Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 Next
Comments 15201 to 15250:
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 22 March 2018Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?
jef @3
You make a fair point that poor countries are unlikely to have the same lifestyles as middle class western countries given resource constraints, but surely they should at least try, and can reasonably improve their condition? Especially with basic things like healthcare.
The real issue is choices that poor countries make for what energy development they do want and can afford. They have a choice of fossil fuels and renewable energy. It's that simple.
Fossil fuels are damaging the atmosphere and are a finite resource that will run out in 50 - 100 years. Renewable energy is low emissions, and is now cost competitive with fossil fuels, and it uses metals that can at least be recycled, and metals can be recycled indefinitely without degradation. There will be waste in the process, but we can minimse this, and ultimately all humanity can do is prolong its technological future as long as it can.
So the right choice should be obvious, and its not fossil fuels.
-
shastatodd at 01:02 AM on 22 March 2018Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?
agree jef... i get so tired of supposed intelligent human yeast (in nonsense articles like this), worshiping the god to technology as if it can mitigate finite planet realities, while we breed like mad and continue our massive consumption, non-negotiable lifestyles.
"renewable" energy isn’t... unless we are referring to waterwheels, windmills and photosynthesis, which cannot support 7.6 billion rapacious animals.
-
jef12506 at 00:22 AM on 22 March 2018Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?
Painfully naive. What made the developed world what it is was enormous, cheap almost free net energy profit (over 100 to 1) and abundant, easy to find, cheap almost free natural resources lying about ready to be gathered and exploited. That and large armies going around the world taking other peoples stuff (and the people too)and keeping them from using it for themselves.
Now energy is 10 to 1 or less, natural resources are very difficult to find and produce, and its not quite as PC to use slave labor. The only reason the developed world has not collapsed due to this development is the fact that we have all of the massive infrastructure already in place although it is crumbling and not easily maintained and cost too much for anyone to propose doing so.
Telling the developing world that they can live like we do on so called “renewable” energy is ignorant of the realities of human history. The one and only way it is possible is if the developed world pays for all of the infrastructure and development for them with our money and using our net energy to accomplish it. In truth we owe this to them for all we have done to them over the centuries but this will never happen.
The world can not afford to operate on low net energy and is collapsing due to the additional expense of depletion of natural resources and biosphere degradation. Those in charge understand that the future was going to be more expensive so they cut loose all constraints of finance in the hopes that everyone would get rich enough to afford it but debt is not energy or anything real for that matter.
-
Ping34 at 13:42 PM on 21 March 2018CO2 limits will hurt the poor
I agree with skept.fr's comment (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm#70007) that the article itself does not answer the argument of how the poor would be affect by CO2 limit. The article does not address how the laws which limit the usage of CO2 will affect the poor; it only tells us about the effect that climate change would cause to the specific parts of the world.
-
michael sweet at 12:08 PM on 21 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Norrism2,
The Vox article only discusses renewable electricity. The Jacobson articles and Connolly's Smart Energy Europe discuss 100% of all power used. Connolly, which I started referring you to because you do not like Jacobson, found that as more of the economy is converted to electricity it is possible to get much greater penetration of wind and solar. They discuss the problems that are discussed in the Vox article. If you read the references I give you than the Vox discussion would not be news.
Connolly found that as more sectors of the economy become electrified more renewable energy can be used. They propose using electrofuels (the conversion of CO2 into methane or other carbon fuels using renewable energy) to supply the storage energy. Jacobson's plan is similar using hydrogen instead of electrofuels.
In 100 years oil, coal and gas will run out. Surely you do not think civilization will collapse then. We all expect this problem to be solved. Why don't we just solve it now since it has to be done in the end?
The Vox article appears to try to preserve as much of the current system as possible for political reasons. As more and more renewable energy is built it will not be economic to preserve fossil fuels. Currently nuclear and coal are no longer economic. Once a proper carbon fee is implemented all renewable will become the cheapest option (or possibly earlier, solar is cheaper than gas in some places now).
-
RedBaron at 08:12 AM on 21 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
@11 Liberator,
Yes, there are several flaws in the paper you posted. Primarily the mistake being made is conflating fixed carbon with sequestered carbon. All plants fix carbon. Trees do in fact have more biomass. However this is not the same as sequestering carbon out of the rapidly cycling short carbon cycle and entering the long term carbon cycle (geological time frames of stability) Grasses have less biomass than trees but higher efficiency rate of photosynthesis. Where does all that extra products of photosynthesis end up? Deep in the soil where a much higher % is SEQUESTERED into deep geological time through soil building.
Two great papers by Dr Gregory J. Retallack regarding this ecosystem function of the grasslands compared to forests which cycle carbon relatively rapidly. (through fire and decay)
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Global Cooling by Grassland
Soils of the Geological Past
and Near FutureDr Christine Jones ran multiple 10 year CSIRO case studies on the rate at which properly managed grasslands and agricultural land can sequester CO2 into the soil. The average measured sequestration rate over 10 years was 5-20 tonnes CO2/ha/yr (yes there were even higher in some cases which were thrown out as outliers.)[1]
A couple good layman's explanations of Dr Jones' work can be found here:
Why pasture cropping is such a Big Deal
Technical Brief: The Liquid Carbon Pathway
Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under
There is confirming evidence all over the world, this is not just a phenomenon of Australia.
Here is just one confirming increases of grasslands' sequestration rates simply by changing management strategies in Texas. Falls right in the middle of the ranges Dr Jones found.
I already posted the study from Idaho showing increased soil moisture levels associated with proper grassland management.
Here is another layman's explanation of how it works:
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change
Here is a couple white papers for policy makers, one written by me, the other by Dr Richard Teague:
RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING -
nigelj at 07:06 AM on 21 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Norris @12, yes the Vox article and interview is definitely useful. I was aware of all these issues in general terms, but not all the details.
I see the issue this way fwiw. Jacobsen thinks a 100% renewable grid is already practically economically feasible, and for all I know he may be right.However put that aside for now as one view ( a very good view).
The article appeared to say an 80% renewable grid is feasible practically and economically at roughly current prices and state of knowledge. Imho thats enough to make large inroads into addressing the climate issue, even if it isn't perfect, and I feel that is sufficient justification to proceed. And its not unreasonable to assume the economics and practical options on both supply and storage will improve towards 100% over time. It's enough to enable society to confidently embrace renewables.
While gas fired plant is not ideal, if it comprises just 10 - 20% of peaking supply, it may at that level of use be feasible to bury the CO2 emissions underground. Are you smiling? I suspect you are smiling at least a little.
I honestly think the nuclear option is in the hands of the engineers. They need to come up with new alternatives that are quicker to build and less reliant on difficult to access materials. The safety issue is complex, because you can argue logically that even with accidents nuclear energy causes fewer deaths "per capita" overall than coal for example and perhaps even some formms of renewable energy. However its a public perception issue of the dangers, and the only workable answer might be that the nuclear industry need to somehow get this across to the public, and also come up with safer systems to improve confidence and public acceptance.
I don't care if significant parts of the solar or wind supply are "curtailed" given its cheap power, and this is done already with conventional energy supplies.
Anyway it was indeed an interesting article.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:00 AM on 21 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
NorrisM@12,
The undeniable requirement is for the current generation to stop creating more challenges, costs and harm for future generations, or at least limit impacts to a 2.0 C increase of global averrage surface temperature. Nobody has offered up any substantial justified new information to change that robustly established emergent truth, and it is highly unlikely that anyone ever will.
One question comes to mind. If the USA will 'end up at' 80% renewable and 20% natural gas power supply, if that is 'the best that can be done', what happens to the USA after the natural gas is done?
Setting aside that thorny questionable future, to achieve the required corrections of what has developed to date all of the richest clearly need to be 'compelled/motivated to responsibly lead the required correction, at their expense'. That means the richest redirecting their efforts and investment into sustainable activities, even if it means a perceived loss of personal wealth because unsustainable perceptioins are just that - unsustainable. That means none of the richest making a penny from the activities related to the 20% burning of natural gas. It also means the richest paying for the non-profitable removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at the rate required to neutralize the impacts of the burning of natural gas, plus the rate to keep the temperature impact of increasing CO2 to 2.0 C and bring it back down to 1.5 C.
That is understandably what is required. Eventually getting to 20% burning of fossil fuels for power, and claiming that a slow creep towards that objective is the 'best that can be done', is only proof that the reluctant among the richest do not deserve their developed perceptions of wealth or power.
-
nigelj at 06:02 AM on 21 March 2018Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?
Excellent presentation. It should also be said that solar and wind power are now the same cost as coal in many places or close to it, and electric cars are becoming very cost competitive with petrol cars.
Centralised fossil fuel grids make almost no sense in places like Africa, which has very widely dispersed rural communities. Local solar power is ideal, and Africa also has good coastal wind power potential. The economist.com did an excellent in depth article on this.
Fossil fuels use together with high levels of population growth and resource use are not sustainable on a finite planet. Humanity would be wise to obviate this by changing its values from quantity of life to quality of life and slower rates of growth. We either do this consciously, or it will be forced on humanity painfully by resource limits and other problems.
The answers are slower and more sustainable forms of economic growth and where everyone benefits from growth, smaller populations ultimately, new forms of energy, leisure time that is less wasteful of resources, smaller houses (within reason) sustainable communities, and businesses with business goals operating alonside envionmental goals, and not in antagonistic conflict.
-
NorrisM at 05:39 AM on 21 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
michael sweet and nigelj,
I cannot remember on which thread we were discussing how much of the US energy needs could be supplied by wind and solar power. My understanding is that the most recently weekly news site is the preferred location.
Here is an interview with Paul Denholm, a lead researcher at National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), who expresses the opinion to the interviewer David Roberts at Vox.com that "around the coffee table" their general estimate is that wind and solar can provide 80% with the balance probably being supplied by natural gas (he does not think existing US nuclear is safe enough to provide backup variable power). NREL (with Denholm as the lead) provided the modelling to CAISO, the operator of the California energy grid, regarding what capabilities wind and solar power could provide, so this view comes with some experience.
I think both of you will find it interesting. Hope this meets the moderator's test of relevance for this website. :)
PS Tried to post the url at this location rather that at the top but unsuccessfully.
Moderator Response:[DB] Link shortened
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:51 AM on 21 March 2018Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?
Great presentation of the right understanding of development for the benefit of the less fortunate.
There are additional related points, but more comprehensive raising of awareness and better understanding always suffers when the requirement is brevity and simplicity of message delivery. And today, 9 minutes is a longer message than many people would care to receive.
However, the following are important related points/questions.What is the sustainable portion of the GDP? Only the sustainable portion can be counted on to maintain value into the future. Any speculation that unsustainable GDP activity will continue or increase is unjustified. If unsustainable activity continues to increase in value into the future, that only means a more massive future correction/bubble burst. This is particularly true of fossil fuel burning and climate change. The resistance to correct the unsustainable over-development creates an even bigger and more rapid required correction in the future, combined with creating even more damaging future climate change consequences.
What is the proof that burning fossil fuels is the reason for helpful human developments? It can be argued that the most helpful human developments would have developed even if we were not burning so much fossil fuels. It could also be argued that if restrictions or, or costs for, burning fossil fuels had been in place earlier even more sustainable development would have already occurred. What can be seen to be going on regarding the corrections of understanding and activity that climate science has developed is efforts to delay the corrective helpful developments (actions to unjustifiably protect developed perceptions of superiority and opportunity based on getting away with understandable unsustainable and harmful activity - including claiming that good things were developed because of the burning of fossil fuels). As an example: What benefit for future humanity is obtained by people being able to race around on water, land, or in the wilderness by burning fossil fuels? Sure. Its Faster and fun and profitable. But speed, fun and profitability that harms others should not be considered to be acceptable, not even if a tax is collected from those doing it, especially if the activity is fundamentally unsustainable.
What should 'all of the already most fortunate' be doing (not just the ones who care)? Leading the required correction by:
- minimizing their energy consumption and meaningfully neutralizing any CO2 emissions 9or other harms) their activities create - Leading by example to a zero-carbon (zero-harm) future.
- helping the less fortunate to most rapidly sustainable improve their life circumstances. That may mean allowing less fortunate people to benefit from fossil fuel burning in a transition of development to zero-carbon living. It would mean not allowing any already more fortunate people to gain further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels.
- effectively raising awareness and understanding of the emergent truth of climate science. What was understood in the 1980s was already a robust emergent truth (a sustainable understanding). Research and increased understanding since then has strengthened that emergent truth, improved its sustainability without significant modification of the fundamental truth of the matter.
All of that is encapsulated by the Sustainable Development Goals, which are also a robust collection of emergent truths (a sustainable understanding of Good Objectives). Achieving all of the SDGs is the Right thing for everybody to want to help become the future reality for humanity. Anyone with other Interests harmful to achieving the SDGs needs to be better educated and corrected, unless they can provide actual evidence that significantly contradicts the robust developed basis for the emergent truths.
-
Swayseeker at 22:17 PM on 20 March 2018John Kelly shut down Pruitt’s climate denial ‘red team,’ but they have a Plan B
Above talks about ocean surface temperatures rising. This is leading to more hurricanes and OceanTherm AS wants to move cold ocean to the top of the ocean using air bubbles to prevent these hurricanes. Here is an idea. Preventing hurricanes, using floating heat pumps to pump heat from the ocean surface to the air, to cause clouds and convectional rain: The formation of rain moves heat from the surface to higher up, because evaporation occurs at the surface (making it colder) and condensation occurs higher up where clouds form (releasing heat). The clouds can then radiate heat to space and reflect solar energy that would have warmed the ocean. So have floating heat pumps that extract heat from the ocean surface and put the heat into the air. The heated air will rise causing clouds and convectional rain. The rain will cool the ocean surface having come from a cool region high up.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive repetition snipped. Excesive repetition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
MA Rodger at 21:52 PM on 20 March 2018How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
kentobin64 @102,
The Clive Best post you (or your friend) linked to is mathematically not un-reasonable but when it sets out the implications of that mathematics it persents wholly unreasonable language that is, in the words of Clive Best, "completely wrong!".
Firstly, the Clive Best post itself is addressing only CO2 forcing and itself has nothing to say on H2O.
Secondly, using a very simple model Best obtains a value for CO2 warming-without-feedbacks which is actually 50% higher that the present scientifically-accepted value (1.5ºC per doubling rather than 1.0ºC).
Thirdly, the post digresses and uses exceedingly poor language within its conclusions. Thus, it is well understood that CO2 forcing is constant with each doubling of concentration. This means that an extra Gt(CO2) added to a 550ppm atmosphere will provide only half the forcing of an extra Gt(C)2) added to a 275ppm atmosphere. Best describes this logarithmic CO2 effect as "Extra CO2 causes a declining radiative forcing with increasing concentration", a description which is not just exceedingly poorly phrased, it is actually plain wrong. It is not "declining radiative forcing" he describes but "declining additional radiative forcing." And it is this Clive Best error which your friend is wielding.
Fourthly, the throw-away comments on H2O warming appear to be simply denialist hand-waving. The point with H2O warming is that while H2O does warm the planet and does provide the largest contribution to the greenhouse effect, H2O requires the climate to be 'primed' by other warming agents to achieve that H2O warming. Essentially H2O is not a long-lived GHG. Thus, half of that Gt(C) of CO2 added (as the Airborne Fraction) to the atmosphere will still be there a thousand years hence and indeed ten-thousand years hence. The continued level of atmospheric CO2 is not particularly dependent on temperature and so not dependent on the warming provided by other GHGs etc. Conversely, an extra Gt(H2O) would be back in the rivers/oceans in days and into ice bergs within decades unless some other GHG is present to keep the atmosphere warm wich allows water to evapourate up into the atmosphere and so keep it re-charged with insulating H2O.
-
libertador at 21:18 PM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
@Red Baron:
Can you link some evidence to estimate the relation of grasslands and forests?
I do not have much knowledge on the issue, but found this source from the australian government, which disagrees with your claim:
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/
It might be the case, that this depends upon the special australian ecosystems.
-
Eclectic at 20:38 PM on 20 March 2018How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
Kentobin64 @ #102 , you are wasting your time looking at the clivebest blog. ( Indeed, you are wasting your time discussing climate matters with your science-denier "friend". Denialists are impervious to facts and impervious to rational logic — it all derives from their determined use of Motivated Reasoning, to support their strange subconscious bias. Ken, you should only bother to engage with them, if you have some idle time and desire that sort of sport. )
Clive Best is/was a physicist, I gather, and it shows in his display of various formulae and graphic charts. He has some "overly simplistic" ideas about the effects of cloud cover. He says that H2O vapor has 5 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 . . . while elsewhere promoting the idea that (water) gives a negative feedback on global warming and so there cannot be much actual AGW from higher CO2 levels. He uses the paradigm : Warmer oceans --> more water vapour --> more rain --> reduced water vapour --> reduced greenhouse effect --> negative feedback on warming. Go figure these contradictions, if you can !
Ken , check out the respected website ATTP [And Then There's Physics] where you will find at least a couple of articles about CliveBest (and commentary column discussions including posts by Best himself). Also mentioning Best's use of 35-year-old climate models.
~ Possibly the most apt comment at ATTP was by "Dikranmarsupial" (a frequent poster here at SkS in earlier years) :-
"The frequency with which climate blogs present overly simplistic analysis, without first bothering to do their homework and find out what scientists working on the problem have actually done already, is profoundly disappointing."
In short, Ken, the good Dr Best is just one more example of those many dozens of blog writers [not climate scientific paper authors] who believe that they themselves are right and all the tens of thousands of actual climate scientists are quite wrong. You can call them "eccentric" or "crackpot" or "crazy" . . . or whatever . . . but essentially they are deluded or are actively deluding themselves, owing to their strange psychological makeup.
Ken , don't waste your own valuable time on them — however many formulae or graphs they wave in the air. They talk big but turn "a willful blind eye" on the reality around them.
-
nigelj at 16:39 PM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Red Baron @8, oh I thought you were referring to me. Ok, I understand now.
-
nigelj at 16:35 PM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Red Baron @8 yes I said that about forests, but I wasn't promoting trees as such. Like I said my mind was on pumps and rain and I mentioned forests only because the other writer did!
I do agree grasslands appear to be the better carbon sink overall than trees from the weight of evidence. I think grasslands in combination with no till agriculture makes sense practically, because it's reasonably permanent, where tree planting is already under constant threat from logging companies, and this will not get less given population pressure.
However, some land will not suit grazing, and may be better planted in trees. More tree planting is possible as hedgerows and shelter belts, and in urban areas, and as fruit trees combined with crops (theres a term for this but I have forgotten).
I tend to look at things holistically, and in terms of connections and mutually supportive possibilities.
-
RedBaron at 15:59 PM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
@ Nigelj
My initial comment was directed at this quote, "The only solution seems to be to take carbon dioxide out with massive rain enhancement and growing of trees, etc, in deserts." It wasn't even made by you. Not sure why you in particular got offended.
It is still the grasslands that will do the work of sequestering carbon. That is in particular one major ecosystem function of a grassland. Forests have important ecosystem functions too, just not that one in particular.
C4 grasses are double the efficiency at photosynthesis, then after fixing double the rate of CO2, they then sequester many many times more of that larger quantity of carbon long term in the soil.
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, please specify the person/comment that you are reponding to.
-
Lawrence B. Nadeau at 15:54 PM on 20 March 2018We're heading into an ice age
Correction: The Martsolf comment is #370.
-
Lawrence B. Nadeau at 15:48 PM on 20 March 2018We're heading into an ice age
In relation to comment #70 of Dave Martsolf re Betty Friedon on the open arctic ocean. This is probably part of it. In 1960 two geologists (I am still searching for the paper) suggested a lake effect off the arctic ocean as the cause of the ice age. I have never had a reason to doubt this. There were some minor objections regarding water temperature, so the theory has been pretty much neglected since then. The actual cause of the ice age is due to the influx of water through the Bering Strait, gradually undermining the ice cover. When enough of the ocean is open and the temperature is right the lake effect dumps enormous amounts of snow over northern Canada. My guess is around three feet a day for about six months or about 540 feet per season. Most of this consolidates as ice. I majored in geology and have worked in astronomy. The various astronomical cycles may influence the exact shape of the temperature and CO2 curves, but they do not cause it. Global warming due to human intervention may accelerate, but does, not cause the ice age. The massive deposits of snow drop the arctic sea level so much that massive amounts of water are drawn in from the Atlantic and the Pacific. As the moisture is drawn off it leaves the salt behind, dropping the freezing point ever lower, making it increasingly difficult for the ocean to freeze over and stop the flow. Eventually, the flow from the Pacific is cut off as the sea level drops so low that it exposes the Bering land bridge. Since the lake effect continues, it accelerates the flow from the Atlantic . Eventually the Arctic Ocean starts to freeze from the Bering Strait until it refreezes to the east and the ice age ends. Then the ice melts very quickly as the temperature rapidly rises, and the cycle starts all over again. However, it takes many thousands of years before the arctic opens again. At first, I thought we had another 5000 years to go; then 500. And now it look like it could be 50. Indeed, we may have only a few years, if in fact it has not already begun. Again, global warming may accelerate the time of onset, but it does not cause it. The cause is not astronomical, but hydrological. The drop in sea level will quickly become evident. The decline in temperature and CO2 will be slow, with CO2 falling eventually to about 175 ppm, and temperature (at least in the northern hemisphere) dropping as much as 14 degrees F. There is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. In the end, sea level might fall as much as 650 feet. Even before the ice gets this far south the building ice dome will cause frigid temperatures as the air pours off of it. At its maximum extent, Canada will be almost entirely covered, as well as the northeast from St Louis along the Ohio River to Long Island. The southwest will be cooler and wetter, as will southern Europe. The Sahara will be like the Serengeti. Any place bordering on the ocean will find their coastlines greatly extended. Most of the Adriatic will be land.
Moderator Response:[JH] Because you have not provided appropriate documentation to support your extraordinary claims about how and why the climate system changes, your comment is sloganeering and has been snipped. Sloganeering is prohibiited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nigelj at 15:29 PM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
RedBaron @6, you are missing the point, and you know it. I was focusing on pumps and rain, as opposed to forests versus grasslands or whatever. Perhaps I should have said "vegetation".
I always try to raise awareness of the grasslands issue when I remember to, but that's your department and area of specialisation. Maybe this website could do an article on the issue at some stage. Thank's for the link.
-
kentobin64 at 12:50 PM on 20 March 2018How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
I am an avid defender of Climate Science. And debate the merits of the science with vigor. Today a friend asked me the following question: "H2O vapor is an even greater IR absorber but nobody's claiming H2O is a "pollutant" or clouds need to be eradicated. Are you aware CO2's IR absorption decreases as its concentration increases?"
I let my friend know this was a myth. Referencing the climate denial 101 video posted here and on Youtube here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8VXwa83FQ
He says I am wrong and sites this website here. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4265http%3A%2F%2Fclivebest.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D4265
I don't have the math skills or an understanding of the physics to refute my friends information. Can you please help me? Thank you in advance! Ken
-
RedBaron at 09:51 AM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Rainfall is exactly what we are talking about! You keep forgetting how this effects infiltration and holding of water!
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
Mitigates the effects of flooding too. Of course trees can do both too, but yet again much less effectively.
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Red Baron @4, while I support the idea of grasslands soil sinks, please stop telling me what you think I should be saying. The point at issue was rainfall, not an evaluation and exposition of ideal soil sinks.
I only have so much time to post comments and I can't deal with everything in one post. I dont mind criticism of my views at all, but if I'm going to be constantly nagged, told what to say, or personally criticised, I'm happy to not bother with this website at all.
-
RedBaron at 08:31 AM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Once again you have forgotten that it is the degraded grasslands rather than forests that sequester carbon long term in quantities sufficient to mitigate AGW.
Fix the grasslands and C4 photosynthesis is double the efficiency as C3 photosynthesis in trees. Furthermore, in temperate zones when trees lose their leaves many C3 grasses are still at work fixing carbon.
Fixing carbon is not the same as sequestering carbon though. It does no good if it returns right back into the atmosphere as CO2 during the decay process. Here again grasslands have the big advantage. Trees put their fixed carbon mostly into the leaves branches and woody trunk. All above ground and easily returned to the atmosphere durring rot. Grasslands instead put the majority of their fixed carbon deep into the soil where it is far less susceptible to decaying into CO2. So as much as 40% of the products of photosynthesis become sequestered into deep geological timeframes of thousands of years.
Grass starts by fixing as much as double then then sequesters an even greater % of that higher rate into the soil. There is no compareson.
Lastly, grasslands have a much lower albedo than forests. 3 strikes and you are out of here. Why all this effort talking about the impossible when the solution has already been known for decades? Doesn't fit into your preconceived agenda? Or what?
-
nigelj at 05:24 AM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Swayseeker @2, you claim that 400 pumps would lead to enough rain and enhanced plant growth to extract all the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. You have not provided any evidence. Neither have you as an alternative stated a lesser number for CO2 extraction (maybe 25% of emissions), and with any supporting evidence.
Your comments on water mist make sense more or less but don't answer this key question.
To extract all additional atmospheric carbon requires vast areas of new forestry plantations of about 25% of land area, according to experts who have looked into this issue. You want to grow these on land thats currently useless for anything, because they are arid, by increasing rainfall, so clearly you would need very substantial increased rainfall over millions of hectares.
Somehow I dont think 400 pumps will be sufficient for that task. Prove me wrong with maths.
-
Swayseeker at 02:07 AM on 20 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
Some parts are getting warmer and wetter, but I live in South Africa and it is getting warmer and drier in Cape Town. I also notice that gas and oil exploration are going ahead in grand style. The only solution seems to be to take carbon dioxide out with massive rain enhancement and growing of trees, etc, in deserts. One of my rain enhancement ideas is this and I have written to newspapers about it: I am proposing the use of floating spray pumps, operated by wave motion, to humidify air that would be blown ashore with sea breezes. Example for Cape Town: Say each pump costs R100 000 and they are placed 50 metres apart to form a 2000 m by 500 m grid (about 400 pumps). The total cost would be about R 40 000 000 (40 million Rands). This is a relatively small amount compared to the cost of the drought.
My reasoning is this: The sea (with a high emissivity of roughly 0.93) radiates about 400 W of heat energy per square metre if sea temperature is about 18 deg C. Often the sea temperature is a lot higher than the air above the sea at night. Now on clear nights this radiation can go straight through to space if it has wavelength between 8 and 14 microns (atmospheric window). However water in spray mist is not water vapour and it can absorb 8 to 14 micron energy and heat up, so you will get warm moist air if you use spray above the sea. About 37% of all radiated energy from the sea is energy with wavelength between 8 and 14 microns and water in mist captures this radiation very well because the absorption coefficient is around 1000 per cm (intensity of the radiation drops to 1% of the initial intensity within 0.046 mm of penetration of water). So we have extra heat to humidify and warm air if we use spray pumps.
Eddie Miller https://www.facebook.com/SwayseekerModerator Response:[JH] Excessive repetition including promoting personal website snipped. Excesive repetition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
jsmith at 12:35 PM on 19 March 2018There's no empirical evidence
There are a lot of dead links here that need to be fixed (e.g. Wang 2009, for which an archived copy can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100226065928/http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml)
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 19 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11
A warmer and wetter world will likely increase the decay of untreated or lightly treated building timber, due to more favourable conditions for fungal infections.
-
nigelj at 05:51 AM on 19 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
This is off topic, but is rather interesting, and deserves mention I feel given the circumstances. From MSN News: Steven Hawkings final research paper:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:55 AM on 19 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
As part of Reason 3 in "5 reasons the Arctic’s extremely warm winter should alarm you", the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent data is presented in 10-year averages, sort of.
The lines are for 1979-1990, 1991-2000, 2001-2010 and 2018 so far.
Science data presentation does not have to be confined to the decades of the Western year-date system.
Since the first year of the NSIDC data set is 1979, a better way to use the data to show the trend of 10-year averages would be 1979-1988, 1989-1998, 1999-2008, 2009-2017 (noted as a 9 year average) then 2018 so far.
The penchant for using 10 year averages only when a decade has ended leads to nonsense claims that 'we need to wait 10 more years to see if the 10-year trend is actually still happening'.
That type of claim making would say:
- Since the required correction would be to the disadvantage of many more fortunate people who have over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity based on benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels, let's wait until the 2020 data is in and verified before we make any serious efforts to correct what has developed
- Followed then by the recommendation that since it now appears that very rapid action is required even more detrimental to those perceiving themselves to be most fortunate, serious action should actually wait until the 2030 data is in,
- Followed by, OMG the required correction is now so dramatically detrimental to those perceived to be most fortunate that we really should wait until the 2040 data is in.
-
GeoffThomas at 18:16 PM on 18 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Thing about coal burning underground is something only someone involved in Biochar would immediately notice, the charcaol one makes to turn into Biochar has to be material burnt with minimum oxygen, otherwise you just create C02 and ash, but better results can be achieved if some water is included, as the high temperature carbon strips all the oxygen from any CO2, creating Carbon Monoxide, and also the Oxygen from the H2O, so creating Hydrogen and then by burning, CO, so the water provides the heat, paradoxically, then the hydrogen and CO travel up to the surface and are either combusted, or, in the case of the CO, react with the oxygen in the atmosphere to produce CO2. Not much heat generated anywhere except at the 'coal face' by burning the oxygen from the groundwater, which keeps the whole thing going. - hope to have helped.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:25 PM on 18 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
Oh how I wish people would throw Fahrenheit in the rubbish bin where it belongs and stick to Celsius. The older I get the more irritated I get with Fahrenheit. It's a pain in the arse.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:09 AM on 18 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
ImaginaryNumber @52 finally posts some specific claims that can be examined. I have downloaded Pagano et al (along with the supplementary material for the paper). I have not followed links to Crockford's blog posts - I will start from a position of assuming that ImaginaryNumber has provided an accurate summary of Crockford's arguments.
Let's look at the first claim:
"Crockford claims that in the spring of the year ringed seals have their birthing lairs on the ice, and that in good years they should be relatively easy for bears to raid. But Pagano's paper only mentioned eating adult or subadult ringed seals (for the healthy bears), or carcasses (for the unhealthy bears) — but no pups.[emphasis mine]
On the first page of Pagano et al, the paper says "...a solitary female bear on the spring sea ice would on average need to eat either one adult ringed seal, three subadult ringed seals, pr 19 newborn ringed seal pups every 10 to 12 days..." [emphasis mine]
On page 4, figure 4 shows feeding demands for polar bears. In fgure 4a, the first bar is labeled "Pups". In figure 4D, the second legend entry is labeled "Pup ringed seal".
In the supplemenatary material:
On page 3, we find " Nutritional demands were determined from the caloric value and digestibility of ringed seals in polar bears (55, 56) as ringed seals are the primary prey of female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea in the spring (57–59). Ringed seal pups were mean total (fat + protein) caloric values from pups < 1 month old, carcasses were mean caloric values of protein from subadult and adult ringed seals, and subadults and adult ringed seals were mean caloric values of fat. "
On page 6, in the caption for figure S1, we find " Figures show locations where bears were captured (green squares), recaptured (white squares), resting (red circles), walking (blue circles), exhibiting mixed behaviors (black circles), kill sites of seals (yellow asterisk), kill sites of seal pups (white crosses), scavenging sites of seal carcasses (green pluses), or scavenging sites of whale carcasses (yellow pluses)."
On page 7, in the caption for figure S2, we find " ...kills sites of seal pups (white crosses)..."
At this point, I think the claim that Pagano et al did not mention bears eating seal pups is, shall we diplomatically say, less than fully accurate. They considered them as an energy source, and they observed bears eating them.
Now, it may be that ImaginaryyNmber has not accurately summarized Crockford, or is reading into it something that is not there. I don't care which it is, and I don't care to pursue the rest of the so-called "criticisms". The first criticism is so egregiously wrong (to be less diplomatic) that I can only conclude one (or both) of two things:
- ImaginaryNumber is not a trustworthy source of critisicm of Pagano et al.
- Crockford is not a trustworthy source of critisicm of Pagano et al.
In either case, ImaginaryNumber is no longer worth listening to on this subject. No, this is not ad hominem. I am not saying "ImaginaryNumber is wrong because he can't be trusted", I am saying "ImaginaryNumber can't be trusted [on this subject] because he is wrong".
In comment 43, I linked to another SkS post. That post included a link to this paper on denialism. A quote from this paper is:
"The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
In ImaginaryNumber's case, he is drawing not on an isolated paper, but a blog criticism of one single paper.
-
Atc at 15:57 PM on 17 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Tom Dayton @105-108,
Thanks for the tip.
-
nigelj at 11:59 AM on 17 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Aleks @25
"Secondly, the increase of temperature can be explained by the release of heat into the atmosphere during combustion, without resorting to the theory of greenhouse effect."
It seems unlikely to me that slow burning coal though the permian would significantly raise global temperatures through heat of combustion. There just wouldn't be enough heat from convection etc to warm the huge volume of the atmosphere. Prove it otherwise with calculations.
We have an adequate explanation for the high temperatures during the permian from high CO2 concentrations, which you post noted at 2000 ppm which would acocunt for approximately 8 degrees.
This study is relevant and interesting and gives some numerical evidence that direct heat from the combustion of coal burning has little effect on global air temperatures as a whole.
"That’s the conclusion of a Carnegie Institution for Science study published Tuesday that shows two things: Emissions from burning a lump of coal or a gallon of gas has an effect on the climate 100,000 times greater than the heat given off by burning the fossil fuel itself."
-
Tom Dayton at 11:44 AM on 17 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc, you asked "If you guys can find the follow up paper to this, it would be much appreciated. This is dated 1999. It’s now 2018." There are two topics you asked about: detection of global warming, and attribution of warming to humans.
Regarding detection, see the post "Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?" Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane. That post has not been updated recently, so if you want more recent information, or more details, ask on that post, not this one.
Regarding attribution, read the post "The human fingerprint in global warming." Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then read the Advanced tabbed pane. If you want more details after that, read the IPCC's AR5 Working Group I's Chapter 10, "Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional." If you want to discuss those topics, post comments on that SkS thread, not this one.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:50 AM on 17 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc, you asked "How are the catastrophic predictions done?" Your question is ill-phrased. First, they are projections, not predictions. In climate change parlance, a prediction is an estimate of what will happen, but a projection is an estimate of the consequence if and only if a particular scenario happens. In particular for global warming due to increases in CO2 emissions by humans, there are multiple scenarios, each assuming a particular trajectory of change in CO2 emissions. In the most recent IPCC reports, each scenario is called a Representative Concentration Pathway. Read the SkS post "The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways" to learn about those.
Your second ill-phrasing is using the word "catastrophic" because that word is too all-encompassing. The reality is that the IPCC's most recent report (Fifth Assessment Report--AR5) has reports by its Working Group II (WGII), describing "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" that make projections about multiple, specific, concrete consequences, with probabilities, of both positive and negative consequences. I suggest that before you tackle that, you first read the SkS post "Positives and negatives of global warming"; read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the Denial101 video at the bottom, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced tabbed pane. Then tackle the IPCC Working Group II report.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:29 AM on 17 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc, you asked "What I would like to see is how they went from CO2 and temperature correlation to catastrophic man-made global warming." Your assumption is incorrect--there was no "going" from CO2 and temperature correlation. Instead, the projection (not prediction) of increased global temperature as a consequence of anthropogenic increase in global atmospheric level of CO2 was made in the 1800s, many decades before it was even technically possible to measure global atmospheric level of CO2 in that moment in time, let alone historically, and even more decades before the correlation between CO2 level and temperature was observed with high enough certainty. Observation of the correlation eventually added evidence confirming that projection, when the reality of human-caused increase in CO2 came to pass, thereby fulfilling the condition of the projection's scenario.
Please read the post "The History of Climate Science," and post any comments and questions about the history there, not here. I strongly suggest that after you read that post, before posting any questions or comments, that you read the free online version of the book by physicist and climate science historian Spencer Weart, "The Discovery of Global Warming."
-
Tom Dayton at 09:15 AM on 17 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc, you asked "How was it determined that CO2 that is 400 ppm is primarily due to human activity?" The answer is in the post "How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?" Read the Basic tabbed pane of that post, then watch the Denial101 video at the bottom, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane. If you want more details, or have questions, comment on that post, not this one, and I or someone else will answer.
-
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 17 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Aleks @24, thank's for the comments.
"So, correct statement may be: “Burning coal is a culprit, but not CO2”.
I doubt that its that simple. It's entirely possible the extinction during the permain was a combination of global warming from CO2 and methane released by a combination of coal burning and very high levels of mass volcanic activity, along with the considerable ash clouds and sulphur oxides and other toxic material released by the coal. We know all the factors are dangerous for life and all could happen simultaneously, so its certainly plausible. The evidence points that way.
"At first, 2000 ppm is much less than 7000 in Cambrian or 4000 in Devonian period when both terrestrial and marine life was actively developing."
These high levels of atmospheric CO2 were reasonably constant over very long periods of tens to hundreds of millions of years, so species would adapt easly enough. The problem is a more sudden spike of CO2 that causes global warming over hundreds of years to thousands of years, maybe a few million years, and this is much harder for species to adapt to.
The Permian event was over a few thousands of years apparently and more important initiated quite suddenly. You can see from the graph in the Peter Ward article, and that other extinctions correlate with spikes in CO2 emissions in his graph.
"Secondly, the increase of temperature can be explained by the release of heat into the atmosphere during combustion, without resorting to the theory of greenhouse effect."
I doubt it. Provide a link to an explanation and full calculations.
"Third, the combustion of coal is accompanied by the release of toxic gases SO2, NOx, and CO that kill living things both directly and through acid rains (SO2 and NOx)."
Yes but see my comment above. This most probably combined with global warming.
"Finally, the death of marine organisms is due to acidification of seawater by dissolution of SO2 and NOx and it triggered by H2S."
CO2 also acidifies oceans. It's perfectly feasible that they all contributed.
I'm not a chemist, but I wasn't born yesterday.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 17 March 2018Biofuels can help solve climate change, especially with a carbon tax
Regarding the troublesome child of biofuels.
While the article makes a good case for biofuels and a carbon tax makes sense, I have always been a little bit sceptical of biofuels. For example, to scale biofuels up to fuel significant parts of the entire transportation sector is going to undeniably intrude massively on forestry and agricultural land, because scrub lands are limited in area ( I vaguely recall about 10% of land and much of this wont be in suitable growing climates).
Using established forests for biofuel crops simply doesn't make sense given forests are good carbon sinks, provide timber and biodiversity. Do we really want to replace the Amazon Rainforest with fast growing grasses and small trees?
Using crop land for biofuel planting is senseless, given a population heading towards 10 billion by 2100 is going to require more food.
The more likely and preferred path for biofuels is grazing land will be used for biofuel planting. This is plentiful land, and cattle are not the most efficient form of provision of food energy, so some could be replaced with biofuel crops and also food crops.
However grassland soils are already very effective carbon sinks with potential to be even more effective if managed well. In some parts of the world carbon rich grassland soils are ten metres deep. So someone better be analysing whether biofuels are a better strategy than this already established soil potential to sequester carbon.
At the very least we need to be considering how much grassland is viable to be used for biofuel crops. I would suggest a limited ammount is feasible.
Therefore I think we have to make basic choices about how much land is viable for biofuels and what parts of the transport sector would benefit most form their use. Someone need to develop a global plan or strategy for biofuels and use of land in general for negative emissions schemes.
In this respect, using biofuels as blended fuels for cars is senseless, given the speed electric cars are developing. You don't need modelling to show the obvious.
Yes I realise biofuels are about the only way of improving the carbon emissions of older cars, but if you were to look at the advantages of something like a 20% blend and all the other issues involved biofuels are probably achieving almost nothing. The whole petrol fleet of cars could be replaced in decades by electic cars if we wanted.
Instead apply biofuels to those things where alternative approaches are limited, like air travel and perhaps sea travel which are hard to electrify. Even there, we do have an alternative approach of simply using fossil fuels, and offsetting this with conventional forestry planting or garicultural soil sinks. Has anyone modelled using biofuels as against using fossil fuels with forestry carbon sink offsets or soil cabon offsets?
And hopefully OPOF is right and alternative ways are found for powering ships that don't require biofuels or reduce thier use.
-
nigelj at 05:12 AM on 17 March 2018Biofuels can help solve climate change, especially with a carbon tax
Carbon fee and dividend is revenue neutral, flexible, and treats people fairly. We wont find a better form of tax mitigation strategy in environmental, economic and social terms. Theres no magic bullet.
Money in politics is a huge problem. It only takes one large wealthy lobby like the fossil fuels lobby to distort things enough to have a disproportionate influence. Environmental and citizens groups can't compete with this form of corporate funding.
We really do need to get money out of politics, or even just have some form of limit. I'm fairly sure Norway has publicly finded election campaigns, and Britain has some sort of limit on campaign spending. New Zealand has upper limits on campaign spending.
However things are unlikely to change in America, and attempts to put caps on spending have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Hopefully more environmentally conscious millionaires contribute to election campaigns in America, to dilute the effect of people like the Koch Brothers.
-
aleks at 01:36 AM on 17 March 2018Burning coal may have caused Earth’s worst mass extinction
Nigel@19,20
Yes, I was wrong about the burning of coal, as I was guided by “biocarb.org”. The “secret” value of CO2 level in the period under review was found in Wikipedia article “Permian-Triassic extinction event”. This value is of 2000 ppm and rise in temperature is of 8oC (original source is not in open access).
So, correct statement may be: “Burning coal is a culprit, but not CO2”.
At first, 2000 ppm is much less than 7000 in Cambrian or 4000 in Devonian period when both terrestrial and marine life was actively developing.
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.htm
Secondly, the increase of temperature can be explained by the release of heat into the atmosphere during combustion, without resorting to the theory of greenhouse effect.
Third, the combustion of coal is accompanied by the release of toxic gases SO2, NOx, and CO that kill living things both directly and through acid rains (SO2 and NOx).
Finally, the death of marine organisms is due to acidification of seawater by dissolution of SO2 and NOx and it triggered by H2S.Moderator Response:[JH] By making assertions without documentation, you are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John S at 22:57 PM on 16 March 2018Biofuels can help solve climate change, especially with a carbon tax
This is an endorsement of William's "one and only solution", which I would prefer to describe as a "pre-requisite to many solutions" in an even more foundational way than carbon fee and dividend (CF&D); in fact, it's probably a pre-requisite to getting CF&D passed; end private payments to legislators, i.e. give them modest amounts to conduct election campaigns funded by tax-payers. Our return on investment would be huge in terms of getting policy passed that actually benefitted us 99% rather than Big Coal or Big OIl. I hope you don't delete this as a political comment, even though it is a bit, because surely you realize that solutions to climate change are inevitably political, e.g. we need legislation to enact CF&D. When we've got CF&D, the best solutions will arise and it don't matter whether they involve sustainable biofuels, batteries or sheep dung (which, I don't know but, may be a contender in New Zealand where William appears to reside). Early on in the last US election there was a contender for President who espoused that platform but he didn't get very far, probably for lack of campaign funds. But might this be done with crowd-funding through the internet? Personally, I'm not at all wealthy but just on principle I'd send something to such a candidate even though I'm not even American. If a good portion of 7 billion people did the same, maybe he or she could succeed next time. I'm too old, but this is a call to arms, a great opportunity, for all you young aspiring politicians, full of piss and vinegar, who understand climate change to get on with this.
-
MA Rodger at 21:36 PM on 16 March 2018Explainer: The polar vortex, climate change and the ‘Beast from the East’
Jonbo69 @3,
I would suggest there is a vast level of complexity in what you ask but it can be knocked into shape.
The complexities of Polar Vortex-Solar Minimum linkage has been utilised by some denialists to create anti-AGW messages. So, for instance, this post at denialist site TheHockeySchtick rests on three published papers which are not entirely relevant or conclusive or credible.
Such denialist posts are often response to messages linking intense cold snaps of winter to our planet's atmospheric circulations that are evidently being impacted by AGW. Thus the likes of this report of an AAAS meeting results in the deniosphere responding with the likes of this nonsense at the planet Wattsupia.The complex variability of the Polar Vortex is in no way solely associated with solar output. Indeed, it is a relatively minor player. Thus Kim et al (2014) add the helpful concluding comment with solar activity the tail-end-Charlie of the list of possible factors:-
"(N)ote that Arctic sea-ice loss represents only one of the possible factors that can affect the stratospheric polar vortex. Other factors reported in previous works include Eurasian snow cover, the Quasi Biannual Oscillation, the El-Nino and Southern Oscillation and solar activity. Systematic consideration of these factors would extend our understanding of climate variability, possibly leading to the improved seasonal forecast Nonetheless, the relative contributions of each factor have not been systematically examined. As these factors may be interrelated, they may not control the stratospheric polar vortex independently. These issues must be examined further in future works.
Linkage between Polar Vortex and Solar Minimum is more a subject of research (eg Maycock et al (2015), Chiodo et al 2016) because the regional impact of Grand Solar Minimums is missing from the standard climatological assessment. Yet these papers make no startling claims and are setting the solar-minimum-effects within future AGW which is probably why denialists wouldn't dream of touching them with a barge-pole.
-
Eclectic at 18:16 PM on 16 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Atc @#102 thru #106 :-
before replying, I gave a quick look in my cheval mirror, to check that I was not a five-eyed, five-tentacled citizen of the Betelgeuse sector of Orion. Perhaps you have been misinformed about me, but I do not require you to post the same lengthy post 5 times in a row.
In replying only to your first post #102 , i have perhaps rashly assumed that your lengthy posts #103 thru #106 are all identical to #102 (and that they do not contain subtle minor differences buried among the foliage). Possibly a kindly Moderator will undo the work of your Fat Thumb (or Tentacle?).
And my apology to you, if it was all the result of an unfortunate brain condition causing tremor of your extremities. ~ PC enough, I hope !
Atc , much as we all enjoy hearing the euphonious name of the Greek Eratosthenes, or hearing of the earlier (but less well known) Egyptian priest-scientist Amenorrhea [of the 8th Century BC] . . . nevertheless it is getting just a tad off-topic for this thread about Ivar Giaever.
Likewise, the old tale of Einstein and the precession of Mercury's orbit — an interesting example perhaps of how The Hour Bringeth The Man . . . but there appears [IMO] to be little connection with the dysfunction in the brain of Giaever.
Atc , please educate yourself much, much further on the climate science . . . and you will see that there is no room for an as-yet-undiscovered Black Matter type of factor for causing the current rapid global warming. Sorry, that's all been well looked into by scientists (and even by decades of desperate contrarians). I could explain that to you in much more detail — but again, we would be getting yet more off-topic.
And that is an important point , Atc — here at SkS you should seek out particular threads if you wish to discuss various particular topics. Not jumble everything into a post (a post as long as the proposed Mexican Wall). See the house rules on posting. Also look up the term "Gish Gallop" (a form of debate used by clueless posters, such as those from Categories B and C , above).
That would also apply to your absurdly illogical line of argument referencing the special (and transient) case of German electric power.
Now also including your post [current label #107] , you seem very confused about observations, models, physical mechanisms of heat transfer etc. Please educate yourself, Atc.
In the meantime, Atc , you could go back onto topic, and reply to Philippe Chantreau @ #101. If you are able to dispute his well-stated comments.
Moderator Response:[JH] Argumentative text snipped. Please keep it civil.
Atc's five dupplicative posts have been reduced to one and his/her two "test" posts have been deleted.
-
Atc at 15:10 PM on 16 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Eclectic @100,
Money and Politics corrupt everything including your apples and oranges. I’ll leave it at that.
@92,
Yes. Physicists are used to being able to test and verify their theories.
Yes. They do look down on any other discipline that cannot do that.
Yes.. They know that their equations do not scale up yet. That’s why you cannot explain all the other disciplines in terms of the physicists ‘ physical models. That’s why you have Chemistry, Biology, etc.
Yes. That’s why computer simulations are not really doable in any other discipline including climate science.
Yes. They know it’s not doable. That’s why they use these fudge factors to tweak it to get a feel of what direction the answer will be in.
Yes. Climate science also copy that tweaking. Except they were actually trying to get the prediction.
-
Atc at 13:29 PM on 16 March 2018Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Eclectic @100 ,
on the question of money...
For me to respond to this part, I will really have to go off topic. It now goes into the realm of politics.
Money and politics corrupt everything. Certainly it holds true for governments and universities. I’ll just leave it here.If you were new to the field of Earth's geography, why would you not .... position of Flat Earth...
I wouldn’t go that far. I would have to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. And understand it in the context of the people at the time it was written. Dead Sea scrolls for instance. And then I would investigate the older Sumerian culture. Figure out whether or not if there is any truth to the idea that the story of Genesis already existed there. By the time I am done with that I probably wouldn’t be around to answer the question of whether it is mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament a “flat earth” theory.
Simply state that it is not round. Then just go down the list of ancient cultures until you find Eratosthenes. Once I am convinced by his arguments, I can now move forwards; that the earth is round. I am not going to rely solely on the consensus. Unless of course they show me that their arguments were also based on Eratosthenes’. In other words, I need a paper trail.
Don’t just tell me that we have multiple lines of evidence. I need to look at how each evidence stands on its own. If the individual evidence cannot stand on its own, throw it out. See what you are left with. If it is not testable and not verifiable, it is not evidence for me. Unfortunately in climate science, a lot of what they say is not testable nor verifiable. Correlation is not causation. It is a necessary condition but not sufficient. This is the part I am still having a problem. If I can get pass this part, everything else will fall in place. I am referring to CO2.
This part is hard to explain. It’s going to be in a very roundabout way. Let me try.When Newton explained gravity he first started by fitting his observations to a curve, in this case a quadratic. The motions of the planets fits this curve very well for the time. Now he has to explain what is it that makes the planets follow that curve. He called it a force. So that’s the theory.
It was good. But still he doesn’t know what was this force that can act through space. That’s just left like that for 200 years. At some point they started seeing problems with the Perihelion Motion of Mercury. Basically what’s happening is that they got better with their observations. Newton’s first curve fit is not that good anymore at explaining the observations. It is not off by much. Now Einstein steps in. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.7370.pdf His model is more refined and is a better fit. “Gravity, Einstein asserted, is caused by a warping of space and time—or, in a language we physicists prefer, by a warping of spacetime. The Earth’s matter produces the warpage, and that warpage in turn is manifest by gravity’s inward tug, toward the Earth’s center.
The inward tug is not the only manifestation of spacetime warpage; the warpage is much richer than that. As we shall see, it curves space, it slows the flow of time, and it drags space into tornado-like motions — at least that is what Einstein’s general relativity predicts.”We are no more closer to understanding gravity. It went from a force to a warping in space-time. There is, however, a better correlation between observation and the models. But the question went from what’s this force that acts at a distance to what’s this warping of space-time. The story does not end here. Then came Vera Rubin. “She uncovered the discrepancy between the predicted angular motion of galaxies and the observed motion, by studying galactic rotation curves. A significant discrepancy exists between the experimental curves observed, and a curve derived from theory. The theory of dark matter was postulated to account for the variance.”
There is something else now not explicable about some kind of matter. It interacts with this world through gravity but nothing else that we know of at this point. This is still a work in progress. It is faster now. Newton to Einstein 200 years, Einstein to Rubin 50 years. the mystery continuesSo if I haven’t lost you yet, what we see happening is that we have at the planetary scale Newtonian mechanics, atomic and subatomic scale Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and now dark matter theory at the galactic scale. At each scale, a different set of curves has to be fit.
And fit they do. The curve fitting is what I would call the correlation. The various explanations, theories, are the causation ( a force, a warping of space-time, dark matter). What we see here is that these theories change, the causation changes.Don’t start nit picking. The purpose of this history is to show that at least in physics on this subject we can easily follow how the theories change. How they are verified by better observations and what difficulties they run into that requires modification of the theory.
What I would like to see is a similar attempt in climate science. Like I said earlier I am stuck on CO2 right now. What I would like to see is how they went from CO2 and temperature correlation to catastrophic man-made global warming.
This is what I have found so far. It does not of course answer the questions. But it’s a start to see if I can get to the CO2 explanation.
Is that CO2 vs temperature correlation the first order fit? How was it determined that CO2 that is 400 ppm is primarily due to human activity? How are the catastrophic predictions done?Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report
T. P. Barnett*, K. Hasselmann+, M. Chelliah#, T. Delworth@, G. Hegerl&, P. Jones**, E. Rasmusson++, E. Roeckner+, C. Ropelewski##, B. Santer@@ and S. Tett&&*Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California.
+Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany.
#National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.
@Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey.
&JISAO, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
**University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
++University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
##International Research Institute, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.
@@Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
&&Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, U.K. Meteorological Office, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Corresponding author address: Dr. Tim P. Barnett, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dept. 0224, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224. E-mail: tbarnett@ucsd.edu
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 80: , Issue. 12, : Pages. 2631-2660
(Issue publication date: December 1999)
Received Date: July 13, 1999
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)0802.0.CO;2
Excerpted
“This paper addresses the question of where we now stand with respect to detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal. Our ability to estimate natural climate variability, against which claims of anthropogenic signal detection must be made, is reviewed. The current situation suggests control runs of global climate models may give the best estimates of natural variability on a global basis, estimates that appear to be accurate to within a factor of 2 or 3 at multidecadal timescales used in detection work.”If you guys can find the follow up paper to this, it would be much appreciated. This is dated 1999. It’s now 2018. It should be very informative.
And why would you wish to pay more for electricity in future years ...
I think you should ask the Germans how they are doing without nuclear power. Then ask how they are doing with green power. From the clean energy website https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts, we see that currently clean energy is 33%. Fossil fuel is 50%. Nuclear is 10%.
So by 2022 nuclear will be gone. Then after that progressively wean himself off of fossil fuel.The other piece of information we need is the cost. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germany-ponders-how-finance-renewables-expansion-future
Weaning a major economy off fossil fuels, while phasing out nuclear power at the same time, comes at a cost. Major investments are needed, not only to transform the power sector, but also to find sustainable solutions for transport and heating. Shifting these sectors to clean electricity as their primary source of energy – a process referred to as sector coupling – will further increase demand for renewable power. Many oberservs believe Germany's current system is not up to the task of financing this new phase of the Energiewende.
With general elections looming later this year, the debate over a general overhaul of Germany’s much-imitated system for renewables support – shouldered by electricity consumers – has gathered pace.I think you should read the rest on your own.
This is the most optimistic scenario one can get for a country with a strong economy. They are able to make their consumers shoulder the cost. What the heck are the other countries going to do? -
nigelj at 12:20 PM on 16 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
But then there could be good news: According to the NZ Herald
"Others considered at risk for being fired or reprimanded include ...... Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has been under fire for his first-class travel at taxpayer expense;"
What an extraordinary situation the whole thing is. It's like an alternate reality, or a real life version of The Apprentice. Pass the popcorn.
Prev 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 Next
