Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 Next
Comments 29101 to 29150:
-
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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:13 PM on 11 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus,
In my earlier comment I did not provide information about your question about pursuing other ways to reduce CO2. I only mentioned afforestation.
The IPCC report I mentioned contains information about other actions. In addition, an SkS article here discusses geoengineering measures.
Since it is not necessary to create the excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels (it is only desired by those who want the ability to obtain maximum benefit any way they can get away with), it is not reasonable or responsible to try to solve such an unnecessarily created problem by taking additional risky action that are unnecessary if the unnecessary creation of the problem is stopped.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:29 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
And I note that one of the authors of that statement - Mark Jaccard - published a book in 2005 called "Sustainable Fossil Fuels," wherein he argued (to the best of my recollection) that we can continue to use fossil fuels as long as we use technological fixes to halt or prevent emissions. This looks to be a significant reversal of that conceit.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:24 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
And, speaking of the power of communication, it's encouraging to see scientists taking a public stance about one of the problems. This press release has appeared in numerous media:
http://www.oilsandsmoratorium.org/pr/
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
bidelo at 08:26 AM on 11 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
Yes, it's an example of kettle logic - AGW doesn't exist but it's good for Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed link
-
Tom Curtis at 07:34 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham @51:
"You say that 'valuing visual impact so highly ... is morally suspect' - I would counter that it is morally suspect to value it so little as to permit destruction of rural serenity, but both of course are purely subjective points of view."
Try as hard as I like, I can find no reference to a right to rural serenity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor yet have I seen any concern for such a right in the decisions of government with respect to the siting of mines, fracking operations, airports etc. I have to wonder what it is about wind turbines that is so destructive of rural serenity that they should be banned, while open cut coal mines are apparently OK (because, apparently not so destructive of rural serenity).
In fact, it looks to me very like this concern for "rural serenity" is merely a personal preference which is raised to the level of a moral rule, base purely on rhetorical expediency.
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Rural serenity slips way down my value system compared to human life and justice but as you say, that is subjective. On the plus side, it is good that you are prepared to pay very much more for your energy. Did you find evidence that MacKay's estimate for marine power is too low?
Tax breaks and subsidies amount to public money for private enterprise. It costs tax payers however it is phrased and relevant to this debate, it results in continuance of FF enterprises that would not happen without the price support. In my view, better governance is kill all subsidies/tax breaks, price carbon accurately, let the market determine the best way supply the need.
-
Tristan at 05:39 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
FWIW: I grew up in a National Park and then lived on a farm till my teens. I loved seeing the windmills when driving from Sydney to Canberra or Stockton to San Fran. It's more than simple aesthetics though, while I've always liked windmills of all varieities, I like them even more for what they represent.
People who dislike what they represent, dislike seeing the windmills.
-
Langham at 04:42 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
^ The article you reference indicates that they are not subsidies but tax breaks - a subtle but important difference. As I understand it, such tax breaks are available to any business for R&D, research, or in this case, exploration activities.
You say that 'valuing visual impact so highly ... is morally suspect' - I would counter that it is morally suspect to value it so little as to permit destruction of rural serenity, but both of course are purely subjective points of view.
-
gorm raabo larsen at 02:50 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
Thank you for this excellent 'inside perspective'.
-
Jim Eager at 01:10 AM on 11 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus, to be blunt, we are still arguing about the causes of the observed warming and changing climate mainly because a number of ideologically and financially motivated individuals and organizations have expended a great deal of time, human effort and money to deliberately undermine the science of climate change and spread misinformation and in some cases outright disinformation to the public through the media.
Very few of those individuals are scientists, far fewer still have any expertise in climate science, and to date none of their legitimate science-based objections or alternative hypotheses have been born out, and none of their predictions have stood the test of time in the way that mainstream hypotheses and predictions based on multiple independent lines of evidence and multiple independent modeling efforts have. That alone should tell you something.
Of course this doesn't mean that we understand everything about climate and how it changes, but it does mean that we understand it well enough to know with confidence that we are pushing climate toward a state with potentially very serious negative consequences for humanity. Exactly what those consequences will be, how serious they will be, and when they will emerge is still an active question.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:59 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattius, Reagarding your comment at 12.
I was composing my comment while your comment at 12 showed up or I would have included a reply in that post.
Planting trees is indeed part of the solutions evaluated by the people who are evaluating "the entire picture of what is going on" such as the people participating in this website.
The know reality is that planting trees and not chopping down trees only partially addresses the magnitude of added CO2 from burning fossil fuels. The IPCC "Mitigation of Climate Change Report" provides a comprehensive summary of the developed understanding regarding afforestation.
By itself, afforestation, even withna stop of all deforestation, would not counteract the production of CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels. It is as simple as that.
Logically, there is a limit to how much plant material can be growing on this amazing planet. So at the end of all the potential afforestation the excess CO2 from continued burning of fossil fuels would continue to grow the problem.
Ending the burning of fossil fuels is understood to be the key component of any mitigation strategy. Forest related action can help or hurt, but it is not a "solution to the identified problem".
-
tmbtx at 21:42 PM on 10 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
Rocketeer is on to a good point. The Daily Mail's acknowledgement of AGW is much more interesting than the content. I imagine it's too much to ask for its readers to notice the contradiction with its other coverage.
-
bozzza at 21:06 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
@ 17, arguing black is white is not easy! Sorry!!
-
bozzza at 21:03 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
@2, you are perfectly correct in the fact not everything can be measured. It's called the uncertainty principle and I look forward to any corrections you have to offer as I don't know diddly about Quantum Mechanics but wished i did!
Not everything can be measured because there is something called the real politik of 'limits'... For instance: why do you think you know anything more than anyone elese?
-
bozzza at 20:52 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Oh, I'm waiting for the QM stuff because I've always wanted to know how phase changes of solid to liquid correlate with chemical bonding propensities for change...
-
bozzza at 20:45 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Regarding the pause,
Shouldn't the idea of phase change, ie. ice being transformed into liquid water, imply a necessary pause in global warming at some point?
** I cannot believe I'm the first to submit this question but if I am YAY ME !!!!
-
scaddenp at 20:23 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus - ice age cycles and such like are changes in the forcings - orbitally induced change in distribution of incoming solar which set up complex feedbacks and change albedo - when CO2 is low enough.
I fully accept that there are is no way to predict the short term (<30 year) wobbles in surface temperature. No climate modellers is saying you can - only faux skeptics raising a strawman argument. The wobbles are caused by redistribution of heat around the planet. But the total heat content (and thus climate - the line that the wobbles occillilate around) are bound by the energy balance. To change that you have to change one of the forcings. The one that is moving is CO2. And guess what, you do the math and the forcing is the right size.
Of course you cant have certainty in science but conservation of energy is about as good as you can get. And so you demand a full inter-molecular model for cell mechanics before you would take your Dr's advice? The scientific consensus on any subject might not be right but it is the only rational guide to setting policy especially when it is strong.
-
BBHY at 16:57 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus, not having all the exact answers to every detail of the climate doesn't mean that we don't know what is going on.
Imagine for a moment that we drive a car into a tree at 60 MPH. We do not have the science that can predict exactly every bend and crease that will occur in every piece of sheet metal of the car, but we know with a very high degree of certainty that the car will be smashed.
Likewise we cannot predict exactly every detail of climate change, but we know with a very high degree of certainty that CO2 absorbs infrared heat energy. This is physics that has been well established for 150 years. So, if we add molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere, those molecules will do what they do, which is to absorb heat energy. This increased heat will cause the atmosphere to warm up.
Humans have predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, then added CO2 to the atmosphere, then observed that it has indeed warmed as expected. Hand waving about "still an argument in the data on both sides" does not change the basic physics in the slightest little bit.
-
Mattimus at 16:05 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I apologize for not adding any studies or references to studies to my comments but I truly feel there is no lack of that on this site. I have no doubt that most if not all on this site have several studies that they can point to as a means to prove a point. My only point is this. If we're still arguing about it then we don't have it completely figured out yet. Honestly we're kidding ourselves (and limiting ourselves) if we think we do. I would never encourage anyone to dismiss what they believe in only that they encourage those who have a like or opposing view. It's fun to be here trying to figure stuff out as long as we realize that we're all trying to figure it out and none of us has "the answer". And don't think you're close just because the media in 2015 is on your side. It changes like the climate. :)
Moderator Response:[DB] As others have alluded to, just because the jigsaw puzzle of climate change has a piece missing does not mean that the picture of an apple is that of a platypus.
-
Mattimus at 15:40 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
scaddenp, come on man the scientists on this planet have been talking about the 100K+ year cycles of this planet resulting in ice ages and complete melting of the polar caps. Are we disputing their science?
Moderator Response:[JH] Unless you provide documentation for your assertions, they are nothing more than your personal opinion which carries very lttle weight on this website. The tone of your comment is also not acceptable.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 15:38 PM on 10 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Ryland I note that you have not answered any of my questions. The SkS contributors are familiar with Spencer & Christy's published work. There is no reason to be surprised by Tom Dayton's statement. The work has passed peer-review and is of some interest to the overall understanding.
That work does not show, however, anything that deviates significantly from the rest of the body of litteature on similar sujects. The poblem that I, KR, and others (including Tom Dayton, I believe) have is with the vast abyss that separates their published work from their public statements, especially those made to Congress. Nothing in S&C publications allow to support the statements linked above. So I ask again, do you acknowledge that Christy made in congressional testimonies statements that are not supported by the weight of the scientific evidence, including his own research? If not, why not?
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 from 1997 or 1999, or, for that matter 1996 and even 2000? Do they indicate the presence of a "hiatus"? How different are they from the "trend" that starts in 1998? What objective reasons based on statistics justify to select 1998?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:20 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus,
I came to this site to learn more about this topic. And this site and its contributors, including the ones who respond in the comments, have been very helpful in adding to my understanding of the breadth and depth of the currently developed and continuing to be developed understanding of what is going on.
Though there are many different things you could choose to check out, the "Newcomers Start Here" button at the top of the main page should be the first stop.
However, what I found to be very compelling evidence that human impacts are significant is simply looking at the global average surface temperature data sets using the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator and reviewing the known change of CO2 in the atmosphere (NOAA presentation through this link is a good one). That pair of information reviewed objectively make it very difficult to expect to find another better explanation for what is known to have happened already other than "human impacts", particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
There are indeed many other factors, cyclical as well as random, that can and do temporarily skew the global average surface temperature values from the trend due to human impacts. However, those effects are part of what is now reasonably well understood with better understanding continuing to be developed.
I hope you enjoy exploring the wealth of information and understanding that is available through this resource.
-
scaddenp at 15:19 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
And what informs that opinion? On the contrary, we have published science to quite the contrary. A gross level, for any planet in any solar system, surface temperature is described by the energy balance. It is function of incoming radiation, planetary albedo and atmospheric composition. A planet with atmosphere and oceans has internal variability from being unevenly heated.
However, there is no "cycle or mood" that can steadily increase the ocean heat content. Conservation of energy requires that energy come from somewhere. What cycle is creating energy? The observed change is consistant with change in GHG. Solar is not increasing. You can argue about climate sensitivity or the accuracy of models but you cant argue about conversation of energy.
-
Mattimus at 15:18 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
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?
Prev 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 Next
