Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 Next
Comments 61051 to 61100:
-
dunc461 at 15:02 PM on 20 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I am convinced that we are experiencing global warming and that it is caused by greenhouse gases. But I have two concerns. The first is the estimated of the cost of the reducing the use of fossil fuels. I am not an economist, but I am a chemical engineer with over 30 years in the approval, design and construction of chemical plants. I have developed a program to compare the costs between using the current mix of energy sources and limiting the use of fossil fuels between now and 2100. This program and sources for the data can be found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Alb0IxaBZzT8dEE4a2tOQW1OdEZYQW02blk5RlhRQUE I am sure that some of my data and assumptions may be obsolete or incorrect. You can play around with it by changing the inputs on Sheet 2 and I would appreciate any feedback on more correct information For the case shown I assumed a population in 2050 and 2100 of 10 billion and a world per capita energy usage of ½ US current in 2100 and half way there in 2050; a fossil fuel reduction from current levels of 25% by 2050 and 50% by 2100; no increase in Nuclear or Hydro; a 50/50 split between wind and solar energy to make up for the reduction in fossil fuels and I adjusted the fossil fuel cost from $0.02 sited in the source to $0.05 and the cost per KWH generated by fossil fuels from $0.087 to $0.117. In the above case the program calculates the cost of limiting fossil fuels to be $308 Trillion between now and 2050 and $1,394 Trillion between now and 2100. That equates to an average annual per capita cost of $788 between now and 2050 and $1,565 between now and 2100. All these cost are in today’s dollars. Actual numbers will be much higher. The second concern has to with land usage The IPPC says that there is currently 0.6 acres of cropland per person, but if you subtract out non-food or minimum calorie acreage (cotton, wool, tobacco, coffee and tea etc.) it is closer to 0.5 and if you add 3 billion more people it drops to under 0.4. In the US it takes 0.37 acres of wheat to supply one person with 2000 calories a day for a year. With the world average wheat yield it takes 0.75 acres. As can be seen by the previous sentences there is room for improvement in yield but there are also reports that climate change is reducing yields. A 2000 calorie/day diet based on the US food pyramid takes in the neighborhood of 1.25 acres. As developing countries become more affluent their citizens will want to improve their diet. I do not know what the total amount energy required to produce the world’s food supply is but one site said that 2% of our total energy usage is required to make the fertilizer currently consumed. I apologize for not providing references for this portion. I hope to rectify that situation in the near future. I just think it would be a real shame if the carbon dioxide we eliminate by limiting fossil fuels is replaced with carbon dioxide from changes in land used to feed the world. -
Bernard J. at 15:02 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
On a number of occasions I've made the point that humans are able to think back in history to past events, and to care about the morality/ethics of these same events, but that they are completely intellectually/culturally unequipped to project a similar analysis (and caring) into the future. The emerging sea level rise hockey stick thread is one example on Skeptical Science. The thing is, most humans seem to be as unable to perceive the significance of having such a concept pointed out, as they are of perceiving the importance of forward thinking in the first place. Is this a genetic or a cultural limitation? I don't know. Perhaps it's both. As Westerners we should be ashamed that other, non-technological cultures such as the Native American Nations - who were at the time of the peaks of their nations hunter-gatherer societies - neverthelsss had the sophistication of thought to enshrine ecological sustainability into their decision-making with a dictum to think back over seven generations of their ancestors, and forward to seven generations of their decendants. If a hunter-gatherer society can look forward seven generations, why should a global technological society not look forward to at least the time span of 70 generations, or even of 700? If we are able to (pipe) dream of one day reaching the stars, we should be simultaneously thinking about what we need to consider in order to arrive there... On the matter of the duration of a Western society remaining sufficiently intact to read a letter to the future I, along with many others, am as pessimistic as Doug H and R. Gates are above, about the chances... Combining climate change with: 1) ocean acidification 2) deforestation and habitat destruction 3) over-fishing, over-hunting, and general species loss 4) topsoil depletion 5) water depletion 5) pollution 6) other environmental/ecological destruction and there's not a lot of wiggle room left to keep an organised human society going, especially at the global level. It's only if a critcial mass of humans can very quickly start caring about what life might be like for their decendants in 3 000 years time, that there might be more than a forlorn hope for the integrity of our societies. -
mikeh1 at 14:55 PM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
"was posted online on Mar 14, 2912" And I just read Kate's article which starts with "To the citizens of the world in the year 5000: It’s 2012, and nobody is thinking about you" You are a third of the way there.Moderator Response: [JH] Unforced error corrected. -
mohyla103 at 14:49 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Daniel Bailey, thanks for your detailed explanation and links. I learned, among other things, that snow cover in the accumulation zone throughout the summer and not just snowfall in the winter is necessary to maintain the glacier's mass balance. The thing I don't understand is from post 178 from Tom Curtis. Since I'm not sure if he will answer me or not, perhaps you could help clarify this? He said that glaciers "help prevent floods, and prevent seasonal water shortages". I understand how they prevent seasonal water shortages, but how do they help prevent floods? -
actually thoughtful at 14:29 PM on 20 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
John - I am glad you did this and that it went so well. I am not sure what your skill set/career path was when you started SkS, but you are becoming a world-class expert in the psychology of educating hostile minds. I hope you find a way to make money doing that. -
Old Mole at 14:06 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
JMurphy @23 What is really astounding about the statement you cite is "I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee ... " ... a larger load of balderdash would be hard to find anywhere. He didn't become committee chairman until (albeit very briefly) 2001, and actually got to sit there for a while in 2003. Prior to that, he was best known for calling the Environmental Protection Agency "the Gestapo" and comparing the EPA administrator to Tokyo Rose. Calling the Torygraph a 'left-wing paper' seems like a mischaracterization, but he is actually so far to the political right that from his standpoint it is accurate. The scary thing is that there are actually seven sitting Republican Senators even farther to the right than he is. -
Byron Smith at 12:43 PM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
@5&6 - Though this is ostensibly "a letter to the future", it is, of course, first and foremost, a letter to the present, through the rhetorical device of addressing the future. @1. The ancient Greeks deforested Greece and caused the local extinction of various megafauna (including the lion). Plato was already musing on the causes and effects of deforestation. Greece has never really recovered ecologically from this, and the soil erosion it suffered as a result has been one of the sources of its subsequent poverty. @Kate. Thank you. An excellent and moving letter. -
actually thoughtful at 12:30 PM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Thanks Michael Sweet - I am not advocating a deep ocean strategy, but I do think if we had another 100 years we would have an even easier technical solution that we have now. The fact is, we could solve global warming within 20 years - if we ever decide we want to. The technology exists now. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:22 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
@ mohyla103 Precipitation falling on a glacier is a case-dependent thing. Remember that the mass-balance of a glacier is a dynamic output of gains in the accumulation zone factored against losses in the ablation zone. Other variables are temperature, insolation, form of the precipitation, etc. That precipitation falling in the accumulation as snow typically gets compacted over time and eventually is converted into ice. During the summer melt, even the accumulation zone may contain melt pools or even melt lakes. These are drained via moulins into the body of the ice mass into the internal plumbing drainwork of the glacier. That precipitation falling as rain will largely be carried off via runoff of the outside of the glacier or into the interior plumbing. Glaciers not at their terminal extent often have a lake that forms at the terminal end of the glacier, impounded between the icy tongue of the glacier and the terminal moraine of rock, silt and soil that serves the function of a dam. These glacial dam-formed lakes can empty and fill according to the mass-balance of the glacier. High melt seasons can fill the lake beyond capacity, sometimes resulting into a catastrophic collapse and flood. When these occur, many thousands of people living in the flood plains below can perish in the massive walls of water and mud that ensue. How warming is affecting alpine glaciers is the reduction of the accumulation zones and the increases of the ablation zones. The result is a tilting of the vast majority of the mass-balances of the alpine glaciers of the world. Even those of the Himalayas (a post on this is in the works). HTH. Some resources for you: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/global%20glacier%20mass%20balance.htm http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/glacier%20survival.html http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/ http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/ -
John Hartz at 12:03 PM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Please note that I have amended the OP by adding the name of the source paper and a link to its Abstract. -
mohyla103 at 11:48 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
I still don't understand how a glacier can absorb a large precipitation event (of snow) and help prevent flooding. A large dump of snow would not come rushing down the mountain all at once anyway, since it's not liquid. Presumably this large dump would melt slowly throughout the spring, and possibly into the summer. This seems like pretty good flood control. Obviously I'm missing something here... what is it? "Please note that large precipitation events on glaciers will generally be snow - being on the tops of mountains, and all that." Certainly rain is possible on some glaciers during summer days. The temperature can be warmer and even above freezing, it being summer, and all that. I'll take your sentence to mean that discussion of rain events is not relevant here, though. -
John Hartz at 11:27 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Suggested reading: “Sinking land shows East Antarctic ice sheet is stable”, by Sara Reardon, New Scientist, Mar 19, 2012 This article sheds more light on the significance of the findings discussed in the OP. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:52 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Hey, Kate!!!! Very well written! I love this (both the style and the sentiment). Kudos. -
Zen69 at 10:20 AM on 20 March 2012Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Thanks for the link. From the discussion at Nevens its clear that Ms Slingos comments seem to be odds at what other scientists are saying. But I should imagine that her comments will be used by 'skeptics' to justify their exclusion of ice volume measurements and, in this case, they can point to a credible source to back up their argument. -
R. Gates at 10:16 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Very nice sentiment, and actually, is a bit optimistic in thinking that there would be an educated and organized enough human civilization around in the year 5000 to be able to read and understand this electronically posted comment. Even if you printed in out on paper in several of the major languages of today, and hid it away in some vault, it is still a bit of a stretch to imagine that there would be an educated person able to read a language from 3000 years prior. Such an education to read ancient languages would require an advanced civilization, and an advanced civilization requires a fairly stable climate and robust food supply. -
scaddenp at 10:03 AM on 20 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
yocta - this is an open question as far as I know. Figuring out how (or if) GW will affect ENSO would greatly enhance regional predictions but I dont think there is a strong position on this available yet. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:57 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
A timely post, which raises our sights above the immediate crisis we are facing. When we bury our 'letter to the future' in a time capsule, perhaps we should also include a modern equivalent to the Rosetta Stone, providing keys to translation across as many languages as we can, for there is no guarantee that our generations in 3000 years will have the dubious benefits of our language, or level of education, or analogues to our technologies. IMHO, due to the destruction of much of our habitat, there is no guarantee that Homo sapiens sapiens will be recognisable as the dominant species in 3000 years, in spite of Senator Inhofe's assurance that God is in control and everything will work out fine. Will anyone be around in 3000 years, to dig up our time capsule? Perhaps we had better make it strong enough to endure burial for a much longer time, or shoot it out beyond Pluto on a NASA mission, ready to be collected like post restante mail addressed to the next hi-tech civilisation that arises. Perhaps our letter should begin "Dear Intelligent Species, ..." -
yocta at 09:07 AM on 20 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Looking at figure 2 with the ENSO graph it appeared on my first glance that since about 2004 it looked that it is starting to get more extreme in both directions for longer amounts of time. I.e the Amplitude is increasing and the frequency is decreasing. My impression was that human induced climate change was effecting it. I decided to look over a longer time period and found an image with the ENSO index since 1950 here and it would appear that there is no such trend. But my question is, can human induced climate change (I.E a steadily raising baseline in temperatures, sea level changes, and changes in sea temperatures) have an effect on the ENSO cycle, intensity or induce feedbacks etc? ENSO is related to sea temperatures after all and sea temperatures are changing. I read here that predicting when the climate shifts to an El of La period is difficult but can people expect that say by 2050 the ENSO index will be similar to the image I linked to? Sorry if this is OT but I am referring to the image on this blog post. -
michael sweet at 08:52 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Actually Thoughtful, The heat transferred into the abyss is already considered in the models. Recently, Hansen has argued that the aerosol dimming is greater than modeled and the amount of heat transferred into the deep ocean less. If the aerosol dimming is greater that means more heating when the Chinese finally clean up their act. There is not consensus on this issue and a lot of data needs to be collected to determine exactly what is happening. The abyssal ocean is not a free pass to transfer the heat out 1000 years in the future. In any case, most of the heat is shallow enough to interact with the surface in the near term. -
It's not bad
mohyla103 - Please note that large precipitation events on glaciers will generally be snow - being on the tops of mountains, and all that. Rate of flow from a glacier is dependent upon melt at the base end of the glacier, not recent precipitation at the top (which affects available glacial melt mass years to multiple decades later). Snowpack, on the other hand, melts yearly. You won't see a lot of rain on glacial origin locations... -
mohyla103 at 07:13 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
KR Thank you for the direct answer. Sorry to all for cluttering the board with this but it truly was a misunderstanding. Yes, moving on then I do have one final question. Tom Curtis said that glaciers can absorb large precipitation events and thus help prevent floods. How does this happen? If it's snow, I understand a glacier can absorb it. However, wouldn't this snow still be available for later use downstream upon melting, regardless of whether it lands on a glacier or the ground? How does snow's absorption by a glacier confer an advantage or help prevent flooding? If it's rain, I don't understand how a glacier absorbs it at all. Logicman in post 176 said that rainwater just runs off glaciers and does not add to its mass. This seems reasonable and nobody corrected this but was he oversimplifying? -
actually thoughtful at 07:10 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Rob, Thanks, I get the high level, but what I am asking is, is this a change in the general notion of +2-9C by century's end with BAU? Is this a revision of our understanding of the climate, or is it merely highlighting something that the models and climate scientists are well aware of, and it is therefore already baked into our general understanding of our climate? -
CBDunkerson at 06:56 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Phil wrote: "...here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record" Cue 'skeptic' cries of 'conspiracy and fraud!' in 3, 2, 1... -
Phil at 06:46 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
I'm sure you'll do a blog entry on this in due course, but in the meantime here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record, rather than 1998, bringing it into line with NASA and NOAA -
It's not bad
mohyla103 - That's clearly what Tom Curtis meant, it certainly was my interpretation when I read his original post, and at this point I should think the issue is clarified. Both snowpacks and glaciers (as, essentially, snowpack compressed to ice, undergoing flow through internal deformation under their own weight) are reservoirs of winter precipitation, feeding freshwater supplies down hill. Perhaps we could move on, now??? -
funglestrumpet at 06:16 AM on 20 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
The Week in Review should include all posts (Monckton 2 and 3 did not appear on the daily posts announcements and neither did Lindzen's Junk Science. I don't think any post should appear on the 'Latest Posts' sidebar until they have been notified on the daily listing as having actually been posted.) The Week in Review should have the additional information of the number of comments each has attracted to date, which would give some idea of the interest it has generated. Perhaps a new feature could be a rolling hit parade of the posts that have attracted the most attention in the previous 12 months, in terms of comments, of course. That might give an indication of which topics press the most buttons in the eyes of those attracted to this site. Just a thought starter - admittedly not too deeply considered on my part - would be to have a each commenter's number of posts in the previous 12 months after their name. If on each comment, commenters had to rate out of 10 the factual quality of the post being commented on, it would enable a rating of commenters to be developed in terms of being deniers or genuine skeptics, or somewhere in between, also put after their name. That would be useful in pre-judging the value of the comment. Some people will automatically find fault with anything that doesn't support their pre-conceived ideas on climate change and quite frankly it is not worth even reading what they have to say in any depth, just a skim will often surfice. If I want stupidity, I have an over-supply of it in Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4, especially Prime Minister's Questions (try it for size and then you will see why it is so difficult to get action from them). -
mohyla103 at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @217 Correction: could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural frozen reservoirs"? -
scaddenp at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
I'll look forward to reading the paper, but frankly its nice to get some good news from the climate front for a change. -
mohyla103 at 05:52 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @215 It seems I can't convince you of my sincerity, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt anyway and continue the discussion. A simple direct answer from you would be more helpful in avoiding misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I think I understand now that you originally meant (2), but I interpreted it as (1), as (2) is a simile and (1) is the literal description. (?) You had originally said in 178 that these natural dams can absorb large precipitation events. I thought this meant it helped the watershed absorb the precipitation (rain) by holding the water behind it, like a dam. I wasn't sure I understood this correctly at the time so I searched online about glaciers as natural dams and all I found were articles about glacial ice or moraine dams, glacial lakes and outburst floods. I invite you to try this search yourself, and hopefully you will understand that me interpreting "natural dams" literally was not "typically ridiculous" but a natural misunderstanding of the phrase. Since your intended meaning seems to be like (2) could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural reservoirs" since you seem to be referring to precipitation held in the glacier itself, not blocked up behind it in a glacial lake? Or am I still way off? -
funglestrumpet at 05:20 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Doc Snow @ 1 My! I wish I had 20/20 hindsight. It would be really useful to appear clever by being able to state the flipping obvious. But there again, appearances can be deceptive. -
Rob Painting at 05:14 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
AT@ 59 - heat going into the deep ocean will not affect the surface for a very long time - most likely around a thousand years according to multiple studies. However, that overlooks the very obvious fact that the surface layers of the ocean are warming too, as one would logically expect. That heat in the surface layers will affect global surface temperatures - perhaps as soon as the next 3-5 years. See SkS posts: NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future. -
Doc Snow at 05:04 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Done--and I'm reminded that there is no surviving image of Wells himself, either (though there is a drawing of one of his sisters.) -
Doc Snow at 04:57 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks, Dave. I'll update the caption as you suggest. -
davesouza at 04:45 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Nice article, interesting and informative. I knew of his contribution on natural selection but didn't appreciate Wells had worked in these other areas. A quibble: you show a nice picture of the dome of Edinburgh University's Old College, but the foundation stone for that building was only laid in 1789, after Wells had left, and due to wartime delays building works continued until 1840. The dome itself was left out at that time as a cost saving, and was only built in 1887, as shown at Edinburgharchitecture. So rather an anachronism. Unfortunately the earlier university buildings were demolished and I don't know of any sources for pictures, but perhaps the caption could indicate that the picture shows the university after the time that Wells was there. Wikipedia has an image of the Old College before the dome was built, but not of the earlier buildings. -
actually thoughtful at 04:44 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Wild claims aside, an interesting question has been raised, specifically, is heat in the deep oceans a long-term issue, and not short term? Is this a notable deferral of global warming, or a minor side-note. We might benefit from a SkS post on this, or at least a cogent Tom Curtis reply (as if there such a thing as a non-cogent Tom Curtis reply...). While I suspect this is a non-issue from the big picture that the world is warming (now), and man is to blame, if it comes up here, we will certainly see it out in the wild soon. -
GaryB at 04:08 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Nicely written, although a bit beyond the reach of most people's conscience. It's nice to see a pro-science blog from the Canadian prairies - an oddball within the heart of Canadian conservatism and anti-science. -
Doc Snow at 03:56 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks, Neven, soo. It is rather amazing to find how deep the roots go for some of this knowledge. And as for the "horrible wordplay"--all I can say is "GOL"--groan out loud! -
Doc Snow at 03:53 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Excellent. It is far too easy for humans to ignore what is real, but far off. I know, there are reasons for this. Sometimes it's even adaptive--as when we focus on what we can control, and ignore what we have no influence over. But the current situation demonstrates that this tendency can also be horribly dangerous. -
tmac57 at 03:27 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
I walk my two dogs everyday in and around my neighborhood.As I walk I tend to look down a lot,and very often I find nails,screws,etc. (hundreds over the years)that can cause a flat tire.I pick them up despite the fact that I have a bad back,and sketchy knees.I do this,because I would want someone to do the same for me. I have had flat tires (usually caused by nails and screws) many times in my life,and it is always a pain in the neck.It can also put people in a life threatening situation,for example on a busy highway trying to change a tire,or sudden loss of control resulting in a serious or fatal accident.So with those thoughts in my mind,I cannot pass up those potential hazards.I pick them up. You could use a nail left on the road as a metaphor for the carbon footprints that we leave for future travelers on our planet.Let's not leave them something that might be the final nails in their coffins. -
Composer99 at 03:06 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
I suspect the ancient Greeks didn't put a lot of thought into their descendents 3,000 years into their future (e.g. today). However, it must be noted that they and their fellow humans did not possess the means to radically alter the living conditions of their distant successors - whereas we do, and indeed we are doing just that (in addition to radically altering living conditions in our own lifetimes). -
soo doh nim at 03:00 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
To quote Plato, "It is right to give every man his dew". Horrible wordplay aside, that was a most enjoyable read. -
Tom Curtis at 02:27 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Sphaerica @212, I think the map is suspect in sustaining your point. The distribution of rice, wheat and corn production are clearly heavily influenced by demand side economic factors. Further, they clearly take a nation wide average so that Australia's vast deserts result in low or medium productivity despite Australia having some of the richest and most extensive wheat growing regions in the world. Transferring this to Canada, it means the current limited arability of the Canadian Arctic is averaged with the southern wheat growing areas of Canada, and are not indicative of grain productivity in those southern areas. Having said that, your more general point is well taken. With a six month growing season, it is difficult to imagine corn prospering within the Arctic circle, not matter what the temperature. Never-the-less, a there is substantial room for a northward shift in Canadian agricultural production before the Arctic Circle is reached. The projected 2050 wheat production areas below are well south of the Arctic Circle:
On the other hand, a similar northward migration of wheat production between 2050 and 2100 would bring the northern regions of production within the Arctic Circle and a possible hard limit on northerly extent on production. As you say, the situation is complicated, but clearly the notion that a northerly migration of agriculture under business as usual will compensate for loss of productivity in tropical and temperate lands is not sustainable (either intellectual, or into the future). The situation is worse in the Southern Hemisphere with a definite hard limit on production in the form of the southern coast lines of the continents.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:26 AM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129... Just to reinforce Sphaerica's comments. I think you're misreading that passage of the IPCC TAR. First, it's probably a good idea to move on past the TAR and read from AR4. And bear in mind even that report came out in 2007 and was based on science that was current in 2005. They are starting up work on AR5 now. Second, what they are saying they can't do is predict exactly what parts of the planet are going to be affected in what ways. This is what's important for individual countries in how they will each respectively deal with mitigation efforts. The overarching science is settled. There is a greenhouse effect. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. We are the cause of most of the current warming. Things are going to get warmer if we continue to add GHG's to the atmosphere. There are also uncertainties but they are pretty well constrained. Climate sensitivity is likely somewhere between 2C - 4C. The difference being, we have some time to bring out GHG levels down or we have very little time to bring our GHG levels down. As Dr Stephen Schneider said, "'Good for you' and 'end of the world' are the two lowest probability outcomes." There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how long we have to get the problem under control. Whether this is real or not is not a legitimate discussion. -
michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Eric: You are shifting the goal posts from your previous wild claim. The paper you have cited is the equilibrium time for the abyss. Most of the energy does not go into the abyss. You claimed: "considering the entirety of the oceans, the equilibrium time you are talking about is 1000's of years, simply not worth caring about. The oceans are sinking heat that won't come back (i.e. water is being warmed from 35 to 35.1 or something along those lines). If that water comes back to the surface it will cool the atmosphere" This is simply untrue. The great majority of the heat in the ocean is currently interacting with the atmosphere and melting ice. About 80-90% of the ocean warming occurs in 40 years. It will be 800-1000 years (not "thousands") until equilibrium, but the surface ocean is currently warmer. The warmer ocean affects current weather: have you noticed the unseasonal tornadoes this year in the USA? We need to care now about the heat in the ocean now. Your claims recently have been wild and unsupported. For example here when you suggested poor countries could shift to manufacturing when their agriculture was destroyed by drought. What will they eat? Please start citing scientific studies when you make a claim. You will then reduce the number of wild claims. -
Bernard J. at 02:04 AM on 20 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Still curious if a debunking of Plimer's latest book is still on the cards? -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Mohyla @214, how can it be a sincere question when the question has already been answered? -
mohyla103 at 01:03 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @ 207 "Mohyla has mistaken a simile for a literal description. As the "mistake" involves a typically ridiculous interpretation, there was IMO no basis for it." You said that glaciers act as "natural dams", so I thought you meant: natural - it's a glacier, not man-made, therefore it's natural dam - something that holds back liquid water in a river system Please explain how my interpretation was "typically ridiculous"? It seems like quite a reasonable, if incorrect, interpretation to me. "Therefore I presumed the "mistake" to be a debating technique and discussion with Mohyla to necessarily to be fruitless in that once people start to intentionally misunderstand you, they are not interested in sincere discussion." I most certainly did not "intentionally" misunderstand you and to suggest I did is rude and debasing. Thank a lot for simply ignoring my mistake and assuming I was just out to cause trouble for the sake of trouble, instead of trying to further clarify your meaning first. It seems you have overestimated my intelligence here. I will ask once more, this time to the correct person. Please understand this is a sincere question: Did you mean: 1) that glaciers act as true barriers that hold liquid water back behind them, and prevent/control its release downstream? or 2) that glaciers act somewhat like a dam in that they hold precipitation (in the form of snow and ice) at a higher altitude? or 3) something else? -
mohyla103 at 00:30 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Bernard J. @ 205 You're right, of course, that question should have been directed at Tom Curtis. I didn't notice a third person had entered the glaciers as natural dams discussion. Sorry to you and Tom Curtis for the mixup. I am all for clearing up misunderstandings, which is precisely why I asked the question. It wasn't until I read your post saying glaciers "do not impound water" that I realized there must be some misunderstanding because that is exactly what a literal dam does. My misunderstanding was not intentional. "...much of your scepticism appears to originate from a confusion over the actual science, and/or about what people mean when they report it." I'm not sure what other cases you're referring to? I will refer you to post 199 and the discussion with JMurphy leading up to it, where I showed that in fact my reading of the original sources was correct and it was Barnett who was confused and/or did not report data accurately in his paper. Clearing up misunderstandings is a good thing, be they my own or ones in published papers. -
Neven at 23:57 PM on 19 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable read, Doc. It's these looks into history that make me realize how long human knowledge on weather and climate has been accumulating. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:47 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
211, Tom, While Manny's (and your) argument concerning sunlight versus temperature (i.e. multiple limiting factors on growth) is applicable to the case of plant life in general, we are talking specifically about crops that are useful for agriculture, and that produce a reasonable yield. Both yield and crop type are dependent on length of growing season among other factors. If you reference this map you can see that productivity for all northern latitudes is severely hampered (note that the coloration for Alaska is certainly wrong... it's been colored as a part of the USA, I'm sure, and not relative to its own actual crop yields). In particular, you will note that corn is never grown at northern latitudes. It must generally be planted in May and is not ready to harvest until October. When you add the problems with soil (much of the soil in northern latitudes having been scraped clean by glacial action, with no chance for later plant growth to replenish the soil), chances of achieving "good" crop productivity in northern latitudes due to climate change do not look promising. In my own direct experience, some years back I had a tremendous tomato garden on the south side of the house, despite being too far north to really expect to get good tomatoes. Being right against the foundation and chimney, the ground got very warm, and it was the one part of my property (ringed by trees) that got good sunlight through the growing season. The only drawback was that as the sun moved further south in August (just as the fruit should be reaching maturity), it would begin to dip below the tree line and shorten the length of the day. After about five years, my tomatoes wouldn't ripen. The trees at the south side of my property had continued to grow taller and to encroach over my lawn, with the end result that they cut off the sunlight too soon. I had lush, wonderful plants covered with fruit that never came close to maturity.Moderator Response: [JH] Fried green tomatoes? (:
Prev 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 Next
