Recent Comments

Prev  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  367  368  Next

Comments 18001 to 18050:

18001. RedBaron at 20:26 PM on 9 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Digby Scorgie,

       You have it pretty good for general concepts. I would only add that the primary common feature is biomimicry. In the case of most dryland crops you have it. But it could vary depending. For example paddy rice production differs substantially, because it is mimicking a different biome, namely more marshy partial grassy wetland biomes. Here is what that looks like:

       The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)…
       … is climate-smart rice production

       A tree nut or fruit crop would appear more like a forest or open woodland biome and called a food forest. You probably are beginning to see the pattern. Grass crops are grown in fields simulating the grassland savannas, Graziers simulate the great herd migrations. No matter what the crop is, we look at the natural functioning wild biome to inform us of the pattern we need to simulate. It even applies to fish farming too!  We know we found the pattern when instead of degrading the environment, it begins to regenerate. This requires careful monitoring. There is no magic here.. Takes lots of knowledge, work, and sophisticated proactive monitoring of ecosystem services. But when it works, the results can seem pretty magical.

18002. Digby Scorgie at 15:10 PM on 9 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       RedBaron @11

       I've read more about this new (?) type of agriculture recently.  I think I prefer the term "conservation agriculture", but then a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.  What interests me is what such farming would look like to a townie like me.  The following is my current understanding:

       Conservation agriculture has three aspects.  All three aspects must be present for the system to work properly.  The three are:

       (1) no tilling

       (2) crop rotation

       (3) keep it covered

       To elaborate:  Firstly, tilling is to be avoided as much as possible.  Each Seed is simply injected into the soil, regardless of what else is growing in the soil (see 3).

       Secondly, rotation of the "cash" crop is practised.  The more choice there is for these crops the better,  With a random change of crops from season to season, pests find it difficult to get a foothold.

       Thirdly, going hand in hand with the no-till approach is the practice of keeping the soil covered at all times.  This can take several forms: a cover crop that is grown out of phase with the cash crop, leaving the residue of harvest covering the soil, adding organic waste, and making use of animals.  Weeds have a hard time in such an environment.

       When carefully organized, very little or no pesticides are needed, very little or no herbicides are needed, and much less fossil fuel is needed.  There is also the potential to replace the fossil fuel with electricity.

       Incidentally, regarding animals, this ties in with Alan Savory's "mob grazing", which we've discussed elsewhere at SkS.

       Not being a farmer, I've probably got the story somewhat garbled, but the essential message is that with this type of agriculture, one sequesters much more carbon, one has much less of a negative impact on the evironment, it is indefinitely sustainable, it is profitable (but not to the people who supply herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuel), it is drought-resistant, it is flood-resistant, and it builds rather than degrades the soil.

       I'll leave it to the experts to correct my mistakes.

18003. nigelj at 07:45 AM on 9 September 2017
       The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
       

       Tom13

       Just a couple of comments on your views about contribution of sea level rise to hurricane Sandy. I think you have to be careful with your back of envelope calculation. You are assuming the global sea level rise since 1850 applies to the area struck by hurricane sandy. In fact rates of sea level rise can differ quite a lot regionally, so the 6% attribution is probably more likely.

       And whatever the number its only going to increase in the future.

       You claim "A) the 1 foot SLR since circa 1850 would only be partly attributable to AGW. As the the graph from the study note, there has been a reasonably steady rate of SLR since circa 800ad. A reasonable estimate of the SLR since circa 1850 would be less than 1/2 foot. Obvioulsy cant attribute the full 1ft to AGW."

       Your understanding or information is wrong. Sea level rose from AD800 to around 1500 then fell until about 1900, then started rising as in the link below. This correlates reasonably well with burning of fossil fuels so all or nearly all this sea level rise can be attributed to fossil fuels.

       www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

18004. nigelj at 07:07 AM on 9 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Wol @10

       Im not entirely sure where you are going with this. I do reiterate our only option is cutting fossil fuel use, and would appreciate a clear cut view from you on this.

       And lets put the fundamental cause thing aside. I certainly agree population growth is a huge problem. Its putting a lot of pressure on the environment. You have no argument from me there! 

       We have to get growth rates down. It may or may not stabilise, and it really depends on whether we can shift enough people out of poverty such that it enables them to have smaller families with confidence. It really comes down to this because other options are brutal therefore economic  policy should focus on poverty reduction.

       As to sustainable levels of population, that is a huge question. I think the planet is already showing obvious signs of stress. You are right we have delayed Mathus predictions with technology, but its only a delay. Everything Red Baron says on it is true, although it goes beyond just issues of agriculture obviously to climate impacts, high levels of nitrates, over fishing, depletion of minerals etc.

       If you look at realistic pathways for agriculture 10 -12 billion might be possible, but if it gets above that bad things will happen. Or we will all be living in high rise towers eating laboratory made food, but even that probably has its limits, and its a horrible thought anyway.

       You can't have infinite population growth, it will ultimately crash. Even high growth becomes absurd, because  why would we want to pack in the maximum possible numbers of people? Its a nightmare scenario with reduced quality of life.

       You can't have infinite economic growth on a finite planet either, although recycling and cheap energy can prolong growth for some time yet, although probably at a lower rates than we have had in the past. Its more a question of promoting environmentally friendly growth, and wealth creation. I think in a capitalist economy that can only be done with good quality environmental laws. But thats beside your point about population.

       So to finish population is a problem, but the only realistic alternatives are promoting less poverty and thus smaller families, and also maximising agricultural capacity but in a sensible and sustainable way, and having sustainable development and environmental policies. 

18005. John Hartz at 07:00 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Michael Sweet & Tom 13:  Please take your ongoing discussion of the link between sea level rise and Sandy's storm surge to the SkS rebuttal article:

       The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming by Dana Nuccitelli.

       It is chocked full of references/links to peer-reviewed studies.

18006. Tom13 at 06:39 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       The seemingly modest 1 foot of sea level rise off the New York City and New Jersey coast made a Sandy-like storm surge of 14 feet far more likely,

       Two additional points -

       A) the 1 foot SLR since circa 1850 would only be partly attributable to AGW.  As the the graph from the study note, there has been a reasonably steady rate of SLR since circa 800ad.  A reasonable estimate of the SLR since circa 1850 would be less than 1/2 foot.  Obvioulsy cant attribute the full 1ft to AGW.

       B) Since the storm surge is the difference between the water level without the storm and the level with the storm, the delta for the storm surge shouldnt change. In other words the height of the storm surge should be affected. 

18007. NorrisM at 06:39 AM on 9 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       michael sweet @ 83

       Thanks for the reference to your SkS article.  Just cost me the last hour skimming it.  I have heard of the Jacobsen paper.  I suspect it was highlighted in an issue of National Geographic.  That particular stream seems to have petered out in 2016 but it does make more sense than this one.

       For now I will spend some time reading both what I referenced above and the other information provided in the stream arising out of your post.

       I personally would 100% prefer the risks inherent with nuclear power waste disposal than wind turbines defacing our land but it seems that the costs imposed on nuclear by the regulatory requirments (both cost and time) have effectively killed nuclear power.  It has to be this cost if the Weissbach analysis is anywhere close in its EROI comparisons.  Hansen suggests that France and Sweden converted to nuclear power within 8 years.  I appreciate that was a long time ago but we are talking about the whole country.

18008. Tom13 at 05:19 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Thank to the link to an actual study.  - A brief review of the study raises the following observations - Hope you can address

       1) the study appears to attribute all the SLR rise to warming without separating the natural SLR from the agw slr. There has been approx 1.0-1.5mm rise per year since the emergance from the LIA and even before,

       2) the attribution to various other factors appears to be underweighted.  The other factors being the funnel effect of the geography with Sandy hitting at the very center point of the funnel, , the lunar tide and the high tide.  All three of those factors contributed significantly to the storm surge.  The study doesnt provide the actual math ( at least not in easily obtainable format) which makes it difficult to ascertain the reasonableness of the assumptions

18009. John Hartz at 04:45 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Speaking of Sandy and sea level rise...

       For example, even if we could say nothing else, we can conclude that sea level rise has contributed to the coastal flooding associated with recent major hurricanes: nearly a foot at Battery Park in New York City in the case of 2012 Superstorm Sandy and roughly half a foot in the case of Hurricane Harvey. The seemingly modest 1 foot of sea level rise off the New York City and New Jersey coast made a Sandy-like storm surge of 14 feet far more likely, and led to 25 additional square miles of flooding and several billion extra dollars of damage.

       What We Know about the Climate Change–Hurricane Connection by Michael E. Mann, Thomas C. Peterson & Susan Joy Hassol, Scientific American, Sep 8, 2017

18010. BaerbelW at 04:38 AM on 9 September 2017
       Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
       

       Just added a neat new crowdsourcing project to the list:

       Weather Rescue

       In this project you can help transcribe "forgotten weather records from the UK's highest mountain". 

18011. Tom13 at 04:12 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Michael - You mention the gaurdian article as being peer reviewed.  How do you get a peer reviewed study on an issue where the factors are highly subjective? 

       I have provided a link to a peer reviewed study (the authors of the OP-Ed I cited link to their peer reviewed study) that found that the last foot of sea level rise caused $2 billion in damage.

18012. BaerbelW at 03:58 AM on 9 September 2017
       The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
       

       Here is an op-ed by Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who was the E.P.A. administrator from 2001 to 2003 (appointed by George W. Bush)  and the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.

       How Not to Run the E.P.A.

       Some relevant snippets:

       "[,,,] On the other side is a tiny minority of contrarians who publish very little by comparison, are rarely cited in the scientific literature and are often funded by fossil fuel interests, and whose books are published, most often, by special interest groups. That Mr. Pruitt seeks to use the power of the E.P.A. to elevate those who have already lost the argument is shameful, and the only outcome will be that the public will know less about the science of climate change than before.

       The red-team idea is a waste of the government’s time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance. Sending scientists on a wild-goose chase so that Mr. Pruitt, Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who has endorsed this approach, and President Trump can avoid acknowledging and acting on the reality of climate change is simply unjustifiable. And truly, it ignores and distracts from the real imperative: developing solutions that create good jobs, grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.[...]"

       and the final paragraph:

       "If this project goes forward, it should be treated for what it is: a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels."

       Really says it all!

18013. Tom13 at 03:52 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Michael # 22

        I am currently on the Chesapeake bay in Maryland. The houses nearby where I am have lost 50% of their value because of sea level rise.

       Do you have a peer reviewed study supporting your calculation of lost value to SLR.  Chesapeake bay area has a lot of subsistance Have you factored that into your estimate?

       Michael # 21 _ I gave you link to the tide gauges.  The fact that Sandy hit into the funnel of  new york harbor, hudson river, etc is well know and the geography is well known,  Would not think you need a citation for that info.  That Sandy came in at both the high tide and at the high lunar tide is also well known, I would not think you need a citation for that data.  I did provide a link to the tide gauges which should assist you in reviewing the reasonableness of the peer reviewed study and the reasonableness of the computation.

       Can you provide a link to the Actual Study.  You provided a citation to the guardian, not exactly a scientific journal. The links the guardian links to either advocacy websites or dead ends.   A link to the actual study does make it easier to review the reasonableness to the study.

18014. michael sweet at 03:32 AM on 9 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       NorrisM

       Here is a link to the SkS article I linked above at 57 on the costs of renewable energy.  It would probably make more sense to discuss the costs of renewable energy on that thread.  Use the search function in the upper corner of your screen to find other SkS threads on renewable energy.  If you read Jacobson's paper he gives a great deal of information on energy and how it might be generated in the future.

       There is not yet a consensus on the best way to switch to all renewables.  Jacobson's articles are the most detailed that I know of but some people think he greatly underestimates the cost of energy storage.  

       The general idea is to rapidly build out wind and solar until they produce most of the power used.  Existing gas plants could be used as back-up as you have suggested during this phase.  All industry and transportation would be switched to electrical power from current fossil fuels.  Once you have enough renewable energy to have excess production some of the time you would start to build out storage.  Jacobson likes hydrogen gas for bulk storage with several other types of storage also used.

       Baseload power plants like coal and nuclear do not back up solar and wind well.  Hydro and gas peaker plants are much better at filling in for peak requirements (or when the wind does not blow enough).

18015. michael sweet at 02:58 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Tom13

       For those who cannot do math, 6% of $2 billion is $120 million.  That is for New York only and only for Sandy.  When worldwide damage for all storms, drought and floods is calculated it will be much, much greater.

       I am currently on the Chesapeake bay in Maryland.  The houses nearby where I am have lost 50% of their value because of sea level rise.  Will land in Miami be worth anything after Irma?  This is the cost of Global Warming.

18016. NorrisM at 02:56 AM on 9 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       scaddenp and MA Rodger

       Thanks.  I think "exergy" is really what I remember from science classes as "kinetic energy".

       My sense is that the EROI is just one thing to consider when analyzing alternatives to fossil fuels or the "cost" of moving to wind and solar.  The "buffer" issue is obviously massively important.  Seems EMROI is a more economic term. I see what you mean that nuclear power would require buffering for the same reason as wind and solar but for different reasons.  I would like to know how France dealt with this issue.  I assume that the nuclear power provided the "base load" and left "peak load" to be supplied from other sources.

       My reading of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC WG3 2014 report did not provide a lot of information that policy makers could actually use to implement any policy.  My plan is to read the full IPCC WG 3 2014 report which I assume will have a lot more detail on costs of infrastructure.

       Does anyone have any references to what fairly immediate changes will have to be made to the power grids in large cities of the US to accommodate the increase in EV sales?

       Now that the US has over a 100 years supply of cheap natural gas which puts up about 50% of the pollutants into the air (and no sulphur), it seemed to me that the most logical first step (even if interim) should have been for the US to immediately move from coal to natural gas for electricity power generation.  I appreciate that is what Obama was doing.  Then these power plants could be used as the buffer source for wind and solar if that is where the US public wants to go (as opposed to nuclear). 

       The Pew Research Report referenced earlier clearly shows US public support for wind turbines.  Not my favourite choice but looks like Americans  do not have the same aesthetic concerns that I do.  I guess my numerous times driving the Interstate 10 from LA to Palm Springs (which goes right through a wind mill farm) has impacted me.  We had a family friend with a place in PS but spring breaks with the kids always required the necessary first stop in Disneyland in LA.  It actually would be interesting to have the results of the Pew Research Report for LA alone where the public actually have experienced a wind farm close to them.

       Perhaps SKS should consider adding this topic of "renewable energy costs" to its website rather than having to "key" off of the "Trump country" blog.  Perhaps the "myth" could be that "the costs of change will be massive".

       It seems to me that getting the American public onside with taking action means convincing them that the costs will not be massive compared to those continuing with fossil fuels (leaving aside the other benefits of renewable energy).

18017. michael sweet at 02:44 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       Tom13

       I have provided a link to a peer reviewed study (the authors of the OP-Ed I cited link to their peer reviewed study) that found that the last foot of sea level rise caused $2 billion in damage.  You respond with "I doubt it" and a seat of the pants obbservation.  You generally do not cite anything to support your wild speculations.  Are you claiming that the scientists who did the peer reviewed study do not konw the tidal range of New York?  Your argument is absurd.

       This is a scientific blog.  If you cannot cite peer reviewed data to support your claims you should go somewhere else.  "I doubt it" is not an argument.

18018. MA Rodger at 01:26 AM on 9 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       NorrisM @78,
       Concerning the definition of Primary Energy, it isn't impossible to consider it to be "the potential energy at the top of the waterfall" or "the calorific value of the coal" but, as scaddemp@79 & Philippe Chantreau@80 well illustrates with the geothermal example, the concept of Primary Energy has to be applied with care when you start using it in ways it wasn't originally intended. Weißbach et al (2013) are in many ways using concepts outside their usual use but as for as using care, that is something Weißbach et al entirely fail to demonstrate. I describe their work up-thread as "in so many ways extremely silly" because of their poor bounding of such concepts as Primary Energy.
       I should say that when I introduced the text of Weißbach et al up thread, I did not expect it to be studied line-by-line. To unpick all their errors and thus grasp fully the task they undertake may not be as intractable as some situations, (☺ they do delve into Schleswig-Holstein, but that is purely for data-gathering ☺) but it is not a task for the faint-hearted. Indeed, it is a challenge even to identify which is the most useful example of their hubris as illustration of the sort of problems there are within Weißbach et al (2013).
       Perhaps it is best to demonstrate how foolish is their main finding, that renewables are rubbish (Wind (E-66) cannot even manage an EROI(buffered) of 4) while traditional power-plants are wonderful (Nuclear (PWR) manages a a splendid EROI of 75 ). In their words "The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power." Does such a finding bear scrutiny?
       I cannot see that it can. Their calculation of EROI only make sense if all your electricity is supplied from a single source 24/7. That is not realistic. So in terms of a real-world electricity supply, the EROI numbers presented are meaningless.
       Even if it were useful considering a single source supply, nuclear would surely need some form of discounted (buffered) value as while wind is highly intermittent at a single-windfarm scale, nuclear is the exact opposite - nuclear is on at full-power 24/365 (and that is pretty-much across all nuclear plant) while demand peaks daily and annually. (We should also note that a load-factors of 23% for 'wind' and 91% for nuclear is seriously taking the mickey.)
       And as the alleged goal is to have an EROI>7 (thus nuclear is not in any way superior to coal simply because it has double the EROI), surely the finding of such a study would not be as in Weißbach et al (2013) that certain technologies were below the "economical limit" (and in saying that you would expect such a limit had been at least roughly established which is not the case), the finding would be what is required to ensure those 'certain' technologies can be established above the limit and what is required to prevent other technologies falling below.

       My advise then would be not to waste your time scrutinising Weißbach et al (2013).

18019. Tom13 at 00:50 AM on 9 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       #19 Michael Sweet -

       During Sandy in New York City alone, over $2 billion dollars of damage was caused by higher sea level.

       Sandy came ashore in the funnel of NY , at high tide, at the high lunar tide.  Those three factors drawfted any affect of the the additional 12-13inches of higher sea level since circa 1850.  The difference in high & low tide in NYC is approx 6 ft,.  Add in the high tide and high lunar tide factors, and the difference is approx 7 feet.  This  means the 12 inches is a minute difference.

       www.weatherforyou.com/reports/index.php?forecast=tides&place=New+York&state=NY

       Assuming the 6% attribution to XOM Chevron, and BP is correct, - that equates to less than one inch - How much additional damage would be a reasonable estimate for the 1 inch vs the 6+ feet for the tide.

18020. Philippe Chantreau at 23:28 PM on 8 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       Scaddenp, that applies to conventional geothermal. Enhanced geothermal is different. 

18021. RedBaron at 21:31 PM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Apparently a broken link above.

18022. RedBaron at 21:19 PM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Overpopulation occurs when a species' population exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. It can result from an increase in births (fertility rate), a decline in the mortality rate, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.[1]

       So we have two choices for a solution of overpopulation:

       1. Reduce our population. We can do that like China did with 1 child per family laws, or like India did with forced sterilizations, or unfortunately the more typical strategy is like the NAZIs, Soviets, Turks, Mongols and Aztecs etc… did with mass murder of entire populations. War is another way. Almost universally these are all considered unethical, even downright evil. Or we can ignore it and let nature take its course with plagues, famines etc… in a sort of Malthusian catastrophe which most people agree is almost as bad.
       2. Improve the carrying capacity of the planet. In the past we did that to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe by simply breeding better crops and increasing agricultural ground. Early on we figured how to rotate land to reduce the inevitable soil degradation caused by agriculture. Every major cradle of civilization developed higher yielding domesticated crops.

       
       The problem is this:

       The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment.

       And there is the rub. Once Industrial ag became the dominant new improved “green revolution” production model it did increase yields, but actually at the same time increased soil degradation and habitat loss. In short it was a temporary fix that is unsustainable. Thus it really didn’t increase carrying capacity, but did allow population growth.

       Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show

       Land Degradation: An overview

       Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues

       We will soon reach a crisis where we once again must chose between the unethical population reductions of the past involving mass destruction, war, mass murder, forced sterilizations etc…. Or a new way to do agriculture that retains the higher yields similar to the green revolution, but without degrading habitat.

       Meet regenerative organic agriculture or permaculture:

       "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony." USDA

       "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison

       “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

       In short using biomimicry to make agricultural systems sustainable and even regenerative.

       Is organic farming more sustainable than regular farming?

       More importantly, this solution instead of creating more problems actually solves more.

       "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones

       Overpopulation is here now, however, that need not necessarily be true. Humans are a clever tool making species. What matters for human populations is how we use those tools. We actually have the technology to support a far larger population almost indefinitely. But we simply must convert our energy systems to renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and hydro etc…, and we must change our agricultural systems to regenerative organic systems.

       So will your child help accomplish these goals? If so then have 10 children if you want. We desperately need them and soon. Will your child instead be a drain on resources and/or destructive to the land? Then please, don’t even bother having children. It’s suicidal.

       Bottom line is teach your children well and raise them to understand the seriousness of the situation and we can live in paradise on Earth.

18023. Wol at 21:01 PM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       nigelj @ 9: I can't agree with you: if there were no humans using technology to be able to exponentially increase their numbers then obviously the natural carbon cycle would be stable - as it was, effectively, until the industrial revolution.

       And this of-quoted "stabilisation" of population at 10Bn (and recently I've seenestimates of 12Bn) rather begs the question - what would be a sustainable population? Certainly even 7+ Bn isn't, starting from where we are now.

       Human ingenuity has enabled us - or, certainly in the Western societies - to superficially ignore Malthus but time ran out decades ago and whichever way you look at it - food, land, raw materials, energy, CO2 etc - the future to me looks very bleak. You can feel the pressure of population everywhere, from the streets of New York or London to Nairobi and Bangkok and to surmise that it will stabilise at any figure above what it was when I was at school - some 2.5Bn - just ignores how unsustainable it is.

18024. nigelj at 13:34 PM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Wol @8

       I dont think numbers of people is the fundamental cause of climate change. Our energy choices are the fundamental cause. But numbers of people is right in the mix.

       Yes your "what if" scenario makes sense. Except natural sinks wouldn't absorb the carbon any quicker, its just the atmospheric concentrations would not be so high.

       Global population is currently approx. 7.5 billion. Plenty of experts believe it will stabilise around 10 billion around 2100, as more countriies go through a demographic transition. Although rates of population growth have been exponential over the least few centuries the trend has declined slightly since the 1950s, mainly as birth rates have dropped in western countries. They are also dropping in latin america.

       The current problem is mainly Africa and parts of asia with strong population growth and only significantly increased incomes will give people the confidence, and the lower infant mortality, to have smaller families. 

       But the point is population is at least moderately likely to stabilise around 2100, so that means its worth tackling climate change. If that was the point you were making?

       And even a growing population can use alternative forms of energy, and may have to anyway as oil will not last forever. So population growth does not automatically lock in climate change.

18025. Wol at 13:08 PM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       >>Yes the number of people is a cause of climate change<<

        

       Actually, it IS the fundamental cause.

       If the planet's human population had never gone above, say, 1Bn, then in all likelihood even if all had a Western standard of living (which would admittedly be unlikely since there wouldn't be the consumer population to support the manufacturing segments) there would not be an overabundance of CO2 to warm the atmosphere. Natural carbon cycle would probably absorb it.

       Since neither I nor anyone else has an answer to population control (except the Chinese and that's now in the past) I really can't see any solution that's going to work.

18026. nigelj at 11:52 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrsM @29

       And yes as pointed out by others the IPCC doesn't do research, it figures out where the research is pointing.

       Every chapter has a bibliography of hundreds and hundreds of science papers they have reviewed. Quite how a red blue team can do a similar in depth review  with a couple of people over a couple of months eludes me. And the trouble is its hard isolating the critical research, climate science is something where you just have to review everything.

       It was only after I read several popular books and followed up on several things in more detail on the physical laws, and climate data, that I was able to sort things out and see the sceptical myths for what they are, clever twisted rhetoric: Sophistry, and you would fully understand that word given your academic training.

18027. nigelj at 11:31 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrisM @29

       " My understanding of the purpose of this website was to inform those who had questions. “

       Yes it is, but you often ignore the answers in the past.

       “You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research to show that the intensity of hurricanes will increase. I will take your word on that in “

       Well the contents page will get you to the right chapter. The IPCC say theres no clear evidence of whether hurricanes have got worse so far, but the problem is hurricanes are not that common and records of intensity are rough. However theres evidence levels of associated rainfall have increased.

       The IPCC predict more intensity of hurricane wind forces and general energy content and rainfall content in the future, but probably not more frequency of hurricanes. They present reasons for both.

       “I have to admit that I wondered whether I should have made the comment about Michael Mann because I knew it would not go over well. But that is certainly what I would think the "man on the street" would think about Michael Mann and his area of expertise.”

       Yes I see your point the man in the street might react like that, but if you had just noted after your comment that he was in fact more widely qualified it wouldn’t have got my back up, and possibly others. Michael Mann has had death threats, and Im a guy interested in science so I get defensive when he's criticised unfairly or missrepresented on his qualifications.

       “Let me know when someone comes up with an answer on how to move forward in the face of a Republican administration if it is not to embrace the Red Team Blue Team.”

       I undertand where you are going with that and you mean well, but the problem is the red blue team has too much chance of moving things backwards, so is not worth the risk.

       “I would like to stay on the blog relating to costs of changing from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy economy because this is much more related to numbers rather than predictions.”

       Yes I see where you are coming from people are generally more receptive to renewable energy than squabbles over model predictions, but this website is mostly a science website and only touches on renewable energy in passing. Maybe it should include it more.

18028. nigelj at 11:03 AM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       Wol @6

       Yes the number of people is a cause of climate change.

       What do you propose doing about the number of people on the planet? Engage in a China one child only policy? Make giving birth illegal? Kill off half the population? These things arent really desirable, ethical or possible.

       Other than promoting contraception its got me beaten. Population growth falls as countries become wealthier and go through the demographic transition, but this is a slow process.

       Because its so difficult to reduce numbers of people we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Am I missing something with that logic?

18029. nigelj at 10:54 AM on 8 September 2017
       I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
       

       DrivingBy @2

       Yes my computer contains plenty of plastic, so sends a demand signal to fossil fuel companies.

       However I'm not sure of your point as follows:

       1) All computers contain plenty of plastic even expensive ones, so I have no choice but to buy them if I want a computer.

       2) Oils used to formulate plastic are not actually causing climate change , so we will always have a need for some oil for things like this. The more important demand driven feedback would be buying petrol.

       3) Not sure how your comment follows from what I said.

       The practical ways to deal with climate change are carbon taxes, or cap and trade, building renewable energy, buying electric cars,  etc.

       Maybe I have missed your point.

18030. scaddenp at 10:32 AM on 8 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       Yes. Or the calorific value of the coal. One of the places where "primary energy" is pretty useless is geothermal. The primary energy (at least in common reporting terms) is high but the extractable work is low.

18031. DrivingBy at 10:10 AM on 8 September 2017
       I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
       

       @nigelj

       Do device(s) you posted the comment from contain plastics? If so, you are sending a demand signal via the oil and gas industries, which are fulfilling your request by producing more feedstock. 

18032. Bob Loblaw at 10:09 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrisM: "You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research..."

       Please get this straight: the IPCC does not do research. They review it. They report on research that has been done indepently by others and published by others. Yes, the participants in the IPCC are researchers and have done some of the research being cited - but they do that research outside the function of the IPCC.

       Do you understnad why this is important? Please acknowledge that you understand, or ask for clarification if you do not.

       ...and as a suggestion for reading, do not go to the later IPCC reports first. I suggest that you start with the first IPCC report, from 1990:

       LINK

       Why? Because the first report covers a lot more of the basics of climatology. It is less technical. It serves as a better reader for the student, rather than the expert.The later reports assume a pre-existing knlowedge of much of the material covered in earlier reports.

       And you will also realize that an awful lot was already known over 25 years ago.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

18033. Bob Loblaw at 09:59 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       And once again, Tom13 pretends that lack of conclusive evidence is the same as no evidence at all.

       Do you really seriously believe that, Tom, or are you just hoping nobody notices? I can keep pointing it out as fast as you keep making this mistake. If you want to discuss this properly, feel free to engage.

18034. NorrisM at 09:58 AM on 8 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       scaddenp @ 77

       Thanks. So is "primary energy" the potential energy at the top of the waterfall? 

18035. Wol at 09:49 AM on 8 September 2017
       30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
       

       >>The single most significant thing that convinced me we are altering the climate was a list of greenhouse fingerprints. Unfortunatly the popular books on climate change either dont include these<<

       100% correct! Since the single most critical factor in climate change is the number of people on the planet it is unbelievable that the figures are so difficult to find, and why there's such a taboo on discussing it - let alone doing anything about it.

18036. NorrisM at 09:31 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       nigelj @ 20

       No, I am not a closest "lobbyist".  My understanding of the purpose of this website was to inform those who had questions.  If you have to have all of your information thoroughly researched so that you have covered all angles then that is another matter.

       I agree that my language was not correct relating to "extreme weather events" because it is logical that if the termperature goes up there will be more droughts and I am fully aware that the IPCC has also predicted more rainfall.  I should have limited my comments to hurricanes.  You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research to show that the intensity of hurricanes will increase.  I will take your word on that in that I do not have the time to read the full 2013 Assessment.

       I have to admit that I wondered whether I should have made the comment about Michael Mann because I knew it would not go over well.  But that is certainly what I would think the "man on the street" would think about Michael Mann and his area of expertise.  This was not some repetition from some other website.  

       In any event, I suspect that I have worn out my welcome.  I will from time to time check in to see if everyone agrees with everyone else which seems to be what is preferred on this website. 

       Let me know when someone comes up with an answer on how to move forward in the face of a Republican administration if it is not to embrace the Red Team Blue Team.

       I would like to stay on the blog relating to costs of changing from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy economy because this is much more related to numbers rather than predictions.  I have read the IPCC 2014 Summary but I have to read the underlying report. 

       Having said that,  I did not think this website was prepared to extend its reach into that area but for its one blog re the costs to Trump country.  Perhaps the moderator can comment on whether it is appropriate to continue the discussion of costs on that blog.

18037. John Hartz at 09:30 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       The science behind the U.S.’s strange hurricane ‘drought’ — and its sudden end by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Sep 7, 2017

       6 Questions About Hurricane Irma, Harvey and Climate Change by Sabrina Shankman, InsideClimate News, Sep 6, 2017

18038. John Hartz at 09:18 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       Tom 13: The NOAA article that you have extracted quotes from is:

       Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results posted on the website of NOAA's Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). It was last revised on Aug 30, 2017.  

       The article has been repeatedly cited and linked to by more than one mainstream climate scientist who has been interviewed by the media about the climate change-hurricane* connection in recent articles about Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Katia. 

       *In this context hurricane means a tropical cyclone occuring in the North Atlantic basin only. Hurricanes also occur in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Tropical cyclones occuring in the Pacific Ocean of the southern hemisphere are called Typhoons. 

18039. Philippe Chantreau at 09:05 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       Of course, and yet hurricane scientists have never seen a picture like the current one: Irma, the largest hurricane known to form in the Atlantic basin, Katia, which formed in the Gulf, and Jose. Meanwhile, the Northwest is seeing a horrendous fire season, with the largest fire in Southwest Oregon at around 176000 acres. My own neighborhood is covered in ash from the nearby Eagle Creek fire. Of course, there is also the drought in Europe, which has compromised the wine harvest in France and destroyed corn further to the east. All happening in the samne year. But, it's all good, no statistically significant trend, we're cool. 

       I note that NorrisM has not answered my proposal. Such a deal was imposed to us before, albeit its only reason to exist were the disgusting fees gobbled by the finance barons who caused it. The last time that the World blew 15 trillions was in 2008 and we have nothing to show for it. Interestingly, it was not a disaster like the 1929 crisis, which goes to show that such an investment, if it had been directed to do some good, would have been possible to absorb with relatively little damage. But no, doing anything serious about energy transition will ruin the economy. What a joke.

       Capitalism is likely the best way to run societies. It can work only if well regulated, by laws that aim at the public good. Unfettered capitalism is a loosing ideology that has already been slapped in the face multiple times by reality, yet its advocates are in complete denial and continue to try to beat the world into submitting to their madness. 

18040. Tom13 at 08:29 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/pre1900s/1780/

       Good article on the monster hurricane of 1780

       perhaps the strongest in recorded history

       Interesting statment from the NOAA www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

       It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

       The NOAA (via the vecchi study 2008) go on to state : 

       However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).

       In summary - over the course of 150+ years, all during a period of warming, the level of hurricane activity is statistically indistiquisable from over those years.  

18041. scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 8 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       The word I think is "exergy" not "exenergy". In North America, I believe it is more common to call this term "available work". And no, it is not net exergy out. You can think of it as the "quality" of the energy. My favourite picture for understanding it, is think of waterfall. At top of the waterfall you have a lot of potential energy which you could usefully convert into electricity etc. At the bottom of the waterfall, you have same about of energy manifested in heating the pool slightly and a bit sound wave energy. Your ability to get useful work from this however is sharply diminished. You can express this in terms of loss of exergy. Exergy is a 2nd law tool, bound to the change in entropy.

       Because exergy is not conserved, it provides a much better way to study energy efficiency than 1st law method. I use it in thermal power station analysis. The overall efficiency consideration in say a coal station is the "heat rate" - the ratio of power out to fuel in . However, this is no simple relationship between overall efficiency and efficiency of individual components. Another way to do the calculation however is to calculate the exergetic loss from fuel into electricity out. The beauty of this analysis is that sum of exergetic losses of each component (boiler, heaters, turbine etc) is the total exergetic loss. If efficiency drops, you can quickly see which component has had an increase in exergy losses and diagnose the problem.

       And yes, pumped hydro is pumping water back up to the hydro. Note that in systems with a large amount of hydro, (eg NZ), you can use hydro as "battery", without the pumping. When other forms of generation are cheap (wind blowing strong or lots of sun), then hydros stop generating and reservoirs fill. Come night or calm, then hydros switch in.

18042. nigelj at 07:23 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       Philippe Chantreau @22

       I agree the legal process is different from science. The legal process is more based around appearance and rhetoric and a good deal of subtle intimidation. Lawyers are hard working people, but you cant really transfer their world onto science.

       I have also been involved in various court cases, all civil. I have employed several lawyers, and know the process intimately. I have no legal training, and have also represented myself several times in court and won every time. (wouldnt do it again, too stressful and risky). The legal process while evidence based, pushes various limits that have abolutely no place in the world of science, and would cause massive confusion and lead us down the wrong path. 

       The free market is a powerful and useful tool, but isn't good with dealing with environmental externalities. Only the law can deal with those. Once people  are personally accountable for problems the best choices will be made.

18043. RickG at 07:18 AM on 8 September 2017
       The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
       

       Basically, Congress already has a red/blue team debate and has had for years.  The blue team invites the most experienced and knowledgeable climate scientists, while the red team invites only AGW skeptics, some of which have no science background at all.  Its called the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

18044. nigelj at 06:54 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       One Planet  @21,  I think you are probably taking the term warmist too seriously or earnestly.  It's just a label and people do fall into various groups. 

       I think you have raised a good point to emphasise that climate science is a large body of carefully considered evidence, and no robust reason has been presented to question the IPCC process. We base human progress on trust in institutions, and its a sign of panic and desperation when people want alternative procedures like a red blue team, and this defeats the whole purpose and value of one global body with a consistent clear message for everyone one way or the other.

       NorrisM is suffering from a lot of confirmation bias. Its ironic because the IPCC reports go to almost extreme lengths to evaluate and list all the research and carefully state which things they are sure of and which they arent. The whole IPCC mechanism has done a good job of avoiding confirmation bias in its own work.

18045. nigelj at 06:24 AM on 8 September 2017
       I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
       

       The very idea that fossil fuel money funds climate research is abhorrent to me. Its a PR stunt by fossil fuel companies, and wont create a good impression with the public, and it could subconsciously bias some researchers towards a sceptical point of view. Bad idea. 

18046. NorrisM at 04:58 AM on 8 September 2017
       New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
       

       One further term I am not clear on is "pump storage".  Does this refer to storage of renewable power by pumping water vertically into a reservoir to be used when needed effectively converting it to hydro power?

18047. michael sweet at 03:43 AM on 8 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
       

       This Guardian op-ed discusses attribution of global warming problems (like sea level rise) to individual companies and whether those companies should have to pay for the proportion of the damage they cause.

       For example, they say ExxonMobile, Chevron and BP  by themselves are responsible for 6% of sea level rise because of their CO2 emissions.  During Sandy in New York City alone, over $2 billion dollars of damage was caused by higher sea level.  Should these companies have to pay for the damage they are known to have caused?

18048. Philippe Chantreau at 03:32 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrisM was not impressed by Michael Mann's testimony and thereby reveals why the red/blue team idea is complete horse puckey. The powers that stand from financially benefitting from energy status quo know this very well and will make sure that they will have the best public face to line up, facts and weight of the evidence be dammed. This red team/blue team approach is a complete perversion of reason. It is not surprising that it came from lawyers, as this represents their modus operandi, and reality often takes a back seat in the courtroom. It's about winning, not about reality. I know that from first hand experience, I've been there.

       Harvey's costs is projected to be in the order of 180 billions. I'm sure the free market fanatics who reign over the area would have scoffed at the idea of spending that much over 20 years for renewable energy development and flood resilience. Simply because this was not going to be directly money in their pockets. The World is governed by ogres who do not give a damn about the future. The more time goes by, the more I agree with OPOF. 

       Say, NorrisM, if I told you that there is a possible fix to this whole climate thing, but it will cost about 15 trillion worldwide and they will have to be forked over during a period of just 2-3 years, would you agree to try?

       Then if I told you that it may not work out and there is a chance we could have nothing to show for the try, would you go for it? Of course, the operators spending that money will be held free of any harm if it goes belly up. What do you think? Deal?

18049. One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 8 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrisM,

       It appears that you have not properly understood my comments.

       Scientific Concensus is a proper term. I use it. "Warmist" is a term I state should not be used since those people are actually Denier/Delayers. "Warmist" has actually be used to describe people who admit there may be some impact from CO2 increases but far less than the scientific concensus undersranding.

       I have re-read your post that promoted my replies and confirmed my understanding of your unacceptable use of te temr 'rather than scientific concensus'. Your use of the term "Warmist" for the scientific concensus undertsanding is an attempt to denigrate the concensus understanding.

       The following are direct quotes from my previous comments you are undeniably aware of and referring to:

       "'People who are more fully aware of the existing observations and experience related to climate science and the currently developed and constantly improving best explanation for all of that information'" (Look inrto the context of that quote)

       "... climate science is a very robustly developed field of investigation/observation and establishment of a Good Explanations for all of the avaliable information (even though there is more investigation and understanding to be added), the currently developed and presented concensus explanations/understanding regarding the matter should be considered to be "The Objective Understanding/Explanation/Truth of the matter for everyone to understand and accept unless/until some new 'justified and robustly defendable information' is presented that results in Good Reason to revise a part of that developed understanding"."

       Reread my posts, and all the other information you have read, setting aside yor personal preferrences for what you want to believe. Otherwise you will continue to misinterpret/misunderstand what you have read and continue to make-up false statements based on your lack of 'proper' understanding (maybe OK for a lawyer, but absolutely not what a Prefessional Engineer, or Professional Lawyer (or any other pursuer of a Profession), would consider Reasonable or Acceptable or Ethical).

       Scientific Concensus is a valid term as is Denier/Delayer. Warmist is a term that attempts to put a Good Light onto a Denier/Delayer, an attempt to create a false or misleading impression (and is a terrible 'replacement' for the term 'scientific concensus' regarding the climate science issue you were refrring to - how much warmer will the surface be due to added CO2).

       And attempting to claim that a Denier/Delayer is a Skeptic is equally a "false and deliberately misleading claim" (a "lie" if it is made by someone who actually knows better" rather than when made by someone whose personal bias - which they are blind to - has resulted in them not properly understanding something).

18050. nigelj at 17:08 PM on 7 September 2017
       Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
       

       NorrisM @19

       "My understanding was that the IPCC 2013 assessment made it clear that it did not have empirical evidence tying extreme weather events to climate change. If I am incorrect, then, again, my apologies. I will search for my reference for support for what I understood to be their position at that time."

       Yes you are quite wrong. The report has empirical evidence that in recent decades heatwaves and heavy rainfall events have already increased. It does not have empirical evidence that hurricanes have changed. It has evidence of many other things as well.

       The same report predicts futher increases in heavy rainfall events and that hurricane intensity will increase and droughts will increase.

       I have noticed the following. You often quote things without sources and say you will give sources, but just as often don't.

       You fill pages with as many denialist myths and slogans you can fit in, over and over even when its not really on topic. Yet you claim you are not a climate science sceptic.

       You ask people for clarifications, then never read their sources, always making some excuse you are too busy. You have done it for months.  You agree with things, then go back to your original position almost immediately.

       You like to create the impression you are just an interested individual, but your rhetoric as I have listed indicates you are more likely some sort of lobbyist, and theres a lot of concern trolling as well. 

       The frog slowly being boiled alive is a good analogy to climate change. The changes are somewhat incremental and people react accordingly. Mind you some politicians  are so dumb sea level could rise a metre in a week, and it would still all be a "chinese conspiracy".

Prev  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  367  368  Next