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:
-
SkepticalinCanada at 23:38 PM on 14 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@13 I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about that statement, as it's likely that neither of us can definitievely quantify whether or not having only 10,000 people on the planet with that level of consumption is sustainable. For example, at what rate are the fossil fuels of the future forming right now? Would the emissions from only having 10,000 people on the planet cause sufficient disruption in the carbon cycle to create a problem for future generations? The current issue seems to be the rate of change, which does not give the planet sufficient time to adapt to what we are doing. With sufficient time, is there a problem?
Are you disagreeing that total impact is a function of both level of consumption and total numbers? And of course, this is about more than fossil fuels if we are talking total numbers. This is also about scarce resources (Liebig's Law of the Minimum and the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate come to mind), displacement of other species, social and psychological impacts of large numbers, and other issues that I cannot articulate at present I am sure. That is why my opinion that we must deal with both issues if sustainability is what we are interested in - total numbers and consumption.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 14 June 2015Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"have rightly shown me for which i cannot dispute that the tropics is best where the amplification is to take place"
How did they rightly show you? Do these people maintain that water vapor somehow "knows" that it can only amplify temperatures in a narrow band of the tropics and not anywhere else? Sounds like magic thinking, to me.
Ask them for links to the primary literature establishing such. And please keep the same user name here.
-
POJO at 23:07 PM on 14 June 2015Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Thanks Daniel,
I am getting annihilated at work. The guys have rightly shown me for which i cannot dispute that the tropics is best where the amplification is to take place. Hence why I have shown the narrow band. Is this incorrect?
-
BBHY at 23:01 PM on 14 June 2015Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
Wol, Regarding your observation that they "slip from one false argument to another seamlessly", that is called the Gish Gallup.
When that happens I found the best thing is to ignore all their noise and come right back to "None of that makes any difference to the molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those molecules of CO2 don't care how you feel about politics, taxes, liberals, the UN, science, scientists, Al Gore or anything else. They just do what they do, which is to absorb infrared heat radiation, and they are quite good at it. The more CO2 in the air, the more heat gets absorbed. Proven fact."
-
Daniel Bailey at 22:57 PM on 14 June 2015Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
A response to new commentator POJO:
The output graphic you linked to specifically excludes relative humidity outside a narrow band of the tropics (5S to 10N). Looking at global RH, we see that the atmospheric composition of water vapor has increased by about 5% since 1970 (Trenberth & Fasullo, 2009; pp 317). As a result, the atmosphere now holds the approximate equivalent of an extra volume of Lake Erie in it, spread throughout.
Also see my comment above about research done by Lacis on water vapor vs CO2 as drivers of temperature change (hint: water vapor is not a driver and CO2 is).
-
POJO at 22:40 PM on 14 June 2015Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
Hi guys, i am new here.
A bit concerned that the science is not settled. Why does NOAA show Water Vapor has been decreasing for many decades now. This is something that concerns me greatly. Here is the link
It seems to contradict what is supposed to be happening! I mean we talk about facts and this has been mentioned to me for which i have no reply. How do i respond?
Moderator Response:[DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science! This site has thousands of posts expanding and unpacking the science and debunking the memes of the fake-skeptics denying the science. As such, and to avoid clutter, the proper thing to do when one has a question is to use the Search function and place questions on the most appropriate comment thread. In you case, that most appropriate thread is here: Explaining How The Water Vapor Greenhouse Effect Works.
I have place a comment further answering you there, with this comment, here.
Lastly, as a new user please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy, as this is a moderated site. Thanks, and enjoy what this site has to offer!
-
Phil at 22:00 PM on 14 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Phillippe @34
The most eregious use of "the pause" I have come across is by UK contrarian Peter Taylor here
Another five years of no warming will nail it. Unless a major Nino or volcano muddies the water!
Taylor clearly believes that is OK to start a trend in an El nino year, but not to end with one.
-
MA Rodger at 18:33 PM on 14 June 2015There is no consensus
rkrolph @394.
The URL you provide to the pdf of Stenhouse et al. (2014) 'Meteorologists views about global warming: a survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members' lacks the papers abstract (& a clickable link to the supplimnatary material for those interested in the detail fo their regression analysis). Abstract (& clickable link) is available with the full article here.
-
Wol at 17:44 PM on 14 June 2015Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
I think one of the most effective ways of taking on sceptics (and for most of us this means in blogs and the like) is to ask them to elucidate exactly what their individual points are. Each one is easily refuted by the facts.
The more difficult thing is that 90% of them slip from one false argument to another seamlessly, which means playing catchup and never getting to address their falsehoods. I can't see anyway around this because it's not possible outside a face to face debate over a pint to force someone to get to the point.
On a blog they can merely stop posting, which leaves the impression to third parties that they have somehow won the argument.
-
villabolo at 16:29 PM on 14 June 2015Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
Simple: Make the explanation understandable to Mid school students. Also, use the least number of charts and graphs necessary. People get turned off instinctively when they see charts and graphs thinking that they're too technical for them to understand. Exceptions are simple temperature graphs and GISS temperature maps.
I would also use the phrase "Big picture, little picture" when explaining how deniers take things out of context. It's a more visual phrase than simply saying "It's out of context", Tell them how scientists look at the "big picture" while 'Skeptics look at the "little picture,'"
When saying that I would use a gesture with both hands (open palm) spread in front of me in reference to the "big picture" but I shorten the space between my hands when I say "little picture". It mimicks a gesture that would indicate the old phrase "put blinders on".
Also, the phrase "cherry picking" is not necessarily understood by everyone.
Credible/unexpected: I use the Navy's Arctic ice thickness maps to emphasize that it's coming from a military source. It would be good to say that submarines travel in the Arctic beneath the ice (a good way to visualize things).
I also use Roy Spencers temperature graphs in case somebody asks me for the source. I like to tell them, since they may be wary of scientists, that an actual "Skeptic" produced it. It throws them off guard.
That sidetracks the propaganda made by deniers that scientists are making things up. That also would put the response in the category of .
Concrete: Explain that global warming is going to create both crop damage (through droughts) and infrastructure damage (through flooding).
People like to eat and not have their roads washed away.
And last may I suggest preparation and anticipation. I would print out GISS anomaly images and temperature graphs and put them in the trunk of my car or inside a belt bag or in your back pocket (folded up) in case I get lucky and find someone who's interested in the subject.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 16:01 PM on 14 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
I am not exasperated, Ryland. I am probing because I want to know if the right answer can be acknowledged. Not everything is a matter of opinion. It is possible to narrow down a given question so that the right answer can be clearly established.
In the case of 1998, it is abundantly clear that it is the worst year to choose as the beginning of a sample because it is such an outlier, due to the massive El-Nino that happened across 1997-1998. What exasperates me is that there has been so much noise made around the "pause" that even serious people give credence to an idea that has in fact no basis in reality. If the year is placed in context, it is painfully obvious that one must not use it as the beginning of any sample. Furthermore, no sample too small to identify a truly statistically significant trend should be used at all. These are objective truths. If one wants to look at even something of as little value as the "most recent trend", he should start from the lastest data (2014) and go back far enough to have a sample that will yield a valid trend. How big a sample that is is not a matter of opinion either. It can be determined by statistical means. These are facts. If one fails to do that, he just reveals how fake his "skepticism" is.
I am interested to see if even one whose ideological leanings appear to be the kind for which climate change is a very inconvenient problem can acknowledge these objective facts, i.e. think rationally. Can you?
The same applies to Christy's declarations. One can agree wholeheartedly with the ideological convictions that compel him to participate in certain organizations. However, the distance between what the weight of the evidence shows (including the one he himself produced) and what he said in Congress is also an objective fact. One can decide to not think rationally and intentionally overlook this fact, of course. However, it remains plain to be seen for those who do think rationally. And it is not a valid argument to point attention on to others who supposedly do similar or worse things. The question at issue is clearly posed, other issues are other issues. On this specific question, can you think rationally?
Doing so inevitably forces one to accept a great numbers of things about climate change. What you do with them within the framework of your favored ideology is up to you, but if the ideology can not accomodate the reality, then the ideology must be amended.
In the old Soviet Union, they pretended that, in their camp, airplanes did not crash. In a certain current of thought nowadays, some pretend that temperatures are not increasing, that see level is not rising, that misleading arguments are honest, etc. What's wrong with this picture?
-
rkrolph at 15:54 PM on 14 June 2015There is no consensus
anticornco6-
"only 52% of meteorologists accept man-made gobal warming"
As worded, that is not a true statement from the survey. It was a very detailed survey with several categories and many possible responses.
Actually, for all respondents to the survey (meteorologists of all disciplines), 73% said humans were "at least partially responsible for global warming." For publishing climate scientists, the survey showed 93% agreed with that statement.
Even more telling, only 5% of all respondents to the survey said global warming was mostly natural.
The authors also acknowledged that because they framed the question with regard to human influence on climate change over the last 150 years, instead of the IPCC mid 20th century time frame, it may have biased their results, stating:
"Six respondents sent e-mails to notify us that their answers would have been different if we had asked about the most recent 50-yr time frame rather than the 150-yr time frame; the time frame used in the question may have also influenced other respondents. Our results therefore may represent a more conservative estimate of the consensus on global warming than would have been obtained had we asked about a 50-yr time frame."
Based on this, I think it's fair to say that "skeptic" you refer to was not at all accurate.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
-
bozzza at 10:03 AM on 14 June 2015Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial
Going back to basics: you simply have to ask skeptics, "What would happen to water vapour if the earth had no CO2?"
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:57 AM on 14 June 2015There is no consensus
anticorcob6... If I'm not mistaken, climatology would be a subclass of meteorology. Meteorology is the study of weather and the atmosphere, where climatology is a specific area of this related to weather over long periods of time. Thus, climate is an area of specialization within meteorology. A climatologist is also a meteorologist, but a meteorologist is not necessarily a climatologist.
I've seen the study that your "skeptic" is talking about and, if I remember correctly, the point of the study is regarding how to raise the level of understanding about climate change within the full ranks of meteorologists.
-
anticorncob6 at 08:32 AM on 14 June 2015There is no consensus
There is a popular survey being shown around saying that only 52% of meteorologists accept man-made gobal warming (a simple internet search will bring you there). I was talking to a "skeptic" and he pointed to this survey in response to my facts supporting the 97% consensus. He said that meteorologists are relevant to global warming and are a subset of climatologists.
So are they in fact relevant? And is the survey reliable?
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 14 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langhorn, I am aware of current technology. However, extracting the full power available from tidal streams requires stacked one on top of another which has yet to be achieved as far as I am aware. However you cut it, offshore systems are inherently more expensive to maintain than onshore.
"every new offshore wind-farm or tidal stream system equates to one less onshore wind-farm"
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not true. You cannot get off FF on marine power alone. You also need all the onshore wind as well. You do not have an easy choice. You can give up your rural serenity (small price compared to what some will pay for FF use), you can accept nuclear, or you can accept the consequences of a warming climate. How many refugees from the great deltas do you think the UK should accept given it's historical contribution to the elevated CO2 levels.?
-
Phil at 02:22 AM on 14 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
"There is absolutely no need to extrapolate from this model result about the 20th century and say something about the next decades."
But isn't this exactly what the climate modelling with regard to Co2 is all about?
No, climate models do not extrapolate current trends. If they did, they couldn't make projections for different RCP's.
"[Model] projections are still uncertain but do prefer increased precipitation. They also indicate that the evaporative demand will go up to more than enough to compensate for rainfall changes, so that drought conditions are expected to continue."
Isn't this doing exactly what she says should not be done, namely extrapolating from this model result to say something about the next decades?
"Model projections" refers to GCM's which are, as explained above, not extrapolations, but projections based on physics.
The caution about extrapolation is that, if a current relationship appears (say) linear, but there is no simple physical reason to expect it to be linear, then extrapolation should be done cautiously. The GCM's are not extrapolating a relationship, they are modelling it with physics.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 14 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@12,
The 10,000 people currently living the highest impact way of living is not even sustaianble.
The total impact of the population is the issue, and the ability to sustain the way of living into the distant future is essential for a way of living to be considered decent. Fewer people still doing things that create a growing problem or consume a non-renewable resource has no future and is not 'more decent'. The smaller number of such people simply delays the inevitable realization of the lack of sustainability of that group living that way.
Burning a non-renewable resource such as fossil fuel is ultimately unsustainable through the millions of years this planet will be habitable, and that is without coinsidering the unacceptable creation of consequences for future generations of that activity.
-
ryland at 01:52 AM on 14 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
At the risk of further aggravating the situation which I have absolutely no desire to do, to answer your question you wrote"Ryland I note that you have not answered any of my questions." and "I did not see a response either to my other question about cherry-picking the year 1998, so I ask again: what are the "trends" starting....". In retrospect I should not have used the term peevish and apologise for that. I should have written you seemed rather exasperated with my lack of response which perhaps has less unfortunate connotations than peevish even though both words mean the same thing namely "annoyed".
-
ryland at 01:36 AM on 14 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
I find the comments from Professor Michela Biasutti somewhat confusing. She says
:"There is absolutely no need to extrapolate from this model result about the 20th century and say something about the next decades."
But isn't this exactly what the climate modelling with regard to Co2 is all about? How can it be OK to redict the climate for the next 100 years but not OK to say something about the next decades?
She also says:
"[Model] projections are still uncertain but do prefer increased precipitation. They also indicate that the evaporative demand will go up to more than enough to compensate for rainfall changes, so that drought conditions are expected to continue."
Isn't this doing exactly what she says should not be done, namely extrapolating from this model result to say something about the next decades?
Both she and Professor Sutton seem anxious to make it plain that this positive result as he calls it, is of not very much significance while also saying "There's no doubt that the overall impacts of climate change on Africa are very serious. Potential short-lived benefits will be greatly outweighed by longer-term costs."
So it seems a positive result is not to be extrapolated and is to be very much downplayed while "negative results (to coin a phrase) are extrapolated and used as a basis for the most dire predictions. As I said above this anomalous reporting of results and conclusions drawn is somewhat confusing
-
SkepticalinCanada at 01:22 AM on 14 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
@10 It was your second sentence that threw me off, I suppose, as my opinion is that "total population impact" is as much a function of total numbers as it is of the level of consumption. You mention small populations, and as I have argued before, I doubt that we would be having this discussion if there were only, for example, 10,000 people on this planet. I think we agree that the current obsession with individual rights and freedoms has not been balanced by a sufficient focus on responsibilities and obligations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:52 AM on 14 June 2015Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found
Topal,
In addition to what Rob P has provided, any warm surface will warm cooler air that passes by it. And any cool surface will cool warmer air that is passing by it. That is the basic physics expectation of mechanical heat transfer systems. So when a wind blows air across a water surface some heat transfer will occur. This is what makes the influence of an El Nino larger than just the local warming of the ocean surface. The longer the condition occurs, and the more significant the condition is, the more warming of air can occur compared to an ENSO neutral case increasing the measured surface temperature in other areas.
Rob P is correct that another effect is the change of the rate of heat loss by radiation of heat energy from the surface. So when the surface of the tropical Pacific is cooler (La Nina) more of the solar energy it absorbs stays in it.
So technically it was incomplete to say that the ocean takes in the heat from the air. A cooler ocean surface is also releasing heat energy to the atmosphere at a lower rate than a warm ocean surface. And that radiant heat energy can be picked up by CO2. And if winds bring cooler (less energetic) CO2 over the ocean then that cooler CO2 will become warmer (more energetic).
However, this technicality does not alter the fact that there is an obvious strong correlation between the variation of the ENSO and fluctuations of the global average surface temperature. Therefore, regardless of the specifics of the mechanism of incluence of the ENSO on global average surface temperatures it is obvious that the El Nino/La Nina influence is a significant factor and is a major part of the explanation that there has been no real 'hiatus' in global average surface temperature increase since 1998.
Adjusting that variation of the rate of energy emissions from the surface of the tropical Pacific to an ENSO neutral ocean surface condition, including the adjustment of the effects beyond the tropical Pacific, would be the proper way to evaluate the trend of the global average surface temperature due to increased CO2.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:39 PM on 13 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
I note that you still did not really answer the question about reasons to choose 1998 as a starting point. I also note that data are available until 2014 and there is no reason to stop in 2010 or 2012, so trends should be computed to the end of the data. We should also examine how statistically significant any "trend" starting less than 30 years ago actually is. If you are not aware of the what Chrsity said, then you should get acquainted with it so as to be able to form a truly informed opinion. Links were graciously provided and what you quoted is not exactly what others and myself have referred to.
Saying that no extreme events can be linked to climate change is a phony rethoric tool. No individual event can be linked to climate change, but it is well known that climate change increases the probability of extreme events and their severity, especially those that have to do with sea level or heat waves.
I read my post again and they were rather courteous and well formulated, I'm not sure what you perceive as peevish.
Moderator Response:[JH] Ryland has been warned that his snarky rhetoric will not be tolerated.
-
topal at 18:26 PM on 13 June 2015Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found
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.
How does the ocean know it is El Nino and what is the process that heats the surface (of the ocean?)?
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.
When the ocean takes in heat from the air, I'd guess that the surface temperature of the ocean would increase (and the air temperature decrease). But how is heat transfered from the air to the water, given the huge difference in heat capacity between water and air?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] See the SkS post How increasing carbon dioxide heats the ocean. You make a good point about the differing heat capacities of water and air. Not many people intuitively grasp how unphysical it is for the oceans to be warmed by the transfer of heat from the atmosphere given the enormous difference in heat capacity. Then there's that whole 'laws of thermodynamics' thing too.
Long story short; during El Nino more warm water is at the ocean surface (especially the tropical Pacific) and this leads to the anomalous transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere - hence warmer-than-normal global surface temperatures.
-
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.
Prev 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 Next
