Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 Next
Comments 12251 to 12300:
-
John Hartz at 04:43 AM on 22 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Recommended supplemental reading:
Ocean warming speeds vary with depth by Tim Radford, Climate Home, Jan 10, 2019
It's chock full of embedded references to scientific findings on the subject matter.
-
MA Rodger at 01:21 AM on 22 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Sunspot @11,
The GISTEMP graphic @4 is a month's average not a single day. Were there no budget dispute running in the US, I would consider examining US state temperature data to see how unusual this East Coast cold spot actually is, but the child on Pennsylvania Ave is still in tantrum mode & NOAA data is off-line.
As for your question which I paraphrase - 'What would we be seeing if Global Environmental collapse were happening?' That would likely depend on what you mean by "Global Environmental collapse."
And while you insist The IPCC "don't specify what (twelve years left) really means," the IPCC SR15 does make clear what it expects in 12 years - a 45% cut in carbon emissions relative to 2010. And this is required, they say, to "limit warming to 1.5°C" and provide analysis of what exceeding such a warming would result in.
-
MA Rodger at 23:41 PM on 21 January 2019Sea level is not rising
bArt @17,
I wouldn't say (as @18) that the short essay by Lilly Li you cite is "incorrect." Rather it is saying (although not very well) that the surface ocean waters are well mixed while lower depths below this mixed layer require circulation to spread the warming. Circulation is a slower process.
Perhaps it would be worth explaining that the bottom of the ocean is 'cooled' rather than 'warmed'. You will be familiar with the high temperatures in the Earth's core. Puddled over the majority of the Earth's surface are the oceans & above that is an atmosphere with a temperature averaging 15ºC. Yet the ocean depths, sandwiched between the molten Earth's core and the sun-warmed atmosphere, are only just above freezing. (Until recently there was parts below 0ºC but reportedly this is disappearing.) So the only way the bottom of the ocean can be so cold is because something is keeping it cold. And that is salty cold water from the poles that tumbles down into the abyss.
Under AGW, the cooling of the ocean depths is less and the warming of the ocean surface is greater. So the whole ocean is warming. A quick look at OHC data shows the 600m ocean layer below the top 100m level (which contains the mixed layer) is warming at a third the rate of the surface 100m layer. Deeper down, the 700-to-2,000m layer is warming a sixth as quick as the surface 100m (these calculated from 1955-2013).
-
Sunspot at 22:18 PM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
As usual, everyone just wants to argue. Well, it's the internet...
I wasn't born yesterday. I have never seen anything like sleet at 14 degrees. When it is that cold - it snows!. Every time! Yes, of course, there was a warm layer meltng the precipitation on the way down. I get that.
And I certainly did not say that it was 'impossible". Obviously not. And anyone paying attention to the weather yesterday knows that this was not just in Manchester, NH, it was a widespread phenomenon all over the Northeast. Very low temps, but still sleet or even freezing rain. Not impossible, but very, very unusual. I'd bet that, if you showed what happened yesterday to any meteorologist thirty years ago, they would have said that storm was so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. Nearly.
@MA Roger - Great map. One day. One day is weather. Climate is not shown on a map of one day's weather. The cold air detaching from the Pole to this extent and remaining so far south for so long, and how frequently this sort of thing is happening in the past couple of decades, is an obvious consequence of Global Warming. Sure looks like a major slowdown in the thermohaline circulation to me.
The question I was trying to ask was: If the Global Environment was collapsing before our very eyes, what would we be seeing? In other words - explain to me how what we are seeing is NOT ongoing Global Environmental collapse? Because I think that it is. And it is accelerating. The simple fact that 75% of the insect population has died off provides strong evidence right there.
Here's the thing - IPCC says we have twelve years left. They don't specify what that really means. Wise. I say they are overly optimistic, and I maintain evidence is "on my side". I feel like I know too much. I just go along with my day, but I think it is highly likely that the humans don't have much time left. And honestly, I don't talk about it because the last thing I want is for people to understand that the way I understand it. I claim no superior mental stability, but I know most people can't handle the concept that most life can be extinguished on this planet within a few years. Let's be kind and say a decade. I don't want people to know that. Enjoy what time is left. My only suggestion is this: if there is something on your bucket list you are planning for five years from now, and you can do it next year, move up your plans.
So there's my little rant. I just wanted to point out the contrasting weather at opposite ends of the planet. I enjoy the discussions here about the problems we face in 2300. It means that, even here, nobody really gets the full nature of the problem. But that's OK... keep vapin' the Hopium...
Moderator Response:[DB] Promoting doom (snipped) is unhelpful.
-
michael sweet at 21:52 PM on 21 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Hi bArt,
Your source of information is incorrect. There is a circulation into the deep ocean from both poles where cold surface water sinks all the way to the bottom of the ocean. This sinking water circulates around the world (on the bottom) and then re-emerges at other locations like the coast of Chile. Wikipedia thermohaline circulation explaination. I learned about the thermohaline circulation 50 years ago, it is not news to scientists.
The circulation in the ocean has been modeled. Recent data has shown that scientists underestimated the amount of heat that has been transferred into the deep ocean and the warming is worse than expected. It is typical for scientists to underestimate warming because they are conservative.
It is easy to raise quesitons about AgW if you ignore what scientists understand. I recommend that you stop wasting your time on skeptic disinformation.
-
bArt17240 at 17:05 PM on 21 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Hi, doubting thomas is back again. This website https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/LilyLi.shtml states "There is a barrier between the surface water and deeper layers of the ocean that are not mixed. The barrier begins around 100 meters and can extend another few hundred meters downwards. There is a thermo cline meaning there is a quick change in temperature when entering the deeper surface of water. A CTD (Conductivity, Temperature and Depth) instrument (usually placed in the water from a ship or a platform) measures temperature in the deep ocean. Recordings have shown that the average temperature of water ranges from 0-3 degrees Celsius (32–37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)."
This to me means that only the upper levels of the ocean are being warmed and are therefore only expanding over a fraction of their volume. Has this been modelled anywhere that anyone knows about?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:53 PM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
NigelJ is right. Freezing rain happens when there is a temperature inversion, which is common when a warm front overtakes a cold air mass in the winter. It often starts with snow, then sleet, followed by freezing rain. It obviously indicates that the temperature at higher altitude is above freezing. I certainly would not believe that this is an impossibility anywhere in NH, nor is a temperature of -10 degrees C.
The average low for January in Manchester is 12 degrees Farenheit, lower than the temperature of this event according to Sunspot. Nothingburger. Just another example of "it snowed so there is no global warming" nonsense.
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/manchester/new-hampshire/united-states/usnh0361
-
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
OK, I see - 14F didnt mean much to me, but -10C makes it clear. Ed Hummel gives a pretty useful explanation here.
-
nigelj at 12:45 PM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
I didn't think rain could form and fall at subzero temperatures. I'm not a physics expert by a long way, but this seems self evident. So perhaps Manchester just had a thin layer of sub zero air near the ground, and the rain shot straight through this?
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Sunspot, you say "Which pretty much should be impossible, but here it is".
Why do you say that? Why should it be impossible?
-
william5331 at 04:25 AM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Australia bakes and they still burn coal instead of using solar panels. Perhaps lying around on the beach has cooked their brains.
-
LFC at 04:24 AM on 21 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
I ran into these two posts over at RealClimate. It appears that Dr. Ray Bates needs to be added to the list of climate misinformers. A rebuttal filled with debunked science is standard fare for the denialist community but attacking an investigation (that cleared the scientist who was attacked with false accusations) that was under your own leadership without disclosing this little fact is a level of mendacity that should disquality him from ever being allowed any near respectable institution involved in science.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/noaa-thing-burger-officially-confirmed/
-
John Hartz at 03:54 AM on 21 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
@ Norm Rubin #82
Here's one response to pseudo-science poppycock written by Paul Homewood and posted on the GWPF website:
GWPF’s “Incoherent” Climate Reports Misrepresent IPCC; Chairman’s Resignation Unrelated, ClimateDenierRoundup, DailyKos, Jan 18, 2019
-
mayur126 at 03:17 AM on 21 January 2019Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
DEFINITION OF GREENHOUSE EFFECT
The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, which helps to keep the earth’s surface warm and that is why life on earth is possible.What is Greenhouse Effect ? is a simplequestion I thought
-
MA Rodger at 23:10 PM on 20 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Sunspot @3,
The map below shows temperature from November so a couple of month's old. (A more recent version is delayed, likely because of that tantrum from the child on Pennsylvania Ave.) Yet, despite Nov 2018 being the =5th warmest November on record, the NE US is looking decidedly chilly (as it also had in October 2018). From what you say, it will still be in place in January but is that anything more than weather? How does it compare with past cold winters?
-
Sunspot at 22:34 PM on 20 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
I just have to point out that at the same time it is now 14 degrees F in Manchester NH with sleet and freezing rain. Which pretty much should be impossible, but here it is. It is going to be like that all day across much of New Hampshire. Maybe all this is just bad weather. What would global environmental collapse look like anyway?
-
Riduna at 18:26 PM on 20 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
In Australia, a series of heatwaves have pushed land surface temperatures to new highs. A consequence of this in western NSW has been that the water temperature of the Menindee Lakes has risen which, combined with an algae bloom and lack of water flow due to drought and maladministration, caused oxygen levels in the water to plummet. The result: over a million fish died.
A lot of excuses and pious words from politicians and water consumers but the devastation is ongoing as successive heatwaves in summer produce new record highs.
This time its only fish casualties. Future temperature rises could produce human fatalities. That might jog government into doing something about global warming. Nothing else seems to have worked.
-
braintic at 16:22 PM on 20 January 2019IPCC admits global warming has paused
As this presentation shows, even the UAH data shows that there was no pause in warming:
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
michael sweet at 10:01 AM on 20 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin,
Can you link the article you are talking about so we can find it?
-
Norm Rubin at 09:47 AM on 20 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Sorry, rookie error. I refreshed the page to see if anything had changed and my browser entered my post again. And I don't see how to delete the duplicate.
Moderator Response:[DB] While the moderators usually notice, should it happen again just ask for the duplicate to be removed.
-
nigelj at 09:07 AM on 20 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #3
Regarding the psychology today article on the reasons for climate denial. It makes some good points, but imho is full of strawmen and this makes it even harder to motivate people to do something. Eg:
"One reason for the refusal to accept the reality of climate change is what is called “motivated interference,” ..... this can include a general unease with large government projects that are expensive and interfere with individuals’ lives."
I dont see hard evidence of general unease. The majority accept social security programmes, pensions, governments owning some infrastructure so why would climate programmes be different? The unease seems more to be with some small government leaning groups and businesses with a particularly hard line attitude.
"We can grasp a potential calamity if we know it is made up and will be okay in an hour and a half. But we resist when that calamity is real, will be spread out over decades, and is of catastrophic proportions that can only be averted if we change almost everything about the way we live. Stop driving your car, eating meat, and flying in planes, we are told. "
We are not being asked to change almost everything about how we live or to stop driving our cars etc. We are being asked to make commonsense and moderate cut backs to consumption.
So why aren't people taking more action in their personal lives and lobbying politicians harder? Well some reasons are the denialist campaign has obviously worn people down as the article infers, and its obviously true that making changes to our lives is hard work. But here are a couple of things I think the articles misses:
1) We do resist action if the calamity is real and spread over decades, but this is because we are genetically programmed to respond to short terms threats rather than long term threats. Our adrenal system kicks in more with short to medium term threats, so we may intellectually conceptualise long term threats but our motivational system is effectively asleep.
However imho awareness of this problem is how we can combat the problem.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483
2) I think it's a leadership issue ultimately. Human beings are followers. Governments need to lead and only governments and business can create a modern renewable energy grid. People might feel there is not huge point individuals making huge sacrifices until governments get these basics right and look like they mean business, and so far transforming the grid has been very slow.
Yes of course we as individuals can and should do all we can to reduce our carbon footprints as well, and not wait for other people and governments to move, but its important to understand the dynamics that are driving the whole issue, and see it in context.
-
Norm Rubin at 07:34 AM on 20 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Did anyone here respond to the recent article in Nature apparently documenting that hurricanes in the US have shown no trend, either in frequency or intensity or (the authors' index of) damage caused?
And while I'm asking, thegwpf.org recently published a compilation of stats on global cyclones that seems to show the same pattern so far globally. (This one NOT peer reviewed or published in maybe the most prestigious scientific journal.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 20 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Many unsustainable and 'harmful to future generations' things are happening related to the fracking activity in the USA:
- The activity was developed after it had been made clear to global leaders (and the entire global population) that rapid curtailing of fossil fuel burning (I add burning after 'fossil fuel' because many people who are difficult to correct incorrectly claim that fossil fuels make plastic), was required to minimize the harm done to future generations. That clear required correction was solidly established by the late 1980s.
- Massive financial gambles have been sunk in the expansion of fracking in attempts to quickly obtain personal benefits from the unsustainable and harmful activity. Some people are getting very rich every year in spite of the growing financial questions about the 'Business viability of the activity'. Important Note Here: The business justification for fracking is undeniably totally contrary to, devoid of being governed by, what is needed to develop a better future for humanity.
- The recent global oil price drop made it clear that something needed to be done to bail-out the bad financial gamblers who continue to personally profit handsomely from the unsustainable and harmful activity that is also financially questionable. Sanctions were reimposed on Iran to limit Iranian oil in the market as part of that bail-out of the Bad Betters, and it was probably helpful for getting the Saudi's to lead an OPEC reduction of production.
- The people who benefited most from the unsustainable harmful activity are also unlikely to suffer the most financially in the future if the massive gambles do not pay off. Some of them may suffer no negative consequences if it all crashes down.
Fracking for Oil and Gas in the USA is like Canada's Oil Sands. As Trudeau stated, what nation would leave a large opportunity for short-term benefit from an understood to be harmful activity in the ground (a stranded asset)?
Good Caring People struggle to be influential enough to get proper corrections of the directions of development, or corrections of what has developed, when undeniably harmful pursuits of benefit are big opportunities for undeserving people to get more undeserved benefit at the expense of the future of humanity.
Anyone wanting to claim they are a Good Caring Person but who is still willing to support anything but the rapid curtailing of the harmful and unsustainable pursuits of benefit from fossil fuel burning will have to be forced to face the reality that they are not Good Caring People, no matter what else they do to try to look like Good Caring People.
That requires serious correction of the developed socioeconomic-political systems/games that are clearly willing to see anything compromised for business/personal interests (especially compromising the future of humanity because none of those people are able to influence the game). And that compromising for profit and popularity becomes a poor excuse for claiming to be a Good Caring Person even though you support an unsustainable harmful belief and action that is contrary to sustainably improving the future for humanity.
Regional temporary unsustainable impressions of popularity and profitability are easy to promote. And that easy appeal to greed (or intolerance) develops impressions that are hard to correct. What gets developed are regional/tribal unjustified impressions of success and superiority relative to Others. An obvious result is the Uniting of greedy people with intolerant people, supporting each other's harmful interests to collectively have more influence relative to the Good Caring People who are not so easy to impress and are trying to correct them and the harmful developed beliefs and actions they want to continue get away with.
Climate science unintentionally exposes how much correction is required of what has developed, including the requirement to correct the developed socioeconomic-political systems.
-
MA Rodger at 22:40 PM on 19 January 2019Sea level is not rising
@15, I had intended to add a more realistic SLR for a 10ºC increase in global temperature.
IPCC AR5 Figure 13.14 (below, minus caption) shows SLR obtained from physical model simulations resulting from themal expansion (a&f), glaciers (b&g), Greenland ice cap(c&h), Antarctica ice cap (d&i) & Total (e&j) at equilibrium (LH column) & after 2,000 (RH column).
Thus a 10ºC increase in global temperature would more realistically see a 4.2m SLR from thermal expansion, reduced by 35mm due to greater evaporation.
-
MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 19 January 2019Sea level is not rising
bArt @14,
The volume of the ocean water is 1,388M cu km and water has a Coefft of Thermal Expansion of 0.000214. So a universal 10ºC temperature would increase ocean volume by 2.8M cu km, enough to raise the 361Msq km oceans by 7.9m. (This is entirely hypothetical so accuracy is of little consequence.)
The atmospheric water totals 12,900 cu km. An increase from 10ºC to 20ºC would roughly double the saturation vapour pressure. Thus increased humidity in the atmosphere would (assuming constant Relative Humidity) reduce the increased ocean volume by some 13,000 cu km (~0.5%) and the multi-metre SLR by 36mm. It would be a brave man who described this reduction as "a lot."
-
william5331 at 15:35 PM on 19 January 2019Our oceans broke heat records in 2018 and the consequences are catastrophic
Aw comon guys. If you are going to present a graph, label the X and Y axis and include units.
-
bArt17240 at 13:02 PM on 19 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Thank-you! I am a skeptic of the best kind (one who can accept incontrovertible evidence) and you answers have sure gone a long way.
I calculated myself the expansion factor for 10 deg. (10 to 20) on the entire vol. of the oceans.
Avg. Depth calc done by dividing the surface area at 10 deg. 361740000.0000000000 by the Ocean Vol. 1350000000.0000000000
Doing the same calc at 20 deg. Vol. is then 1352015107.0416000000
Avg. depth at 10 deg C. 3.7319621828
Avg. depth at 20 deg C. 3.7375327778
Difference in Kms. 0.0055705950 or 5.57 metres!
The area that interests me now is the amount of water in vapour that the entire atmosphere can hold for the same amount of warming of the oceans. (10 to 20 deg.) I peronally believe it is a lot and possibly could create equilibrium for the expansion factor of the oceans vol.
Moderator Response:[PS] Go for it, but if you think evaporation is offsetting thermal expansion, then you cannot close the water budget - the observed level of sealevel rise cannot be accounted for by observed loss of ice. What is so hard to accept about direct measurement of sealevel rise? Atmospheric water vapour and water vapour equilibrate very quickly. Observed change in water vapour in atmosphere matches the expectation from temperature rise.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 19 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
David Kirtley @11,
Thanks for pointing to that DeSmog article.
The quote of Bethany McLean at the end is right on target.
To achieve the economic corrections required to minimize the harm done to the future of humanity it is important to get all of the wealthiest and most influential to be more dedicated to leading the required correction.
Anyone among the wealthy and influential who isn't as helpful as they could be needs to be publicly called-out and corrected (by the other wealthy and influential who expose the unacceptability of their peers as part of their helpful actions). And the ones who can be shown to be acting harmfully should be penalized (the developed 'honour among thieves - mutually excusing understandably harmful actions' will need to be exposed and broken).
-
David Kirtley at 03:24 AM on 19 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Here is another DeSmog article about this: Fracked Shale Oil Wells Drying Up Faster than Predicted, Wall Street Journal Finds.
It has a quote from this book's author in the last paragraph.
-
redhot at 22:24 PM on 18 January 2019Climate negotiations made me terrified for our future
"Thank you for your honest apology and participation a SkpSci"
I second that. That's really gracious of you, Axel.
-
Elmwood at 16:47 PM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Not to belabor this point, but there are some references online from the USGS that estimate mean EUR (estimated ultimate recovery) of shale oil wells from U.S. shale oil basins (2013--a little dated). What's interesting is the amount of oil estimated to be produced on a per well basis: thier mean EURs range from 240,000 to 10,000 barrels of oil (BO). For comparison, a good conventional well typlcally produces about 10,000,000 BO within 15 years or so. At $50/bbl, it would require at least 200,000 BO to just cover the capital cost to drill and complete the well. This doesn't consider all costs associated with drilling but it at least gives you an understanding of why this looks uneconomic (also, these wells have a much steeper decline in production than conventional and are put on pump within a 1 to 3 years tops. If they don't make their money back in the first couple years of production it's probably uneconomic). According to the USGS, only the sweetest spots have EURs greater than 200,000 BO.
Also, something else to consider is that what makes these unconventionals so appealing for industry to develop is the low geologic risk; typically a rank wildcat worldwide has at most a 10-20% chance of flowing hydrocarbons to the surface. These unconventional wells are probably greater than 90% chance of geologic success.
What all this obviously means is that oil development is being pushed out to the limits, either technological or enviromental, because the low hanging fruit so to speak has been picked. It's painfully obvious how wasteful this whole industry is, in terms of resources, both human and natural, to keep us addicted to oil. It's completely unsustainable.
-
Oriondestiny at 12:15 PM on 18 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
I live in a place where in the last 6 years seen temperatures as high as 104F in the summer and as low as -24 in the winter. That is a temperature differnce of 128° F. I and millions of others have no choice but to adapt to every 6 months.
How much has the average temperature rose in the last 50 years? 0.75° C? No wonder I see no difference when I walk outside. When I say it's the same old spring, summer, fall and winter, it's because it is. Honeslty, 1.35 F average in the last 50 years. That is not climate changing. Too bad for you.
I have no concern on the issue of climate change as most people don't. Maybe some day there will be some real scientist who can study this subject without bias. At this point, No. As of now, I don't see any difference between this and any other religion.
The reason I call this a religion is because of the bickering between those who are for and those against. As an escapee of religion, these types of arguments are very familiar. Also the way pro climate change people talk of "non believers" is exact to the talk I've heard in church of those of other religons... exact.
Religion and climate science is no different than any other business. It is designed to separate people from their money. I ask, "Why is it soooo important I buy into climate change and all this belief man kind is dangerously raising the earths temperature?" Why? It's to justify taxing me for the air I breath. That simple. It is designed to separate me from my money by taxing energy via "Carbon Tax".
The conservatives are right. This is a scam. It's all about money and the people who are really going to be hurt by this are the poor.
Delete this if you'd like.
Moderator Response:[PS] Ignoring comments policy and moderator directions will not get you an audience. Nor is wilful ignorance. This site has many resources to answer your points, look, learn and contradict only if you have supporting evidence.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
ubrew12 at 10:05 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
The fracking industry keeps focusing on its product volume, rather than whether it is profitable or not. What if its intentionally unprofitable? If so, what would be the purpose? What's the purpose of losing money to keep fossil fuel costs intentionally low? One result is socialist Venezuela has gone under, and is now being snapped up by the Putin mafia on the cheap. Keep in mind, due to sanctions, the Putin mafia hasn't been able to sell its Siberian assets as easily, so the US 'fracking bubble', and its effect in (apparently) lowering fuel costs, hasn't hurt Putin as badly. When the bubble pops, and all those Americans who went back to buying pickup trucks and SUV's start having to pay the real cost of driving, guess who makes bank? Of course, the Putin mafia does. But, collaterally, anyone the Putin mafia controls...
-
MA Rodger at 07:55 AM on 18 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan Joppich @12,
You are entirely wrong to suggest that the graphic you linked to (below) was the work of Bob Carter. (Even an image he does use is attributed to others & not his work. See image here of graph photographed at a Bob Carter talk which is derived from Davis & Bohling (2001).)
You are rather naive in believing that a google search will yield a Bob-Carter-created graphic of Holocene ice-core tempoerature records. And if you had bothered to read the description of the graph on the web-page you linked-to, you would know it is not a plot reconstructed from Greenland ice-core data and has zero Bob Carter authorship.
And your naivity must be ridiculously great to think any would believe that you "didn't even read whatever the article was on the page" when @8 you have reproduced two (almost) full paragraphs from that very page word-for-word.
Moderator Response:[PS] I find that MA Rodgers is correct and Dan is both copy/pasting without acknowledgement and denying that he read the artcle that he was pasting from. If Dan is not prepared to comment here in good faith, then posting rights will be rescinded.
Furthermore, this discussion is offtopic for this article. If Dan wishes to defend his statement, then "Climate's changed before" myth would be more appropriate.
-
Dan Joppich at 07:00 AM on 18 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
First, the graph was created and presented by Professor Carter from his scientific research and not blog fodder. Second, I couldn't get a good link to the graph so I found it there in a 10 second Google search. I didn't even read whatever the article was on the page, have never been there before, and will never go there again since I will have no reason to ever go there anyway. Thank you for following up on it for me, though. With that said, It doesn't change the scientific data results. Third, why is data take from core samples in Greenland any different from a graph of core sample data taken from Antarctica? Neither presents worldwide data but that doesn't make one right and one wrong. Data can't be right or wrong. It's just data. In reality, if superimposed, I think that the data from both might aline pretty closely so it seems that they each back up the other's results. Fourth, linking your evaluation of Professor Carter to a blog post on your own website is bad form. Don't bother finding other sites unless it makes you feel good. Fifth, based on my research of this site - created by somebody who is "not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade" who watched An Inconvenient Truth and was inspired - I don't think anybody here is in a position to criticize any websites. Lastly, taking a 20,000 year graph and drawing a red line straight up into the near future to prove some point, doesn't seem like skeptical or any other kind of science to me. I was interested in having a conversation about the data and this is supposed to be a safe place to have a dialogue. I never in anything I posted here made any presuppositions about anybody's position on the subject. It was only about the data.
Moderator Response:[DB] "why is data take from core samples in Greenland any different from a graph of core sample data taken from Antarctica? Neither presents worldwide data"
The graphic below is taken from multiple proxies with global coverage, not just ice cores from Antarctica. Note the sources cited on the graphic.
"taking a 20,000 year graph and drawing a red line straight up into the near future to prove some point, doesn't seem like skeptical or any other kind of science to me"
As you noted yourself ("It's just data"), data is data. The instrumental temperature record is data. The proxy records are data. If you have a legitimate reason to question the inclusion of data from being considered, bring your reasoning and credible sources for support of them. Simply not liking the implications is not a reason.
"the graph was created and presented by Professor Carter from his scientific research"
Actually, your graphic is a product of the work of Robert Rohde, not Bob Carter. This is easily revealed by the use of TinEye and the like.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
nigelj at 04:58 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
OPOF @7, the fracking investors definitely look like they are gambling on something, because nothing else explains their activities, but its unusual to me because gambling on a big new find seems so implausible. The big finds have already been made, and are struggling to be profitable. There are simply not going to be huge new fields and even if there were its hard to see why they would be more profitable than existing fields. Any institutional investor would look at this, and the financial accounts.
I can only conclude, or rather speculate that the investors have lost their minds and are in a fantasy world driven by the motives you mention. They are clearly very susceptible to marketing hype.
The profit motive is a powerful force that motivates innovation, but imho it is like a drug, and if its negative consequnces are not corrected and legislated for, it overtakes people completely.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
nigelj @5,
Your point about potential government subsidies is as good one. And it relates to the Gambling Addict version of what motivates the Fracking.
Business interests can try to "Protect their interests and reduce their perceptions of risk of loss" by becoming popular and profitable enough to make elected representatives reluctant to correct the unsustainable and harmful activities. Those elected officials may even be motivated to incorrectly compensate the Biggest Gamblers for their loses. And they can be motivated to incorrectly promote the harmful unsustainable activity, including allowing more freedom for environmental impacts or increased risk of 'accidental' harm (less of an accident when less is done to prevent an accident, because doing less about an accident is cheaper - making the investment more appealing to the Gambling Addicts).
Potentially popular and profitable, but understandably unsustainable and harmful, activity can even encourage people who are trying to win or maintain power to deliberately mislead the regional or national population in support of regional or national actions that are undeniably harmful to the future of humanity (actions that are contrary to achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals). And people who have incorrectly developed small self-interested worldviews can be expected to like to be misled that way.
The responses to climate science dramatically expose how damaging the developed socioeconomic-political systems are. The systems encourage people to become smaller-minded self-interested gambling addicts.
A Gambling Addict loses the ability to think about others or the future. They get stuck in a smaller world-view because of their desperation to Win Big playing in a game where they could Lose it all and can do massive damage to others as they are losing it. And they can be expected to angrily fight against being corrected. They have no interest in minimizing the harm they do to others, particularly to the future of humanity.
The fracking addicts, and other fossil fuel addicts, will fight for the Right to do environmental harm. They will claim that the regional monetary benefits justify doing environmental harm. And they expect that once they get away with doing something they will not get corrected. Even in environmentally leading California, older oil operations continue operating very incorrectly, not required to meet new requirements imposed on new operations, as long as very few influential people are concerned about how the employment or government revenue from such operations is obtained.
And it is real easy to get regional popular support for incorrect unsustainable harmful activity like fracking when most of the harm is done to Others (the entire global population, especially those irrelevant future generations). It can be even easier if people can incorrectly develop a perception that the supposed harm they are doing will be personally beneficial. People in a place like Alberta may easily believe that warming the planet will reduce how harsh their winter is and improve the growing season in their region during their lifetime. And personal benefit in their lifetime is all that the small worldview they have been encouraged to develop leads them to care about.
Those poorly governed, harmfully Freer, socioeconomic-political games can be seen to develop powerful resistance to helpful correction of incorrect perceptions of popularity and profitability. The result is undeserved wealth and power being obtained by getting away with unsustainable and harmful activity that is defended by claiming to care about local employment or local government revenue.
The populist propagandist know what they promote will not continue to be a benefit in the future. But the few hoping to benefit most will fight relentlessly for more freedom to do unsustainable harmful things. And they will fight to keep as much of the undeserved benefit they can get away with (not paying to fully properly clean up the mess they make - leaving as much harmful mess for others have to deal with as they can get away with).
And those people with incorrectly developed small worldviews will definitely try to claim that climate science is incorrect. And they will be easily impressed by any of the many incorrectly made-up criticisms of climate science and the required corrections of what has developed that climate science has so clearly exposed. They will willingly support fracking if they sense a potential personal benefit.
-
Axel Schubert at 03:20 AM on 18 January 2019Climate negotiations made me terrified for our future
@ClimateAdam: I apologize for my comment and for presuming, you were flying. I was badly informed. Congratulations to get there on ground :-) As someone who quit flying more than 20 years ago, I judged indeed emotionally and just too fast (presuming you came from Down Under ;-) )
Sorry again.Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you for your honest apology and participation a SkpSci.
-
gws at 01:29 AM on 18 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Thanks for the comments guys. I like the "Gambing Addict" analogy.
McLean does speak to the "instability" of it often, and the collapse between 2015 and 2017 is the obvious example for that. In her interviews she stresses the uncertainty, and possibility of rapid change should financing dry up for whatever reason. She may have even used the word "gamble".
Alas, good point about long-term issues with orphan wells ... while questions about current, and future, legacy wells have come up in academia, I do not think anybody in the industry cares about what happens when they are "done". Current law only requires a (cement) plug of the well, and surface site restoration, not any type of monitoring.
-
nigelj at 13:10 PM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
I've had a better read of the articles. I agree with MS. It doesnt look to me like fracking is terribly profitable as of yet, and this can't be sustained indefinitely, even suckers of investors will have their limits, so the whole thing looks unstable. However the government might decide to subsidise major problems to try to ensure energy independence, but who knows.
Fracking has certainly had some substantial subsidies form the tax payer already.
-
michael sweet at 10:43 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
I read both articles. Fracking is a complicated industry and it is difficult for outsiders (like me) to get a grip on what is happening.
The Desmog blog post claimed that frackers have never made money. They suggested that executives should be paid for profits and not for production.
The other post talked entirely about production. They did not mention profit. They did a long calculation about how much oil might be produced. They did not calculate what price per barrel of oil was required to make a profit, although they had the data to make that calculation.
It will be interesting to see how this scheme pans out. Hopefully it will result in lower oil production in the end. It is becoming common to see progressives comment that fracking is a Ponzi scheme.
-
nigelj at 10:27 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
OPOF @ 2, yes and the defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme is it is fraudulent, and I dont think the fracking fits that definition, or they would have been prosecuted. Instead I think they have taken on some "ponzi like characteristics", and were also getting like a speculative bubble. Risky business I would say.
-
MA Rodger at 09:57 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan Joppich @8 is cutting-&-pasting comment from this denialist web-page which is why the Wikipedia holocene temperature graphic he provides link-to is being wrongly attributed to Bob Carter. Also the cutting-&-pasting failed to transfer a link within the comment, the link to Willard Watts's other website. Apparently, familiarity with this other website is assumed @AmericanThinker.com.
Moderator Response:[PS] One of the most ironically named websites out there.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:11 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Fracking probably does not exactly fit the way a Ponzie Scheme operates (the top players profit from luring lower players into the game and so on and so on - collapsing when not enough new suckers can be found).
What is happening with fracking can be understood from a business management reality called 'Sunk Costs'.
Sunk Costs are payments made that cannot be reversed. With fracking, the costs to get a well producing cannot be reversed. The requirement becomes maximizing the revenue from the well, even if it will be a net-loss, it will be 'less of a loss'.
Rather than calling it a Ponzie Scheme, I would compare it to a Gambling Addict who keeps placing bets they are likely to lose in the hopes of 'The Big Win'. That Sinking Costs chasing a Big Win is sort of like a Ponzie Scheme. It cannot go on indefinitely. And like a Ponzie Scheme, someone is likely to profit handsomely in ways that cannot be fully reverserd or corrected (any penalty seldom removes all of the enjoyment or wealth collection by the undeserving winners before they lost the ability to continue to Win that Way).
A serious question has to be how is the full proper clean-up going to be paid for. In Alberta there is a massive problem of Orphan Wells, wells no longer owned by anyone who will be sure to pay to properly clean them up.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:52 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
"And, although looking at the past 2,000 years, we see several warming periods (Roman, Medieval), overall, cooling occurred at an even faster rate. Significantly, the last 700 years, which includes the historically colder Little Ice Age (LIA), brought even faster cooling and then warming coming out of the LIA into the Modern Late 20th-Century Warm Period"
Let's look at the global temperatures reconstructed from proxies over that interval:
"Scientists have concluded that over the last 10,000 years, the temp is relatively flat...The graph was created based on Greenland ice core data by the late paleoclimatologist, Professor Bob Carter"
Why would you think that a temperature reconstruction from Greenland, a regional-to-local record, would have any meaning for the rest of the globe?
Let's look at the global temperatures reconstructed from proxies over the past 20,000 years, for context:
For fun, here's the same over the past 800,000 years:
For more on Bob Carter, see here.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Dan, you do realize that multi-decade temperature oscillations occur because of changes to net forcing? They are not internal variability. The forcings at work during previous warm and cold periods are not at play now. You must look at all the factors affecting climate (solar, albedo, aerosols and GHG) when attempting attribution.
-
Dan Joppich at 05:31 AM on 17 January 2019Climate Carbon Bookkeeping
Thanks. This is very cool stuff. I haven't had a chance to read it thoughtfully due to my day job demands but I was curious about how this graph plotting temp data since the last glacial period (sorry, I couldn't figure out how to insert it here) . Scientists have concluded that over the last 10,000 years, the temp is relatively flat. Here's the link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The graph was created based on Greenland ice core data by the late paleoclimatologist, Professor Bob Carter.
It seems that over the past 10,000 years, we've seen warming and cooling oscillate within a range of +/- 2.5 degrees Celsius (D.C.). The rate today using satellite data (if you're familiar with Anthony Watts's other website, you know that nothing else will do) is 1.5 D.C./century, which is right within the Holocene averages.
And, although looking at the past 2,000 years, we see several warming periods (Roman, Medieval), overall, cooling occurred at an even faster rate. Significantly, the last 700 years, which includes the historically colder Little Ice Age (LIA), brought even faster cooling and then warming coming out of the LIA into the Modern Late 20th-Century Warm Period.
Of course, this data needs to be superimposed onto the CO2 data to be truly comparable to the conversation here, but it does narrow down our range to a possibly more relevant period in human history.
-
nigelj at 05:26 AM on 17 January 2019Book Review: Saudi America
Desmog blog have an article here arguing fracking is a ponzi scheme. Here is another article here arguing fracking isnt a ponzi scheme.
I find it hard to know, and have only skimmed the articles out of curiosity, might read them fully later, but one thing is for sure, it looks pretty highly leveraged.
Perhaps the more important consideration is the destructive effects of fracking on the environment. This is not just climate change, but local water table pollution, and it causes mini earthquakes. Although the fracking of gas did at least help displace coal.
There is also the question of how long the oil it will last. The EIA is saying production won't peak until 2040, other researches here believe this is over optimistic. Either way 2040 is not that far into the future. So everything is being pinned on a resource with only a few decades of supply left before it starts to get run down.
-
SirCharles at 01:29 AM on 17 January 2019New findings on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
Goes hand in hand with a recent publication in Nature
=> Global warming will happen faster than we think
-
michael sweet at 23:27 PM on 16 January 2019Record snowfall disproves global warming
Molsen,
This copy of the graph Daniel Bailey posted on another thread yesterday shows that spring snow extent has decreased for decades. Your "dozen years" includes the lowest ever measured snow extent. It is clearly a blatant cherry pick starting after snow extent collapsed.
The Rutgers snow lab also has winter and fall graphs"
fall:
I see little winter change while fall is increasing. It appears that the additional atmospheric water is causing increasing snowfall when it is cold in spite of the fact that temperatures have increased.
According to this peer reviewed article (written by a Rutgers scientist):
"Annual snowfall is projected to decrease across much of the Northern Hemisphere during the twenty-first century, with increases projected at higher latitudes. On a seasonal basis, the transition zone between negative and positive snowfall trends corresponds approximately to the −10°C isotherm of the late twentieth-century mean surface air temperature, such that positive trends prevail in winter over large regions of Eurasia and North America. Redistributions of snowfall throughout the entire snow season are projected to occur—even in locations where there is little change in annual snowfall. Changes in the fraction of precipitation falling as snow contribute to decreases in snowfall across most Northern Hemisphere regions, while changes in total precipitation typically contribute to increases in snowfall."
It appears that the observed changes in snowfall are what scientists expected in advance.
I find it striking that two different new posters mention snow extent. Did WUWT have a snow article this week?
Prev 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 Next
