Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  Next

Comments 89551 to 89600:

  1. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "The total amount of FF consumed integrated over time is not the correct metric to look at. The natural environment has been taking up about half our emissions every year; if the rate of our emission remain below the level that the natural environment can absorb (loosely speaking), then atmospheric CO2 will not rise at an unmanagable rate. Thus if alternatives cut the rate of our emissions sufficienlty, the consumption of FF consumed integrated over time is essentially irrelevant. Burning all the FF is fine, provided we don't do it faster than the environment (possibly with our help) can cope with. " Yet when in 1970ish carbon emissions were below current land based natural sink absorption (3 billion tonnes carbon) yet atmospheric CO2 was still rising and it shouldn't have been according to your premise. Also it is generally accepted that the world is going warm up another 0.6C at least whatever happens. Everytime in the past when the world has warmed the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere (with all the natural sinks intact and larger (there were more forests bach then)!) has risen, so why now should the sinks act in a way to draw down CO2 when the world is warming and absorb any extra CO2 emitted by man? Also when the oceans warm they can hold less CO2, the ice melting over the Arctic is most liklely to create an additional CO2 source, plant pests are increasing which decreases land sinks and causes releases of CO2, as the temperature rise and autumn extends respiration increases releasign more CO2, the boreal forest in Canada has been a CO2 source since 2000, the 2010 Amazon drought just released a huge amount of carbon, the oceanic sink of Japan, Northern Atlantic and Southern ocean have all decreased their rate of CO2 removal and the Southern westerlies are heading south which again should turn the southern ocean from a sink to a source as the warming contiues. C4 plants (most grasses) don't respond to CO2 fertilization and large amounts of land have been converted to grassland rather than forest, the permafrost is melting, peat bogs are emitting more and more CO2, and as the climate changes it is predicted that many climatic systems will shift again stressing the natural sinks, add in all the other destruction of the natural sinks (deforoestation, pesticides, massive over fishing etc) and suggesting that natural sinks mean we can continue to burn fossil fuels just at the correct rate is at best dangerous. Also considering the Pliocene 350ppm is where we need to get and asap to avoid 2C in 100years, so don't we need every single drop of natural sink CO2 absorption to get anywhere near that and cease all FF emissions asap as well. And lastly all renewables and nuclear are not carbon neutral and are not environmentally neutral either, I would suggest looking up tri-nitro flouride and the fate of migratory bats in the US just reported in science express and impacts this will have farmland pests. And also look up the CO2 costs of biofuels as it is most commonly found they have a larger CO2 legacy than oil! Now don't get me wrong I in no way advocate using FF either, the crux of the matter is we need to use a lot less power and stop consuming none necessaries. So basically impossible, so maybe we should start planning for the consequences of >2C and that does mean....not worth even saying is it.
  2. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Marcus : "For the record, yet again, I don't think we can sustain our current levels of fossil fuel consumption world wide, simply because it probably *will* run out before the end of this century. " Right. On this point I fully agree with you. Now I remind you the set of SRES scenarios http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/images/illustration1.gif as you can see, the overwhelming majority of scenarios don't predict any "run out" with levels of consumption much higher than the current one. So can you explain me the discrepancy ? are you holding that the set of SRES scenarios is strongly biased towards unrealistic high consumption levels ?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Enlarged image and added source link.
  3. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Moderator : the only figure of this post has the following legend : "Figure 1. The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for the March 2000–May 2004 period in W/m2. The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance. From Trenberth et al.b" How can you consider that discussing the accuracy of global energy budget is off topics ? why do you erase my comments about it, and my opinion about the real meaning of Trenberth's quote ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It is off-topic for this thread, but not for the thread I directed you to twice before. This thread is not about the accuracy of the energy budget, but the misinterpretation of Trenberth's private email comment.
  4. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles: "How many people in the world should have a car, ideally , following you, and for how long ?" You don't get the point at all. You don't need a car to live an advanced life style. If you believe that then you have been sold a false promise.
  5. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles: "what is a for you a reasonable carbon footprint in tCO2/capita/year, and for how long ?" The per capita footprint for most poor developing countries is well under 1 tonne, in many cases it is below 0.5 tonnes. Whilst the US has about 20 tonnes per capita. Even by ignoring climate change issues, it indicates that the US is wasteful and bloated, whilst others survive on a lot less. Even in comparison to Europe, the US is bloated and wasteful.
  6. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    17 villabolo "It seems that the issue we're discussing here is one of precise phrasing as opposed to understanding of basic principles." Indeed; and anyone who has communicated by email - even scientific issues, let alone before the implications of FoI sunk in - knows they very can rarely phrase every point with legal precision. On the one hand, if you tried, you'd get nothing else done; on the other hand it's unnecessary when communicating with a colleague. (That's even true for discussions on blogs.) Critique at this level of pedantry is only really reasonable for folks who are outside the scientific debate and who are looking for trouble - rather than insight.
  7. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Oh, & there's another document I just looked at which predicts the amount of energy China gets from coal will drop to only 30%-50% of total energy consumption-a prediction made by Chinese Energy Experts. Given that these same energy experts predict that total energy consumption will eventually be *less* than it currently, it does kind of wreck, once again, this notion that *only* fossil fuels are capable of reducing poverty. Another nation where this doesn't apply is Indonesia-a nation that could greatly benefit from a distributed generation framework based around a combination of Geothermal, Tidal, Wind & Solar energy. I doubt that Indonesia would need to build even a single coal or nuclear power plant in order to meet similar levels of per-capita energy demand as currently exists in the OECD.
  8. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles @ #86 & #87. Excuse me, but we've already given you plenty of quantitative answers-both in this blog & in previous ones. Your response to our answers have been to simply trot out the same industry propaganda time & time again. Personally, I think everyone here has been more than patient with you-far more patient with you than you actually deserve-given that you *clearly* don't want to listen to any answer that flies in the face of your ideology. For the record, yet again, I don't think we can sustain our current levels of fossil fuel consumption world wide, simply because it probably *will* run out before the end of this century. That, along with all the toxic byproducts generated by fossil fuel burning, are perfectly valid reasons for using whatever mechanisms are at our disposal to reduce global consumption of fossil fuels. Several jurisdictions have proven that a tax-based approach can be successful in achieving this goal-so what *exactly* is it that you're having a problem understanding?
  9. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    I don't answer your questions because-in spite of your claims, there is nothing *precise* or even *sensible* about either question. Ask questions that are precise, easily understood & on-topic & maybe I'd be prepared to answer them. This, however, might be of interest-there is a study by researchers at the Harvard University and Tsinghua University which suggests that China could meet *all* of its electricity needs from Wind alone by 2030 Sort of puts paid to your idea that *only* fossil fuel consumption can help Countries lift their standard of living.
  10. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    TheVille : please be more quantitative, too. #83 : what is a for you a reasonable carbon footprint in tCO2/capita/year, and for how long ? #85 : How many people in the world should have a car, ideally , following you, and for how long ? I need figures before answering.
  11. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Marcus : you keep saying qualitative things, without answering precise questions. Do you admit first that the answer to my two questions are a) none b) none ?
  12. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles: "the real reason why carbon emissions rise is not because people by SUVs instead of fuel-efficient cars. It's because people who were deprived of cars are able to buy one, increasing the number of cars." Someone isn't deprived because they do not own a car. I haven't owned a car for over 10 years. In places like China, electric cycle sales are far higher than car sales. You also neglect the fact that the production or 4x4s (SUV is not a global term) is a part of the car production system. The mass production of cheaper vehicles is a part of the same system that produces 4x4s. If you buy a 4x4 then you are buying into the increasing sales of cheaper cars.
  13. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Gilles #80. "* do you know one single scenario , from an official agency or from the SRES, that predicts the possibility of developing poor countries without increasing their FF consumption, whether it is BAUsual or BAUnusual (I don't care about mottos) ? and if yes , can you give me the reference?" You claim you don't care about "mottoes", but which approach we use entirely the point-clearly you're just confused-a common failing with you. All existing predictions of future fossil fuel use in developing nations-that I've seen-are based on a Business as Usual approach-which of course skews the results. That doesn't mean that this is the way development has to go. Nor, in fact, has increased fossil fuel consumption guaranteed improvements in standards of living-as countries like Nigeria, Indonesia & Saudi Arabia can attest. Countries such as Sweden, Iceland, France & Germany represent perfect examples of where GDP has continued to rise whilst CO2 emissions have continued to fall-a fact that you continue to ignore. So, Gilles, we're all still waiting for you to present your "real, factual data", but instead all we've gotten from you is the your usual wishful thinking & hand-waving exercises-something which is becoming increasingly *tedious*, as I'm sure everyone else here will attest.
  14. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles@80 Most developing poor countries can increase their carbon footprint per capita without blowing their budget. The problem is wealthy nations, because they rely on old technology and an established fossil fuel culture. Don't say you are quoting 'factual' data just to make yourself sound impressive or more credible.
  15. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @15 Gilles: "The sentence should have read: "Our measurements of how much energy goes into the atmosphere, land, and melting ice are accurately known, however."" "It seems that you don't really understand that GW is a change in fluxes and not in stored energy." Gilles, I am not a scientist but I am well aware of your point. The illustration in my post makes it obvious. I have changed the statement once more to: "However, our measurements of how much energy from global warming is circulating through our atmosphere, land, and melting ice, are well known." Does the word "circulating" convey the sense of flux more accurately? If not, how would you suggest that I phrase it? It seems that the issue we're discussing here is one of precise phrasing as opposed to understanding of basic principles.
  16. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "So the real question is : are there fossil fuels that we'll never extract with a tax, that we would have extracted without it ? and if yes, how much can we spare, with which amount of tax ? do you have an idea ?" The answer to the first question is *yes*-if the price of extraction continues to increase due to taxation & reduced supply, but total demand dwindles, again due to increased cost, then eventually the oil industry will have no choice but to reduce & finally end fossil fuel extraction altogether. This will probably occur without taxation, but will happen much slower. What I do know, though, is that we *cannot* afford to extract & burn fossil fuels at the current rate, for both social & environmental reasons-that's a fact that none of your wishful thinking can get us around.
  17. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Sphaerica@51 you missed out education from your list. This is probably the greatest influence on human behaviour. It tends to be long term and can change entire nations and cultures.
  18. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    I'm sure that Viabolo knows that the planet is in an energy imbalance (~0.9 W m^-2) on account of the radiative forcing of elevated GHGs, and as a result, in the long term, the planet is accumulating heat and warming. In Trenberth's own words: "Energy may be stored for some time, transported in various forms, and converted among the different types, giving rise to a rich variety of weather or turbulent phenomena in the atmosphere and ocean. Moreover, the energy balance can be upset in various ways, changing the climate and associated weather." Also, Trenberth says: "This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can't fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has. A major La Niña was underway in 2008, since June 2009 we have gone into an El Niño and the highest sea surface temperatures on record have been recorded in July 2009." And 2010 was tied with 2005 for the warmest year on record. More here and here.
  19. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Marcus : 78 : I ask you two precise questions : * do you know one single scenario , from an official agency or from the SRES, that predicts the possibility of developing poor countries without increasing their FF consumption, whether it is BAUsual or BAUnusual (I don't care about mottos) ? and if yes , can you give me the reference? * do you know one single western country, say member of OECD, whose FF consumption per capita, multiplied by the number of human beings likely to live in the XXIth century, wouldn't exceed by far the known FF reserves, and if yes , can you tell me which one ? that's basic, factual data. The rest is imagination, wishful thinking, and hand-waving- you're free to imagine what you want, but I'll stick to facts.
  20. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Marcus : I carefully insisted on the difference between annual rate and total integrated number, but you still use them in a confuse way. When you say :" Of course, we all know that a combination of taxes & warnings *is* leading to a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked as (a) people who already smoke choose to smoke fewer cigarettes, (b) people who already smoke choose to quit & (c) as fewer people take up the habit" do you speak of the annual consumption or of a total consumption , in the case where cigarettes were in finite amount. If you want, to make the discussion clearer, we can replace "cigarettes" by "bottle of Bordeaux 1985 (excellent year)" : they ARE in finite amount. So you can restrain the drinking of wine, per year, but the final question is : are there bottles that you will never open, yes, or no ? If yes : why? if no : then the final total number of opened bottles is the same, whatever the rate. So the real question is : are there fossil fuels that we'll never extract with a tax, that we would have extracted without it ? and if yes, how much can we spare, with which amount of tax ? do you have an idea ?
  21. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "well may be you should write all energy agencies and tell the authors of SRES that they're all totally wrong, because I don't know *any* projection from them that doesn't show a net increase of FF in poor countries. Do you mean they only publish garbage (including SRES ?)" You keep making this claim-but you've yet to provide evidence to back it up-why is that? I'm fairly certain that the projections you refer to-assuming they even exist-are based purely on *business as usual* approaches to development-a position no doubt pushed forcefully by the fossil fuel industry when these projections are being put together. However, I've shown you many perfectly good examples-in developed & developing nations-where there is little if any link between per capita GDP & per capita CO2 emissions. I've also shown plenty of examples where developed nations have achieved increased GDP growth whilst reducing their energy consumption *and* their CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP-all of which *proves* that you do *not* need to burn fossil fuels to improve standards of living-but that other factors, such as improved education, health-care, welfare & gender equality & income equality are much much bigger factors in reducing poverty.
  22. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Dan Moutal. The fact is that China is already doing its best to limit the amount of energy it gets from fossil fuels-& is already a leader in the amount of energy it gets from renewable energy sources. At the same time its already put schemes in place to limit the energy intensity of their economy going forward. So its pretty much wishful thinking to assume that China won't do as much-if not more-to curb fossil fuel use as developed nations. However, I've noticed that wishful thinking is all Gilles actually has.
  23. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "which "fossil fuel industry" does control chinese coal extraction? which one makes Icelandic people import so much oil , although they have plenty of renewable energy? again, in which world are you living?" Hmmm, I could ask you which world you're living in, given that you seem not to have heard of companies like BHP, Rio Tinto, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP....need I go on? All of these companies benefit from the continued sale of fossil fuels, & all have continued to manipulate government policies in order to ensure that Business as Usual continues. Once again you cite Iceland, even though you've been *told*, numerous times, that the oil is there to fuel their cars-something that their renewable energy industry hasn't yet substituted. Interestingly, though, oil consumption *peaked* in Iceland between 1998-2006, & has even fallen slightly from that peak over the last 4 years, & is predicted to fall further still. So here is yet another claim of yours that on even cursory examination is utterly bogus.
  24. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    BTW I am making the assumption that a awsome technofix wont make FFs obsolete. But I think, unfortunately, that this is a safe bet.
  25. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Gilles " With a finite, bell-shaped resource, decreasing the consumption at some time doesn't insure that the integral will decrease, because the spared FF will simply be burnt later" Again this assumes that some countries will not implement policy to reduce GHG emissions (be it a tax or something else). If they do, and that policy is effective, we can expect the integrated quantity of GHG emissions to decrease. If China (for example) does nothing, ever, then that wont be the case, and you would be correct. But I doubt anyone here thinks otherwise.
  26. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "If you want this comparison : If cigarettes were a finite resource and if we only taxed them, but not banned them, then the total number of smoked cigarettes would be exactly the same, whatever the tax is : just the initial number. Cigarettes are renewable, not stock goods. If they were, they would have exactly the same problem as FF. Are you just being deliberately obtuse not to understand that?" No, its only you who continue to be deliberately obtuse. If a safer & cheaper alternative to cigarettes existed, then people would begin switching to that alternative, so the number of smoked cigarettes would decline-as will be the case with fossil fuels vs renewable energy. Of course, we all know that a combination of taxes & warnings *is* leading to a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked as (a) people who already smoke choose to smoke fewer cigarettes, (b) people who already smoke choose to quit & (c) as fewer people take up the habit. So you see that, once again, your claims are completely *bogus*.
  27. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    #Dan : I understand that you're speaking of annual rate B(t), not the integrated quantity C. please read again the post here about the discussion of the peak date. With a finite, bell-shaped resource, decreasing the consumption at some time doesn't insure that the integral will decrease, because the spared FF will simply be burnt later (and the two curves intersect at some time). And developed nations consumption per capita, multiplied by the number of human beings, exceeds by far the production capacities of the world. Anyway, before a tax could change significantly the annual consumption of western countries, it should first give a hint of visible effect ! putting real figures, which rate of decrease of FF consumption in western countries do you expect, for which amount of tax ?
  28. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    BTW someone forgot to close a bold tag, so I took the liberty of doing so in my comment (John it is probably worthwhile to double check the sanitation you do to the comments before they are posted) @Harry Seaward Currently there exists a rather large (and delayed) externality on GHG emissions. As I see it, this is at the root of the problem. How do you propose to solve this? There is nothing socialist about forcing costs to be internalized. In fact the free market depends on this. @Marcus Re: the freemarket Lets not forget that the free-market works amazingly well. But it makes some assumptions, namely that there are no externalities. This is obviously not the case in regards to climate and GHG emissions, so barring any policy to correct for this, we can expect market failure (which is code for some VERY big and scary costs). So the problem here isn't capitalism or the free market, but rather the lack of policy to internalize the costs of GHG emissions. Another way to think about this is that we aren't capitalistic enough! This works well for climate change (and many environmental issues) but not for social issues like Health Care and poverty. Re: Asbestos They haven't stopped mining asbestos. Not here in Canada anyways. We ship it to thrid world countries that don't have many regulations regarding asbestos. But the asbestos industry has declined significantly. Why? Because most countries did ban, or severely regulate the stuff. Why? Because it caused significant externalities (aka cancer). @Gilles Much of what you have written assumes that carbon pricing policies will cause emissions to become very expensive in developed countries while continuing to be cheap in developing countries. Obviously that would lead to a situation where emissions are shifted out of developed countries, but not actually reduced. In fact I have already touched on this in this thread. Needless to say that this scenario wouldn't work. Eventually policies to limit GHG emissions will have to spread to developing nations, which will be a double challenge because due to the poverty issues that face. All I am arguing for is that developed nations (on in this case provinces) take the lead (but not get too far ahead), then help developing nations catch up. So far even this has proved to be too much for most jurisdictions. But I don't see any other way to solve the issue. BTW this (which I stole from Forbes) is the shape I would like global policy to take.
    Moderator Response: [mc] Please restrict image width to 500 by including width=500 or less within the IMG tag.
  29. Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
    Good to see so many young people attended - after all its their future which is at stake!
  30. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Marcus :"Again, Gilles, you give us your tiresome claims that increased FF consumption is somehow the panacea to poverty. I've already highlighted how this claim is complete *hogwash*, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating the claim." well may be you should write all energy agencies and tell the authors of SRES that they're all totally wrong, because I don't know *any* projection from them that doesn't show a net increase of FF in poor countries. Do you mean they only publish garbage (including SRES ?) " The best thing we can do for the poor nations of the world is to ensure their economic development without getting hooked on fossil fuels-like Western nations did." Man, but what are you talking of ? in which world are you living? western countries insured first their economic development by a huge increase of their FF consumption , and then improved it by a combination of better techniques, exportation of energy intensive industries in third world, and some financial hold-ups to increase their wealth and keeping the other poor enough to use their manpower at low cost. Nevertheless , their FF energy consumption per capita is still much higher than that of poor countries ! I defy you to find only one western country whose FF consumption per capita, multiplied by the number of living human beings, doesn't exceed by far the global production capacities. " Targeted development schemes should be aimed at setting up a non-Fossil fuel based energy infrastructure from *day one*. Of course, as this clashes with the agenda of the fossil fuel industry, that isn't happening."" which "fossil fuel industry" does control chinese coal extraction? which one makes Icelandic people import so much oil , although they have plenty of renewable energy? again, in which world are you living ?
  31. actually thoughtful at 15:52 PM on 10 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Sphaerica - there actually is a 4th way - social pressure. Humans are social animals, and while there will always be those who do the opposite of the crowd, for the most part people do what everyone else is doing. This is in the Operating System of being human. So more people using renewable energy leads to even more people using renewable energy. Given the failure of government in most countries, I expect this is how the solution will actually occur, if it does occur in time (which is looking unlikely at this moment).
  32. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "Now its already been pointed out that that, like cigarettes, fossil fuels won't be banned." If you want this comparison : If cigarettes were a finite resource and if we only taxed them, but not banned them, then the total number of smoked cigarettes would be exactly the same, whatever the tax is : just the initial number. Cigarettes are renewable, not stock goods. If they were, they would have exactly the same problem as FF. Are you just being deliberately obtuse not to understand that ?
  33. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    villabolo " The sentence should have read: "Our measurements of how much energy goes into the atmosphere, land, and melting ice are accurately known, however."" Oh, yes, sure ! I know it accurately. On average , it's zero. It seems that you don't really understand that GW is a change in fluxes and not in stored energy. May be we should discuss a little bit more about that, scientifically speaking.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take the discussion of the energy budget to a more appropriate thread, as you were requested to do.
  34. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    " 1. There is no evidence of dwindling hydrocarbon supply. There is only evidence of dwindling "easy to get at" hydrocarbon supply. Quite a different matter. " As I explained, dwindling "easy to get at" (conventional) supplies means exactly what I said : moving the red curve to the left. Now if you think that there is no evidence that the production is actually peaking, it's probably that you don't follow closely what's currently happening. For instance, look at the prediction vs reality of the last years EIA forecasts for oil production : compare the 2007 to 2010 predictions : already 5 Mbl/yr of oil gone in only three years ! man.. where has all this oil gone ? and no - this has not begun after the economic crisis but before it. You don't see the evidence, because you don't want to see it. " 2. I have never accepted that "supply and demand" is the general determinant of price. Were Model T Fords cheaper than previous cars because demand had decreased or supply had increased? No. Rubbish. They were cheaper because Ford had discovered a way of making more of them for the same money. He could have restricted the supply to a 10,000 rather than a million and he would still have been able to make them more cheaply. It's technology that determines price, not supply and demand. " that's precisely because the production costs had decreased, moving the red curve to the right- exactly the opposite of the FF case. Leading to more production at a cheaper price. It's no rubbish, it's perfectly understandable - you dismiss explanations that you're using yourself. Side remark : if a high price doesn't prevent people from using FF, then how a carbon tax would work ? " 2. Intermittence is most definitely NOT a problem for renewables. We have the technology now to address that through compressed air, hydrogen or methane production, chemical batteries, pumped hydro, and molten salts. ]#" We have, but they aren't cheap - I know no country basing its energy supply on these techniques, they're only marginal. " FF can be replaced entirely by renewables. Name me one use of FF that cannot be replicated by electricity! (I mean fuels of course and not the plastics industry" I suggest you to go in Iceland and explain them how to do this : thanks to geothermal and hydro electricity, they have plenty of renewable electricity , much more than what they really actually need for their personal use (so they build huge aluminium plants to use it and export the aluminium. But still, they import a lot of oil and coal, whereas they're totally deprived of FF resources, and they're not cheap.( see for instance here for data. I saw in Iceland some boat tours that closed because of too high fuel costs. So much probably they're not aware of all the capacities you seem to know perfectly. I think you could make pretty much money there if you sell them your marvelous solutions. BTW all their renewable electricity didn't prevent them to be cruelly hit by the economic crisis, which was the only reason why their consumption decreased in the last years. Again, just open your eyes.
  35. Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
    Thanks for the photos, John. And thanks for including my "Dont Bet our Last Planet" poster.
  36. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "now another question : if A is reduced and B is reduced also for the same GDP, how do you insure that the spared FF won't be burnt by other, much poorer, people in the world ? do you think that these much poorer people simply don't exist and that nobody else in the world needs increasing their energy use?" Again, Gilles, you give us your tiresome claims that increased FF consumption is somehow the panacea to poverty. I've already highlighted how this claim is complete *hogwash*, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating the claim. The best thing we can do for the poor nations of the world is to ensure their economic development without getting hooked on fossil fuels-like Western nations did. Targeted development schemes should be aimed at setting up a non-Fossil fuel based energy infrastructure from *day one*. Of course, as this clashes with the agenda of the fossil fuel industry, that isn't happening. This leaves us with a situation in which the developed world are struggling to improve their standard of living whilst they simultaneously remain horribly indebted to the multinational corporations who control the bulk of the world's fossil fuels. Hardly a recipe for reducing poverty.
  37. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles - my point was that assuming every good capitalist buying efficient would solve the problem obviously doesnt work. Your objection is irrelevant to that point.
  38. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "So the real reason why we should consume less FF is that they would become useless, but this is not granted by a mere tax, and if it is true, the tax becomes worthless. A tax is mainly only redistributive - and it can be carbon or anything you want." Gilles, are you just being deliberately *obtuse*? To cite, *again* the example that was already given to you before-they didn't stop mining asbestos because asbestos became worthless-they stopped mining it because the government believed it to be too dangerous, so it was *banned*. Now its already been pointed out that that, like cigarettes, fossil fuels won't be banned. So the only other measure at our disposal is to tax them to the point that their use becomes *more* expensive than other, less harmful means of generating energy. In the interim, though, its hoped that a carbon tax will make the unit cost of FF based energy more expensive, thus encouraging a more efficient use of that energy. Of course, as efficiency increases, so does the energy intensity of the whole economy-which will obviously lead to a decrease in demand for fossil fuels. This will obviously then make fossil fuels less attractive to extract. Now, none of this is exactly *complicated* Gilles, so I just have to wonder why you can't seem to get your head around it, but instead just repeat your tired old cliches?
  39. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Harry, what incentive are you giving capitalists to solve a problem? Also, I strongly contest that carbon tax/carbon trading as socialism and here is why. Firstly, consider carbon trading. In its purest form it involves contracts between emitter and credit creator. It is left to market to find the best low carbon technologies (which will be cheapest) and best methods of capture (most efficient means of creating credit). By contrast, subsidies implies a government rather than market picking winners. The government-imposed limit on emissions that drives the market will make carbon emissions expensive and it expects capitalist solutions. Ie the consumers will use their buying power and desire for lowest price to pick the best tech and create profit incentive to drive the development. In practical terms, there are all manner of issues with carbon trading, notably keeping it honest. A carbon tax is simpler and cheaper to administer, but only honest if revenue goes to carbon credit generators. Now I am not necessarily in favour of either - both are problematic in different ways - but to call it socialism/communism is to demonstrate that you dont know what either really is. Since you object to tax, we asked for an alternative that would work. So far you presented hope and nothing else. Furthermore, you also seem to falling on the idea that since you cant find a solution to the problem that fits your political philosophy, then perhaps the problem doesnt exist. This is pure dishonesty. For this discussion to be fruitful, please suppose that you have been presented evidence that utterly convinces you that emissions must be cut or at held at present levels for the your own good and that of future generations. Now if this evidence was available, what real solution, not hand waving, would be acceptable to your political philosophy? Imagine instead that an asteroid is headed our way. Would you be prepared to pay a tax to deploy an asteriod-destroyer? Would you pay for it even if you couldnt be sure the asteroid would hit your home town and instead might hit say china/russia/iran? What if the probability of it hitting US was 10%? 50%? 75%?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Bold tags fixed
  40. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Gilles, No - don't accept any of what you say. 1. There is no evidence of dwindling hydrocarbon supply. There is only evidence of dwindling "easy to get at" hydrocarbon supply. Quite a different matter. 2. I have never accepted that "supply and demand" is the general determinant of price. Were Model T Fords cheaper than previous cars because demand had decreased or supply had increased? No. Rubbish. They were cheaper because Ford had discovered a way of making more of them for the same money. He could have restricted the supply to a 10,000 rather than a million and he would still have been able to make them more cheaply. It's technology that determines price, not supply and demand. 2. Intermittence is most definitely NOT a problem for renewables. We have the technology now to address that through compressed air, hydrogen or methane production, chemical batteries, pumped hydro, and molten salts. ]# The more the oil price climbs, the better for renewables. FF can be replaced entirely by renewables. Name me one use of FF that cannot be replicated by electricity! (I mean fuels of course and not the plastics industry.)
  41. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    scaddendp : "The logic is already operating but carbon emissions rise. It would make more economic sense to buy a fuel-efficient car but people buy SUVs. All you are suggesting is business as usual.' the real reason why carbon emissions rise is not because people by SUVs instead of fuel-efficient cars. It's because people who were deprived of cars are able to buy one, increasing the number of cars. See point 2. Carbon emissions DO decrease in OECD - they increase much more in poorer countries.
  42. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    sorry I mixed up some sentences which makes the argument difficult to follow. The last paragraphs after "this is another point" up to the end should be placed between my "second" and "third" points - this actually an answer to the second point.
  43. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    54 : Bern, there are several interesting points in your argument : first : "a carbon tax isn't intended to reduce carbon intensity, it's intended to reduce carbon consumption (your 'B')." do you agree that if the carbon intensity A is not reduced, but the carbon consumption is, then the GDP = B/A must decrease ? so actually in a first step you're claiming that GDP will actually decrease ? (that's exactly what happened in 2008-2009 BTW - that's not at all a virtual situation). second : "Reducing B will lead to a reduction in A, as people will find ways to reduce the amount of carbon tax they pay while continuing life as normal." Now the third point : "As for the last bit: Er, if C is an integral of B.dT over the 21st century, then of course reducing B at any point reduces C... If you don't see that, then I suggest a basic calculus course might be in order." I perfectly see that - but there is a point you seem to ignore - this is that FF are finite and will peak some time in the XXIth century. So the curve will decrease anyway. But sparing now FF means that at the date of the forecast peak, we will have still a large amount left, because conservation will have been efficient to spare them. But now comes the important point : to insure that B(t) is reduced at any point , you must insure that the second curve (B2'(t) ) will peak at the same time as the first one B1(t), to keep always below it. If you don't do that, the two curves will intersect after the peak, because B2(t) will keep on increasing, as FF have not yet been exhausted. So tell me : by which mechanism will you insure that FF will peak at the same time , or early enough to insure that the curves won't intersect ? this is actually the same kind of question as the previous one, because it is equivalent to ask : how do you intend to prevent future people (instead of current poorer people) to use the spared FF you have left to them ? and how will they know that they should peak at the same time as B1(t) since they have no damned idea of when B1(t) would have peaked if we didn't have conserved energy before ? again,not a virtual question : that's exactly what happened for oil after the 70's. If you extrapolate the growth curve before 1970, oil production was increasing by 5 % a year at this time and would probably have peaked in the 90's. But thanks to conservation measures, it actually changed its slope and increased much less than expected. Result : there was still plenty of available oil in the 90's. Collapse of FSU helped also to reduce the world consumption. Did we make the production peak in the 90's to insure we would always stay below the first curve? no, of course, and for very obvious reasons. Nobody knew what would have been the real date of the peak - and no oil producer or oil company would have the slightest ground not to use oil that was there , in their wells, ready to flow, just because they WOULD have peaked if the demand had been larger before - that's a total nonsense. Instead, oil production kept on increasing, until the real peak was reached in 2006 - but for the same total amount as before. In conclusion : it is perfectly understandable that if B(t) is reduced at any time , then the integral will be lower - it is just an unphysical assumption. Now the only reason why the total consumption would be reduced is your last one : "Given the amount of research & development going on, I suspect that we will soon have much cheaper alternatives, " But this is only wishful thinking, and I'll do two concluding remarks * this does *not* really depend on a tax, but on technical and economical issues that are far beyond the capacities of a tax to be solved. * if you're right , that R&D will soon insure much cheaper alternatives than FF, then a tax is useless, because BAU would also insure automatically that people switch to cheaper alternatives - and even energy companies would have their interest in investing massively in these new cheap techniques to make more profit than their competitors. So the real reason why we should consume less FF is that they would become useless, but this is not granted by a mere tax, and if it is true, the tax becomes worthless. A tax is mainly only redistributive - and it can be carbon or anything you want. this is another point : you claim the tax will insure an improvement of A (so it contradicts what you said just above : "You're putting the cart before the horse, by insisting the objective is to reduce intensity of FF use, when it's not that at all." - because it is in fact exactly that : the aim is to reduce A.) now another question : if A is reduced and B is reduced also for the same GDP, how do you insure that the spared FF won't be burnt by other, much poorer, people in the world ? do you think that these much poorer people simply don't exist and that nobody else in the world needs increasing their energy use ? so how do you intend to prevent them from using the left FF, and more importantly, how do you justify it ?
  44. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything." Hilarious, Harry. Can you give me just one example of where *true* Capitalism solved anything? I find it interesting, though, that those nations with the most "Left-of-Center" political systems are also those with the highest quality of life indicators (mortality rates, median income, crime statistics, homelessness). For all your talk, Harry, I've not seen that bastion of the Free Market-the US of A-solve the problems of poverty, homelessness, drug use, racism or crime-so what makes you think the free market is going to solve the *many* environmental & social issues associated with the use of Fossil Fuels?
  45. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem." Harry, you want to give even a *shred* of evidence that backs either part of the above comment? Where are the "many" people who don't think FF's are an issue? Well, outside of those with a vested interest in the Fossil Fuel industry of course. As to the 2nd part of your comment, there are plenty of intuitive people in both the public & private sectors who've come up with numerous ways to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the proponents of the so-called "free-market", & their lackeys in politics & the media, are doing their level best to prevent any attempts to implement any of these solutions-whilst simultaneously ensuring that all the long-standing tax-payer funded subsidies for the fossil fuel industry continue to be maintained. Sounds like your beloved "Free Market" isn't quite as free as you claim.
  46. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken Lambert @48 insists on a number of very bad arguments. First he insists that comments meant to defend a claim of very small energy gain in the arctic must not be interpreted that way because if you do, that would make him look bad. I do not think much of that claim, but were I to properly address it I would necessarily violate the comments policy, so I will not pursue it. Second, he insists on treating the total energy flux, the total change in energy flux, the total forcing, the total change of forcing, and the total energy stored in a particular way as if they were all the same thing. Thus he argues that the total change in forcing in the arctic cannot be greater than that at 23 degrees North simply because the total energy flux at 23 degrees North is greater than that in the arctic. As it happens, even for the Green House Effect, the total change in forcing is known to be stronger at higher latitudes, even though the total forcing is greater in the tropics, so his argument, if you distinguish between these two things is absurd. Likewise he insists that because Trenberth determined the total energy used in additional ice melt in the arctic is about 1*10^20 Joules per annum, that this sets an effective limit on the total change in flux, and change in forcing in the arctic. The non-sequitur is evident. Energy gained need not be retained, and if retained need not all go into one usage. In fact it is known that arctic water is carried to the ocean depths, carrying substantial heat with it. It is also quite probable that increased forcing in the arctic will result in less energy transfer from the tropics, resulting in a net heat gain outside the arctic. Without a full accounting of heat flows into and out of the arctic over the period of interest, which Lambert neither attempts nor cites, his argument is missing crucial premises. It is as though he believes that if he does not know what the energy flows are, they must not exist. It is only necessary to keep these various concepts distinct to see the absurdity of Lambert's arguments on these points - so no further rebuttal is necessary. Finally, Lambert persists in his arguments regarding the size of the area effected, and the low angle of incidence, as proof that change in forcing in the arctic cannot be significant. These factors are significant, and are fully accounted for in studies such as those by Flanner. Therefore, his argument is ungrounded. If he wished to pursue this argument honestly, he would analyse the method used by Flanner to account for these factors, and show the flaws, if any. For whatever reason, he wants to avoid that work, and declare Flanner void based on his own unquantified estimates of the effects involved, together with his misuse of a number from Trenberth. The easiest way to rebut him is to give him all he asks for. I previously worked out a rough estimate of the total increase of energy flux absorbed in the Arctic due to loss of sea ice over the last thirty years. That number is not to be confused with the increase in forcing as it does not account for the increase in outward flux. It was sufficiently large, however, that it was evident that even after allowing for any reasonable increase in outward flux, the forcings claimed by Flanner are reasonable. It is not possible to refute them in other words, by back of the envelope calculations. Lambert, of course, considers by number too large. He thinks it should be 2 orders of magnitude smaller. So I recalculated the figure making conservative assumptions, and allowing for every factor he has identified as significant. (I also did not allow for the other factors he did not bother identifying that tend to work the other way.) The result? The minimum change of inward flux with the most conservative estimate is just a third of my initial estimate (after correction for an error in calculation). Where, for his argument to fly, Lambert needs it to be 150 times smaller, it is just 3 times smaller. No wonder Lambert never quantified his argument, for once you do it is transparent it will not carry the weight he puts on it. The new calculation follows: Courtesy of Daniel Bailey, we know that the average latitude of the edge of summer sea ice in the arctic is 75 degrees. Over the summer months, at 75 degrees North, the average Zenith angle is about 57 degrees, with the sun varying from 57 degrees to 3 degrees above the horizon during the 24 hour day. I will treat the sun as having an angle above the horizon of 55 degrees for 3 hours (around noon), 45 degrees for 6 hours (around 9 am and 3 pm), 30 degrees for 6 hours (around 6 am and 6 pm, 15 degrees for six hours (around 3 am and 9 pm), and 0 degrees for 3 hours (around 'midnight'). These are, of course, approximations, but by my estimate they underestimate the values, which will lead to an overstating of the albedo of water at that latitude in the NH summer. They are more conservative than simple geometry indicates, of course, because refraction in the atmosphere means that light curves towards the surface, thus striking the surface at a higher angle of incidence than indicated by simple geometry. I would not normally consider this worth mentioning, but Ken Lambert wants to mention every factor that operates on the other side of the equation, not matter how slight. We should therefore keep track of all the factors that he does not want to mention. To actually determine the albedo, we consult the following chart from wikipedia: From that we can determine the ocean at that latitude will have an albedo of 0.05 for 15 hours of the day, ie, for any time when the sun is more than 20 degrees above the horizon. It has an albedo of 0.15 for six hours of the day (when the sun is about 15 degrees above the horizon), and an albedo of 1 for 3 hours of the day. Again, you will notice these are conservative estimates based on the charts. Therefore the average albedo is 0.2 My original estimate of ocean albedo was 0.1 The difference means that the change in albedo when sea ice melts is 0.7 rather than the 0.8 of my original estimate, meaning my original estimate was 1/7th too high. Those who have followed KL's posts in this debate will wonder why he has made such a big thing of the increase in albedo because of the high angle of incidence. Those of a more cynical nature will wonder why he always mentioned it, but never quantified it. I need to make some further adjustment based on data in Trenberth's energy balance diagram: The first thing to notice is the cloud albedo, which is 0.23 This is a significant over estimate for the arctic as there is a much higher amount of cloud in the tropics. I will use the figure unadjusted. The second thing to notice solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, which is again about 23%. Adjusting that for the average increase in path length over the day at 75 North over the summer months leads to a calculated absorption of 46%. Again, this is a significant over estimate of the effect. Much of the absorbed energy is UV radiation absorbed in the mesosphere and stratosphere. Because it is almost entirely absorbed, even in the tropics, the additional path length cannot lead to a doubling of the energy absorbed. In fact, in those portions of the spectrum where the radiation is entirely absorbed, increasing the path length results in no increase in absorption. Even where only part of the energy is absorbed, the correct treatment would be based on the Beers Lambert law, which applied to the total absorption would lead to an estimate of 40% absorption from doubling path length (rather than the 46% I will use), and is still an overestimate as it still does not allow for those significant areas of total absorption, particularly in the UV spectrum. Finally, it is also an overestimate because Trenberth's figure already includes the increased absorption due to path length in polar regions in the average, inflating the base figure before my calculation. Allowing for all these factors, a more accurate estimate is likely to be around 32% absorption, but I intend to give Lambert's objections absolutely everything that they could be conceivably by permitted, so I will use the 46% value. So, given these figures, and given that the top of atmosphere summer insolation at 75 degrees North averages 500 w/m^2, we can then determine that the average absorption by open ocean surface at 75 degrees North in the summer is 500*0.54*0.77*0.8 = 166.32 w/m^2. We can also determine that the average absorption by sea ice at the same latitude and time is 500*0.54*0.77*0.1 = 20.78 w/m^2. The difference, 145.53 w/m^2 is the additional power absorbed in the arctic for each square meter of sea ice that melts. Over the summer season, that means for each additional square meter of sea ice melted, and additional 1.1 billion Joules of energy is absorbed. The average change in sea ice area since 1978 during the summer is a reduction of 2 million square kilometers, or 2*10^12 square meters. That means the average additional energy received in the arctic summer due to global warming induce melt back is 2.2*10^21 Joules, or about a third of my rough estimate. Please note, because I have estimated conservatively at every step, this is definitely and underestimate of the real value. Also note, this estimate takes into account every single one of the factors Ken Lambert considers important. To put this into perspective (and bring it back on topic), Flanner estimates a change NH average forcing from melted sea ice of 0.47 w/m^2 over the three months with greatest increased forcing, which works out at 9.25*10^20 Joules over that period. That is less than half of the minimum value for the increase of incoming energy. Consequently, Lambert's claim that "Flanner's number is simply impossible" shows only that he is unwilling to address the evidence. Just briefly, and because Ken Lambert insists the comparison is significant, we might compare that figure to the equivalent figure at 23 degrees North. The comparison is very easy. There was no sea ice at 23 degrees north, even in the little ice age. So the additional energy absorbed due to sea ice melt at 23 degrees north is zero. Ken Lambert keeps on arguing that the calculations of additional incoming energy by me, and the calculations of ice albedo feedback by Flanner must be in error because of the relatively small part of the globe which is effected. What he neglects is that it may be a small part of the globe, but it is a very large part of the ice (and snow) covered portion of the globe. Because albedo effects are much stronger, for a given percentage change in the forcing agent, than are green house effects; this means that a relatively small part of the globe can have a disproportionately large effect on the total feedback to an initial forcing.
  47. Harry Seaward at 13:53 PM on 10 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    DSL @ 55 Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything. If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem. And, can you clarify this, please: "we'd probably have simpler machines, fewer people, less killing, more sickness,..."
  48. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @13 Don; your point well taken. I have changed the statement to emphasize that point.
  49. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Harry Seaward You seem to be making the same mistake as John Hunter @ DSL I think you are over complicating things a bit. I have always found that the most useful framework for understanding the free market (and it pros and cons) is to think about externalities. Pretty much any environmental issue has at its root an externality. Find a way to intenalize those costs (which is what a price on carbon attempts) and the free market takes care of the rest. Usually.
  50. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Harry for the life of me I can't see how your example is supposed to make a measurable difference to carbon emissions. The logic is already operating but carbon emissions rise. It would make more economic sense to buy a fuel-efficient car but people buy SUVs. All you are suggesting is business as usual. The problem is how to harness capitalism to deal with a situation with FF is cheaper than alternatives and the environmental costs are borne by other the FF consumers. (Notably a future generation). We need something realistic here to cut carbon intensity.

Prev  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us