Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 Next
Comments 48351 to 48400:
-
Richard C (NZ) at 12:01 PM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Dana #19
>"Heat doesn't just magically accumulate in the oceans."
I agree, it (-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off topic snipped. See the previous moderation guidance given you. -
AndyS at 11:53 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
This article seems very speculative. I understand that you think 'The Australian" has form, but until either Dr Pauchauri or his press office responds I would have thought it is moot.
-
Composer99 at 11:44 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Richard C:
Repeating a debunked argument doesn't magically make it correct.
-
bill4344 at 11:24 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Oh yes it does! Tell them about the magical undersea volcanoes, Dixie! ;-)
-
dana1981 at 11:09 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Richard, we've talked about ocean heating here a million times. Heat doesn't just magically accumulate in the oceans.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 11:05 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Dana #13 you say:-
>"...the former [atmosphere] has 'plateaued'..."
>"...the most important point is that global surface air warming is not the same as global warming/heating"
Both correct but I assume you mean the latter to be anthropogenic ocean warming/heating. That's a very different story if you do because then you are arguing against natural planetary enthalpy (including 8 - 20 year thermal inertia) which - going by the solar bicentennial componant having only just dipped slightly below Grand Maximum over the last 20 years or so but is now dipping rapidly in SC 24 - is about to go into reverse out to maybe 2050 along with the attendant feedbacks.
Apart from that, the IPCC has not yet firmed up an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism after 25 years of existence. They are merely "extremely certain" of their assumption based on assunptive studies. So if - now that atmospheric temperature is at standstill - you wish to transfer the focus from an atmosphere unmoved by rising CO2 levels to the ocean where energy accumulation is still evident, the science you and the IPCC have to support anthropogenic attribution to ocean heating is tenuous at best and still only at fledgling stage.
Therefore your "most important point" appears to be a strong argument against aGHGs being the major climate driver of the atmosphere and a weak argument for aGHGs being the major ocean heating agent. What will you do then when OHC plateaus too as it inevitably will without elevated solar input?
Moderator Response: [DB] Interested parties should take discussions of ocean warming mechanisms to this thread. It is off-topic on this thread. Discussions of OHC itself should go to this thread. -
calyptorhynchus at 10:57 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
"Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?"
Has the Australian ever published anything accurate on climate?
-
dana1981 at 09:04 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
AndyS @15 - no, "tells Skeptical Science" = personal communication.
-
AndyS at 08:52 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject
Are you able to provide a link to this statement from the IPCC?
-
Magma at 08:02 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
@ DB, re. post 6: two issues here. First, when hunting for ways to link to paywalled articles one takes what one can. In this case GWPF has rerun the first half of the article, complete with byline and accompanying photograph..
The article contains multiple direct quotes attributed to Pachauri that could easily be replies to a prompting question from Lloyd (e.g., "But hasn't the rise in global temperatures recently slowed or stopped?" etc.).
Yes, a number of Lloyd's framing remarks are clearly leading ("record northern summer[sic] Arctic ice growth", "recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies", etc.). But it hardly seems an egregious example of bad journalism, including paraphrasing statements or responses by Pachauri. That a host of commenters have seized on a single ambiguous lead-in to the generally thoughtful and carefully-worded comments by Pachauri is a reflection on their desperate scramble to grasp at straws.
The concluding half of the article is as follows:
(-snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] En masse block-quoting snipped per the Comments Policy. -
dana1981 at 07:43 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Dr. Pachauri doesn't recall his exact words, hence the IPCC request to The Australian (not yet answered) for the interview transcript and/or recording. However, Dr. Pachauri does not think the '17 years' comments are an accurate representation of what he said (though it's possible he misspoke), and certainly not of what he believes, as noted in the post.
Regardless of what he said, the most important point is that global surface air warming is not the same as global warming/heating. Certain parties intentionally conflate the two because the former has 'plateaued' while the latter has not, so it allows them to pretend global warming has 'stalled'. This is simply wrong, and a misinformative error which must be corrected.
-
AndyS at 07:13 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
If there is a question mark about what The Australian actually said, then Googling for this
"nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/"
(complete with quotes) leads me to a scanned version of the print edition. I am not sure I can provide a direct URL as it seems to link ot a generic URL for the viewer that shows the latest copy. The URL is here if you are interested http://theaustralian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
-
renewable guy at 06:56 AM on 26 February 2013There is no such thing as climate change denial
https://acontent.atutorspaces.com/home/course/content.php?_cid=576
I am interested in how to calculate hiroshima bombs/second. Figure two gives me a view of earth as a flat disk or as a spheriod.
The link above calculated the earth as a flat disk and calculated bombs per second with an energy of 2 thru 9 joules/sec.
I noticed that the numbers from comments above were in the .3 watts/meter*2 to about .7 watts/meter*2. I assume this was calculated from the view of the earth as a spheriod.
Assuming I am correct, how are the joules/sec or watts/meter*2 arrived at?
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting. -
Alex The Seal at 06:42 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Pauchauri should speak up on this - It would be great for the Australian to get a follow up smackdown.
-
Alex The Seal at 06:40 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Kiethpickering is entirely correct. A horizontal line is arbitrary and implies a system in stasis. IOW - starting with a flat line is automatically cherry picking the result you are looking for.
-
Roger D at 06:01 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
It's just an unfortuante reality that technically incorrect definitions are sometimes used by scientiests when they are earnestly responding to a question.The crux is that it is difficult for experts to always avoid "shorthand-speak" in interviews or general explanations of the science, yet so easy for "skeptics" to use that inexact terminology to misrepresent.
-
AndyS at 05:40 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Rather than speculate on whether Dr Pauchauri was misrepresented, can't you ask him directly?
-
william5331 at 05:29 AM on 26 February 20132013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
What fun. Assuming we are talking about Sept 15 and not Sept as a whole and with no mathematical justification at all, I predict that the ice extent will be a little lower this Sept 15 than in 2012. In 2014 or 2015 it will shoot down again and may well reach close to zero by 2016. Note that as a first approximation, ice volume should be: extent raised to the 3/2 power. That is, if there is 80% as much ice area this year compared to last year, the ice volume should be 0.803/2 = 0.72. This assumes that thickness decreases at the same rate as length and width. By the by, with no ice cover to insulate the ocean we would expect more ice to form during the winter and this is what is happening. In so far as the brine produced is sinking and sucking more surface water northward we would expect the ice cover around and north of Svalbard to decrease each winter and that is what is happening.
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:29 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
It would be perfectly reasonable to have a desire for different terms, or to think that also mentioning ocean heat content would give people greater understanding. But such desires and views do not make others, using a standard term in the standard way, mistaken. Recall if you will the discussion of "ocean acidification."
-
Magma at 05:04 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
The full article can be found here: Nothing off-limits in climate debate
Relevant excerpt:
Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.
“The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.
“If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.
“What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.
“This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”
He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.
Moderator Response: [DB] Your linked article, itself based on a GWPF document, does not contain a link to the actual quote but to paraphrased versions of the quote, as noted in the OP of this thread. It is thus hearsay and not very germane to the discussion. -
meb58 at 04:54 AM on 26 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
I should have added the Alarmist label to the above. I would have made more sense.
-
keithpickering at 04:53 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
We are using the wrong null when we (or anyone else) says something like "no significant" warming in the past x years.
The fact is that we have solid physics-based reasons to know that the planet is warming. Therefore the correct null is that current warming is running at the same rate as past warming, and not that current warming is greater than zero.
For example: HADCRUT4 dataset (annual time series) has a slope of .0047° C per year during 1997-2012, with a 95% confidence range from -.0041 to +.0135°C. The relevant question is not whether this range includes zero; the relevant question is whether this range includes the warming rate of the previous 30 years. Since the warming rate from 1967-1996 was .0128°C per year, there is no statistically significant difference between the current warming rate and the previous warming rate.
And that's the message we need to send.
Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps usage converted to italic bold, per Comments Policy. -
meb58 at 04:53 AM on 26 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
My background is in Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture. A number of my required first year text books were selected based upon their ability to explain broad fundamanetal concepts. As I moved from my first to fifth year, the books became more technical and specialized based upon my particular interests and major.
I haven't read the book mentioned above, but anything that can speak clearly to a broad audience, most of whom may never enter science as a profession, is of extreme value, I should think.
Regarding denier and sketpic...these two terms do nothing for science at the social level. We have to recognize that much of global warming/climate change debate, like it or not, occurs at a social (amature) level - I place many of our politicians in this category. A book could be written about these two labels and the sad outcome is an obvious and unwhittingly manufactured social obstacle. Curiosity and skepticism are two foundations of science, yes?
...thought the escapist may believe this is devine and meant to be...
-
Rob Painting at 04:46 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
It's a failure to communicate the obvious by people who should know better. As Dana points out, extra heat has built up in the subsurface ocean. That has led to limited warming of surface air temperatures over the last decade but, based on past observations, it will not last. When the climate moves into a period dominated by El Nino (a lot of heat escaping the ocean) it is going to get warm very quickly, and the weather that accompanies this is likely to be very nasty.
-
dana1981 at 04:18 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Pete @1 - climate scientists often make this mistake when communicating with the public. If you want people to understand the subject, you can't refer to surface air warming as 'global warming', because then when we have a temporary 'plateau' in surface air temperatures as is currently occurring, people think global warming has stopped.
-
ubrew12 at 04:10 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Physically, the term 'global warming' can only refer to one thing, the globe. I understand that atmospheric scientists have loosely referenced the atmosphere when using the term but it doesn't change what's implied by the words in the phrase. The proper term is 'global heating', but they got the 'global' part right.
Its necessary to point out because as this article states, the REASON the atmosphere isn't warming as rapidly as expected is because of an unexpected preponderance of La Nina events in the last decade. Which basically means the atmosphere isn't heating as rapidly because the ocean is pulling more of that heat into her deep layers. What does this mean for the 'globe'? Nothing. Its still heating.
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 03:53 AM on 26 February 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
One does not expect the Australian to accurately climate change. However, I don't think climate scientists "mistakenly equate the warming of global surface air temperatures with global warming. Instead, I think that is the meaning of the term in the literature. Planetary heat increase is another thing.
-
dvaytw at 03:38 AM on 26 February 2013The BEST Kind of Skepticism
On the following version of one BEST temperature graph, it shows a marker labeled "post 1956 rise attributed by IPCC to humans":
Does anyone know what is significant about this date? I'm pretty sure it's not when temperature and solar output started going in opposite directions, as that happened later on. Thanks in advance for any info...
-
gws at 02:18 AM on 26 February 2013Reconciling Two New Cloud Feedback Papers
@jsquared #7
"What could be so different in the short-term and long-term response of water vapor? "
The measured responses in the papers listed here depend on numerous data sets on temperatures and clouds, which average over large areas (hundreds of kilometers) and times (weeks to months). As aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere (order of one week) their impact will be averaged in the data. If aerosol emissions and abundance drastically changed over the observational period, it could have biased the cloud data. Not likely when looking at large areas of the globe, but possible if you only looked downwind of China.
But on the short- vs. long-term: 10 years are not long enough to judge whether GW will cause a major redristribution of cloud heights, e.g. driven by changing convection schemes and higher water vapor amounts. Look at Figure 1 again: If you redistributed high clouds to low clouds, you would counteract GW. If you redistributed low clouds to high clouds, you would reinforce GW. However, there is no evidence for either yet AFAIK, meaning the data sets studied do not provide enough information. A major complication is overlapping clouds, i.e. situations where your satellite "sees" only the high cloud, but not the lower one below. In such a scene, you expect a warming but you may actually get a cooling. People are working on better retrievals though such that lower clouds can be detected in the presence of higher ones.
-
mspelto at 22:01 PM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
Climate science has so many good voices and so much good material online, and the information is developing fast enough that I do not use a textbook. Instead a series of websites including SkS are the text my students read.
Moderator Response: [rockytom] I suggest that perhaps you should take a look at "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis." I imagine that requiring certain internet sites instead of a textbook would provide a disjointed approach to the subject. Of course, one could work oneself silly and read all the pertinent sites and choose from all the posts? -
BillEverett at 19:19 PM on 25 February 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Regarding the WBGU (in the SkS spotlight above), although I am only about halfway through the lecture series based on the flagship report World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability, I highly recommend the lectures for those who are interested not only in the science of climate but also in practical steps that may result in avoiding the worst consequences. I am currently on page 171 of the 420-page pdf file of the report (reading as time permits). This is pretty basic stuff (by basic, I mean not necessarily simple but fundamental). The lecture series is apparently designed as a German university course, but the lectures are in English. If there is interest, I could post a list of the 30+ YouTube links to the lectures. If you are only interested in the science behind current global warming, then Lecture 3 by Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf is quite good, in my opinion. In particular, Episode 1 of Lecture 3: WBGU - World in Transition - L03E01 - Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. (31:47). The SKS spotlight shines on some pretty good stuff! IMHO
-
EliRabett at 13:51 PM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
Back in the beginning of time, Eli had three excellent rants on the distortion of the US textbook market. Your book costs $108, which is, to be charitable, about half of what a chemistry textbook costs but still high enough that the kids are going to sell it back right after the course ends. If it came out at $40 in a paperback they would keep it, and a teacher could have the students order your book and another and hope they would keep both. Sorry, but that's the problem.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link. -
Dave123 at 12:46 PM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
Terranova,
This whole website provides unchallengable documentation of the main lines of fake argument and outright lies promulgated by paid disinformers, political shills and hysterical paranoids looking for a global conspiracy to deprive them of their precious bodily fluids. To list that material and provide the rebutals in no way deviates from the purpose of a textbook about climate science- except in the minds of people who don't accept climate science in the first place, the sort of people who trot out their misunderstanding of a third grade definition of science and expect to bully doctoral level working scientists with it.
If I read a textbook about thermodynamics or quantum mechanics or chemical reaction mechanisms it doesn't just present me with the facts...it tells me what they mean, it is prescriptive. If I read a textbook about virology I expect that the reasons why HIV is a demonstrated infective agent dispite Duesberg's claims about violating Koch's Postulates to be in there, as well as a section on vaccines as public health measures and what the science says about the various claims about thimersol, immune overload and other crackpot claims about autism. For Doctors especially, knowing this material is essential for providing care to patients.
I couldn't disagree with your unsubstantiated and unsupported opinion more strongly. I also note that at your level of training, your standing to make such an assertion is suspect.
-
Bert from Eltham at 12:26 PM on 25 February 20132013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
Kevin it is so unfair when all this heat comes from nowhere! Did someone leave the fridge door open?
The Arctic Ice melting at unprecedented rates is a symptom. Not a cause. It can only be due to excess heat accumulating on Earth. I wonder what the mechanism could be. Could it be the lack of Unicorns or pirates?
Some say it is due to 'natural' forces. All very glib until there is no real mechanism behind what is observed.
There is a well known cause and it is the increase in the greenhouse gas called CO2.
We even have people saying that a 'simple' animation can be done in a few minutes by some script kiddie.
Apart from the realistic three dimensional look of the animation. The POV lighting with moving shadows make it look far more natural.
I reckon Leonardo Da Vinci knocked up the Mona Lisa in one afternoon. It took far longer to paint her.
Bert
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed font size. -
Andy Skuce at 12:14 PM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
I assume Terranova means:
PART X – SKEPTICS AND DENIERS OF GLOBAL WARMING
PART XI - SPECIFIC DECLARATIONS AGAINST CLIMATE SCIENCE AND CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
(all caps in the original)
These sections (which I haven't read myself) deal with the climate wars and rebutting misinformation. It seems to me that students learning about climate change need to be exposed to this discussion.
I would think that biology students in the USA would benefit hugely from learning about the creationists and their tactics. Particularly so, if those students end up teaching biology in schools in certain states. If what Terranova reports is correct, it's a pity that that sort of material is not included in college textbooks, given that many schoolboards are supportive of teaching nonsense like Intelligent Design.
-
Bob Lacatena at 09:42 AM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
Terranova,
What are you talking about? What are "Sections 10 and 11"? What in them is not objective?
-
Terranova at 09:10 AM on 25 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
I have a BS and MS degree in Biology and I am currently pursuing a second MS degree in Environmental Systems and Engineering. Not one of my textbooks has chapters like those listed in Sections 10 and 11. My science textbooks stick to what is known. Even my evolution textbook doesn't delve into the tactics of creationists and intelligent design supporters.
A science books should stick to the facts and allow the user to come to their own conclusions. Sections 10 and 11 show a clear bias on the authors' part that I suspect permeates the entire book. Science should be objective. I am not saying that this book is not objective, because I have not been able to read anything other than the sample. But, I doubt many, if any, colleges with pick this up. Sections 10 and 11 may well be well written, but they should perhaps stand on their own.
Moderator Response: We are all entitled to our opinions. My opinion is that your evolution textbook should have sections on creationism and its major threat to the science curriculum throughout the more conservative parts of the USA and elsewhere. This should be an essential part of any evolution curriculum! That's my opinion. -
Andy Skuce at 06:16 AM on 25 February 2013PMO Pest Control: Scientists
There is an excellent recent article in the Globe and Mail Censorship is alive and well in Canada – just ask government scientists ("Oh wait, you can’t ask them, because they’ve got duct tape over their mouths...." )
The newspaper article refers to a thorough, documented study done by University of Victoria lawyers PDF
The study is preceded by a letter asking Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada to investigate the federal government's actions
-
vrooomie at 04:33 AM on 25 February 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
John, "emissions" is misspelled in this line: "45% cut in emmissions allowance proposed."
Moderator Response: [DB] Spelling issues resolved. -
OPatrick at 04:24 AM on 25 February 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #1: Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Forward on Climate Rally
Wow. When someone brought up that API opinion poll I was suspicious of it but I couldn't find the questions to check. I wouldn't have believed that it could be as blatantly biased as that. At least now if ever anyone quotes the results in support of their argument you have definitive proof that they are not genuinely sceptical.
-
JoeT at 01:33 AM on 25 February 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #1: Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Forward on Climate Rally
Thanks. That was very helpful.
-
michael sweet at 00:13 AM on 25 February 2013Low emissions are no justification for Kansas scaling back renewables
Chris,
Thanks for the interesting links. As expected, the situation is complicated.
-
chriskoz at 18:38 PM on 24 February 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #1: Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Forward on Climate Rally
JoeT@5,
Let's consident an example:
Say, you want to buy 100kg of gasoline.
- If from conventional oil: EROI 25:1 -> they need to produce 104kg and burn 4kg of it (assuming the process is self bootstrapping at 100% efficiency) in order to sell you 100kg -> their emissions + youres emissions from 104kg of gasoline burning
- If from tar sands: EROI 5:1 -> they procude 120kg and burn 20 -> their emissions + youres emissions from 120kg of gasoline burning
So the emission difference is 120 - 104 = 16 which is 16/104 = 15% of the conventional emissions.
That 15% is the ideal minimum with a rather simplistic if not silly assumption of 100% efficiency at the refinery. In the real world, due to that efficiency being below 100% and likely the tar sand mining operations sourcing their energy insitu bootstrapping from the "dirtier tar sand", therefore less evnironmentally friendly to start with, the actual figure of 20% more emissions sounds reasonable.
-
JoeT at 12:58 PM on 24 February 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #1: Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Forward on Climate Rally
A question. From Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost As Much Energy As It Produces, there are two quotes:
The average "energy returned on investment," or EROI, for conventional oil is roughly 25:1... Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1
When the entire life cycle of the fuels is considered—including production, transportation and burning the final product— the greenhouse gas differential between conventional oil and tar sands oil is about 20 percent.
How is it that these two quotes are not in contradiction to each other, so that there is a factor of 5 in terms of EROI and only 20% in terms of CO2 emission?
-
caerbannog at 12:25 PM on 24 February 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #1: Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Forward on Climate Rally
Speaking of "Forward on Climate", the San Diego Forward on Climate rally featured a genuine "boots on the ice" climate-scientist, Dr. Jeffrey Severinghaus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Here are a couple of video clips of his remarks -- shaky video, not a great vantage point, but the sound quality isn't too bad:
In a sane world, Fox News, talk-radio hosts etc. would have Dr. Severinghaus on speed-dial. -
andreas8301 at 10:48 AM on 24 February 2013Geologic Time and Climate Change Science
The analogies mentioned may offer a sense for the large-scale but at expense of the small scale which disappears into imperception. To deal with this, i highlight the smaller scale with a length analogy where a year corresponds to 1cm... a millenium would be 1m, a million years 1km, and a billion years 1000km.
So, our 20cm of polluting dominance tail our few meters of civilisations and come at the end of our species' few kilometres of life that stretch onto a continental-scale backdrop.
I like it for easily differentiating orders of magnitude and reflecting the evolution time-scales and i'm pretty pleased that my primary-school nieces like it.
-
chriskoz at 10:04 AM on 24 February 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8
The very first commenter to the first (AUS FF exports) article said:
As the Premier of NSW said, don't ask him about the effects of climate change when the state is busy being hit with record floods and fire damage...
That's something remarkable, becaues I don't consider Barry O'Farrell as silly as the quote would indicate. Does anyone know more of that and can provide a context?
BTW, I notice all of the articles quoted this week are bad news: FF export increasing, monsoons shifting, tech troubles implementing solar panels etc. I have an impression we making no progress at all in combatting GW as there is not a single piece of positive news about it...
-
Chris G at 09:14 AM on 24 February 2013Low emissions are no justification for Kansas scaling back renewables
Michael, for the sake of simplity, I was only looking at winter wheat, because that is a common crop through those states; so, other crops might do better where it is too hot for wheat. Also, precipitation varies more east-west than north-south. Those numbers were from memory and they may not be exact; I pulled the numbers originally from the NASS USDA site, for example, this write-up on Kansas. Where precipitation is lacking, irrigation from the Ogalla is used (see the crop circles from Google Earth - those are pivot irrigation plots), which is a problem of another topic. I don't know about soil conditions north to south, but I suspect that isn't a simple conversation either..
As you can see from the yield by county map, there is kind of a window, east-west and north-south, of conditions where wheat is grown. If you are wondering why there is not more wheat grown in eastern Kansas (where I live); it is because there is enough rain to grow other crops which yield higher profits per acre. Soil conditions should be a factor, but then, soil conditions are also a function of precipitation and temperature over time. The situation is more complicated by the fact that the timing of the precipitation also matters to yields, and I expect that will change as well. I did a quick Google Scholar search on temperature and yield, and got some hits that might answer your questions better, but hard to tell quickly which articles best represent the state of the science. I can tell you first-hand that crops, particularly corn, were withering in the heat last summer; lots of fields were total losses. Pretty sure there are robust findings which demonstrate that more days above some temperature (95 F, 100 F?) reduce yields measureably.
-
kampmannpeine at 02:14 AM on 24 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
This textbook is on my shopping list. Being a physicist (though retired) with some specialty in hyperfinestructure spectroscopy and astronomy (and of course computer science) I still had to struggle with the basics of climate science ... It took me several years and and I had the impression of beginning a physics (and math) curriculum again ... And still I have the "holes" mentioned here.
What I am doing is giving lectures to the general (mostly lay) public and younger people ... and this is only possible with a sane background in the basics and of course the political issues (in particular here in Germany and Europe).I collected original peer-reviewed literature (incl. IPCC-reports) ... which sums up now to some Gigabytes of "pdf"s and data (like HITRAN) ... And I bought some books like R.T.Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate", Stamnes' book and Liou's book on radiative transfer (RT) ... Also doing some programming within the "python"-field ..
I would like to emphasize the standpoint that not only one book is necessary - you have to have several plus the above mentioned literature ... And as a teacher you have to invest a lot of time for preparation of the lectures ... What I actually was missing at the start of my "venture" was a book on how to "meander" through the topic(s) .. I hope to get this guide after having bought the mentioned volume ...
Although it might now be a bit late ... :)
Moderator Response: [rockytom] I hope "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis" by Farmer and Cook will make the meandering through the climate science basics much easier. It was written with beginning students and instructors in mind no matter their background or experience. -
curiousd at 00:33 AM on 24 February 2013Why Choose One Textbook for Introductory Climate Change Science Courses?
To Rockytom at 5....perhaps I could submit a lead post on the fact that molecular motion persists at absolute zero, disorder persists at absolute zero, and the likely importance of this fact to the relative evaporation rates of oxygen 18 versus 16? But I do not know if such a specialized physics post would be of interest here.
Moderator Response: [rockytom]My email address is rockytom09@gmail.com and I will look forward to your comments, which will be off-topic to this thread. For things deemed of interest to SkS readers, with your permission I will post here. Thanks for your interest!
Prev 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 Next
