Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 Next
Comments 17501 to 17550:
-
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.
-
NorrisM at 18:29 PM on 6 October 2017Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming
Very interesting. Will read more carefully later. But I have to admit that even for a layman, when I read the paper this discrepancy of 2015 and 2020 stood out like a sore thumb.
In the paper it says average increase per decade has been close to. 2C so on this basis you could assume this really is .2C rather than .3C.
But there have to be reasons why 23 scientists chose HadCRUT over another measurement. They must have thought it was the most representative.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:15 AM on 6 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM: "As soon as we move from a carbon tax that only charges for costs of pollution to one that charges for everything else..."
You have previously made that point, and you have claimed that the costs of pollution are only $18/tonne (unless I am misunderstanding you). I have challenged that $18/tonne figure, and until you can back it up with a reference that is more than just your "understanding", then please stop making that argument. Repeating an unfounded assertion does not make it true.
-
scaddenp at 09:20 AM on 6 October 2017Arctic sea ice has recovered
See here for discussion of this. In particular, check the MASIE documentation page and what it has to say about the applicability of the data sets for analyzing trends. Then look at some datasets that are fit for purpose and draw the obvious conclusions about reliability of climatedepot.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 6 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @12
Just briefly the sort of volcanic eruptions we typically see decade to decade dont emit enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases to make much difference as below from an article on this website:
"Published reviews (on volcanoes) of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. "
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
They do emit enough aerosols to cool the climate dor a year or two.
Some massive volcanic explosions like Krakatoa have emitted enough CO2 to get really significant, but they are infrequent. In fact theres evidence that a massive and frequent series of volcanic eruptions millions of years ago in Asia caused a period of global warming, but the modern world is very unlikely to experince something like that, because geological conditions are now very different.
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 6 October 2017Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming
Lets just admit the Millar paper just doesn't make much sense. There, I said what nobody really wants to say.
Very clear graphs. Obviously temperatures are tracking models quite well. It wont ever be 100% perfect due to short term natural variability, but they are doing well enough longer term. Any climate sceptic now claiming models are failed is being deliberately obtuse.
-
sailingfree at 06:47 AM on 6 October 2017Arctic sea ice has recovered
Can anyone comment on this:
http://www.climatedepot.com/?mc_cid=b0364d923e&mc_eid=1bbdb183a9
Based on MASIE data, they claim not much decline recently.
Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice
-
aleks at 06:22 AM on 6 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
During all volcano eruptions so called greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, SO2,etc.) are emitted in great amounts. May be, any supporter of the greenhouse effect theory can explain why all eruptions caused cooling of the Earth's climate. The effect of sulfuric acid aerosols and other solid particles (volcanic ash, soot) is, of course, important, but why we don't see the vidence of greenhouse effect in this case? As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to comments policy. Thank You!
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 6 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Noris M @60
"There is an accelerated deduction compared to how depletion is charged under usual accounting rules."
Thanks, but the fine detail is not the point here Norris. Canada get a whole lot of other sunsidies as well totalling billions. America gets 20 billion of subsidies through tax deductions on exploration etc and direct grants. Countries in latin america and asia get billions in subsidies by artificially keeping the price down.
Countries get more obviously if you include the unpaid cost of emissions. You can call it a subsidy or something else but that doesnt change the nature of the beast.
The point is its billions of dollars in subsidies no matter how you measure it. With the possible exception of a deducation for research and exploration, they are all economic distortions and crony capitalism. But if we are trying to reduce fossil fuel use no subsidy on fossil fuels makes sense because they just encourage the industry. In some cases they are the only thing keeping it profitable. How is that not socialism for corporates?
How can some of you people so miss the point so consistently?
Carbon taxes aren't out of bounds given the article is about a form of carbon tax. I think you would look at the full costs of fossil fuels on society including health costs and climate change costs and say that tax, or "fee" would need to reflect that and be increased in stages.
-
flehner at 03:21 AM on 6 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Thanks for the comments and feedback.
Indeed, with "global temperature" we mean "global surface air temperature" throughout the article, which refers to an estimate of the air temperature 2 meters (~6.5 ft) above ground. Also, we should have clarified that we mean Northern Hemisphere/boreal winter.
@DrivingBy: you might be thinking about the Yale climate opinion maps: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/
-
John Hartz at 03:15 AM on 6 October 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
citizenschallenge: Generally speaking, we ought to stick with the IPPC/WMO's official definitions of global warming and climate change as embedded in this site's Glossary of Terms.
-
MA Rodger at 01:56 AM on 6 October 2017Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
citizenschallenge @89,
I haven't read it yet, but the full Lightfoot & Mamer (2017) paper is available here. It's findings as you set them out @89 appear highly implausable but I'm sure a read of the full paper will inform us all a lot better.
-
citizenschallenge at 01:41 AM on 6 October 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Yes I know that's what the article was trying to explain, sorry I got caught up in some of the comments and an ongoing argument that drove me to this post in the first place.
Daniel ;-)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/
-
citizenschallenge at 01:36 AM on 6 October 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
NO, no, no. "CLIMATE CHANGE" is a result. It is not a driver, it is a descriptive word. "GLOBAL WARMING" is the active agent, the driver!
It's muddled language like that, which simply mimics the dog-chasing-tail talking points contrarians are dedicated to injecting into this discussion. It's help created today's hideous and totally unnecessary public confusion.
>>> Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, slow heat's escape to space, warming Earth's complex climate engine, which in turn drives cascading consequences we call Climate Change. <<<
Moderator Response:[JH] All-caps snipped. The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. To emphaize a word or words, please use bold font.
-
citizenschallenge at 00:48 AM on 6 October 2017Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Speaking of CO2, any chance of someone serious doing a critical review of:
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017"Back Radiation versus CO2 as the cause of climate change"
No tricks zone (July 31, 2017) has a glowing write up - comments point out some flaws but it would be good to have someone give it a serious closer look and critique of the tricks applied by Doug Lightfoot in the paper.
(1) Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually.
(2) Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics.
(3) The effect of back radiation [water vapour] on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction.
-
citizenschallenge at 00:26 AM on 6 October 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
Yes, thank you for sharing. It was good to learn a little more about Andy, who's article I alway for interesting and informative, but very sad to hear of his passing. My condolensces go out to his wife and family.
-
NorrisM at 00:02 AM on 6 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw et al
Will get cite for IPCC rate when I get back from holiday. There was a range if I recall. All this IDC discussion is the same point I made. There is an accelerated deduction compared to how depletion is charged under usual accounting rules. But many industries in Canada get accelerated deductions for capital expendituresbeyond what would be normal depreciation rates for accounting purposes including wind and solar expenditures.
As soon as we move from a carbon tax that only charges for costs of pollution to one that charges for everything else that could be related to GW then we really are talking about what is the most efficient way to move from FF to some other form of energy. I thought that was out of bounds on this website.
-
KingInYellow at 17:28 PM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Direct link to Bethke et al: LINK
Moderator Response:[TD] Replaced link because it was breaking page format.
-
wili at 14:32 PM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
"One scenario to think through could thus be a major eruption occurring during a La Niña this coming winter." Should probably be "...coming north hemisphere winter."
And "global temperature" near the beginning of the last paragraph should probably be "global atmospheric temperature" since this is later contrasted with global ocean temperature.
Those interested in the possibility that large volcanic eruptions may be able to actually trigger El Nino conditions might be interested in the physorg article linked here: phys.org/news/2017-10-large-volcanic-eruptions-tropics-trigger.html
-
bozzza at 13:08 PM on 5 October 2017Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
addendum..
..but now the world is literally out to get all of us at once!
(You don't have to believe me- it's a mass consciousness sort of thing!)
-
bozzza at 13:05 PM on 5 October 2017Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
Richard, the world is a market place and if it weren't legal to lie then Governments would not be able to garner enough entrepreneurial spirit to build it's military complexes.
Fraud is all part of the back-slapping game: the only way the average punter can win is to unite and change th emarketpalce through demand.... because Governments follow: the people lead.
Think of it this way: the world literally is out to get you!
-
nigelj at 13:04 PM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Driving by @5
"They will do that regardless. A political position does not change based on physical evidence."
This is so true with a lot of people. Political tribalism is strong and people hold beliefs passionately, even when the evidence against is overwhelming, and you also have the pluralistic ignorance effect somebody mentioned. Sigh.
But thats no excuse. People need to work a bit harder at being less "political". I'm one of those swing voters and I just refuse point blank to be too partisan.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:08 PM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
' more meat, refrigerators, cars, houses, wives.'
LOL. I'm pretty sure that around half of that 7.5 billion don't want wives, more or otherwise. :-) -
DrivingBy at 11:42 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
@Nigelj - 2
If it's any comfort, the majority of the world already acknowledges AGW. Even US-based oil companies all do so privately, and some publicly (which is against their own interests). The biggest players are the likes of Saudi Aramco and Venezula, which both own the oil and oil production companies. It would be interesting to find their official statments on the matter.
I believe (mmm, can't remember where I saw the figures) that a majority of the US population considers AGW to be real. Most also have other things on their mind, such as why their school will not discipline the two kids who disrupt every class, etc. We may know that it is on track to be a huge problem somewhere in the future, but people don't live somewhere in the future. There are now 7.5 billion humans, and outside of a relative handful they all want more: more meat, refrigerators, cars, houses, wives.
Them's the breaks.
-
DrivingBy at 11:27 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
@Nigelj
They will do that regardless. A political position does not change based on physical evidence.
-
Mal Adapted at 11:20 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#38 - The broader point on the fossil fuel subsidies - is that most of what is labeled as subsidies by various advocacy groups, etc are simply not subsidies by any economic definition. Many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are tax deductions for the cost of doing business. Additionally many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are deductions which are allowable to all industries and are not subsidies carved out to benefit the fossil fuel industries.
Huh. Oil Change International, the advocacy site you dismissed, defines 'fossil fuel subsidy' as follows:
A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. Essentially, it’s anything that rigs the game in favor of fossil fuels compared to other energy sources.
That seem succinct and even self-evident to me. OTOH, while I'll never claim to be an expert, the energy economics I once studied enroute to an multidisciplinary MS in Environmental Science may give me an advantage. The history of the Seven Sisters was especially edifying.
A) you cited an article from an advocacy website, even individuals without expertise should be able to recognize the bias.
B) The errors are readily apparant to anyone with a basic level of taxation
C) my explanations, coupled with a basic knowledge of accounting, should be sufficient for most individuals to quickly grasp the errors.
With due deference, your errors are readily apparent to anyone who grasps the implications of the Keeling Curve. For you to apprehend them, it will be necessary to acknowledge that some people, conventionally regarded as climate scientists, may know more about this stuff than you do. Failing that, you'll need to become a working climate scientist yourself. While you're putting the time in on that, you can trust that SkS contributors recognize the bias on priceofoil.com. Regardless, the site attempts to document the electoral influence trading, in all its protean guises, that distorts the 'free' market in fossil carbon's favor.
Note, lastly, that priceofoil.com's definition of subsidy does not include the political freedom to privatize the full marginal benefit of the energy in fossil fuels, while socializing the marginal climate-change costs right out our private tailpipes.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
This is a timely and useful article. If Mt. Agung erupts and there is temporary cooling, the denialista will regard any such explanations as "making up excuses after the fact". The fact that this very same volcano has been studied in the past shows that pre-bunked argument for what it is.
I remember Mt. Agung being discussed in climatology classes back in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was at university. One of the references listed here is from 1978, fer christ's sake.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:54 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM: "Tom13 is discussing the US tax situation regarding subsidies under the US tax code."
That may be what he wants to discuss, but from my perspective he is dodging the discussion on carbon taxes. He's claimed that they are just a wealth transfer, He's now gone "Look! Squirrel!" and started talking about subsidies. You've fallen for it.
...but while we are on the subject of subsidies, the list at the web page given by nijelj@56 does not mention royalty reductions (AFAICT). When I lived in Alberta, one of the favourite government actions to promote oil and gas activity was royalty reduction programs such as this one. To put it simply, the people of Alberta, who own the gas and oil, sell it more cheaply than at regular market rate. As this is run through government, it sounds an awful lot like a subsidy to me. The government isn't feeding money into gas and oil, but it is taking out less than it would normally. Gas and oil are on sale.
In fact, such reduced-rate subsidies are at the heart of the never-ending US-Canada softwood lumber dispute that has reared its head again. One of the frequent US claims is that Canada's low stumpage fees (payments to government for cutting timber on Crown land) constitute a subsidy that the US considers unfair, and the US places tariffs on wood products as an anti-dumping action.
As to your claim of an IPCC carbon cost of only $18/tonne - that seems awfully low to me. This Environment Canada site gives estimated costs of $34/t in 2010 rising to $75/t in 2050 as central estimates, with 95th percentile estimates going from $131/t to $320/t.
..but you used the phrase "...the IPCC ballparks this former cost at ..." [bolding mine]. Why did you use the word "former"? What are you implying? Is this only the cost of damage so far, for what has been emitted so far? Does your estimate ignore the future costs of previously-emitted carbon?
Please provide a source for your $18/t number. Your "understanding" isn't a very strong argument. And what Lomborg says isn't worth an ounce of spit.
-
scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
A respite from warming is good news. Really. However, if emissions continue unabated there will be even more GHG when the aerosols abate and we will rapidly warm again. One can hope that time will be used wisely rather than listening to idiots who are going to deny no matter what.
-
Esop at 07:12 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
I had exactly the same thoughts, nigelj.
Just wait.... and the press will lap it up.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 5 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
So in other words we could get a combination of a volcanic eruption, and a la nina, thus two or three years of quite low temperatues, and the climate sceptics will start chanting "global warming has stopped" and "liberal scam" and "greenhouse effect falsified" all over again. It's enough to make you weep.
-
scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael, yes, and contrary to what Tom13 has stated, it seems that FF get some special support:
"The largest source of support to the oil and gas industry that we quantify in our analysis is the practice of expensing intangible drilling costs (IDCs). Only items with no salvage value can be claimed as IDCs, such as wages, fuel, and repairs, relating to well drilling.
Large capital assets always have a mixture of tangible and intangible investments, and in most other sectors these are all capitalized into the cost basis that is written down over time. In contrast, producers are allowed to deduct from taxable income IDCs associated with investments in domestic oil and gas wells. These costs include a fraction of exploration and capital expenses for a given well up to the installation of a wellhead. Independent oil and gas operators are able to expense all IDCs immediately, while integrated oil companies may expense 70% of IDCs. The remaining 30% of integrated producers’ IDCs still receive special tax treatment, as operators can depreciate IDCs over five years instead of recovering these costs through depletion." -
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris M @53, you claim the only fossil fuel subsidy in Canada is a very small tax deduction on oil and gas exploration. Looks mistaken to me. The following research says Canada have 6 separate subsidies on fossil fuels, totalling about 3 billion dollars per year. Other research has much the same.They itemise each subsidy and its recent information.
www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
There is nothing speculative and about sea level rise. Models are not speculation. At the very least even if you just project the last 20 years linear trend forwards, you get significant sea level rise, and only a fool believes the rate over the last 20 years would stop or slow. Its only really a question of which model simulation of accelerating sea level rise proves most accurate, but none are looking good for humanity. Its important to also remember small changes to rates of sea level rise add up significantly analogous to compound interest.
-
jja at 05:57 AM on 5 October 2017Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores
one of the potential kinds of abrupt changes in atmospheric circulation patterns could be the observed water vapor and heat transport into the arctic beginning with the December 2015 Event and lasting through the winter of 2016
Prev 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 Next
