Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 Next
Comments 29051 to 29100:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:26 PM on 13 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@10,
We agree, as I said in my first sentence. You appear to have jumped to a conclusion.
As I also mentioned the most successful would be competing to have lower impact. They would still be the most successful, and be living more sustainably. That means that they develop ways of living with less impact that afford a decent life. And those developed ways of living would be ways that others could develop to as well. If others cannot be allowed to live the same way, or would not be able to live the same way (as is the case with future generations and the burning of fossil fuels), then the way of living isn't truly sustainable, isn't really fair or decent.
Even if the total population was quite small, if everyone lived the consumptive, wasteful and damaging way of the biggest impacting people today (those worst offenders among the most fortunate), there would eventually need to be a reduction of that smaller population.
That is essentially the type of development that has been occurring with the free market pursuits of profit as freely as can be gotten away with. The missing part of the current system is clearly a means of effectively limiting what can be gotten away with. There seems to be too much popular support for the "Freedom to do as you cna get away with, without the responsibility to live in a way that enables all others and future generations of humanity to actually enjoy a decent life". What is needed is for everyone to have to limit the impacts of how they live. And those who wish to be free from that responsibility need to be kept from impacting others, especially future generations, until they change their mind. If they believe the problem they want to benefit from creating can be solved by future generatons then it is their responsibility to solve it first so that future generatons do not have to, then they can benefit from it.
My suggestion of enforced competition between all the most successful to live more decently is another way of politely saying some people may need a referee of peers to impose a penalty on them when they won't play decently, won't care to participate in developing a lasting better future for all. So waht I am saying is the the future fo humanity requires the most successful to referee their peers and penalize the ones who are not caring to decently limit the impacts and risks to others of the actions they want to benefit from.
-
ryland at 09:00 AM on 13 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Thanks for your good wishes KR they are much appreciated.
-
KR at 04:52 AM on 13 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
ryland - I believe I pointed you to documentation on just how Christy mislead Congress in earlier messages; you can find the details there. His comments on extreme events were 'documented' by national averages, a rhetorical trick considering that increases in both high and low precipitation and other events with strong regional effects (such as the California drought) are rather hidden by averaging them. His unsupportable comment regarding the quality of climate science marks him as a Dismissive, and his last comment presents a false dichotomy fallacy implying that only fossil fuels can be beneficial, which is utterly incorrect - renewable sources can provide energy without the associated costs of climate change.
Overall, that spans a great deal of Christys behavior, climate change denialist behavior I described in my first comment on this thread. You've presented nothing contradictory, rather, your references support my comments.
On a completely separate note, please enjoy your vacation. French cuisine is delightful.
-
Tristan at 03:33 AM on 13 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hi chud, the nature of noisy data means that you can't expect to see statistically significant trends over short time frames. Hence, you will almost always be able to say "no significant warming since <some year>" if you draw the line from the last major el nino year. It's not that unlikely that if 2030 is a la nina year, we will be able to draw a line from 2015, and say "no significant warming in 15 years!".
When every major temperature set shows significant warming since 1998, all the so-called skeptics will do is change the meme from '98 to '02, then '05, then '10 etc etc. It's an utterly meaningless claim.
-
chudiburg at 02:43 AM on 13 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hi all. I am a high school AP Envrironmental Science teacher who does his best to stay "up-to-date" with the science of climate change. I have a quick question for anybody willing to help.
I keep reading about the current hiatus, pause, stagnation, etc. in global surface temperature and I am fairly confident that I understand the meaning of statistical significance...at least well enough. My question is, however, with 2014 being another record year have we gotten past the "no statistically significant warming" bit yet or was 2014 not sufficiently anomalous to bring us out of the "hiatus?" Any help here would be great.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 02:41 AM on 13 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@9 I certainly agree about reducing our impact, and that the total impact is the main problem. But the issue I have with that logic is that we would have to keep reducing and reducing if population keeps growing and growing. Where would that end? Can we have near zero impact? At some point, the discussion about total population numbers will have to take place. And sheer numbers do have an impact, for example in terms of displacement of other species.
-
ryland at 02:33 AM on 13 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
PhilippeChantreau@28 Sorry to have made you rather peevish but I'm on holiday in the Baltics at the moment and access to the internet is intermittent plus don't consider accessing SkS every day as obligatory. My answer to your question on Christy's comments to congress is I do not know the detail of every statement Dr Christy has made to congress. That said Nature editorialised that extreme weather should not be linked to Climate Change and this was echoed by Dr Christy in his comment "Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’ This does not seem insupportable. Neither does his comment "‘As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science’ or "Climatologist Dr. John Christy: ‘Oil & other carbon-based energies are simply the affordable means by which we satisfy our true addictions – long life, good health, plentiful food…’‘…internet services, freedom of mobility, comfortable homes with heating, cooling, lighting and even colossal entertainment systems, and so on. Carbon energy has made these possible’
With regard to "cherry picking starrt dates using 1997 as a start the UK Met Office stated "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming" (WUWT http://tinyurl.com/8p5zs9o).
From 1999 "Over this interval 1999-2010 the warming trend is actually larger than the long-term trend of 0.175 °C per decade. Yet it is not statistically significant" (From RealClimate http://tinyurl.com/pzvxlhm)
I doubt I shall be returning to this thread for some time as I am heading for France and intend to spend days sampling the food and wines of various regions so my apologies for my less than perfect attempts to allay your peevishness.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your snarky rhetoric is neither appreciated nor welcome on this website.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:36 AM on 13 June 2015Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found
topal,
The reference was to a "hiatus" of the global average surface temperature. And the global average surface temeprature is not the energy budget of the planet. The energy budget has many accounts for energy to be stored in with the biggest being in the ocean depths due to ocean circulation patterns.
A major ocean circulation pattern that can take energy into or deliver energy out of the ocean account is the El Nino/La Nina. When the condition is El Nino the ocean account releases heat to the surface creating a temporary condition of global average surface temeprature that is higher than the ENSO neutral condition. When the condition is La Nina the ocean account takes in heat from the air at its surface creating a temporary condition of global average surface temeprature that is lower than the ENSO neutral condition.
Te history of two major measurements related to the ENSO are the NOAA Reported ONI here and the Australian reported SOI here. Reviewing the pattern it is clear that the SOI El Nino indication comes a few months before the ocean surface temperature reaches the threshhold for declaring an El Nino eevent to be occurring. Both sources provide detailed explanations of how the values are determined and how they relate to the ENSO.
When you look at 1998 in particular you see just how significant the 1997/98 El Nino condition was. You will also see how significant the La Nina was before and after it. When you look at the temperature records of that period using the SkS Temeprature Trends here, whatever one you choose even the satellite ones, there is a trough before and after the massive peak of 1998. The random sort of cyclical ENSO influence on the surface temperature is clearly the best explanation for the wide swings of global average surface temperature.
The signicant troughs or lower global average surface temperatures before and after 1998 are often ignored or 'deliberately missed' by people trying to claim that it hasn't warmed since 1998. And of course it becomes obvious why they pick 1998, or any of the other more recent peaks in the varying global average surface temperature record.
Reviewing the ONI and SOI since that time shows that there have been more La Nina than El Nino conditions, and the El Nino conditions have not been as significant as the 1997/98 event. This mean that the global average surface temperature influence of the ENSO has been more of a cooling influence through this period. And the fact that the global average surface temperature in 2014 was warmer than 1998 even though the ENSO was neutral is an indication that significant warming has occured since 1998.
Of course there are many other random and cyclical factors that have temporary effects on the global average surface temperature. It is just that the ENSO is clearly a significant one.
I hope hat helps you understand why the effect of increased CO2 has continued to occur, and why reviewing the global average surface temperature values through a short time period like the past 17 years is not a robust way of evaluating what is going on. A recent report by NOAA discussed here actually makes a minor correction of the surface temperature data and finds that the minor correction significatly changes the recent trend of the global average surface temperature.
The understanding of what is going on continues to improve. And the evidence that the warming effect of increased CO2 is occurring as expected is becomeing even more robust.
p.s. The Free Course offered in the link at the top of the right hand side of the SkS webpage will help you better understand this far more than my comment. I have not completed the course, I have only been able to get through about half of it to date.
-
topal at 22:51 PM on 12 June 2015Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found
"recurring change in ocean circulation – essentially, a bump in the road towards a warmer planet." How does ocean circulation change the energy budget of the planet? If there was energy lost due to theses bumps, where did it go and how will it come back?
-
Langham at 19:33 PM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Scaddenp - here is a video showing one tidal stream system. You'll see it rises out of the water for maintenance. Maintenance naturally is more complex, but then it's not exactly straightforward for land-based systems either. The UK now has a number of quite large offshore wind-farms so experience in their maintenance is developing.
As far as I am concerned, every new offshore wind-farm or tidal stream system equates to one less onshore wind-farm (perhaps more so, given that winds are more constant away from land), so I'm very much in favour of them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:58 PM on 12 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
Wol,
I agree that total population numbers are a concern. However it is the total population impact, not the population number, that matters. The greater concern is the people in the population whose pursuits of profit or pleasure, comfort, or convenience make them the largest consumers (usually very wastefully), and make them the highest per-person impacting individuals. Obviously everyone else would never be able to develop to match such levels of excess even if everyone wanted to.
Getting every one of those high impact people to limit their impact is what needs to happen (None of the "I'll only do it after someone else has made it cheaper and easier for me to behave more decently", or worse the "hiding among a larger group and claiming to not have to do anything because the group average is doing better no thanks to them").
Those 'more successful people' all need to be encouraged (and some of them forced), to be leading the way by competing to develop the lowest impact per-person ways of living. They all have access to the knowledge and can understand how to live a less consumptive and less damaging life. And they can actually afford to live decently with less impact.
And every reduction of consumption, waste and impact by those biggest per-person actors makes room for many more people who never did 'develop to the level of consumptive wasteful harmul living' of those 'successful' people. And the developments prompted by their competition to be better than their peers would be transferable to be truly lasting benefits to all others who could actually develop to live like the most successful.
-
Wol at 10:07 AM on 12 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
An interesting interview.
A particularly interesting omission is, as ever, that the question of population is not even mentioned. Perhaps working group 3 addresses it, but I suspect not.
Yet no evaluation of the effects of numbers on emissions, resources or anything else can be considered comprehensive unless they are part of the brief.
-
scaddenp at 09:07 AM on 12 June 2015Models are unreliable
The paper seems to reinforce what modellers already say - "models have no skill at decadal level prediction". While models appear to capture ENSO behaviors, there is no way they can predict it. If you compare models to observations over short time frames (<30y), then they wont match well. However, climate is about the long term averages of weather and in that the models do quite well.
-
MA Rodger at 08:23 AM on 12 June 2015Models are unreliable
michael sweet @938.
It seems the quote comes from Stilgo & Palmer (2011) 'Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction'. which addresses the legacy of EN Lorenz' work.
-
scaddenp at 07:31 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
The BBC article also points to a royal society publication which is very interesting. It includes detailed studies on tidal stream resources considered by MacKay and comes up with lower numbers. Looking at Isle of Mann, Yates concludes "Total annual energy output simulated, at 14.5 TWh, is highly encouraging though this remains provisional, pending further validation testing. It also takes no account of practical considerations and constraints" MacKay assumed 17.6TWh for the same region. The same paper puts tidal barrage resource at 50Twh, about the same as MacKay (55).
I'll stand by original statement - you cant replace onshore wind with offshore tidal streams. The resource isnt big enough and is much more expensive.
-
scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham - I call it nascent because installed base is tiny - and I notice that your BBC source does too. I also note that their estimate is 20% of current electricity requirement, not total energy, but in future, we have to power transport with electricity too. Mackay's estimate of around 200Twh looks very optimistic to me. No one has come up with even a design yet for stacking tidal stream turbines in a way that they can lifted out for maintenance that I am aware of. By there very nature they are more expensive than onshore wind - they have to survive in a marine environment, maintenance is much more difficult to do, delivery structures have to be built underwater as well. If wind needs subsidy, then marine needs it even more.
But more importantly, you need both marine and onshore wind to supply UK without nuclear.
By way, here in NZ, subsidies are dirty word and yet wind farms continue to be built.
-
Langham at 04:59 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
KR @ 69 That analysis depends very much on what form of tidal power the comparison is made with. Tidal barrages are admittedly highly expensive projects; however tidal stream systems are much simpler and less expensive, and given the inherently much greater efficiency of systems that use flows of liquid rather than air, stream systems can be smaller than land-based turbines, yet more powerful, and as for any tide-based system, there is little need for back-up generation capacity.
I acknowledge that costs remain an issue; nevertheless, current government energy policy gives me some cause for mild optimism.
-
michael sweet at 04:54 AM on 12 June 2015Models are unreliable
NanooGeek,
Can you please link the paper you are citing? A quick google of Edward N Lorenz from MIT indicates that he died in 2008. It is very unlikely that he published your quote in 2011. His last paper was published in 2008 and I see nothing in his CV that resembles your citation. His CV shows nothing published by the Royal Society after 1990.
-
KR at 04:11 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham - As I said earlier, "We'll have to see how UK policies and projects develop based on costs, lead times, and public opinion..."
Also note your comment here: "...the majority of people are unwilling to pay more for energy from renewable resources..."
Marine power levelized costs are at least twice that of onshore wind, and the public opinion surveys indicate that a solid majority of the UK public is in favor of expanded wind development. I expect that there indeed will be more windmills, despite your NIMBY (or NIMV - Not In My Vista?) opinion on the matter, and despite your offhand dismissal of polls.
-
Langham at 04:10 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom Curtis @ 67: dodgy methodology (as I cannot help thinking) or not, the fact remains that just because x number of people approve or are in favour of something, that in itself may often be insufficient to make that thing happen, never mind make it the right thing to do. For example, 50 years after the abolition of capital punishment in the UK, majority public support favoured its reintroduction - but it ain't going to happen.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:53 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham @66:
"But personally, I wouldn't place too much weight on a poll of 1000 people in a country of 65 million"
That only shows how little you know about samples sizes and uncertainty. Specifically, with a sample size of 1 thousand, a population of 65 million, and a result of 82%, the uncertainty is plus or minus 2.38% (95% confidence interval). It may give you great confidence in the strength of democratic feeling against windfarms that as little as 79.6% of the population - but it hardly favours your view.
I, however, prefer to use more up to data surveys, such as this one from March, 2015 which found 65% of British citizens are in favour of more onshore windpower. (Sample size: 1981, uncertainty +/- 2.1%)
What the Conservative party is responding to in moving against onshore wind is not public opinion, but the localized opinion in particular constituencies. While only 12% (+/- 1.43%) of British citizens opposed onshore wind as March 2015, a disproportionate number of them would have been Conservative voters likely to swing to UKIP over the issue. Probably also a disproportionate number of them would have been found in specific marginal electorates. It is certainly not responding to public opinion as such, which has been firmly in favour of onshore wind for years.
-
MA Rodger at 03:42 AM on 12 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
GW @349.
One correction to my comment @348. The Storch et al (2013) paper appears to predate the interview. This blog post seems to be saying Storch was trying to get it published in Nature but unsuccessfully. The blog post does provide Storch's position quite clearly. He in 2013 does not see the model mean as overstating the expected warming unless the period of lower rise in temperature continues. Since then 2014 was the warmest year on record & 2015 could well top that.
And the message in the blog post is to do with model data rather than the models themselves, "a wake-up call that scenarios have to be prepared better" rather than a problem with the models. I'd reckon, give the work addressing the discrepancy, that experts generally appear to see it the same way.
-
Micawber at 03:11 AM on 12 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
Looks like Stocker is part of the problem according to a recent peer-reviewed paper. Ocean warming is already +3C in north Pacific.
http://cirworld.org/journals/index.php/jap/issue/view/455
-
Langham at 02:59 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
@64 The poll you direct me to (just over 1,000 people polled) makes the point rather well that in each of the countries polled, the majority of people are unwilling to pay more for energy from renewable resources. People are fickle, aren't they?
But personally, I wouldn't place too much weight on a poll of 1000 people in a country of 65 million - the opposition to wind turbines is greater than you seem to imagine, and for valid reasons. I believe this is now being recognised in the UK, hence the change in government policy.
-
Langham at 02:42 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
@ 63. You have selectively quoted a reference to a specific type of turbine still under development. A variety of other types have been in operation for decades - in fact for a lot longer than wind turbines. HEP has of course been with us since the 19th C and the tidal barrage on the Rance Estuary in Britanny has been producing electricity since 1966, so while utilising tidal energy is a tried and tested technology, it is one where there remains enormous potential for further development.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised by the apparent depth of your ignorance on the subject evident in your wildly inaccurate claim that 'tidal power is not ready for commercial application', given that it has been in commercial use for 50 years.
Yes, I understand about tides turning, but the point is that this happens with extreme predictability, and at different times along our coastline, so several strategically sited schemes would guarantee a constant supply of non-flickering electricity. Even if (as I suspect some here would like) the entire country was covered in wind turbines, there would still be nothing remotely resembling a steady and reliable supply of electricity.
The conditions in Britain happen to be particularly suitable for using tidal energy, but there are many other parts of the world where it would also be applicable. Not the tideless Mediterranean, naturally, and not landlocked countries but a cursory glance at a globe should indicate areas of greatest potential. Even Mr Mason's map of inundated Cardigan Bay shows several bays that could profitably be used.
I've explained enough I think - I suggest you do your own Googling to learn a bit more on the subject.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:40 AM on 12 June 2015Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Bob, did you not read the article or were you not able to understand it?
Yes, much more CO2 is released by natural sources than human industry. We all know that. The article says it.
However, the 'conclusion' you draw from this is just nonsense. A>B, therefor A+B cannot be greater than C? Natural CO2 emissions (A) and absorption (C) are roughly in balance. Ergo, the addition of CO2 from human industry (B) tips total emissions over total absorption and causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. Put another way: If, as you proudly say, 98.5% of total emissions are being absorbed, then 1.5% aren't being absorbed. Clearly, without the extra 2.9% from human emissions there would not be 1.5% in excess of absorption and atmospheric levels would not be increasing. Ergo, human CO2 emissions are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to go up.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:36 AM on 12 June 2015Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Bob Ashworth: I don't see that "Table 1" on page 188 of Chapter 3 ("The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide") of the IPCC's TAR WG1 "The Scientific Basis." Nor are there any results from searching for the exact quoted phrase "Global Sources and Absorption of CO2." Are you claiming that the IPCC does not have that table in its post-2001 reports, or are you claiming that the IPCC removed that table from its 2001 (TAR) report after final publication? Perhaps instead that table was in only a preliminary draft of the report (which was not published because, um, it was preliminary. Duh.).
Where is there any statement by anybody, that less anthropogenic than natural CO2 gets absorbed?
-
NanooGeek at 02:35 AM on 12 June 2015Models are unreliable
Appears to be no acknowledgement here of the difficulties raised by Edward N Lorenz, MIT. Eg, a 2011 Royal Society paper on Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction: “The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system.”
Moderator Response:[TD] Enter the word chaos in the Search field at the top left of this page. Also read The Difference Between Weather and Climate. Note that many posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:31 AM on 12 June 2015Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Bob Ashworth @281, what appears on page 188 of the IPCC TAR working group 1 is Fig 3.1:
The units used are Petagrammes of Carbon (= Gigatonnes Carbon), and in none of the four parts of the figure are values matching those you show. More imporantly, in Fig 3.1 B, the human perturbation is shown to clearly dominate the net natural fluxes, a fact that lead the IPCC to write:
"Atmospheric CO2 is, however, increasing only at about half the rate of fossil fuel emissions; the rest of the CO2 emitted either dissolves in sea water and mixes into the deep ocean, or is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems. Uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is due to an excess of primary production (photosynthesis) over respiration and other oxidative processes (decomposition or combustion of organic material). Terrestrial systems are also an anthropogenic source of CO2 when land-use changes (particularly deforestation) lead to loss of carbon from plants and soils. Nonetheless, the global balance in terrestrial systems is currently a net uptake of CO2."
(My emphasis)
And as you add your own little conspiracy theory to your misrepresentation of the IPCC TAR, here is a direct copy of the original report as published, demonstrating that as published the IPCC TAR agreed with the view presented in the OP above.
Finally, for good measure there is a table 3.1 in the IPCC report, appearing on page 190, which reads:
"Table 3.1: Global CO2 budgets (in PgC/yr) based on intra-decadal trends in atmospheric CO2 and O2. Positive values are fluxes to the atmosphere; negative values represent uptake from the atmosphere. The fossil fuel emissions term for the 1980s (Marland et al., 2000) has been slightly revised downward since the SAR. Error bars denote uncertainty (± 1s), not interannual variability, which is substantially greater.
1980s
1990sAtmosphere increase
3.3 ± 0.1
3.2 ± 0.1
Emissons (fossil fuel, cement)
5.4 ± 0.3
6.3 ± 0.4
Ocean-atmosphere flux
-1.9 ± 0.6
-1.7 ± 0.5
Land atmsphere fluux*
-0.2±0.7-.1.4±0.7
*partitioned as followsLand use change
1.7 (0.6 to 2.5)
NA
Residual terrestrial sink
-1.9 (-3.8 to 0.3)
NA* The land-atmosphere flux represents the balance of a positive term due to land-use change and a residual terrestrial sink. The two terms cannot be separated on the basis of current atmospheric measurements. Using independent analyses to estimate the land-use change component for the 1980s based on Houghton (1999), Houghton and Hackler (1999), Houghton et al. (2000), and the CCMLP (McGuire et al., 2001) the residual terrestrial sink can be inferred for the 1980s. Comparable global data on land-use changes through the 1990s are not yet available."
(Sorry for loss of formatting.)
-
GW at 02:27 AM on 12 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
MA Rodger@348
Agree, Storch seems more conservative, arguably to the point of complacency, than many other experts in the field. (Evens so, in the interview he says his "instinct" is that we will have >= 2 deg C warming by 2100.)
However, my question was about the state of the climate models. Storch, apparently a mainstream scientist in the field, says the climate models are nearly unable to reproduce current data, and if the trend continues, the models will require significant changes (the one specific change he mentions being better modeling of the role of the oceans.) Is this in fact consensus/ majority/ mainstream opinion among experts? -
CBDunkerson at 02:21 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham, this 2010 Harris poll found 82% in Great Britain favoring more wind power (question 5). I note you cite values for "local" wind farms, which is a slightly different issue due to NIMBYism, but even so you concede my point... more people support than oppose wind farms. Even wind farms to be built in their area.
As to the unfounded insults and obfuscation... yes there are 'drawbacks' to everything. However, the supposed deficiencies you have cited for wind farms are mostly false and/or matters entirely of opinion, where your view is in the minority.
-
michael sweet at 02:17 AM on 12 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham,
From your reference to support tidal energy:
"Although the potential clearly exists, the technology is presently still in a pre-commercial phase and only a hand full of devices have so far been tested at full scale in the ocean. No single turbine design has been converged upon so far and there are many aspects of the technology and operation that are not yet well understood."
Tidal power is not ready for commercial application. What is a reasonable time line for untested technology? Tidal energy turns off for 30 minutes every 6 hours as the tide turns. How is that reliable? In any case, few areas in the world have siginificant tidal energy available. Wind energy has decreased in cost 25% or more since your reference was written (it is from Jan 2013). It can be implemented in most countries world wide. Can you provide a link that estimates current costs for tidal energy?
It seems to me that pinning our hopes on a technology that is not ready for commercialization and is only available in only a few areas of the globe is not a very good strategy.
-
Bob Ashworth at 02:02 AM on 12 June 2015Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
According to the IPCC report Table 1. published in 2001, 98.5% of all CO2 is absorbed, not 40%. The charlatan IPCC since removed that table.
CO2 is CO2 whether from man or nature; someone had to lay wake at night, probaly on drugs to say less CO2 from Man gets absorbed.
Table 1. Global Sources and Absorption of CO2
Carbon Dioxide: Natural Human Made Total Absorption
Annual Million Tonnes 770,000 23,100 793,100 781,400
% of Total 97.1% 2.9% 100% 98.5%
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 188.)
Moderator Response:[JH] If you continue to lace your comments with snark and absurd accusations, they will be summarily deleted.
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.
-
bvangerven at 00:43 AM on 12 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
13.
Do you understand what I mean that you're research is a perfect way for governments to have an excuse to pass laws to reduce carbon as they see fit as oppose to what is best for the planet?Hi Mattimus. Do you understand that this is no argument at all to confirm or reject AGW ? It makes as much sense as a patient saying to the doctor: I am not ill because I do not like this medicine.
Whether AGW is happening should be established by looking at the facts, not by considering the possible solutions and possible consequences.
That being said, I am in favor of a carbon tax and here is why:
A carbon tax 1. makes the polluters pay for the damage caused by climate change. 2. provides the stimulus to companies to move away from fossil fuels and develop carbon-neutral solutions.
Without such a tax, 1. everybody will pay to repair the damage caused by climate change. 2. there is no incentive for polluters to end the pollution, so we will keep on paying forever.
-
KR at 00:01 AM on 12 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Philip Shehan - "...It would be safer not to include..."
My my - what I'm seeing there is ad hoc data editing, tossing out inconvenient information until what's left is only the data supporting his position. I would consider that the worst kind of cherry-picking.
If you're looking at data too short for significance, you simply need to look at more data. Michaels and Knappenberger (who are lobbyists) are experts at that sort of rhetorical nonsense. So is Singer (also, essentially, a lobbyist), and Lindzen has a long history of being wrong.
You're not crazy - there's deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, and statistical abuse going on. And those people are experts - at just those tactics. Point to the data and move on; you may never get the last word, but you can get in the meaningful ones.
-
Philip Shehan at 23:25 PM on 11 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Pardon the typos above. It's late.
-
Langham at 23:22 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
@61, Could you say where you get your figures from? I am not aware of a national referendum having been held on the subject, so you are I suspect extrapolating to an enormous degree when you claim to know what 'most people' think.
Both the Guardian and FT reference independent polls, each of around 2,000 people, concerning their attitude to local wind-farms. In the Guardian poll, 48% were in favour; the FT figure is 62%. So definitely, for those 2,000 people, wind-farms are preferred to say fracking nearby, but I'm not sure where your figure of 80% of the UK population can come from. I think you are claiming to speak for the 'vast majority' on a rather flimsy basis.
Of course were I of a similar mind I too could 'turn it around' by means of extrapolation and obfuscation, and say that the one party that had pledged to end subsidies for wind-farms, the Conservatives, won the recent general election - ergo the British public are not in favour of wind-farms.
Being an advocate of wind-farms needn't bar one from being open-minded enough to appreciate their various manifest drawbacks, nor to giving consideration to other - possibly better - means of achieving the same end. The supporters of wind-farms who post here seem, opn the whole, utterly dogged in their determination that wind power is the only way to avert catastrophe - is this tunnel vision or monomania?
-
Philip Shehan at 23:22 PM on 11 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Thanks for the comments KR. Fully understand that you are too busy to deal with theose long posts . (And thank you moderator).
A summary then:
The problem with Whitehouse (first link) is that he basically says that non statistically significant warming translates to evidence for a "pause."
This is acommon argument I get from "skeptics".
Their argument is that less than 95% (actually 97.5%, as half the 95% confidence limits are on the high side) probabiility of a warming trend equates to evidence of no warming trend.
Whitehouse also wants to exclude the years 1999 and 200o from trends on these grounds:
“It occurred immediately after the very unusual El Niño of 1998 (said by some to be a once in a century event) and clearly the two subsequent La Niña years must be seen as part of that unusual event. It would be safer not to include 1999-2000 in any La Niña year comparisons.”
To which I commented:
Whitehouse thinks it is entirely kosher to start with the el nino event of 1998 in a trend analysis and presumably include the years 1998 and 1999 in that trend, [ to justify a pasue claim] but you must not start with the years 1999 and 2000. [Starting at 1999 for UAH data gives the same warming trend as for the entire satellite record. Not statistically significant. "Only'' a 94.6% chance that there is a warming trend from 1999. ]
Is it only me who finds this gobsmacking?
I also wrote
[Whitehouse] says “Lean and Rind (2009) estimate that 76% of the temperature variability observed in recent decades is natural.”
No. On the graph itself it states that the model including natural and anthropogenic forcings fits the data with a correlation coefficient r of 0.87.
And the Figure legend says that “Together the four influences [ie natural and anthropogenic] explain 76% r^2 [0.87 x 0.87] of the variance in the global temperature observations.”
Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, andPaul C. Knappenberger (second link) write of the recent paper by Karl et al:
“The significance level they report on their findings (0.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.”
Yet further on Michaels, Lindzen,and Knappenberger claim:
“Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus"…Both the UAH and RSS satellite records are now in their 21st year without a significant trend, for example.”
Here are the trends for UAH, RSS and Berkeley data (the most comprehensive surface data set ) from 1995 at the 0.05 level
0.124 ±0.149 °C/decade
0.030 ±0.149 °C/decade
0.129 ±0.088 °C/decade
So, Michaels, Lindzen, and Knappenberger object to statistical significance at the 90% level used by Karl et al.
Yet they base their claim of “multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus” on two data sets which have a probability of a “hiatus” or a cooling trend of 4.8% (UAH) and 34.5% (RSS).
Again, is it just me or is these double standards here amazing?
Then there is Springer (third link)
Singer objects to non satellite data “with its well-known problems”. and write of RSS data:
“the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].”
I note:
UAH 0.075 ±0.278 °C/decade
RSS -0.031 ±0.274 °C/decade
So UAH shows a slight warming trend and RSS shows a slight cooling trend but unsurprisingly, for a 12 year time frame, you can drive a bus between the error margins.
As for the step claim. Nonsense, aided by selecting a colour coded graph that foster that impression. No more a step than plenty of other places on the non-colour coded graphs.
Singer also writes:
“Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998.”
Again “skeptics” have been cherry picking the exceptional el nino of 1998 to base on which to base their “no warming for x years” claim for years.
But because it does not suit his argument, Singer wants to exclude it here.
Then Singer decides that non-satellite data is kosher after all because it suits his argument.
I am told that I must bow to the experts here.
Am I crazy or are these people utterly incompetant or dishonest when it comes to statistical significance?
Moderator Response:[JH] The reposting lengthy segments of comment threads from another website is discouraged.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:03 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham, I'm going to turn it around and suggest that you are writing from your own perspective. For most people, wind farms are not considered a 'blight on the landscape'. Indeed, many find them beautiful. They are actively sought by rural communities in the United States, Denmark, Germany, et cetera. Even in the UK more than 80% of the population supports wind energy. Scotland is pushing towards 100% renewable energy... largely based on the popularity of rural wind power.
In short, you are projecting your minority view on to the UK and the world at large. When, in reality, the vast majority disagree. You are also simply incorrect that wind power is "utterly dependent on subsidies". Subsidies obviously help to accelerate growth, but wind power is growing in many parts of the world even without subsidies... as it would continue to do in the UK even if all wind power subsidies were removed while (much higher) funding for other power sources was left in place.
-
John Mason at 21:09 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
One curiosity here in Central Wales that I've never seen a satisfactory answer to: the very same hills are home to a patchwork of conifer plantations. Artificial, totally not natural, lifeless on their dark floors, like the black squares on a chessboard and anathema to the landscape photographer. They are indeed ugly. Yet none of the people that complain about wind turbines ever mention them. Is it because turbines represent something else - the need to redefine energy generation, I wonder?
-
Langham at 21:02 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
An article pointing out some of the background and benefits of tidal power:
-
Langham at 20:54 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom @ 56 I think you are writing from a rather North American perspective - it is not a case of city dwellers' rights or wishes being juxtaposed against those of rural dwellers, nor - in the UK - is it necessarily those with the biggest pockets who get to decide what happens. In fact I don't think market forces come into it, or at least not in the crudely direct way you seem to imagine.
The Cameron quote in the original article is a good indication that the present government - presumably in response to the wishes of the electorate generally (or as it may be, Conservative voters generally) - appears at long last to recognise the need to call a halt to further land-based wind-farms.
Actually I do not have to 'flesh out' my argument concerning the right to unspoilt countryside - to rural serenity. The imperative need to protect our countryside - at least some of it - has been recognised in law here since at least 1949 with the National Parks Act, and arguably goes back much further, and is a right that is enjoyed equally by city dwellers and those living in the countryside. And lest there be any suspicion that I may be arguing from a NIMBY standpoint, I will point out that I live in the centre of a Midlands town - although in fact it is as good a place as any in which to contemplate the signal importance of being able to enjoy rural serenity, even if only at weekends.
Scaddenp @ 57 the superior merits of the sea-based alternatives are briefly mentioned in my earlier posts, and include the certainty of tidal reliability and the much reduced need for back-up capacity for windless days. It is hardly 'nascent technology' - it is already up and running (has been for at least 60 years). Yes, expensive, but then so are wind turbines, whose economics seem utterly dependent on subsidies.
-
scaddenp at 19:56 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
You have yet to establish "the superior merits of the sea-based alternatives" other than that you dont have to look at them. So far they are an extremely expensive nascent technology which in no way can provide enough power to replace land-based wind turbines. I am happy to be proven wrong but please provide a reference.
I think you are also mistaken that concerns about climate change = environmentalism. I am mostly concerned that we do not damage the critical infrastructure that underpins our civilization. Hardly "no good reason".
I will let Tom make is own argument, but rural serenity does not appear to be a human right whereas our unwillingness to ditch FF is certainly depriving others, minor users of FF, of rights they have. It's about priorities.
The situation for non-FF energy in UK does look tough. I'd be looking closer at next gen nuclear I think if I was in your situation.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham @55, you personally may have a preference for "rural serenity". Urban dwellers, on the other hand have a preference for reliable power supply. They are willing to pay for that supply by paying for wind farms. You, however, are not prepared to pay for your "rural serenity" by buying up the land around your rural dwelling to ensure it is not used to develop wind farms. Rather, you are appealing to your desires as generating a right which somehow trumps the rights of urban dwellers to provide for their power needs at a reasonable price. In fact, you are asking those urban dwellers to pay more so that you can enjoy your idiosyncratic desire for "rural serenity".
As I see it, you either have to flesh out your argument in moral terms such that "rural serenity" is a fundamental right; or accept it as a personal value which therefore need not be respected in the market economy by other people seeking to pursue their personal values. You don't get to have a quid on each corner - to maintain it is just a personal value, and therefore inarguable, but to treat it as a fundamental right so that it is normative on other people.
Least, ways, you can try doing so - and I can dismiss such bullshit arguments as the irrelavancies they are.
-
MA Rodger at 19:24 PM on 11 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
DW @347.
The interview responses from Storch should indicate to you that Storch is less inclined than most to see the dangers of AGW. Those who are less optimistic about the future that Storch would put it more strongly. Note Storch considers a conservative value for projected sea level rise is the way to handle uncertainty. Many would see that as a lack of caution, equivalent to playing Russian roulette.
When Storch is asked about the fix required if global surface temperature continues to lag model predictions, the specific area he describes (while starting by saying "Among other things,...") is an underestimation of ocean heat uptake. That doesn't really chime with your (a) weaker AGW than we thought or (b) more natural variation than we thought, although you do a fair job of reproducing Storch's specific comment.
Perhaps it is worth looking at what Storch et al (2013) - 'Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?' says on this same subject a few weeks after the interview. The paper's abstract concludes:-
"Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would."
The paper is very short and does not actually derive the conclusions quoted from the abstract here. However these conclusions are less ambiguous that the interview (perhaps it was meant as a direct clarification) and is a far stronger position from Storch (& his co-authors). I would suggest that to hear it from somebody so cautious about over-estimating AGW as Storch gives some cause for some concern, although note the prospect of a lower climate sensitivity (the one option that lessens AGW) is rewarded with the adjective "particularly".
-
uncletimrob at 19:09 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
This article (and I have no opinion of it's accuracy) Why our brains don't process the gravest threats to humanity , suggests that we cannot understand or comprehend threats to our survival a long way into the future. Perhaps this is more prevelant in warming/change denialists? An interesting article anyway, and worth a read.
-
Langham at 17:15 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom - Where in my postings was I arguing in favour of mining, fracking, airports etc? You're wandering way off topic - the thread is about wind turbines, not those other things.
Nor do I understand your reference to the UDHR (a text written decades before wind-farms had even been thought of). Because something is not listed there, it's not important, is that the point you're trying to make?
It may be of no interest to you, but the concern for rural serenity is a real one, for me and for many other people besides. It is under threat from many sources, but the article makes some (to my mind) rather glib and specious comments about wind-farms and those who oppose them, and I wish to rebut what it says while also pointing out the superior merits of the sea-based alternatives.
I find it rather hard to fathom the reasoning processes of people who are apparently sufficiently concerned about the environment to acquire some superficial knowledge about climate change, and yet are perfectly happy for the countryside - which is the nearest thing we have here to a natural environment - to be laid waste for no good reason when there are perfectly good alternative options to hand.
-
jgnfld at 15:13 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
The "problem" with communication to the public is the science itself. That is, so long as the communication is not what fossil fuel proponents want to hear, they will complain about the message in any and all ways regardless. It is a fantasy to believe there is a way to communicate which is so good this will not occur.
-
GW at 15:00 PM on 11 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
I read the full von Storch interview from Der Spiegel in 2013 that Peter99 quotes above. The quote, though edited, is not taken out of context— Storch is merely demonstrating appropriate scientific restraint. He stated that if the observed "pause" continued for 5 years at most (i.e. by about 2018) then climate models will need significant revision. He said that models can barely account for the past 15 years' data (his term (translated) was "stagnation" which was shown in only 2% of his simulations). The revisions Storch suggested were not at the level of tweaks but were instead fundamental changes: either (a) our effect on the climate is less than we had thought; or (b) natural variation is much larger than we had thought.
Does Storch's statement reflect the consensus view among climate scientists? Surely if Storch is an IPCC lead author then his view must be mainstream at least. -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:32 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
I particularly agree with his reply to the question about 2015 being the hottest year on record.
Not only is it early to say what the annual average will be, even the 2015 temperature values that will be available at the time of the December Paris Summit are not really relevant.
Anyone who is currently unconvinced about the need for CO2 emmissions to be dramatically curtailed is not going to be convinced by a few more months of data. Those type of people are deliberately not being rational responsible leaders of humanity toward a better future. They will bring no added-value to the Paris meeting.
Serious work needs to get done in Paris. Only people genuinely interested in thoroughly understanding what is going on and focused on developing lasting better futures for all should be at such an important meeting. Anyone who is only interested in being temporarily popular or profitable, or wants to prolong the ability of the likes of them to get away with unacceptable activity, has no right to be there.
Prev 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 Next
