Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 Next
Comments 17201 to 17250:
-
nigelj at 15:46 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom @13,
"Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements -"
No they arent. Please provide specific examples of your alleged leading questions with internet links back to the relevant page. Frankly I doubt it. I havent seen any.Im tired of people who post wild claims.
"You mentioned other surveys that have similar results."
The article above listed other surveys "This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change. Another recent Yale survey found that overall" The survey websites were linked in the words.
With the greatest of respect dont you actually read anything?! I gave you yet another survey, the pew research survey on climate change. Its old and doesnt ask the same question but shows majority support for renewable energy.
"Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?"
We have a total of four surveys. You havent provided any evidence at all that they are flawed, just wild accusations and conflated claims. The point I was also making that maybe is too subtle for you is its unlikely all these survyes would have a genuine flaw. And none do anyway.
You also haven't supplied any evidence of any surveys finding anything different, and I mean proper recent surveys, not trash from some think tank. So you are asking is to believe your wild accusations, while not providing anything better. I dont buy it.
-
Tom13 at 14:57 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj
Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements - a very common trick to influence the survey results.
FYI - I cited one of the many articles which discuss common tricks used in surveys to generate preferred responses, Its a common trick and an obvious trick. The point is that when surveys use such tricks/tactics, the survey results rarely reflect the actual sentiment of the public.
You mentioned other surveys that have similar results. Can you give us a citation or link to a survey that had similar results without the leading questions-
Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?
-
michael sweet at 11:05 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Abbotts 2009 article about solar thermal is available here. Look for the button to download the PDF (it took me a little while to find it). It seemed to me that the article is out of date. Jacobson has done a more recent, in depth resource analysis and likes wind and pv solar better. I think in the end we will build whatever technologies are the most economic. The economics of many renewable energy technologies are shifting so rapidly that the favoured technologies in 10 years are likely to be different from the mix of technologies favoured now.
Nigelj,
Read Abbotts article about nuclear before you comment on its contents.
-
nigelj at 09:58 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
High sulphur coal is definitely part of the problem. This is both Chinese coal, and particularly coal they import which has been low grade:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516203000314
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
www.wsj.com/articles/china-coal-ban-highly-polluting-types-banned-starting-in-2015-1410852013
Heres part of the problem relating to regulation and enforcement challenges.
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
"Although the overall efforts to curb pollution are escalating, many facilities have tried to cut costs and evade strict emission limits by covertly shutting down their air pollution controls, often at night. There are no accurate estimates of how much these illicit emissions contributed to long-term pollution and the corresponding haze. However, websites of environmental regulation agencies at different levels of government indicate that virtually every pollution inspection by regulators in recent years detected dozens of such illegal emissions."
-
nigelj at 09:34 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @175
The best answers are sometimes a bit complex. A world with thousands of nuclear reactors would probably stretch supplies of uranium, and be high cost, but above all it lifts the chances of a serious accident very high. And nuclear accidents have little respect for borders.
But if a country has no other useful energy resources, nuclear would probably be appropriate. If its confined to just a few countries.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13@2, I'm struggling to make sense of your comments. You have quoted statements, not questions.
The statements are also reasonable, correct, and evidence based, and regardless of that its up to the public to decide whether they agree.
The link on leading 'questions' is very good, but just doesn't appear relvant to anything you have said.
Please note regardless of your criticism of this particular study, several others listed in the article had a similar result, and Pew reserach has also found a majority want more done on renewable energy, although that reseach was more general and is older now. The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear
-
NorrisM at 07:22 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet @ 113
Just got around to reading the Derek Abbott paper today on the problems with nuclear power supplying the world's needs. Very sobering. I think one of the contributors to the Clack paper criticizing Jacobson made reference to some comment by Keynes regarding changing your views with new informatiion. I am not saying that I am turning 100% just reading one article but the sheer number of nuclear plants required even to deal with half of the world's needs (he works on a theoretical 100% just to point out the order of magnitude) is quite staggering. He is effectively suggesting 2,000 nuclear plants in the USA alone (for 50%). The same goes for the access to sufficient uranium without resorting to sea water. This article certainly is food for thought.
If I cannot find Abbott's 2010 paper on solar thermal technology I will ask for help. First want to try Google Scholar on my own. I was able to access this paper for free from the url.
-
Tom13 at 06:34 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
This survey is a prime example of a typical biased survey. Look at the first Leading question "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."
The second example "congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."
the attached link points out some of the more common tricks used in advocacy surveys - Dont place too much credibilty on such a survey.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Yes the huge silent majority are completely ignored, again. And yes politicians are worried about losing even a few votes. You also have the problem of campaign donations, and you cant tell me this doesn't influence policy.
And it all makes a mockery of democracy and the will of the people. Do the leaders have the moral right to ignore the will of a strong majority, especially when they are clearly taking a responsible position?
Having said that I think you are right. Lets be optimistic. Eventually the huge silent majority do tend to prevail, and politicians finally start thinking and taking notice, just looking at history and a good recent example is drug decriminilisation.
Carbon taxes have the virtue of practicality and the dividend does overcome ideological concerns about excessive taxation. There is a lot to be said for cap and trade in theory. It is a very elegant mechanism, but not so acceptable to Republicans, and IMO rather opaque and susceptible to manipulation by corporates and government alike. (Just look at evidence in Europe). Carbon tax and dividend appears more politically acceptable, transparent and practical. Of course you can also have both in parallel apllied to different problems.
But a dividend fully returned to the public would not necessarily go into buying electric cars and so on. IMO Ideally about half the divided should go to the consumer, and half to promoting renewable energy and electric car charging networks. But please just do something, anything.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @43, well biofuels are supposed to be carbon neutral from what I gather.
However I'm not much of a fan of biofuels. Mostly a waste of time and a dead end. I cant see the sense in planting and subsidising vast acres of maize, for minimal gains and just causing a whole raft of other problems, and displacing other crops.
The exception might be biofuels made from algae and processes like that
-
ubrew12 at 03:48 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I don't understand it either. Perhaps one factor is the Chinese coal is high in sulfur and other contaminants.
-
aleks at 02:21 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
nigelj@37
"Stop burning fossil fuels". I completely agree if you mean not only "fossil" but all hydrocarbon containing fuels including biofuel. The problem is only in order of actions. It's impossible to stop burning before obtaining a sufficient amount of energy from pure sources (solar etc.).
-
RedBaron at 18:05 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Yes Nigelj,
That's the exact same thing Alan Savory was discussing in his famous TedTalk that got everyone all stirred up. Here are proper peer reviewed scientific studies about it:
First the laymen version so people from different specialties can read up:
Multi-paddock grazing is superior to continuous grazing
And here is a free copy of the study:
And another independant verification:
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
Keep in mind these guys are in pretty harsh conditions and are sequestering carbon right in the same range Dr. Jones 10 years case studies showed in Australia... Which in this case is 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr over standard grazing practices. (Which probably does sequester some carbon anyway)
Dr. Jones says 5-20 with a 32 outlier. Teague measured 11 which splits it right down the average. Unfortunately the Idaho study didn't measure soil carbon, but did measure soil moisture, which improves vegetative growth which means the carbon is most certainly increasing even over complete rest. And it shows desertification can be reversed like Alan Savory claims.
Now here is the issue I have with your comments and 1/2 the internet. If the livestock industry is causing all this ecological harm, (and it is) then surely we must blame the cow? Or is that exactly the opposite of reality. Cows are not harmful, it is only because they are fenced and penned improperly to their biological nature and ecosystem niche that turns a beneficial process into a harmful one. Raise them properly and they are part of a larger grassland biome that is a net sink for both CO2 and CH4. Raise them improperly and they become a net emissions source for both CO2 and CH4.
So we should not be talking about reducing meat production, we should be figuring out how to increase meat production...with the nuance that we raise it properly.
-
nigelj at 17:14 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron @40, yes I understand all that, and it's a real problem. Its nuts subsidising basically uneconomic crops etc. But thanks for the references, looks interesting I will have a look.
I was meaning more something related to a video I was looking at on grasslands in Australia used for cattle grazing, and how simple changes in how this is done is improving soil quality specifically in reference to carbon.
But with so much criticism of meat consumption, I wonder how long it is before those lands end up as crop lands. Thats what I was meaning. Hopefully if its crop lands, its the right crops. Here's the video :
-
RedBaron at 13:46 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Nigeli, again as I stated before, you can produce more food on grass than crops that get fed to animals. Your consternation is due to a false equivalence made by the exact same merchants of doubt obfuscating climate science for the exact same reasons too.
Grassland properly managed produces more yields per acre not less. It has both many many times more primary productivity, but even after a lower feed conversion rate still yields MORE per acre over corn and soy fed. Think about it. They try to state the opposite by comparing marginal land that can't even grow crops with prime arable land. Be sure that on the prime land the grass grows even thicker and taller still. It never gets beat by corn wheat or soy. It just doesn't.
The subsidies are designed to allow the far far far less efficient corn and soy to feed lot and ethanol plant production models to stand a chance even though they produce less primary productivity, less net productivity, less gross profit, less net profit, more gross polution, more net polution, less efficiency in every single category excepting labor, and there are even workarounds for that too. It is a lose lose lose for everyone and everything. There is NO winner for the industrial systems in effect now. They lead only to complete biosphere collapse and the end to worldwide human civilization. Even the people who think they are protecting themselves with this subsidized system are working off old flawed science. They just don't realize it yet.
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
It's EXACTLY analogous to subsidizing coal so as to save coal jobs, when actually solar produces many times more better jobs without lung cancer and at less social cost than coal and no where near the environmental harm.
Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined
Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy
Sometimes what we do is just based on tradition and not reality. And sometimes the neoluddites are simply obfuscating the same way they have with energy.
-
nigelj at 12:52 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Just my two cents on this freedom of speech issue. We do have some restrictions imposed on university campuses in America. I read an article recently cant recall where, may be the Economist.com, but it made some excellent observations.
1) Its not the students. Polls show quite clearly university students are far more tolerant of letting people express extreme views even hate speech, than the general population
2) Its universities imposing rules to keep the angry minority of anti free speech aggrieved lobby groups happy. Its easists and expedient
For myself I think closing down free speech would be unfortunate. People should have a right to opinions even crazy ones, provided they dont incite violence or descend to swearing and blatant threats.
However free speech is never unlimited and is also somewhat dependent on location and even the America Constitutions recognises "time and place restrictions". although this would not extend to government control of what is said on campus. Free speech concepts were really designed to strictly limit ability of governments to censor etc, not give a free pass to anything. Website do moderate comments to reduce endless personal fueds etc cluttering things up.
So free speech is not a simple thing but I feel opinions should be a strong right as a general rule.
Coming to the books, I read Ian Plimmers sceptical book heaven and hell, a load of old nonsense. Yes its hard for most people to know who to believe and the devil is in the detail. But good detective work and sharp legal minds like Norris should spot some clues. Plimmers book depended on about 10 key graphs that looked mighty suspicious to me and different to the IPCC, and nowhere did his book give sources for these graphs. It listed sources for quotes, but not the graphs.
Detail matters, and you dont need any science to spot that sort of thing. I'm sorry, but the sceptical climate books I have read are riddled with cherrypicking, out of context material, missquoting people, and a dozen logical fallacy outrages, as well as bad science.
-
nigelj at 12:28 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris M @171, just echoing other comments France went nuclear ages ago. I was wondering why myself,and I suspect part of the reason is it has limited coal and hydro potential, and given the devastation of two wars Franc eprobably didn't want to be reliant on Germany for coal. I'm guessing, but politics and self reliance splays a big part sometimes, and Trump is a good example of all that.
I wouldn't suggest for a minute France go back to wind power. They might as well stay with nuclear at least for the reasonable future.
I do think aesthetics are important, and I used to be an amateur oil painter, and work in a design / technical related profession, etc. However normally there are solutions that balance aesthetics and functionality, and its always a challenge like this with anything. Wind farms dont have to be everywhere, and I have already given you engineering studies to show only about 2% of land is needed in Germany and its hard to see why France would be that much different if it did want wind farms. And for many countries a huge part of their wind farms can be offshore, and practically invisible and the UK is doing this.
Obviously it would not be acceptable to put wind farms in scenic areas. Likewise you dont want huge solar arrays planted just anywhere, but they tend to suit desert climates anyway, or dry arid areas, which are usually away from human habitation or tourist areas, so it works out quite well. A huge solar programme called Desertec has been planned in preliminary form and is capable of powering all electricity in Europe. Its planned to be located in northern africa and spain in high sunlight desert areas away from human habited areas in the main, and uses direct current transmission grid into europe.
-
nigelj at 12:04 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron @38,
I understand there are various soil carbon pathways, some involving soil based organisms both promoting rotting plant matter and ultimately consuming carbon containing material until an equilibrium is reached, and your root fungus mechanisms are another pathway. Is it possible to genetically engineer plants and / or organisms, so this so it all works better to increase soil carbon? Just a crazy thought, and rhetorical I dont expect an answer.
The plouged under article is interesting. It's sort of a comedy of bad ideas, corn biofuels arent a terribly convincing solution to me, subsidies tend to become embedded and hard to remove, and the insurance scheme while well intended has backfired in some ways.
I'm no "small government" ideologue, far from it, but its hard to see a case for tax payer funded crop insurance, especially in a large country like America. Its particularly hard to reconcile this with a country that promotes self reliance, capitalism and free markets.
These very large industrial farms with owners like pension funds etc are worrying. I recall reading the United Nations is questioning the efficiency and damage caused to soils, and promoting smaller farms with local owners.
The prairie grass issue is frustrating, because on the one hand I can see it maximises deep carbon rich soils, but on the other all the pressure is towards more crop lands in general, and less reliance on meat. But there may be a middle ground, where grasslands can be preserved for lower density cattle and beef and conservation areas, but less reliance is on intensive dairy farming. Dairy farming causes pretty intense environmental impacts. But farming is well ouside my area, just a few ideas.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:00 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM
France was already largely nuclear for electricity generation in the 1980s. My guess would be that they went heavily nuclear in the 1960s and 1970s in conjunction with early nculear development (bombs et al). Canada, the US, Britain, etc. all had nuclear power programs in that era, and I think France was just the one that bought in completely. I don't know what that means in terms of end-of-useful-life on their reactors and replacment plans. Canada's reactors from the '60s and '70s had a lot of early and costly maintenance that wasn't expected.
I do remember a big stink in 1983 about France's nuclear waste disposal program though - it consisted of encasing it in concrete or other materials, putting it on a ship, and dumping it the Marianas Trench area in the western Pacific. Deep ocean, geologic subduction zone - out of site, out of mind.
-
NorrisM at 10:50 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigel @ 168
I think you will understand that until I posted what I did I had never heard of Michael Miersch. It is not normal to expect that the Director of an organization called the German Wildlife Foundation would be what you refer to as a "climate denier".
In any event, I have indicated that I would like to focus on the costs of wind and solar power as it impacts the US. As much as I would like to consider nuclear power I get the message that this is not the place and I hear what you all have said about costs.
But I still find it puzzling that two very forward looking countries in France and Sweden actually converted to nuclear power for up to 80% of their power generation many years ago. Whether it was, at the time, prohibitively expensive, I do not know. I do know that they have not had any "incidents" which have come to world attention.
But I do know that France is an absolutely beautiful country and I wonder what it will look like if it in fact does convert from nuclear power to wind and solar. The wind farms in Spain are in very desolate unpopulated areas that remind you of movies like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (no pun intended). I say that having seen the windmills both near Cadiz on the Atlantic west coast and near Granada in Andalucia.
We have been to France a number of times. Two times we have stayed in the Loire Valley at the Hotel St. Michelle just beside one of the grandest of the chateaus called Chambord. Just on the other side of the hill is one of France's nuclear power stations tucked away in the hills. All we could hear from our hotel window in the evening was a low hum which was not at all offensive. I think my experiences at Chambord and my love of the French country are reasons why I ask why can we not go this direction. But, even though the arguments for nuclear power were first pointed out to me by James Hansen (thanks to a referency by one of my sisters) I will not pursue this on this website.
-
NorrisM at 10:30 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw and MA Rodger
First rule of statutory interpretation is "turn the page". The modern one is "scroll down". I just spent 5 minutes trying to find both books which I guess I have left at my office. I then scrolled down and find that MA Rodger had the two books pictured. In my first reference to these books, when I found that Mark Steyn was one of the authors of the second book, I just about did not open it up. But as it turned out I found all of the others interesting. The other "starter" book was Michael Mann's book entitled "Climate Wars".
When I first started studying the early origins of Christianity and the arguments for and against the Christian god, I read books on both sides because I found that was the only way to "test ideas".
Unfortunately in the area of climate science the area is too complex for the average layman. Furthermore, the climate scientists themselves cannot even agree on the facts let alone what those facts tell us about the future.
I definitely plan to look at the book recommended.
Not to get back into the issue of freedom of speech but I just opened my email to find that Judith Curry's website today has a discussion of the very topic we were addressing. First time I saw this was about 15 minutes ago. From the blog, it would seem "both sides" seem to agree with her take on what is happening on university campuses.
Moderator Response:[DB] Blatant lie snipped.
-
RedBaron at 10:00 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
36 nigelj,
Don't be too enamored by your science daily soil sink study. That study is just showing that the Roth C model that was developed to mathematically predict the movement of carbon in and out of soils is inadequate for the task. There are other models but if it is describing biomass decay then the model will not apply to the LCP which is not biomass carbon, it is derived by symbiosis from root exudates and never builds any plant tissues.
How can we tell? Because it was calculated by the biomass decay and biomass decay is not how soils are built. If biomass decay was how soils are built then the thickest richest soils in the world would be forest soils and especially forest soils like the amazon rain forest. They are some of the poorest in the world.
The best soils in the world are grassland soils and they have even less biomass, a lot less. So we know that biomass decay is not what builds those thick rich black soils. But I explained this to you before. Not sure why you couldn't spot it yourself. Mollic epipedon , Liquid carbon pathway
Yes we are on track to even less soil sequestration into the soil naturally than originally guessed. But it is NOT because soils can't absorb carbon, it's because all the primary soil sequestration biomes are plowed under worldwide and at minimum 50-80% of the remaining second best biomes for sequestering carbon are highly degraded by human activity and poor land management.
So in a way your study is right, but the conclusions being drawn from it are not correct at all.
This is why those carbon readings are so old and so low.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:06 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger:
Thanks. I agree that the second book is a terrible thing to waste time on, just from the list of authors.
-
nigelj at 06:26 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM
I try to take people at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt. You seem just sincerely interested at times, but you make it hard when you persist with quoting cranks like Miersch who has no science degree, and has made no attempt to make a proper evidence based argument. His rhetoric is mostly inflammatory and sloganistic and thats no basis for anything. Some sceptics (not necessarily you) criticise Al Gore as being too emotive and histrionic, and hypocritically then support people like Miersh and Moncton who are demonstrably far more inflammatory than Gore. The denialists double standard and weak intellectual standard amuses me.
But I take you at face value that you hate the look of wind farms. I dont mind them and obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
However its all so utterly academic, because offshore wind farms are now very competitive in price. The UK has just tendered a big wind farm project, and the offshore proposal came in very cost competitive with other options. So the wind farm aesthetic problem is at least likely to become a non problem, so its hard to see why you go on bringing the subject up.
You talk a lot about what is politically "realistic" and fair enough to a point. We also need aspirations as well, however on the politically realistic theme, how likely do you think it is that government would push nuclear because its more "aesthetically attractive" (perhaps) than wind power? I dont like the chances.
I'm neutral about nuclear, neither in favour or firmly against. It has its benefits and costs like anything and Im not going to get into that discussion. I grew up with various nuclear scares that made me sceptical, but have accepted you can't judge the issue entirely on that. I dont think Nuclear is the magic bullet we all thought back in the 1970s, but neither is it so flawed that it should be banned. IMO it's for individual countries to decide, but they better have a sober look at the full range of related issues. Storing the waste is a big problem, if you do some reading.
We have various possible mechanisms for deciding the make up of a renewable energy system, from top down government control of the exact make up, to a more market based approach where generators pick and choose the systems they prefer, provided they are low emissions (so wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc) and this is not a bad approach to my mind, as it combines the power of market forces and innovation with the foundation environmental rules and boundaries coming from government. But in such a system nuclear is failing to compete on costs, and it's that simple. The clear example of all this is America.
Theres nothing to be done about costs of nuclear, because compromising safety regulation for nuclear would be insanity if you pardon my emotive term, but actually it just would be insanity.
Theres not much that can be done unless you feel the government should force nuclear power on society, which would be very big government indeed. Aesthetic appearance is unlikely to be a compelling case. Tell me if you think I'm wrong.
-
nigelj at 05:31 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @33, yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas and associated with combustion of fossil fuels, but you again miss the point. It mostly probably falls mostly as rain, but the simple fact is its intrinsically associated with increasing fossil fuel emissions and this water vapor is thus increasing and is another warming agent. The message: Stop burning fossil fuels.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @33, the university of bolder study is 5 years old now, and not representative of all studies. Uptake of natural sinks is difficult to determine and you need to look at all the research. Many other studies are more pessimistic especially more recent studies.
For example the article below discusses research finding ocean uptake of CO2 has actually slowed since 2000 due to increasing acidity.
The following article in Science Daily discusses research that finds soil sinks wont absorb nearly as much carbon over the next century as thought.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160922085737.htm
I could go on with more. Natural sinks have their limitations and carbon dioxide draw down is basically a very slow process over millenia. This emphasises the need to cut emissions at source. We can enhance natural sinks a bit, but the potential is limited mainly by the slow process of impementation and slow uptake of CO2.
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 23 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
William @1, I agree. Maybe the reasons for slow uptake of basic pollution controls on sulphates etc are political. I dont think China has quite as rigorous set of environmental rules, and ability to sue in civil court like America from what I have read. People dont fit filter devices until there is some external pressure like this.
A lot of the big industrial companies are state owned enterprises very close to government, so a lot of crony capitalism and favours.
I dont have a specific source link, but this is impression from reading the Economist.com over the years. I recall reading something that theres a huge push now to clean up smog, because its at incredibly serious levels in their cities.
-
Marco at 04:57 AM on 23 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Sadly, bad papers are common, and getting them retracted is almost impossible. Some journals (read: Editors) react quickly to concerns, others just don't care or are too busy.
Now, I note that in part 4 it is stated "He told us that they had checked the issue with "iThenticate", which didn't show high similarity. This means that they took F13 and their earlier book chapter and compared them to each other". I don't think the second sentence follows from the first. iThenticate checks all sources that it can access. Sometimes it does take some extra steps when a paper is already published to find the plagiarism, as it may primarily highlight the same paper as the source. You then need to actively deselect that source. So, maybe the EiC just didn't do that.
I also don't think Elsevier can be blamed so much, here. It looks like it is primarily the EiC who did everything he could to evade the issue. Having had my own contact with an Elsevier representative regarding >1000 fundamentally flawed papers (that's not a typo: more than 1000) in another field, I am somewhat sympathetic to their view that the Publisher should be very hesitant in meddling with the science that they publish. This is what the Editorial Boards are for. They may make more of an issue out of the plagiarism, so you should perhaps send the plagiarism overview to the Elsevier executive, and complain that the EiC does not take any action.
-
MA Rodger at 04:53 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @166,
The book NorrisM has mentioned as his intro to AGW was actually co-authored with Ted Parson.
The other was some nonsense edited by an Alan Moran. I say nonsense without more that spotting who is on the list of the contributing authors.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:29 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM;
You referred to a book by Dessler upthread. Would that be this one?
https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/1107480671
Note that Dessler is a climate scientist, not a journalist.
Out of curiosity, what was the other book?
-
Evan at 04:20 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@33, from the paper you cited, there is the following cautionary note.
“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”
The fact that the earth is absorbing large quantities of our emissions is great, but it has its limits. The fact that the offset of current CO2 compared to preindustrial is 3 times higher now than in the late 1960's but the authors say the uptake has only doubled may already be a sign that the uptake is slowing down. This is the nature of systems as they become saturated.
We are digging up carbon and dumping it into the above-ground systems at a rate they are not accustomed to. The result will not be good. We need to start leaving the carbon below ground where it is, instead of trying to convince ourselves that either nature or our technology will find ways to put it back underground. Why not just leave it where it is?
-
Evan at 04:10 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@33 Yes, H2O is a primary combustion product together with CO2. For "clean fuels" such as CH4, twice as much H2O is emitted as CO2. But the excess H2O just falls out of the system as precipitation. So the only increase of the steady-state H2O concentration is through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and is not due to direct emission of H2O. That is, the only way that the steady-state concentration of H2O can increase is if there is an increase of temperature first. Direct emissions of H2O do nothing to inrease to increase steady-state concentrations of H2O.
Regarding uptake of CO2 doubling, I am not an expert in this area, but this number does not surprise me, and it does not make me feel better. Consider that for about 10,000 years during the Holocene that background CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm. The fact that the concentration was stable means that sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Then comes the industrial revolution and we start to ramp up CO2. By the late 1960's the CO2 concetration had increased to about 325 ppm. This is an increase of 45 ppm above the steady-state value during the Holocene. The result is that the earth starts to absorb more CO2 to draw down the concentration and to try to restore balance. Now we are at about 405 ppm, or about 125 ppm above preindustrial, and about 3 times higher than the 45 ppm inbalance representative of the late 1960's. So it is not surprising that the rate of sequestration has doubled in the last 50 years, because the increase above preindustrial has tripled. Far from making us feel better, the fact that we are dumping such huge levels of carbon into the natural system represents a deviation from the steady-state balance we had for 10,000 years, and such a dramatic departure should make us worry about what effect this will have. Such as ocean acidification. We know some of the good benefits, but we may yet discover that there are other not-so-good effects lurking in the dark.
-
william5331 at 04:04 AM on 23 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I'm puzzled by the Chinese air pollution from factories. The equipment to remove particulates and sulphur from the smoke stacks is off-the-shelf technology that America deployed decades ago to clean up her emissions. Why don't they just buy a few units, reverse engineer them and deploy them to all polluting factories. They even make money from the recovered sulphur. As for cars, they lead the world in electric cars and in installation of wind turbines and solar panels so vehicle pollution should sort itself out over time.
-
NorrisM at 03:13 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet and Bob Loblaw
Thanks, I will definitely take a look at it. This whole climate change issue started from me reading two books on the subject, one for and against after my two sisters got into an argument. The "for" book was that of Dessler (if I have not said that above).
-
NorrisM at 03:08 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger @ 154
I am very impressed with your summary of that portion of the Harris podcast with Cass Sunstein. I should have qualified my comment to Eclectic that not the whole podcast is on freedom of speech. But it is very interesting on the other things discussed so it would not have been a waste of time.
We all agree that freedom of speech is very important in our society. Sunstein's point is that we have to tolerate wackos like Jones denying the Sandy Hook massacre to protect our freedoms because to do otherwise puts us on the slippery slope of quelling any dissent with the "popular view" which would be very dangerous. I think his summary of where the US Supreme Court has drawn the line is a good one and one with which I generally agree.
As to Miersch, I have since noted that at the time of my post I did not realize that he had strong views on climate change. Of course I am familiar with GWPF because it and Judith Curry's blog are the other two that I look at only occasionally. I have now searched on Wikipedia for the German Wildlife Foundation and it is not listed as a conservation society in Germany. I am somewhat disappointed in GWPF for not making it clear who Miersch is and is not. If the German Wildlife Society was in fact a true conservation society, leaving Miersch in the position as Director of Communications would say something as to their views but that does not seem to be the case.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:05 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Evidently it took me more than a minute to type my response @ 162....
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:04 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Spencer Weart's book is available electroncially for free at the link I provided. I think the on-line version is more up-to-date than any paper version you can buy. The on-line version certainly has lots of information to digest.
-
michael sweet at 03:03 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norrism:
Spencer Weart's book is a free web copy at the link that Bob Loblow provided at 158. No need to waste $100.
-
NorrisM at 02:54 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 156
Notwithstanding my comment in one of your replies on the models, I really do not want to engage this any further. I did gain a further understanding of the complexities of these models by reading the Chapter 9 of the IPCC 2013 assessment but I would prefer to deal with solutions. This moves more into an area where it is less technical and more political and economic which is easier for me to digest.
My sense is that we will be watching the fireworks on the ability of the models to assist in predicting future temperature increases if the EPA does proceed with the Red Team Blue Team. The July news item I cited suggests they are proceeding.
-
NorrisM at 02:48 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Lobaw
I have read Dessler's book but I will take a look at Weart's on amazon. I have found that a lot of these books cost more than $100.
I agree with the moderator that we should move on.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:28 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Final comment for the moment:
I commend you in that you have shown a willingness to obtain and read a variety of sources of information on the subjects that have been raised in discussion here.
I think that you give credibility to some sources that I consider to be highly unreliable.
If you have not been pointed to it before, I suggest that you take the time to read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. It is written by an historian - someone with expertise in the history of science.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:22 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
The phrase "Business As Usual" has different meaning to different people. When the IPCC assigned that term to one of their scenarios back in the 1990s, they assumed (IIRC) continued growth as seen in the past. It was a label assigned to a particular CO2 concentration growth under certain assumptions. It was not an indicator of a particular sociological or economic system.
Your examples of China reflect that things have changed since the IPCC first started using that term. None of the IPCC RCP scenarios exactly fit what has happened - but they were not predictions, they were projections to cover a reasonable range of possibiliities to see what difference it woudl make. Look back at my description earlier regarding "sensitivity analysis".
With respect to nuclear power, my personal position is that safety of long-term disposal of nuclear waste has not been solved, and that total captial and operating costs have continually been much, much larger than originally claimed. Nuclear has historically enjoyed much government support, and it seems unlikely that it can stand on its own without it. I am not against it as a solution to reducing fossil fuels, but I am not in favour of it if it costs more than other alternatives. {But we try to avoid discussions of nuclear energy here, because it will rapidly wander into non-climate-related arguments between fiercely devoted proponents of the extreme positions.)
As for my feeling about what you call a "head in the sand approach" - it is not that you are part of that group, but that you appear to readily accept information from those sources with less skepticism than you seem to apply to well-founded science. This is called "confirmation bias", and it is something that every person has in varying degrees (and varying topics for one individual). With a legal background, surely you can appreciate the question of the credibility of the witness"?
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
I see that the moderators have snipped some of your comment, relating to reliability of models. There is a Skeptical Science post on that issue. FEel free to raise those questions on that topic here:
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:53 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM: "I have never said that the best estimate of the additional costs is $0."
Yes, I agree that you never said that explicitly, and it was not my intention to imply that you had said it explicitly, but rather that your position to not include it is equivalent to placing a value of $0 on it. Thus, it is implicit in your position. Ignoring those extra costs in the risk management plan is the same as including them with a value of $0.
To further clarfiy my positon: going to the lowest common denominator (US federal position) is not acceptable to me. The evidence in this blog post is that individual US states and political postions are moving away from this scorched earth federal position. This is to be encouraged. The world's politicians (mostly) have indicated acceptance to the Paris Agreement. It is non-binding, but hopefully countries will live up to their promises, and will commit to the further actions needed down the line.
-
aleks at 00:36 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Evan@28,29, thanks for detailed reply. About natural removal rates for CO2. Please, pay attention to the research by A.Ballantyne a.o. (University of Colorado)
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study
The authors state that "natural carbon sinks that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years".
Reference to the Clapeyron-Clausius equation shows that you consider water concentration change in the atmosphere only in relation to temperature. However, water emitted together with carbon dioxide at combustin of fuel in huge quantities. So, at burning of methane the yield of H2O is 2mole/mole CO2, for oil it will be slightly more than 1mole H2O/1mole CO2. Even coal contains about 6% H by mass. This is an additional evidence in favor of the significance of water vapor for the processes of heat exchange in the atmosphere.
-
MA Rodger at 21:32 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @152,
Perhaps I should explain why I brand you a troll. In rough terms, it is evident that you come to SkS with a contrary view but fail at every turn when asked to justify that view. You appear more interested in piling on the startling contrary views than in attempting to reconcile the views you express with the views others expressed here, those which are in the main science-based.
Strangely, I don't appear to have branded you a troll before, strange as I don't usually hold back for so long. But let us consider the detail of your use of Miersch down this thread.
@122 you introduced Michael Miersch into this thread as an aside, suggesting his message comprises news from Germany of "a major backlash" against renewable energy. By the sounds of it, he is an enemy of on-shore wind power and is being invited to speak in the seat of UK government (the Palace of Westminster) by a UK educational charity, the GWPF. Of course, the GWPF is no normal charity but a cynical bunch of climate change deniers. (The last time I heard of a GWPF talk at Westminster it was veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen.) I can't believe you would not have known about the GWPF given you tell us @112 that your understanding of Miersch is based on GWPF information. If you did not, its dodgy nature was set out @114. ( Interestingly, your acknowledgement of this situation @127 is riven with the sort of gramatical nonsense you would expect from an non-English speaker, suggesting you found writing it very difficult. Perhaps the message you wrote there was foreign to you!)
It is true that you were goaded into continuing further with this, but you did so by citing in the most general terms an 80 minute pod-cast to support the case of Miersch having the right of freedom of speech to say what he does (even though we still don't know what it is he does say). I listened to what I assume is the passage of that pod-cast which you were citing. (It's at about 1hr to 1hr 6 here) What Cass Sunstein is saying is that you cannot slander or libel a person (which the German government were accused of by Miersch, but which the courts said otherwise. The courts say there is no libel as Miersch is a Klimawandelskeptiker). Cass Sunstein also says that a person has the right to describe the Sandy Hook massacre as being a real or imaginary event that was orchestrated by the US government to enable tighter gun laws. As long as you are sincere and not lying, you are allowed to say such outrageous things. This can be said as this is not slander/libel - no individual is being defamed. And apparently some seriously sick people do brand Sandy Hook a hoax/conspiracy. As it is difficult to establish legally that they are sincere in their belief (an so not lying) they are imune to legal challenges. Sunstein was also asked about malicious 'doxing' replying that newspapers do have the right to publish the names and addresses of rape victims even if the intention was to unleash violence against them. Sunstein says this is poor law, saying on this of Madison (a US founding father, apparently) "(it is) not clear if Madison would roll over in his grave if we said you can't disclose where someone lives if the purpose and effect of that is to increase the risk of voilence."
So that is pretty startling stuff you cite to defend Miersch's right to say... well... frankly, I get the distinct impression you do not know what Miersch says on "wind and solar versus nuclear" and so who can say if he is "someone who shared my views." So this continues to be a troll-like discourse here, or have you a source of Miersch-ism you have, golly, forgotten to share with us.Moderator Response:[DB] Everyone: Let's please return to the topic of this thread.
-
Eclectic at 18:21 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Thank you, MA Rodger @150 , for the further details on the sad case of mendacious journalist Miersch.
Who says the Germans have no sense of humor?! . . . I love the Galileo-like title reference: "Und Sie Erwaermt Sich Doch". How appropriate!
This thread is certainly quite a broad umbrella of topics.
Alas, NorrisM @ 149 , even this broad thread is not broad enough for us to engage in a discussion of your tendency to moral nihilism. The admirable and witty Voltaire nevertheless was acutely aware of the difference between good and evil (and the gradations inbetween) -— and I rather doubt he would approve of your hijacking & extremist usage of his aphorism on "rights of speech".
As for who judges -— who better than a German court, it seems! ;-)
To a large extent, the Germans have learnt their lesson (after some "difficulties" in the 1930's and 1940's). And they have realized that a supine & laissez-faire approach to dealing with harmful lies & propaganda, is not a wise policy for society.
That the matter of "judgment" in these affairs is not easy, is no excuse to abandon the attempt entirely. Surely a lawyer should appreciate that the legal system exists to deal with the difficult cases as well as the easy cases. Fiat iustitia ...
~And no, there I wasn't spruiking for a new Red/Blue assessment. ;-)
The basic climate facts have have already been determined 20+ years ago : by the competent authorities. Nowadays it is merely required to summon up the moral fortitude to take the necessary remediations of the AGW situation.
More bluntly : it is high time we got off our butts.
(Which brings us back on topic for this semi-political thread ! )
-
NorrisM at 17:51 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger @ 150
Defn of Troll: "A person who posts inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments online for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response."
Very disappointed in your comment. If I do not agree with your view you get upset. I guess you would prefer to hear from others who agree with you. Much more comfortable staying in your echo chamber. So much for freedom of speech.
Moderator: If you snip some of this comment then I trust you will snip the term "troll" from the above comment. All I did was quote a speaker who was appearing in England who I read from another source was the Director of the German Wildlife Foundation. Given my personal views on wind and solar versus nuclear, it was nice to hear of someone who shared my views. Is it so bad to think that wind turbines are a blotch on our landscape? Subsequent to that I acknowledged that it was pointed out that he had a history of questioning climate change and was only Director of Communications for the German Wildlife Foundation. At the time I posted this I did not know his general views on climate change. This I assume has brought on the label of being a "troll".
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic, moderation complaints and sloganeering snipped.
-
NorrisM at 17:24 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 143
I have been very impressed by your arguments generally (interesting to see two Canadians go at it). But this comment really distorts what I have said and sounds like some others which look for some "underlying preconceived notions".
A few examples:
"Just because you want to label uncertainties in these costs as "vague", "theoretical", etc. does not mean that the best estimate of these additional costs is $0."
I have never said that the best estimate of the additional costs is $0. What I have said is that you will not get the US, Europe or China onside to recognize this because of the costs to their particular society in imposing some carbon tax beyond pollution costs. Of course, the future costs are much more than the pure "pollution costs". But unless you have a very easy alternative (as to costs and viability), then you have to weigh the benefits of FF to the future costs. I have already indicated what I think should be a two-pronged approach.
"That you keep repeating shop-worn denier talking points about uncertainty, models, etc. suggests that at some deep level you are still believing or hoping that the science is all wrong and no significant change is needed."
Wrong. It has nothing to do with hoping the science is all wrong. I also do not thing the science is all wrong. But my concern with the models, especially after having read a very honest Chapter 9 of the IPCC 2013 Assessment during my recent holiday, is that I do not think that we have the ability to model, by computers, the complexities of the climate to a level that we can fully trust them. I am not saying that the models are useless, but when I read in the IPCC assessment that the models have been "tuned" to match reality in "hindcasts" (in ways not disclosed to the IPCC) then it raises serious questions as to the ability of models to predict the future 50 years from now and suggest that sea levels really will increase at rates much higher than present levels. I understand that any model would have to be adjusted in hindsight to input things like actual volcanic activity and actual El Ninos and other actual ocean oscillations but my sense is that with these "adjustments" we are not much better off than taking a ruler and projecting sea level and temperature rises based upon the last 25-50 years.
That is why I have found myself reverting to what is actually happening both as to average temperature increases and average sea level rises over X period of years. I think it is eminently reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that things will continue at the same rates as we have seen. We had a "hiatus" for a period of 12-15 years in average temperature rise but I am more than prepared to accept that this was a "blip" and that temperatures will continue to rise because the CO2 emissions continue.
At 71 years of age, I am not concerned about myself or my economic position. I am concerned about the world but I am, more than anything, a realist. I have two adult children who will have to live in this world (I actually worry that there are other things that are more dangerous to their future welfare than climate change). So when I advocate things, I take into account political realities together with a general skepticism that we as humans are apocalyptic. Just remember that climate scientists in the 1970's, or at least a fair number, were suggesting we were on our way to another mini ice age. I just do not think that we are about to go over Niagara Falls. We have some time to see if this really is a problem. For at least 25 years, we have been told we were going "over the cliff" (or over the waterfall) and it has not happened.
I am happy to deal with linear increases. If we find that "linear' is in fact wrong, then we deal with it. That is why I have been trying to sort out what the actual sea level rise has been for the last 25 years.
The other thing I have not mentioned is my question as to whether the CO2 emissions will be the same over the next 30 years with BAU as it has been for the last 30 years. China has taken massive steps using cheap coal to fuel its industrialization. Hopefully this will not go on for the next 30 years. Surely they will not again "double" their existing steel production. Clearly China will be using wind and solar (in conjunction with their existing coal plants) to mitigate their pollution costs. As I type this, it has occurred to me that China is not focussing on nuclear power. I have never heard this from any of the commentators but that is probably one of the best arguments that nuclear power does not make economic sense. If a planned economy like China has not moved to nuclear power (and the Chinese are no dummies) then there are reasons that argue for wind and solar in favour of nuclear (I still find this disappointing for our world - I saw some of the wind farms in Spain). For some they are pretty, but to me it is a sad commentary on what humans are doing to the world.
My point is that you misrepresent my concerns. They are not based upon some "head in the sand" approach. But at least I think you would agree that I am entitled to express my opinions and that I should not be shuffled off to jail or fined for expressing them.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics, repeat fallacies and assertions already disproven or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
MA Rodger at 17:05 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael Miersch - For the record.
The discussion of German denialist Michael Miersch was introduced into this thread by troll NorrisM @112 and in subesquent comments the trammels of Meirsch have been repeatedly highlighted by NorrisM as he considers denialists like Mersch have the right to set out their opinion without let or hinderence. This was not the view of the German Federal Environment Agency who in 2013 published a 120-page exposition titled 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' ('And yet it heats up. What is behind the debate on climate change') criticising German climate denial and naming Miersch and a couple of his colleagues. This naming is described as "unusual for a government agency" by Miersch (although without naming, it would be difficult to debunk any specific climate denier or instance of climate denial) who sets out a turgid account of (to quote Kenneth Williams) "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in f' me!" and how he and fellow denialst Dirk Maxeiner were taking the Federal Environment Agency to court to enforce a withdrawal of the government brochure. Sadly for Miersch, the German courts concluded that he was after all legally a Klimawandelskeptiker. His turgid account of all this was duly publshed by the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy. I think it is fair to say that, unless a translation of the full 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' is forthcoming, the rights and wrongs of all this belong in a German-speaking forum and should not be trolled around at SkS.
Prev 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 Next
