Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 Next
Comments 118301 to 118350:
-
Marcus at 09:36 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
theendisfar. Who was being sarcastic? I was merely pointing out the simple fact that, without *evidence* to back it up, your little hypothesis doesn't really bear up very well-yet you seem loathe to provide that evidence. Indeed, the evidence of Stratospheric Cooling seems to kill your Evaporation/Convection hypothesis stone dead. Evaporation definitely explains the movement of heat from the surface of the earth to the troposphere layer but-given the short-lived nature of a single water vapor molecule in the low to mid troposphere-compared to the long-lived nature of CO2, NO2 & Methane-it is extremely hard to picture evaporating water molecules as a major source of heat transmission out to space. Even if you significantly increase the rate of evaporation, this will only change the rate at which the heat gets transferred to the lower atmosphere. It is the then the rate at which these atmospheric gases (greenhouse gases) then transfer that heat out into space which dictates the overall warmth of the planet. The greater the concentration of these greenhouse gases, the slower that rate of heat transfer to space will become-a view backed up by the cooling of the stratosphere, the reduction in outgoing long wave IR-emissions in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 & methane (but not water) & the simple fact that concentrations of CO2 & methane have been rising rapidly for several decades. When you can provide a similar level of empirical evidence to back your hypothesis-starting with *how* & *why* we're getting increased evaporation-then maybe your view about CO2 being a "red herring" will have merit. Until then, you just sound incredibly silly! -
johnd at 09:33 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
The best way to test just how much is known and understood and how much is assumed is to test it all, and the best way to test it is to use what is known or assumed to develop models that will predict or forecast the future. With weather and climate forecasting numerous models are used by the various agencies, the IPCC alone track I think 21 different models, and exclude an unknown number, presumably flawed models. All models differ according to the combination of assumptions that are plugged in. Now the important thing to remember is that each model on it's own should be completely valid. There should be no inherent flaws or assumptions that can be proven to be incorrect, otherwise they model itself would have to be considered invalid. Because each model is a valid model it has as much chance as any other model as producing an accurate prediction, and as can be seen with the IPCC tracked models there is quite a divergence. The same happens with weather forecasting modelling, only here we are able to witness whether or not the assumptions prove to be correct or not. In the beginning of the outlook period, typically, based on current data inputted, each model with produce it's own forecast. At times these can be as far apart as it is possible to get. It does happen when different agencies will produce totally different outlooks, 100% opposed. Nothing inherently wrong with the models, just the opinion of the forecasters as to which one was most likely to eventuate. As the outlook period shortens, all the models should begin converging until about 24 hours out they all should be fairly well aligned. At the beginning of the outlook period each had an equal chance of being right, assuming no known flaws were inherent in the assumptions, and with a range of different outcomes, if one happens to be proved right, all the others will have been proven to be wrong. However there is another scenario that can and does occur, they are all proved wrong. It is obviously impossible for them all to be proved right. As mentioned there is nothing wrong with any of the models within themselves. The problem lies in the limited collective knowledge about, in this case natural forces, and how that limits the veracity of all assumptions being made. I consider that this evidence, the relatively poor strike rate in producing accurate forecasts, as an indicator of just how limited the collective knowledge is amongst the professionals involved about all relevant factors in the natural world despite those who claim otherwise. If there is a large degree of uncertainty in the measuring of one aspect of the forces involved in the climate, it is completely illogical to claim that there greater certainty in the measuring of any other aspects, because at the end of the day, as in surveying, the loop must be closed, and it cannot close if there is uncertainty in any one leg, and certainty in the other legs then become hostage to the same doubts.Moderator Response: Further discussion of the accuracy of models should be done on the thread Models are unreliable. -
yocta at 09:31 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
RE#246 theendisfar Can you please quote at least one reference for your claims? Just one,or are you the only scientist in the world with this theory? I need a primer of data, curves, equations, or anything I can use as a reference before any of your assertions can be taken seriously. As a Peer review I am saying, get some references! A good literature review is probably the most important thing ever when doing research! -
Marcus at 09:18 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
OK, if we assume that *all* the electricity comes from coal then this is the comparison: 1kw-h of coal-fired electricity generates 0.9kg of CO2. Assuming T&D losses of 10%, then this amounts to a flat 1kg of CO2 per kw-h of electricity. The average electric car gets about 12kw-h/100km traveled, which means the electric car generates 12kg of CO2 for every 100km of travel. By contrast, the average car consumes 10L petrol per 100km traveled (assuming highway travel) & every litre of petrol burned generates 2.3kg of CO2. So the IC-engine car generates about 23kg of CO2 for every 100km traveled. So even assuming the dirtiest electricity grid, the *average* electric car generates half the emissions of a conventional IC-engine vehicle. Once you through in petrol consumption during peak-time idling, the numbers come out even more in favor of the electric vehicle. Of course electricity grids like the US, Canada & much of Western Europe have a mix of electricity sources-resulting in an average CO2/kw-h of electricity of closer to 0.6 to 0.8 kg-which again tips the balance even further in favor of electric cars. Lastly, whatever ones view of AGW, switching to electric cars also *eliminates* source emissions of particulate emissions, benzene (which causes cancer), & the various components of photochemical smog. So from any standpoint (even life-time cost) the electric car wins hands down! -
philipm at 09:18 AM on 4 June 2010Latest GRACE data on Greenland ice mass
Here's an article that I wrote at a popular Australian opinion site, covering some of this ground (with a pointer to this article). It includes a picture you may recognise:
Comments there welcome.
Response: Phillip, that's a cracker of an article, well done.
BTW, I can always tell when someone grabs pics from my site by the telltale bolded, Arial heading added above the graph :-) -
Riccardo at 08:49 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
"If surface temperature increases so will the whole atmosphere." I mean troposphere. -
Riccardo at 08:47 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Small scale analogy are off the taget because there's no significant pressure gradient. In the real atmosphere it is convection that determines (to a large extent) the lapse rate. The lapse rate, in a first aproximation, is constant and independent on temperature. It depends on accelaration of gravity and specific heat. On the contrary, surface temperature is determined by radiative balance. If surface temperature increases so will the whole atmosphere. More sofisticated models predict that the lapse rate may vary with global warming, in particular in the tropical regions. This effects is what should cause the intesification and expansion of the Hadley cell with the consequent expansions of deserts northward. Convection is essential for the redistribution of heat, not for the overall energy balance of the planet. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:37 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Philippe... But you also have to account for the fact that most areas have a mix of power generation, not just fossil fuel. As stated before, here in California we only use about 20% coal so the carbon generated per unit of energy for an EV is likely to be far less than a standard IC engine. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:26 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
In the US, the "big governent/small government" debate is mostly electoral talk. One party is supposedly that of smaller government. Yet when that party had long stretches of time with a good handle on several branches of government, neither the size nor the spending decreased. Deficits raged as badly as with the other party. Reagan's TEFRA was a historically high tax increase. People's peceptions about this are quite separate from reality. The reality is that the economics of the moment largely dictate what the government's actions (or reactions, most of the time) will be, not the professed ideology. Re scaddenp: Without actually working the numbers, I believe that MacKay is likely right. What matters is the carbon per kW and an efficient plant, like combined cycle or better, will probably fare better than a corresponding sum of I.C. engines for the same amount of watts (the unit, no pun intended). If you factor in everything (transport, refining etc), it might be even better. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Alexandre... Exactly right. Many many times I have referred people to a really great Youtube video made by Potholer54 titled The Scientific Method Made Easy. His video does a really good job of explaining to people what scientists actually do and how they come to their conclusions. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:07 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville... I don't know how accurate this is but a quick google search turned up (for me) that fossil fuel power stations are about 35-40% efficient. IC automobile engines are about 30% efficient. And electric motors are about 95% efficient. Now, I'm not sure how that plays with peak and off peak generation, or drive/idle time in automobiles. -
Alexandre at 08:04 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
JMurphy #2 That´s absolutely commonplace. Absurd, yes, but somehow commonplace and not likely to stop soon. Many people get to know their first notions about climate science - or science in general - through these guys and all of a sudden their convinced that all scientific institutions in the world are colluded to counterfeit a "lie". IMHO, the only antidote to this is good education. Teach people good ol´science. The basics that lead to what is known today. -
Paul D at 07:53 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@85 Efficiency of a power station is better than a IC engine? Depends of the power station! There is a good reason why CHP is considered better than a 'standard' coal fired power station and there is a good reason why the PRIMARY energy output of a CHP plant is heat energy, not electricity. That reason is because fossil fuel 'thermal' power plants waste over half the energy as heat. Yes indeed electric motors are very efficient, but a standard power station is not efficient. -
scaddenp at 07:27 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Just on energy source for electric - David MacKay made case for electric car EVEN if all the electricity came from burning fossil fuel. This is because the efficiency of a power station + electric moter is so much higher than that of internal combustion engine. -
GFW at 06:58 AM on 4 June 2010Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice
Well, we're now on our third day of record low extent-for-that-date per IJIS (JAXA). Bremen says it's been a week. Presumably NSIDC will put out a monthly update in the next couple of days. The trajectory around the end of this month may set the tone for the remainder of the melt season. -
actually thoughtful at 06:32 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
CBDunkerson at 81 I did some more math, both with the 40 year average of 6%, then with what actually happened from one decade to the next. A smooth 6%/year means that every 30 years, prices will be 541% higher. In other words take the base price and multiply it by 5! (rounding down to be conservative). So the data is not so nice as to be a smooth 6%. For every 30 year average available from 1967 (two of them 67-97 and 1977-2007) the fuel multiple is over 7! Not ever wanting to overstate the case, I went back and took the multiple for each decade (Divided 1977 avg fuel price by 1967 avg fuel price and repeated for 1987, 1997, 2007) 1977/67: 2.26 1987/77: 2.50 1997/87: 1.26 2007/97: 1.91 average multiplier per 10 years: 1.98 So you can count on natural gas prices doubling every 10 years, and be right more often than not. Note that 2007 is just before the current extreme price volatility began. I note that electricity has only gone up 20% since 1997, and that coal has a multiplier of 7 over 40 years (not 30). So useful data, but using natural gas as a stand in for all fuel is probably painting with too coarse a brush. -
KR at 06:19 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
A (very) side comment on storms, weather, and uncertainty: Weather is a chaotic system, composed of a number of non-linear interactions and stochastic behavior. Like any non-linear system, it is difficult to predict where it will go next along its strange attractor. Weather prediction, in fact, started much of the recent research in chaotic systems with the discovery of the Lorenz attractor! However, like other non-linear systems, the bounds on its attractor, the limits on where it can go, are well established. We don't know what the weather will be two weeks from now - but we know how much average energy is involved, and what the range of changes can be; Arizona won't suddenly freeze for a month in the middle of summer, the Arctic won't boil. And of central importance - the chaotic dance of weather around the average temperature still centers around the energy available for that dance, regardless of how impressive the storm. -
KR at 06:05 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Actually, most of the energy in hurricanes and other storms is latent heat, released when water vapor condenses into clouds. The spectrograph data for surface thermal radiation, atmospheric back-radiation, and solar irradiance energy values are extremely accurate, robust, and have been repeated over and over again by multiple researchers. Evaporative energy transfer calculated from total precipitation and the energy required for evaporation are solid as well. Total uncertainty in these measures are on the order of +/- 10 W/m^2, out of 492 input and 468 output. Convective transfer is admittedly harder to measure, with over-ocean measures of 10-11 W/m^2, higher over land with averages of 18-19 W/m^2, +/-5 W/m^2. Note that this totals only twice the uncertainty of the other pathways! There are NO convective estimates within an order of magnitude of the radiative energy transfer, no matter who you talk to. And there's only so much room left over between the radiative and evaporative transfers! Weather scale convection? Sure, lots of chaos, lots of uncertainty, really hard to predict next week's weather. But the total energy involved over the long haul (decades) is well known. If you don't have a measurement, you're left with an opinion. And as I said before, opinions contradicted by solid evidence aren't worth much. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville... I think you are probably correct about coal, CO2 and electric vehicles in the US in general. The mix is different here in California where natural gas is 37%, coal only 20%, hydro is 17% and nuclear 14%. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:53 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
I can't see how anyone can claim one mechanism is dominant over the other, when at least one is so far from being understood, let alone measured accurately. Another way of saying it: My argument has no evidence to support it, so yours must be wrong. That does not seem very persuasive. -
johnd at 05:46 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 05:16 AM, convection is not simply a factor in weather, it is the weather. Accurate measurements are still in the process of being gathered, and are likely to be for some considerable time. If accurate measurements were available, then accurate forecasts could be made, but the limitations of both measuring and understanding the processes means we are still very limited in what we know. If you strip all the assumptions and calculations out of your data, what real measurements are you left with, and what errors or range of uncertainty are they subject to, really. I can't see how anyone can claim one mechanism is dominant over the other, when at least one is so far from being understood, let alone measured accurately. -
KR at 05:39 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Measurement, noun:ˈme-zhər-mənt Numbers can be confusing at times, but they don't lie, and don't have an agenda. If you want to say that convection is dominant over radiation in terms of surface energy transfer, you will have to show that the existing measurements are wrong, with measurements that support your assertion. Storms are 'weather', not climate - short term variations can be and are MUCH larger than long term changes in the average value, but they average out in the long run. And the long run climate changes shift where the average is located. To mis-quote Jerry Maguire, "Show me the measure!" -
Doug Bostrom at 05:26 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville, looking at the report you mentioned caused me to be struck with the thought that electric vehicles are an excellent fit w/sometimes fickle (at least on small geographic scales) sources of energy such as wind and solar capture. Dissipation of energy stored in automobile batteries is rather decoupled from the demand they impose as they are charged; a sufficient mass of vehicle batteries will act as a sponge for electricity, wrung out asynchronously with generation. Related but slightly different to the notion of using motive power batteries to backfeed the grid; the net effect is similar but the mechanism is different. Obviously I'm not the first to notice that but it was all the same a striking realization for me. I've been intrigued by the concept of using idle vehicles as a capacity leveling system but even as more simple sponges they'd be useful. -
johnd at 05:26 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Just adding to my post on the role of weather, cold fronts moving across a region can change conditions far faster and to a greater degree than what occurs if heat only dissipates due to being radiated off on a clear night. Granted if the night is long enough, any heat accumulated during the day will be lost, and at times more, but the rate of change does not match that of a fast moving cold front. -
muoncounter at 05:22 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
That graph with the straight lines and the "grand maximum" is stunning ... in its absurdity. Those lines seem to connect absolutely nothing. The sunspot number data file available here presents a monthly average SSN from Jan, 1749 - May, 2010. With a bit of repetitive work, Excel can turn into an annual average SSN: the maximum annual average SSN I found is 190 in 1957. Second highest (in a different cycle) is 158 in 1989 and third highest is a tie with 1778 and 1980 at 155 (these peaks are visible in the graph shown). In short, there is no long-term meaning to "Grand Maximum." Its just one data point among 261 years. I did read with interest this 2005 paper on Fourier Analysis of sunspot cycles, which is probably not news to this community. The authors found a number of different periodicities in excess of 180 years. That translates into a classic Fourier signal analysis problem: a short period signal (11 yrs) modulated by the sum of longer term signals. There will be what look like random maxima whenever these extremely non-random cycles produce constructive interference. So not only do those straight lines connect nothing, they mean nothing as well. -
KR at 05:16 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
johnd, convection is definitely a factor in weather, although the data show that latent heat (heat carried by evaporation) is ~3X the convective transfer. Storms have a lot of energy. But if you add up the energy of the entire surface of the planet, as measured, convection isn't the dominant mechanism for energy transfer. Where are your measurements??? -
johnd at 05:12 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 04:37 AM, if convection is not the primary form of energy transfer, then what role does weather play which is primarily all about the redistribution of uneven heat energy. Storms are the mechanism that moves large amounts of heat in a hurry when the system has become unbalanced, some so violent they punch straight through injecting water straight into the stratosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 05:06 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
actually thoughtfull #69, thanks for the corroborating data. I think this really drives home the point about the relative costs of renewables vs fossil fuels. If fossil fuel costs are rising (conservatively) at 6% per year then the average fossil fuel cost over a 30 year period (a conservative estimate of the 'lifespan' of wind and solar plants) is going to be about 287% of the current cost. So we shouldn't really be comparing current renewable costs to current fossil fuel costs... we should be comparing them to 287% or more of current fossil fuel costs. And by that standard wind goes from costing a little more than coal to substantially less. Solar is more expensive than wind, but even that comes in below coal with rising prices factored in. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:53 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@Argus... I actually think you're over-simplifying. There is a BODY of science on climate change. Science is rarely, if ever perfectly consistent on all fronts. It's important to look at all the work being done by researchers and try to take a reading from there. Yes, Lindzen, Svensmark, Spencer and others have put forth real science. They are a considerable minority. They are outliers in a greater body of evidence. The greater body shows, TO DIFFERENT DEGREES, that climate is changing quite rapidly and that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of that change. What I'm trying to say is, that even within the circles that believe AGW is real there are differing opinions. It's not a religious "believe it or you're going to hell." I would also point out that those contrarian scientists who are putting forth well researched work are getting published. Their work is taken seriously. I just believe it's, for the most part, not agreeing with the greater body of evidence. So, you either throw out the greater body of evidence or find out why it doesn't fit. So, again, skepticism is an essential function of the scientific process. We, on the outside of that process, have to determine for ourselves if that process is operating correctly. I, for one, believe it is and therefore accept the greater body of evidence. If you do not believe it is operating correctly then you are in a position where you have to "deny" the greater body of evidence. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:52 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
But electric cars aren't much good unless you have a clean energy source. Name your poison, BP* or Massey Energy? :-) But as you suggested, the matter is not simple. Someone upthread mentioned the desirability of more efficient use of generating plant. Thank you for the link which I am now going to read. * Speaking of, the video shows the latest interception device being lowered to the floor of the ocean even now. If you pray, please put in a good word... -
CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, When you add air to the chamber it is conduction that becomes the dominant source of heat transfer, not natural convenction. The scenario would work pretty much identically in a zero-gravity environment. Also measuring the rate of cooling in the vacuum scenario would not be a direct proxy for calculating the thermal radiation of the object. Remember that all objects emit thermal radiation, so the energy the object is losing to its own radiation is somewhat offset by the radiation emitted by the walls of the chamber. If you want to make the same comparison to the atmosphere's rate of heat exchange, you have to subtract the radiation reflecting back down from the atmosphere (324 Wm^-2). In any case, there is no rule of physics that says for any given system where natural convection applies, the energy transfer from convection will exceed that of radiation. I think you are getting thrown off by trying to visualize it as an engineering problem, where improved conduction and forced convection can often significantly increase the rate of heat transfer. This rule of thumb does not mean that any given system where convection exists must by necessity have more heat transfer from convection than thermal radiation. The comparison is further complicated by the fact that scenarios like the ones you've provided deal with objects much smaller than the atmosphere, whereas with climate science you're dealing with the dynamics of the atmosphere itself. This scale and complexity does not lend itself to simple visualizations. Also, do not confuse conduction with natural convection as you did with your vacuum chamber and Thermos examples. In order to actually visualize the contribution of natural convection, the appropriate scenario would be something like this: place an object at the bottom of a chamber filled with air, measure the rate of heat loss from the object. Repeat the test in a zero gravity environment and compare the rates. Since humans rarely deal with zero-gravity situations, trying to solve this via visualization of common scenarios is probably not a good approach. I suggest you take KR's advice and rely more on actual measured values. Photons hitting a detector will be much more reliable than grossly oversimplified thought experiments. johnd, You are confusing forced convection with natural convection. The earth's atmosphere doesn't have any mechanical fans, it relies mainly on the force of gravity and the earth's rotation to generate convection currents. These same forces exist in your fireplace whether the fans are turned on or not. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:46 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Done, the last 4 pics link to larger versions. Thank you! Just noticed. -
Paul D at 04:44 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
This has probably already been mentioned. But electric cars aren't much good unless you have a clean energy source. In the UK the grid mix of electricity generation sources gives a typical carbon footprint of between 500 and 600 grammes of CO2 per kWh. So that's what your pumping into an electric car when it's being recharged. Add on the losses of the battery and really the carbon footprint of an electric car is similar to an internal combustion engine car, when the CO2/passenger km is worked out. In the US your grid mix is dominated by coal, so I have doubts whether any electric car is currently going to make much difference, until you sort out the coal problem. The problem of electric vehicles and energy supply has recently been highlighted by a recent Royal Academy of Engineering report: http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=4001§ion=Electricity But they do indicate the way forward. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:44 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus, for scientists this is not a matter of unquestioning belief but of useful demonstration whether by robust numerical treatments or physical observations or a combination thereof. That's what Rob is addressing when he says scientists are skeptics by nature. Scientists who skip those steps or fail to use them as an effective means of rebuttal yet assert that AGW is a false premise categorize themselves. There are in fact a few researchers who are threading this needle correctly yet have still failed to produce an effective contradiction to the theory that we're able to substantially change some important characteristics of the ocean-atmosphere system. -
KR at 04:37 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Again - what are the actual measurements? Thought experiments and small scale analogies only take you so far, and do NOT trump actual data. Sunlight spectra at surface (multiple measurements, global averaging based on planetary geometry): 168 W/m^2 Thermal back-radiation spectra from atmosphere (REALLY well measured with spectroscopes): 324 W/m^2 Measured spectra of surface thermal radiation (multiple measurements in agreement with blackbody estimates): ~390 W/m^2 (396 as of the latest estimate, due to 4th power dependence on temperature and surface variations). Calculated evaporative cooling, based upon rainfall figures (what comes down must have gone up, known energy for evaporation and rainfall amounts): 78 W/m^2. Convection estimates, based on over the ocean bulk convection measurements, over the land measurements and calculations (multiple references in K&T): ~24 W/m^2, although there's actually some grounds to consider that an overestimate. 18 to 19 W/m^2 +/- 5 is rather more likely, as discussed in Kiehl and Trenberth, and in better agreement with the most recent radiative estimates. This is covered in section 4 - they generously attribute anything left over after the evaporative and radiation measurements to convection. This is still <6% of the total energy exchange. As to the small scale observations and thought experiments - the atmosphere is a heck of a lot bigger than a vacuum box, or even a house. It's important to take that into account. The measured values show that convection isn't the primary form of energy transfer. Unless you can produce different measurements, I'm going to consider these assertions contradicted by evidence to be unsupportable. Otherwise my belief in my own importance to the world would lead me to stand around in the middle of heavy traffic... -
NewYorkJ at 04:24 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Good post. Paranoid fear about losing one's "stuff" is certainly a reason for science denial. There's also the general paranoid fear of government intervention, which cripples many WUWT readers from engaging in critical thought. As eluded to above, I also think denial is partly a result of tribalistic tendencies. The tribe wants to "win". Those who listen to right-wing radio know that you can't be a real conservative or patriotic American if you buy into the global warming "hoax". Related... http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/how-low-can-you-go-2/ Al Gore's work on communicating the science is a double-edged sword. He's inherently a polarizing figure, with the 2000 election dispute cementing that view. So some have a tendency to oppose climate science because Al Gore supports it. Doing otherwise would make Gore wealthier, and liberals would "win". I think Watts (a Republican activist) drives an electric car (or more importantly, makes a big deal out of driving an electric car), because he wants to establish cred. Unlike that "hypocrite elistist Gore", who has a big house and flies in airplanes while preaching about emissions, Watts does the opposite. It's a bit of a marketing ploy. Note also that U.S. Republicans tend to be strong supporters of nuclear power. For most of them, this is generally preferred over any renewables. When you ask them to explain, their reasoning isn't very robust, and reveals that they see it as a way to win the environmental issue. Most enviros/liberals opposed nuclear power in the 1970's. Expand nuclear power to help the environment and the Republican tribe "wins". -
Argus at 04:19 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#56, JMurphy is making the world a simple one, indeed (see full quote below!). This is because 'anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier'. - It's that simple: you cannot deny 'the science' without being a denier. The science is always right. So the branch of climate science that stands behind the AGW hypothesis, represents True Science (or 'the science')! Other climate scientists that happen not to be AGW believers, are 'deniers', because they deny 'the science'. Their science is not True Science, because there can only be one science. It sounds like a religion to me. Quote: ''I have always been bemused by the way so-called skeptics are sensitive to those words you have highlighted, as if they can see the danger in being tagged with such descriptive words, while simultaneously showing how precisely those terms DO describe them exactly : anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier, surely ? '' -
Ib Nielsen at 04:11 AM on 4 June 2010Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The temperature gradient in the atmosphere of 6K/km is mainly due to the adiabatic compression of the air (gravitation) rather than to the mysterious greenhouse effect. http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/atmoseff-en.htm -
Phila at 04:05 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
"May I ask your opinion as to why there is no AGW Theory? If we had one to test, this would quickly end any debate as to what we should call each other." Please see The Discovery of Global Warming. -
Phila at 04:01 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#9 "From a political standpoint, (C)AGW is a liberal issue - it argues for bigger government. Thus, liberals tend to support the theory and conservatives tend to oppose it on that grounds." That view is too simplistic, in my opinion. In the USA, at least, there's no consistent "big government" or "small government" party. Both sides will argue for more or less government power, depending on the issue. In regards to AGW, conservatives tend to see it as an "environmental" issue -- as opposed to, say, a national security or personal responsibility issue -- and so they tend to oppose it on principle. Many liberals believe that more government action on AGW is necessary, granted (just as many conservatives believe that more government action is needed on immigration). But I don't know anyone on the left who'd oppose a viable "free market" solution to AGW on principle. I certainly wouldn't. -
johnd at 03:51 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 02:38 AM on 4 June, 2010, better than vacuum chambers and thermos bottles for a real world observation is perhaps ones own home. Our sole form of heating over winter is a large slow combustion wood heater in a large room at one end of the house. The heater has a fan to distribute heat out of vents at the front. Without the fan going the heater can quickly become unbearably hot when standing next to it and it takes considerable time before any warmth at all is felt at the extremities of the room. With the fan going the warmth is better distributed, but there is still some warmth differential within the room, but not as much as without the fan. However we also have a ceiling fan near the heater, and when this is switched on, running only on slow, the warmth is distributed much faster and more evenly. Not only that, with the ceiling fan the warmth gradually works it way through all the doorways to other rooms right to the further extremities of the house whilst reducing the high temperatures next to the heater. In summer time, an evaporative cooler with it's inbuilt fan is much more effective way of cooling than sitting an open ice box in the middle of the room hoping that the heat from the warmer room will radiate to the colder ice in order to cool the room. -
theendisfar at 03:50 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@66 robhon, Fair enough, but again in order for me to deny something, I need a well defined theory or hypothesis to 'deny'. Agree/Disagree? Your claim that there is a 'greater scientific body of evidence' is not sufficient and often a Red Herring. I worked 3 years at a major US Scientific Agency and know quite well the effects of 'mountains of evidence' both how and why they are often used. The evidence shows the Effects, not the Cause of GW. The A in AGW is quite questionable. May I ask your opinion as to why there is no AGW Theory? If we had one to test, this would quickly end any debate as to what we should call each other. This is not trivial. While we cannot do tests with multiple Earth's, we can take the statements to describe the AGW phenomena and verify whether they are accurate based upon known sciences. In any event, AGW Denier and Believer is good enough for me. Count me in as a Denier. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Sorry, you won't convince a nonbeliever until he/she can repeat the methods and arrive at the same conclusions. Give that the NRC report I mentioned and indeed the entire field in discussion here includes observations derived from such work as ice cores requiring years of effort to retrieve, radiometers on orbital platforms and the like, you're then doomed forever to wander a wilderness of disbelief, theendisfar. Some people are objecting to the tone of this thread because Rob's original essay necessarily must speak of people who for one reason or another find themselves in contradiction with a fairly smooth continuum of research findings stretching back over 200 years. Apparently we are not to apply any form of general identification or linguistic shorthand to classify this rough category of persons. That's a fundamentally sound demand-- avoiding generalizations to classify humans in all their variety is one of the lessons of history most of us can agree with. Still-- labels aside-- we're left with a phenomenon to discuss, namely how and why this diaspora of understanding should arise. Further, this phenomenon of disagreement can and does have an impact on our physical world. How we think clearly can change our world; we know of the power of thought from such evidence as recent problems with acid rain, chlorofluorocarbons and the like, issues that could not arise without human mentation. Among those disagreeing with climate research findings we include in our companionship a variety of people who in a selective way do not subscribe to the process and results of scientific inquiry that have proven effective time and again in improving our understanding of our natural environment. This group is fairly insistent that findings from the arena of research topics that produce understanding of our climate system should not be applied to our world of human affairs, a sphere of activity which given our large population and intensive economic activity necessarily produces noticeable effects on our physical environment. We may reasonably conclude that such a choice to selectively exclude a broad array of knowledge from our evolution of behavior will produce measurable changes in our physical world. Failure to apply newly acquired understanding is not a matter hermetically contained within our heads, it reaches beyond our discourse and will in fact affect the Earth's climate system. So how can it be that discussing why and how people choose to accept one part of scientific inquiry yet for whatever reason will not accept another is not a legitimate subject of discussion at a site that is explicitly devoted to the subject of thinking about climate? For my part I cannot think of an answer to that question that is sufficiently compelling to arrest my sense of curiosity about it, nor my concern that ignoring the topic will result in knock-on effects in the world I live in. -
actually thoughtful at 03:21 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@CBDunkerson - post 44 You mention the rate of fuel cost increases. Natural gas, which is a reasonable stand in for the rate of electric (marginal unit of electricity comes from natural gas), propane and (identically) natural gas has been rising at an average rate of 6% since 1967. Over the last 10 years, including the precipitous (and clearly short term) price drops in 2009 and 2010 (through March) the rate is 4.5% The rate over the entire 41 year period (but now excluding 2009/2010) is 7.2% And finally, the trend we were on, and will soon be on again - the rate of increase for the ten years ending in 2008 was 7.5% So the rate of increase in fuel prices is at least 6% and more likely over 7% annually. This has been true through 40+ years of energy exploration, booms, busts, energy crisis, new discoveries, etc. My source is http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3A.htm (although I use the monthly data). 1967 is as far back as data was recorded. -
chris at 03:20 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Does Anthony Watts dream of electric sheep? -
chris at 03:18 AM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:20 PM on 31 May, 2010 Which study by "Jianli Chen" are you talking about Arkadiusz? You keep saying stuff that deeper investigation shows to be untrue. Can you not be more specific in your reference to papers rather than making all these unspecified quotations? I doubt the Eemian was 6 oC warmer than now, but unless we know what you're referring to how can we explore this??? -
Argus at 03:14 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#40, JMurphy : "Does that mean that you are on the side of the Creationists ? Or the 9/11 troofers ? Or the Flat-Earthers ?" No. Who said anything about me? I was talking about 'people'. When Al Gore started out, he was the under-dog, doubtfully beaten by Bush (whom people around the world did not think highly of), and with a great sympathetic interest in science and environment. His movie travelled around the world and was a great success. But after that he became rich and famous, and got the Nobel prize. Rumours had it, he was living in a 20 room mansion with 8 bathrooms, all heated by natural gas, and of course travelling around the world in a private jet. Suddenly he is not the hero he once was, and people become skeptic towards his message, many errors are found in his movie, and so on. I am sure that if Michael Moore (for example) now made a movie that proved AGW is a myth, that could be the next successful climate movie. People like to see self-assured scientists proven wrong. Another example: no matter how many revered scientist are trying to explain why astrology is occult mumbo-jumbo with no scientific basis whatsoever, people still believe in it. -
theendisfar at 03:03 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@245 KR, Ponder this scenario for a moment. Heat an object to a given temp in a vacuum chamber and record the rate of cooling. Repeat but now flood the vacuum chamber with dry air at sea level (or close). Record the rate of cooling. Say the Radiation cooling Rate is R and the Convection rate is C. If it turns out that there is ever a case that 2R > C+R, then the laws of physics must be rewritten. In any event, ponder the statement and I'll elaborate tomorrow. Note that in zero gravity convection does not take place so the test would be invalid. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:57 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@theendisfar... But I still hold that every scientist is a skeptic by nature. It is an inherent part of the scientific process that makes it work so profoundly well. So, I would say the entire scientific community is skeptical of AGW and that is not what we're referring to. "Refuter" or "rejecter" might be better but those are somewhat clumsy words for some reason. I would still hold that you "deny" that AGW is real in the face of the greater scientific body of evidence, where the other side "believes" the science behind AGW is correct. I honestly think "AGW denier" and "AGW believer" are the most accurate terms for anyone who is not an active publishing scientist if the field of climate science. I don't think "advocate" is a good term either. No one "advocates" for AGW, the same as no one "denies" climate. -
chris at 02:53 AM on 4 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June, 2010 Kinnard et al. (2008) have used historical and contemporary records of sea ice to reconstruct an Arctic sea ice record (maximum and minimum extent) since 1870. Both the maximum and minimum sea ice extents were considerably larger during the early warming period (e.g. 1910-1940) compared to the contremporary warming period (see Figure 2 of their paper if you can access it). It simply wasn't as warm in the Arctic in the early part of the 20th century as now and the evidence indicates that sea ice regression was much less pronounced than the contemporary period. And we have to be careful with regional effects. The Spitzbergen temperature/ice variations that Arkadiusz referred to relates to a quite well understood local effect due to periodic influx of Atlantic waters into the Nordic seas, as described by Macias Fauria et al (2009). So if one was to assume that historic sea ice dynamics around Spitzbergen was representative of the whole Arctic, one might indeed construct a fallacious AGW theory. However scientists (as opposed to Moncktons!) are trying to find stuff out. Therefore they generally address the evidence in its entirety and with some attention to detail. So all of what we know about the warming in the early part of the 20th century is incorporated in "a workable AGW theory", some of which is described briefly on this thread here. We don't make stuff up to suit comfy scenarios. As the paper that Arkadiusz's extracted from concludes the evidence indicates that "...the Arctic is on its way to a new warmer state".
Prev 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 Next
