times) for presenting inaccurate information on the susceptibility of the forests of the Amazon Basin to rainfall reduction in its fourth assessment. The statement that has drawn the criticism reads as follows: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that thetropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000)." (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007) The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.[Nepstad et al. 1999]" (Rowell and Moore 2000) The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete.(The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007. In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. Daniel Nepstad, PhD Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center Coordinator of Research, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia Source for above statement by Nepstad Nepstad versus "Willis Eschenbach." I know where my money would go. -
Willis Eschenbach at 16:20 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
The Story Continues ... Well, it appears that Richard North has uncovered the original unreviewed source of the unreviewed IPAM report that was the source of the unreviewed WWF report that was cited by the IPCC. The original source is an IPAM web page, now only accessible by way of the Wayback Machine. It also turns out that the original source is very near, and yet very far, from the IPCC quote. Here's what the IPCC said:Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).
This is the quote from the IPAM website:Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. With an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Niño events, it will become more and more common for forests to dry out sufficiently that they become flammable.
Here is the IPCC First Order Draft of the statement:Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react sensibly to a slight reduction of precipitation; this could mean that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, may change very rapidly to another steady state ...
Note the "react sensibly", similar to the IPAM web page quote. However, the IPAM web page says nothing about how that sensitivity means that the "tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state." Nor is that the context of the quote. Instead, the web page says that 30% to 40% (not 40%) of the Brazilian Amazon (not even the entire Amazon) could be in danger of fire if there is a drought. Nothing about a change in the climate system at all. So even the original source for the claim does not bear out what the IPCC said. Next, in the IPCC Second Order Draft, this has morphed into:Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically even to a slight reduction of precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, could change very rapidly to another steady state ...
There are three changes between the First Order and Second Order draft. First, "could react sensibly" has been changed to "could react drastically". Second, "this could mean that" has been changed to "this means that". Third, "may change rapidly" has changed to "could change rapidly". Note the process of exaggeration here. There is a web page which makes a random unreviewed claim. The claim is taken up by the IPCC. However, it is then further changed from a claim about reacting "sensibly" which "could mean that" there is a danger of fire, to a claim of reacting "drastically" which "means that" there is a danger of a complete change in the climate. This is the IPCC problem in a nutshell. They are not doing science in any accepted sense of the world. They are taking a non peer-reviewed claim about sensitivity to fire, changing it so it refers to sensitivity to a complete climate change, and then exaggerating the new claim even further. Bad IPCC ... no cookies. w. -
Joe Blog at 16:15 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
KR End of the day, we are carbon based life forms, the bottom of the food chain is photosynthesis... And co2, h20 and sunlight is where all life springs from(ohhh, and N is also pulled from the atmosphere by certain types of plants, also tied to their photosynthesis)... Not everything about co2 is bad. Increasing co2 will aid most plants in photosynthesis... potentially increasing the biosphere.... depending on climatic implications, its not a simple Q... but the short answer is, co2 is good for plants. I dont know at what exact level plants stop photosynthesizing, but id imagine, to much below 100ppm, life on this planet would be in serious trouble. Plant response to co2, and climatic responses to co2, are different issues in my opinion. -
KR at 15:33 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Sorry - in the previous comment the CO2 levels without enhancement appear to hit 100-250 ppm, not 150-200. Typo on my part... -
KR at 15:32 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
OK, a question from the peanut gallery here. Greenhouses add CO2 for increased plant production and growth - great, seems to work. However, according to John Russell and Advanced Greenhouses, the effective time for CO2 addition is during the day, when CO2 levels are decreased to 150-200 ppm. It sounds to me like the closed environs of a greenhouse prevent sufficient CO2 to reach the plants - they're starved during daylight hours. That won't happen in open air! So my question: If CO2 addition to greenhouses is to make up for closed air systems with insufficient (below ambient) CO2 levels, bringing the levels back up towards or past ambient, how is that an argument for CO2 enhancement in nature??? It sounds to me like evidence that plants do poorly at low CO2 levels, not that they be greatly enhanced with high CO2 levels. Given, of course, that they evolved at something close to current (or pre-industrial) ambient conditions. Comments, anyone? Are the greenhouse effects just a different category (i.e., not relevant) from the FACE tests? -
gallopingcamel at 15:14 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
doug_bostrom, (#85) Certainly Bob Armstrong's comments are germane. However, when he participates in discussions with folks like Chris Colose, DeWitt Payne and Leonard Weinstein, his arguments don't get much traction. When his hypothesis is challenged he tends to get testy. Take a look at him in action at the "Science of Doom" in the comments following this link: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/#comment-2953 Getting back to the theme of this thread, there is plenty of evidence to show that higher concentrations of CO2 increase the rate of plant growth if other essential nutrients are adequate. Even more convincing than academic studies such as FACE & EUROFACE is the fact that horticulturists using greenhouses routinely employ enhanced CO2 levels to improve productivity. -
Marcus at 14:19 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Another point Eric. According to *my* research, Germany had annual CO2 emissions of 788Mt as of 2007 (source http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=) You actually were using the *total* Greenhouse gas emissions cited in that source you gave, not CO2 alone. You also only gave the total GHG reduction between 1997 to 2005, not 2007 as you claim. If we take total, annual CO2 reductions for 1997 to 2007, then the cut is actually a cut of 913 to 788, or 125Mt/year. Even if this were only the *total* emissions, your original argument would be totally demolished. However, if we look at the total reductions accrued between 1997 to 2007-compared to a business as usual approach-then we get 10,200Mt in business as usual vs 9,600Mt if you take the actual emissions cuts per year provided by your source (+ the two years provided by UN data). So this makes a total reduction in CO2 of 600Mt between 1997 & 2007-20 times more than that released by the volcano in 2010. As time progresses, the difference in the emissions Germany *is* putting out & the emissions it *would* have put out in a "business as usual" model will get greater & greater still. I have to say though Eric-your ability to incorrectly quote your sources, & make erroneous conclusions based on these misrepresented sources, means that you've learned a lot from your fellow denialists. Kudos. -
Baa Humbug at 13:56 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Having read thru the thread, I'd like to make the following points (for whatever they are worth to the reader) * Rajandra Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC. He is the final signatory to the report. * Willis supplied quotes attributed to Pachauri who made these statements AS the chairman. * If a chairman or CEO of a company makes statements about that company, one would be safe to assume the statements are those of the company. * Journalists and others listening to Pachauri would have, and indeed did, take his word as gospel and quoted him on it. Not too many people rush off to read the fine print in a 3000 page document. Why would you when the chairman answered direct questions on behalf of the panel. * This isn't a case of a single off the cuff comment made by Pachauri. He repeated his claims of 100% peer review on a number of occasions under direct questioning. * The reason why he was questioned was because the integrity of the report was brought into question. * Pachauri defended this integrity with the "all peer reviewed" comment. * Now that we know it wasn't "all peer reviewed" (rightly or wrongly) parts of the reports integrity must still be under question p.s. I was a citizens auditor. I audited over ten chapters. The lists of "working papers" "discussion papers" etc posted by Willis was done by me for Donna Laframboise. I was flabbergasted at the numbers then, I still am now. -
Marcus at 13:55 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Ah Eric, each time you try & argue your case, the argument actually gets *weaker*! You're effectively arguing that "Germany shouldn't have bothered making the cuts to its CO2 emissions because a single volcano wiped out their gains". Well to me that's akin to saying "oh well, we shouldn't give this guy life-saving surgery, 'cause he'll probably get killed by a mugger anyway". i.e. its a total non sequitur. Still, even if we were to accept this lame argument, it's completely undone by the available evidence. That evidence being: 1) That the CO2 reductions from grounded air travel during that 2 & a half month period was *greater* than the emissions put out by the volcano. 2) That those cuts you mentioned were for 2007-2008 *only*. Now if Germany is emitting 16Mt less CO2 per annum, then their *total* reductions as of 2010 would be closer to around 40Mt, compared to a "business as usual" approach-already far greater than that put out by the volcano even if you ignore the grounded air-traffic. 3) As you put it, as of 2007, Germany was emitting 76Mt less CO2 per annum than it was back in 1997. Now here's the thing, this doesn't mean that they've put out 76Mt less CO2 between 1997-2007. It means that Germany is putting out 76Mt/year less in 2007 than it was doing in 1997. Now, had it continued it's "business as usual" approach in 1997, it's total emissions for the 1997-2007 period would be around 10,800Mt. Instead, if we assume an average cut of 7.6Mt/year to get down to 1002Mt/year, then they actually emitted closer to, then this means that they actually emitted closer to 10,500Mt over that time period-amounting to a *total* reduction of 300Mt compared to "business as usual"-not 76Mt as you claim-10 times more than the worst case emissions of the volcano. 4) So to sum up the 3 points above-the volcano's CO2 emissions were already more than offset by the reduced emissions from air-traffic during this time. However, even if this wasn't the case, Germany's per annum reductions in CO2 have resulted in a total reduction in CO2 far, far greater than what the Volcano has put out. Again, even if this wasn't true, the cuts in CO2 emissions have come about not simply by boosting renewable energy, but also by reducing the kilograms of CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP-which has resulted in a more efficient economy & monetary savings by individuals & businesses (which is probably part of the reason for the growth in total GDP over that time period). So I guess what this says, Eric, is that your own research is either pretty bad, or that you've chosen to draw completely erroneous conclusions from your research. My research shows that the initial premise still stands-namely that Germany's CO2 emissions cuts have been significant, from an environmental perspective (with or without volcanoes), & have not come at the expense of the economy-as denialists like yourselves want us to believe. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:47 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
doug_bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July, 2010Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover:
My cause is the investigation and hopefully the rectification of bad science, whether inside the UN or out. Regarding the UN, I worked in international village level development for many years, and have seen the results of many of their failed programs. In addition, both my parents worked for the UN. As a result, I've seen its boondoggles up close and personal. The problems with the UN are internal to the UN. Inherently they have nothing to do with politics, although in the case of climate science (where politicians have been appointed to the IPCC and the results have huge international implications) they overlap. Regarding politics, I voted for Obama ... remind me how that is relevant?[IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause.
Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:39 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July, 2010It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order !
Duh ... anyone with half a brain would realize that I didn't go out and research the hundred or so IPCC references in a single day. I didn't reference them because their original provenance is obvious ... the IPCC. What difference does it make where I got them? When the IPCC references a discussion paper, it references a discussion paper. No amount of intermediate collection of different references changes that. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:29 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Even George Monbiot has given up on your senseless statement that the Amazon claim was peer reviewed. Monbiot before:The ironies of this episode are manifold, but the most obvious is this: that North's story – and the Sunday Times's rewritten account – purported to expose inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood on the part of the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.
Don't like it? Write to George ... Monbiot now (emphasis mine):There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do. ... It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation". This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn't have been".
Oooops ... I've asked here repeatedly for a reference to such a statement from the peer-reviewed literature. I can't find one. George can't find one. I'm still waiting for you to either produce one, or (like Monbiot) admit that you can't find one. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:19 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July, 2010Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link :
Always stated? I fear you missed the part where the document you cited is the proposed revision to the existing rules. As the document says:This provisionally revised Appendix to the Principles Governing IPCC Work contains the procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports and other materials relevant to methodologies. This Appendix complements the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports, which was adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999).
This is an appendix to the document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which was not approved until 2006. The provisionally revised Appendix in question was approved at the Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008). I find no record of a final revised version. Always stated? Nice try ... -
Joe Blog at 12:02 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
johnd at 11:35 I agree with you here john.... especially when you are talking N, it is meaningless to run short term trials on plant species that dont fixate N... Without knowing the legume response to raised co2 levels. Most farmers will be able to tell at a glance whether their crop/pasture is deficient in N P K or S. And take steps to adjust it. But from all the various links ive read here, plant uptake of N was increased, but growth outstripped available N... so the Q is, if the N was availabe, what would have the composition been? Also, livestock do fine of carbohydrate, dairy stock wont produce that well of it however... but it does depend exactly how starchy it is... but there are steps that can be taken to increase digestibility, from topping/wilting pasture pre grazing, to making silage. -
johnd at 11:35 AM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
neilrieck at 23:28 PM, with regards to your point (2). Given this nutrient limitation is continually raised in discussions on this subject, it is an indication that there is little appreciation of how agriculture works in practice. The usual response is that the increased growth due to higher CO2 levels requires increased inputs of nutrients as if that is a negative factor, big enough to nullify all the benefits of the extra growth. That argument seems to imply that under current conditions the soil is able to provide an infinite supply of all the nutrients required, in the correct balance, completely free of charge. What is not understood so well is that the growing of food or fibre, with or without changes in CO2 levels, strips significant amounts of those essential nutrients from the soil which then disappears down the road on the back of a truck where it ends up being delivered onto someones plate, with half ending up being dumped. Increased output from the soil cannot be achieved without firstly replacing and then increasing those nutrients that are being stripped out. An equilibrium will be established based on what input is the limiting factor during the growth period. That may be the optimum growth achievable under those circumstances, but it may not be the optimum growth that the plant itself is genetically capable of. It has been over 100 years since it was discovered that one of the limitations to achieving optimum plant growth was the enhancement of the supply of CO2 to the plant, and trials since then have established that optimum plant growth for many species requires CO2 levels perhaps several times current levels. Obviously that extra growth requires extra inputs of all the other nutrients in order to provide the increased output. There should not be any concern or mystery about such a basic truth. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:54 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Johnd, you have your terminology and concepts confused, especially in that point #3. In TD, heat is the net energy flow, that's correct, so it is not a mean of transfer. Energy transfer can occur in any direction but heat only flows to the colder body. Radiation is a way to transfer energy but it is not heat in itself. Energy can be transfered by radiation, conduction, convection. Multiple transfers can be occurring at equilibrium, as along as the net flow is zero (i.e. TOA incoming and outgoing radiation). -
Doug Bostrom at 10:54 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Here's what you originally said, JohnD: robhon at 02:23 AM, the radiation of heat is always in one direction, from the warmer body to the cooler. That's wrong, because of your use of the term "radiation." Now you elaborate and your explanation actually becomes worse, but this is helpful because leaving all my spleen aside I think you're on the cusp of understanding something important: 1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. Ok, if you mean to exclude radiation as a transfer means. You don't: 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. You still seem to be harboring your fallacy about radiation. In reality, since we know that photons are not endowed with what you essentially visualize as knowledge of what will happen to them in the future, they can and indeed will be emitted from a cooler body and traveling in the direction of a warmer body if such a body stands in their path upon emission. Upon arrival there's a statistical probability they will transfer some quantum of energy to that warmer body, raising its temperature. If you can get your head around this concept you'll understand how the so-called greenhouse effect can raise the surface temperature of the planet. -
Phila at 10:37 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Normally, it's the young that are more concerned with gaining approval of their peers and possibly find themselves with more to loose by standing out as the odd-ball. People tend to be conformists at all stages of life; the tendency just manifests itself in different ways at different points. We all know that some people blindly accept AGW for political or social reasons, and others blindly doubt it for political or social reasons. Fortunately, we have solid evidence that tells us which group of ignorant conformists is closer to the truth. -
Joe Blog at 10:34 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. I didnt really want to go here, because its just semantics... technically speaking, heat in thermodynamics is a measure of the net flow of energy between systems... so by definition, heat can only be one way.... Radiation, on the other hand, is not directional. Radiation is a form of energy transfer. -
johnd at 10:30 AM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
LukeW at 00:04 AM, thanks for posting the link to the "The Land" article. Although it only gave a glancing reference to the role management may be playing in the increase of woody weeds, I think that management is probably a major factor. In recent years there has been a dramatic decline in stock numbers, particularly in those areas where the woody weeds are growing. Without the grazing pressure, the weeds will increase with or without increased CO2. This is one of the arguments put forward by the high country cattlemen who are being shut out of national parks by the government. All it will take is one devastating fire and the government will suddenly realise that the arguments that have been put to them make sense after all. -
johnd at 09:58 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Chris G at 00:07 AM, I think I might know what papers those students who have graduated are now working at. :-( -
Joe Blog at 09:53 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. Id put it more as, that at equilibrium, energy transfer is balanced... it dosnt stop molecules radiating when they are at the same state as their neighbors... equilibrium by definition is a balance, a molecule will be receiving what its emitting. 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. Well, no not really, energy transfer by radiation will be in all directions, with the net flow of energy being from hotter to colder... A thermally "hot" system, will loose energy faster the greater the differential between its state, and its neighbors. 3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. -
johnd at 09:41 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
doug_bostrom at 09:30 AM, doug, it is always about the NETT flow, at least in the real world, which is what I am only interested in. What you are arguing is the situation in a theoretical world in a theoretical state of equilibrium. You also appear to be arguing that although molecules are composed of electrical charged particles, their behaviour is not subject to the forces of the greater electromagnetic field in which the molecule in question resides. It is not about photons choosing direction, it's about molecules being able to sense the state of that surrounding electromagnetic environment. As the temperature of a body rises, the frequency at which it radiates thermal energy increases, thus a molecule not in equilibrium, but at a lower temperature, is being bombarded by energy at a higher frequency than it can emit at from in the direction that the higher frequency energy originates from. There are a couple of basic points that need to be appreciated:- 1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. 3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. Unless one of the about points is not true, then by putting them all together it appears that if there is no transfer of energy, remembering that transfer can only occur in the direction from a warmer body to a cooler body, then there has been no radiation, again remembering that radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. -
Joe Blog at 08:18 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Adam C at 01:51 In the pamphlet it is worded as this IDENTIFYING THE GREENHOUSE SIGNATURE "The greenhouse effect leaves a clear signature in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere. So we expect to see warming in the lower atmosphere(troposphere). And cooling in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). This is exactly what we observe. There have been three people in this thread who have taken it literally as it is written, and id dare say the commentators here are more scientifically literate than the general public. It is a minor point, but i think the wording could have been better. One of those things i suppose, youve gotta keep the message simple enough to be understood. And stratospheric cooling due to increases in anthropogenic co2 is a lil less simple, than you can explain in one or two sentences. -
kdkd at 08:08 AM on 4 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #123 Chris is absolutely right. Your argument lacks validity. You can continue to try to talk around circles. This will fool some people whose statistical knowledge is less than or equal to yours, but it's very clear that as your understanding of statistics is very limited, and that your susceptibility to the Dunning-Kreuger effect is extremely high. But by all means, continue to talk around in circles using semi-technical posts as a smokescreen for your lack of crucial knowledge to be able to critically evaluate the science properly. p.s. Again chris is right, looking at the results and regression diagnostics of a linear regression, there's absolutely no justification to move to a quadratic model - in fact this would likely result in over-fit - i.e. fitting noise as if it was signal. -
JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link : Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent. -
JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order ! They seem to come from here and here. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover: [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN. It would probably be a good thing if Willis were explicit as to the purpose of his "cause." Case of the pot calling the kettle black: "I don't like the UN's politics because the UN's politics don't comport with my politics." Not really about science, after all those words. Tsk. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:42 AM on 4 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Two Daniels? -
Doug Bostrom at 06:28 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
By the way, Willis, I notice that once you saw the actual Greenpeace/WWF "propaganda" content you say is "so often" used by IPCC identified as composing something like 11/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites, you quickly changed the parameters of your complaint. Like I say, it's hopeless discussing this with you, you're not trying to improve anybody's understanding of the matter. If you were, you'd acknowledge you'd made an error and that 11/100ths of 1% is not "often." -
Riccardo at 06:23 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
I was wondering how many non peer review papers have been used by the IPCC and I'm impressed by the numbers Willis Eschenbach gave. Given that they were allowed to use non peer review papers I have to say that they did a really awesome job. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:20 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis nothing I say or do is going to change your habits. You've got your agenda, have fun with it. Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. What's more stupid, a nonexistent rule or constantly asserting in public that it exists? Just for the record, Willis has somehow missed the procedural steps described by the IPCC for inclusion of non-peer reviewed materials in IPCC synthesis reports. Either that or Willis would really like readers to form the wrong impression. IPCC has broken none of its "rules." Read about how IPCC prefers non-peer reviewed literature be used here in Appendix A, Annex 2: PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS (pdf)
Prev 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 Next
