Recent Comments

Prev  640  641  642  643  644  645  646  647  648  649  650  651  652  653  654  655  Next

Comments 32351 to 32400:

32351. Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Roger Knights @90, michael sweet has more than adequetly addressed the point about temperatures over the last few million years.

       What I wish to note is the shere unreasonableness of your suggestion that Hansen was alarmist because, in 2007, he failed to take into account climate sensitivity determinations that would not be made for another five years at the time of his speaking.  In 2007, a climate sensitivity of 3 was not just within the IPCC range.  It was the IPCC central estimate of climate sensitivity, of the then just released (or just to be released) AR4.  Further, the fifteen year temperature trend to 2007 (ie, 1993-2007) using Gistemp was 0.263 C per decade.  Therefore there was no "pause" in evidence, so again you are condemning Hansen as "alarmist" because he did not predict, and was not aware of the effect on the short term global temperature record of two very large La Nina events (2008, and 2011/12) that postdate his comments. 

       So, quite apart from the fact that there have been a number of climate sensitivity estimates in recent years, spanning a range of values (not just the low value estimates exclusively reported at WUWT); and that the "pause" is an artifact of one of the two strongest El Ninos in the twentieth century at the start of the "pause" and two very strong (including possibly the strongest on record, and certainly the strongest since 1974/5 La Ninas at the end of the period, your criticism is anachronistic.  It amounts to criticizing a scientist as "alarmist" for publicly reporting the best science at the time; which clearly shows it comes from a desire to criticise rather than a desire to fairly assess what Hansen has said.

32352. mancan18 at 08:08 AM on 25 December 2014
       Scientists connect the dots from identifying to preventing dangerous climate risks
       

       Changing the view of the public is not only a job for the scientists, it is also a job for the media and for popular writers to create the right fictional (and non-fictional) literature that will be widely read. While SkS is predominately a forum for scientific discussion. Perhaps, while I don't pretend to be any great writer, I have a more scientific and mathematical bent, I have penned something, while it's not great liteature and it may be an inappropriate forum, it might get the ball rolling.

       AGW and CC
       Doggerel for the Anthropocene

       More extremes,
       Less in betweens;
       Records broken,
       That are not a token;
       Longer lasting,
       Wider happening,
       All a sign
       Of what's to come.

       Warmer hot days,
       Warmer cold days,
       Warmer OK days,
       Just changing to a warmer way.
       More summer times,
       Later autumn times,
       Earlier spring times,
       Shorter winter times,
       Sometimes sharper,
       Most times milder,
       Years not quite,
       What they've always been;
       Where only some days,
       Seem the same.

       More sunny days,
       More droughts;
       More cloudy days,
       More rain;
       More floods;
       More storms,
       More wind;
       More homes destroyed,
       More houses wrecked,
       Oh well what the heck.

       Warmer land,
       Warmer seas,
       With
       Glaciers smaller,
       Poles retreating,
       Overall,
       Ice just disappearing;
       High tides higher,
       Low tides higher,
       The coast we know,
       Just eroding;
       Coral reefs fewer,
       Sea shells thinning,
       All the while
       Cities slowly sinking.

       Less land to farm,
       To keep us fed,
       More sandy deserts,
       And a few more dead;
       Fewer species,
       Animals disappearing,
       While others just seem to thrive,
       Over a range,
       A little more wide;
       More pests,
       To cause us harm,
       More sickness and disease,
       To threaten us all.

       While climates tropical
       Become more topical
       And milder climes
       Are in decline
       As poles shrink
       You have to think
       For polar bears
       It's now quite clear,
       It's simple,
       Really,
       They just won't be here.

       Early signs now,
       Give a clue,
       And climate scientists,
       Seem to know;
       That clearing forests,
       Burning more oil, gas and coal,
       Will only achieve that final goal;
       Of seeing what happens,
       From feeding the Anthropocene;
       Sending CO2 to levels not seen,
       Since sometime before the Pleistocene,
       Increasing at rates that have never been;
       So finally we will know,
       What business as usual,
       Truly means,
       Unfortunately it'll be all too late,
       We'll have sealed our fate,
       Where, in a few centuries,
       There will be a climate that took eons,
       For the natural world to make.

       97% of scientists,
       Do agree,
       And have spoken through
       Their journals, Academies and the IPCC;
       3% think something different,
       And have sown seeds of uncertainty,
       While doubters lay doubt,
       With skepticism and deniability,
       With their talk of conspiracy
       From their political ideology,
       Or simply for reasons monetary;
       With arguments, politic,
       And few, scientific;
       All to get in the way,
       So action is stopped again and again;
       For a little more money,
       From a 19th century technology;

       But it's not so funny,

       Because it keeps on happening,

       And it will be our children,
       Who will surely pay.

       Some will win,
       Most will lose,
       But for everyone,
       It won't be the same;
       One thing though,
       As certain as day,
       It will be the poorest
       Who will have to pay;
       While the air conditioned move to higher ground,
       Where a more pleasant clime can be found,
       To continue their lives day to day,
       As if nothing ever happened.

       It's not a good idea,
       To change the climate,
       To one not seen,
       Long before the thylacine,
       It might be a little more green,
       In some places,
       While in others,
       Nothing,
       Only desert;
       Where in the future
       All we'll see,
       Is a world where we didn't exist,
       A world where we would never be.

       Should we worry,
       And chance our luck,
       Just ignore the science,
       And hope for the best;
       Well, our children will certainly know,
       In a hundred years or so;
       We will leave them a legacy,
       For them to live by,
       To wonder why,
       People, so supposedly enlightened,
       Like us,
       Could just let it happen.

       Despite all the controversy,
       Debate and prophecy,
       There's one thing certain,

       There is no doubt,
       With CO2 increasing,
       There will be heating,
       Unlike anything we've ever seen.

       So for Paris,
       In two fifteen
       Scientists have spoken;
       Will the politics remain same,
       Just still broken;
       Or will we stop the rot,
       So the world doesn't become,
       A lot more hot?

       mancan18 Dec 2014

32353. michael sweet at 06:06 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Rodger,

       This reference provides temperature data going back 800,000 years.  The temperatures over the previous two million years were similar.  We are currently within a couple of degrees of the hottest in the past three million years.  IPCC RPC 8.5 shows 5C by 2100 and more after that.  If CO2 continues to rise we will exceed the temperature of the past three million years as Hansen states.    Your claim that Hansen was alarmist is baseless and uninformed.  Please provide a citation to support your wild claim that Hansen is incorrect.  In the absence of a scientific citation your claim must be presumed false.  

       Hansen's estimate of 3C per doubling is the middle of the IPCC range.  The latest IPCC report has a best estimate of 3C per doubling.  Your claim that the Hansen's value is too high is incorrect.  Please read the literature and try to become up to date.  You are uncritically accepting false information from WUWT.  This article addresses some of your misconceptions.  You should keep in mind that you are talking about the climate sensitivity.  The earth system sensitivity is much higher (like double the climate sensitivity).  It includes slow feedbacks like ice sheets melting.  You must determine if Hansen was referring to the climate sensitivity or the earth system sensitivity (he is likely to be  refering to the earth system sensivity).  If you do not know what the earth system sensivity is you can ask here and people will try to educate you.

       Watts is completely blameworthy for publishing false information like the post you have cited.  It has been documented in this thread that the WUWT post is filled with false and misleading information.  You yourself were uninformed about the basis of your argument untill the facts were presented to you on this thread.

32354. Roger Knights at 04:49 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Michael Sweet wrote, in #89: “Please cite specific statements from the video that you consider alarmist. Keep in mind that the video is from 2007 . . . .”

       Adjusting for my mistake about the year of the video and my resulting wrong implied end-of-century date, Hansen, in #82, implied that by 2017 under continuing rising CO2 we’ll likely be locked-in to a global temperature that will be the hottest in 3 million years by 2100. That was alarmism—it was an attempt to stampede people into ACTION NOW action now with an UNlikely unlikely scenario.

       (It’s unlikely mainly because Hansen (per a quote I read somewhere) estimates the climate sensitivity to be 3.0. That’s within IGPOCC’s IPCC's range, but it’s much higher than the latest estimates in the literature—and because the temperature has barely risen in the past seven years.)

       Michael Sweet wrote: “You are claiming that Hansen has to provide documentation to prove the statements at WUWT are false.”

       Strawman. I said that, lacking confirmation from the other party to Hansen’s interview, Watts is not “very blameworthy” (see item “2” of #86) for not accepting Hansen’s “assuming a doubling of CO2” to be an unquestionable fact.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The use of "all caps" constitutes shouting and is therefore prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. In addition, you are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering - which is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       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.

32355. wili at 04:06 AM on 25 December 2014
       Scientists connect the dots from identifying to preventing dangerous climate risks
       

       The determination of consensus can be a bit iffy (though not, of course, on the general issue of GW). A number of scientists who have been most closely involved in research on the Arctic do think that a 'huge methane burp' cannot be ruled out. Few have spent more time researching the area directly than Wadhams, Shakhova and Semiletov, and they are among the most concerned. IIRC, Mann has also stated that he did not think that a relatively large, sudden release could be ruled out. And of course the large number of people associated with the Arctic Methane Emergency Group are quite concerned. (Whatever one may think of certain of their members, certain of their studies, or certain of their objectives, the fact of the matter is that they have a number of scientists among them who have studied the area.)

       Given the importance of establishing the very real concensus on AGW, I think it unwise to use the term where real debate still exists among major figures in the field (wherever one may personally come down on the controversy).

       Also, dismissing what would be a civilization threatening event as a 'burp' does not help to show that a careful and sober judgment has been made of the issue, imho.

32356. wili at 03:53 AM on 25 December 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       Thanks for that discussion and the link, OPOF. Even more significant than the daily numbers is the fact that the 30-day average is now below -8.

       www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml

32357. Roger Knights at 03:44 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       PS to #86: Here’s a third reason WUWT isn’t upbraid-worthy for not crying “mea culpa” on this issue. Its reason for being leery is expressed in this quote by TimG on the mapleleafweb.com site:

       “Frankly, I don’t believe his [Hansen’s] recollection because it makes no sense that a reporter would ask a question on what would happen 40 years after CO2 doubles. It would either be what would happen in 40 years or what would happen when CO2 doubles.”

       I now believe Hansen’s recollection, because he wouldn’t have made a 10-feet-in-40-years prediction. He had to be speaking of when-CO2-doubles. Given that, here’s my guess as to what happened:

       Reiss posed two the questions TimG described above. Hansen gave an answer to the doubling of CO2 question. Reiss misremembered that answer as being to his 40-years question. When the Slate interview became a subject of controversy, Hansen chose to avoid embartrassing Reiss by saying that he’d garbled things. Instead, he tried to soften the blow by saying Reiss had asked a complex (double-barreled) question, hoping this would put the matter to rest with no hard feelings. Instead, it aroused suspicions in contrarians like TimG—and perhaps in Watts, at least unconsciously.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Case closed. Time to move on.

32358. KR at 03:02 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Roger Knights - WUWT is still misinterpreting a Gedankenexperiment for a prediction, a complete misinterpretation that they are using to attack Dr. Hansen. Blaming the victim is never appropriate - the responsibility lies with those making the misinterpretations, in this case with WUWT.

       Your personal opinion that Hansen 'might have gone even further off the rails' and made such foolish predictions anyway is wholly unsupported by any evidence (or IMO any sense), and is in my view just another case of attacking the man rather than considering the evidence. 

32359. michael sweet at 02:27 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Roger Knights,

       Tom has provided documentation that your claims about Dr. Hansen are false.  You maintain above that Dr. Hansen has made "alarmist" statements.  I see only falsehoods like claiming estimates of sea level rise for 2100 are claims for 2000 and false claims of temperature projections by Dr. Hansen.  Please cite specific statements form the video that you consider alarmist.  Keep in mind that the video is from 2007 and not 1988 as you falsely claimed.  The only "alarmist" statements I see are your false claims from WUWT.

       You are claiming that Hansen has to provide documentation to prove the statements at WUWT are false.  You have the situation backwards.  WUWT is required to show that the wild claims they make are true, especially since you have provided evidence that their claims are false with two sterling examples. 

32360. One Planet Only Forever at 01:39 AM on 25 December 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       New monthly record highs for global average surface temperatures may be set in early 2015. The preliminary daily values for December 23 and 24 of the SOI (here) are at very strong El Nino supporting levels (-38).

       We will still need to wait and see what will actually develop but there is evidence that the ENSO will be clearly on the El Nino side rather than the neutral condition that existed at the start of 2014.

       So the ones hoping to deny the validity of the climate science, because they dislike the socioeconomic changes it clearly indicates are required, are likely to be in for another year of irrefutable facts accumulating contrary to their interests, especially with the global movement towards curtailing the benefiting from burning of buried hydrocarbons that will be formally strengthened near the end of 2015.

32361. Roger Knights at 01:00 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Here, below the line, is a comment I composed before reading the comments above. After reading them, I'm kicking myself for not noticing the clue in Hansen's hair. And for not realizing that the "1986" reference didn't necessarily apply to the date of the video.

       Anyway, this exchange has been valuable in clearing things up--and the answers I hope to get from my e-mails ought to make things even clearer. (Unless they make them muddier.)

       --------------------

       I’ve done some more Googling on this topic. It now seems unlikely to me that Hansen would have predicted a ten-foot rise in sea level within 40 years, regardless of how hot it got by the end of that period. There’s obviously, to any climatologist, way too much lag involved for that to happen.

       OTOH, I don’t see WUWT’s current skepticism as very blameworthy, for these two reasons:

       1) The video I cited is over-the-top—it’s a classic of alarmism. Watts and other contrarians could be forgiven for thinking, from seeing it (and probably from other alarmist statements of Hansen), that he might have gone even further off the rails and made a 10-feet-in-40-years prediction.

       2) Hansen’s qualification, “assuming CO2 doubled in amount,” was apparently not included in Reiss’s book. It certainly wasn’t in the e-mail he sent to Hansen that Hansen quoted. (Probably Hansen did make it though, IMO.) But Hansen’s say-so alone is insufficient to establish that as a fact. Reiss’s confirmation is needed. Without that confirmation—at a minimum—there’s nothing scandalous in Watts not yet conceding that he was wrong.

       I suspect, if it’s not in his book, that Reiss doesn’t recall it—although that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That is what I intend to ask him about. (If Reiss does recall it, and/or if it’s in his earlier book, I’ll mention it in WUWT’s Tips and Notes section.)

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] 

       You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       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.

32362. michael sweet at 00:19 AM on 25 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Tristan,

       Hansen obviously meant several degrees by 2100.  That is the time frame for projections by the IPCC.  Comparing to the most recent IPCC report, that statement is still reasonable.  It is easy to make a projection look bad by changing the time frame from 110 years to 12 years.  The 2000 time frame added is incorrect.  A simple comparison to Hansen's testimony in 1988 to Congress shows Hansen estimated temperature increases close to a tenth of a degree by 2000.  Should we believe Hansen's testimony to Congress or an edited You-Tube video?  Roger is taking statements he reads at WUWT too seriously.

       Hansen and many other scientists have estimated equilibrium sea level rise of 20+ meters from 2-3 C increases in temperature.  This will take centuries to realize (the time estimated varies widely).  The IPCC projections only go out to 2100.  The sea will continue to rise after that for centuries and many meters.  The high end projections would result in complete loss of ice and 65 meters of sea level rise.  This rise would not be complete for perhaps 1-4 thousand years.  Imagine if we were still dealing with the consequences of pollution released by the Ancient Egyptians!

32363. Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 24 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Tristan @88, the video, SFAICT, was made as part of a 2007 documentary by inside out (click on Greenland).  Thus, when Hansen says, "... we are likely to get warming this century of several degrees fahrenheit"  he is reffering to the 21st century.  Further, and ironically, the video is concurent with his scientific statements about the possible rate of sea level rise I quoted above, and which Roger Knights rejected as "a recent view".

       On the dating of the video, the only thing tying it to 1988 is the mention the introduction to the video which says:

       "In 1988, he was one of the first prominent scientists to raise the alarm about the threat of global warming..."

       That, of course, is merely a historical reference, and is shown to be so by the continuation of the quote:

       "... and he continues to be one of the country's most outspoken scientists on this issue."

       Further, this is what Hansen looked like in 1988:

       

       You will probably notice distinctly less hair in the video.

       The crucial fact as the video and the article to which I linked are approximately concurrent, they do not represent different views, but different aspects of the same view.  Specifically, Hansen thought (and still thinks) that sea level rise will be rapid, measured in meters over the coming century, and plausibly as much as 5 meters over that century.  He also thinks that once the sea level stops rising, the total rise will be measured in tens of meters, and plausibly upward of 50 meters.  All of this assuming we keep on burning fossil fuels, and in particular, coal.

       As this response to you is an effective response to the later part of Roger Knights' comment @82, I will not repeat myself in responding to him.  I will note here, for his benefit, however, that lack of care in interpreting Hansen's comments, and in particular, failure to consult his more exact statements will lead to interpreting out of context such as interpreting a claim about ultimate sea level rise as (and frankly absurd) claim about sea level rise over this century.  That is why it is only done by those seeking rhetorical rather than scientific rebutal of Hansen's views. 

       I will also note that his recent views are entirely germain to his 1988 views in that in 2001, Reiss confirmed with Hansen that he still stood by his views as expressed in 1988 (he did).

32364. Tristan at 22:23 PM on 24 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       I'm not sure that Hansen was advocating a several degree fahrenheit rise over the course of 12 years :p I imagine he meant the period of time from 1988-2088.

       
       He is not making a 'prediction' in any scientific sense, but suggesting the listener imagine a vastly different world from the one of 1988.

       
       I would probably have avoided the potential takeaway that 100 years of warming could result in a possible 25m sea-level rise.

32365. Roger Knights at 20:08 PM on 24 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Tom Curtis wrote, in #81: “. . . it is appropriate for SkS to acknowledge (in a footnote) at least that Watts has slightly ammended his post to eliminate one error, while retaining many others. That is so regardless of the standards of error correction at WUWT that, or other "skeptic" sites.”

       Good. That agrees with what I said in #74, especially the last two paragraphs. I hope your opinion carries weight with the moderators here.

       Tom Curtis continued: “It is unreasonable, however, to expect continuous inspection of posts on which SkS comments in the off chance of a rare correction. SkS authors are volunteers with many other demands on their time.”

       (I presume the above refers to the comments I made on WUWT on Dec. 20, not here, where I haven’t suggested such a thing.) I didn’t think my expectation of SkS-awareness was unreasonable in this instance: 1) I had got the impression, from WUWT commenters who noticed rapid rebuttals here on SkS to recent WUWT material, and from SkS’s ongoing (I thought) long list of counterpoints to climate contrarians, that SkS-ers collectively, if informally, were on top of what happens on WUWT. 2) I also thought that Watt’s concession that he had been wrong about its “20”-year claim would be so juicy that it would have been reported here.

       As it happens, Watts’s concession was only a two-year-old “update” to his head post. So, within 2.5 hours, I realized, unprompted, that I had been wrong in assuming SkS should have been aware of Watt’s retraction. I then posted the following on WUWT: “I now realize that AW’s update to his thread would not have appeared as a new item in WUWT’s sidebar, so SkS probably was unaware of it. I’ve posted a comment on the SkS thread informing it of AW’s update and urging it to update its own thread too.”

       Tom Curtis continued: “Therefore concluding that SkS is unreliable because they got the fact correct at the time of publication but failed to take note of a correction by Watts of which they had not been notified is unreasonable.”

       Right. But I immediately corrected myself. You must have lost sight of my correction. (It’s easy to lose sight of such things. I acknowledged doing so myself in #79.)

       Tom Curtis continued: “It suggests you are merely seeking a pretext to arrive at that conclusion [of SkS’s unreliability]. . .”

       In light of my explanation above, I trust you will take that back. (For context, I do claim that if SkS fails to “add a footnote” to its link to Watts’s thread, it will be perceived, correctly, as implicitly misleading its readers.)

       Tom Curtis continued: “- particularly given multiple egregious errors you seem prepared to over look at WUWT.”

       We won’t know how deep WUWT is sunk in its Egyptian night until we have clarified Reiss’s ambiguous question. I’ve ordered Reisss’s book and, to establish a relationship with them, sent e-mails to Reiss and Hansen—and I have follow-ups in mind. I suggest that you contact Hansen and ask him to clarify which interpretation of Reiss’s ambiguous question he responded to. (I didn’t ask him that—I just posed three softball questions to get things started. Similarly, the only question I asked Reiss was the name of “the earlier book” in which he included his Q-and-A with Hansen.) Hansen’s e-mail is jeh1@columbia.edu. Reiss’s is bobreiss@hotmail.com. When you and I (hopefully) get answers, we’ll have something we can get our teeth into.

       Tom Curtis wrote, earlier in his post: “Because of that ambiguity, if you want to check Hansen's opinions on sea level rise, it is a ridiculous quote to do so on. That is particularly the case as he has stated his position on sea level rise far more clearly elsewhere. Thus, in the New Scientist, he writes: . . . .”

       But that’s from 2007, and our argument is about his thinking about sea level rise in 1988. Here’s a quote from a 44-second 1988 Hansen video that seems consistent with Watt’s view that Hansen was foreseeing a huge SLR soon (e.g., within 40 years).

       (To view it, go to YouTube and search for “James Hansen speaks about Global Warming.” I’m afraid to post a link to it here, because SkS hasn’t properly processed the link I posted in #75. (Can someone please point to what’s wrong with it?) If you or anyone here knows how to post a link to it, please do so.)

       Hansen: “If we stay on with business as usual, I think for even a decade or so, then we are likely to get a temperature rise of several degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century [2000], and that would be really a different planet. That would be the warmest it has been since the middle Pliocene—that’s about three million years ago—and at that time there was no ice in the arctic during the summer and fall and sea level was about 25 meters—that’s about 80 feet—higher than it is now. So that is a very different planet. About a half billion people live near the coastlines, which would be underwater if we got a sea level rise of 80 feet.”

32366. Rob Honeycutt at 04:05 AM on 24 December 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I'd venture to guess that Digby is M. Wright -> Satoh -> Anne Hyster -> Anne HysterII. Each of these folks has been banned for excessive repetition, sock puppetry and sloganeering.

       I would propose to allow continued commenting if Mr Wright can abide by the rules. But that will require the capacity to actually move the discussion forward when shown where he is in error.

       Note that Mr Wright has an extensive blog post where he contradicts nearly every aspect of established scientific research related to climate change (which, if any of it were actually correct, would earn him a Nobel Prize).

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Yes, sock puppetry is indeed confirmed.  Reprehensible activities such as this are subject to automatic forfeiture of posting rights, permanently.

32367. jja at 03:19 AM on 24 December 2014
       Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
       

       it is not a coincidence that the mid-century negative IPO correlates to the rapid post WWII industrialization and subsequently ends at the implementation of aggressive sulphate emissions reductions by U.S. and Europe in the mid 1970's.
       
       Obviously the IPO is influenced by anthropogenic aerosols.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - See the Maher et al (2014) paper linked to in this post. You will find it interesting.

32368. One Planet Only Forever at 00:29 AM on 24 December 2014
       2014 will be the hottest year on record
       

       jgnflnd,

       I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify where you see a 'focus' on one year being warmer than the previous year in this post and comment set.

       There is mention about this year being the warmest in many data sets of global average surface temperature that start in the 1800s. And there is mention that if El Nino strengthens then 2015 will be even warmer. However, those have been presented as evidemce that the trend of global warming has not slowed.

32369. Kevin C at 19:15 PM on 23 December 2014
       Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
       

       Note that ERSSTv4, which includes a correction for engine room intake bias, shows considerably more warning over the last decade than ERSSTv3b. Having said that, I am not very convinced by the behaviour of ERSSTv4 in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that the new version is right.

32370. Tom Curtis at 15:44 PM on 23 December 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Digby, I think you are furiously agreeing with KR.  The only thing you are not noting is that KR's post was a response to "Anne Hyzer" who claimed the majority of CO2 radiation came from the upper stratosphere (see 378).

32371. KR at 13:52 PM on 23 December 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Digby - And as Tom Curtis and I have noted, this means that the upper stratosphere is not the location of the effective radiating altitude, nor where the majority of the CO2 radiated energy comes from. 

32372. Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 23 December 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Digby @383, if you look at the right hand panel of the second figure in KR's post you will see three "typical" temperature profiles.  The temperature profile in my post @376 corresponds to the green profile in KR's post, ie, middle latitude.  As you can see, the profile varies based on latitude, but also on season and local conditions (including local humidity).  The profile over desert, for example, would be different to that over ocean.

       KR's refference to a temperature range, therefore, does not represent a range of temperatures in the tropopause.  It represents a range of temperatures of the tropopause at different latitudes (as shown in the right hand panel of his second figure).  While it would be possible with a sufficiently distant instrument to get a whole hemisphere IR spectrum for the Earth, the actual instruments used are in low Earth orbit and so can only profile a limited area at a time so the brightness temperature of the base of the CO2 trough will vary depending on where and when the profile was taken.

32373. Tom Curtis at 12:46 PM on 23 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Roger Knights @various, I quote the most accurate account of the interview:

       "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

       The problem with that statement is that it is multiply amibuous.  It could mean Mann was asked to speculate on any of the following scenarios:

       1. Assume CO2 is 560 ppmv now (ie, in 1988), then what would the changes be in New York City in 2028;
       2. Assume CO2 levels rise to 560 ppmv by 2028, then what would the changes be in New York City in 2028; or
       3. Assume that at some time t, CO2 levels rise to 560 ppmv, then then what would the changes be in New York City in t + 40 years. 

       Because of that ambiguity, if you want to check Hansen's opinions on sea level rise, it is a ridiculous quote to do so on.  That is particularly the case as he has stated his position on sea level rise far more clearly elsewhere.  Thus, in the New Scientist, he writes:

       "As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095."

       Based on that scenario sea level rise in 2028 would be approximately 0.043 meters, not the three meters required for covering the WSH.

       It should be noted that Hansen does not consider the 5 meter sea level rise by 2100 the most likely scenario.  He does think sea level rise will be measured in meters, ie, that it will be significantly greater than that projected by the IPCC and considers 5 meters a plausible estimate in the upper range of possibility.  Even assuming that it is his actual estimate, however, clearly his more accurately stated views are inconsistent with the common interpretation of the WSH quote.

       Now, it is possible that Hansen is merely being inconsistent.  It is far more probable, however, that his critics (notably at WUWT) have merely misinterpreted his comments - and that ergo their criticism is still fraught with error.  Absent an explicit attempt by those critics to determine exactly what Hansen meant in his comment, either by directly asking him or by finding the original transcript of the interview so that the exact words used can be used to rule out possible interpretations, they are clearly indulging in an attempted "gotcha" where the purpose it is only rhetorical.  And because rhetorical, it is more important what they can persuade their audience to believe about what Hansen said, than what he actually said and meant.

       As a side note, absent specific clarrification by Hansen, and given his apparent recent reiteration that he stands by his comments, then consistency requires that Hansen actually to have intended his words to be a response to scenario 3 above.

       As a further note, I believe Hansen is wrong about sea level rise, even in his more clearly stated views.  I doubt sea level rise over this century will exceed 2 meters, and it may be as low as 0.6 meters.  That still represents a significant cause for concern.

       Finally, while it is appropriate for SkS to acknowledge (in a footnote) at least that Watts has slightly ammended his post to eliminate one error, while retaining many others.  That is so regardless of the standards of error correction at WUWT that, or other "skeptic" sites.  It is unreasonable, however, to expect continuous inspection of posts on which SkS comments in the off chance of a rare correction.  SkS authors are volunteers with many other demands on their time.  Therefore concluding that SkS is unreliable because they got the fact correct at the time of publication but failed to take note of a correction by Watts of which they had not been notified is unreasonable.  It suggests you are merely seeking a pretext to arrive at that conclusion - particularly given multiple egregious errors you seem prepared to over look at WUWT.

32374. Digby at 12:13 PM on 23 December 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       KR, you say the 220 K value in your first graphic corresponds with the -50 to -70 C temps of the tropopause, but your second graphic shows that the temperature of the atmosphere does not change at all between the tropopause, at 10 km, and the lower stratospphere up to around 20 km. This is seen more clearly in the graph in post #376 in Tom's post. It means, judging by temperature, the CO2 radiates anywhere from the tropopause to the lower stratosphere, or, anywhere from 10 km up to 20 km.

32375. Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 23 December 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       As Scaddenp seems to have forgotten the link, here is the Santa Monica tide guage data:

       http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/377.php

       And here is the annual data from that site:

       

       The trend since 1933 is 1.37 mm per annum.

32376. Tom Curtis at 11:42 AM on 23 December 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       Gumball67 @143:

       1)  As Stephen Baines has already noted, the IPCC does not publish original research.  Rather, it reviews original research already published in the peer reviewed literature.

       2) Michael Mann's iconic hockey stick graph, as reproduced by the IPCC in the Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR, 2001) was published in the Geophysical Research Letters in 1999 (PDF version of paper).

       3) That version was an update and extension of the prior version published in Nature in 1998, which only extended back to 1400 (PDF version of paper).

       4) Those papers were revolutionary in being among the first to use actual temperature proxies from a several cites around the globe to determine NH temperatures, and more importantly, being the very first to assess the error margins of the estimates.  They represented a major step forward in paleoclimate temperature reconstructions for the last few thousand years, but not the last or most recent step by any means.

       5)  The graph used by the IPCC in its First Assessment Report (IPCC FAR, 1990) was a version of a graph devised by Hubert Lamb.  Hubert Lamb's graph was based on the Central England Temperature series, a thermometer based record of temperatures in central England.  That record only extends back to 1659, whereas Lamb's graph extended back prior to 1000 AD.  Astute observers will therefore note that he must have relied on other information for the extension, and that other information was anecdotal historical data, mostly from Europe and Greenland.  Astute observers will further note that Central England is not the World, or even the Northern Hemisphere.  They will even note that Central England plus Greenland is still not the world or the NH and conclude that using strictly regional temperature information (and anecdotal information in the crucial period) is not an adequate methodology, and not to be preffered to using a number of temperature proxies from around the world.

       6) In the IPCC Second Assessment Report (IPCC SAR, 1996), the figure based on Lamb's guesses was replaced by proxy data, primarilly that from Bradley and Jones, 1993, which was a reconstruction based on 16 proxies and hence already a quantum leap in methodology over Lamb's free hand line drawn based on regional anecdotes:

       

       (Image version from wikipedia)

       The SAR also featured icecore records from around the globe, giving a similar picture.

       So, in summary, every feature of your account of the events relating to the IPCC, Lamb and Mann's graph is wrong.  But that is indeed why the world is full of deniers.  Because it is full of people who seize on convenient "facts" as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable conclusions - never bothering to check their sources.  Consequently it is full of people who confidently assert fictions as the basis of their opinions, and then go on to assert fraud by scientists for disagreeing with those opinions (as the scientist's opinions must, being based on facts).

32377. scaddenp at 11:17 AM on 23 December 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       And as an aside, the tide gauge data at Santa Monica does not seem to squate with your assertion of no sealevel rise. But given possibility of local tectonics, dont you think a better guage of sealevel rise would from satellites or analysis of the global tide guage data?

       What is your evidence that a perception of a Mann graph is the reason for climate denial? In my experience, denial is mostly rooted in political values and identity and will jump on any ridiculous excuse to bolster a position. A cool-headed review of all available data seems beyond many people.

32378. Rob Honeycutt at 10:19 AM on 23 December 2014
       Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
       

       Gumball...  Those are not questions the article is addressing. The article is addressing indicators that may signal whether we will see accellerated warming in the coming decades.

       If you want to know about past sea surface temperatures you could try research posted on the NOAA website here.

32379. Riduna at 10:15 AM on 23 December 2014
       Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
       

       The short-term prognosis seems rather grim for corals and the cryosphere, particularly in the Arctic and all that implies.

       Perhaps Rob Painting or other SkS scientists will publish their conclusions on the consequences of sustained rising SST on these areas in the near future.  A glimpse is provided at Figs 3 and 4.  Both are disturbing.

32380. Stephen Baines at 09:46 AM on 23 December 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       Gumball.  

       No.  The IPCC does not publish original research in journals. It only reviews the original research. IPCC authors may publish their own work in journals like Science, because as experts they do some of the original research being reviewed. Science may have published an IPCC figure from a report, but they are not doing so as the IPCC.  

       I have a guess as to what you're talking about, but the dates don't match up.  You will have to provide more specific — providing links to these figures etc — before anyone can clear up your confusion about this.

32381. Gumball67 at 09:18 AM on 23 December 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       Unless I am mistaken, the IPCC published Mann's 1995 "Hockey Stick" graph in "Science" magazine.  They also published the graph for roughly the same time frame 5 years earlier in the same "Science" magazine.  In the 1990 graph, the Medieval period showed massive heat for a few hundred years, much hotter than today. Much, much hotter than today. Mann's 1995 graph conveniently changed his later graph by illiminating that great warming period. That specific act is why the world is full of deniers.  (Also because the water levels have not risen at Malibu Beach.

32382. witsendnj at 08:45 AM on 23 December 2014
       Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic
       

       I do hope that there will be more discussion of methane in light of this latest study:  http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/c-cf-mil122214.php

       and the lecture by James White at the AGU about abrupt climate change, which seems to closely link methane release with extreme temperature change in the past - linked here with some notes:  http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2014/12/all-about-us.html

32383. Gumball67 at 08:22 AM on 23 December 2014
       Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
       

       All very confusing.  Bottom line: how much has the global ocean temp risen?  And, when is the last time it was this high?

32384. scaddenp at 05:55 AM on 23 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       "Perhaps addressing such denial may be a much more effective use of the course than attempting to change right wing minds."

       Any course of action by a democratic government needs enough assent to retain voter loyalty. At the moment, right wing denial is a major road block to effective action.

32385. KR at 02:44 AM on 23 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Roger Knights - Not really, the positing of a Gedankenexperiment, a 'what if' thought experiment, is entirely reasonable. Expecting Hansen to have thought through every possible misinterpretation of his words, and to phrase his speech accordingly, is not reasonable. 

       Looking at the WUWT article you mentioned, they are still misinterpreting the content of that Hansen interview, falsely posing a thought experiment for doubled CO2 (which has not happened) as a prediction for current, and quite different, CO2 levels. They are continuing to make a debunked claim. 

32386. One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 23 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       saileshrao,

       I consider the development of a sustainable better future for all life to be the main objective of life. Therefore, all unacceptable behaviour is to be targetted for effective curtailing, no matter how popular or profitable. However, if the required actions were to be prioritized the following factors are main points to be considered:

       • What is the total global magnitude of the impacts? Globally more significant impacts affecting the ability of any and all life to thrive and survive being more severe than regional issues.
       • How many people participate in creating the impacts?
       • How likely is the unacceptable activity to be percieved to improve the comfort, convenience and pleasure for the trouble makers? The more enjoyment or benefit perceived to be obained, the more difficult it will be to fight against, but the more important it is to fight against because of its potential to persist and expand.
       • How much profit is made from activities creating the unacceptable impacts?

       It is pretty clear that curtailing the burning of buried hydrocarbons is at or near the top of each significant consideration. So it must be addressed, along with action against what you are referring to.

       The trouble makers love to have their trouble making believed to be 'too valued to be curtailed'. It is clear that the failure of the current socioeconomic system to curtail unacceptable activity, its development of effective promotion of such activity, is what needs to change.

       It is clear that the success of people who fight against 'developing and acting on the better understanding of what is going on' is what needs to be curtailed. No sustainable good thing has ever developed from the success of those type of people. They thrive on benefiting at the expense of others. Some even try to justify profiting from making trouble for others, especially future trouble, by comparing how much benefit they believe they would have to give up against how much trouble they believe they are creating for others and future generations.

32387. Roger Knights at 01:00 AM on 23 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       CBDunkerson at 22:19 PM on 22 December, 2014:
       "Correction to your correction... Hansen was asked about changes which would occur in 40 years (i.e. by 2028) if atmospheric CO2 levels doubled."

       Er, you're right. I'd lost sight of that point.

       But it's strange that Hansen didn't bridle or quibble at the question for assuming too steep a rise in CO2 in too short a time. (In the unlikely event that he shared that assumption, it was a bad error.)

32388. jgnfld at 23:25 PM on 22 December 2014
       2014 will be the hottest year on record
       

       Why the focus on whether a single year is greater than the previous year? That seems to be returning to the notion of some sort of monotonic increasing curve as the fundamental proof or disproof of warming.

       
       Neither a healthy nor statistically sensible way to go IMO, anyway.

32389. saileshrao at 23:18 PM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       One Planet Only Forever: 
       
       Indeed, a sense of caring for all life, both present and future, would be a pre-condition for those who can overcome their denial of climate science. But in that vein, scientific denial is much more widespread than just in the right wing community. 
       
       An estimated 52% of all vertebrates in the wild have been killed off between 1970 and 2010 and yet our routine behaviors do not reflect that simple fact. Perhaps addressing such denial may be a much more effective use of the course than attempting to change right wing minds.

32390. CBDunkerson at 22:19 PM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Correction to your correction... Hansen was asked about changes which would occur in 40 years (i.e. by 2028) if atmospheric CO2 levels doubled.

       Given that atmospheric CO2 levels haven't doubled, and are highly unlikely to do so before 2028, the entire 'debate' is staggeringly moot. It was an estimate based on a pre-defined set of conditions which haven't occurred. You might as well argue that saying, 'If you jump out of an airplane without a parachute you are likely to die' can be disproven by looking at cases of people jumping out of airplanes with parachutes.

32391. Roger Knights at 18:57 PM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Correction to the above: "It was in response to a question about how much the everyday sea level would have risen what NYC would look like by that time (40 years). Hansen responded that the West Side Highway (elev. 10 feet) would be underwater.

32392. Roger Knights at 18:42 PM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Michael Sweet wrote, "Since Hurricane Sandy already submerged New York as Hansen suggested, Hansen has already been proved right . . . ."

       Hansen's prediction can't rationally be read as saying that there would be a one-time 14-foot flooding of NYC within 40 years. It was in response to a question about how much the everyday sea level would have risen by that time. He implied: at least ten feet.

32393. Roger Knights at 18:29 PM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       As promised, here's the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/friday-funny-mann-overboard-at-agu14/">link</a> to the comment on WUWT that triggered my replies.

32394. Roger Knights at 18:22 PM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       Michael Sweet wrote, "Why are you so concerned that SkS is perfect when the bulk of WUWT is in error?"

       I have no over-riding, general concern about SkS’s accuracy. The motivation for my comment was a specific trigger: In the two-day-old WUWT thread "friday-funny-mann-overboard-at-agu14," newbie poster "kevinschmidtojai" commented (at December 19, 2014 at 9:21 pm) by reposting the entire head post of this SkS thread, followed by a link to it. He added nothing of his own (and hasn't yet responded to the four replies I made soon afterwards). (I provide the link to his comment in a separate comment below, because three of my prior comments were deleted because of link-format problems.)

       My replies pointed out to him that Watts had retracted his claim within three weeks of this SkS thread, so it was no longer operative; and that SkS should reword its head post so it no longer gave its readers the impression that Watts was still making that claim.

       I assumed that the moderators here at SkS were aware, or soon would be, of his comment and my responses, so I didn't feel the need to provide that background information. It was the moderators and/or the author of the head post I was mostly addressing.

       If I have spurred SkS to update its thread, it will be viewed as a more reliable and conscientious source. SkS readers who, like "kevinschmidtojai," cite this SkS thread in good faith and get rebutted will no longer find out that it has misled them, causing them to be warier of it in the future--as will lurking warmists at WUWT, who have read my rebuttal.

       I can easily imagine an SkS regular making this point too—that being forthright is the best policy. There's nothing necessarily nasty about saying so. Anyway, even had I been testy, "Your opponent is [or can be] your friend" (Burke)—by forcing you to up your game.

       Unfortunately, the change SkS has has made so far--adding a link to the WUWT thread containing Watt’s retraction--is insufficient. Most readers will not click on it, and so most will continue to be misled. Something like the following text should precede or follow that link:

       "In March 2011, perhaps in reaction to this March 10 SkS thread, Watts updated his original 2009 story to correct the record; he conceded that 40 years was the correct number."

32395. One Planet Only Forever at 15:54 PM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       saileshrao@15,

       When you say "we must replace this with a factual alternative that is compatible with a minimally regulated socioeconomic system", I will add that a minimally regulated socioeconomic system will only work if every individual in it wants 'the development of a sustainable better future for all' significantly more than they want a better present for themself.

       If you are preferring all people to be 'free to do as they please', no need to bother themselves with better understanding the consequences of their actions and without any concern for the development of a sustainable better future for all then the obvious required action becomes 'effective regulation of the behaviour of those people who only care about their personal interests and allowing them to be free of the regulation when they change their attitude' by as small a government as it takes to keep the trouble-makers from making trouble.

       Smaller government being sustainable requires everyone to care about everyone else, and actually requires everyone to care about all other life on this amazing planet, and most importantly it requires them all to care about the future they will never live in.

32396. scaddenp at 12:59 PM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       Well instead of denial that problem exists, what is needed then is for the right wing to come up with a solution that isnt "big goverment" - I looked for suggestions here.  If the right cant do so, then it is admitting to believing in a failed political philosphy. I find resorting to denial rather than thinking of solutions irksome and unworthy of right-wing predecessors.

32397. Roger Knights at 11:26 AM on 22 December 2014
       Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
       

       @Michael Sweet:
       In informal (inductive) logic, a Tu quoque accusation like yours is a fallacy. Here's Wikipedia's definition. (I don't provide the link because its improper formatting was apparently causing my comment to be moderated-out.)

       
       "Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented."

32398. saileshrao at 09:19 AM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       It seems to me that when we debunk the myth of climate science denial, we must replace this with a factual alternative that is compatible with a minimally regulated socioeconomic system or else, the targeted people will continue to reject the climate science. To quote Jonathan Kay from the National Post,
       
       ""The people I work with at the National Post — because there are some colleagues I have who are what you may call 'climate change deniers' — generally the one universal aspect is that they tend to be right-wing in their thinking, they see market-based solutions as the solution to enriching our society in every respect and it bothers them, the idea that here's this problem that cannot be solved with unfettered industrial activity."
       
       Given this, I can understand why Naomi Klein's progressive triumphalism frightens these people:

       "Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South."
       
       That screams "big government" to them and frankly, to me, as well.

32399. Tom Curtis at 08:40 AM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       scaddenp @12, and Turboblocke @13, That, and all without three potentially game changing technologies which have popped up on the horison.

       Closest to commercial development is the Isentropic pumped thermal energy storage, which potentially ends issues about off peak to peak load sharing meaning the primary argument against renewables is no longer valid.

       In the five to ten year horizon is a development in wind turbine design that could reduce the cost of wind energy by a factor of three, making it far and away the cheapest energy source on levelized costs (although not necessarilly when combined with energy storage).

       Finally, in the 15 - 20 year range (for commercial development) is Lockheed Martin's Fusion project, which could end all future concerns about renewable energy.  Of course, there is quite a bit more ahead of that project than just engineering development, so Lockheed Martin could end up with a fizzler, or (more likely) an energy source with uncommercial levelized costs so I would not put all (or any, at this stage) of our eggs in that basket.  But while such major firms are staking their reputation so publicly on the viability of the project, it is a bit absurd to go around saying the prospect of renewable energy in large amounts, cheaply is simply a myth.

32400. Turboblocke at 08:13 AM on 22 December 2014
       My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
       

       The Germans pay about 6 Eurocents/kWh as a Renewable Levy. With the average family of 4 having an annual consumption of less than 4,000 kWh, that's about 60 Euros per person per year. Is that really hair-shirt territory?

Prev  640  641  642  643  644  645  646  647  648  649  650  651  652  653  654  655  Next