Solar and wind. Regarding efficency, is Campus 2 a waste in PV when the roof are nearly completely covered in solar panels?
I'm not saying it's a waste. It's just that PV has an efficiency of around 22% for classic mono crystal tech, and 25% for GaAS. Thats why often for private homes it makes more sense to think about solar thermal installations rather than PV. Of course, every bit helps.
Coming back to the electric vehicle: currently, there are roughly a billion cars out there globally. An EV consumes about 15-20 kW per 100km. Assuming an average yearly mileage of 10.000 km per vehicle, this amounts to 1.5MW per year and car. With an average of 130W per m^2 for solar panels you need around 230 m^2 under optimum conditions to power one car one year. Not taking into account loss due to energy storage and transportation. For powers my all vehicles this would mean roughly half of the earth's surface, or about 1.5 times the full land mass.
Unless I dint have my numbers right it shows that PV alone will not solve the energy demand.
Half-lives, too. Still, far more quickly than other reactors, even though thorium can produce the high energy stuff in that time.
Thanks for the chain. Here I found that the "dangerous" time span of the nuclear waste of thorium based plants is around 300 years: http://www.final-frontier.ch/thoriumenergie. (Sorry, German text). Still, that constitutes a vast improvement. But last still a challenge. Too bad fusion is not taking off.
Sadly, you sound quite uninformed, just parroting some typical talking points one often hears from the political right on this issue. Hard to take that seriously. Especially when they've lost the argument scientifically and legally.
Here's something from the WSJ that explains how and why, and specific context in which CO2 is classified as a 'pollutant.' You can choose to inform yourself, or you can't. That's up to you. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975
You lost every argument and can only respond with attacks on the 'form' of my replies.
Apparently you ignore all information that doesn't fit your ideology, now that's something I cannot take seriously.
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
b:debase 1 <using language to deceive or mislead pollutes language — Linda C. Lederman>
2
a: to make physically impure or unclean :befoul, dirty
b:to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
My concern, is about misinformation, and is not per-se associated with the climate change discussion (although this is a nice example of misinformation, but do read my previous reply again).
Dictionary
pollutant
nounpol·lut·ant\p?-?lü-t?nt\
: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
Not sure about the fear mongering; the data is definitive about increasing CO2.
Some entities consider an overabundance of a substance in the atmosphere as a pollutant; some don't. Either way, your parsing doesn't change the fact that CO2 emissions are changing our environment in historically rapid way that is likely to be undesirable for the bulk of existing life, including our own. Some species will adapt well; most, not so much. It is also likely to lead to major disruptions in human populations that will lead to more war, and to new vectors for disease to the world's populations.
I'm not so concerned about rising water for the first world; that's solvable with lots of money. The changes in weather pattens will certainly have winners and losers, and those too can be mitigated by the wealthier nations, albeit at very high cost.
Mitigation by shifting to renewables and away from fossil fuels seems to be of modest cost with great opportunities; why not start now?
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
My concern, is about misinformation, and is not per-se associated with the climate change discussion (although this is a nice example of misinformation, but do read my previous reply again).
Very good, but I had already seen that - hence following the definition back to the root verb. I still don't see your asserted constraints, or even references, to poisonous or carcinogenic, so while your argument may not have changed, you haven't defended it and it hasn't improved either. Your previous post is still quite transparently an attempt to attack AGW on the basis of a technicality - what useful information am I supposed to be taking from it?
Oh and thanks for letting me know that I can disregard Wikipedia. Your handle is starting to look very appropriate.
That’s funny, because the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were both globally hotter than today with far less CO2.
Never mind the 1940s.
We have had this discussion too. There are other possible mechanisms than CO2 for warming, so the existence of such periods has no direct bearing on this argument, except to note that high temperatures (caused by other mechanisms) still do drive CO2 out of solution in the oceans, thus increasing, relatively, the atmospheric level. The 1940s were not hotter though.
It's really hard to judge the quality of the models used and the data that is fed into them. During my university time I did some work on meterological models and being highly nonlinear and chaotic by nature at least I came to the point where I thought you can prove anything you like to prove with those models.
Having said that, I suppose there is no disputes about two things:
1. Emission of "greenhouse gasses" is rising strongly since the last decades/centuries
2. Emission of those gasses leads to higher storage of energy on the earth (less energy can leave the earth as the gas prohibits this.
It's really hard to judge the quality of the models used and the data that is fed into them. During my university time I did some work on meterological models and being highly nonlinear and chaotic by nature at least I came to the point where I thought you can prove anything you like to prove with those models.
Having said that, I suppose there is no disputes about two things:
1. Emission of "greenhouse gasses" is rising strongly since the last decades/centuries
2. Emission of those gasses leads to higher storage of energy on the earth (less energy can leave the earth as the gas prohibits this.
Competing models from different scientific groups, more and higher quality data, more computational resources will ultimately lead to a convergence of the models in the future, just as they are now for weather models for hurricanes and storm systems.
There isn't any model that shows cooling; unless you throw in volcanic or cosmological events.
Sure were. Than right now? Of course they were. Wonko likes the New York Times; here’s the New York Times. Chicago Tribune. Here’s the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Here’s Hansen’s OWN ORIGINAL DATA (page 961), which agrees. And look what he has done since.
...I thought you can prove anything you like to prove with those models.
Well, “prove”, but just about, yeah. You’re absolutely right about that. It all depends on where you’re starting your measurements. Start at a local minimum, like so many AGW-ites prefer to do (cough1975cough) and you can claim that we’re losing ice it’s going to be gone forever oh no 2013 will be ice free ignore the fact that we had plenty of ice then sign away your freedom and industry! Never mind that ’71 (I think it was) had even less ice than we do now.
1. Emission of "greenhouse gasses" is rising strongly since the last decades/centuries
Thanks for the quotation marks; I agree completely.
2. Emission of those gasses leads to higher storage of energy on the earth
We’ve seen nothing to suggest this, unless we can agree that the energy just went into the Earth itself and isn’t affecting the temperature or climate.
Originally Posted by tmay
There isn't any model that shows cooling
No model, maybe, but the real-world temperature readings do.
Sure were. Than right now? Of course they were. Wonko likes the New York Times; here’s the New York Times. Chicago Tribune. Here’s the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now. Unless you are back to simply asserting that all the modern datasets have been falsified, in which case we don't have a starting point for the discussion.
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now.
Because the articles and study prove that there was a spike in temperature at that time, which has been ERASED on modern charting.
Unless you are back to simply asserting that all the modern datasets have been falsified, in which case we don't have a starting point for the discussion.
Our discussion has returned to that point, yes.
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now.
Because the articles and study prove that there was a spike in temperature at that time, which has been ERASED on modern charting.
But the spike was only ever shown as around +0.2 ?C, compared to the current excursion of nearly +1 ?C, so it does not, and never did, support your assertion.
Unless you are back to simply asserting that all the modern datasets have been falsified, in which case we don't have a starting point for the discussion.
Our discussion has returned to that point, yes.
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
On the subject of that email - I should say that I've had many discussions of that kind about data analysis. My opinion (which was also the opinion of the investigating committees) is that they are discussing whether the trends are real or not, and what they mean in terms of their mechanistic hypotheses - in other words should that spike be there or not and does it invalidate anything. As opposed to noting a spike that they consider to be real and wanting to remove it. I agree that, to a layperson, it probably looks fishy though.
And you believe these numbers, given the editing? With the past being pushed down, is it impossible for the present to be pulled up? Why have temperatures not changed across a 40 ppm increase in CO2? Why, as CO2 increases, are the ice caps not removing themselves from their longstanding cycles? Why, if CO2 is the catalyst for warming (and therefore ice melting) have Alaskan glaciers been receding since Washington’s presidency? Why, in NASA’s “coldest year on “““record”””” were glaciers melting at one of the most rapid rates on record?
Regarding one specific aspect of data tampering (not even the outright fabrications of almost 40% of ground “readings”, just tampering to real data), I recall a “correction” being made for the “urban heat index” (UHI). This is done to normalize, over time, the waste heat put off by human buildings. But when the correction was applied, it was done by lowering the temperature of the past.
This is the exact opposite of what should have happened. As urbanization expands, the temperature of the present should have been lowered at those locations to normalize the scope of the effect of buildings. Alternatively, the past could have been raised to create an equivalency with modern heat runoff. But they didn’t. Here’s an exposé on Paraguay specifically, but it’s done everywhere. Particularly in the US.
Comments
I'm not saying it's a waste. It's just that PV has an efficiency of around 22% for classic mono crystal tech, and 25% for GaAS. Thats why often for private homes it makes more sense to think about solar thermal installations rather than PV. Of course, every bit helps.
Coming back to the electric vehicle: currently, there are roughly a billion cars out there globally. An EV consumes about 15-20 kW per 100km. Assuming an average yearly mileage of 10.000 km per vehicle, this amounts to 1.5MW per year and car. With an average of 130W per m^2 for solar panels you need around 230 m^2 under optimum conditions to power one car one year. Not taking into account loss due to energy storage and transportation. For powers my all vehicles this would mean roughly half of the earth's surface, or about 1.5 times the full land mass.
Unless I dint have my numbers right it shows that PV alone will not solve the energy demand.
I seem to have remembered a greatly simplified version of the chain, so here’s the whole thing.
Half-lives, too. Still, far more quickly than other reactors, even though thorium can produce the high energy stuff in that time.
Thanks for the chain. Here I found that the "dangerous" time span of the nuclear waste of thorium based plants is around 300 years: http://www.final-frontier.ch/thoriumenergie. (Sorry, German text). Still, that constitutes a vast improvement. But last still a challenge. Too bad fusion is not taking off.
Edit: or The Flux compensator
Sadly, you sound quite uninformed, just parroting some typical talking points one often hears from the political right on this issue. Hard to take that seriously. Especially when they've lost the argument scientifically and legally.
Here's something from the WSJ that explains how and why, and specific context in which CO2 is classified as a 'pollutant.' You can choose to inform yourself, or you can't. That's up to you. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975
You lost every argument and can only respond with attacks on the 'form' of my replies.
Apparently you ignore all information that doesn't fit your ideology, now that's something I cannot take seriously.
Good luck with that.
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
Full Definition of POLLUTE
b : debase 1 <using language to deceive or mislead pollutes language — Linda C. Lederman>
b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
My argument hasn't changed.
It isn't that difficult: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant (see below if you somehow cannot open the link).
You can disregard Wikipedia in this respect.
My concern, is about misinformation, and is not per-se associated with the climate change discussion (although this is a nice example of misinformation, but do read my previous reply again).
pollutant
noun pol·lut·ant \p?-?lü-t?nt\
: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution
The definition is from Merriam-Webster and defines precisely what the meaning is in English. That it should be poisonous, carcinogenic, etc, is directly associated with it.
This is a useful argument, because it concerns the meaning of the word in plain English.
If you change the meaning of a word you create confusion and disinformation.
As I stated before, naming, defining CO2 a pollutant is absurd because it has no characteristics in any way normally associated with the word 'pollutant' (if it has to be classified it is one of the most beneficial molecules you can think of) and using 'pollutant' in this regard is misleading to say the least.
Your last sentence is suggestive, I object to manipulation of people using false pretences and fear mongering.
Not sure about the fear mongering; the data is definitive about increasing CO2.
Some entities consider an overabundance of a substance in the atmosphere as a pollutant; some don't. Either way, your parsing doesn't change the fact that CO2 emissions are changing our environment in historically rapid way that is likely to be undesirable for the bulk of existing life, including our own. Some species will adapt well; most, not so much. It is also likely to lead to major disruptions in human populations that will lead to more war, and to new vectors for disease to the world's populations.
I'm not so concerned about rising water for the first world; that's solvable with lots of money. The changes in weather pattens will certainly have winners and losers, and those too can be mitigated by the wealthier nations, albeit at very high cost.
Mitigation by shifting to renewables and away from fossil fuels seems to be of modest cost with great opportunities; why not start now?
You must be looking at a different version of Merriam-Webster than I am - I see nothing about poisons or carcinogens.
Wikipedia defines a pollutant thus: A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
As I mentioned earlier, harmful is not an unreasonable description of the alleged effect of CO2 on the climate, so its use here may be marginal, but is certainly not absurd. M-W definition 2b looks reasonably applicable in this usage, as does the WP reference to "undesirable effects".
In any case, it is not clear to me that false pretenses or fear-mongering have much to do with this. Whether you agree with the science or not, initiatives were put into place to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and the simplest way to do that was via the same mechanism that regulates other polluting emissions - which then required it to be included in the list. This is not a philosophical statement on the role of the gas in nature.
It still appears to me that your primary motivation is to find yet another line of attack on the emission reduction goal - i.e. dispute the role of the gas in climate change - rather than any real concern for the purity of language.
My argument hasn't changed.
It isn't that difficult: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant (see below if you somehow cannot open the link).
You can disregard Wikipedia in this respect.
My concern, is about misinformation, and is not per-se associated with the climate change discussion (although this is a nice example of misinformation, but do read my previous reply again).
Very good, but I had already seen that - hence following the definition back to the root verb. I still don't see your asserted constraints, or even references, to poisonous or carcinogenic, so while your argument may not have changed, you haven't defended it and it hasn't improved either. Your previous post is still quite transparently an attempt to attack AGW on the basis of a technicality - what useful information am I supposed to be taking from it?
Oh and thanks for letting me know that I can disregard Wikipedia. Your handle is starting to look very appropriate.
That’s funny, because the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were both globally hotter than today with far less CO2.
Never mind the 1940s.
That’s funny, because the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were both globally hotter than today with far less CO2.
Never mind the 1940s.
We have had this discussion too. There are other possible mechanisms than CO2 for warming, so the existence of such periods has no direct bearing on this argument, except to note that high temperatures (caused by other mechanisms) still do drive CO2 out of solution in the oceans, thus increasing, relatively, the atmospheric level. The 1940s were not hotter though.
We must have different sources then: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html
Or we mean different Romans
It's really hard to judge the quality of the models used and the data that is fed into them. During my university time I did some work on meterological models and being highly nonlinear and chaotic by nature at least I came to the point where I thought you can prove anything you like to prove with those models.
Having said that, I suppose there is no disputes about two things:
1. Emission of "greenhouse gasses" is rising strongly since the last decades/centuries
2. Emission of those gasses leads to higher storage of energy on the earth (less energy can leave the earth as the gas prohibits this.
We must have different sources then: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html
Or we mean different Romans
It's really hard to judge the quality of the models used and the data that is fed into them. During my university time I did some work on meterological models and being highly nonlinear and chaotic by nature at least I came to the point where I thought you can prove anything you like to prove with those models.
Having said that, I suppose there is no disputes about two things:
1. Emission of "greenhouse gasses" is rising strongly since the last decades/centuries
2. Emission of those gasses leads to higher storage of energy on the earth (less energy can leave the earth as the gas prohibits this.
Competing models from different scientific groups, more and higher quality data, more computational resources will ultimately lead to a convergence of the models in the future, just as they are now for weather models for hurricanes and storm systems.
There isn't any model that shows cooling; unless you throw in volcanic or cosmological events.
Sure were. Than right now? Of course they were. Wonko likes the New York Times; here’s the New York Times. Chicago Tribune. Here’s the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Here’s Hansen’s OWN ORIGINAL DATA (page 961), which agrees. And look what he has done since.
Yep, we do. Yours are wrong (through no fault of your own), and mine are even from the people responsible for pushing the AGW lie, and they’re agreeing with me.
Well, “prove”, but just about, yeah. You’re absolutely right about that. It all depends on where you’re starting your measurements. Start at a local minimum, like so many AGW-ites prefer to do (cough1975cough) and you can claim that we’re losing ice it’s going to be gone forever oh no 2013 will be ice free ignore the fact that we had plenty of ice then sign away your freedom and industry! Never mind that ’71 (I think it was) had even less ice than we do now.
Thanks for the quotation marks; I agree completely.
We’ve seen nothing to suggest this, unless we can agree that the energy just went into the Earth itself and isn’t affecting the temperature or climate.
There isn't any model that shows cooling
No model, maybe, but the real-world temperature readings do.
Sure were. Than right now? Of course they were. Wonko likes the New York Times; here’s the New York Times. Chicago Tribune. Here’s the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now. Unless you are back to simply asserting that all the modern datasets have been falsified, in which case we don't have a starting point for the discussion.
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now.
Because the articles and study prove that there was a spike in temperature at that time, which has been ERASED on modern charting.
Our discussion has returned to that point, yes.
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
I don't understand how articles from the 60s and 70s, and a graph from 1982 allows you to conclude the the 40s were hotter than now.
Because the articles and study prove that there was a spike in temperature at that time, which has been ERASED on modern charting.
But the spike was only ever shown as around +0.2 ?C, compared to the current excursion of nearly +1 ?C, so it does not, and never did, support your assertion.
Our discussion has returned to that point, yes.
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
On the subject of that email - I should say that I've had many discussions of that kind about data analysis. My opinion (which was also the opinion of the investigating committees) is that they are discussing whether the trends are real or not, and what they mean in terms of their mechanistic hypotheses - in other words should that spike be there or not and does it invalidate anything. As opposed to noting a spike that they consider to be real and wanting to remove it. I agree that, to a layperson, it probably looks fishy though.
...the current excursion of nearly +1 ?C...
And you believe these numbers, given the editing? With the past being pushed down, is it impossible for the present to be pulled up? Why have temperatures not changed across a 40 ppm increase in CO2? Why, as CO2 increases, are the ice caps not removing themselves from their longstanding cycles? Why, if CO2 is the catalyst for warming (and therefore ice melting) have Alaskan glaciers been receding since Washington’s presidency? Why, in NASA’s “coldest year on “““record”””” were glaciers melting at one of the most rapid rates on record?
Regarding one specific aspect of data tampering (not even the outright fabrications of almost 40% of ground “readings”, just tampering to real data), I recall a “correction” being made for the “urban heat index” (UHI). This is done to normalize, over time, the waste heat put off by human buildings. But when the correction was applied, it was done by lowering the temperature of the past.
This is the exact opposite of what should have happened. As urbanization expands, the temperature of the present should have been lowered at those locations to normalize the scope of the effect of buildings. Alternatively, the past could have been raised to create an equivalency with modern heat runoff. But they didn’t. Here’s an exposé on Paraguay specifically, but it’s done everywhere. Particularly in the US.