Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 Next
Comments 11801 to 11850:
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:07 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Sigh. From 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.
Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.
For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
Annex B Report from 2008
http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pages/RadioPDF/unscear_artificielle.pdf
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html -
scaddenp at 08:55 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
"Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference."
Draconian is rhetoric. What makes ending FF subsidies, transition to renewables "draconian". We havent seen any CO2 reductions to make a difference but the IPCC reports WG1 and WG3 are full of peer-reviewed papers on why increased CO2 is causing warming; why changes of GHG have changed climate in past; and what effectiveness of mitigation strategies IPCC wG3. I am guessing that you didnt look very hard. Since you have come to this site, then hopefully you are not just looking for some shallow excuse for inaction.
-
scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
If you look at who is creating the problem however, the population problem is about the too many rich westerners rather than too many africans. It is the affluent west which are largely responsible for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
It could become too many rich Chinese, but the important part of the equation is the extent to which increasing affluence leads to increased FF use.
You can prove things in mathematics but not science. Do you demand the such nonsensical certainty before you take a doctors advice? Demanding absolute certainty before any action is taken is an impossible criteria and is frankly a rhetorical excuse for inaction.
There is some fundimental physics at work here. We directly measure the increase in irradiation of the globes surface from increased GHG. If you decrease GHG, that radiation goes down. Now in summer your hemisphere gets more radiation at surface than at winter. Do you need proof that decreasing radiation in winter will make it cooler? Ditto for decreasing GHG. Supporting evidence without resorting to physics, would be to note that in other times when GHG levels have been lower, then the climate got colder and warmed again when they rose.
I am guessing "promoting taxpayer funded projects" is an idealogical beef. By all means suggest an effective alternative way to reduce FF consumption which is compatiable with your ideology. This thread is a good place to do it.
-
nowhearthis at 07:08 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Special thanks to Red Barron for an extensive discussion on the issue. I'm still studying it and your links.
While this page may not specifically state "solutions", much of the debate revolves around things purported as "solutions". Before making major changes to society, perhaps we should validate they are worthwhile. I beleve those affected will demand that. Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference. All I hear are promises and avoidance - THAT IS A PROBLEM.
We see policies proffered by "progressive" politicians, promoting taxpayer funded projects (rail, transit, bike paths, fuel source shifts) with no proof they are effective. The issue has become a religion and an us vs them sinkhole. Until skeptics and supporters alike can be shown proof these sacrifices work without question, the debate will continue.
Red Barron brings up a powerful point: The remediation equation is more complex than what politicians promote and much of the answer exists outside the developed societies. Further, those who believe the problem is anthropogenic, must acknowledge our massive planetary population increases, offset those 1st world sacrifices sold as "solutions". Planetary population is 7.5b and has doubled in my lifetime, the U.S. represents a little over 4% of that. Big players like China, India, Pacific Rim, Middle East, etc. aren't making the sacrifices sold to us as "solutions". We can't do it alone and the Paris framework wasn't a realistic answer IMO.
Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts) we can reverse climate change? -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises? DOUBTFUL!
This needs to be figured out; wars have started over much less. Raising the question: What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Michael, I dont think RB has pushed farming as silver bullet, but as a potentially important "wedge" to help. When you have food production that depends on growing grain to feed to animals/birds, then there is definitely carbon advantage to convert land use from grain production to direct managed grazing.
Of more concern to me here in NZ, is whether it is possible to reproduce carbon capture observed in prairie soils outside of that environment and how much does it depend on grass types with limited climate range? The only places where grazing has recorded a soil carbon gain instead of loss here is where grazing was introduced onto badly degraded soils formerly used for grain. As RB has pointed out, there is no shortage of badly degraded soils to work with however.
I am persuaded by literature that he has provided, that a lot more work should go into research of low-input managed grazing techniques with different pasture types, rather than the high-input irrigated grazing that typifies most of our dairy systems. Our meat production occurs almost exclusively on low input, hill country, ex-forest soils and so far I cant any find any examples of enhanced soil carbon in these systems.
-
scaddenp at 06:16 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
jcfanclub - the predominant carbon prices mechanisms discussed are:
1/ fee and dividend. You tax the carbon and return 100% of what is collected to tax payers on per capita basis. If your FF consumption is "average" then what you get back in dividend should cover the increased cost of FF. However, it creates powerful incentives to reduce FF use and thus benefit from the dividend. I cannot see how anyone could "perpetuate the problem" so as to gain from it.
2/ ETS. Emitters have to buy carbon credits from carbon sequesterers. That certainly creates a convenient revenue scheme for those able to sequester carbon, but how is it possible from them game the system to encourage emissions?
I find it hard to imagine a carbon tax scheme where the revenue beneficiaries could work to perpetuate emissions. Can you provide an example?
-
william5331 at 05:29 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
I think the author is way off the mark. The only system likely to actually achieve the aim of reducing our carbon output is Tax and Dividend a la James Hansen
There are a couple of vital aspects of this policy.
1/ The tax can be small to the point of insignificance at first but built into it is an increase each year. This can be arithmetic (1,2,3,4...) or geometric (1,2,4,8...) but the inevidability is the important part. People will be divesting from fossil fuel long before it is an economic necessity to avoid taking a 'hair cut'. Where will they shift their money to. Predominately to renewable energy.
2/ Insteas of stifling the economy and making the government the bad guys (look at Macron in France with his fuel tax. Jeeesh!!) money is put into the hands of the poorest who will spend it all just to keep their heads above water. The government becomes the hero of the people. Mony is not put into the hands of the rich which they squrrel away as happens with, for instance, Cap and Trade. What the economists call velocity (the rate money circulates in the economy) increases instead of decreasing as with C&T.
https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/12/jim-hansens-climate-change-solution.html
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
MS Sweet, thank's. I took the 5 - 20 tonnes number in good faith. I hadn't seen that page of discussion on soil carbon issues. Perhaps someone can clarify exactly how the 5 - 20 tonnes figure is derived?
Red Baron mentions it in relation to the research :"Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future" on the page you linked to. I had a quick scan and the only thing I could find was that there was evidence in Australia that better grasslands management could sequester 15% of their emissions. Not a silver bullet, but not insignificant either. Of course this number only applies to Australia.
-
jcfanclub at 04:05 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
When you are talking about economic incentives you should also consider the incentives of those who collect the carbon taxes or whatever. What's to prevent them from perpetuating the problem the tax is designed to solve? If the problem goes away, so does their revenue stream.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 23:47 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
*U.S. = #1 Exporter of Coal Gas Oil*
In 2017 U.S. coal exports to Asia went up 61%.
Our oil will soon run out and we need Venezuela's oil. Many will die for it.
All the world's energy growth is in Asia India Africa, and not here.They want to live like us more than they care about the climate.
*Why North America and Europe Do Not Matter Anymore*
Electricity = 25% of total world primary energy.
Energy Use By Nation:
Canada = 360 Giga Joules / person
___ U.S. = 300 Giga Joules / person
__ China = 120 Giga Joules / person
___ India = 90 Giga Joules / person
___ Brazil = 60 Giga Joules / person
___ Africa = 20 Giga Joules / person ur
Euro-America demand is slow compared to Africa India and Asia.
Solar + Wind = 6% of electricity production worldwide.
Electricity production = 25% of world primary energy.
Solar + Wind 1990 - 2018 grew to 1% of world primary energy.
Solar/Wind 2019 = 1% of energy after 30 years of hype.
Emissions went up 60% in 30 years.
Food + Meat = 24% of emissions.
World concrete = 4 billion tons / yr
World steel = 2 billion tons / yr
World sand = 11 - 15 billion tons / yr
Open sand piracy is the norm over there. They just take your sand and go.
It doesn't matter what North America and Europe does for emissions.
World energy demand growth is in Africa and Asia. They are all young and eager.
India's energy demand grows as much as all the energy used in Canada every 32 months.
Indian coal is going to go up to drive the economy, even if they convert it to gas.
China's coal has grown from 1 billion to 4 billion tons / yr in 30 yrs.
China coal is now down to 3.5 billion tons.
China is building 700 coal plants worldwide, not in China.
Many of these plants convert coal to gas.
Solar panels in Germany provide 90% of their rated power 11% of the time.
Wind turbines in Germany provide 90% of their rated power 20% of the time.
It doesn't matter that Denmark has the most wind turbines, they are only a few million people.
What matters is what's happening in India and Africa not here.
Coal and gas will still be 70% of their energy by 2040.
There are 30 million EVs and 1.2 billion gas vehicles on earth.
It will take 40 years to convert all the cars on earth.
The amount of batteries Tokyo will need during future Typhoons is staggering.
Batteries cannot be scaled up in time to make a difference to climate.
The Paris Agreement = Emissions go up from 35 billion tons to 50 billion tons by 2040.
The Paris Agreement will not be kept and you know it.
Emissions must go down 50% in 10 yrs + 100% in 20 yrs for 2 C.
Five of 13 major hothouse tipping points start below 2 C.
Runaway mass extinction cannot be stopped or reversed.
Krill cannot survive in many parts of the ocean without oxygen.
All ocean life depend on Krill.
The world wants the American lifestyle and we can't stop them.
China is buying up U.S. chip and bio tech right now.
The U.S. is now the number one exporter of gas, oil and coal.
In 2017 U.S. coal exports to Asia went up 61%.
All the U.S. will have left is its guns and fracking gear.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 23:47 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Corporations, NGOs and governments have been fixing climate for 30 yrs.
Emissions went up 60%.
That is why carbon dividends must be 100% private = 0% for corporations, NGOs and governments.
The tax must be on the rich and paid directly to the poor.
-
michael sweet at 23:28 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Nigelj,.
In Red Baron's post a few days ago here, the first paper he cited to support his claim of 5-20 ton/ha/yr was:
Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change
Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A
It can be located here. (I had to look up the location).
Table 1 lists many methods of enhancing cabon uptake in soils. It has three categories: 0-2 t/ha/yr, 2-4 t/ha/yr and >4 t/ha/yr. Only 5 of 20 methods rise to the highest amount of sequestration. Of those 5, 4 involve removing land from cultivation and returning it to pasture or forest. The fifth is adding biochar to the soil which would involve enormous manufacture of biochar to implement on a widespread basis. Improved grazing pasture management, often cited by Red Baron as 5-20 t/ha/yr, is given as 0-2 t/ha/yr.
I do not have time to reread all of Red Baron's citations. They do not support his wild claim of 5-20 t/ha/yr of sequestration. I recommend you do not hang your hopes on farming being a silver bullet to solve AGW.
-
AEBanner at 22:05 PM on 27 February 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Thank you, Eclectic, for your helpful comments.
AEBanner
-
AEBanner at 22:02 PM on 27 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
This is eddieb.
Thank you, Bob Loblaw, for your very interesting and helpful contribution.
AEBanner
-
MA Rodger at 20:37 PM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
stevestory @3,
Over a decade ago I was tasked with presenting an opinion for a green group on nuclear power. A bit of a poisoned chalice, I knew it would make some unhappy which ever side of the argument I came down on. Safety, weaponisation, cost, the absence of new-build plants (or plans for them), inflexibility of output - all could be argued both ways.
Happily, there was one area where there was no ambiguity - nuclear failed. The present technology on offer hardily had enough uranium to fuel itself at present-day levels (2% of world power) for a century. If nuclear use was scaled up to levels useful within global AGW mitigation policies, it would very quickly run out of fuel to power itself.
This fuel difficulty facing nuclear power is not widely cited as being a problem. Sources of uranium that would overcome the problem are all problems themselves (like fuel reprocessing or sourcing uranium from sea water, etc). We are thus left with conventional known uranium reserves that would last several decades at present useage.
It was a few years ago that I did this analysis. I note today that more uranium reserves have been identified since then. See here. Still producing 2% or less of global primary energy consumption, nuclear has a little over 100 years-worth of uranium reserves if uranium prices double. (Fuel cost is not a massive issue in the nuclear industry.)
-
nigelj at 16:00 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Regarding Red Barons information. Soil carbon sequestration from enhanced farming systems equals 5 - 20 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr. I assume this is additional sequestration over the normal sequestration of carbon from standard farming systems.
This number doesn't mean a lot to me, so I have tried to see what it means in terms of how much of global emissions such farming systems might sequester per year (tried a google search but nothing). Quick and very rough back of envelope calculation : Lets assume additional CO2 sequestered is 10 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr.
Total global arable land plus open range grasslands equals approx. 3 billion hectares. Lets assume 1 billion is suitable for enhanced soil carbon sequestration so this equals 10 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr sequestered.
Total CO2 emissions 2017 was approx. 36 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr. So 10 billions sequestered seems like significant potential.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:55 PM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
jcfanclub:
I, too, would be interested in seeing you describe what you think is the data set that backs the "skeptic" side. Please pick one (to start), and explain what you find convincing about it.
-
RedBaron at 12:52 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
50 dollars a (metric?) ton at the rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr for a farmer means something significant. Even a small farmer of 200 acres can earn additional ~ 25-100 thousand dollars a year sequestering carbon.
Do that and the price of beef and organic produce will drop and end up offsetting the extra costs in fossil fuels directly, while also directly removing the Carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep in the soil.
It will also offset a great injustice that has been perpetrated on small family farmers and rural comminities since the 1970's, namely the forced instability of the small family farm forcing millions off their land and out of their homes.
Even now only 46.1% of farmers have net positive income from farming. This would rejuvenate rural economies as well as rejuvenate degraded soils.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:50 PM on 27 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
eddieb:
Let me try to give another explanation. First, emission of radaition is given by Planck's Law, which tells you how much radiation is emitted at any wavelength, as a function of temperature and emissivity. Emissivity is correctly applied at a specific wavelength, not across all wavelengths as it is typcially used in the Stefan-Boltzman law. However, for solids and liquids, emissivity is usually fairly constant over a wide range of wavelengths, so it is not a bad approximation to treat it as a constant in some cases.
The Stefan-Boltsman law is the sum total of all radaition emitted at all wavelengths - essentially, the area under the curve described by Planck's law.
Now, to get back to your comment at #138. The earth's surface temperature is about 288K, as you describe. The surface emissivity in the infrared is not as low as you have suggested though - in fact, most natural surfaces are close to 1:
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
So, a surface at 288K would emit something like 390 W/m2 - much more than the 240W/m2 that balances absorbed solar radiation. The issue is that the surface can't emit this all directly to space - the atmosphere blocks this.
THere are two ways to resolve this in the Stefan-Boltmann model:
- The atmosphere must be having a blocking action that makes the earth-atmosphere system behave as if the surface has an emissivity of 0.612, The reduction in apparent emissivity is a measure of the greenhouse effect.
- It isn't the surface that is emitting IR radiation to space. In essence, the blocking action of the atmosphere means that the amount emitted to space comes from somewhere up higher in the atmosphere. Because the upper troposphere is colder, we can say that it looks like it is the upper troposphere that is emitting to space, not the surface. That's where we will find the 255K temperature suggested by the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an emissivity of 1.
Both of these are pretty simplistic descriptions of what is happening, because the atmosphere does a lot of things other than radiation, but the basic ideas are sound: the atmosphere prevents the earth surface from emitting IR to space like a black body, and what does reach space is usually emitted at high altitude.
I hope this helps.
-
nigelj at 12:20 PM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
Facts will struggle to persuade conservatives. They like nuclear power because liberals dont like nuclear power. Its become politically tribal. But good luck, facts are probably still worth a try.
-
GregoryV at 11:21 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. Bill 763) is a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend approach. I think avoiding the word tax and giving all the "well head" fees back to the public as a monthly dividend is a good reminder about climate change and would offset some of the increased costs of fossil fuel by the suppliers. Fuel prices are going to go up regardless of what system is used to reduce emissions.
-
stevestory at 11:10 AM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
That Abbott article is very close to exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
-
Eclectic at 10:41 AM on 27 February 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
AEBanner @1499 ,
Well said. Including your description of entropy as "untidiness".
This particular thermodynamic "Law" is a source of endless trouble to some people, because (as you have said) they do not look at the basic physical entities involved. Instead, they stand back and try to view the universe as ruled and directed by "Laws" . . . laws which are actually simply abstract conceptions in the human mind. It's all a very Nineteenth Century religion-like viewpoint. Very pre-Einstein, pre-quantum-mechanics way of thinking. Mistaking the concept for the reality. ( Can we blame Plato for this? )
-
Eclectic at 10:19 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Jcfanclub @95 ,
to expand slightly on Scaddenp's comment, I can say that for quite some years I have paid fairly close attention to the news & disputes regarding modern climate change ~ and I have never come across any data supporting the "skeptic" viewpoints. Not even close. And not even heard of any such data, at second hand report.
I try to be skeptical, and keep an open mind to the possibility that some such valid supporting data could emerge . . . but all I have ever found is a group of "anti-mainstream" people whose ideas are often mutually-contradictory, and who are continually tangling themselves up in semantic confusion (often deliberately in confusion, I suspect ~ as a consequence of their "Motivated Reasoning" driven by their emotions).
Jcfanclub , it would be a great service to readers here, if you would demonstrate whatever data you feel disproves the mainstream science. It would be enormously interesting, if you could find anything of that sort!
Possibly you may not have heard of the Berkeley Earth "BEST" project ~ a study promoted & sponsored by a number of super-wealthy "skeptics" (such as the Koch brothers). Heading the study, was a scientist who was feeling quite dubious about all the mainstream science temperature data. The study reviewed temperature data & its validity, and reassessed/re-analysed, using its own criteria & methodology. And the BEST study came to the same conclusion as the mainstream. (The study's head scientist says he is no longer a "skeptic".)
# It was all a huge embarrassment for those who wish to deny reality . . . and they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the BEST study. A study which was (IMO) their last hope of any serious scientific opposition to the mainstream climate science. Since then, we observers have seen nothing scientific coming from the self-called "skeptics" ~ all we see is FUD & confusionism plus carefully-crafted lawyer-talk from their propaganda wordsmiths.
-
Postkey at 09:38 AM on 27 February 2019Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
According to Michael Mann.
“02:13 . . . scientists who have studied this
02:15 problem say yeah there's a certain
02:16 amount of methane that we it could be
02:19 mobilized and it will add to the warming
02:21 but it's a small contribution compared
02:25 to the warming we are causing by the
F02:26 burning of fossil fuels . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LifcMZyCYmc -
scaddenp at 08:45 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
"So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not? "
Good question especially if you want an answer other than "whichever suits my biases". I am not sure what you mean by a dataset that "backs the skeptic case" (I dont think such a thing exists), but some criteria to look at:
1/ is it peer-reviewed? Any amount of nonsense put out by those who aim to deceive but these could not make it publication is a proper peer-reviewed journal.
2/ What does IPCC reports have to say on it - noting that the review process for IPCC has to be the most rigorous and open I have ever heard of. (You can see who said what and what the final editors judgement was and why).
3/ What is the consensus scientific position - ie what is assumed by experts working in the field?
4/ And if you dont like any of those, then you need to a/ get yourself the appropriate domain knowledge for assessment and b/ apply the disciplines of critical thinking that go into scientific evaluation.
There are plenty of threads here about deniers accusations of fraud. People are happy to help you evaluate the validity of arguments.
"Fudging the data" is an accusation of fraud. Anyone actually doing that would become pariah in scientific community. When there are numerous groups of scientists of all political associations working in many different countries, the chances for fraud are pretty minimal. What is usually objected to is the routine adjustments to homogenize, remove bias, or remove noise to various datasets. In this dialogue, anything that results in increased warming is "fudging the data". Anything that decreases it (eg the historical SST adjustment which is biggest change to temperature data) is good science. The better way to evaluate the adjustments is to ask "why is it being done", "is the methodology valid" and "how is it validated". Plenty of resource here to help. I dont think unadjusted data sets help the skeptic cause either unless they cherry pick (usually short intervals or particular regions).
Perhaps you first step would be to identify what skeptic resource you think is most convincing and find the appropriate thread here on it to comment further.
-
Ravenken at 08:11 AM on 27 February 2019Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
I just have to say that I am a little amazed at the gentle tenor of this dialogue considering what is actually going on. I go over and look at the NOAA MetOp-1 date LINK1
and also CAMS
and I see LARGE releases of methane constantly coming from undeveloped areas. Methane is skyrocketing and people use GPW100 to express CO2e. Just crazy.Can someone please give me an honest answer?
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and hyperlinked URLs breaking page formatting.
-
nigelj at 07:40 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Sorry to sound like a parrot. J W Rebels comment was not there when I pushed submit. Hes right as well.
-
jcfanclub at 07:09 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Why should we care what he thinks? He's not a climatologist, but then is the author of this post a climatologist? For that matter how many of the folks that contribute to IPCC reports are climatologists? It is my understanding that climate science involves many disaplines: chemistry, biology, computer modeling, statistics, economic impacts, and the list goes on. Personally, I'm sitting on the fence and I just want to inform myself of the simple truth, whatever that may be. But it's hard when there are two sets of data: one backing the warmist case and the other backing the skeptic's case. Both camps accuse the other of deception or being duped. So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not?
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Fair comments in the main, but it comes down more to political realities.
Clearly carbon taxes or cap and trade 'could' be applied to the climate issue and work in a technical sense, (but that you would still need other measures with both). Cap and trade was used successfully to resolve the ozone problem. Consumption taxes have worked to help get rates of tobacco smoking down and pay for the damages in my country of NZ. The climate problem is a consumption and energy substitution problem.
However its confoundingly complicated. Carbon taxes work best short term, cap and trade long term as below:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade
However this could possibly be resolved. While a carbon tax sets a price and not a limit on quantities, quantities can be monitored over time and the tax adjusted surely?.
The issue is which is most appropriate approach for the climate problem? Perhaps it partly comes down to "political acceptability". While the article is right that people dont like taxes, they dont like cap and trade schemes either, because they are opaque and look like a form of crony capitalism that favours the corporate sector. They might not be, but the perception is there among some of the general public posting comments in the media.
And the political difficulty of selling a carbon tax can be mitigated with a carbon fee and dividend scheme that uses different terminology and softens the blow with the dividend component. Technically cap and trade could return money to the public but It becomes a little more complex to explain to the public how it is all working.
-
AEBanner at 06:10 AM on 27 February 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Greenhouse Gas Theory does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Attempts have been made to discredit the GHG theory by claiming that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and so the theory cannot be valid. I have seen some rebuttals on this site, but I was not convinced; so I now offer my own approach which I hope will be helpful.
The claims of violation are based on the idea that heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hotter one. In general, with heat transfer by conduction and convection, this idea is very true. But the Second Law does not actually state that idea. In fact, it deals with another property of the system, known as entropy, which is the degree of disorder of the system. If the system is very “tidy”, the disorder is small, and so is the entropy. Great “untidiness” means high entropy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system will increase.
It does not mention Heat.In the case of heat transfer, it is readily seen that the Law is obeyed by conduction and convection between objects in contact. Higher temperatures mean that the atoms and molecules are moving/vibrating more rapidly and to a greater extent than at colder temperatures, and so have high entropy. Some of the greater movements in the hot object can be passed into the cold object, so increasing the overall degree of disorder, or entropy, of the system. But, the reverse cannot happen, according to the Law, because the colder object has smaller entropy.
Therefore, heat can flow from hot to cold, but not from cold to hot. And it is only for conduction and convection transfer.
This leaves us to consider heat transfer by radiation.
This is the method by which heat is claimed to flow, according to the GHG theory, from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. But the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth’s surface, so how can this happen? Does it not violate the Second Law? And this is the big problem the GHG theory has to overcome.Not a problem. Consider photons of infrared energy emitted downwards from carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. These are neat little wave-packets of electromagnetic energy, and have no charge. Very neat and tidy. The entropy involved is small because they are not continually in vibrational contact with each other, as are the atoms in a solid, or the molecules in a gas. Once emitted, they will continue in their motion until they are absorbed by the Earth’s surface, (although some may collide with molecules in the air). Upon absorption, the energy given to the surface atoms and molecules causes them to increase vibration and movement, and so the entropy, the degree of disorder, increases. OK, and the surface gains energy and so the temperature rises.
The entropy increases. This is in agreement with the Second Law. No violation, but the temperature of the surface of the Earth also increases. This is what the GHG theory says.
-
william5331 at 05:59 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Individual action is great and puts us in the proper frame of mind but the heavy lifting can only be done by politicians. No they don't have to actually do anything. They just have to set the ground rules so that it happens naturally. Such measures as taking off all government subsidies on fossil fuel and transfering them to renewables comes to mind but there are many other similar measures which would result in a rapid and smooth transition away from measures that add GHG to the atmosphere. But as usual, this will not happen if the vested interests are still allowed to finance politicians. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. The one necessary measure to get to this situation is obvious.
-
nigelj at 05:58 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Nick Palmer @6, I agree the concept of free speech is being abused to justify spreading fake news, lies and deceit. I dont think the notion of free speech was ever meant to encourage this. Fake news and a lack of agreed basic facts is really dangerous for society for obvious reasons. It will undermine everything including on both sides of politics. There will be no winners out of this.
Free speech is really about the right to express opinions and spread information freely without fear of legal retribution or violence, but is not open ended. For example society has all sorts of limits on free speech such as defamation law, time and place restrictions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
The question is how to treat "dissinformation". Personally I would like to see people who spread serious dissinformation, particularly climate denialists thrown in jail, or fined or something, but it would be hard for central government to legislate against this missinformation as it would be hard to define and expensive for them to enforce themselves, but I notice that the social media have been shamed into removing some of the dissinformation and this public pressure is good. The more public pressure the better.
Some of the things the Trump administration have done look like blatant attempts by them to muzzle free speech. Pages disappearing from climate websites, etc.
I feel free speech is a right, and with rights come unspoken responsibiliites to be honest and upfront and have good motives. As Google says dont be evil.
-
stevestory at 05:56 AM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
I read the nearly 200 myths first to see if the subject was addressed, but I didn't see it. On several discussion boards I've seen people, usually conservatives, respond to global warming with nuclear power nuclear power nuclear power. I have a physics background, so I was able to spend 30 minutes putting together a quick explanation of why nuclear power is not a solution to global warming, because of the lead time for building new plants, the number of new plants that would be needed, the problems with waste, the expense of decommissioning, etc etc. But I was wondering if anybody knew of a comprehensive explanation that addresses all the considerations about why nuclear power is an inadequate response to global warming, so I could just link to that instead of having to reargue it each time.
Steve
Moderator Response:[PS] Some nuclear power proponents coming here have been asked to write up an article (which would need to be reviewed) putting the case, and backed by peer-reviewed literature. So far havent had any takers. Abbot 2011 does not seem to have an adequate reply from the nuclear industry but maybe there is one now. Does it fit your requirements? The main problem nuclear power has is convincing investors that it is a good deal.
-
JWRebel at 05:14 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the politics and optics are important. A carbon tax with and accompanying per capita carbon dividend which leverages "market forces" is a lot easier to sell and actually get done. By taxing embedded carbon in imports, you can get around one of the major objections (international competitiveness).
Of course we also need to encourage research (we do that with public means already for many things), and redirecting direct fossil fuel subsidies provides hundreds of billions of runway for strategic public programs.
-
Nick Palmer at 04:14 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
I have to say I think certainot @3 raises a good point. Is it just me or do others also think that the first amendment to the US constitution - the 'free speech one' - which I trust was originally brought in to allow honesty and truth and genuine information to be spread and not crushed by darker forces - is increasingly being abused to spread deceit, delusion and disinformation - in short, bad actor propaganda?
I'm old enough to remember those times when people fought, and occasionally died, for the right to 'speak truth to power' without being stamped upon. I venture that literally none of those heroes went out to fight their good fight with the aim of bolstering indiviuals and organisations who lie and deceive and mislead and generally muddy the waters in the public arena -
AEBanner at 01:13 AM on 27 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Thank you again, MA Roger and Eclectic, for your help. Very interesting.
eddieb
-
MA Rodger at 19:37 PM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
eddieb @138,
To address your puzzlement directly, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with albedo to reduce insolation accounted for - this does produce the 255K a global temperature. By adding the emissivity term at the value you use, the result is 288K, the average temperature of the global surface, rather than the effective temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude which emits energy to space. I think you will find that the value for emissivity you use, 0.612, is derived and used as an expression of the 33K GHG effect and is not a measured value.
The use of the emissivity term in Stefan-Boltzmann for use in a climate model is fraught will difficulty. The added complexity is not worth the effort, not least because emissivity considerations will be heavily wavelength-dependent and absorbivity (involving reflectivity/transperancy) also enters the mix. I would be happy to explain these difficulties further, but it is a dead-end in global climate modeling without entering the very-complex.
-
BaerbelW at 15:16 PM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
certainot @3
Have you tried contacting groups which regularly dig into stuff like this? I'm thinking for example of Desmog and/or Inside Climate News. They might be interested in checking this out if you dropped them a note.
You could try via their contact-forms:
https://www.desmogblog.com/contact_us -
Eclectic at 10:21 AM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Eddieb @138 ,
I'm not sure how your earlier comments came through to this thread, but things may as well stay here (unless the moderators wish to move it to Myth #65 or elsewhere). The listing of Climate Myths, on top left corner of every page, is numerical (for convenience of reference by readers) . . . but once you click on a Myth, and arrive at the thread, there's unfortunately no Number readily visible, to confirm that you have arrived at the correct destination.
Eddieb, it sounds like you would be aiming to get into the ground floor of self-education about "greenhouse" & related physics. It is not an intuitively obvious effect, and you need to learn and carefully think your way through the physical mechanisms involved (which concern the radiative physics of the "radiatively active gasses" ~ which is not at all like in a garden greenhouse, where the warming effect comes primarily from reduction of convective heat loss).
The Earth gains heat from solar radiation (of course!) and loses almost-precisely the same heat flux outwards into space, in the form of infra-red radiation (from the radiatively active gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2, O3, etcetera). As very rough figures to remember, the outwards IR heat loss is : 60% from H2O; 30% from CO2, and 10% from the minor gasses.
I gather you are already somewhat aware of these actions, and the SB radiative formula. I am not clear where your uncertainty lies. Perhaps you are not separating the IR radiation from the Earth's surface . . . from the IR radiation from the upper atmosphere where the heat flux actually leaves the planet. Please excuse my usage of words like flux and heat and radiation and energy ~ in common parlance these are jumbled together and used rather unrigorously : but the underlying meanings are obvious enough when you think about the context.
Chase up the widely-known energy flux cartoon by Trenberth et al. It shows the influxes, outfluxes, reflectances, convections, H2O-phase-changes, back-radiations etc.
Commonly, scientists talk about the planetary heat loss as occurring at Top Of Atmosphere [ TOA ] but the TOA outwards flux is not happening at a narrow precise altitude (e.g. 6023 meters or whatever). It is happening at a band of altitude, varying with latitude and season etc., and is happening at a different band for H2O, a different band for CO2, a different band for CH4, and so on.
Between the solid surface and the TOA, is where the "greenhouse" effect occurs. I could give you a neat analogy with football players doing running exercises . . . but my post here is already rather too long.
Have a look at some of the eye-catching Climate Myths, which are great for doing some piece-meal self-education on climate science.
If you wish to "relax" while gaining info, then I recommend the Youtube videos by Potholer54. There are a couple of dozen or so of them [and a separate series debunking Anti-Evolution]. Potholer54 is a science journalist, who presents his info as based not on opinion by Talking Heads & Propagandists , but based on the actual science demonstrated in peer-reviewed papers from reputable science journals. His videos (usually about 10 minutes long) educate you somewhat indirectly, by meticulously debunking all the nonsenses coming from "the usual suspects" such as Moncton, Ball, Youtuber pundits, and even Al Gore too. Debunking, with listed references so you can check yourself on what he himself has said ~ and check on the misinformation / propaganda / downright deliberate porkies spouted by the anti-AGW brigade.
I recommend Potholer54, because I believe it is likely you will find his videos informative and vastly amusing in their humorous style. Entertainment +++
-
RedBaron at 06:52 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
I like the way they distinguish between individual change and systemic change in this video. However, the dietary advice given in this video is counter productive... really for the reasons given in the video itself actually.
In reality it is the production methods used for all our foods that make them either carbon sources or sinks and to what degree. So in this case Miriam is correct. It is a structural problem that the individual consumer's choices have very little effect improving.
Except that's not all there is to it. A person who doesn't eat meat can't use their power of consumer choice to change the way meat is raised. You are no longer a customer, and the meat industry no longer cares what your preferences would be. You don't eat meat, so therefor your opinion on how that food is raised no longer matters. It's a pity, but it is a fact of life.
But someone who boycotts meat raised in a way that is a carbon source and instead eats only meat produced in a way that makes it a carbon sink, when multiplied many times over, will ultimately cause a one business model to be more successful than the other. The same goes for local organic fruit and vegetable foods too. As one business model becomes more popular and profitable, the producers will change their production models to fill this consumer demand. Again, it is consumer demand they will ultimately meet. If you are no longer a consumer of their product, there is no consumer demand to meet.
This is how individual action repeated enough times can force systemic changes.
-
certainot at 06:01 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Here is a suggestion for EASY structural change in the US - the 88 major universities listed at republiconradio.org help Republicans deny, spread misinformation, and obstruct action on global warming on the local and national level by broadcasting sports on 260 Rush Limbaugh talk radio stations. Those stations intimidate Republican politicians and scientists in media who would suggest global warming is real. They also help elect deniers.
One major reason the US is so far behind is Republican talk radio. There are several hundred talk show hosts on 1200 to 1500 talk radio stations who would likely lose their jobs if they didn't deny global warming or at the very least attack green energy initiatives in their own communities by lying about job loss, etc. They reach 50 mil a week as a well-protected 20-1 monopoly.
600 of those stations, including some of the loudest AM stations in the country, are headlined by the loudest and most powerful voice in Republican politics the last 30 years, Rush Limbaugh. All Republican talkers have to follow his lead. When the East Anglia emails were hacked by the Russians and taken out of context he spent a week 3 hrs/day calling them proof that climate change was a hoax. That ensured that no Republican and even some conservative Democrats could support Obama at Copenhagen a week later. He was calling the scientists 'traitors' and some got death threats. He and Trump still cite the East Anglia emails as 'hoax' proof. Some have suggested he has unknowingly been used by Putin on this and other issues.
By broadcasting sports on those 260 stations, 88 universities (at least) help the stations attract advertisers and community credibility.
Very few environmentalists, students, faculty at those 88 universities and in those communities listen to Republican talk radio. Most unaware of the associations or the significance and the part their universities are playing in supporting denial and undermining their activism and concern.
All those universities are appropriate places to complain/protest until they begin looking for non-denying apolitical alternatives to broadcast sports on.
When one university does the right thing others will follow.
-
nigelj at 05:33 AM on 26 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
I read an article called regenerative agriculture on wikipedia last year. Quite an eye opener. One system, many benefits.
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Obviously we need both individual action, systemic change and government action. But lets look at it more specifically. Individuals can reduce meat consumption, and there are many reasons to do this. Governments cannot do much about this issue, other than education perhaps.
Most individuals might be reluctant to buy electric cars and solar panels etc until they are affordable and perhaps subsidised by government, or alternatively they are impelled to make changes by a carbon fee and dividend. People are locked into an economic system of debt and credit cards where they live almost week to week so finding extra money is not easy. Savings are zilch. We want people to have noble environmental values that take precedence but realism is also needed.
Bottom line: make some changes in your personal lives, even easy ones like reducing meat consumption and buying smaller cars, and lobby politicians hard on the climate issue. If enough people do this they will be forced to take notice.
-
nigelj at 05:12 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Thought provoking related article : Mitigating Climate Disaster Will Require Both Systemic and Lifestyle Changes.
-
william5331 at 03:59 AM on 26 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
Organic farming, if only practiced to satisfy the 'letter of the law' is not the answer. Read Growing a Revolution by Montgomery and/or The Third Plate by Barber for a better way, which is actually what we would all think of when we hear the term Organic Farming.
-
AEBanner at 01:33 AM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
As suggested, I am transferring comments from New Research to Climate Myth #65
Thank you MA Rodger and Eclectic for your help, but I am puzzled how the GHG effect for increasing Earth's surface temperature by 33 deg C ties in with Stefan-Boltzmann simple radiation calculations.
If we take the measured values of 0.297 and 0.612 for the Earth's albedo and emissivity respectively, and 342 Watts per square metre incoming energy from the sun, then we find energy balance at 288.5 K. Very good. This without mention of GHG effect. So I'm puzzled.
Moderator Response:[PS] You are missing quite a few important details - starting with albedo.
-
RedBaron at 01:19 AM on 26 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
@8 MA Rodger
Here is evidence from the past of this ecosystem function:
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Gregory J. Retallack DOI: 10.1086/320791
And here is a review of how we can apply the paleo record of this ecosystem function to modern times and near future AGW mitigation.
Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future
Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001
And here is empirical evidence of carbon sequestration rates in the field under various agricultural techniques and systems. A careful examination of the evidence with an understanding of how the LCP functions makes it very clear which systems use the LCP and why the difference in rates seen. It also confirms that the average sequestration rate of ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr holds true in environments tested around the world.
Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change
Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A
Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis
Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming
Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Matthias Haeni, Colin Skinner, Andreas Fliessbach, Nina Buchmann, Paul Mäder, Matthias Stolze, Pete Smith, Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, and Urs Niggli doi/10.1073/pnas.1209429109
Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security
Rattan Lal doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8
The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America
W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009
Some of these have paywalls, so if you have difficulty getting past them, message me for a private copy for personal use only.
@9 Philippe Chantreau The best I have for Dr Christine Jones is a short CV I posted here a while back: Christine Jones - short CV
-
AEBanner at 00:56 AM on 26 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
Thank you MA Rodger and Eclectic for your help.
As suggested, I am transferring to Climate Myth #65
-
MA Rodger at 23:11 PM on 25 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
eddieb @1,
There is a paper that models what would happen if all the long-lived GHGs were suddenly taken from the atmosphere - Lacis et al (2010) shows the surface temperature dropping fron +14ºC to -21ºC in 50 years. It hadn't stopped reacting by that time so the eventual temperature would be lower still.
While this is no more than facinating stuff and the eventual global temperature would rely not on GHGs but on things like how shiny the frozen oceans turn out to be (although through the eons the water would probably be transported poleward so 'frozen oceans' would be a poor description), it does demonstrate that the current GHG effect is +33ºC or there abouts.
Prev 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 Next
