Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 Next
Comments 39751 to 39800:
-
The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
franklefkin - I fail to see where you have an issue. Both Tom Curtis and I noted that the additon of the last 16 years to the previous record shows a higher rate of warming (acceleration), and while that increase is not statistically significant there is certainly _no_ evidence of a slowdown. You should really read up on regression to the mean.
Your assertion that "the trend is slowing" is simply not supported by the data.
-
franklefkin at 06:33 AM on 9 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
KR,
I was referencing your statement
As Tom noted, including that most recent 16 years actually increases the long term trend estimate, as they average above the 1975-1997 trendline; warming has not halted.
When I said that the number was larger than the number Tom indicated. It was you who brought 1975 into the discussion. I just pointed out that your numbers were incorrect. 16 years is too short, I didn't say otherwise. Since a comparrison of the rate during the last 16 years was made to the previous 16 years, I thought the correct trend, and the correct time duration should be used. FWIW, it should probably be 1980 to 1996 however, but since you used 1875 to 1997, I kept 1997 as the end point.
-
deweaver at 06:28 AM on 9 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
gws,
How do you get a velocity of only 0.01 cm/s. When the rate of distruction in soils and on surfaces are a non-linear funtion of the concentration and the problem of mass transport from the atmosphere to the soil is a complex problem with both advection terms due to atmosperic pressure fluxiations and diffusion terms, there is no way a simple velocity function could every fit the data.
Once the concentation is above Smin (energetic break even concentration for the bacteria), the biomass will rapidly increase to bring the concentration back down to Smin in a dynamic equilibrium with the mass transfort function. With diffusion being an X^2 type function, non-linearity is basic to the problem and increasing concentration can result in a very rapid destruction rate with all moist surfaces biodegrading methane as fast as it reaches the surface.I don't know that concentration level, but we should know it.
-
The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
franklefkin - First, Tom Curtis didn't give figures from 1975. Second, warming rates have increased over the last 150 years (not monotonically, a notable dip ~1940-1975), meaning that the last 50 years have a higher trend than the last 130. You are comparing apples/oranges.
Finally, and most importantly, 16 years is just too short a time period to draw conclusions from - one of the mistakes most often made by 'skeptics'. There simply isn't enough data to separate trends from null hypotheses, or to separate trends that differ less that a quarter degree or so per decade. You simply cannot say from that limited subset of the data if the trend is slowing, increasing, or remaining steady - that statistics don't support such claims. As I've said before:
Examining any time-span starting in the instrumental record and ending in the present:
- Over no period is warming statistically excluded.
- Over no period is the hypothesis of "no warming" statistically supported WRT a null hypothesis of the longer term trends.
- And over any period with enough data to actually separate the two hypotheses – there is warming.
Short term surface temperature variations are large enough that discussions of 16 year trends wrt climate are just noise about noise.
-
franklefkin at 05:46 AM on 9 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
KR @24,
When I put in 1975 and 1997, I got a warming trend of .155 C/dec, which is more than the number Tom indicated, so your logic does not follow. I would have used the years 1981 - 1997 (same duration as 1997 -2013), which has a value of .116 C/dec, which is also higher than the .076 C/dec ---- so the trend is slowing, not increasing!
-
dana1981 at 04:58 AM on 9 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Let's please not forget that as our own Cowtan & Way showed, the surface temperature record has a cool bias over the past 15 years, during which time the actual trend is about 0.12°C per decade.
adrian @21 - what you read is wrong.
-
wili at 04:39 AM on 9 January 2014New Study Suggests Future Global Warming at the Higher End of Estimates: 4°C Possible by 2100
I'm afraid I'm still confused. At minute 1:40 Sherwood says that in some models the water vapor always rises up to 10 or 15 kilometers--wouldn't those be high clouds??
From clouds wiki: "Clouds of the high family form at altitudes of 3,000 to 7,600 m (10,000 to 25,000 ft) in the polar regions, 5,000 to 12,200 m (16,500 to 40,000 ft) in the temperate regions and 6,100 to 18,300 m (20,000 to 60,000 ft) in the tropical region."
But at the end he says that it is the low clouds that don't form. So I'm still confused. -
Steve L at 04:03 AM on 9 January 2014New Study Suggests Future Global Warming at the Higher End of Estimates: 4°C Possible by 2100
I wrote the confused comment below in response to misunderstanding the following: "warming of the lower atmosphere pulls water vapour away from those higher cloud-forming levels of the atmosphere." Perhaps the article can be edited to emphasize that "lower atmosphere" means "non-cloud-forming altitudes" -- I initially thought the distinction was between "high cloud altitudes" and "low cloud altitudes." See below to understand my confusion...
This is confusing to me, at least on a superficial level. I googled "high cloud low cloud feedback" and went to the basic explanation on SKS for "What is the net feedback from clouds?" There the text indicates that high level clouds produce a positive feedback and low level clouds produce a negative feedback. The above indicates that we'll have fewer high level clouds because water vapour is actually drawn from the upper atmosphere into the lower atmosphere (which is warming). ... Ah, now watching the video I understand. This is not about high clouds versus low clouds. This is only about low clouds.
-
wili at 03:26 AM on 9 January 2014New Study Suggests Future Global Warming at the Higher End of Estimates: 4°C Possible by 2100
Good points, chriskoz. Here's a link to a review of the Sherwood article from Nature. Unfortunately, they don't seem to address the issue you point out. (I'm assuming it is just an issue of sloppy wording, but maybe there is something else there.)
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed link that was breaking page format.
-
The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
adrian smits - To expand a bit on what Tom Curtis said, the years since 1998 are exhibiting Regression to the Mean, and the variations below the longer term trend has not gone as far as the 1998 3-sigma El Nino varied above that trend.
As Tom noted, including that most recent 16 years actually increases the long term trend estimate, as they average above the 1975-1997 trendline; warming has not halted.
And despite misleading graphs from a few 'skeptics', the climate models continue to be accurate, with temperatures remaining within predicted trends +/- short term variations. You should take a more critical view of the sources of your misinformation.
-
ellisr01 at 02:48 AM on 9 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Excellent obervation of the fact that the atmosphere is our preferred "dump". It's so handy. Just burn things and they magically "disappear". Take note of the growth of this approach with the current expansion of incineration and its fig-leaf clothed sibling, waste to energy. These along with other clever schemes like cooking plastic to turn it into a handy liquid fuel are all moves to replace the cost of landfilling with that free dump, the atmosphere.
In my trash handling, I separate out the organics for our city operated composting, and my glass, metal, plastic containers, paper and cardboard for conventional recycling. What's left is mainly non-recyclable plastics. I think of it as my contribution to carbon sequestration. Fossil fuels that were converted to plastics and then reburied.
I know people are very concerned about plastics in the environment and thus the great war on plastic bags. I like free plastic bags (mainly made from natural gas) because I make sure all mine go to the landfill. The plastic bags that get into the environment as a hazard is a behavioral problem known as littering. Now, in Canada, all paper money bills have been replaced with new counterfeit resistant plastic money bills. Consider that! Billions more pieces of plastic manufactered and circulating through society. Does this represent an environmental problem? I think not. There is a strong economic incentive not to throw your cash onto the ground so it doesn't happen.
Bottom line, burying plastic is the cheapest fossil carbon sequestration program I can imagine.
-
MA Rodger at 23:21 PM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
adrian smits @21 (aka Steve Hales?)
So where is it that you "Last ... read 98% of climate models have been proven to be falsified and the other 2% are just holding on by the skin of their teeth." Is this perhaps the Daily Mail you are reading? Be warned that David Rose, investigitive reporter of that rag, is not the sort of person that you should take at face value. In that respect, he has a lot in common with Dick Lindzen.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:08 PM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Adrian Smits @21:
Trend 1880-1997: 0.051 C per decade
Trend from 1997-Dec 2013: 0.076 C per decade
Trend from 1880-Dec 2013: 0.066 C per decade
All trends calculated using GISS on the SkS trend calculator.
So, the situation is, the trend over the last 16 years is greater than the trend up to that point. Further, the trend from 1880 to the present is made larger than the trend up to 1997 by adding the additional data. Yet you insist that that increase in the trend is "a trend that doesn't exist". You have the gall to call accurate reporting of the temperature trends lies because they do not suit your agenda - but are so careless about the facts that you have not even noticed that the 16 year of so called stalled global warming is a period of more rapid global warming than the average over the twentieth century.
-
adrian smits at 21:28 PM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Last I read 98% of climate models have been proven to be falsified and the other 2% are just holding on by the skin of their teeth. This says it all. Consider for a moment if the economy had failed to grow for the past 16 years but over the last century had increased in size by 5% you could make the claim that economic output for November was the highest it has ever been since recordkeeping began (bumps and wiggles in a time series don’t influence trends) and it was the 345th consecutive month that economic output was above its 20th-century average. At the same time, government statisticians ignored that economic output had remained unchanged for the past 16 years. I am sure you would be screaming from the highest point in Camden that this deceitful practice of reporting economic statistics must end at once. But yet when this exact same practice is preformed upon climate data you are alarmed at a trend that doesn’t exist.
Steve Hales
-
chriskoz at 20:25 PM on 8 January 2014New Study Suggests Future Global Warming at the Higher End of Estimates: 4°C Possible by 2100
I want to know how Sherwood 2014 influenced the actual numbers of ECS components (forcing+feedbacks) and how the new numbers add up.
From AR4 estimates on model/observationally-based research (I don't quote latest AR5 because I think they underestimated it), here's a summary of central estimates:
2xCO2 forcing: +1.25K
H2O fb: +2.5K
Snow/Ice albedo fb: +0.6K
Cloud fb: -1.85K
---------------------
Total ECS: 2.5K
The reason they quoted higher ECS (3.0K) is that other methods (paleo observations) gave higher results (4.0K+).
Now, Sherwood 2014 claims to have adjusted (Cloud fb: -1.85K) component. According to this article, the adjustment resulted in a change in total ECS: 2.5K -> 4.0K. It means that Cloud fb component was increased by 1.5K. So, the new value of Cloud fb component is now -1.85+1.5 = -0.35K.
Two observations/questions follows:
1. Sherwood 2014 brought their model/observational ECS in par with paleo ECS
2.The Cloud fb is appears still negative (-0.35K) after their adjustement, so why is the new cloud feedback described as "positive" in the text above? To be precise, it should be described as "less negative", or that previous research "overestimated the clouds' cooling effect". Am I missing something here or are my calculations wrong or is the article's text inaccurate (clouds' overall fb is still negative according to Sherwood 2014)?
-
davidnewell at 14:19 PM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
There is one god to whom we all give fealty: "GOD REALITY".
Denying this god is a losing proposition.
Right-wing denial of "the facts" is madness.
Even "Rushboe", who was smarter than everyone else with "half his brain tied behind his back", had to resort to Oxycodone addiction, to deal with the disconnect..
Ultimately, being on the same planet, we are on "the same page". Some folks just don't know it yet.
-
davidnewell at 13:44 PM on 8 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
TO: Michael Sweet (above #19)
I did not intend to project the assumption that the water droplets will totally saturate with CO2 in their arc up and down: but I do know that they will absorb some CO2, and that it is a matter significantly dependent on surface area, which is why the scheme includes variable geometry outlet nozzles, to influence droplet size.
Fortunately CO2 is very soluble in water. Other gasses will also be absorbed, and the collection pond for the droplets will become saturated and outgas them. The CO2, however, will be sequestered as bicarbonates and carbonates.
The adsorption of CO2 by a droplet in a spray fan rising and falling is truly a complex multi variate issue best decided by results obtained in the Current “next steps” and “needs analysis”” section of the paper.
It may be noted that the presumed droplets sprayed will be highly alkaline and moderately basic, as well as saline.
The patent section of the paper is not yet appended, but it includes proof that (tap) water droplets falling through an 8' fall adsorb CO2, and affect the pH of the collected water: whereas if the collection is accomplished over alkaline playa soils, the pH remains >8.5.
You sugggest pumping 150,000 m^3 per hour up 6,000 feet. How will this energy be generated without CO2? Where will the excess salt go? How many kilotons of salt will there be? How thick will it be after one year of continuous spraying?
The excess salt produced by the evaporation of 3% NaCl ocean water may either be blended into the already-saline soils of the sample playa (Black Rock Desert), or the spray apparatus may be relocated, allowing the first impoundment to dry up, and the accumulated salt scraped up as a commercial product.
I think that probably it would just be redistributed into the overall huge mass of the playa, (with a depth of several thousand feet of alkaline soil,) which would be effected by “water drills” used to access underlying soils when the pH of the surface impoundment approaches approximately 8.2 or so.
Think of a water jet nozzle directed downwards into extremely deep mud.
As regards the energy source, the document uses as comparison the energy used to pump fresh water over the Tehachapis from NorCal to SoCal. As far as I’m concerned, the energy could be diverted from that task to the proposal: but that is not likely to be the case.
I could presume an 800 megawatt nuclear power plant, with the cooling water being part of what is pumped (thus avoiding the thermo-pollutant issues): or other source: whatever, NorCal will be needful of enhanced energy sources in the near future, and this scheme provides “pumped-storage hydroelectricity” attributes, as well.
I will not contest your assessment of the viability of this scheme to make a significant affect on the global CO2 excess problem, as it would be based on presumptions, and therefore principally argumentative. (Which is why the "next steps" section is projected..)
However, it’s putative profile of action as projected in the paper
( Presuming, then, a 150 foot radius spray fan, and an average wind speed of 10 MPH, the volume of CO2 which will pass through the plane of the fan half-circle, per year, is ~ 200,000 metric tonnes. This is for one “spray rig”. Ultimately, thousands are envisaged. (See attachment [3] for single sprayer CO2 “flow” per year.) )
on THIS PLAYA alone, will act on a volume of 200,000,000 tonnes / year.
What % capture rate would make the effort worthwhile?
There are DOZENS of playas with similar characteristics in the Great Basin.I have not answered your concern about “orders of magnitude”, but will investigate a rebuttal.
I would say that as compared to any other proposal I’ve seen to effect direct air capture, this is:
more scalable
cheaper
more in accord with how nature works
and
provides several other ancillary benefits:I am convinced that SOME way to effect DAC must be employed, or we may be an extinct species, along with many others.
Thank you.
David
-
SeaHuck5891 at 10:53 AM on 8 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #1
If anyone ever doubts the thought process of many conservatives in the US concerning climate change, these Daily Show videos nicely illustrate the logic of the "Fox News Brigade":
-
dana1981 at 10:10 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
william @17 - I refer you to this quote from the above article, which I think captures the point you're trying to make.
"It's okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don't really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that's okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it's great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science."
Lindzen has previously admitted his Iris hypothesis was bad (at least according to one interview), but I think he's since tried to reanimate the hypothesis. I think he still believes it's valid, although it's been demolished by the observational data.
-
sunoba at 10:02 AM on 8 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Nice article, thanks! This is a good way to illustrate the amount of CO2 being released.
I especially was interested in the comment in the 3rd last paragraph:
"the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels will have an ultimate heating contribution millions of times larger than the energy released from burning it".
I've made an estimate along similar lines, but my results are nowhere near as dramatic. I find that of the energy released by burning 1 kg of coal, somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 will remain permanently in the atmosphere due to the global warming effect of CO2 that is released.
Details of the estimate are at www.sunoba.blogspot.com, post for 6 June 2011.
-
michael sweet at 06:28 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
William:
You are wrong, Lindzen is indeed a tobacco apologist. Lindzen has testified in court that there is no statistical connection between tobacco and lung cancer. (This shows the quality of his statistical analysis). The rest of what you say about Lindzen is also incorrect. History has shown that Lindzen has been completely wrong from the start. He should not be respected because he has so strongly contributed to the denier movement. He has worked hard to hurt our children.
I was surprised to see this article, there has not been much from Lindzen lately. I noticed that in the puff piece there was a description of Lindzen's Iris model (not written by Lindzen). Lindzen himself has admitted that the data shows that hypothesis incorrect. I note that Lindzen did not correct the writer and have the Iris material deleted.
-
william5331 at 05:24 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
We mustn't be too dismisive of Lindzen. He may have been wrong most times but I bet he caused other climate scientists to re-examine their data to make sure they had it right. Lindzen is no crackpot like monkton (small m). He is not former apologist for big tobacco. He is genuine in what he thinks and is willing to swim against the flow. It is far too easy for, yes, even a scientist, to go to off half cocked and go beyond what his data is telling him. It is good to have a few Lindzen's around and even if he has been 90% wrong, he may come up with that critical insight. We must continue to proove him wrong and not to dismiss his ideas just because of the source.
-
dhogaza at 04:52 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
"Only then did Wegener's beautiful idea deserve to be elevated to scientific theory."
Even this isn't correct. Wegener imagined the continents drifting upon the ocean floor like ships upon the sea (thus "continental drift"). The impossibility of that mechanism, and the lack of any other explanation for the proposed movement, is what shot down Wegener.
Continental Drift was not "elevated to scientific theory". Rather, plate tectonics tell us that the sea floor itself is composted of sections which themselves move, carrying the continents with them.
Wegener wasn't the first to notice that the continents appear to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. He was the first to seriously propose (in modern science, at least) that it is not coincidence and to attempt to explain how the continents might move. Via a proposed unphysical, incorrect mechanism, unfortunately.
The fact that science was ready to accept a mechanism that wasn't physically impossible and that fit observations (not available in Wegeman's time) was made clear by the relatively fast acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics.
-
citizenschallenge at 03:58 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Incidentally the article Ethan did his own botching with his Wegener/Plate Tectonic analogy.
~ ~ ~
He writes: " “Most people who think they’re a Galileo are just wrong,” he said, much to the delight of a friendly audience of Manhattanites.
"But Somerville botched the analogy. The story of plate tectonics is the story of how one man, Alfred Wegener, came up with the theory of continental drift, only to be widely opposed and mocked. Wegener challenged the earth science “consensus” of his day. And in the end, his view prevailed."
~ ~ ~
Wegener had a great idea, but he had very, very little evidence. The Plate Tectonics Theory had to wait for the evidence. And that wasn't gathered until post WWII and especially during the 50s and early 60s. Only then did Wegener's beautiful idea deserve to be elevated to scientific theory.
-
Magma at 03:51 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
dana @13, thanks. I'd missed that link to the original post with the full explanation.
-
dana1981 at 03:36 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
chrisd3 @2 and Magma @6 - the post detailing the above figure is linked in the text immediately above the figure, where it says "I pieced together". Tom @7 is correct.
-
Caiti at 02:34 AM on 8 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
I'm with Wili here. I thought the article was about our trash producing 40 pounds of CO2 daily.
I guess the article is, as Tom states, trying to quanty our CO2 output with a comparison to somethign we can relate to, like trash output? Is this like the comarison the the Hiroshima bomb and AGW heat output?
A somewhat confused Caiti.
-
citizenschallenge at 01:54 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Galileo's battle was with the CHURCH and it's power-politics.
He bite the hand that fed him and faced the consequences - it was never about the "science" !
Here's an interesting review of what happened from the folks closest to it:
-
OPatrick at 01:53 AM on 8 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
I second the thanks for the link to Shrink - it's a site that deserves to become very popular. It reminds me that I need to do more doing.
-
arch stanton at 01:20 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
"Wrongest longest" I like that.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:09 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
The Weekly Standard and its reporters and editors should get no credit for reporting ‘both sides of the climate change argument’. The trend in mainstream media is rather obvious, but is not being reported on for obvious reasons.
Quoting Sean Wilentz in his “A House Divided” article in Rolling Stone (October 24, 2013):
“… over the past 40 years, the bedrock principle of journalistic objectivity became twisted into the craven idea of false equivalency, whereby blatant falsehoods get reported simply as one side of an argument …”. He was writing about the distortred media reporting promoting the extemist elements of the US Republicans, but it is equally valid regarding reporting on climate science.
Many major media are now under the control of greedy pursuers of personal benefit (politically partnered with intolerant people to increase their voting numbers). It is no surprise to find such media displaying a deliberate lack of regard for the legitimacy or substantive validity of a claim. Many reports now prey on the potential to create unsustainable popular support through manipulative impression and image claims. Though the claims are ultimately unsustainable, the greedy and intolerant only care about delaying the inevitable end of their ability to get away with unacceptable things.
The objective of reporting by the media tools serving greedy and intolerant interests has increasingly become deliberate distortion to mislead public opinion. The callous greedy and extremely intolerant have no ethical limits on their actions in pursuit of what they want. And the current socioeconomic system sweeping the planet develops greedy attitudes among populations and leads to more desperate people. That creates a very receptive audience for deliberate invalid claims like all the attempts to ‘argue against the best understanding of the climate science’.
I do not consider this to be the actions of ‘uninformed or poorly informed people’. The climate change issue has been around long enough for people wishing to make claims, and particularly people reporting on such claims, to be fully aware of the reality of what is going on. I consider people who are intelligent and able to be well informed on this issue, but who deliberately choose to try to mislead and deceive to be the mot despicable people among us, worse than the callous greedy their actions are providing benefit for.
The callous greedy are addicted. They do not think rationally. They need help to change their attitude from their unsustainable and damaging addiction. Those who assist them in maintaining the unsustainable and damaging pursuits they are addicted to are like ‘Drug Pushers’, the worst of the worst. And the worst of the worst of the worst are the media like FOX News who do not even attempt to present the valid climate science as ‘an equally valid position in the ongoing argument’.
-
Andy Skuce at 00:45 AM on 8 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Chriskoz, thanks for pointing out the typo, now corrected.
-
kmalpede at 00:17 AM on 8 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
On added bit of info.: Richard Lindzen holds the Alfred P. Sloan Chair of Meterology at MIT. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation which endows Lindzen's chair also "funds plays about science." It is the only foundation that specifically funds plays about science. It has refused funding to "Extreme Whether" through Ensemble Studio Theater which administers its grants, on the grounds that the climate change deniers portrayed in the play are "too evil to be put on stage". We are in the midst of an Indiegogo campaign to try to fund this play which, by the way, has been approved by James Hansen who spoke after an April 8 reading and said "this play certainly resonates with me.": http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/extreme-whether
-
wili at 21:37 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Tom, thanks for the link to Shrink--what a great site!
-
chriskoz at 20:28 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
The average American produces about 17 million metric tons of CO2 per year
Obviously this is a typo. Should be "17 metric tons". Further, the link underneath quotes 17.2 tons number in 2009 - four years ago. Since then, that value has improved (down to maybe 15) because USA emissions declined in last 3-4 years while population keeps increasing.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:41 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
wili @1, the article does not describe the total CO2 released by decomposition of solid waste from households. Rather it quantifies the average mass of CO2 emitted from all activities as a ratio to the average mass of solid waste generated by households. Reducing our solid waste will probably reduce out CO2 emissions, but not by 40 kg per kg of solid waste reduction. Indeed, necesarilly by conservation of mass, not by more than 3.7 kg CO2 per kg solid waste, although the CO2 equivalent may be higher in that some of the waste may be released as methane.
If you want a good series of articles on how to personally reduce CO2 emissions, Shrink is a good place to start. Others probably have other usefull recommendations.
-
STEVE B at 18:16 PM on 7 January 2014There is no consensus
Having now read the entire survey, a question arises whereby the 97% figure eventuated, I was wondering why there wasn't a 100% agreement of the 32.6% of abstracts that thought humans influenced climate? Also the 66.4% of the 11944 abstracts looked at, that expressed no position on AGW seem to have been dismissed out of hand. My reading of the survey of all the climate abstracts, puts the consensus on AGW at more like 33%. Why is it that the abstracts studying climate held no position, are not included in the overall result? I am genuinely mystified as how a figure of 97% endorsing AGW, when 66.4% of abstracts of 11944 held no position at all on AGW.
If this too hard to explain here you can privately email me so I can have a clear understanding of what is going on.
-
wili at 17:23 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Thanks for this excellent piece. I like the ability to hone in on a particular activity and assign a particular GW value to it. Is there a program to expand this to other high-impact behaviours?
It may also be useful to have an over-all number for the typical first world consumer (those of us who Kevin Anderson has said must start reducing our total carbon emissions by at least 10% a year starting this year for any chance of staying below 2 degrees).
If we take the general idea that 20 percent of the population is doing about 80% of the polution, and combine that with the atom bomb figures you have above, does it work out that, on average, every such top consumer (probably including anyone who would be reading this) has 'dropped' the equivalent of about one Hiroshima bomb worth of energy into the climate system in about the last decade? Would that at least be about the right order of magnitude?
-
rugbyguy59 at 17:18 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
"Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing"
He would also have us believe that governments are actively encouraging scientists to come up with data confirming AGW so that they can impose taxes and bring in the one world government (or world communism...or both) Yet when I look around the world, despite allegedly creating this massive consensus, I see few governments actually behaving in a way this little conspiracy theory would expect. Canada's government supressing scientists. Bush administration suppressing scientists. Australia's Conservatives win election with anti-do anything platform. Who is really acting on all this "manufactured" climate science?
It's just another example of the anti-science crowd ignoring reality. -
Luvz2Fly at 15:02 PM on 7 January 2014There is no consensus
You want to see consensus? I think this is pretty much the definition of consensus!
ALL OF THESE Organizations below have independently concured in formal statements (linked at bottom) that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!
(side note: I would like to see the list of dissenting and denying individuals and organization along with their credentials)*Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
(listed in detail at bottom)
*American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society
*Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
*United States National Research Council
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
*African Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Science Foundation
*InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* American Chemical Society
* American Institute of Physics
* American Physical Society
*Australian Institute of Physics
* European Physical Society
* The American Geophysical Union
*American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
*Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
* Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
*European Federation of Geologists
*European Geosciences Union
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*National Association of Geoscience Teachers
*American Meteorological Society
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
*World Meteorological Organization[edit]
*American Quaternary Association
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*American Astronomical Society
*American Statistical Association
*Engineers Canada
*The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
*Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
*The World Federation of Engineering Organizations
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
*American Institute of Biological Sciences.
*American Society for Microbiology
*Australian Coral Reef Society
*Institute of Biology (UK)
*Society of American Foresters
*The Wildlife Society (international)
*Albania: Academy of Sciences of Albania
*Armenia: Armenian National Academy of Sciences
*Australia: Australian Academy of Science, *Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
*Australian Academy of the Humanities, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, National Academies Forum
*Austria: Austrian Academy of Sciences
*Belarus: National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
*Bosnia and Herzegovina: Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
*Bulgaria: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
*Canada: Royal Society of Canada
*Cambodia: The Royal Academy of Cambodia
*People's Republic of China: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Engineering, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
Croatia: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Czech Republic - Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
*Denmark: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
*Estonia: Estonian Academy of Sciences
Finland: national academies based on language. The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
*France: the Institut de France groups together five academies, including the Académie française
*Germany: Leopoldina
*Greece: Academy of Athens
*Hong Kong: Hong Kong Academy of the Humanities
*Hungary: Hungarian Academy of Sciences *Ireland: Royal Irish Academy
*Israel: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
*Italy: Accademia dei Lincei for sciences, *Japan: The Japan Academy
*Macedonia: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Netherlands: The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
*Norway: The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
*Pakistan: Pakistan Academy of Letters, *Pakistan Academy of Sciences
*Poland: Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Academy of Learning
*Portugal: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa
*Republic of China (Taiwan): Academia Sinica
*Romania: Romanian Academy
*Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences
*Scotland: Royal Society of Edinburgh
*Serbia: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Slovenia: Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Spain: The Royal Academy
*Sweden: Swedish Academy for language, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Thailand: Royal Institute of Thailand
*Turkey: Turkish Academy of Sciences
*Ukraine: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
*United Kingdom: the Royal Society
*United States: National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC).
*Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of SciencesLinks to statements at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
-
Tom Curtis at 13:40 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Magma @6, the total actual forcings from greenhouse gases to 2010 are 5% less than those in Hansen's scenario B. Therefore scenario B is the appropriate comparison.
You in fact quote why it is appropriate to offset Lindzen's prediction. He claimed that the total warming to 1989 was 0.1 C, approximately half a degree less than the observed increase. That appears to have been incorportated in the graph, which presumably converges around with observations 1880. Arguably the error in prediction should be kept distinct from the error regarding observations, but graphing that by using a 30 year baseline centered in 1989 would just produce a graph showing Lindzen to be totally disconnected from reality (at least in 1989). That would probably make it a fair representation.
-
michael sweet at 13:17 PM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
David,
In your docment you appear to calculate CO2 absorbtion by assuming all the water pumped will saturate with CO2. You then calculate rain generated by assuming all the water will evaporate. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction. How will it work?
You sugggest pumping 150,000 m^3 per hour up 6,000 feet. How will this energy be generated without CO2? Where will the excess salt go? How many kilotons of salt will there be? How thick will it be after one year of continuous spraying?
Ocean currents are generally saturated with CO2 as they downwell near Greenland and Antarctia. The flow of these currents is defined in Wikipedia as: "Ocean currents are measured in sverdrup (sv), where 1 sv is equivalent to a volume flow rate of 1,000,000 m3 (35,000,000 cu ft) per second." It is common for currents to have a flow of 10-50 sv. It would take 100 hours for your hose to pump one seconds worth of a moderate15 sv current. That is about 360,000 times less volume. It seems to me that your plan is less than a drop in a bucket compared to a moderate ocean current and would not have a measurable effect on CO2 sequestration.
The currents that flow in the ocean are almost infinitely bigger than anything man can build. You need to show that you are dealing with the correct order of magnitude. It seems to me that you are about 1,000,000 times too small. If you pump 1,000,000 times faster you will use up all your alkaline soil too fast.
Most geoengineering schemes fall over when the unbelievably immense scale of the operation is accurately calculated.
-
Magma at 12:30 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Some corrections, I think, for the Hansen versus Lindzen figure.
Scenario A in Hansen et al. (1988) had greenhouse gas emissions increasing steadily at 1.5% annually; Scenario B held them steady at 1988 levels, and Scenario C had them decreasing after 2000. Presumably the caption should read "Hansen's scenario A has been modified..."
As for Lindzen's 1989 talk, the material relevant with respect to a 30-year prediction appear to be the following two sentences:
"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small" and
"The entire [1880 to date] record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree."
And why is Lindzen's (quasi)prediction offset below the GISTEMP record by 0.3 to 0.4 °C? If anything, his talk would have called for a steady continuation of the mean 1958-1989 temperature with small amplitude random annual variations added.
-
Magma at 11:46 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
That's certainly a fascinating hypothesis that Lindzen offers--many thousands of climate scientists plus uncounted numbers of opportunistic hangers-on among the geophysical, geochemical, paleontontological, atmospheric, etc., communities earning their livings by telling governments what they least want to hear.
In that spirit I think I'll go down to my local bank and demand a large unsecured loan for purposes that (as I will explain) are none of its business.
-
barry1487 at 10:42 AM on 7 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
I have some sympathy to Matthew's concerns, which for me go beyond this article, and it's good to see someone else giving them voice. If SkS does not necessarily endorse the news items, what is the basis for selection if not that the news items are all on-message? Skeptical articles don't make the cut, presumably because they lack scientific accuracy, but that is the case with mainstream reporting, which almost always sensationalise the facts.
More recent emphasis on messaging at SkS is understandable. It may ruffle some of us old-timers who have lurked for the pleasure of attending a site that emphasises scientific accuracy, but our demographic is already persuaded
-
johnthepainter at 10:04 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
The appropriate scientist to compare with Galileo would be Tyndall or Arrhenius, not one who advanced arguments in support of a understanding of the world generally accepted by the public.
-
gws at 08:10 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Yes, the most straightforward way to do that is looking for co-emitted ethane (and/or higher alkanes not coming from natural sources) as described above. Another method is investigating the 13C/12C carbon isotopic ratio of methane, which is lower for natural sources from methanogenesis than for the fossil fuel source (basically pyrolysis). All studies I discussed used either one or both of these methods to distinguish between sources contributing to the (excess) atmospheric methane mixing ratio investigated.
-
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Distinguishing between biogenic methane sources, (soils, termites etc) and fossil methane is straightforward. I would assume studies of fugitive emissions have done this?
-
davidnewell at 07:27 AM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
Tom Curtis @ 13
Thank you for your critique.
The schema I propose at WWW.Earththrive.net does not specify which of three possibilities of spraying might be the most successful among the following:
1. Direct spraying of ocean water above the playas, through variable-flow nozzles
2. Induction of alkaline surface waters through aspirators into the spray
or
3. Using the thousand foot or greater head of the imported ocean water to generate electricity to spray the ponded bypass water on the playas into the air.
This latter (#3) technique addresses your valid point, I believe.
The structure, then, would be spraying water with a pH of greater than 8.5 into the air, and there would be little or no dissolved CO2 in it. It will become increasingly saline over time, but the pH will remain high.
(The ocean water would be dumped into a surface impoundment with a pH that would not allow carbonic acid formation; and a host of cations to effect carbonation.)===============
Of course the total CO2 through the example spray fan is “out of reach” as regards what could be sequestered, but it gives an idea of what % effectiveness would be needed to make the venture worthwhile.
===============
The secondary benefit of downwind cloud and precipitation enhancement will arise no matter what size the droplets are which are expressed through the spray nozzles. With an evaporation rate of over 50 inches of water per year, and with an essentially flat playa surface on which containment ponds can be bermed, the variables are totally controllable.
=============
You are correct, I have not demonstrated that the technique will work. There is included in the document the lab and field tests that are needed, and I am seeking an independent third party to provide a quote on their accomplishment.
================
Please advise if this does not address your point.
David
PS: If you can raise "David Archer", I'd love to have his input, as well.
i mean, it's only a great idea if it works.. ":<)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
davidnewell at 06:38 AM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
one planet @ 10
There appears onely one slight possibility that the mindset of mankind might change away from the self-involved and self-destructive illusion of separation from the environment which underlies the misdeeds you refer to.
When even "the rich" see that everything is going away: that their future is "in common" with the peasants and oppressed:
perhaps then there will be movement towards the common weal.
I cannot say what motivates me in my comittment towards this environmental movement. This body will be long dead before things get serious. Yet the comittment is without precedent, in my experience of "me".
Maybe whatever "I" am part of is changing. If I have changed, maybe everything will change.
A weak and spurious argument for hope..
Prev 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 Next
