Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
Comments 17551 to 17600:
-
nigelj at 11:12 AM on 19 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Singleton Engineer, its just ridiculous that Australia cant sort out a simple set of goals for clean energy. Plenty of other countries have no problem.
Australia also has among the highest electricity prices going, despite abundant wind and solar potential as well as traditional energy. This is just gobsmackingly dumb.
Its a political and planning failure, not a failure of technology or renewable energy. Its a failure of climate denialism and a failure to come up with a cohesive plan and set of goals.
Check for yourself: Source: Google search: "Electricty mess in Australia" The first 20 articles or so will give you the background. -
SingletonEngineer at 10:46 AM on 19 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Jenna, the Australian government's plan is little more than an outline of a possible plan - which does not yet exist. It is all of 8 pages long and lacks modelling or defined goals, although they will presumably follow via regulation.
It also carries many of the features of a carbon intensity scheme, to be administered by electricity retailers.
It also requires as-yet-undrafted legislation.
In summary, it is a nothing, going nowhere fast and with slim chance of enactment. Until modelling and proposed legislation are available, analysis is impossible - whether for or against, environmental or financial. Its final shape may well be nowhere near the current proposal.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:50 AM on 19 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Derek:
Scientific journals are rarely interested in papers that just point out errors in other papers. You will occasionally see "Comment on..." short contributions, but not often.
Scientists also don't get much credit for publishing such critiques - career advancement is based on new research, not pointing out that junk was published that ignored vast quantities of old research and got many basic things wrong.
...but it does happen. Read this RealClimate post from a couple of years ago that tells the sorty of publishing such a paper.
-
Eclectic at 08:32 AM on 19 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Derek, your question may be a little premature. Let's see more on the details of that paper. Valid "denier literature" is rarer than rocking-horse poo. But anything which shows even a degree of verisimilitude, is like a sticking-up nail that ought to be hammered down. (Unless the "literature" appears in Shonksville extremist publications like Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons ~ where Richard Lindzen has published [more a rant than a paper]).
I keenly look forward to Ari Jokimaki's next instalment.
(My apologies, Ari — for I haven't discovered how to correctly make the umlaut in your surname. )
-
nigelj at 08:07 AM on 19 October 2017CliFi – A new way to talk about climate change
I do however recommend "Adventures in the Anthropocene, by Gaia Vince" which is factual account of environmental issues and climate impacts, but told through the lives of individuals and local communities. This style may appeal to some people.
-
Jim Eager at 07:36 AM on 19 October 2017CliFi – A new way to talk about climate change
I highly recommend Paolo Bacigalupi's The Water Knife. It aptly describes how the modern overdelveloped Southwest US will experience what the Anasazi did through the lens of water rights.
-
michael sweet at 07:28 AM on 19 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
I think this is the paper you wanted.
-
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 19 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norrism:
Here is another reference (Connolly et al) that documents that the cost of a renewable energy system is low. In this paper the cost of a renewable system for the entire EU is estimated at 10-15% higher than BAU using fossil fuels. They point out that many fossil fuels are imported while renewable energy is generated inside the EU so there are additional financial advantages to renewable energy (about 10 million jobs).
They do not quantitate the advantages of much lower pollution from renewable energy, although we should keep in mind that coal use alone kills 10-15,000 people each year in the USA alone and causes over $40 billion per year in health costs. All those costs would be in addition to not having to import fuel from the Middle East. One meter of sea level rise would flood over $1trillion of real estate in south Florida alone. Many trillion more in the rest of the USA alone.
It is easy to find these types of studies. I used Google Scholar and typed in Jacobson 2015 renewable energy. It currently has about 115 references. I clicked on the cited by papers to get a list of them. Click on the paper to get a copy (usually they are not free, but sometimes they are). Connolly et al was the first one on the list. Most of the rest are additional studies that document that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Read several to get more up to date.
Connolly et al does not use any nuclear energy
"due to its economic, environmental, and security concerns. In addition, nuclear power does not fit in a renewable energy system with wind and solar, since it is not very flexible".
Your support of nuclear is opposite to the scientific tide. Even Brave New Climate no longer posts new papers.
You need to figure out how to research this information on your own if you want to be serious. If you want a copy of Clack google his name. Academic persons invariably have a web page and usually have free links to their papers. Google Scholar can help find free papers if you cannot find their web page. Clacks paper will be one of the references to his paper in Google Scholar (Clacks paper is on the list of cited by papers for Jacobson linked above).
The Clack study has been discredited since most of the persons on the paper did no work (only 3 did any work). It is generally considered to be dishonest to list persons who did no work on the paper as authors. You are welcome to refer to a discredited study if you wish, but Jacobson has a much stronger record of honesty. Jacobson's work has stood the test of time over the past 10 years. The huge number of papers citing his work tell you that scientists listen to what Jacobson says. Discounting Jacobson in favor of Clack would be accepting an inferior paper just because it supports your preconceived notions. Jacobson has many more supporting citations which generally tells the story. Connolly et al is an example of a paper that supports Jacobson and contradicts Clack.
Connolly's paper I linked above uses liquid electrofuels as primary energy storage instead of hydrogen. There are existing facilities for these fuels so no storage has to be built. I have never liked Jacobson's use of hydrogen as primary energy storage. Jacobson does not like the pollution caused by electrofuels being burned (and they are less efficient than hydrogen). This shows that the models of renewable energy systems are conservative since whichever method of energy storage ends up superior can be used. Both Jacobson and Connolly use conservative assumptions for renewable energy so the final systems will be lower cost than they have estimated. I note that their cost estimates are not very different even though their systems are very different.
-
nigelj at 06:16 AM on 19 October 2017CliFi – A new way to talk about climate change
Personally such a book would drive me nuts. I struggle with historical fiction or anything that mixes fact and fiction. I prefer dry old books full of graphs, photos, tables and charts, or a completly fiction novel like the Tolkein Trilogy. But thats just me.
However I appreciate different people connect to different things and in different ways and such a semi fictional book would be perfect for them. The world is complicated, with deep seated differences between people relating to some things and how they connect, think, imagine, and what switches them on. Of course we have have many basics in common as well, or it would be chaos.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 19 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris, I also largely agree with what Bob Loblaw is saying, apart from the business of what you admitted to or didnt. I understand how lawyers are trained, I have used enough lawyers for various things.
But I want to reiterate his point "In terms of climate change, experts are warning you to get out of the way (or stop creating the problem)."
This sums it up so poignantly for me . You cant expect the science community to do more. You have to do more to come to the party and be open minded about the issues and find information.
Its natural to have a little healthy scepticism, but its easy for this to go wrong and turn into something irrational, negative, defensive, and self justifying and dogmatic.
-
nigelj at 05:32 AM on 19 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris M @101
I just dont have time to find peer reviewed assessments of costs of switching to renewable energy right now. Some of this stuff is not easy to follow and full of jargon, and I don't have time to find the right study for you.
What I suggest is the following, which will be more useful to you anyway:
The IEA (International energy agency) says it costs 1% of a countries gdp approx. to convert to renewables, phased in over a reasonable period 20 - 30 years.
I strongly suggest you contact the IEA directly. I'm sure they would be only too happy to provide information, help and answer questions or alternatively point you at whatever information you need.
Or just talk to one of the electricty organisations in your own country.
Just some final notes. The study I gave you does indeed say " £29.46 trillion – but that’s still only 21% of global wealth." It also says further on 1% of gdp, because such a scheme is obviously phased in over time, not all done in one year. But you realise this.
It's just actually not that complicated to calculate. We know Americas (for example) generating capacity in mw's, and how much renewable energy costs in mw's, and that we need about 10% gas fired backup, and approx. 50% transmission lines upgrades over time. Multiple agencies do the maths and keep getting 1% of gdp. Obviously it will vary around this somewhat in individual countries depending on for example how much current supply is renewable or hydro etc. 1% is very easily affordable.
Of course plenty of Americas transmission lines will need to be replaced regardless of renewables, I have read the whole transmission grid is ancient and needs upgrading, and much coal plant only has limited years left, and renewable energy will drop in price further its just a question of how much. And of course you will have inflation in some other things like perhaps copper cables.
But my point is estimates of approx. 1% are if anything pessimistic.
You must realise these sorts of things, you are well educated.
Sea level rise doesn't have to immediately jump to 10mm. You would be aware of accelerating curves, parabolic curves, that sort of thing. Sea level rise has long been predicted to be an accelerating curve, particularly after 2050.
-
Derek at 05:29 AM on 19 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Out of curiosity, what are the advantages and disadvantages to writing a rebuttal paper when shoddy science is used in the denier literature? I realize this is a slightly different case since it involves plagarism, but I hope you all don't mind because it is something I've wondered for awhile.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:18 AM on 19 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Cut with the histrionics of genuflecting. What I said in comment 79 was "...if you cannot appreciate the difference between what I said in comment #68 and your first paragraph in comment #70..."
Although you apologized with a conditional "if" @75, your latest comment states " So I hardly understand how I have misrepresented your views."
So I finally have a direct answer - no, you cannot appreciate the difference between what I said and how you characterized it. And your apology was not based on an honest realization that you had misrepresented my views. You would have saved us both a lot of time if you had given a direct answer to begin with, instead of avoiding the question.
I will simply repeat what I said in #92: Can you understand how it is difficult to have a discussion with you when you are making incorrect assumptions? Suggestion: ask more questions, make fewer assumptions.
Most of the rest of your comment is a continued repetition of misconceptions and refusal to either read or inability to understand materials that others have point you towards. You continue to use emotion-laden words like "bury our economy". You continue to imply that we have lots of time to decide what to do, when others point to studies that say we need to get going on actions as soon as possible (and that there are many actions that are both technologically feasible and economically favourable now). Complete solutions? No. BUt it is better to start with partial solutions now than to do little or nothing and gamble that a perfect solution will present itself later. Any project plan that includes a dependence on planning breakthroughs is at high risk.
I find it very telling about your mindset when the first response to my falling window glass thought experiment was to deny the physics of falling glass and assume a different physics that allows you to wait before you react. Did you notice that I asked two questions in that experiment?
- When do I warn you to get out of the way?, and
- When are you justified in taking action?
In terms of climate change, experts are warning you to get out of the way (or stop creating the problem). The action that you are taking is to deny that the problem is urgent, and therefore you are concluding that there is little justification in taking much action now. Your assimilation of information is being strongly biased by that mindset.
-
NorrisM at 23:49 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigelj @97
The references below do not reference specific facts and despite the reference to 29.46 trillion pounds, here is what they have to say as to how much this is going to cost:
"This new infographic by QuidCorner shows that the global cost of switching to renewable energy is high at £29.46 trillion – but that’s still only 21% of global wealth."
Could you point me to some peer reviewed studies on the cost of switching the continental US to wind and solar similar to my same request to BaerbelW?
I have shown that I am prepared to read detailed papers having read on my recent holiday, all of Chapter 9 from the IPCC 2013 assessment on "Evaluation of Climate Models" and all of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report on RE and its Costs entitled "Mitigation Potential and Costs".
I have not yet read Jacobson's reply and will not comment further on the Slack June 2017 paper until I have done so. But in the meantime, can you help me locate the Clack study I referenced in my reply to BaerbelW?
-
NorrisM at 23:36 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
BaerbelW @ 99
Thanks very much. I am aware of this proposal but had not taken the time to actually read the website. I think it makes a lot of sense provided that the level of the proposed carbon tax is something which only levies a charge on carbon for the pollution costs at this time. I am assuming that this website, which is attempting to appeal to Republicans, is proposing to take a position similar to mine that we have to limit this proposed carbon tax to something like 20-30 t/CO2. At that level, I can live with the imposition of a duty on other nations which do not have such a carbon tax.
If you have any sources of peer reviewed papers that have considered the conversion of the continental US to wind and solar power combined with FF/hydro/nuclear for base load generation I would be very appreciative.
I have tried to access a Clack et al paper on Nat Clim Chang (referenced in a June 2017 paper on the Jacobson study) but have not been successful. I have not fully exhausted my search but thought someone on this website would be able to assist.
-
Eclectic at 21:08 PM on 18 October 2017There is no consensus
Adrian White @764 , regarding "the laws of history" [your quote] ,
Adrian, you appear to have a very strange and peculiar definition of the meaning of the word "laws".
By failing to use English words in a standard English sense, you render your comments rather meaningless. Please re-state (more intelligibly) the ideas you are trying to convey.
(B) Question: Is there a mathematical formula agreed by 97% of biologists, which will describe & predict the processes of Evolution? If so, what is it? If not so — then we must presume that Evolution is false (and a form of Junk Science).
We need better communication from you, please Adrian !
-
BaerbelW at 20:47 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris @98
Regarding a carbon tax or fee (however you want to call it): have you checked out Citizens' Climate Lobby's suggestion of Carbon Fee and Dividend yet? It shows, how such a fee could be set up without inconveniencing households. You can start reading about it here:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
There is also the Climate Leadership Council which makes the "Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends":
You'll find links to a PDF with more information as well as to a TedTalk presentation on that page.
Hope this helps!
-
Adrian White at 15:55 PM on 18 October 2017There is no consensus
The laws of physics are not in dispute whereas those of geology are. The laws of physics apply to an infinite number of possible events at any time: geological theories state whether certain events occurred at certain times on this one planet. The laws of history are endlessly debatable. The laws about which there is the greatest certainty are capable of mathematical formulation: those about which there is least certainty are not.
Is there a mathematical formula agreed by the 97% in the matter of global warming according to which the future can be predicted depending on stated variables? If so, what is it? -
NorrisM at 14:41 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 92
I have no idea why you are asking me to genuflect to you. I thought I had fairly summarized your views on what you wish to get out of a carbon tax but I am at a loss to understand what you think a carbon tax should reflect. So I hardly understand how I have misrepresented your views.
Could you simply define what you would expect to have included in a US carbon tax? It would be helpful for you to also come up with a price per tonne of CO2.
It might also be useful for you to explain how you expect to sell such a high carbon tax to the US public.
Let us get away from analogies for the moment and deal with reality. At the present time sea levels are rising at somewhere around 3 mm/yr (See AR5 WG1 Figure 3.14). Based upon that rate, the sea level in 2100 would have risen an incredible 9.8 inches. For sea levels to rise by 1 metre by 2100 would mean that the sea level rise would have to immediately rise to 12 mm/y and stay at that level for the rest of the century. Even this is not the end of the world. This is not exactly a large glass window frame coming crashing down on you in seconds with no time to react.
But as for your other anology with respect to the purchase of a TV from Walmart. Before we buy the solar and wind package, it might be an idea to check the cables and sound system, I agree. Those would be the cost of a US continental power grid system that can properly support the unique electric current provided by wind and solar power as well as the cost of the back up FF in the form of natural gas power generating plants to provide base load power because this will be needed and has to be built into the costs. Based upon the Slack report, "there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power alone."
How can you propose a carbon tax at a level which would bury our economy unless you can point to detailed studies that show that this change to wind and solar power can be achieved at a reasonable cost?
I keep hearing about 1% of GDP as this magical figure but where are the studies? My understanding is that the problems of integrating a wind and solar solution into existing grid systems (let alone a continental wide new grid system) were not built into the models described in Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report nor was the issue of intermittency of wind and solar taken into account.
Politicians cannot commit the public purse to significant expenditures without having some detailed cost studies. If the IPCC Report I read is all we have then we have a long way to go.
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflamatory snipped.
It would also be useful for you (and everyone else particpating in a discussion with you) to cease summarizing what another poster said. If you want to challenge a statement made by someone else do so directly without recasting what the other person stated.
-
nigelj at 14:35 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @96
"Thanks for the reference to this site but I have to say that it seems to be more of a video setting out some simple numbers. Perhaps my browser cannot show everything. "
No Norris. The information below the video in the text showed value of a variety of renewable energy options, and below that along list of source material. Its also easy to check these prices against other sources of prices. I chose this website as its reasonably straightforward, and you complained before about complexity of some sources. Now you complain its too straight forward.
The duty is on you to provide evidence they are somehow wrong. Again you fail to do this, and simply moan about the quoted material. Its not good enough Norris.
-
NorrisM at 13:26 PM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigelj @ 94
Thanks for the reference to this site but I have to say that it seems to be more of a video setting out some simple numbers. Perhaps my browser cannot show everything. I clicked on the video and got two pages. Not that this makes a material difference but I think they are quoting 29 Trillion pounds not US dollars. I think this would increase the figures by about 30%. But my main problem is that it simply states numbers. I truly wish someone could point me to the a way of getting the two Clack papers on converting the US to 80% solar and wind in the power generation sector. After their paper slamming Jacobson they have a certain amount of credibility. Does not hurt having the NOAA label. I admit I have not yet read the Jacobson response and I promise to do so.
-
jenna at 10:40 AM on 18 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
To the writers at SKS, most probably Dana, PLEASE write something about the situation in Australia where the cabinet has dumped the 'Clean Energy Target'. This is the plan for more renewales to meet their Paris accord goals.
My 'denier' friends won't shut up aout this, I need a rebutle!
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:56 AM on 18 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
You keep hearing about "clean coal", but the technology of producing electricity from coal and capturing the CO2 is still in its infancy.
In Canada, one of the early large-scale installations is in Saskatchewan. Hailed as a breakthrough, it has been far less effective and more costly than originally claimed. It is also a "carbon capture" project where the CO2 is injected into oil-bearing rocks so more oil can be produced. Burning the oil seems to release more CO2 than was captured by the coal-burning plant. This article provides details.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:46 AM on 18 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
What nigelj said about plagiarism.
As for the bit about partial pressures affecting warming - it is probably part of the Sky-Dragon-class physics that says the whole atmospheric temperature profile is due to pressure heating (or something like that - I can't do justice to an idea that is that far from reality). There is a recent post on the subject over at And Then There's Physics.
-
nigelj at 08:37 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris, a lot of plant would require replacement anyway, so probabaly less than my figures. They are conservative figures.
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris @90, here is a study on costs of converting the entire world to renewable energy.
The cost of the entire planet going to renewables is estimated by Inhabitat as $29 trillon America dollars in total. They give all costs and calculations in simple form so its an easy study to follow rather than twenty pages worth. This is the entire planet not just america.
If this is phased in over 30 years between now and 2050 this represents about $1 trillion per year globally.Total global gdp (total wealth or economic output if you like) is approx. $100 trillion from Statistica etc. Therefore by simple maths it costs about 1% of global gdp per year to convert to renewables, exactly as I previously stated.
It will therefore cost America about 1% per year of gdp per year as well. Americas total gdp per year is approx. 20 trillion dollars so this represents about $200 billion per year. This gives you an indication of where things are at. Its less than they spend each year on the military or old age pensions.
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 18 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
CJones1 @3
"Many believe thst the dangers of Carbon pollution have been exaggerated while reduction of other particulates remain a concern.'
Beliefs are often just little more than gut reactions and cosy sounding assurances. Better to read the science as presented in a digestable way on websites like this, and think, rather than believe.
And if particulates worry you that much, this is another good reason to phase out coal, as it's implicated in all sorts of respiratory problems particularly with coal miners, and its hard to filter out all the noxious components.
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 18 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Great detective work. Plagiarising would get your university essay failed.
The consistent changing of just a few words sure looks like it might be an organised and deliberate pattern. For whatever reason I "couldnt possibly say".
The abstract of the F13 paper does indeed look like an excuse to sneak various myths into a so called research paper. It looks like a tasty gish gallop of debunked things to cause as much doubt as possible by careful word choice and subtle implication. Its not healthy upfront science, its a form of word play and unspoken communication by hitting hot buttons in the intended audience.
I don't know on what basis they would say Greenland is representative of the entire northern hemisphere. Looks like an empty assertion, unless they explain better somewhere else. I know this jumps the gun away from the copy and paste issue, but it jumped out and I will forget if I don't mention it now.
I also don't understand their ideas about global warming being related to partial pressure of gases in some sort of bicycle pump affect. Its true P/T = C for a given body of gas, even I remember stuff from chemistry class a million years ago, but nobody has been able to show where this additional pressure is coming from, to cause an actual increase in temperature. I certainly dont see any evidence from quantities of added gases, or changes in flow of masses of air bodies. Smells like pseudoscience to me.
I look forward to your in depth look at this side of things.
-
william5331 at 05:58 AM on 18 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Coal is the starting point for a huge variety of products. If used this way coal would last for thousands of years and be enough to fend off the next glacial period rather than wasting it in a great outburst of carbon dioxide production which will shift the climate the other way with all the disasters this will bring.
-
william5331 at 05:56 AM on 18 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
A large percent of coal miners are techically competent hard working people. Retrain them to be solar panel installers, wind turbine maintainers and so forth. There will be more than enough jobs to absorb any who want to retrain and they will work in a far better environment.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:03 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Now adressing a couple of NorrisM's other statements:
"So I agree that the "external costs" of FF are well beyond the pollution costs"
"Until you come up with some solutions..."
...it is very bad to make plans that assume that those external costs that are well beyond the pollution coast are zero, which is what you are doing. "Politically expedient" for those trying to protect the status quo.
I need to buy a new TV for the family room, but I don't know how big, or what imputs it will have, or if I will also need new cables or a new sound system and speakers, so I will take the price of the 32" TV on sale at Wally's World and base all my plans on hoping the project will only cost $99 and ignore the rest. That way my spouse will say "Sure. $99? You can buy a new TV."
-
Eclectic at 03:47 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @29 , yes that video presentation evoked both laughter & boredom, simultaneously.
Postkey, as you increase and extend your knowledge of climate matters, you will soon discover two things :-
(A) For all their imperfections & uncertainties, the scientists aim to present things as honestly & truthfully as they can.
(B) The anti-science propagandists (such as Mr Heller/Goddard) do not hesitate to mislead and deceive. They will cherrypick / "doctor" / fabricate . . . to whatever extent they think they can get away with. They aim to outright deceive the reader — or at least get him thinking that with so much "controversy" then he might as well put the climate/AGW issue on the backburner 'cos it seems nobody knows what the hell's going on. ~Either of those outcomes will satisfy the propaganda industry, as represented by GWPF, Heartland Institute, and other such "front" organizations. (And you will notice, Postkey, that the more scientifically-ignorant their audience, the more these proagandists extend their lies & deceptions. You will see that in places as diverse as Wall Street Journal op-eds and "lie & spin" websites like WattsUpWithThat or JoNova. They are completely shameless in their disregard for truthful presentation.)
Postkey, as for the AMO — what do you mean by "a statistical base"? There are very short-term trends (e.g. the ENSO) having a short up-or-down effect on the global surface temperature, but which (when you think it through) are incapable of altering the long-term climate trends produced by real drivers of climate change (e.g. long-term solar activity changes / Milankovitch-cycle insolation / Northern Hemisphere ice albedo changes / continental drift positional effects / and of course Greenhouse gas alterations).
But as for long-term (decadal) oceanic events such as the AMO — do they actually exist as some sort of real physical cycle, or are they only a collection of random natural variations that we interpret in our minds as some sort of "real" thing? ~Interpret in a similar way as our minds "see" a Face in the Moon . . . when in reality we are only observing a random asteroidal-bombardment pattern on the Moon's surface.
Still, whatever existence the AMO has or doesn't have — it does not and cannot cause significant climate change in the real way that Greenhouse gasses & other such "drivers" do.
That video presenter was way off into crazy territory. Either from his own ignorance or from his insane Conspiracy Theory beliefs or from some underlying extremist-political ideation. And he was certainly shooting himself in the foot by using the mendacious Mr Heller as his "rock". BTW, the presenter seemed to be "into" some form of agricultural permaculture (which in general I would say is a reasonable thing) but he hints at a Survivalist-type tendency — which is crazy-wrong in regard to apocalyptic "ice-age" threats . . . but which might well make some sense if North Korean nuclear attack occurs! ~Alas, if the ongoing Global Warming gets very bad, then there will be no "hiding out in the mountains" for would-be Survivalists, since the climate change itself and the hordes of climate refugees will render such plans null & void.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:34 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @ 90:
"Those items are not listed by you, but I assume they would include all "external costs" which can be directly attributed to FF use."
Wrong assumption.
"your proposal for a carbon tax which, I assume, you would suggest should be $90/t taking the mid point"
Wrong assumption.
Can you understand how it is difficult to have a discussion with you when you are making incorrect assumptions? At best, it's impolite. At worst, it's a strawman fallacy. You call it "an assumption". I call it misrepresenting my position. Please answer the last part of my question: are you willing to retract your statement and fully admit that it was a misrepresentation (even if not intended)?
"Your proposal of a massive carbon tax on FF"
There you go with the emotional words again. "Massive" by what objective definition? You argue uncertainty in things like IPCC numbers, then use highly subjective adjectives in your own arguments.
"Your analogy of the window coming crashing down from a large high rise building has to be revised in one slight manner. The window is travelling at one foot per year. Lots of time to figure out how to get out of the way. "
And you can only move at one inch per year. We can either discuss the analogy as is, or keep revising it, but so far you are just avoiding actually answering it.
-
RedBaron at 02:08 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris,
Who needs a tax anyway? Many many billions of dollars go into subsidizing fossil fuels and industrial ag, the two biggest causes of AGW. Before we tax even more, we should stop sibsidizing AGW in the first place. That might even work alone without any need of tax schemes at all. I know certainly coal is on its last legs without massive subsidies and same goes with industrial agriculture. Pretty sure that it won't be too long before renewable energy becomes the best in every case and at no additional costs..in fact a reduction in costs.
As far as the tractor goes, that is a spurious argument. The amount of fossil fuel used by a tractor is insignificantly tiny compared to the soil sink potential of the land the tractor plants.
-
NorrisM at 01:08 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 88
I am responding to your request re #68 versus my first comment in #70.
I think your position on the level of a carbon tax is summarized by the following paragraph in #68:
"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."
My reference in the first paragraph in #70 was only meant to refer to the items that you would include in the above quoted paragraph and nothing more. Those items are not listed by you, but I assume they would include all "external costs" which can be directly attributed to FF use.
Perhaps part of our problem is that I am focussing on getting the US public onside but the issues remain with China and India as well. But my comments will largely be directed to the US because if you do not get the US onside, I highly doubt that you will get China and India to go along with any serious carbon tax.
Here are my problems with your proposal for a carbon tax which, I assume, you would suggest should be $90/t taking the mid point:
1. Firstly, your proposal is unrealistic both in the US and I suspect in China and India. The American public is NOT onside notwithstanding vagues climate worries evidenced in the Pew Reseach 2016 paper I have referenced before. They are not satisfied that all GW is AGW. If you just want to talk in theory then so be it but what is the use of that?
2. The "health costs of pollution" appeals to the libertarian spirit of Americans because they can clearly see these effects of CO2 just like what occurred with SO2 (acid rain). The Chinese public as well will "sign on" to costs of pollution for obvious reasons. I suspect (without knowing what went into the lower $17/t estimate) is that basic health costs incurred by the public directly attributable to pollution constitute this figure. Once we start getting into putting some dollar value of each human life lost, I get into having problems with it. I want to limit this charge so something we can measure knowing that the reduction of pollution will also have the benefit of saving lives. But putting a "cost on a human life" is very problematic. How the studies get to $90/t I do not know. I am quite sure that the upper level of $350/t has included all adaptation costs related to rising sea levels around the world, the cost of increased drought, damage from more intense hurricanes etc. I have no idea whether they then offset those costs with increased benefits of other areas of the world being more arable. If these studies only limit the adaptation costs to North America then I stand corrected. I would like to see the Clack et al studies on converting the US power grid to 80% wind and solar but so far cannot locate them.
3. Although "logically" you can justify this very high number, it is a "global" number I suspect and does not look at each country and ask what costs will be incurred by that country. As a result, you are asking Americans to pull money out of their pockets in the form of carbon taxes to pay for the costs of adaptation in other parts of the world. Or, are you suggesting that all of the carbon tax be refunded to the Americans who paid same at their local gas station or for their natural gas used to heat their home. I suspect not. Do these funds stay in each country or, as I believe, was agreed in the Paris Agreement, large transfers are made between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries? So are large transfers of American taxes to go to China and India? These are real problems with a carbon tax beyond "pollution costs".
4. As noted in 10.6.2.1 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report, the price of carbon can also be considered from other standpoints, namely what price level of CO2 emissions is required to limit atmospheric concentrations to a given stabilization level? I suspect that the upper levels of these studies is focussed on this but I do not know.
5. However before we elimate the use of FF, we should have some very clear studies as to what the costs will be for implementation of a change from FF to wind and solar with other sources for base load backup and for the costs of new power grids then we are whistling Dixie because until you can tell the American public how much comes out of their pockets, they will not get onside.
6. I see that the IPCC study suggests that the total costs of electrical power generation changes (not heating or transportation) would be something less than 1% of world GDP. Does that mean that a small island in the Pacific spends its own 1% of GDP? Or does it mean that the US public will be asked to pay for it?
7. Your proposal of a massive carbon tax on FF (which would have to be supported by an equivalent duty on imports from other nations) would put millions of poor people into poverty in China and India and elsewhere in the world because their governments have only in the last generation pulled them out of poverty relying on globalization and cheap FF energy. This point has been made by both Nigel Lawson and Alex Epstein. I have never seen it refuted. Tractors in fields do not work with electric batteries. Trucks cannot deliver produce any distances without diesel fuel for the transportation.
Your analogy of the window coming crashing down from a large high rise building has to be revised in one slight manner. The window is travelling at one foot per year. Lots of time to figure out how to get out of the way.
So I agree that the "external costs" of FF are well beyond the pollution costs but there is simply no consensus on how you share the substantial costs of changing the infrastructure based upon FF into one based upon RE backed up by either hydro, nuclear or FFs for base load. Until you come up with some solutions, you do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
My point is that until you do come up with some answers, it would be politically expedient to levy a carbon tax that only represents the pollution costs.
-
Postkey at 00:44 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
MA Rodger @30.
Thank you for your reply.
-
MA Rodger at 00:34 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @26,
I would concur with the replies so far. I note the oft-repeated word "lie" that features in the YouTube you link to (narrated by "Diamond(?) from the Oppenheimer Ranch Project") which is a pretty good description of the entire video. In the main, the descriptions provided of the data presented is nothing but nonsensical verbal diarrhea, although within this nonsense description, the data presented is mainly genuine. There are however parts of the video where even the data is entirely misrepresented.
Featuring large in the misrepresentated data is the laughable attempt by Tony Heller to graft on satellite Sea Ice Extent data onto Vinnikov et al (1980) Figure 5 (or more exactly Hoffert & Flannery (1985) fig 5.2).
Note H&F(1985)'s fig 5.1 reproduces Vinnikov et al's temperature graph. Heller would have had a more difficult time misrepresenting this temperature data, and also explaining it in light of his fictional ice record. (The image here is the same data as H&F fig 5.1 but presented by Robock 1982.) 
As for Fig 5.2, as presented by H&F(1985), this at first glance reproduces Fig5 of Vinnikov et al (1980) faithfully. (The original was is published in Russian in Soviet Meteorology & Hydrology Vol6.1 and isn't on-line.) But while the caption of Vinnikov et al's Fig5 is roughly reproduced by H&F(1985), the actual data presented has become misrepresented by the caption. As shown within this Vinnikov slide show, V(1980)fig5 is a plot of the annual ice coverage for the months of July, August & September and not the plot of a 12-month annual average. That is how a value of 6-7 million sq km can be plotted for the period 1925-75 and how any grown-up splicing of more recent ice coverage would be plotting levels of 4-5 million sq km over the last ten years.
Which brings us to the AMO. The video attempts to suggest that the Arctic Ice Cover matches the wobbles of the AMO. Frankly, that is risible. Even with Heller's nonsense graph it is risible. So I can quite understand Eclectic @27 saying "It was the best laugh I've had this week !"
-
Postkey at 00:16 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Eclectic @27.
Thanks for your reply, I'm glad you 'enjoyed it'.
Is there a statistical base to the 'Atlantic multidecadal oscillation'?
-
cjones1 at 22:32 PM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Coal has many uses and ways to bring down costs in power generation will likely be explored. The COP accelerated the conversion of plants to natural gas, but that could slow down if the cost effectiveness of remaining coal fired increases.
Many believe thst the dangers of Carbon pollution have been exaggerated while reduction of other particulates remain a concern. Renewables remain a viable alternative in off grid locations, but without subsidies will still have to compete on the open market.
-
Daniel Bailey at 21:19 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
"the slightly-less-than-truthful Tony Heller [ aka "Steven Goddard' ]"
BwaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!
-
Eclectic at 21:04 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @26 , thanks for the youtube video reference.
It was the best laugh I've had this week !
Spoiler Alert : the video is a complete waste of time. Rubbish from beginning to end. A rant from a crackpot who bases his opinions on the slightly-less-than-truthful info supplied/concocted/doctored by the slightly-less-than-truthful Tony Heller [ aka "Steven Goddard' ]. Plus a large dose of insane Conspiracy Theory.
The ranter also has a bad case of AMO on the brain [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation]. And, from his stargazing at the charts, he predicts [on zero scientific basis] that the Earth is just about to plunge into a Grand Solar Minimum which will devastate the planet with a mini-ice-age.
Too many other laughable points to mention here. Yes, the Fall of the Roman Empire; the (European) Black Death Plague; and other grand historical events — all caused by cold weather. And our ranting friend is clueless and self-contradictory about the decline of arctic ice.
Sorry Postkey, but on climate this guy has no science and no sense. ~ A 15-minute video of yawning [seen it all before] rubbish.
-
Postkey at 19:07 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Hello,
Have you discussed the alleged 'Atlantic multidecadal oscillation'?
“ we
06:56
talked about the Atlantic multidecadal
06:58
oscillation this is the actual sea
07:01
surface temperatures of the Atlantic and
07:04
it goes into 60 years cycle there's 30
07:06
up 30 down warm and cold phases warm and
07:09
cold warm and cold if you go look at the
07:12
data it matches the Atlantic
07:14
multidecadal oscillation perfectly”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK03WG4t30U&feature=youtu.beThanks.
Moderator Response:[JH] Poorly disguised sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
nigelj at 18:15 PM on 17 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Im no chemist, but it's just several articles and research papers say SO2 converts to sulphuric acid and is a big factor in cooling, along with dust. I'm reluctant to think that would be wrong, unless someone has compelling evidence. Basic chemistry like this is rarely wrong
SO2 can convert in gaseous form to SO3, and to sulphuric acid, its just very slow and probably not hugely significant. Most of the conversion would be another quicker easier pathway through water, I go along with that. Don't volcanoes blow out a lot of water vapour pretty high up?
-
BBHY at 17:42 PM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Clean coal really does exist; it's when we leave it in the ground.
-
nigelj at 17:06 PM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @ 87
"For example, if you want to lay at the doorstep of CO2 emissions all of the future costs related to adaptation do you not have to offset those costs with the benefits of FF to society?"
Yes, but the general view is the benefits of fossil fuels are outweighed by their costs due to climate change, human health and the availability of affordable alternatives.
"It is a very complicated area. Perhaps rising sea levels is a "cost" of what we have enjoyed up to this time. Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?"
You should include sea level costs. You should include the full costs (externalities) of burning fossil fuels as others note. Anything less becomes arbitrary, with no logical and rigourous cost basis. This is not some negotiation about an out of court law suit settlement Norris! Its basically carbon accounting and is an economic exercise.
Anyway I notice you lawyers always sue people for the absolute full costs of everything you can think of.
"I have now carefully read the NOmAA Clack June 27, 2017 paper debunking the Jacobson study.Anyone fully reading this Clack paper could not possibly rely on the Jacobson study for anything as to the costs of the US oving to a full RE solution. "
Have you read the jacobson response to the Clack debunking as below?
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Line-by-line-Clack.pdf
Until you do this you cannot form a balanced picture. The Jacobsens rebuttal shows Clack has made many incorrect and foolish claims. You also have to apply some commonsense. They both agree a near 100% renewable grid is actually technically possible, and its more about costs.
"Two serious issues relate to providing base load electricity from other than wind and solar sources (a cost nigelj conveniently leaves out when referencing how "cheap" land based wind power is) and the time and cost of building a continental high-voltage grid system that could support the transmission of intermittent nature of wind and solar power. "
You wanted cost comparisons of renewable generation and fossil fuel generation and I gave you those. As you can see costs are very similar.
Its true upgrading the grid and some gas fired backup for intermittency issues will add costs, but not hugely. Most studies say it will cost approximately 1% of a countries gdp per annum to convert from a totally fossil fuel powered grid to renewables, with about 10% gas backup and also transmission grid upgrades (as you suggested). You said something that you have done tax law, so will appreciate 1% of gdp is not huge. I did the calculations for my country from first principles (its simple enough) with very conservative numbers, and got about 1.2%, and this tells me the studies are sensible, and my own calculations are roughly right. Of course America already has some renewables and hydo etc, so it would be less.
1% of per annum gdp equates to about 1% of our individual incomes and one third of what we spend on the old age pension each year, so that puts some meaning to it.
Of course reducing emissions has other costs, but renewable energy is the big one.
"I continue to hear references to CCS as a possible method of reducing CO2 emissions. Everything that I have read is that this technology has a long way to go before it could be seriously considered viable. If anyone has any information on this it would also be appreciated. "
Depends what you mean. Carbon capture and storage as in burying CO2 in tanks underground or in rock fissures, from coal fired power stations, is experimental, difficult and expensive, so you are essentially correct in what you have read. So are similar technologies attempting to extract CO2 from the air. We cant count on it, and this is why its important to reduce emissions at source. Its commonsense anyway, and obviously a difficult thing, and there are big risks with leakage of underground CO2 over time.
There are some better options of a natural kind. Using enhanced natural carbon sinks like planting forests, and better soil management through special farming systems has promise and is proven, and cost effective and is covered in the last IPCC report. Although frankly land available for new forests isnt very large, so it cant be scaled up all that much. Soil sinks use land already under cultivation, but it would be a slow process shifting to such a system scaled well up globally. I think as a quick mental guesstimate natural sinks could offset about 10% of our emissions. But clearly its not enough to prevent the immediate problems, and means we have to rigorously cut emissions at source. This sort of thing is all easilly googled.
-
william5331 at 12:14 PM on 17 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
What I really got a chuckle over was a previous article which said that coal, that great supplier of base load, shuts down when it really gets cold. Who would have thought.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:24 AM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorisM: "A SCC that only relates to pollution costs and not to presumptions as to the costs attributable to climate change is a reasonable one. That is the only point I am making. And, by the way, I have suggested $30/t not $17/t. "
Your definition of pollution costs is very restrictive. Basically, you have doubled down on your argument that we ignore a great many possible/likely costs, which, as I have stated, is betting on all uncertainties falling in your favour.
..and you only went for $30/t after your initial claim of $18/t was shown to be at the extreme.
"Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?"
Why are you ignoring all the arguments made for bring in these externalities into the cost of fossil fuels? The rising sea level costs are externalized costs of burning fossil fuels. Your argument appears to be that these cost should not be borne by the fossil fuel production/consumption portion of the economy? Who else do you have in mind? The taxpayers that bail out the disaster areas? That's who is largely paying now, as many of these areas are uninsurable.
"...we should have a very good handle on what are the costs of the alternative energy solution. "
The "We need certainty" argument. Again, not a good approach to risk management.
A thought experiment: you are walking along a sidewalk in the downtown of a major city. I see a large window break loose from the top floor of a tall building. You are not aware of it. As I see it fluttering down, I realize it might hit you. When do I warn you to get out of the way, and when are you justified in taking action?
- As soon as I see it start to fall?
- When it is half way down, and it is looking more and more like it will hit you?
- Just before it reaches ground level, when I "have a very good handle" on where it will land, and it's where you are standing?
Time after time, you are arguing for the status quo, and closing your mind to any evidence that leads a different way.
I have answered some of your questions. If you want to continue, I want you to answer one question for me:
- In comment 79, I pointed out that your statement "...if I misrepresented your position" suggested that you could "not appreciate the difference between what I said in comment #68 and your first paragraph in comment #70". Have you reviewed those two comments, and are you willing to either support a position that you accurately represented my postion, or are you willing to retract your statement and fully admit that it was a misrepresentation (even if not intended)?
-
nigelj at 10:31 AM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Crazy stuff. If Trump is thinking coal exports, it isn't looking good.
Related article on trends with coal plants globally, and falling global coal production since 2013, and a little piece of "fake news" thrown in.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/16/world-going-slow-coal-misinformation-distorting-facts
-
Eclectic at 09:50 AM on 17 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @49 and prior :
your suggestion (or explanation?) does not accord with reality.
The levels of H2O, OH, CH4 etc in the stratosphere are low but not zero. Which is [part of] why the "degradation" rate of SO2 is two orders of magnitude slower than in the troposphere.
Aleks, you are oversimplifying the situation. Worse, you appear to be ignoring the reality — that gasseous SO2 (and any IR properties it may have) does relatively quickly "degrade" into radiation-reflective particles which produce a global cooling effect for up to two years or so.
Your suggestions seem confused. Please clarify whatever point it is that you are seeking to make.
-
NorrisM at 09:25 AM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 85
The range used for SCC in the IPCC Chapter 10 is not a high-low range based upon the same assumptions. If that were the case, then I agree the use of a mid point range would be appropriate. But that is not what this range is. It is a range based upon different estimates of costs included in the calculation of SCC for each of the three ranges. If you read all of Section 10.6 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report you will see that the authors clearly acknowledge that the "low end" SCC is based upon an analysis of the health impacts of pollution. That was my point. I am saying this is something you could "sell" to the American public at this time. We have to inject some "realpolitik" into this discussion in the era of a Republican-controlled government. A SCC that only relates to pollution costs and not to presumptions as to the costs attributable to climate change is a reasonable one. That is the only point I am making. And, by the way, I have suggested $30/t not $17/t.
When it comes to then adding into the calculation of SCC many other things including the capital costs of all adaptation around the world you get into some very murky waters as acknowledged by the IPCC report. For example, if you want to lay at the doorstep of CO2 emissions all of the future costs related to adaptation do you not have to offset those costs with the benefits of FF to society? It is a very complicated area. Perhaps rising sea levels is a "cost" of what we have enjoyed up to this time. Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?
And furthermore, before we start applying a carbon tax that does much more than just compensate for pollution costs (so that it simply becomes a crude tool to discourage use of FF over other sources of energy), we should have a very good handle on what are the costs of the alternative energy solution.
I have now carefully read the NOAA Clack June 27, 2017 paper debunking the Jacobson study. Anyone fully reading this Clack paper could not possibly rely on the Jacobson study for anything as to the costs of the US moving to a full RE solution. Two serious issues relate to providing base load electricity from other than wind and solar sources (a cost nigelj conveniently leaves out when referencing how "cheap" land based wind power is) and the time and cost of building a continental high-voltage grid system that could support the transmission of intermittent nature of wind and solar power. The existing grids do not seem to work well with this kind of electricity.
The Clack study references two studies (one of which Clack was a part) which concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost. These studies are referenced in Notes 1 and 2. So far, I have not been able to locate these papers. If anyone can help it would be appreciated.
I continue to hear references to CCS as a possible method of reducing CO2 emissions. Everything that I have read is that this technology has a long way to go before it could be seriously considered viable. If anyone has any information on this it would also be appreciated.
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
