Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 Next
Comments 53201 to 53250:
-
Riccardo at 06:58 AM on 4 October 2012Climate time lag
Maybe it's easier to see these things graphically for the simplified energy balance model with a step-like forcing (thin red dashed line) applied at t=0. The red line is the energy imbalance and the black line is the temperature response. The time constant is 50 years.
In this simple model the lag time is just the time taken to get about 63% of the effect. The response stats immediately and proressively slows down due to the decreasing energy imbalance, as expected.
Moderator Response: This would be a great addition to the original post.... -
Clyde at 06:37 AM on 4 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
dana1981 18 US carbon emissions decreased in 2011 mainly because of the move away from coal toward natural gas. My point (perhaps made poorly) was no tax was needed to reduce CO2 in the time frame. I have no problem with govt funding for research & development. IMO the fed govt (states can do as they please) shouldn't be raising taxes on anything. A carbon tax might be will intended in the beginning, Social Security was too. The fed govt now uses SS money for things other than SS. Talking about Maine's expected slight increase in electricity prices as a result of renewable energy completely misses the point of this post - that the costs of fossil fuels are not reflected in their market price, so previous electricity rates were artificially low. There's more than the "slight increase" in electric prices in the study. That's only part of the problem. Now lets move to a nation wide carbon tax scheme. I'm guessing gas/diesel will be included at some point. Either a direct tax on fuels or a mileage tax. That will increase the cost of everything in our daily lives. Using Maine's slight increase 8% in 2017. 1. Electric bill 8% 2. Fuel for vehicles 8%. *That will increase amongst other things, the cost of public transportation. 3. Grocery bill 8% Just three things a 24% increase. Before long a slight increase becomes a big increase. I'm guessing you know that will hit the poor the hardest. *Now some will say they poor can get tax rebates to help them deal with the increase. That money has to come from somebody. Not many (if any) folks aren't effected by higher gas/diesel prices & electric bills. Do you think companies won't pass the cost of production on to the consumers? Yet another 8% increase. DISCLAIMER: I used 8% just for a visual. I don't know the actual % without seeing the actual tax. The point being everything in our daily lives will cost more with a CO2 tax. When everything cost more it's no longer a slight increase. Your comment about China is an example of Tragedy of the Commons. It might be, but it doesn't make it false. Nobody is gonna make China do anything. Do you agree that for a CO2 tax to have the desired results some claim it will have, it has to be a global CO2 tax? -
Andy Skuce at 06:24 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Wyoming@4 I am not aware of any climate modelling studies that incorporate future methane hydrate releases. Modelling studies of permafrost feedbacks, such as the one covered in this post, are relatively recent, even though, compared with hydrates, the permafrost carbon is much more easily studied and observed because it on the surface and on land. Also, because hydrates are either buried under great thicknesses of permafrost or hundreds of metres of seawater, they likely will not become destabilized for centuries. In contrast, the response of the top few metres of frozen soils is likely to happen sooner. I'm more inclined to trust the opinions of David Archer than the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, on this issue. Having said that, I'm following the latest research with an open mind and I would very much like to see a modelling exercise that attempts to quantify the size and timing of methane hydrate releases and their effect on the climate. Recently, SkS conducted an interview with researcher Natalia Shakhova, that may be of interest. I'm working on a series of posts on subcap methane releases, which I think may prove to be more immediate in their climate impact than hydrate destabilization. -
DSL at 05:59 AM on 4 October 2012New research from last week 39/2012
Thanks, Ari! -
Andy Skuce at 05:25 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Many thanks to Andrew MacDougall for showing up here and answering those questions. Incidentally, I wrote an SkS article some months ago on the DeConto et al paper that he referred to in his comment. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:52 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Thanks for your participation Mr McDougall. Comments and clarification by real researchers are always greatly appreciated. -
Andrew MacDougall at 04:18 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
To Answer the Questions of Kevin C: “1. If I understand correctly, the permafrost feedback isn't in CMIP3 climate models, so on this basis they are probably underestimating climate sensitivity. Is it in the CMIP5 models? (I'm guessing some of the the earth-systems models do take this into account.)” The permafrost feedback is not included in any of the CMIP3 or CMIP5 climate models. However, CO2 from permafrost does not contribute to climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is defined as “to the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration (IPCC glossary of terms)”. This definition specifically leaves out carbon cycle feedbacks. The climate sensitivity is determined by the direct radiative effect of CO2 and feedbacks from non-CO2 systems (ex. albedo, clouds, water vapour). 2. However long term sensitivity estimates based on past climate (in particular the glacial cycle) should already include this effect? The permafrost climate feedback presumably did play a part in glacier-interglacial carbon cycle feedbacks (Ciais Et Al. 2012 doi:10.1038/ngeo1324), and has been hypothesized to be responsible for earlier events in Earth history (DeConto Et Al. 2012 doi:10.1038/nature10929). 3. The authors attribute the reduced additional temperature impact of thawing under the highest emission scenarios to saturation of the IR bands. Presumably there is also an effect due to the logarithmic CO2-forcing relationship, but looking at the numbers I'm guessing this is a weaker effect? The saturation of IR bands is the mechanistic explanation for the logarithmic forcing from CO2. Also contributing to the muted temperature response in the high emissions scenario is the self-limiting nature of the feedback. That is, there is a point beyond which almost all the permafrost has thawed and all the carbon in the permafrost is decaying. At that point further waring will not contribute to a larger feedback. -
Wyoming at 02:49 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Andy, An issue that I am sure will be brought up questioning the total numbers on projected warming. There has been a lot of alarm (and some wild claims) regarding the CH4 emissions from the ESAS as observed by the Russian researchers and others. Since the paper does not take those emissions into account, nor these"Finally, this study does not consider any contribution of methane from methane hydrates, either from under permafrost or under ice sheets, nor from fossil methane currently trapped under an impermeable seal of continuous permafrost."
There seems to be quite a few potentially significant methane emissions still to take into account. One would have to assume that the warming estimates in the above paper are very conservative still. Are you aware of any rigorous effort to provide a comprehensive estimate on total emissions (of all kinds at all locations) and projected warming. Recently there was a post on RealClimate regarding CH4 emissions, but it did not take into account any of the above either. There are a lot of people who are really interested in a warming estimate that takes all known sources into account. Thanks -
Bob Loblaw at 02:46 AM on 4 October 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz: First, I'll assume that at least part of what you are saying is a "thought experiment" scenario, rather than a thorough analysis of recent temperature changes and forcing factors. Thus, what I say will be simplistic if applied to the "real world" case. If we imagine a world were TSI increased until 1960, and then remained constant, the question is whether we can attribute a rapid rise in temperature in the (say) 1980-2010 period to that earlier (pre-1960) TSI increase. As you state, will the temperature continue to rise post 1960? The answer is yes, the temperatures will continue to rise post-1960, until a new equilibrium will be reached (25-50 years is not unreasonable), but we have to think about what that pattern of continuing temperature rise will be. - the rate of rise after 1960 should be expected to slow. After all, the 1960 rate of rise is based not only on the 1959-60 increase in TSI, but all the earlier TSI increases that have a lagged response. In addition, the rise in T due to the 1960 rise in TSI will be expected (as a first approximation) to follow an exponential decay sort of pattern: a larger immediate rise, followed by gradually decreasing rate of T rise as the system approaches its new equilibrium. So we've got two factors that say the rate of increase should slow: the ever-decreasing time-lagged "old" increase in TSI, and the nature of an exponential-decay-type response to the "current" or final step to the new TSI. - what will be very unlikely is a response post-1960 that will see little change, or a cooling, followed much later by a rapid rise in temperatures. Sphaerica has already commented on the chaotic nature and spatial variability of the response. To get a situation where the atmosphere fails to show a response to the up-to-1960 TSI increase for 10-30 years, and then suddenly starts to increase, you need to argue a reasonable mechanism. To accomplish this would require that a large amount of heat be stored somewhere else for several decades, and then be allowed to start working into the atmosphere and appearing as increased air temperatures. On the short term (a few years) El Nina/La Nina does just this sort of thing -shifting heat storage between the oceans and the atmosphere - which is a major reason why air temperature rise is not perfectly steady in response to the relatively smooth rise in CO2 forcing. We can see the result in ocean heat storage, however. For longer periods of time, there is no known physical mechanism that can do this. For El Nino/La Nina, the physical mechanism are fairly well-understood. For "skeptics" correlations with arbitrary cycles such as AMDO, no such physical mechanism has been proposed, let alone accepted. And if the mechanism exists for TSI, then it should also exist for things like volcanic activity, where we see pretty rapid response. It's back to the magic "now you see it, now you don't" disappearing/reappearing unnamed "possible mechanism" that purveyors of doubt want to believe will be under their Christmas tree next December. -
JoeT at 02:31 AM on 4 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
I have a similar question to that of Kevin C. I would have thought that the logarithmic relationship IS the saturation effect. It seems to me in that case that the DEP 8.5 case would only be slightly higher than the DEP 6.0. Instead, it's actually lower. Perhaps you address this point again. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:17 AM on 4 October 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz, First, it is unclear to me what you are saying about assuming increased TSI to 1960. When you say it halts at +2 W/m2 in 1960, are you saying it then drops back to normal, or just that the increase halts at +2 W/m2, but that added forcing remains (constant) through to 2020? In the first case, then as with your long-lived-then-turned-off solar flare, the time-lag no longer applies because the forcing is gone and so the imbalance is gone. I think this is what you are saying, because if not then in 2020 you'd have a net forcing of +6 W/m2 (+4 CO2 and +2 solar). But with the solar forcing gone, you do not still have a time lag from the solar forcing that didn't yet raise temperatures. Its time has passed, and the opportunity to raise temperatures is gone. The forcing must remain through to the new equilibrium point. The moment the forcing ends, any remaining, unrealized temperature increase is "cancelled." [A separate issue, but I also question whether you'd get a +1 W/m2 in CO2 (or other) feedbacks so quickly from your solar forcing. That would be an increase in CO2 of at least 100ppm from "natural sources," which is clearly an indefensible proposition. But that's a quibble that's irrelevant.] If you are instead saying that TSI has remained increased by +2 W/m2 since 1960... then we're at that +6 W/m2 scenario, and honestly, I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests a solar forcing component that large. The best increase in TSI I have seen is 1 W/m2, but that's total input that needs to be divided by 4 to be spread over the surface of the earth (a sphere), leaving an increase of a mere 0.25 W/m2. Additionally, that increase is not constant over time (11 year solar cycle, with varying cycle strengths, one more element of chaos) so the time lag while such a forcing remained constant can be presumed to be even longer, perhaps by as much as a factor of 10. Additionally, the sun has been very quiet for the past 20 years. Depending on your baseline, you might even consider this a negative forcing, but at best it's minimal. Lastly, you ignore dimming aerosols, which in the dirtier air before 1980 added a substantial damping to all forcings, and continues to do so today, so your TSI increase must be presumed to be even smaller. For one estimate, see Huber and Knutti (2011). Bottom line, in reference to your statement that:...you assume that the *entire* GW since 1960 is caused by CO2, as if a TSI lag was suddenly not there anymore...
It's not there any more, if the increase in TSI is gone (the forcing is gone). -
Falkenherz at 23:45 PM on 3 October 2012Climate time lag
I am not sure I understand your point or if you misunderstood my point; I understand your point as follows: Assume a solar flare that adds +8 W/m2 and it takes x years to get to the corresponding end-temperature of, say +4 Degrees. Assume now temperature is halfway through the process at x/2 with currently +2 Degrees, and the solar flare is now switched off; accordingly, temperature rise should stop at +2 and will slowly drop back to 0, the value from before. So far, so good. (But the chaotic climate system might as well let us see that "immediate no-more-warming response" with an additional delay, right?) Now, my point is: Assume TSI increased over the last 300 years in slow and little steps, then it halts at +2 W/m2 in 1960, compared to 300 years ago. Shouldn't temperature still rise until the corresponding balance of temperature is achieved (again, modified by climate chaotics)? And this lag I understood from the article can take between 25-50 years. That should be the TSI lag I meant. Now, assume also that CO2 increases since 1960 and adds +4 W/m2 in 2020. Assume also, that +1 W/m2 of that is part of the increased CO2 following temperature raise caused by TSI. So, we have a +3 W/m2 "extra" forcing from CO2 in 2020 (which represents the anthropomorphic part). If we have to assume the same lag times as above, it could take another 25-50 years to see the effect of that extra forcing. But right now, we probably only see the effects from the (ending) TSI-lag and maybe a little bit already of the "extra" CO2. I mean, we cannot even know what the last 50 years of CO2 forcing caused was part of the global warming, right? Correspondinly, the point of yours which I was doubting is, that you assume that the *entire* GW since 1960 is caused by CO2, as if a TSI lag was suddenly not there anymore. My point was, the GW since 1960 could still be caused by the earth going into equilibrium with the current level of TSI, and we might see only later the real effects of the extra CO2. (And from here on, I added a speculation on the arctic ice core which I omit now, because we should be first clear about this basic point). Where am I wrong? -
binntho at 20:30 PM on 3 October 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
A very good article indeed. Thanks. I would be interested in another twist on sea rise: How quickly does meltwater in one place diffuse globally? In other words, if the Greenland ice cap is causing a global rise of 2mm/year (say), does that happen everywhere more or less at the same time or is there a noticeable time lag between the effect being measured in Iceland on the one hand and Easter Island on the other? -
littlerobbergirl at 20:22 PM on 3 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Its impressive they found a way through the morass of interlinked variables to get a result! So no amount of tinkering at the edges - changing drainage, encouraging healthy moss, grazing , allowing forest to grow, even gm moss with extra tannins - will make any difference? I still cant help seeing those vast peatlands of siberia as a massive waiting resource for sequestrTion and to grow our meat once brazil is a desert... Interesting snippet - the chap that described the enzymatic latch mechanism ( chris fellows of bangor) is doing the gm thing: http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn22313 He also mentions on his own site the possibility of more drying due to our new pattern of rubbish jert stream with many blocking highs which would increase loss from fire and oxidation ho hum -
Kevin C at 18:58 PM on 3 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Very interesting, thanks Andy. A few questions spring to mind: 1. If I understand correctly, the permafrost feedback isn't in CMIP3 climate models, so on this basis they are probably underestimating climate sensitivity. Is it in the CMIP5 models? (I'm guessing some of the the earth-systems models do take this into account.) 2. However long term sensitivity estimates based on past climate (in particular the glacial cycle) should already include this effect? 3. The authors attribute the reduced additional temperature impact of thawing under the highest emission scenarios to saturation of the IR bands. Presumably there is also an effect due to the logarithmic CO2-forcing relationship, but looking at the numbers I'm guessing this is a weaker effect? -
From Peru at 08:29 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
dana1981: Could it be possible to fix the broken link (the first one in comment nº4) to: Intergenerational Equity, Social Discount Rates and Global Warming http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/pub07/climate.pdf Thank you in advance. By the way, do you (or anyone else) has some comments about the cases described in the two links above (comment nº4) where the discount rates can be not only very low, but even zero or negative? -
stonepig at 07:22 AM on 3 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
Mr Bostrom, thank you for the ins co reference. It will help me with some research I am doing. -
stonepig at 07:20 AM on 3 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
The latest issue of National Wildlife has a commentary from Obama in reference to their questions, but Rombot just sent them the platitudes of his party and refused to answer questions...and it is very disturbing. Gee, I hope someone asks during the debates. Rombot's position is so corporate it can hardly be believed...but believe it. -
JoeT at 06:32 AM on 3 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
I would like to see more in depth discussion of how climate change affects drought and food production .. that is, more than "the wet gets wetter and the dry dryer". I'm still having a hard time understanding what the basic physics is and what assumptions different models make. I'll give an example: If you look at the August, 2012 paper published by Dai you can see in Figure 2, his prediction that the Sahel region in Africa will have more rainfall. But he writes: "Most CMIP3 models produce ... increasing precipitation over the Sahel in the twenty-first century1, although a few models do produce some drying over the Sahel under a uniform ocean warming." The model that Dai refers to that predicts increasing drying in the Sahel is by Isaac Held and co-workers at the Princeton GFDL. At the GFDL website, Held has a nice write-up about drought in the Sahel. In particular it is fascinating to see his graph showing that when the SST in the Southern Atlantic is greater than in the North, drought occurs. The question is, what happens when the ocean temperature world-wide increases? Will there be drought in the Sahel or not? Dai and Held seem to have different answers. That's not a problem. What I'd like to know is why do they have different answers? As part of this it would be nice to know what influence the movement of the ITCZ has on drought as in this fascinating article in Scientific American . What happens to the size of the Hadley cells? -- do they get bigger, smaller? Do they translate north and south with the ITCZ? -
scaddenp at 06:27 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
"Lets say America put in a carbon tax scheme. What good would it do for GW?" To maintain a level playing field for manufacturers, US would also have to tax carbon on imports that werent carbon-taxed at source. Goods made with non-carbon energy become cheaper than those built with coal. Thus US buying power becomes a strong incentive for exporters to US to switch from fossil fuel. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:46 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Quite apart from being "green," there's the shame attendant with missing the boat. Here's a sad story of what happens when people are hopelessly entangled with the past: The world-leading UK windfarm built with little British involvement"We are hosting 18 French renewable energy companies here next month to show how we have helped develop two of the world's biggest windfarms. It would have been nice to have been able to show them some local [wind equipment] manufacturing."
-
Composer99 at 05:25 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Lets say America put in a carbon tax scheme. What good would it do for GW?
Clyde, I think that there's a definite lack of imagination going on when one can ask this question. The answer is quite obvious: reduce American carbon emissions fast. Set leadership for the rest of the world to follow (one can imagine Chinese global warming pseudoskeptics arguing against taking action, in a mirror image of Clyde, on account of American inaction - to say nothing of how American obstructionism empowers pseudoskeptics elsewhere, such as Australia or Canada). -
Doug Bostrom at 05:09 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde, regarding your first point, you seem to be making an argument that market guidance by regulation is working as expected. I don't think that was your intention but the data you offer suggest that's the case. Concerning Maine, an odd choice. Maine already derives nearly half its electricity from renewables yet enjoys the lowest cost of electricity in New England, according to the EIA. Thinktanks don't seem to be tracking facts on the ground. Picking on Greece as a case study of fiscal norms w/regard to green energy is frankly absurd. The entire economic system in Greece is in a state of collapse. Offer a better example. China has installed an enormous amount of renewable energy capacity in the past decade, putting us to shame in that respect. Their stated objective is to modernize away from fossil fuel combustion for power generation and they're backing their words with action, far more and better than most of the rest of the world. That's balanced against an unprecedented economic juggling act; it's remarkable they're keeping all the balls in the air as it is. Lets say America put in a carbon tax scheme. What good would it do for GW? It would put a price on C02 emissions, stop us pretending that C02 costs nothing. Perhaps you didn't read Dana's article. -
dana1981 at 04:53 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde @18 - US carbon emissions decreased in 2011 mainly because of the move away from coal toward natural gas. Unfortunately the methane emissions associated with natural gas drilling aren't accounted for when looking exclusively at CO2. Talking about Maine's expected slight increase in electricity prices as a result of renewable energy completely misses the point of this post - that the costs of fossil fuels are not reflected in their market price, so previous electricity rates were artificially low. Additionally, Maine and other RGGI states have thus far experienced electriciy price increases no faster than the rest of the USA. Your comment about China is an example of Tragedy of the Commons. Sorry but you haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that pricing CO2 "won't work", or even that doing so won't benefit the economy. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:47 AM on 3 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
Law and ethical behavior are a loose fit, are not necessarily in pursuit of the same objectives. For an interesting case of a conundrum produced by the collision of business objectives and implicit promises to shareholders versus the law, see this article: Insurance Companies Face Increased Risk from Global Warming. It's an ironic title, given that some insurance companies are confronted with a difficult choice about whether and how to actually face global warming:Insurers could be sued both by emitters that are trying to pass on liability, or by investors claiming they did not adequately disclose risks to the market. In 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) asked companies to report how climate change may affect profitability, potentially opening the The courts have yet to rule on whether greenhouse gas emitters can be tied to climate events. way for investor lawsuits.
Fear leads to feigned ignorance:“Acknowledging climate risk would be a risk for [any] company in an American context,” says Andreas Spiegel, at Swiss Re. “There is the risk that the company or the managers would be held liable for their actions in relation to that.”
-
Clyde at 04:30 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Unlike 2009, the 2011 decline occurred during a year of positive growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Read more here. The 2011 decrease is only the fourth year since 1990 to experience a decline in carbon intensity of greater than 3.5 percent for the economy as a whole and only the sixth year since 1990 to experience an emissions decline. Since 1990, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have grown much more slowly than GDP – in 2007 emissions were 19 percent greater than their 1990 level, but by 2011 were only about 9 percent above the 1990 level. GDP has increased by 66 percent over that same time period. ------------------------------------------ On September 26, 2012, the Maine Heritage Policy Center and Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research released a study which found that Maine’s current Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Law, which mandates the minimum and maximum amount of energy consumers must purchase from various sources, will raise the cost of electricity in Maine by 8% in 2017. Read more here. ------------------------------------ The electricity system came close to collapse in June when market operator LAGHE was overwhelmed by subsidies it pays to green power producers as part of efforts to bolster solar energy. Read more here. ------------------------------------------- Search Germany & France energy problems for more links. Taxing CO2 won't work. Shoving green energy down our throat won't work. Lets say America put in a carbon tax scheme. What good would it do for GW? If anybody thinks they can force China to do anything their not thinking clearly. -
John Russell at 04:06 AM on 3 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
MD + Bob Loblaw It's a basic requirement of business -- and a legal requirement, certainly in the UK -- that the directors of a company must maximise the profits for, and look after the interests of, the shareholders. However, it goes without saying that these aims must be accomplished within the law of the land; for overstepping the mark could bring the firm into disrepute and thus damage shareholder value -- which is exactly what the hacking scandal brought about for News International. Looking at the environmental angle, clearly these requirements can be interpreted in many different ways. A responsible company might come to the realisation that a short-term pursuit of profits could actually harm the long-term survival of the company and thus the interests of shareholders. Consequently, enlightened directors might realise that anything that damages their company's ability to, say, obtain raw materials or operate as usual, is something they should work to overcome. This is why, for instance, both insurance providers and food companies have accepted the science of climate change and are taking steps to engage actively in the fight to prevent it. There's more about this here from an organisation which seeks to encourage businesses to make a difference. I'm proud to have helped certain companies on that list achieve the highest positions in their sectors. It's never enough of course, but we can do our bit through our choices to keep the pressure on. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Borehole disposal of nuclear waste looks to be quite promising. Ironically, thanks to the extreme efforts and liberal spending applied to the engineering of petroleum extraction the technical means to implement borehole disposal are largely understood and available. Looking at NRC incident reports, the current dominant crop of nuclear generation plants seem to be a case wherein our engineering prowess exceeds the foibles of human nature. We're capable of building these machines but arguably are barely competent to operate them. The three-way collision of nuclear plant complexity, large hazards attendant with less than perfectly scrupulous operation and the human tendency to sloth and apathy yields a result that is less than pleasing. Applying the current established track record of near-misses to a significant deployment upscaling of current nuclear plant design hints at a picture including a certain proportion of dramatic failures, assuming human nature is mostly immutable. That might be a tradeoff we need to accept. Simpler would seem to be definitely be better in this case, considering that we don't seem to be mentally equipped to operate what we're capable of building. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:05 AM on 3 October 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Carbon500, And what evidence do you have that your anecdotal evidence is equivalent to what we are seeing today? Why do you present the strawman that since warming was seen somewhere, for a while, once upon a time, warming today can be ignored (or at least until it gets so bad that it's too late to do anything)? We know the globe will warm because we understand the physics. We predicted the globe would warm decades ago. The globe is warming, as per our understanding of the physics and the predictions. Now you want to say that, well, it has warmed in the past, so how do we know the warming is really caused by greenhouse gases, maybe it's just an unlucky coincidence? By doing so, you neatly sidestep the fact that decades of research and thought about this pointed to this warming, and it is consistent with our understanding of the physics. The answer is that we don't rely on anecdotal evidence, simplistic thought experiments, or wishful thinking. "Given examples of climatic history such as those I've referred to..." Give examples you've referred to, you can fool people into thinking maybe they should just ignore the problem for a little while longer.Moderator Response: [DB] Carbon500 has been tasked to address this on the linked thread. It that happens, participants can follow up with Carbon500 there. Thanks! -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:51 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Electricity prices fluctuated significantly depending on demand, time of day etc. However, most people will pay an average price for the electricity they use regardless of when they use it. By using smart metering with real time energy pricing people can make choices of when they use electricity. We could even have smart appliance (dishwashers, washing machines, maybe even fridge freezers) that will use electricity when it is below a certain cost. People who have electric cars could even set them up to discharge to the grid when electricity is expensive and recharge when it is cheap. Introducing this type of smart metering would remove the peaks and troughs in electricity usage and make management of the grid much easier. It would also remove the number of power station on stand by. -
Carbon500 at 02:41 AM on 3 October 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Riccardo: Here's an extract from a report. Not about Labrador it's true, but I think it's interesting. 'The arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen and hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to radical changes in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.' Also, the report states: 'so little ice has never before been noted' and 'Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognisable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones.' These extracts are from a report submitted to the State Department, Washinton D.C. by the American Consul at Bergen, Norway. In 1922. The above comes from NOAA archives. As far as I'm concerned, these observations are good historical reasons for caution about the causes of climate change. Let me also give you a quote from the book 'Climate Change' by meteorologist William James Burroughs. On p106, he refers to the Central England Temperature record, and the sudden warming from the 1690s to the 1730s. 'In less than forty years the conditions went from the depths of the little ice age to something comparable to the warmest decades of the twentieth century. This balmy period came to a sudden halt with the extreme cold of 1740 and a return to colder conditions, especially in the winter half of the year. Thereafter, the next 150 years or so do not show a pronounced trend.' Articles such as the one by Caitlyn Baikie immediatley conjure up images which certainly lead many people to think that CO2 has to be the cause, and that these changes are anthropogenic. Given examples of climatic history such as those I've referred to, clearly there are other factors at work which are not understood. CO2 may or may not be playing a part in what is happening currently, but caution in attribution is surely necessary.Moderator Response: [DB] Please reformulate this and repost this comment on the "It's Not Us" thread, where it more properly belongs. This comment will be deleted in a bit after you've had a chance to see it. -
Climate time lag
An analogy for forcings versus responses: Think of a system with an elephant in a cart with a long springy lever attached. Multiple hands are on the lever, pushing and pulling the end to various locations (climate forcings), while the cart with the elephant slowly moves in response (climate lag). Keep in mind that the elephant may shift back and forth on its own (ENSO, for example). Changes in TSI change how many hands are on the lever, where the end of it is - but not, at that moment, the position of the elephant. That position changes only with the time integral of the forcing. And as Sphaerica notes, the climate elephant is in motion, and even if we stopped moving the lever now it has quite a way to travel before the bend in the lever (the imbalance) gets straightened out. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:45 AM on 3 October 2012Climate time lag
A note on time lags, lest people fall into the trap... Remember, a "time lag" is in reality a very simple model in your head to describe a simple aspect of the system, i.e. you don't see the final result right away. This is a simple model and nothing more. The reality of the system is far more complex. Part of the simple answer is "it takes a long time to heat up," but even that is an oversimplified model to make it easier for the human brain to digest. In reality, the system is also chaotic, so the imbalance is not constant in either space or time. The imbalance may be greater in different locations around the globe at different seasons (or even night and day). ENSO, Arctic ice melt and other events will influence the imbalance. An El Niño will reduce or temporarily reverse the imbalance, causing the planet to heat less quickly or even cool, because the warmer atmosphere will more efficiently radiate heat. A La Niña, while causing cooler temperature readings, will actually increase the imbalance. Arctic ice melt might increase the imbalance due to a lower albedo in summer, but it may also increase the time lag (slow warming) by allowing heat to radiate more efficiently in the fall and early winter (without a layer of ice covering the warmer waters beneath, allowing it to radiate more LR). Look at the RSS (space) and UAH (time) tropo temperatures to see how much the temperature of the troposphere varies, and therefore how much outward radiation variation. The bottom line is that this is a chaotic system which will see two steps forward, one step back, and so take a long time to accumulate the equilibrium energy. That's what's really so frightening. We are seeing disconcerting global changes (Arctic, Amazon, storms, etc.) on a small scale now, but we are only half-way to the warming to which we are already committed at 400 ppm. With a climate sensitivity of 3˚C per doubling, we are currently committed to 1.46˚C of warming, and we've only seen 0.6˚C to 0.8˚C. We don't know how long it will take, but we do know that what we see now isn't all of it. This is why I get so infuriated with denial arguments in the line of "it hasn't happened yet" (Atlantic hurricanes, heat waves, Arctic ice completely gone, etc.), because it's like driving 100 mph straight at a brick wall and screaming "I'm not dead yet!" -
dana1981 at 01:11 AM on 3 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
From what I've read the biggest hurdle to nuclear power is cost, as well as uninsurability. I don't know anything about the micro plants Kevin mentions - perhaps the could solve the latter problem, and then the former would be the big question. Bernard @10 - not sure exactly what you mean by 'buy time', but it sounds like you're effectively talking about a low discount rate, in which case I would think the JH12 paper would at least partially address your concerns. -
Bob Loblaw at 00:52 AM on 3 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
Mighty Drunken: What would you say about the increasing numbers of cases where company directors or managers are being charged with criminal fraud, or shareholders are filing class action lawsuits (and winning) because companies were not managed in the best interests of the shareholders? A Google search will bring up tons of stuff. This one (picked semi-randomly) seems to cover the idea reasonably well: the relevant term seems to be "shareholder derivative action". Managers do have legal obligations to the shareholders. -
L. Hamilton at 00:32 AM on 3 October 2012New research from last week 39/2012
Briefly mentioned above, but possibly of interest to SkS readers: "Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts" (just published online by Weather, Climate, and Society). http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00008.1 Abstract: Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information. -
Bob Loblaw at 00:31 AM on 3 October 2012Climate time lag
Yes, it is important to keep the forcing and the response distinct. The forcing takes effect immediately. The response starts immediately, too. The time lag is related to how long it takes for the response to restore equilibrium - i.e., how long it takes for the response to counteract the forcing. Take the volcanic eruption example: immediate changes to radiation, which upset the local energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system. Over time, as the aerosols spread and the radiative imbalance alters temperature, there is a relatively rapid drop in temperature. Over time, as the system responds (aerosols are removed), the system slowly returns to the pre-eruption radiative conditions and temperatures return to normal. For a more permanent disruption (e,g, IR changes due to increasing CO2) the radiative change is immediate, so temperature begins to change almost immediately, but the restoration to radiative equilibrium takes time, so there is a lag until temperatures stabilize again. (Temperatures go up, to increase IR emission.) In this case "time lag" is because the temperature rises slowly, due to the amount of land and ocean that needs to be heated. If it were just the atmosphere, a few months would do. The ocean mixed layer takes years to decades. The deep ocean takes centuries. "Time lag" does not mean "nothing happens for a while", it means "things keep changing for a while". Most of the "skeptic" arguments that use "time lag" seem to rely on a physically-impossible variation of "nothing happens for a while". Trying to claim that current warming is the result of some (any) arbitrary past solar change is just wishful thinking. You don't get to say "I'll wish away this warming by pretending that it is caused by any past solar increase I can find in the record". Such "time lags" usually disappear from the "explanation" as soon as the "skeptic" needs to explain a temperature change that actually matches a solar change at the same point in time. If you see someone talking about time lags that mysteriously come and go (or change in duration) depending on whether they are "needed"or not, then chances are that the "time lag" doesn't have any physics behind it - just rhetoric. -
Mighty Drunken at 23:49 PM on 2 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
YubeDude #6 wrote, "Legally he is required to manage in such a way that best ensures profit for the shareholder. " OK maybe I am being too literal but there are no laws that directors etc. should ensure profit for shareholders. It is most probably the aim of the company, nothing more. Certainly not something that should trump law, and in my opinion, ethics. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz - Regarding time lags, please keep in mind that while thermal inertial means the climate takes time to respond to an energy imbalance (warming until that imbalance is cancelled out), there is no such time lag in the imbalance, the forcing itself. Volcanic activity drops insolation via aerosols, and that imbalance change takes only a few months, for example. Solar changes are a changes in the energy imbalance, and therefore occur quickly - changing the rate of climate change. There is no proposed mechanism for solar imbalances to be "banked away" long enough for them to still apply decades later. The "climate lag" discussed in this thread is a response lag, not a forcing lag. I suspect that is where the confusion has arisen. -
Falkenherz at 23:22 PM on 2 October 2012Climate time lag
Riccardo, I admit I got sidetracked with this whole linking exercise and those poor water vapour claims. I can now summarize what I gained from the discussion here on TSI and climate lag: I came here because of what I read in the Washington Times. I was answered that the TSI curve shown there is not correct, because it is widely accepted fact that the TSI did not increase since the 60s, and that TSI shown there was definitely not from the BEST project. I then asked as a follow-up about possible lags of a long-term rising TSI (which I found also verified on another website which I quoted) and this could be a reason why we still see today a rising temperature. The answer I received is that there are no known physical processes for that, and TSI definitely stopped to increase in the 1960s, and maybe already in the 1940s no further rise of global temperature associated with TSI was possible past the 1960s (this was mainly the essay about the Granger causality). I pointed out that this article here talks about a climate induced lag of 25 to 50 years, and if I count from 1960 to 2010, we have 50 years of lag passed and we should be now very curious of what is going to happen the next decades. I also pointed out that increased CO2 should have some added lag effect on top of this, but eventually temperature has to follow TSI, as the arctic ice cores also show. The answer was that this was mere speculation. I still find this answer is somehow limited, as I did not really receive an answer but a counter question that I should somehow proof the "scientific validity" of my speculation, which I of course cannot (I would not be asking if I could). We can leave it at that, if you like, and I will research now a bit more on water vapour effects in the low and/or higher atmosphere. -
Composer99 at 23:20 PM on 2 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
With regards to the Great Barrier Reef, I came across a story on the Weather Network site about the deterioration of the reef. -
AndrewDoddsUk at 23:13 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Tony - I've seen some extremely low estimates of U-235 availability, but not credible ones. Uranium is generally not a well-explored mineral. (Note: I'm a qualified geologist) In any case, several of the problems you mention - waste management, uranium availability and to some extent reactor life are down to the relatively poor technology choice used so far; once through cycles in PWR designs. Designs along the lines of the IFR and others use all the fuel (and the long lived waste), so reducing fuel requirements and waste. I agree that storing large numbers of fuel rods on-site is not a great idea. However, people protest moving them, and protest reprocessing them.. what's going to happen? I would go on about cost and safety issues, but the question is, would you accept anything I said? -
Kevin C at 22:55 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Tony: Many 4th gen nuclear reactor designs work on un-enriched uranium, low enriched uranium, thorium, nuclear waste or some combination of the above. They extract many times more energy from the same amount of ore (whether newly mined or from existing material). They also generate less and lower level waste. Facilities such as Onkalo are probably sufficient for the management of the waste. I agree that current safety regimes are shortsighted and inadequate. It does not follow that safety regimes must necessarily be so. I think the technology is probably viable. I suspect that the political, economic and sociological hurdles between them are insurmountable. -
Tony Noerpel at 22:28 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Andrew (7), Kevin (8) and Sceptical (9) Nuclear power as currently deployed has at least three quite serious problems: First, we simply do not have enough U235 resources. Nuclear proponents are generally unaware of this problem and cannot show where the resources are. A good place to start would be the Red Book. Second, as demonstrated by the Fukushima incident, there is no solution to waste storage. That is why all the spent fuel rods were still stored at that site. Third, nuclear power is the most expensive form of power despite by some measures being the most heavily subsidized. This is even excluding waste storage costs which cannot be priced because no solution exists. And it certainly excludes the cost of dealing with a Chernobyl or a Fukushima. Consider the Crystal River, Saint Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear power plant sites in Florida. These will be inundated with rising sea levels and corrosive salt water assuming only 5 meters of sea level rise (5 meters is locked in and at the low end of eventual sea level rise). They are all in the paths of future hurricanes and all store their spent fuel nuclear waste on site, as was the case at Fukushima. Crystal River has been shut down for the last couple of years because of serious cracks in the containment vessel but the utility wants to restart it and extend its life beyond the design life of 40 years. The other two sites have already been extended to 60 years. See http://brleader.com/?p=9529 and my other articles for references. At any rate, if you can show me where the U235 is going to come from, how to safely store the spent fuel and how to get the price down so it is competitive with other energy sources without involving even more government subsidy, you have my attention. Then we need to discuss safety and security. Best Tony -
Sapient Fridge at 22:05 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Sceptical Wombat, the problem with nuclear is not just political. If you work out how much uranium is in proven reserves and calculate how long it would last if the whole world switched to nuclear for electricity generation it works out at only about 12 years! Breeder reactors (inc thorium) are a possibility but my understanding is that they only breed fuel very slowly and are currently uneconomic. More research needed maybe, but currently nuclear doesn't fly on the scale needed. -
Bernard J. at 21:12 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see nothing in the SCC model that accounts for the fact that money cannot buy time, no matter how well the discounting cards fall. On (or in) the other hand the time cards are relentlessly falling one after the other, incurring not only costs but debts unpayable in any currency used in the human economy. Seriously, what discount rate would be required to patch up a world where temperatures are 4-6 degrees over Pre-Industrial mean, where ocean acidity is 7.8 or less, where there is no useful quantity of liquid (or other) fossil fuel, and where more than 20% of species are living with extinction debt? -
Sceptical Wombat at 20:33 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Andrew I think you will find that both wind and solar are dispatchable. This only requires that output can be guaranteed for a period of about 15 minutes. Forecasting local weather for that time is not difficult. A better statement would be that they are not dependable. Obviously solar does not work at night or when there is cloud cover and wind doesn't work when there is no wind - or too much wind. In the short term that problem can be, and is, managed by some combination of gas and hydro. Coal is not much use for this because it is difficult to ramp it up quickly. Obviously in the medium term we need to move away from gas. The alternatives are nuclear, tidal, geothermal or storage methods (eg solar thermal, pumped hydro). Realistically there are two problems with nuclear. Nuclear power plants are uninsurable - no insurance company will accept the risks of another Fukishima (there may be no deaths but the economic costs of the exclusion zone and the closed fisheries must be enormous). The other problem is that no one wants a nuclear power station next door. Just look at the resistance that new wind farms face and consider what the resistance to a nuclear power station would be (particularly in a post Fukishima world). Nuclear will only get off the ground if a "courageous" government decides to make it happen. However I agree with you it is unfortunate that most left wingers have a Pavlovian opposition the nuclear and most right wingers have a similar opposition to doing anything about global warming - so nuclear gets left out in the cold. -
Riccardo at 19:39 PM on 2 October 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz it would be helpfull, more constructive and less time consuming if you stop pointing us to (several) unspecified comments and claims in german. Ask a question (in the appropriate thread) about something you read and you may open a usefull discussion. -
Kevin C at 19:04 PM on 2 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Solutions are messy, because rather than a scientific question they are a technological, sociological, economic, and political question. Any solution which is unacceptable in any of these domains is not going to work. Technologically, I'm excited about 4th gen micro nuclear (rather than giant 3rd gen plants), but the real question is not what is possible - it is what is acceptable to the public. -
Falkenherz at 18:52 PM on 2 October 2012Climate time lag
gws, the comment number only appeared because it was the current one when i copied the website; acutally, that on is one of the most unfounded commenters from over there. But look a bit for Dietze, Ebel, NicoBaecker, Innerhofer, Kramm, Hader, Mayer... they seem to put a bit more effort into their comments. In the beginning I wasn't even sure if they are sceptics or realists, but they all seem to be sceptics with some very specific arguments (and some very specific fallacies)...
Prev 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 Next
