Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 Next
Comments 18451 to 18500:
-
stevecarsonr at 21:08 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
William,
I've already given this number, back in comment 6. It's from the paper. Globally $18bn, or 0.4% of the headline number.
-
william5331 at 19:32 PM on 9 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
This would seem to fit with the dinosaur extinction event. Apparently the asteroid crashed through layers of limestone and gypsum which not only released Carbon dioxide but oxides of sulphur which would have shaded the earth for a while adding a double whammy. Once more the effect of a primary cause effecting carbon rich layers.
-
william5331 at 19:15 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Ignoring for the moment externalities, I wonder what the direct subsidies are. That is to say tax relief direct grants and allowances and so forth. Attacking these would be a good way to start as they are more blatant and easier to identify. Externalities such as health costs would come next. A shame to spread the effort too thinly. Find one direct subsidy and go for that one.
-
nigelj at 12:46 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
J Doug Swallow @9
The five trillion is for global subsidies, not just America. America spends about one trillion anually on energy in total, so it could not possibly be for america.
Fossil fuels in America get various subsidies including direct subsidies not apparent in your chart. Renewable energy is subsidised in America with some sort of tax rebate scheme. Yes Warren Buffet will invest in whatevers profitable. Thats what investors do, so theres nothing negative in him doing this, its supply and demand at work.
Just imagine if oil and coal subsidies were spent to subsidise renewable energy. How much sensible that would be.
In fact things have changed in America the last couple of years and wind power is almost the same cost as gas and coal even without subsidies as below.
-
michael sweet at 09:56 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
To those above who doubt that fossil fuels are subsidied as much as the OP claims:
This Forbes article claims that 15,000 people in the USA and 500,000 are killed every year from coal pollution alone. What is the vlaue of their lives? That is a subsidy of the coal industry. It costs $300-800 billion to treat the health issues caused coal (the hosptalizations of the people who eventually and the medical care of the people who survive). These include lung issues from particulate pollution, lung issues from sulfate aerosols, mercury poisoning, miners killed and many others. (I have seen lower estimates of health costs of only $100 billion per year elsewhere). Metal roofs that last 40-50 years in Florida only last 15 years near coal burning power plants.
Virtually all of the freshwater lakes in the USA are polluted with mercury from coal plants. This lowers the value of fishing tourist visits. Coal pays nothing to the businesses it bankrupts from their pollution. That is a subsidy to fossil fuels. The list goes on and on if you read the reports.
If you want to challenge the OP you need to cite a reference that supports your wild claims. I note that the doubters have not cited a source of data to support their argument, they just argue from incredulity because they do not know the facts. It appears to me that the people who are making those claims have not bothered to do thier homework and are only counting direct monetart subsidies when the OP clearly states that the majrity of subsidies are issues like pollution damage and health affects. Any analysis that does not include the health cost of fossil fuel pollution is not a serious evaluation of the subsidy given to fossil fuels.
How much is your life worth if you are one of the people who dies 10 years early from exposure to fossil fuel pollution? I count my life as worth a lot more than the current value which is zero dollars. Renewable energy does not have this issue, they are essentially non-polluting.
-
J Doug Swallow at 09:32 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
I'm not sure where John Abraham came up with this headline: "Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year"
Table ES4. Fiscal year 2010 electricity production subsidies and support (million 2010 dollars) Share of Total Subsidies and Support Coal, 10%; Renewables, 55.3%
"Direct expenditures accounted for 39 percent of total electricity-related subsidies in FY 2010 (Table ES4). These expenditures were mostly the result of the ARRA Section 1603 grant program, 84-percent of which went to wind generation." <http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/>
This is why renewables are built at all: "The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company's tax payments. "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," he said. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren Buffett <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579541782064848174>Moderator Response:[JH] Always best to read the article before commenting. The third paragraph clearly states the source of the information contained in the article. The link embedded in the word "study" will take you to it.
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 07:31 AM on 9 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
Sweden has an interesting approach to resolving difficult policy debates, especially partisan political debates, and ideological clashes. As a society they have decided put the interests of children first. Then they select whatever policy is genuinely going to help the interests of children regardlers of whether the policy leans left or right. You are of course likely going to end up with a broad mix of policies in society as a whole some leaning right, some leaning left.
With climate issues this idea naturally extends to the interests of future generations.
-
nigelj at 07:19 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
To me the exact amount of subsidies misses the point. In my opinion there is simply no justification for subsides on fossil fuels, regardless of what type of subsidies or how much they are in total. Nobody can come up with a sensible justification. Even India is planning to remove oil subsidies.
But if you are hung up on numbers, 5 trillion dollars would subsidise a lot of electric cars. If it was a $10,000 subsidy per car thats about half a billion electric cars.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 9 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
Extremely good article, but I think you need both approaches. So try the science, then try other approaches as well if appropriate.
Start with the science and see if it works, because in my experience some people may react defensively to the science, but they do go away and think about it, and sometimes come around to accepting the science. I know I found this website helpful in explaning some denialist myths. You cannot expect everyone to accept all new science at face value, as it does need some explaining, and we all have a natural sceptical streak to some extent, but rational sceptics do change position. We know this.
Of course if you get a very political reaction, you may have to try another approach. Some people are hardened deniers, and they often seem to have some sort of vested interest or strong political ideology, or in some cases strong evangelical religious beliefs. I think you have to try to show them benefits of renewable energy and the other things in the article. Somehow we also need to show them climate science is not a threat to their beliefs, and this is easy enough with religious beliefs as Katharine points out. You can also help people who feel their jobs are threatened.
But what do you do with people who have more of a strong political ideology, and a hardened dislike of environmental regulations, etc? For example libertarians and more extreme small government fiscal conservatives. We are faced with trying to change or modify their world view, which is hard work. Trying to find common ground and develop a personal connection can also be hard going sometimes.
One thing that may help convince these people is to try to draw a line between where the private sector works very well for many, many things, and where the private sector fails requiring some form of environmental laws or taxes etc. In other words side step ideology, and show that there's solid economic and historical evidence that theres a place for both private sector markets and envionmental laws etc. This is very much my own personal view for what its worth. It probably wont convince them all, but it may convince some.
-
Ian Roberts at 03:32 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
For Tom13, I found a copy (draft?) of the paper on the IMF website (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf).
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn to do this yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.
-
stevecarsonr at 02:58 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
"..Producer subsidies are lumped into pre-tax subsidies but are relatively small ($17-$18 billion during 2011–15)."
-
stevecarsonr at 02:53 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13,
The paper says:
"Producer subsidies arise when producers receive direct or indirect support (e.g., receiving prices above supply costs, pref- erential tax treatment, direct government budget transfers, paying input prices below supply costs) which increases prof- itability when this support is not passed forward into lower consumer prices (e.g., because prices are determined on world markets). For presentational purposes, we include producer subsidies in pre-tax subsidies, though they are very small in relative terms."
-
J Doug Swallow at 01:34 AM on 9 August 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
This report below is certainly more believable than what Skeptical Science puts forth when they claim that: "The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions."
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
Highlights
► Ikaite forms in a narrow and shallow zone. ► Natural crystal (in modern porewater) validates the fractionation factor from lab. ► Trends in ikaite δ18Ohydra and δ18OCaCO3 are comparable with other records. ► Ikaite record indicates that the influence of LIA and MWP reached the AP.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659>Moderator Response:[DB] Again, one would think that in the 5 years since your last participation here that you'd have learned to comport your comments better with this venue's Comments Policy. Simply copy/pasting up a paper from years ago selected at seeming random with no cogent context of your own added is just sloganeering (snipped).
-
J Doug Swallow at 01:31 AM on 9 August 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
This report below is certainly more believable than what Skeptical Science puts forth when they claim that: "The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions."
"The 2485-year temperature data used in this study are taken from reference [13]. This temperature series is not only representative of the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau, but also the vast area of central-northern China. It is also significantly correlated with seven other temperature series of the Northern Hemisphere [13]. It even has a teleconnection with series for middle-low latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere [15]. Therefore, the spatial representative of this temperature series is quite clear. Since a conservative negative exponential or linear regression is employed in the detrending process, most low-frequency signals are preserved in the chronology and can be used to detect the low-frequency components of climate change."
http://www.agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/tibet-2485_years.pdfModerator Response:[DB] One would think that in the 5 years since your last participation here that you'd have learned to comport your comments better with this venue's Comments Policy. Simply copy/pasting up a paper from years ago selected at seeming random with no cogent context of your own added is just sloganeering (snipped).
-
Tom13 at 01:27 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
From the 10th paragraph of this article -
Interested readers are directed to the paper for further details, but the results are what surprised me. Pre-tax (the narrow view of subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013.
The actual study is paywalled, which makes it difficult to ascertain the validity of conclusions of the study, including the mathematical computations, underlying assumptions, reasonableness, etc.
The article makes note that .7% of GNP are direct subsidies, while the remaining indirect subsidies are approx 5.8% / 6.5% of global GNP.
Assuming those numers are correct - how do you solve for that - By taxing the fossil fuel companies on profits they dont earn?
Secondly, neither this article or the guardian article explain what direct subsidies the fossil fuel companies actually receive. The actual study may discuss that issue, but it is behind a paywall.
-
wili at 22:41 PM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Something for the next roundup?
Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
---
One government scientist who worked on the report, and who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.
---
The Environmental Protection Agency is one of 13 agencies that must approve the report by Sunday. The agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.“It’s a fraught situation,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geoscience and international affairs at Princeton University who was not involved in the study. “This is the first case in which an analysis of climate change of this scope has come up in the Trump administration, and scientists will be watching very carefully to see how they handle it.”
Moderator Response:[JH] I posted a link to the article on the SkS Facebook page yesterday. It, and other follow-up articles about the draft report, will be included in the next Weekly News Roundup. Thank you for your suggestion.
-
wideEyedPupil at 18:38 PM on 8 August 2017Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
@Tom Curtis, almost all land clearing (and cyclical clearing) in Australia is for grazing ruminent livestock, themselves a huge emissions source. In nations where logging occurs (I'm thinking Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil,…) the logging is just a more profitable way to clear the land than burning it off. If it was most cost effective to burn it off then they'd do that, they often do both in Indonesia and the fires are so vast the smoke travels to other countries and creates air quality health impacts. They are clearing the land for livestock principlaly in Sth American amazon region and crops to feed their livestock (like soy beans). In SE Asia they're often clearing for vast palm oil plantations. It's all about agricuture, if it ewas about logging timber they'd be harvesting it sustaniably and returning logged areas to forest production. They aren't.
-
wideEyedPupil at 18:32 PM on 8 August 2017Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
The amount of agricutural land devoted to fruit and vegetables globally is trivially small compared with the vast domains of rangelands for grazing and to a much lesser extent, cropping areas.
-
wideEyedPupil at 18:03 PM on 8 August 2017Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
" For example the U.S is already unable to produce enough fruits and veggies to feed its citizens and relies on other countries as a supplement.."
This is a ridiculous assertion. The single greatest reason USA imports fruit and vegetables is cost. Paying workers in Sth American nations $1 a day rather than US workers $12 an hour or whatever minimum wage is in USA today (although many workers in southern states are migrant workers from Mexico who are paid less than minimum wage). In Australia orchardists are regualrly removing fruit orchards when canneries are closing, if demand for their fruit and vege went up, production would go up. Meanwhile livestock production is subsidised by way of no price on the extensive emissions, over access to waterways and so on.
-
Riduna at 14:29 PM on 8 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Australian taxpayers get slugged $1.8bn/year, every year, all of which goes to subsidise production of coal, rather than pay-off the burgeoning national debt. The Federal government does not hesitate to spend lavishly and grant tax concessions to ensure that Australia remains the worlds largest coal exporter.
Prime Minister Turnbull and his Energy Minister, Josh Friedenberg call for greater domestic use of coal to meet the nations demand for energy, despite the fact that it impairs the health and kills miners, seriously pollutes the atmosphere accelerating global warming and is the major cause of climate change, destined to kill the Great Barrier Reef - and Queensland’s tourist industry.
Money paid to subsidise coal production could be put to better use: reducing national debt, spending more on health and education, or horror of horrors, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But neither government or coal industry show any interest in measures not aimed at sustaining the growth and durability of coal production. They will rue the day!
-
bozzza at 14:09 PM on 8 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Jevons Paradox is written generally: that means the voting consumer has the resources available to win this fight!
Where there's a will there's a way: it was Arnold Schwarzenegger (Though he probably wasn't the first) that said, "The people lead, governments follow!"
We all have the power to demand.... (..supply is just the other side of the coin.)
-
nigelj at 12:41 PM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Driving By @13, well ok he had a point, but nobody claimed more hot days would make Dallas 'uninhabitable'. So big strawman!
But I agree with your other comments, more record days will add to air conditioning costs, etc. I would add it could lead to more heat related deaths in the elderly and frail.Of course this is Dallas, and so its not massively severe, but the same trend will be much more damaging in places like India and Africa.
And its about economics. These things all add up to extra costs, and add to other impacts of climate change like sea level rise and your disruption to existing farming patterns. Adapatation to climate change will have a big price, from what I have read, and its money that could be better spent elsewhere on alleviating poverty etc or science research.
-
DrivingBy at 12:08 PM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
NigelJ — Tom13 does have a point which wasn't clearly expressed: Dallas managed to survive a record or year or two with many days over 105 previously, so the new average doesn't mean the city suddenly becomes uninhabitable. For a Northerner who expects to be outside mid-day during the summer, it's uninhabitable right now!
What I think he missed is that the record years in the 2040s will be even hotter. Outdoor work will have to be scheduled with a mid-day break, or clumsy cooling methods, roofs will have to be white or grass-covered, etc etc. But the city won't shut down - people averse to heat avoid it already, whoever lives there is OK with blazing sun and common 100F summer days.
More significant may be when farmland reaches a temp that causes existing crops to slow their growth and for evaporation to create severe wet/dry cycles. We're not ready to change the whole grain belt over to whatever heat-resistant crops exist, those probably won't be what people and animals want/need to eat.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 8 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Well said. Government (tax payer) subsising of producers doesnt make economic sense. The fossil fuel industry is not some new industry needing help to get started, its generally an established and generally strong industry so hardly needs subsidies.
This is obviously pandering to powerful lobby groups with political influence, and a gullible public scared to say enough is enough. It's certainlly not free market capitalism and self reliance, more a form of back door socialism for corporates and the well connected.
Keeping prices artifically low distorts the market and is just a complex money go round, and over encourages consumption. It would be better to just to give direct government income support to poor people for them to spend on essential basics. This is more transparent, and doesn't create awful problems like in Venezuela where cheap petrol leads to people sneaking across the border to buy the petrol in bulk.
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
The whole animation timing thing raises the issue is slowing things down to highlight a particular period a clarification or potential bias or manipulation? Hard to say, and people probably will never agree especially the climate denialists.
I like Pauls suggestion. Labelling the graph as time isn't linear is a very good way of resolving the issue. Nobody can claim deceit then.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
MA Rodger @12
Yes it clearly does slow down from quite early on now that you have measured it. Interesting because I thought it might be slowing from about 1950 or before, I but wasn't sure. 1980 was when I felt certain. I suppose this is just how my visual perception works.
I felt the designer of the animation might have been trying to highlight the "modern" post 1970s warming period as Tom pointed out, and also perhaps the regional differences in rates recently, with all the red ink towards europe and asia.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13 @8, yes true the article used the example of Dallas to make its point on possible future trends, just so it had some real world examples to talk about. However you miss my point. As was pointed in response to your first post, you can't take one year of 1980 and draw conclusions, as the weather that year could be very non typical, then you go and do the exact same thing and pick this year, which appears to have unusually few record setting days. So your starting point was deceptive. These things need wider data over several years to try to find the average or typical pattern for the year. Thats all I'm saying.
Regarding future temperature projections I can only completely agree with comments by M Sweet. You cannot just project the recent temperature trend forward. You have to look at IPCC predictions and how that may work out for Dallas. Therefore their expectations of 28 record setting days is not unrealistic.
In some ways the original article is frustrating by focussing in on specific cities because we cannot be so absolutely 100% certain about specific cities. I think the pertinent thing is global average temperatures are increasing, and will increase further, and are expected to accelerate. This will not have precisely uniform affects and its hard to be certain about specific locations due to regional climate factors. But its highly likely Dallas will at least see a lot more very hot days by end of century, whatever the exact number is.
-
Paul D at 04:00 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Tom@11
"I am not so certain the criticism is. First, it is not the case that strictly linear scales are used on all graphs. Log or exponential scales are quite normal in scientific use."
True, but such graphs should be clearly marked. The animation should indicate that the time base isn't linear.
-
michael sweet at 03:11 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13,
This is not the exact graph I referenced above but section (a) has the same information (source IPCC AR5):
-
michael sweet at 03:00 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13,
Since CO2 pollution has dramatically increased over the past few decades why would anyone expect the rate of warming to stay the same as it was when pollution rates were much lower?
"Are either of those projected rates of warming even close to a reasonable estimate."
The rate of warming is expected to increase in the future, especially if nothing is done to reduce emissions. According to the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers the expected global warming by 2100 is 4C (page 11) for RPC 8.5 (note the high end of the projection is 5.5C). You are making an argument from incredulity because you have not read the background information. Just because you do not know what the projections are does not mean that they are not reasonable. I note that you have not cited a single link to support your argument. I have provided links to support my claims.
If you want to post calculations to a scientific blog like SkS it is your responsibility to read the background material. It is not my responsibiity to spoon feed you material that everyone knows. Arguments from incredulity are not convincing. Reading the SPM linked above would be a good start.
The projections of future warming are shocking!! Imagine living in Dallas when the temperature is 10F warmer! It was only about 2F warmer in 2011. Farmers sold off most of their herds and millions of trees died. Children born today will be alive in 2100. Action needs to be taken immediately to prevent this catastrophe.
-
John Hartz at 00:06 AM on 8 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
New Zeland's Natonal Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) just releaesed the results of an analysis similar to that conducted by Climate Central as described in the OP's Story of the Week.
From the NWIS news release...
Wellington city will have warmer autumns, almost a month of days over 25°C and up to 10 per cent more winter rain by 2090, according to a new NIWA climate report.
The Climate Change Report for Wellington Region has just been released that shows specific weather changes for the capital, Kapiti Coast, Hutt Valley and Wairarapa for the first time.
One of the most startling projections shows an increase for Wellington city from six hot days (over 25°C) a year now to 26 days by 2090. In the Wairarapa, that figure goes from 24 days now, to 94 in just over 70 years.
Wellington will get significantly warmer, new climate change report shows, NWIS News Release, Aug 7, 2017
-
Tom13 at 22:33 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Nigel - Tom @3, you cannot really take about 9 months of data from one city and develop conclusions. The city may have had non typical weather that year, and one city would not necessarily be typical of the entire country anyway.
You would need several years of data from a random sample of a dozen cities, then compute an average of everything. Then see how that compares with the theory.
Nigel - I used data from Dallas starting in 1899 through june 2017. Further - I used Dallas because this article highlighted Dallas and it was a good example. In summary, in order to achieve the projected number of days over 105 by the year 2050, the rate of warming would need to increase by approx 200%.
-
Tom13 at 22:26 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Michael - Because Dallas is an important city you could Google the expected temperature increases online. According to a widget (from Climate Central) in this newspaper article, Dallas should expect a 10F increase by 2100. This was the first hit in my Google search.
10f = 5.55c over 83 years - I presume you noticed that rate of warming is approx 3x the current rate of warming.
temperatures are expected to rise about 5.9 F worldwide by 2100 for BAU.
5.9f = 3.278c over 83 years - that rate is approx 2.2x the current rate of warming.
Are either of those projected rates of warming even close to a reasonable estimate.
-
BaerbelW at 21:19 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
I contacted Antti Lipponen who created the graphic to ask about the animation slowing down towards the end. Here is his response:
"...When I was creating the video my idea was to emphasize the most recent years so that is why I made slower in the end. This was not done in particular to emphasize the recent warming but to emphasize where we are at the moment. I thought general public would be more interested in current state of the climate than the early 1900's. ..."
"And regardless of what data would have shown as temperatures I would have done the same selection and slowed it down in the end."
Hope this clarifies things!
-
MA Rodger at 20:37 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
It is interesting that our various 'thunbnail' analyses have identified wildly differing timings for points of inflection in the rate of the passing years in the video.
Ignoring the unreasoned call to "back off" @7, I note from a more thorough analysis that the sequence of years-per-second through the video as:-
5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2
This is not the smoothest of sequences but if there is an arguable inflection point it is very early, in the 1920s or 1930s. From that point, the rate of passing years per second is reducing pretty-much in a linear fashion (-0.145y/sec).
On that basis I would state (with a little more assertion) that the criticisms set out here by PaulD @2 are ill-founded as it is entirely incorrect to state "the animation slows down at the end." The animation slows down pretty-much throughtout.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:44 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
With regard to the video, I started determining the number of years in each five second interval. That made it look like there were two inflection points, which I then checked with the results below:
1900-1950 (9 seconds; 0.18 sec/year)
1951-2000 (13 seconds; 0.26 sec/year)
2001-2016 (6 seconds; 0.38 sec/year)
That will not be precise, but from the evidence, the inflection point is closer to 1950 than 1980. Indeed, I initially checked a 1960 initial inflection points, which was falsified. So, Paul D's obserservation was correct.
I am not so certain the criticism is. First, it is not the case that strictly linear scales are used on all graphs. Log or exponential scales are quite normal in scientific use. They are used, among other reasons, to allow details that would otherwise be missed to be apparent. Arguably the more rapid rate of change in the second half of the 20th century, and again since 2000 (with the last few years of data) require the extra time to appreciate the changes.
Second, it is also arguable that by changing the rate, the graph gives a false impression of a reduced temperature trend at the end of the series. That is, the change of rate, down plays the rate of warming even as it increases the focus on the warmest years. IMO any effect to either direction is removed by the inclusion of the graph of Global Mean Surface Temperature which. That, I take it, is Daniel Bailey's point.
-
Paul D at 15:30 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
BaerbelW@9
I have tried the The Consensus Project visualisation in Firefox and Chrome and none of the SVG graphics interaction works. The only thing that does work are the drop down menus, which are HTML.
It doesn't seem to matter where on screen the slider and other graphics are.
-
BaerbelW at 13:59 PM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Paul (@8) - The Interactive History of Climate Science is still there and working AFAICT. It's also still listed on the resource menu but should also be added to the resource page where I just saw that it's not listed.
The Consensus Project visualisation works as it should - the slider just doesn't work when it's too close to the bottom of the screen but that happens with other buttons in that area as well. Scrolling the page up a bit will make it work.
-
nigelj at 11:13 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom @3, you cannot really take about 9 months of data from one city and develop conclusions. The city may have had non typical weather that year, and one city would not necessarily be typical of the entire country anyway.
You would need several years of data from a random sample of a dozen cities, then compute an average of everything. Then see how that compares with the theory.
The last IPCC found heatwaves have already increased globally on average, with high certainty. They also predict this will increase further as a general trend, but not at the same rate in every city.
-
michael sweet at 11:11 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13,
According to the original link of the widget at Climate Central, temperatures are expected to rise about 5.9 F worldwide by 2100 for BAU. Since it warms less over the ocean than the land and less in the tropics than in the temperate zone, we might expect the rise to be significantly greater at DFW than the global average. This is a much faster rate of increase than you used. The distribution of higher temperatures is not always directly proportional to the increase in temperatures because the higher temperatures encourage drought which also increases temperatures.
Because Dallas is an important city you could Google the expected temperature increases online. According to a widget (from Climate Central) in this newspaper article, Dallas should expect a 10F increase by 2100. This was the first hit in my Google search.
Summary: seat of the pants calculations posted on line are not as accurate as studies by experienced scientists at Climate Central.
-
Paul D at 07:08 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Re: My comment at 7.
'Interactive History of Climate Science' has been removed.
'The Consensus Project' visualisation is broken! The timeline slider doesn't work.Been a while since I last checked them out. If anyone wants me to fix the The Consensus Project visualisation please email me.
Moderator Response:[PS] Requesting someone follow up to you.
-
Paul D at 07:02 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Hey back off folks.
I am the developer of three of the interactive visualisations on this site.
1. Interactive History of Climate Science
2. History of Climate Science (interactive timeline)
3. The Consensus ProjectThe history of global warming animation on Youtube does not maintain the same time interval for the years from begining to end, that would be fine if that change was clearly stated, but it is not.
We criticise skeptics continously for doctoring data and graphs to emphasise their beliefs.
We shouldn't be doing something like it ourselves. -
Tom13 at 06:45 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
My apologies for losing the link on the DFW average temps, It should be weather.gov. (again my apologies for misplacing the link)
-
Tom13 at 06:43 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Michael - you make a good point regarding averages. Reviewing the averages and trends should create some doubt into the validity of the study. So far in 2017, DFW has only had a four days over 100, (100.0, 100.0, 100.9 & 104.0) Converting F to Celsius, is 5/9, 5degrees f = 2.7778c. The current warming trend is in the range of 1.5c (ish) per century. So in order to go from an average 2-3 days per year over 105 to 28 or so per year per the study, the rate of warming over the next 33 years would need to be approx 150% of the current rate of warming over a century. While the study's conclusion of 28 days a year in DFW over 105 is possible, it doesnt seem plausible, when you compare the trends or the averages.
In summary a quick cross check of the math, the trends and the averages doesnt support the conclusion of the study.
FWIW, the average July temp in DFW (Dallas) has increased approx 2.0F from 1900 to 2017, while the average aug temp since 1900 through 2017 has remained remarkably flat.
-
michael sweet at 05:31 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13,
Yes, the author is claiming that in 2050 the average year will have as many days over 105F as the record year with the most days that hot in the past. Some years will be higher and some wil be lower (for a little while). You are comparing a record year (one that stands out as very high in the record) to the average year in the projection. The current average looks to me to be about 3 days per year. The hot years you mention will be a substantial fraction of those days. When the average number increases that much it will seriously affect plants and animals.
In summary: there is a difference between an average and a record.
-
Tom13 at 04:28 AM on 7 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
The story of the week predicts 25 days of heat over 105f by the year 2025.
Is the author of the story unaware that DFW had 28 days over 105 in 1980,. DFW also had 17 days over 105 in 2011. In summary, the author is predicting that is will take 40+ years for dfw to experience what the DFW metroplex experienced in 1980.
-
Cmtg729 at 01:44 AM on 7 August 2017It's methane
The sources that explain the rise of methane in the atmosphere, its dangers, why graphs need to updated to explain escaping methane from fracking pipes:
Www.thinkprogress.org/methane-leaks-erase-climate-benefit
-
ubrew12 at 23:08 PM on 6 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Paul D@2 said: "giving an (false) emphasis to the... years at the end of the sequence" You mean the present? As creatures caught in time, we view the present more emphatically than the past. The animation recognizes this, and compensates for it.
-
MA Rodger at 14:19 PM on 6 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
nigelj @4,
It is perhaps best to say that the animation "stops" at the end and as you point out, that the slowing begins at about 1980 where the rate of passing decades drops from every two seconds to every three seconds. The rate further drops again from 2000 where it drops to a decade in four seconds. This post-2000 slowing could be argued, less as "an (false) emphasis to the warmer few years at the end of the sequence" and more as suggestive of a 'false slowdown' in the warming - and that is something usually getting a scientific thumbs-down when it occurs, it being not "scientifically accurate."
-
nigelj at 13:22 PM on 6 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
Digby Scorgie just adding a further comment, yes we do handle large temperature fluctuations day to day, through adaptations, through necessity, but long term changes are different in substance, and its our choice whether we reduce emissions, or chance it and hope things work out. Or so it seems to me.
Prev 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 Next
