Recent Comments

Prev  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  Next

Comments 25451 to 25500:

25451. sjw40364 at 10:23 AM on 10 February 2016
       Other planets are warming
       

       And yet the earth has been undergoing heating for the last 25,000 years with no help from man at all. And every approximately 100,000 years it does the same thing its doing now. As a matter of fact a better case could be made that the CO2 has kept this planet from reaching the highs of past warming events. Because despite the effects of CO2 this temperature cycle is less than any of the past events.

       http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png

       
       It's nothing new - has been going on for as long as this earth has existed - and will continue to go up and down regardless of what we choose to do. As a matter of fact you all better hope man can affect the temperature on the planet - because ignoring what happens after every 100,000 year heating cycle is over won't change what happens.

       But talk to me in 10 years about how man is heating up the earth, bet you'll be wearing long johns and claiming global warming did it.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Your comment is way off topic. Please comment on an appropriate thread, such as the rebuttal to "It's a Natural Cycle." Anyone who wants to respond, please do so on that thread, not this one.

25452. Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Hank @20, the difference you note is an artifact of the fact that the raw data only extends to 2014, while the adjusted data is shown to 2015.  On the last year on which both can be directly compared, the difference between raw and adjusted is not noticably different from other recent years.

25453. Hank11198 at 08:51 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       I am not a sceptic and I accept what the climate scientists are saying. But it appears the last year of the first graph shows a pretty substantial difference between the adjusted and raw data whereas everything else past around 1950 looks pretty close. In fact it looks like around 0.4 degrees. Also the dashed line showing the adjustments doesn’t seem to reflect this. Can someone explain what I am missing?

25454. Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 10 February 2016
       Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
       

       Tom Dayton @34, the plot in the comment to which you link is of one set of radiosonde data (RATPAC A), two versions of reanalysis (ERAi, and NCEP/NCAR) , and two satellite records.

25455. John Hartz at 06:26 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Supplemental reading:

       New Study: Yup, Thermometers Do Show Global Warming Is Real by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Slate, Feb 9, 2016

25456. Kevin C at 05:53 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Rob, knaugle:

       I'm afraid the 'HadCRUT3 unadjusted' dataset at WfT is not an unadjusted dataset, despite the name. 'Unadjusted' in this context is in contrast with 'variance adjusted', and describes the method used for blending land and sea temperatures in coastal cells weighting together different observations.

       CRU collect homogenized temperatures from the national weather services so they don't have an unadjusted dataset, unlike NOAA, Berkeley or ISTI. In contrast to NOAA and Berkeley however, that means that the stations are generally manually remediated using local metadata, giving an independent check against the automated methods of NOAA and Berkeley.

25457. Paul Pukite at 04:37 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       So the years 1940 to 1945 are very difficult to reconcile with any kind of model. An El Nino ENSO doesn't come close to being able to compensate for it. The ocean accounts for 70% of the contribution to the signal, and land 30%.  Obviously a correction factor was put into place, but the error bars on this correction have to be significant.

25458. Tom Dayton at 04:10 AM on 10 February 2016
       Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
       

       Olof has found details on radiosonde datasets other than RATPAC. None of them continues past 2013. Usefully, he has plotted them. See his comment at Moyhu.

25459. Tom Dayton at 03:18 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       jmath, the RATPAC-A balloon radiosonde dataset (that Kevin C told you is the hottest year on record) is the only one I've been able to find that is global (i.e., gridded globally) and is up to date through 2015. If you can tell us all what other radiosonde dataset has those necessary characteristics, we'd all be grateful. I've asked in multiple forums, including ones that Christy and Spencer watch and comment on, but so far nobody--nobody--has suggested any other datasets.

25460. John Mason at 02:54 AM on 10 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       Here, in Mid-Wales, the first Lesser Celandines come into flower in February most years. This time round, I photographed their flowers - and those of Red Campion - on December 29th!

25461. Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       knaugle... You're right. I missed the unadjusted HadCRU3. It's interesting to look at the adjusted, unadjusted and HadCRU4 all together.

       jmath should also note that there are specific differences in the coverage of each of the data sets as well. RSS goes from 70S to 82.5N. UAH is I think about the same, but may go down to 82.5S. The surface station data sets also have specific challenges to capturing the poles due to the lack of actual weather stations. So, the regions where we get the most warming are also the places that are hardest to capture the data.

25462. knaugle at 02:12 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       I took jmath's challenge and went to woodfortrees.  The only unadjusted data available is HadCrut3.

       Wood For Trees, HadCrut3 Unadjusted Global

       From this we can see that, yes the period from about 1937 to 1945 were very warm years, however they do not challenge the years from 1998 to present.

       Also, while 14 satellites worth of data sounds great, these are not separate independent sources, but for the rather a series of satellites that measured atmospheric properties since 1979 to produce a single set of data.

       None of this, certainly not the satellite data, and likely not ocean bouys, supports the claim that 1940 challenges anything so far as record warm temperatures is concerned.

25463. Rob Honeycutt at 02:10 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       jmath @8...  Sorry, but you're incorrect about woodfortrees data. All the data sets are adjusted data. All the satellite data is very definitely adjusted, more so that the surface data sets.

       Satellites are also not measuring the same thing as surface stations. They measure the troposphere from the surface up to around 10,000 km, as can be seen here. Surface stations are measuring the air at about 2m on land, and the sea surface of the oceans.

       As far as the satellites not showing the hottest year on record: Well, that's not unexpected since satellite temps lag El Nino by about 6 months. I would wait until around April before making major proclamations on this one.

25464. Kevin C at 02:06 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       jmath: I wonder if you could help me by providing some evidence for a couple of your claims, in particular:

       The unadjusted data like the ... ocean buoy data show for instance the 2015 was not the hottest year on record.

       This claim is puzzling. I'm not aware of Woodfortrees providing a buoy-only dataset. So I went to the raw ICOADS data here and calculated my own, using just the WMO buoys and no adjustments.

       Of course I may have made a mistake, so then I went to the University of Hawaii here, and downloaded their data. This is based on a different and independent set of buoys - the ARGO profiling buoys.

       The results are plotted below:
       

       As you can see, the results from two different sets of buoys calculated by different methods show remarkable agreement. Given that I used the raw WMO buoy data and my own code you can check for yourself that no adjustments were involved.

       Secondly, from the same sentence:

       The unadjusted data like the 14 satellites, the radiosondes ... show for instance the 2015 was not the hottest year on record.

       You seem to be claiming that Woodfortrees includes unadjusted satellite records. However the series up on Woodfortrees are heavily adjusted. The adjustments are documented in the publications of both the UAH and RSS groups, for example here.

       I cannot find any radiosonde data at all on Woodfortrees, however RATPAC-A shows 2015 as the hottest year on record at the surface by a wide margin.

25465. John Hartz at 01:59 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       [JH] Moderator Comment:

       jmath: Your most recent lengthy and rambling post constituted sloganeering and was laced with words in "all caps."  Both are in violation of the SkS Comments Policy and therefore your post was deleted in its entirity.

       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.

25466. scttharding5 at 01:22 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       jmath, check out this record heat wave in India that killed 2,500 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Indian_heat_wave. Or maybe this one that killed 2,000 in Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistan_heat_wave. Or then there is always this record heat wave in Europe in 2015 https://weather.com/forecast/news/europe-heat-wave-record-highs-june-july-2015. Maybe you prefer this record breaking California heat wave http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/29/california-drought-heat-wave-climate-change. This last article also mentions the severe drought causing dustbowl conditions in the southwest. Of course there was also this one http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/05/heat-wave-alaska/, and all of the deadly heat waves mentioned here http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/13/deadly-heat-waves-sweep-globe/.

       I understand that it's hard to find this information, it took me multiple seconds. The idea that a cabal of scientists from around the world are manipulating data is paranoid, but I understand that it's all that climate deniers have left. Climate scientists have already heard, studied, and refuted all scientific claims that AGW is not occurring. They have also heard all the arguments about why it's not dangerous or that it's too expensive to fix, and they are still unwavering in their support for decarbonisation. Therefore, in order to be a denier, you have to believe in a conspiracy.

25467. One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       My thank you for another great post that does an amazing job of more thoroughly explaining the legitimacy of the developing and constantly proving case against the acceptability of burning fossil fuels.

       This post really helps justify the surface temperature record as the most relevant measure of the effect of the added CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

       Other SkS posts point out the major inaccuracies and uncertainties related to the satellite data manipulations to create temperature values of the atmosphere in the 25,000 to 50,000 foot elevation range, way up in the atmosphere, not under all of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

       However, there will always be some who could actually better understand this issue but desire to believe that burning fossil fuels must be OK and as a result will prefer to believe whatever sounds like it suits their interests.

25468. jmath at 00:34 AM on 10 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Okay.  If the first graph were correct there might be a point.  However, this is clearly NOT the correct graph.  This graph does not remove all adjustments.  You can simply go to woodfortrees and look at unadjusted data and adjusted data and it shows the difference is considerably different than the above graph shows.   The unadjusted data like the 14 satellites, the radiosondes and the ocean buoy data show for instance the 2015 WAS NOT the hottest year on record.  The entire graph for all these other datasets is TOTALLY different than the land adjusted record by GISS.  That's simply an indisputable scientific fact.  The data clearly show that for whatever reason the sensible sounding adjustments created by climate scientists who are clearly biased to produce adjustments that don't make them look like idiots make the temperature record into something that the vast majority of people who are say > 40 years old and experienced 1998 or know the history of the 1930 and 40s know that the record adjustments being proposed seriously change history.  You can find my position on this from my blog at :  https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/48-inconvenient-truth-nytimes-lies-2015-wasnt-the-hottest-year-on-record/

        

       I personally believe the case is closed.  The preponderance of the evidence of 14 satellites, radiosonde data, unadjusted climate data, ocean buoys and a new study that shows that 411 perfect stations produce a climate record nearly identical and confirm each other while the GISS adjustments produce massive changes that spike the temperature ever upward in the current years and depress temperatures drastically in the past making the 1930s and 40s which were demonstrably EXTREMELY hot years look like FREEZING years.  The 30s and 40s which set duration of times over 100 records, dustbowls, showed arctic melting that allowed ships to pass the northern passage.  Every record you look at shows the 30s and 40s were or had to be CLOSE to as hot as anything today.   1998 had 15,000 people die in france from a heatwave.  If 2015 was so hot, where are the record heat waves that killed or set records?  The data is clear.  all the data when you don't include the adjustments makes 2015 look rather unimpressive.  The only way you get the flattish line going up from 1880 to 2015 is by applying the apparently craftily constructed adjustments that have been modified 30+ times all to enhance global warming.   A Duke university professor calculated the chances that 30+ adjustments would all be to increase global warming is 1 in more than 1 billion chance of occuring randomly.  That is essentially proof again that it is simply impossible that the GISS adjustments are correct or even close to being correct.  If you remove this post as you have done in the past to squelch perfectly valid scientific doubt you will have succeeded in wasting a few minutes of my time again but you won't at all convince anybody.  

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       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.

25469. Sharon Krushel at 19:11 PM on 9 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       #75. Michael,

       I don't know if we're really in a position to be too picky about how renewable energy innovations look, considering what's at stake, but I have two friends who live across the alley from each other. One friend put in solar panels to provide electricity for her home, and the other friend is ticked off with her for spoiling her view. Some people don't want it in their back yard or their neighbour's back yard. But they're still friends. So there's hope.

25470. Sharon Krushel at 19:06 PM on 9 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       #75. Michael,

       Thank you for referring me to the Jacobson paper post! I left a comment at #81.

       In regard to windmills, I think of them as symbols of green energy, so I don't think they look bad at all, when I see them in someone else's back yard.

       Sending windmills out to sea seems like a perfect solution to me. But how do we get the energy to all the places it needs to be? (I have more reading to do.)

       I get what you're saying about CCS and the true cost of fossil fuels. CCS costs may come down as technology progresses.

       But maybe dirt would work better (#42). I grew up on a farm, so I'm inclined to like that as a contributing solution.

25471. Tom Curtis at 18:35 PM on 9 February 2016
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       For what it is worth, the tabular concentration data for the three scenarios and all included greenhouse gases as used in Hansen 88, and supplied by Gavin Schmidt shows a CO2 concentration for 2015 of 403 ppmv.  Again, this is more than has actually occurred.

       This denier talking point is based entirely on:

       Ignoring four of the five greenhouse gases;

       Ignoring Hansens explicit specification of the scenarios in Appendix B;

       Ignoring the tabular data as supplied by Gavin Schmidt;

       Ignoring that 1982 (not 1989) is the first year of projection; and

       Loudly bewailing the fact that annual emissions have grown 1.62% per annum for CO2 when Hansen only specified emissions growth averaged across all GHGs of "about" 1.5%.

       
       If they shut their eyes any tighter against the facts of the case they would go permanently blind.

25472. Tom Curtis at 18:18 PM on 9 February 2016
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       planet8788 @37, Hansen describes Scenario A in Appendix B of his paper, saying with regard to CO2:

       "CO2 increases as observed by Keeling [at Mauna Loa] for the interval 1958-1981, and subsequently with 1.5% yr^-1 growth of the annual increment."

       For somebody lecturing us on needing to "...be clear about Emissions and Concentrations", it is astonishing that you have not noticed that the scenario is specified with respect to the concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa, not according to emissions data.  You may think it was specified according to emissions because Hansen wrote in the main body of the paper:

       "Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially."

       That statement, however, gives the average growth across all greenhouse gases specified - not just of CO2.  Therefore it cannot be interpreted as specifying the growth rate of CO2 uniquely.  Further, it only gives an approximate value (about), and is no basis for claiming any growth rate more exact than somewhere between 1.25 and 1.75%.  In any event, the detailed statement above takes precedence.

       Based on the detailed statement in appendix B, it is trivial to get the Mauna Loa data from 1958-1981 (actually 1959 forward for annual averages), and project from 1981 forward.  It is not clear if the increment is expressed as an absolute value, or as a percentage.  Taking the former possibility, Hansen's specified CO2 growth compared to actual values is as follows:

       

       The final value in the Hansen projection represents 410 ppmv in 2015 (compared to an actual 401 ppmv).  Incrementing on the absolute value gives a lower increase of 407 ppmv in 207.  In either case, Hansen's projected CO2 increase for scenario A is comfortably larger than the actual increase.

       This is far more the case for CH4 and chlorofluoro carbons. 

25473. KR at 15:43 PM on 9 February 2016
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       planet8788 - See this comment above. If you include all emissions, including in particular differences in CFC emissions due to the Montreal Protocols and in methane levels, the actual forcings are far closer to Hansen Scenario C than A or B.

       

       Note that Hansen did use a larger than currently estimated direct CO2 forcing (largely due to early radiative mis-estimates of that direct CO2 forcing, corrected by ongoing research in 1998), but when you account for that issue his model was indeed quite good. 

       Your claim that "The EPA and the IPCC both conclude emissions have increased more than the 1.5% That than Hansen classified as business as usual" [i.e. Scenario A?] is only close for CO2, not all emissions of GHGs that were incorporated into his model. And is hence quite incorrect. 

25474. planet8788 at 12:36 PM on 9 February 2016
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Sorry folks, but you guys discredit yourselves by acting like a bunch of radicals defending your prophet.  TallDave is absolutely right.  You guys need to be clear about Emissions and Concentrations... Emissions are what are emitted.  The EPA and the IPCC both conclude emissions have increased more than the 1.5% That Hansen classified as business as usual. 

       Now, if concentrations are lower than Hansen expected based on those emission scenarios... than you should clearly state that and admit, yes, the ocean (most probably) absorbed much more CO2 than Hansen expected and therefore CO2 concentrations are more in line with Scenario blah blah blah. ... 

       That is a calm, coherent argument. But claiming Hansen wasn't wrong... Hansen can't be wrong...  that's just irrational and makes you look anything but scientific.  

25475. Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       WebHubTelescope @3, the pattern of unusal warmth in SST in the 1940s is matched by warmth measured by land stations in adjecent regions.  While it would be astonishing if so abrupt a change in relative proportions of SST measuring practise as happened over the period of WW2 left no artifact in the data, the concurrent warming in land areas suggest a significant part of the unusual warmth in the 1940s was real.

25476. Tom Curtis at 08:48 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       nigelj @4, this bears repeating, "Other media are not asking the tough questions of contrarians, and are letting the whole of humanity down very badly."

       The whole model of news reporting as necessary to democracy, and which thereby justifies certain privileges for those news organizations (protection of sources, privileged access to government officials) is shown to be badly flawed by the global warming debate.  News organizations in general have modelled their activities as primarilly commercial - and in consequence attrociously fail the trust placed in them.  Increasingly they report not, what is consequential, but only what is controversial (because that sells newspapers).  That the AGW contrarians are repeatedly, comedically and tragically wrong is no surprise.  It is a "dog bites man" story.  As a result, any error by the IPCC, or any challenge to IPCC science is reported - but the massive errors by the challengers to IPCC science are passed by without comment.

       To that, unfortunately, is added the pattern by some media to try to influence politics, and to shape the news they report accordingly.  This was an acceptable practise (just) when media was widely diversified, and multiple independent newspapers served each town.  With the modern levels of concentration in media ownership, it is as pernicious as the propaganda in monopolistic state controlled media, such as in the former Soviet Union.

25477. swampfoxh at 08:36 AM on 9 February 2016
       Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!
       

       As a life long Conservative Republican, I've had enough of the Republican Party bosses and candidates this time around.  Their behavior borders on the moronic.  Anybody who can't see what is happening in the climate realm is asleep, ignorant, or has a monetary motive for denying the facts.  So much for that.  I never thought I'd ever vote for a democratic socialist but Bernie Sanders is my guy this time around.  After all, the climate problem is more important than any other problem we think we have...

25478. Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       suckfish @2, WebHubTelescope answered your question indirectly.  Durring WW2 there was a large introduction of new, military ships that measured SST in the intakes to the engine room rather than by the traditional bucket method.  At the end of WW2, a lot of those ships were decomissioned.  The result is a large artificial spike in the raw SST data:

       

       Kevin C discusses this in greater detail here.

25479. nigelj at 06:20 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       I agree with Rocketeer. The graphical data for the strong warming phase after 1970 show no significant difference between adjusted and unadjusted data, so the issue should end there. The climate contrarians simply have no case.

       But only this website and one or two others holds the contrarians to account. Other media are not asking the tough questions of contrarians, and are letting the whole of humanity down very badly.

25480. Paul Pukite at 06:13 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       The years between 1940 and 1945 are IMO not well-calibrated.  The group responsible for taking measurements shifted from civilian to military resonsibility, and there was also a transition in the approach to measurements, from trailing canvas buckets to engine intake compartments.

       I personally don't think it will ever get resolved.  Is that global hot temperature spike centered at 1942 real, or is it a miscalibration?

25481. suckfish at 05:29 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       Is there a particular cause to the step in the adjustment around 1940? It looks as if there was some specific artifact in the measurements around then?

25482. Sharon Krushel at 04:13 AM on 9 February 2016
       New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
       

       Hello Michael,

       Thank you for the research and thought you put into this article. This is what I have been looking for - an overall plan that addresses at least some of the logistics of replacing fossil fuels with renewables to supply our energy needs. Certainly, there are many details to be worked out, but this plan offers hope and a path forward.

       I am preparing a presentation and would like to be ready for questions and comments. There are two questions that come to mind in regard to "using wind to generate 50% of energy."

       I am wondering about the CO2 emissions from the production of steel, etc. for the building of the initial wind turbines. I assume that the emissions for manufacturing wind turbines is more than offset by the savings of CO2 emissions compared to using fossil fuels for providing future energy. During the transition period, if the steel and manufacture of a wind turbine depends on current methods using fossil fuels, do you know how long it takes for a wind turbine to "pay for itself" in terms of CO2 emissions? (As a sub question, it would also be interesting to know how long it takes to pay for itself economically.)

       My second question is, "What about the birds and bats?" It seems their learning curve in regard to the dangers of wind turbines is pretty much vertical. I found an article indicating that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. And improvements in design and location have greatly reduced bird mortality. However, the number of wind turbines recommended by Jacobson must surely be bad news for birds.

       Has anyone done a study to determine the effect on our ecosystem from such an increase in bird mortality. And could this bring about extinction of some species?

       I don't expect you to "have all the answers", but you do seem to have a good handle on what information is available.

       Thank you for the way in which you care for the earth and all who live here. Yours is truly a noble career.

25483. rocketeer at 03:14 AM on 9 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       The first graph (and similar figures published in the Karl 2015 paper) really tell the story.  Looking at the difference in raw vs. adjusted data after 1945, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that they would draw a different conclusion based on use of one vs. the other.  Deniers don't want the public to see these graphs because they destroy the mental image of massive data manipulation (fraud) that they are trying to sell to the casual reader.

25484. scttharding5 at 01:44 AM on 9 February 2016
       A striking resemblance between testimony for Peabody Coal and for Ted Cruz
       

       This blog provides a very valuable service to people interested in climate change. I would however, like to see a minor expansion of the list of climate myths to include something like "A Technological Miracle Will Save Us."  My first objection to this myth is that it implies that we don't currently have the technology necessary to end most greenhouse gas emissions. Clean energy sources combined with new electric grid infrastructure and some battery storage can reliably provide all of our power needs without any significant technological advancements. Carbon capture and storage methods are currently insufficient, but may require only a change in farming methods.

       My second problem with this myth is that new technology will still require implementation. There may well be someone out there that will or even has invented a new, much more efficient solar panel, or a new battery that costs far less than those currently available, or some device capable of cheaply removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it as a solid. Such inventions would of course be welcome, but whatever technological solutions are available will still require massive investments of money, labor, and political will to implement. We would still need to stop subsidising fossil fuel use, use public funds to create the necessary infrastructure to accomadate the new technologies, and ensure that any new technologies are implemented in a safe and responsible manner.

        

25485. denisaf at 17:19 PM on 8 February 2016
       The science for climate change only feeds the denial: how do you beat that?
       

       I am a physical scientist with decades of experience in weighing up evidence and arguents. I believe that irreversible, rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming is under way, primarily because industrial technical systems have emitted greenhouse gases. It is interesting to read here about assessments of what denialists are doing.

        However, the arguments being put forward in a number of forums about measures that should be adapted to reduce the rate of emissions convey a misleading impression. The most a practical global reduction of the rate of emissions can do is slow down what is happening. A rational approach would focus on policies and practical measures to adapt to the unintended consequences, such as sea level rise. The Netherlands, New York and London are examples of where responsible adaption measures are under way. On the other hand, there are many examples of where societies are adopting such measures as solar panels and wind farms that may be financially sound but can not contribute significantly to the holistic predicament.  

25486. Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 8 February 2016
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       

       Neil De Grasse-Tyson borrows an example from Teddy TV:

25487. Dcrickett at 06:46 AM on 8 February 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #6
       

       I have never seen a better Climate cartoon than this "NO REFUGEES OR CLIMATE CHANGE ALLOWED"

       Congratulations, and thanks

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You're welcome and thank you for the positive feedback.

25488. Tom Dayton at 04:24 AM on 8 February 2016
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Empirical demonstration that adjusted historic temperature station measurements are correct, because they match the pristine reference network: Evaluating the Impact of Historical Climate Network Homogenization Using the Climate Reference Network, 2016, Hausfather, Cowtan, Menne, and Williams.

25489. Tom Dayton at 02:45 AM on 8 February 2016
       Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
       

       I've never seen an adequate explanation from Christy or Spencer, of exactly which balloon indices are shown in that graph they keep showing. The graph says "NOAA," but NOAA's web site presents NOAA's RATPAC-A as NOAA's radiosonde index that is appropriate for looking at global trends. And RATPAC-A well matches surface trends and not RSS or UAH. The graph says it uses the "UKMet" balloon data from about 1978, but the UKMet's web site says its global index contains data only from 1997 forward, so Christy's graph must be using only the European index. RAOBCORE goes up to only 2011, its authors warn that its homogenization can be biased by satellites  and I don't know if it's global. RICH uses only other radiosondes for homogenization, but I believe has the same time span and geographic span as RAOBCORE.

       Maybe Olof or shoyemore know?

25490. Tom Dayton at 01:56 AM on 8 February 2016
       Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
       

       Olof reports at Moyhu:

       Olof February 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM

       The latest Ratpac A data is out now. The troposphere temperature 850-300 mbar is skyrocketing, winter (2 months of 3) is up by 0.25 C from autumn.
       At the peak of the 1998 el Nino (spring season), Ratpac and UAH v6 were quite similar in 1981-2010 anomalies. Now,in the present winter season Ratpac leads by 0.4 C...

25491. Rob Painting at 06:24 AM on 7 February 2016
       Analysis: How much did El Niño boost global temperature in 2015?
       

       There is no way for heat in the deep ocean to resurface on such short time scales. The heat causing the problem is in the surface layers - most of it buried in the subsurface of the western tropical Pacific warm pool.

25492. swampfoxh at 06:13 AM on 7 February 2016
       'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'
       

       jmath & one planet only forever.  I confess that your voluminous dissertations above are over my head.  But, I would like to refer you both to Elizabeth Kolbert's "Sixth Extinction" and maybe David Archer's latest book on climate: "The Long Thaw".  The devil is in the details that almost nobody is paying any attention to....  Like the day soon coming when the oceans move from a pH of 8.08 to 7.9 and drive shell forming organisms off to extinction, causing a catastrophic decline in the base of the ocean food chain...or maybe the methane currently stored in melting permafrost soon to be liberated into an atmosphere already too rich in CO2 and industrial pollutants.  It is unfortunate that humans are an outlaw species living outside the rules of nature...the only living creature on the planet to so behave.  One cannot really believe that too many of the very creatures that have messed up the planet are now going to turn around and fix it?   Elizabeth Kolbert said :  A thousand years from now, ..."Rats will dominate the planet.  They will live in caves and wear the skins of animals they have killed and eaten"   I add, ...they will dig up the bones and "stuff" of humans and then, in admiration for our massive craniums and all our "stuff", seek to be like us.

25493. Christopher Gyles at 05:44 AM on 7 February 2016
       Analysis: How much did El Niño boost global temperature in 2015?
       

       My layman's impression of the processes is that we may be about to get "schlonged," as Donald Trump might put it, this year by a good portion of the heat that's been accumulating in the deep ocean during the slowdown in surface temperature warming of the last 18 or so years. Is 2016 likely to be another record shattering year as 1998 was, or am I wildly off the mark in that?

25494. PhilippeChantreau at 00:01 AM on 7 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       "All fossil fuels become uneconomic when they have to pay for the environmental damage they cause."

       That, indeed, is the problem.

25495. michael sweet at 23:42 PM on 6 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       Sharon,

       This post reviews a paper  (Jacobson et al 2015) that proposes using renewable energy to supply 100% of all power for the economy.  They do not propose much new hydro because people object to flooding so much and most of the best spots are already built.  For the entire USA they propose 3 new dams in Alaska, but they are not required for the proposal.  They do propose adding hydro to existing dams and a little run of river but that does not flood any land.  I have not heard of any plan that proposes extensive hydro.

       If you read Jacobson's paper they have a section on land use.  They feel that land use is acceptable.  Some people object to the appearance of windmills on a lot of land.  I don't think windmills look too bad, especially compared to the problems with AGW.  What do you  think?

       The big problem I see with CCS is that there are no demonstration projects for CCS that are economic.  If we set up the immense CCS plants required to address AGW,  how will they be paid for?  If a coal plant adds CCS it will not generate electricity at a reasonable price.  All fossil fuels become uneconomic when they have to pay for the environmental damage they cause.

25496. bozzza at 17:42 PM on 6 February 2016
       Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
       

       @1, possibly not until all the ice has melted!

25497. Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 6 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       Sharon, thank you for your information. It sounds like you are "doing good" with your house ~ and also finding that, like the international space station, a completely "airtight house" has a moisture problem. Hmm. Clockwork dehumidifier?

       You are very right about the often-unacceptable disadvantages of extensive land-flooding for hydro power. (Nor are tide & wave-based generators doing well, either).

       Even outside Canada, most of the settled world is under increasing shortage of water, and "wasting" it on power-generation is not a practical choice.

25498. Andy Skuce at 11:03 AM on 6 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       Sharon, you might like to check out this post on cattle and GHGs and the long and sometimes rancorous discussion that follows. I'm not completely sure what to believe about the potential to store carbon in the soil, but I think it could help a little, while not being enough to make a big difference to the climate in the timeframe we have left. 

       It sounds as if you also might enjoy reading the free e-book Sustainable Energy-without the hot air, which would answer some of your questions, while probably raising many more. It was written by British physicist David MacKay and is really just a whole bunch of easy-to-follow back-of-the-envelope calculations to see what it will take to decarbonize Britain's energy supply. It's very useful for bringing some of the more speculative and optimistic projections about renewables down to earth.

       As BC resident (and a big consumer of hydroelectricity for my home heating) I'm torn on the question of Site C and the destruction it will cause. A pet peeve of mine is that there is little talk of using the excess electricity to supply Alberta with power to aid with Alberta's shift to intermittent renewables. Instead, I think the power might get used for LNG liquefaction plants, which is rather self-defeating.

       I really should be planning to install air-source heat pumps, but have been putting it off because of the capital cost. A few neighbours have installed them, but ironically I think their main motivation was not so much to have more efficient winter heating, but to provide air conditioning in our often hot summer weather. So yes, I'm aware of the capital costs involved with a switch to more efficiency and the trade-offs involved.

       I wish it were more straightforward!

25499. Sharon Krushel at 10:07 AM on 6 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       Andy,

       LAND USE

       Has anyone addressed the issue of land use in regard to replacing all of our fossil fuels with renewables?

       Just as one example, switching to hydro affects agriculture.

       If we look beyond climate change, is flooding farmland and wildlife habitat environmentally preferable to improving oil sands with CCS technology?

       And if we all switched to hydro for heating, what would it cost to replace all of our natural gas furnaces? Would this not produce collosal waste? I guess if we replaced them as they got to be 30 years and older it wouldn't be as wasteful. Can we wait that long?

       "A canola farming family in the Peace River valley won top prize in a yield contest with last year's harvest—on land rented from BC Hydro that will be lost to the Site C dam reservoir.
       "I came back to work on the family farm from the oil patch because I realized that I'll never be able to eat oil, drink liquefied natural gas or breath electricity, but... I can help feed the world and clean the air with the food I grow."

       This is why I'm wondering if a combination of technologies like CCS and other innovations might help us juggle all the issues. We can't just focus on lowering CO2 emissions; at the end of the day, we still have to deal with the logistics of producing and delivering food and keeping people from freezing (while we transition to renewables), and paying for it all.

25500. Sharon Krushel at 09:45 AM on 6 February 2016
       The Quest for CCS
       

       #69 Eclectic

       So you're not just on the opposite side of the thermometer, but on the opposite side of the earth! I have a cousin down under. And one of Australia's great musicians, Tom Richardson, has performed in my daughter's cafe numerous times because he fell in love with a Peace Country girl while performing at the North Country Fair.

       At first, I thought, "33-40 cents/kWh"! Yikes, no wonder you wear sweaters inside on cold days. (We do too, and sheepskin shearling slippers). Then I realized that, with distribution charges, even if our rates are as low as 8.4 cents/kWh, we pay 24 cents/kWh. Still not as high as you.

       When we built our home in 1983, the Alberta government offered a free "energy-efficient house design" course. So we built our home with 6" thick fibreglass-insulated walls with an air tight vapour barrier inside, and a 1" blanket of styrofoam on the outside,  air-to-air heat exchanger (needs to be replaced), R40 insulation in the attic, a wooden insulated basement, with our biggest windows on the south side and a 6' roof overhang to let the low angle sunshine in in the winter and give us shade in the summer (only one small sealed window on the north side). We planted diciduous trees on the west side to give us shade in the summer, but not winter. We had good, dual pane wooden windows but the wood was affected by mildew from condensation, and some seals were broken, so we recently spent $15,000 on new windows and doors (dual pane, low-e glass, filled with argon gas, multi-chamber uPVC frames). Still our carbon footprint for electricity and heat for our house is 15.4 metric tons of CO2e for the two of us (kids moved out). We do have a small shop with only 4" walls and a separate small natural gas furnace. That increases our GJ total.

       The solar heating blues... The trees that shade your house from heat (reducing your need for air conditioning) would also shade the solar panels that could provide you with power for air conditioning.  And where we live, when we would need the solar power the most to heat our homes, the sun arrives late for work and leaves early.

       I think solar (and other) projects might make more sense in the context of community.

       There is an event coming up here in April, planned by a lady in our church - Solar PV and Biomass information for Northern Communities. Paul Cabaj will take attendees through the process of a community solar project, and how they can build on the model of a community owned solar farm being developed near Drumheller. And Mark Porta, from International Clean Energy Consulting Inc., will give details on 1 MW biogas digester plants that run on waste wood and/or municipal solid waste.

       And the innovation goes on... Thanks for the info and sharing of ideas.

Prev  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  Next