Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
Comments 17251 to 17300:
-
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.
-
Eclectic at 12:36 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
My apologies :
I should have supplied link to Skuce — www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy9rx19dujU
Hope that works!
-
Eclectic at 12:05 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @12 and later :
possibly some confusion is arising over (A) sulfur dioxide as gas , and its conversion in the stratosphere to sulfuric acid aerosols [which conversion takes place over a matter of weeks, according to the NASA website — with the aerosols then acting as a reflectant of solar radiation over a year or two]
~ and also (B) the relative "potency" of IR re-radiation versus the reflection of visible light [visible light flux being far greater than IR flux].
Aleks , you might enjoy seeing a 5-minute youtube presentation by Andy Skuce [his Denial101 talk on "Human CO2 emissions trump volcanoes"] . It is brief but clearly stated — in Skuce's pleasantly dry calm manner.
I think you will find it interesting, regarding the various components of volcanic CO2. Certainly, the main thrust of his talk is the debunking of the myth that volcanic CO2 (as opposed to "human" CO2) could be the origin of recent rapid global warming — but of course you would already be very aware of that scientific fact.
However: regarding the points you make in this thread, Andy Skuce's comments discuss how it is the continuous venting of volcanic CO2 from volcanic lakes & inactive volcanoes which matches or exceeds the CO2 emission from active volcanoes. (From my own laziness, I had not previously appreciated how the "non-eruptive" CO2 exceeds the contribution from the spectacular explosions & plumes of the intermittently active volcanoes.) Indirectly, that answers your question about the relative importance of reflective sulfur-type aerosols from eruptions.
Skuce's short lecture also surprised me, in that the large number of submarine volcanoes contributed little or nothing to our atmospheric CO2 level. Again, showing up my previous ignorance on the subject !
-
nigelj at 11:10 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
aleks @14 and 18
"The greenhouse effect theory does not have math model to determine relation between amount of gas absorbing IR-radiattoin and temperature. "
I disagree. Im no expert on all this, but the effects of CO2 on temperature are very settled and quantified science. This is why I said read a textbook, because perhaps you have missed something. Alternatively read the original research paper by Arrhenius below which still stands as solid science today.
www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
"Absorption of infrared radiation by the gas molecule changes the rotational and vibrational energy of the gas molecule, so the the molecule gains more potential energy. However, temperature is related to kinetic energy,"
This doesnt make sense to me as vibrational energy is kinetic energy, and the molecule emits photons that stike other molecules, so theres kinetic energy. However Im telling you Im not going to debate this and go down some crazy rabbit hole over it.
"SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron.
I will accept this, but SO2 has a very weak greenhouse gas effect. This is why its not listed in the entry in wikipedia on greenhouses gases mentioned above. However SO2 can combine with water to form sulphuric acid which can have a strong cooling effect by reflecting solar energy - and this is what dominates.
Moderator Response:[PS] "not have math model". I think aleks needs to clarify what he/she means since Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 sure looks like that model to me via the radiative transfer Equations. Modtran and Hitran are modern versions that do this to exquisite precision.
-
aleks at 10:52 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
sulfur dioxide infrared spectrum
Moderator Response:(BW) embedded link
-
aleks at 10:48 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Addition to #18: sulfur dioxide infrared spectra
Moderator Response:(BW) Embedded link as it was breaking the page format. Please make sure to embed links properly via the "Insert" tab.
-
aleks at 07:19 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Rob Honeycutt @17
According to greenhouse effect theory, the ability of a gas to absorb IR-radiation determines its behavior as greenhouse gas. (Th.L.Brown, H.E.LeMay a.o. Chemisty. The Central Science/ Pearson. Prentice Hall. 4th Ed. 2009, p.780-781). SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron.
Moderator Response:[DB] "SO2 absorbs IR-radiation in the region 3.5-19 micron"
Link citation required for this.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:47 AM on 9 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
I tend to agree that at least some scientists are tending to be overly cautious. The article does state, however, that "The Associated Press looked at all major hurricanes — not just the small fraction that hit the U.S...." One of Roger Pielke Jr's favourite tricks is to restrict his analysis to only hurricanes that hit the U.S.
Although measuring wind speed is old technology, you need to be able to get an anemometer in the way of the storm, and that is difficult over water. Much modern hurricane data comes from aircraft flights, and knowing the hurricanes exist is more easily accomplished with satellites.
A while back Tamino had an interesting post on an alternative approach. Instead of looking for wind data, the paper Tamino referenced looked at storm surge data in tidal records. These could record the effect of hurricanes that did not reach land. At Tamino's there is a comment that points back to this SkS post, where the auhtor of the paper commented.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Quick note for aleks. SO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
-
aleks at 06:28 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigelj@15
Rudeness does not replace the arguments
Moderator Response:[DB] You were given a citation refuting your claims. Simply saying, in effect, "nuh-uh" is an insufficient response on your part. First read the linked citation given. If you still feel otherwise, stake your claims there, on that thread. But it is also incumbent upon you to provide a link citation to a credible source that supports your claims.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:24 AM on 9 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Thank you for the IPCC cite on the social cost of carbon. I have taken a quick look at that section of that chapter.
I agree there there is a great deal of uncertainty on such costs, as evidenced by the large range of values ($17/t to $350/t as you accurately quote).
I disagree that choosing the lower limit is appropriate. That the Krewitt and Schlomann study only gave a lower limit and did not provide a best guess or upper limit is not sufficient reason to use the lower limit as a planning choice. This is akin to taking the IPCC range on temperature sensitivity, choosing the lower bound, and ignoring the high probability that the correct value is considerably larger. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the probability that the lower limit is a serious underestimate. Uncertainty is not your friend.
The argument behind a carbon tax is to monetize the external costs. Choosing the lower limit means continuing to fail to monetize a portion of the (likely) external costs. Choosing the lower limit increases the likelhood that a large fraction of the external costs will be born by others (non-fossil fuel or reduced-fossil fuel consumers). The fossil fuel sector of the energy business has had a large competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that is has operated in a system that leaves much of the true cost externalized. Choosing the lower limit of such costs fails to level that playing field.
In comment #53, you used the phrasing
"...when it comes to a carbon tax on fossil fuels, I think you have to make a distinction between the costs of fossil fuels in harming the environment from a pollution standpoint from those unkown and speculative calculations of rising sea levels etc. ..."
Characterizing uncertainties as "unkown and speculative" is also something that I strongly disgagree with. You have now used the phrasing "...the real issue is what is included in that estimate. The assumptions matter." Assuming that the lower limit should be used for planning is an extremely optimistic assumption. It may suit the fossil fuel industry, but is unlikely to be the best choice for the overall economy.
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 9 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
The article presents evidence that atlantic hurricane intensity has essentially increased, (paraphrasing) but says scientists arent sure, because the data on intensity of older hurricanes is poor, and numbers of hurricanes in the past were undercounted.
I dont see why early records of intensity would be so inaccurate. The devices that measure wind speed, anemometers have been around for well over 100 years.
If they missed counting numbers of some older hurricanes its likely the ones they did count would have a reasonably representitive intensity level. It appears the scientists are being incredibly cautious maybe excessively so.
Anyway regardless of these various issues on poor data, I'm very inclined to believe IPCC projections that intensity will increase, because the science on it is so strong.
Compare all this to Pacific tropical cyclones. They have increased in intensity and the research appears much more definitive than atlantic hurricanes. Just one example:
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/warmer-waters-are-making-pacific-typhoons-stronger-180955443/
There doesnt appear to be the same doubt about early records for some reason. And they attribute the increase in intensity more directly to climate change rather than some 30 year ocean cycle, although with some caveats.
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Wrong. Pseudoscience. Empty assertions. Made up twaddle.
Go read a textbook.
Moderator Response:[PS] Over the line as well. A definitive citation is preferred.
-
aleks at 00:41 AM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigellj@13
From the cited data is evident only that all greenhouse gases emitted during volcano eruption (including H2O and SO2) plus annual additional 34 billion tonnes of CO2 can not overcome the cooling effect of volcano aerosols and solid particles. It's impossible to say what factor is more significant because the greenhouse effect theory does not have math model to determine relation between amount of gas absorbing IR-radiattoin and temperature.
The absence of such model can be explained. Absorption of infrared radiation by the gas molecule changes the rotational and vibrational energy of the gas molecule, so the the molecule gains more potential energy. However, temperature is related to kinetic energy, that's why it's impossible to calculate the contribution of different gases absorbing IR-radiation to the atmosphere temperature on the base of thie IR-spectra.
-
NorrisM at 00:16 AM on 9 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 62
I am now back to somewhere where I can reference the material I took along with me to read on my holiday.
You have asked for a reference for my use of an $18/tonne cost for the direct costs of pollution.
At www.ipcc.ch/report/srren you will be able to reference the IPCC 2014 Report on Mitigation and Costs which was kindly provided by either you or another contributor to this website. Please refer to Chapter 10 Section 10.6.2 entitled “Review of studies on external costs and benefits”. This section reviews the number of studies that have evaluated the social cost of carbon (SCC). It is very clear from this discussion that there is a great amount of disagreement as to what should and should not be incorporated into arriving at the “SCC” with ranges from $17/t, to $90/t to $350/t.
Here is what I think is a good summary of things from that section:
"A German study (Krewitt and Schlomann, 2006) addressing external costs uses the values of USD 17/t CO2 , USD 90/t CO2 and USD 350/t CO2 (€ 14,70 and 280/t CO2 ) for the lower limit, best guess and upper limit for SCC, respectively, referring to Downing et al. (2005) and Watkiss and Downing (2008). The study assesses that the range of the estimated SCC values covers three orders of magnitude, which can be explained by the many different choices possible in modelling and approaches to quantifying the damages. As a benchmark lower limit for global decision making, they give a value of about USD2005 17/t CO2 (£35/t CO2 ). They do not give any best guess or upper limit benchmark value, but recommend that further studies should be done on the basis of long-term climate change mitigation stabilization levels."
Obviously, my reference to $18/t was off from the $17/t lower limit which I quoted in my post which you criticized. But I did not make this up.
I know you are not a fan of Lomborg but in his book, he asks an IPCC contributor to the "cost section" (he gives his name) as to what he thinks is his "best guess" as to effective "pollution costs" and I know that figure was below $20/t.
I suspect that the “lower limit” is in fact a “cost” related to pollution and the upper limit is throwing everything into the calculation including all costs regarding sea level rises. My point was to reference pollution only as a basic starting point.
You will see that these latter studies (Downing and Watkiss and Downing) only reference a “lower limit” and do not even give a “best guess” or “upper limit” value but recommend further studies should be done.
So I believe that the use of $18/t for direct pollution costs was a reasonable one to use.
I see that since my post to which you replied that there have been other figures used. Once again, the real issue is what is included in that estimate. The assumptions matter. Until the IPCC provides any more recent updates, all the rest are just “new studies” not yet commented on by the IPCC.
I would be happy to use $30/t just to ensure that all these costs are included. This is something you could "sell to the public" without getting into any issues of what climate change is and is not doing to our world (remember, the US public is not "sold" on what climate scientists are telling them - see Pew Research 2016). It allows us to put a "cost" on carbon that we can clearly understand which perhaps puts fossil fuels on a level playing field with other technologies.
-
Paul D at 23:40 PM on 8 October 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
My only contact with Andy was via online discussions with the Skeptical Science team and valuable comments he made regarding the information visualisations that I was involved with.
Brings back memories of the fun we had working on the data and the projects we worked on.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:02 AM on 8 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
bozzza@4,
The current NISDC Arctic Sea Ice News page (October 5, 2017) includes a presentation of multi-year Arctic Sea Ice.
The 2016 and 2017 extent of ice older than 2 years (sum of 2-3 yr, 3-4, >4) are the lowest in the data record presentation that starts in 1985.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:58 AM on 8 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Ari Jokimäki:
Here in Finland seasonal and annual variations in temperature are very large, and yet, during my lifetime climate has changed so much that it is very easy to see. Winters are mild and snowless and spring starts earlier compared to the time when I was young. Climate change is now so clear that you can see it even without thermometers.
Where I live, those seasonal shifts are seen with thermometers and statistics too.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:44 AM on 8 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Eclectic @65:
thank you for PNAS 2016 update (based on 2010 dollars).
You're welcome, heh 8^}.
I have to remind myself it's Social Cost of Carbon expressed as dollars per ton of CO2 (not per ton of carbon).
Thank you! I wouldn't otherwise have noticed the error I made in my first comment. Whew! It gets complicated, doesn't it?
-
nigelj at 06:37 AM on 8 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40
Another environmental initiative ruined by The White House. This is appalling scientific ignorance, and an over extended sense of business entitlement above the public good.
-
Eclectic at 06:21 AM on 8 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Mal A @64 , thank you for PNAS 2016 update (based on 2010 dollars).
Presumably the USA figure would be not much different for the rest of the world; but perhaps higher "locally" in some Chinese cities where power generation air pollution rivals the motor vehicle contribution.
I have to remind myself it's Social Cost of Carbon expressed as dollars per ton of CO2 (not per ton of carbon).
-
Mal Adapted at 05:59 AM on 8 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
I thought I'd explicitly point out that Nordhaus's 2017 peer-reviewed, updated SCC estimate of $31 (2010 dollars, since it's an update) per ton (not tonne) in 2015 was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The link I provided doesn't render well in my browser, but here's a PDF:
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/7/1518.full.pdf
It seems clear that nailing SCC down requires a precise vocabulary, whatever else it needs.
-
Mal Adapted at 05:33 AM on 8 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
$18/tonne carbon equivalent is slightly more than half the estimate newly obtained by Nordhaus for Social Cost of Carbon:
The study estimates that the SCC is $31 per ton of CO2 in 2010 US$ for the current period (2015). For the central case, the real SCC grows at 3% per year over the period to 2050.
$31/tonne is roughtly the figure adopted by the EPA after SCOTUS upheld its legal obligation to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. While I'm having a little trouble navigating government sites, this Nature editorial from last January states "At present, the US government’s central estimate of this is US$36 per tonne of carbon dioxide."
-
David Collier at 23:46 PM on 7 October 2017Alarming new study makes today’s climate change more comparable to Earth’s worst mass extinction
In 1000 years or more the surface of this planet will be too hot to live on. A remnant of a mutated human species (already happening due to mutagenic chemicals in the environment) will then resort to living in caves, of which there are some very large systems. They will subsist on GM fungi the size of Saguaro (spelling??) cacti.
Psychokinesis removes the need for large muscles. Hence a slim build. A diet of fungi removes the need for a large mouth and teeth, resulting in an almond shaped face.
Dim light underground requires very large eyes. Life in relative darkness results in a typical pallor.
Development of travel backwards in time via flying saucers results in these descendants appearing in our time in order to collect pre-mutation DNA from cows and people.
Wishing to warn us of this future they send symbolic messages in the form of crop circles. Telepathy has by their time removed the need for words and a written language, hence they resort to such symbolic communication.
We call these people 'E.T.'s. They are of course 'endoterrestrials'.
Moderator Response:[DB] This venue is based on credible evidence for claims. Thus, it is about science, not science fiction. Please keep comments on-topic.
-
michael sweet at 11:47 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13:
Largo Florida is an Island in the Florida Keys. It is over 200 miles south of Tampa where I live. It is generally known that it is warmer closer to the equator. 20 years ago it was too cold in Tampa for trees like coconuts and mangos. It is now common to see these planted in Tampa. If you do not know what you are talking about you should not comment.
My trees are only 10 years old. They require about 150 hours of cold in winter to produce fruit. 20 years ago we regularly got 200 hours here but for the last 10 years it has not been cold enough.
Moose are currently going extinct in Minnesota because the winters have warmed up enough that ticks are no longer killed by winter cold. The ticks are killing the moose.
It is common knowledge that pine beetles are killing millions of pine trees across North America because they survive the warmer winters. They used to be killed by cold. It is closer to 2C warmer on average in winter now. That is enough to kill the moose and enable the pine beetles to survive.
-
nigelj at 09:59 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13@7
"You might find that the .5c change has had zero effect on peach production - after you plant the new trees."
Pure unsupported, unscientific speculation, and not really comparable to changes in bee populations. And completely missing the point that if you have a change in some environmental factor, the change will still be there even with a new crop of trees.
-
Tom13 at 08:38 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
#6 - the bumble bees range is quite large, as shown for the eastern common bumble bee. A global temp change of .5c over the last 50 or so years isnt going to make an iota of difference.
A Broader knowledge of basic science should help differeniating good studies from speculative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_impatiens
Moderator Response:[DB] That source does not explicitly support your contentions. Either concede the point or actually support your position with a relevant citation to the primary literature.
Further, Joe, 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, intentionally misleading comments and graphics, operate multiple user identities, continually ignore when their points have been rebutted by others 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.
-
Tom13 at 08:24 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
#5 - Michael - Getting you up to speed on basic horticulture.
A) Here is a picture of coconut palms in Largo FL, from the 1950's - 67 years ago, ( a little more than 20 years ago).
www.etsy.com/listing/226165236/ca-1950s-palm-garden-restaurant-largo-fl
B) peach trees have an average life span of 12-15 years of which only 10years or so are productive. Try planting some younger peach trees and the new ones will start producing in their 3rd year.
You might find that the .5c change has had zero effect on peach production - after you plant the new trees.
Moderator Response:[DB] That is not a credible scientific source. Either concede the point or actually support your position with a relevant citation to the primary literature.
-
nigelj at 08:19 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13@4
"The daily fluctuations in temps, the seasonal fluctuations in temps, the annual fluctuations in temps dwarf the amount of temp change due to global warming,
It doesnt matter if daily fluctuations in temperature are greater than climate change over the last 50 years. Daily fluctuations in temperatures are of no relevance to changes in temperature over time, and how that affects bee populations. This should be self evident. This website need a borehole like RC for outrageously stupid posts.
-
michael sweet at 07:34 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13:
You are making a completely wild, unsupported claim that animals (in this case bumblebees) are not affected by the over 1C increase in measured temperatures. You are arguing from ignorance since you do not understand the ecological effects of an increase in temperatures.
Please provide a citation of a scientific study that supports your absurd claim that a 1C chage in climate will not affect the abundance and range of animals.
Where I live in Tampa, Florida, coconuts now grow when just 20 years ago it was too cold. Meanwhile, Florida Peaches no longer produce in my yard because it is too warm for them in the winter.
-
Tom13 at 07:05 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
#2 & #3
The daily fluctuations in temps, the seasonal fluctuations in temps, the annual fluctuations in temps dwarf the amount of temp change due to global warming, which has been in the range of .5c over the last 50 or so years. Surprising how much time and effort is spent and wasted blaming something that has an extremely small probability of the cause of the decline of the bees.
Attempts to blame global warming is similar to the attempts to blame GW on the demise of the costa rica toads.
(environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/41895
Moderator Response:[DB] Please cease providing examples of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Just because, in your specific example, that AGW was likely ruled out as the explicit cause of the demise of the species in question does not preclude AGW being a causal agent in the demise of other species. Per your link:
"this does not mean that current and future global warming will not be involved in extinction. Rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns will without a doubt contribute to stress on ecological communities that could lead to the extinction of species"
-
nigelj at 05:28 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13 @1
"Seasonal and annual variations in temps greatly exceed anything climate change has produced in the last 100-150 years, yet somehow climate change is blamed."
You have missinterpreted the whole issue.The bee study is not looking at just one season or year. The study says long term "interannual" changes in temperatures and bee populations over several years so clearly this relates to climate change.
"In the meantime a much more scientific and reasoned study of the bumble bee decline"
You have missinterpreted the studies. That study you quote looks at impacts of pesticides on bees. The interranual bumble bee abundance research looks at subalpine species of bees, ie on high up slopes of mountains where not many pesticides would be used.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 04:17 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Here in Finland seasonal and annual variations in temperature are very large, and yet, during my lifetime climate has changed so much that it is very easy to see. Winters are mild and snowless and spring starts earlier compared to the time when I was young. Climate change is now so clear that you can see it even without thermometers.
The study in question seems scientific enough and well reasoned to me. They don't just "blame" climate change. Also, the fact that climate can affect bumble bee abundances doesn't mean that pesticides can't have an effect, too.
-
Tom13 at 02:31 AM on 7 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
From the research article #35 listed above :
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12854/abstract
Seasonal and annual variations in temps greatly exceed anything climate change has produced in the last 100-150 years, yet somehow climate change is blamed.
In the meantime a much more scientific and reasoned study of the bumble bee decline,
-
MA Rodger at 20:31 PM on 6 October 2017Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
citizenschallenge @89.
Having now read Lightfoot & Mamer (2017), I can report that it is total nonsense. It is not the first nonsense from these authors which include Lightfoot (2010) 'Nomenclature, Radiative Forcing and Temperature Projections in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (AR4)' [ABRTRACT] and Lightfoot & Mamer (2014) 'Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) of Carbon Dioxide at Any Concentration ' [PDF], this last setting out much of the argument now presented in Lightfoot & Mamer (2017) (although strangely this ealrier work is unmentioned in the later). Yet the bold and revolutionary assertions on AGW within this earlier work have not set the world alight since publication, a telling result. Instead it has gone un-noticed into the oblivion of nonsense-filled literature.
And Lightfoot & Mamer (2017) will follow. It says nothing other than there is on average for any location and month much more H2O at the bottom of the atmsphere than there is CO2, and that the hotter the location/month the greater the disparity. They also arrive at the astounding finding that it is hotter in the tropics and in summer months than it is in the polar regions and winter. Further, they identify a general correlation (which they fail to actually calculate) between temperature and the angle of the sun up in the sky. (I recall noting in prevoius days that the sun is not static in the sky but appears to vary in angle through the day. Thinks - would this Lightfoot&Mamer correlation still hold for time-of-day?).
Lightfoot&Mamer fail to comprehend the concept Radiative Forcing (RF). They would greatly benefit from a quick read of UN IPCC AR5 Chapter 8 section 8.1 (which they do not cite in their paper) or a proper read of UN IPCC TAR Chapter 6 (which they do cite but somehow fail to understand). Not the least of this ignorance is their use of surface back-radiation as though it were RF when by definition RF concerns the imbalance at the tropopause (with adjustment for stratospheric influences) and has nothing to do with surface back-radiation.
"The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo-spheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values." UN IPCC TAR (2001) Section 6.1.1
Their fraught calculations of the H2O/CO2 ratio do not apply to the tropopause. Their discussion concerns the properties of back-radiation which result from surface air temperature (SAT) but they rather overlook the physical mechanisms that maintain the SAT which are all to do with the atmosphere above, all the way up to the tropopause.
Whichever way you cut it, Lightfoot&Mamer(2017) is a rich vein of total nonsense.
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
