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:
-
nigelj at 11:26 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp @13, I understand where you are coming from and totally respect your views. I do think a carbon tax or fee directly on fossil fuel companies would encourage renewables eventually, as it would push up the price of oil and coal etc and make renewables more attractive.
But theres a problem or two. The sorts of prices on carbon I have seen are moderate to be politically acceptable, and I just think electricity generators might be inclined to suck up these costs, rather than choose renewable energy. Or they may be inclined to try to pass them onto consumers.
'Eventually' the tax would be ramped up high enough to force change and renewable energy, but this could take some significant time, that is the problem, and its a big problem. In comparison subsidies can be at virtually any level immediately, and have been quite immediate in their effect.
The tax or fee should be at least partly returned to consumers. But this would go presumably mainly into buying an electric car or more fuel efficient car etc, or could be more petrol, and neither actually encourage renewable energy as such. It would only encourage electric cars.
I dont see why an equal subsidy on different electricity sources is so hard. Why not just on megawatts generated? Then its all equal and market forces can pick the best alternative as you alluded to I think.
The other alternative is to just mandate by law that generators do renewable energy. However that is quite heavy handed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:40 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @70: "I would like to respond to your argument that a carbon tax should take in every conceivable cost that could be laid at the doorstep of FF."
...and with that you lost any shred of credibility as an honest participant in this discussion. Nowhere have I said anything that resembles your strawman postion. You have argued for using the lower limit. I have argues against that, but I have never said that the upper limit should be used.
Shame on you for such a tasteless caricature of what I have actually said. You are the one that wants to select a position at the extreme, not I.
Moderator Response:[PS] can we please keep tone to a constructive level.
And NorrisM, this is not a pub debate. You can skip the rhetorical tricks, and especially please stop strawman arguments.
-
scaddenp at 09:27 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
it is not clear to me why you think a carbon tax is less of incentive to renewables that subsidy. You get uptake of renewable because it is perceived to be cheaper. A carbon tax achieves the very same thing. I dont see why it needs to be "steep" to change the differential in pricing. From what I have been read, remove direct subsides on development of new FF is generally enough to ensure that renewables are a cheaper option. Furthermore, if you are distributed even part of the carbon tax back on a per capita basis, then users who switch to renewables get a/ power that is cheaper than coal power b/ an income from those that still paying carbon tax. Looks like a good incentive to me. Seems a better psychological win that just getting back some of your tax by using subsidized power. You are avoiding a tax in first place and screwing over the evil ones burning coal.
I think a truly equal subsidy is very hard to do. Solar, wind, nuclear are very different in terms of material used, energy return on energy invested, land area consumed etc.
-
nigelj at 08:25 AM on 11 October 2017Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
Thank's for that comprehensive overview. It is just so clear models have done a decent enough job overall, and it is no longer tenable for climate denialists to claim they are broken, not that it will stop them I suspect.
It just looks to me like the so called pause has been followed by a strong catch up over the last three years, so the pause was a process that delayed warming and that is about all. We are told it was ocean based, and perhaps all the increased coal burning in Asia during the middle of the pause also contributed.
-
Eclectic at 08:20 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @27, as mentioned earlier in this thread, volcanic SO2 in the stratosphere has a very short life indeed, even despite the rather low levels of H2O at that altitude. Similarly with human-caused SO2 in the lower atmosphere (where a vast amount of H2O is available to react with it).
End result : SO2 has negligible greenhouse effect, because it exists in negligible quantities.
-
aleks at 08:11 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Moderator comment to #21
Thanks for link to Ramanathan article.
This work is an attempt to make a math model of global climate change, and many factors (cloud amounts, surface albedo, relative humidity, etc.) are considered as far as some unpredictable factors (volcanoes eruptions, ocean currents changes, and, especially, solar constant change) are not considered. However, speaking about "math model of greenhouse effect" I have meant not a global climate model, but a quantitative relationship between amount of greenhouse gas and temperature, at least for laboratory conditions when other factors are excluded.
-
Eclectic at 08:10 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @26 ,
"thehill" article, by Peter Langdon Ward, is unmitigated garbage.
Unmitigated. Looney-tunes stuff. Bat excrement crazy.
Aleks, the good Mr Ward spouts so much garbage, that a rebuttal of his nonsense would take 20 very long paragraphs. Better, Aleks, if you start reading some of the Climate Myths (look on the top left part of the Home page here at SkS).
Education will soon show you how the word "reliable" and the name "P.L.Ward" cannot seriously be used in the same sentence.
-
nigelj at 08:06 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddnp @11
You sure hate those subsidies!
I think we need a carbon tax in addition to subsidies, preferably the tax and dividend aproach that returns at least part of it to consumers rather than a black hole of funding government deficits.
But your problem is only a quite a steep carbon tax would impel development of renewable energy. A carbon tax would logically be introduced gradually so might take a long time to cause significant uptake of renewable energy. I dont have the hard maths and numbers to prove this or the time to research it, but my instincts tell me this strongly. We do know a relatively small subsidy has already worked in Britian and Europe, to get wind power going quite well.
And yes there are problems with government picking winners, and getting it wrong or making biased decisions, especially at the scale of specific companies. But why not just have an exactly equal subsidy for renewables, hydro and nuclear? Just only exclude subsidies of coal, which we are clear is a definitly not wanted.
-
aleks at 07:52 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigelj@21 (continued)
"SO2 has a very weak greenhouse gas effect". I don't know what is the quantitative measure of greenhouse effect. For example, water-vapor is considered as stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, because its molecules have more bands in IR-spectrum (see ref. in #18). May be, intensity of bands also matters.
"SO2 can combine with water to form sulphuric acid which can have a strong cooling effect..." More exactly, SO2 with H2O forms sulfurous acid H2SO3. However, the ratio H2O/SO2 at the altitude where aerosols are forming is unknown, so it's impossible to estimate the amounts of 'free' SO2 and aerosols, and, hence, their relative contributions to heat balance.
-
RedBaron at 07:47 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris,
Common logic mistake. We are not talking about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels so we can go back to Roman times. We are talking about moving forward to the next better sources on energy even better than fossil fuels.
I see this a lot in agriculture too. I talk about regenerative organic agriculture (a reference to the carbon cycle in biology) and people associate it as going backwards to some primitive era before pesticides and tractors. Actually it in the next step beyond where we are now.
And the idea of rebating citizens I see as fundamentally wrong too. It should be use to pay those sequestering the carbon back into the stable long cycle. This way the tax pays for a service, and is not a "sin tax" or whatever.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @70
Regarding the carbon price issue. Yes I agree only about 30% of Americans believe we are changing the climate, but that is not the salient point. From Pew about 65% want more done about fixing the climate problem and implementing renewable energy, and this is more of a mandate for a reasonable carbon price etc. The discrepency in views is odd, but may say suggest more people think we may be warming the climate than are prepared to openly admit it.
However I agree you should start with a sensible carbon price simply because its politically easier. It can always be increased and should be increased in a couple of stages until its at the proper level.
Karl Popper promotes incrementalism and any one could agree with that in general terms. Blundering in with rapid reforms can sometimes be unwise.
But he was referring to social and economic ideas, not environmental disasters that might require a more rapid response by their very nature.
Its also a question of commonsense. Some things in the economic and environmental sphere are so obvious they deserve a rapid, simple response, others demand it due to circumstances, others require careful progress in stages, others can be dealt with by an experiment, then rapid implementation. Thats is your problem with philosophers, what they say is so general its often not a lot of use.
"But the other thing that I do not see with most commenters on this website (with the exclusion of nigelj) is an appreciation (or even reverence) for what FF have provided to us."
Please be careful there Norris. I dont recall ever saying anything like that, or that fossil fuels have been a wonderful thing. I may have said in passing that they powered the industrial revolution. But nobody on this website would deny such a thing anyway.
Sea levels have not been rising for 200 years. They were falling slightly from about ad 1500 - 1850 as below.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/
Anyway the point with sea level rise is the accelerating and obvious uptick or hockey stick since about 1900. Its steeper than anything for millennia, and is caused almost entirely by burning fossil fuels.
I dont know why you keep writing essays on the past benefits of fossil fuel energy. Nobody denies the part they played in our history, and value they have had compared to burning wood for example. But that is past history, and clearly we now have alternatives. The electricity is the same regardless of the source. The same watts, volts, amps and all that stuff.
You also need to remember oil and coal is essentially very finite, and fracking is basically scaping the bottom of the barrel. Although peak oil is hard to pin point ,we are probably close, and it will definitely come sooner or later because oil is finite. So sooner or later we have no alternative than to move to other forms of automotive transport.
I suggest you look at the article today 11 sept on climate models. Note that they have predicted temperatures quite well on the whole. There are plenty of graphs to look at.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM, I do not doubt that FF have created and powered our civilization greatly to our favour. That is not a reason to provide a subsidy to them nor to cling to them now that it is apparent that continued use is doing us harm. I find the notion absurd and bizarre that you think commentators should consider such a thing.
That the American public is stupid, and lacking basic critical thinking skills is certainly a reason for them to look hard at their education system, and the role of FF companies funding disinformation, but it is not a reason to be discounting climate science.
Still, a $30 carbon tax would be an excellent start. As would killing all direct subsidies.
-
aleks at 07:09 AM on 11 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
nigelj@21
Thanks for link to S.Arrhenius original article. For this discussion I believe the most important the S.Arrhenius idea that "... one should arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15o by means of appropriate quantities of both gases (CO2 and H2O)". However, S.Arrhenius could not perfom such experiments himself because "...they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal". Apparently his followers did not accomplish this idea during the past 120 years. Only this year P.L.Ward published the article where the results of experimental checking of greenhouse effect were reported.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/348407-volcanoes-and-the-ozone-are-missing-from-the-climate
If these results are reliable, it means that greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was not confirmed by experiment.
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
CBDunkerson - I have no problem with government funding services (even power generation) but I do have a problem with how that funding is done and how a government intervenes.
In your example where coal and solar are an even call when coal is not paying for externalities, the obvious way to fix is by government intervening with a carbon tax so external costs are reflected in coal price. Government is acting against coal in the public good. However, it is not making any choices about which competing technology is better. It doesnt favour solar over wind, hydro or nuclear. Each have their problems and costs and I dont think the government should be trying decide which is best. Competition will improve all those technologies.
I do see a role for government however in supporting fundamental research underpinning improvements in technology. (eg new forms of solar PV, replacements for rare earths in turbine manufacture, ways to reduce degradation on tidal turbines etc).
While provision of an electricity grid could be regarded as a subsidy, the grid is something can be used by any generator. Ideally, the government funds it, but competitive tender decide the builders and operators. In many countries, government see it as their role to build the highways but not build the railways. Without a mechanism to ensure road users pay for the roads, you have even an indirect subsidy potentially distorting the best way to do long distance transport.
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 11 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp @6
I think your criticisms of subsidies are reasonable. You do get meddling politicians.
But I think subsidies still have their uses. As pointed out you could regard pretty essential public services and infrastructure grids as effectively a type of subsidy, and it would be strange to say this is inherently wrong.
A carbon price is indeed required but I suspect it would have to be set very high to trigger the development of renewable energy. A small subsidy has already caused quite rapid deployment if wind power in various countries.
And various forms of fee and dividend scheme effectively set a carbon price and allow a subsidy in the same package.
I think it comes down to identifying a good set of principles on subsidies and ideally letting some ageny decide, rather than politicians directly, and also have time limits. I'm pretty sure Singapore, Taiwan and Malaysia have done it like this quite effectively to encourage new industries.
I also don't think its enough to just talk about the public good. It needs to be for the public good, benefits have to outweigh costs, and it has to do something that the free market is poor at doing, and this is the key to it.
A classic example is research. Free markets are not so great at pure science research and my country has a subsidy for this. We actually got rid of most subsidies because they were just senseless favous to industry, but kept some for cases that passed a more objective test.
And another example is new high technology based companies often have a hard time getting traction and face huge sometimes unfair competition or trouble getting capital in smaller countries. A subsidy is used in my country to help them get started, and also to help small business get started. Obviously renewable energy fits this sort of category.
NASA and the space programme is publicly funded. It would never have existed if left to the free market. But that is not to say private enterprise should not now have a role in matters like this.
-
NorrisM at 04:42 AM on 11 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 68
I would like to respond to your argument that a carbon tax should take in every conceivable cost that could be laid at the doorstep of FF.
Beyond pollution costs which are directly related to the use of FF, you get into areas where there is NO public consensus (I say public) on the many issues relating to climate change notwithstanding the views of the "97% consensus of climate scientists". I have previously referenced the 2016 Pew Research Report if you want a reference for that statement. When only about 30% of moderate Americans believe that climate scientists really understand the causes of climate change you have a bit of a mountain ahead of you, leaving aside a President that has at least called it all a "hoax".
So my point is that do not try to hit the ball out of the park. Go for something that everyone agrees on.
But there is another point. You will excuse me if I show my social science background compared to physics. The philosopher Karl Popper, who was a scientist, wrote one book on social science called "The Open Society and Its Enemies" during the midst of WWII (nigelj, he lived in New Zealand during this time before becoming a professor at I believe LSE in London after the war). This book has been described by the Economist as "the best defence of Western Liberalism".
In that book he proposed that we should only make changes to our society in "small incremental amounts" because inevitably we humans cannot predict the "unintended consequences". This made a lot of sense to me and perhaps reflects my general view that we humans tend to be apocalyptic.
By starting with something small like a $30 carbon tax you allow other technologies to compete on an even footing (for me read "nuclear power") on costs that can clearly be attributed to FF.
I very much like the idea of redistributing this carbon tax back to the citizens rather than letting government get its hands on it. If this results in a little bit of redistribution of wealth, then so be it. But we better not disgress on this issue.
But the other thing that I do not see with most commenters on this website (with the exclusion of nigelj) is an appreciation (or even reverence) for what FF have provided to us. We refer to the Industrial Revolution but what we are really referring to are the changes since James Watt improved the steam engine. What we are really talking about is man's discovery of FF to leverage the production of energy. Without that we would still be travelling at the speed of the Roman Empire.
So if the seas are rising (as I understand they have been doing for 150 to 200 years) then perhaps this is just a "cost" of the amazing world we presently live in thanks to FF compared to the times when we rode about in horses and buggies and communicated across continents not by computers driven the electricity but by letters delivered by sailing vessels.
Every part of the world, not just Western civilization, has benefitted from the use of FF so if it takes us some time to wean ourselves from FF now that we see that it is causing world temperatures to rise, I think that one "small incremental" step would be better than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Just remember that you do not have the public behind you in believing that by 2100 our world is doomed.
nigelj. Still reading the IPCC stuff on the costs of changing to RE. There is an underlying assumption that the costs will be minimal but my common sense tells me that changing an infrastructure from FF to RE will not be cheap. But that is for another discussion which supposedly we cannot get into on this website.
Moderator Response:[DB] "if the seas are rising (as I understand they have been doing for 150 to 200 years)"
Human activities are the dominant contribution to SLR since 1970.
Per Slangen et al 2016,
Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970
"the anthropogenic forcing (primarily a balance between a positive sea-level contribution from GHGs and a partially offsetting component from anthropogenic aerosols) explains only 15 ± 55% of the observations before 1950, but increases to become the dominant contribution to sea-level rise after 1970 (69 ± 31%), reaching 72 ± 39% in 2000 (37 ± 38% over the period 1900–2005)"
Takeaways:
1. Although natural variations in radiative forcing affect decadal trends, they have little effect over the twentieth century as a whole
2. In 1900, sea level was not in equilibrium with the twentieth-century climate, and there is a continuing, but diminishing, contribution to sea-level change from this historic variability
3. The anthropogenic contribution increases during the twentieth century, and becomes the dominant contribution by the end of the century. Our twentieth-century number of 37 ± 38% confirms the anthropogenic lower limit of 45%
4. Our results clearly show that the anthropogenic influence is not just present in some of the individual contributors to sea-level change, but actually dominates total sea-level change after 1970
-
Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Nigelj@5:
I'm pretty sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with what you said in your first paragraph and so do I. We really need leaders and decision makers with a better understanding of the physical world, the scientific method and logical thinking in general! -
CBDunkerson at 22:16 PM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Scaddenp, subsidies and other government funding are a good idea when they promote a public good.
Examples: National electric grid, national highway system, the internet, etc.
Solar, wind, electric cars, and other clean technologies are also beneficial to the public (when compared to their competitors) and thus it is entirely reasonable to subsidize them.
Imagine, for example, if solar and coal power were equal in nameplate cost, reliability, and every other way... except for their environmental and health impacts (and all other options clearly inferior). Leaving it to the 'free market' with zero government interference would logically result in a roughly 50/50 split between the two. Providing a small subsidy to solar could instead result in nearly 100% solar power... and eliminate health and environmental costs from coal vastly greater than the subsidy.
-
MA Rodger at 20:44 PM on 10 October 2017Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
wili @78,
I did have some useful NOAA(?) numbers for the energy fluxes associated with tropical cyclones but they are not falling to hand. However there is literature that presents data. Although this is a bit less authoritative-looking, the literature (& this is from papers to hand rather than from a proper search) does seem quite definitive that hurricanes act to warm the planet rather than cool it although the mechanisms are not that simple.
Tropical cyclones do simplistically pump energy out of the ocean which will cool the planet. They also mix warm surface waters down into the ocean which, as the post-cyclone surface is cooler and thus easier to warm, will allow ocean warming. (These hurricane-warmed ocean depths won't just sit there but will enhance poleward heat fluxes, as discussed below.) The net size of the ocean-atmosphere flux from global tropical cyclones has been assessed globally using ARGO data at +1.9PW during the passage of storms but becomes a net negative -0.3PW when subsequent enhanced warming following the storm is included. The global figures when divided between hurricanes and lesser storms shows that it is hurricanes which are responsible for the net total being negative (Net total for just hurricanes equals 0.75PW cooling = a global 1.5Wm^-2), with 0.8PW of ocean cooling during the storm but followed by 1.5PW of subsequent ocean warming. For lesser storms the net ocean cooling remains positive 1.0PW cooling during the storm with 0.6 subsequent warming. This suggests that in a world with more hurricanes but fewer less-powerful tropical storms (a possibility that many denialists deny), there will be as a result bigger heat fluxes into the oceans.
A further mechanism for cooling the planet is that the ocean mixing caused by tropical cyclones will impact poleward heat transfer to some extent, enhancing it in the oceans, reducing it in the atmosphere. But when the effect is set up in a climate model, the impact becomes a net warming effect due to the spread of humid atmospheres and such-like. So, of the ~2ºC global warming resulting from poleward heat fluxes (which are roughly 5 PW in each direction), perhaps some 0.2ºC results from tropical cyclones and would be boosted by increased cyclone activity. (That could be equated to a climate forcing using ECS=3 of +0.25Wm^-2).
So in terms of A-bombs, the increase in that +0.25Wm^-2 of warming from today's tropical cyclones will be small and will also be A minus.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Recommended supplemental reading:
Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Oct 7, 2017
-
wili at 10:53 AM on 10 October 2017Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Another argument about gw and hurricanes is that the latter will work as a negative/damping feedback on the former, since hurricanes transfer energy out to space (among other places), and the more intense the hurricanes become, the more energy they will transfer. I'm trying to find reliable numbers to show that to the extent that this might happen, it is insignificant compared to the approximately half-million A-bombs worth of extra energy ghg's are preventing from gettin into space every day.
I don't see this in the already-long list of denialist arguments, but maybe I missed it?
-
scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Well I take some convincing that any subsidy is good idea. Scrap them all. It always involves governments picking winners and the opportunity for cronism or corruption. Better to cost carbon and let market work out best way forward on purely economic and technological grounds. For example, when you need need generation is say wind or solar best? Even if both are subsidized, it would be very hard to set a neutral subsidy on each and so that would always come into the investor equation, potentially on side of a solution that is not as good.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
This is what happens when you fill government up with people who are ideologues, lawyers, financial people, etc with no technical or scientific knowledge or background. It all starts to go very wrong, and you see it right through the current American government administration.
Fossil fuels subsidies are called "crony capitalism" where I live. They are mostly just favours for lobby groups. There is no value to the public good, no real economic reason like correcting a market failure, and benefits dont outweigh costs.
The only exception might be help with high risk oil or coal exploration. However given climate change, its hard to see why you would subsidies new coal mines or oil exploration. Its not like we need more coal and oil fields.
In contrast it makes sense to subsidise renewables because the climate benefits would outweigh the cost of a small subsidy. It also helps new technology gain some presence and get across the line. It's normally only needed to help the industry get started and efficient, and then subsidies might be phased down.
-
JWRebel at 04:52 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Frustrating, because the meme everywhere is that renewable energy is expensive and only possible due to subsidies, whereas globally the direct subsidies to fossil fuel are 5× larger. Total subsidization of fossil fuels tops Tr$5/year globally, as calculated by the "left-wing" IMF.
-
John Hartz at 04:51 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
More disheartening news from the Trump Administration...
E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule by Lisa Friedman & Brad Plumer, Climate, New York Times, Oct 9, 2017
-
sailingfree at 04:26 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Really perverse.
Estimates of deaths per year in the US due to coal pollution range from 12,000 to 24,000. About 70,000 people actually have jobs mining coal.
Do the math. Five miners work for a year, and a person somewhere dies from coal pollution. One miner works for five years and someone else dies.
-
gws at 03:56 AM on 10 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
Nice article also in The Conversation
-
citizenschallenge at 01:13 AM on 10 October 2017A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Nylo @ 84 - are you familiar with https://earth.nullschool.net
"earth - a visualization of global weather conditions forecast by supercomputers updated every three hours"
Among other great features - views of the jet stream in real time, history and forecase
-
Kevin C at 19:39 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
I think one point of confusion here is terminological - spectroscopists and climate scientists may use the term 'greenhouse gas' differently.
As far as I can tell, SO2 has the molecular properties of being a greenhouse gas (i.e. absorbing infrared radiation). But unfortunately I can't find any estimates of the resulting radiative forcing.
There is probably a reason for this - to estimate the radiative forcing, you have to put it in a real atmosphere. But in its gaseous form it is so short lived that it has no appreciable effect - hence concentrations 100,000 times lower than CO2. So it generally isn't even worth modelling, hence for climatic questions it is not a greenhouse gas.
MODTRAN looks as though it might be capable of estimating the radiative forcing impact of instantaneously dumping a large concentration of SO2 into the atmosphere and measuring the effect before it can convert to aerosol, but I don't have a license.
-
MA Rodger at 19:15 PM on 9 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @14,
When you say - "From the cited data is evident ... the greenhouse effect theory does not have math model to determine relation between amount of gas absorbing IR-radiattoin and temperature." - it is not clear what "data" you are citing.
That said, may I be presumptious and reply to your comment.
Your explanation for the absence of this "model" of IR-absorption & temperature appears in error. (Note your use of the terms "potential energy" and "kinetic energy" are a poor choice. The waggling of a CO2 molecule when excited by a photon may displace the molecules atomic positions but as this is into a dynamic process it would not be termed "potential energy". Note that were the photons involved not IR but more powerful, they could shift the orbit of electrons and that could be termed "potential energy".)
What your point appears to be addressing is the difference between the molecular waggling of gas molecules and the aggregate motion of a gas molecule within the gas. The latter is described by the ideal gas law PV=μRT but this law does not account for (and does not need to account for) waggling (or for spinning) of the molecules. The waggling/spinning is thus not considered as defining the temperature of the gas for which it is not a significant factor. The spinning and waggling is a significant factor in calculating the Specific Heat Capacity with spinning more than doubling its value. The waggle (present within poliatomic gases) adds perhaps 10 percent. Do note that overwhelmingly the waggle is induced/dissipated by gas collisions (which is how absorbed/emitted IR is converted into temperature and thus how IR is a significant factor in warming/cooling a gas).
-
nigelj at 18:19 PM on 9 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
If you have a range of estimates of a carbon price then you would not take the lower estimate because it would just not be prudent or sensible. You would take at least the middle estimate.
However carbon prices could be phased in and increased in stages. Starting at $30 may not be such a bad thing, and would be easier to sell politically. California's prices as part of their ETS are around $25 initially I think but they have fluctuated.
-
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.
Prev 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 Next
