Recent Comments

Prev  520  521  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  Next

Comments 26351 to 26400:

26351. TheCabbage at 02:55 AM on 20 December 2015
       It's the ocean
       

       At least that is my understanding.  I think the cause is high atmospheric partial pressure of CO2.

26352. TheCabbage at 02:51 AM on 20 December 2015
       It's the ocean
       

       I think there's a basic point that a lot of people are missing here.  If the ocean was causing the warming, it would release excess CO2.  This is the case during natural warming cycles.  However, atmospheric CO2 is observed to be increasing while the ocean is becoming more acidic (i.e. still absorbing CO2).  This obviously points to a terrestrial CO2 source, but more importantly, it is evidence that the ocean is not the warming cause since oceanic CO2 is not decreasing.

26353. criordon at 02:16 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Robert Test writes: "Let me emphasize my position: AGW is well-supported by a convergence of multiple lines of evidence - just not the evidence that the author of the above piece provides."

       The author of the piece is not actually providing evidence.  He is referring to fields of study which have found evidence which undeniably supports AGW, not only from the sources cited by the author of the piece, but also from a host of other sources which all indicate the same conclusion - AGW.

       Robert Test needs to insert this denial of validity of the lines of evidence cited by the author, in order to logically construct an argument denying the validity of this evidence as proof of AGW.

       As Mr. Test summarizes: "In short, is there anything like a Whewellian convergence of evidence showing multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory that that (sic) carbon dioxide is causing the warming? I would like to see this narrative better developed than it was here."

       Mr. Test, did you not say just above this:"First, I completely accept the fact that we are causing global warming by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The evidence is abundant."?  This is known as circular logic, and such arguments are untenable.

       While only 97% to 98% of scientists accept AGW as essentially fact, and the IPCC concensus is that the probability that the warming is human caused is greater than 99% based on dozens of indicators (the vast majority of which are in fact referred to in the most recent IPCC report).

       I would just like to iterate here that the author of this piece is not attempting to give an exhaustive analysis of all the underlying lines of evidence used to reach the conclusion that AGW is an undeniable reality, but merely referring to some of the most commonly known indicators which have helped us construct a climate record and allow us to compare our present epoch with prior ones.  Perhaps one of the lines of evidence you wished to see referred to here is the carbon isotope analyses wherein the fossil fuel signature is stamped into our modern air? In all but the most theoretical sense, AGW is an undeniable fact, so ipso facto, climate contrarians are wrong.

26354. robert test at 01:39 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Thank you for reprinting excerpts of the piece published in Scientific American. It is leading me to reread Whewell.

       Unfortunately, the author here seems to me to completely misread Whewell treating his theory of rationality as much less important than it actually is and getting his essential ideas completely wrong. Whewell uses the term 'induction' but it means something other than our usual notion of inductive inference. It's closer to Pierce's notion of abduction.

       The author has Whelwell sounding like an old Cartesian – to believe a theory it must be supported by a consilience of inductions. No, – Whelwell's claim is the opposite of this: a consilience of inductions is sufficient to warrant belief in the theory. Consilience is sufficient to verify a theory. Whewell makes a much stronger claim and offers a much more sophisticated analysis of scientific rationality than the author suggests.

       But Whewell aside, the author makes a more egregious error. First, I completely accept the fact that we are causing global warming by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The evidence is abundant.

       The author of this piece seems to conflate the evidence for warming with the evidence of the human cause of this warming.

       He cites “multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion.”

       But the conclusion is global warming. Only the last two "lines of evidence" i.e., increase in CO2 emission and unprecedented rate of warming are causally related to anthropological global warming.

       Certainly the author is right to point to a convergence of evidence for human causation and I believe there is such a convergence. And the author is right in saying that opponents of AGW need to display a convergence of evidence supporting a different, better, and more coherent theory that explains the data.

       Opponents of AGW have utterly failed. But so has the author of this piece.

       Let me emphasize my position: AGW is well-supported by a convergence of multiple lines of evidence - just not the evidence that the author of the above piece provides.

       The author of the above piece shows in the end that he understands the problem. Opponents of AGW have no coherent opposing theory – its the sun, its natural cycles, its cherry picking here and there. This is important

       I know that there are many who write for this site that are capable of writing a piece, as eloquent as the one above, excerpted from Scientific American, but do a better job with the science and the evidence for human causation.

       In short, is there anything like a Whewellian convergence of evidence showing multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory that that carbon dioxide is causing the warming? I would like to see this narrative better developed than it was here.

26355. wili at 15:07 PM on 19 December 2015
       Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
       

       A nice piece on abrupt change: www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156259630160335&set=o.595155763929949&type=3&theater

26356. John Mason at 12:47 PM on 19 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       No proofs in science, Paul, just (as #9 inferred) an overwhelming weight of converging lines of evidence.

       The "climate's always changed" approach, as used by the likes of Donald Trump among others - well perhaps "myth" is not the best term to use. "Massive cop-out" may be more accurate. On that basis, one could suggest disbanding the Police Force, because "there's always been crime".

       But when structures that have stood for centuries get severely compromised by a weather event in 2015, we ought rightly to ask, "why now??". It's a fair question.

26357. Mal Adapted at 07:38 AM on 19 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       PaulG:

       The idea that humans can predict, or control, climate change, isn't new, but I regard that as still unproven.

       You're apparently not a scientist, but presumably you're aware that scientists never speak of proof, only of levels of confidence. 

       For those of us who aren't specialists in climate science, and thus aren't qualified to rigorously evaluate the multiple, converging lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, the existence of a lop-sided consensus of qualified experts (defined as those who have published peer-reviewed research on climate change) ought to be persuasive. Those experts are highly confident that:

       1. Humans are changing the climate, principally by burning fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere; and

       2. That leaving the remaining fossil carbon in the ground will largely avert more severe climate change. 

       If you're not a specialist in climate science, and the existence of the consensus doesn't persuade you, one suspects that nothing ever will.

26358. PaulG at 05:21 AM on 19 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information.

       I can't think of a reason, though, why you describe "climate's always changed" as a myth.

       I know you can't really mean that, but I don't know why you would put that statement in your article.  Seems totally out of place.

       You describe the recent destruction of centuries-old bridges as evidence that "floods have always occurred" is another myth. I don't see your logic.  I would surmise that there is plenty of evidence that severe floods have occurred throughout the globe for millions of years, and I expect the evidence -where it exists - would also show that each flood event is unique, with unique consequences. 

       If you are saying that floods in some parts of the UK seem to be more severe recently, I think that is a fair observation.

       The idea that humans can predict, or control, climate change, isn't new, but I regard that as still unproven.

       Adaptation is critical, and that we can do.

26359. wili at 04:17 AM on 19 December 2015
       Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
       

       Thanks, Tom.

       So do you rule out the possibility of a 'step change' or discontinuity happening at sometime?

26360. One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 19 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       william and CBDunkerson,

       The real problem in the US is not the GOP. The real problem is the power of undeserving people to gather popular support for policy and action that they can understand is unacceptable (but hope to keep their misled supporters from better understanding), policy that will temporarily benefit a portion of humanity to the detriment of the rest of humanity because that is what 'socioeconomic competitors ' do if they can get away with it - try to build the perception thta they are winners in comparison to others (the extremist of this group are criminals and terrorists but the callous fundamantalists of the group are cheaters who can create consequences that are far worse than an individual criminal or terrorist, they actually crashed the entire global economy once and won't mind if it happens again as long as they get away with what they want to get away with).

       Developing better understand and applying that action to advance humanity toward a lasting better future for all is fundamentally contrary to 'their' interests, because they will be effectively blocked from 'the freedom to compete and get what they want in the manner they would like to get away with'.

       And those throuble-making competitors are not 'the GOP' (and not even the Tea Party). They are represented by the House Freedom Caucus which is a group of about 40 members of Congress who can collectively control what the GOP does.

       And the real trouble-makers are not the elected members who are in the House Freedom Caucus. The real trouble-makers are all the people in the American population who are tempted to like the understood to be greedy and intolerant claims that are carefully packaged to sound 'reasonable', like nonsense claims that 'Freedom is under fire if there are any limits on gun ownership'. And the ring-leaders of that group (the biggest trouble-makers) hide in the shadows. They fund the attack ads and promotional ads that are used to motivate people who are interested in getting elected to 'do the bidding of the undeserving wealthy string-pullers in the shadows' because of their ability to mobilize easily impressed voter support through carefully crafted misleading messages (messages created abusing the very well-developed science of misleading marketing).

       Simply claiming that the GOP is the problem can generate 'a distraction, or pointless debate' that delays the ability of collective humanity to properly identify the real trouble-makers and threats to its advancement, which is exactly what the callous greedy will try to abuse to prolong or expand their undeserved run of 'winning', even in ways they know are unjustified and will almost certainly be to the detriment of others (because all they care about is being seen as winning more than others any way they can get away with for as long as possible).

26361. bratisla at 00:19 AM on 19 December 2015
       Haitians are noticing climate change impacts on extreme weather and agriculture
       

       I happened to have spent one year in the Carribean for some projects (related to regional seismicity and the production of a website including a new seismicity catalog). Although this is not my main area of expertise, I may add some points :

       - drought conditions this year were experienced throughout the entire Carribean islands. It rained while it should have been dry, and the next months were very dry while it should have rained (even in July or August). My fellow hydrogeologist colleagues were actually worried about the river levels, and the state representative in Guadeloupe actually declared a drought state and forbade car cleaning and similar actions. These islands usually have several meters/year of rain, and the deficit until September was quite noticeable. 

       - about seaweed, it appeared first in 2011 and arrived in large amounts in 2012. People from the french DEAL (Environment direction) in GUadeloupe tracked the seaweed back to its birth zone using satellite images ; it appears that a second seaweed zone is appearing near Brazil, where it is fueled by all the nutriments carried by the rivers since the forests are cut and the soil is washed away, by the Sahara sand carried by winds, and - more to the point of this blog - increasing water temperatures. It is a real plague : the beaches are covered with huge amounts of rotting seaweed whose stench is unbearable (you can easily imagine the effect on tourism) ... 

       The only source I have is in french (unfortunately) : 

       LINK

       but at the end of the document some other sources are listed

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

26362. CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 18 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       william, actually due to GOP obstruction Obama has needed to go it alone on restricting US emissions. Everything he has done has been within the bounds of applying existing laws. Which means there is nothing congress can do to stop him - other than beg the Supreme Court to pretend that it is unconstitutional. Which is probably a stretch even for the five geniuses who ruled that corporations are 'persons' with religious rights. Nor would Bernie Sanders (or Hillary Clinton, who has also said that she would continue and extend Obama's actions) require congressional majorities.

       On the other hand, a GOP president could equally reverse those actions. That said, coal was dying in the US even before Obama's EPA actions. He's really taking credit (or blame from the GOP) for the already inevitable collapse of that industry. Further, much of the US is moving on emissions without the federal government... state and even city governments have gone much further in pushing reductions than the federal government has.

       Thus, I think the US will continue to make progress on emissions (per capita emissions have been declining since 1973) regardless of who is in congress or the presidency... just faster if democrats are running things. 

       As to "leadership" vs agreeing to "stop dragging the chain"... the difference is largely semantic. The Paris agreement was possible because the two most powerful countries / biggest GHG emitters got together and agreed to take action the year before. Essentially, the US & China are 'leaders' by default... until last year they were leading us to catastrophe because the rest of the world stopping emissions wouldn't matter (or happen) if those two countries didn't. Now that they are belatedly on board with what most (not all) of the rest of the world had been trying to do, every country on the planet has signed on to the agreement.

26363. wili at 22:50 PM on 18 December 2015
       Wind energy is a key climate change solution
       

       This piece presents a grimly realistic view of how far we have to go and how far we haven't come: www.vox.com/2015/12/14/10121638/fossil-fuel-dominance

       "Oil, gas, and coal still make up about 86 percent of the world's energy supply — a fraction that has barely budged since 1997"

26364. adskankster at 20:06 PM on 18 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Thanks John.

       Re-the afforestation at height and rewilding, I was under the impression was that the general idea was to plant trees lower down and let nature take its course. If this leaves barer tops in the higher areas, that's how it would be. I could of course be misinterpreting and, like most things, I expect there's a range of ideas/opinions, etc. amongst them. 

       I think, should things get going, then the very nature of it would mean that the plans would (have to) adapt to what the climate allows.

       At Kinder Scout in the Peaks (my parochial area of interest), there's an idea to plant the cloughs, and let the top stay as peat bog. The Eastern end though would probably tree up if it was allowed to, with mainly the Western end to remain largely clear, or populated by only sparse, small trees. IIRC, there have been larger trees up there (as evidenced by pollen studies), but they may have been in warmer climes.

26365. william5331 at 16:14 PM on 18 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #49
       

       The sign of whether or not politicians are taking their COP21 commitments seriously will be whether or not they pick the low hanging fruit; the easily legislated measures which will begin to make a difference.  For instance they could tip the playing field in favour of electric cars.  This is a particularly gentle measure since Electric cars are not yet quite there for a large porportion of the driving public.  Taking these measures now will signal the players in the market of what is coming and be much easier than doing it when the third generation Tesla is in full production.  Doing it now allows car dealers, mechanics, oil companies and so forth to prepare.  A second easy measure would be to impliment Hansen's Tax and Dividend.  No need for a large tax but only a legislated tax increasing year by year by a predetermined amount.  This would also be a very gentle measure also in terms of it's speed of disruption.  Cap and trade measures have conclusively been shown not to work, to be easil scammed and to only make the banks and traders richer instead of the people.

       http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/legislation-for-electric-cars.html

26366. william5331 at 15:50 PM on 18 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       What incredible self serving twadle.  A result of American leadership???  I don't think so.  If Obama has his way, America will stop dragging the chain but he probably won't be able to take the Senate and Congress along with him so back to America dragging the chain.  The only chance to get America on board is to elect Bernie with a majority in both houses.  Even then he will have his work cut out for him.  The Dems are only marginally less blinkered than the GOP.

26367. bozzza at 11:18 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MDP said: Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands. Planes will only fly by jet engines, and electric cars, trucks, trains, all get their kilowatts from some form of enegy generation, which right now is mostly from burning things. Logically we should be jumping all over 4th generation nuclear plant designs and funding research into fusion hugely, but somehow most of the people who are enthusiastic about reducing CO2 output reject any such ideas.

        

       No one ever rejected nuclear power as a reality: it just isn't the solution to global warming. Nuclear Power exists because Nuclear Weapons exist.

       If you are suggesting Nuclear Power is the solution to global warming then you are in effect suggesting the legitimacy of a pseudo-plutonium economy which has already been rejected globally a very long time ago.

       Don't tell me you want to mine moon-rock for fusion, btw: that wasn't even laughed at globally by youtube!!

26368. mancan18 at 08:08 AM on 18 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       Following this thread, there seems to be different interpretations of the success in Paris. Ryland, it is not surprising that despite Paris, the Australian still wants to follow the "coal is good for humanity" editorial line. It is consistent with their political stance and the attitude that the whole Murdoch press has had regarding the climate change debate since it first came to prominence in the 1990s. It will also be the stance that some Republicans in the US will continue to take.

       What is different about Paris is that it has sent a clear message to fossil fuel companies. First, that the world needs to be weened off fossil fuels as the main source of energy. And, second, that fossil fuel companies  have to change if they are to have any long term viability. Rather than repeating the same tired old argument that we need coal to take people out of poverty, Ryland, you should be looking at the big picture. If poorer countries, who have historically had lower emissions per capita, are going to generate some of their power with a mix of fossil fuels and renewables, then that means that the 1st world countries have the responsibility to develop the technology to make renewables more efficient. First, they have the technical exertise where poorer countries don't. Second, in their development over the last century, the 1st world has been responsible for 80% of the emissions so far. Third, third world nations cannot develop their economies using the same old polluting technology that the 1st world used over the last century. This is because, in a little over 100 years, this will send the CO2 levels on the planet to levels unprecedented in recent geological history and this will trigger the catastrophic global warming and climate change that Paris is trying to avoid. Fourth, if this climate change happens, then it is likely to severely impact the 3rd world and would also disrupt the prosperity of the 1st. In other words the 1st world needs to back off on using fossil fuels and transition to renewables much sooner so that the 3rd world can use some fossil fuels and have access to more efficient renewables (developed by the 1st world) in order to gain the necessary economic momentum to develop their economies to the point where the complete transition to renewables becomes economically viable for them.

       In 2015 after Paris, the world does not need the "old world" thinking that the Murdoch press and the fossil fuel companies want to continue to promote for their own personal benefit at the expense of everyone else on the planet. Paris, while not perfect, does send that message. It is a message that should have been sent after Kyoto except for the obfrustcation of the fossil fuel companies and their supporters whose self interested and blinkered thinking have prevented the 1st world from taking effective action in reducing emissions over the last 18 years.

       If we are to have a chance of keeping to 1.5/2 degrees, then the 1st world needs to rapidly transition to renewables so that the 3rd world can have a little of the so called cheaper fossil fuel power generation in their energy mix to help in their development. (Mind you, the cost of building the power grids to use fossil fuel power generation never seems to enter the argument. A community based renewable solution seems to make more sense).  Arguing to just simply burn more coal to alleviate poverty and have the 1st world do nothing to transition to renewables is just deceptive hubris.

       The agreement in Paris regarding emissions is similar to the situation around 1800 regarding slavery. It took another 30 years for Britain to ban slavery throughout its Empire. It took a Civil War in the 1860s to ban slavery throughout the US. Some other colonial empires took until the turn of the 20th century to ban slavery. Yet, today, there is still an illicit hidden slave trade, but at least those invloved are treated as criminals. Whether the world has another 100 years to reduce the use of fossil fuels to the levels needed is of course another question. At least Paris is a start.

26369. Eclectic at 07:35 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Very true, Michael sweet.

       And let me add: Very well said, Philippe @391.   I have been attending SkS for a far shorter time than you ~ so please correct me if my observations are faulty ~ but in that time of mine, I have generally noted that all [posting] newcomers have been treated with welcome & respect, wherever they have raised questions / objections / problems in a skeptical way (a genuinely skeptically scientific way, I mean).

       And appropriately:  the polite "kid gloves" treatment is sometimes not used, on those new posters who angrily insist that 2+2=3 . . . and whose tone and/or statements show an arrogant Dunning-Krugerism ( or, where more intelligent than that, nevertheless exhibit a self-crippling Motivated Reasoning so severe that they can't/won't see the wood for the trees).

       The latter ones very often also exhibit a gigantic hubris or chutzpah . . . which might just be tolerable in an eminent scientist who is demonstrably & totally in the right . . . but which is a tiny bit tiresome otherwise, in the self-appointed Galileos who manage to be 99% in the wrong.   Doubtless the hubris/chutzpah is some sort of over-compensation for inner anxiety [having noticed that all other scientists are "driving the other way"].

26370. John Mason at 07:30 AM on 18 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       #5: yes I mentioned some of the same points in the above post. I don't entirely agree with all of George's thoughts about the uplands, but we are a lot closer in agreement than the official opposition!

26371. michael sweet at 06:06 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       For those who missed it this SkS post described how wind and solar (with a few additions) can power the entire economy.  That is all power, not all electricity.  There are a lot of wind generators but most land is unaffected.  Bird life is not significantly affected.  The objections of MDP are addressed.

       As far as waiting another 5, 10 or 15 years, we already have.  The world finally came around and agreed to start action in Paris.  If you do not look for data and refuse to read what you are presented with you will never be convinced there is a need for action.

26372. Kiwiiano at 05:38 AM on 18 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       For a glimpse of the political angles to this on-going disaster, check out George Monbiot's story from the Guardian.

       http://www.monbiot.com/2015/12/08/a-storm-of-ignorance/

26373. PhilippeChantreau at 04:37 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       I can only smile too, when I see MDP refering to MA Rodger's initial response as an "attack." Perhaps that is because I have formed my opinion about attacks from perusing WUWT or CA, where physical threats or calls to hang people were not unusual. In my early days at SkS, I also endured all sorts of verbal abuse, in comparison to which MA Rodger's remarks would be considered pleasant conversation.

       MDP is trying to use self rightneousness and indignation to distract from the following facts: his initial arguments were wrong, and ample evidence has been provided to show they were. His interpretation of Dr. Mears' point was also in error. Once evidence was provided, MDP tried to use rethorical talking points to dismiss it, none of which so far stands up to scrutiny.

       Ignoring all other temperature records and using only the satellite measurements to argue that warming is not happening is not a scientific way to look at the problem. The weight of the evidence indicates that the satellite measurements are to be considered with skepticism. I see no skeptical mindset from MDP toward them, while he is eager to dismiss all other sources that are far more reliable. Where is the scientific skepticism?

       He also attempted to argue beside the point with the nuclear thing. Rational people are not afraid of nuclear, they simply see how it is not practical on the necessary scale. Besides the waste aspect, the costs are enormous and the plants have limited life spans. These are not trivial problems. France is facing the very serious hurdle of aging nuclear power plants, while the next generation has shown to be 10 years behind schedule, billions of euros over budget and has not yet powered a light bulb. Some "experimental" technologies do way better than that.

       The only reasons mankind would have to not eradicate completely coal burning in the next 50 years are political. They have to do with how much influence the barons of the coal industry have on policy making, not with the physical realities.

       Plenty of unjustified self rightneousness and misplaced indignation, but nothing convincing for evidence and references.

26374. CBDunkerson at 04:07 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MDP: "Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands."

       True, but nearly meaningless. After all, 9999/10000 is "a fraction". Thus, so long as we generate any amount of energy by any means other than sun and wind, those two sources will remain "a fraction". Thus, all you have really said is that we will never get 100% of our power from those two sources. Which no one disputes.

       Your 'logic' on nuclear doesn't make much sense either. Given that nuclear costs are rising, and already higher than solar/wind, there isn't any economic reason to be 'jumping all over' the technology. Rather, it seems inevitable that nuclear power will continue to decline while solar and wind continue to grow. Even the IEA now projects solar and wind becoming dominant by 2050.

26375. Rob Honeycutt at 03:51 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Though this is veering off topic, coming from a manufacturing background, I can promise MDP that some of us here actually do understand the statistical process control (SPC) methods used by Toyota. But, you have to remember the "C" means "control." SPC is method by which you identify when a process if drifting outside control limits so you can take action. This is completely different from, and immensely more simple than, the statistical processes used in climate research. There are certainly related elements but I've worked with SPC for a long time and I can tell you, climate scientists are operating on an entirely different level of sophistication.

26376. Tom Curtis at 03:02 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MarDivPhoto @387 "can only smile" at the fact that just 2% of land area (not global area) can provide 2.8 times our power needs at 10% efficiency (or 1% of wind energy provid all our needs) but can provide no counter-argument except the rhetorical "Actually tapping it all is the challenge" before suggesting we must "build forests of wind turbines across most of the world and watch the bird populations wither" when the specific proposal he is rejecting involves airbourne turbines at  4600 meters altitude in the jets stream (and hence above almost all bird strikes) and involves power densities such that would require much less than 2% of land area to provide all the power we need.

       This proves, if nothing else, that MDP's idea of scientific debate does not involve reading references.

       As that is the only counter argument of mine MDP even adresses, I will leave it at that, save to note that:

       1)  Scientific debate occurs in scientific journals not in blogs.  What occurs in blogs when you raise issues of science without becoming expert in the debate, without a comprehensive review of the literature, and the confident view that the great multitude of studies that do apply those rigours to their participation are wrong, is denial - not scientific debate.

       2)  It appears that leaving, "shaking the dust of your feet" is absolutely different to leaving with your tail between your legs, even though both involved leaving without properly responding to (or even properly reading and/or checking references of) the counter arguments that devestate their own.

       3)  Whatever MDP has been indulging in, it has no ressemblance to reasoned discourse, which of course requires critically looking at evidence, not just cherry picking tropes to confirm your prejudices.

26377. MarDivPhoto at 02:28 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       "Tail between his legs" Really?  Being a combat veteran I have to laugh at such childish phrasings, but it simply reinforces what none of so many distinguished people seem to comprehend, that tolerance and courtesy used to be and should have remained central to reasoned discourse.

       The US gov't agency just announced we've had 117 months of lowered hurricane activity here, which is anecdotal, just as the spate of typhoons in the Orient is.  So whoever wishes to argue for their point of view can pick such data and go with it.

       Someone asked, reasonably, what data I would find really compelling about warming occurring.  The first answer would be if Dr. Mears' graph had shown a much clearer incline in temperatures for the last 15 years.  If people don't happen to understand what SPC statistical practice is, I'm sorry, it's too long to go into here, but it's been a critical tool in industries since the 1930s and was one of the major tools that enabled Japanese auto manufacturers to produce much higher quality autos in the 1970s than we were making here.  US industries have since re-adopted use of SPC broadly.

       The second answer would be when the retreat of both Artic and Antartic ice becomes pronounced and continues every years for at least 4-5 years.

       A third answer would be a very discernible change in coastlines throughout the world, with all of them moving inland.

       All that said, if and when a steady increase in global temperture becomes unmistakeable to all, then proving it is only the result of CO2 increase from 300 to 500 ppm is still a huge question.  As already stated, the models assume ppm changes in CO2 somehow bring on large changes in atmospheric humidity, but I know of no actual evidence of any such interaction.

       I can only smile when someone points out that total wind energy in the world is enormous.  So is tidal energy, so is solar energy.  Actually tapping it all is the challenge.  Will will build forests of wind turbines across most of the world, and watch the bird populations wither?  A firm two years ago wanted to build a solar farm in the vast Southwest desert of the USA.  They were stopped by an environmental group that filed a suit about the possible damage to the local ecology.

       India and China are still building more coal fired plants, so no matter what the recent data say about less CO2 generation, it is guaranteed to keep going up for decades to come.

       Worried about nuclear plants?  France gets 75% of its power from a network of standardized and very safe nuclear plants, and even recycles some forms of nuclear leftovers.  Thorium reactors are great technology that aren't being built.  The actual dangerous nuclear waste is a nonproblem, buried deep underground in tectonically stable regions is as safe as can be.  The Russians put it into dispersed liquid form and pump it down into dry oil well formations that were stable for millions of years, also a reasonable solution and it would sure be hard for anyone to get the stuff back from there.

       Should we try to use energy more efficiently? Absolutely, energy wastage is a scandal in too many places.  Should we explore as much practical use of hydro energy, solar energy, wind energy, and energy from the heat of the earth as possible?  Absolutely.  Should we recycle as much materials as possible, and get rid of the floating masses of plastic in the oceans, etc, replant forests, use water resources more carefully, etc.?  Absolutely, all these are not just good ideas but necessary ones for the future.  But should we jump into creating "carbon credit" exchanges that will make some brokers billionaires and raise the cost of living for everyone else?  I think not.

       Now I will apologize to all for thinking that perhaps I might be able to just introduce some contrasting thoughts about both science and how people, scientists especially, should be able to deal with each other.  I should have realized right away that this forum is solely for people whose minds are made up very firmly already, and that the seemingly beloved practice of denigrating anyone not in the group by the deliberately negative term "denialist" (a term directly relating to true nefarious denial of horrific historical events by the Nazis) demonstrates a sad frame of mind that truly reasonable, courteous people would avoid.

       In five years, or ten, or maybe 15, the facts will reveal themselves.  Hopefully there won't be extreme warming after all, or if there is, we'll have been smart enough to prepare well for it. With that, I bid you adieu, and shake the dust of this place from my sandals.

26378. One Planet Only Forever at 01:11 AM on 18 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       It is important to ensure that the real issues do not get hidden by 'generalizations open to interpretation' especially unspecific statements like 'over-popuation is the problem'.

       Even when population is listed among other issues like the comment by Wyoming @11 (quoted below), the points are not specific enough.

       "We will not be making progress until there are 'actions' which implement a dialogue on the need to drastically reduce population numbers (not just the growth rate), reduce affluence (not raise it), reduce consumption (not raise it), ban burning coal (and use force to make it happen), etc."

       A more detailed presentation regarding each point are:

       • Population - The number of people with high-consuming and high-impact ways of getting personal profit and pleasure is what needs to be dramatically reduced. And the number of people who focus on their personal benefit during their lifetime to the point of dismissing or attacking 'any developing better understanding of the changes required to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all' needs to be brought as near to zero as possible.
       • Affluence - This term is a 'loaded term open to many interpretations'. What really needs to be reduced is undeserved perceptions of affluence developed by people who are willing to pursue their benefit in ways that can be understood to be damaging and ulimately unsustainable (burning fossil fuels, wasteful consumption). Affluence in ways that are a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet actually needs to be increased.
       • Consumption - As mentioned above the highest consuming people need to reduce their consumption and be willing to assist the least fortunate to develop sustainably better lives. Global GDP has grown faster than global population yet billions of people remain in 'desperate poverty'. The developed socioeconomic systems that produced that result need to be changed, not be considered to be essential to maintain as part of the solution.
       • Banning coal burning - The objective needs to be maximizing the end user energy obtained for the impacts of the way the energy is generated. Regarding CO2 generation, the total impacts of burning high-quality easy to obtain coal may be better than oil from fracking or oil sands that includes export impacts. And coal burning with CO2 capture and storage can be significantly better than natural gas burning without CO2 capture and storage. And all negative impacts, not just CO2 generation, need to be considered which may make fracking an even less beneficial way of obtaining fossil fuels for burning.

       Simplified statements may have more appeal but cliams that "population" or "Coal Burning" are the problem, or that "Affluence" needs to be reduced can easily be seen to lead to more misunderstanding and 'pointless debate'. And the people who have obtained the most undeserved perceptions of prosperity (currently having undeserved real personal wealth and real personal power) can continue to thrive through the 'generation of pointless debate'.

       Be sure you are not assisting people with those callous greedy attitudes, because those type of people are the ones whose numbers need to be most rapidly reduced, ideally to 'zero' (that is an ideal, and as with all ideals, they are great objectives but must eternally be diligently pursued). A side benefit of reducing the number of undesrevingly wealthy and powerful people will be the reduction of influence of intolerant people. In many nations the undeserving wealthy and powerful callous greedy have learned to appeal for the support of the intolerant because people who are inclined tobe greedy and intolerant people are easily impressed and the more 'inclined - enraged' they are the surer they are to vote.

26379. Tom Curtis at 00:32 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MarDivPhoto @376 objects to the description "denialist".  For the record, he introduced it twice before it was used by anybody else, and the single person that used it did not apply it to him.   It appears that his condition for staying for the debate he started is that we not only not call him a "denier" or "denialist", but that we pretend that nowhere in the blogosphere are there people suitably so called - not even in the 2nd law of thermodynamics thread.  If somebody cannot even admit that a common sort of behaviour can occur, it means, rather straightforwardly that they are in denial.  In this case it is not hard to see why.  As shown by me @378, 380 and 344 above, and by other commentors, MDP's arguments are radically disconnected from science.  Indeed, they are disconnected in such a way that the label "denier" seems well deserved as applied to them in particular.  It is no wonder then, that he launched his gish gallop then scurried away with his tail between his legs.  He must know in his heart he has no hope of defending his absurd claims.  

26380. Tom Curtis at 00:22 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       CBDunkerson @383, indeed.  I was not trying to indicate that we would not peak now, but that the data is insufficient for that call which is likely optimistic given known development goals for India and China.  I live in hope that the optimism is warranted.

26381. Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 18 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       What MarDivPhoto @376 said:

       "Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands."

       What the science says:

       a) Wind:

       "High power densities would be uninteresting if only a small amount of total power were available. However, wind power is roughly 100 times the power used by all human civilization.Total power dissipated in winds is about10^15 W. Total humanthermal power consumption is about10^13 W. Removing 1% of high-altitude winds’ available energy is not expected to have adverse environmental consequences."

       b) Solar:

       After adjustment for albedo and atmospheric absorption, the total power of surface falling solar energy is 161 (154-166) W/m^2:

       

       Of that, just 30% falls on land, giving a global landfalling solar power resource of 24,633 (23,562-25,398) x 10^12 Watts.  Of course, not all the land it falls on is suitable for solar power, and we will want to retain some solar energy for photosynthesis.  That leads to estimates of a total available solar resource of from 50 - 1,565 x 10^12 Watts, ie, 2.8 to 88 times the total anthropogenic energy use.  Those values represent in turn 0.2 to 6.6% of the total landfalling solar energy.  Even taking the lowest value, and at 10% efficiency of energy conversion, that represents just 2% of land area to power 2.8 times our current energy use.

       Quite patently from these figure, MDP's claim about the potential of solar and wind energy is absurd.  We must therefore look for a non-absurd interpretation.  The most likely of those is an assumption that solar and wind power technologies will not advance significantly from current capacities.  At best such an assumption is dubious.  However, in the discussion on solar and wind power, he advances as a solution increased research on fusion.  If he does not allow the possibility of technological advancement for solar and wind, he ought also not to allow that possibility for fusion.  Otherwise his argument comes down to special pleading.  Indeed, worse than that, current photovoltaic energy efficiencies are significantly better than the 10% I assumed for the land area calculation, and prototypes for turbines accessing jetstream winds are already flying - and whats more than nuclear, producing power at better returns than current pylon based wind power.  So he is not excluding the development of future technology at all, but excluding the deployment of below best practise current technology for solar and wind, while apealling to future fusion technology as an alternative.  Brazen, I believe is the best description for his argument.

26382. John Mason at 23:52 PM on 17 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       #1 - I ought to get in touch with them because this subject has a lot of relevance in the western UK, where it's quite a hot topic, a) because of the crazy floods of recent years and b) via the rewilding lobby. I don't agree with everything that comes from the latter, but the principle is nevertheless sound in many aspects. Puddings are prone to get over egged at times.
       
       Some of the most interesting areas of the Central Wales uplands are those where there was coniferous forestry which has been clear-felled and left be. It has re-wooded with willow, birch etc - trees that can handle a cool (at 400-500m ASL) climate and wet climate. I would hope that such areas can be left be, so that we can see what happens in the long term.
       
       The same almost certainly applies to the Lake District. The one thing I take issue with WRT the rewilders is that the higher parts of these western hills have not been supportive of forest at height for several thousand years, since the climatic optimum in the early Bronze Age. At over about 550m ASL, if you go and look, you will find a tundra-type flora of clubmosses, dwarf sedges and bilberry/crowberry. This they never mention. In the 1980s, when afforestation received ridiculous tax-breaks, the south side of Plynlimon was ploughed and planted-up. The trees, above 550m, never grew to any size better than you would put in a room and cover with tinsel for Christmas. I'll go and have a look next year to see if things have changed, and report back!

26383. CBDunkerson at 22:55 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Tom wrote: "Indeed, globally CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014. This has lead to some, probably premature, speculation that CO2 emissions have reached their peak. More probably they will tend to rise slowly over the coming decade,"

       There have been recent reports (e.g. SkyNews) that emissions for 2015 could be down from last year. Thus, we shouldn't take the possibility that they have peaked off the table. It is certainly possible that developing countries will push up emissions in upcoming years faster than developed countries draw them down, but there is also a chance that it will go the other way. How much China and India invest in renewables deployment will probably be the biggest determinant.

26384. CBDunkerson at 22:35 PM on 17 December 2015
       Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
       

       TonyW, I think whether we hold warming below 1.5C or 2C depends entirely on economics (no change in human behaviour required)... just as the COP21 accord and the US/China deal preceding it never would have happened if the cost of renewable power hadn't fallen enough to make those plans economically viable.

       If new breakthroughs drop the cost of wind/solar power to 20% of current (well below fossil fuels) within five years then I think keeping warming under 1.5C becomes a real possibility. If renewable energy prices stay about where they are currently then even the existing COP21 targets are in danger and we may pass 3C.

       As to needing to peak global emissions by 2020. It is possible last year was the peak. 2014 had a tiny increase over 2013 and estimates for 2015 range from just barely over to slightly under 2014. Either way, peaking by 2020 seems entirely possible.

26385. CBDunkerson at 22:25 PM on 17 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       Sunspot, population growth (and improved standards of living) is factored in to climate projections. Indeed, if not for assumptions that the global population will continue to grow and gain more access to electricity and transportation the climate situation would be a lot less dire.

       That said, the global fertility rate has been falling for decades and is expected to hit a replacement level (i.e. where births = deaths) around 2050... and then drop below replacement for the foreseeable future.

26386. Lionel A at 22:16 PM on 17 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Oops.

       "...responsibilty on this score by giving hydraulic fracturing the green light despite the platitudes of COP21..."

26387. Lionel A at 22:15 PM on 17 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Superb narrative encompassing most relevant factors and also the myths. Thank you very much for taking the trouble putting this together.

       Reducing the use of fossil fuels is a very necessary mitigation strategy, what a shame the the Government have decided to abrogate responsibilty on this score by giving hydraulic fracturing the despite the platitudes of COP21, the recognised environmental hazards and dubious economics.

26388. MA Rodger at 21:17 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MarcDivPhoto @373.

       You say "I was not accusing Dr. Mears of being in denial, I was pointing out that he posted data that is easily interpreted one way, and then chose to offer reasons why it should not be interpreted that way. I did not immediately claim he must be wrong, or that there cannot be a warming process going on."

       Is that correct? You said @369 (an unsupported assertion) "Clearly the models are badly flawed, and in science, when your models don't work, you discard them."

       Your position rests solely on this 'easy-interpretation-one-way' idea. As for a justification, this appears to involve two issues. There is the lack of warming issue which Mears does address but which you dismiss because you say it is based on a "belief" that warming is occurring, "not on reasoning." Accusing Mears' position here of depending on "belief" is wrong. He does address the idea of "errors in the fundamental model physics." And he gives his reasons for not giving them more credence. That is he knows of no "convincing evidence of model physics flaws." So which part of this is based on "belief" ?

       The other issue you raise is less easy to understand. You present it @389,373&376 as you first issue indicating some attached importance but your argument is not evident to me. Why should should the "ups&downs of the chart from about 1994 or so make a classic SPC chart that shows a stable process" have any relevance here? I have encountered folk insisting the temperture record has, for instance, all the signs of a random walk (which it doesn't), or perhaps the spin of the Earth's core (which requires some diligent cherry-picking). It's a pretty diverse set, all told. But resemblance to a "classic SPC chart" is a new one on me, and its relevance is not apparent. How so?

26389. michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       MarDivPhoto,

       to address another of your wild claims, Jeff Masters, a national hurricane expert, says here:

       "Typhoon Melor powered into the Central Philippines on Sunday night, December 13 (U.S. EST time) as a Category 3 storm with 125 mph winds. This was slightly below its peak intensity as a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds at 8 am EST Sunday, when Melor became the record-smashing 26th Northern Hemisphere Category 4 or stronger storm this year (previous record: just 18 such storms in 1997 and 2004,"(my emphasis)

       I was waiting for an end of year summary but your coment is so far off base and without factual support that I had to cite it.  This year crushed all the records for strong hurricanes.  "Unknown natural cycles" does not cut it against these records.  You appear to be in the group that says if the hurricane does not hit your house it did not happen.  Worldwide strong hurricanes are setting records.  

26390. adskankster at 20:09 PM on 17 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Thanks for the very good article, John.

       One question though, do you know if the trials in Marshall et al, are on going? It might be interesting to see if the effects are increased over longer timescales. The reason I ask is that the soil depths in our local woods seem to augmented by the leaf litter and other woodland detritus, that builds up over time. I would expect that to improve water retention?

       Obviously, in areas of very thin soils, there's only so much mass that can created, but it would also reduce soil erosion - which I imagine has been notable since the hills were originally cleared?

       Finally, there are other benefits from re-foresting the fells, including climate change mitigation ones, so it seems like an obvious part of the adaptation/mitigation strategy - as you point out.

26391. TonyW at 19:58 PM on 17 December 2015
       Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
       

       I think we need to differentiate between what is possible in an ideal world, where humans stop acting irrationally (i.e. stop acting like humans). Such a world doesn't exist and so 1.5C is impossible. 2C? Well, again, it pretty much requires significant declines starting now but the Paris agreement concerns emissions from 2020, so even steeper declines are needed from that point. If the world doesn't prove it's taking this seriously by 2020 (by already having peaked emissions) then 2C will also be impossible.

       From some of the comments and policy decisions I've heard from politicians in a couple of countries, since Paris, I don't think they are taking it seriously.

       IMO, of course.

26392. Tom Curtis at 16:27 PM on 17 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       Further to my comment @30, I should note that again ryland avoids responding to substantive discussion.  The thing we are depriving Indians of, according to his echoing of the Australian's views, is cheap energy, but evidence that the solar energy provided was comparible in cost to the fossil fuel based grid power is simply ignored.  That it was much cheaper than the fossil fuel based alternative which also provided more accessible power was also ignored.

26393. Tom Curtis at 16:20 PM on 17 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       ryland @20, quoting the Australian:

       "In an act of conceit, the developed nations decided others should not follow their path to prosperity built on abundant and cheap energy. No, poor nations should rely on the generosity of the developed world funding expensive and inferior clean and green energy. So people in need of cheap and reliable power — and the jobs, food, shelter, education, health and security it brings — instead would be given solar or wind."

       ryland @20 commenting on the quote from the Australian:

       "As we sit in our airconditioned homes with all the conveniences modern society gives Westerners, many of which are due to stable and reliable electricity supplies, we have the temerity to say to those who can only dream of such amenities, 'you must do without". Yeah right! There are many here who applaud COP21 but here are many many more who will be very disadvantaged indeed. This is not an issue considered relavant by some who comment here but it is one that should not be ignored by respondents to SkS"

       That statement is a very direct endorsement of the sentiments expressed in the first quote.  Given that there are no disclaimer and/or qualifiers on the quoted section of the Australian, the only way it is not an endorsement of the sentiment expressed in the Australian is if it is be deliberately disengenuous, yet now (@29) ryland would have us believe he made no endorsement of the view expressed by the Australian.  Frankly as the entire point of his post @20 was to put the Australian quote before us, and to endorse it (there being no other content to the comment), I would have to call his current disavowal bullshit.

       As to his further claims @29:

       1)  Bias is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and we know which way ryland's eyes are skewed.

       2) Comments on the Australian's editorial stance on related issues is fair comment in assessing to what extent the expressed views in the quote are coherent with those views.  They, patently, are not.

       3) While I have been known to quote Gaurdian articles, that is because they turn up in google searchs (and so are quoted no more frequently than other news sources that similarly turn up in google searches).  Ryland's acumen in assessment my reliance on news sources shows all the acumen of his assessments of global warming and global warming policy.

26394. Tom Curtis at 15:53 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       What MarDivPhoto @376 said:

       "If anyone thinks for a millisecond that the world is going to seriously back off burning coal, oil, gas, and wood for that matter, they are indulging in fantasy."

       What the science says:

       "This moderate increase of 2% in 2013 compared to 2012 is a continuation of last year’s trend
       and of the slowdown in the annual emissions growth.  The actual increase of 2012 compared to 2011 was 0.6 Gt or 1.7% (excluding leap year correction) and both are about half the average annual growth rate of 1.1 Gt or 3.8% since 2003 (excluding the 2008–2009 recession years). Note that the average annual emission increase in the 1995–2002 period (after the large decline in energy consumption in the former Soviet Union countries) was about 1.2% or 0.4 Gt CO2 per year. With the global economic growth of 3.4% and 3.1%, in 2012 and 2013 respectively, a further decoupling of the global economic and emission trends can be observed. This decoupling is consistent with the increasing service sector share (growing by 1.5% and 1.8% in 2012 and 2013 on average in middle income countries, including China) to the overall gross domestic product, at the expense of more energyintensive industrial activities."

       Clearly economic growth is already decoupling from carbon emissions, which partly driven by increased relative production of renewable energy.  And contrary to MDP's assertions, Chinese CO2 emissions actually fell in 2014 (ie, the year after that covered by the report above):

       

       Indeed, globally CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014.  This has lead to some, probably premature, speculation that CO2 emissions have reached their peak.  More probably they will tend to rise slowly over the coming decade, but CO2 emmissions are rising far slower than BAU scenarios project.  That is because we are not in a BAU word.  Rather, we are in a Kyoto, and now Paris world in which there are solid commitments by major polluters to reduce CO2 emissions, backed up by actual deeds.

       Again MDPs' claim is based on what they would like to be the case, not on the actual data.

26395. Eclectic at 15:48 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Again, MarDivPhoto [ @ 376 ], you demonstrate a decided deficiency in "total objectivity" in your assessments.

       "Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands" [unquote] ~ there indeed you are indulging in fantasy . . . unless you are intending to include as "fraction" some very large fractions like eight-tenths and nine-tenths.

       Yes, fusion power generation of electricity would doubtless be desirable : yet it fails the "practicable alternative" test, in that it is likely many decades away (and trillions of dollars away, probably). Far too much opportunity cost, there, for the next few decades.

       Fission power generation ~ yes, practicable but not so practical on the "soon and large" scale we need. Think of the vast opportunity cost; the slow build and distant commisioning dates; the vulnerability to terrorist assault [kidnap of radioactive material, particularly]; and the vast decommissioning costs.  And sadly, there's always the NIMBY politics.

       So, seeing such a gamut of problems, why would you wish to propose fission power . . . if no AGW problem exists (in your opinion) ??

        

       You yourself claim an absence of "much clearer picture of unmistakeable effects" [of global warming] ~ yet this is a point which almost every climate scientist in the world would disagree with (not to mention every peak scientific body, too).  In effect, they describe your position as lacking objectivity.

       Nevertheless, MarDivPhoto, keeping an open mind (in readers here) about such an important point . . . you sound like you should have little difficulty in stating a short list of cogent criteria which you would see as clear unmistakable clinchers re non-trivial global warming.

       * No, that wasn't a trick question; I'm not trying to play "gotcha"; nor do I wish to play lawyer-type  salami-slicing  logic-chopping games where you get berated over a tenth of a degree here, a half degree there, or a thousand Gigatons of ice plus-or-minus.  No, none of such intellectual dishonesty, in the slightest.

       Though I am sure you realise that you will need to give non-trivial, non-catastrophic replies ~ remembering that such stuff as like: 100cm sea-level rise, zero sea-ice in the arctic summer, or the heat-induced uninhabitability of half of India . . . all those sorts of criteria are ones which I am sure an objective thinker would scorn to give (as being scientifically and morally unconscionable).

       So, MarDivPhoto . . . what say you ?

26396. Tom Curtis at 15:37 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       What MarDivPhoto @376 said:

       "The rising sea levels... well, the sea has been rising for a very long time, very slowly."

       What the science says:

       

       Note in particular the flat, and indeed, recently declining sea levels over the last 3000 years in Fig 13.3 a.  That decline reversed itself sharply about 1850 as seen in Fig 13.3 b and e.  Fig 13.3 is assessed in greater detail by SkS here:

       

       The 1901 to 2010 figure is given as 1.7 [1.5-1.9] mm per year by the IPCC, so that the current rate (3.2 mm per year) is nearly twice the twentieth century average.  aClearly MarDivPhoto's claim is simply not based on the data, whether assessed on millenial or centenial time scales.  It is probably based on the common denier meme which averages sea level rise from the Last Glacial Maximum to the current era paying no attention to even thousand year long patterns in the data which clearly show such an average is deceptive rather than informative.

26397. ryland at 15:30 PM on 17 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       @28 Please don't presume what I do and don't appear to do. As I have made no specific mention of coal or gas or oil and certainly wrote nothing that endorsed or did not endorse the attitude of The Australian toward coal. Your use of the word appear shows your comment is pure speculation with no supporting evidence.  The only part of your biased diatribe against The Australian I regarded as worth responding to was your comment on the cartoon.  The comments about Howard and Costello and foreign aid are pure political sloganeering and  did not require a response.  From your comments you appear to be a devotee  of the Guardian with all that that implies.

26398. scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       The models do not attempt to calculate what RSS/UAH measure. A global surface trend is extracted from models. Comparing RSS to model output is not a valid comparison. Furthermore, it is not a way to validation of models. Your attempt to do so would suggest that you are judging climate science without actually reading the WG1 report.

       Models have ENSO-like features but they cannot predict what ENSO will actually do and every model run will produce a different realisation. A proper validation is done when you compare estimates of surface temperature (not troposphere) to the range of model outputs (corrected for actual forcings). Models are doing fine in this comparison.

       "Glaciers are melting, but they always have." Huh? They advanced during LIA. Glaciers are integrators of climate. Climate has changed in the past (when the external forcing change) and glaciers change with them. You seem to be implying that glaciers have made unforced changes  but where is the evidence for that.

       Did you actually look at the OHC graph I pointed to? How do you explain that by unforced natural variation?

       If you look at science on hurricanes, you will see that AGW increases SSTs which fuel hurricanes but also increase upper level shear which hinders development. Which wins? Again you are making claims on climate science which are not actually made. That is a strawman argument and I would expect a scientist to know better.

       I will other bits of your gish gallop to others (or moderators) but you again you are making a bunch wild claims with no supporting evidence in violation of comments policy on this site. Uninformed comment in not welcome on this site. You appear to be simply repeating long debunked claims of sort you hear on Fox news or pseudo-skeptic blogs.

26399. Tom Curtis at 13:37 PM on 17 December 2015
       The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
       

       ryland @27, the problem with the solar energy supply is that uptake of the service exceeded capacity.  That is a potential problem for any power supply.  They system supplied is a 100 Kwh system.  For rural domestic, energy limited (60 Watt capacity) unmetered supply in Bihar the rate is 55 rupees per month.  For a 2 kilowatt load rural domestic unmetered supply the charge is 160 rupees per month.  The charge for the solar scheme (70 rupees a month) is competitive with the first of these, and significantly lower than the second.  That being the case, it is economical to expand the system to meet the additional required capacity.  

       As an aside, the failure to mention the relative rates in the Scientific American article is a clear sign of bias.  So also is the failure to mention the 250 rupee/month cost of kerosene for the kerosene lamps that previously provided light in the village, as is the description of the system as a 70 kilowatt system (rather than the 100 kilowatt described elsewhere).

       Finally, I did not just comment on the racism of the cartoon @25.  I also pointed out the hypocrissy and dubious honesty of the argument used for coal by The Australian which you appear to endorse.

26400. MarDivPhoto at 13:14 PM on 17 December 2015
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       I guess I have to repeat the simple observation that the up&down pattern of temperature shown in the Mears graph and the fact that what increase it does show is tremendously less than the models indicate all give ample reason to question the assumption that we are in the midst of a CO2 caused global warming.  People can bring up all the other arguments they like, but until we see a much clearer picture of unmistakeable effects, it is not justified to claim that we absolutely know and understand what is going on.  Glaciers are melting, but they always have.  Greenland was a great deal warmer 800 years ago than is has been since then, and CO2 was low back then.  Artic and Anarctic ice has increased and decreased in the past.  Remember when everyone jumped on Katrina as the first superstorm from AGW?  But we haven't seen a steady procession of them since.  Everyone likes to jump on anecdotal events as long as whatever it is supports what they want to support.  That's not science.

       If anyone thinks for a millisecond that the world is going to seriously back off burning coal, oil, gas, and wood for that matter, they are indulging in fantasy.  And again, we cannot take the CO2 out of the air, so it's not remotely a "either/or" proposition, if the theory is valid, then preparing for it is as basic intelligence as it gets.

       Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands.  Planes will only fly by jet engines, and electric cars, trucks, trains, all get their kilowatts from some form of enegy generation, which right now is mostly from burning things.  Logically we should be jumping all over 4th generation nuclear plant designs and funding research into fusion hugely, but somehow most of the people who are enthusiastic about reducing CO2 output reject any such ideas.

       The rising sea levels... well, the sea has been rising for a very long time, very slowly.  So far we haven't seen any of the many low lying islands of the world disappearing, not even the very low sand islands off the coast of my state.  Everyone refers to these events as if half the Antarctic and all the Artic are gone, and the sea is up by a foot or more, but none of that has happened so far.

       When the water in the Mindanao Trench comes up in temperature, then we'll know a lot.  But the mass of the oceans and the heat capacity of water combine to be one heck of a heat sink, so in fact even if energy were being trapped, it would take a very, very long time to have any effect there.

       And someone just had to throw in the "denialist" term again as part of their approach, which tells me that it's time for me to bow out of this exchange.  Apparently there is no escaping the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality, that is not part of any truly reasonable thinking, whethere one has studied science or not.  The points I've tried to register were about real science staying open to discussion without rancor and personal attacks, and that there's enough evidence to justify some questioning of the current popular theory about Climate Change.  Clearly such thoughts are not welcome here.

Prev  520  521  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  Next