Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 Next
Comments 29351 to 29400:
-
MA Rodger at 19:24 PM on 11 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
DW @347.
The interview responses from Storch should indicate to you that Storch is less inclined than most to see the dangers of AGW. Those who are less optimistic about the future that Storch would put it more strongly. Note Storch considers a conservative value for projected sea level rise is the way to handle uncertainty. Many would see that as a lack of caution, equivalent to playing Russian roulette.
When Storch is asked about the fix required if global surface temperature continues to lag model predictions, the specific area he describes (while starting by saying "Among other things,...") is an underestimation of ocean heat uptake. That doesn't really chime with your (a) weaker AGW than we thought or (b) more natural variation than we thought, although you do a fair job of reproducing Storch's specific comment.
Perhaps it is worth looking at what Storch et al (2013) - 'Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?' says on this same subject a few weeks after the interview. The paper's abstract concludes:-
"Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would."
The paper is very short and does not actually derive the conclusions quoted from the abstract here. However these conclusions are less ambiguous that the interview (perhaps it was meant as a direct clarification) and is a far stronger position from Storch (& his co-authors). I would suggest that to hear it from somebody so cautious about over-estimating AGW as Storch gives some cause for some concern, although note the prospect of a lower climate sensitivity (the one option that lessens AGW) is rewarded with the adjective "particularly".
-
uncletimrob at 19:09 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
This article (and I have no opinion of it's accuracy) Why our brains don't process the gravest threats to humanity , suggests that we cannot understand or comprehend threats to our survival a long way into the future. Perhaps this is more prevelant in warming/change denialists? An interesting article anyway, and worth a read.
-
Langham at 17:15 PM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tom - Where in my postings was I arguing in favour of mining, fracking, airports etc? You're wandering way off topic - the thread is about wind turbines, not those other things.
Nor do I understand your reference to the UDHR (a text written decades before wind-farms had even been thought of). Because something is not listed there, it's not important, is that the point you're trying to make?
It may be of no interest to you, but the concern for rural serenity is a real one, for me and for many other people besides. It is under threat from many sources, but the article makes some (to my mind) rather glib and specious comments about wind-farms and those who oppose them, and I wish to rebut what it says while also pointing out the superior merits of the sea-based alternatives.
I find it rather hard to fathom the reasoning processes of people who are apparently sufficiently concerned about the environment to acquire some superficial knowledge about climate change, and yet are perfectly happy for the countryside - which is the nearest thing we have here to a natural environment - to be laid waste for no good reason when there are perfectly good alternative options to hand.
-
jgnfld at 15:13 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
The "problem" with communication to the public is the science itself. That is, so long as the communication is not what fossil fuel proponents want to hear, they will complain about the message in any and all ways regardless. It is a fantasy to believe there is a way to communicate which is so good this will not occur.
-
GW at 15:00 PM on 11 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
I read the full von Storch interview from Der Spiegel in 2013 that Peter99 quotes above. The quote, though edited, is not taken out of context— Storch is merely demonstrating appropriate scientific restraint. He stated that if the observed "pause" continued for 5 years at most (i.e. by about 2018) then climate models will need significant revision. He said that models can barely account for the past 15 years' data (his term (translated) was "stagnation" which was shown in only 2% of his simulations). The revisions Storch suggested were not at the level of tweaks but were instead fundamental changes: either (a) our effect on the climate is less than we had thought; or (b) natural variation is much larger than we had thought.
Does Storch's statement reflect the consensus view among climate scientists? Surely if Storch is an IPCC lead author then his view must be mainstream at least. -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:32 PM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
I particularly agree with his reply to the question about 2015 being the hottest year on record.
Not only is it early to say what the annual average will be, even the 2015 temperature values that will be available at the time of the December Paris Summit are not really relevant.
Anyone who is currently unconvinced about the need for CO2 emmissions to be dramatically curtailed is not going to be convinced by a few more months of data. Those type of people are deliberately not being rational responsible leaders of humanity toward a better future. They will bring no added-value to the Paris meeting.
Serious work needs to get done in Paris. Only people genuinely interested in thoroughly understanding what is going on and focused on developing lasting better futures for all should be at such an important meeting. Anyone who is only interested in being temporarily popular or profitable, or wants to prolong the ability of the likes of them to get away with unacceptable activity, has no right to be there.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:13 PM on 11 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus,
In my earlier comment I did not provide information about your question about pursuing other ways to reduce CO2. I only mentioned afforestation.
The IPCC report I mentioned contains information about other actions. In addition, an SkS article here discusses geoengineering measures.
Since it is not necessary to create the excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels (it is only desired by those who want the ability to obtain maximum benefit any way they can get away with), it is not reasonable or responsible to try to solve such an unnecessarily created problem by taking additional risky action that are unnecessary if the unnecessary creation of the problem is stopped.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:29 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
And I note that one of the authors of that statement - Mark Jaccard - published a book in 2005 called "Sustainable Fossil Fuels," wherein he argued (to the best of my recollection) that we can continue to use fossil fuels as long as we use technological fixes to halt or prevent emissions. This looks to be a significant reversal of that conceit.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:24 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
And, speaking of the power of communication, it's encouraging to see scientists taking a public stance about one of the problems. This press release has appeared in numerous media:
http://www.oilsandsmoratorium.org/pr/
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
bidelo at 08:26 AM on 11 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
Yes, it's an example of kettle logic - AGW doesn't exist but it's good for Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed link
-
Tom Curtis at 07:34 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham @51:
"You say that 'valuing visual impact so highly ... is morally suspect' - I would counter that it is morally suspect to value it so little as to permit destruction of rural serenity, but both of course are purely subjective points of view."
Try as hard as I like, I can find no reference to a right to rural serenity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor yet have I seen any concern for such a right in the decisions of government with respect to the siting of mines, fracking operations, airports etc. I have to wonder what it is about wind turbines that is so destructive of rural serenity that they should be banned, while open cut coal mines are apparently OK (because, apparently not so destructive of rural serenity).
In fact, it looks to me very like this concern for "rural serenity" is merely a personal preference which is raised to the level of a moral rule, base purely on rhetorical expediency.
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Rural serenity slips way down my value system compared to human life and justice but as you say, that is subjective. On the plus side, it is good that you are prepared to pay very much more for your energy. Did you find evidence that MacKay's estimate for marine power is too low?
Tax breaks and subsidies amount to public money for private enterprise. It costs tax payers however it is phrased and relevant to this debate, it results in continuance of FF enterprises that would not happen without the price support. In my view, better governance is kill all subsidies/tax breaks, price carbon accurately, let the market determine the best way supply the need.
-
Tristan at 05:39 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
FWIW: I grew up in a National Park and then lived on a farm till my teens. I loved seeing the windmills when driving from Sydney to Canberra or Stockton to San Fran. It's more than simple aesthetics though, while I've always liked windmills of all varieities, I like them even more for what they represent.
People who dislike what they represent, dislike seeing the windmills.
-
Langham at 04:42 AM on 11 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
^ The article you reference indicates that they are not subsidies but tax breaks - a subtle but important difference. As I understand it, such tax breaks are available to any business for R&D, research, or in this case, exploration activities.
You say that 'valuing visual impact so highly ... is morally suspect' - I would counter that it is morally suspect to value it so little as to permit destruction of rural serenity, but both of course are purely subjective points of view.
-
gorm raabo larsen at 02:50 AM on 11 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
Thank you for this excellent 'inside perspective'.
-
Jim Eager at 01:10 AM on 11 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus, to be blunt, we are still arguing about the causes of the observed warming and changing climate mainly because a number of ideologically and financially motivated individuals and organizations have expended a great deal of time, human effort and money to deliberately undermine the science of climate change and spread misinformation and in some cases outright disinformation to the public through the media.
Very few of those individuals are scientists, far fewer still have any expertise in climate science, and to date none of their legitimate science-based objections or alternative hypotheses have been born out, and none of their predictions have stood the test of time in the way that mainstream hypotheses and predictions based on multiple independent lines of evidence and multiple independent modeling efforts have. That alone should tell you something.
Of course this doesn't mean that we understand everything about climate and how it changes, but it does mean that we understand it well enough to know with confidence that we are pushing climate toward a state with potentially very serious negative consequences for humanity. Exactly what those consequences will be, how serious they will be, and when they will emerge is still an active question.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:59 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattius, Reagarding your comment at 12.
I was composing my comment while your comment at 12 showed up or I would have included a reply in that post.
Planting trees is indeed part of the solutions evaluated by the people who are evaluating "the entire picture of what is going on" such as the people participating in this website.
The know reality is that planting trees and not chopping down trees only partially addresses the magnitude of added CO2 from burning fossil fuels. The IPCC "Mitigation of Climate Change Report" provides a comprehensive summary of the developed understanding regarding afforestation.
By itself, afforestation, even withna stop of all deforestation, would not counteract the production of CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels. It is as simple as that.
Logically, there is a limit to how much plant material can be growing on this amazing planet. So at the end of all the potential afforestation the excess CO2 from continued burning of fossil fuels would continue to grow the problem.
Ending the burning of fossil fuels is understood to be the key component of any mitigation strategy. Forest related action can help or hurt, but it is not a "solution to the identified problem".
-
tmbtx at 21:42 PM on 10 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
Rocketeer is on to a good point. The Daily Mail's acknowledgement of AGW is much more interesting than the content. I imagine it's too much to ask for its readers to notice the contradiction with its other coverage.
-
bozzza at 21:06 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
@ 17, arguing black is white is not easy! Sorry!!
-
bozzza at 21:03 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
@2, you are perfectly correct in the fact not everything can be measured. It's called the uncertainty principle and I look forward to any corrections you have to offer as I don't know diddly about Quantum Mechanics but wished i did!
Not everything can be measured because there is something called the real politik of 'limits'... For instance: why do you think you know anything more than anyone elese?
-
bozzza at 20:52 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Oh, I'm waiting for the QM stuff because I've always wanted to know how phase changes of solid to liquid correlate with chemical bonding propensities for change...
-
bozzza at 20:45 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Regarding the pause,
Shouldn't the idea of phase change, ie. ice being transformed into liquid water, imply a necessary pause in global warming at some point?
** I cannot believe I'm the first to submit this question but if I am YAY ME !!!!
-
scaddenp at 20:23 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus - ice age cycles and such like are changes in the forcings - orbitally induced change in distribution of incoming solar which set up complex feedbacks and change albedo - when CO2 is low enough.
I fully accept that there are is no way to predict the short term (<30 year) wobbles in surface temperature. No climate modellers is saying you can - only faux skeptics raising a strawman argument. The wobbles are caused by redistribution of heat around the planet. But the total heat content (and thus climate - the line that the wobbles occillilate around) are bound by the energy balance. To change that you have to change one of the forcings. The one that is moving is CO2. And guess what, you do the math and the forcing is the right size.
Of course you cant have certainty in science but conservation of energy is about as good as you can get. And so you demand a full inter-molecular model for cell mechanics before you would take your Dr's advice? The scientific consensus on any subject might not be right but it is the only rational guide to setting policy especially when it is strong.
-
BBHY at 16:57 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus, not having all the exact answers to every detail of the climate doesn't mean that we don't know what is going on.
Imagine for a moment that we drive a car into a tree at 60 MPH. We do not have the science that can predict exactly every bend and crease that will occur in every piece of sheet metal of the car, but we know with a very high degree of certainty that the car will be smashed.
Likewise we cannot predict exactly every detail of climate change, but we know with a very high degree of certainty that CO2 absorbs infrared heat energy. This is physics that has been well established for 150 years. So, if we add molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere, those molecules will do what they do, which is to absorb heat energy. This increased heat will cause the atmosphere to warm up.
Humans have predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, then added CO2 to the atmosphere, then observed that it has indeed warmed as expected. Hand waving about "still an argument in the data on both sides" does not change the basic physics in the slightest little bit.
-
Mattimus at 16:05 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I apologize for not adding any studies or references to studies to my comments but I truly feel there is no lack of that on this site. I have no doubt that most if not all on this site have several studies that they can point to as a means to prove a point. My only point is this. If we're still arguing about it then we don't have it completely figured out yet. Honestly we're kidding ourselves (and limiting ourselves) if we think we do. I would never encourage anyone to dismiss what they believe in only that they encourage those who have a like or opposing view. It's fun to be here trying to figure stuff out as long as we realize that we're all trying to figure it out and none of us has "the answer". And don't think you're close just because the media in 2015 is on your side. It changes like the climate. :)
Moderator Response:[DB] As others have alluded to, just because the jigsaw puzzle of climate change has a piece missing does not mean that the picture of an apple is that of a platypus.
-
Mattimus at 15:40 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
scaddenp, come on man the scientists on this planet have been talking about the 100K+ year cycles of this planet resulting in ice ages and complete melting of the polar caps. Are we disputing their science?
Moderator Response:[JH] Unless you provide documentation for your assertions, they are nothing more than your personal opinion which carries very lttle weight on this website. The tone of your comment is also not acceptable.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 15:38 PM on 10 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Ryland I note that you have not answered any of my questions. The SkS contributors are familiar with Spencer & Christy's published work. There is no reason to be surprised by Tom Dayton's statement. The work has passed peer-review and is of some interest to the overall understanding.
That work does not show, however, anything that deviates significantly from the rest of the body of litteature on similar sujects. The poblem that I, KR, and others (including Tom Dayton, I believe) have is with the vast abyss that separates their published work from their public statements, especially those made to Congress. Nothing in S&C publications allow to support the statements linked above. So I ask again, do you acknowledge that Christy made in congressional testimonies statements that are not supported by the weight of the scientific evidence, including his own research? If not, why not?
I did not see a response either to my other question about cherry-picking the year 1998, so I ask again: what are the "trends" starting from 1997 or 1999, or, for that matter 1996 and even 2000? Do they indicate the presence of a "hiatus"? How different are they from the "trend" that starts in 1998? What objective reasons based on statistics justify to select 1998?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:20 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus,
I came to this site to learn more about this topic. And this site and its contributors, including the ones who respond in the comments, have been very helpful in adding to my understanding of the breadth and depth of the currently developed and continuing to be developed understanding of what is going on.
Though there are many different things you could choose to check out, the "Newcomers Start Here" button at the top of the main page should be the first stop.
However, what I found to be very compelling evidence that human impacts are significant is simply looking at the global average surface temperature data sets using the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator and reviewing the known change of CO2 in the atmosphere (NOAA presentation through this link is a good one). That pair of information reviewed objectively make it very difficult to expect to find another better explanation for what is known to have happened already other than "human impacts", particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
There are indeed many other factors, cyclical as well as random, that can and do temporarily skew the global average surface temperature values from the trend due to human impacts. However, those effects are part of what is now reasonably well understood with better understanding continuing to be developed.
I hope you enjoy exploring the wealth of information and understanding that is available through this resource.
-
scaddenp at 15:19 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
And what informs that opinion? On the contrary, we have published science to quite the contrary. A gross level, for any planet in any solar system, surface temperature is described by the energy balance. It is function of incoming radiation, planetary albedo and atmospheric composition. A planet with atmosphere and oceans has internal variability from being unevenly heated.
However, there is no "cycle or mood" that can steadily increase the ocean heat content. Conservation of energy requires that energy come from somewhere. What cycle is creating energy? The observed change is consistant with change in GHG. Solar is not increasing. You can argue about climate sensitivity or the accuracy of models but you cant argue about conversation of energy.
-
Mattimus at 15:18 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Do you understand what I mean that you're research is a perfect way for governments to have an excuse to pass laws to reduce carbon as they see fit as oppose to what is best for the planet?
-
Mattimus at 15:11 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
As you suggested I want to stay on topic and want to ask the basic question if the problem is increased CO2. Why aren't we talking solutions instead of debating? Would anyone disagree with planting more trees to reduce excess CO2? Even taxpayer dollars? I just read an article about the Virgin Mobile CEO giving $25 million to the best idea of absorbing CO2. If we think there's an issue with CO2 why not come up with ideas to reduce it or keep it steady and see if it changes things?
-
Mattimus at 15:00 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I hope that we can admit that we are mere witnesses to a greater plan, even speaking just about our planet's cycles/moods. I am a 100% believer in the scientific method but climate science is such a vastly complicated system that we'd need models capable of surpassing the human mind to calculate all it's nuances. That's why we think computer simulations will get us there but we havent come close to mimicking minds via computers. That's the only reason I brought up QM
-
scaddenp at 14:57 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
"The only piece I'm concerned with is focusing on how much it is caused by human activity."
Then that is off-topic here. Please choose the "Arguments" item on the menu bar and select an item from the "its not us" taxonomy to continue this discussion. What you want to discuss is attribution.
-
scaddenp at 14:55 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus - I think we can also agree that there are non-climate scientists, and non-scientists who either misunderstand or distort science (or both) to claim there are arguments and uncertainties in climate science where none exist. This site is dedicated to presenting the actual science as an antidote to those. Without specifics about what arguments you mean it is difficult to assess what you mean.
If you think there is disagreements between climate scientists on whether the surface temperature is increasing, then please quote peer-reviewed research to support that.
-
Mattimus at 14:51 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I also wouldnt argue at all with the finding that the surface and ocean temperature are rising over the times discussed. The only piece I'm concerned with is focusing on how much it is caused by human activity. And my only concern in that realm is who that gives an excuse to intervene
-
Tristan at 14:47 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
If your intent is to purport that climate science might radically change because physics radically changed, it won't get you too far. :) Climate science doesn't rest on any single orthodoxy. The evidence comes from vastly disparate sources using numerous ways to measure many different elements of the earth system.
-
Tristan at 14:42 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
If you can relate QM to atmospheric temp measurements, sure. Otherwise there may be a more appropriate thread elsewhere on the site, depending on what exactly you want to discuss.
-
Mattimus at 14:35 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Am I allowed to bring quantum mechanics into this discussion or is that off-topic? I'm asking seriously.
-
KR at 14:29 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
Mattimus - I must admit to a bit of difficulty in parsing what you are asking. That said, the evidence to date is sufficient to convince the vast majority of scientists studying the subject (the oft-mentioned 97%), and there really isn't any data sufficently strong to consider rejecting AGW. Let alone in favor of any particular theory of the contradictory multitude offered up sans support by the 3%.
Our understanding continually evolves with additional data and examination. But overturning the entire structure of climate science, rather than detailing particulars, would require both quite extraordinary evidence for a new cause of climate change, and an entire series of data that rejected all the elements of our current understanding - spectroscopy, radiative physics, satellite observations, GHG fingerprints, sums of forcings, etc.
No such evidence has been presented, and arguments against AGW simply haven't held up.
-
scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I think we all agree that the current methods used to estimate the change in the surface temperature metric are, just that, estimates, and that improvements will continue to be made.
However, I dont think you can find a scientist publishing in the field of surface temperature estimation that will argue that temperature is doing anything other than continuing to rise. What "argument" did you have in mind? What change in interpretation?
The global surface temperature metric is extremely important to us - the surface is where we live - but it is not necessarily the best metric for assessing AGW. The energy imbalance is potentially better estimated from ocean temperature change especially now that Argo is deployed. Furthermore ice loss (and thus sealevel) are better integrators of long term climate change. Any argument there?
-
KR at 14:19 PM on 10 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Philip Shehan - Sorry to say, but I really don't have the spare time to read through four pages of comments mostly consisting of denial. Some points of interest based on what you've shared:
- There are no 'step changes', that's basic thermodynamics. Over the last 60 years we've seen perhaps 0.7C of warming, while the oceans (93% of the energy entering/leaving the environment) have gained 25*1022 Joules of energy. Meaning a 0.1C step change that actually affected the longer term Earth energy balance (as opposed to just internal variation between ocean and surface temps) would require something like 3*1022 Joules of energy. Since there have been no nearby supernova, that hasn't happened, and claiming step changes is absurd.
- Cherry-picking a particular point (such as 1998) for your trend start based upon its nature as an extrema increases the need for statistical confidence by something like an order of magnitude, to requiring 99.5% confidence (depending on the variance stats of the data). Unless Singer can exclude the longer term warming trend with the required confidence level, he's just making noise about noise.
Furthermore, in the statistical theme, here's something I've said before.
Examining any time-span starting in the instrumental record and ending in the present:
- Over no period is warming statistically excluded.
- Over no period is the hypothesis of "no warming" statistically supported WRT a null hypothesis of the longer term trends.
- And over any period with enough data to actually separate the two hypotheses – there is warming.
-
Mattimus at 14:03 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
That being said, and no discredit to anyone's research on this forum, can we agree that there is still an argument in the data on both sides and continual change in the interpretation of the data in regard to the extent of our limited ability to capture all data?
-
rocketeer at 13:59 PM on 10 June 2015Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?
"Climate Change is HELPING Africa because greenhouse gases are bringing rain to areas that have suffered drought for decades." - Daily Mail Headline
So greenhouse gases do cause climate change? Or only when that is "good" climate change?
-
Mattimus at 13:49 PM on 10 June 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #3: NOAA Updates Global Temperature Record
I'm completely new to this site but have found it to have the most research-based data information/links I've come across so far on the internet. It's the only reason I took the time to sign up.
-
scaddenp at 12:54 PM on 10 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
I notice that UK still has issues with FF subsidies as well. eg here and here. Do people complaining about subsidies on renewables demand removal of these as well?
-
Philip Shehan at 11:35 AM on 10 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Pardon the typos in my comments. dashing things off in beween dealing with more pressing matters.
-
Philip Shehan at 11:26 AM on 10 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
KR
Tree recent and rather lengthy analysies are on these pages. I post as
"Dr Brian" over there when discussing matters of science.I had to stop using my real name over there for a while for reasons which do them no credit and posted as Brian, my first given name - Philip is my middle name.
I started using the "Dr" for science matters when I became tired of responding to comments along the lines of "Clearly you know nothing about science/mathematics/statistics/ Popper/etc/etc/etc with "Well actually I do... This of course only annoys the “skeptics” more - "Oooooooh you're so arrogant." Which is another reason to keep using it.
But I digress.
I was challenged to refute an argument by David Whitehouse (sorry, not sure how to do links here):
The two items noted above are at
and
Any feedback on the validity or otherwise of my analysis appreciated.
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed links. Use the link button (looks like a chain) in the comment editor.
[RH] Shortened links that were breaking page formatting.
-
scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 10 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Wind shapes up not too badly against all forms of generation (see levelized costs for all types here) including unsubsized coal and nuclear.
MacKay's analysis is based on looking at the amount of energy that is actually there, with virtually no regard to cost. A table on p107 shows, his estimates are far far higher than estimates from other 5 analysts. Far from unlimited potential, I would say MacKay's analysis sharply defines the limits. To say otherwise, then please produce the data.
While the electorate doesnt like subsidies, I am sure that electorate doesnt like the idea of paying of full cost for FF, including damages to those hurt by using it, either. Everyone wants energy as cheap as possible but sadly we have had 100 years or so of paying too little and you cant escape the change. To my mind, valuing visual impact so highly compared to other concerns (eg damage to great deltas from sea level rise) is morally suspect.
-
Langham at 07:56 AM on 10 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
^ If you reread my post you will see I was including all forms of renewable energy in my comment on "paltry returns". I was trying to convey the political reality which governs the situation - most of the electorate are opposed to subsidies.
I think KR may have gone to a different source, but my point was that I would be unwilling to rely on the MacKay estimates - however the figures are all rather meaningless in the final analysis, as energy production will be consistent with whatever any government is prepared to invest in harvesting wave and tidal power.
The opportunities offered by the British coastline, together with improvements in technology that can be reasonably anticipated, mean the potential is almost unlimited - but it will only be achieved with very considerable financial investment.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:47 AM on 10 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
dana, KR, for what it is worth, here is a comparison of UAH v6 to v5.6 and to RSS for the TLT pseudo channel:
As you can see, the major effective difference between v5.6 and v6 is that v6 much more closely matches RSS. That means it is not possible reject v6 as inadequate without also rejecting RSS as inadequate, ie, without effectively rejecting satellite temperature data altogether. While the appropriate caveates about satellite data are often ignored by deniers, I do not think rejecting it altogether is a tenable position.
The change in method of calculating the psueudo channel mentioned by KR changes the pseudo weighting profile, making it higher in altitude to that used in v 5.6 and by RSS:
This would have its greatest effect on measured temperatures in the tropics and least in polar regions due to differences in lapse rates between the two regions. Despite that, the largest difference in trends between UAH v5.6 and v6 is in the Arctic:
That combined with the greater sensitivity to ENSO displayed by v6 makes me suspect that primary difference is a reduced coverage of the Arctic to match that by RSS, but I have been unable to confirm that (gridded data being rather intractable on spreadsheets). It may be just a result of the change of diurnal drift corrections to effectively match those of RSS. Spencer's introduction of v6 takes no effort to explain the differences between measured temperatures between the two products which I consider very poor scientific practise. Hopefully the reviewers and editors of the paper introducing the changes will expect more of him.
Prev 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 Next
