Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 Next
Comments 16551 to 16600:
-
michael sweet at 09:17 AM on 12 December 2017Models are unreliable
Norrism:
Since I currently live in Florida and come from California I will suggest you add stronger storms (especially higher precipitation and hurricanes) and a longer fire season with bigger fires to your list of significant effects of AGW.
A drought linked to AGW was one of the prime causes of the Syrian civil war. The fall of the Egyptian government was partially due to increased bread prices due to drought in Russia that caused their harvest to fail. That drought was AGW linked.
The widespread failure of farming is probably more significant in your lifetime than sea level rise (and my lifetime although I have friends in Tuvalu and own land in Florida).
-
MA Rodger at 07:38 AM on 12 December 2017Models are unreliable
NorrisM @1076,
You ask "Are we talking 20% for the assumed contribution from "negative emissions" or more than that?"
I ask "20% of what?"
-
NorrisM at 05:53 AM on 12 December 2017Models are unreliable
michael sweet @ 1075
"We are in deeper doo-doo than we thought."
On this point, the Economist article on "negative emissions" did not provide any "percentage" measurement as to how much reliance the climate models have placed upon the withdrawal of CO2 from the air compared to reductions in present emissions. Are we talking 20% for the assumed contribution from "negative emissions" or more than that? Can someone point me to where this has been discussed?
It clearly was not it in the Chapter 9 of the Fifth Assessment.
I have to admit that after reading Chapter 9 in its entirety and the admitted problems discussed in that chapter associated with the uncertainties caused by trying to simulate cloud processes and their feedbacks in the models that I have personally decided to focus my climate education on actual observations of temperature increases and sea level changes (including the impact of melting ice in Greenland and the Antarctic) representing the two of the most significant effects of AGW.
-
NorrisM at 05:33 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Just finished watching the live argument in Julianna v. U.S et al before Thomas CJ, Kozinski J. and Berzon J. of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Could not resist. The argument only lasted an hour. It is now on YouTube.
Based upon the oral argument, my guess is that the US government will not be successful in its application to effectively dismiss the case through a writ of mandamus. Berzon J. was clearly in favour of the plaintiffs in allowing the action to proceed and Kozinski J. was in favour of the US Government but Thomas CJ I think will come down on the side of allowing the action to continue on the grounds that if they awarded mandamus in this case they would be flooded with similar mandamus cases. Mandamus is only granted in extreme cases.
However, unless the US government at some point moves for a "summary judgment" sometime prior to the actual trial, this would mean that the trial would go forward. It was projected to start in February but issues of discovery I suspect will move that timing back.
On its "merits" Thomas CJ indicated that he was "sympathetic" to the jurisdictional argument of the Attorney General (separation of powers) but this was not the venue to be deciding the issues on the merits.
What is very fascinating is that it is questionable whether the government can withdraw its admissions that I referenced in an earlier post (see 10 above). If they cannot then the trial would proceed on the assumption that climate change "poses a serious threat to the planet".
Kozinski J's question to counsel for the children was very interesting. He basically asked her: So if the District Court (Judicial Branch) comes up with a decision that implements the requested order in some manner (see above) and the Executive Branch comes up with a different conclusion either on how serious climate change is or how to deal with it, who wins, the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch? She tried to avoid a direct answer but finally had to admit that her argument meant that it was now "part of the Constitution" and would force the Executive Branch to implement the method determined by the Judicial Branch.
-
nigelj at 05:24 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
"But their most important argument – one that could take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Courtis that the federal government’s failure to do enough about global warming will damage the planet so profoundly that it violates children’s constitutional rights to life and liberty."
This seems to be the most important thing. Given how Americans are always invoking the importance of the constitution, (including Trump and his people) the judges and lawyers invloved in this climate matter have a responsibility be true to the principles of the constitution and take it deadly seriously.
Destabiliation of the earths climate and ecosystem can only damage life and liberty. It cannot enhance liberty or life.Liberty must include freedom from unwanted and avoidable harm imposed by other parties, including unconstrained use of fossil fuels. The scientific case of harm has already been made and accepted in the US Supreme court ruling on C02 as a pollutant. It interferes with peoples freedom to live without the insidiously growing threat and costs of climate change.
We know climate change imposes costs. This only leaves two options for the courts, awarding substantial damages or making an order that the federal government do more to reduce emissions. In the circumstances the later option makes more logical sense.
-
ubrew12 at 05:11 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
I recommend the David Roberts piece at Vox. For one thing, he's a very lucid writer, able to make complicated issues simple and even entertaining. He brings up the real tragedy of Pruitts red-team exercise: that they are not debating our response to climate change. The military developed this debate structure to harden its solutions to tactical weaknesses. Should we not worry about climate change? Or worry later? Go renewable? Nuclear? Geoengineering? 'Clean Coal'? (ok, I just put that in for yucks). The red-team debate pokes holes in all solutions, exposing weaknesses and making all of them more robust. Now is the time for us to build resilience, but Pruitt wants talking heads shouting in endless circles in a modern equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
-
william5331 at 04:35 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Many of your unscientific readers will read that statement to mean there has been no increase in temperature over the past 23 years. Possibly a better way of stating it would have been to say global temperatures have been increasing steadily over the past 23 years.
-
michael sweet at 03:50 AM on 12 December 2017Models are unreliable
From reading the article that John Hartz linked free copy it appears that Norrism has been half right about climate models. They have been systematically incorrect. Unfortunately, they have underestimated the expected warming, not overestimated the warming as Norrism suggested. From the discussion:
"Finally, it is sometimes argued that the severity of model-projected global warming can be taken less seriously on the grounds that models fail to simulate the current climate sufficiently. Our study confirms important model-observation discrepancies, indicating ample room for model improvement. However, we do not find that model errors can be taken as evidence that global warming is over projected by climate models. On the contrary, our results add to a broadening collection of research indicating that models that simulate today's climate best tend to be the models that project the most global warming over the remainder of the 21st century." (my emphasis)
This is not the first evidence that models under-project future warming. We are in deeper doo-doo than we thought.
-
michael sweet at 03:20 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Norrism:
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The clean air act, passed a long time ago (1970's?) says pollutants must be regulated. It follows that if the government is not regulating sufficiently that it can be sued for non-compliance of the previous ruling. The Trump administration cannot claim that CO2 is not a pollutant since that has already been determined.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Note that a US court has been recently asked to place judgement on climate-related questions. This link has been posted elsewhere at SkS, I expect, but another mention is worth it in this thread:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight
A Minnesota case, not the US Supreme Court, but still part of the legal precendents. I have no idea whether there has been any attempt to appeal.
-
Alpinist at 01:05 AM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Just another day of "you literally can not make this s**t up" in the US. I'm embarrassed.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:30 PM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM, it really doesn't matter whether the Trump administration is bound by the Obama administration's 'admission' that climate change exists. If they attempted to contest it they'd have literally nothing to stand on. Federal rules for scientific evidence simply don't allow the kind of nonsense the 'skeptic' case is built upon.
-
NorrisM at 12:45 PM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I have now read the entire 54 page judgment of Judge Aiken of the United States District Court For the District of Oregon rendered on November 10, 2016 allowing the action commenced in Eugene, Oregon, to proceed. It is this decision which the Federal Government has moved to contest (by a writ of mandamus) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Oral arguments will begin on Monday, December 11, 2017 which will supposedly be broadcast live. If I had the time I would very much enjoy hearing the arguments on both sides.
I at least now know what the plaintiffs are seeking. They wish to "order the Defendants (now only the Federal Government) to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, to move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmosphere CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth's energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system."
The judgment deals with all of the legal issues and certainly was an interesting read, even citing Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis from around 530 AD in support of the "public trust doctrine" supposedly imported into US law via English common law. She even throws in the Social Contract theory (not specifically naming John Locke) but referencing Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers regarding "certain inalienable rights" and that governments were established by consent of the governed for the purpose of securing those rights.
It is interesting that on page 4 of the judgment, Judge Aiken notes, that for purpose of this motion, "I proceed on the understanding that climate change exists, is caused by humans, an poses a serious threat to our planet." This I assume is from an admission from the Federal lawyers (during the Obama administation) that "climate change poses a monumental threat to American's health and welfare by driving long-lasting changies in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time." I wonder if the Trump administration is bound by this admission at this stage of the proceedings.
As with so much litigation, so much depends on the "roll of the dice" on the constitution of what I think is a three judge bench which will hear this application in the Ninth Circuit. In the Bellon case of the Ninth Circuit in 2011 environmental advocacy groups sought to compel the Washington State Department of Ecology and other regional agencies to "regulate greenhouse emissions from five oil refineries". The NInth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff's injuries were "too attenuated".
All of the concerns I have raised above regarding "separation of powers" under the US Constitution are discussed in this judgment as well as the difficulty of the remedy. Although Aiken suggests that the plaintiffs will have a tough row to hoe to meet all the potential objections, the judge did allow the case to proceed. It will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides in this case. The Distict Court judge was able to "distinguish" the Bellon decision.
-
nigelj at 12:37 PM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
The red blue climate debate concept is a modern day farce, a terrible idea, that will cause further division, and whatever the result, it will be ignored by the other side. The problem is not scientific, it is ideological.
The trump administration will find scientists on red team prepared to say anything. If it goes ahead and especially if televised, find articulate people for blue team, who are polite and pleasant, but who are strong and dont take any nonsense, and who keep it simple, not lost in details. Because if you don't, it will be a massacre.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:30 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Having worked in government (not the US), and having taken some of the basic "management" training, one of the things that is expressed clearly is that every action and expenditure has to be done in accord with legislation that grants the authority/power. Yes, the government can pass legislation to change those powers, but ultimately there is a constitutional requirement, too - legislation can be deem unconstitutional and thus void.. (And the constitution is usually hard to change.)
IANAL, but in the EPA case, the US Supreme Court declared that the EPA was required to do something based on existing law. My guess is that courts more often declare that something cannot be done, rather than requiring it, but c'est la vie. In the case discussed above, part of the goal may be to get a court decision saying the government must act. (Whether it will or not is an open question - you can always prolong the thing by forcing the complainant to sue again that you breeched the first decision.)
IAStillNAL, but key words in legislation are things like "may" (grants the power to do something, but does not require it), and "shall" (gotta do it, son).
An odd part of the current US pattern is that more and more governments are taking a "hands off" approach, in terms of actions and regulations. In the 'ibertarion ideal, everything gets decided in courts with very minimal government legislation, If the government will not act "in the common good", then an injured party has little left but to sue, it seems to me. If your reaction is "take me to court", then you aren't really justified in complaining when someone actually does.
-
nigelj at 05:41 AM on 11 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Singleton engineer, yes that makes sense.
It's challenging because The IPCC reports have to be signed off by governments, and they aren't going to want to do this every few months if the reports are continually changing in total, or with lots of multiple small changes to wade through scattered through the whole vast document. So the five year big picture cycle would likely remain.
There's another reason, that climate change requires weighing a whole lot of related evidence before reaching too many conclusions, and this suits a 5 year period and big review.
However its too slow to reflect the physical reality and urgency, so some key chapters need faster updating. This is a sensible compromise.
Paper is dead. Nobody has to wait for IPCC to publish and distribute paper documents. They can electronically produce the stuff immediately and its instantly able to be changed and accessible for people to print if they want. I dont even use a printer much these days.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM @6
Ok thanks for some legal background and history. But you seem to miss the obvious thing, these kids (and others around the world as JH points out) are bringing courst cases only because all other avenues have been exhausted or been obstructed. The stupid politicians are failing to do the right thing, so it only leaves legal action.
So I'm right behind what these kids are doing, and you might be surprised with the result. The constitution is a document so general that it is open to interpretation, and so we cant possibly guess where this court action could go. It may be symbolic,or it may lead to changes.
You quote problem areas of such cases selectively, because clearly other environmental actions bought against the government that have cost implications have actually succeeded, like the EPA example above. The fact you ignore this as if it doesn't exist, is not very impartial of you.
And climate change is essentially fossil fuel companies causing humanity harm in a similar way to tobacco, or any drug, or poison. Its also tragedy of the commons issue. To summarise these are all manifestly legal issues ultimately, and because politicians are failing to take the lead, it only leaves the courts.
-
michael sweet at 05:13 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Norrism:
Currently in the USA the legislature is controlled by people who do not care about anyone except rich donors. The EPA was sued to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and the EPA lost during Bushes term. The court required the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant because the judges were required to read the overwhelming evidence that it is a problem. The Trump EPA has not challenged the declaration of CO2 as a pollutant because they would be in violation of the court order.
The court can declare that CO2 pollution is a national emergency and the legislative branch has to deal with it. It can set goals that have to be achieved. It can take punitive action if the goals are not met. This is currently done with sulfate pollution.
-
NorrisM at 04:55 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Moderator and nigelj
I will see if I can find some discussion of what is expected to be achieved beyond the publicity.
My rhetorical point is that the courts are not the place to decide these very complex issues. The problem courts have in cases like these is that they know very well any specific direction to the government could have massive financial costs which they are not equipped to evaluate. This is the function of the legislative arm which balances a great number of competing expenditures then weighing the use of deficit financing versus raising taxes. Many years ago our Canadian Supreme Court came down with a decision stating that if waiting lines did not improve they would render a decision finding that the Canada Health Act was beyond its power in prohibiting two tiered health care. What happened? Nothing.
Where specific issues are involved like civil rights or abortion these are legal questions where an answer can be given which can then be worked around by the legislative arm. I was familiar with the US Supreme Court decision on CO2 and that is why I asked if there were some discussion of what they think could be achieved in the children's case beyond publicity.
It is often the case in democracies that if a group of people are not happy with the government they resort to the courts. What happens is that our political system gets bogged down because every step taken by the legislative arm gets met with years of litigation. I do not think it is the way to run a democracy personally. Courts usurp the political process if they start making policy decisions. Clearly this is not a bright line between the law and policy but there are limits to what the courts can and should do. If you are not happy with your politicians then boot them out. If the US Supreme Court does get rid of "gerrymandering" this would go a long way to bringing more democracy to the legislative arm in the US.
-
John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
This just in...
People around the world beset by the impacts of global warming like droughts, heat waves and storm surges are calling for “climate justice,” and many are pleading their cases in court.
Globally, there are at least 1,000 active legal cases related to climate change, more than two-thirds of them in the United States, according to a recent tally from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, in London.
A summit on Tuesday in Paris — with more than 50 heads of state attending — on how to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy will be followed the next day by a climate justice forum.
Climate change: Global warming victims seek justice, on the street and in courts, AFP/Hindustan Times, Dec 10, 2017
-
william5331 at 04:13 AM on 11 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
The NY Times article titled Soil Power has hit the nail sqarely on the head. Read David R Montgomery's book, Growing a Revolution and then his previous book Dirt. It is all laid out clearly how to proceed and is a great read to boot.
-
SingletonEngineer at 21:27 PM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
@nigelj:
I think that the answer to your question about paper publishing Vs electronic starts with the timeline.
IPCC operates on a 5-year cycle. The published reports hit the public some time after the end of the date at which new content is frozen. An example could be new data on ice mass stored on Greenland and the Antarctic, or the ice coverage of the Arctic. After a certain date, discussion of that new data simply must carry over to the next cycle.
At a rough approximation, let's put that at a half-cycle, ie 2.5 or 3 years.
Professor Hayhoe has suggested faster cycles for subject areas, especially the rapidly evolving ones, thus (my guess) lopping a year or maybe much more off the time lapse between publication of the peer reviewed work and its filtering out to the broader community.
IMHO, the 5-year cycle is probably going to remain for the purpose of bringing together the widest perspective and developing the broadest agreement across disciplines, but those are not valid arguments against the type of revolution proposed by Prof. Hayhoe.
Fresh is best, in science as well as fruit, but not so fresh that it hasn't ripened.
-
nigelj at 11:42 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM @2
"Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order......?"
I'm not sure why you are asking me. I'm not a lawyer, and I do not have a law degree, or know the American legal system, and you know this already, so theres not much I can say about what sort of legal case they can bring or what the judge would order, or damages they could demand. They will be getting that sort of advice.
Wouldn't it have been of more use for you to share your legal knowledge with us than ask a layperson on the law?
All I can say is the constitution is law in America, and violations of the constitution certainly have had legal consequences in the past with award of damages, or requiring various other orders, and the Federal government is not immune.
According to the article its all happened before "Climate science has been in court before. When he was president, George W. Bush also wanted to ignore the seriousness of climate change. His Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that CO2, the gas most responsible for the planet’s warming, is not a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Twelve states and several cities disagreed and took EPA to court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if the Administrator of EPA certified that CO2 does in fact endanger public health and safety, the gas should be regulated."
What I can do is give some advice on how to argue the facts 1) based on my knowledge of the climate issue and 2) I have actually represented myself in civil court several times, and won every case, so I know a little about how to present an argument.
And regardless of the legalities, the case the kids are bringing will focus attention on a very worthy subject.
"Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides. "
Clack v Jacobson is complicated, but no more so than a complex financial fraud trial, or some high profile complex murder case. Judges and/ or juries hear those all the time.
-
NorrisM at 10:17 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelJ @ 1
Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order? And who would you order to do it? Or do you, as the judge, just say, yes, it affects the life and liberty of every American. Then what?
Perhaps someone can point me to a rational discussion of what this case could achieve.
Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides.
This case by these children all sounds wonderful but do you really expect some judge to come down with any decision that would have any legal effect?
Moderator Response:[JH] You claim to be a lawyer. If so, you should be able to do your own legal homework on this case.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 10 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Go you kids! I have total respect for what you are doing, and will watch with interest.
Lawyers can be intimidating, I have dealt with plenty of them. But a lot of it turns out to be hot air, empty rhetoric, and bluster, so dont let it intimidate you too much, and keep your discussion composed and civil, but forceful.
The main thing they will do is cast doubt on the science, and claim its not settled science and there's no consensus, so this is the main thing you have to counter. Point out that we have five independent studies showing 90 - 95% agreement between climate scientists that humans are warming the climate. Point out its climaate researchers views that count most, as they have the expertise. Point out polls like the Oregen partition are deeply flawed.
Above all do accept the fact a few climate scientists are dissenting voices, but that you do not require 100% agreement for settled science. There are always a few eccentric scientists with opposing views in any field of science, and there's still a flat earth society that is not entirely just for humour.
And point out that all natural climate trends should be causing a cooling effect rather than warming, and the fact that the denislist's haven't provided a competing, fully thought out alternative theory, that covers all issues and has won the respect of science academies and the IPCC and climate research community.
Kill it. Kill it with fire.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
OPOF, you and everyone else, may find this interesting, relevant to the games people play, and very witty. "The Parable of the Ox."
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Swayseeker @2, I agree geoengineering by putting heat reflecting particles in the atmosphere is just high risk, with all sorts of side effects on rainfall and clouds.
You say "From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending."
Your basic theory seems to make sense, and I'm sure they could generate plenty of cubic metres in theory, but you give no idea of the size and number of greenhouses required, or cost, and its not going to be small. Like I have said before, go the further step and at least have a stab at possible scale with some reasonable assumptions and rough calculations, and it would be more convincing.
However at the rate things are going in California they may have to try some local climate modification like this. But please appreciate your technical fix is actually local geoengineering, and may produce a few side effects of its own. But they would be confined locally, more or less.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:03 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
A clarification of my previous comment.
Human actions have already created so much CO2 pollution or reduction of CO2 sequestration in living organisms that the atmospheric level is above 350 ppm.
Therefore, human actions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere are required to be started Now, no matter how expensive it is to use the currently developed technology to do that. The current generation owes that reduction of cretaed impacts to future generations, and the wealthy people who fot wealthier through activity that creayed the problem should pay the most for the rapid removal of CO2 (while at the same time seeing a rapid reduction in their ability to get more wealth from cretaing excess CO2).
Most importantly, only options that remove CO2 without potentially creating other negative impacts should be in the competition to be the preferred actions to reduce CO2.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Swayseeker,
Totally agree and would add, as an experienced Engineer (applier of science), I seriously doubt our ability to understand the global environment well enough to be certain enough that there would not be unacceptable harm done by any Global Geo-Engineering attempt. All we can do is learn how to reduce the negative impacts of our actions, not try to create more impacts in the hopes that imposing more human impacts will be sustainably better.
What is certain is that even with the long established and constantly improving understanding of the harm being done by the ultimately dead-end burning up of buried hydrocarbons (more harm than the climate change conseqences of excess CO2 generation), the economic and political games people play get Won by damaging people who deserve to be Losers.
Until the fatal flaws that allow Damaging Private Interests to compete in the games people play are effectively dealt with, no Global Geo-Engineering activity should be considered helpful for the Public Interest of developing lasting better lives for all of humanity, no matter how much Regional or Tribal Popular support there is for the actions in the hopes that they will mitigate the massive damage already created by the failed Global Geo-Engineering experiment with fossil fuel burning. It would be worse to allow such actions and excuse more fossil fuel burning because such actions were allowed.
-
Swayseeker at 00:26 AM on 10 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
The above article says, "A volcanic eruption spews enormous amounts of soot and dust into the atmosphere, and if it’s high enough up in the stratosphere, that soot and dust can circle the world for a year or more. It acts like a reflective blanket or an umbrella reflecting the energy of the sun back to space, which cools the Earth off. Some are proposing this as a possible solution to climate change,.."
If you cool the ground using this method you are going to get less convection and less convectional rainfall and less clouds to reflect solar energy to space. So it will lead to more drought and more fires. In my view it would be a huge mistake.
Regarding fires: California has had huge water canal construction projects and I do not see that implementation of the following idea would cost too much: The fires are fanned by initially relatively cold air that warms as it descends and heats by compression. One could have a reverse flow by having a greenhouse to evaporate seawater near the sea and have a long greenhouse pipe running upwards to where the wind starts. Because the air will be kept warm during the day in the greenhouse pipe and moist air is less dense than drier air, the air will rush up through the greenhouse pipe and heat the cold air region and increase relative humidity there. Now it might seem that this would have little effect, but this system could be kept running day and night throughout the year. From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending.
More humid air is less dense than drier air, enabling it to rise when it is at the same temperature as surrounding drier air:
Example:
1) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 30 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 95%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
2) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 32 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 50%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
So humidifying the 30 deg C air by increasing RH from 50% to 95% has about the same affect on air density as heating the RH=50% and T=30 deg C air to T=32 deg C.
Note: RH drops slightly on heating from 30 to 32 deg C, but it does not affect calculations a lot. -
Eclectic at 20:00 PM on 9 December 2017NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Citizenschallenge @78 , thank you for resurrecting this rather dormant thread. I hadn't heard of anything recently from "DrPhD" Doiron and his dozen or so of retired NASA engineers & non-climate scientists — who called themselves TRCS (The Right Climate Stuff).
According to their website, their last "activity" was 11 months ago (Jan. 2017). A quick read through their website, reveals some highly-selective cherrypicking [ Ljungqvist + one Greenland ice core site + upper troposphere "global temperatures" + one dodgy-looking graph of average once-annual world mean surface temperatures ] . . . all processed through some el basico mathematics plus a bit of curve-fitting with 61-year and 1000-year "natural cycles" . . . to produce a conclusion that there's nothing for humans to worry about because Global Warming from CO2 is only very slight and self-limiting. And it will be fine to keep burning fossil carbon in an unrestricted way.
In short, the TRCS presents a fine example of Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.
-
citizenschallenge at 16:38 PM on 9 December 2017NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
rbgage, at the rate we're going the not too distant future (a few decades) will be making the 17 hundreds look better all the time.
At least in the 1700s our environment was a vibrant healthy promising place, once you got out of the Europe's cities.
So sad, we never appreciate what we have till it's gone. : (
-
michael sweet at 10:32 AM on 9 December 2017Models are unreliable
John,
That article is so sad :(.
-
John Hartz at 06:57 AM on 9 December 2017Models are unreliable
Recommended supplemental reading:
The most accurate climate change models predict the most alarming consequences, study finds by Chris Mooney, Washington Post, Energy & Environment, Dec 6, 2017
The Most Accurate Climate Models Predict Greater Warming, Study Shows by Georgina Gustin, InsideClimate News, Dec 6, 2017
Both articles describe the findings contained in:
Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget, Patrick T. Brown & Ken Caldeira, Nature 552, 45–50 (07 Dec 2017)
doi:10.1038/nature24672 -
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 9 December 2017The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe
Great interview. Dr Katharine Hayhoe talks a great deal of sense.
She is right the election of Trump is empowering the states to take action, but I think the election of Trump was still a mistake. He is spreading conspiracy theory nonsense, hate, and could start a nuclear war to satisfy his ego and this is a huge issue, with no upside.
Regarding internet and social media, it was all so promising back in the 1990s, but has turned into a a source of hate, personal attacks, and shallow nonsense. And it hasn't improved attitudes on climate, if anything its made them worse.
Yes she is so right, geoengineering is high risk, and even small experiments and modelling can never really tell us what would happen at large scale, and whether a geoengineering caused mistake or disaster could be reversed. Prevention is better than geoengineering cure. I think there was a movie on geoengineering gone wrong called The snow piercer, very dark themed.
I don't understand her comments on IPCC reports. You can download these in pdf format for free easy to read on any computer and even a phone. Whats the problem?
I dont know about whether its feasible to continually update IPCC reports, but theres a lot of recent science saying sea level rise could be significantly more than the IPCC say. I think the IPCC needs at least interim reports getting this message out urgently and clearly.
As Katharine says its all become hugely political. The statements made by the harder right wing side of politics on climate and economics seem stupid, and totally in denial of easily verified facts. Maybe these people who act like children should just sit down and be quiet.
-
MA Rodger at 03:31 AM on 9 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Bill13 @54.
The nonsense written by Parker & Ollier (2017) will be celebrated (indeed is being celebrated) by the deluded community of AGW denialists. It is a very silly piece of work that boldly states that the alignment of messy tidal gauge data by others is wrong and then dreams up a fantasy scheme of alignment that suits their won purpose. They couldn't even be bothered to take the annual cycle out of the data which shows how silly their work is. They thus contradict Unnikrishnan & Shankar (2007) and fails to even mention Woodworth et al (2009). It will probably be some time after those deluded denialists have found some other nonsense to cheer about that the eggregious errors perpetrated by Parker & Ollier will be set out within the literature. Proper scientists have better things to with their time than debunk the work of Parker (assuming he's still calling himself that these days) & Ollier.
It is sad that these two pick on Yemen to do their denialist act as Yemen is a country particularly vulnerable to SLR, "one of the top five most vulnerable low-income countries," according to Al Saafani et al ((2015).
-
NorrisM at 12:38 PM on 8 December 2017Renewables can't provide baseload power
John ONeill @ 191
Courts are ill-equipped to deal with complex issues of science. I can understand why Michael Mann may commence a libel or slander suit against a particular professor who effectively suggested that what Mann published was criminal.
But when two scientists like Jacobson and Clack (and the other authors on both sides) strongly disagree on questions of fact and science then the proper forum is peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals.
What really troubles me about these kind of cases is that I am quite sure that the massive legal costs involved are not really paid by the litigants but rather powerful interests behind each litigant. The litigants themselves then become pawns in the chess game really directed by the money men on each side.
This kind of litigation will only discourage other scientists from making honest criticisms of other papers for fear of finding themselves in court. I truly hope that this case is thrown out of court for these reasons.
-
NorrisM at 12:21 PM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Phillipe Chantreau @ 3
I probably agree with most of what you have said above. I even think that the denial of the "1%" of the economic problems imposed by globalization on the working classes in America and Europe reminds me of the conditions of denial by the French nobility immediately prior to the French Revolution. Not exactly the Middle Ages but a long time ago.
The question you have to ask yourself is what, given the realities in the US at this time, do you do about it?
My feeling is that Democrats in the US should:
1. Read Mark Lillas' book "The Once and Future Liberal" and get with the program (or, if that is too much time, at least listen to the Sam Harris podcast interviewing Lilla) - Message: Democrats, roll up your sleeves and work to take control of state governments which you have largely ignored for 30 years;
2. Willingly sign on to the Scott Pruitt "Red Team Blue Team" approach if it ever gets going and "stuff it down their throats" with the best climate scientists who have some ability to communicate their views. On this basis, I still think it would be better to have a physicist like Steve Koonin (a Democrat) head this debate rather than a non-scientist (I know I will get some heat for this on this website but once again I am trying to deal with the political reality in the US today).
3. Come up with a "middle of the road" candidate to compete against Trump in the next presidential election. Believe it or not, but serious political commentators were suggesting Al Franken as a possible Democratic presidential candidate not more than 3 months ago.
My point is that you do not just "throw your hands up" and wait for 3 more years. Midterms will not magically change Trump's approach and, I suspect, will not massively change the makeup of Congress.
-
nigelj at 11:39 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
To put the 1929 economic crash in context, that year America's total gdp fell approximately 10%, and did the same in the next few years documented here. This hurt, because back then living standards were much lower than today even in the good times.
By comparison, many studies like this one estimate it would cost America approximately just 1% of gdp per year to covert to renewable energy. This is spread over approximately 20 years including generation and line upgrades.
Americas economy is expected to grow approximately 3% this year alone. Much of that will go in bonuses to bankers, and subsidies to fossil fuels etc.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:19 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
There is no such thing as clean fossil fuels. Especially clean coal, which is an idiotic PR piece of nonsense. Eradicating industrial scale use of coal is the most critical and most important part, and also the easiest to implement, as there are many better alternatives to produce electricity. The World could loose 15 trillions in a heartbeat in 2008, without coming anywhere close to the distress experienced following the 1929 crash, so a massive worldwide effort is possible and would not even take that big a bite out of our beloved creature comforts. The only reason why it's not happening is simple: large interest groups that place their short term financial benefit above everything else.
Today's World is not much less feudal in essence than Medieval Europe. Governments are the vassals of mega conglomerates.
In the US, nothing is likely to happen soon because the interest groups are firmly in control, and the denial in the population is so strong that even the already existing, numerous, worsening adverse events are brushed off. If having the California wildfires and Texas floods within a few months, while extreme and unusual events are going on in the rest of the World as well is still not enough to awake the cargo cult worshippers, probably nothing will. Who cares? People are glued to devices whose algorithms compete to show them what they like to see, read what they want to read, validate their emotions even in the complete absence of real reasons to do so, whether it be conspiracy theories or no-good-commie scientists who are after their tax money. The disconnection from reality is so widespread and so pervasive that nothing can mend it anymore.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:39 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Ollier is a serial fake-skeptic (SkS did a take-down of his work, here). Both Ollier and Parker are affiliated with the fossil fuel-mouthpiece Energy and Environment.
The real travesty is examing just a handful of locations measuring sea levels in just a small part of the world and somehow handwaving away global datasets showing global sea level rise, inluding satellite measurements with global coverage.
Instead of what science has found, this:
Deniers want us to see this:
-
John Hartz at 08:54 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Bill 13 @54: The paper that you have provided a link to demonstrates that science is a continuous process of discovery.
-
Bill13 at 08:13 AM on 8 December 2017Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Can anyone here comment on this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
On the surface it looks like more shanigan's have been found, and at least in these locations the rate of sea level rise was exagerated.
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
"Getting vested-interest money out of politics is the one move that would give us a chance."
Yes absolutely.
Wikipedia has interesting article on publicly funded elections, and examples of countries using this, although the extent is limited:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections
It seems such a small price for us to pay to clean up politics and ensure politicians don't become captured by hidden lobby groups. Of course the opponents of public funding will argue that a wide range of groups contribute to election campaigns so it allegedly "evens out" but it only takes one wealthy group to capture key politicians, to have a disproportionate and damaging influence, IMO and the fossil fuel industry is very wealthy.
And on a related matter, you only have to read the history of lobbying against environmental legislation to be quite shocked about what goes on behind the scenes, and how dirty the game often is.
However things may be slow to change in the USA for reasons to do with constitutional guarantees on freedom, and a tendency to take things simplistically in this regard. It may be that philanthropists concerned about climate change should fund politicians campaigns as much as they possibly can. It's not idea solution, but seems the only viable option in America right now, and would dilute the influence of the fossil fuel groups and libertarian business donors.
It's also a moral question. Politicians are paid out of the public purse in terms of their salaries, and should be thinking of the public interest as a whole.
-
nigelj at 05:07 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Trump says America will have "clean fossil fuels". Donald Trump also promised not to play golf, to reform obamacare, balance the budget, eliminate federal debt within 8 years (all 18 trillion dollars worth), put tariffs on China. Hmm, clean fossil fuels don't look terribly likely, based on the evidence, the Trump governments record, the credibility of various promises, and the high cost of clean fossil fuels compared to renewable energy.
Just look at the costs of experimental clean coal and the difficulties of strong carbon, in the clean coal plant in Canada.
Renewable energy is far more cost effective, and simpler than clean fossil fuels, which shows how these politicians must have other reasons, like pandering to campaign supporters, and scoring points against the green movement and Obama. A gish gallop of pathetic motives.
-
nigelj at 04:46 AM on 8 December 2017COP23 video: Three need-to-knows from the UN climate talks in Bonn
Paris agreement is becoming critical. Latest research is ominous, and says:
"More-severe climate model predictions could be the most accurate"
Date:December 6, 2017
Source:Carnegie Institution for ScienceSummary:The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a article. Their findings suggest that the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on average, may be underestimating future warming.
"Our study indicates that if emissions follow a commonly used business-as-usual scenario, there is a 93 percent chance that global warming will exceed 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Previous studies had put this likelihood at 62 percent."
-
william5331 at 04:37 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
Even politicians who realize what is happening will spout denialism if that is demanded by their sponsors. The one ring that controls them all is money in politics. The cost of the present system is so huge, so pervasive that it would be far better if politicians were supported from the public purse. Getting vested-interest money out of politics is the one move that would give us a chance.
-
thanes at 02:07 AM on 8 December 2017US government report finds steady and persistent global warming
Has anyone done a comparison with the latest data and Hansen’s Congressional testimony? I would love that, last ones I’ve seen were from here, maybe 2014?
-
nigelj at 17:40 PM on 7 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48
Those guys can really sing.
And now for Bob Dylans Hard Rain song, the climate change version.
-
Eclectic at 15:04 PM on 7 December 2017Homogenization of Temperature Data: An Assessment
Moderators, may I suggest that Scottfree1's post here be moved to the "No Climate Conspiracy" thread, since it fits with his other (contemporary) posts there. His posts express Conspiracy Theory, and do not involve genuine science.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please leave to moderatiing to the moderators. Thank you.
Prev 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 Next
