Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 Next
Comments 16951 to 17000:
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Says law was introduced in 1803, and Adam Smiths wealth of nations / invisible hand idea was introduced in 1776. Both are social science theories based on a dubious concoction of speculation, theory, and roughly assembled observed evidence. Both have an element of partial truth and value, but are also deeply flawed / incomplete understandings as well.
It beggars belief that a single human being would think some theory written hundreds of years ago is by definition likely to be the complete picture, or fully correct. Newtons laws of physics are far more rigorous than Says law or Smiths invisible hand ideas, yet even Newtons work was shown to only be a partial explanation of reality by Einstein.
Free markets are much more complex than Smith thought, and used by ideologues as a simplistic excuse to give people permission to burn fossil fuels and pollute. But history has shown certain particular free markets dont always work, and produce adverse outcomes, and with boundaries and rules they start to work properly.
We learn as we go along, except climate denialists don't learn and would have to rank among the most ideogically driven and stubborn, delusional people I know capable of immense feats of non logic when it comes to attacking theories that ruffle their feathers.
-
nigelj at 05:47 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Yes people do indeed latch onto a few selective issues to try to discredit entire theories. Of course intelligent open minded people know this is false logic, but not everyone does, or they are so blinded by their politics they just dont care.
It's a tough one, as things like polar bear examples make the issue real and relatable compared to some graph of climate trends, but at the same time are somewhat easy to pick holes in, especially as trends are currently only declining overall and not everywhere. Hopefully people see the big picture, not one study that shows an increase in some limited area.
I find it useful understand the polar bear issue by doing a simple thought experiment to imagine the arctic totally ice free, or nearly ice free, which is a very possible scenario in our lifetimes. This means no ice for polar bears and changes to seal populations etc.
Where do the polar bears go? Its almost certainly much too fast for them to biologically evolve and adapt to alternative environments. This sort of evolution takes centuries to millenia. Polar bears do not have the inventive nature of humans to use tools and innovate their way out of changing environments, and even humans can only do this up to a certain point. Its going to be game over for polar bears.
We have seen numerous species go extinct through not only hunting but environmental pressures. Some studies on species already affected badly by climate change and other environemntal problems here and here
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 30 November 2017New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
The Freedom experiment has been a long proven failure. The Public Interest in developing a lasting better future for all of humanity is too easily popularly compromised by damaging unsustainable pursuits of personal desires.
People freer to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please needs to understood to be a damaging simplistic Dogma like the fantasy of the Inherent Good Power of the Invisible Hand or Say's Law.
-
michael sweet at 23:11 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Norrism:
With high penetration of renewable energy the issue quickly becomes one of providing peak power when it is not windy or sunny. "Baseload" power that is on all the time is not very valuable. That is why nuclear and coal already cannot compete on the open market. I have seen no scenarios where additional baseload assists renewable energy, only anecdotal stories by fossil fuel vendors.
The existing hydro storage facilities were built in the 1960's to store excess baseload power from nuclear plants to use as peak power during the day. The new energy system requires peak power, not baseload.
Existing gas peaker plants can supply peak power to back up renewable energy. Claims that renewable energy is harder to back up than fossil baseload plants ignore the majority of power plants in the USA.
Experts think the IPCC underestimated sea level rise (from 2013). New data since the IPCC report was written indicates sea level rise might be much higher than the IPCC estimated. The CSSR, written in 2017 states:
"A [global average] rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States." (my emphasis).
If you are a conservative engineer you might have to use a 10 foot rise to ensure your infrastructure will be usable in 2100, not .52 meters. Every time they write an IPCC report they have to significantly increase the estimate of sea level rise.
-
michael sweet at 22:04 PM on 29 November 2017Video: Climate, Sea Level, and Superstorms
Riduna,
The key point is that observing the cold patch shows that the Gulf Stream has already begun to slow. The size and temperature of the cold patch can be used to calculate how much the Gulf Stream has slowed.
The superstorms are powered by the difference in temperature between the tropics and the arctic. If the cold patch continues to grow Hansen claims that will provide the power for superstorms.
-
chriskoz at 20:19 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Hydrogen is a very ephemeral fuel because of its volatility. Any distributing pipeline and containers must be super-tight. Typical infrastructures, e.g. those used for natural gas, would allow to much fugitive loss due to leaks.
Related is the problem of vehicle safety while transporting a big tank. The tank must be super-tight and armoured - stronger than e.g. LPG tank. This adds the extra weight to carry by the vehicle.
-
nigelj at 19:14 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Norris @11, I agree such a discussion is interesting, and I think it's all related to climate science. This website did do an article on electric cars.
Just briefly, regarding PV solar versus thermal solar. IMO they are both good systems. It may not be either / or. Thermal solar suits large centralised instillations, and pv solar suits roof top arrays, and poor third world countries.
Regarding hydrogen fuel cell cars versus batteries. They are both good cars, and hydrogen fuel cell cars have been on the market since about 2014, and I'm reasonably sure Honda make one. From a technical point of view, they are very roughly equal abilities, although batteries are a bit more efficient ultimately. However I would welcome more information and discussion and my knowledge is limited.
The real trouble is hydrogen fuel cells absolutely require a network of charging stations and there are currently very few, and nobody will provide then until their are sufficient cars, and nobody will buy the cars until theres a full network of rechghaging stations, so its a stale mate situation. Uptake of hydrogen cars has been very slow, so it looks like a losing technology I'm afraid. Battery cars can just be plugged into a wall socket, so this is very flexible as you are not as reliant on recharging stations. Things have to be user friendly.
-
NorrisM at 15:38 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Eclectic @ 45
I am still fighting my way through Chapter 13 of the IPCC Fifth Assessment on sea level changes but the more I see (especially after what at least is a revelation to me arising out of the the Economist article and the Andy Skuce essays) the more I think we have to face up to the best guess of the IPCC using RCP 8.5 which predicts a sea level rise of .52 to .98 m by 2100. This is not catastrophic. That is ballpark 82 years away. Even 2050 is 32 years away. Just think of the massive changes that have happened to our society in the last 50 years. We cannot count on technology but we really do not have a choice. It is totally impractical to expect the world to just stop using fossil fuels on or about 2030. As well, we are moving away from fossil fuels so we probably will be better off than RCP 8.5 (but maybe not given this "negative emission assumption" in the models).
-
NorrisM at 15:23 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
michael sweet @ 44
The difference between solar and wind power, on the one hand, and coal or natural gas with CCS technology, on the other, relates to issues of base load power. It is fine to talk about "marginal cost" when it comes to wind and solar power but we do not have realistic storage systems to keep the lights on in LA or New York at night. This comes right back to these issues of EROI with Weissbach assuming a storage system for "stand alone" wind power or solar in calculating the EROI. If you are happy with using natural gas as a base load source then fine but the costs of same have to be included in calculating solar and wind power. To the extent natural gas plants are already in place should be taken into account in making these calculations of the real cost of wind and solar.
As I noted to eclectic on another thread, my sense is that the US should be moving towards thermal solar and the construction of a continental HVDC power system but that will still require base load power from fossil fuels as far as I can see.
But none of this addresses the issues raised in the Andy Skuce essays regarding negative emissions if we have any chance of meeting a 2C limit on global temperatures by 2100. We simply are not going to choke off our economy in 2030 when the carbon budget runs out based upon the discussions in the Skuce essays.
If we do not have any valid answers should the models not recognize this invalid assumption as suggested by Kevin Anderson and, implicitly, by Andy Skuce?
-
Riduna at 15:14 PM on 29 November 2017Video: Climate, Sea Level, and Superstorms
about 285ppm#2 Nigelj writes … Yet these superstorms appear to have occured in period of CO2 concentrations similar to where we are heading.
It is well established that during the Eemian thermal naximum (~129,000 to 124,000 years ago), CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached a maximum of about 285ppm, while present concentration is around 406ppm, a level unprecedented over the last 800,000 ears.#9 Mr Sweet writes … The cold patch just below Greenland on many global temperature graphs is caused by the slowing of the Gulf Stream.
In fact, the opposite occurs. Discharge of cold water from Greenland ice sheet melt is likely to cause Gulf Stream slowing by pushing warmer water deeper. -
Eclectic at 13:51 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
NorrisM , the comments by Michael Sweet are exactly correct, in a nutshell.
For 20+ years, there has been a pitifully small amount of action taken against CO2 emissions — and the consequences are grim. The "trainwreck" which is AGW, is growing in magnitude. This is plainly obvious to every well-informed observer who chooses not to avert his gaze.
Yet the deniers (of reality) cry out "Alarmism" . . . as though that piece of rhetorical nonsense will somehow negate the real physical problem. The deniers are afflicted with Head-in-the-Sand mental disease — and history will judge them harshly for their selfishness and stupidity. (Not that that will bother the deniers, since they will be dead before the worst of the trainwreck is obvious to even the meanest intelligence.)
NorrisM, I have read The Economist article you referenced. But it did not state anything really new or insightful. The situation has been plainly obvious for many years. Politicians can (and do) talk and talk about 1.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees, but they make very little effort to reduce the size of the slow-motion trainwreck which is already under way.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We (collectively) have undertaken so little "prevention" . . . that "cure" (in the form of atmospheric carbon reduction) is now to fall heavily on future generations. They are the ones who will be faced with picking up the pieces of the trainwreck: a much larger trainwreck than they ought to have to inherit.
At this stage, reducing the "up-sizing" of the problem — is the only practical thing to be done. Any other course equals insanity.
Sorry for pontificating. But the situation warrants it — don't you think, NorrisM ?
-
NorrisM at 13:45 PM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
nigel @ 9
In previous postings I indicated that I personally have been moved by the two papers by Derek Abbot suggesting a thermal solar thermal/hydrogen solution which would require a continental HVDC system. I had hoped we could get a discussion going on the benefits of PV solar versus thermal solar (and whether we should be focussing on electric cars versus hydrogen) based upon those 2010 papers but my understanding is that such a discussion is beyond the focus of this website. As well, we again face political reality in the US.
-
michael sweet at 13:45 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Norrism:
It is now cheaper to build out new wind and solar power plants than it is to run old coal power plants that have no mortgage expense. It will at least double the cost of coal power to do CCS with it. Goldman Sachs expects wind and solar to drop in price another 40% in the next decade (and in the past renewables have exceeded expectations of cost savings).
It will be much cheaper to just build out wind and solar than to waste the money doing CCS research.
-
michael sweet at 13:33 PM on 29 November 2017OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Aleks,
Nigelj, MA Rodger and I have shown that all your arguments are false or based on incorrect calculations. It is not our problem if you cannot understand basic facts and data. At this site you have to support your arguments with more than your opinion. You will never convince anyone here.
-
NorrisM at 13:08 PM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
michael sweet @ 42
It will be interesting to see if this Economist article might prompt the Republicans to start thinking more about spending more funds on CCS research because it would "fit" with their agenda of staying with fossil fuels. I may be wrong but "intuitively" this might be a better tact to use with the Republicans while they are in power. But capturing CO2 from the air rather than during the combustion process does not sound promising even based upon my limited understanding of physics.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:53 AM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
nigelj, NorrisM
The need to rapidly transition from burning fossil fuels to much more sustainable and less damaging ways of obtaining personal benefit has been well understood since the 1960s.The fact that research effort is still being put into fossil fuel for burning rather than have that effort be on improvement and expansion of better ways of behaving is Proof that the current socio-polotical-economic-environmental games played by humans are fatally flawed.
The major flaws are 'pursuits of Private Interests' winning the ability to compromise the 'Global Public Interest in developing a lasting better future for humanity'. The focus is on people pursuing the best possible present for themselves any way they can get away with. Those Private Interests compromise the environment and the future whenever they are Balanced with concern for the environment or Others.
-
aleks at 11:45 AM on 29 November 2017OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Michael sweet @76, @77
I did not accept that “not enough NO2 and SO2 are emitted to affect ocean pH”. In any case, the effect of these gases on pH will be much greater than of CO2. Great emission of SO2 during industrial revolution is shown in MA Rodger's post #23 here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/jellyfish-teach-us-about-climate-change.html#comments
“The Pacific Ocean water is lower in pH because it is older than the Atlantic ocean. One time more CO2 has dissolved lowering the pH in the Pacific ocean”. This explanation contradicts not only the fact that CO2 concentration in the surface layer is approximately the same, but also the elementary logic. CO2 in seawater is in dynamic equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere. Partial pressure of CO2 and water surface temperature increased and decreased countless times, so it's impossible to suggest that many millions of years enhanced concentration of CO2 in Pacific left unchanged.
@77. About “dry wall plant”. You said before that this object is made from the material extracted from the scrubber after absorption of gas emission from the coal power plant. I'd like to recall that the absorbent in this case is Ca(OH)2 that reacts not only with SO2, but with CO2 that is the main component of emitted gases, hence, scrubber material consists mainly of CaCO3. This issue is relevant to our main problem, since it is about whether scrubbing can eliminate SO2 and NO2 emissions into atmosphere. Evidently, it can not, because this process is expensive, time and labor consuming and leads to a huge amount of solid waste. Therefore, emissions of acid gases into the atmosphere do not stop, especially in China, India which consume more than half the world's coal production.
I will not discuss your assertion about complete dissociation of H2CO3 in alkaline buffer solution based on “a reference from expert”. There is no specific calculation – there is no discussion. Let's consider real values of CO2 in seawater (table 1.2, p.24) in the work I cited before:
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf The concentrations of carbon containing species in seawater are (micromole /kg): bicarbonate 1718, carbonate 239, dissolved carbon dioxide 9.6. Even assuming that all CO2 converts to H2CO3 and it dissociates completely, amount of [H+] from CO2 is less than from 1mg NO2 converted to HNO3 (~22 micromole [H+]). -
Daniel Bailey at 10:28 AM on 29 November 2017Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
"For the last 18 months, DMI shows Greenland ice increasing significantly"
Nope. Does-not-pass-the-sniff-test.
Per the DMI, the authority in charge of tracking the Greenland Ice Sheet:
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.
Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance.
The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
Embolding added.
So the DMI is in perfect agreement with NASA:
"Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland [below] have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data [to January 2017])"
Debunked.
-
nigelj at 10:15 AM on 29 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Sidd, what you say makes sense.
Graph of sea level rise projections for my country New Zealand here, out to 2100.
This is a quadratic curve. I can't see how it would ever become exponential and why melting would do this, melting is not like population growth! A quadratic curve is more than bad enough to worry about.
-
michael sweet at 07:08 AM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Norrism:
And then deniers say scientists are being "alarmist" and there is no problem.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Norris actually you are more an an eternal optimist on fossil fuel extraction technology and eternal pessimist on renewable energy technology. And this contradiction makes no sense at all, on the basis of actual evidence, and is clear example of confirmation bias. Both technologies have potential for development, and if anything newer technologies like renewable energy have more room for innovation at this stage than oil extraction, simply because they are so new.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Norris and others, fracking is scraping the bottom of the barrel in global oil shale terms. However America has over half the worlds shale oil reserves, so its not going to run out of shale oil anytime soon, described here.
Norris you are an eternal optimist on technology and eternal pessimist on scientific modelling. Fracking has found more efficient technologies but there are limits to the process. Consider in comparison, conventional oil extraction went through a process of rapid innovation, but hasn't changed much now in decades. As many wells are half used up extraction gets more expensive. Oil from fracking is already expensive and its not going to magically become cheaper and cheaper forever. There are limits to what technology can do.
The following is an interesting summary on oil situation globally and in America here.
This is interesting in particular:
"That said, the Rystad report also illustrates why it’s critical for the U.S. to focus on developing other, renewable forms of energy. “Rystad Energy now estimates total global oil reserves at 2092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of crude oil per year, the report reads. “This data confirms that there is a relatively limited amount of recoverable oil left on the planet. With the global car-park possibly doubling from 1 billion to 2 billion cars over the next 30 years, it becomes very clear that oil alone cannot satisfy the growing need for individual transport.”
-
nigelj at 04:57 AM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
"As the cost of low carbon alternatives falls and concern over the consequences of higher carbon sources grows we may reach a point here the curves cross and the former replaces the latter."
This is a very good point, and probably true.
Humans process information and make decisions based on mentally weighing costs, benefits and probabilities of these things happening, according to psychological research. I dont see that climate issue would be different. I dont know when the crossover point would come to cause massive change, but it may not be far away.
The important thing is to ensure people have good information on which to base such decisions, as opposed to climate denialist junk.
-
NorrisM at 03:42 AM on 29 November 2017The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
Moderator
Thanks very much for the reference to the three valuable Andy Skuce essays on this very issue of the requirement of “negative emissions” to meet the assumption of most of the IPCC global climate models. It is unfortunate that he is no longer with us to respond to this post. I have read all three essays along with the other two recent discussions of this topic. At your suggestion, I am reposting my comments on the second of the three essays by Andy Skuce in November 2015. This one was titled “Are the experts being candid about our chances?”
Andy Skuce’s articles were directed at the above topic which has now been raised front and centre by Economist’s November 18, 2017 edition lead article. The front page of the Economist is entitled “What they don’t tell you about climate change”.
Here is a salient comment from the Economist lead article:
“Fully 101 of the 116 models the IPCC uses to chart what lies ahead assume that carbon will be taken out of the air in order for the world to have a good chance of meeting the 2° C target. The total amount of CO2 to be soaked up by 2100 could be a staggering 810bn tonnes, as much as the world’s economy produces in 20 years at today’s rate. Putting in place carbon-removal schemes of this magnitude would be an epic endeavor even if tried and tested techniques existed. They do not.”
I highly recommend that everyone read all three of Andy Skuce’s essays as well as the lead article of the Economist. In the above essay, Andy Skuce in 2015 refers to a paper by Kevin Anderson raising this very issue. Here is Andy Skuce’s summary of the Anderson 2015 paper:
“Anderson’s case, in summary, is that most of us, whether scientists, policy makers or citizens, are suffering from cognitive dissonance. We acknowledge the mathematics of carbon budgets compatible with the 2°C target, yet are unable to face the revolutionary implications of what we need to do to get there. Put simply, our entire way of life for most of us in rich countries—and for an increasing number of rich people in poor countries—has to change radically, starting now.”
I am personally blown away by this revelation that we not only need massive reductions in emissions to meet a 2° C target but also massive “negative emissions” from technologies that today are unproven. I have to agree that there has to be some "cognitive dissonance" going on in that in about 10 months of focussing on issues related to climate change I had never heard of this major issue with the underlying assumptions of most of the IPCC global climate models.
The moderator has referred to me two more recent discussions of this issue. I highly recommend reading the Elizabeth Kolbert November 20, 2017 article in the magazine The New Yorker which, coincidentally, covers the same territory as the November 18, 2017 edition of Economist. This paper discusses various technologies that are being considered (one within about 30 miles from our home in West Vancouver) but clearly concludes that today there is no proven technology to achieve the required negative emissions.
I hope this post will provoke some discussion of the various technologies being considered. From my reading of the recent discussions, BECSS seems to be the “front runner” but as the Economist says:
“Persuading Earth’s swelling population to plan an India’s worth of new trees or crops to produce energy, as the climate simulations require, looks highly improbable”.
What do we do?
Perhaps someone could point out where in the Fifth IPCC Assessment (and for that matter in the recent American Global Change Research Report) this assumption of negative emissions (and the ramifications that at the present time there are no proven technologies to achieve these negative emissions) is discussed.
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome and thank you for your empathy re Andy Skuce.
-
NorrisM at 02:07 AM on 29 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
DrivingBy @ 4
"He has very limited control over some barely break-even rapidly depleting oil (US shale)."
As much as I would l like to hear that this is the case, my understanding is that the "tight oil" industry continually finds ways to reduce costs by more efficient fracture stimulation methods. Do you have any backup for your statement above regarding "rapidly depleting shale oil"?
I remember years ago when horizontal fracing (where did the "K" come from in fracture stimulation?) has opened up tight natural gas reserves. Everyone said it would be impossible to apply this technology to oil. We all know what happened there.
-
DrivingBy at 23:07 PM on 28 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Whoops, I did not use a text editor. Pardon the unedited and disjointed draft above; while the substance is what I meant, it's is mis-connected pieces.
-
DrivingBy at 23:04 PM on 28 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
@badgering
Any one person has little effect on the course of AGW. You might equally well say: "What are the chances of Obama's rolling back the rise of the sea?"
Actually, the USA's C02 output has levelled off. Sooner or later, perhaps later than is wise, public opinion in the USA will consider it to be a both undesirable and significant. Lyndon Johnson was warned of this phenomenon in the 1960s, and of course he blew it off. As the cost of low carbon alternatives falls and concern over the consequences of higher carbon sources grows we may reach a point here the curves cross and the former replaces the latter.
If one wants to focus on a few figureheads, then do so on the monarchs and despots who need not concern themselves with popular sentiment, and who are pumping out cheap fossils fuel.
That would be the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Nigeria, Mexico and (once their wells are taken over by China & Russia) Venezuela. That's where the oil comes from, and crucially this is the low cost, price-setting oil. Were these producers to say "hey ya know what, we've already produced 2/3 of the oil ever used and we're concerned about the global C02 budget, so next years we're cutting production by 50%, and by half again the year after". The remaining oil has a far higher cost of production, and can't be drawn out fast enough to supply today's demand without massive investment, if at all. Whether by price or supply, oil demand would plummet.
Trump?? A distraction, and a minor one. He has very limited control over some barely break-even rapidly depleting oil (US shale). He can maybe nudge the needle a tad, but more than the slightest nudge which throws people out of work and his job goes next.
-
Eclectic at 20:09 PM on 28 November 2017Ice age predicted in the 70s
Typo correction : that should read "... look at the [2014] report mentioned in post #64 ..."
Only clairvoyants in 1914, could perceive a 1975 'Cooling World' Story !
-
Eclectic at 19:55 PM on 28 November 2017Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
Bruce @4 , look at the evidence. Think for yourself — don't swallow the BS you seem to have gotten from some crazy science-free website. [Would it be WattsUpWithThat or JoNova or similar? Those are websites which cherry-pick tiny bits of data, without analysing them properly . . . and which love to put so much spin on the info, and carefully avoiding the context / bigger picture, to produce a grossly misleading impression on the casual reader.]
Greenland has gained a small bit of ice on the central heights — and has been losing over 50 cubic miles of ice (per year) from around the periphery. Rather as you'd expect, from all this AGW that's going on. And that melting loss of ice is part of the reason the sea level is rising so fast (and will get faster).
One cubic mile is a mighty big iceblock when you think about it, Bruce.
In comparison, the USA's Glacier National Park is pretty small beer. Sadly, the Park has lost most of the glaciers it had 150 years ago . . . and the few remaining, are horribly shrunken and disappearing fast. Get in and see them, Bruce, while there are still some left.
-
Eclectic at 19:27 PM on 28 November 2017Ice age predicted in the 70s
Just like Michael Sweet says.
Bruce @65 . . . . what, if any, is the point you are wishing to make?
Have you read any of the alleged 93 papers? It would be wise of you to read at least a small sample of those papers to see if they were really "concerned". Be wise of you, because Notrickzone is a notorious Fake News outlet, which spouts an amazingly-large amount of BS on all sorts of topics and seems to enjoy winding-up gullible & ignorant readers. (Presumably that's how they make their money at the website.)
That's not to say that it ain't (just) possible that the Notrickszoners might actually have published something truthful this time [gotta be a first time for them, sometime, right?] . . . but judging by their track record, they usually only prefer to to tell a truth is it's a half-truth which misleads or misdirects the gullible readers. So be on your guard, Bruce !! And do a bit of cross-checking.
Now, back to the Notrickszone message.
And the first question is : So what? Bruce, read the brief article above [by John Russell] and view the 5-minute video by David Bedford. And look at the [1914] report mentioned in post #64 just above your own post #65.
Look again at the reality, Bruce : the globe is warming rapidly; sea level is rising ever faster; the world's ice is melting rapidly decade by decade. (Not many glaciers left in Glacier National Park now, Bruce. Sad. ) And the world has just had its 4 hottest years on record ( 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / and 2017 is in the bag ! )
And it's gonna get hotter still — as said by virtually all the scientists who know what's what. There's no reason left to believe any of the BS coming from the science-deniers (or from Notrickszoners, either). Look around, Bruce — unlike in the 1970's , there are nowadays no credible scientists remaining, who think Global Warming ain't happening.
And all the climate scientists have got the evidence backing their opinion !!
So, Bruce, what do you think? (Forget the Notrickszone rubbish/spin.)
-
michael sweet at 19:16 PM on 28 November 2017Ice age predicted in the 70s
Bruce:
From the first reference at your link (Hanson et al 1981)
"Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage." (my emphasis)
Hardly in support of global cooling. The second reference: Benton 1970 also predicts global warming with increasing carbon dioxide. After the first two I stopped checking.
When you cite papers that predict additional warming and say that they support claims of global cooling it is easy to get a lot of papers. Scientists read the citations and realize that the claims of predictions of global cooling rely on readers who do not check the citations.
-
bruce14421 at 17:03 PM on 28 November 2017Ice age predicted in the 70s
"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet"Following is a link to 93 papers concerned about an imminent ice age in the 1970's. http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.ydkdfTSH.dpbsCan the moderator either rebut these 93 or provide 6 times as many "warming" papers from the 1970's? -
bruce14421 at 16:49 PM on 28 November 2017Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
For the last 18 months, DMI shows Greenland ice increasing significantly.
Arctic ice has plateaud and is now greater than it was in 2006.
If it was in a spiral of death, how is this possible?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] Arctic ice has declined dramatically since 2006. According to the DMI, the disintegration of Greenland ice sheet has contributed over 8mm of global sea level rise in that time. This is a science-based site so please stick to the facts/data or risk bogus claims being moderated out.
-
Eclectic at 08:37 AM on 28 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Bozzza @36 , my reference was not to arctic sea ice — which would not affect SLR, of course. Rather, to NH ice such as the Himalayas and Greenland. The latter case involves "warming air" gaining some of its heat from the nearby ocean, true.
-
nigelj at 08:14 AM on 28 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
Chances of republicans reading this report seem on the low side.
There's an old saying you cannot argue with an idiot. This includes intelligent people determined to be idiotic, because of political motives.
-
John Hartz at 06:47 AM on 28 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
badgering: Zero.
-
badgering at 06:10 AM on 28 November 2017American leaders should read their official climate science report
What are the chances of President Trump taking in this information? It may already be too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming.
-
bozzza at 21:28 PM on 27 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
A regular doubling period is of course impossible to achieve.
It is of course what the stockholder demands...
Jevons paradox rules the world hence blood for oil wars!
Eclectic thinks warmer air will melt the arctic sea ice but my understanding was that the atmosphere was chiefly responsible for heat distribution at the equator but the ocean took over the dominant role toward the poles!
-
Eclectic at 19:04 PM on 27 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Sidd @34 , the real underlying point is that the next 100 years will likely show a sea level rise which is "above linear".
Warmer air will affect Northern Hemisphere ice and warmer seawater will affect Antarctic ice, in a complex way. All a matter of physical processes -— likely to have nett accelerations & slowings which won't fit well with basic algebraic formulae.
During the initial decades, SLR predictions will probably require frequent adjustments as observations & understanding continue to grow. Recent SLR has accelerated and we can expect even faster melting of ice sheets, since little has been done to counter the underlying cause of global warming.
For myself, I have never been able to empathize with the strange "reality-rejecting" mentality which views the very obvious global warming & higher sea level as being something which could be blamed on left-wing/right-wing political factions (including the "Gore" himself).
-
sidd at 16:02 PM on 27 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
I realize i was asked to give a colloquial discussion of the difference between supralinear and exponential without resort to mathematical language, and i failed badly. So i post a link to a picture. The curves go from linear (invisible on this scale) through quadratic(x^2), cubic (x^3), quartic(X^4) and exponential. Observe how exponential outruns all in the long run.http://membrane.com/sidd/powercurves.png
In any event, to decree a process exponential requires data for several doublings of the rate in question. So when the rate of sea level rise over the last century of 2 mm/yr hit 4 mm/yr in 20 yrs and hypothetically 8 mm/yr in another 20 yr we have reason to believe the increase is exponential with the doubling time of twenty year. But as of now we have perhaps seen one doubling which can be fitted just as well with a quadratic as any other larger power or even an exponential. But quadratic is already troubling.
Waiting for it to become obviously exponential is ridiculous. When it hits 8 mm/yr we all screwed. So the evidence of a quadratic (y^2) term is already troubling.And long before we see a cubic term we need to be migrating away from coastline quick.
Is that better ?
sidd
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:10 PM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Glixon@4,
I agree that ending human activity that increases CO2 in the atmosphere is the top priority and must be achieved quickly.
The second point is that the current generation owes future generations no more than 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. That means the current generation has to start removing carbon before it stops adding carbon, but never believe that because they are removing carbon it is acceptable for them to add more CO2.
That removal of CO2 will not be a 'money maker', and should not be a money maker unless a truly sustainable profitable activity is developed. Businesses/investors should not make a profit by being collectively paid by the collective of governments to reduce the CO2. And the businesses and investors making profit from the burning of fossil fuels should be paying the majority of the costs to remove CO2, again without the removers making any profit.
-
nigelj at 12:43 PM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
Talking about extreme weather, Australia is having record setting heatwave:
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11948291
This article has some good graphics on urban areas and how hot surfaces can get. "The heat mitigation study uses a dedicated "energy bus" and drones to measure surface and air temperatures."
Also grim predictions for India, and humid climates like Darwin.
-
nigelj at 11:26 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Carbon capture is very desirable to help combat the climate problem, but no one single carbon capture method is going to be sufficient alone. The calcium carbonate option ( and other similar approaches)should clearly be researched, but is expensive, energy intensive, complicated, blue sky technology and I agree it would be unwise to count on it. However it has the virtue of absorbing emissions fast, and doesn’t require much land area.
Forest sinks run out of enough land, and so will bccs solutions. Improved soil sinks are a very attractive natural proven option, but will be very slow to scale up, and carbon draw down can be slow.
But all options do have value especially in initial phases until they come towards various limiting factors. If you combine all of these in a planned way, it could well absorb emissions enough and be cost effective. Given countries have different geographies you can’t generalise on which is best option, but it would be possible to design a good combination of options for individual countries (like Jacobson has done with renewable energy).
But it’s hard for me to see governments agreeing a plan, especially when it involves a combination of methods. Democracy, lack of individual commitment, and varying human political ideologies were not designed for this sort of environmental crisis.
-
Glixon at 10:32 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
I agree with Dr. Kevin Anderson when it comes to any form of geo- engineering and carbin capture. To paraphrase, his viewpoint is that we should research carbon capture & storage, but we must not assume it will work at scale - which it has yet to do so so far - and it should not be included in any of the IPCC emission scenarios. Instead, as he points out, we should be putting our time, effort, money and energy into rapid and large-scale mitigation and decarbonization measures that will reduce - not stabilize, but actual reduction - of carbon emissions. Frankly, to pin our hopes on truly untested and pie-in-the-sky scenarios to save our "non-negotiable" and profligate way of life here in the west is not only sheer stupidity of the highest order, but, in my opinion, tantamount to genocidal crimes against all life on this planet, not just us.
-
sidd at 10:13 AM on 27 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Re: supralinear and exponential.Supralinear means a faster than linear increase, that the dependent variable y, (the rate of sea level rise ) is increasing as some power of t (time), like t^n where n is greater than 1. The graphs support this, and the first nonlinear term can be fitted as t^2. which gives a constant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. This is not to be confused with the far faster exponential exp(t) where the acceleration of the rate of sea level rise is also exponential, in fact all derivatives are also exponential. The data do not allow one to say that the rate is exponential, but they do allow one to say that the rate is increasing. There is justification for a t^2 term but not higher powers, and certainly not an exponential.That said, paleo data show step like change, but we cannot yet say that we are seeing any more than a t^2 term from current data.
siddsidd
-
nigelj at 06:58 AM on 27 November 2017Analysis: WRI data suggests emissions have already ‘peaked’ in 49 countries
OPOF, yes business interests / organisations are unlikely to do much on own initiative to reduce airplane emissions. The fox is not going to guard the henhouse.
There's quite a good critique of the ICAO plan here. and it covers a wide range of aspects. Although at the end of the day reducing aircraft emissions is hard, and we may be stuck with some form of carbon offsets.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:40 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Unfortunately, the past and current lack of leadership in Business and Politics to limit the negative future consequences of current day pursuits of Private Interests has resulted in economic Private Interests significantly compromising the Global Public Interest of developing lasting benefits for humanity.
The obligation of the current generation of humanity to stop allowing Private Interests to compromise the Public Interest is undeniable. Expecting 'Others' to deal with a problem that is being created by the Private Interests of a current generation of humanity in pursuit of enjoying a better present for themselves is undeniable unsustainable harmful activity. No Real Good Reason can be offered to support that type of attitude.
And the current generation, particularly the most fortunate among the current generation, have an obligation to do the most to undo the damage already done by developed human activity. And it is fairly well established that responsible respectable human action would rapidly reduce CO2 levels to 350 ppm (kudo's to the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates).
The above is presented as the basis for the following: Until a 'truly sustainable profitable economic system' develops to remove carbon from the atmosphere, the most effective methods for doing this must be paid for by government funded actions Not For Profit. A 'profitable' system to remove carbon may never develop. What possible economic use can be made of carbon extracted from the atmosphere where the extraction of the carbon is more cost-effective than other sustainable methods of obtaining that carbon?
-
nigelj at 06:34 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
The calcium process is near instant removal of emissions, but would clearly be energy intensive, and would have to use renewable energy otherwise you are just burning fossil fuels to then remove the same carbon. So it needs a lot of links in the chain to be properly in place.
The main thing bugging me is the article didn't give much idea of availablity of suitable geological formations to store all the carbon, dioxide, and whether these are in useful locations.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Regarding negative emissions technology, the economist.com has a good article here. This covers sucking CO2 from the atmosphere with chemical processes, beccs, enhanced soil sinks, and forestry sinks.
-
william5331 at 04:40 AM on 27 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
We should congratulate Trump for uniting the world against myopic American policies. They weren't much better before Trump but he has united us.
Prev 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 Next
