Interesting article in the WSJ yesterday.

[BethesdaWX]

Nice change of topic from yet another one of your epic fails.

There is a consensus that TC peak intensity will increase but frequency of TCs will decrease. There is a lot of uncertainty, but this is widely regarded as the most likely outcome.

Not a Change of topic, we have been discussing conensus as the main point the whole time.

How many times can you be wrong in one day? It is not widely regarded as the best outcome>

Wheres your source for the statement?

[skierinvermont]

So then why all this worry about hurricanes?

If overall activity is going down and will continue to go down, won't that be more important than a few more intense storms every couple of years?

The last few hurricane seasons have been total duds anyway.

What worry? The IPCC isn't worried about hurricanes. I can't speak for left-wing nutjob #203,030 though.

[skierinvermont]

Not a Change of topic, we have been discussing conensus as the main point the whole time.

How many times can you be wrong in one day? It is not widely regarded as the best outcome>

Wheres your source for the statement?

The IPCC is the consensus view. The consensus said in 2007 that peak intensity will increase, frequency will decrease. The American Meteorological Organization concurs, as do prominent hurricane researchers.

[BethesdaWX]

The IPCC is the consensus view. The consensus said in 2007 that peak intensity will increase, frequency will decrease. The American Meteorological Organization concurs, as do prominent hurricane researchers.

Thankyou for the laugh..... "the IPCC is the consensus view"... that explains everything.

I got a dinner date, so I'll talk to you later

Have a good evening

[skierinvermont]

Thankyou for the laugh..... "the IPCC is the consensus view"... that explains everything.

I got a dinner date, so I'll talk to you later

Have a good evening

Only in your delusional fantasy world does 7 years of work by 10,000+ scientists and 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed articles not represent the consensus view.

[JBG]

Only in your delusional fantasy world does 7 years of work by 10,000+ scientists and 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed articles not represent the consensus view.

I do not consider skepticism of the anti-growth, anti-capitalist, beaurocratic IPCC to be delusional.

[skierinvermont]

I do not consider skepticism of the anti-growth, anti-capitalist, beaurocratic IPCC to be delusional.

Is this sort of like a communist?

[BethesdaWX]

Only in your delusional fantasy world does 7 years of work by 10,000+ scientists and 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed articles not represent the consensus view.

Yeah, and there are over 100,000 atmospheric scientists in the world......

And, of the 10,000 scientists... NONE of them were able to Catch the "33% below sea level" error (off by over 25%), the "Himilayan Glaciers gone by 2035" Error (which was taken from a NON climatre scientist, "Amazongate".... (a magazine cover)

If 10,000 big-time scientists blunder, & don't understand basic geography, physics, and their own data..... Yeah. Do you know how many of there references/basis are taken from NON climate scientists... you know.... who are "unacceptable to publish".... not to mention copygate.....

These are the worlds big gov't scientists, and they can't even get basic geography & Ice physics right.....

What a consensus we have here!

Alrighty, heading out again, talk later Mr. Skier.

[JBG]

Is this sort of like a communist?

Your choice of words, not mine.

[salbers]

Yeah, and there are over 100,000 atmospheric scientists in the world......

And, of the 10,000 scientists... NONE of them were able to Catch the "33% below sea level" error (off by over 25%), the "Himilayan Glaciers gone by 2035" Error (which was taken from a NON climatre scientist, "Amazongate".... (a magazine cover)

If 10,000 big-time scientists blunder, & don't understand basic geography, physics, and their own data..... Yeah. Do you know how many of there references/basis are taken from NON climate scientists... you know.... who are "unacceptable to publish".... not to mention copygate.....

These are the worlds big gov't scientists, and they can't even get basic geography & Ice physics right.....

What a consensus we have here!

Alrighty, heading out again, talk later Mr. Skier.

Sure, we can clean up the goofy errors in the IPCC report, then we're left with an even more powerful document that is hard to refute in the big picture. Let's look at how it underestimates Arctic sea ice melting, and melting in the ice sheets.

[salbers]

Well I agree on foreign energy dependence and pollution, but I don't think sustainable/local economy is a solution to unemployment, I think it would slow economic growth since it is less efficient and ties up more human and material resources in energy and food production. More household income will be tied up in food and energy costs than other necessities and luxuries.

There are some small things that are efficient for people to do, like insulate their homes, grow a vegetable garden (although this takes time and effort). But local agriculture, or having a windmill, or having solar panels etc. is so inefficient compared to big ag, oil, and coal, that it would drastically reduce people's standard of living to use them. Maybe this is what is necessary, maybe it's not, but it's not good for the economy.

Actually alternative energy is good for the economy in the long term. We already have a lower energy returned / invested ratio and that isn't helping things. There are very few solutions actually (fossil or non-fossil) that are presently giving attractive EROI ratios.

So in other words, oil is running low in supply. Even coal will be. So do these get replaced by dirtier tar sands and oil shale, or replaced by solar, wind, and even nuclear fission and fusion? Even natual gas is somewhat cleaner with just one carbon atom in the methane molecule.

[salbers]

cold fusion is legit man

but AGW.. that's just some speculation by a few crackpots

I actually look more to hot fusion at this point. There were some new advances in tokomaks announced by MIT this week.

[skierinvermont]

Actually alternative energy is good for the economy in the long term. We already have a lower energy returned / invested ratio and that isn't helping things. There are very few solutions actually (fossil or non-fossil) that are presently giving attractive EROI ratios.

So in other words, oil is running low in supply. Even coal will be. So do these get replaced by dirtier tar sands and oil shale, or replaced by solar, wind, and even nuclear fission and fusion? Even natual gas is somewhat cleaner with just one carbon atom in the methane molecule.

As I understand it, except if rare special circumstances, alternative energy sources cost more for the same unit of power. This is why solar and wind require large subsidies.

[BethesdaWX]

As I understand it, except if rare special circumstances, alternative energy sources cost more for the same unit of power. This is why solar and wind require large subsidies.

And that high price is why they will never become our main energy sources. They cost a sh*tload

[salbers]

As I understand it, except if rare special circumstances, alternative energy sources cost more for the same unit of power. This is why solar and wind require large subsidies.

I thought oil also has significant subsidies.

This comparison partly depends on whether the input cost is measured in dollars, energy, or carbon emissions to extract the energy source. In all of these measures, fossil fuels will be becoming less attractive in the future. Should we plan for this, or just let it happen, perhaps as a shock to the economy?

[salbers]

And that high price is why they will never become our main energy sources. They cost a sh*tload

The price equation is changing over time - one should look ahead at where the trends are leading.

[salbers]

I'd think it would be in everyones best interest if we were to come up with new energy methods.... but continue to burn Fossil fuels Until a proposed deadline, so we can then begin the transition to clean energy, without f*cking up the world economy.

While we transition, 50 years of GHG emissions won't bring doom upon the world. It would take about 70 years to double our emissions rslease. So even if we warm..... (which I personally find unlikely), a 0.6-0.9C rise in Global temps is nothing to fear for our lives about.

Our families, hard woking individuals, and our success is more important than "Cap & Tax".... alot of these plans would do nothing to halt warming...... if it were happening the way it has been said to be... in hype.

We must be doing something to halt warming already

Since the transition takes a long time to integrate itself into the economy, it should probably begin now (as it somewhat is doing) rather than wait 50 years.

If we transition (say the mid-point in 50 years) we'd probably still have around a 3C temperature increase with a doubling of CO2 concentrations to 560ppm? Better targets for CO2 would be 450 or even 350ppm (with large emisisons cuts) to be on the safe side. So maybe a full transition to nearly zero carbon emissions in 50 years would be good if we're really starting now.

[BethesdaWX]

Since the transition takes a long time to integrate itself into the economy, it should probably begin now (as it somewhat is doing) rather than wait 50 years.

If we transition (say the mid-point in 50 years) we'd probably still have around a 3C temperature increase with a doubling of CO2 concentrations to 560ppm? Better targets for CO2 would be 450 or even 350ppm (with large emisisons cuts) to be on the safe side. So maybe a full transition to nearly zero carbon emissions in 50 years would be good if we're really starting now.

I don't think any significan't temperature increase is in store at all, thats just my opinion. Temperatures failed to rise the past 14 years, and CO2 has been skyrocketing. Given that Water Vapor controls 95% of the greenhouqse effect, and that it dominates CO2......Thats probably the answer. Water Vapor goes up and down in its own with or without CO2.

Stratospheric water vapor decrease, on the other hand, goes hand in hand with stratospheric cooling & a warming tropopoause, so you can't really have it one way or the other.

[salbers]

I don't think any significan't temperature increase is in store at all, thats just my opinion. Temperatures failed to rise the past 14 years, and CO2 has been skyrocketing. Given that Water Vapor controls 95% of the greenhouqse effect, and that it dominates CO2......Thats probably the answer. Water Vapor goes up and down in its own with or without CO2.

Stratospheric water vapor decrease, on the other hand, goes hand in hand with stratospheric cooling & a warming tropopoause, so you can't really have it one way or the other.

Sure, there are other factors causing short-term variations (like in the 1960s). Nonetheless the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s and the CO2 is going to have an effect at some point according to the 3C per doubling (at least the most likely effect). Also GISS has 2010 so far the warmest year on record.

My earlier point is in line with this thread that economic considerations and climate considerations both suggest it's good to be developing alternative energy sources now, since it takes a while to do the R & D.

Slowdown from stratospheric water vapor changes is probably temporary:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html

[BethesdaWX]

Sure, there are other factors causing short-term variations (like in the 1960s). Nonetheless the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s and the CO2 is going to have an effect at some point according to the 3C per doubling (at least the most likely effect).

My earlier point is in line with this thread that economic considerations and climate considerations both suggest it's good to be developing alternative energy sources now, since it takes a while to do the R & D.

I agree developing alternative energy is an immediate concern, but no, CO2 does not have to have any effect at all. Its applied forcing is logorithmic, and only about 5% of the GHG effect is caused by CO2, both humans, and Nautrally.

Either way, we cannot warm even 3C before fossil fuels out. This running out is why we need new enegy souces, and it has to be nuclear.

[salbers]

I agree developing alternative energy is an immediate concern, but no, CO2 does not have to have any effect at all. Its applied forcing is logorithmic, and only about 5% of the GHG effect is caused by CO2, both humans, and Nautrally.

Either way, we cannot warm even 3C before fossil fuels out. This running out is why we need new enegy souces, and it has to be nuclear.

Glad we somewhat agree on alternative energy. However the 5% figure is misleading, since we're talking about changes in greenhouse gases rather than their actual values.There's also the water vapor feedback that has been discussed over on Eastern Wx.

The article below suggests several energy sources are competitive in terms of EROEI. Also note the how the trends are shaping up over time.

http://www.energybulletin.net/53475

[BethesdaWX]

Glad we somewhat agree on alternative energy. However the 5% figure is misleading, since we're talking about changes in greenhouse gases rather than their actual values.There's also the water vapor feedback that has been discussed over on Eastern Wx.

The article below suggests several energy sources are competitive in terms of EROEI. Also note the how the trends are shaping up over time.

http://www.energybulletin.net/53475

Thats a good point on the trending, I admit. I give 100% support into renewable energy, just not for the same reasons as most. Eventually, we'll find out if AGW is real or not.

[JBG]

I thought oil also has significant subsidies.

This comparison partly depends on whether the input cost is measured in dollars, energy, or carbon emissions to extract the energy source. In all of these measures, fossil fuels will be becoming less attractive in the future. Should we plan for this, or just let it happen, perhaps as a shock to the economy?

It's not going to be as if suddenly there is no oil. If a scarcity really is imminent the price on the spot and future markets will rise, making other sources of energy more attractive and reducing oil consumption. We don't need to engage in grossly expensive planning for a white elephant technology whose time may never come.

After all we didn't shiver much with the end of commercial whaling.

[salbers]

It's not going to be as if suddenly there is no oil. If a scarcity really is imminent the price on the spot and future markets will rise, making other sources of energy more attractive and reducing oil consumption. We don't need to engage in grossly expensive planning for a white elephant technology whose time may never come.

After all we didn't shiver much with the end of commercial whaling.

Yes it's good that the economics will help push things in a good direction. However, we saw pretty sudden price rises in oil a couple of years ago - perhaps contributing to the recession we've been in. This could happen again. Alternative energy investment could reduce these types of price shocks I would think.

Plus as I pointed out earlier (if you read my posts carefully), some of these "elephants" have some economic (read EROI) advantages over oil, especially considering the trends.

Why does oil have subsidies anyway, isn't it fair for the alternative sources to have the same advantages?

[aslkahuna]

So then why all this worry about hurricanes?

If overall activity is going down and will continue to go down, won't that be more important than a few more intense storms every couple of years?

The last few hurricane seasons have been total duds anyway.

1992- inactive Atlantic Hurricane season - however, one of those hurricanes was named Andrew. It's the intense storms that kill people and do immense damage. WPAC this year has been every inactive but two intense storms really did a number in the Philippines. Even if the numbers go down, it won't be by all that much and with more intense storms the threat will actually rise. As far as this year being a dud, might want to verify that with the people in places that got hit. Remember the US is not the only place that gets hit.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

1992- inactive Atlantic Hurricane season - however, one of those hurricanes was named Andrew. It's the intense storms that kill people and do immense damage. WPAC this year has been every inactive but two intense storms really did a number in the Philippines. Even if the numbers go down, it won't be by all that much and with more intense storms the threat will actually rise. As far as this year being a dud, might want to verify that with the people in places that got hit. Remember the US is not the only place that gets hit.

Steve

Lowest global activity in recorded history is a dud. The 1930's had some very active seasons....& with no satellites, a 20+ storm year could have been 30+ these days.