Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Next
Comments 7551 to 7600:
-
Justino Rodrigues at 01:26 AM on 30 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It seems that this discussion have derrailed a bit. I was able to read almost everything. I decided to join the discussion because very recently I done a compreensive research about this subject. In the end, I have made a article, where I conclude that the position for nuclear energy is not the best, comparatively to renewable technologies.
- Renewable technologies already have the technical potential to supply all primary energy demand, while nuclear energy is still dependent on important technological advancements. Fusion power is also a promising technology, but its technical feasibility was not demonstrated yet.- Nuclear energy is relatively clean and has less land requirements, but its waste management continues to be an expensive and potentially dangerous problem waiting for a definitive solution.
-Nuclear energy is becoming less competitive relatively to renewable technologies (specially wind and solar power) in terms of levelized costs of energy. Moreover, the costs associated to the management of the nuclear waste tend to increase over time, and the decommission costs of a nuclear power plant remain difficult to evaluate.
-Nuclear energy is a relatively safe technology, presenting one of the lowest fatality rates, even considering the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, its potential for catastrophic events is considerable and have a high psychological effect on people’s mind.
-A set of technological developments are taking place which would enable renewable technologies to provide satisfactory stability levels to the electric power system in the future, allowing thus the dismissal of nuclear power plants from that role.
I will not post here all the references I have consulted since it would be messy. Instead, you can read my article. If there any particular subject anyone wants to discuss, I will be glad to do so.
Here is the link.
Thanks to allModerator Response:[PS] Good to see an article with a comprehensive list of sources at the bottom.
-
SirCharles at 00:45 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Can the world run on renewables? Yes, Stanford researchers say.
Additional reporting here => Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050
=> 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
-
jef12506 at 23:53 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts to refute the claims in the documentary they mostly denegrate the makers.
"Renewables" are not! After electriity generation FFs perform 80% of all work around the world. An enormous amount of work.
Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency.
With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it.
If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly.
The promis of a "renewable" future is lie causing way more harm than good.
Moderator Response:[DB] As was the case with your previous comment, nebulous assertions and dismissive, hand-waving claims lacking specific examples are sloganeering and are generally unhelpful to this discussion. For example, read here and here to see specifics that run counter to your claims.
-
GwsB at 23:17 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The guest author, Ketan Joshi, has a beautiful site, https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ It is a pleasure to visit that site and to read the comments.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked URL.
-
Eclectic at 22:43 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Wol, as you are doubtless aware, the global desirable goal is zero nett carbon emission by about 2050. Technically, it is likely achievable in a practical sense ~ but political inertia will probably make us overshoot that date (judging by how things are running at present ! )
In comparison, have a look at the projected world population curve if by 2030 the human fertility rate drops to about 1.4 (present day examples : Italy, Japan). Or achieves that 1.4 fertility rate by 2050 . . . or 2070. Unfortunately , those scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen within the next half-century.
Africa & other poverty-stricken regions will not reach a low reproduction rate until they have a large increase in education levels for women, combined with increased wealth (and social security for old age). This seems to be the lesson of history.
Even with a 1.4 rate, miraculously, in the near future ~ the world population would stay high throughout this century [2020-2100]. So without the techological "fix" for carbon emissions, there cannot be a cure for the global warming problem.
If you notice today's amount of heel-dragging & push-back on CO2 emissions, then you might like to imagine the future outrage coming from the political and/or religious firebrands protesting about any suggestion of population limitation as direct governmental policy.
In short, we might achieve timely carbon emission control ~ but (wars and plagues aside) there is zero chance we can do that by population control. Fixing excess resources consumption, ecological pollution, overpopulation etc . . . are all problems which will mostly have to wait until we fix the basic climate/AGW problem.
-
SirCharles at 21:57 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
@6 Wol
"It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn."
Source?
-
MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
mkrichew @60,
Briefly as we are off-topic, regarding CO2 at altitude, it is effecively well mixed up to 50,000km, the scatter measured at low altitude being simply local influence and more generally the annual CO2 cycle.
What I would add is that the ability of CO2 to "capture the suns rays," something you suggest is significant @56, is very small. Of the absorption bands of CO2, only the 2.9 micron band operates within the wavelength of solar radiation and that at the very tag end of the insolation's frequency distribution.
-
Wol at 20:38 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Sir Charles @ 5:
>>The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.<<
It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn. So now 11Bn?
There may be many problems with this film, but its comments on population are correct. Just because there's the same taboo on even mentioning overpopulation as there is on criticising religion doesn't mean it's not THE centre of the problem.
Every living part of the ecosystem competes in a Darwinian fight to increase its share, until it overblows itself and suffers a partial or complete die-off. Humanity is different, because we have been clever enough (Ha!) to mostly eliminate the usual causes of such die-offs.
We probably need at least two earths for sustainable existence: it's well pat time to accept that unless and until the human load on the planet comes down to something that can be sustained the future isn't sunny. Eating fewer livestock, wearing vegan sandals and switching off the odd light is pointless when there are another three of us every second to feed, grow up, house etc.
-
SirCharles at 19:33 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population growth nowadays is mainly driven by the fact that humans are getting healthier and much older than in the past. Fertility rate is declining since the 1960s and has now halved. The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.
-
SirCharles at 19:30 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Adding up to the articles posted above:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/
Last not least, Zeke Hausfather:
-
Jan Mazuch at 16:50 PM on 29 April 2020CO2 was higher in the past
Dear all,
Life was built here during bilions of years. To preserve life for Human we need specific enviroment /forest+fields + rivers + clean water and air for health/. Increasing temperature and changed water distributions is threat for this human positive enviroment. find Reason for negative trend is not highest need , Highest need is to keep human friendly enviroment.
Like:
Plant a trees
Built artificial lakes and water dam.
Avoid water and air pollutions.
Do not concentrate populations to cities only.
Do we need fear as only motivations to do this ?
-
mkrichew at 15:57 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
To the moderator:
Thank you once again for providing the graphs of CO2 concentration verses altitude.
1. In answer to your implied query in 1/ above concerning the existance of the Milankovitch cycles. I believe they exist, although I have not read his paper. I am taking your word and explanation as well as the one in Wikipedia.
What I was questioning and am continuing to look into was the forcing at the onset of deglaciation. John Cook's article in this URL "Why does CO2 lag Temperature?" has given me food for thought in the area of the speed of onset and fast temperature rise.
2. I have not looked into the math done to get the curves shown concerning your comment 2/.
3. Your comment 3/. I have read 5 W/m2 and 50 W/m2 as the intensity changes. I will see if I get interested enough to do the math.
4. Your comment 4/. I had read somewhere that the cycles timing did not match physical evidence of timing of ice ages. However, this may have been in reference to the obliquity cycle and not the eccentricity cycle. I can't remember, I think it was ten years ago when I read this.
Thanks once again.
-
ubrew12 at 11:13 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population control (to not have children) is a kind of 'ultimate' individual action. But will it necessarily bring down CO2 emissions? In the coronavirus pandemic, we are witnessing a test of whether 'individual action' can really make a difference in CO2 emissions. People are taking extreme actions to avoid general contagion. As a result, the air over most cities hasn't been this clean in decades. Yet all this sacrifice is estimated to only decrease carbon emissions by about 5%. Peter Sinclair has an article on this issue, and its worth thinking about.
This begs the question: If we halve the population, would the remaining people just burn twice as much coal (not directly, but in pursuit of more and better lives)?
I should also note, most of us don't 'hate' fossil fuel. We don't like the industry paying to foist a lie upon the public and decisionmakers, preventing its true cost from being calculated. If wind power has problems it admits to, that is not a scandal. The scandal only occurs if it doesn't admit to them. I haven't seen 'planet of humans', but I suspect it is pointing to issues renewable power already admits to, and is actively working to improve, so where is the scandal?
-
shoyemore at 06:43 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The "Great Global Swindle" of 2020, if anyone remembers that piece of cr*p.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 04:02 AM on 29 April 2020IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Zeph,
I love your analogy (from a decade ago). The double standard you mention seems quite irrational. Why must changing our course require such an asymmetric burden of proof (free of any miniscule imperfection), while those who argue not to alter course have no such burden? Well, those asking us to “change course” move to take away our status quo and make us do "something extra"... very inconvenient, right? All burden is on them.
Your analogy shows us: neither decision is “something extra”… both “changing course” (reacting to data) and “continuing course” (not reacting to data) are decisions. A worse inconvenience (loss of time / money / life) could be present in either action. Passengers don’t want to experience delay (or sinking!) unnecessarily. Ideally, the next step isn’t based on matching the prior step, but instead is guided by the best data, which becomes stronger over time.
To this end, the captain sends 100 wood specialists down to evaluate. Ninety-seven return saying the rotten wood is starting to leak, present innumerable impressive data sets demonstrating risk of accelerated leaking & sinking, and recommend repair. Ship owners, not wanting idle vessels, argue it isn’t absolutely proven that the ship would sink, and point to 3 of the 100 specialists who found some imperfections in the models. Owners influence the captain to push the boat further out to sea, and taut to passengers how much inconvenience they are preventing.
Of course, the specialists wanting to repair the ship aren’t causing the major inconvenience… the data (rotten wood) is doing this. It makes no sense to put the burden of proof asymmetrically on those wanting to repair the ship. After all, it seems some owners won’t be convinced until the ship is partially submerged, which of course then is too late.
-
Jim Hunt at 01:45 AM on 29 April 2020Coronavirus conspiracy theories are dangerous – here’s how to stop them spreading
My own interest at present concerns the rather more subtle activities of the various flavours of mainstream media here in the once Great Britain.
Here's a pot pourri of the messages the Independent, Times and Telegraph are endeavouring to impart in the wake of Boris Johnson's return to Downing Street yesterday:
http://CoV-eHealth.org/2020/04/27/boris-johnson-returns-to-work/
Which version of this Covid-19 “story” do you prefer to believe?
How might one go about inoculating the readers of the once Great British broadsheets against the prejudices of their own particular "echo chamber"? -
nigelj at 17:59 PM on 28 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The following is another fact check on the so called documentary. Fact check: New Michael Moore-backed documentary full of errors, fundamentally misunderstands electric system.
The criticisms of renewables are clearly dated and wrong and an awful lot of cherrypicking is going on, one of the logical fallacies usually used by climate denialists. For example picking the worst and oldest wind farm they could find.
That said, renewables do need plenty of storage and it would be foolish to claim they are perfect. But nothing is perfect. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good (a quote from Voltaire)
But the article doesn't drill down adequately into the origins of this absurd attack on renewables. There are apparently some comments in the movie and by M Moore that strongly associate renewables with billionarie capitalists who are seen as a problem, so the attack on renewables looks politically motivated. Nothing wrong with scepticism about billionaire capitalists, but this is an example of scepticism going off the rails into the twilight zone because its not clear why some product or service is inherently bad or should be rejected, just because its a product of capitalism.
The alternative suggested is to keep burning fossil fuels and instead aim to reduce population growth and use hugely less energy. Now there is no doubt getting population growth down should be a part of climate mitigation because it reduces energy demand, and environmental pressure, but even if the fertility rate dropped to zero tomorrow (it won't) it would take decades for population size to fall in absolute terms so population reduction can only be a part answer to the climate problem. And expecting people to make massive 50% plus reductions in energy use doesn't look terribly realistic. So we need a new energy grid even if it is constructed by billionaire capitalists, (at least until someone comes up with a better way of financing such grids that actually works).
This is not an argument against sensible reforms to the capitalist system, or an excuse for billionaires who back climate denialism, or who rip off the system and set a bad example generally. There is a strong argument that capitalism needs to evolve, but conflating this with the value of renewables doesn't make a lot of sense.
This is related: I Am a Mad Scientist
-
nigelj at 10:24 AM on 28 April 2020Coronavirus conspiracy theories are dangerous – here’s how to stop them spreading
The following is an interesting take on the possible evolutionary origins of conspiracy thinking: Suspicion makes us human. Conspiracy theories have always been with us, powered by an evolutionary drive to survive. How’s that working for us now?
This is interesting. Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? —Thea Buckley, India
-
nigelj at 06:32 AM on 28 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
Jef @1
"I have been patient but now it is clear that all those who are not pointing out how what is happening right now is the best possible thing for AGW and in fact say it is the worst are simply those who believe that capitlism and the free market, i.e. the profit motive, is all that i needed to solve the problem. "
Who is saying this exactly? At least front up and be specific. I have never said this. Moderator, he is sloganeering.
"The carbon reduction happening right now is 10 times greater than anything anyone has ever been able to accomplish and it can be increased upon easily with no pain. "
This is sloganeering and it is nonsensical. Right now with covid 19 there has been a small drop in CO2 emissions, but the world is in considerable economic pain. People are losing there jobs in the millions, poverty is returning, goods are in short supply, we are probably heading for a great depression. How can more of the same have no pain?
(That said I think these lockdown measures are needed as a temporary thing to flatten the curve)
"The one and only problem is poor people and even middle income people have been cut off from basic needs which can easily be provided and for a fraction of the trillions that have been given to the wealthy over the last few years"
This is not the one and only problem. And Jef appears to be suggesing some form of wealth redistribution. Hard to say because hes not specific. Imo wealth and income redistribution can obviously help to an extent in developed countries and is wise policy. But poor countries will need some economic growth to improve their living standards. There are not enough wealthy people for meaningful redistribution policies.
But you also cant strip people of all the wealth they have earned and expect people to work in positions of responsibility and be paid peanuts. They wont do it or they get lazy. Communism failed. Like Einstein said "dont keep repeating the same experiment and expect different results."
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:24 AM on 28 April 2020Ice isn't melting
Per Velicogna et al 2020 - Continuity of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica from the GRACE and GRACE Follow‐On missions:
Both the Greenland and the Antarctic Ice Sheets continue to lose ice mass from April 2002 through September 2019.
Greenland Ice Sheet average mass loss:
Antarctic Ice Sheet average mass loss:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087291
-
michael sweet at 05:54 AM on 28 April 2020Ice isn't melting
MA Rodger,
I really liked your link on 650 GT/yr ice loss. It was informative and easy to read.
-
jef12506 at 04:25 AM on 28 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
I have been patient but now it is clear that all those who are not pointing out how what is happening right now is the best possible thing for AGW and in fact say it is the worst are simply those who believe that capitlism and the free market, i.e. the profit motive, is all that i needed to solve the problem.
I would ask SS to please stop featuring this view point. The carbon reduction happening right now is 10 times greater than anything anyone has ever been able to accomplish and it can be increased upon easily with no pain. The one and only problem is poor people and even middle income people have been cut off from basic needs which can easily be provided and for a fraction of the trillions that have been given to the wealthy over the last few years.
Moderator Response:[DB] Your objections are noted, but lacking in specifics or citations they amount to sloganeering, and are unfortunately unhelpful.
-
SirCharles at 21:43 PM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
Sign the petition calling on Marsh to help insure our future, not Adani’s climate-wrecking coal project!
-
MA Rodger at 20:09 PM on 27 April 2020Ice isn't melting
Lawrence Tenkman @11,
The Ocean Heat Content measured down to 2000m is increasing at a rate in excess of 10Zj/year due to AGW. The global loss of ice mass is subject to a lot of variation year-to-year but to put some numbers down:-
Sea Ice Arctic Sea Ice loss (from PIOMAS) averages 350Gt/y since 2007. Antarctic Sea Ice Volume is poorly assess but probably insignificant. (The small Antarctic areal increase to 2004 graphed in the OP was very minor. It became more pronounced for a while 2014-16 before plunging negative where it remains. The graph here is from NSIDC.)
Land Ice The dramatic acceleration of polar land ice in the OP graphs has not been maintained. With GRACE-FO beginning to give results (graph of Greenland mass balance), the recent combined rate of loss of global land ice has been assessed as something like 650Gt/year.
So the global ice loss is roughly 1,000Gt/year.
In terms of the energy to warm the resulting melt water up to average ocean temperatures, something like +4ºC, would require 0.015Zj/year, significantly less than the 10Zj/year annual increase in OHC. Energy to warm melt-water is also significanlty less than the energy required to convert that amount of ice into the melt-water (0.30Zj/year) but ocean-wise that would only affect icebergs melting out while bobbing on the briny sea.
Where all this melt water will play more of a role in global climate is it being fresh water and not briny. Note that the Greenland rate of gross ice loss is probably five-times greater than the rate of net ice loss and there is a lot of other fresh water entering the oceans from rivers and also the annual sea ice melts, but fresh water is more buoyant than ocean water and increases in the discharge of fresh water into the oceans can disrupt deep ocean currents, the AMOC (which brings warmth to the high Atlantic) being of particular concern.
-
sailrick at 11:23 AM on 27 April 2020There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
MA Rodger and Postkey
Thanks for the reply. I had forgotten to check back after posting my comments. Then today, someone I was talking with brought up McPherson, and how stopping SO2 emissions will cause more warming.
And that led me back here, seven months later. -
One Planet Only Forever at 11:19 AM on 27 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
In recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the first Earth Day, the NYT "Climate" desk has presented a series of articles on Climate Change matters. It is a good comprehensive presentation of the history and state of the matter today. The link below goes to the 7th and final segment. Just scroll up to see the previous items.
A crash course on climate change, 50 years after the first Earth Day
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:05 AM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
The NYT "Climate" desk has completed presenting a series of articles on Climate Change matters as part of the recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the first Earth Day.
A crash course on climate change, 50 years after the first Earth Day
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
nigelj,
Efforts to limit the growth of the population are important. More than 12 billion humans would likely be Unsustainable for many reasons.
And the total amount of energy consumed by the total human population needs to be reduced, because there is material consumption and negative impacts associated with any energy generation, even the renewables. And the less fortunate portion of the population will be developing towards the better lives lived by the more fortunate people. It would be completely unacceptable for the more fortunate to live in ways that the less fortunate have to be kept from living.
So the understandable requirements become the combination of:
- The production of energy for human use completely transitioned to renewable sources.
- Reduced amount of total energy consumption by humans, with the less fortunate people expected and assisted to develop to live like the more fortunate people. So the more fortunate people need to set the example of lower and totally renewable energy consumption ways of living.
- Reduced total amount of other consumption by the total human population, with the more fortunate leading by example.
- Limited human population growth, again with the more fortunate leading by example.
Moore's movie pretending that the solution could be 'fossil fuel energy used by a reduced population living with less energy' is indeed not practical. It is also not required.
What is required is achieving the entire set of Sustainable Development Goals. And that requires everything I have presented.
I continue to be amazed to see "Social Change Activists" appear to cherry-pick favorite issues while failing to present the importance of achieving and improving on the already established awareness and understanding of things like the entire suite of the Sustainable Development Goals.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Moore's movie discards renewable energy as a solution and instead the solution proposed is much lower energy use and slower population growth. Well that doesn't make much sense to me, because even the most optimistic projections of population growth falling arent fast enough to do that much to help the climate, and its unrealistic to expect people to slash their energy use by truly vast amounts. Obviously slower population gowth and lower energy use would help a bit, but are nowhere near sufficient answers. So we need renewable energy or at least clean energy ( maybe a tiny bit of nuclear power is ok as well).
Michael Moores motivations look political to me. He is a known sceptic of capitalism and elites, and has taken this to the point of absurdity of dismissing renewable energy because its associated with capitalism and elites. He is doing the mirror image of what denialists do in dismissing renewable energy because they hate the green movements left leaning politics.
This is sad because his movies are normally good value, and scepticism of elites is justified.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 05:16 AM on 27 April 2020We're heading into an ice age
MA Rodger,
Thank you so much for your kind resopnse. I much appreciate you. Very interesting. So complex.
It seems that the article by Willeit & Ganopolski (2018) suggest that much dust comes from the equatorial advancing edge of the glacier (erosion from the advancing ice edge as I understand?)… not necessarily plant death as Ellis & Palmer suggest. Also, albedo blunting for glaciation escape is not accomplished by dust alone… albedo is increasingly blunted by the increase of both snow age & of dust accumulation, combined together. Perhaps this explains the lack of a critical level for the dust as a single factor blunting albedo… as multiple factors that combine to do it.Those equations made my head hurt. I feel like a patient sitting in a doctor’s office asking questions and expecting them to make me understand concepts it took years of medical school to understand. For sure, that’s not possible, as I’d have to go through all the training you did… year by year ... more answers leading to more questions.
But I do appreciate you very much. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for doing what you do.
LT
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 01:49 AM on 27 April 2020Ice isn't melting
Would all the melted glacier ice dumping into the oceans artificially slow the temperature elevation of the ocean? Like a glass of ice tea in the sun, will the temp rise of the ocean accelerate after all the ice melts?
-
HBrandt at 01:43 AM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
The air is clean, the sky bright blue, and it is quiet because traffic is now minimal. Granted it is a small sample size, but I have noticed a good sign for the climate/environment from this pandemic. My neighbor is now welcoming the idea of changing quickly to electric vehicles charged by wind and solar. A friend is accepting the reality of human-induced climate change. Let’s hope others follow these complete changes in perspective.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:18 AM on 27 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Sir Charles,
I have noticed The Usual Suspects cherry-picking the incorect or misleading bits from "Planet of the Humans" and using them as the basis for even more misleading or incorrect claims to attack and discredit the entire Realm of Environmental Protection.
I have also noticed that many people are able to correct the misleading comments in many ways, with the response to the corrections being the usual denial that the corrections are legitimate.
Reasoning motivated by Personal Interest can be incredibly harmfully incorrect and very resistant to expanded awareness and improved understanding.
This is often observed in the games of economics and politics, competitions for Impressions of Winning any way that can be gotten away with. It even influences thinking related to Sports, especially when Big Perceptions of Reward are at stake.
People who have developed a Devotion to an Activity, Sport, Team or Ideology can get Locked-In to narrow-minded short-term thinking and seek made-up excuses for all types of understandably unacceptable behaviours.
-
MA Rodger at 23:47 PM on 26 April 2020We're heading into an ice age
Lawrence Tenkman @407,
To clear up the "parting comment", it appears in a 2015 blog-post linked at the last paragraph of #405 above. The denialist flavour of this "parting comment" does explain some of the very odd comment in Ellis & Palmer (2016).
The 'CO2 mechanism' I say is not explained is specific to the glacial maxima. Ellis & Palmer (2016) demonstrate temperature, dust and CO2 are correlated (in their figs 1, 4, 8 & 9). We could also include sea level/ice volume and methane into such correlations. So the question arises - What is driving what?
During the drop into an ice age we can be reasonably confident that reduced northern insolation allows a build-up of northern ice sheets reducing regional albedo which has a global impact on temperature and kicks-off positive feedbacks in albedo, CO2 & methane.But the glacial maxima appear to have a particular pattern to them, perhaps clearest when sea level is considered. The Ice Ages step up a gear as they dive into the maxima.
Ellis & Palmer point the finger at the CO2 feedbacks. They would have difficulty using albedo as the dust-levels are building at these points in the Ice Age cycle and Ellis & Palmer dismiss the idea of atmospheric dust-levels being a significant cooling factor.
Given the constraints placed on the workings of Ice Age maxima by Ellis & Palmer, their hypothesis seems to rely on some strong CO2 feedback that comes into play at this point in the Ice Age cycle. So my question - Are the measurements of CO2 showing a big enough reduction? What is causing these large reductions in CO2? And what causes these reductions to quickly reverse when the maxima is over?
And not greatly removed from any discussion of 'CO2 mechanism'....
Regarding the lack of 'threshold' for dust levels to bring Ice Ages out of their maxima, Ellis & Palmer Fig 4 (below) shows great variation in the peak level of dust as well as variation in the duration of high-dust prior to the glacial maxima. This I term a lack of 'threshold'. The general impression is that a generally high level of dust reducing albedo of global ice sheets awaits the increase in nothern insolation caused by the Milankovitch cycle.
But surely this variability means the power of the dust-reduced albedo forcing is not strong enough of itself to be the trigger. It is possible that analysis would show the Milankovitch cycle and the dust-albedo in combination provides a consistent threshold level, or perhaps CO2 levels are also a factor in the mix. But such necessary analysis would require an approach somewhat less simplistic than Ellis & Palmer. (For instance, compare the Ellis & Palmer approach with that of, say, Willeit & Ganopolski (2018).)
I think that covers the issues from #407, hopefully in an understandable form.
-
SirCharles at 19:34 PM on 26 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
Hi folks,
You might have heard of Michael Moore's new film, "Planet of the Humans". Unfortunately, this movie is grossly flawed. Please find reviews here spotted by videographer Peter Sinclair:
Moore No Mas: New Film Drinks the Lysol
Stay safe!
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 05:40 AM on 26 April 2020We're heading into an ice age
Scaddenp & MA Rodger,
Thank you so much for your responses.
MA Rodger, thank you for reading that article an phelping me with it. Please clarify a few things for me if you don’t mind. You mentioned that "Ellis & Palmer fail to explain the mechanism driving the CO2 reduction and why this cooling doesn't keep on going… and that the peak-dust levels do not appear to have a threshold level." My impression from reading was they propose Earth gets cold enough at the nadir of orbital Milankovitch cycle to start forming ice, and if enough ice forms, albedo is sufficient resist subsqeuent Milakovitch warming cycles, and Earth plunges into into a glacial period via increasing of both ice formation & ice albedo feedback. Ellis & Palmer suggest CO2 falls because the cold makes the ocean draw CO2 in (increased solubility of the cold water) and this CO2 drop is what stops further cooling, b/c plant death from low CO2 & low temp causes the dust.
It all sounded interesting to me… but even if their theory about dust were true about glaciation exit mechanisms, I don’t think it would be right to conclude that infinitely high man made CO2 & greenhouse doesn’t matter in today's world. This website has so much data suggesting we need to care.
I’m not sure what you mean by: "the peak-dust levels do not appear to have a threshold level." What does that mean? Threshhold referring to a temp or CO2 level at which dust forms? Threshhold referring to a level of dust at which it is can melt ice? I thought the dust elevations seemed to occur during temperature & CO2 nadirsand seemed to precede warming consistently.
Ellis & Palmer’s parting comment wasn’t in the website link I had (http://science.uwaterloo.ca/~mpalmer/stuff/ellis.pdf) (“So the only evil in this world is not in the atmosphere, it lies in the hearts of those who wish to starve plants and animals of their most essential food supply — CO2.”). But on YouTube, I did hear Ellis suggest we may be put here by “intelligent design” to burn fossil fuels to save us from an ice age. Sounded a bit off to me…. and made them seem quite biased. Hence, I wanted to hear from someone more educated that me on these concepts. Thank you so much for discussing this with me.
-
Eclectic at 05:13 AM on 26 April 2020We're heading into an ice age
MA Rodger , geoengineering climate by distributing iron (as fertilizer) to pelagic ocean, has been discussed in previous years.
Tim Conway & Seth John (2014, Nature ) indicated that a large proportion of North Atlantic ocean-water iron was deriving from Saharan dust.
There has been some more casual discussion of the idea of dust from dry land similarly producing algal bloom and thus a reduction of atmospheric CO2. This climate-cooling mechanism (which I have not seen quantified) would act in opposition to the dust-albedo mechanism suggested by Ellis & Palmer (2016) .
-
Jan at 02:25 AM on 26 April 2020State of the climate: First quarter of 2020 is second warmest on record
Its virtual certain that 2020 will be the warmest year with SOx emissions being significantly down. They create clouds. Sox emissions are estimated to cool the climate by at least 0.4°C. Further, it will be quite interesting to see how the methane emissions will behave this year. I just wonder what is a stronger methane emitter: an active fracking well or an inactive one? So i guess no clear answer here ;)
-
MA Rodger at 23:24 PM on 25 April 2020We're heading into an ice age
Lawrence Tenkman @402,
I did manage a read-through of Ellis & Palmer (2016). I note it isn't published properly which is likely why it fails to get mentioned within the literature. (It is published here but only as an “unedited manuscript” which was to “undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.” I see no “final form.”)
There is within Ellis & Palmer mention of “another story for another day” with the suggestion that this would add to the grand theorising with explanations of Dansgaard-Oeschger events and the mid-Pleistocene transition. A paper co-authored by Ellis has appeared on the web explaining the pre-MPT 41ky Ice Age cycle as resulting from there being an extra southern-driven version of the Ice Age cycle which post-MPT ran out of land in the post-MPT permanently-iced-over Antarctica and leaving only the northern-driven post-MPT 100ky Ice Age cycle.
I'm not sure how the pre-MPT cycles would fit in with the Ellis & Palmer theory of dusty interglacial-triggering. (The appearance of interglacials in beat with the orbital eccentricity wobble is described in this follow-on thesis as purely coincidental. The frequency is defined by the 70ky it takes to prime the system with ice.)
The absence of proper follow-on work, of publication or of citations is a kiss of death to theories such as set out by Ellis & Palmer. But that does not explain what it says or why it is wrong to say it.
Ellis & Palmer (2016) is a poor piece of work. It occasionally says some very silly things but I shall ignore those. It also gallops past the science rather than addressing it, indeed describing it as “scientific lacuna.” But I shall here ignore such hubris.
The grand theory presented explains that the precession/obliquity within the Milankivitch cycles does not always lead to an interglacial and that this is not immediately explained by CO2/albedo alone. To cause an interglacial Ellis & Palmer invoke a dusty atmosphere which reduced ice albedo and, as warming takes hold, adds to this albedo reduction when warming brings greater levels of dust to the melting ice surface.
They say the dust results from reduced CO2 which causes lower tree-lines globally and this increasing dust as plant-less dusty mountain tops grow into dusty mountains and then dusty hills with the lowered tree-line. A correlation of dust and CO2 is presented. This dust-correlation could be made with many other different factors so is effectively an exercise in curve fitting with the low-CO2>>high-dust relationship remaining speculative.
What is also not explained in all this is the mechanism driving the CO2 reduction and why this cooling doesn't keep on going. The peak-dust levels do not appear to have a threshold level and if there is a CO2/ice-volume/Milancovitch/dust mechanism at work it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
So without further work beyond those referenced here, work to fill in the gaps and thus enable this allegedly important theory to be properly published, it is fair to say that not a great deal has been done since the initial appearance of this work in 2015 which was then, with its parting comment “So the only evil in this world is not in the atmosphere, it lies in the hearts of those who wish to starve plants and animals of their most essential food supply — CO2. “, certainly more work concrened with denialsim than with scientific analysis.
-
Eclectic at 20:12 PM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
Bob @5 , the other side of the coin for your question is :- What is the repayment time for renewable energy sources.
[German figures] show that windturbines repay themselves in about 6 months ~ a bit more for small turbines, but less time for the largest turbines. And PhotoVoltaic panels (commercial solar farm) repay themselves in around 1.5 to 3 years . . . in Germany's scanty sunlight !
Much of the upfront "CO2 cost" of turbines is the large amount of concrete of the tower base. But that is a one-off cost, and is not repeated as the turbine blades & shaft assembly get replaced in 15 years or so.
All this is way ahead of long-term coal or gas type power plants. So there is no present need to delay installation of these renewables. We should also add in the costings of high-voltage grid connection to solar & wind farms ~ but again, that's largely a one-off cost. Storage & batteries will need to benefit from more R&D over 30 years, too.
As RedBaron indicates, the realistic aim is not to replace all fossil fuel industrial input by the next year or two, but to transition the energy economy over the 30 years until 2050. Technically that seems possible over 30 years at moderate cost (once you deduct the dollar cost of maintaining or increasing the fossil fuel technology systems of today).
My one reservation is that the supply of jetfuel & diesel from organic-based manufacture ( e.g. vat-fermentation / algal-culture ) is around $200 per barrel, last I heard. Presumably the biochemists can improve on that, given some decades for R&D.
But on a slightly humorous note . . . the biochemists will have their work cut out for them, to match the negative cost today of a barrel of oil on the Oil Futures market [April 2020] .
-
SirCharles at 19:59 PM on 25 April 2020State of the climate: First quarter of 2020 is second warmest on record
Also see => NOAA: 2020 Could Be Warmest Year on Record
Here the WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019
-
michael sweet at 19:30 PM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
Bob,
Your question is incorrect. We need to end fossil fuel use. If we build out a completely renewable energy system fossil energy use will be ended.
Already for many years, more energy is generated by existing renewable energy systems than is used to build out new renewable energy systems. With every solar or wind farm completed, less fossil fuels are used worldwide and less carbon dioxide is released. You are counting fossil energy used in the rest of the economy against building renewable energy systems.
The savings in less carbon dioxide emissions in the electrical sector of the economy greatly exceeds the emission of carbon dioxide in the manufacture of the steel and other components in the renewble system. It lowers carbon dioxide emissions fastest to lower electrical system emissions first. Obviously we want to remove carbon dioxide as fast as possible. Once most electricity is generated by renewable sources industrial emissions of carbon dioxide will be converted to renewable energy.
-
RedBaron at 18:21 PM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
@5 Bob,
Why do we need to?
One of the biggest myths surounding AGW mitigation is that we must eliminate all fossil fuel use 100%. This simply isn't true. There are for example certain lubricants we get from petroleum that without it the only substiture is certain whale oils. That would be extraorinarily foolish to end oil pumping, yet start whaling again, wouldn't it?
Go back to the IPCC scenarios. You'll find RCP 2.6 completely reverses AGW without completely ending all fossil fuel use.
Climate Model: Temperature Change (RCP 2.6)
The RCP 2.6 scenario peaks mid-century, which means the radiative forcing level reaches 3.1 W/m2 but returns to 2.6 W/m2 by 2100. So somewhere around 2050 +/- we need to reach net zero emissions. That's 30 years from now. The only way to build the needed infrastructure by then is with fossil fuels actually. And RCP 2.6 is the only IPCC published scenario that actually reverses AGW before incredible harm from global warming happens.
The only known way to reach this is to reduce fossil fuel use and increase carbon sequestration such that the net result is a draw down of atmospheric CO2 levels. Thus it is the net that matters, not gross emissions.
Currently the only technology capable of sequestering large enough amounts of CO2 to reach the net negative draw down state found in RCP 2.6 is agriculture. And luckily for us, this technology is relatively cheap, relatively effective, minimal unexpected side effect risks, and universally beneficial to both human society and natural ecosystems even if AGW wasn't a thing at all. It would still be something that must be done on it's on merits!
So there is absolutely no reason to delay building renewable energy infrastructure, even using fossil fuels to build those renewables. We need to accomplish the building of them by 2050 and start draw down from then on in order to reach RCP 2.6 scenario goals.
-
Bob dde V at 15:12 PM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
How do we get electricity from renewable sources without using fossil fuels in the building of the infrastructure?
-
william5331 at 06:31 AM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
I wonder if the lesson will be absorbed by many of us. This C19 crisis is just a little tiddler compared to what we could experience from other more devestating diseases or from a whole lot of other things totally unrelated to disease that Giya could throw at us. Just imagine the failure of the world's grain harvest following just one year of really strange weather caused by a climate tipping point being reached.
-
bjchip at 04:39 AM on 25 April 2020New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide
Thanks for that. Link in the article needs to be fixed too though.
regards BJ
-
sauerj at 01:06 AM on 25 April 2020Our extraordinary 50th Earth Day
Dear SkS Moderators, Completely off topic (sorry!): I just noticed that the x-axis of the atom bomb clock is stuck on 2013. The # of AB's is correct for 2020, but the date isn't. Any chance this could be fixed and also automatically move with the actual date? ... Thanks!
-
mkrichew at 23:22 PM on 24 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Eclectic @58
Thank you for your question concerning higher CO2 levels at the start of glacial periods. From the ice core curves it appears that the CO2 concentration is highest just prior to the start of the downward negative slope that signals the start of a cooling glacial period.
Further, your comment about not providing any evidence for my theory mentioned above in 56 and elsewhere concerning CO2 concentrations reaching high enough levels in the upper atmosphere to trap and dissipate the sun's radiation before it can warm the lower atmosphere is correct.
I thank the moderator and others for providing some evidence, even if not always supportive of my theory.
Moderator Response:[PS] it would perhaps improve discussion if you could clarify whether you contest that:
1/ Milankovich cycles exist (this would be very hard to dispute)
2/ that the calculations for variations in radiation at TOA at 65N due to cycle are correct.
3/ that the variation in radiation (+/- 50W/m2) is insufficient to cause the change observed
or
4/ that ice age cycles do not closely correlate the cycles.
Thank you.
-
Eclectic at 19:51 PM on 24 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Mkrichew @57 , to give you a very brief reply :-
Your final paragraph ~ what reason would you have, to think that a higher CO2 concentration means Earth entering another glacial period?
~ most glaciers were advancing during the last approx 5000 years (as Earth surface temperature gradually reduced . . . until the rapid warming of the last 150 years. (Up until 1955 date you mentioned, the available evidence was not as strong as today.)
May I point out that, so far, you have not provided any evidence to demonstrate any error in the mainstream climate science.
-
mkrichew at 14:26 PM on 24 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
To MA Rogers @55: Thank you for your kind response.
Also thank you to the moderator for the graphs of CO2 concentration at different altitudes.
I apologize that my submission came out in orange and is almost illegible. It was not when I submitted.
Concerning Milankovitch cycles, I still do not think they provide the insolation forcing that is found in past cycles at the start of warming. This was mentioned by at least one other in the comments section.
Getting back to CO2 concentrations at altitude, I would have expected them to be higher as I thought earth was entering into another glacial period. Back in 1955 I thought I was taught that most glaciers were advancing. Also, I believe there was a brave scientist who obtained ice core samples from high in the Andes mountains. I wonder what CO2 levels he found there and how they compared to other core samples taken at lower altitudes? Once again, thank you for your patience in looking at my comments. I also thank scaddenp @54, I hope I answered his query and yes I was aware where Milankovitch did his work. He must have been very clever.
Prev 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Next
