Recent Comments

Prev  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  Next

Comments 89751 to 89800:

89751. michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       It is interesting that skeptics want instant results from a carbon tax, while supporters point out that it takes time for people to install insulation to save on carbon emmisions. I suppose the skeptics think Paris was built in a single day! We can see in California that when energy is more expensive people use less. And they still have empty caves for new people to come and live in.
89752. Gilles at 21:52 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       I don't think a tax can produce a major recession - a tax is only redistributive. What I questioned was if it had really led to a measurable improvement of energy efficiency. And don't forget that improving energy efficiency doesn't guarantee at all that global emissions will recede - most likely they will keep increasing but with more wealth produced. Your figures show precisely that the increase is entirely due to developing countries, which are very far from thinking they can reduce their emissions -that are actually much lower per capita than ours. So whatever you spare here, there are plenty of poor people throughout the world who will be very happy to use it (I'm not saying it's bad).
89753. CBDunkerson at 21:48 PM on 8 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       logicman: "a warmer Arctic causes greater precipitation of snow which no longer melts entirely in summer. Within a decade or two it becomes obvious that a new ice age has started." I've wondered about this theory for quite a while. One aspect of it which I've read about is a possible 'shutdown' of some of the major ocean currents (due to changing salinity) causing less warm water to be transferred towards the Arctic. However, wouldn't that be a self-regulating effect? That is, loss of heat transfer from the tropics would cause the Arctic to start cooling again... which would cause more ice formation... which would again change ocean currents... which would allow the ongoing greenhouse warming to again become dominant... et cetera. Likewise the heavy snow bit you reference. As I recall that was a theory that the change in albedo from all that snow would be enough to prevent the snow from melting and trigger a re-freeze of the Arctic. But wouldn't that then cause the increased snowfall to stop be melted out by the ongoing greenhouse warming? Obviously loss of the Arctic ice will have a significant impact on weather patterns throughout the northern hemisphere (if not the globe), but I have a hard time seeing how it could result in a swing back to an ice covered Arctic without that then cancelling out the factors which were causing it. The only ongoing long term change we are seeing right now is the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Doesn't that mean everything else will be feedbacks around that trend? Or are there really potential negative feedbacks strong enough to completely cancel out and indeed reverse the warm forcing which caused them?
89754. Bern at 21:36 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles @ 15: Canadell also points out that the financial crisis did not affect all countries equally. While carbon dioxide emissions dropped in 2009 in places like North America, Europe and Japan, they increased substantially in China and India. Looking ahead, the researchers note that the International Monetary Fund is projecting an increase of global GDP by 4.8% in 2010, which will lead to an increase in global emissions of at least 3% this year. from this ABC story, which also states emissions fell 1.3% as a result of the financial crisis. 15 seconds with Google was able to get me to that page. I'm sure if I searched a bit more, I could find some more concrete numbers for 2010 emissions. The point that Dan makes in the article above seems pretty clear to me: A modest carbon tax will not cause major economic disruption, and will provide an incentive for people to reduce energy usage. It may even save them money. Another way of looking at it: Now that there's a carbon tax in British Columbia, you can be sure that every business operating there (and many individuals too) is going to spend a least a little bit of effort on improving energy efficiency. A lot of the impacts of that will only be felt years down the track - kind of like fuel efficiency standards for cars. If you legislated today that new cars had to use 1/10th the fuel of current cars, it would take years before you saw a significant drop in total fuel consumption, and probably 20 years before you reduced consumption by 90%. On the flip side - if you refuse to implement better efficiency now, you'll pay the price for decades, in higher energy costs. I'm interested in finding out how much Mr Hunter paid for gas before he added insulation and turned down his thermostat. Was it more than he currently pays with the carbon tax?
89755. CBDunkerson at 21:32 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Vladimer, first you falsely say that renewable energy sources like wind, water, and solar are not currently technologically advanced enough to replace fossil fuels... and that therefor we should not pursue them on the assumption that they will eventually become so. Then you turn around and say that radical advances in nuclear fission power and even fusion(!) power are right around the corner and thus should be the path we follow. I refer your argument 2 to your argument 1. Why go with technology which may become viable rather than technology which already is viable?
89756. les at 21:30 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       42 RSVP You want to be really careful making comments like that around here. Your outcome "nothing will happen" requires feedbacks, models, non-linear systems etc. etc. All things that climate change skeptics believe undermine any prediction.
89757. Gilles at 21:18 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       NB : three years ago was in 2008, just before the worst crisis since WWII. CO2 emissions have generally decreased in western countries thanks to (!) this crisis. So the effect of the tax should be estimated by comparison between comparable countries or states that applied it, or not.
89758. CBDunkerson at 21:16 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       rhjames, when the U.S. government collects taxes and then uses those funds to build outdated ships and planes which the military insists they don't need and will never use what is that but a wealth transfer from the country as a whole to the people who will build those ships and planes (and especially the CEOs of the companies)? When a congressman gets money for road repairs in his district put into a bill what is that but wealth transfer from the country as a whole to his district - which no longer has to pay to do the work and gets the construction jobs and improved roads? The vast majority of what governments do is redistribute wealth. More frequently from the poor to the rich than vice versa. This carbon tax differs only in that it is transparent. It transfers wealth from carbon polluters to non-polluters. Very clear and simple, though, based on the article, some people still can't manage to grasp it. Further, administrative costs should be lower than most other forms of tax. Collection basically works like a sales tax impacting only energy products, which are provided by a small number of companies and thus easily monitored without a huge staff. Likewise, distribution is a simple payout. Very little bureaucracy involved; just money in and money out. There are wonderful machines called computers which are very good at doing that sort of thing cheaply. That said, the link provided by Dan Moutal shows that this 'carbon tax and return' was accompanied by several other tax reductions. This reduces the transparency / makes it more similar to 'business as usual' tax policy. For instance, back in the 80s Reagan raised payroll taxes (which mostly impact the poor) and lowered income taxes (which mostly impact the rich). BC is pursuing the same concept... lowering existing taxes to offset raising a new one. Thus far they've paid out quite a bit more than they've taken in, but that may change as the carbon price rises. It's never easy to precisely balance these things.
89759. Tom Curtis at 20:40 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @43: First, I did not leave out relevant information of which I was aware. As previously indicated, I was not, and am not aware of the total increase in energy out in the Arctic summer due to the ice albedo feedback. Therefore I did not include that information. What I did include in my very first response to you was a direct reference to Flanner's article, and the forcing (ie, net additional downward flus - net additional upward flux) that he calculated, which was more relevant than just the additional upward flux. Therefore there is no basis for your imputation that I willfully left out relevant information - and I resent the imputation. In contrast, in your first comment, to which I responded your clearly discuss only areas and angles in an attempt to argue the additional energy received in the Arctic as a result of the ice albedo effect is inconsequential. You did not include the additional relevant information that you clearly were aware of. Specifically: a) Even if the arctic receives no more additional energy than any other region of the Earth, it receives an additional 6.4*10^20 Joules per year energy (Trenberth); and b) The total annual energy budget of additional ice melt is about 1*10^20 Joules (Trenberth again), or about one sixth of what the Arctic could be expected to receive based on your argument. These two facts are clearly very relevant to the argument you made against Sphaerica on 0:38 AM, April 4th on the Arctic Ice March thread. Yet you with held this information. Nobody has condemned you for withholding that relevant information. But you have attempted to suggest wrong doing by me for purportedly doing exactly as you did, when in fact I did not. Why? And do not pretend that you "quoted the calculations" of Dr Trenberth straight away. You did not do so until your second response to me, which is to say, your third post in the sequence, and two posts after you should have brought in that relevant information, by your standard. There is nothing of substance in what remains of your post. You again try to suggest that I must account for all of the incoming energy before it can be acknowledged to exist. Apparently, in your mind, we cannot admit to knowing one thing unless we can claim to know all things. You again cannot distinguish between the net incoming flux and the net forcing (incoming flux - outgoing flux) in comparing my calculation with Flanner. And again, without any basis beyond an argument from relative area, you insist that Flanner's analysis must be false. The simple fact is, the ice albedo feedback (dominant in the arctic) is far stronger per unit area than the water vapour feedback (dominant in the tropics). This follows because changes in albedo are linearly related to changes in incoming energy. Halving the albedo will double the effective incoming short wave energy. In contrast, GHG effects result in a constant effect for each successive doubling of the concentration of the GHG. It is hardly surprising that areas in which there is a strong ice albedo effect show a forcing response disproportionately large compared to their surface area.
       Moderator Response: [mc] fixed open link tag
89760. Alexandre at 20:32 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Never mind that Hunter guy. People will always complain. It's revenue neutral (actually more than that), and it's taxing an undesirable thing, as Dan pointed out. What else can you want?
89761. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:08 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials? Turney & Jones, 2010.: “Arguably one of the best super-interglacials for investigating this conundrum is the Last Interglacial (LIG), spanning the period ca. 130–116 ka ago and characterised by solar insolation anomalies caused by the changing Earth's orbit (Harrison et al., 1995; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006). There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the global temperature during this period, with estimates ranging from 0.1 to >2°C warmer than present (CLIMAP Project Members, 1984; White, 1993; Hansen, 2005; Rohling et al., 2008).” “Greatly reduced Arctic sea ice area, changes in ice sheet topography and freshwater influences on the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC) have all been proposed as possible feedbacks for driving higher temperatures, but no consensus has been reached (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2010). Accompanying these changes, recent estimates of sea level corrected for changes in gravity, solid Earth deformation and other effects have suggested the LIG was 6.6–9.4 m higher than today ...” Conclusion: If only it was warmer by 0.1 deg C (Eemian - Holocene) is as much as 9?% difference in sea levels can be explained by factors other than temperature - 1.5 deg C - as they want the paper - it's 9?% difference in sea levels can be explained differences in temperature? Such is the extent of our understanding. For the practice of comparing Eemian - Holocene; is a purely "academic. "
89762. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:33 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       @Tom Curtis A propos Hansen’s paper: - “It was written in a bit of a rush when the editor told me there was a last chance to submit a paper before the book went to press,” - says Hansen in blog (...) That should be sufficient for us here ... I recommend the analysis (especially graphs - Fig . 3.) here: Holocene and Eemian sea surface temperature trends as revealed by alkenone and Mg/Ca paleothermometry, Leduc, et al., 2010., to be aware of our ignorance - regarding the differences - Eemian - Holocene.
89763. RSVP at 18:33 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       It is hard to refute the notion that if all the ice in Greenland were to melt, the oceans would rise 7 or 8 meters (or whatever the new level turns out to be), as the concept only involves geometric considerations. On the other hand, for all that ice to melt, it requires a specific incremental energy expenditure over time. Furthermore, all that extra ocean water will be that much more of an energy sink for cooling the Earth, given that water in liquid form will do this more than ice that is currently trapped. Where I am going with this, is that the problem is more complex and tends to favor this event not happening so fast.
89764. chris1204 at 18:33 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan Moutal @ 6: "It makes no sense for BC to get too far ahead of everyone else. We took a first modest step, but we can't take too many more until other jurisdictions catch up, otherwise we risk pushing GHG emissions out of BC and into neighboring provinces and states, which will hurt BC, and do nothing for the climate." This sounds remarkably close to arguments being mounted by carbon tax opponents for not having a carbon tax in Australia. The difference is merely one of degree - you impose a very small tax as opposed to a zero tax. Paradoxically, it also is very close to the position advocated by the oft maligned Pielke Jr in "The Climate Fix" who argues for the gradual introduction of a modest carbon tax. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
89765. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:22 PM on 8 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       1. Several prominent scientists said in the 70's about global cooling. The fact that - certainly not the majority, and not having the most knowledgeable. Christy take this as an example of the theory - a wide scientific basis - which (now) has proved be wrong. 2. He says that, and currently there are (as then - the seventies), important questions to the AGW theory - models of the IPCC. How significant? This explains for example the last publication of the Christy et al., 2010.: What Do Observational Datasets Say About Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979?: “Using observed trend values, the observed SRs for TLT are significantly less than 1.4, being ~0.8 ± 0.3. This suggests that on average, the model amplification of surface temperature trends is overdone, and that the observed atmosphere manages to adjust to heating processes without allowing (over decades) a temperature change in the troposphere at a higher rate than it changes near the surface.” t is possible therefore a fundamental error. How important? “We fully expect others to become engaged and produce defensible estimates of trends which may or may not support our conclusions.” May we all have so much of “humility” as Dr. Christy ... I also recommend the latest interview with Dr. Christy
       Moderator Response: [DB] "Several prominent scientists said in the 70's about global cooling." Unsubstantiated hearsay? Name them.
89766. Dan Moutal at 18:17 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Reference for my last comment
89767. Dan Moutal at 18:13 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ rhjames Total money collected by the tax = $848 million Total money returned to BC residents = $1042 million Perhaps the BC government is also dreaming
89768. rhjames at 18:03 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       ubrew12 - There's a big difference between taking our money to build things, and taking money to give it back in cash. Dan Moutal - I think you're dreaming if you think a carbon tax doesn't mean a big new expensive governmental department.
89769. SNRatio at 17:53 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Such a tax doesn't have to be very high to have profound long-term effects. But they tend to kick in gradually, so they may be hard to discern from noise and more obvious effects. First off, it makes energy use a little bit more expensive, biasing individual decisions about energy use, systems designs, insulation standards etc towards energy efficiency and savings. Second, it boosts the competitiveness of renewable sources. For instance, you can either use natural gas or a combination of solar and heat pump to produce domestic hot water. (With the phasing in of renewable electricity, the heat pump contribution will be increasingly renewable, starting at about pari with gas for 100% fossile generated electricity.) Typically, investments will be much higher for the renewable way, but operating costs much lower. As for the effects of the tax, there may be an inverse Robin Hood effect if revenue neutrality is implemented by relative tax cuts. With flat tax reduction/payback, it may work the other way around. But in any case, the tax gives Mr Hunter an extra payback for his insulation efforts: He uses less than average gas, and therefore pays less than average tax, but gets the average tax cut back. So complaining, he is actually asking for worse condition for himself.
89770. RSVP at 17:43 PM on 8 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       In the film trailer, Alley says, "...but a growing population needs more and more clean energy." If there isn't even enough clean energy for the people around today, how could there be "more and more" going forward? We seem to have a slight backlog issue.
89771. Dan Moutal at 17:14 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ rhjames Since governments already have all the infrastructure they need to collect taxes the administration costs are almost nill. @ Gilles It is too early to tell. Anecdotal evidence points to a small reduction, but nothing concrete just yet. But no one should expect anything drastic from such modest policy. If we want larger cuts in emissions (and I do) then we will need a larger carbon tax, whose cost can be offset by larger tax reductions elsewhere. It just makes so much sense to me. It is better to tax the bad (GHG emissions), than the good (income). But we also need to be realistic. It makes no sense for BC to get too far ahead of everyone else. We took a first modest step, but we can't take too many more until other jurisdictions catch up, otherwise we risk pushing GHG emissions out of BC and into neighboring provinces and states, which will hurt BC, and do nothing for the climate.
89772. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:10 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       @Moderator Well, we quote - but would not sense of to change the references cited. “Various researchers going back nearly a century have attempted to isolate the cause of the ice-age cycle. They have uncovered several factors--periodic changes in Earth's orbit around the sun, a wobble in our planet's axis of rotation, for example--that seem to be in play. But so far no one has presented the definitive answer.” Conclusion 1. We do not know the causes, not only glacial cycle - but the rapid increase sea level. Conclusion second. Changes in the surface of the glacial (MIS) 5a were much higher than today. “That suggests the glaciers were melting at a tremendous rate. Even half that rate would still be "a major finding," Dorale says. So it "has major implications for future concerns with sea-level change." Agreed. Changes may be rapidly acceleration - and it's perfectly natural causes. Only a what changes? “Still mysterious, however, are other data, taken from Barbados and New Guinea, that also suggest rising sea level about 80,000 years ago but not nearly as much of a change.” So speaking about the global rate of sea level rise - this is a misunderstanding. Even at the present they are regions where sea levels are not rising - and even decreases (consensus - the majority - rising). This does not affect the application (by looking at the geological past) that significant (and rapid) changes in sea level - from natural causes - it is "standard ". C. The current 2-3 thousand. years, "peace" - is something "unusual" - except "to the rule".
89773. Gilles at 17:03 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       and what's the result for CO2 emissions ?
89774. ubrew12 at 16:53 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       HumanityRules said: "So very little pain for almost no measurable gain?" Dan said: "thanks to the carbon tax, BC has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for people earning up to $118,000." This would be so much easier if you bothered to read the article.
89775. ubrew12 at 16:47 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       rhjames said: "The government takes money off people, subtracts their administration costs, then gives it back?... Is this government policy gone mad?" No. In fact, taking a larger view, it is all any government policy has ever sought to do. People who do not think so think paved roads and dams evolve naturally.
89776. rhjames at 16:38 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Let me make sure I understand this. The government takes money off people, subtracts their administration costs, then gives it back? I just hope we never have to suffer such nonsense here. Is this government policy gone mad?
89777. HumanityRules at 16:37 PM on 8 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan, So very little pain for almost no measurable gain? Would this sum things up in BC? There sounds like there's good reason why the world didn't end.
89778. Tom Curtis at 16:11 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak @13, regardless of the difficulties of interpreting the evidence of past ages, doing so is still the best guide to what we should expect in the future with a changing climate. Given that, the Eemian with a nearly identical continental arrangement and mean global surface temperatures that are between 1 and 2 degrees greater than the mid 20th century mean makes an ideal test case. While some scientists may argue for a warmer Eemian temperatures, others, notably Jame Hansen, have recently argued for a much cooler Eemian temperature. Until such controversies are resolved, it seems judicious to use the most common, and midrange values. Even using the higher values is hardly cause to be sanguine, given that BAU scenarios predict temperature increases of 4 degrees or more, ie, more than twice the mid-range estimates for the Eemian. Having said that, the rest of your argument is self contradictory. You attribute the higher Eemian sea levels both to greater continental depression due to heavier ice sheets of the preceding glaciation, and to the near absence of the WAIS. That near absence would by itself account for a 3+ meter sea level rise, making your alternative explanation redundant. Given that south GIS melts sufficient to raise sea levels by 1 to 2 meters are consistent with continued ice at Dye 3; and further, given that the interpretation of the "Eemian" ice at the base of Dye 3 being controversial, with a strong possiblity that it represents new ice growing at the end of the Eemian, the case that a "small" increase in temperature of just 1 to 2 degrees will, given time lead to substantial melting of both the WAIS and the GIS with consequent 4-6m sea level rises seems hard to controvert.
89779. Gilles at 15:41 PM on 8 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Mucounter : "It should also stimulate us to work harder to rise above the incessant noise: 'no, its not,' 'I can't see the trend,' 'what is the variability on an arbitrary timescale?', 'what does it prove?' are just noise." So : are you claiming that, contrary to what I said, measuring a trend over T years allows us to extrapolate this trend with a good confidence (in the above sense : reducing significantly our uncertainty on the future), without knowing anything about the normal variability at this time scale ? is that your claim ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It is not correct that we know nothing about the normal variability on that timescale, so your question is a non-starter. The historical data shown here strongly suggests there is no (quasi-)periodic variability at this timescale. As I said earlier, correllation is not causation, and the reliability of any extrapolation depends on the explanation for the trend, not its statistical significance. In this case, there is good reason to expect the fossil fuel emissions to cause substantial warming in the Arctic and for that warming to cause melting of the ice (and for albedo feedback to tend to hasten that melting). Unless you have some physical explanation for the existence of multi-decadal oscillations in sea ice extent, then it is a less plausible explanation. That is the way science works, reduction to the most plausible explanations, and in this case "multi-decadal" oscillation is not very plausible as there is no mechanism (unlike for example ENSO) explaining why/how it ocurrs, and it doesn't seem to even exist in the pre-satelite data.
89780. logicman at 15:25 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Further to scaddenp's comment: The Nile Delta is one of the most heavily populated and intensely cultivated areas on earth. It is home to over one-third of the national population and produces nearly half of all Egypt's crops. Potential impact of sea level rise: Nile Delta. Rising sea level would destroy weak parts of the sand belt, which is essential for the protection of lagoons and the low-lying reclaimed lands in the Nile delta of Egypt (Mediterranean Sea). The impacts would be very serious: One third of Egypt's fish catches are made in the lagoons. Sea level rise would change the water quality and affect most fresh water fish. Valuable agricultural land would be inundated. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/potential-impact-of-sea-level-rise-nile-delta
89781. scaddenp at 14:09 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Moving from one delta island to a newly emergent one is fine, but as sealevel rises, there is no new island - the shoreline moves back toward already heavily populated lands. Migration at moment is move to slums of Dacca. This is problematic now at 3mm/yr. Worse at 10mm/yr There is no getting away from fact sealevel rise = loss of arable land. Farmland doesnt just move somewhere else. When aggradation exceeds progradation, the nature of coast line changes. If you want to see what 10mm/yr looks like, try places where sealevel rise is already like that from tectonic causes. Try this for a sustained 7-8mm/yr landscape.
89782. Bob Lacatena at 14:03 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       45, Ken, Go back and read things through several times to find all of your errors, rather than trying to pin them on other people. I already admitted to my mistake in posting 66˚, but the angle at the Arctic circle would be 38˚ at peak, not your 23˚, and even higher further south. I've already told you that we're not talking only about the exact spot of the North Pole, and something that basic should not elude a master geometrician such as yourself. But none of this changes the fact that you don't understand what is being discussed, and therefore try to project your own lack of comprehension as meaning that everyone else must be wrong. On the other hand, your own attempts to repeatedly reframe the problem in a way that lets you dismiss it are rather transparent.
89783. Albatross at 13:19 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel @36, "No doubt humanity will have to adapt to changed circumstances but the change will not be so severe as to preclude adaptation." That is your unsubstantiated opinion, fine, but governments cannot tackle this based on blind faith and wishful thinking. I am with the experts on this one. Yes, it is a creeping problem, nobody in the know said any different-- but it is a problem that is highlighted when one has floods or storm surges, and as you know Bangladesh is frequently affected by storms. But you are missing the point, adaptation has costs associated with it, both economic and social. So prevention is better than cure. I'm not sure whether or not you agree with Tamino's assessment/analysis-- the actual topic of this thread.
89784. muoncounter at 13:18 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       #76: "Germany is so confident in their renewables program that they're building 26 new coal plants as I type this" I love these half-truths. Setting the record a wee bit straighter: Following the nuclear power plant accident in Japan in March, the German government decided to switch off seven of its oldest nuclear power plants until a safety review is completed. ... To fill the nuclear production gap, German utilities have ramped up coal-fired electricity generation ... "Until many more gas power plants are built and a lot more renewables are there, Germany is likely to rely on coal power plants that were initially to be taken off the grid in the coming years, So because of fear caused by a recent nuclear 'problem' (which you've conveniently forgotten), Germany will keep some coal-fired plants going until they can be replaced by gas and renewables.
89785. Vladimer K at 13:15 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Daniel Maris- As mentioned above, Germany is building new coal plants, and their renewables program is overloading their power grid. Denmark has vast offshore wind sources, which can't be replicated in many other regions. It's also worth noting that they have the highest residential electricity rates in the EU; feel free to compare them to France. Scotland accounts for 25% of renewable energy potential in the whole EU, and again their success will be a challenge to replicate in countries without such convenient resources.
89786. Vladimer K at 12:58 PM on 8 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       CBD- Using that reasoning, we could use pebble-bed reactors in that equation, which are much more efficient than the WWS solution. Especially if you apply those to a nuclear scenario - that is, in-situ leeching powered by wind, transport vehicles powered by hydrogen cells, etc. Of course, presuming all scientific endeavors go on schedule, nuclear technology will have advanced greatly by the time this is implemented. Generation IV by 2021, fusion (!) by 2040. That's the future right there. Daniel Marris- Germany is so confident in their renewables program that they're building 26 new coal plants as I type this. And $60 billion is a lot, especially for the UK. You could build a lot of pebble-bed reactors with that kind of cash, in a much shorter time than it would take for you to convert to solar and wind, and you'd have the money back in a matter of months for each plant rather than a matter of years. Not to mention that you're probably undershooting the mark a bit.
89787. daniel maris at 12:52 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Albatross, But the point about a one metre rise is that it isn't going to happen in one year. It will be gradual, maybe spread over 100 years or more, and the Bangladeshi people in the delta are used to having to abandon land when it gets indundated. This will be a very gradual process. Presumably the delta will move back along the Ganges as the sea level rises. No doubt humanity will have to adapt to changed circumstances but the change will not be so severe as to preclude adaptation.
89788. Albatross at 12:32 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       The land inundate by sea water during the Tsunami in northeastern Japan is not going to be much use for agriculture for quite some time. A 1 m increase in sea level is expected to submerge about 17% of Bangladesh, 2 m would submerge its capital. And that is not taking into account the impact of storm surges superimposed on of higher sea levels. Here is but one of many publications on the subject. Also, consider this Ignoring these warnings is pure folly.
89789. muoncounter at 12:17 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       #29: "The Japanese government has just announced it is going rebuild" That's hardly a done deal: Government sources said on Sunday the initiative includes buying urban areas that would be hard to reconstruct as well as encouraging people from coastal regions to move to higher places, DPA reported. ... However, the residents are likely to show resistance to the resettlement plan. Having predicted people's disagreement, the government is also working on a plan to develop urban residential regions that can resist a tsunami and thus allow people to continue to live near the sea.
89790. scaddenp at 12:08 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, if you knew more about sea level rise, you would realise Bangladesh hasnt got a hope when sealevel rise overwhelms sediment deposition rates. You cant adapt to growing in salt and you cant adapt to living underwater. Have a look at WG2 for actual studies of consequences rather than guessing. The most vunerable deltas are Mekong, Nile, and Ganges. Where do those people go? And yes, bully for the Japanese - nice being rich - I'll bet they are not moving the farming though and that is the point, not the settlements.
89791. muoncounter at 12:08 PM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       #28: "Of all the people on Earth the Bangladeshis are probably best able to cope with sea level rise." Yes, they've had lots of practice. The catastrophic flood of 1987 occurred throughout July and August and affected 57,300 km2 of land, (about 40% of the total area of the country) and was estimated as a once in 30-70 year event. ... The flood of 1988, which was also of catastrophic consequence, occurred throughout August and September. The waters inundated about 82,000 km2 of land, (about 60% of the area) and its return period was estimated at 50–100 years. ... In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded. It was similar to the catastrophic flood of 1988 in terms of the extent of the flooding. ... The 2004 flood was very similar to the 1988 and 1998 floods with two thirds of the country under water. So that's four 50-100 year events in a period of 17 years. No problem, right?
89792. daniel maris at 11:59 AM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       "Cradle" was perhaps the wrong word. "Lifeline" might ahve been better because many experts think humanity spread out across the globe along the narrow coastal strips, where there was always a plentiful supply of seafood to keep them alive.
89793. Tom Curtis at 11:58 AM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel Maris @19, 2110 is about 99 years of by my calendar. Water used in irrigation is, as you say, evaporated, but from there it joins the water cycle and ends up in the sea. The total effect on SL of the additional water vapour in the atmosphere due to irrigation, therefore, will be much less than the additional water vapour in the atmosphere due to higher temperatures- whose effect on SL is inconsequential. A better case can be made that the amount of water dammed by humans has reduced sea level (by about 1 mm from memory), but more water has been released from ground water into the water cycle than has been dammed, so the net effect of human interference with the water cycle has been a very slight increase in the rate of rise of SL - although inconsequential compared to thermal expansion and glacial melting.
89794. scaddenp at 11:57 AM on 8 April 2011
       Models are unreliable
       At the other extreme, evidence suggests that models are quite reliable at climate prediction, and that the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than taking action. Furthermore, estimates of climate sensitivity from empirical means also provide alarm bells. Suppose the climate models are wrong and we take action needlessly. What are consequences? Now consider the more likely possibility that models predictions are accurate (lets hope they dont underestimate) and that we do nothing?
89795. daniel maris at 11:55 AM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Scaddenp, No I reject that. The Japanese government has just announced it is going rebuild a number of vulnerable coastal towns destroyed by the Tsunami on hillside locations. So it can be done.
89796. daniel maris at 11:54 AM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Albatross - If you knew anything about Bangladesh you'd know those delta islands are constantly forming and re-forming. Of all the people on Earth the Bangladeshis are probably best able to cope with sea level rise. Not that I blame the government making use of the issue to garner some more development funds.
89797. muoncounter at 11:50 AM on 8 April 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Ggf #335: "not convinced that we need to rush into setting targets now at large cost to the economy ..." You've not provided any evidence that anyone is rushing into so-called interventions. Nor have you provided any evidence that such interventions will cost more than doing nothing -- when there is evidence in a 2010 study that doing nothing costs more in the long run. See the thread Plan for 100% renewables for a discussion of these alternatives. "Governments are being spooked into committing large amounts of money on the basis of unreliable models." Spooked? Which governments are you referring to? Nor have you provided any evidence that models are unreliable. Your argument in #323, "no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of the global climate can accurately predict the future," is overly general and far from convincing. So far, without evidence, what you have is just hearsay. "A more measured response is required which considers a broader range of possible responses " A more measured response than doing nothing is ... ?
89798. BillWalker at 11:36 AM on 8 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       My local PBS station, KPBS in San Diego, isn't showing the program until April 20 at 10:00 PM.
89799. Ggf9191 at 11:18 AM on 8 April 2011
       Models are unreliable
       DSL I have not suggested that warming will not happen or that the consequences will not be bad. I am saying that i do not believe that climate models are capable of making predictions as to what will happen with a sufficient level of confidence to spend large amounts of money based on their predictions. What i am also suggesting is that unless we can be confident that what is being proposed in terms of emissions cut will work we should be cautious about spending large amounts of money on what may be the wrong response. I am not convinced that we need to rush into setting targets now at large cost to the economy when we can't be sure that the proposed interventions will work. Governments are being spooked into committing large amounts of money on the basis of unreliable models. A more measured response is required which considers a broader range of possible responses
89800. scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 8 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       A further point - how easily humans adapted in the past can be deceptive. 2000 years ago, global population was around 200 million. By time of colonisation of America, it was still less than 1 billion. Moving a few people is much easier than moving a very large no. of them dependent on complex created infrastructure.

Prev  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  Next