Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 Next
Comments 17101 to 17150:
-
nigelj at 11:08 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Wol, I dont think predicting future climate would be the most complex problem in science. The most complex would be long term economic predictions, mainly because of the human factor, and perhaps also working out some of the remaining physics mysteries as below:
www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-scientific-mysteries-21st-century
I do think climate is very complex because you cannot put the planet inside a laboratory and perform nice tidy little experiments, so things are inferred from a range of related evidence, that gets as close as possible to an ideal experiment. I think climate scientists have done rather well.
And of course the range of factors in climate adds complexity, but at least they can be quantified and and put into equations, try doing that with human behaviour!
-
David Collier at 10:42 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
As i think Marx said, the purpose is not just to understand but to do something about it! This website like others will change very few hearts and minds. The boiling frog syndrome is instructive, and we know from psychology that most minds are closed to unpleasant facts (head in the sand), not to mention learned helplessness. Further, our education system was introduced to programme the young to be factory workers; to do as they are told, and not to think too much. Has this changed?
Again, we still have bread and circuses, namely the welfare system; Hollywood/Bollywood, and football. Most people do NOT think outside or beyond these things, and parents are in any case now too busy keeping up with increased mortgages and childcare expenses.
At Uni i was accused of being a freethinker, whatever that is; at work an iconoclast. But i seem to be in the minority.
The Industrial Revolution and Capitalism (the Protestant work ethic!) began the rot; to avoid an unbearably hot future we probably need to reduce our standard of living. How many are wiling to do this, and what politician in his/her right mind would suggest it!
Let us also remember vested interests; the fossil fuel industry with ties to politicians who are also involved in deforestation (e.g., Indonesia).
Not to mention the mlitary/industrial complex wasting incredible amounts of money on 'defence'.
Ignorance; greed, and hypocrisy are the enemies.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is completely offtopic. if you want to make general comments, please put them in the weekly news roundup topic eg here.
No further followups here please.
-
scaddenp at 09:40 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Hopefully Wol you also note some convergence as the science matures. it is worth going and reading the Manabe paper that was basis for Broekner prediction to realise how primitive the model was.
The really important point to note is the climate models do have some skill, that they are certainly better than null prediction (no change) and beats the hell out of chicken entrail reading. Despite their limitations, they remain the best tool was have for predicting future climate.
-
Wol at 08:41 AM on 12 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Accepting that predictions of future climate is probably the most complex problem in science, I would frankly not be too enthused about the list of predictions that mostly vary from -28% to +30%.
In any other field such a discrepancy would be grounds for a complete re-think, and in the case of climate must make the likes of St Christopher of Booker rub his hands in glee!
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:54 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
I will accept the apology, but it would come across as a little bit more sincere if you had not used the phrasing "...if I misrepresented your position ." [Emphasis mine]
That may be more lawyer-speaking - never admit an error - but if you cannot appreciate the difference between what I said in comment #68 and your first paragraph in comment #70, then you should spend some time thinking about it before you run off on another tangent. What you say is "the thrust of [your] argument" in comment #75 is a long way from assessing the social cost of carbon that I was responding to.
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
I'm sceptical of nuclear energy, probably as I grew up during the period of various nuclear scares and chernobyl. However I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. I say leave it to market forces to decide between wind power, nuclear etc on the costs and perceived risks etc.
The cost structure and safety regulation is such that generators aren't wanting to build nuclear anyway. So Norris might want nuclear, but what is he to do? The generators dont want nuclear, renewables are likely to drop even further in price while nuclear wont, and theres no compelling reason to force nuclear onto them. And the majority of the public in America oppose nuclear as below:
news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx
So its all a bit academic.
-
michael sweet at 06:31 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norrism
According to Jacobson 2015 that I have referred to you at least three times before, only 2% of US land area is required to generate all power. Since over 50% of land area is not windy enough to generate power your 65% claim is absurd. You often make this type of error.
Please cite a source for your absurd claim or withdraw your suggestion that 65 % of land is required.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 12 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
When I look at a chart of upwelling absorption and compare that to the narrow spectral band of SO2, it looks to me like one of two things is going on. Either the SO2 is there and it's swamped out in that spectral range by H2O, or it's not there acting as a radiative forcing on the climate system.
It's a (mildly) interesting tidbit of information.
Also, aleks stated that, "SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron." But that doesn't sound right to me. I find this which shows a much narrower absorption range:
-
mtmind at 06:18 AM on 12 October 20171934 - hottest year on record
The science of carbon is not up for debate. it is well known. And it is well known what carbon does in the atmosphere, it warms it. And we know where the carbon is coming from, human activity. A small child of three could look at the photos of the antarctic and tell you whays happening, the ice is melting. When it all melts, 200 feet of sea level rise, billions displaced a world we can hardly recognize today. All for burning petroleum, what is a unique and precious chemical goldmine, that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. And we burn it, to enrich a few people. There are more jobs, more money and a cleaner future in renewables but greed and ignorance have prevented it. We now talk about protecting cola miners, the most dangerous job in the world, instead of retraining coal miners to work on renewable energy programs like wind and solar. Why do we want to keep them and their children down in the mines, greed and ignorance. When you hear "drill baby drill" or "energy voter" you can count on a deep and brutal ignorance of the facts.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
And we are pointing out that you have not made anything like a case for "having time" whatever that is. Time for people living in middle of US, or time for people living on Pacific atolls/Asian deltas?
And what is your source for "65% of US area with wind turbines"? More lawyerly hyperbole? This calculation says only the area of Rhode island. Not a peer reviewed publication but it does outline the maths.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 12 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
Tom13 @1, the polling methods are pretty standard. Its not fully representative of America as whole, but is a good indication that theres very significant interest in investing in renewabale energy.
On the other hand we have other related information as follows from Bloomberg using other surveys and assessments that shows just how huge interest is in investing in renewable energy in America:
"Almost half of the biggest U.S. companies have established clean-energy targets for themselves, according to a report Tuesday from sustainable investors and environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund."
"It’s not just the biggest U.S. companies — 44 percent of the smallest 100 members of the Fortune 500 have also set goals, up from 25 percent in 2014, and 48 percent of the entire list."
"Many are finding that renewable energy isn’t just cleaner, it’s also often cheaper. About 190 Fortune 500 companies collectively reported about $3.7 billion in annual savings, according to Power Forward 3.0, a report by WWF, Ceres, Calvert Research & Management and CDP." Etc,etc,etc.
Heres another view of the situation on renewable energy generally from Business Insider. America is "leading the way on investments in renewable energy" from this article. Sorry its a couple of years old but shows the general picture anyway.
www.businessinsider.com/us-2015-renewable-energy-investments-2016-5?IR=T
"Of all the countries in the world, the United States invested the second-most on renewable energy in 2015. Only China outspent us.American investments reached $44 billion last year, up 17% over 2014. (That figure includes investments from both private companies and government entities.) This is according to a recent United Nations-backed report with research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance."
And some more from another article on investments in renewable energy:
www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/08/big-companies-big-renewable-investments.html
"Twenty-four companies from the Fortune 100 and Global Fortune 100 have set specific targets for percentage of renewable energy generated, capacity (MW) or level of investment in renewable energy for their own operations."
"According to the Ceres Power Forward Report, Wal-Mart is prioritizing long-term PPAs above other financing models as a way of procuring long-term, low-cost renewable energy. The company has set a long-term goal to have its operations fueled 100 percent by renewable energy (no date set). Wal-Mart has more than 180 renewable energy projects in operation or under development, providing more than 1.1 billion kWh of renewable electricity annually."
-
NorrisM at 02:26 AM on 12 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Thanks everyone. Too much to read to provide any response. Completely agree that the Hausfather article looks very interesting. Would like to absorb all of this before commenting.
Bob Loblaw. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. Tendency of lawyers to exaggerate to make a point. I apologize. But the thrust of my argument still stands. Better to start with something that 1. Will have an impact; 2. Will be "saleable" to the American public on the basis of "pollution costs"; and 3. Responds to Karl Popper's concerns about only making "incremental changes".
Nowhere have I suggested that we should not be moving to alternative sources of supplying the increasing demands of our world for energy. My argument is that unless CH4 permafrost issues really are a concern then we have the time to do this right. I have to admit that I have a very personal problem with dotting 65% of the surface of the US with wind turbines to achieve this when nuclear power could solve the problem leaving our world looking a lot better.
-
Tom13 at 02:23 AM on 12 October 2017Despite Trump, American companies are still investing in renewable energy
The link to the pdf of the survey is in the 3rd paragraph.
The fourth paragraph of this article states that 84% of the companies are actively pursuing or considering renewable energy.
On page 15 of the PDF, ApexCleanEnergy provides the following statement on the methodology of the sampling used in the survey.
An email link invited the panel’s 3,486 members to participate anonymously in the survey. We analyzed the results from 350 respondents in nearly 18 industries. These sub-industries were categorized into 10 primary industries. The “other” industry category included recipients from agriculture, hospitality, transportation and other undefined industries.
The overall response rate was 10 percent. About 67 percent of these respondents are based in the United States. Forty-four percent of respondents are from organizations with revenues greater than $250 million.
For those that are familiar with sampling, should be able to recognize the weakness in the quality of the survey based on the methodology and the weakness of the results as being representative of the general business community.
Compare and contrast with other polling organizations such as rasmussen, fiveThirtyEight, Marist, etc
Moderator Response:[JH] Unsubtantiated assertion snipped.
-
bessie13 at 02:10 AM on 12 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
Has anyone suggested the obvious question for those who are claiming to have the intelligence to evaluate the climate science data (and are mis-leading the public)?
For example -
"You are claiming to have some ability to evaluate the information on climate science. You are also claiming that the evidence does not support that humans are contributing to accelerated global warming. My question is this - How, exactly, would you design a study to prove (or disprove) your claim? What kind of data would you gather, measurements would you make? information would you need to prove/disprove this question?"
It seems to me that those who are creating doubt have been putting creditable scientists on the defensive. We know that they can make broad claims that gloss over the consensus. We also know that most people won't even bother to gather more information - for legitimate reasons. It is daunting. I am wondering if this question was asked in a format where they could not evade it (say on a televised National Debate) if their strategy would begin to crumble?
-
MA Rodger at 23:18 PM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @29.
You say:-
"However, speaking about "math model of greenhouse effect" I have meant not a global climate model, but a quantitative relationship between amount of greenhouse gas and temperature, at least for laboratory conditions when other factors are excluded."
Echoing nigelj @31, there are simplistic demonstrations that show that CO2 does absorb IR. This LINK shows a series of short YouTube videos of such experiments. The science which provides the detail of CO2's IR absorption is old and the literature listed HERE although much of it is sadly available publicly on-line only in abstract.
The mechanisms which result in increased CO2 raising global temperature are complex and cannot be reproduced within a laboratory. Indeed, it took science many decades to start to understand how CO2 effects global temperatures. (See this SkS POST describing an important part of the mechanism.) It would be akin to asking for a lab experiment to demonstrate specifically that the moon is responsible for the tidal effects witnessed in the English Channel. The proof would require either a full-sized experiment (which won't fit in a laboratory) or has to be calculated mathematically from data obtained in laboratory experiments.
And having been calculated mathematically, the big grown-up model that is then passed across to climatologists for use in their global climate models is HITRAN. (You would have noted mention of its little brother MODTRAN up-thread). It is HITRAN which allows calculation of global temperatures for different levels of the greenhouse gases.
And to again echo nigelj @31, no serious scientists and indeed no serious climate skeptic have issues with HITRAN. Those that do by acting as though HITRAN doesn't exist (like the Peter Ward you mention @26) are away with the faries and can be ignored.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:13 PM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Every objection raised to subsidies in this discussion is equally applicable to taxes (e.g. carbon tax). Both are subject to potential abuse by politicians and corporate owners... see, for example, Trump's expected import tax on solar panels.
Whether the government assists an industry by providing them with money or taxing their competitors the potential positive and negative results are the same. For that matter, fee and dividend is both a tax AND a subsidy.
-
scaddenp at 12:33 PM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Does say a subsidy of 2c/kWh on wind power (paid to generator), exactly equal a 2c/kWh bonus on the price paid to solar rooftop owners for electricity paid back to the grid? If you are offgrid, (or generating as much as you use), then you get no subsidy. I think it is complicated.
-
scaddenp at 12:08 PM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Even $15/ton is pretty big cost to swallow and "pass it on to the consumer" is exactly the effect it is supposed to have - confront the consumer with real price of electricity so they go source from a renewable suppliable - including putting solar panels on your roof.
If you spend your tax credit buying FF energy, then you are just paying the tax. Neutral position. If you arent paying a carbon tax, then the money returned is real increase in your spending power.
-
nigelj at 12:07 PM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks
Regarding SO2.
Basically there are tables of the IR absorption coefficients of various greenhouse gases ranking them in strength easily googled. None of these tables even mention SO2 so it must be a very weak greenhouse gas. All google searches just say SO2 has no direct greenhouse gas effects. All three atom gases have some greenhouse properties but they do actually vary a lot.
As eclectic points out theres just not enough SO2 to be significant anyway. Its all academic.
Now regarding cooling aerosol effects SO2 converts to SO3 and thus to H2SO4 which has acid rain and cooling properties as below
www.ausetute.com.au/acidrain.html
Regarding the effects of a given specific quantity of CO2 on temperatures. Im not a climate scientist, just an interested observer, but I gather people like Arrhenius and later E O Hulbert and others calculated this working backwards from atmospheric concentrations and knowledge of the different IR coefficients of various gases and atmospheric temperatures, and that the results are very accurate something like 99%, and are accepted science. They have never been over turned in the science literature. Thats good enough for me.
Tests have been done on jars of CO2 in the laboratory under light etc and clearly demonstrated different concentrations of CO2 causing different temperatures. But Im not sure this would be as definitive as the above mentioned derivations by Hulbert etc because you cant duplicate the full complexity of the atmosphere of the planet in a jar.
Basically none of the climate sceptics like Spencer and Pielke etc dispute any of the findings on what a specific quantity of CO2 does. Its settled science. Only cranks go over all this. There is debate on feedbacks of course but even this area of knowledge is constantly improving.
-
nigelj at 11:26 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp @13, I understand where you are coming from and totally respect your views. I do think a carbon tax or fee directly on fossil fuel companies would encourage renewables eventually, as it would push up the price of oil and coal etc and make renewables more attractive.
But theres a problem or two. The sorts of prices on carbon I have seen are moderate to be politically acceptable, and I just think electricity generators might be inclined to suck up these costs, rather than choose renewable energy. Or they may be inclined to try to pass them onto consumers.
'Eventually' the tax would be ramped up high enough to force change and renewable energy, but this could take some significant time, that is the problem, and its a big problem. In comparison subsidies can be at virtually any level immediately, and have been quite immediate in their effect.
The tax or fee should be at least partly returned to consumers. But this would go presumably mainly into buying an electric car or more fuel efficient car etc, or could be more petrol, and neither actually encourage renewable energy as such. It would only encourage electric cars.
I dont see why an equal subsidy on different electricity sources is so hard. Why not just on megawatts generated? Then its all equal and market forces can pick the best alternative as you alluded to I think.
The other alternative is to just mandate by law that generators do renewable energy. However that is quite heavy handed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:40 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @70: "I would like to respond to your argument that a carbon tax should take in every conceivable cost that could be laid at the doorstep of FF."
...and with that you lost any shred of credibility as an honest participant in this discussion. Nowhere have I said anything that resembles your strawman postion. You have argued for using the lower limit. I have argues against that, but I have never said that the upper limit should be used.
Shame on you for such a tasteless caricature of what I have actually said. You are the one that wants to select a position at the extreme, not I.
Moderator Response:[PS] can we please keep tone to a constructive level.
And NorrisM, this is not a pub debate. You can skip the rhetorical tricks, and especially please stop strawman arguments.
-
scaddenp at 09:27 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
it is not clear to me why you think a carbon tax is less of incentive to renewables that subsidy. You get uptake of renewable because it is perceived to be cheaper. A carbon tax achieves the very same thing. I dont see why it needs to be "steep" to change the differential in pricing. From what I have been read, remove direct subsides on development of new FF is generally enough to ensure that renewables are a cheaper option. Furthermore, if you are distributed even part of the carbon tax back on a per capita basis, then users who switch to renewables get a/ power that is cheaper than coal power b/ an income from those that still paying carbon tax. Looks like a good incentive to me. Seems a better psychological win that just getting back some of your tax by using subsidized power. You are avoiding a tax in first place and screwing over the evil ones burning coal.
I think a truly equal subsidy is very hard to do. Solar, wind, nuclear are very different in terms of material used, energy return on energy invested, land area consumed etc.
-
nigelj at 08:25 AM on 11 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Thank's for that comprehensive overview. It is just so clear models have done a decent enough job overall, and it is no longer tenable for climate denialists to claim they are broken, not that it will stop them I suspect.
It just looks to me like the so called pause has been followed by a strong catch up over the last three years, so the pause was a process that delayed warming and that is about all. We are told it was ocean based, and perhaps all the increased coal burning in Asia during the middle of the pause also contributed.
-
Eclectic at 08:20 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @27, as mentioned earlier in this thread, volcanic SO2 in the stratosphere has a very short life indeed, even despite the rather low levels of H2O at that altitude. Similarly with human-caused SO2 in the lower atmosphere (where a vast amount of H2O is available to react with it).
End result : SO2 has negligible greenhouse effect, because it exists in negligible quantities.
-
aleks at 08:11 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Moderator comment to #21
Thanks for link to Ramanathan article.
This work is an attempt to make a math model of global climate change, and many factors (cloud amounts, surface albedo, relative humidity, etc.) are considered as far as some unpredictable factors (volcanoes eruptions, ocean currents changes, and, especially, solar constant change) are not considered. However, speaking about "math model of greenhouse effect" I have meant not a global climate model, but a quantitative relationship between amount of greenhouse gas and temperature, at least for laboratory conditions when other factors are excluded.
-
Eclectic at 08:10 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @26 ,
"thehill" article, by Peter Langdon Ward, is unmitigated garbage.
Unmitigated. Looney-tunes stuff. Bat excrement crazy.
Aleks, the good Mr Ward spouts so much garbage, that a rebuttal of his nonsense would take 20 very long paragraphs. Better, Aleks, if you start reading some of the Climate Myths (look on the top left part of the Home page here at SkS).
Education will soon show you how the word "reliable" and the name "P.L.Ward" cannot seriously be used in the same sentence.
-
nigelj at 08:06 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddnp @11
You sure hate those subsidies!
I think we need a carbon tax in addition to subsidies, preferably the tax and dividend aproach that returns at least part of it to consumers rather than a black hole of funding government deficits.
But your problem is only a quite a steep carbon tax would impel development of renewable energy. A carbon tax would logically be introduced gradually so might take a long time to cause significant uptake of renewable energy. I dont have the hard maths and numbers to prove this or the time to research it, but my instincts tell me this strongly. We do know a relatively small subsidy has already worked in Britian and Europe, to get wind power going quite well.
And yes there are problems with government picking winners, and getting it wrong or making biased decisions, especially at the scale of specific companies. But why not just have an exactly equal subsidy for renewables, hydro and nuclear? Just only exclude subsidies of coal, which we are clear is a definitly not wanted.
-
aleks at 07:52 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigelj@21 (continued)
"SO2 has a very weak greenhouse gas effect". I don't know what is the quantitative measure of greenhouse effect. For example, water-vapor is considered as stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, because its molecules have more bands in IR-spectrum (see ref. in #18). May be, intensity of bands also matters.
"SO2 can combine with water to form sulphuric acid which can have a strong cooling effect..." More exactly, SO2 with H2O forms sulfurous acid H2SO3. However, the ratio H2O/SO2 at the altitude where aerosols are forming is unknown, so it's impossible to estimate the amounts of 'free' SO2 and aerosols, and, hence, their relative contributions to heat balance.
-
RedBaron at 07:47 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris,
Common logic mistake. We are not talking about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels so we can go back to Roman times. We are talking about moving forward to the next better sources on energy even better than fossil fuels.
I see this a lot in agriculture too. I talk about regenerative organic agriculture (a reference to the carbon cycle in biology) and people associate it as going backwards to some primitive era before pesticides and tractors. Actually it in the next step beyond where we are now.
And the idea of rebating citizens I see as fundamentally wrong too. It should be use to pay those sequestering the carbon back into the stable long cycle. This way the tax pays for a service, and is not a "sin tax" or whatever.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @70
Regarding the carbon price issue. Yes I agree only about 30% of Americans believe we are changing the climate, but that is not the salient point. From Pew about 65% want more done about fixing the climate problem and implementing renewable energy, and this is more of a mandate for a reasonable carbon price etc. The discrepency in views is odd, but may say suggest more people think we may be warming the climate than are prepared to openly admit it.
However I agree you should start with a sensible carbon price simply because its politically easier. It can always be increased and should be increased in a couple of stages until its at the proper level.
Karl Popper promotes incrementalism and any one could agree with that in general terms. Blundering in with rapid reforms can sometimes be unwise.
But he was referring to social and economic ideas, not environmental disasters that might require a more rapid response by their very nature.
Its also a question of commonsense. Some things in the economic and environmental sphere are so obvious they deserve a rapid, simple response, others demand it due to circumstances, others require careful progress in stages, others can be dealt with by an experiment, then rapid implementation. Thats is your problem with philosophers, what they say is so general its often not a lot of use.
"But the other thing that I do not see with most commenters on this website (with the exclusion of nigelj) is an appreciation (or even reverence) for what FF have provided to us."
Please be careful there Norris. I dont recall ever saying anything like that, or that fossil fuels have been a wonderful thing. I may have said in passing that they powered the industrial revolution. But nobody on this website would deny such a thing anyway.
Sea levels have not been rising for 200 years. They were falling slightly from about ad 1500 - 1850 as below.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/
Anyway the point with sea level rise is the accelerating and obvious uptick or hockey stick since about 1900. Its steeper than anything for millennia, and is caused almost entirely by burning fossil fuels.
I dont know why you keep writing essays on the past benefits of fossil fuel energy. Nobody denies the part they played in our history, and value they have had compared to burning wood for example. But that is past history, and clearly we now have alternatives. The electricity is the same regardless of the source. The same watts, volts, amps and all that stuff.
You also need to remember oil and coal is essentially very finite, and fracking is basically scaping the bottom of the barrel. Although peak oil is hard to pin point ,we are probably close, and it will definitely come sooner or later because oil is finite. So sooner or later we have no alternative than to move to other forms of automotive transport.
I suggest you look at the article today 11 sept on climate models. Note that they have predicted temperatures quite well on the whole. There are plenty of graphs to look at.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM, I do not doubt that FF have created and powered our civilization greatly to our favour. That is not a reason to provide a subsidy to them nor to cling to them now that it is apparent that continued use is doing us harm. I find the notion absurd and bizarre that you think commentators should consider such a thing.
That the American public is stupid, and lacking basic critical thinking skills is certainly a reason for them to look hard at their education system, and the role of FF companies funding disinformation, but it is not a reason to be discounting climate science.
Still, a $30 carbon tax would be an excellent start. As would killing all direct subsidies.
-
aleks at 07:09 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigelj@21
Thanks for link to S.Arrhenius original article. For this discussion I believe the most important the S.Arrhenius idea that "... one should arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15o by means of appropriate quantities of both gases (CO2 and H2O)". However, S.Arrhenius could not perfom such experiments himself because "...they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal". Apparently his followers did not accomplish this idea during the past 120 years. Only this year P.L.Ward published the article where the results of experimental checking of greenhouse effect were reported.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/348407-volcanoes-and-the-ozone-are-missing-from-the-climate
If these results are reliable, it means that greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was not confirmed by experiment.
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
CBDunkerson - I have no problem with government funding services (even power generation) but I do have a problem with how that funding is done and how a government intervenes.
In your example where coal and solar are an even call when coal is not paying for externalities, the obvious way to fix is by government intervening with a carbon tax so external costs are reflected in coal price. Government is acting against coal in the public good. However, it is not making any choices about which competing technology is better. It doesnt favour solar over wind, hydro or nuclear. Each have their problems and costs and I dont think the government should be trying decide which is best. Competition will improve all those technologies.
I do see a role for government however in supporting fundamental research underpinning improvements in technology. (eg new forms of solar PV, replacements for rare earths in turbine manufacture, ways to reduce degradation on tidal turbines etc).
While provision of an electricity grid could be regarded as a subsidy, the grid is something can be used by any generator. Ideally, the government funds it, but competitive tender decide the builders and operators. In many countries, government see it as their role to build the highways but not build the railways. Without a mechanism to ensure road users pay for the roads, you have even an indirect subsidy potentially distorting the best way to do long distance transport.
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp @6
I think your criticisms of subsidies are reasonable. You do get meddling politicians.
But I think subsidies still have their uses. As pointed out you could regard pretty essential public services and infrastructure grids as effectively a type of subsidy, and it would be strange to say this is inherently wrong.
A carbon price is indeed required but I suspect it would have to be set very high to trigger the development of renewable energy. A small subsidy has already caused quite rapid deployment if wind power in various countries.
And various forms of fee and dividend scheme effectively set a carbon price and allow a subsidy in the same package.
I think it comes down to identifying a good set of principles on subsidies and ideally letting some ageny decide, rather than politicians directly, and also have time limits. I'm pretty sure Singapore, Taiwan and Malaysia have done it like this quite effectively to encourage new industries.
I also don't think its enough to just talk about the public good. It needs to be for the public good, benefits have to outweigh costs, and it has to do something that the free market is poor at doing, and this is the key to it.
A classic example is research. Free markets are not so great at pure science research and my country has a subsidy for this. We actually got rid of most subsidies because they were just senseless favous to industry, but kept some for cases that passed a more objective test.
And another example is new high technology based companies often have a hard time getting traction and face huge sometimes unfair competition or trouble getting capital in smaller countries. A subsidy is used in my country to help them get started, and also to help small business get started. Obviously renewable energy fits this sort of category.
NASA and the space programme is publicly funded. It would never have existed if left to the free market. But that is not to say private enterprise should not now have a role in matters like this.
-
NorrisM at 04:42 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 68
I would like to respond to your argument that a carbon tax should take in every conceivable cost that could be laid at the doorstep of FF.
Beyond pollution costs which are directly related to the use of FF, you get into areas where there is NO public consensus (I say public) on the many issues relating to climate change notwithstanding the views of the "97% consensus of climate scientists". I have previously referenced the 2016 Pew Research Report if you want a reference for that statement. When only about 30% of moderate Americans believe that climate scientists really understand the causes of climate change you have a bit of a mountain ahead of you, leaving aside a President that has at least called it all a "hoax".
So my point is that do not try to hit the ball out of the park. Go for something that everyone agrees on.
But there is another point. You will excuse me if I show my social science background compared to physics. The philosopher Karl Popper, who was a scientist, wrote one book on social science called "The Open Society and Its Enemies" during the midst of WWII (nigelj, he lived in New Zealand during this time before becoming a professor at I believe LSE in London after the war). This book has been described by the Economist as "the best defence of Western Liberalism".
In that book he proposed that we should only make changes to our society in "small incremental amounts" because inevitably we humans cannot predict the "unintended consequences". This made a lot of sense to me and perhaps reflects my general view that we humans tend to be apocalyptic.
By starting with something small like a $30 carbon tax you allow other technologies to compete on an even footing (for me read "nuclear power") on costs that can clearly be attributed to FF.
I very much like the idea of redistributing this carbon tax back to the citizens rather than letting government get its hands on it. If this results in a little bit of redistribution of wealth, then so be it. But we better not disgress on this issue.
But the other thing that I do not see with most commenters on this website (with the exclusion of nigelj) is an appreciation (or even reverence) for what FF have provided to us. We refer to the Industrial Revolution but what we are really referring to are the changes since James Watt improved the steam engine. What we are really talking about is man's discovery of FF to leverage the production of energy. Without that we would still be travelling at the speed of the Roman Empire.
So if the seas are rising (as I understand they have been doing for 150 to 200 years) then perhaps this is just a "cost" of the amazing world we presently live in thanks to FF compared to the times when we rode about in horses and buggies and communicated across continents not by computers driven the electricity but by letters delivered by sailing vessels.
Every part of the world, not just Western civilization, has benefitted from the use of FF so if it takes us some time to wean ourselves from FF now that we see that it is causing world temperatures to rise, I think that one "small incremental" step would be better than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Just remember that you do not have the public behind you in believing that by 2100 our world is doomed.
nigelj. Still reading the IPCC stuff on the costs of changing to RE. There is an underlying assumption that the costs will be minimal but my common sense tells me that changing an infrastructure from FF to RE will not be cheap. But that is for another discussion which supposedly we cannot get into on this website.
Moderator Response:[DB] "if the seas are rising (as I understand they have been doing for 150 to 200 years)"
Human activities are the dominant contribution to SLR since 1970.
Per Slangen et al 2016,
Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970
"the anthropogenic forcing (primarily a balance between a positive sea-level contribution from GHGs and a partially offsetting component from anthropogenic aerosols) explains only 15 ± 55% of the observations before 1950, but increases to become the dominant contribution to sea-level rise after 1970 (69 ± 31%), reaching 72 ± 39% in 2000 (37 ± 38% over the period 1900–2005)"
Takeaways:
1. Although natural variations in radiative forcing affect decadal trends, they have little effect over the twentieth century as a whole
2. In 1900, sea level was not in equilibrium with the twentieth-century climate, and there is a continuing, but diminishing, contribution to sea-level change from this historic variability
3. The anthropogenic contribution increases during the twentieth century, and becomes the dominant contribution by the end of the century. Our twentieth-century number of 37 ± 38% confirms the anthropogenic lower limit of 45%
4. Our results clearly show that the anthropogenic influence is not just present in some of the individual contributors to sea-level change, but actually dominates total sea-level change after 1970
-
Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Nigelj@5:
I'm pretty sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with what you said in your first paragraph and so do I. We really need leaders and decision makers with a better understanding of the physical world, the scientific method and logical thinking in general! -
CBDunkerson at 22:16 PM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp, subsidies and other government funding are a good idea when they promote a public good.
Examples: National electric grid, national highway system, the internet, etc.
Solar, wind, electric cars, and other clean technologies are also beneficial to the public (when compared to their competitors) and thus it is entirely reasonable to subsidize them.
Imagine, for example, if solar and coal power were equal in nameplate cost, reliability, and every other way... except for their environmental and health impacts (and all other options clearly inferior). Leaving it to the 'free market' with zero government interference would logically result in a roughly 50/50 split between the two. Providing a small subsidy to solar could instead result in nearly 100% solar power... and eliminate health and environmental costs from coal vastly greater than the subsidy.
-
MA Rodger at 20:44 PM on 10 October 2017Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
wili @78,
I did have some useful NOAA(?) numbers for the energy fluxes associated with tropical cyclones but they are not falling to hand. However there is literature that presents data. Although this is a bit less authoritative-looking, the literature (& this is from papers to hand rather than from a proper search) does seem quite definitive that hurricanes act to warm the planet rather than cool it although the mechanisms are not that simple.
Tropical cyclones do simplistically pump energy out of the ocean which will cool the planet. They also mix warm surface waters down into the ocean which, as the post-cyclone surface is cooler and thus easier to warm, will allow ocean warming. (These hurricane-warmed ocean depths won't just sit there but will enhance poleward heat fluxes, as discussed below.) The net size of the ocean-atmosphere flux from global tropical cyclones has been assessed globally using ARGO data at +1.9PW during the passage of storms but becomes a net negative -0.3PW when subsequent enhanced warming following the storm is included. The global figures when divided between hurricanes and lesser storms shows that it is hurricanes which are responsible for the net total being negative (Net total for just hurricanes equals 0.75PW cooling = a global 1.5Wm^-2), with 0.8PW of ocean cooling during the storm but followed by 1.5PW of subsequent ocean warming. For lesser storms the net ocean cooling remains positive 1.0PW cooling during the storm with 0.6 subsequent warming. This suggests that in a world with more hurricanes but fewer less-powerful tropical storms (a possibility that many denialists deny), there will be as a result bigger heat fluxes into the oceans.
A further mechanism for cooling the planet is that the ocean mixing caused by tropical cyclones will impact poleward heat transfer to some extent, enhancing it in the oceans, reducing it in the atmosphere. But when the effect is set up in a climate model, the impact becomes a net warming effect due to the spread of humid atmospheres and such-like. So, of the ~2ºC global warming resulting from poleward heat fluxes (which are roughly 5 PW in each direction), perhaps some 0.2ºC results from tropical cyclones and would be boosted by increased cyclone activity. (That could be equated to a climate forcing using ECS=3 of +0.25Wm^-2).
So in terms of A-bombs, the increase in that +0.25Wm^-2 of warming from today's tropical cyclones will be small and will also be A minus.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Recommended supplemental reading:
Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Oct 7, 2017
-
wili at 10:53 AM on 10 October 2017Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Another argument about gw and hurricanes is that the latter will work as a negative/damping feedback on the former, since hurricanes transfer energy out to space (among other places), and the more intense the hurricanes become, the more energy they will transfer. I'm trying to find reliable numbers to show that to the extent that this might happen, it is insignificant compared to the approximately half-million A-bombs worth of extra energy ghg's are preventing from gettin into space every day.
I don't see this in the already-long list of denialist arguments, but maybe I missed it?
-
scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Well I take some convincing that any subsidy is good idea. Scrap them all. It always involves governments picking winners and the opportunity for cronism or corruption. Better to cost carbon and let market work out best way forward on purely economic and technological grounds. For example, when you need need generation is say wind or solar best? Even if both are subsidized, it would be very hard to set a neutral subsidy on each and so that would always come into the investor equation, potentially on side of a solution that is not as good.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
This is what happens when you fill government up with people who are ideologues, lawyers, financial people, etc with no technical or scientific knowledge or background. It all starts to go very wrong, and you see it right through the current American government administration.
Fossil fuels subsidies are called "crony capitalism" where I live. They are mostly just favours for lobby groups. There is no value to the public good, no real economic reason like correcting a market failure, and benefits dont outweigh costs.
The only exception might be help with high risk oil or coal exploration. However given climate change, its hard to see why you would subsidies new coal mines or oil exploration. Its not like we need more coal and oil fields.
In contrast it makes sense to subsidise renewables because the climate benefits would outweigh the cost of a small subsidy. It also helps new technology gain some presence and get across the line. It's normally only needed to help the industry get started and efficient, and then subsidies might be phased down.
-
JWRebel at 04:52 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Frustrating, because the meme everywhere is that renewable energy is expensive and only possible due to subsidies, whereas globally the direct subsidies to fossil fuel are 5× larger. Total subsidization of fossil fuels tops Tr$5/year globally, as calculated by the "left-wing" IMF.
-
John Hartz at 04:51 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
More disheartening news from the Trump Administration...
E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule by Lisa Friedman & Brad Plumer, Climate, New York Times, Oct 9, 2017
-
sailingfree at 04:26 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Really perverse.
Estimates of deaths per year in the US due to coal pollution range from 12,000 to 24,000. About 70,000 people actually have jobs mining coal.
Do the math. Five miners work for a year, and a person somewhere dies from coal pollution. One miner works for five years and someone else dies.
-
gws at 03:56 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Nice article also in The Conversation
-
citizenschallenge at 01:13 AM on 10 October 2017A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Nylo @ 84 - are you familiar with https://earth.nullschool.net
"earth - a visualization of global weather conditions forecast by supercomputers updated every three hours"
Among other great features - views of the jet stream in real time, history and forecase
-
Kevin C at 19:39 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
I think one point of confusion here is terminological - spectroscopists and climate scientists may use the term 'greenhouse gas' differently.
As far as I can tell, SO2 has the molecular properties of being a greenhouse gas (i.e. absorbing infrared radiation). But unfortunately I can't find any estimates of the resulting radiative forcing.
There is probably a reason for this - to estimate the radiative forcing, you have to put it in a real atmosphere. But in its gaseous form it is so short lived that it has no appreciable effect - hence concentrations 100,000 times lower than CO2. So it generally isn't even worth modelling, hence for climatic questions it is not a greenhouse gas.
MODTRAN looks as though it might be capable of estimating the radiative forcing impact of instantaneously dumping a large concentration of SO2 into the atmosphere and measuring the effect before it can convert to aerosol, but I don't have a license.
-
MA Rodger at 19:15 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @14,
When you say - "From the cited data is evident ... the greenhouse effect theory does not have math model to determine relation between amount of gas absorbing IR-radiattoin and temperature." - it is not clear what "data" you are citing.
That said, may I be presumptious and reply to your comment.
Your explanation for the absence of this "model" of IR-absorption & temperature appears in error. (Note your use of the terms "potential energy" and "kinetic energy" are a poor choice. The waggling of a CO2 molecule when excited by a photon may displace the molecules atomic positions but as this is into a dynamic process it would not be termed "potential energy". Note that were the photons involved not IR but more powerful, they could shift the orbit of electrons and that could be termed "potential energy".)
What your point appears to be addressing is the difference between the molecular waggling of gas molecules and the aggregate motion of a gas molecule within the gas. The latter is described by the ideal gas law PV=μRT but this law does not account for (and does not need to account for) waggling (or for spinning) of the molecules. The waggling/spinning is thus not considered as defining the temperature of the gas for which it is not a significant factor. The spinning and waggling is a significant factor in calculating the Specific Heat Capacity with spinning more than doubling its value. The waggle (present within poliatomic gases) adds perhaps 10 percent. Do note that overwhelmingly the waggle is induced/dissipated by gas collisions (which is how absorbed/emitted IR is converted into temperature and thus how IR is a significant factor in warming/cooling a gas).
-
nigelj at 18:19 PM on 9 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
If you have a range of estimates of a carbon price then you would not take the lower estimate because it would just not be prudent or sensible. You would take at least the middle estimate.
However carbon prices could be phased in and increased in stages. Starting at $30 may not be such a bad thing, and would be easier to sell politically. California's prices as part of their ETS are around $25 initially I think but they have fluctuated.
Prev 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 Next
