Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 Next
Comments 29251 to 29300:
-
Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 4 June 2015The history of emissions and the Great Acceleration
saileshrao @28, that result has been known in essence since at least the late 1990s. The proof is in the balanceing of the O2/CO2 budget. Essentially, it is known that the total reduction of O2 in the atmosphere is less than the amount predicted from combustion of fossil fuels, allowing for the fact that combustion of the hydrogen in fossil fuels also reduces O2. The shortfall has to be made up by photosynthesis in excess of natural respiration, ie, of an increase in land biomass.
The sources of the excess respiration are not so easy to quantify. Part of it comes from massive reforestation in the mid to high latitudes of the NH as forests partly or completely destroyed in the 19th century regrew over the twentieth century (particularly in the US and Europe). The green revolution accounts for a further part. A further part comes from increased absolute humidity on average leading to increased plant growth. Finally, the greenhouse fertilization effect will account for some more. The first two of these should already be included in the net LUC, leaving the second two as the primary drivers of the land uptake component. Partitioning the relative contribution of the two, however, is likely to be difficult. Further, there may be other small (or even large) effects with which I am not familiar.
-
saileshrao at 23:34 PM on 3 June 2015The history of emissions and the Great Acceleration
I'm puzzled by the land carbon accounting since 1750. It appears from Le Quere (2014) that the net carbon loss from anthropogenic land use change since 1750 is almost completely offset by the carbon uptake of land. In other words, the carbon on land has remained unchanged despite the massive changes in vegetation and soil in Asia, North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and Africa throughout European colonization and the modern industrial era.
Can someone help me make sense of that assertion? Thanks! -
billthefrog at 21:50 PM on 3 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
@ denisaf
"I wonder, however, how they take into account the impact of friction"
To the best of my extremely limited knowledge, all GCMs use the Navier-Stkes equations when describing the motion of fluids, such as the oceans and the atmosphere. As I'm sure you know, these are used in the description of viscous flows.
Physical behavioural aspects that cannot be adequately modelled are handled by a process known as parameterisation. (Please note that the term may well be used with a somewhat different meaning from that which you may be familiar with when employed in turbine design.) If you are uncertain of the usage of the term in conjunction with GCMs, you could have a quick look at this page from the World Meteorological Organisation, and scroll down to the section dealing with parameterisation.
"...the models do not take into account the decisions that people will make in the future..."
Not true. Model runs are set up under a variety of future emission scenarios. Skeptical Science already has a Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways, and I would suggest you perhaps have a look at that.
cheers Bill F
-
billthefrog at 21:11 PM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
"Selective concern. Bird mortality only seems important to most of these people if it's in regard to windmills - and not as an actual concern in it's its own right. This is very similar to climate denier 'concerns' about the poor, which only seem to appear in regards to regulating coal plants, and not in terms of actually helping said poor or third world countries with health, energy, or at the root - any kind of monies."
Those words - from KR's comment #29 - certainly resonate with my own experiences. I've just spent the last 15 minutes searching through the local village magazine archive trying to find the example that I knew was buried in there somewhere.
From the Lustleigh Parish mag, April 2010 (p90) ...
"Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and a wonderful plant food that has often been at higher concentrations than now. It is tragic if we demonise it and spend billions fighting an imaginary problem when there are so many real problems of poverty, pollution, and change of land use that we should address instead."
Unbelievable! The generic semantics of that closing sentence can be rendered thus...
"Why spend time/money on < whatever it is you are ranting about > when there are on-going problems with < enter something that will tug at heart-strings, and gain a sympathetic ear > ?"
As KR rightly states, this is nothing but hollow rhetoric, built on hypocrisy and ideology.
-
John Mason at 18:26 PM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
An interesting discussion has kicked off, to which I can add little, except to suggest that anyone visiting North Wales should really take the time to visit the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme. An internet search for Electric Mountain should find it quickly enough. I visited some years ago and was technically very impressed indeed.
-
bozzza at 17:12 PM on 3 June 2015Greenland is gaining ice
-
william5331 at 16:25 PM on 3 June 2015Greenland is gaining ice
I wonder if a Walker type cell could develop between the ever warming Arctic Ocean and the Greenland Ice sheet. Rising warm air contacts the ice, cools and flows down the ice sheet warming by compression and giving its heat to the ice. Warm foen winds cause extreme melting when in contact with ice.
-
chriskoz at 14:42 PM on 3 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23A
"Burning coal is hot; its warming is far hotter" title is misleading, because taken literaly, the claim that greenhouse effect be hotter than concentrated heat of C burning process is absurd. Of course they mean the total radiative forcing integrated over the time until releasaed CO2 is sequestrered back to earth.
The underlying study gives some puzzling numbers: if FF waste heat is equaled by intergated RF on GHE within ~1/2year, but ultimately RF grows to 100,000 times greater than FF, then it follows that the integrated lifetime of said GHE is 50,000 years. That looks high, considering that most (75%) of CO2 is sequestered within first thousand years, according to the cited study of CO2 lifatime (Joos et al 2013). It look as the "long tail" CO2 residual 10% lasting about 500ky would have given such a number as if GHE lasted 50,000 years. I don't have access to (Joos et al 2013) full text but such number seems high to me.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:30 PM on 3 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
denisaf,
Please explain what you mean by "the inevitable desline in supply of electricity".
I understand that there will be a decline in the supply of electricity form burning fossil fuels, but that decline needed to have happened long ago and really is not "the supply of electricity". Fossil fuels also do not need to be the fuel for air travel.
In fact everything we use fossil fuels for can be done in less damaging truly sustainable ways. The only barrier to the development of those ways of doing things was the permission granted to the pursuit of profit from the cheaper damaging unsustainable burning of fossil fuels, something that is clearly understood to only benefit a few people for a short period of time in the grand scheme of things.
-
denisaf at 13:47 PM on 3 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
This retired physical research scientist admires Professor Slingo for her balanced comments on a very complex issue and how it should be tackled. I did mathematical modelling of the performance of gas turbine engines decades ago so I have some understanding of the nature of climate modelling. I wonder, however, how they take into account the impact of friction on the motions as it cannot, in my experience, be treated by mathematics so it has to be accounted for by approximations. Professor Slingo discussed how super computers would enable better models and so improve the forecasting. But the models do not take into account the decisions that people will make in the future. The declining supply of many natural resources, including oil, will have an unpredictable impact on those decisions. For example, the inevitable decine in the supply of electricity will have an impact on the use of super computers. The declining supply of jet fuel (from oil) will reduce airline flying for such purposes as conferences.
-
Kuni at 13:15 PM on 3 June 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
It is a related point. If facts were the only thing required, there would be no discussion.
When was the last time one of these sociopaths accepted the science? Point out the GRACE data to them that shows that the Antarctic is losing ice mass, they just turn and pretend that the increase in the sea ice, which is nothing compared to the loss of land ice, still magically not only cancels out the much larger loss in land ice but also proves that the ice pack is growing.
There is no hiatus/pause. This is just the same old 1998 BS repackaged.
Over at a denier site they are using the existence of this thread as proof that there is a hiatus.
Moderator Response:[JH] The residents of Deniersville say and do strange things. Generall speaking, it's best to let them stew in their own pseudo-science poppycock.
-
Kuni at 10:01 AM on 3 June 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
Who was my comment directed to?
Everyone and anyone who keeps falling for the old Conservative trick of letting them define the language.
Moderator Response:[JH] Per the SkS Comments Policy, "The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points."
-
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Phil @31, from the abstract of the relevant part of the PhD thesis:
"We monitored 55 cats during a 1-year period (Nov. 2010- Oct. 2011) using KittyCam video cameras. Participating cats wore a video camera for 7-10 total days and all outdoor activity was recorded for analysis. We collected an average of 37 hours of footage from each project cat. Results demonstrated that 44% of free-roaming cats hunted wildlife, of which reptiles, mammals, and invertebrates constituted the majority of prey. Successful hunting cats captured an average of 2.1prey items during 7 days of roaming, with Carolina anoles (Anolis carolinensis) being the most common prey species. Most wildlife captures (85%) occurred during the warm season (March - November in the southern USA). Twenty-three percent of cat prey items were returned to households; 49% of items were left at the site of capture, and 28% were consumed. Our results suggest that previous studies of pet cat predation on wildlife using owner surveys significantly underestimated capture rates."
(My emphasis)
So, while each cat was monitored for just seven-10 days, they were not all monitored simultaniously, and overall monitoring occured over a full year (contrary to your claim). That does introduce a substantial potential bias in that successful hunts were far less frequent in the "cool season" (Dec-Feb), and a significant number of the cats who were not successful in hunting may have come from that period.
Loyd only extrapolates her results to Athen's, writing:
"However, if we were to extrapolate our findings (1.6 prey captured/week/ hunting cat) to the entire estimated population of free-roaming cats in Athens, greater than 300,000 wildlife prey (including > 40,000 birds) may be lost to pet cats each year in ACC, Georgia alone."
That extrapolation should be uncontentious. It shows, however, that cat predation in just one small town in Georgia accounts for 30% as many deaths as the total US wind farm industry. On that basis alone it is absurd to think that deaths caused by wind turbines represent a significant proportion of total avian deaths caused by cat predation. Further, the extrapolation by multiplying out the the total population of free roaming cats in the US should be correct within an order of magnitude, again easilly showing greater predation by owned domestic cats than by wind turbines. A simple extrapolation shows 2 billion animal deaths per annum from owned domestic cats, with 262 million bird deaths from domestic cats. Even extrapolating at a 10% rate, that still yields 26.2 million owned domestic cat deaths across the US, compared to the extrapolated 7 million bird deaths per year for the US if 100% of the US's energy were provided by wind turbines.
The extrapolation to 4 billion animal deaths per annum mentioned above includes feral cats (contrary to my mistaken claim, for which I apologize). That is certainly a conservative estimate in that there are about 60 million feral cats across the US, and they rely primarilly on hunting for food (unlike domestic cats) and are consequently likely to hunt more frequently, and more skill fully.
More importantly, given your original contention because "... the UK figures were obtained from a volunteer survey for which the original purpose was to map the small mammal population of the UK using "cat-kill"" "... no special mention was made of reporting non-kills, i.e. cats that had not killed any animals and so vastly inflates the figure of deaths of all animals by domestic cat predation in the UK", it becomes apparent from the PhD research that only 44% of free roaming cats exhibit hunting behaviour; but that only 23% of captured prey were brought home. It follows that overall estimates of cat kills based on owner surveys are likely to underestimate cat predation.
As to your "coup de grace" contention, while cats are likely to preferentially prey on weak animals, it is unlikely that in general "weak" equals so weak as to not be able to feed themselves. And while it is likely that at least some animals killed by cats would have been killed by other predators in the cats absense, that just indicates that cat predation is likely leading to reduce population numbers in other competing predators. That is particularly the case given that the non-feral cat population is not constrained by the carrying capacity of the country.
-
Phil at 08:00 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom @22
One problem with domestic cat predation is that it may simply be a "coup de grace" on an animal that is dying through other causes. Given that small garden birds will produce 20-30 eggs in a lifetime, a stable population will see 18-28 mortalities before breeding age; it is not unfeasible that many of these are primarily down to malnutrition which provides the predator with an "opportunistic" kill.
In UK, there used to be healthy population of Lynx (now extinct) and Wildcat (almost extinct) and so predated species were well adapted to feline predation; obviously domestic cats (along with rats) are more of an issue where they have been introduced to regions that had no such predators, Galapagos, New Zealand (and Australia?) being cases in point. Given these problems, it would seem more realistic to compare avain wind turbine deaths with those for skyscrapers and high voltage electricity lines.
As an aside, I note that the Ph.D you linked to extrapolates a national US figure for predation based on a sample of just 55 animals, in one town in the USA, monitored over a period of a few days at one time of year - it does seem a bit of a stretch!
-
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Given the effect of past rapid climate change on biodiversity (ie mass extinctions), worrying about bird deaths from windmills as an argument against getting off fossil fuel is somewhat eyebrow-raising. Hopefully not a case of "I hate windmills ergo AGW is wrong".
-
KR at 06:48 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
I find two aspects of the "wind energy avian mortality" meme tiresome.
- Sheer innumeracy. Windows kill more than 103 more birds than windmills, three orders of magnitude, feral cats kill more than that, yet for some reason deniers find the wind numbers meaningful. This is the inverse of the 'trace gas' arguments about CO2, where actual effects are ignored to hype the rhetorical appearance of a number.
- Selective concern. Bird mortality only seems important to most of these people if it's in regard to windmills - and not as an actual concern in it's own right. This is very similar to climate denier 'concerns' about the poor, which only seem to appear in regards to regulating coal plants, and not in terms of actually helping said poor or third world countries with health, energy, or at the root - any kind of monies.
It's just bad rhetoric.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:09 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
I find the "whole wind turbine avian mortality" meme tiresome. Let's review the sources:
Wind turbines kill orders of magnitudes fewer birds than do fossil fuel energy generation sources. Where's the outcry against those?
In reality, cars kill 2,800 birds for every 1 killed by a wind turbine.
And cars kill more pedestrians than windmills kill birds. Is it time to ban cars yet?
The leading causes of Raptor deaths in the Altamont study:
1. Shooting
2. Poison
3. CarsBut climate deniers aren't interested in facts that disagree with their desired outcome.
Nature Link
Erickson et al 2005
LINK
LINK
LINKPer Erickson 2005:
Table 2–Summary of predicted annual avian mortality.
Buildings______________________ 550 million
Power lines____________________ 130 million
Cats*___________________________ 100 million
Automobiles____________________ 80 million
Pesticides_______________________ 67 million
Communications towers_________ 4.5 million
Wind turbines_________________ 28.5 thousand
Airplanes_______________________ 25 thousand*This figure only includes bird deaths from cats claimed as pets by owners and does not include those from feral cats (cf Loss et al 2013)
Bird deaths from solar farms have been estimated to be relatively low, though — a U.S. Fish and Wildlife study earlier this year found only 233 bird deaths at three different solar farms in California over the course of two years.
As for coal, those bird death numbers came from a peer-reviewed study in the journal Renewable Energy. That estimate had a more sweeping methodology, though, with the study’s author including everything from coal mining to production — and bird deaths from climate change that coal emissions produce. Together, that amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy produced by coal, almost 8 million per year.
Cat's out of the proverbial bag. Per Loss et al 2013, feral cats kill most of the 87,000 times as many birds (in the US alone) than do all of the wind turbines in the world do, combined. That's 3.7 BILLION bird deaths per year, by cats alone...in the US. Or about 10 MILLION per day, as compared to about 2 per day per wind turbine.
Seems the bird holocaust is getting out of...paw. Meow.
This study from the EPA of Sweden documents siting strategies successful in alleviating most wind turbine bird mortalities:
To Debunk the Anti-Wind Myth of 14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines in California:
And now dogs are being employed to assist in carcass searches:
A good resource:
Furthermore, the ongoing Exeter University Wind Turbine Bat Research Programme examined the Resilient Energy Great Dunkilns in order to understand the effects of wind turbines on bat populations.
The researchers used trained dogs to check for any dead bats. No dead bats were found and this correlates with Exeter's research on similar sized wind turbines where bat mortality rates have also been found to be low to non-existent.
Lastly, the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants has rejected claims that the frequencies created by wind turbines can have adverse health issues, saying the infrasound generated is often less than a person’s heart-beat.
To sum: About 2 birds and 2 bats per day, per wind turbine.
Versus everything else, which are many orders of magnitude deadlier.
Let's move on to actual, substantive issues.
Moderator Response:[TD] Daniel, I see there is an incomplete myth about wind turbines killing birds. Are you the one writing that? If not, I think you should just past your comment into it with a little cleanup. Please. Pretty please.
-
KR at 05:11 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza - The differences in the Arctic are perhaps 1/4 the ocean thermal mass as global ocean averages, small overall size (the smallest ocean), being almost surrounded by land (which warms faster), more limited liquid interchanges due to bottlenecking than the Antarctic, and very importantly considerable susceptibility to positive albedo feedbacks; as less summer ice is present given current trends, solar energy absorbed by the Arctic ocean goes up very rapidly.
Given the land/ocean balances alone, the northern pole should warm ~10% faster than the southern.
Regarding warm/cold water exchanges, as scaddenp recommended I suggest reading up on global thermohaline circulation.
While these overall effects may not be intuitive, they are very well established.
-
KR at 04:57 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza - Average depth of the Arctic Ocean is ~1000m, while globally oceans average ~3700m, while the Southern Ocean around Antarctica averaging 4000-5000m.
-
Kuni at 04:22 AM on 3 June 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
You have fallen for the old Conservative trick of letting them define the language.Stop using the term “hiatus” and start calling it what it is: “The latest attempt by science deniers to cherry pick the last strong el-Nino year while ignoring that 2014 was the hottest year on record.”
Moderator Response:[JH] To whom is your comment directed?
-
bozzza at 03:42 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
@ 410, did you say the Arctic Ocean is not deep?
In trying to make sense of the whole shebang in mentally digestable chunks what effect would this have exactly?
-
bozzza at 03:31 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
@ 408, yeh just still haven't got my head around this thermohaline cycle yet but even more to the point I feel the basic information of the NH being warmer than the SH should be much more common knowledge than it is if we are to save the world basically... it just confuses me as to why it isn't a high priority piece of information...
-
KR at 01:27 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza - Yes, the NH is warming faster than the SH:
This is wholly unsurprising - land warms (and cools) faster than ocean, and the SH has less land relative to ocean area (warming differential predicted by Svante Arhennius, 1896, p265). This is also partly due to Arctic amplification having an impact (shallow sea with ice surrounded by land) compared to the Antarctic (land ice surrounded by water).
What is your point?
-
Kuni at 01:02 AM on 3 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Bozzza
Your question was “why” is the above- the fact that the NH is warmer than the SH- not common knowledge?
I answered as honestly as I can with the knowledge I have.
To answer your revised question would first require validating the claim that the NH is in fact warmer than the SH. That is easier said than done.
Are you talking about total heat energy present north of the equator versus total heat energy south of the equator; and over what time frame. Are you talking about averages, means, or maximums versus minimums? Does all the data exist for the heat in all of the oceans in both hemispheres?
Then determining “why”, if it is true, it is not common knowledge would require an extensive analysis of all the educational systems, all the media channels, and people’s preferences and abilities when it comes finding and retaining said information. And probably a lot of other variables that I am not aware of.
-
KR at 00:43 AM on 3 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
ryland - Given the tiny relative impact of wind energy on bird deaths, even if all our power came wind, your comment is truly absurd. If you actually want to make a difference in bird mortality, spend your energy arguing about domestic cats. Or for that matter, well polished windows.
I can only conclude that you're more interested in rhetorical 'point scoring' against renewable energy than about the bird mortality itself.
[Which, quite frankly, is consistent with your other comments on this site, which appear to primarily consist of climate denial memes]
-
JARWillis at 23:10 PM on 2 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
Professor Slingo speaks with the characteristic voice of responsible scientific expertise. Understated, careful, soundly based, courteous. The contrast with the language used by Nigel Lawson and the other entrenched deniers is stark, and often grotesque.
Objective observers need look no further in deciding which voices to trust.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:39 PM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
ryland @23, what an absolutely stupid comment. Your suggestion that I am trying to hide data to which I linked is absurd, as is your sarcastic suggestion that I am not at all concerned about bird losses due to wind turbines. It has been perfectly obvious from my framing of my argument that it is not that noise or health concerns from wind turbines, or equally bird deaths from wind turbines are not a concern. It is that people are exploiting those concerns despite showing utter disregard to far more severe and related issues. They think wind farms ought to be stopped because of relatively low rates of bird mortality from wind turbines while not caring about the far greater bird mortalities caused by cats.
I have no problem of consistency with the avid avian conservationist who thinks both that wind farms should be banned, and that all members of the species felus domesticus should be exterminated (or at least kept under constant lock and key). I do have a problem with people who think wind farms ought to be banned due to concerns about bird mortality, but want no restrictions on pesticide use, communications towers, tall buildings. roadways and (or course) domestic cats on the same basis. When I see people who normally ridicule those avid conservationists jumping on the "protect our birds" platform, but only as it relates to windfarms, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
And such a person, apparently, are you!
Finally, there is very good reason not to discuss the impact of bigger turbines on bird mortality, ie, that the actual impact is very uncertain. The direct impact on a per turbine basis is sufficiently uncertain that the research in question draws no quantifiable relationship from it. However, if we very incautiously determine an OLS of the mean morality per turbine, it shows an increase mortality of one bird per annum per 10 meters of turbine height.
However, that includes only half of the equation, for increased turbine height, and increased swept area lead to increased power production, and hence to fewer turbines per KwH produced. Assuming blade radius scales with turbine height, and using the formula for turbine efficiency from Caduff et al (2012), it turns out increasing turbine size decreases relative mortality per KwH by 1% per meter of height. That is, on the evidence available, increasing turbine efficiency through greater height and swept area has the potential to significantly reduce bird losses.
Of coure, the evidence available is not very good (due to the low amount of data for turbine heights less than 60 meters, and the failure to seperately regress against swept area and turbine height). Therefore this in only worth noting as an issue that needs to looked at in further detail; and certainly not one on which to make naive assumptions that turn out to have opposite sign to what the data shows.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note the comments policy prohibition on inflammatory language.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Let's extend the math further... 100% of energy from wind turbines would scale up to 7 million dead birds per year. Compared to 0.5 to 4.0 billion from cats and 365 to 988 million from window impacts. It's a joke. Wind turbine impacts on bird populations are miniscule compared to other problems. Heck, I've seen estimates that coal power kills 8 million birds per year... and that'd be more like 16 million if we got all of our power from coal. Pesticides, cars, high tension wires, communication towers, et cetera... each of these kill more birds every year than wind turbines ever will.
That said. Yes, we should absolutely look at ways to reduce the impact wind turbines have on birds. However, if we are really concerned about bird populations then there are many vastly greater problems that we should be working on first.
-
billthefrog at 21:34 PM on 2 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
In her answer to the opening question regarding any linkage between climate change and the extensive flooding in the UK during 2014, Prof Slingo rather diplomatically stated that...
" ... There are those who were not pleased with what I personally said. But, actually, I wrote the paper that contained all the scientific evidence and that evidence is still as strong as it was a year ago. And I did challenge them at the time to come out with a counter-argument based on fundamental science and they didn't. ..."
I suspect that was, at least partially, aimed at Nigel Lawson of the GWPF in light of his scurrilously off-hand dismissal of her opinions. One needs to be imbuded with a really astonishing level of smug, self-aggrandizing arrogance to come out with...
"... It is just this Julia Slingo woman, who made this absurd statement ..."
-
bozzza at 18:25 PM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
@23, data is good- I can't fault that!
-
ryland at 16:07 PM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Those are interesting comparisons Tom Curtis. Good to hear wind farms in the US only kill around 250000 birds per year. That will be excellent news for the various organisations that are devoted to saving the planet's bird life.
Given your penchant for comprehensive comments I am surprised you don’t include these caveats from the link to bird kills in the US:
“In addition, it appears that there is a greater risk of fatal collisions with taller turbines. This is a real problem, as larger wind turbines may provide more efficient energy generation. Consequently, it is expected that new wind farms will contain even bigger turbines, which will result in even more bird deaths. Future developments therefore will have to give very careful consideration to potential wildlife impacts when planning the type of turbine to install”.
and
“The estimate, and conclusions, don't let wind turbines off the hook. And with recent rulings to try and protect certain species from the spinning blades, the scrutiny will probably continue when it comes to bird deaths due to wind power. But at least now there's a scientifically derived number for those deaths.”
Nor do you comment on the species of birds killed which is also of concern or on the fact that if the US reaches its goal of 20% energy from wind turbines, then it is expected about 1.4 million birds will be killed per year by these turbines.
But then, are these caveats really of any consequence tous in our race to eliminate the use of fossil fuels?
-
scaddenp at 14:47 PM on 2 June 2015Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Kuni, the person you are replying to hasnt been seen here since 2011.
-
scaddenp at 14:45 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Bozzza, do some reading up on the thermohaline circulation. It is driven by salinity as well as temperature and yes, it is not symmetric across hemispheres. No warm Gulf stream down here. Pretty tough for agriculture in SH below 50S whereas 50N is relatively temperate.
-
Kuni at 13:36 PM on 2 June 2015Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Jonicol
They are not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming, is the absence, after 25 years of dedicated searching by a large number of internationally distributed groups including in Australia, of any evidence of the "Green House Signature", which was and still is, a very significant result from the atmospheric modeling???
You are in luck today, I just found a link where they were talking about how they detect the “DNA/fingerprints” (my terms) of CO2 to know, without any doubt, what source said CO2 came from. Something about “various geochemical characteristics” and something about CO2 from different sources having a “different isotopic composition” that are used to determine what/which source the CO2 being geo-chemical-ed/isotopic-ed came from.
That is how we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming have nothing to support their claim.
To quote one of the experts: There is a way that scientists can tease apart the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to see how much of the CO2 is from natural sources and how much is from combusted fossil fuel sources.
Here’s how scientists know. The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value).
But if you are still trying to peddle the “But they are still not complete in demonstrating that gravity is responsible for keeping us all from naturally floating away into space. I have read on the internet that someone has claimed that angels are responsible by holding us down; prove that is not true?” argument with the assertion that “They are not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming.” You are also in luck.
Just recently scientists have proven, or are “complete in demonstrating” (if that is how you want to phrase it) what everyone in the literate world has, regardless of what they claim out loud, known all along. That increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the quantities we have spewed are in fact responsible for and currently causing global warming.
Something about your complete in demonstrating being “found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation.” That by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, something about “we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”
-
Kuni at 12:37 PM on 2 June 2015Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Jonicol
The science behind greenhouse gasses was settled science in the 1800’s.
It would appear that you cannot find anything which goes deeply enough into the science to show "WHY" they are wrong is because they have not presented any actual real science to support their claims.
They are wrong because over 100 years of science has consistently shown ,with the same reliability that gravity also shows, over and over that greenhouse gases trap heat: Hence the name “greenhouse.”
One of them claims that they “are finding that the climate is insensitive to greenhouse gases” but this alleged “they” is a very small group of scientists who while continually make the claim, have produced no actual science for anyone to debunk. They need to prove that 100 years of science consistently showing ,with the same reliability that gravity also shows, over and over that greenhouse gases trap heat, is now magically wrong.
You question is akin to asking people to prove that gravity is responsible for keeping us from naturally floating away into space.
A very large volcanic eruption can screw the weather up for years, one could even argue that it can affect the climate in the short term. We currently spew out around, or at least, 100, of all the world’s volcanoes combined, a year of CO2.
While the climate may not be sensitive to one of my methane greenhouse gas farts, science has proven that it is affected by all that CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere.
Your first hint that they have no science is that their statement puts no limits on the greenhouse gases that “they found that the climate is insensitive to.” If one were to replace the atmosphere with nothing but methane, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen (and possibly some other gasses): It would insensitive the climate into high orbit right around the time of the first lightning strike after said greenhouse gas was introduced in sufficient quantities.
-
bozzza at 12:20 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
@ 404, the new scientist article was short and sweet. It talked about how cold water sank at the poles and this dragged warmer water from the equator to replace it. The way people explain things is worth noting...
This sentence- "As there is no returning flow of warm water to the south, the warmer air is trapped in the north."- was perculiar to the NH apparently, however... and this is what I can't wrap my laughing gear around!
-
scaddenp at 12:18 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Bozzza - We know a lot more about past seaice extent in NH than SH. We know temperatures at both poles are warming in recent times. Remember that the paradox with SH ice is why it is increasing despite ocean warning. (see Fig 3 in intermediate tab).
-
bozzza at 12:13 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
(of course I read all your comments..)
-
scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
I think the other point is that summer sea ice extent is important because of its effect on albedo. Winter sea ice at either pole has little climate impact. Also relevent is the question of why is sea ice increasing/decreasing. Changing temperature in both atmosphere and ocean is important at one pole; changing winds pushing pack further out is important at the other.
-
bozzza at 12:09 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Ok, thanks for the food for thought on pumps versus mis-nomers...
As for the last paragraph are you saying it isn't certain that the N.H. is warmer than the S.H.?
-
Kuni at 12:01 PM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
A heat pump works by using a refrigerant but instead of the coils that radiate away the heat being outside, they are usually, in one form or another, inside.
What you call an “ocean pump” is not in fact a pump, but is a current that is part of what some call the global thermohaline circulation. Just because someone calls it a pump does not meant that a coherent and/or valid comparison can be made between it and other pumps.
A current BTW that might be in serious danger from AGW.
Also, if I were to guess, which I am about to do, my response to your final question would be along the lines of: The reason that the NH, and it’s condition, is better known then the SH’s condition is because for the past few hundred years NH countries dominated the globe, which includes said SH countries, and no one who thought that they mattered really gave a rat’s ass about the SH or anything but their own self-proclaimed superiority and/or exceptionalism.
-
Kuni at 11:39 AM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza
Sea ice in the SH is not relevant because the ice pack there has land under it. Whereas in the NH, i.e. the Arctic, the ice pack has sea under it.
An honest comparison between the NH and SH can only be made between the two ice packs in their entirety.
The amount of sea ice in the SH is miniscule, one might even be able to say that it is statistically zero (but I am too lazy to do the math), when compared to the size of the actual ice pack in the SH.
When the NH ice pack finally disappears, enough people will notice and we can then pass laws making those who peddled their anti-science BS liable for all the damages that their actions will have caused by introducing them to somethng called “accepting personal responsibility for their actions.”
If the SH ice pack disappears, not only will we be nationalizing 100% of the assets of those who, or whose ancestors because the proceeds of crime are still the proceeds of crime, peddled their anti-science BS to pay all the damages that their actions will have caused: We will also be stringing them up from lampposts because if the SH ice pack disappears, we are in for a world of hurt and we will seriously want to hold us some modern Nuremberg Trials.
-
Kuni at 11:24 AM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Bozzza
2010-2011 2011-2012 are by themselves not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the trend. If there are some outliners, not relevant to the trend, that is still the way that trends work.
One could even argue that trend lines were created so that people would not be fooled by the outliners to make foolish decisions based on something that has no real relevance to reality.
P.S. The maximum extent for the Arctic in 2015 not only occurred early, it was the lowest maxium in the satelite record.
-
Kuni at 11:11 AM on 2 June 2015There is no consensus
Bozzza
The consensus vis-à-vis the Arctic is that the trend still shows that the ice pack will continue to disappear over time.
2007 was (and still is for those who do not realize that 2012 smoked 2007’s ass and they should now be using 2012 instead of 2007 to con the gullible) the year that some tried to use to peddle the BS that the Arctic ice pack had, or was, recovered.
-
Kuni at 11:04 AM on 2 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Glenn Tamblyn
The fact that the oceans are storing the heat down to the 700 meter level is all the proof needed that global warming has not plateaued, but that it continues to trend upwards. Just because we now have to measure the oceans in 3D does not change the fact that the globe is warming. Added heat is added heat.
Claims/headlines that “NASA says heat not in deep ocean” are BS. No one has seriously claimed that from what I have read/heard/seen.
I am also certain that when enough energy is absorbed down to the 700 meter level that it starts to heat “the deep ocean” that the oceans will be literally boiling, or hot enough that we won’t care that it isn’t technically boiling, at the equator at the surface level.
Josh Willis clearly said that “The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming. If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.”
-
bozzza at 10:55 AM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Ok, so we're saying sea ice is a worthy indicator of something amiss in the N.H. but as an indicator of something amiss in the S.H. it is not as relevant. I will just have to accept for now that I was getting hooked up with a red herring or atleast feeling the need to explain it...(such is life!)
What's been bugging me forever(I was going to say lately but that wouldn't quite express it correctly) is this: ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot
As a failed engineering student I know it's all about heat pumps and this article says the phenomenon of the N.H. being hotter was discovered in the 1600s because it was observed that icebergs survived at lower latitudes in the S.H. than would be allowed in the N.H.
The question is why is the above- the fact that the NH is warmer than the SH- not common knowledge?
Am I wrong, perhaps?
If not then I really question why it hasn't been made common knowledge as most people who are fans of science will understand this completely as the process that needs to be witnessed very very closely.... and at the moment it looks as if the problem can't be made intelligible to the public because of this basic information scarity.
(Simply my opinion of course but that's my 2 cents...)
-
Kuni at 10:37 AM on 2 June 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
With NOAA releasing a 2014 Artic report card that some people have used to claim that AGW is real: I can see NOAA being called to the carpet by Republicans in Congress like NASA was over its climate research.
The only upside will be the entertainment value of look on the NOAA’s officials faces when they are instructed by Republicans to stop wasting their budget on AGW and use the money to find their Ark, which they, because they are laze unionized government employees, misplaced on mount Ararat in order to prove to the world that sea levels will not rise.
-
Kuni at 10:28 AM on 2 June 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel:
You forgot to mention that the NSID also qualified their multi-year ice reporting comment with the following very relevant facts:
• During the summer of 2013, a larger fraction of first-year ice survived compared to recent years. This ice has now become second-year ice. (i.e. your multi-year ice thus keeping the 7% you tried to dismiss, very relevant.)
• The percentage of the Arctic Ocean consisting of ice at least five years or older remains at only 7%, half of what it was in February 2007. Moreover, a large area of the multiyear ice has drifted to the southern Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea (north of Alaska and the Lena River delta), where warm conditions are likely to exist later in the year.
The Arctic sea ice extent as of December 2014 does not show any significant recovery. It appears to be 2% above the long term downward trend line.
Extent coverage in January 2015 is showing a downward trend.
Maximum extant coverage in February 2015 not only occurred early; it is also the lowest maximum in the satellite record.
Maximum extant coverage in march 2015 is the lowest March ice extant in the satellite record.
Extent coverage in April 2015 is the second lowest April ice extant in the satellite record: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I remember when a science denier used to use 2007 as the year he demanded that people compare every year after 2007 to for the lowest Arctic sea ice extant coverage trying to claim that because 2007 was the new low point that the Arctic was recovering. That alleged recovery also ended up, in 2012 I think, according to NASA’s measurements, on the trash heap of history.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Phil @21, I don't know how reliable the numbers are in the UK, but in the US research towards a PhD by Kerrie Ann Loyd quantified animal kill rates for free roaming cats by fitting videos to the cats and observing the behaviour. The results showed an average kill rate of 2.1 animals per week. Extrapolating to the 50-60 million free roaming cats in the US, Loyd finds "... that cats are likely killing more than 4 billion animals per year, including at least 500 million birds". That compares to the 100 to 328 thousand bird kills by windmills per annum in the US.
Those figures significantly underestimate the total impact of cats, by not including feral cat kills. In Australia alone, feral cats are estimated to kill over 20 billion animals per annum.
For other comparisons, in Toronto alone between 1 and 9 million birds are killed each year in collisions with skyscrapers. In the US, it is estimated that a million animals a day are killed on roads (which puts overall numbers at around the same level as domestic cats).
-
Kuni at 06:58 AM on 2 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Quick - Ask the denier why he is trying to pretend that the oceans below their surfaces do not exist?
Also ask him why anyone would go to wood for trees, or wherever, when they should only be going to the University of Alabama Huntsville for the University’s climate data to guarantee validity: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Prev 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 Next
