Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Next
Comments 15701 to 15750:
-
chapeaured at 09:36 AM on 12 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
There are major genetic constraints to critical thinking on topics like climate change. For 17 years starting in 1995, I tried to reason with a group of very conservative American foresters in an Internet discussion group called SAFNews that morphed into ForestryFocus. They argued that we have no significant environmental problems at all and that global warming was a hoax. I had assumed that climate change was real, but the conviction of this group took me aback. For about four years, I would look up their sources, and became convinced they were all wrong. Evidence that I would present on anthropogenic global warming only seemed to strengthen their conviction that it was a hoax. I am a very strong liberal and I had never med people like this. I found it very difficult to accept that one could not find a way to reason with these people. I tried every tactic I could think of. After 17 years of trying, I finally came to conclude that they were sincere in their belief and there was no way to change that.
Then, about two years after giving up, I read “The Republican Brain” by Chris Mooney, and it explained what I had just experienced. The book summarizes peer reviewed research that found that there is a strong genetic influence on our political orientations and that strong conservatives are incapable of thinking rationally/critically/logically about issues that conflict with their conservative beliefs. Conservatives recognize correctly that if global warming were true, then, not only does it necessitate a role for government to intervene in the economy, but, horror of horrors, all the governments in the world need to collaborate together to solve the problem. So therefore, it can’t be true and global warming is a hoax. And the most incredible research finding of all is that it is the best educated conservatives who are the least capable of thinking critically about things that conflict with their beliefs. And there is no equivalence on the liberal side – it is the best educated liberals who are the most capable of thinking critically about things that disagree with their political beliefs.
More recently, I read the book “Our Political Nature” by evolutionary anthropologist Avi Tuschman. It argues that our genes are responsible for just over half of our political orientations and it goes into what scientists believe the evolutionary selective factors were for our political orientations. Conservatives are genetically predisposed to be more xenophobic, have greater religiosity, to be more repressive of women’s rights, to be less concerned about fairness than liberals and to have a darker view towards human nature. One can clearly see this being played out on the national stage today.
Cheers,
Roy Hagen -
scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 12 February 2018Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Understand too that if you want to blame greenland melt on geothermal activity, then you need to demonstrate a change in geothermal activity of an appropriate magnitude. That is not to say that higher than expected geothermal flux may be responsible for a mismatch between modelled and observed ice loss in parts of Northeast Greenland (eg see here ), but that is very different from postulating that a change in heat flux has occurred.
The observed high heat flux is 0.093Wm-2. This is indeed high compared to a global average of 0.050Wm-2, but no indication that it has changed recently. Compare that to a global heat flux change of 3.7Wm-2 from doubling CO2 and you can see why geothermal is a bit player in ice melt.
-
nigelj at 05:46 AM on 12 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The whole idea of the Paris accord was to let countries decide their own way to limit emissions. Its just not practially plausible to get the whole world to agree on one way to limit emissions, for example carbon tax, emissions trading, command and control. Paris implicitly recognised this.
We dont have the right to tell other countries how to run their economies so whether they have command and control or carbon taxes etcetera. We can only advocate our philosophical preferences, and hope to persuade them, but it would be wrong to manipulate the climate issue to try to somehow coerce them to take a particular position. The only exception might be if their preferred solution involved life threatening human rights violations.
I'm a pragmatist as well on economic policy. Its a question of what makes sense in the specific circumstances, and I rule nothing out. Maintream economics says free market economies work best an are the preferred default option, but there is sometimes a definite place for command and control provided its used sparingly. This makes total sense to me.
Simply having a police force is command and control, so free markets in a pure sense are a fiction anyway. The debate is about what to do in specific circumstances (hopefully on the basis of evidence) and I dont have much time for people who can't work this out. Obviously we should always be careful not to let government crowd out private sector solutions, but neither should we assume the private sector always has all the answers. Welcome to the real world of complexity.
If one accepts a middle ground flexible economic philosophy of this kind, its a question of what is going to work best on the climate issue. This might actually be regulatory command and control because of the limited time period we have. However because this is politically difficult to swallow, at least as the main dominant mechanism, carbon taxes are the next best option, and Im totally happy with that.
-
wili at 05:31 AM on 12 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Thanks as always for these.
Something for next week's News Roundup?
Climate Impacts From a Removal of Anthropogenic Aerosol Emissions
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076079/full
abstract:
“Limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2.0°C requires strong mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Concurrently, emissions of anthropogenic aerosols will decline, due to coemission with GHG, and measures to improve air quality. However, the combined climate effect of GHG and aerosol emissions over the industrial era is poorly constrained. Here we show the climate impacts from removing present-day anthropogenic aerosol emissions and compare them to the impacts from moderate GHG-dominated global warming.
Removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating of 0.5–1.1°C, and precipitation increase of 2.0–4.6%. Extreme weather indices also increase.
We find a higher sensitivity of extreme events to aerosol reductions, per degree of surface warming, in particular over the major aerosol emission regions. Under near-term warming, we find that regional climate change will depend strongly on the balance between aerosol and GHG forcing.”
-
michael sweet at 05:23 AM on 12 February 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Richard,
I typed "how much will temperature rise if all fossil fuel usage stops" into GOOGLE and the first hit was this article from the Conversation. It suggests that the temeprature would rise about 0.6C more before it levels out. There are a lot of caveats.
As OPOF points out, land usage and agriculture also affect temperature. I do not think the 0.6C number includes heating from decreased albeido due to meltig of ice sheets which takes a longer time frame. This is about what I remembered from articles I have read before, although the linked article does not provide a link or a graph to support the claim.
Google found several more interesting articles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:03 AM on 12 February 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Richard@12
An evaluation of the global average temperature increase due to an immediate stopping of all fossil fuel burning does not "put a lower bound on the problem".
Fossil fuel burning is only part of the human impacts that are producing increased GHG and resulting in increased global average surface temperature. And there is a range of climate sensitivity values that could be used for the evaluation. The detailed analysis comes down to a probabilistic evaluation through the various potential future realities (similar to the Monte Carlo financial analysis that is performed by companies to evaluate the probably outcomes of major investment opportunities).
So doing an analysis of a hypothetical stopping of fossil fuel burning does not produce "a lower bound". Such a question may be analytically interesting, but it really would not establish anything meaningful.
What needs to be changed and corrected in the current developed ways that humans live (particularly the biggest winners, the biggest consumers, the biggest impacting people), is presented in many sources including the IPCC reports. The presentations typically discuss the carbon budget, meaning the GHG impacts, that is still available before there is a a reasonable probability that the global average surface temperature would reach 2.0C.
The focus of any discussion about what needs to be done should include the understanding that the current challenge is bigger because the biggest winners did not begin to responsibly behave better decades ago when the understanding of the needed changes/corrections of behaviour were very well established.
Note that understanding is not determined by regional temporary popular opinion. And the actions of many of the biggest Winners to attempt to influence public opinion in favour of their understandably 'harmful to Others, particularly to future generations' Private Interest pursuits (understandable to the biggest winners that they had a lot to lose if the general population better understood the required corrections, and that they could gain benefit by misleading portions of the general population) is a major part of the problem they should be penalized for deliberately trying to make worse.
There are legal cases developing (particularly in the New York region that includes the Stock Exchange where Team Trump are currently trying to get their preferred legal leaders in place) in the hopes of penalizing the real trouble making Winners at the top - the ones who are very well shielded from legal consequence - their best defence being denial of awareness of what was happening 'below them' that was undeniably very beneficial 'to them' - people who may try to claim that a particular expectation was unrealistic because things had already been pushed to a higher level of trouble 'by others' - people who would abuse an analysis of a calculated value of the global average surface temperature impact already created to claim it is unfair to 'expect them to not try to legally pursue maximizing their, and their investors, personal potential for benefit ' based on a 2.0C limit of total impacts (it is generally not illegal to mislead the general population, and the limited legal requirements for truth in product and services advertising do not apply to political advertising, but it is illegal to mislead investors). Those biggest winners likely knowing they are acting harmfully can also claim 'someone else should have to do more first - to be fair'.
Hopefully that gives you reason to no longer care about the temperature expected if fossil fuel burning was stopped today, or tomorrow, or any other day. What is important is the understanding that the harmful impacts of burning fossil fuels needs to be ended far quicker than the games of popularity and profitability would end them. And the reluctance of people in the recent past to behave more responsibly has created an even bigger challenge today, with bigger loses required to be suffered by the ones who gambled more on getting away with not changing their minds and behaviour. They can be expected to perceive such personal loses as being 'unfair to them' but that is clearly an incorrect way of thinking about this matter. They need to be helped to better understand that.
The climate science based understanding of a 2.0C limit (with the aspiration of rapidly correcting things to undo human impacts back down to a 1.5C level for the greater benefit of the future generations), accepted by all global leaders in the Paris Agreement, and the changes/corrections needed to have a good chance of achieving it, is what needs to be focused on, for many Good Reasons.
-
scaddenp at 19:02 PM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Arguing that China needs a carbon tax is simply a variation of your opinion that capitalism is better than command economies. I agree but whether a carbon tax is effective in their existing political structure is something for the Chinese to decide. Democracies can also simply impose a moritortium on an new generation plants that carbon (as the NZ Clarke government did). Let the market decide how to meet future power needs. However, carbon tax advocacy is mostly trying for a solution that is acceptable to the political right where an ideological position limits government intervention to correcting externalities that the market does not cover.
I frankly have little time for ideological solutions unless they are also pragmatic. I'll back command solutions, moritoriums and carbon tax as all potentially effective ways to decarbonize an economy.
-
scaddenp at 18:53 PM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM, moving off fossil fuels is necessary to avoid excessive adaption costs. If you do not agree that we can move off fossil fuels at the same rate as we increased our usage of them, then your argument from incrementalism is pure sophistry as michaell sweet was hinting at here.
-
Richard13791 at 16:06 PM on 11 February 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
One Planet @11.
I agree with you. However, my question remains unanswered. Can you direct me to someone who may have run such an analysis?
-
Daniel Bailey at 13:48 PM on 11 February 2018Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Understand that underground geothermal activity is a small factor for a landmass the size of Greenland.
-
Alchemyst at 11:29 AM on 11 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
nigelj
Not "everyone in physics". von Jolly, who's main claim to fame was that he was Max Plank's professor is quoted as advising his student against physics as "in this field [physics] everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:26 AM on 11 February 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
Richard@10,
The understanding I am aware of is that, in addition to the rapid ending of the burning of fossil fuels, there will need to be actions taken that remove some the created excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Truly responsible leadership would push for that combination of actions to minimize the peak increase of global average surface temperature and rapidly bring the CO2 levels even lower than the 2.0C levels.
-
snowman16470 at 10:18 AM on 11 February 2018Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Greenland has been loozing a lot of its ice lately (2017-2018)
Could it be because of this underground thermal activity.They do have nateral hot water pools in greenland.
https://theplanetd.com/bathing-at-the-top-of-the-world-greenland/
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
Richard13791 at 10:03 AM on 11 February 2018So, why is two degrees the magic number?
To put a lower bound on the problem, what is the expected temperature rise in 2100 IF if we were to stop all human produced greenhouse gas emissions RIGHT NOW right now? Has anyone plugged these conditions into their computer?
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. To emphasize a word or a sentence segment, please use bold font.
-
nigelj at 08:41 AM on 11 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Alchemyst @11
Obviously a "consensus" is not 100% proof of an idea. However a consensus has considerable value, and is more likely to be correct that the ravings of some ignoramus with limited intelligence in the local drinking house. Its also more likely to be correct than dozens of eccentric alternative theories.
Your Einsten example is a poor example. Everyone in physics knew that Newtons laws didn't explain everything, and that change was coming.
I think it comes down more to politics. Do governments look at the consensus, or the views of some eccentric when deciding policy? I think they have to go with the consensus. Perhaps there are exceptional circumstances otherwise sometimes, but there are none to suggest they should ignore the agw consensus.
A consensus also gives the general public an indication of what the majority of scientists are thinking, and this is necessary. One of the great frustrations in the climate debate is deceptive propoganda planted by climate denialists suggesting there is no consensus, or something like a 50 / 50 split. For this reason alone its important to highlight that a consensus exists. People are entitled to know the staus of things at least.
I personally think Muller is slightly more towards the healthy sceptic end of the spectrum, and was at least prepared to back himself. But lets face it, 90% of the scepticism directed at agw climate change is irrational, misleading, barking mad denialism.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:56 AM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
Rereading comments in this string, and recalling previous strings, I have to ask if you understand, accept and support the need for the global impacts of human activity to be limited to a level that climate science indicates has a good chance of less than 2.0C increase of global average surface temperature above pre-industrial levels.
If you disagree with that understanding, that all of the global leaders agreed was the proper understanding of what was needed to responsibly limit the harm done to future generations, please provide the 'substantial new climate science evidence' that was not part of the basis for the understanding and acceptance of the Paris Agreement. 'Substantial new climate science evidence' is the only thing that would justify changing such a decision (not the election of a different leader in the USA).
I am not asking for an expession of a different belief or opinion. The Paris Agreement was a robustly based reasoned decision that, if anything, was an expression of a lower level of corrective action because of the reluctance of some of the participants to have to do more. That is why it includes the expectation that all parties will ratchet up their actions to responsibly and fairly achieve what is required (The belief/claim by the likes of Donald Trump that the Paris Agreement is unfair to their Tribe (sub-set of humanity) is 'the stuff that male cattle emit from their rear ends').
-
Alchemyst at 07:53 AM on 11 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
sorry typo please delete "not a single " and replace with "every"
-
Alchemyst at 07:49 AM on 11 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Powell is appealing to authority. As a geologist he should know that befoe Wallace's and Darwin's papers were read the almost 100% view by the experts in the field (eg Owen) was that biological species do not change. His comments on Muller were completely unfounded and do not reflect history.
By definition not a single revoltionary thought eg from Darwin, Galileo, Bohr and Einstein have always come by disagreemt with the consensus.
"One of the great commandments of science is "Mistrust arguments from authorty". Too many such arguments have proved painfully wrong" - Sagan
One Muller is worth 98 Powells
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
"The plan may be contingent on the outcome of a March election, in which current South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill faces a challenge from a conservative candidate who opposes specifics of the plan, referring to it as a “reckless experiment.”
I dont see why its called a "reckless experiment". The system could be modelled quite well, and only involves a relatively small number of homes, so the state as a whole is not likely to be critically reliant on the system. If it has problems, they have gas fired plant.
Elon Musk has had huge successes with his cars, this space launch vehicle, and tesla power cells so he clearly knows what hes doing with technology. (He could however find a better factory manager).
Opposition sure looks politically motivated.
-
John Hartz at 04:09 AM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Recommended supplemental reading:
Two days after the 2016 presidential election I found myself eavesdropping on Paul Lussier and a group of students at the Yale School of Forestry and the Environment as they discussed the future of climate science. The students feared that the things they held dear—renewable energy, sustainable development, ecological conservation (and no doubt their careers)—would be derailed by Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about climate change.
I listened as Lussier, who directs the Yale Science Communications with Impact Network, reminded them how researchers, businesspeople, policymakers, and media can work together to inspire action around climate change, regardless of the government’s stance on the issue.
The following is an edited version of our conversation.
On the Side of Climate Solutions: An Interview with Paul Lussier by Catherine Halley, JSTOR Daily, Feb 7, 2018
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:45 AM on 11 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@40,
The continued increase of burning of fossil fuels has occurred 'Because the understandably unacceptable activity can be gotten away with in the fatally flawed developed socio-economic-political games people play'.
Correcting the incorrect developments is what is required. Believing there is a way to get things corrected without changing the game/system that the incorrect things developed in is a Fool's Game.
-
David Kirtley at 00:49 AM on 11 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
knaugle @1 Funny you should mention The Hidden Brain, my wife is a big fan of Vedantum's podcast and is currently reading that book. I might have to read it next.
Tadaaa @3 I agree with nigel, Metabunk looks very interesting.
I originally had included Bob Inglis in this blogpost but I felt it was getting a bit too long so I edited him out. Here is a good Yale360 interview with him. As you noted, he too was persuaded by evidence (ice core info from Antarctica) but another thing which moved him was his voters, specifically the voters in his own family! Perhaps there's some hope in that fact: politicians do have to answer to their voters, and ideally they should listen to their constituents, so that gives us some "power" to influence them. Although in reality that power is pretty "soft" when compared to the power which their major donors have over them (for example, the Koch brothers).
Another example which didn't make the cut is Dave Titley, former US Navy Admiral. Peter Sinclair has a good video of him describing his "conversion" .
-
MA Rodger at 18:43 PM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp@30,
I think we can take NorrisM@40 as being a "No".
Of course, I would also answer "No" because I would at first consider reducing-FF-use as a 1-to-1 proxy for reducing-FF-emissions. In that circumstance, reducing FF use at the same rate as they increased would result in 350Gt(C) of CO2 emissions by 2100, a figure which doesn't include any LUC or cement CO2 emissions and which on its own is well above the remaining budget set out in IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report Table 2.2. The central values set out in T2.2 were a post-2011 budget for 1.5ºC of 550Gt(CO2) (or 90Gt(C) post-2017) and a post-2011 budget for 2ºC of 1300Gt(CO2) (or 190Gt(C) post-2017).
-
nigelj at 18:31 PM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM
I just want to clarify I think western governments should allow electricity companies to make the precise choices on what forms of renewable energy they use, and I'm using the term renewable energy reasonably widely here. Government should set the market rules and a few key goals, implemement carbon taxes, and then let the market do its thing.
I think China will go its own way on how it implements renewable energy. There would as you say be some sense in them at least having a carbon price, but they have a kind of a more government heavy economy, and it may just be inevitable that they make use of that in their own way. Things aren't black and white economically and politically. China is a hugely culturally diverse country of a billion people, and might have been hard to unite without an element of autocracy, although I personally prefer democratic government.
Fwiw I support practical mixed economies, with large private sectors, but the state provides services where the market doesn't do an adequate or equitable job. Ideally I think China should evolve towards this direction. It is a bit too government heavy.
I agree a revenue neutral carbon tax is good for the reasons you say. It also makes sense because it maintains the operation of market forces. However if the world doesn't get on with things like this, and if climate change were to become abrupt and highly dangerous, command and control in some form will be the only remaining option. So if you and people like Scott Pruitt value free markets, think about that.
-
NorrisM at 17:11 PM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @ 37
"All the renewable energy policies and carbon tax propoals being realistically considered are incremental anyway, so I don't know why you are criticicing them as not being incremental."
I completely agree with the first part of this sentence so I don't know why you think I have criticized them. But I do think that we should let the market make these decisions after placing a cost on fossil fuels. Unless we are talking about major infrastructure projects or research and development, I do not trust governments to spend our money wisely.
-
NorrisM at 17:03 PM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 33
Obviously the reason fossil fuel use has increased relates to the increased demand by the world for energy so I do not think you can simply say that fossil fuel consumption has to decrease at the same rate it has increased. There is no logical connection between the two.
I think placing a cost on fossil fuels in the form of a neutral carbon tax (by neutral I mean one which is either refunded to the populace by dividend or, as in British Columbia, replaces other tax revenue sources) is the form of incrementalism that I have in mind. This incrementalism is already happening. I highly doubt that new coal plants would have any chance of being funded in the marketplace and the old ones are being displaced by lower operational cost alternatives like natural gas, wind and solar.
I do not agree with nigelj's comments that countries like China with command economies should not "price" carbon costs into the economic system.
Placing a cost on fossil fuels will allow other technologies to compete and new ones to come into existence. The problem with command economies (or partial command economies like China) has always been that they always get it wrong on what to produce. Let the market decide.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:48 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj,
A supplement to my comment at 38. The people benefiting from an activity that is potentially or actually creating negative consequences for Others do not get to determine the acceptability of what they are doing. All of the Others being fully informed and thoroughly understanding the negative impacts are the ones to determine acceptability or acceptable compensation.
For actions related to climate science it is clear that it is all members of future generations (and the negatively affected portuions of today's global population) who are to determine the acceptability of what is being done. The problem is clearly the lack of foresight by leaders today to properly act in ways that will result in future generations (and all the others in today's generation) being pleased with the developed results.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:18 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@35,
I agree that the most helpful actions are efforts to raise awareness and improve understanding of real reality.
That means climate scientists continue pursuing new awareness and developing improved understanding of what is going on. They do need to try to understand why the challenges to increased public awareness and understanding of what they are learning. But they should not apply the 'misleading marketing lessons' they learn have been successfully used against their efforts to improve public awareness and understanding.
It also means directly calling an activity that is beneficial to the ones benefiting from it but harmful to others an 'uncategorically unacceptable activity'. And that includes calling the continued efforts by already rich people to try to get more benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, including their efforts to discredit climate science, unacceptable - especially since the late 1960s. Before the 1960s it may be possible to legitimately claim that those rich people just didn't know better. But the added climate science awareness and understanding in every decade since the 1960s has further reduced the potential to excuse any wealthy person or person in a position of power who tries to claim they were not aware of the unacceptability of the burning of fossil fuels. And at some point in the recent past, maybe about the time of the Kyoto Accord, it became almost unbelievable that any wealthy or powerful person could legitimately claim to be unaware of the unacceptability of already fortunate people trying to benefit even more from the burning of fossil fuels.
-
Riduna at 07:24 AM on 10 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
Michael Sweet:
I didn’t cite Hansen et al estimate of SLR but rather their prediction of cooling in NW and central Europe. But since you mention it, when it comes to a choice between Hansen et al and 5AR, Hansen gets my vote every time.
River flooding can be caused by SLR, glacier melt or precipitation. By 2100 it seems likely that SLR and precipitation will be the main culprits since ice mass loss from glaciers might be expected to slow due to cooling predicted by Hansen.
The problem I have with the 5AR prediction is that it is widely accepted by Local, State and Federal Governments as the basis on which they zone land and permit building. The result is likely to be that, within 100 years land and buildings could be under several metres of water, giving rise to the question of public liability.
It also enables Governments to ignore what is likely to prove a very real threat to existing infratsructure on which entire economies - and populations - rely for their survival.
-
nigelj at 07:08 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norris M @31
"I think our major disagreement is at what level should a carbon tax in the world be imposed. As much as you could argue that certain costs from rising sea levels could be directly attributed to fossil fuels it hardly matters if imposing such a charge would put the world economy into a tailspin."
I dont see the need for endless prevarication on the issue. America should just implement just a relatively modest carbon tax, as long as its not ridiculously modest, and the economy is not going to collapse. Some other countries have already implemented carbon taxes, and not one economy has collapsed, or even had any negative effects. The best approach is carbon tax and dividend because its going to have the lowest risk of causing any abrupt negative economic reaction.
"As well, when you reach too far into the "costs" of fossil fuels worldwide, at what point do you have to offset those "costs" with the massive benefits that fossil fuels have provided to humanity over the last 200 years? I wonder whether the lawyers filing defences to these actions by cities in the US against large oil companies for the damages arising out of sea rise levels will raise this. I suspect not because they just want the actions thrown out of court. But some judge might want to comment on this."
The actions against fossil fuel companies appear to be that they hid evidence of climate change, not that fossil fuels are evil, so your comment is a red herring.
All academics and climate scientists considering the climate issue are perfectly aware fossil fuels have had benefits. I dont know why you think they don't know this. Studies factor in benefits.
All the renewable energy policies and carbon tax propoals being realistically considered are incremental anyway, so I don't know why you are criticicing them as not being incremental.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @30, I dont think a carbon tax is all that relevent to China. Basically they are a dictatorship, but fortunately a relatively benevolent one, and in many ways China is still a command and control economy.
So if China want to reduce emissions, all Xi Jin Ping has to do is order coal plants closed, and order companies to sell electric cars and so on. Western democracies operate a bit differently.
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
One Planet Only Forever @29
Yes that is interesting and compelling about unite the right, and consistent with what I see in NZ with the behaviour of the right wing's attempts to pull various groups together, although fortunately its just not nearly as powerful as in America and Canada. We are largely a country of boring moderates, and long may it remain that way.
"They (unite the right) oppose any changes that would reduce their ability to development of perceptions of economic/financial superiority compared to others. "
Yes, and they are driven so strongly by their desires to be at the top of the pecking order materialistically that all else becomes sacrificed. They are slaves to their biological drives and emotions of the short term, while hypocritically blaming others for being slaves to other forms of addiction.
"They like people who have anxieties that are easy to trigger as long as they can get many of those triggered anxious people to 'vote for/with them'."
The unite the right right manipulate anxieties with arguments to emotion and prejudice, while the left are trying to take an evidence and rational argument based approach. Unite the right play a dirty game, and also use clickbait as much as possible.
However the left get lost in details and nuance, and lack a simple clear agenda at times. However its challenging, because the answers to todays problems are often complex, so over simplified messaging is a problem as well. But the bottom line is it would be a mistake I think for scientists and moderates to start using manipulative fear mongering, and to start playing unit the rights own rhetorical game.
"They are correctly certain that their chance of Winning Their Private Interest increases if the agree to, or do not caring that they, support other unacceptable Private Interests."
Yes, however this process of compromise will hopefully eventually become unplatable, and will tear them apart. In a similar way The White House is in turmoil. Also on a related matter, how far can the RC in America compromise its own beliefs? Right now they have trashed their beliefs in fiscal responsibility, freedom of the press, and any shred of a science based or even a commonsense approach to environmental legislation. They have sold their soul for what? A tax cut that is clearly excessive and not properly funded, and which has caused the stock market to crash, and has locked in probable interest rate rises. Genius, not.
-
nigelj at 05:59 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"In the end fossil fuels will run out and we will be forced to use renewable energy.'
Yes, and this may happen sooner than we think. British petroleum says we have 50 years of oil left, on the basis of known reserves and current rates of consumption. More oil will be discovered of course, but new discoveries have been dropping for decades now. I would hazard a reasonable guess that only 100 years are left.
Its similar with coal, estimate are that 100 - 200 years of coal are left.
All these estimates are on current rates of consumption and take no account of population growth. So those 100 year estimates may well be optimistic.
And the point is 100 years is nothing in terms of human time scales. Renewable energy is inevitable sooner than we think, and so now is as good a time as any, especially considering the climate problem . By the time countries like India and Africa, start developing serious electricity grids at scale, coal prices will probabaly be increasing, even if there was no climate issue to consider.
-
scaddenp at 05:46 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM, based on your 'incrementalism', can we assume you are comfortable with FF consumption being reduced at same rate as it increased?
-
nigelj at 05:21 AM on 10 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
I started out believing in agw climate change, then went through a brief sceptical period after seeing some sceptical movie, can't remember the name, then went back to believing in the mainstream position after looking more closely at all sides of the issue. It wasn't one thing that convinced me really, although understanding solar trends was important.
Moncton drives me insane, but is presumably quite well educated. Its a mystery to me whether he really believes the "insignificant trace gas" theory, or it's just deliberate stupidity, or maybe hes just talked himself into it.
But there are just so many obvious examples of very small quantities having profound impacts, such as certain toxins, and semiconductor physics. But it appears a lot of people struggle with this concept.
Yes peer reviewed science is not perfect, but nobody has a better alternative as you say. Individuals and governments must go with the mainstream, weight of peer reviewed evidence, even if it sometimes turns out to be wrong, which is not actually very often. The only alternative is gut instincts and conspiracy theories, which will be wrong a great deal more of the time. Anyway, the climate issue has been researched in vastly more depth than most scientific issues, like for example the saturated fats issue where a lot of reliance was put on a couple of poor quality, ancient studies.
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.
But it all hinged around the "hide the decline" email. This looked really bad from the general publics point of view, and has set things back in terms of winning over the public. I knew roughly what was meant by that, and it as a legitimate technical term, not meaning literally manipulate the evidence, but the general public would not know, and trying to then explain "after the event" sounds defensive and like a convenient excuse, even although it isn't. Someone in politics said that "explaining is losing". Of course this is a rash generalisation and not literally true, but you would understand his point.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:05 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@30,
Kyoto and the Paris Agreement both include the clear expectation that after responsible leadership toward sustainable energy is shown by the already well-developed nations, the developing nations like China and India, would follow that leadership (and be assisted by the already 'better-off'.
Many of the wealthy in the USA in particular decided not to do that, not to responsibly lead the correction of energy sourcing.
So the real question should be, what will it take for the USA to collectively act Responsibly in the interest of improving the future for global humanity?
-
John Hartz at 04:24 AM on 10 February 2018It's the sun
Recommended supplemental reading:
Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century; Now Scientists Know by How Much, News, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Feb 5, 2018
-
NorrisM at 03:35 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 23
I do not believe that you really think I agree with the uninformed and anti-science attitude of the Trump administration. My hope of a Red Team Blue Team discussion was to put this issue front and centre in the US which would have the effect of forcing the Republicans to admit those things on which all agree. Although Pruitt in his recent interview at a television station in Nevada again made reference to the red team blue team analysis, I just do not think Trump will agree to it because it seems that what makes him tick is this desire never to be proven wrong no matter how much evidence is put before him. He just will not "eat his words" that "climate change is a hoax". I came to realize this about him after learning more about his personality from reading Fire and Fury.
I think our major disagreement is at what level should a carbon tax in the world be imposed. As much as you could argue that certain costs from rising sea levels could be directly attributed to fossil fuels it hardly matters if imposing such a charge would put the world economy into a tailspin.
As well, when you reach too far into the "costs" of fossil fuels worldwide, at what point do you have to offset those "costs" with the massive benefits that fossil fuels have provided to humanity over the last 200 years? I wonder whether the lawyers filing defences to these actions by cities in the US against large oil companies for the damages arising out of sea rise levels will raise this. I suspect not because they just want the actions thrown out of court. But some judge might want to comment on this.
-
NorrisM at 03:14 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet and nigelj
Some good points. Nigelj, a great website reference which I will have to read more carefully.
I agree that a carbon tax would have relevance but only if China came onboard. If anyone has any references about the chances of a carbon tax in China or India that would be interesting.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:26 AM on 10 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@25,
Unite the Right and the Alt Right movements are indeed different.
The Alt Right is indeed an extremist group that seems particularly focused on Conserving their perception of the deserving superiority of White Males in every nation they are active in. They seem to be indifferent to climate science as long as it does not interfere with them achieving their Private Interests.
Unite the Right is more focused on Conserving their ability to get away with Private Interest economic pursuits that are contrary to advancing humanity to a sustainable better future. They oppose any changes that would reduce their ability to development of perceptions of economic/financial superiority compared to others. They are willing to play a Net-Negative game, a game that produces an overall damaging result, if they think they can be seen to be better off as a result of playing that type of a game. They deliberately try to impede corrective actions that climate science has identified are essential to improving the future for humanity. Their motivation is obvious, their choice to pursue/develop a Private Interest that is contrary to advancing humanity to a better future.
Unite the Right groups attempt to build a 'Big Tent' of support in a way that includes the Alt Right types. They like people who have anxieties that are easy to trigger as long as they can get many of those triggered anxious people to 'vote for/with them'. And Alt Right types seeing what they like in the United Right can indeed be tempted to vote for a 'major' party, something they previously never thought would help them get what they wanted. They definitely would like what they see in the likes of Trump and Sessions and Bannon.
In Canada and Alberta the Unite the Right groups deliberately pursued the amalgamation of political parties with Private Interests that were contrary to improving the future for humanity. They also fought to get the right to call themselves the 'Conservative' Party. In Canada and Alberta that meant removing the Progressive Conservative Party from voter choices. They first attempted to take over the Progressive Conservative Party, but shifted to other means of getting what they wanted when they were unable to sustainably push the Progressive members out. A very similar thing can be seen to have happened in the USA.
Unite the Right can be seen as a significant developing political barrier/challenge to increased public awareness and understanding regarding climate science. People who like the Unite the Right will vote united for each other's understandably unacceptable Private Interests. They know that each of their Private Interests only really appeals to a smaller group, and understand what they have to lose if they allow the understanding of the corrections of their preferred beliefs to overwhelm their ability to get away with what they want to get away with. They are correctly certain that their chance of Winning Their Private Interest increases if the agree to, or do not caring that they, support other unacceptable Private Interests.
Unite the Right can be seen to be a very dangerous development that is expected given the fatal flaws of the developed socio-economic-political games; games that promote the fatally flawed belief that 'Everyone being Freer to Believe and Do Whatever they Want Will Develop Good/Helpful Results'. The actions of those United groups claiming to be Right regarding climate science are only part of their many understandably harmful actions (actions that can include appealing to the Alt Right types). Those actions are almost certainly (beyond a reasonable doubt) done with awareness of their leadership that they are harmful - but may not able to be proven to be Illegal. Deliberately doing something understood to be harmful is the fundamental definition of Criminal Behaviour. Legal Loopholes, or the absence of Legal Measures, or the lack of diligent enforcement of the laws are the kinds of Freedoms that the United Right can be seen to be fighting for (for their understandably harmful Personal Private Interest Reasons).
-
jclairea at 01:42 AM on 10 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
@nigelj, I really enjoyed your “rough guesstimate simplified calculation,” for it was very helpful to understand the weight of climate costs through your comparison of these costs to global GDP. As climate patterns continue to become more obscure, I reckon we will see even greater costs associated with the inevitably stronger and more frequent storms, droughts, spurts of desertification, ocean acidification and warming, and increased habitat loss. We are at a pivotal point where turning to mitigation strategies appears like an appropriate next step, but it may not be enough, and to your point, climate change costs certainly outweigh those associated with mitigation. According to 350.org/science, 80% of our planet’s fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground in order for us to stay below two degrees Celsius of warming. In order for this to occur, the shift to renewable energy must be of utmost priority for nations around the globe, notably the most industrialized and populated. While mitigation techniques offer quick, temporary relief, they are still acting upon the fundamentally destructive, problematic system we have in place. I believe that we must work to absolutely transform the structure of our society from one of capitalist industry to that characterized by virtues of ecological reciprocity and stewardship, if we wish for real change to occur!
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:23 AM on 10 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
Thank you Sir Charles for speaking sense. One of the most significant risks associated with AGW is the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events and it's already been happening. It is not only visible in Europe. The US incurred 306 Billion dollars of damage from extreme events in 2017. What used to be 500 years events happen now on a regular basis. The cost/benefit analysis of not doing anything about climate change does not hold water for second, even from a purely short sighted capitalistic point of view.
-
SirCharles at 23:24 PM on 9 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
When you're living in Europe you have realised for long that these 'once in a century' floods are occurring all couple of years now. In Germany that karaokee started already in the late 90s. Ireland is experiencing these events since last decade. And just take a look at France these days.
You only need to open your eyes. Climate change is no more an issue of the future. Climate change is occurring here and now! And this seems to be just a starter...
-
Tadaaa at 22:57 PM on 9 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
I actually came to the "climate debate" (in 2011ish) a bit of a sceptic tbh (although i knew nothing the science) but it was Potholer54's debunking/demolition of Monkton (and his video series) that really hit me. In particular it was the “trace gas” meme they trotted out, because when you sit down and think about it just contains no actual science – it is simply nonsense, yet it seemed a tenet of faith to people like Monkton et al.
That really made me just trust the science, not in a blind way but simply a belief in peer review science as a way to gaining knowledge – it is not perfect, but the best we have. (Actually the concept of “perfection” is a recurring conspiracy theorist meme - the theorise that because we do not have a perfect record of an “event” – well it must be “fishy” – it is similar to the “because we don’t know everything we know nothing” the AGW deniers use about climate science
And you are right about the fact that conspiracies do occur – we know that because we have evidence, Watergate et al, but the evidence CT provide simply does not pass the smell test
Actually "climategate" is a good example – when you look at it with a debunker’s mentality and apply the null hypothesis i.e. if you expose the email conversations of the “movers and shakers” of any worldwide company or organisation (political or not), would you find disagreements and rudeness as in the climategate expose
Err yes you would – and probably a lot more, the emails did not reveal anything you would not find if you had hacked into the top brass of the Sony Corporation – and if the one or two they highlighted was the best they could find!!!! It actually shows that the science is robust and agreements very few
-
michael sweet at 22:05 PM on 9 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norrism,
The current trend in fossil fuel use certainly does not make anyone concerned about AGW feel good. On the other hand, it was only in the past year or two that renewable energy became the cheapest form of energy. Prior to that time, persons concerned about AGW had to encourage governments to build out more expensive energy to replace fossil energy. Now that renewable energy is the cheapest energy we can hope that renewable energy will be built out faster.
The United States has been the biggest reason for the failure of the Paris agreement. When you have to drag the biggest economy in the world kicking and screamig it is much harder to get anything done. Attitudes are slowly changing in the US as people see the damage caused by AGW.
Insurance companies are starting to adjust rates to reflect Climate risk. Since that affects conservatives wallets many of them who are not fossil executives are starting to notice. Democrats noticed a long time ago.
We can only do the best we can to influence the political theatre. The more renewable energy built out today the better things will turn out in the end. If the best we can do is 3C that is better than 5C. In the end fossil fuels will run out and we will be forced to use renewable energy. Hopefully the Earth will sustain civilization at the end.
-
michael sweet at 21:50 PM on 9 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
Riduna,
You cite the IPCC projection of 1 meter sea level rise but also cite Hansen 2016 which proejcts a sea level rise of 2-5 meters. Which projection do you support?
It is not logical to cite opposite projections at the same time. Choose one reference and stick with it.
-
Riduna at 15:22 PM on 9 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
PS - Thanks
-
Riduna at 15:21 PM on 9 February 2018Climate change is increasing flood risks in Europe
For most of Europe by 2050 the risk of drowning appears to be greater than the prospect of dying from heat stroke.
Hansen et al 2016, predict that much of north-west Europe will cool as a result of disruption of the north Atlantic overturning current, caused by discharge of cold water from melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
What is not clear from the article is the likely cause of likely flooding in Europe. Will it be due to increased precipitation or sea level rise. Surely not the latter? After all, the IPCC’s 5AR makes it clear that the SLR will be less than I meter by 2100.
-
nigelj at 15:17 PM on 9 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @26
The graph of fossil fuel consumption at post 22 is only until 2012.
Rates of fossil fuel consumption and production have fallen since 2014, as can be seen on this website.
ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
The website has several graphs on fossil fuel consumption and production, including breakdowns by types of fuel, and the global trend, and trends in specific countries. So things have actually improved.
Note that although overall fossil fuel use has gone down, within this trend gas has increased a little while coal has declined more significantly.
The articles and research you reference are in the very speculative category.
I don't understand how you conclude that a carbon tax wont work, on the basis of a historical trend. History hasn't got anything to do with it. Consumption taxes are based on tested, proven principles of economics, but of course the exact extent that they will work ultimately requires implementing them and adjusting them if required.
Just a few thoughts. I don't have much time right now.
-
NorrisM at 13:23 PM on 9 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet @ 21
Until I saw scaddenp's chart, I thought world consumption of fossil fuels had levelled off.
If the world continues to unabatedly increase its use of fossil fuels then trying to "wean ourselves" is somewhat laughable given that solar and wind power today provide no more than, say, 2% of world energy supply (up from 1.5% in 2014).
And, based upon where it seems this increased fossil fuel use is coming from, it does make you wonder how much impact a carbon tax will have in North America and Europe if other countries continue to increase their use of coal unabated.
Until I saw scaddendap's graph, my suspicion had always been that the real increase in CO2 emissions for the last 35 years could be largely "laid at the doorstep" of China because it was really in the 1980's that they started their industrial resurgence, largely on the back of coal. I attribute no "guilt" to this term because their industrial resurgence has lifted probably 100's of millions of people out of abject poverty (along with globalization). But clearly, China just "took over" from the increases pre 1980's from the industrialized countries. Because the rate seems to be about the same, I have to assume the contributions from the industrialized countries did start to drop during this same time period.
But today it is certainly the case that the increased fossil fuel use is coming from China, India and other developing countries.
In fact, Climatewire has just referenced a study published in the Environmental Research Letters that Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, China and India could increase their greenhouse gas emissions dramatically by 2030 suggesting that the Paris Agreement was purely a political document with promises in the future that have no chance of being kept. These five (5) countries represent 73% of "planned or under construction" coal plants.
According to a Washington Post article on February 7, 2018 referenced in Climatewire, the new coal plants planned by these 5 countries alone could eat up another 150 billion tons of the remaining 700 billion tons of CO2 left in the carbon budget. According to that article, our existing use of fossil fuels are capable of consuming 500 billion tons. So this planned increase in the use of coal is massive notwithstanding the bold statements made by both China and India about their future use of fossil fuels at the time of the signing of the Paris Agreement.
Perhaps it is just depressing to realize that there is not a chance of meeting a 2C limit in temperatures by 2100 let alone keeping to a 1.5C limit even with the IPCC assumptions of "negative emissions". We better hope this Washington Post article is incorrect.
All of this is to say that talking about "weaning ourselves" from fossil fuels with the use of a carbon tax may be a relevant discussion for North America and Europe but when looking at the world picture it seems we are "dreaming in technicolour" (to date myself somewhat).
Am I wrong?
Moderator: I appreciate that this has now moved a long way from the original post. Any suggestions on where we should go?
Prev 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Next
