Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 Next
Comments 29301 to 29350:
-
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/
-
Kuni at 06:44 AM on 2 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
JohnD - The science proving global warming is man-made, is skepticism at work. AGW (Global Warming as many call it), unlike the beliefs that Galileo also challenged, was not the accepted norm until very recently.
While the science of greenhouse gasses was settled science back in the 1800’s, when it came to the climate there were many competing scientific hypothesis as to what could/would and by how much affect something the size of the planet.
The threat of global warming, and the science to support AGW, only started to gain traction in the 70’s and it took until the 90’s before a consensus position was formed.
Even after overwhelming evidence with more and more discoveries being made, it is still an uphill battle against those wanting to cling to the old status quo.
Claiming that we should treat AGW with skepticism is like claiming that we should still treat the sun as the center of the solar system with skepticism.
-
Kuni at 05:59 AM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Is there a way to edit ones’ posts here?
I forgot to add that the hole in the ozone layer is also man made so even if one wanted to use that as an excuse for the Antarctic ice pack declining, it is still man made ice pack destruction/global warming.
-
Kuni at 05:56 AM on 2 June 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Bozzza - Antarctic sea ice is not relevant because unlike the Arctic, which is 100% sea ice, the Antarctic ice pack is overwhelmingly non-sea ice.
The Antarctic ice pack should only be tracked in its entirety unless one’s intention is to mislead people as to the extent of the disaster.
-
Kuni at 05:26 AM on 2 June 2015There is no consensus
Wakeup - The 97% is the percentage of published peer reviewed papers. The actual number of climate scientists supporting the consensus is around 80%.
I should add that the 20% that do not admit to supporting the consensus are not automatically in opposition to it. Some have reservations about some issues and are by no means on the science deniers’ side.
-
Kuni at 05:19 AM on 2 June 2015Climate's changed before
Roamernz - Previous causes are not relevant because they are not the cause today.
Yes it has happened before. When it has happened slowly, life adjusted. When it has happened quickly, it was an extinction event.
Now it is happening quickly yet there are no natural causes that anyone can find that are emitting CO2 above their historical normal levels. There are no Deccan Traps being created. There are no Siberian Traps to be found.
Volcanoes continue to emit around 1% of the CO2 that human are currently emitting via the burning of fossil fuels.
No increase in solar radiation has been detected, the solar cycle is sticking to its regular pattern. Cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere have not increased.
-
Phil at 04:34 AM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom @19: Similar reasoning obviously applies to wildlife impacts of windmills compared to those from domestic cats, skyscrapers, and so on.
It is not in favour of wind turbines that some arguments with respect to bird deaths from domestic cats are greatly exagerated. This is documented in the book "Cat Sense" by Dr John Bradshaw - the gist of it is that 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" (road-kill is used for similar purposes). Because this was the aim of the survey, 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.
I believe this is the survey used by Bjorn Lomberg, which was subsequently quoted by David Mackay in "Without the Hot Air", and Bradshaw lists a number of established UK conservation organisations that have swallowed this. Even-handedly, he does then discuss clear cases of extinction by domestic cat such as Stewart Island in New Zealand.
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:22 AM on 2 June 2015Scientists discuss how strongly a warming Arctic is implicated in extreme weather
William @2,
I think your view of Hadley cells is a bit simplistic. While in general terms the cells can be viewed as spinning wheels, driven by latitudes of rising and falling air, it's not nearly that static. If it were, it would be very easy to measure, and you couldn't possibly have air masses, hurricanes, ENSO events, or the like, because no air mass could ever cross those boundaries intact. The reality is, I think, that the atmosphere is much more fluid and dynamic than that. The locations and "forces" in play with the Hadley Cells cannot be viewed as a "wall of air". It's not that concrete.
-
bcglrofindel at 02:27 AM on 2 June 2015Can we trust climate models?
I'm trying to understand model tuning correctly. It seems from most references I can find via the IPCC and papers like that by Mauritsen et al, it is pretty common practice when tuning climate models to adjust cloud parameters to balance TOA energy. It sounds like it is again pretty universal that this is a very necessary step to prevent unrealistic drift of TOA energy balance. Given that TOA energy balance drives everything in our climate, betting that right is pre-requisite to reasonable model behaviour. I've got follow up questions on interpretting this, but am I even correct in understanding things as expressed thus far?
-
bcglrofindel at 01:57 AM on 2 June 2015Can we trust climate models?
Sorry if this is the wrong way to ask, this is the closest article I could find though so far. Is there another article that more specifically looks at model tuning? Or is this an appropriate place to ask questions about details like that as well?
Moderator Response:[TD] Thank you for trying to find the appropriate thread! This thread is fine. Another relevant one is Models are Unreliable. Then there is question 6 in Dana's post "Answers to the Top Ten...."
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:06 AM on 2 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
"I am not as certain as you or DB (moderator inline above) that windmills have no health impacts, although it is fair to say they have no proven health impacts"
I think we are quite in agreement on this. The sources I cited (paraphrased) sum to the same position (about no proven health impacts), based on the available evidence.
I'm perfectly happy to consider any available evidence, either way, provided appropriate context is given.
-
Jim Eager at 23:01 PM on 1 June 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Rob, don't think of them as condos, think of them as storm surge energy dissipation structures.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 1 June 2015Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant
longjohn119, actually it is 'not that bad'.
Yes, big donors have a huge influence on politics in the US, especially with the GOP. However, it is simply false that politicians don't care what their voters want. You can be quite certain that if 99% of GOP voters wanted action on climate change that the national GOP candidates would not be loudly proclaiming that it doesn't exist. They do still need those people to vote for them to get elected. Yes, they might then very well turn around and do nothing about the issue once they were in office (c.f. GOP constant screaming about budget deficits... coupled with massive deficit increases whenever they are in power). However, ending the false public 'debate' on AGW would still constitute progress... because if it weren't a litmus test for the support of a large percentage of GOP voters then a few GOP politicians who believe in doing something about the problem could more easily slip through the screening process of the monied interests.
-
PluviAL at 15:52 PM on 1 June 2015Scientists discuss how strongly a warming Arctic is implicated in extreme weather
William, I am not familiar with this theory. Although I get the AMS' BAMS (Bulletin of American Meteorological Society) regularly, I have not seen any theorizing on this possibility. Perhaps I have just not paid attention. At this point I find it hard to see the Polar, Feral, and Hadley cells turning. The driving force is much larger from the tropics to the North, since there is so much more insolation at the tropics then at the poles. The energy budgets are just too big to see them reversing in a any realistic scenario, no matter how warm the poles get; although, I could be convinced with some evidence.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:47 PM on 1 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
chriskoz @18, I am not as certain as you or DB (moderator inline above) that windmills have no health impacts, although it is fair to say they have no proven health impacts. What I am sure of is that health impacts, both proven, and reasonably conjectured if windmills do have health impacts (due to equivalence of infrasound levels) are routinely ignored as standing in the way of progress when it comes to urban residents. It follows that if the claimed health impacts on rural residents from windfarms are indeed sufficient basis to prevent the development of windfarms, then the equivalent or greater impacts on a far larger (due to population density) number of urban residents are sufficient reason to prevent the development of, essentially any industrial plant, or major road or rail network. Conversely, as clearly these sorts of low level health impacts on urban residents are not grounds to prevent development, neither are the claimed low level health impacts on a far smaller number of rural residents grounds to prevent the development of windmills.
Consistent with that position, it is reasonable to further research claimed health impacts, and to research methods to limit them. It is not reasonable to simply ban windmills (as those pushing the health impacts want to do).
Similar reasoning obviously applies to wildlife impacts of windmills compared to those from domestic cats, skyscrapers, and so on.
In fact, given the known health impacts of coal burning, this is unquestionably a case in which the windmill opponents are applying a clear double standard.
-
chriskoz at 14:18 PM on 1 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom@15,
On top of your link and numbers you provided, I have an anecdotal evidence from a friend who lives ~3km from the generators of Mount Piper Power Station. He told me that during hot summer evening peak hours, he can feel the ground vibrating 60Hz on his property, when the generator is labourring at its full 700MW. I asked him if he would you prefer to live near a wind farm instead. He replied that wind farm in that place would not create so much power. But for his personal comfort, if newer wind turbines would not generate such annoying infra vibrations, yes!
My take on it is: people who talk about "health risks" of windmill noise are not just NIMBYs but simply reality deniers. Those who have experienced it, understand relative impact of renewable vs. FF energy on local environment much better.
-
chriskoz at 13:25 PM on 1 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22B
In US, the emission policies (esp. Hillary's) look promissing. In contrast, australian policies not only ignore climate change impact but literaly wipe out farming country towns in favour of coal mine expansions:
Rio Tinto's coal mine expansion threatens Bulga again
It's hard to believe that the town of Bulga won that battle against Rio Tinto just 2 years ago and new regulations allowed to already revisit that ruling. Note that the article does not even consider climate change impact of the proposed expansion of the coal mine which BTW have almost reached its life end and should have died as inoperable venture. Where is the purported "balance between economic, social and environmental factors" that the lobbyists from NSW Minerals Council are trying to claim?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:37 AM on 1 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Lobstonicus@14... "I just don't see how wind turbines can be the answer to the problem."
Wind turbines are not "the" answer, they're merely one answer. We have an extraordinarily huge challenge ahead of us and it's going to take all available solutions in order to bring carbon emissions to zero over the coming 40 years.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:23 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
. . . and then there is Hot Topic's disassembly of Don Easterbrook's abuse of Central Greenland temperatures.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:04 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
Don Sage, for more insight to the errors (and "errors"--ahem) in Don Easterbrook's claims, see Dana's other Easterbrook post, "It's PDO," "It's the Sun," and "Climate's Changed Before." Many Skeptical Science posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes; read them all. Also, be sure to post comments only on the relevant threads. You can monitor all comments on all threads by clicking the "Comments" link in the horizontal blue bar at the top of every page.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:34 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
Dan Sage, Don Easterbrook's claims are wildly wrong.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:21 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
Dan Sage, for attribution of the causes of warming between about 1942 and 1972, see "Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?"
-
Tom Dayton at 02:19 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
Dan Sage, you should rely on real data instead of "supposedlys." CO2 levels have not been fairly constant until the mid 1950s; the rise got drastically steeper around 1950.
Nobody claims that CO2 is the only driver of climate. (After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one.)
Attribution of global warming across natural and anthropogenic causes has been studied exhaustively. Relative contributions have varied, with correspondingly varying attributions of human versus natural over different periods.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:38 AM on 1 June 2015The History of Climate Science
Dan Sage, regarding the wrongly named "pause" in warming, see the most recent post by Kevin Cowtan, and then the post by Matthew England. Regarding models specifically, in addition to the posts that other people have pointed you to, see the post by Roz Pidcock.
For one of many good demonstrations that the recent slowdown (which, importantly, is "slow" only relative to immediately preceding "fast" warming--that's a hint for you) in no way is evidence against the continuing long term trend, see climate statistician Tamino's recent post "Slowdown Skeptic," and "It's the Trend, Stupid," and "Is Earth's Temperature About to Soar?" Regarding trends in satellite data, see Tamino's "Stupid Is As Ted Cruz Does." For an easy to understand picture, see the Skeptical Science escalator.
Your repeat of the myth that increased CO2 always must cause a corresponding increase in temperature, see "CO2 Is Not The Only Driver of Climate," where you should read first the Basic tabbed pane and then the Intermediate one.
-
DAN SAGE at 01:29 AM on 1 June 2015It's El Niño
Maybe someone could explain a problem, I have with this topic. If we conclude that the increase in global temperatures is not due to natural causes, can anyone explain the data contained on the NASA-GISS GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX graph located at the following web address: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif .
This graph shows temperatures for the last 135 years. If you will observe there is an almost "identical" increase in temperature shown for the periods of ~1910 to ~1942 and from ~1972 to ~2002. The problem is that the level of CO2 was supposed to be fairly constant at 280ppm, until maybe the mid 1950's, and from the mid 1950's it was supposed to be increasing from 280ppm to its current value of 400ppm due to anthropogenic causes. If you accept that the two periods of warming depicted on the graph are almost identical in duration and even slope/rate, what caused the first increase before AGW became a factor??? If it was natural causes like the PDO, AMO, NMO, AO, and maybe even changes in the Sun's radiation/magnetic field flux, why couldn't the same thing be responsible for the the period from 1972-2002???
Additionally, If you will notice there is also a period between ~1942 and ~1972, which looks strangely like the current pause we have started to experience. Maybe if you google:
MULTIDECADAL TENDENCIES IN ENSO AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES RELATED TO MULTIDECADAL OSCILLATIONS
Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 5, pp. 437-460, September 2010
by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook
it might shed some enlightenment on this topic and the topic of "CAGW", especially when trying to explain the temperature graph mentioned above from the NASA-GISS website. I presume this is acceptable data to the CAGW crowd. Thank you for your time.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SKS Comments Policy. In addition, making snarky statements on our comment threads is not acceptable.
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.
-
Michael Whittemore at 01:10 AM on 1 June 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
After reading Schmidt et al (2014) from the link above they dont use Ridley et al (2014) data which found a lot more volcanic cooling. If you included his findings I think the models are running low, so more than 3 degrees should be expected..
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:49 AM on 1 June 2015The History of Climate Science
"The one thing that I did learn repeatedly was, that if the models didn't agree with reality, that it was the model that was wrong, not reality. "
There is the old saying that all broad, sweeping generalizations are wrong. (Including the one in that old saying...)
Leto has already commented on the phrasing. I'll add the point that Dan Sage's phrasing only is true when you have perfect knowledge of reality. Unfortunately, we never do, which is why Leto makes the comment that (s)he does about error and probability.
Every measurement has errors. I can provide an example of one specific case where a difference between model values and measurements revealed a source of error in the measurements. This had to do with the measurement of diffuse solar radiation. Under very clear skies, some measurements produced values less than that predicted as a minimum using models for Rayleigh Scattering. Rayleight scattering is caused by the molecules of the atmosphere, and no matter how clean the atmosphere is with respect to other scattering particles, you can't stop the molecules from doing Rayleigh Scattering unless you remove the atmosphere entirely.
Were the models wrong? No. The measurements had an offset error related to the infrared radiation flux (a net loss, as the instruments involved emitted more IR than they received from clear skies). Further study of the instrument characteristics revealed the cause of the error and methods to correct for it. The models were right, and the measurements were wrong, because the measurements were not a perfect representation of reality. THe measurement were always a bit low (systematic error).
For further reading on the source of errors in these measurements, a widely-used reference is:
Dutton et al (2001), Measurement of Broadband Diffuse Solar Irradiance Using Current Commercial Instrumentation with a Correction for Thermal Offset Errors, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 18, 297–314.
Dan Sage's understanding of models and data seems rather limited, despite his claims to authority as having worked with computer models for many years.
Prev 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 Next
