Recent Comments

Prev  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  2318  2319  2320  2321  2322  2323  2324  2325  2326  2327  2328  Next

Comments 116001 to 116050:

116001. Marcus at 15:07 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Another point Eric. Just because you increase the unit cost of energy/fuel (in cents/kw-h or cents per Kj or dollars per liter) does not mean that you'll be increasing the total cost of energy/fuel for the consumer. I pay roughly 3c/kw-h more for my electricity than if I got 100% fossil fuel, but my total energy bill (gas & electricity) is still $400/year less due to implementation of good demand management (like gas heaters & hot water, energy efficient lights, only have a single set of lights on at any given time). For comparison, my electricity bill rose by around 7c/kw-h between 1996 & 2003 (before I switched to 50% green power) simply because my energy company wanted to increase its profits. I do find it odd that people are prepared to accept above inflation increases in their conventional per unit electricity costs, but ask them to pay extra for renewable energy & they kick up a stink. I find that most odd behaviour.
116002. Marcus at 14:26 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Eric, once again I'm forced to debunk a claim you've made. Here are some interesting comparisons of several major nations-in terms of their current CO2 output & industry composition of GDP-as of 2009. Take a look at United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom, India & China. United States has a CO2 intensity of 0.4kg CO2/$ of GDP, per capita emissions of 20t CO2/person & an industrial sector that makes up about 20% of the entire economy. By contrast, Germany has an industrial sector that makes up 27% of its economy, generates 0.27kg of CO2/$ of GDP & has per capita emissions of 10t CO2/person. The United Kingdom has an industrial sector that comprises 24% of its economy, a CO2 intensity of 0.26kg CO2/$ GDP & only about 9t CO2/person. France also has a relatively small industrial sector, comprising 20% of its economy, but has a CO2 intensity of 0.17kg CO2/$ GDP & per capita emissions of 6t/person. India & China both have a relatively large industrial sector compared to the 1st World economies I mentioned-28% of the economy-but China's CO2 intensity is *equal* to the US (at 0.4kg CO2/$ GDP) & significantly lower per capita emissions (2.7t CO2/person). India's CO2 intensity is 0.29kg CO2/$ GDP & per capita emissions of 1t CO2/person. So you see, de-industrialization alone cannot explain the emission reductions achieved by Germany (&, also, the roughly 20t/annum reductions achieved by the United Kingdom)-given that both the UK & Germany retain a higher level of industry, but maintain a less CO2 intensive economy & significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions.
116003. Kooiti Masuda at 13:59 PM on 5 July 2010
        Climate cartoon: when positive is a negative
        Donella Meadows's "Thinking in Systems", posthumusly published in 2008 from Chelsea Green (USA) and Earthscan (UK), avoids the terms "positive" and "negative" with respect to feedbacks, and uses "reinforcing" and "balancing" instead. In my opinion, "balancing" may also be misleading, and "attenuating" or "stabilizing" seem better. I still usually use "positive" and "negative", though.
116004. Kooiti Masuda at 13:51 PM on 5 July 2010
        Arctic Ice Part 2: A Review of Factors Contributing to the Recent Decline in Arctic Ice
        Minor note on one of the references: "Ogi 2010a" and "Ogi 2010b" is the same paper, and the published version is available as the URL listed as "Ogi 2010b" minus "-pip".
116005. Eric (skeptic) at 13:27 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        I have always been a conservationist. My heating is about 90% renewable wood in an EPA-certified stove. My hot water is still grid-electric. I plant more trees than I cut and that are cut to provide my wood. I have about 250 watts of solar panels (no subsidies of any sort) with batteries to match for some lighting and most electronics. Just looked at my last bill, 2608 kwh over the last 12 months, so I am just a bit above you for electric use. My footprint is made higher due to living 75 miles from work, but most days I grab a bus which is 12 miles from my house. Most Germans would probably be aghast at that kind of commute.
116006. Eric (skeptic) at 13:09 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Marcus, your reunification argument is plausible if we, for example, in effect "reunified" economically with China. Ignoring population, our GDP to carbon ration compares very favorably with theirs. Reunification in Germany shut down inefficient state-run industries and the same should be done in China. The problem is that China has its own industrial policy that encourages a large amount of seriously polluting industry in exchange for rapid economic growth. In effect we have exported our pollution. By making energy more expensive here in the U.S. that problem is likely to get worse.
116007. Marcus at 12:52 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        I'd also like to point out that Michael Sweet is dead right. I signficantly reduced my CO2 footprint-first by cutting my daily electricity consumption from 12kw-h/day to 6kw-h/day, then by switching to a 50% renewable energy scheme. My total annual savings are somewhere on the order of $400 per annum & my CO2 footprint has been cut from around 4t/annum to around 1t/annum. Now I'm saving money & reducing my contribution to both CO2 emissions & general pollution-so does it *really* matter that the guy next door might be using 16kw-h/day to 20kw-h/day? Does that make my contribution any less significant-to either the overall environment or to myself personally? No, of course not. From everything I've read, Germans feel exactly the same way.
116008. Marcus at 12:45 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Eric, what you've posted is really more of a matter of opinion that scientific fact. I'm well aware of the fact that Re-unification with East Germany had a role to play in Germany's emissions, but remember that they also took on an added & highly significant economic burden when West Germany reunified with East Germany. Yet in *spite* of these difficulties, Germany has continued to significantly increase its economic output whilst cutting the CO2 emissions (& general pollution levels) of both the Western & Eastern portions of Germany. So, if anything, the reunification adds greater weight to my argument that even more prosperous nations-like the US-which *haven't* been burdened with the dead-weight of a soviet style economy-should be more able to reduce their CO2 emissions without economic damage or-at the very least-*stabilize* their emissions (US emissions were-as of 2007-1Gt/annum higher than they were in 1990).
116009. Eric (skeptic) at 12:22 PM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Marcus, you are not wrong about fossil fuel reduction in general especially about things like the drop in incidental pollution which is a good thing. But here's a paper abstract describing how reunification had a significant impact on GHG reductions. They seem to attribute 1/2 or a bit less of the reductions to reunification, 1/2 or more to policy changes. http://en.scientificcommons.org/20336706
116010. LukeW at 12:04 PM on 5 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        JohnD - on the contrary - this is about woodland thickening more than shrub encroachment. Indeed the phenomenon is more likely to occur with heavier grazing and suppression of fire. Fire kills the natural woody shrubs or tree seedlings and keeps the savanna woodlands open. Heavy grazing removes grass fuel. Although many crop plants are C3s these areas are not suited as crop lands or plantation forestry. Rainfall to sporadic to semi-arid. They do however host large herds of domestic stock (Australia) or native herbivores (e.g. African plains).
116011. Marcus at 11:36 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        So Eric (Denialist) you've finally nailed your colours to the mast. You admit that the fossil fuel industry receives significant government support-but you're perfectly OK with that. A subsidy is a subsidy, whether it is a tax concession or a direct payment-it still amounts to money out of the tax-payers pocket. Here in Australia, both kinds of subsidies apply for the fossil fuel industry. All kinds of tax concessions (like the R&D concession), covering the cost of fly-ash waste disposal, paying for the construction of infrastructure, free water & the fact that every single coal-fired power station in Australia was built using tax-payers dollars. Yet still the industry receives generous support whilst renewables have to get by on the smell of an oily rag. I know that, in Germany, the coal industry also still receives direct cash hand-outs from the government, though the Government is trying to phase this out. Given this, though, I'm still left wondering how a mature industry can boast about its low-cost electricity whilst still claiming significant levels of government support-without even a whimper of protest-yet suggest that the wind, solar or geothermal industry gets even a modest leg-up towards being cost-competitive, & the howls of indignant outrage start immediately. That simply suggests a desire to retain monopolistic control over our electricity supply-which is a wholly political issue. Also, at the end of the day Eric, your entire argument has been one straw man after another. The cuts to CO2 made in Germany actually began as far as 1991, with emissions falling from 961Mt per annum to 899Mt per annum over that time period-6 years before the Kyoto protocol. The 175Mt/annum cuts in CO2 made between 1991 & 2007 represent an almost 20% emission reduction compared to 1990 levels-far greater than anything even several large volcanoes could produce-even if you had 5 30Gt of CO2 volcanoes per year for the next 20 years. These emissions cuts were achieved at a time of *significant* expansion in Germany's GDP-which suggests a combination of a less energy-intensive economy (greater energy efficiency/less kw-h per $ of GDP) & a less CO2-intensive economy (more kw-h from low or zero carbon sources). Now if Germany can achieve such a goal, then why do the denialists constantly citing "economic ruination" as an excuse for *not* cutting CO2 emissions? Either way, Germany is saving money on its electricity costs as a result of its less energy intensive economy-which is good for bottom line-& less power derived from coal also means less mercury, radon, Sulfur Dioxide, particulate emissions & fly-ash waste getting into the environment. So for Germany, cutting CO2 emissions has been a win-win-win scenario (i.e. a political win, an economic win & a broad environmental win). Still, I'm sure you & John D can discuss how "wrong" I am at the next Watts or Jo Nova meeting.
116012. kdkd at 11:08 AM on 5 July 2010
        Astronomical cycles
        Ken #126, Chris #128 Ken's latest response uses the following techniques favoured by the so-called sceptics in order to misrepresent the state of the science:
        • Invalid usage of statistical methods for extrapolation
        • Claims that short duration time series in noisy systems can provide meaningful results
        • Cherry picking statistical techniques based on an impressionistic view of the data, and based on the preconceptions that the data should support the so-called sceptical agenda
        • Asking questions devised to cultivate an air of unjustified uncertainty (to provide the appearance of supporting the so called sceptic agenda) by cramming mostly unrelated concepts together
        • Selective ignoring of the available scientific evidence without any attempt to demonstrate the statistical validity of the argument
        • Trying to support the so-called sceptic argument by appealing to a cherry picked, and inappropriately short time duration
        • And finally, continually recycling the same material despite constantly having the invalidity of the argument pointed out
116013. Marcus at 11:02 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Yeah, well done John D, you know how to copy & paste a couple of numbers from a presentation-"Monkey See, Monkey Do"-that's a far cry from being able to properly read & CRITICALLY ANALYZE a paper/presentation. It most certainly DOES NOT PROVE that you're "industry savvy". As someone who *did* read the presentation & *did* critically analyze, I still come up with the same few issues: (1) To the best of my knowledge, the results you cite were only for the best conditions (TOS1 & irrigated). (2) In spite of the decline in protein, the demand for nitrogen increased 23%-greater than the total increase in yield (+22%)-thus highlighting the critical, limiting role of nitrogen in increasing biomass. (3) That the results you cite were for only 2 out of 8 wheat varieties. The other varieties did not produce a statistically significant change in yields (yet still had a similar decline in protein content). (4) That they were already seeing evidence of acclimation after only 3 years. Therefore it's difficult to extrapolate the results you cite into any kind of long-term trend. Of course, as I was *critically* analyzing the results of this study, I had a few issues with their presentation-namely: (1) they tell us that the results for TOS2 were lower than the +22% for TOS1, but not by how much (that is vital information that any decent reviewer would insist upon). (2) They tell us that nitrogen uptake increased by +23%, but they didn't say whether or not they needed to supplement these crop with additional nitrogen-that's vital info for a farmer. Additionally, they didn't say whether or not an addition of +23% nitrogen to the aCO2 crop might have produced similar yield increases. (3) The thing you seem to fail to understand, John D, is that there results in t/Ha are an *extrapolation*-from an average of several small plots. As such, I have to ask-"where are the standard deviations"? If you're averaging the results of several plots, then you'd expect to see deviations around the average. How large were the deviations? If they were 20% or 30%, then the results cited are utterly meaningless. Even a 10% variation around the average would give extrapolated ranges of between 2.41t/Ha to 2.95t/Ha for aCO2 & 2.9t/Ha to 3.5t/Ha for the eCO2-which is really borderline in terms of statistical significance-especially for a 3 year trial. (4) Regardless of the lack of SD's, extrapolations of small trial plots to t/Ha are only useful as a speculative exercise. Until they're able to move such a trial to a large scale system (probably in a contained environment that also properly simulates consistently warmer temperatures & constrained water & nitrogen) then the results are intriguing, but not by any means definitive. Yet you would have us believe that this is the final word on the extremely simplistic "CO2 is plant food" argument. The lead investigator of this trial was at least decent enough to be circumspect about these results, yet you take the results entirely at their face value-a common failing of so-called "skeptics". Now, unless you've actually got some way of *properly* answering those questions I've put to you previously (& no, this FACE trial doesn't properly answer them-for the reasons I've just given) then I suggest that you stop trying to sell us Denialist Propaganda-& that you stop trying to cast aspersions on my qualifications.
116014. johnd at 09:44 AM on 5 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        LukeW at 22:47 PM, as well as the C3 woodies you mention, the following major grain crops also have some C3 species. Wheat (C3) Corn (Maize) (C4) Rice (C3) Barley (C3) Sorghum (C4) Oats (C3) Millet (C3 & C4; different species) Rye (C3) Triticale (wheat & rye hybrid; C3) The problem of encroachment onto grasslands will only occur if the grassland is not being grazed at all, or very lightly. It is almost impossible to establish any sort of plantation without excluding all forms of livestock. If encroachment onto grassland occurs, it indicates that the grassland is not being utilised. As is often said, it is not waste country, only country wasted.
116015. johnd at 09:17 AM on 5 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        johnd at 09:09 AM on 5 July, 2010 I posted this reply to JMurphy at 06:39 AM on the "An account of the Watts event in Perth". It refers to a matter discussed earlier on this thread, so perhaps should be responded to here. "The bottom line for grain yield in the FACE trial in question was this:- (1) 2.68t/ha @13.8% protein. (2) 3.23t/ha @13.25% protein. You tell me which result produces the highest overall nutritional value, and then explain whether that is a positive outcome or not"
116016. johnd at 09:09 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        JMurphy at 06:39 AM, I have posted this response also at the thread referred to, so feel free to respond either here or continue on the other thread. The bottom line for grain yield in the FACE trial in question was this:- (1) 2.68t/ha @13.8% protein. (2) 3.23t/ha @13.25% protein. You tell me which result produces the highest overall nutritional value, and then explain whether that is a positive outcome or not.
116017. Eric (skeptic) at 08:15 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Marcus, my volcano argument had some bad numbers, so it was wrong. My new argument using your reference is that the volcano pumped out about the same per day (150-300kt) as Germany's cuts per day (600mt / 11 years / 365 days). When the volcano stopped, Germany's cuts started to matter again. The reduction in air travel was economically harmful so not a worthwhile source of CO2 cuts. Your fossil fuel subsidies probably don't include leases, fuel taxes and other payments to the government. Most subsidies I have read about were tax credits not grants. michael sweet, that is partly true, I have strong political arguments against the proposed solutions that have been presented by others many time so there's no need to go into them. I have also separately concluded there is no "warming problem" (which I obviously need to address on other threads). But also I have not seen a convincing case that the minuscule (ok Marcus, small) cuts made by Germany scale within Germany and the rest of the world. Rather than gum up this thread even more, perhaps someone can post a strawman "denialist talking point" about the infeasibility of alternatives, then papers that study that question. My quick search shows me there are a lot, but many of them seem quite myopic to me.
116018. DarkSkywise at 07:40 AM on 5 July 2010
        What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
        Roy Latham at 02:59 AM on 5 July, 2010: "Crisis advocates argue that nothing is going on of significance except CO2." Okay, name three then. Just thee "crisis advocates" claiming CO2 is the only significant factor. ("Name three" slightly stolen from blogger Dave Hitt, but I'm sure he doesn't mind.)
116019. JMurphy at 06:58 AM on 5 July 2010
        What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
        Roy Latham wrote : "The models predicting climate crisis do not model volcano effects" Peter Hogarth replied : "I have certainly read about climate modeling which accounts for volcanic aerosol emissions. I'm sure someone will provide references? I'll reserve judgement till then." What about James Hanson himself : The congressional testimony in 1988 (13) included a graph (Fig.2) of simulated global temperature for three scenarios (A, B, and C) and maps of simulated temperature change for scenario B. The three scenarios were used to bracket likely possibilities. Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas scenario B placed a volcano in 1995. Global temperature change (2006) Original paper here.
116020. jyyh at 06:57 AM on 5 July 2010
        What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
        Might some of the heat have possibly went into thinning the sea ice? Since the measurements are very sparse prior 1960s there's no knowing how thick it originally was.
116021. JMurphy at 06:39 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        johnd, you are out of order and badly self-unaware. As far as I am aware from reading your comments, and the comments all everyone else who got involved, you are the only one who was able to put a credulous so-called skeptical positive spin on those trials - seemingly more from wishful thinking than any real connection with the facts. You are either taking the p**s or...well, look up the Dunning-Kruger effect - Wikipedia should give the simplest explanation.
116022. johnd at 05:27 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Marcus at 21:39 PM, it's a simple matter of consistency and clarity. After all, if you were intending to use the M=HxE formula (mortality equals individual hazard times exposure) as a means to demonstrate that newer wind farms had a lower mortality than older wind farms, then it becomes incumbent upon you to use the same formula to compare the mortality rate of all the other causes of bird deaths documented if you want to be consistent. On the matter of clarity, given the recent difficulties you had with interpreting the FACE data we had extended discussions over, then you should appreciate the necessity to present comparison data in a form that is readily understood. Granted terms used in the FACE data was probably unfamiliar to people like yourself who are not industry savvy, but even though the data was presented in a manner that made the results easy to read and make comparisons, it still didn't prevent some misinterpreting it.
116023. Adam C at 05:18 AM on 5 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Zero marks the boundary between orange and red. It is still clear in the figure that the troposphere is warming. The "hot spot" label may not be appropriate to this figure, however, since the figure is trying to highlight the contrast between troposphere and stratosphere, not that between surface and tropical mid-troposphere.
116024. Peter Hogarth at 04:25 AM on 5 July 2010
        What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
        Roy Latham at 02:59 AM on 5 July, 2010 1) “15 years of no warming”. Please explain which data set you used to justify this and why you pick this period which happens to end with a La Nina cooling dip, and what the error bars are? All surface and troposphere data over the entire measurement period show warming trends. Ocean Heat Content also increased and the overall long term trend in all climate series since 1980 is upwards. Your statement seems dubious. 2) “Analysis of pollution concentrations seem to be indicating that manmade pollution is too small an effect to account for the pre-1980 dimming” Wild 2009 (HumanityRules at 16:01 PM on 3 July, 2010 beat me to this) proposes the opposite, that Sulphur pollution decreased in the 1930s, increased in the 1940s to the 1980s, and decreased since that time. He suggests a link with dimming and NH temperature variations (as opposed to trend). 3) “The paper provides evidence that less cloud cover is responsible for a significant part of global warming”, This is completely misleading. Cloud nucleation is proposed as one mechanism of dimming, However, (Wild 2009): In independent studies “results suggest that the dimming and brightening over Europe becomes even more pronounced after the effects of changes in cloud amounts were removed. Thus, cloud cover changes rather counteracted than enhanced the observed dimming and brightening trends over Europe.” And “cloud cover changes made negligible contributions to the SSR decline in China before the 1990s” From the section summary “Cloud microphysics effects thus saturate at some level of pollution. On the other hand, the overall absorption of solar radiation by aerosols increases steadily and linearly with aerosol loading and aerosol optical depth. This suggests that cloud microphysics effects, such as the first and second indirect effect, come more into play in relatively pristine regions, while the direct and semidirect aerosol effects play the major role in highly polluted areas” (ie the industrialized NH). 4) "The models predicting climate crisis do not model volcano effects" I have certainly read about climate modeling which accounts for volcanic aerosol emissions. I'm sure someone will provide references? I'll reserve judgement till then. To cap all this, Wild cites studies that suggest cloud cover increased over many continental regions over the second half of the 20th century, which is again the opposite to what you (and skeptics?) have said. If Wild 2009 contradicts Wild 2007 on all these points then I apologise. I will leave your rosy perception of what “skeptics” argue alone, but perhaps you should visit the “all arguments” section on this site?
116025. chris at 03:54 AM on 5 July 2010
        Astronomical cycles
        Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 4 July, 2010 ”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.” Bottom line: (a) One cannot determine “offsets” from linear fits of parts of data and extrapolating these to the “join”; that’s a mathematical fallacy. The issue of offsets in merging satellite sea level data has been considered in great detail by the relevant scientists. (b) The full satellite record is consistent with a linear progression equivalent to somewhere near 3.2 mm.yr-1. Fitting the data to a quadratic yields a fit that is very close to a straight line. There isn’t a huge amount more to be determined from the data Ken. There was a short period (2006-2008ish) where the sea level rise slowed down a bit; the last 18 months or so has seen it return to its trend level. We have to be careful not to attempt to make fundamental interpretations from these instances of short term variability. ”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).” That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why should the time period suitable for establishing reliable trends in the temporal progression of a parameter bear any relationship to the history of a scientific field? Surely the relevant considerations are scientific ones [(i) measurement error and (ii) the temporal periods of factors (El Nino, La Nina, volcanoes, solar cycle, aerosols, clouds and other atmospheric factors) that modulate the trend]. In any case our understanding of AGW has a much deeper history that dates back to the late 19th century. ”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?” That’s a poorly posed question, and you possibly need to think what you are really trying to ask. On the decadal timescale the rate of sea level rise is likely approximately proportional to the absolute global temperature above a reference value that would correspond to a steady state sea level. Otherwise there are too many things mixed into your question. The rate of sea level rise may be appear rather dissociated from the TOA imbalance since it has both steric and mass components, and we know these are difficult to tease apart, especially on short timescales when stochastic and cyclic variability modulates the effects from enhanced greenhouse forcing. ”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. There is direct evidence, for example here and here [*], as well as potential mechanisms [**] for recent sequestering of heat in the deep oceans. It remains to be determined whether these account for some short term apparent imbalance in energy budgets. ”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.” You’ve got that quite wrong Ken. The 0.9 W/m^2 is the total TOA radiative imbalance. The apparent shortfall in the energy budget during the very short period 2004-2008 that Trenberth is discussing is somewhere around 0.2-0.6 W/m^2. (see page 25 of Trenberth 2009 [***]), based largely on an apparent deficiency of ocean heat in the upper oceans. Perhaps 0.15 W/m^2 might be account for by the particularly extended solar minimum, which would leave an apparent shortfall for this period of 0.05-0.45 W/m^2. As Trenberth states, this could be fully accounted for by being sequestered in the deep ocean below 900m. Trenberth points out in a recent Nature commentary that the deep ocean data for the period 2003-2008 yields a value of 0.54 W/m^2 [*]. If that were to be correct then there isn’t really a shortfall at all. The whole point about Trenberth’s recent commentaries on this issue is not to feed conspiracy theories and dodgy analyses, but to highlight the need for better monitoring systems to better monitor the climate system. As Trenberth points out in yet another commentary [*****], the recent enhanced sea level rise and increased ocean surface temperatures may be associated with a reappearance of the “missing heat”:

        ”Closure of the energy budget over the past 5 years is thus elusive ( 7). State-of-the art observations are unable to fully account for recent energy variability. Is the warming associated with the latest El Niño a manifestation of the missing energy reappearing?”

        Time will tell…. ------------------------------ [*] K. von Schuckmann, et al. (2009) Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 J. Geophys. Res. 114, C09007. [**] S. Masuda et al. (2010) Simulated Rapid Warming of Abyssal North Pacific Waters Science, in press [***] K.E Trenberth (2009) An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 1, 19–27 [****] K. E. Trenberth (2010) The ocean is warming, isn’t it? Nature 465, 304. [*****] K. E. Trenberth and J.T. Fasullo (2010) Tracking Earth’s Energy Science 328, 316-317.
116026. michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Eric's point is a common denialist argument now being used in the USA. It is political, not scientific so I do not know if it is appropriate to address here. The basic argument is if I reduce my carbon output and everyone else does nothing my reduction is insignificant. Therefore it is a waste of time to do anything and we should all continue BAU. This argument is used in the US Senate. Of course in order to have an effect we ALL have to work on reducing emmisions. Germany has demonstrated that it is possible. Eric is not interested in people demonstrating actual solutions to the warming problem.
116027. Peter Hogarth at 02:59 AM on 5 July 2010
        Astronomical cycles
        Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 4 July, 2010 I agree with the comments made by Chris on short term trends, and I have commented on PBs curve fits for altimeters elsewhere and tried to show they were misguided. You seem to have forgotten about Jason 2 and my corrected trend of 2.61mm/year for the entire Jason 1 series (which indeed is now subject to further 2010 corrections, see Aviso website). In overall terms the latest MSL trend from Aviso using Topex and Jason 1 is 2.92mm/year (revised from 2.99) but remember the error values. The OHC data has also been covered well elsewhere here and here. 9 years or 7 years are short times over which to develop trends with certainty, regardless of whether AGW has been extant as a theory for 30 years or 300. Have a look at the MSL trend with seasonal signals retained to get some idea of the real variability and then imagine noise on top of this (the points are averages). I repeat, we have to take all of the altimeter data into account, if you shorten the time series you increase the trend error. The evidence for warming of the very deep oceans is not truly global in the sense of high areal coverage, but what we have from numerous trans-ocean voyages and measurements is now considerable and consistent (ie warming on average). The mechanisms for deep vertical mixing are still being looked at, but there are independent strands of emerging evidence here also. I think a post on this would be interesting.
116028. Roy Latham at 02:59 AM on 5 July 2010
        What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
        The paper provides evidence that less cloud cover is responsible for a significant part of global warming, which is what skeptics have been saying. We are only talking a few percent of cloud cover to account for present global warming, although cloud cover may be only one factor. The proposed method for pollution causing dimming is that it provides more nucleation centers for water droplets, and fine drops reflect more energy back into space than large droplets. The energy is not destroyed. Analysis of pollution concentrations seem to be indicating that manmade pollution is too small an effect to account for the pre-1980 dimming. Some volcanoes put sulfates high up in the upper atmosphere, and that definitely results in cooling. Only a relatively few volcanoes get the sulfates up high enough to have the effect; Mount Pinatubo was one. There have been fewer such volcanoes in recent years. The models predicting climate crisis do not model volcano effects, although modelers are forced to discount the bad years. Skeptics argue that climate is complex, so that recent global warming is a product of CO2, ocean cycles, low volcano activity, cosmic ray activity, and so forth. Effects added during 1980-1995. Crisis advocates argue that nothing is going on of significance except CO2, and since nothing else was affecting climate the CO2 effects must be multiplied beyond what straight physics predicts. That's why 15 years of no warming is a problem for CO2 theory. However, it is consistent with complex causes.
        Response: "Skeptics argue that climate is complex, so that recent global warming is a product of CO2, ocean cycles, low volcano activity, cosmic ray activity, and so forth"
        
        Climate scientists also argue this point. See CO2 is not the only driver of climate to discuss this point further.
        
        "That's why 15 years of no warming is a problem for CO2 theory."
        
        I'm guessing this is refering to the skeptic argument: "Phil Jones said no warming since 1995". This argument is analysed in detail - please continue any discussion of that argument at the relevant page.
116029. JMurphy at 02:58 AM on 5 July 2010
        IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
        As for one of the ones that was copied and pasted by Willis : Working Group 2, Chapter 5 COPA COGECA, 2003a: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html And what, exactly, is the reference about ? "Forage production was reduced on average by 30% in France and hay and silage stocks for winter were partly used during the summer." Now, how would they find out about such figures ? Peer-reviewed science ? No : why bother when you can get the actual figures (which is, after all, what you want) from the main representative body for the entire agricultural and fisheries cooperative sector, which represents 660,000 such workers ? And who might have that sort of information ? Um, COPA-COGECA. Well, I never.
116030. JMurphy at 00:06 AM on 5 July 2010
        IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
        Returning to the so-called 'citizens audit' of the IPCC, it would appear that they have mis-classified another reference. "Reference #22 is an atlas, therefore it does not qualify as peer-reviewed literature according to the criteria of this project." 22. Boyer, T.P., et al., 2002: World ocean database 2001, Volume 2: Temporal distribution of bathythermograph profiles. In: NOAA Atlas NESDIS 43 [Levitus, S. (ed.)]. Vol. 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 119 pp, CD-ROMs. This reference is cited twice in Ch.5 of WG1 : The objective analysis procedure used for interpolation (filling in data-void areas and smoothing the entire field) is described by Boyer et al. (2002). 5.2 The data used for temperature and heat content estimates are based on the World Ocean Database 2001 (e.g., Boyer et al.,2002; Conkright et al., 2002), which has been updated with more recent data. App. 5A So, the reference is used describe a procedure and to show where the data has come from. The source itself : "This atlas describes a collection of scientifically quality controlled ocean Mechanical Bathythermograph (MBT) and Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) profiles. Data distributions for individual years of all MBT and XBT profiles in the database are presented to provide information on the state of ocean MBT and XBT profile observations." WORLD OCEAN DATABASE 2001 Volume 2: Temporal Distribution of Bathythermograph Profiles I.e. a pictorial and graphical list of actual data, from where you can access the actual data itself. To so-called skeptics, that is not allowed...
116031. Marcus at 00:01 AM on 5 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        Also, Eric, that 0.4% is only "small" because Germany's total CO2 emissions represent less than 3% of the global total. Its not like Germany is acting all alone though. If you want to think of analogy, then consider it like a boat taking on water. You have one guy with a big bucket who refuses to bail the water, & about half a dozen people with small buckets. Now those people can just sit back & say "well if guy #1 won't bail, then there's no point doing it ourselves", or they can recognize that-together-they can either bail as much water as guy #1 or, at the very least, buy a bit more time before the boat sinks. Also, who knows, watching everyone else in the boat working hard to keep the boat above water might encourage guy #1 to finally get to work in the bailing efforts himself. That's not political, that's Enlightened Self Interest. Lastly, it doesn't change the fact that you conveniently changed your argument-you started by saying "Germany shouldn't have cut its emissions because a volcano pumped out more CO2 in 3 months"-even though that claim was patently false. You then switched to "Germany shouldn't have cut its emissions because it represents only a fraction of the global total." Well sure, if it had damaged Germany's economy, I might be tempted to agree with you-except that, with that attitude nothing would *ever* get done (similar arguments, btw, were used by some people to justify continuing the slave trade-just so you know what side of the ideological fence you're sitting on).
116032. Marcus at 23:47 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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.
116033. Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 4 July 2010
        Astronomical 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.
116034. LukeW at 22:47 PM on 4 July 2010
        CO2 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
116035. Peter Hogarth at 22:41 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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?
116036. Eric (skeptic) at 22:23 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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.
116037. SNRatio at 22:23 PM on 4 July 2010
        What 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.
116038. Marcus at 22:20 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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).
116039. JMurphy at 22:18 PM on 4 July 2010
        IPCC 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.
116040. Peter Hogarth at 22:12 PM on 4 July 2010
        What 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.
116041. Marcus at 22:03 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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.
116042. Marcus at 21:39 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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).
116043. Eric (skeptic) at 21:31 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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.
116044. johnd at 20:37 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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.
116045. Marcus at 19:39 PM on 4 July 2010
        An 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?
116046. Dan Moutal at 19:04 PM on 4 July 2010
        Irregular Climate podcast: episode 6
        Thank you for the many plugs you have given. They are all very much appreciated
116047. apdavidson at 18:33 PM on 4 July 2010
        A 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!
116048. Doug Bostrom at 18:12 PM on 4 July 2010
        IPCC 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]
116049. villabolo at 17:25 PM on 4 July 2010
        Trenberth 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.
116050. Doug Bostrom at 17:06 PM on 4 July 2010
        IPCC 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.

Prev  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  2318  2319  2320  2321  2322  2323  2324  2325  2326  2327  2328  Next