Happy Christmas to all at Real Climate and thank you for all your hard work. I’m fairly new to this site and find it compulsive reading. I’ve been concerened with AGW for several years but have mainly read about it from an environmental perspective. My understanding of the science was limited. I did a physics degree just over 40 years ago, but that’s a long time ago. I’m trying to learn more about climate science now, mainly using your site. I’m also reading a book from the library aimed at first yeaer undergraduates doing environmental sciences, which is alreading helping me understand more of the science(Global Environmental Change: an atmospheric perspective.Hoerl, J & Geisler, J 1997)
I’ve got two questions
1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? The only books they seemed to have in stock were the above text and a book by Nicholsa Stern the others all sounded like ones by deniers. They did say they had some money to buy new books and if I could suggest some good ones they might buy them. I live in th UK and think the best books would be ones that were reasonably acessible to people with little or no scientific knowledge. I suspect the book I’ve borrowed would be beyond many people. I know there are books featured on the website but I’m not sure what level they’re pitched at.
2. tipping points and runaway climate change.
I’d previously come across the suggestion that a 2 degree rise in temperature would cause the permafrost to melt and methane to be released which would be a positive feedback which would take us up to a point where the amazon would burn and become a huge emmiter of CO2 which would take the temperature up even more. I understood that this was why the 2 degree limit was so important. how true is this? I read the link on this site on ‘tipping points’ and this seemed much more uncertain, and I believe Gavin has stated that runaway climate change is unlikely. I was feeling a little reassured until post #473 which references the Bjerknes Lecture 2008 by Hansen where he states ‘Now the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome.’ p.22
for future blogs I’d like you to stick to climate science but perhaps occasionly bring in people like ecologists who could discuss the implications of the predicted temperature rises.
Thank you again for the blog.
Although it still generates the majority of its electricity from coal, “since 1990, Denmark has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. Over the same time frame, Danish energy consumption has stayed constant and Denmark’s gross domestic product has grown by more than 40 percent. Denmark is the most energy efficient country in the E.U.; due to carbon pricing, through energy taxes, carbon taxes, the ‘cap and trade’ system, strict building codes and energy labeling programs. Renewable resources currently supply almost 30 percent of Denmark’s electricity. Wind power is the largest source of renewable electricity, followed by biomass. … Today, Copenhagen puts only 3 percent of its waste into landfills and incinerates 39 percent to generate electricity for thousands of households.”
Ray Ladburysays
jsc proposes a topic:
“The great AGW Debate”
I would bill it as a *completely* unmoderated event where scientists, “alarmists,” and “deniers” alike can try and contribute to the discussion.
Been done. In the peer-reviewed literature. It was and is a rout. You shoulda been there.
alway searchingsays
I’m sorry, Ray, but I disagree.
What are your error bars on this evidence? Are the accounts all in the same direction? If so, that alone is probably evidence of a large bias, actually. Scientific evidence has quantifiable uncertainty. Yours does not seem to be amenable to this.
The observation that people there are more easily convinced of a global change would seem to be no more than the observation that weather convinces. We all already know and are frustrated by this fact.
alway searchingsays
re my last comment (of course I mean scientific evidence of this style…some sorts can be binary indicators, but not what I see as at issue in climate variation assessment.)
Ray Ladburysays
TRY@495, Gee, there are what, a couple of dozen temperature reconstructions that show that global temperatures are significantly higher than they were in 1300. Indeed, there is no research that even shows a global MWP, but rather the data show many disjoint warm epochs at different times between 800 and 1400 CE.
And as to current global temperatures, there is zero evidence of any systematic bias in any of the 4 separate temperature analyses, all of which agree on the trend within errors. There are ice-melt and phenological data which also lend qualitative support. Sorry, Charlie, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
And as to finitude of resources. Hmm, so we have enough money to spend 3 trillion dollars on a country that posed no threat and to bail out rich bankers again to the tune of 3 trillion dollars, but we can’t address what may well be the greatest threat to human civilization that we face. Uh, right, pull the other one. It’s got bells on it. Anthropogenic climate change is established at the 90-95% CL. Why is it that you only accept science when it tells you what you want to hear?
TRY@496, The problem with this measurement is that it would have to differentiate the signals in the northern vs. southern hemispheres. This means you’d probably need a low-earth orbit satellite, and you’d literally have to integrate the signal in a matter of minutes per orbit. It might be doable by looking at averages over many orbits, but that’s tricky with a time-dependent signal. Something like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO–now called the Oceanic Carbon Observatory, since the launch failed) might have been able to do this, but it’s not an easy measurement to make (particularly factoring in issues such as space radiation, etc.).
Norbertsays
Not sure if this is sufficiently on topic: R. McKitrick wrote a response to Schmidt(2009), available online, but apparently not published yet. Is there a response available, or upcoming?
[Response: Actually he co-wrote a new paper which was in effect a comment on Schmidt (2009) but which was not submitted as such. This isn’t so uncommon and can be appropriate if there is enough new material in the submission. I was asked to review it (as I assume other people were) and my review was submitted. I do not know what the current status is. – gavin]
Seansays
Hi there,
Given how important peer review is to any field of scientific study, it would be very interesting to get to know the process a little bit better, (at least for a layperson like myself that does not submit papers to journals). Specifically how are the reviewers for a particular paper selected and by whom are they selected. Furthermore, are reviewers bound to a minimum level of due diligence when they review a paper? Or can they just skim the conclusions and pass it along? I would expect that all reviewers should have to submit their critiques of the paper, including all supporting or refuting calculations. If these crtitiques exist are they accessible to the wider audience of scientists?
Thanks
Spaceman Spiffsays
Re. #486 mommycalled:
I am not certain of the point “always searching” was making. However, it is certainly worth keeping in mind that anecdotes *local in both space and time* are not by themselves reliable indicators of climate change, let alone global climate change — too much noise (the most absurd of which is that it’s snowing in Copenhagen). However, as these types of changes begin taking up more “volume” in both space and time (i.e., trending in greater space and longer time intervals), then what must be occurring is a major net change in energy flow into/out of the system.
Observations such as the changing of planting zones and durations of planting seasons in North America are consistent with a globally changing climate, but they could also be consistent with a major shift in an important mode of ocean energy transport (e.g., gulf stream, ENSO,…, although in the present case nothing of the sort has been observed). It’s when many such and similar phenomena are observed over the globe, and trending on decadal time scales, that one can gain confidence that these observations are telling us something about the net energy flow on a global scale.
Or perhaps I’ve missed the point entirely…
Punkstasays
478 Joe Blanchard
Evidence of glaciers melting is evidence of glaciers melting and only that. No one disputes that – not even the skeptics. But it does not prove that it is caused by human activities.
Response: True. But it completely undermines claims that the world hasn’t been warming – gavin
And could I prevail on one of the Realclimatologists to address 436 please?
Doug Bostromsays
Louise D says: 23 December 2009 at 2:38 PM
“1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? ”
Weart’s book “The Discovery of Global Warming” is excellent. Comprehensive, written to be approachable, includes important historical underpinnings, revised in 2008:
Herewith the disappeared half of my previous message (dodgy tags?) :
Is Gavin’s response right – do melting glaciers necessarily mean global warming? Couldn’t changing wind and current patterns do it without requiring warming?
[Response: If it was an isolated instance perhaps. But when the same patterns of glacial retreat are seen in mountain glacier regions from Alaska to the Himalayas it’s hard (i.e. impossible) to find any other reasonable explanation. – gavin]
David Millersays
TRY #496 suggests an experiment to measure outgoing radiation
Funny thing, that. There was just such a test device designed. NASA built it. A satellite to trail the Earth in orbit and measure all the outgoing radiation. As I understand it, said satellite could give authoritative data regarding radiation and quantitatively prove AGW beyond any shadow of doubt.
It was to be launched during the Bush administration. My understanding is that Cheney personally intervened to kill the launch.
Said satellite still sits in storage at NASA; I’m hoping the current administration will see fit to launch it soon.
Lady in Redsays
There is an important op-ed out today about the importance of open science. I have been trying to lead to that.
I do not expect this comment to be allowed to air, but for the “insiders,” I hope you will read and, at least, think about this:
[edit – more appropriate link]
Merry Christmas. I am sorry my stamina broke.
I did try. ….smile. ….Lady in Red
John Masonsays
Thanks Ray (506) – job done! Saved me a job in any case!
I sometimes think it would be easier to argue with a plate of blancmange than with a climate contrarian! Obfuscation is the word, and boy do they excel in that!
Cheers – John
Spaceman Spiffsays
Barton Paul Levenson@452
Yes, I agree completely. The situation you paint of rapid break-thrus on many fronts in climatology was part of the point I was making: there could be no consensus of either long-term cooling or warming in 1975.
>> “1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? ”
>
> Weart’s book “The Discovery of Global Warming”
Even better, make sure there’s a sticker in the book pointing people to his website (first link in the right hand sidebar under Science, on each RC page). Any library nowadays has access to the Internet, and a reference librarian who can help readers learn how to find the science.
Punkstasays
Gavin 512:
But why would glaciers be retreating due to heat, if temperatures have been flat for 10 years?
[Response: Even if they had (which they haven’t), the glaciers integrate over time (decades or longer). They are therefore reacting to the long term change in temperature and in many places have not come close to coming into equilibrium with current conditions. – gavin]
Jiminmplssays
#433
I clearly see the Medieval Warming Period – and the Little Ice Age in Mann’s graph. They’re not hidden – just not as significant on a global basis as sediment core from the Sargasso Sea may indicate.
Jiminmplssays
#435 AvdB
I stumbled on a report that you may find interesting. It reviews the relative costs of various electricity sources – in different countries. The same costing methodology is used for each electricity source and country. It seems very well-balanced and well-researched.
The relative costs vary greatly by country. Wind, for example, doesn’t fare very well when all countries are considered, but is VERY cost-competitive in the USA.
For an excellent article on who is funding the climate change deniers around the world, go to: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/23-2
The original source is an article in the Dec. 23 issue of Mother Jones.
Jiminmplssays
#482
“Nuclear has much better economics. There’s a reason China is deploying nuclear at the rate they are.”
But China is deploying even more wind power. By 2020 wind will overtake nuclear in capacity.
In the here and now, NOAA-N Prime has some pretty nice IR sensors. Coming from Lockheed (inventors of upside-down G sensors, etc.) it’s had a hard time getting to orbit but was finally launched early this year.
For the strong of stomach, here’s what happens when Lockheed forgets to see if a satellite is actually attached to its work platform:
Couldn’t changing wind and current patterns do it without requiring warming?
[Response: If it was an isolated instance perhaps. But when the same patterns of glacial retreat are seen in mountain glacier regions from Alaska to the Himalayas it’s hard (i.e. impossible) to find any other reasonable explanation. – gavin]
And, as Gavin pointed out to me once, recent years have had arctic winds and currents that actually favor the buildup of perennial ice, and it did not happen; instead, perennial ice continued, I believe, to decline despite the favorable conditions.
Jiminmplssays
#469 Ed
I hadn’t seen the Hyperion, but I have see other similar underground “pods”. They are indeed very cost-effective and could be rapidly deployed. When I refer to nuclear, I am referring to large scale conventional nuclear reactors. I stand corrected.
Question – Do the Hyperion reactors use the same type of fuel conventional reactors? The EIA used to have lots of information on future uranium supplies that has mysteriously disappeared from the site. As China’s new plants come on board and the supply from Russia dries up, I foresee pretty serious shortages and price increases after 2015-2017. At $20/lb, fuel cost isn’t an issue, but at $130/lb it is. (It was up to $113/lb in 2008 – now it’s down to around $56, I think.)
alway searchingsays
@509 spaceman spiff — you have my meaning. What some guy (however smart) “remembers” from however long ago what long village elders “remember” from longer ago about a couple dozen personal visits — it just doesn’t meet basic standards.
Even a formal, very carefully conducted survey trying hard to be globalized would still have a host of issues.
I don’t think any of the scientists here would really say this kind of thing rises to “evidence”. It’s actually difficult to construct survey questions without leading people on, and even more difficul if your questions/dialogue with them is not standardized and even more difficult if… so on and so on.
If you wanted to cite evidence that had some more “human touch” to it, at least consider something like almanacs where someone carefully wrote something down long ago. (I’m not saying that even that sort of thing is great, but it at least approaches the analyzable…).
And as to what persuades the natives, it sounds like all he’s saying is weather does which I don’t have a cite for, but could be considered from the “I wish it weren’t so climate journal of duh”. I mean, was even a single case of this sort of thing in any region where there was local cooling? We know there have been such places.
So, neither point seems valid — either evidenciary or the kind of weird spin he seemed to be putting on it about people listening to their elders or whatever. Lemmee see…
Ray Ladbury wrote: lay persons were way ahead of Americans in accepting the reality of climate change. Why? Because they listened to the oldest people in the village who had all experienced the changes
I consider this a totally ridiculous thing to say, akin to but merely a mirror of trying to get people to not focus on weather anecdotes.
alway searchingsays
And I don’t meant to insult Ray broadly or anything. He does a good job of giving people pointers here. I just think this line of thinking is so amazingly vulnerable to co-opting/reversal with little effort that it crosses over beyond the weakest line of defense for any claim and does not rise to what I would call ‘science’, though I suppose we all have a variety of standards.
Ray Ladburysays
Always searching,
It is clearly evidence, and it could be used in a Bayesian analysis. I have seen zero evidence that people would on the whole be biased toward a conclusion of warming over a conclusion of cooling. And there is simply no reason to assume that this conclusion would persist across the globe. All I am saying is that it is much more consistent with what one would expect in a warming world than what one would expect from a system near equilibrium. This coupled with consistent warming trends from the terrestrial and satellite data, with phenological data and with ice-melting trends leaves little credence to assertions in the denialosphere that the warming trend is “manufactured”.
Jiminmplssays
#425 calyptorhynchus
Estimates of oil and gas reserves are largely based on models. The probability that AGW is not occuring and that CO2 is the primary (not sole) cause is the same as the probability that there is NOT ONE DROP of recoverable oil in ANWR.
alway searchingsays
Look Ray — as I say, your memories of consistency, your memories of how you asked questions about their memories or even what the elders memories of their memories were, teased out this information, your vague non-quantitative assertions…Did you even keep an accurate journal? They don’t amount to a Bayesian update for any scientist, journal, or other information sink. As this is a blog about credible science, they really don’t have much place here.
The reason to think there might be a bias might literally be in that you are talking about personal experiences of one person who might ask his questions or collect his evidence in a particular way — unscrutinized by anyone. I’m truly sorry you don’t see how almost impossibly subjective this style of claim is…a telephone game several times removed integrated by some single or couple of actors? Come on.
I have holiday things to do and no longer time to discuss the fineries of what I do not think is a very subtle point. Cheers
Just as a rhetorical point, “This coupled with consistent warming trends…” is totally out of order. All that other consistency is a reason for belief. A few interviews by a few people (all of which interviewers probably had been exposed to modern climate theory and most likely had some strong prior belief…) of highly anecdotal memories…all during a period where the actual highly credible measured global shift has been quite small…I think you have a good case to make that people are persuaded by local weather and that regional climate varies. But we knew that. And it kind of bugs us. Let’s not perpetuate it inversely/rhetorically when it suits us.
I also agree with the other comment that going forward if we actually start seeing wild rises like 6C/century that changes may become extreme that even massively contaminated and almost useless style of collection for a 1900-2000 range might actually have a non-trivial signal to noise ratio, but really only with very careful information gathering. Such testimony will be more or less unnecessary due to modern global measurement technology…There will be no talk of conspiracies or manufactured anything in 100 years if the temps rise as forecast. Gotta go! Not dismissing/cheezing out…just have to check back in a few days.
A good non-mathematical introduction to the field is George S. Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” (1998), though there is some math in the appendices. For those willing to look at the math, John T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” is very good–that or Grant W. Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.” And for the history of AGW theory, try Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” (2nd Ed. 2008).
Anne van der Bomsays
Douglas Wise,
Why don’t you take your concerns directly to David rather than criticising him behind his back?
When I express an opposing viewpoint, you say I am attacking people. When I discuss a *public* book on a *public* forum you say that I am talking behind someone’s back? Don’t you think you are being a bit heavy-handed?
Before doing so, you may wish to look at his Chapter 27 (in particular Fig 27.9). I can see no way that anyone could claim that he wasn’t treating all potential sustainable sources of energy in an equal manner.
I know about his energy plans, but they are near the end of the book. A few questions:
– Why does he spend 100 pages painting a picture of renewables woefully inadequate to provide us with enough energy for a comfortable life, only to correct that image later on in the book? Why not paint a realistic picture right from the start? Why fill 18 chapters building a case that has no merit?
– The current primary energy use in the UK is IIRC 105 kWh per person per day. Why not use that number to put against the 180 kWh pppd renewables stack? The fact that he brings up the fictitious ‘moderately affluent brit’ seems to me a neat trick to pump up the demand from 105 to 195 kWh pppd so the renewables stack is LOWER than the consumption stack. His energy plans in chapter 27 only project a future need of 68 kWh pppd.
– How many people will get until page 203? You know what they say about the first impression. By the time the reader gets to page 203, the damage has already been done. Many will not even get that far, thinking “I know enough”. The reason why I know this is true is the coverage this book was given on The Register some time ago. They only took information from those first 18 chapters to hammer in the message that renewables are not to be taken seriously.
I can not see how someone can read that book and still think all forms of energy are treated equally.
I am not going to comment more on this. Everyone knows where to find the book and form his own opinion.
Robsays
Gavin@253
Again you fail to explain this, I wonder if you could engage someone else who might have more pedagogic training to try to explain this important bit of science to me and others.
E.g. “…Increases in CO2 in the troposphere increase absorption @ 650 cm^-1, warming the atmosphere and increase emissions up across the rest of the spectrum….”
What does this mean?? Is it even English? Please Gavin, it’s not the first time someone wonders about the CO2 absorption theory? Is it explainable at all?
I’m so frustrated with this, do you think I’m too stupid? (I did understand what Mann did, reading the Wegman report).
[Response: Huh? It’s pretty hard to condense complicated science into something short and understandable to everyone. Short I can do, understandable I can do – but not always together. It is not stupidity that is the problem here, but instead the need for a background in some aspects of the topic that might be lacking. Read about the spectra of black body radiation, read about absorption characteristics of gases, and look at some graphs. Then think about what I said again. You will at least be able to ask better questions. – gavin]
alway searching says:
23 December 2009 at 4:55 PM
Look Ray — as I say, your memories of consistency, your memories of how you asked questions about their memories or even what the elders memories of their memories were, teased out this information, your vague non-quantitative assertions…Did you even keep an accurate journal? They don’t amount to a Bayesian update for any scientist, journal, or other information sink. As this is a blog about credible science, they really don’t have much place here.
And yet such oral tradition can be surprisingly accurate. For instance the Lemba of S Africa claim descent from Jews and follow some jewish cultural practices. Subsequent DNA studies (Y chromosome) show ~50% semitic origins with a high number carrying the particular polymorphism peculiar to the Cohens.
Jiminmplssays
#493 #414 – Jiminmpls
I hope you are kidding about ExxonMobil’s efforts “to help” with climate science. :)
Actually not. The question was “How to speak with CONSERVATIVES…….?” I think pointing out that even Exxon Mobil has changed their position in the past few years. They no longer question the science and advocate a multi-faceted mitigation strtegy and a direct tax on carbon.
Now, whatever Exxon did in the past and may continue to do behind the scenes to undermine climate change mitigation is a whole other topic, but to a CONSERVATIVE, Exxon’s stated public policy should carry some weight.
Aaron Lewissays
Re 302 dhogaza
Would you say that current permafrost melt conditions resulting in exposure of Arctic organic matter as discussed by Hinzman in his 2009 AGU presentation (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/C24A.shtml) is supported by climate science? What about the recent discoveries of methane releases from the sea floor in Arctic areas and lake bed sources? These are observations, but did climate science predict such processes to proceed to such an extent in the near term?
I think the feedbacks of exposed Arctic carbon and sea bed clathrates are issues that have not been appropriately addressed.
finally i hacked into this comment section…
relax or delete it, but you cant change the truhts
I read a comment somewhere here. Didnt found it again.
Probably deleted by “the scientist” or somehow…
afaik i changed it a little bit.
Maybe the most important short message debunking everyhing so called scientist ever claimed.
I recommend, in addition to the prvious (excellent) suggestions, two books by W.F. Ruddiman
(1) his popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”
(2) his introductory textbook “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”.
Ericsays
Thankyou to those who responded. Particularly for the links and pointers – which is exactly what I was after. Now I have some Christmas reading.
To those who barely restrained themselves from attacking, you’re missing the political point of all of this: Nothing will happen without popular support. Popular support won’t tip the balance without understanding. I vote and pay taxes – I represent the millions of people needed. Don’t turn us away, no matter how frustrating it may seem or you’ll do more harm than a closed minded denialist.
The BIG question of post remains un answered. Fair enough because I don’t believe it can be answered at this stage, but that in essence is the problem I’m struggling with. That is, without good mathematics, what action WILL “cap temps at a 2 degree increase”? That’s the so-called “Copenhagen Accord”. How is it done?
As for the military analogy, I agree decision is far better than indecision. But this is a multi front war and several battles need to be won. (1) Understanding (2) Mitigating action (3) A plan to cope with the consequences of damage already done, and changes made to mitigate the damage. From my perspective we’re still struggling with (1), proposals for (2) are scaring the $@$^ out of the people needed to make it happen because of the struggle with (1), and very little effort is going into (3). Your “General” is losing.
Anne van der Bomsays
Didactylus,
You will see that he calculated 50 kWh/d for photovoltaic farms, 20 for onshore wind, 32 for offshore wind. In this context, 22 kWh/d for nuclear is perfectly rational and not disproportionate in any way.
No, the calculation he made was not to show ‘what could nuclear provide’, but how much nucelear the UK would need to fulfil their needs. A completely different calculation. The needs at that point have suddenly dropped from 195 to 22 kWh pppd. That is the central point of my objections.
My rationale for quoting The Register is that it shows the book appealed to them. It apparently conveys the right message to confirm them in their anti-environmentalist dogma.
If you don’t understand the dangers of global warming, what is your motive for attacking nuclear?
You have become so polarized that you can’t see the difference between attacking nuclear and defending renewables. Read back my posts, the only negative thing I have said about nuclear is that, looking at the cost estimates for proposed new power stations, it is expensive and slow to build.
think you should read the book. If that doesn’t work, read it again.
I have read it, some sections more than once. I know what I am talking about.
Ray Ladburysays
Always searching,
That’s just it. I wasn’t asking questions. I was enjoying the shade of a mango tree in the nooday sun as I purchased some REALLY GOOD mangos and talked with a delightful old man. He volunteered these observations in 1991, despite having never heard of Jim Hansen. I had similar experiences in East Africa and many other places up to Sri Lanka last month, where several people mentioned changes to monsoons, etc. I do not claim that these experiences represent hard evidence, but it certainly is not consistent with the claims in the denialosphere that the warming is an artifact of the analysis. Likewise, no one piece of phenological data is evidence of climate change, but taken together they support the proposition that we’ve had significant warming. And a melting glacier is not evidence of global change but melting glaciers GLOBALLY is.
Ray Ladburysays
Doug and Spaceman Spiff,
The measurement TRY is considering cannot be of the globe, but must, rather have sufficient spatial resolution to differentiate between hemispheres. This means the bird would have to be Low Earth Orbit, not GEO (like NOAA-N) and certainly not at L1 like DISCOVR/TRIANA. It might be doable. However, it would require averaging over many orbits and the signal is time-dependent. You’d be looking at the mid-IR and making precision measurements, so you’d probably have to use a cryogenically cooled detector. It would be an interesting mission, I think.
S. Molnarsays
1. Books: RC has has had several posts about books; in fact, it might be an annual post if there is one in the next few days. Look for “books” on the index page.
2. I think the suggestion of a review of the peer review process is a good one, considering the importance placed on it. A quick summary as I understand it (and I’m sure there are differences across disciplines and journals): A paper is submitted. The journal editors choose several experts in the field, or related fields, to read the paper and comment on any deficiencies or possible improvements in content or exposition, as well as the general quality, originality, and noteworthiness. The authors respond to these critiques with revisions as they see fit. Rinse, lather, repeat until possible publication. In the denialsphere the peer review process is somewhat different: if Viscount Monckton likes it, it’s a go.
How about a piece on what’s really needed in
— ecological research
— satellite support
— etc.
I recall Gavin commenting that we need more than just Triana/DSCOVR (another one like it at the libration point on the other side of the planet, if I remember correctly, to get the whole 24 hours covered).
Something to clarify and extend comments like this one:
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 18 Dec 09 Washington, DC
2. CERES: SO WHAT WAS IN THE CLIMATEGATE E-MAILS? A hacked e-mail passage that was widely quoted in media accounts of climate- gate, begins: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Francisco Valero, Director of the Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography, says the statement is totally correct. The problem began where most of our problems began: at the start of The Bush administration. Because Al Gore initiated it, the Bush administration postponed and eventually canceled the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), meant to continuously monitor Earth’s radiance from the L1 point between Earth and Sun. Instead NASA began a program to get the information from low Earth orbit: CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). The problem is that the low-Earth orbit satellite is so close that it sees only a narrow swath on each pass around the planet. Climate models require accurate radiance measurements over the diurnal cycle, and those data are not at hand. DSCOVR was designed to provide what the low-Earth orbit satellites cannot. An $18.7 billion NASA budget sent to the White House last Sunday includes only $5 million for continued refurbishing of DSCOVR. That is also a travesty.
I knew in advance that using only wind to get a ballpark figure of the cost for renewables did open the door for the wrong interpretation that wind alone can and must cover our energy needs. The solution is of course a mix of technologies. Please note also that I doubled the US consumption to be ‘on the safe side’.
In short: If the share of renewable energy rises to 47% by 2020, the conventional baseload (coal, nuclear) can be almost halved (from 44 GW to 24,5 GW). In their renewable energy mix, wind accounts for roughly half.
Another key success factor for renewables is connecting the generators over large areas to reduce variability. You can not look at the variability of 1 turbine and use that as a measure for a whole state or country. The larger the area, the smaller the variability.
Nuclear has much better economics.
What is your opinion about the link I posted here? C$ 26 billion for 2400 MWe? I don’t see the better economics.
I might be looking at the wrong thing, so feel free to support your case with evidence (not a sales brochure of a nuclear company).
Best explanatory graphics (not a thread filling up with nitwit comments, but a page with pictures and links to explanations).
When I do a Google and a Scholar search for climate answers, I also try to remember to do an Image search. So far the results suggest there’s PhD material there for a scholar of search engines. The image search is _always_ every single time utterly loaded with links to the big five or six denial/PR sites.
They OWN the imagery universe, on all climate questions. Which means they get the votes of anyone who looks at pictures and votes accordingly.
Happy Christmas to all at Real Climate and thank you for all your hard work. I’m fairly new to this site and find it compulsive reading. I’ve been concerened with AGW for several years but have mainly read about it from an environmental perspective. My understanding of the science was limited. I did a physics degree just over 40 years ago, but that’s a long time ago. I’m trying to learn more about climate science now, mainly using your site. I’m also reading a book from the library aimed at first yeaer undergraduates doing environmental sciences, which is alreading helping me understand more of the science(Global Environmental Change: an atmospheric perspective.Hoerl, J & Geisler, J 1997)
I’ve got two questions
1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? The only books they seemed to have in stock were the above text and a book by Nicholsa Stern the others all sounded like ones by deniers. They did say they had some money to buy new books and if I could suggest some good ones they might buy them. I live in th UK and think the best books would be ones that were reasonably acessible to people with little or no scientific knowledge. I suspect the book I’ve borrowed would be beyond many people. I know there are books featured on the website but I’m not sure what level they’re pitched at.
2. tipping points and runaway climate change.
I’d previously come across the suggestion that a 2 degree rise in temperature would cause the permafrost to melt and methane to be released which would be a positive feedback which would take us up to a point where the amazon would burn and become a huge emmiter of CO2 which would take the temperature up even more. I understood that this was why the 2 degree limit was so important. how true is this? I read the link on this site on ‘tipping points’ and this seemed much more uncertain, and I believe Gavin has stated that runaway climate change is unlikely. I was feeling a little reassured until post #473 which references the Bjerknes Lecture 2008 by Hansen where he states ‘Now the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome.’ p.22
for future blogs I’d like you to stick to climate science but perhaps occasionly bring in people like ecologists who could discuss the implications of the predicted temperature rises.
Thank you again for the blog.
The Copenhagen That Matters by Thomas L. Friedman in today’s NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23friedman.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
An excerpt:
Although it still generates the majority of its electricity from coal, “since 1990, Denmark has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. Over the same time frame, Danish energy consumption has stayed constant and Denmark’s gross domestic product has grown by more than 40 percent. Denmark is the most energy efficient country in the E.U.; due to carbon pricing, through energy taxes, carbon taxes, the ‘cap and trade’ system, strict building codes and energy labeling programs. Renewable resources currently supply almost 30 percent of Denmark’s electricity. Wind power is the largest source of renewable electricity, followed by biomass. … Today, Copenhagen puts only 3 percent of its waste into landfills and incinerates 39 percent to generate electricity for thousands of households.”
jsc proposes a topic:
“The great AGW Debate”
I would bill it as a *completely* unmoderated event where scientists, “alarmists,” and “deniers” alike can try and contribute to the discussion.
Been done. In the peer-reviewed literature. It was and is a rout. You shoulda been there.
I’m sorry, Ray, but I disagree.
What are your error bars on this evidence? Are the accounts all in the same direction? If so, that alone is probably evidence of a large bias, actually. Scientific evidence has quantifiable uncertainty. Yours does not seem to be amenable to this.
The observation that people there are more easily convinced of a global change would seem to be no more than the observation that weather convinces. We all already know and are frustrated by this fact.
re my last comment (of course I mean scientific evidence of this style…some sorts can be binary indicators, but not what I see as at issue in climate variation assessment.)
TRY@495, Gee, there are what, a couple of dozen temperature reconstructions that show that global temperatures are significantly higher than they were in 1300. Indeed, there is no research that even shows a global MWP, but rather the data show many disjoint warm epochs at different times between 800 and 1400 CE.
And as to current global temperatures, there is zero evidence of any systematic bias in any of the 4 separate temperature analyses, all of which agree on the trend within errors. There are ice-melt and phenological data which also lend qualitative support. Sorry, Charlie, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
And as to finitude of resources. Hmm, so we have enough money to spend 3 trillion dollars on a country that posed no threat and to bail out rich bankers again to the tune of 3 trillion dollars, but we can’t address what may well be the greatest threat to human civilization that we face. Uh, right, pull the other one. It’s got bells on it. Anthropogenic climate change is established at the 90-95% CL. Why is it that you only accept science when it tells you what you want to hear?
TRY@496, The problem with this measurement is that it would have to differentiate the signals in the northern vs. southern hemispheres. This means you’d probably need a low-earth orbit satellite, and you’d literally have to integrate the signal in a matter of minutes per orbit. It might be doable by looking at averages over many orbits, but that’s tricky with a time-dependent signal. Something like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO–now called the Oceanic Carbon Observatory, since the launch failed) might have been able to do this, but it’s not an easy measurement to make (particularly factoring in issues such as space radiation, etc.).
Not sure if this is sufficiently on topic: R. McKitrick wrote a response to Schmidt(2009), available online, but apparently not published yet. Is there a response available, or upcoming?
[Response: Actually he co-wrote a new paper which was in effect a comment on Schmidt (2009) but which was not submitted as such. This isn’t so uncommon and can be appropriate if there is enough new material in the submission. I was asked to review it (as I assume other people were) and my review was submitted. I do not know what the current status is. – gavin]
Hi there,
Given how important peer review is to any field of scientific study, it would be very interesting to get to know the process a little bit better, (at least for a layperson like myself that does not submit papers to journals). Specifically how are the reviewers for a particular paper selected and by whom are they selected. Furthermore, are reviewers bound to a minimum level of due diligence when they review a paper? Or can they just skim the conclusions and pass it along? I would expect that all reviewers should have to submit their critiques of the paper, including all supporting or refuting calculations. If these crtitiques exist are they accessible to the wider audience of scientists?
Thanks
Re. #486 mommycalled:
I am not certain of the point “always searching” was making. However, it is certainly worth keeping in mind that anecdotes *local in both space and time* are not by themselves reliable indicators of climate change, let alone global climate change — too much noise (the most absurd of which is that it’s snowing in Copenhagen). However, as these types of changes begin taking up more “volume” in both space and time (i.e., trending in greater space and longer time intervals), then what must be occurring is a major net change in energy flow into/out of the system.
Observations such as the changing of planting zones and durations of planting seasons in North America are consistent with a globally changing climate, but they could also be consistent with a major shift in an important mode of ocean energy transport (e.g., gulf stream, ENSO,…, although in the present case nothing of the sort has been observed). It’s when many such and similar phenomena are observed over the globe, and trending on decadal time scales, that one can gain confidence that these observations are telling us something about the net energy flow on a global scale.
Or perhaps I’ve missed the point entirely…
And could I prevail on one of the Realclimatologists to address 436 please?
Louise D says: 23 December 2009 at 2:38 PM
“1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? ”
Weart’s book “The Discovery of Global Warming” is excellent. Comprehensive, written to be approachable, includes important historical underpinnings, revised in 2008:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Herewith the disappeared half of my previous message (dodgy tags?) :
Is Gavin’s response right – do melting glaciers necessarily mean global warming? Couldn’t changing wind and current patterns do it without requiring warming?
[Response: If it was an isolated instance perhaps. But when the same patterns of glacial retreat are seen in mountain glacier regions from Alaska to the Himalayas it’s hard (i.e. impossible) to find any other reasonable explanation. – gavin]
TRY #496 suggests an experiment to measure outgoing radiation
Funny thing, that. There was just such a test device designed. NASA built it. A satellite to trail the Earth in orbit and measure all the outgoing radiation. As I understand it, said satellite could give authoritative data regarding radiation and quantitatively prove AGW beyond any shadow of doubt.
It was to be launched during the Bush administration. My understanding is that Cheney personally intervened to kill the launch.
Said satellite still sits in storage at NASA; I’m hoping the current administration will see fit to launch it soon.
There is an important op-ed out today about the importance of open science. I have been trying to lead to that.
I do not expect this comment to be allowed to air, but for the “insiders,” I hope you will read and, at least, think about this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
[edit – more appropriate link]
Merry Christmas. I am sorry my stamina broke.
I did try. ….smile. ….Lady in Red
Thanks Ray (506) – job done! Saved me a job in any case!
I sometimes think it would be easier to argue with a plate of blancmange than with a climate contrarian! Obfuscation is the word, and boy do they excel in that!
Cheers – John
Barton Paul Levenson@452
Yes, I agree completely. The situation you paint of rapid break-thrus on many fronts in climatology was part of the point I was making: there could be no consensus of either long-term cooling or warming in 1975.
>> “1. Any suggestions for books the library could buy? ”
>
> Weart’s book “The Discovery of Global Warming”
Even better, make sure there’s a sticker in the book pointing people to his website (first link in the right hand sidebar under Science, on each RC page). Any library nowadays has access to the Internet, and a reference librarian who can help readers learn how to find the science.
Gavin 512:
But why would glaciers be retreating due to heat, if temperatures have been flat for 10 years?
[Response: Even if they had (which they haven’t), the glaciers integrate over time (decades or longer). They are therefore reacting to the long term change in temperature and in many places have not come close to coming into equilibrium with current conditions. – gavin]
#433
I clearly see the Medieval Warming Period – and the Little Ice Age in Mann’s graph. They’re not hidden – just not as significant on a global basis as sediment core from the Sargasso Sea may indicate.
#435 AvdB
I stumbled on a report that you may find interesting. It reviews the relative costs of various electricity sources – in different countries. The same costing methodology is used for each electricity source and country. It seems very well-balanced and well-researched.
The relative costs vary greatly by country. Wind, for example, doesn’t fare very well when all countries are considered, but is VERY cost-competitive in the USA.
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/07/0706_TPA_A_Review_of_Electricity.pdf
Louise D @501
I will recommend this one: Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, and this one: The Discovery of Global Warming, and maybe this one, too: Global Warming: The Complete Briefing.
Cheers!
For an excellent article on who is funding the climate change deniers around the world, go to: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/23-2
The original source is an article in the Dec. 23 issue of Mother Jones.
#482
“Nuclear has much better economics. There’s a reason China is deploying nuclear at the rate they are.”
But China is deploying even more wind power. By 2020 wind will overtake nuclear in capacity.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKPEK33615120090420
China pays cash for nukes. Makes a big difference on overall cost.
“Said satellite still sits in storage at NASA; I’m hoping the current administration will see fit to launch it soon.”
Money was appropriated to return the craft to flight status, or at least ready-for-flight status.
Pretty tragic story. More here:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2007/11/when-will-we-see-dscovr-again.html
In the here and now, NOAA-N Prime has some pretty nice IR sensors. Coming from Lockheed (inventors of upside-down G sensors, etc.) it’s had a hard time getting to orbit but was finally launched early this year.
For the strong of stomach, here’s what happens when Lockheed forgets to see if a satellite is actually attached to its work platform:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10299
So much for the infallible private sector.
Couldn’t changing wind and current patterns do it without requiring warming?
[Response: If it was an isolated instance perhaps. But when the same patterns of glacial retreat are seen in mountain glacier regions from Alaska to the Himalayas it’s hard (i.e. impossible) to find any other reasonable explanation. – gavin]
And, as Gavin pointed out to me once, recent years have had arctic winds and currents that actually favor the buildup of perennial ice, and it did not happen; instead, perennial ice continued, I believe, to decline despite the favorable conditions.
#469 Ed
I hadn’t seen the Hyperion, but I have see other similar underground “pods”. They are indeed very cost-effective and could be rapidly deployed. When I refer to nuclear, I am referring to large scale conventional nuclear reactors. I stand corrected.
Question – Do the Hyperion reactors use the same type of fuel conventional reactors? The EIA used to have lots of information on future uranium supplies that has mysteriously disappeared from the site. As China’s new plants come on board and the supply from Russia dries up, I foresee pretty serious shortages and price increases after 2015-2017. At $20/lb, fuel cost isn’t an issue, but at $130/lb it is. (It was up to $113/lb in 2008 – now it’s down to around $56, I think.)
@509 spaceman spiff — you have my meaning. What some guy (however smart) “remembers” from however long ago what long village elders “remember” from longer ago about a couple dozen personal visits — it just doesn’t meet basic standards.
Even a formal, very carefully conducted survey trying hard to be globalized would still have a host of issues.
I don’t think any of the scientists here would really say this kind of thing rises to “evidence”. It’s actually difficult to construct survey questions without leading people on, and even more difficul if your questions/dialogue with them is not standardized and even more difficult if… so on and so on.
If you wanted to cite evidence that had some more “human touch” to it, at least consider something like almanacs where someone carefully wrote something down long ago. (I’m not saying that even that sort of thing is great, but it at least approaches the analyzable…).
And as to what persuades the natives, it sounds like all he’s saying is weather does which I don’t have a cite for, but could be considered from the “I wish it weren’t so climate journal of duh”. I mean, was even a single case of this sort of thing in any region where there was local cooling? We know there have been such places.
So, neither point seems valid — either evidenciary or the kind of weird spin he seemed to be putting on it about people listening to their elders or whatever. Lemmee see…
Ray Ladbury wrote: lay persons were way ahead of Americans in accepting the reality of climate change. Why? Because they listened to the oldest people in the village who had all experienced the changes
I consider this a totally ridiculous thing to say, akin to but merely a mirror of trying to get people to not focus on weather anecdotes.
And I don’t meant to insult Ray broadly or anything. He does a good job of giving people pointers here. I just think this line of thinking is so amazingly vulnerable to co-opting/reversal with little effort that it crosses over beyond the weakest line of defense for any claim and does not rise to what I would call ‘science’, though I suppose we all have a variety of standards.
Always searching,
It is clearly evidence, and it could be used in a Bayesian analysis. I have seen zero evidence that people would on the whole be biased toward a conclusion of warming over a conclusion of cooling. And there is simply no reason to assume that this conclusion would persist across the globe. All I am saying is that it is much more consistent with what one would expect in a warming world than what one would expect from a system near equilibrium. This coupled with consistent warming trends from the terrestrial and satellite data, with phenological data and with ice-melting trends leaves little credence to assertions in the denialosphere that the warming trend is “manufactured”.
#425 calyptorhynchus
Estimates of oil and gas reserves are largely based on models. The probability that AGW is not occuring and that CO2 is the primary (not sole) cause is the same as the probability that there is NOT ONE DROP of recoverable oil in ANWR.
Look Ray — as I say, your memories of consistency, your memories of how you asked questions about their memories or even what the elders memories of their memories were, teased out this information, your vague non-quantitative assertions…Did you even keep an accurate journal? They don’t amount to a Bayesian update for any scientist, journal, or other information sink. As this is a blog about credible science, they really don’t have much place here.
The reason to think there might be a bias might literally be in that you are talking about personal experiences of one person who might ask his questions or collect his evidence in a particular way — unscrutinized by anyone. I’m truly sorry you don’t see how almost impossibly subjective this style of claim is…a telephone game several times removed integrated by some single or couple of actors? Come on.
I have holiday things to do and no longer time to discuss the fineries of what I do not think is a very subtle point. Cheers
Lamont,
The atmosphere has a stratosphere, yes. But the sun and a lot of other stars have non-convecting layers as well. Same physics, really.
Punksta: While the post-1998 flattening of temperatures…
BPL: Doesn’t exist. Look again.
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Ball.html
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Reber.html
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
Just as a rhetorical point, “This coupled with consistent warming trends…” is totally out of order. All that other consistency is a reason for belief. A few interviews by a few people (all of which interviewers probably had been exposed to modern climate theory and most likely had some strong prior belief…) of highly anecdotal memories…all during a period where the actual highly credible measured global shift has been quite small…I think you have a good case to make that people are persuaded by local weather and that regional climate varies. But we knew that. And it kind of bugs us. Let’s not perpetuate it inversely/rhetorically when it suits us.
I also agree with the other comment that going forward if we actually start seeing wild rises like 6C/century that changes may become extreme that even massively contaminated and almost useless style of collection for a 1900-2000 range might actually have a non-trivial signal to noise ratio, but really only with very careful information gathering. Such testimony will be more or less unnecessary due to modern global measurement technology…There will be no talk of conspiracies or manufactured anything in 100 years if the temps rise as forecast. Gotta go! Not dismissing/cheezing out…just have to check back in a few days.
Louise D.,
A good non-mathematical introduction to the field is George S. Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” (1998), though there is some math in the appendices. For those willing to look at the math, John T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” is very good–that or Grant W. Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.” And for the history of AGW theory, try Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” (2nd Ed. 2008).
Douglas Wise,
When I express an opposing viewpoint, you say I am attacking people. When I discuss a *public* book on a *public* forum you say that I am talking behind someone’s back? Don’t you think you are being a bit heavy-handed?
I know about his energy plans, but they are near the end of the book. A few questions:
– Why does he spend 100 pages painting a picture of renewables woefully inadequate to provide us with enough energy for a comfortable life, only to correct that image later on in the book? Why not paint a realistic picture right from the start? Why fill 18 chapters building a case that has no merit?
– The current primary energy use in the UK is IIRC 105 kWh per person per day. Why not use that number to put against the 180 kWh pppd renewables stack? The fact that he brings up the fictitious ‘moderately affluent brit’ seems to me a neat trick to pump up the demand from 105 to 195 kWh pppd so the renewables stack is LOWER than the consumption stack. His energy plans in chapter 27 only project a future need of 68 kWh pppd.
– How many people will get until page 203? You know what they say about the first impression. By the time the reader gets to page 203, the damage has already been done. Many will not even get that far, thinking “I know enough”. The reason why I know this is true is the coverage this book was given on The Register some time ago. They only took information from those first 18 chapters to hammer in the message that renewables are not to be taken seriously.
I can not see how someone can read that book and still think all forms of energy are treated equally.
I am not going to comment more on this. Everyone knows where to find the book and form his own opinion.
Gavin@253
Again you fail to explain this, I wonder if you could engage someone else who might have more pedagogic training to try to explain this important bit of science to me and others.
E.g. “…Increases in CO2 in the troposphere increase absorption @ 650 cm^-1, warming the atmosphere and increase emissions up across the rest of the spectrum….”
What does this mean?? Is it even English? Please Gavin, it’s not the first time someone wonders about the CO2 absorption theory? Is it explainable at all?
I’m so frustrated with this, do you think I’m too stupid? (I did understand what Mann did, reading the Wegman report).
[Response: Huh? It’s pretty hard to condense complicated science into something short and understandable to everyone. Short I can do, understandable I can do – but not always together. It is not stupidity that is the problem here, but instead the need for a background in some aspects of the topic that might be lacking. Read about the spectra of black body radiation, read about absorption characteristics of gases, and look at some graphs. Then think about what I said again. You will at least be able to ask better questions. – gavin]
alway searching says:
23 December 2009 at 4:55 PM
Look Ray — as I say, your memories of consistency, your memories of how you asked questions about their memories or even what the elders memories of their memories were, teased out this information, your vague non-quantitative assertions…Did you even keep an accurate journal? They don’t amount to a Bayesian update for any scientist, journal, or other information sink. As this is a blog about credible science, they really don’t have much place here.
And yet such oral tradition can be surprisingly accurate. For instance the Lemba of S Africa claim descent from Jews and follow some jewish cultural practices. Subsequent DNA studies (Y chromosome) show ~50% semitic origins with a high number carrying the particular polymorphism peculiar to the Cohens.
#493 #414 – Jiminmpls
I hope you are kidding about ExxonMobil’s efforts “to help” with climate science. :)
Actually not. The question was “How to speak with CONSERVATIVES…….?” I think pointing out that even Exxon Mobil has changed their position in the past few years. They no longer question the science and advocate a multi-faceted mitigation strtegy and a direct tax on carbon.
Now, whatever Exxon did in the past and may continue to do behind the scenes to undermine climate change mitigation is a whole other topic, but to a CONSERVATIVE, Exxon’s stated public policy should carry some weight.
Re 302 dhogaza
Would you say that current permafrost melt conditions resulting in exposure of Arctic organic matter as discussed by Hinzman in his 2009 AGU presentation (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/C24A.shtml) is supported by climate science? What about the recent discoveries of methane releases from the sea floor in Arctic areas and lake bed sources? These are observations, but did climate science predict such processes to proceed to such an extent in the near term?
I think the feedbacks of exposed Arctic carbon and sea bed clathrates are issues that have not been appropriately addressed.
finally i hacked into this comment section…
relax or delete it, but you cant change the truhts
I read a comment somewhere here. Didnt found it again.
Probably deleted by “the scientist” or somehow…
afaik i changed it a little bit.
Maybe the most important short message debunking everyhing so called scientist ever claimed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvpwLFFqIV0
I recommend, in addition to the prvious (excellent) suggestions, two books by W.F. Ruddiman
(1) his popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”
(2) his introductory textbook “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”.
Thankyou to those who responded. Particularly for the links and pointers – which is exactly what I was after. Now I have some Christmas reading.
To those who barely restrained themselves from attacking, you’re missing the political point of all of this: Nothing will happen without popular support. Popular support won’t tip the balance without understanding. I vote and pay taxes – I represent the millions of people needed. Don’t turn us away, no matter how frustrating it may seem or you’ll do more harm than a closed minded denialist.
The BIG question of post remains un answered. Fair enough because I don’t believe it can be answered at this stage, but that in essence is the problem I’m struggling with. That is, without good mathematics, what action WILL “cap temps at a 2 degree increase”? That’s the so-called “Copenhagen Accord”. How is it done?
As for the military analogy, I agree decision is far better than indecision. But this is a multi front war and several battles need to be won. (1) Understanding (2) Mitigating action (3) A plan to cope with the consequences of damage already done, and changes made to mitigate the damage. From my perspective we’re still struggling with (1), proposals for (2) are scaring the $@$^ out of the people needed to make it happen because of the struggle with (1), and very little effort is going into (3). Your “General” is losing.
Didactylus,
No, the calculation he made was not to show ‘what could nuclear provide’, but how much nucelear the UK would need to fulfil their needs. A completely different calculation. The needs at that point have suddenly dropped from 195 to 22 kWh pppd. That is the central point of my objections.
My rationale for quoting The Register is that it shows the book appealed to them. It apparently conveys the right message to confirm them in their anti-environmentalist dogma.
Always searching,
That’s just it. I wasn’t asking questions. I was enjoying the shade of a mango tree in the nooday sun as I purchased some REALLY GOOD mangos and talked with a delightful old man. He volunteered these observations in 1991, despite having never heard of Jim Hansen. I had similar experiences in East Africa and many other places up to Sri Lanka last month, where several people mentioned changes to monsoons, etc. I do not claim that these experiences represent hard evidence, but it certainly is not consistent with the claims in the denialosphere that the warming is an artifact of the analysis. Likewise, no one piece of phenological data is evidence of climate change, but taken together they support the proposition that we’ve had significant warming. And a melting glacier is not evidence of global change but melting glaciers GLOBALLY is.
Doug and Spaceman Spiff,
The measurement TRY is considering cannot be of the globe, but must, rather have sufficient spatial resolution to differentiate between hemispheres. This means the bird would have to be Low Earth Orbit, not GEO (like NOAA-N) and certainly not at L1 like DISCOVR/TRIANA. It might be doable. However, it would require averaging over many orbits and the signal is time-dependent. You’d be looking at the mid-IR and making precision measurements, so you’d probably have to use a cryogenically cooled detector. It would be an interesting mission, I think.
1. Books: RC has has had several posts about books; in fact, it might be an annual post if there is one in the next few days. Look for “books” on the index page.
2. I think the suggestion of a review of the peer review process is a good one, considering the importance placed on it. A quick summary as I understand it (and I’m sure there are differences across disciplines and journals): A paper is submitted. The journal editors choose several experts in the field, or related fields, to read the paper and comment on any deficiencies or possible improvements in content or exposition, as well as the general quality, originality, and noteworthiness. The authors respond to these critiques with revisions as they see fit. Rinse, lather, repeat until possible publication. In the denialsphere the peer review process is somewhat different: if Viscount Monckton likes it, it’s a go.
How about a piece on what’s really needed in
— ecological research
— satellite support
— etc.
I recall Gavin commenting that we need more than just Triana/DSCOVR (another one like it at the libration point on the other side of the planet, if I remember correctly, to get the whole 24 hours covered).
Something to clarify and extend comments like this one:
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 18 Dec 09 Washington, DC
2. CERES: SO WHAT WAS IN THE CLIMATEGATE E-MAILS? A hacked e-mail passage that was widely quoted in media accounts of climate- gate, begins: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Francisco Valero, Director of the Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography, says the statement is totally correct. The problem began where most of our problems began: at the start of The Bush administration. Because Al Gore initiated it, the Bush administration postponed and eventually canceled the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), meant to continuously monitor Earth’s radiance from the L1 point between Earth and Sun. Instead NASA began a program to get the information from low Earth orbit: CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). The problem is that the low-Earth orbit satellite is so close that it sees only a narrow swath on each pass around the planet. Climate models require accurate radiance measurements over the diurnal cycle, and those data are not at hand. DSCOVR was designed to provide what the low-Earth orbit satellites cannot. An $18.7 billion NASA budget sent to the White House last Sunday includes only $5 million for continued refurbishing of DSCOVR. That is also a travesty.
Matt,
23 December 2009 at 12:24 PM
I knew in advance that using only wind to get a ballpark figure of the cost for renewables did open the door for the wrong interpretation that wind alone can and must cover our energy needs. The solution is of course a mix of technologies. Please note also that I doubled the US consumption to be ‘on the safe side’.
The German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft has done research on baseload and renewables (it’s in German, don’t know if an English translation is available):
http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Themen_A-Z/Erneuerbare-Strompotenziale/090915_BEE_IWES_Studie_PK_Hintergrund.pdf
In short: If the share of renewable energy rises to 47% by 2020, the conventional baseload (coal, nuclear) can be almost halved (from 44 GW to 24,5 GW). In their renewable energy mix, wind accounts for roughly half.
Another key success factor for renewables is connecting the generators over large areas to reduce variability. You can not look at the variability of 1 turbine and use that as a measure for a whole state or country. The larger the area, the smaller the variability.
What is your opinion about the link I posted here? C$ 26 billion for 2400 MWe? I don’t see the better economics.
I might be looking at the wrong thing, so feel free to support your case with evidence (not a sales brochure of a nuclear company).
Another wishlist item:
Best explanatory graphics (not a thread filling up with nitwit comments, but a page with pictures and links to explanations).
When I do a Google and a Scholar search for climate answers, I also try to remember to do an Image search. So far the results suggest there’s PhD material there for a scholar of search engines. The image search is _always_ every single time utterly loaded with links to the big five or six denial/PR sites.
They OWN the imagery universe, on all climate questions. Which means they get the votes of anyone who looks at pictures and votes accordingly.
Bad bug. Please fix.
This is one such good image, a hard one to spin:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7NrAt8xGd0E/SCXfzDRcsJI/AAAAAAAAAts/JNe5Nuf0A9o/s1600-h/20080429.gif