Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 Next
Comments 46701 to 46750:
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Glenn: "whatever numbers of Polar bears survive will be as a result of switching their hunting patterns to more land based prey."
In the Churchill area, this probably means eating tourists instead of seals.... I'm sure the tourists will be glad the bears found an alternate food source. Working in the Churchill area was one of the few times in my life where I felt the need to own a gun, and carry it with me all the time. If the bears weren't on the ice, they were hungry. -
dhogaza at 11:38 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
"I don't think that short winters and long summers with nothing to eat would be good for polar bear health in that area."
Just found this, a layman's summary of a very recent study on hudson's bay polar bears:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0320/Warming-Arctic-Receding-ice-leaves-Hudson-Bay-polar-bears-less-time-to-eat
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:34 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Terranova
How does the ringed seal breeding cycle work? They have nests under the ice so heavy ice winters are easy to understand as being bad - maybe colder, harder to maintain air pockets, keep breathing holes open, whatever. What the graphic you show doesn't indicate is what they will do during extremely low ice winters, levels of ice unseen in historical times.
What is the minimum ice thickness they need to produce a den in the ice? How long does the ice need to be there for their breeding cycle? Can they delay their breeding pattern if the ice is late in forming?
On current trends the Arctic will be virtually ice free in September within 2-3 years. Ice free from August to October a couple of years later. Maybe ice free for 6 months a year within 1 - 2 decades. And all the ice that forms each winter will be first year ice - no more than 2+ meters thick, perhaps not as folded and misshapen as older ice and thus with worse conditions for creating dens.
What will the impact on the seals be then?
It's more likely that whatever numbers of Polar bears survive will be as a result of switching their hunting patterns to more land based prey.
An interesting study a year or so ago looked at the genetics of Polar Bears. Prior to this the conventional understanding seems to have been that the Polar Bear was only around 120-150,000 years old as a species, having emerged from a sub-population of Brown Bears near the previous inter-glacial.
This study puts them at around 3 million years old. However, what seems to happen is that the Polar Bear population declines hugely over the glacial cycle, effectively breeding back into the Brown Bear population (Brown & Polar Bears have been observed mating) then reappears as a distinctive population when temperatures turn colder again.
Perhaps they should be called The Great White Brown Bear.
-
dhogaza at 11:30 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Bob Loblaw:
"I don't think that short winters and long summers with nothing to eat would be good for polar bear health in that area."
Polar bear numbers in the hudson's bay population have dropped 22% from the 1980s, and is attributed to changes in sea ice coverage there.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:28 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Glenn@6, Victor@1:
When I first read Victor's coment, I thought about nutrients limiting plant growth, but on more detailed reading, I realized Victor was asking about the nutrients available in the plants, after they grow to the point where we can eat them. Even if plants grow bigger, are they better for us? Or does a faster-growing plant provide little or no additional nutrients to us when we consume them?
An interesting question, for which I have no answer or knowledge on how to figure out an answer. Perhaps there is something in the plant breeding literature that discusses selective breeding for increased growth and evaluates the effect on nutrient levels in the resulting product.
-
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Also, terranova:
1. your graph discusses a study in one region, the beaufort sea.
2. the study is old, there's almost no data on the effect of the population resulting from changed sea ice conditions in the last couple of decades, and none for the last 15 years. If the winter ice were to disappear entirely from the region, so would polar bears.
Fortunately, scientists have continued studying polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. When working on your masters, I suggest you not restrict your literature search on past research on predator/prey relationships between wolves, bison and elk in Yellowstone to studies done before 1995. You'd miss an important event, the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 ... likewise, focusing on a study done in the arctic in the 1990s that concentrates on data from the 1960s-1980s misses significant changes in the arctic since then.
Here's a piece that came out in 2006, noting changes in population structure in polar bears of the southern beaufort sea that are similar to those seen in the hudson's bay population before their numbers started declining significantly:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:19 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Terranova:
Only anecdotal evidence, but I spent several summers in the Churchill area. The polar bears do little eating in the summer, on land. They fatten up on the ice, eating seals in the winter, and after the summer they are pretty hungry by the time the ice starts to form again in the fall. Although I can appreciate that in the past a heavy ice winter could lead to fewer seals and less to eat, I don't think that short winters and long summers with nothing to eat would be good for polar bear health in that area.
-
dhogaza at 11:11 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
"The polar bears success is predicated by the population size of its prey species, and one of their favorites is the ringed seal. Seal numbers drop during heavy ice winters and the polar bear numbers fall in response. The mothers and young are especially hard hit."
My guess is that you're going to be very surprised next year when you start your masters program in predator/prey relationships. Let's just say that the model you present is ... overly simplistic.
-
Riduna at 10:43 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Scaddenp … Quite right! There is a tendency to forget that plant (and animal) life is temperature sensitive and can only function within a limited range. That range is moving further north and south of the equator and plants will either do the same or adapt to higher surface temperatures. The problem is that the speed of temperature rise is too rapid for most plants to either adapt or move.
As Dana points out, even if Ridley is not concerned by present climate conditions produced by a surface temperature rise of 0.8°C since 1750, he – and we – should be very alarmed at the effects of a further increase of 2°C by 2100. Why should we be alarmed? Because the effects on climate are likely to be so severe that the ability of our own species to adapt and survive may well be compromised.
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:23 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Terranova,
I don't doubt they will survive the next 100,000 years now that overharvesting of both species has been controlled.
I'm not dismissing your comment, but have you really considered how the Arctic ecosystems are likely to change, given the rate of warming and change that we currently see, which is only a fraction of what is inevitably in store?
As a trained biologist, do you think that you can really, rationally support the position that "you don't doubt" that polar bears will survive a change to their ecosystem that may well be more dramatic than anything experienced in the past half a million years?
-
Terranova at 10:10 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
I am not a chemist, physicist, geologist, or any other science directly related to the climate and climate change (which is one reason I am here to educate myself). But, I am a practicing biologist/naturalist that already holds an MS degree in Fisheries and Wildlife and will be starting another Master's program this year in Biological Sciences focusing on predator/prey relationships (wolves, bison and elk in Yellowstone).
Polar bears and their prey have survived both short term climate oscillations and long term glacial/interglacial periods over the last 100,000 years. I don't doubt they will survive the next 100,000 years now that overharvesting of both species has been controlled.
The polar bears success is predicated by the population size of its prey species, and one of their favorites is the ringed seal. Seal numbers drop during heavy ice winters and the polar bear numbers fall in response. The mothers and young are especially hard hit.
The graphic below shows this relationship.
Moderator Response:[Sph] Image width reduced to fit in page.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:20 AM on 5 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray
"I'm a molecular biologist not a climate scientist so I'm looking for debate on Climate Change conducted by those who have different views"
As a molecular biologist, you would have a good knowledge from your field of what areas of study are well established, which areas are still being researched and explored. So if you were looking for a debate on Molecular Biology, surely you would expect that debate to be around those areas being researched and not those areas considered well established.
So if you saw the 'debate' going back to question the well established stuff, just rehashing old disproven arguments etc, and many people refusing to accept the old disproofs, you would rightly be rather leary of it wouldn't you? I am a Mechanical Engineer by training so my background in Thermodynamics etc gives me some insight into Climate Science. But in Molecular Biology my knowledge ends at High School Chemistry and Biology.
If I were to listen to the debate on Molecular Biology, how would I be able to judge whether all those arguments put forward rejecting the established view are reasonable or not? I could very easily be led to believe that their is a real dispute; that the 'science isn't settled', with many reasonable protagonists on all sides. Whereas you know that there is well established science in those areas of Microbiology, and that those putting forward the counter views are actually ignorant or cranks.
So how does one tell that the 'debate' is real rather than a platform for the cranks?
And given my previous comment to you, could a reluctance to accept AGW because of the magnitude of the implications be influencing your willingness to listen to the counter views?
Surely the best answer to this is to do one of two things. A, get really knowledgeable about the science yourself so you don't need to rely on a debate. Or B, investigate deeply whether the debate is real or actually reality vs the Cranks.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 5 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Dissident @ 31, the issue of whether or not Marcott et al's reconstruction could detect large short term temperature spikes, or whether or not it did detect the modern spike is completely irrelevant to their paper.
The crucial part of their paper is where they jitter the age and temperature data of their proxies based on the known errors in both, and produced 1000 reconstructions from the jittered proxies:
They then plotted the distribution of all temperatures within the Holocene for all 1000 reconstructions (see their figure 3 reproduced in my post 8 above). The distribution then shown is not actually the distribution of Holocene temperatures, but rather the distribution of possible Holocene temperatures given the data from Marcott et al. The plotted distribution is then a Probability Density Function (PDF) of Holocene temperatures. When compared to that PDF with modern temperatures as determined by the instrumental record, it turns out that less than 5% of potential Holocene temperatures are as low as those found at the start of the 20th century (1900-1909), whereas 82% of potential Holocene temperatures are less than temperatures at the start of the 21st century (2000-2009). If they introduce additional variability to allow for variability lost by their method of reconstruction, that figure falls to 72% (Figure S22 in the supplementary material).
That 72% figure is not very remarkable by itself, but it is when considered against the very low temperatures at the start of twentieth century. In one century, temperatures have increased by 67% of the full range of temperatures possibly achieved over the last ten thousand years. That is disturbing.
Even worse, IPCC projected temperatures for the end of the twentieth century are likely to be "... 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean"! That is, they will be well oustide anything humans have ever experienced. That also is remarkable, and very concerning. That is the very robust finding from Marcott et al that the usual suspects wish to distract you from.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:02 AM on 5 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray
Consider the possibility that Climate Change is real and that failure to act on it will cause real suffering to many people including, perhaps even especially, those in the developing world. And that the actions we need to take to prevent it, certainly if carried out using 'conventional' economics will, or at least may, have the negative impacts you are concerned about.This is where the implications of AGW can really mess our heads around, creating a harsh cognitive dissonance between competing needs.
Humanity is in a really, really bad place. Right now! And it can stretch us all to try and accept that fact. So, depending on our differing personalities and where our focus lies we can easily slip into two mindsets.
- AGW is real and is the most serious issue and must be tackled urgently.
Or
- All those other demands are real, the needs of the developing world are real etc. The things needed to tackle AGW will have negative consequences for these issues, so negative that they can't be countenanced.
The truely hard thing for people to do is to replace my 'Or' with 'And'.
Then we need to confront that harsh reality that humanity is facing a deep crisis, perhaps the greatest crisis in human history. Out response to AGW so far suggests that the severity of the situation hasn't impinged on most people yet. That it just seems to big to get our heads around.
-
mandas at 09:02 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Hi Guys,
I believe there is an error in your article. In the paragraph under the cartoon of the falling Venture Banker, you say this:
Of course, Ridley isn't the only climate contrarian to make the mistake of focusing on current impacts while ignoring those to come in the future.
A 'mistake' suggest that Ridley makes an error of oversight. I would like to suggest that this is far from the truth. It is not a 'mistake' it is a deliberate distortion, and as such the sentence should read:
Of course, Ridley isn't the only climate contrarian to deliberately misinform the public by focusing on current impacts while ignoring those to come in the future.
-
scaddenp at 08:54 AM on 5 April 2013CO2 limits will hurt the poor
For a look at historical emissions and what would be an equitable distribution, look at the opening of MacKay's "Sustainable energy without the hot air", specifically here.
-
scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Hmm, doesnt photosynthesis stop about 38C and slow down beyond 30? That cant be good for the tropics.
-
scaddenp at 08:43 AM on 5 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray, I agree on reading widely. Just not so wide as to bother with WUWT or CO2Science. That way I dont miss papers of potential interest (and since I work in petroleum and to lesser extent coal, finding AGW isnt real would be particularly welcome). However, I have no time for blog "science". Publish it or shut up. Your reading of published paper on alternative hypotheses for climate change wouldnt take up of your time.
Your other comment is totally off topic here. I have responded to it here.
-
scaddenp at 08:43 AM on 5 April 2013CO2 limits will hurt the poor
Ray, (replying from here) Your characteriztion of "western powers" seems seriously at odds with what I see. If you dont mitigate emissions, then the studies show climate change will affect the poorer countries much harder than the west. Kyoto didnt apply to undeveloped nations. Negotiation have focussed on reduction of emissions in west so poorer nations can grow and on the west (who are historically responsible for almost all of the extra GHG currently in atmosphere) funding ways for growth in these countries in ways that doesnt damage the climate. Can you interpret Doha in any other way??
-
Tom Curtis at 08:41 AM on 5 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Tom Dayton @33, Tamino has not shown what he claims.
Specifically, if you look at Tamino's reconstruction of Marcott et al, whether by averaging or by the difference method, it shows far greater short term variation than does Marcott et al:
It follows that his method preserves far more short term information than does Marcott et al's. That by itself is sufficient to show that his experiment is not directly comparable. However, we can go further than that. Look at the sharp downtick at approximately 6.25 thousand years ago (Kya) on Tamino's reproduction of the Marcott reconstruction, we can use it to see how well adding temporal jittering reduces it:
By my eyeball estimate, with taking the mean of 100 reconstructions temporally perturbed proxies, the 6.25 Kya downtick is about halved, ie, about the same reduction as the artificially introduced upticks. Even taking the mean of 1000 reconstructions with temporally perturbed proxies scarcely reduces it further:
Clearly there remains something different about Tamino's method that better preserves short term variation than does Marcott et al's.
If we extrapolate the additional reduction in short term structure reqired for Tamino's reconstruction to match Marcott et al at 6.25 Kya, it probably requires a further quartering of the perturbations. The problem is that a further quartering of Tamino's introduced spikes would leave them with about the same amplitude as the "spikes" at about 1.1 and 7 Kya on Marcott's reconstruction. That is, extrapolating the necessary reduction in short term variation shows that Marcott's reconstruction may contain the remnants of spiked of similar amplitude to those that would be produced by his artificial spikes. I don't think such spikes exist, but Tamino has not shown it.
One key difference between Tamino and Marcott's reconstruction is that Marcott et al not only perturbe the proxies temporally, but also in terms of amplitude. That difference may be the difference in the respective ability to reproduce short term variation. If so, then Tamino's artificial spikes may not be detectible in a full Marcott et al reconstruction. So while an interesting attempt, Tamino has not shown that such spikes would be detectable.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:11 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
VictorVenema
There is a principle in agronomy called Liebig's Law of the Minimum. Essentially that growth of a plant is constrained by whichever resource is in shortest supply. Greenhouses manage what is happening so that everything is optimised so there is a benefit from extra CO2.
A CO2 fertilisation effect is real and is considered models of the Carbon Cycle. But it isn't nearly as simple as the 'CO2 is plant food' meme would paint it. And the higher temperatures that go along with the extra CO2 aren't good. For a range of major crops, yields increase slightly for modets temp increases. Beyond that they start to plummet.
-
MA Rodger at 08:04 AM on 5 April 2013Klotzbach Revisited and John Christy's response, part 2
In my view, the John Christy post on Wattsupia shows pretty dire scholoarship. Additional to the comment within the post here, I am left wondering about the likes of his comment "As noted however, several additional calculations confirm the value of 1.1 utilized by Klotzbach et al. 2010" when I spy not one "additional calcualtion" being "noted."
Or "hence closer agreement of absolute trends can imply greater disagreement with model results" which in some circumstances will be true but strangely not in this case. Indeed, in this case it is the exact opposite.
And his little table is hardly a useful way of comparing the trends and if he insists on its use it would perhaps also help if he learnt his 1.1 and 1.2 times tables.
Myself, I interpret his final statements (in which he turns his message into a comment on climate sensitivity and un-named negative feedbacks) as showing that Christy is simply unable to make sensible comment about the actual issue under discussion.
-
Kevin C at 08:01 AM on 5 April 2013Klotzbach Revisited and John Christy's response, part 1
Thanks, I've got gridded data for all of them as part of another project. I'll add it to my to-do list.
-
shoyemore at 07:47 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
So "Let's have a little bit of global warming"
is much like
"Let's get a little bit pregnant"?
-
John Fisher at 07:10 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
Anthony Watts made the same mistake 3 years ago, commenting
"Actually a warmer planet with more C02 will in fact improve growing conditions, which is why that exact growing environment is created in production greenhouses."
Conditions in production greenhouses are monitored and modulated (drip lines, drainage, ventilation, etc). We can't simply open a 'space window' to let more heat escape!
Matt Ridley's talk reminds me of the Swedish politician who remarked--from his perspective--that a little global warming would be a good thing. He was later berated by an Israeli minister who called him self-interested twit.
-
vrooomie at 06:55 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
VictorVenema, I do not have close at hand links to help you get your ansewers but, free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) studies have been done for a number of decades. I was involved a small bit in such studies at Biosphere II in the late 90s. Plant physiology is a well-known area, and there are thousands of papers on the subject.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:52 AM on 5 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Tamino has evidence that if there were any spikes in the Marcott original data, they almost certainly would have been visible even after Marcott's processing: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/
So much for the fake skeptic argument that the recent warming spike seen in the instrumental record might merely match or be less than spikes in that older record.
-
bjchip at 06:50 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
In a nation where half the population has a religious aversion to simple evolution, the conversions when Mother Nature actually starts hitting us with the consequences are going to be extreme.
We will go from their climate disbelief to a climate inquisition... the religion they accuse us of having will finally exist... in them.
-
CBDunkerson at 01:27 AM on 5 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Dissident, the link you provide goes to the usual nonsense from Pielke and Lomborg. McIntyre has been pushing the same denials and sadly Revkin continues to give undue credence to the deniers.
Essentially, they are playing the same old 'data resolution' game that they do with every proxy study. The proxies used to generate the data in the Marcott study cannot give us temperature values in each and every year. There are gaps. Thus, it is theoretically possible that during one of those gaps there could have been a massive temperature increase, similar to the one we are currently experiencing, which then immediately reversed course and dropped back down to 'normal' in time for the next available data point. Note that they don't even try to provide an explanation of what could cause such a massive warming spike and then immediate cooling back to the prior temperature... because it is ridiculous. Nothing remotely like that has ever been seen or imagined. Further, they know full well that the warming spike we are currently experiencing will not be quickly reversed... rather, the temperature will rocket up and then stay there.
This boils down to one of the most common fictions of the deceivers... 'we do not know everything, therefor we are free to continue believing things we do know to be false'. We don't know exactly what the temperatures were in the 'gaps', so we can pretend that massive brief warming spikes happen all the time for no apparent reason and the current warming will quickly reverse... even though we know from basic physics that it won't.
-
VictorVenema at 01:02 AM on 5 April 2013The Fool's Gold of Current Climate
The part about greening by CO2 and limitation on it due to lack of nutrients made me wonder whether we know anything about how nutritous plants are wenn grown in artificially high CO2 concentrations? Do we know anything about the micronutrients in the plants (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc.)? Maybe from experiments in greenhouses comparing plants that were gassed with CO2 to normal ones.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:01 AM on 5 April 2013The Scientific Method
ecgberht It seems to me that you actively want to have your posts deleted, presumably in order to be able to argue that SkS was not willing to engage in discussion of the science (which is what SkS is for). If you continually dare the morderators to delete your posts e.g. by writing "I hope some folks get to enjoy this post before it is removed.", they will delete your posts as whinges about moderation are by definition off-topic. As you were advised earlier, keep on topic, stick to the science, comply with the comments policy and none of your posts will be deleted. It is as simple as that.
If you make one more post where you challenge the moderators to delete your post, then you will have made it clear that you are just playing some sort of game and actually want them top delete your posts. It is your choice.
-
Ray at 14:47 PM on 4 April 2013The Scientific Method
scaddenp I note and will act on your comments on my use of CAGW which I will no longer use. You ask "So are you looking for a good theory which accounts for climate - or an excuse to discount current theory because mitigation actions proposed so far are discordant with your politics?" I'm a molecular biologist not a climate scientist so I'm looking for debate on Climate Change conducted by those who have different views. Just reading the papers and blogs of those that support human the current hypotheses on the causes of Climate Change or confining oneself to papers and blogs who opposer theses hypotheses is self delusional. My political views are that I find it difficult to accept that the major western powers are trying to enforce, on countries which are much poorer than they are, actiions that will disadvantage the citizens of those countries in their efforts to attain the standards of living approaching those of the developed world.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:41 PM on 4 April 2013The Scientific Method
ecgbehrt, why do you think that your post will be removed? Did you read the comment policy? If so, did you knowingly deviate from it? If yes, what did you expect? If you took care in following the comment policy, why then would you think that it will be removed? Since this thread is more about epistemiology than "hard" stuff, on-topic requirements are obviously less rigid. Although it is not exactly on-topic I do not see that your post deviates from the comment policy further than what will get you a possible warning, which the moderators of this site routinely do when veering too far off-thread. I expectthat it will stay. If it does and that surprises you, I would like to know why. If it is indeed removed (which would surprise me), I know that the mods will furnish an explanation, another thing they routinely do.
Being open minded does mean that one should fill his mind with useless junk. Catering to people who make absurd claims does not constitute open-mindedness. In matters of science, absurdity is not so subjective. A point of view about physical reality does not have validity only by virtue of its existence. Some points of view are worthless; they stem from ignorance, incomprehension, are ill-informed or any combination thereof. Others are dishonest, nonsensical, self contradictory or stupid. Making that clear does not constitute closed-mindedness. Such point of views do not even gain a modest foothold in science because they do not withstand even the earliest stages of application of the method. That is a good thing.
-
curiousd at 11:38 AM on 4 April 2013New research from last week 23/2012
I think I have a partial answer, though I cannot get round the paywall for J. Geophys. Research, Solid Earth, 1996, vol 101 Etheridge, etal. Apparently, Law Dome is ideal for correcting for lock in effect....for one thing a relatively large amount of annual snowfall. Also in one publication they can use the carbon 14 spike because of nuclear testing in the 1950s as some kind of calibration.
-
slcochran at 10:57 AM on 4 April 2013Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
Most interesting these "500 scientists." Sen. James Inhofe came up with a similiar list of "700 scientist opposing global warming." We chased down this list. Turns out there were just a little over 200, and a number of those were duplicative entries. Many were non-degreed weathermen (I appologize for not having numbers, but we did this a couple of years ago for fun). Some were from "private institutes," consisting of one man's living room or listed as being on the faculty of an institute not found in Google (doesn't mean they don't exist, but . . .). Many were retired. The vast majority were from unrelated fields. 25 or so worked directly for or in a research institute funded by the oil industry. We finally narrowed the list to just one person who had a PhD in climatology with an appointment in a legitimate university. They quote attributed to him turned out to be taken grossly out of context, with the paper clearly stating that he considered his findings supported anthropogenic global warming.
It would make an interesting study to put the list of "published papers" to a similiar examination. Did Singer/Avery actually publish the list?
-
dana1981 at 10:15 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Ger @10 - it's basically a double subsidy. The fossil fuels are subsidized directly to keep their prices down, and electricity is also subsidized to keep electricity rates down as well. Plus the climate subsidies, and the pollution subsidies, and the lost tax revenue - it's just amazing how many different subsides fossil fuels get.
And then everyone talks about how great they are because fossil fuels are cheap. Sure they're cheap if they're subsidized up the wazoo!
-
Dissident at 10:04 AM on 4 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Not to worry Rob P, I didn't word it right anyway!
The intention of me posting this link is to show how the basic science is being misrepresented, basically the 'hockey stick', which has been extended to cover the whole of the Holocene has been deliberately cropped to remove the last 100 years of AGW, with what looks like a deliberate misquote of Bjorn Lomborg...
'3 weeks ago, a paper in Science showed the last 11,000 years of temperature. The claim, that went around the world was one of “an abrupt warming in the last 100 years”, as the New York Times put it.
Today, the researchers admit this claim was wrong. The last hundred years is not only below the resolution of the reconstruction, but also not representative:
“the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”'You can find this on the link below.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2013/04/02/the-marcott-abrupt-warming-meme-dying-a-slow-death/
I personally find the evidence for AGW both consistent and compelling, and it's implications for the future of our civilisation disturbing. I am no scientist myself, however I do understand the difference between science and politics. Denial of the evidence is firmly in the latter category. I would appreciate to read further comments debunking what is posted in that link.
-
CBDunkerson at 09:37 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
chriskoz, FIT almost certainly refers to a 'feed in tariff'. The Phillipines have had a FIT law for several years now, but haven't actually implemented it yet... thus making complaints about its non-existent cost somewhat difficult to fathom. They expect to approve the first FIT projects some time next year. Basically, how these work is that the government agress up front to pay a certain price for power over a relatively long contract period. This provides certainty of profit and thus makes it easier to attract investment. Power costs in the Phillipines are very high and thus the hope is that enacting a FIT system will help create a stronger renewable energy industry (though they already have very good geothermal development) for the country that will then bring prices down.
-
JosHagelaars at 09:28 AM on 4 April 2013Klotzbach Revisited and John Christy's response, part 1
@Kevin C
All the trends were calculated using the published monthly temperature data. As you probably know all institutes that release temperature data present these data for land and ocean separately as well as the combined total monthly temperatures.
GISTEMP presents data with a rather complete coverage. Performing the same calculations as presented in figure 3, based on GISTEMP land/ocean, gives comparable results. It was not included in the post in order to keep my figure 3 comparable to the table 2 of Klotzbach et al.
First column global, second land, third ocean in °C/decade over 1979-2012:
GISS minus UAH: +0.02 / +0.09 / -0.03
GISS minus RSS: +0.02 / +0.08 /-0.02
(data as published in January 2013).
So I do not think that the difference in coverage has much influence. But it would be interesting if someone could repeat this calculation using the gridded data with the same landmask and coverage for the satellites/surface temperatures.The GISTEMP land/ocean data are not published on their main webpage but can be found here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/
-
chriskoz at 09:15 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Ger@10,
Can you explain what FiT and FiT-All means? And how it works in Philippines ? Without knowing anything about it, I cannot understand your last paragraph...Thanks.
-
CBDunkerson at 09:11 AM on 4 April 2013Klotzbach Revisited and John Christy's response, part 1
At one point in their original paper they write: "If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends, then there should not be an increasing divergence with time between the tropospheric and surface temperature anomalies [Karl et al., 2006]."
Setting aside the bit in your writeup above showing that the divergence hasn't continued to increase, the thing which strikes me about this is how profoundly blind they are to the possibility that the problem is in the satellite data. In the quotation above they present a false dichotomy... either there is a warm bias in the surface temperature trends or there cannot be an increasing divergence. Any scientist still possessed of an ounce of objectivity should have taken one look at that sentence and rushed to rewrite it... because it is obviously false that those are the only possibilities. Contrary to what they say, there could indeed be both "no warm bias" and "increasing divergence"... if the problem were in the satellite temperature data.
It would be one thing if they considered this and decided it was unlikely, but rather the paper is written as if it were an impossibility. We see this kind of willful blindness in AGW 'skeptics' on the internet all the time, but it is shocking to see it so plainly presented in a 'scientific' paper as well. Their entire premise was plainly false, omitting another obvious possibility, but somehow they just couldn't see that.
-
CBDunkerson at 08:52 AM on 4 April 2013Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Ken, see here for why stopping AGW will not end life and liberty.
-
Kevin C at 08:23 AM on 4 April 2013Klotzbach Revisited and John Christy's response, part 1
Interesting, thanks for your work on this. If you have time I have some questions:
In either the original analysis or your recalculation, were the trends calculated using the published monthly temperature figures, or was the calculation done by going back to the gridded data?
If it was done from the gridded data, then was the calculation done using all of the satellite data, or were the satellite data masked to reduce the coverage to match the limited coverage of the surface datasets?
-
Gingerbaker at 07:19 AM on 4 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
"Perhaps you should read the current post on government subsidies on fossil fuels. Don't you think renewables should be treated the same?"
No, I don't.
Subsidies, tax rebates, incentives etc have failed to encourage the 'free' market to produce a significant amount of renewable energy infrastructure fast enough. I think if we are going to spend tax monies to build infrastructure, let's skip the recalcitrant middleman, and use tax dollars directly on infrastructure projects.
What I would like to see is a Federal Renewable Energy Utility at best, and large-scale solar and wind projects at the least. Let's bypass the so-called free market and build the infrastructure we need for tomorrow - today.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed paragraph formatting.
-
michael sweet at 05:58 AM on 4 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
Gingerbreaker,
Perhaps you should read the current post on government subsidies on fossil fuels. Don't you think renewables should be treated the same?
How were the railroads financed anyway? Oh yeah, they were financed by the government land give aways. I guess it just depends how you want your tax dollars spent.
-
curiousd at 04:27 AM on 4 April 2013The Scientific Method
Hi,
I apologize for being so off topic here and wish a suggestion on where best to post this inquiry. There is a great new paper out in Science:
New article by Parennin, et al .
Science Magazinehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
This shows that if one corrects carefully enough for the "lock in" effect in ice core analysis you remove such a large inherent bias towards temperature apparently leading CO2 that for EPICA dome data you go from 800 years CO2 lags temperature with error of 600 years to CO2 and Temp in consilience within 100 year error bar.
I posted a technical question on the only thread that seems to get into the intricasies of dating ice cores, post 5 on SKS thread "New Research from Last Week 23/2002."
But I am nor sure where the best place to post this inquiry is, especially in a more upto date thread people are likely to read.. Any suggestions?
Best,
Curiousd
-
Gingerbaker at 02:34 AM on 4 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
"...entrepreneurs are one of the keys to meaningful, timely climate action. Society needs to make drastic changes to avoid dangerous global warming. However, institutions such as the government and big business only change slowly and incrementally, except under exceptional circumstances."
Funny.
I view the nearly unquestioned universal paradigm that new renewable energy development should or must be developed or encouraged through the 'free' market system - a system dominated by carbon interests - to be the major reason that America's transition to a renewable energy future has been such a spectaculer failure to date. Solar makes up less than 1% of our energy generation. CO2 emissions are almost as high as ever.
The least expensive and most expeditious paradigm to deploy new renewables would be large-scale publicly funded installations. But I have yet to see a single blog post - anywhere - on the blogosphere devoted to this topic. Methinks the carbon fuel industry is very happy to keep the national discussion exactly where it has always been - on smale-scale rooftop solar and local wind farms, where the burden of financing crushes most implementation.
Strange is this newfangled aversion to using Federal monies to solve national predicaments, because large-scale Federal programs have been very successful in the past. The Rural Electrification Administration brought electricity to millions of households in the twenties.
Hoover Dam was not financed by tax incentives to homeowners. The National Interstate Highway System was not constructed by offering low-interest short-term loans to driveway paving companies so they could lay asphalt in thirty-foot long projects. No, these projects were successful because they were ideally sited, had huge economies of scale, and the financing was borne not on the shoulders of individuals, but shared collectively. So, I feel, should be our national energy future.
-
Dissident at 02:11 AM on 4 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Apologies for the typo in previous post, 'bebored' should be 'became'
Moderator Response:(Rob P) Sorry, but I deleted your previous comment by mistake. Would reinstate if I knew how. Feel free to repost.
-
Joel_Huberman at 01:45 AM on 4 April 2013Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Thanks, Dana1981, for a very useful article. I'm an American, and although I did pay some attention to the interesting report of Marcott et al (2013) and its analysis at Skeptical Science, I'm also very interested in the topic of fossil fuel subsidies. After all, as shown in one of your illustrations, we're the world champions at subsidizing fossil fuels.
Although it's difficult to calculate the total cost of wars over fossil fuels, I think it would be fair to attribute America's two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to oil and gas (pipeline rights in Afghanistan's case). After all, if those wars were not for fossil fuels, what were they for? Could they have been completely irrational?
-
Lanfear at 01:44 AM on 4 April 2013Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
"I apologize for the delayed response."
No worries, as you may have noticed, I take this with a slow pace, what with the holidays and everything.
"I have had the good fortune of rediscovering a recent paper"
Ahemm.. And I noticed that that paper already was in my archives, so I should have been aware of it. Problem being that the archives seem to grow more than what I am able to digest, let alone recall.
"As to the question about GISP2 temperatures and the MWP, that is more complex."
Yes, I should have been more explicit in this case. The root of this is, of course, the denialist fallacy where he/she makes the mistake of a) taking a single point of (proxy) measurement and then generalizing that to the whole globe as such, and b) not consider the fact that the y-axis is between -32 and -28°C.
Thanks for your effort, and the reminder of Kobashi et al. 2011.
Prev 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 Next
