Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Next
Comments 8251 to 8300:
-
PaulRittmann at 05:00 AM on 1 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
I've learned that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing a half percent a year. I've also learned that the major sources, like fires, are estimated with considerable uncertainty, with ranges of a factor of 10.
So why should I believe, as you evidently do, that my vehicle is responsible for the increase? Perhaps governments should manage their forests better.
Moderator Response:[TD] See this post, and put further comments there please.
-
ilfark2 at 03:04 AM on 1 February 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
I've read a few surveys on carbon taxes that you can find if you're interested.
Let's look at other taxes for the moment. Gasoline tax has increased gas prices substantially yet 60 to 70% of US emissions are from it's citizens driving around in large, useless circles.
Look at the effect of tobacco tax.
Better still, do the arithmetic on how long carbon taxes would take to reduce carbon output substantially. Others have done it.
Taxes as such were introduced arguably, by the Romans. They proved that all you need is a printing press. They mined gold (using slaves), gave this to their soldiers and told subjects they had to give a certain amount of official gold coin every so often. They only way to get the gold was to supply Roman soldiers. This was an easy way to supply Roman troops. Hudson and Graeber cover this.
If we took a New Deal approach to the problem, it will take at least 50 years, more likely 100.
The vast majority of infrastructure, not to mention top to bottom means of production change, happened from 1940 to 1943, and 40 to 60% of the money was printed to do so.
There are quite a few books on the scope and scale of the New Deal vs. WWII mobilization out there now.
Instead of me reading "Good Economics for Hard Times", why don't you find a referenced quote in the book that describes a time in history a society was massively changed via tax policy on the order of ten years (other than the French and Bolshevik revolutions). If they found that, I'll happily grab the book and start reading, because I've never read of such a thing.
In short I challenge readers to point to one instance where massive, short order, societal change occurred from tax policy.
We have many examples of what happens to revenues that are supposed to go to the people. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Alaska among others I'm sure. In these cases, various amounts at varying times of the proceeds were skimmed off the top by elites. This is always the case. It is obvious it will be unless you have real democratic accountability which hierarchies never ever do. Look at the massive sums that are skimmed off by gov contractors... somehow the CCL crowd will magically create a separate Carbon Tax department that will successfully sequester and judiciously allocate all they are supposed to? Large organizations have never operated for any substantial time period this way unless they were run by direct democracy.
But again, if you think we have 50 or a 100 years to get to zero, maybe this would work, but likely not.
Look at the US congress now vs. in the 1930s.
Then, they passed the 30 page Glass-Steagal act. You can look it up and easily read it. It's very simple. Banks can't buy stocks. Savings and Loans can only do a very limited number of things. Gamblers and speculators have to go to hedgefunds. Hedgefunds were a vanishingly small part of the financisphere until Clinton repealed Glass Steagal.
Then there was the crash, then you got Barney Frank and i forget who else, write a bill to reign stuff in. The thing was added to, amended, changed, until it became the useless 2 to 5 thousand page batch of monstronsity, that has done very little to safe guard the financial system.
Ditto the heritage foundation's Affordable Care Act.
That is what will happen in the US with a Carbon Tax.
It might start out useful, but by the time it's done, it will be filled with exemptions, grandfather clauses etc...
Years will pass until the next better version is considered.
No one knows how much time we have, but it's possibly too late and even the IPCC talks about 10 years, which depends on untested, unscaled carbon removal.
The safest path would be massive structural, societal change in less than 10 years.
The only time we've seen that is with massive government supervision and planning. Sometimes using markets (as in US WWII mobilization), other times not.
But again, if you think we have 50 plus years and would rather not risk the status quo, there's an off chance tax/subsidy of the current system might work.
Trust me, I'm not a fan of a WWII mobilization. The one in the US led to one set of elites prevailing over another. It hyper-rewarded capitalists that played ball and left many (especially women, African-Americans and Latinos) behind. It led to the horrible system we currently have. Hopefully a Green New Deal would be more just, but I remain skeptical.
Some nice books to get anyone interested on how economies have been planned by governments or corporations, see "The End of Reform", by Brinkely, "The Visible Hand of Management" and "Scope and Scale..." by Alfred Chandler Jr., the first few chapters of "Destructive Creation..." I forget the author, "Debt: The First 5000 Years..." by Graeber, "Economics: A New Introduction" by Hugh Stretton... and of course Richard Woff, David Harvey, Yanis Varoufanukis. For a more mainstream take on taxation see Stephanie Kelton, Michael Hudson (the MMTers).
You might be right, we might have 30 to 100 years to get to negative emissions, but the Arctic, Antarctic, Australia, Amazon, Siberia, permafrost, methane levels, droughts, deluges (among many other "oh shit that wasn't supposed to happen for another 70 years" scientific papers) suggest otherwise.
-
David Hawk at 02:48 AM on 1 February 2020Too late to stop Climate Change?
Based on a two-year research project done in Sweden 1975-77, and the 40 years since, its too late, really, for business as usual.
Business as unusual has yet to show up.
"Too Early, Too Late, Now what?" 2019, David Hawk, ArthorHouse -
MA Rodger at 19:53 PM on 31 January 2020Too late to stop Climate Change?
alonerock @1,
I added a comment replying to you on that thread suggested by the Moderator Response.
-
MA Rodger at 19:50 PM on 31 January 2020CO2 measurements are suspect
alonerock from elsewhere,
Articles describing the measurement of the vertical profile of CO2 through the atmosphere include Abshire et al (2010) 'Pulsed airborne lidar measurements of CO 2 column absorption' who measured CO2 levels to 6km (their fig 10 below),
and Foucher et al (2011) 'Carbon dioxide atmospheric vertical profiles retrieved from spaceobservation using ACE-FTS solar occultation instrument' who measured from 5km to 25km (their fig 7 below).
-
alonerock at 14:29 PM on 31 January 2020Too late to stop Climate Change?
Can anyone please suggest any good articles describing CO2 levels in the various layers of Earth's atmospher ? I recently read an argument that since CO2 is heavier than air, almost all of the CO2 is at surface level, which is wrong.
Moderator Response:[TD] See this post, including the comments.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
The whole point of a carbon tax, any pigovian tax, is that people will avoid it. Industries will be created to avoid it - ie energy production that doesnt emit carbon.
-
nigelj at 05:20 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
ilfark2
"Taxes are always convuluted, avoided, re-directed, sabotaged and distorted. "Serious Economist" is largely and oxymoron."
Sure, but taxes still work. Our civilisation has been based on taxation and this has provided a vast range of public good and services for literally centuries now.
"They first few versions of any carbon tax in capitalist countries will rest heavily on the middle and lower classes. The argument that you can have a public trust that will be re-distributed is fantasy."
There are already carbon taxes in several countries. I suggest read up on them before speculating. Start with carbon taxes on wikipedia. It's also very easy to give tax rebates or similar assistance to poor people, and that is already done in many countries in respect of general income taxes, so it could be done for a carbon tax. Please explain why it couldn't be done.
"Even if, by some a-historic miracle you got a Citizens Climate Lobby like plan through, it would take years to be effective. Likely decades. "
No taxation has immediate effects, even at low levels. The sum of the effects depends on how strong the taxes are.
"If the taxes are high enough to force a quick change, companies would try to pass that on to customers, resulting in a supply side shock depression."
This is a valid concern but 1) you can phase things in to soften the blow and 2) carbon fee and dividend neutralises this supply shock.
"The only way we'll substantially lower carbon output in a useful timeframe is either a WWII style mobilization, which means heavily controlled markets and means of production, or a complete replacement of capitalism and markets with a rational system of production and distribution."
No. You don't need to control markets in a complete sense or abandon capitalism. All you need is something like the New Deal of the 1930's where government funded some new infrastructure out of taxes at that time.
Governments could fund green infrastructure today out of taxes, deficit financing (interest rates are low so this is ideal) or quantitative easing. It requires directing how some things are done, but this falls well short of a total control of markets. This is all a valid alternative to carbon taxes.
-
nigelj at 04:56 AM on 31 January 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #4, 2020
nivekvb @1, good responses to the denialists. Concise, just the key facts. I have always liked that. No point wasting too much time on these guys. Do be aware they are trolling you to some extent.
The points they make are so transparently stupid that their scepticism cannot be just intellectual curiosity, and can only be driven by emotion or politics or conspiracy theory ideation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:54 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
ilfark2 @3,
The first step of the Paris Agreement, the initial commitments, have been confirmed to be inadequate to achieve 1.5 C limit of impact.
But that is why the Paris Agreement was built to include regular updates of the status of the actions to date with the need for increased corrective actions as required to achieve the objective. The next step being the 2020 update.
That is a very fundamental understanding of the Paris Agreement. Anyone unaware of it hasn't actually been paying attention.
But I agree, the lack of responsible corrective action today to undo the harmful popular and profitable socioeconomic-political activity that has developed today will require more forceful corrections of undeserved perceptions of superiority if humanity is to develop a lasting improving future.
Whether responsible leaders will act to correct popular and profitable activity that has incorrectly over-developed through the past is an open question, as is the future of humanity.
All that any individual can do is try to expand and improve awareness and understanding of the urgent need to stop supporting groups that have desires that are contrary to rapidly achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, and apply that learning to be as helpful as possible.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:41 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
ilfark2 @3,
Read "Good Economics for Hard Times" and then respond with specific criticisms. As my comment @4 shows the authors are open to the possibility that are are incorrect on some points.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:39 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
In my previous comment @1 I meant to add that the authors of “Good Economics for Hard Times” recommend that the most helpful way to implement Carbon Taxes is to rebate the collected money to everyone except the richer people. That allows the Carbon Tax policy implementation to limit the negative impacts on middle income and less fortunate, and help assist the less fortunate. It also becomes a more powerful motivation for the richer people to reduce their impacts (they get no pay-back. For them it is a Tax that is used for actions they personally do not benefit from, like any other assistance for the less fortunate).
I provided a brief summary of “Good Economics for Hard Times” to encourage it to be read by people who are interested in better understanding the challenges of expanding awareness and understanding regarding climate science and the related required changes of human activity (Jeffery Sachs and Sustainable Development need no ‘summary description’).
In case some are reluctant to check out “Good Economics for Hard Times” , the following edited extracts from the book may help better understand the authors and their intentions and the value of reading the book (economic academics and climate science academics have similar challenges):
From the Preface:
“…Inequality is exploding, environmental catastrophes and global policy disasters loom, but we are left with little more than platitudes to confront them with.
“We wrote this book to hold on to hope. To tell ourselves the story of what went wrong and why, but also as a reminder of all that has gone right. A book as much about the problems as about how our world can be put back together, as long as we are honest with the diagnosis.
“…Many of the issues plaguing the world right now are particularly salient in the rich North, whereas we have spent our lives studying poor people in poor countries. It was obvious that we would have to immerse ourselves in many new literatures, and there was always a chance we would miss something. It took us a while to convince ourselves it was even worth trying.
“We eventually decided to take the plunge, partly because we got tired of watching at a distance while the public conversation about core economic issues – immigration, trade, growth, inequality, or the environment – goes more and more off-kilter. But also because, as we thought about it, we realized the problems facing the rich countries in the world were eerily familiar to those we are used to studying in the developing world – people left behind by development, ballooning inequality, lack of faith in government, fractured societies and polity, and so on. We learned a lot in the process, and it did give us faith in what we as economists have learned best to do, which is to be hard headed about the facts, skeptical of slick answers and magic bullets, modest and honest about what we know and understand, and perhaps most importantly, willing to try ideas and solutions and be wrong, as long as it takes us towards the ultimate goals of building a more humane world.”From the first chapter:
“…The answers to these problems take more than a tweet. So there is an urge to just avoid them. And partly as a result, nations are doing very little to solve the most pressing challenges of our time; they continue to feed the anger and mistrust that polarizes us, which makes us even more incapable of talking, thinking together, doing something about them.
“…Economists have a lot to say about these big issues.
“…What the most recent research has to say, it turns out, is often surprising, especially to those used to the pat answers coming out of TY “economists’ and high school text books.
“Unfortunately, very few people trust economists enough to listen carefully to what they have to say.”From the Conclusion:
“…Good economics alone cannot save us. But without it, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of yesterday. Ignorance, institutions, ideology and inertia combine to give us answers that look plausible, promise much, and predictably betray us. As history, alas, demonstrates over and over, the ideas that carry the day in the end can be good or bad. … The only recourse we have against bad ideas is to be vigilant, resist the seduction of the “obvious”, be skeptical of promised miracles, question the evidence, be patient with complexity and honest about what we know and what we can know. Without that vigilance, conversations about multifaceted problems turn into slogans and caricatures and policy analysis gets replaced by quack remedies.
“The call to action is not just for academic economists – it is for all of us who want a better, saner, more humane world. Economics is too important to be left to economists.” -
ilfark2 at 03:17 AM on 31 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
Taxes are always convuluted, avoided, re-directed, sabotaged and distorted. "Serious Economist" is largely and oxymoron.
Many have shown elsewhere, Paris won't get us to 1.5, more likely will result in 3 by 2100. Likely articles are metioned on this very website.
They first few versions of any carbon tax in capitalist countries will rest heavily on the middle and lower classes. The argument that you can have a public trust that will be re-distributed is fantasy.
Even if, by some a-historic miracle you got a Citizens Climate Lobby like plan through, it would take years to be effective. Likely decades. Think of all the plant and equipment relying on fossil fuels. Unless the taxes are incredibly high, companies will continue to use that equipment for years. Ditto households.
If the taxes are high enough to force a quick change, companies would try to pass that on to customers, resulting in a supply side shock depression.
If taxes and markets were used to make the change in 1859, when Tyndall discovered the way molecules absorb infra red radiation, it might have worked.
The only way we'll substantially lower carbon output in a useful timeframe is either a WWII style mobilization, which means heavily controlled markets and means of production, or a complete replacement of capitalism and markets with a rational system of production and distribution.
Carbon taxes have no place or use in either scenario.
It's like saying, "alright, the Fascists might be coming across the ocean in a couple of years... let's raise taxes on consumer items in order to fund war production..."
-
nivekvb at 01:47 AM on 31 January 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #4, 2020
I debated with Tony Heller on Twitter. I've only been debating with the deniers for 2 weeks on twitter and I've learnt everything I know from that. I expected to lose my debate with Tony Heller, but I think I run him over the cliff. Part 1 is short and hilarious. Part's 2 and 3 are longer.
Part 1
https://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2020/01/kv-vs-tony-heller-tweeter-debate.html?m=1
Part 2
https://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2020/01/kv-vs-heller-twitter-part-2.html?m=1
Part 3
https://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2020/01/kv-vs-tony-heller-twitter-part-3.html?m=1
Moderator Response:[DB] Activated hyperlinks.
-
MA Rodger at 21:36 PM on 30 January 2020CO2 effect is saturated
dien @579,
I will be more wide-ranging with my questioning of you than Bob Loblaw @580 although I perhaps understand what you are trying to say.
Can you tell us which "explanation" you are describing as being "much too complex"?
When you use the term "molecule density", to which molecules are you referring, all air molecules or just CO2?
Are you referring to Arrhenius (1896) 'On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground'? and if so, where doe he use the term "radiating layer"? Arrhenius talks of an "emitting layer" but this is not the CO2 emitting layer and thus not what you term "the top layer."
You will note that I don't ask about your meaning of "saturated" although this does not directly apply to CO2's GHG effect being saturated. I feel your overly awkward explanation is essentially correct. That is, if by 'saturation' you meaning that all radiation emitted by CO2 is absorbed and fails to escape to space, this is mainly true in the lower atmosphere. From there, an increase in CO2 (which is well mixed within the atmosphere to a height of perhaps 50km) will increase emission/absorption in the lower atmosphere as well as the upper. (So it is not just "in the highest layer" where there is "ample room to increase absorbtion there by increasing CO2 density.") In so doing, the altitude where all CO2 radiation is absorbed (thus in your words "saturated") does have "ample room to increase" in altitude and, if that increase is still within the troposphere, it will thus to decrease in temperature. It is this decreasing temperature (or to be more exact, decreasing net temperature) which determines whether the GHG effect from increasing CO2 is saturated or not.
-
John Hartz at 13:52 PM on 30 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
Recommended supplemental reading...
Australia’s capital city faces worst bush fire threat since 2003, as scorching heat plots a return by Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post, Jan 29, 2020
-
John Hartz at 12:35 PM on 30 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
Recommended supplemental reading:
Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change, Opinion by David G Victor, Yale Environment 360, Jan 28, 2020
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:56 AM on 30 January 2020CO2 effect is saturated
dien:
Please explain exactly what you mean when you say "In the lower atmosphere, absorption is saturated". I have yet to hear a decent definition of "saturated" where this is true.
-
John Hartz at 11:21 AM on 30 January 2020Antarctica is gaining ice
Recommended supplemental reading:
Temperatures at a Florida-Size Glacier in Antarctica Alarm Scientists by Shoal Lawal, Climate, New York Times, Jan 29, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 30 January 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
En-Roads helps expand awareness and improve understanding of what has developed and the corrections required to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
However, like all economic evaluations, it is limited in what can be incorporated. The reality that everyone’s actions add up to create the future is incredibly complex. But that lack of completeness does not make something like En-Roads worthless. What it does is do is require additional awareness and understanding along with En-Roads.
What needs to be kept in mind when discussing any ‘economic policy options’ is how the actions will actually affect ‘everyone involved’. A particular concern has to be ensuring that the impacts of implementing the policy do not include making anyone less fortunate to the point of facing circumstances that are below a threshold of a decent basic life. No displaced worker, and there will be many, should end up in poverty. And the related concern is the need for parallel actions that continue to assist those who are less fortunate sustainably develop improved living circumstances. Existing poverty reduction cannot be compromised.
A good understanding of this type of economics is presented in the 2019 book, “Good Economics for Hard Times” by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Ester Duflo. The authors are serious economists who have spent decades pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding of how to get sustainable economic improvements of conditions for the less fortunate. Though their focus has been on policy recommendations for developing nations, in the book they also apply their knowledge to efforts to assist the less fortunate in more developed nations. And their understanding is also based on awareness of how the currently most developed nations developed.
- “Good Economics for Hard Times” also includes many well structured surveys that compare the consensus of understanding of serious economists with the opinions of the general population. Like climate science, the authors show that there is a significant difference of understanding in the general population, almost a lag in the expanding awareness an understanding but more likely a persistent misunderstanding. The book includes many examples of understanding related to the imposition of Carbon Taxes where there is a significant consensus understanding among serious economists but there is significant misunderstanding in the general population. Those issues include the following consensus understanding among serious economists: Carbon Taxes would be an effective method to help achieve the required corrections (mentioned in the Yale Climate Connections item).
- Reduced taxation of the richest is unlikely to result in sustainable improvement of circumstances for the less fortunate (an important understanding when looking at the actions needed to ensure poverty is being sustainably reduced). Though little was able to be understood about this theory in the 1980s because of the lack of historical examples for serious economists to evaluate, there is now ample historical evidence of a diversity of regions where taxes on the richestr were reduced that can be compared to regions where such changes did not occur (the real evaluations of serious economists involve comparisons of a diversity of histories to try to determine the validity of a theory, or the merit of a policy recomendation).
And a very comprehensive understanding of all of this is presented by Jeffrey D. Sacks et. al. in the MOOC “The Age of Sustainable Development”, and the associated book of the same name.
A related understanding is that the warming by 2100 is not the complete issue. The maximum future warming is the issue. The unacceptability of any scenario that has not peaked warming by 2100 needs to be elauated based on its maximum warming.
So the best solution appears require other policy actions along with a Carbon Tax that rapidly increases as required to achieve a maximum warming of 1.5 C. And to be fair, that will require policy action to sustainably assist the less fortunate, and those displaced from unsustainable harmful jobs, develop sustainable improved lives. And that will require increased taxes on the richest. Which will require a certain category of political groups to 'Change Their Mind about Taxes on the Richest' and 'Change Their Mind about the merit of Governments Governing and Limiting what is allowed to happen in the Economy'. And that will require acceptance of the expanded awareness and understanding of serious economists who apply their learning to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity. And that will likely require penalties to be applied to people who try to develop and disseminate misleading marketing. And it may even require the ability to remove elected representatives from office if they show a history of actions resisting expanding their awareness and understanding.
-
dlen at 03:37 AM on 30 January 2020CO2 effect is saturated
IMO the explanation is much too complex.
In the lower atmosphere, absorption is saturated, that's true.
But in the highest layer it is not, because the molecule density is too low. So there is ample room to increase absorbtion there by increasing CO2 density. The highest layer is the pane of the proverbial greenhouse.
Old Arrhenius used in his paper 1896 the concept of the "radiating layer", which is of course the top layer.
-
Xulonn at 00:06 AM on 30 January 2020Global warming is happening here and now
Congratulations on the book, John. I see that you have gone back in time to marry your pre-doctorate graphics arts and cartooning skills with your climate communication expertise. I will buy a copy of the book to help support you and your efforts - and to add to my repertoire of denialist-fighting sources.
It will be interesting to watch the hordes of coordinated denier and right-wing idiots flock to Amazon to post nasty negative reviews without reading the book. But as they say, even negative publicity can be good, because it brings attention to a critical subject and a source of good information.
-
MA Rodger at 20:06 PM on 29 January 2020There is no consensus
Rosland66 @879,
For completeness the calculation which is yet to be set out here (although the moderation Response @879 links to the on-topic thread); according to the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy it was 550 quadrillion BTUs added to the environment by "these same 7 billion people" in 2018, a value which equates to +0.036 Watts/meter squared in climatology-speak.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:52 AM on 29 January 2020There is no consensus
"NASA graph from 1975 to 2018 is interesting and quite telling but it omits the math showingvhow much heat the increase of 120ppm of CO2 adds to the atmosphere.
Has anyone here been able to complete this math?"
roseland67, scientists have quantified the warming caused by human activities since preindustrial times and compared that to natural temperature forcings.
Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.
By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).
What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
-
roseland67 at 10:18 AM on 29 January 2020There is no consensus
Seems to me that any reasonably intelligent person can see that human activity MUST change the climate, a Cow fartingbin a barn changes the climate, it adds methane where there was none. Lighting a match changes the climate, it burns O2 and adds heat where there was none.
The climate MUST change, the planet temperature MUST increase, this seems obvious to me, is it not to all? Now what is causing these changes is debatable.
Is it reasonable to believe that the climate stays stagnant with 7 billion people living in this industrial environment?
Is it reasonable to believe that these same 7 billion people adding quadrillions of btu’s of heat every year to the environment would not raise the local temperature?
NASA graph from 1975 to 2018 is interesting and quite telling but it omits the math showingvhow much heat the increase of 120ppm of CO2 adds to the atmosphere.
Has anyone here been able to complete this math?
Moderator Response:[PS] For "quadrillions of btus of heat", please see here for the maths and comment on that thread if you have questions.
And frankly, of course scientists have done the maths. What do you think they do??
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 29 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
It is indeed challenging to ‘now’ correct what has ‘now’ developed. Development down the slippery slope of allowing potentially harmful, or actually harmful, activity to compete for popularity and profit has produced the expected result. The cheaper and easier harmful unsustainable activities are more popular and profitable. And popular and profitable activities develop powerful resistance to being corrected or terminated. And people have an aversion to losing perceptions of status or opportunity. That aversion includes a resistance to learning that what they developed a liking for was actually unsustainable and harmful and needs to be stopped. And that may have been one of the hoped for results of the fossil fuel power players who chose to pursue maximizing the development in the harmful incorrect direction they could benefit from.
The current day fossil fuel majors cannot be defended. It is proper to identify them, and other harmful unsustainable organizations like them, so that people can take corrective actions.
An important understanding is that everyone’s actions add up to create the future of humanity. Everybody needs to reduce how harmful they are and try to be more helpful. And all of the wealthiest should be required to lead the correction, or give up their position of higher wealth (become a commoner).
One of the most powerful influences that individuals can have is doing whatever they are able to do to stop supporting these organizations and their activities, with all of the wealthiest leading the correction. Since everyone’s actions add up, it is not acceptable for any wealthy person to continue to be a trouble-maker requiring others to clean up the mess they make in pursuit of personal benefit.
However, it is important to deal with the identification of the 6 major fossil fuel companies within the context of an expanded awareness and improved understanding of economics (see p.s. below).
An important economic understanding is that nobody’s actions should be allowed to be harmful to another human no matter how much more profitable or popular that action may be. It is a slippery slope to start allowing benefit to be obtained by harming others or the future of humanity.
The current reality is that humanity is well down the slippery slope of harm due to the actions of people trying to benefit from organizations like the identified 6 major fossil fuel corps. That position down the slippery slope is due to the actions of the harmful resistors of expanded awareness and understanding and the related required corrections (Read Jeffrey D. Sachs’ book “The Age of Sustainable Development” or take the MOOC of the same name).
It is fair to ‘not blame’ the developers of an economic activity that developed before it was possible to understand the harm it was causing. But it is also fair to criticize any current day pursuers of benefit from economic activity that has significant doubts regarding its harmlessness. And it is fair to penalize those already more fortunate people who pursue benefit from activity that is undeniably harmful and who are trying to defend it with misleading marketing to influence public opinion, especially those arguing about the degree of harmfulness, and most especially those who discount future negative impacts when they do it.
Sustainable development for the benefit of the future generations of humanity includes understanding the need to have no harm done to the environment of this planet, especially no harm done to the robust diversity of life. An economic action cannot be justified if it is beneficial to an already fortunate person but is contrary to developing sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
The consensus understanding regarding the need for corrections to achieve sustainable development can be understood to have been reached by global leadership in the 1960s, because that consensus awareness produced the understanding of the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the continued pursuit of expanded awareness and improved understanding of the diversity of topics related to sustainable development, including but not just climate science evaluations of climate change.
That improving awareness and understanding includes learning that many of the current developed economic activities are not ‘steps along a path to a sustainable improving future’. Many developed economic activities are harmful unsustainable actions that have developed ‘resistance to correction’. They are in the wrong direction and go further in the wrong direction and set up barriers to resist redirection to a sustainable path. And they will require Responsible Leadership to rapidly correct them as required to limit the harm done to the future of humanity. Had they responsibly self-led their correction they would not be facing the external imposition of correction that is ‘more harmful to their current more incorrectly developed status’. A related criticism applies to all of the automobile producers. The ability to pursue the development of sustainable corrections has existed for a long time. All that was lacking was the responsible leadership. Decades after an established automaker could have aggressively started the pursuit of development of sustainable alternatives, Elon Musk came along. What Elon did was stimulate the development in a direction it could have been stimulated in long before he started Tesla. And against massive resistance Elon made happen what a responsibly led major automaker could have made happen far earlier.
p.s. A lot of “Economic” presentations people see today, and the related opinions people develop, are ideological political misleading marketing. It is rare for people to be significantly more exposed to presentation by serious pursuers of expanded awareness and improved understanding of economics. What most people are exposed to are people who ‘sound like economists’ being talked to in News-Bity style situations where the details, nuances and complexity are not communicated, because that would take too long, and who has time for that. And some people read books by those misleading marketing ‘economic sounding people’ in the belief that the fuller story is being presented ‘because it is a Book’.
A good understanding of economics is presented in the 2019 book, “Good Economics for Hard Times” by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Ester Duflo.
The authors are serious economists who have spent decades pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding of how to get sustainable economic improvements of conditions for the less fortunate. Though their focus is on policy recommendations for developing nations, they also apply their knowledge to efforts to assist the less fortunate in more developed nations. And their understanding is also based on awareness of how the currently most developed nations developed.The reality of economics is that very little economic theory has been able to be rigorously tested in controlled repeatable experiments. The understanding develops as a result of more wholistic and comprehensive evaluations of the diversity of economic results in the total global history.
Their book makes many points, but a major point is that among serious economists there are a number of consensus understandings on issues where the public opinions are dramatically incorrect, lagging significantly behind the expanded awareness and understanding of the serious economists. One, but not the only one, that they include that is relevant to interface of climate science with economics is the consensus understanding among serious economists that: A Carbon Tax can help sustainably correct economic development, especially if the collected funds are fully rebated to the middle and lower income groups (the higher income people do not need any rebate assistance).
-
michael sweet at 09:30 AM on 29 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
RitchieB,
I do not think that there was ever a "discrepancy" to be corrected in the comments above. The first commentor says they are a "layman" who eyeballs a graph and does some rudimentary calculations. The responding posters cite Llovel et al 2010 which states in the abstract:
"We show that whatever the period considered, interannual variability of the mean sea level is essentially explained by interannual fluctuations in land water storage, with the largest contributions arising from tropical river basins"
Obviously the laymans eyeball is not as accurate as professional scientists calculations. If you want more information Google Scholar says Llovel has been cited 84 times. If you read the titles of the papers you can find one that answers your questions. Here is one I looked at. In the abstract it says all the fall in sea level in 2010-2011 is caused by land storage.
If you look at the intermediate level of the explaination of this myth here at SkS, there is a graph that shows the yearly seasonal variation of sea level in the Northern Hemisphere varies by about 60 mm and the Southern Hemisphere varies by about 30 mm. It seems reasonable to me that a change in rainfall could cause 10 mm yearly change for a short time when seasonal variation is so much larger.
-
Eclectic at 22:21 PM on 28 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
Richieb @21 , I am not clear about the nature of your inquiry. Australia (the part that gets rained upon!) is about 3% of the world's land area . . . so presumably it was the other 140-ish million square kilometers receiving the bulk of the "missing" ocean water. Spread kinda thin, even allowing for local concentrations (see chart in OP).
Water runs off quickly and returns to the ocean, or soaks into the soil for a year or two ~ and eventually trickles back to the ocean, or evaporates and rains into the ocean. All part of the normal variation of things.
There doesn't seem to be any discrepancy requiring special explanation. There are always small ups and downs imposed on top of the continuing rise in sea level.
-
richieb1234 at 20:50 PM on 28 January 2020Sea level fell in 2010
Why did sea level fall in 2010?
This exchange in the Fall of 2011 presents a fascinating discussion of the relationship between global mean sea level and water transfer to land masses. Specifically, the apparent temporary downtrend in sea level around 2010 was purported to be explained at least partially by torrential rainfall in Australia and elsewhere. BUT the accumulation of rain on land was not nearly enough to account for the sea level drop. The discussion trails off in December 2011 without a resolution of the discrepancy. And the anthropogenic increase in sea level resumed its upward trend in 2012.
Was this discrepancy ever resolved? Does the discrepancy have implications regarding the accuracy annd relliability of satellite measurements? Is this related to the later downturn in sea level in the 2016 timeframe?
VR, richieb1234
Moderator Response:[DB] NASA has continued to track water motions across the planet, from alpine and ice sheet mass losses to the ocean and land impoundment changes over time, including torrential rains in the Amazon and Australia lowering global sea levels for a time. The overall trend is upward with the net effect that global sea level rise is accelerating in lockstep with accelerating ice sheet mass losses. NASA has a video on GRACE's 15-year mission tracking that, here.
-
John Hartz at 10:55 AM on 28 January 2020It's El Niño
Recommended supplemental reading:
A new study finds a possible link between Arctic warming and more frequent El Niños in the Central Pacific.
Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice May Affect Tropical Weather Patterns by Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News, Jan 27, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:14 AM on 28 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank,
Engineers I know share the understanding that any structure that does not meet code minimum design requirements is an unsafe structure based on the new code requirements.
The fact that increased levels of minimum requirements in a code update are not required to be applied to already built items, because of the cost, does not change the reality that the structure just meeting the older lower design standard is unacceptable based on the updated code. And in Canada any modification of an existing structure must include all modifications required to meet the current code requirements. And if the updated code requirements become significant enough then older buildings will be declared unable to continue to be used without upgrades.
So as I have tried to consistently say, increased risk of failure is the reality being created by rapid climate change. And any attempt to establish a design requirement in anticipation of rapid climate change faces the challenge of establishing certainty regarding how severe the future design requirements will become.
-
John Hartz at 01:44 AM on 28 January 2020It's the sun
Recommended supplemental reading:
Four graphs that suggest we can’t blame climate change on solar activity by Gareth Dorrian & Ian Whittaker, The Conversation UK, Jan 24, 2020
-
Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Bob @12 , you are superbly optimistic.
But the past 30 years are almost certainly going to be very different to the coming 30 years. Past and future changes in technology & social attitudes (and consequent economics) . . . ensure that the past cannot be extrapolated linearly into the future. Which makes it pointless to attempt to model a "re-run of history" from 1990.
If the Byzantine Empire had not fallen to the Turks . . . if Kaiser Wilhelm's father had not died prematurely . . . if Adolf Schicklgruber had died in childhood . . . if . . . if. So many broadbrush and "narrowbrush" events which might have been, and could have disrupted the course of history. And nowadays, the course of history is mutating ever faster.
No, the provision of data has no beneficial effect on the climate pseudo-skeptics. They do not "refute" ~ they have had decades of experience in unrelenting denial of reality. It is rare for any of them to change, short of death. They will continue to pervert (in their own minds) the logical scientific analysis of evidence. And when backed into a corner, they resort to playing the "political conspiracy" card. Really, Bob, it's all just a form of intellectual insanity.
And unless you can discover a cure for intellectual insanity . . . well then, your time would be better spent on more practical aims.
-
Bob dde V at 11:38 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
It seems we have the modelling capacity to predict the impact of what the current usuage of fossil fuel will have on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and subsequent effect on global temperature. That being the case, it should not be too difficult to predict the impact that would have occurred if fossil fuel use was halved in 1990. We could then compare any positive outcomes (e.g. temperature reduction) that would have resulted if we took that course of action versus what is in place today. Maybe we could also get a handle on any negative outcomes, e.g. reduced development in poorer countries or inconveniences in richer countries. Thus we could better determine how important it is to pursue reduction of fossil fuels use into the future. Surely that would provide "hard" data that any skeptics could not refute. It would also provide firm targets for emission reduction that would make a real difference as we go forward.
-
nigelj at 10:14 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz @10 fair enough and good on you. I always appreciate your list of articles. I'm probably just argumentative. Should have been a lawyer.
-
John Hartz at 08:16 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelj@7: For better or for worse, I don't have much time these days to debate with anyone. Sifting and winnowing trhough the myriad of Climate related articles being written and published to find the best ones for posting on the SkS Facebook page is labor intensive. In my spare time, I'm attempting to honcho the creation of a South Carolina Chapter of Elders Climate Action.
-
nigelj at 08:05 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Bob Loblaw @8 now you are talking. That is exactly the problem.
In many places globally electricity generation is effectively a government run or privately run local monopoly, often with fossil fuels. Because its a monopoly they will try to lock out new alternatives that upset the prevailing comfortable arrangements. Customers have no choice.
In my country (and I believe in Texas) we have a different system, an electricty market system effectively run by the transmission lines company (which is a natural monopoly you can't change that). But the system is structured to prevent generating companies joining together to create a big monopoly, especially one that excludes any particular form of generation.
So the system is designed to provide customer choice between mutiple generating companies and to to ensure all generating options get a fair go including renewables. So we have generating companies with different mixes of types of generation, and customers can pick and choose.
A cap and trade scheme pushes up the prices of fossil fuels to encourages clean energy.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:22 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Doug:
THe thing that particularly galls me is how the fossil fuel industry (particularly in the U.S.) actively lobbies to place regulatory and financial hurdles in front of competitors via government intervention.
I wish that, as a consumer, I had freer access to alternatives, so that I could make more individual choices to avoid fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry keeps its "competitive" advantage when it succeeds in reducing the availability of alternatives. Free market, my @$$.
-
nigelj at 05:16 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz @4, ok, but I was looking forward to a bit of a debate with you on the issue! I dont care if people attack what I say, as long as it doesn't become personal, which is clearly not your style anyway.
-
John Hartz at 00:41 AM on 27 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Doug Bostrom: Well said. I would add that the fossil fuel industry is going full bore with BAU for the foreseeable future. It simple must be prevented from doing so using every tool available.
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:08 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Further to Nigel's remarks, a couple of nights ago this matter of producer vs. consumer culpability came up in conversation over dinner over in these here parts. My initial sour remark was that 90% of people blaming oil companies for our problems would be begging them to resume production after a week of cessation, were "they should just stop" actually to happen.
Remembering that I was in a dark mood, I amended my estimate to 60%.
What does distinguish oil majors is their concerted attempt to gaslight us— to reach into our heads and twist our grasp of reality— so as to preserve the money vector they enjoy. That's an offense against society unique to a select group. It's an act of calculated harm with effects similar to antisocial behavior covered in statutory law, even if no actual criminal code encompasses the transgression.
-
John Hartz at 14:59 PM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
A long read, but well worth it...
These scientists think we're in a 'bushfire spiral'. They have a plan, Analysis by Liam Mannix, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 26, 2020
-
John Hartz at 13:16 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelj: I did not say your comments were wrong. I also withdraw my claim they are "wishy washy". My bad.
-
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
John Hartz, by stupidity I mean trying to find scapegoats to blame for the climate crisis, and this includes oil companies. It just looks like it would be counter productive. We need to be a whole lot more solutions focussed.
Of course its good to remind people of how oil companies have contributed to the denail campaign. This is a bit different.
I don't see where my comments are wishy washy. Calling my comments wishy washy actually sounds wishy washy. You need to show me specifically where you think I'm wrong and why.
-
John Hartz at 12:11 PM on 26 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
nigelJ: I find your comment to be a tad wishy-washy. Re its final sentence, what "stupidity" are you talking about?
-
Jim Eager at 08:22 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
It is a fact that some people can and will be careless with fire, I myself have helped put out a bush fire caused by someone’s careless disposal of a cigarette. And it is a fact that some warped individuals do start fires intentionally, but as Nigel asked, so what? This is nothing new. If the NSW and Victoria forests hadn’t been so tinder dry from prolonged drought and sustained elevated temperatures the fires would not have been so wide spread, **regardless** of ignition source, a point conceded in the very opinion piece that Aleks linked to.
Nor would the fires have grown so quickly and widely from flying embers:
“Fire officials in New South Wales reported that embers were landing 30km (18 miles) ahead of the front on Tuesday – three times more than the usual distance.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50383800And as for Aleks’ insinuation that the absence of thunderstorms precludes lightning strikes, as has been observed in previous fires, this year’s bushfires were so intense that they created their own weather which included dry lightning strikes.
By digging in Aleks shows again that he is incapable of grasping the difference between proximate and ultimate causation, which Phiippe just illustrated quite nicely.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:12 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
A few months ago, someone had the same argument as Aleks. I pointed to the poster that the logic was flawed by comparing it to the following situation: when I get home in the evening I turn the light on flipping a switch and create a minor spark; if one day there has been a gas leak and the air/gas mixture has reached the right proportions in the house, my ordinary gesture will cause a devastating explosion. By that poster's logic, turning the light on would be the cause of the explosion.
-
nigelj at 06:41 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
aleks @8, so what? What I mean is we all know fires are started for different reasons, basically lightening strikes, arson and accidents like discarded cigarettes. There is no evidence presented that these problems have grown significantly in recent years, and in this fire season. The fire services has said arson isn't looking like a significant factor this season.
What we know is hot dry conditions mean fires catch hold very easily and spread quickly and can burn large areas. Climate change is certainly causing hotter conditions. You need to explain how hotter conditions would not make bushfires worse, and I think it would defy all logic. Granted drought plays a huge part as well.
There's also evidence that climate change is increasing the length of the fire season.
Here is a relevant article: How climate change is making Australia's bushfires worse:
-
RedBaron at 06:23 AM on 26 January 2020New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
As more and more people ignore denialists and actually begin doing what Seb V claims is impossible:
-
aleks at 06:22 AM on 26 January 2020Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires
According to The Sidney Morning Gerald: "A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental." https://www.smh.com.au/national/arson-mischief-and-recklessness-87-per-cent-of-fires-are-man-made-20191117-p53bcl.html
Prev 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Next
