Register to Comment
Like Tree8998Likes
  1. #33591
    Cato Cato is offline
    Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    33,723

    This may be of interest to some here:

    Minister Rabbitte Launches Consultation on Reducing Carbon Emissions from Electricity Generation

    “It’s time to plan for our low carbon future”


    Dublin, 18 November 2013

    Energy Minister Pat Rabbitte T.D., today launched a public consultation to invite views on reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2050. Emissions from electricity generation amount to nearly 21% of Ireland’s total national emissions, or some eleven and a half million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Reducing these emissions will be vital to ensure that Ireland plays it part in addressing climate change.

    A scoping report, which sets out the process through which a decarbonised electricity system will be planned, has been published to guide the public consultation process.
    Commenting on the launch of the report, Minister Rabbitte said: “Over the coming months my Department will be evaluating options that can lower emissions from electricity generation while maintaining economic competitiveness and ensuring that everyone can afford to heat and power their homes. I encourage interested parties to participate in this consultation and let us know your views on what is achievable in Ireland,” continued Minister Rabbitte.

    The consultation period will run for the next six weeks. During this period submissions to the roadmap should be sent to: [email protected]
    A
    full copy of the scoping report is available at: Consultation on Low Carbon Roadmap - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources


    ENDS

    Notes to Editors:


    • Under the planned Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill currently in the Oireachtas, those sectors of the economy with significant carbon emissions are required to produce plans to lower these emissions. These sectoral plans will be incorporated into a National plan that will be approved by Government and published in 2014.



    Press Office,
    Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources,
    29-31 Adelaide Rd,
    Dublin 2.
    [/QUOTE]
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #33592
    Iarmuid Iarmuid is offline
    Iarmuid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    825

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    It is disappointing to see even Iarmuid has to fall back on Roy Spencer's cherry picked model runs - it is easy to check the runs that disagree with the observations and use those. the top charts is purely of the tropical mid-troposphere, where his results do not agree with RSS, the other satellite data gatherer.

    And Der Spiegel, the German equivalent to the Daily Mail! And von Stroch is wrong anyway to give so much weight to short-term trends.

    Ed Hawkins of the Met Office does a much more honest estimate:


    And of course, the possibility is that if the Cowtan and Way hybrid estimation (using ground and satellite to fill in gaps where there are no ground stations) proves robust, the observations are closer to the models than previously thought.




    Spencer's graph is nothing more than a presentation of the data for the Tropical Mid Troposphere compared against model outputs, it is consistent with and provides some evidence for Lennart Bengtsson observation below. It is what it is, no cherry picks.

    The very first climate simulations that were made almost a quarter of a century ago and at least according to the simulation by the MPI model in Hamburg, the global warming today should rather be 1.25°C than the present 0.75°C. And this is spite of a relatively large (cooling) aerosol effect of the Hamburg model that at the time was larger than the present view of IPCC today. The tropics are a crucial area as it is here where the greenhouse effect is largest. During the period 1979-2012 for which we have reliable observations, the warming of the lower tropical troposphere, 20°S – 20°N, has only got about a third of the warming compared to what is predicted by present climate models.
    It may be politically immiscible to you but that alters nothing.

    P.S The model outputs as referenced by Von Storch are consistent with previous releases from NOAA [2008] and the Met Office. Also see below for the relevance of 15 year.

    Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...008-lo-rez.pdf




    Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.


    ...

    Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions -- 15 years of no warming.
    Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said in 2009:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ie/200...mperature.html
    Last edited by Iarmuid; 19th November 2013 at 12:08 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #33593
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is online now

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,274

    Alarmist nonsense in retreat. Responsible and rational adults seem to be gaining an upper hand in important quarters:

    Australia, Canada Oppose Multi-Nation Climate-Change Fund | CNS News

    At a summit in Sri Lanka of leaders of the 53-member Commonwealth – a grouping of Britain and its former colonies – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott rejected a decision to launch a “green capital fund.” The only other country opposing the move was Canada, whose prime minister was one of three Commonwealth leaders boycotting the gathering to protest Sri Lanka’s human rights record.


    The Australia-Canada opposition to the Commonwealth carbon fund proposal follows Canada’s public expression of support last week for Abbott’s plan to abandon the carbon tax at home

    “Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary said in a statement. “The Australian prime minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.”
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #33594
    Iarmuid Iarmuid is offline
    Iarmuid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    825

    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    This may be of interest to some here:

    Minister Rabbitte Launches Consultation on Reducing Carbon Emissions from Electricity Generation

    “It’s time to plan for our low carbon future”


    Dublin, 18 November 2013

    Energy Minister Pat Rabbitte T.D., today launched a public consultation to invite views on reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2050. Emissions from electricity generation amount to nearly 21% of Ireland’s total national emissions, or some eleven and a half million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Reducing these emissions will be vital to ensure that Ireland plays it part in addressing climate change.

    A scoping report, which sets out the process through which a decarbonised electricity system will be planned, has been published to guide the public consultation process.
    Commenting on the launch of the report, Minister Rabbitte said: “Over the coming months my Department will be evaluating options that can lower emissions from electricity generation while maintaining economic competitiveness and ensuring that everyone can afford to heat and power their homes. I encourage interested parties to participate in this consultation and let us know your views on what is achievable in Ireland,” continued Minister Rabbitte.

    The consultation period will run for the next six weeks. During this period submissions to the roadmap should be sent to: [email protected]
    A
    full copy of the scoping report is available at: Consultation on Low Carbon Roadmap - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources


    ENDS

    Notes to Editors:


    • Under the planned Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill currently in the Oireachtas, those sectors of the economy with significant carbon emissions are required to produce plans to lower these emissions. These sectoral plans will be incorporated into a National plan that will be approved by Government and published in 2014.



    Press Office,
    Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources,
    29-31 Adelaide Rd,
    Dublin 2.
    It will be of interest to all, if it leads to significant increases in the price of electricity, and if so, likely without any discernible benefits.
    Last edited by Iarmuid; 19th November 2013 at 12:05 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #33595
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,575

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    Spencer's graph is nothing more than a presentation of the data for the Tropical Mid Troposphere compared against model outputs, it is consistent with and provides some evidence for Lennart Bengtsson observation below. It is what it is, no cherry picks.



    It may be politically immiscible to you but that alters nothing.

    P.S The model outputs as referenced by Von Storch are consistent with previous releases from NOAA [2008] and the Met Office. Also see below for the relevance of 15 year.

    Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...008-lo-rez.pdf



    Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: NOAA Explains the Global Temperature "Slowdown"
    Of how much relevance is the tropical troposphere? Not a lot.

    Is there agreement about the observations? No, there is not. Dr Spencer's UAH measurements differ significantly from those of RSS.

    Is this a problem? Of course, but one that scientists will solve. If Roy Spencer was a real scientist, not a propagandist, he would be working with other scientists to find out why models differ from observations, and observations differ from satellite to satellite.

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites - IOPscience

    The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.

    15 years is close to the lower end for relevance of trends. People who focus on short periods to the exclusion of longer ones are clearly indulging in confirmation bias.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #33596
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,415

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have shown over and over again you are impenetrable to facts, evidence and logic and incapable of reasoned and polite discussion; this will be the last time I respond to you.







    Die Klimazwiebel: Lennart Bengtsson: Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy.



    Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE
    Embarrassed by not being able to answer?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #33597
    Iarmuid Iarmuid is offline
    Iarmuid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    825

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Of how much relevance is the tropical troposphere? Not a lot.

    Is there agreement about the observations? No, there is not. Dr Spencer's UAH measurements differ significantly from those of RSS.

    Is this a problem? Of course, but one that scientists will solve. If Roy Spencer was a real scientist, not a propagandist, he would be working with other scientists to find out why models differ from observations, and observations differ from satellite to satellite.

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites - IOPscience

    The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.

    15 years is close to the lower end for relevance of trends. People who focus on short periods to the exclusion of longer ones are clearly indulging in confirmation bias.
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions. You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions. You are no doubt aware of recent papers released with attempts to provide rationale addressing such discrepancies; as we have discussed them in the past. On each occasion you have consistently downplayed or outright refused to acknowledge any problems, the discrepancy between data and model predictions poses to current understanding. For you, the radiative effect of CO2 along with its accompanying hypothesized water vapour feed backs are primary and all subsuming, used as a crude bludgeon to justify and argue for policy preferences, no dissent or opposing opinion is brokered which threatens that position. For an exposition in confirmation bias, look in the mirror. You are right on one account however, none of this presents a problem to climate science, which under scientific norms, should rectify and improve itself.

    It only poses a problem to the politics of AGW sold to the public on false certainty, false consensus, emotive pleas to ignorance,( e.g. attempts to link weather or natural disasters to AGW, where little or no evidence to do so exists), demonisation of dissenting views [denier], etc. If the climate concerned need someone to blame for the ongoing implementation failure of CO2 mitigation policies look to those who have campaigned for them based on all of the above.
    Last edited by Iarmuid; 19th November 2013 at 04:22 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #33598
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,415

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions. You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions. You are no doubt aware of recent papers released with attempts to provide rationale addressing such discrepancies; as we have discussed them in the past. On each occasion you have consistently downplayed or outright refused to acknowledge any problems, the discrepancy between data and model predictions poses to current understanding. For you, the radiative effect of CO2 along with its accompanying hypothesized water vapour feed backs are primary and all subsuming, used as a crude bludgeon to justify and argue for policy preferences, no dissent or opposing opinion is brokered which threatens that position. For an exposition in confirmation bias, look in the mirror. You are right on one account however, none of this presents a problem to climate science, which under scientific norms, should rectify and improve itself.

    It only poses a problem to the politics of AGW sold to the public on false certainty, false consensus, emotive pleas to ignorance,( e.g. attempts to link weather or natural disasters to AGW, where little or no evidence to do so exists), demonisation of dissenting views [denier], etc. If the climate concerned need someone to blame for the ongoing implementation failure of CO2 mitigation policies look to those who have campaigned for them based on all of the above.
    Your post is a deck of cards. It tumbles with every misstatement.Among other proved false claims in that, the first major one is that the water feedback is "hypothesized." Your two "highly credentialed and respected" scientists are now so respected that they have difficulty getting published. Their papers, such as they are, appear in fringe journals and most of the ir work is now in newspaper articles.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #33599
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,575

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions.
    Yes, in the short term, but within 95% confidence bounds. Not particularly worried.

    You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions.
    You mean AT LEAST 15 years. Different matter altogether. 15 years is at the lower bound of significance. So, preferably, we should use higher-duration periods to estimate trends.

    I hope you are not suggesting that a 15-year trend has less error than a 20-year or 30-year trend.

    All my scientific statements can be justified with reference to peer reviewed literature, and as summarised in the IPCC reports.

    You cannot say the same.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #33600
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,415

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Alarmist nonsense in retreat. Responsible and rational adults seem to be gaining an upper hand in important quarters:

    Australia, Canada Oppose Multi-Nation Climate-Change Fund | CNS News
    When you call the Prime Minister of Canada a "responsible and rational" adult, look up tje Alliance Church. Then the Cornwall Alloance that is the guiding spirit of that Church.

    Harper is a firm member and adherent to the belief system you will discover there.

    That is where his opposition to action on climate change comes from as well as all his other destructive policies.

    He is the paramount example of why democracy does not work in a time frame that would prevent political catastrophe.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment