Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 Next
Comments 15451 to 15500:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:21 PM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
All of your arguing is attempts to excuse unacceptable developed desires to get away with creating a bigger problem - unless you admit that people today have to conservatively correct things so that the actions of the current generation will almost certainly develop a sustainable better future for humanity.
I am an Engineer. I apply developed, but still uncertain, understanding to 'safely design things that will hopefuly last into the future'. So do all other responsible engineers.
The responsible actions to address the uncertain creation of sea level rise would be for the people today benefiting from creating the uncertain future problem to have to build solutions that are likely to survive long into the future (not leave it to future generations to try to solve).
And to be safe, structural designs are based on a 98% probability of performing adequately in the future. That would mean evaluating the range of possible sea level rise and associated storm event surges to determine the level that only has a 2% chance of being exceeded in the future. And that evaluation would have to include the uncertainty regarding how much irresponsible action will occur, how bad it could get, conservatively.
So, less aggressive action today to reduce the future impacts would require more expenditure today to correct for the possible worst future that is being created.
Said it before. Will say it again. Less action taken earlier to correct a problem likely develops a larger future problem requiring more dramatic corrective action.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
nigelj@8,
I agree. A lot of education is required regarding what actions are helpful/acceptable. And it must continue in every future generation.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals, or any of the many other presentations of the same set of objectives grouped into different categories, are a very good set of measures of acceptable actions.
If those Good/Helpful Goals are substantially met there would be a dramatic reduction of the probability of development of events like the Vietnam War where bizarre declarations of what is required for the future of humanity get made-up and become temporarily regionally considered to be 'justified'.
The US Military assessment that minimizing climate change impacts is an important way to improve the 'National Security of the USA and its International Interests' probably similarly applies to the achievement of many, if not all, of the SDGs.
-
Bob Loblaw at 14:00 PM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
Miami? Completely there, with 6 feet of sea level rise?
That's not what I see on this map. At least, not if you include MIami Beach, Key Biscayne, and close to the shore where much expensive real estate is located. Or large areas inland of Miami. What NASA site did you use? I didn't find one in the first few pages of a google search.
And please don't bring back that whole linear extrapolation of current rates as if accelerated sea level rise in the future is unrealistic. It is not "an assumption", it is a projection made by actually looking at the physics of climate change and glacier melt, and how it affects sea level. You know: that "science" stuff.
A linear extrapolation only works if your "what if?" is "what if the experts that study this have got it all wrong?"
Dikes don't help in MIami: the "rock" is Swiss cheese and water will just percolate under it. Miami is already having problems and spending money:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
The rest of your post is basically a "technology will save us with magic money" argument. Talk about wild exaggerations and assumptions.
-
NorrisM at 11:50 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 134 and Bob Loblaw @ 135
I just went on the NASA website to check out Miami. It is completly there with 6 feet of sea level rise. At the present rate of sea level rise of ballpark 3.5 mm/yr by 2100 this represents about 11 inches of sea level rise. So once again we are back to "what if"s to get to some significant impacts (I am not going to define "significant").
So a lot of the "distance" between us is our lack of ability to see into the future and our disagreeing beliefs on what will happen based upon those differing views. Right now, the IPCC is somewhere around 1m. by 2100. I do not have the ranges at my fingertips but I do believe these predictions are based upon assumptions of accelerating sea levels which are predicted sometime in the future.
Paul Ehrlich did not help things with his wild predictions made in the 1970's and 1980's. So along with the problems of the climate models not being able to accurately represent our actual climate (and therefore accurately predict the future), we do have a bit of the problem that "we have been here before" with dire predictions that simply did not come true.
I see climate change as a concern but I also see a host of other problems with our world that could make all this worry about 2100 a little academic (accidental nuclear destruction, AI, developments in genetic engineering) when there is absolutely no one who can look into the future 80 years from now and tell us where sea levels will be.
So we plod along doing the best we can (knowing that we live in democracies that have a lot of priorities to deal with) but I do not think there is a chance in the world that millions of refugees will be knocking at the doors (or landing on the shores) of the US and Canada in 2100 or sooner. Wild exaggerations like this are not helpful. First of all, these nations will take steps to protect their people by spending funds to build dikes to protect large areas of the land if these sea levels continue to rise at accelerating levels (probably with foreign aid). Secondly, maybe at some point we actually will become more proactive at reducing the world population long before then by methods of birth control and other family planning incentives so that we do not have rampant poverty in many places of the world.
I think the cartoon at the top of this blog misses the point that this is a very long process and if it becomes more and more of a problem then the world will deal with it. You may say it will be too late but everything that I read suggests that it is already too late if the dire predictions do come to pass. My understanding is that even a frog would jump out of a slowly heating pot of water. Hopefully, we are a little smarter than frogs.
Moderator Response:[DB] As others have already noted, your claims about SLR and Miami are without evidence and merit. As for "rates" of global SLR, recent research demonstrates that the rates of global SLR are now accelerating and are thus greater-than-linear already:
"Global sea level rise is not cruising along at a steady 3 mm per year, it's accelerating a little every year, like a driver merging onto a highway, according to a powerful new assessment led by CIRES Fellow Steve Nerem. He and his colleagues harnessed 25 years of satellite data to calculate that the rate is increasing by about 0.08 mm/year every year—which could mean an annual rate of sea level rise of 10 mm/year, or even more, by 2100."
"This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate—to more than 60 cm instead of about 30." said Nerem, who is also a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. "And this is almost certainly a conservative estimate," he added. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."Per Nerem et al 2018:
"the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged. This projection of future sea-level rise is based only on the satellite-observed changes over the last 25 y, assuming that sea level changes similarly in the future. If sea level begins changing more rapidly, for example due to rapid changes in ice sheet dynamics, then this simple extrapolation will likely represent a conservative lower bound on future sea-level change."
Tamino weighs in with more.
If you wish to pursue a discussion on SLR and how it impacts global port cities like Miami and others worldwide, this thread is a good place for that.
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 off-topic posts, intentionally misleading comments, ignore when others have demonstrated you to be wrong (sloganeering) or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.
Sloganeering and off-topic snipped.
-
Riduna at 11:38 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Sea level rise is serious and damaging by itself but made infinately worse by storm surges - and there are likely to be some very destructive storm surges in the latter part of this century, particularly if there is an increase imn the polar-tropical thermal gradient.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:51 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
nigelj,
I agree with your comment.
My only comment is to encourage you to say "its a slow process, we future generations will adapt, buildings get rebuilt anyway".
It is important to be clear that Others will be suffering the consequences of the way a portion of the current day population pursue personal benefit.
This ties into the ethics/acceptability of Private Interests. Everyone's actions are their Private Interest. What is important that they ethically limit their Private Interest pursuits to actions that do not cause any harm or increased risk of harm to Others - As The Other's See It.
And the future genrations are the largest pool of Others. And as bluntly stated in the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" many people do not properly consider the future generation's perspective because none of the future genrations can vote, sue, or otherwise get even.
Climate science has unintentionally exposed the insideous ways that competition to Win Private Interest pursuits leads many people to behave/argue less ethically (less acceptably).
-
nigelj at 08:06 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
Bob Loblaw, Altemeyers study sounds very plausible. These very excessively obedient people remind me of children that have never fully grown up.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:40 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
Nigelj:
In "The Authoritarians",a lot of Bob Altemeyer's study looks at what he calls "authoritarian followers" - the people that blindly follow authoritarian leaders. He says the worst combination is a large group of authoritarian followers following a "social dominator" who will say anything to gain/keep power. He's developed a series of questions that provide what he calls a Right Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). Be very, very afraid of someone who is both a high RWA and a high social dominator.
Not that we have any place like that currently. Not at all. Can't imagine it.
I will follow up your Wikipedia suggestion on Moral Foundations Theory.
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
A perfect example of authoritarianism and obedience.
"The invasion of the body snatchers is complete. Donald Trump has taken over the conservative movement and bent it to his will."
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/24/cpac-trump-conservatives-republicans
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
The threat of sea level rise is very serious and insidious, ihho. However some people out there probaly rationalise the issue by saying to themselves "its a slow process, we will adapt, buildings get rebuilt anyway".
It may be worth doing an article explaining why this a simplistic and deluded view in numerous ways. It could amass all the relevant research links.
-
nigelj at 06:19 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
Taminos material was interesting. J Bell says global warming causes both droughts and floods, heat and cold, so is ridiculous nonsense. Various people gave very good, if predictable rebuttals.
What intrigues me is whether Bell is truly sceptical, or knows perfectly well that a warming world could cause seemingly contradictory responses, and has simply trawled through the global warming issue to find anything that might confuse people who aren't very bright, or are easily lead because their politics makes them sceptics. Either way, it leaves us little option but to waste time with rebuttals.
Regarding the authoritarian personality. Moral foundations theory on wikipedia has some interesting and credible information as well.
Blind obedience is a terrible, dangerous thing and very authoritarian people are difficult for many of us to live with, yet others actually seem attracted to these personalities.
I think the origins of authoritarianism are simply that its a basic parenting skill. I think it just becomes very excessive in some people, possibly because it reinforces conservative values, or they were over disciplined as children, so became very authoritarian themselves. Left and right economic movements can both have authoritarian leaders.
However excessively authoritarian people are very resistant to acknowledging their problem.
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
"the only Good Purpose/Objective is actions that understandably improve the future for humanity."
So true. However it comes down to interpretations of good actions. Remember that quote from the Vietnam War. “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
Excuse my cynicism. Everyone thinks they are doing good saving humanity. I guess a lot of education is needed on the right way of doing it!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
Upon further reflection I am adding to/changing my recommendation/hope for you.
I hope you will change your mind about what is acceptable and be able to correctly make statements like the example correction I provided without having to refer to yourself as part of the problem.
The future you indicate is indeed a 'possible future', especially if deliberately irresponsible and harmful leaders, like the current Winners of leadership in the USA, achieve more undeserved Winning in other locations.
The future of humanity requires more people actively trying to help others become more aware and better understanding of what is really going on and the corrections/changes required to actually improve the future for humanity.
Admittedly the required corrections have become significant for those who wasted the past several decades trying to prolong their ability to enjoy their life in ways that were understandably unsustainable and harmful to others, especially damaging to the future of humanity. The required corrections will indeed be perceived negatively by those people, but they will understand why they deserve a negative consequence, even if they fight against having to suffer it.
Those developed unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity will have to be corrected. Humanity has to have a better future.
Hopefully humanity is turning around. While you focus on finding evidence to try to justify continued reluctance to change direction, I see a declining number of wealthy people being able to easily impress people into supporting their understandably unsustainable and harmful desires.
The worst case scenario is indeed continued damaging winning by the wealthy and powerful who are opposed to the better understanding of the changes required by the constantly improved understanding of climate science (like the deliberate ignorance that allowed the USA sub-prime mortgage debacle to become the massive disaster it developed into).
Hopefully real responsible leaders will over-power the harmful less responsible pursuers of competitive advantage, like the ones in the USA who recently won the ability to do more harm to the future of humanity, to incrementally reverse progress towards a better future in their pursuit of damaging Private Interests.
We should all try to help others be more helpful, aware, and better understanding of what is really going on and how they think about the acceptability of things. That is key to over-powering those who try to Win by keeping people unaware, incorrectly aware, or misunderstanding what is going on.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:11 AM on 25 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
For a fascinating look at how one "skeptic" views his contributions to the discussion, I suggest looking into this recent post by Tamino and the very long series of comments that follows:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/consequences/
I also sometimes recommend the following web page and the book and oher materials contained on it. The book is very long - start by reading the web page itself (short). The writer is a (now-retired?) social psychologist, who spent a career studying the authoritarian mindset.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:04 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Some may consider all the costs of adaptation as "good for the economy". After all, we live in a throw-away society for many cheaply-made consumer goods, and buying new ones creates jobs for someone.
If we treat all the land and development that will be flooded due to sea level rise as "throw-away" goods, then large amounts of money will have to be spent to replace them. That will add to the GDP, at least locally. Business is booming!
One might ask where all that money comes from, though. Well, governments can just borrow it can't they? Disaster relief! The whole global economy can run on money governments borrow to provide disaster relief. I'm sure there won't be any problems with that.
-
michael sweet at 00:18 AM on 25 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norrism @132:
Do you realize that "adaptation" to sea level rise means moving the majority of the world's great cities inland many miles, hundreds of millions or billions of refugees with no-where to go and the inundation of a substantial amount of the best farming land in the world? In Miami alone over a trillion dollars of real estate is in danger with sea level rise that is possible by 2100 and sea level will continue to increase after 2100. With a 1.5C increase Miami is doomed, the question is how long it will take to inundate the city.
Can you provide data to show that there will be enough farmland left after 2 meters of sea level rise to feed the current world population? Will you be willing to accept several million refugees from Bangladesh into Canada?
You say "Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing. It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs."
People will be active building all those new cities on current farmland. Teaching all those refugees English will employ a number of others. You are blind to the consequences of the path that you are in favor of.
Let us suppose Miami is inundated and two trillion dollars of real estate is destroyed. Four million people move to Kansas and spend a trillion dollars to build new housing that is half as good as their old houses. Economists count that as adding a trillion to GDP. The people have worse housing and had to spend a trillion dollars that they could have used for other, better stuff. Be careful what you wish for.
Please describe where you think a hundred million refugees can be placed worldwide. Keep in mind all the complaints from about a million refugees from Syria.
-
Harry Twinotter at 17:01 PM on 24 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
fishfear.
What you think is irrelevant in this context, what is relevant is what you can demononstrate with evidence. So accusing Skeptical Science of bias is intellectually dishonest. I could go on about your use of rhetorical questions and sloganeering, but I think I have made my point.
You can demonstrate your appeal to your own authority by posting citations to your publications easily enough. -
One Planet Only Forever at 16:04 PM on 24 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
Thank you for the reply, but you did not answer my specific questions.
However, the lack of a direct answer is answer enough.
All I will add is that you should correct the way you state what is going on, with the following as an example of the more accurate way to say it:
"Basically acknowledged that my best guess is that I am not concerned that the incrementalism that we see in the most irresponsible government actions around the world (including the US - due to the deliberate lack of responsible leadership in nations like the USA) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100 (the requirement is 2.0 C increase, not 2.0 C at 2100 with more to follow). This will mean that if based on the developed climate science the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that we those others in the future (that I do not care about) will be spending more money on adaptation (because people did not 'have' to care about how their desired pursuit of a better Present for themselves was harmimg the fuure of humanity)."
-
NorrisM at 14:37 PM on 24 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF @ 130
I did respond to you but it seems that my comment either did not make it onto the website for some technical reason or was deleted although I do not think it was in any way inflammatory.
Basically acknowledged that my best guess is that the incrementalism that we see in government actions around the world (including the US) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100. This will mean that if the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that we will be spending more money on adaptation.
Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing. It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs. When you look at the renewal that happened in Germany and Japan after WWII and the advantage it provided to them with modern equipment and facilities (look at China last 30 years) you sometimes wonder whether reconstruction is not something that we humans require to keep us going. Kind of like ants and anthills. You kick one over and away they go rebuilding it.
Moderator Response:[JH] Re your first paragraph, your response to OPOF was not deleted by a Moderator.
-
NorrisM at 14:14 PM on 24 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigel @ 129
Thanks Nigel. I had reported on Nextra's announcement earlier based upon it having been reported on Climatewire. Still unclear to me on the battery storage issue but obviously that would be a major breakthrough.
-
nigelj at 12:14 PM on 24 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
This is related: "How six Americans changed their mind about global warming".
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/21/climate/changed-minds-americans.html
There appear to be several pathways to this, but one common factor is just actually reading some sensible books, or attending a well presented lecture by some climate expert. So facts do change some peoples minds.
Instead, some people are reading climate denialist websites, and think tank echo chamber websites because its easier and free, which is unfortunate. NASA has great material on their website on the basics of climate change, presented more like a book.
Perhaps people are suspicious of climate material in the daily news media, out of a basic distrust of the traditional print media. I think such distrust can be overstated. News media are like anyone, they don't want to get things constantly wrong, and be embarrassed constantly. You just have to read between the lines and use some sense.
The other thing is, and I say this reluctantly, Al Gores movie probably didn't convince many Republicans for obvious reasons, because of Gores strong political affiliations. However it was still a very skilled and 99% accurate presentation imho.
While people should look at the information on its merits, rather than the source of the information, ideally the movie would have been better coming from National Geographic or someone similar. But it's all history now. And its hard to know, because a movie from some established movie company could have been too dry, and not grabbed peoples attention like Gores movie did.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:14 AM on 24 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
nigelj,
The most important thing for everyone to understand, admit and have guide their actions is that:
- the only Good Purpose/Objective is actions that understandably improve the future for humanity.
- any actions that are harmful to future generations are simply unacceptable, no matter how beneficial a portion of the current day population consider the harmful actions to be (the most appalling claim making includes making claims that current day perceptions of wealth inevitably grow into bigger better perceptions in the future, or that it is OK to create future negative consequences if the current day benefits are perceived to be bigger).
If that completely universal understanding and acceptance ever develops, everyone honouring that understanding and never tempted to push a limit, there is no need for refereeing (or policing, or military power anywhere, or charities attempting to correct the inequities that otherwise develop). Of course that is a fairy tale future. And it is why ideologies based on the belief that 'Better Results will develop if people are freer to believe what they want and do as they please' have no real future.
As the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" bluntly declared, the lack of concern for the future generations of humanity, and any other group that has no power to 'effectively get even with the ones benefiting from causing harm or higher risks of causing harm', is the reason so many unsustainable and harmful activities develop popular and profitable support. And those 'unsustainable and harmful to Others' ways of doing things are also easier and cheaper than more responsible ways of acting which makes it ore difficult for more responsible ways of pursuing profit to Win.
And once an activity develops significant undeserved popularity or profitability it can be very difficult to correct the incorrect development.
The much bigger climate change impact correction problem faced by today's generation of humanity, bigger in magnitude and the required rate of correction (as exposed by the continuing to improve awareness and understanding of climate science), is undeniably due to the lack of fair and responsible action by many of the most fortunate humans since the 1980s, since the time it became clear to all of those most fortunate humans that they 'had no Good Reason to continue to try to get away with what they had developed a damaging addiction to'.
-
Tadaaa at 07:36 AM on 24 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
@nigelj
"I agree about climategate. Private emails from other organisations would probably be much the same or worse. In fact, what surprised me about climategate is how little of substance was revealed. It actually convinced me more that scientists could be trusted. "
100% spot on - and me too, you put it better than i did
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 24 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
Libertarians and conservatives could perhaps look at the issues this way. First they often point out that the alleged problem with command and control hierarchical economies is that a central body can become over constricting, and cannot have enough information to make optimal economic decisions. (F Hayek, 1899 -1992 talked along these approximate lines). This is a fair criticism, although since the age of advanced computers this theory may no longer actually be entirely correct.
The idea of the market is to let individuals make free decisions and the market will decide what they buy and value. This enocurages innovation. (Adam Smith 1723 - 1790). I'm a fan of this basic theory fwiw.
The problem with the market is individuals can also do things that are very destructive to the community or other individuals.
The solution is that markets must be policied, and need boundaries and regulations imposed by government, or in a few limited situations organisations can be self policing. Behaviours known to be destructive to the community and other individuals must be illegal, but only if its harming them in significant and material ways ( JS Mill 1806 - 1873).
If a specific behaviour, like using a dangerous material in certain situations is banned, this in no way stops innovation and individual initiative, because it doesn't stop people using that material in other situations. Since the basic purpose of markets is to encourage innovation, market rules do not damage markets, provided they are sensible rules. That is the main thing people need to know along with what OPOF says.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:02 AM on 24 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
The development of better understanding regarding climate science is an important 'incremental' step for a person who has developed a strong preference for Conservative/Libertarian beliefs.
I suggest the next incremental step in better understanding is the acceptance that the required objective of responsible leadership (in politics, business, media, academia ...), is to fairly correct what has incorrectly developed to limit the impact on future generations to 2.0 C increase.
And the next logical increment of better understanding is the recognition of the failure of the Competitive Marketplace to responsibly respond for the benefit of the future of humanity. Consumerism and materialism competition to appear to be more prosperous than Others can incline many people to develop more desires to be freer to believe what they want and do as they please (including excusing understandably harmful ways of Winning their desired Private Interests to the detriment of Others including all those future generations of humanity who have no ability to effectively get 'even with them').
The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.
The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.
So, since 1987 (or earlier), the 'actions of already fairly fortunate people to still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways' is obviously a flaw in the Socio-economics of the Marketplace. It is as if the 'Invisible Hand was biased toward being harmful'. It is a result that clearly cannot be blamed on 'too much regulation of the marketplace games people play'. Though admittedly some 'regulations' like the attempts by some USA states to 'restrict the sale of Tesla vehicles in their state through regional regulation' are understandably deliberately harmful.That leads to the next increment of better understanding, the marketplace requires Helpful Refereeing; monitoring and enforcement that discourages harmful actions and encourages helpful actions.
Those are admittedly big steps for some people to take, but those are logically the steps that they must take if they truly want to be helpful rather than harmful or irrelevant.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 24 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@128,
Though everyone agrees to use the term incrementalism, I am almost certain that the likes of NorrisM do not agree that the objective of the incremental change must be limiting total global impacts to 2.0 C.
NorrisM never responded to my comment @46, perhaps because my comment @62 accurately represented his position.
However, NorrisM's comment @69 implied he was still considering a response to my requests for a response. But, my comment @70 may have 'pinned him down too much' for him to bother to try to ceate a reasonable sounding response. Or he may have considered my comment @90 to be an accurate understanding of his position.
But NorrisM has commented since then in ways consistent with an understanding that the type of incrementalism he would support is actions that would likely significantly fail to meet the objective of limiting future impacts to 2.0 C increase.
As I have mentioned in an earlier comment, doing less action earlier to meet an objective requires more action later. The likes of NorrisM appear to like the idea of having to do less (leaving more for others to do later), and even hoping to get away with prolonging their ability to benefit from the understood to be unacceptable activity or, even worse, increasing their ability to benefit from the damaging activity, developing an even bigger challenge that Others have to deal with.
The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.
The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.
So, since 1987 (or earlier), anyone who was already fairly fortunate but still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways has no excuse. Their developed perceptions of prosperity or opportunity deserve to be shattered, the sooner the better to 'be fairer' about achieving the undeniable required objective, fairly limiting global total impact to 2.0 C.
-
NorrisM at 02:20 AM on 24 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Moderator
I was disappointed to get to the end of this post only to find that further discussion had been terminated. I was hoping to challenge Alchemyst to read a fascinating debate that took place on the curryetc website based upon a recent paper by Peter Lang. Lang's questionable premise is that the "root cause" of the demise of the nuclear industry in the US were anti-nuke protesters which caused over regulation. The paper is found in the December 2017 topics on the curry website. I had been spending my time reading all 256 posts on that website before I commented here.
However, Lang did not anticipate that someone with over 35 years experiencer in managing construction of nuclear plants in the US would take him on. He goes by the name Beta Blocker for reasons explained in the blog. His basic premise is that the poor managment processes of Westinghouse and others were largely to blame for the massive cost overruns which really sunk the industry and provided the fodder for the smarter nuclear protesters who appeared at hearings.
My suggestion to respond to the suggestion of michael sweet was going to propose that you let Peter Lang publish his paper on this website and let others take a run at him. I understand that there has been some "history" with Lang on this website which might complicate my suggestion. Lang does not do well against Beta Blocker.
There was one other commenter on that blog who was very knowledgeable called Ristvan. His view in a nutshell is that concrete and steel sunk the nuclear industry.
But the "supply" issue of nuclear sources suggested by Abbott does not seem to be the real issue given that the new nuclear reactors will use 99% rather than 1% of the energy in uranium. Beta Blocker is clearly retired now but is in communication with those active in the industry. I get the sense that Small Modular Reactors do show promise. He also deals with storage issues.
I undertstand that this post may not see the light of day but I wanted to support michael sweet's suggestion of a paper on this topic.
I believe you have my email as part of registration on this website if you want to reply without posting.
-
nigelj at 12:43 PM on 23 February 2018Standing Rock is everywhere: one year later
On the subject of water:
www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-could-cause-more-severe-droughts-98-per-cent-european-cities
"More than 500 European cities could face sharp increases in droughts, floods and heatwaves if climate change continues to rise unabated, a new study finds."
-
Alchemyst at 12:14 PM on 23 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
nigelj
we need to be in accrord halfnium
could we rely on the grey econonmy here. I was renovating a house and had a tonne of timber to dipose, I'm ashamed to say I had the choice of paying $50 for the authorites to dispose or find an alterntive. we had a bonfire one summers night. thinking that this saved me money the next tonne we dumped it at the front of the house, spread the word that there was free firewood it took 2 weeks for he heap to just vanish.
Burning wood in power stations is probay less efficient than wood burning stoves n the home. They convege the population into foragers
-
Tom Dayton at 10:38 AM on 23 February 2018What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
Here is a good 2017 article: "The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective," Kurschke & Liddell, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Full text is available both in browser and as downloadable PDF.
-
nigelj at 09:03 AM on 23 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
I don't have remotely enough knowledge of nuclear power technology to write an article. But Alchemyst, it appears you or anyone else are being given a golden opportunity here to submit something.
I would just suggest an article needs to obviously be based on verifiable credible source material, with internet links, and should mention within the body of the article the problems as well as the benefits of nuclear, and in a full, open way. If it doesn't, it will be cut to pieces by readers, and called one sided. If its an article that is open and transparent, it may serve some useful purpose. I don't care if the tone of the article is negative or positive on the issue, as long as its upfront like this.
But IMHO the writer is perfectly entitled to reach their conclusions firmly for or against nuclear power and as strongly as they wish, and is not expected to sit on the fence.
I remain a bit sceptical of nuclear power, but hopefully not closed minded.
Moderator Response:[PS] No more please. Continued offtopic posts will be deleted.
-
nigelj at 08:22 AM on 23 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Riduna, I must admit my instinctive reaction to BECCS isn't positive, so I need to see some convincing defence of the idea.
However while BECCS makes electricity twice as expensive it is also drawing down atmospheric CO2. It would be interesing to know how much value this adds in dollar terms somehow?
I agree no generating company is going to choose BECCS at this stage, unless they are amazingly green orientated. The only way to really implement BECCS is government command and control, or government subsidies that make it attractive enough. Neither are wrong in principle imho, however BECCS would need to prove itself robustly first.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 23 February 2018Standing Rock is everywhere: one year later
Try telling the people in the white house. They can't seem to comprehend climate change, and that water can become a scarce resource.
All politicians think about is next months profits, their own popularity, and that white man has all the answers. And they think a lot about their campaign donors. Politicians are all sock puppets for their campaign donors.
-
nahs at 01:50 AM on 23 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
it is great to hear a man from Conservative supporting climate change as a reality.i wish the congressman to follow Jerry Taylor's example,including The President Trump and support climate change actions.
-
michael sweet at 01:48 AM on 23 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchymist,
I must inform you that the BBC and Wikipedia are not peer reviewed sources. You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims. Abbott is peer reviewed. Your BBC link is for school children. It does not give the full formulation of the conntrol rods. Boron cannot be fashioned into rods by itself. It must be mixed with and coated by other exotic materials to form the control rods. You must account for all the materials put into the plant, not just a few of them.
The breeder reactors you support are run at extremely high temperatures with extreme neutron fluxes. All the piping, valves,fuel rods and the container vessel must be made of exotic metals and alloys to withstand the extreme conditions. We have only the unsupported word of an anonymous person on the internet that all these materials exist against the peer reviewed study of Abbott, who is an expert in the field, that they do not exist. You have provided no information to determine if the metals in the valves, piping and container are in sufficient supply to build. We have only your personal assertion that the control rods can be manufactured.
You are repeating yourself without providing supporting data. That is sloganeering. You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims, that is trolling.
Moderator Response:[PS] It is time to wrap this discussion. This site is not a good forum for discussions of pros and cons of nuclear power (BraveNewClimate did that better) and it is offtopic for this thread. If we had a thread based on peer-reviewed literature concerning nuclear power, then the science could be discussed there but so far we have not been able to find an author to write one. Volunteers welcome.
-
Alchemyst at 01:21 AM on 23 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Sweet you are trolling
I have shown that Abbott is using whie swan arguments in his paper.
for example he quotes liitations on nuclear materials citing Halfnium.
I quote your post 13 feb 3:16 am
"not enough rare elements like hafnium exist,"
How halfnium is hardly ever used in civilian reactors. So abundance linits does not pose a limitation on nuclear reactor build.
Boron is the prefered material, and there is no shortage of Boron in the world. this is taught to 14 year old schoolchildren in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/intermediate2/physics/radioactivity/nuclear_power_stations/revision/2/
You are trolling.
For those interested see below. Howeve Sweet you are trolling, most people have been into the argument on one side or the other, but you even when your statment has been shown to be without basis
My references in the earler post to nigelj, you now state
"note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power. None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support. I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems. Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged."
I pass you onto Wikipedia where the status of Halfnium in civilian reactors is stated that it is hardly ever used and other materials are prefered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod
Control rods are used in nuclear reactors to control the fission rate of uranium and plutonium. They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium that are capable of absorbing many neutrons without themselves fissioning. Because these elements have different capture cross sections for neutrons of varying energies, the composition of the control rods must be designed for the reactor's neutron spectrum. Boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized water reactors (PWR) and heavy water reactors (HWR) operate with thermal neutrons, while breeder reactors operate with fast neutrons.
Halfnium has excellent properties for reactors using water for both moderation and cooling. It has good mechanical strength, can be easily fabricated, and is resistant to corrosion in hot water.[9] Hafnium can be alloyed with other elements, e.g. with tin and oxygen to increase tensile and creep strength, with iron, chromium and niobium for corrosion resistance, and with molybdenum for wear resistance, hardness and machineability. Such alloys are designated as Hafaloy, Hafaloy-M, Hafaloy-N, and Hafaloy-NM.[10] The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors. Hafnium carbide can also be used as an insoluble material with a high melting point of 3890 °C and density higher than that of uranium dioxide for sinking unmelted through corium.
Moderator Response:[JH] Given that your discorse with Michael Sweet has devolved into name calling and given that you are now engaging in excessive repitition, it is time to shut down this discussion. Your future posts on this topic will be summarily deleted.
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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
michael sweet at 22:19 PM on 22 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchymist,
Apparently I misread your post because you said "Sweet please try and stop insulting peoples inteligence" immediately after quoting me saying nuclear was much more expensive than renewable energy.
I am glad that we agree that nuclear energy cannot compete economically with renewable energy.
I note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power. None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support. I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems. Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged.
Serious energy researchers do not consider significant amounts of nuclear energy in the mix in the future. In Smart Energy Europe (cited at least 75 times in less than 2 years from publication) the first of 9 steps to convert to full renewable energy is to remove nuclear energy from the system.
I note that none of your citations is peer reviewed.
-
nigelj at 14:59 PM on 22 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
jclairea @8
Good point. Pacific island nations get a double whammy. Serious sea level rise, stronger tropical cyclones, water salination problems, lack of resources.
I also see what you are doing there. Demolishing his comments with niceness.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 22 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
In addition to the recent dramatic and concerning history of Arctic Sea Ice and climate changes, there is the following new news report today February 21, by Jason Samenow in the Washington Post (not Fake): Arctic temperatures soar 45 degrees above normal, flooded by extremely mild air on all sides
-
Going South at 13:50 PM on 22 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Or we could talk about the year average for 2017. 2nd lowest for extent, but lowest ever for volume. Just sayin' ....
-
nigelj at 12:22 PM on 22 February 2018“How is That Conservative?” Former Climate Denier now Backs Action
It's great to see someone like Jerry Taylor change his views. It just takes some careful reading on climate change. The climate scientists sceptical of agw are in a small minority, but can be quite loud and have impressive degrees. The trick is to check their claims very carefully, because all is not always as it seems.
As the article says the key thing is climate change threatens property, and both conservatives and libertarians are concerned with property rights. As more of a political moderate, I can definitely also relate to that view. Its excellent common ground right across the political spectrum.
-
nigelj at 11:37 AM on 22 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM
You may want to read this on renewable electricity and battery storage. Theres not much detail, probably due to commercial sensitivity, but its interesting.
www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16944178/utility-ceo-renewables-cheaper
"A final intriguing note: Robo says the company is hard at work on combining renewables with storage. “We recently submitted a bid at a very competitive price for a combined wind, solar, and battery storage product,” he said, “that is able to provide an around-the-clock, nearly firm, shaped product specifically designed to meet the customers’ needs.”
-
Alchemyst at 10:42 AM on 22 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Dear sweet,
please could you point out where I said that nuclear can compete with renewables.
I have not stated it.
-
michael sweet at 10:29 AM on 22 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchymist,
I see others have responded to most of your wild, unsupported claims. I will address only your unsupported assertion that nuclear can compete with renewable energy.
According to many news reports:
"On a Q4 earnings conference call on Friday, Robo [CEO of NextEra Energy] predicted that by the early 2020s, it will be cheaper to build new renewables than to continue running existing coal and nuclear plants" my emphasis.
Since capitol costs are so high for nuclear plants they are already more expensive than renewable energy. The builds at Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to prove that the nuclear industry could build on time and on budget. Two reactors have been abandoned half finished and far over budget. Westinghouse, the primary contractor, is bankrupt and the remaining build is near abandonment, way over budget and years behind schedule.
Renewables are the way of the future.
-
nigelj at 10:28 AM on 22 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF, many thanks for that tip on how to find the original research study.
So everyone is agreed on incrementalism. Its just the size of the increments!
I always thinks its better to just get started, and do something, than debate endlessly about problems. Things can always be modified in accordance with changing circumstances, or if results are not acceptable in some way.
Looking at history, consumption taxes don't normally cause the huge problems the scaremongers claim. One fear is that taxes become embedded and hard to reverse, however the climate issue means a carbon tax would eventually do its job, and would thus inevitably expire as alternative energy becomes abundant and permanent. Its not so much like a soft drink tax, that might be more a permanent fixture, designed just to pay for health costs.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:42 AM on 22 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@126,
The article John writes about @111 is regarding a study that was submitted to Nature Sustainability on 08 August 2017. It was published on 05 February 2018 (to get to the article you click on the Nature Sustainability link at the end of the article).
This is more recent than the 2016 article you referred to. And it is a very different type of evaluation. It is very applicable to climate science because it points out that “The most difficult biophysical boundary to meet is climate change: only 34% of countries are within the per capita boundary for this indicator.”
I will add that I also agree with incrementalism. That is basically what the Kyoto Accord followed by the Paris Agreement is. The Kyoto Accord was the first serious coordinated global effort by the most fortunate nations to show leadership on transitioning human activity away from the unsustainable and harmful burning of fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement was the next increment. It clarified the ultimate objective as keeping total impacts below the 2.0 C threshold, and aspiring to limit impacts on future generations to 1.5 C which almost certainly will require charitable actions (actions that do not benefit the ones paying for them to be done) that effectively reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The first increment of the Paris Agreement is the initial pledges of action by all nations. The next increments are the ratcheting up of the actions as required to have all nations equitably work on solving the problem, equitably including the understanding that those nations that benefited most from the current developed scale of the problem should be expected to do more to correct the problem.
The incremental application of measures like carbon taxes would be to start with a rate of taxation then observe the result. After a few years adjust the tax rate or implement other measures as required to get closer to achieving the required result (combined global actions limited to a 2.0 C increase). Repeat the increase of tax or implementation of other measures as required to meet the required objective. Note that less action done earlier means more action will be required later.
That is the expected result of the Paris Agreement - Continuing the Incrementalism after the first stage that was the efforts to meet the Kyoto commitments. Of course any nation that had members who deliberately resisted participating in correcting the incorrect developed ways of living after Kyoto would have developed a bigger current day challenge that now needs to be corrected. Since the need to transition from burning fossil fuels was well understood before Kyoto there is no reason for anyone to feel sorry for current day people who 'will suffer due to having to make more significant changes to 'fairly contribute to meeting the required global objective'. The real key is making sure that the ones who deserve to suffer most are actually the ones who suffer the most form the required correction.
Some people figured out what is inevitably going to have to happen if humanity is to sustainably develop a better future. But instead of supporting the education of the population about the required changes and correctly identifying who should change or suffer, they try to argue for incrementalism that will fail to limit the harm to others (including future generations), choosing to demand/declare that the required incrementalism is incrementalism that in no way negatively affects them (many of them actually understand that they deserve to be negatively affected by the required corrections of what has developed - they can be expected to fight the hardest against admitting what the appropriate objective is, using the popularity of profitable harmful unsustainable activities as their main excuse to defend those activities).
And what is undeniable is that more fortunate people who did not transition away from the burning of fossil fuels could gain a competitive advantage relative to those who more responsibly changed their ways. Deliberate attempts to get competitive advantage that way since Kyoto deserve a penalty. That will likely need to be corrected by targeted trade sanctions against those people who have shown a history of trying to Win that way. To 'be fair', it appears inevitable that targeted trade sanctions will be required to penalize things like attempts by people in nations like the USA, Canada, and Australia (the supposedly more advanced nations on the planet), to continue to benefit from the burning of coal (including exports of coal for burning elsewhere). And those actions targeting already fortunate people who continue to try to benefit from the burning of coal will likely need to incrementally be expanded to target already fortunate people who continue to try to benefit from the burning of bitumen, then oil, then natural gas, as required to achieve the agreed objective of 'fairly' limiting the harm done to future generations.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:34 AM on 22 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchemyst is quite elogious on China's nuclear program. I looked into it a little to see if the usual problems were better dealt with (delays and cost overruns) and was not so impressed. Alchemyst refered to Wikipedia, so I'm taking it as an acceptable source of information.
The Wiki on China nuclear program reveals a mixed picture. The first 3 links in post 21 refers to the CAP 1400 reactors, an evolution of the Westinghouse AP1000 design, set to be built at the Shidawoan site. One link is from 2014, the other 2016, the last from 2017 mentions the scaled down version of the Westinghouse design. The current Shidawoan installation is a proof of concept demonstration project, which was set to be connected to the grid in 2018. That first unit is a 200 MW scaled down version of the full size 1400 MW design. The CAP1400 design passed the IAEA generic reactor safety review in 2015 and construction was set to begin by the end of that year. However, as of 2017, construction has been postponed because of the significant delays in completing the AP1000, Westinghouse older design. Westinghouse was majority owned by Toshiba but has filed for bankruptcy, which could be a major hurdle in bringing the CAP1400 design into existence. My take is that enthusiasm for the AP1400 should wait at least until construction is well under way and we're nowhere close to that.
The problems with nuclear energy remain: it is extremely expensive, usually more than planned; construction takes a long time, once again usually more than planned. Plants have a limited life span, beyond 40-50 years the upkeep adds significant costs to production.
The CANDU (pressurized heavy water reactors pioneered in Canada) types of plants look like a good idea in theory, especially from the operational safety point of view, although tritium emissions need attention. The fact that they can draw from a variety of fue sources and recovered uranium also speaks in their favor. The CANDU6 reactors built in Quinshan can boast of their completion on schedule and on budget, refreshing among modern built facilities. Most such reactors are found in Ontario, and many have been decommissioned, sometimes at very high costs. Economic performance does not call for more enthusiasm than the yet-to-be-started AP1400. From the CANDU wiki:
"Based on Ontario's record, the economic performance of the CANDU system is quite poor.[according to whom?] Although much attention has been focussed on the problems with the Darlington plant, every CANDU design in Ontario went over budget by at least 25%, and average over 150% higher than estimated.[66] Darlington was the worst, at 350% over budget, but this project was stopped in-progress thereby incurring additional interest charges during a period of high interest rates, which is a special situation that was not expected to repeat itself."
Furthermore: "In 1998, Ontario Hydro calculated that the cost of generation from CANDU was 7.7 cents/kWh, whereas hydropower was only 1.1 cents, and their coal-fired plants were 4.3 cents. As Ontario Hydro received a regulated price averaging 6.3 cents/kWh for power in this period, the revenues from the other forms of generation were being used to fund the operating losses of the nuclear plants."
Nuclear is no panacea and does not deserve less careful consideration than any other solution.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:44 AM on 22 February 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
"a outlier paper (Zwally 2015)"
Let's look at that:
Zwally et al 2015 took an unconventional approach to assessing the mass balance of Antarctica. Unlike other studies, before and since, that used satellite altimetry or satellite gravimetric methods, Zwally’s team chose to compare net snowfall accumulation to estimated ice discharge to the ocean in a dataset that ended in 2008. In order to do this type of analysis properly, 3 main things are needed:1. It is critical to use the most optimal corrections for instrument biases (the ICESat data used need to have the appropriate saturation bias corrections to get real-world answers that are reproducible)
2. The most-accurate densities of snow have to be used
3. The most-optimal values for changes in bedrock elevation (GIA) in response to ice sheet mass changes have to be usedAs has been since determined by multiple studies (A, B, C, D, E, F and G, listed following):
1. The ICESat bias corrections used by the Zwally team were appropriate for measuring sea ice, but not for measuring high altitude land-base ice sheets like found in Antarctica (the values returned for Lake Vostok alone were so unphysical that they should have made the entire study DOA)
2. A value for snowfall density different than that determined by decades of land-based research was used
3. The values used by the Zwally team to correct for GIA were too high by a factor of 2As such, their results cannot be reproduced using well-established bias corrections, known snow densities and more appropriate values for GIA.
Looking at even more recent studies, per Gardner et al 2018:
"Including modeled rates of snow accumulation and basal melt, the Antarctic ice sheet lost ice at an average rate of 183 ± 94 Gt yr−1 between 2008 and 2015."
Results from the recent IMBIE Team from 2018 show that Antarctic ice sheet mass losses are accelerating, tripling their contribution to global sea level rise since 2012.
Lastly, Bamber et al 2018 subtly but firmly savages Zwally et al 2015:
"Issues with the approach used for calibration of the altimetry by Zwally et al have been identified (Scambos and Shuman 2016) and an attempt to replicate the trends using similar assumptions for the physical mechanism could not reproduce the large positive balance they found (Mart´ın-Espanol ̃ et al 2017). For these reasons, we believe that the estimates from this study are likely erroneous"
The values for the Antarctic ice sheet mass balance from NASA GRACE are the most current available (to January 2017). An ever-strengthening, consilient body of research using multiple methods all point to that conclusion.
Reference studies:
A. Scambos et al 2016 Comment on Zwally et al 2015
B. Martín-Español et al 2016 - Spatial and temporal Antarctic Ice Sheet mass trends, glacio-isostatic adjustment, and surface processes from a joint inversion of satellite altimeter, gravity, and GPS data
C. Schröder et al 2017 - Validation of satellite altimetry by kinematic GNSS in central East Antarctica
D. Martín-Español et al 2017 - Constraining the mass balance of East Antarctica
E. Gardner et al 2018 - Increased West Antarctic and unchanged East Antarctic ice discharge over the last 7 years
F. The IMBIE Team 2018 - Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017
G. Bamber et al 2018 - The land ice contribution to sea level during the satellite era
Interestingly, previous research has shown that ice sheet mass contributions from land-based ice sheets have exceeded thermal expansion as the biggest contributor to global sea level rise. Recent research now has isolated the individual ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.
Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014, the mass component of global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers. There is an additional ~1 mm per year of SLR coming from thermal expansion (H/T to Victor Zlotnicki).
Moderator Response:[DB] Edited to add references to sources E, F and G.
-
jclairea at 07:42 AM on 22 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2012/04/01/pacific-islands-disaster-risk-reduction-and-financing-in-the-pacific
^World Bank article I referenced in previous post.
-
jclairea at 07:41 AM on 22 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
@jef, I agree with your critiques of this article’s advancement of both reducing atmospheric carbon levels now, while also encouraging a low-carbon future, which it does without an inclusion of how individuals or groups might take action. You are absolutely correct in saying that what is needed is truth speaking to the masses, which is a “herculean task,” yet should be of utmost importance given climate change’s immediacy. The article discusses Antartica’s importance in being a reservoir of 70% of our world’s freshwater, with melting ice sheets and the resultant sea rise posing great danger to over 150 million people globally. Unfortunately, climate change is not at all fair, having perverse asymmetry of impacts and interests, meaning those who contribute the least are often impacted the most. The article alludes to this by describing the potential future threat to populated areas such as Florida and New York, but the “immediate and acute” threat small low-elevation islands are already facing, such as the Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Due to their fragile environments and often unstable economies, island nations tend to struggle greatly at bouncing back after a devastating natural disaster, for they simply do not have the resources to be resiliently reactive. Ten years ago, the World Bank created the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) in order to establish risk assessment strategies, while developing pragmatic financial and technical applications to try and mitigate these islands’ susceptibility to disasters. As a prominent global development organization, The World Bank has an interest in lessening poverty seen around the world via sustainable solutions; but if major contributors to climate change are not working to lessen their carbon footprints, will such mitigation strategies truly be effective?
Prev 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 Next
