Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 Next
Comments 37401 to 37450:
-
Russ R. at 09:22 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Kevin C,
Thanks, I'll give Shindel et al. a read.
Tom Curtis,
I tried the same type of spreadsheet as you. My results also depended on how much random variable I inserted.
I also looked at the 11 models in Kiehl's two charts. Not having the data, I estimated the values for CS, TF and AF as follows:
Model /CS (°C) /TF (W/m-2) /AF (W/m-2)
a /1.9 /2.04 /-0.6
b /2.1 /2 /-0.63
c /2 /1.7 /-0.7
d /2.5 /1.68 /-0.74
e /2.4 /1.6 /-1.15
f /3.7 /1.48 /-0.62
g /2.6 /1.24 /-1.26
h /2.7 /1.21 /-1.42
i /3.5 /1.2 /-1
j /4.6 /1.16 /-1.3
k /3.3 /0.8 /-1.15Between TF and 1/CS, ρ=0.78
Between TF and AF, ρ=0.76
Between 1/CS and AF, ρ=0.49
So, to answer my own question, the inverse correlation between CS and aerosol forcing isn't as strong, but it's likely not zero.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R, I failed to include the B/C correlations in my response @24, and also made a small technical error on my spreadsheet. Having corrected both errors, however, I find one example with correlations of:
A/B: -0.62 B/C: 0.58 A/C: 0.01
The twenty one trial averages are:
A/B: -0.65 B/C: 0.33 A/C: 0.14
Consequently, I believe the point I made still stands.
Having said that, Kevin C's response is far more informative in this particular case.
-
Kevin C at 08:44 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R: This big paper from Shindel et al would seem to be key.
They find that the correlation between aerosol forcing and ECS changes sign between CMIP3 and CMIP5 (also Andrews et al). However the CMIP5 models show no particular correlation between ECS and total forcing or effective aerosol forcing (which includes the indirect effect).
-
Tom Curtis at 07:54 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R @ 13:
"Is it somehow mathematically possible that if A and B have a "strong negative correlation" and B and C have a "strong positive correlation" that A and C can have "no correlation"?"
I set up a spread sheet were A is a linear function plus a small random variable (Rand()*4), B is -A plus a smaller random variable (rand()*2), and C is a B plus a large random variable (rand()*16). Over a restricted range of values, I obtained in one instance correlations of A to B or -0.97, and of A to C of 0.06. Averaged across 21 trials, with a similarly restricted range of values the correlations were -0.59 for A to B, and 0.19 for A to C. So, in answer to your question - yes they can.
Of course, as the range of values increases, the correlations of A to B, and of A to C rapidly approach -1. In the first example given, over a range of 100 values the correlations were -1, and -0.99 respectively. Averaged over 21 trials, they were -0.99 and -0.97 respectively.
The key point here is that the range of values of climate sensitivity, and of aerosol forcing are small. Consequently this counterintuitive result is possible provided the variation the aerosol forcing is large (relative to that range), which it is.
I am not saying that this is the basis for the apparent divergence between Kheil (2007), and Schmidt. That may be due to specific differences between the specifications of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 experiments, or of the actual CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. But your intuitive argument is not automatically valid regardless of specific reasons.
-
nigelj at 06:43 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Of course its possible climate sensitivity may be towards the low side. It is also possible that a relatively small increase in temperature globally could be associated with much more extensive climate change than we have previously thought.
Weather patterns recently suggest this may be the case. Nobody seems to have considered this possibility.
-
Rob Painting at 04:35 AM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Michael Whittemore - I need to get my butt into gear and finish the series of posts on deep ocean warming, but long story short; the stronger trade winds spin-up the subtropical ocean gyres - where surface water converges. Stronger surface convergence means stronger downward transport of heat down into the ocean interior because there is nowhere else for the water to go but down (taking heat from the surface with it).
When the trade winds undergo their typical multi-decadal weakening (the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) expect weaker deep ocean warming.
-
howardlee at 04:28 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
The paleoclimate report quoted above, with the exception of the PETM, deals with changes occurring within the slow feedback response time (deep oceans, weathering, etc). As such I believe they give lower sensitivity values than is applicable to our modern climate change. Carbon-belch events like the PETM, Permian, Triassic, Toarcian, even the Mid Miocene CRB/Monterey event, happen at timeframes faster than the slow feebacks can process them, causing CO2 to build up rapidly in the atmosphere and surface ocean. Warming in these events is much more severe due to the disequilibrium. Moreover the PETM timing in the above report is for a long-term event whereas one (albeit contoverial) paper recently put the initial CIE at 13 years. Modern climate change is not very comparable with glacial-interglacial slow changes, and much more comparable to the PETM, Triassic, Toarcian, and other rapid, massive carbon-belch events.
-
Rob Painting at 04:26 AM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #10
John Hartz - In the opening paragraph you have incorrectly attributed John Mason as the author of the Science editor endorses Keystone XL post, rather than Andy Skuce.
Moderator Response:[JH] I have corrected the error. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
-
witsend at 03:44 AM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #10
I went to the UCSC Climate Conference last weekend where the panel of speakers was asked when activists would be able to quote scientists directly linking extreme weather to climate change, in order to inspire the public to respond to the threat of global warming. I think it was Benjamin Santer of LLNL who said that they were decades away in research before they would have the ability to do that and then Gavin Schmidt chimed in and added, "Scientists won't ever do that. Don't wait for that...if you're waiting for that, you are just WASTING YOUR TIME." So, when I saw your cartoon it reminded me that I made a comic for that! http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/01/kitchen-table-comic.html
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
Russ R. at 03:37 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
dana1981 @16,
Thank you for clarifying.
Kevin C @19
Has any similar analysis been done on the CMIP5 ensemble, to show the correlation (or lack thereof) between estimated ECS, and historical values for total anthropogenic forcing and aerosol forcing?
Tom Dayton @20,
Models are but one "line of evidence", as are observational studies. Currently, they point in different directions. Not hugely different... still within a likely range, but different enough to be cause for disagreement.
I expect that over time as the observational record grows and the models improve, that difference will resolve and a consensus will emerge. Until then, everyone will simply have to agree to disagree.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:20 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R.: For example, read Box 12.2 (pp. 1110-1112). Figure 1 shows the probability density functions. And there is "On the other hand, AOGCMs show very good agreement with observed climatology with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5°C to 4.5°C range." Later there is this sentence: "comparisons of perturbed-physics ensembles against the observed climate find that models with ECS values in the range 3°C to 4°C show the smallest errors for many fields (Section 9.7.3.3)."
-
Kevin C at 02:18 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
There are several points of confusion here:
1. The Kiehl paper was on the CMIP3 models.
2. Forcings are dignosed from the models, they are not an input to the models. The input to the models is the external influences on the system, e.g. anthropoenic changes to atmospheric composition.
3. Aerosol indirect effect, while it affects TOA energy balance, is technically a feedback rather than a forcing from the perspective of a GCM.
Put 2 and 3 together and it should be clear that sensitivity and radiative forcing can be correlated without training. I don't know to what extent that is the case in practice.
-
MA Rodger at 01:41 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
It is in examining GWPF Report 13 that Lewis & Crok's objections to the 'effective' TCR within GCMs can be fully assessed - within in the shorter GWPF Report 12, their explanation is cut down to incoherence.
The problems the IPCC GCMs exhibit, allegedly, is that they do not perform properly. The GCM 'effective' TCR values are far higher than even GCM 'actual' TCR values. This is what causes the GCMs to project their alarmingly high future temperatures (as opposed to the reassuringly low ones suggested by Lewis & Crok).The 'effective' TCR of course can be determined by using "the observational-TCR based formula" as derived by those clever analysts Lewis & Crok.
ΔT(2012-2100) = (ΔF(2012-2100) x OTCR)/3.71 + 0.15ºC
:where OTCR is derived (as described in GWPF Report Note 86) not just from ΔT(1951-2010) attributions but actual ΔT(1951-2010) as measured by real thermometers and these compared not just to ΔF(1951-2010) but also to ΔF calculated from dF/dt(1951-2010), both of which yield the exact same result (TCR=1.4ºC excluding a minor adjustment) which only goes to show how accurate this TCR derivation is!
Not only that, Lewis & Crok manage to manipulate this highly sophisticated and complex model to yield GCM 'effective' TCR not just for 2012-2100 but also for 1850-2000.
This is why Lewis & Crok find without even wielding a single error bar that, "in the case of climate sensitivity and TCR, arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion" (and few would disagree with that), the IPCC AR5 "failed" to provide an "understanding (of) the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change." And if (unlike Lewis & Crok) you link to the source document laying out the role of the IPCC, you will find that Lewis & Crok are accusing IPCC WG1 of being in contravention of the Principles Governing IPCC Work. -
Russ R. at 01:36 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Tom Dayton,
You say:
"they are unwilling to make a point estimate of the value, but certainly are willing to make a range estimate"
Yes... and the range they give is "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."
So how exactly does Lewis & Crok's "best estimate for ECS of 1.6–2.0°C" contradict this?
You continue:
"And as is clear from other sentences, they judge the point value most likely is in the middle of that range than at either end."
Which other sentences? Citation please.
-
dana1981 at 01:33 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ @13 - the Schmidt quote is from a personal communication.
-
John Hartz at 01:14 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Climate sensitivity is also the topic of How much hotter is the planet going to get? by Michael LePage, New Scientist, Mar 9, 2014. LePage's article parallels Dana's OP with respect to recently published papers about climate sensititvity.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:09 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R., you persist in your factually incorrect interpretation of the "no best estimate" quiote as meaning "we have no idea." That statement instead means they are unwilling to make a point estimate of the value, but certainly are willing to make a range estimate--the range they refer to in that same sentence as the "assessed lines of evidence and studies." And as is clear from other sentences, they judge the point value most likely is in the middle of that range than at either end.
-
Russ R. at 00:55 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
I agree that this "report" from the GWPF contains nothing new. It's just a reshuffle and redeal of existing literature. The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
Tangentially, I'm not sure how to square Gavin Schmidt's statement above, with the findings in Keihl (2007).
Schmidt: "Climate model sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is intrinsic to the model itself and has nothing to do with what aerosol forcings are. In CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such 'forward' calculations is false."
Keihl (2007): "These results clearly illustrate a strong inverse correlation between total anthropogenic forcing used for the 20th century and the model’s climate sensitivity. Indicating that models with low climate sensitivity require a relatively higher total anthropogenic forcing than models with higher climate sensitivity....
These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity...
What is the major reason for the large uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing? Figure 2 shows the correlation between total anthropogenic forcing and forcing due to tropospheric aerosols. There is a strong positive correlation between these two quantities with a near 3-fold range in the magnitude of aerosol forcing applied over the 20th century."
- Is it somehow mathematically possible that if A and B have a "strong negative correlation" and B and C have a "strong positive correlation" that A and C can have "no correlation"?
- Are the latest generation of GCMs somehow entirely different, rendering Keihl's observations out-of-date? Has Schmidt actually back-tested the CMIP5 ensemble in the same way that Keihl did with earlier models and found no correlation?
Also, could someone please link to a source for Gavin Schmidt's quotation? I couldn't find it on realclimate or anywhere else, except for here and in Dana's column in the Guardian (which linked back to here).
-
StBarnabas at 00:55 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
@Tom Curtis
if you email me at sean.danaher@unn.ac.uk I can forward you a copy of the Leohle paper
-
Albatross at 00:38 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Tom @4,
Thank you for the info on the three Lewis papers.
We at SkS are aware of the new Loehle paper, how shall I say this...? There are several critical issues that undermine the premise of his paper and his results. I will leave it at that for now.
-
Alpinist at 23:58 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Thanks Dana for a great post and also Kevin for comments as well.
-
Bwana_Mrefu at 23:42 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
In the acknowledgements the Loehle paper thanks " Nic Lewis for helpful suggestions." Very interesting timing of the paper and report.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:55 PM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Michael, there have been several posts on the subject of ocean heat transfer. I think the most recent was this one.
-
MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Praise be !! The gospel according to Lewis & Crok is now available in all its glory without having to hand out your e-mail to the GWPF gatekeepers.
The 44 page GWPF Report 12 linked in the post is but an edited version of the longer 72 page GWPF Report 13. (The shorter version was "written for the lay reader, and summarises [the] longer, more technical document.") Both reports are not solely the work of Lewis & Crok but also incorporate the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford. Curry also wrote the forward for both documents, strangely both times providing "this report" with a word-for-word identical eulogy.The question to be asked of Lewis & Crok is why they feel any serious scientific study should be presented to the world as a GWPF Report. These documents (along with GWPF Briefing Papers) have such an excellent track record of misrepresenting the evidence and presenting untrustworthy analysis that they manage to bring all UK charities and the UK Charity Commission into disrepute. Frankly I cannot consider a less appropriate method of publication (unless you consider a web-page on such planets as Wattsupia constitutes 'publication').
Surely, if this gospel according to Lewis & Crok were worthy of anything other than the rubbish bin, they would publish elsewhere, perhaps within a journal which peer reviews its content. Or perhaps Lewis & Crok believe the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford are adequate to eliminate any embarrasing errors, a belief I fear that itself constitutes an embarrasing error.
-
barry1487 at 20:54 PM on 10 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Great article. Kudos, and thanks.
-
Michael Whittemore at 20:26 PM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
A little of topic, but could someone please direct me to the skeptical science page that explains how the heat is being transferred down to the deep ocean? I saw the page but forgot where. Thanks .
-
chriskoz at 20:02 PM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
william@6,
what you are advocating for:
correct relationship between the small solar owner, the power company and the government
brings in a whole array of economic social and political issues, including energy generation and energy efficiency, gov regulations, energy retailers' new business model, to name just a few. I recommend a recent book
Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change
by Mark Diesendorf from NSW Uni, who discusses all those issue at depth with numerous references. Very good starting point for anyone interested in the research of AGW mitigation. And a very positive one (i.e. zero-carbon energy future is very much possible with renewable technologies only, even excluding nuclear, cause Mark is very skeptical about nukes).
-
chriskoz at 19:34 PM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #10
I have a question: is there anything at SkS server side possible to prevent the data loos when the server times out why I'm typing a comment? It happened to me recently more often: my crafty comment including several links and a picture just disapeared when I hit submit button, obviously to my utter frustration. The browser back button does not bring the input editor back: I need to re-logon to bring it back and my comment is long gone. I think the server timeout has been decreased lately (down to some 30mins?) increasing the likelyhood of such unexpected comment loss.
On the client site, in my Firefox browser, "Submit" button is a typical HTML input. So, to prevent comment losses in the future, I speculate that the server could perhaps send the response to the "timed-out" client:
Your message [input HTML text] has not been posted because the connection timed out. Please try again.
That would be enough to prevent the data loss. I;m not sure if other blogs have such mechanisms or they don't care. But I think SkS could care because this blog is valuable to me as most of the user comments. Thanks!
I think Bob Lacatena would give the best response to my question although anyone whoknows the impl details of SkS server can chime in...
-
Jim Hunt at 19:34 PM on 10 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
A new BBC video:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26511229Large stretches of the British coastline have been hit hard by storm after storm this winter, with some areas suffering the equivalent of seven years of erosion in just three months.
Now the National Trust has called for a rethink on how Britain defends its coastline and suggested that some locations may have to to be sacrificed because the sea can no longer be stopped.
-
Kevin C at 18:39 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
In a larger context, at the point AR5 was finalised, there were in my view 3 big, new and unexpected problems in climate science.
1. Could the apparent slowdown in warming be explained?
2. Why was observed warming lower than the model projections?
3. Why did simple models give lower sensitivity estimates than GCMs and paleoclimate.
I think now we've got tentative answers to all three. Coverage, forcings and ENSO address (1) and (2) and Shindell addresses (3).
-
Kevin C at 18:30 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
The Shindell paper is breathtakingly simple. It just takes two completely well known facts, puts them together and points out the trivial and inevitable conclusion:
1. The NH responds more quickly to changes in forcing than the SH, because the SH has more water.
2. Most of the aerosol cooling effect occurs in the NH.
Since the cooling is happening in a place where is has a more rapid effect, the impact is greater than if it were happening uniformly. So we see less warming than we would expect from a model which treats the whole globe uniformly.
This leads to the second conclusion: If we use a uniform forcing over both hemispheres, such as in Otto et al or my own n-box model, then we will conclude that TCR is lower than it actually is.
I think there must be a few climate scientists slapping their foreheads over this one. The only thing left to do is to confirm the size of the effect.
(My model produces more mainstream TCR values only becuase I haven't adopted the latest aerosol forcing estimates. Thus it contains two errors which just happen to roughly cancel out.)
-
sidd at 15:33 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Let me see ... looks like stage 3)1)it's not happening2)it's not us3)it's not bad4)it's too hard5)it's too latealtho i suppose 4 and 5 could be rolled together -
Tom Curtis at 14:41 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Albatross, Dana, Nic Lewis has been a co-author of two papers, and sole author of a third that I am aware of:
Energy budget constraints on climate response
On a side, note, as I was doing my google searches to find exact titles and links for the above, I came across a new paper by Craig Loehle also estimating low climate sensitivity (1.99 C per doubling). His trick appears to be to attribute much of the recent warming to the PDO, but I would need to buy a copy of the paper to determine the exact details. Publication date is March 24th, but now available online, so we can expect to see that cited a lot in the near future.
-
dana1981 at 13:32 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
'Few' is vague. I'm pretty sure it's 2, but I said 'few' in case I missed any. I think he's just got Lewis and Otto though.
The Curry Foreword is kind of interesting from a psychological perspective. First, why did GWPF invite her to write it? She has no publications and no expertise in sensitivity research, as her comments on the subject make crystal clear. I can only guess they wanted a 'climate scientist' to write something since neither of the authors is really a climate scientist. Basically to try and make it seem more credible. And I suppose they couldn't think of many climate scientists who would be willing to endorse that report, for obvious reasons.
And then why would Curry agree to write the Foreword? It totally undermines her claimed role as the 'bridge builder', as GWPF is an anti-science, anti-policy, politcal advocacy group. Perhaps it's naîveté about what GWPF is and does. Perhaps it's that she views her role as amplifying 'skeptic' voices. That's basically how she explained it on her blog. But it's pretty hard to maintain the perception of a bridge-building open-minded skeptic when you're writing material for a group like GWPF.
In any case, we shouldn't turn the comments into a psychoanalysis of Judith Curry. More important is that the report itself is a totally biased, cherry picked misrepresentation of the full body of climate sensitivity research.
-
Albatross at 13:23 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Dana,
You say Lewis has published a "few" papers on climate sensitivity. I am aware of only two papers by him in the peer-reviewed literature, and on one of those he was a co-author on a paper temperatures over western Antarctica. Did I miss a couple? For now Lewis lies squarely in the climate "hobbyist" desgnation, and his fellow fake skeptics are bending over backwards to try and boost his impact.
Curry's foreward was entertaining to read, nothing more. That she is falling over herself to praise this report is hardly surprising given that she has declared that she supports the (ideological and political) objectives of the GWPF lobbyists.
This report though is also another example of how the fake skeptics fail to present a coherent and physically plausible alternative hypothesis to the theory of AGW. Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent ;)
-
Tom Curtis at 10:48 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @72, if you recall, what I originally indicated @47, and which you challenged, was:
"Fox & Gallant estimate the costs of transferring to renewables on the assumption that all gross costs of electricity generation are also net costs. That is, they assume that increased investment in renewable energy will not be partly offset by reduced investment in coal fired power plants. That fact alone means that their headline result does not follow from their analysis"
That should have been straightforward enough for you, but apparently not.
In simple terms, if Ontario had not embarked on a LTEP to switch to carbon reduced* power generation, costs of electricity to the consumer would still have risen. They would have risen with increased wages due to inflation. Potentially they would have risen due to increased costs of fossil fuels. They would have risen due to increased investment in fossil fuel power stations to meet demand. The real cost of the choice to go to carbon reduced electricity, therefore, is the difference between the cost of that decision, and the cost of the cheapest alternative energy plan that did not take a reduced carbon route, but which similarly increased generation capacity. In economic terms, that approximates to the opportunity cost.
The LTEP does not itemize that opportunity cost. It does not compare the cost of the LTEP to an alternative, high carbon plan that would have been pursued instead. Consequently referring back to the 2010 LTEP does not account for those opportunity costs. Nor does it show how their adjustments (even if considered legitimate) would effect alter the opportunity cost.
For what it is worth, the 2013 LTEP indicates that the total cost of coal use was 4.4 billion a year. That is 25% of the 2013 total cost of electricity generation, and 22% of 2030 costs. (These figures underestimate the cost of coal as they compare 2003 nominal values with 2030 nominal values.) Health costs alone could have risen above 3 billion per annum (2005 study cited by 2010 LTEP).
You introduced Fox and Gallant to show that projected costs of renewable energy programs underestimate actual costs. As has been pointed out, it only showed that one set of projected costs was higher than another. More to the point, it has now been shown that both the 2010 LTEP, and even more so, Fox and Gallant overestimated the increase in costs, at least over the first 3 years of the plan.
Finally, you, following Fox and Gallant, highlighted the discrepancy between the Geoge Smitherson's statement in parliament and the 2010 LTEP. Neither you nor they, however, have shown whether Smitherson's statement referred to real value, nominal value or oportunity cost. Of the three, the later is the far more likely, and as it would be absurd to promise the LTEP would keep energy rises below the inflation rate, nominal value is extremely unlikely. Yet despite this, you (and they) have been quite happy to compare projected nominal increases to that statement as though they refuted it. For the record, the 2010 projected real increases work out at 2.3% per annum over the 20 years to 2030, not 3.5% quoted by Fox and Gallant. And opportunity cost would have been way below that.
* not carbon free because they will still use gas power plants.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:49 AM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
There's a great point in one of Richard Alley's lectures where he talks about the CS graph Dana has included here. He says, when the study that is 5th from the bottom came out he spent two days answering phone calls from reporters. All the other CS studies, nothing.
http://youtu.be/Z_-8u86R3Yc?t=13m43s
Tells you a lot.
-
scaddenp at 08:25 AM on 10 March 2014Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
Actually, updating the article with this paper (Shindell 2014) looks like a good idea since this enhances our understanding of sensitivity and forcings so that differing estimation methods are reconciled.
-
Ben Lankamp at 07:08 AM on 10 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
#5 - the primary source was Jonathan Powell, whose name was already mentioned in #7.
-
DSL at 07:05 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Bobki, you realize that turning down the opportunity to argue your position makes your position look insecure, yes?
-
Russ R. at 05:53 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Tom Curtis@67,
"Finally, on a side note, I questioned Fox and Gallant's costings as not including savings from reduced investment in fossil fuel generation. Russ challenged that on the basis that those savings had been included in the LTEP. Perhaps Russ could quote the section of the plan that discusses how those savings were factored in?"
If you look at page 10 of the LTEP2010, it lays out the main drivers of the plan and associated cost estimates:
"Key features of the plan include:
• Demand will grow moderately (about 15 per cent) between 2010 and 2030.
• Ontario will be coal-free by 2014.
• The government is committed to clean, reliable nuclear power remaining at approximately 50 per cent of the province’s electricity supply.
• Ontario will continue to grow its hydroelectric capacity with a target of
9,000 MW.
• Ontario’s target for clean, renewable energy from wind, solar and bioenergy is 10,700 MW by 2018 ... (etc...)...
• Residential bills are expected to rise by 3.5 per cent per year over the next 20 years. Industrial prices are expected to rise by 2.7 per cent per year over the next 20 years.
• The government is proposing an Ontario Clean Energy Benefit to give Ontario families, farms and small businesses a 10 per cent benefit on their electricity bills for five years."Not only did they assume "reduced investment in coal fired power plants"; they projected zero future investment in coal-fired plants from 2014 on.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:32 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Bobki52... Then you can't complain that you were stifled in your discussions. You broke posted rules and your comments were deleted according to policy. You've been politely invited to present your comments in a way that is compliant with policy.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
I worked in fish culture research most of my working life so I know how tempting it is to go for exotic exciting solutions when simple solutions are right in front of you. In our case we were using all sorts of sophisticated hormone treatment to get fish to spawn out of season when just by selecting batches of eggs that from time to time were spawned a little out of season, the same result was obtained. The "Seampunk" is a case in point. All we have to do to solve the carbon crisis is to make it worthwhile to put solar panels on the roof while at the same time being fair to the power companies. The technology is adequate and the price is right. All that is missing is the correct relationship between the small solar owner, the power company and the government.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this properly. Using Sks to advertise your own blog while making work for moderators is poor form.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:11 AM on 10 March 2014Lindzen's Junk Science
Thanks for the plug Tom.
I've just finished another one that's worth mentioning here:
Saturday, March 8, 2014Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/hayden-disproves-global-warming-claims.html#more
-
michael sweet at 23:57 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
The Los Angeles Times had an article on Agnotology, the study of cultural ignorance. Most of this is funded currently by industry. Doubt is Our Product is a good documentation of this type of activity. There were some interesting points. They recommended a strong news industry to counter industry falsehoods (good luck on that!)
-
Jim Hunt at 23:53 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
I'm not having much luck getting things formatted properly on here! Perhaps it's simpler if I link to my own article on the subject?
http://econnexus.org/the-weather-report-from-soggy-south-west-england/
Note in particular the bit where David Cameron says "Man-made climate change is one of the greatest threats to the UK and the rest of the world".
My apologies for the politics. -
Bobki52 at 23:11 PM on 9 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
No thanks.
-
catamon at 22:27 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John @ 19:
The paper by Sewall is here:
Being from Oz there has been lots of "you cant attribute this (insert disaster here) to Climate Change. Floods, Droughts, Bushfires, whatever, its always something that everyone seems to keep away from. But now it seems to me that the California Drought, Rest of the US Freeze, and English Ridiculous Wet Winter of 13/14 may all be linked to a phenomenon that someone actualy predicted in 2005 in a narrower context.
So, if someone accepts that the proposition that this east Pacific persitent high is due to loss of Arctic ice, and Arctic ice loss is due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, i dont thnk its much of a stretch at all to attribute the California Drought, Rest of the US Freeze, and English Ridiculous Wet Winter of 13/14 to AGW.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
John Mason at 22:00 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
#18 - Thanks for that link. Plenty of good leads to follow there!
-
catamon at 20:43 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Had a read of this, and what struck me wa the image of the jetstream. Seems to me its actually all about the persitent high in the eastern Pacific??
Another (politics) blog i frequent had this link on it:
Which again is basically about that persistent high, why its there, its effects and that it was all modeled nback in 2004/05.
The Grumpy True Disbelivers are going to be a bit annoyed at this wot?? :)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
Prev 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 Next
