Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Next
Comments 16101 to 16150:
-
jef12506 at 03:41 AM on 11 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Pay people to do less.
Pay people to go to school.
Pay people to farm and garden.
Pay people to do art and entertainment.
Pay people to travel the slow way.
I can go on and on.....
-
jef12506 at 03:37 AM on 11 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Starts out good then lapses into the usual gobbledgook.
Financial pressures is another way of saying more people becoming poor and loosing access. Renewables also mean more expensive any way you spin it. EV's are not cheaper to buy, they are way more expensive and will be until massive numbers are produced. Half of all Co2 emissions from the life of autos is generated before it rolls off the sales room floor, then there is the massive carbon intense infrastructure required.
All of the authors "solutions" are assuming that growth continues unabaited and everyone continues to get wealthy enough to afford the future. All of which means continued global emission increases. The building out of the future outlined in the post will require every last drop of FFs to accomplish.
The real solution??? We must all do LESS! Much less, like 80% less. Starting now.
-
citizenschallenge at 03:22 AM on 11 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Although I should add, I liked your comment enough to share it over at the CFI forum where we've got a discussion on pseudo-science going on (along with parts of #7 Aaron D).
-
Doug_C at 02:35 AM on 11 January 2018The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
@JH
The "this" I was referring to is the belief that we can predict the long term changes in Solar output and then base policy on that.
Which seems to be the focus on a lot of these attempts to create doubt of whether we are in a warming phase - almost all the evidence says so - or at the edge of a cooling phase.
Based on the relative radiative forcings even a short term cooling phase is highly unlikely, the positive radiative forcing of the additional carbon dioxide alone we've added to the Earth's atmosphere is many times the negative forcings that result in full blown ice ages. The relative minor negative forcing of a prolonged Solar minimum would result in a slowing of global warming, not a cooling of the Earth. As the article above states.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for the clarification.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:06 AM on 11 January 2018Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
Mal, I don't think it's "confidence" it's absolutism and totalitarianist tendencies covering up for their profound lack of substantive confidence.
-
Pluto at 17:39 PM on 10 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
TD @304
Water vapor levels vary locally and globally, because of numerous factors including not just temperature,...
I agree. The trouble is that your statement is in direct conflict with the needs of the AGW community for water vapor to be a feedback (not a forcing) in the greenhouse effect, and that happens only when the vapor concentration is a function solely of temperature. This is what allows the much weaker GHGs (such as CO2) to dominate the greenhouse effect (in model and theory) even in the presence of water vapor. Now, in order to constrain the H2O vapor concentrations to solely a function of temperature, John Cook and numerous climate scientists use the Clausius-Clapeyron equation from which one gets the saturation concentration of H2O vapor for a known given temperature. At this point, the actual H20 vapor concentration values are replaced their saturation values, which results in a substantial over-estimation of the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is one place where I along with numerous non-climate scientists get very concerned about what's happening in the climate science field, and don't particularly trust their results.
Moderator Response:[DB] Evidenceless assertions and the "physics" of your personal pocket universe snipped.
This user has recused himself from further participation here. -
Doug_C at 16:31 PM on 10 January 2018The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
This sounds more like economic predictions than hard science to me.
Guessing how the interactions of a massive ball of plasma under the influence of gravity, intense magnetic fields and incredible heat at the core where fusion is taking place constantly is not like a pendulum over long periods of time. The Sun is a dynamic evolving system which means that it is not the same as it was even hundreds of years ago and it is much different now than it was millions of years ago. At some point it will not even be recognizable as our Sun.
And its output is progressively increasing, though over the scale of hundreds and thousands of years this is not that significant.
It is just as valid to assume that we could see a period of increased solar activity and a positive radiative forcing of the Earth than a deep minimum.
Ice ages do not come about as a result of radiative forcings of the Sun, they are the result of long term changes in the orbital dynamics of the Earth, the eccentricity of the eliptical orbit, the axial tilt and precession of the earth as it wobbles on its axis.
These forcings are tiny compared to what human created forcings have done in the last 150 years and require thousands of years to take a mostly ice free Northern Hemisphere and turn it into one covered by thick ice sheets that reached as far as south of the Great Lakes in North America.
This has been completely swamped by the effects alone of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide being introduced into the carbon cycle by human activity. There will be no ice age as long as we burn fossil fuels and if we keep burning as much as we are now even a record solar minimum like the one we just had will only slow the process of global warming as the article states.
With the coincidence of a deep solar minimum and a strong La Nina a few years ago the Earth should have seen a record low average yearly temperatures. We did not, they were still in the upper levels of temperature records.
This seems to me to be just one more attempt to deny valid evidence of global warming.
Moderator Response:[JH] Am I correct in assuming that the "this" you refer to in the initial and final paragraphs of your comment is Matt Ridley's article that the OP debunks?
-
John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 10 January 2018The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
Recommended supplemental reading...
No, we’re not slipping into a proper ice age, ...and Then There's Physics, Jan 8, 2018
-
nigelj at 08:15 AM on 10 January 2018The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
So in other words we know that a certain level of change in solar irradiance causes a certain change in temperature, and its quite small compared to CO2. So a solar minimum would be weak.
But the predicted so called coming "grand solar minimum" is just a guess. We don't really know the exact causes and periodicity of these cycles, and they appear random, so we are guessing that because solar activity increased from about 1600 to the 1970s, it 'might' be time for a decline of some sort, - like an economic downturn. This is just pure presumption. It could equally stay flat for decades to come, or even increase reinforcing agw.
-
trondedvin at 03:27 AM on 10 January 2018The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong
the sun is at minimum now,so the only thing happening is the sun is skipping a solar maximum or two.the result is the temparature might increase slower or stop for a few years.
this means the sun will keep at the energy output it has now but not increase as it does during a normal maximum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:39 AM on 10 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
bozzza@6,
Your initial claim "No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!" is not defended by you comment @6. Your comment @6 just attempted to change the subject.
Regarding the 440 ppm number (with the recommended safer value of 350 ppm). It is like a speed limit. The fact that some people are pushing to go faster does not justify 'accepting an upping of the speed limit'. And when the limit is exceeded everyone in the vehicle will not just say, seems OK since we exceeded the limit so we can go even faster. More and more people in the vehicle will be demanding the vehicle slow down, taking firmer and firmer action against whoever they understand is pushing the accelerator, including keeping them at the back of the bus or locking them in the biffy if that is what is needed to reduce the harmful impact of the pushers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:11 AM on 10 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
bozzza@6,
I will counter the claim you are banking on that was made by Dr. David Mills 'the venture capitalist pursuer of Private Interest who would want to induce governments to do more to fund his Private Interest pursuits' (he can be seen to be a bit of a misleading alarmist marketer), with the simple fact that in 1960 lots of wealthy people pursuing Private Interests would have told you Man was not going to be landing on the moon in less than 10 years because their Private Interest would not benefit from such a pursuit.
The technology for all of humanity to live without burning fossil fuels already exists, as does the technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The only thing missing is the 'powerful charitable desire' to do it (charitable because many people who incorrectly benefited from development in the wrong direction have to give up some of their perceived prosperity and opportunity). But that powerful desire is developing, and may develop far faster than 'the ones who have a Private Interest in not seeing those changes happen' will want/expect it to happen. Many of them thought/hoped the Paris Agreement would never be Agreed to. And many of them thought/hoped the Trump Win would cripple the global collective effort for Good Sustainable Change. They continue to be wrong. If anything the Trump Win has stepped up the rate of change globally as more people more clearly see how unsustainably damaging Winners like Trump are (albeit with a core of faithful Private Interest pursuers who will stubbornly resist better understanding what is going on and changing their minds to become helpful rather than harmful).
The current damaging fatally flawed economics may indeed push CO2 beyond the Paris Agreement limit, but that would be the fault of the flawed damaging system not being corrected quickly enough, with 'everyone who fought in any way against the changes being achieved - anyone who did not properly raise awareness and understanding' clearly understood to have been damaging the future of humanity for unacceptable Private Interests. And that awareness of who the trouble-makers are could develop so rapidly that the trouble-makers actually get significantly penalized in their lifetime, not just posthumously in the better understood corrected record of what was going on.
The developing awareness and understanding is that some Winners are Helpful, but many Winners are getting an undeserved competitive advantage by getting away with behaving less acceptably.
What will actually happen is hard to predict, but the Trend is clear.
-
Eclectic at 22:10 PM on 9 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Pluto @304 ,
I aspire to Christian ethics, but I do not aspire to being led through a catechism. If you yourself have a dispute with mainstream science, then please state the case you wish to make, as succinctly as possible, and with minimal rhetoric.
-
Pluto at 18:56 PM on 9 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Eclectic @303
Thanks for getting back with me. I appreciate your answering my rather dumb question, but I do want to be certain we are both on the "same page" with this GH effect issue. So, if you don't mind, I would like to ask another question. Suppose you brought a bucket of water into a room with unsaturated air (ie. less that 100 percent relative humidity). What would happen to that water (assuming, of course, you didn't spill it)? My answer is that the water in the bucket would evaporate until either the humidity does reach 100 percent or the bucket runs dry while the air, water vapor, and liquid water remain at the same temperature. I would, however, like your thoughts on the question. Thanks
Moderator Response:[TD] Water vapor levels vary locally and globally, because of numerous factors including not just temperature, but liquid water sources for evaporation, ground & water temperature, wind, air pressure, amount of condensation nuclei, and more. Scientists have known about those things for many, many decades. Check any textbook for meteorology, atmospheric physics, climatology, or many other fields. None of those things eliminates the dependence on temperature. That's why your local weather person reports both relative and absolute humidities. Read the Intermediate tabbed pane of this post and then read the studies cited, regarding measurements of humidity changes.
-
Eclectic at 15:51 PM on 9 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Pluto @302 :
Your comment was that the atmosphere is not always fully saturated with H2O. And of course, I must agree with you there — as, I am sure, do all scientists & meteorologists, including James Frank (the OP).
-
Pluto at 13:59 PM on 9 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Eclectic @301
Your comment on the saturated/unsaturated state of atmospheric water . . . is of course so obvious that it needs no reply.
No, I'm afraid it is not so obvious to me. Exactly which comment are you talking about and what is it about this comment with which you agree or disagree?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:57 AM on 9 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Dunno if this has been mentioned before but NOAA has confimed that there were 16 extreme weather events costing over $1Billion in the US in 2017, which ties with 2011, although the total cost is the highest on record (adjusted for inflation), coming at 306 billions. No doubt the California fires played a role in that cost.
www.noaa.gov/news/2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-us
The year was also the 3rd warmest on record, beating 1998 without the help of El Nino. This was also the case on a global scale. It seems that we are going to experience the same thing that happened after the 1998, when temperatures "settled" back down to a much higher level than what they were before El-Nino.
-
chriskoz at 06:58 AM on 9 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
A note for oversea readers, re my post @6, Penrith is the suburb of Sydney, known to be the biggest hot spot of the metropolitan area. I live closeby, that's why I didn't sleep well last night (too hot) & I am on my legs since early morning (6am my time and commenting here) because a violent rain finally came after the record heat and 2 months drought. I must look after all things arround my house not to be dislodged/ destroyed by the torrents.
-
chriskoz at 06:49 AM on 9 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
A very wise, scientifically accurate comment from Climate Council of Australia on recent weather events:
Penrith swelters while Florida freezes: climate disruption is to blame
while in US, a child that dreams of ravaging a candy store (who currently occupies White House) tweets his silly thoughts "gimme that bit of global warming".
-
John Hartz at 06:44 AM on 9 January 2018Evaluating biases in Sea Surface Temperature records using coastal weather stations
The new research findings described in the following article further complicates the measurement of sea level rise...
So much extra water is being added to the world’s oceans from melting glaciers that the ocean floor is sinking underneath the increasing weight. This ocean floor deformation also means we have miscalculated just how much ocean levels are rising, and the problem could be far worse than previously believed.
Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago. While this small fragment of an inch may not seem much, oceans cover 70 percent of our planet, making the problem bigger than it seems at first glance.
In a study published online in Geophysical Research Levels, researchers explain how they used a mathematical equation known as the elastic sea level equation to more accurately measure the ocean floor. This allowed them to see how much the bottom of the ocean floor has changed from 1993 to 2014. While they are not the first scientists to look at the ocean floor, this is the first time that researchers have taken into account how additional water from melted ice may have further stretched that floor, LiveScience reported.
The Ocean Floor Is Sinking Under The Water Weight From Melting Glaciers, And It’s As Bad As It Sounds by Dana Dovey, Newsweek, Jan 8, 2018
-
jef12506 at 06:32 AM on 9 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
I thought I explained the dynamics in my second and third sentences.
The point is that even if the Co2 ppm were to somehow stop and stay right where they are now the earth will continue to warm, the greenhouse effect will continue to "work" as a greenhouse. There is obviously an upper limit to the heating when using this hypothetical which makes using it not very useful but the point is that Co2 ppm does not equate to a global temperature degree c that can be stated as done in the cartoon. No one knows for instance, what the high end global temperature of say 400 ppm is mostly because we have not reached that temperature yet. We can not state the high end of any ppm because we have continually added more ppm.
Also we are not accounting for feedback mechanisms which are numerous, many of which kick in even at lower levels of ppm and vary widely due to other variables.
I realize that SkS didn’t do this cartoon but I do believe it is disingenuous to promote talk about Co2 ppm and degrees C as if they are connected on a 1 to 1 basis. Also talking about 2050 or 2065 is less than useless as we are already committed/locked in to at least 2 to 3 degrees right now and again that is without all the feedbacks.
Also methane doesn’t go away as depicted in the cartoon. I starts out in the atmosphere at 85 to 100 times more potent than Co2 then gradually diminishes and becomes Co2, small amounts but still adding to Co2 ppm. -
chriskoz at 06:17 AM on 9 January 20182017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming
Chris Mooney's WP article dedicated to the subject of climate disasters, lists the correct $ value of damages:
Extreme hurricanes and wildfires made 2017 the most costly U.S. disaster year on record
because it waited for NOAA data to become available. So NOAA finalised the cost of the three hurricanes at $265 billion total, and all events amounted to $306 billion total which is almost $100 billion lower than previous estimates but still the highest on record with CPI-adjustment.
Interestingly, that article also quotes Munish Re estimates all global events (including uninsured) at $330 billion total. It looks that Munish Re number is an underestimate compard to NOAA (because it leaves $24 billion only for the damages outside US. Still, if the two numbers can be considered credible and not too far off, we can suspect that US was by far the most vulnerable country (in terms the most valuable assets lost) in 2017. Lesson for wise people to retreat their assets and mitigate.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:06 AM on 9 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Norris and Michael,
Energy sources that are non-renewable are of no value in the future. They get more expensive as they become virtually impossible. And if they create negative future consequences then those energy sources are harmful to the future.
The easiest ways to make fossil fuel burning less expensive than it should be into the future is to continue to do what has already unfortunately been done, allow them to be more damaging than they have to be (do not impose requirements for negative impacts to be fully immediately neutralized).
And the games of popularity and profitability are full of examples of Winners in the games being discovered to be the most harmful of the competitors, the ones who got away with behaving the least acceptably. Yet that is ignored in many Economic Theory Thoughts.
So the developed economics are an understandably damaging and unsustainable set of beliefs. The presumptions that 'aware and rational people focused on sustainably improving the future for all of humanity are the vast majority of the players in the game' is easily shown to be false (was able to be seen for what it was decades ago), with many Economists being less rational Private Interest focused people. And yet the 'games filed with Fad popularity of damaging unsustainable profitability that Wins so much more easily than truly sustainable development' remains a powerful Dogma, delusion, perception (and perception is not always a sustainable reality) - because it serves the interests of the current day Winners to have it continue to be popular.
However, the Trend is clearly towards Sustainable Development. The inevitable future is an end to the damaging misunderstandings that currently still have significant power. And the way to a better future quicker is the types of changes that the Paris Agreement is leading to, especially the 'requirements' being ratcheted up every few years.
There will undeniably still be attempts by 'perceived to be Winners who understand how much they stand to lose' to fight against the more rapid improvement of the future for humanity. How much damage the trouble-makers will be able to get away with is all that is being debated in competitions between articles about how rapidly the inevitable end of unsustainable and damaging energy production and consumption will occur.
The ability to get away with marketing appeals for people to desire things other than Sustainable Development and for people who Win by abusing that understanding is the root of the problem.
The root problem is the power of misleading marketing to tempt people to focus on Private Interests that are contrary to helping others and contrary to the changes required to develop a sustainable better future for all. And that damaging power of misleading marketing is also the challenge SkS is focused on regarding Climate Science.
-
michael sweet at 22:23 PM on 8 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Norrism
Fortunately, we do not need to wait for Jacobson/Clack to resolve to reach a resolutionn. As I have shown, many researchers have independently reached the same conclusion as Jacobson. Those researchers used different models and did not use extra hydropower. That indicates that the weight of evidence is supporting Jacobson. Clack has few citations and a lack of support.
Jacobson 2015 itself indicates that they found many solutions and they only showed one. Hydro produces only 3% of the power in the system, it is primarily used for power on windless nights. While it is useful, it is so small a percentage of the system that eliminating hydro completely would only affect the result a little. Jacobson will simply have to choose a solution with a little more storage in another option. Incorporating demand shiftting alone would more than compensate for overuse of hydro, and would be essentially free.
The body of research on renewable power indicates that it is possible to generate all power using renewable resources.
-
Eclectic at 21:49 PM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Rkrolph, my apologies for my inadequate proof-reading @ my post #3.
A transposition typo : of course, the paper cited is McCarthy et al. 2015
. . . and the Elephant metaphor should read: "... the health of one of the Elephant's toenails ... "
Brandon Morse writes for an extremist rag, which has only a minor side-interest in climate matters. Nothing incredible about trash "getting accepted" — it is a sure bet that such trash is requested /specified /encouraged. Rather like what happens on WhatsUpWithThat website.
-
Eclectic at 19:58 PM on 8 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Pluto @300 , there is no need to take exception to the word "governed" in the phrase <being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation> .
In the English language, governed has quite a number of meanings. In this particular case, the word "constrained" might arguably be a better choice. And as I am sure you are aware, the rate of evaporation depends on more than simply the temperature of the ocean and air.
[ Your comment on the saturated/unsaturated state of atmospheric water . . . is of course so obvious that it needs no reply. ]
But on a planetary scale, and in relation to the GHG effect of vaporous water, we needn't be concerned whether a water phase change rate is measured by a few minutes or a few days.
Also, considering that (at current terrestrial temperatures and partial saturation levels) the atmospheric water vapor GHG effect comprises something over 50% of the total GHG effect — then that leaves very little room for "gross over-estimation of the water vapor greenhouse effect" (unquote).
All in all, the situation is fairly straightforward.
-
Pluto at 18:35 PM on 8 January 2018Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Questions for John Cook concerning rebuttal
I have a few questions about the paragraph in your intermediate level rebuttal that mentions the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Specifically, you state
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
You realize, of course, that more water vapor can be added to the air without changing its temperature if the air is below saturation (ie. 100 percent relative humidity). Therefore, the water vapor in the atmosphere can depend on parameters other than temperature. I would appreciate it if you could give some clarification to your statement. Next, you state
... - the rate [of evaporation] depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation says nothing about evaporation rates. It is a relation that allows the determination of the partial pressure (or equivalently, concentration) of water vapor that is in thermal equilibrium with nearby liquid water at a known temperature. This would be the saturation concentration (ie. concentration at 100 percent relative humidity) at the given temperature. Therefore, it seems to me that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is not applicable here since much of the atmosphere is not at 100 percent relative humidity. Furthermore, assuming 100 percent relative humidity throughout the atmosphere would result in a gross over-estimation of the water vapor greenhouse effect. It would be great if you could clarify what you are doing here.
-
rkrolph at 17:44 PM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
nigelj & Eclectic @ 2 and 3,
Thanks for the responses. It's incredible what trash gets accepted as journalism these days, but of course, there has to be an audience for it that accepts it as accurate because it's what they want to hear.
-
NorrisM at 16:12 PM on 8 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
michael sweet @ 40
It will be interesting to see what happens with this litigation. It seems quite clear that the PNAS decided to publish the Clack paper after having heard all of Jacobson's objections.
Jacobson's "assumption" relying on multiplying US hydro capacity by 15 fold (without discussing in his paper how realistic such an assumption was) just confirms to me why I wish I had not wasted my undergraduate degree on economics rather than take something that would have stayed with me like a degree in History or English Literature.
It reminds me of the joke about the engineer, architect and economist stranded on a deserted island with only a can of beans to eat. The engineer proposed that they build a fire and place the can on the fire so that it would explode to access the beans. The architect suggested building a structure around the fire to catch the beans as the can exploded. The economist then contributed: "Assuming we had a can opener ......"
-
Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 8 January 2018A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
CO2 emissions have delayed next glacial period by 100,000 years, according to A. Ganopolski, R. Winkelmann & H. J. Schellnhuber (Nature, 2016).
-
bozzza at 14:55 PM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
jef, could you please clarify your third sentence?
-
bozzza at 14:53 PM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
OPOF,
Dr David Mills from Ausra acknowledged years ago that it was impossible to keep carbon emissions below 440ppm no matter what happens!
Whether that can be taken back under 440ppm after the fact he said was still under scientific debate but the fact the world can‘t help but breach that level of CO2 was realised many moons ago.
Governments have done nothing because democracies are largely two parties preaching the one shared message.
It always ends in Oligarchy...
-
chriskoz at 10:57 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
Do you think the mitigation in Australia is progressing according to Paris goal? Think twice:
Cooking the books on climate change policy
We are dealing with a classic denier strategy here: denial that something inconvenient exists, aka "heads in the sand". Emissions started increasing when the carbon tax was removed and replaced by doubtful policy of rewarding polluters for their efforts, that are often symbolic efforts, like tree planting or other "offsets". What govs are saying about it?
The report says that will be offset in the future by "flat electricity demand, the renewable energy target and the announced closures of coal power stations"
[...] department's report says: "The key drivers of emissions to 2030 are increases in transport activity linked to population and economic growth and increases in herd numbers in agriculture
Which means the economy needs to slow down or rural voters and the Nationals are likely to be gearing up for a fight over farming.
Given the choice between the two, it's likely a government of either stripe will take the third option.
Throw Paris out the window when it comes to crunch time.
(my emphasis)
Correct analysis. History of this gov has shown, they would not hesitate doing that. Prime example: the Turnbull government's best attempts to prevent the closure of inefficient, coal-fired Liddell power station.
So do you think AUS gov is better than US because they do not reject Paris? Not really. They just want to look "smarter" but avoid talking about it when incomvenient. We know that attitude for more than decade since Gore's movie. I think the end result of both types of science denial is the same.
-
Eclectic at 09:44 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
Rkrolph @1 , the article by journalist/propagandist Brandon Morse is a complete misrepresentation of the true situation.
As you will note from Nigelj's link above to the Nature paper [ published Jan 4th 2018 : authors Bereiter, Shackleton, Baggenstos, Kawamura, and Severinghaus — the same Severinghaus so grossly misrepresented by Brandon Morse ] that the the paper's Abstract says nothing to support Morse's allegations.
Morse's article is full of nonsense — it is merely an example of the same old denier-style propaganda attempt to clutch at and "spin" (by misrepresenting) any slight straw that happens to come floating past.
Was there any basis, even the slightest basis, to Morse's claim that Severinghaus had stated /suggested /claimed his co-authors' study raised doubt about modern evidence of AGW-caused ocean warming? We will probably never know. Morse claims a link to a post (by Severinghaus) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography — a post which Morse implies gives weight to his article. But the link is dead, and seemingly the post has been deleted. Conspiracy Theorists will point to censorship of the Ghastly Truth. A sane explanation is that Severinghaus likely made a post which was poorly worded & open to misinterpretation by the mischievous (e.g. by Morse) . . . and Severinghaus decided (or was advised) to delete that post. All that we can know for the moment, is that the wording of the Bereiter et al. 2018 paper provides zero support for Morse's allegations.
Other than that, Mr Brandon Morse comes up empty.
More nonsense from the Morse article :-
"we are cooling" (unquote). [He fails to mention that the evidence says the opposite.]
... and his mention of support from a Dr Happer [a thoroughly discredited climate science denier]
... "A study in 2015*, for instance, predicted that the Earth is about to undergo a major climate shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures" (unquote)
* the paper is: McCarthy et al. 2105 — and here Morse makes another supreme "tarradiddle", for the McCarthy paper in no way supports Morse's claim.
Morse appears to be one of those anti-science propagandists who sprinkles his article with referenced scientific papers — scientific papers which he implies support his statements. And he does so in the knowledge that few if any of his readers will bother to follow the links to check the truth of the matter. And so Morse gets away with his "tarradiddles" . . . which go on to circle through the deniosphere.
In short, Rkrolph, basic science does not support Morse's whole schema of climate denialism.
Morse is using the propagandist technique of suggesting that since there could be a hint of doubt about the health one of the Elephant's toenails . . then it follows that the whole Elephant is fatally diseased.
-
michael sweet at 09:12 AM on 8 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Norrism:
Clack et al's criticism of Jacobson 2015 has not been widely supported. The jury is still out on who is correct.
A brief review of the "cited by" papers of Jacobson 2015 yield at least six that independently claim that renewable energy can power the entire world (see below). Since AGW solutions is not one of the primary goals of SkS, Jacobson is one of the few reviewed at SkS.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3028519
http://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/1674
Link to Christian Breyer's conference paper on Solar Photovoltaics (via Researchgate)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117305244
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7750284/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173820
Moderator Response:[BW] Fixed the very long link to Research Gate as it was breaking the page layout. Please remember to properly embed links via the "Insert tab". Thanks!
-
nigelj at 07:48 AM on 8 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Driving By @12
I'm inclined to agree at heart, with the same sour take, it wont last. Plus the climate issue is much more challenging, with more powerful vested interests and the science is more complex.
But I prefer to force myself to try to take a positive sort of attitude, if that makes some sort of sense. Otherwise it's a bit depressing.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
rkrolph @1
"They claim that the study shows oceans have warmed much less than previously thought, which puts all the alarmist climate models in doubt."
Just my very quick take as an interested observer. The research paper claims oceans warmed 2.57 deg C coming out of the last ice age. The author is quoted as allegedly saying oceans have warmed only 0.1 deg C over the last 50 years.
This all doesn't sound like much. But remember its an average for the full depth of the oceans, and the oceans heat much more slowly at depth. The surface would have warmed considerably more. The instrumental record over the last 50 years is about 0.5 deg C.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:16 AM on 8 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto@36,
A Fad is something that becomes popular among a portion of the total human population for a limited period of time (my own version of the definition)
A sustainable activity would be human activity that could continue to be done by humans almost indefinitely on this 'planet which is essentially a perpetual motion machine for life - made almost perpetual by the reasonably steady delivery of new energy from the Sun'.
Trying to benefit from rapidly burning up non-renewable buried hydrocarbons is "Not Sustainable". It is a Fad. And future success is obtained by paying attention to Trends toward developing sustainable activity, not staying locked in unjustified beliefs regarding Fads.
Fads can be damaging as well as unsustainable. That is clearly true regarding the Fad of burning fossil fuels.
Many people unfortunately have to change their minds about what would be a sustainable way to live and earn a living but are very reluctant to change their minds. Changing their minds will be more successful for them in the long term than trying to remain stubbornly locked into unjustified beliefs. But their developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity are difficult to correct.
I really appreciate that understanding because I live in Alberta, Canada. A large portion of the population still sadly believes that things will be Great Again if they could just sell more of 'their Oil Sands' (an incorrect claim because 'they' did nothing to create it-and many of them only recently moved into the Province), to be burned elsewhere on the planet. Unfortunately they had chosen to try to earn a living doing something undeniably unsustainable and understandably harmful, a Bad Fad.
-
rkrolph at 04:21 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1
There was an article a couple days from someone named Brandon Morse. Sorry I don't have a link. The title was "New Study Shows Alarmist Climate Data Based Off Faulty Science...Sorry Bill Nye"
It discussed a study by Geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, that claimed a new way to measure ocean heat content measuring gases trapped in ice cores. They claim that the study shows oceans have warmed much less than previously thought, which puts all the alarmist climate models in doubt. It also quotes a scientist named William Happer, who criticizes the alarmist climate models accuracy. The article seems full of denier type talk, as it makes continuous jabs at Al Gore and Bill Nye as being non-scientists, but doesn't bother to provide any real climate scientists take on the study.
But I am just wondering if anyone has any information on the validity of the study itself.
Moderator Response:[TD] Side note: Happer is addressed in the Climate Misinformers section, among other places.
-
NorrisM at 03:09 AM on 8 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
michael sweet @ 34 and Pluto @ 35
As I have referenced before on this website, in my view, any reference to the Jacobson 2015 paper on a 100% renewable energy solution for the US must now have an asterisk opposite any reference to it since the Clack et al 2017 paper (published in PNAS) has now seriously questioned some of the assumptions used by Jacobson in arrving at this 100% renewable energy solution.
Pluto, if you want further information on this, just google "Jacobson/Clack litigation". Jacobson, in a widely criticized action which could have serious repercussions on academic discourse, has sued Clack, a NASA scientist, for some $10 MM.
The biggest assumption by Jacobson is that although predicted hydrocapacity in the US for 2050 is somewhere around 87.5 GW Jacobson assumes 1,300 GW will be available as base load backup power (some 15 times higher than actual) based upon unrealistic assumptions regarding upgrading turbines by massive amounts, the costs of which are not properly included in the analysis nor are questions about how realistic this assumption is dealt with in the paper.
Bottom line is that the Jacobson 2015 paper should not be cited any longer without qualifications and disclosure of the serious questions which have been raised about this paper.
-
jef12506 at 03:08 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
The dynamics are not correct at all. The relationship of Co2 to degrees C is not 1 to 1. Once the greenhouse is in place it will continue to warm even without additional Co2 until Co2 begins to drop. That and the fact that the effects of the Co2 currently in the atmosphere has yet to kick in as there is a lag. Also keep in mind that we have released as much Co2 since Al Gores presentation than all Co2 released prior to that. The warming that we are experiencing now, between 1.2 and 1.6 depending on the metric, is from Co2 released prior to 1980's. If we stop all Co2 right now the planet will continue to warm for another 50 years or more just considering Co2 and no other feedback mechs.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that SS does but please be real.
We need to act now with the biggest global wide project ever known to man if we seriously want to have a livable planet left.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please calrify what "dynamics" you are referring to in the first sentence of your post. Also explain where SkS is being unreal about manmade climate change.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 8 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
bozzza,
I partially agree.
The trend of global awareness and understanding is increased acceptance of the stated objectives of the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2.0 C, with the desire to limit the accumulated human im-pacts to 1.5 C warming (That is why the Paris Agreement was agreed to and is supported by responsible global leaders).
The related understanding is that climate science is the basis for understanding the limits of human activity related to those increases of global average surface temperature, because once those increases have actually been observed 'it is too late'.
That has lead to increased efforts to better understand the relationship between increased CO2 and ultimate rebalanced global average surface temperature. It is understood that things are currently not completely adjusted to increases of CO2 that have already occurred.
It has also lead to 'pursuers of Private Interest in benefiting more from the undeniably unsustainable and definitely damaging burning of fossil fuels' to fight to win any way they can get away with. They are the ones who creating the incorrect generalized impression that 'No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!".
A related growing awareness and understanding is that there are many other armful results of the pursuits of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, not just increased CO2. So there are many Good Reasons to rapidly terminate the undeservingly popular and profitable activity.
Good Responsible Aware People already understand the need for that change. Others can learn to be Good/Helpful. And some people will not Personally limit their Pursuits of Private Interest, and they will fight against any 'imposed limit on their freedom to believe what they want and do as they please'. That is all to be expected, with the last group clearly becoming understood to need help, to be kept from impacting others (to be kept out of competitions for popularity and profitability - or be removed from positions of already occurred but clearly undeserved Winning) until they learn to change their minds.
-
Jeff H at 23:01 PM on 7 January 20182017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
Yes, nijelj comprehensively debunked Rhoowl’s ‘arguments’.
What frustrates me is that my comment earlier did the same and yet Rhoowl posts later making profoundly unscientific comments correlating plant biomass with fitness (i.e. Plants are noticeably bigger and stronger). Such a flippant remark would not pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal. What is meant by ‘stronger’ is anyone’s guess. The fact that terrestrial vegetation is already reaching and exceeding saturation points is clear by now. Moreover, as I said before, there are species-specific responses that differ, generating phenological asynchronies that must be factored into community and system-wide effects, along with changes in stoichiometry that will affect not only plant metabolism with trophic interactions.
Deniers see the world in a decidedly linear way: cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems, however, are profoundly non-linear. This may explain why there are so few population ecologists and environmental scientists among denier ranks.
-
michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Pluto,
I am sorry that your limited finances result in your being unable to read the relevant literature (or blog posts like SkS). You seem focused on money. For the record, I am not paid anything to educate you. As I pointed out, I also currently cannot afford Lithium batteries (they will likely be cheaper than lead acid in two or three years).
Since you complain about cost so much, I am amazed that you are unwilling to switch over to the cheapest form of energy, wind and solar, and favor nuclear, the most expensive energy. The price of renewable energy is going down and drives down consumer prices where ever it is installed. Fossil is holding out because utilities can stiff customers more for it than renewable energy.
A very large fraction of fossil energy infrastructure is old and requires replacement. If we build new fossil fuel plants the money will be wasted at the same time the environment is destroyed. Economically it makes more sense to stop building fossil plants and build out only renewable energy. The nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia are an example of wasted money consumers have to pay for.
In any case, what you can afford for energy has nothing to do with keeping up to date on the energy debate. Read more and keep an open mind. Coming to SkS and lecturing us on energy policy using outdated information does not help advance the conversation.
-
MA Rodger at 20:35 PM on 7 January 2018CO2 limits won't cool the planet
With the back-&-forth in-thread above between myself & Aaron Davis presently stalled/snipped/ended, it would perhaps be proper to set out a more grown-up comparison of the Arctic/Antarctic temperature cycles. This relates to the 'second' of the three existential issues facing Arron Davis's grand analysis. Polar climate is not well enough defined by the "slant path sun angle" for his analysis to work. (The other two existential issues are described @17(1) & (2)) A comparison @22 showed that "slant path sun angle" (latitude) for 52N is not the defining feature of the difference between Feb/Mar and Aug/Sept average temperatures. Of course London & Irkutsk at 52N are far from the poles, so quick look at polar temperatures and what drives them is what is being attempted here.
The peak-to-peak temperature range at the actual poles is very similar North and South although the relative length of summers (longer in the North) and winters (longer in the South) would evidently prevent an Aaron-Davis-type analysis.
And of course, just as at 52N, in the polar regions under analysis N/S 60º-70º "slant path sun angle" does not fully define the energy fluxes. This graph from Aaron Donohoe plots the various flux anomalies for N & S polar regions for each month (the exact latitudes of the zone represented are not given).
In this graph, the yellow trace CTEN (atmospheric Column Tendency) shows energy absorbed by the atmosphere and evidently has a bigger wobble North than South with North twice the size of South. (But note it will be the integrals of these yellow curves that Aaron Davis is attempting to measure.)CTEN is the net imbalance after all the other energy fluxes are accounted for. The largest of these other fluxes, ASR (absorbed solar radiation or "slant path sun angle") looks similar North&South peak-to-peak but measuring it Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept, the Northern ASR has a bigger range by about 7%. Similarly, SHF (Surface Heat Flux) is 20% bigger, and the other two, Out-going Longwave Radation and MHT Meridional Heat Transfer (warm winds minus cold winds), are both about 100% bigger. These differences result in CTEN being somewhat out-of-phase with ASR and CTEN Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept 100% bigger in the North.
The larger Northern temperature range suggested by CTEN (& shorter southern summers) is born out by surface temperature data. A bigger Northern temperature range is evident within the monthly anomaly base data provided in BEST station data. Thus a very quick and dirty analysis (stations roughly coastal at ☻74.74 S, 24.41 W , ☻69.92 S, 79.48 E, ☻66.70 S, 141.57 E, ☻73.13 S, 94.15 W , ☻71.53 N, 157.18 W, ☻73.13 N, 72.00 E, ☻71.53 N, 30.42 W, ☻71.53 N, 157.18 E) yields a Northern peak-to-peak temperature range 40% larger than the Southern and a Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept temperature difference 150% larger.
Thus, while ASR is the biggest input into polar seasonality, it is far from being the overwhelming influence. This second graphic from Aaron Donohoe (from the same source) presents the zonal Jan & Jul anomalies for the northern hemisphere. It shows the difference between Jan-Jul atmospheric zonal flux anomalies (MHT in pink) peaking in the 60N-70N zone (0 .87 to 0.94 on the graph) with the MHT winter/summer warming half that of the 250Wm^-2 ASR summer/winter warming. Yet in all this, Aaron Davis assumes his grand analysis somehow will find the temperature signature of a CO2-induced -0.2W^m-2 cooling, an impossible task.
-
Pluto at 17:47 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
One Planet Only Forever @31
Where did you get that quote
"Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations"
and what's meant by "unsustainable actions"?
-
Pluto at 16:03 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
michael sweet @34
I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
There is a good reason why I may not be quite up-to-date on many scientific/technological developments. In my case, there is no "need to know". I have no job in this field (nor any other field, actually) and I simply can't afford such batteries, not even the home version that recently came out. What happened was that we bought what generating equipment we could based on the technology available at the time (about 10 years ago). Some of it is based on propane use. Also, we have a wood pellet stove and solar heating to supplement our propane furnace. This is the best we can do under the circumstances, and we can't afford to be further taxed and regulated for doing so. If this isn't good enough, you are welcome to cover our expenses for the upgrades you deem necessary.
-
bozzza at 13:43 PM on 7 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!
-
michael sweet at 12:05 PM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Lithium ion batteries are better and cheaper than lead acid. Unfortunately, I had to purchase lead acid for my boat because Tesla does not make small (1 kW) batteries yet. For your house look at the reference I cited in my last post to you.
Jacobson 2015 describes using hydrogen as primary storage for electricity. Using fuel cells to regenerate the electricity would be very efficient. Jacobson models the US power supply (all power, not just electricity) and finds that renewable energy can easily supply all power as reliably as fossil fuels. Jacobson finds that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Other researchers recommend using electrofuels (methane or liquids) generated using renewable electricity and CO2 from the air. These have the advantage that all the storage facilities and technology are already built. Since you have a PhD I am sure you can follow up using references that have cited Jacobson 2015. Scientists that research energy are confident that renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) can supply the entire economy for the entire world. They generally do not like nuclear (with a few exceptions) or fossil fuels.
I am sorry that you are so far behind in this discussion. Perhaps reading Jacobson 2015 and a selection of the papers that cite it will bring you more up to date. I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
-
Pluto at 10:56 AM on 7 January 2018One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
That's great if you now have a battery that can get you through a power failure. Evidently, there have been some developments in this technolgy of which I was not aware. However, there is still a big gap between a battery getting a city through a power failure and a battery that can act as the primary power source for a city. If it takes several days for the battery to recharge from a power failure that lasted only a few hours, then it is sadly inadequate as an energy storage device for a purely sustainable power system. Since every "clean energy" source nowadays can produce power only in certain weather conditions (ie. wind or sunshine) I would hate to bet on those batteries being recharged adequately.
Prev 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Next
