Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 Next
Comments 18751 to 18800:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:23 PM on 5 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Gingerbaker
Just some comments.- The figure of 30 billion tonnes a year. I have done a rough estimate that all mining and quarrying activity is around 100-150 billion tonnes a year, so a significant increase.
- Then all of that needs to be crushed to reasonable fineness. Currently of that 100-150, only part of that is crushed, mainly mineral ores, so possibly doubling world crusher capacity. And crushing is energy intensive. So a substantial expansion. Obviously all this would need to be powered from renewable sources.
So all in all a huge undertaking.
Next, I would want to see a lot more research into consequences in the oceans, that paper is rather light on that topic but it may be the make or break issue. Although they are right about the basic chemistry there is a lot of scope for unintended consequences for the biosphere in the ocean.
Imagine we have spread a couple of 100 billion tonnes, then we discover some unexpected bad consequence in the oceans. Once the dust is scattered that is one very hard Genie to put back ino that bottle.
So I think this idea needs to be explored very strongly, but it is very preliminary at this stage. -
nigelj at 12:49 PM on 5 July 2017Planet Hacks: Flying
What you say is sensible enough. Business can be conducted more via the internet at least in some cases.
In fact the internet, and hd television, and virtual reality systems are perhaps reducing the need for tourists to travel internationally quite so so much. Young people don't need to travel anyway. They spend all their time glued to smartphones.
The finnish video was entertaining and accurate. Who said the Finns had no sense of humour?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:46 AM on 5 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Rephrasing my previous comment:
Regarding nuclear power generation costs: If the costs to neutralize or eliminate damaging waste products, not hide them by doing something unsustainable like dumping it in the ocean, are considered then nuclear power is not likely to be a cost-effective option.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:25 AM on 5 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Regarding nuclear power generation: Until a way is developed to truly have no "accumulating dangerous waste" nuclear is not a sustainable option.
Regarding ways to get energy from solar and wind when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing: There are many ways to store energy, including pumping water back up behind a hydro dam or pulling a train load of waste mass up an inclined track with the train rolling down spinning a generator. So what is needed is adequate capacity for generating the total needed power with many existing ways of suitable storage. Better storage technologies will of course make the systems even better. And having combinations of renewable energy supply on the same grid reduces the need to use the stored energy (occasionally windy when the sun isn't shining, sunny when calm).
Moderator Response:[PS] A gentle reminder that this forum is not the place for a discussion on the pro and cons of nuclear power beyond the on-topic points about cost. Those wishing to discuss this issue are encouraged to do so at BraveNewClimate.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:08 AM on 5 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
nigelj@27,
I agree. And I should have put a larger quote from the interview into my comment@24.
What I disagree with was the suggestion that because of aggression being a permanent part of human character, humanity should move to live on other planets and space stations in case the aggression goes so far unchecked that an entire planet/location is wiped out.
As you mention, the aggression can be effectively managed. My main point is that until humanity effectively limits the winning by unacceptable behaviour it does not deserve to spread onto other locations because the real problem has not been sustainably addressed, it is being spread out with none of the added locations safe from the feared fate.
Also, a group of humans that allows aggression to dominate is not humanity. It is inhumanity or savagery. And inhumanity or savagery does not deserve to have a future.
But on further reflection I would add that aggression is not the major problem. The major threat to humanity is the cult of faithful followers of the damaging dogma that 'a better result will be produced if everyone is freer to believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'. The members of such a cult clearly would expect to benefit from such a belief being enforced/promoted in law and culture. The aggressive, selfish, wicked, mean-minded people will undeniably have a competitive advantage in any game, especially ones with winning based simply on popularity or profitability (no rational consideration of distant motives required). Those people will clearly push against Good Reason restrictions on what they can get away with. And they can easily tempt others to side with them about how unfair it is to restrict their ability to get away with something they want to get away with (or make it more expensive and transfer wealth to the ones who do less of the unacceptable activity), especially if that something has been allowed to become more popular and profitable in spite of the Well Reasoned understanding that it is unacceptable.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 5 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
I don't oppose nuclear, but I'm cautious. I grew up during the three mile island scare and chernobyl, and these things imprint on your mind.
And a world full of many thousands of nuclear stations using the current technology would still present a significant risk, and these accidents do not respect borders. Many developing countries are unlikely to have stringent safety standards, training etc.
Then nuclear has cost and issues and is slow to get built etc.
On the other hand I see no problem with newer, safer technology like thorium, but this seems still experimental and stalled. Why is this? Is it because traditional types of power are available and legal to use so theres no incentive to develop thorium?
Developing thorium might take some government assistance, or private / public partnership to develop thorium power to a usable stage.
There's no reason not to combine wind, solar, and thorium if it becomes viable. Small thorium reactors are viable in theory, and this would be perfect to solve intermittency problems or peak load situations. This would be a potent and useful combination if its technically feasible.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:26 AM on 5 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
It's also important to think in terms of return on investment (ROI). Not talking about energy return on energy investment (ERoEI), just plain ROI.
When an investor puts up money for a coal or gas plant, they're tying up that money for a long period of time. Typical FF plants operate for 40 years. Even though the plant will pay for itself in the early years, the entire lifecycle of the plant is import in order to maximise returns on the investment.
The lifecycle for wind turbines is much shorter, like ~20 years. And already there those plants have a lower LCOE than coal. So, those investors are maximising their investment over a shorter period of time.
What comes into play here are the projections for costs of wind and solar 20 and 30 years down the road when a new generation of wind and solar will replace today's new facilities. The LCOE of all new FF based energy sources will have risen, while the LCOE for renewables will have dramatically fallen.
Where does that leave those FF plants built today? They will be mid-life and economically uncompetitive in the energy market.
I'm fairly certain LCOE calculations don't account for this. They merely look at the full lifetime costs of the plants and projected cost of fuel source. They don't account for the competitive landscape of each technology in the marketplace over the lifetime of the facility.
In this case the shorter lifespan of wind and solar, in a rapidly improving energy market, have a distinct advantage.
-
Peter Shepherd at 00:12 AM on 5 July 2017Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
First link to "new paper" needs repair.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed; thanks!
-
Eclectic at 20:42 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
NorrisM @30 , yes I think you are quite right — even the most optimistic observer can see that there is "nothing that can be done" about the U.S.'s Republican Party politicians, when it comes to getting them to tackle major problems (such as AGW and other long-term issues). We will have to wait for their current political donors to die off [fortunately, many such individual wealthy donors are already very elderly] ..... or in the case of public companies (e.g. ExxonMobil) to eventually be overtaken by shareholder revolt. And please correct me: but I have the impression the G.O.P. is rather lukewarm about building new nuclear plants.
Like Nigelj, I have no fundamental objection to nuclear electric generation. Yet it has almost insuperable difficulties nowadays, with long build times and very high capital costs (including amortization of de-commissioning costs) as well as the worrisome vulnerability to terrorists. Not to mention the NIMBY factor ;-)
Possibly the proposed Thorium Reactors could overcome some of these problems — but that is off in the Never Never Land of the future. And as you yourself say, it is irresponsible to take our society down a road which relies on future technological changes (of a very uncertain sort).
NorrisM, coal-fired generators are nowadays distinctly unattractive to investors. Furthermore, the author you mentioned [Alex Epstein, of The Moral Case etc] has misled you about the marginal cost of their electric output — it is nowhere near as low as wind/solar's. And the same applies with Levelized Costs.
A different Epstein [Paul Epstein] in an economic study Epstein et al., 2011 shows the externalized costs with coal are three times higher than the "face value" costs with coal. Yes, 2011 is 6-7 years ago now — but the externalized cost ratio will not have improved since then. And either way, there is no reason to avoid pushing ahead with more wind/solar generation, for the purpose of achieving a partial reduction in CO2 emissions (since the matter is urgent).
Frankly, author Alex Epstein is little better than a propagandist trying to cloak his bias, and confuse readers with false moralising.
-
bjchip at 19:18 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
You should distinguish between the support of a low and stable inflationary regime, and the support of economic growth. The two are different things, and while the first relates to the nature of money, the second does not.
If money is backed by debt and interest is charged for that debt the second most definitely does relate to the nature of money and in fact it explicitly attempts to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Which leads to failure and instability over time, which is observed in every debt-backed money. The actual interest rate that is demanded is zero and ZIRP came as a surprise only because I expected monetary collapse first.
"In the first instance, the economy needs to grow at least at the same rate as the population grows or each generation will become poorer."
Yup... that's required and natural growth and it isn't anything like what we've seen this past century. Is it??? I haven't gotten into population, but population growth is a problem separate from the effect of money as debt. Conflating the two simply worsens understanding of both.
Wait for the book or argue with me elsewhere OK? This ain't the place or the time.
The point is that economics is important to the environment. It is critical to it, because it governs usage of the environment and regulation will only temporarily save a resource that is economically attractive. The "poaching" will happen until the economic advantage or the resource are gone.
-
Kevin C at 19:00 PM on 4 July 2017Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
It also suffers from a lot of surface contamination, which varies with surface type. So turning the brightness signal back into a temperature signal is even harder than for the other channels. For surface temperature, infrared satellites are probably more useful, although you still need to deal with the differing surface properties.
-
nigelj at 18:29 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Norris M @30.
I dont think you can say that fossil fuels are massively cheaper than wind or solar power. I also dont think you can simply say nuclear is cheap power. Plenty of studies show otherwise as below. This is levelised costs on country by country basis and highly detailed. Its consistent with articles I have read elsewhere in Forbes etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Broadly generally on shore wind and hydro is the cheapest form of electricity per unit, levelised cost. Coal is moderately cheap.
Nuclear, Solar and offshore wind are in the middle.
Gas is expensive but depends on the type.
I think choices on low emssions electricity generation are best made by individual countries according to their available best resources, etc,etc.
I dont have anything firmly against nuclear power but clearly it has its issues, benfits, and problems. I dont see how nuclear stands out as a magic or universal answer. The costs are just not low enough, and it is very slow to build, and get regulatory approval compared to wind or solar.
But then, no option stands out as a magic answer. On shore wind has become very cost competitive, but then it won't work alone as the only option for countries without consistently reasonably windy weather.
My country has numerous options before exploring nuclear power, and we have seismic issues right through our country, and are very reliant on agricultural exports, so just cannot afford even a slight nuclear problem.
On the other hand as you say nuclear may appeal to the Republicans, and may be acceptable to the public in America. It may suit countries with very inconsistent wind or cloudy climates, and lacking in other energy resources.
-
nigelj at 17:58 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Doug_C @29
I don't know what the future would bring, or what will replace capital, but this book attempts to answer exactly that question: Post Capitalism, by Paul Mason.
He talks about historic economic cycles, Kondratief Waves, and the rise of the uber style economy as an indication of where things might be going. He explores the peer to peer economy and possible changing roles of money, new forms of lending, changing nature of ownership, bitcoin etc. Its not a stunning book, but its definitely very good. He also gets right into climate change and the low carbon economy.
I have another interesting one I'm half through: How will Capitalism End, by Wolfgang Streeck.
And here's another book of relevance: The production of money, how to break the power of bankers, by Ann Pettifor. BJChip you might be interested.
I tend to favour a soft edged version of capitalism myself. The Joseph Stiglitz approach, the nobel prize winning economist chap.
-
bjchip at 17:29 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Tom Curtis #14
"If money represents work done, in the standard sense of physics, then mining 100 tonnes of nickel ore and transporting it to a refinery would generate no more, and no less, value than mining 100 tonnes of quartz"
No. It costs the same "money" or "energy" to do the mining but that is not the same as the value we place on what we extract.
Value and Money are not the same thing. You can waste money, you can waste work, but the value of something painted by a Picasso is vastly different from the work that Picasso put into it. It was however his work. If you pay YOUR work for that Picasso you have to exchange value, not work. Once the separation occurs - that value is subjective but money is objective - the remaining problems of investment and taxation and the representation of entropy remain to be solved.
I said it is complicated. I was not understating things. It is simple to say it, but we who have been raised with nothing but debt based dollars as our medium of exchange have a great deal of difficulty dealing with anything else.
-
NorrisM at 15:57 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Eclectic@21
After watching the YouTube taping of the proceedings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in March 2017 and the announcements of Trump, I do not see any realistic chance that Trump and the Republicans will do very much at all on specific steps to counter AGW beyond Trump's announcement of greater funding for nuclear energy research. I personally think this is about the only thing that he has got right. I think you know that James Hansen also believes that we cannot realistically replace fossil fuels without a major shift to nuclear energy. I think this echoes the views of Doug_C in this thread.
On the issue of Alex Epstein, unless I have missed something, the cost per unit of energy for fossil fuels today is massively less than that of solar or wind power leaving aside some form of carbon tax. In four years, since the publication of his book I highly doubt that the technology has changed. In spite of the efforts of Elon Musk, it is my understanding that there has NOT been a major breakthrough in the technology of batteries that can solve the underlying problem of solar and wind power (leaving aside their costs per unit of energy) of supplying electrical generation at night. This clearly will be a game changer if and when it happens. But look at cold fusion. Where is it today. It is irresponsible to take our society down a road which relies on future technological changes. Nuclear power is the responsible way of weaning us from fossil fuels if it is determined that the costs outweigh the benefits.
Although I do not agree that every forest fire can be attributed to climate change (ever considered El Nino?), I do agree with Doug_C that nuclear energy is the only realistic way to go.
So perhaps this should be the focus with the Republican party. Support the efforts of the Climate Leadership Council. This is a "revenue neutral" proposal that puts a price tag on fossil fuels but returns the tax to the US people by way of a "dividend". But after looking at the Republicans propose massive reductions in Obamacare in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, I am not sure that will even work because this Carbon dividend would clearly help the poor in the US. The rich would clearly put more in by way of carbon tax than they would get out by a pro rata divident to all US citizens. Trump's coal miners might not be so happy as well.
Editor: This is clearly on topic because according to James Hansen, nuclear energy wins "hands down" over the per energy unit cost of wind and solar power.
-
Doug_C at 15:28 PM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
nigelj @ 28
I think you put it really well, Adam Smith one of the pioneers of modern economics was an early proponent of free markets but soon came to realize that capital was a great servant but a very poor master.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
I think the days of capital based economics are coming to an end, they have served their purpose and their time is done.
I'm not sure what will replace them, but it is going to have to be very dynamic and adaptive in the same way human society as a whole will have to be in the coming decades.
The challenges we are leaving for the generation just entering the world and those that follow are immense.
-
BaerbelW at 14:23 PM on 4 July 2017Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
newairly - check Kevin C's Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness? from last year. The article contains a flow chart depicting how the measurements from satellites "turn" into temperature. It should answer your question.
-
newairly at 13:47 PM on 4 July 2017Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
I have always thought that satellite measurements depend on modelling to extract temperature signals from the raw data. Am I correct about this? Are there any fairly basic sources which describe how the temperature signal is extracted?
-
nigelj at 13:14 PM on 4 July 2017Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
Important news, and good historical perspective in the article. Of course the denialist response will be predictable and tiresome, involving the usual stupid accusations.
-
Gingerbaker at 11:51 AM on 4 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
tcflood
1) Jacobson & Delucchi reply to Clack:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Line-by-line-Clack.pdf
2) Clack responds to J&D'd response:
http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ReplyResponse.pdf
Moderator Response:[PS] Link fixed. Please learn how to do this yourself in the Link tool.
-
Gingerbaker at 11:44 AM on 4 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Michael Sweet
The link study addresses many of the issues listed in your review paper. 1 Kg olivine sequesters 1.25 kg Co2. When ground up into powder, it works very fast, and also produces carbonate which will address ocean acidification. To sequester 1 year's worth of our current CO2 emissions, it would require 7 cubic kilometers worth of stone. This would be a large operation - making olivine the 3rd largest mining product. It would cost $250 billion a year.
We would obviously need to stop burning carbon. But this would be a relatively inexpensive way to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels quickly. Quite a bargain, really.
-
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 4 July 2017A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
It is also worth noting that in political debates, finding a middle ground is often in the way forward. However, science doesnt go for middle ground much. You cant try and postulate that there are fictional sources of warming for which there is no evidence. If you want to excuse humans then you need to provide evidence for other causes that dont violate first law thermodynamics. For example, you cant say the warming is coming from the oceans on some "natural cycle" while the oceans continue to heat. You can explain short term heating (eg El Nino) from ocean/atmosphere exchange (ocean heat content drops) but not long term.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Doug_C @25, yeah I agree about the underlying physical science realities and risks. This is my underlying thinking and has been for years. I do think we are at huge risk of undermining the only planet we have, and we absolutely cannot count on escaping to other planets etc.
However I have turned into an envionmental pragmatist or moderate in some ways. I can see the business perspective as well, and that we have to be realistic and fair to everyone. We need the business sector.
To me its a case of how do we promote economic growth and mining etc, but how do we do this responsibly with minimal impact? Its a hard road technically, and I'm treading a middle ground ideologically, and will not be popular for that, but I see few options.
I think we can "have our cake and eat it" if we are smart, and just a bit fair minded.
But you are dead right any economic or real world policies have to fit within the physical limits of the environment. That's a good bottom line. Of course the debate is how you quantify all this.
"How do you get government that is supposed to represent society in general and the private sector to cooperate to protect the basic integrity of the planet we all depend on for survival when the clear imperative in many cases is to have the greatest benefit for the private sector no matter the cost to us all."
It's a big problem. The pendulm has swung too far to corporate neoliberalism. A healthy belief in free markets has been wrongly interpreted to mean no control over markets at all, and profit as the only criteria which is clearly not workable. Profit is important, but so is maintaining stability of the underlying system.
Such a thing as genuinely totally free markets is actually impossible, unless we want no government and total anarchy. The term only ever meant free from arbitrary and illogical control. Markets have to have rules and boundaries, or they dont function and cause irreparable harm. And this is really about issues around health, safety, environmental concerns, and financial stability.
Politicians need to wake up to these obvious realities. They are there to make planetary systems workable and stable, not to pander to narrow, selfish and destructive interests.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
OPOF @24. I agree on the whole. You are preaching to the already converted there with me! It is a very sensible world view, with wide appeal.
I'm not going to argue with it for the sake of argument. I prefer to oppose specific details that might seem wrong.
On aggression I do partly disagree. I think the evidence is pretty clear. Most humans has some aggressive instincts that go quite deep, but clearly most people also appear to be able to constrain these instincts as well, and have a conscience to guide them. Humans also develop values systems and laws. We are complex and partly self correcting and adaptable.
Maybe Hawking is a bit pessimistic. I prefer to be an idealist, and see aggression as something that can be tamed, and must be tamed.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
OPOF @23, just on this 'tribalism' issue that you raise (and you are right about it). The Economist this week, dated July 1, has a great article: Trumps America, the power of groupthink.
It's not just a simplistic attack on trump, and digs a bit deeper into the views of people, especially in small town america, with real world interviews with them, as well as commentary on the underlying social forces.
Its about emerging and hardening divisions based on group identity, political andideological leanings, and economic and occupational influences. Its particularly interesting how people identify trump being onside with their tribe, even though they dislike him in some ways. The fact he sticks up for them appears to be enough and they dismiss the fact thath his policies dont make sense.
There is a growing division between liberal and conservative attitudes, sadly to say, but the partisan divisions in terms of republican v democrat are not actually as large or clear cut as people think. It appears people are very uncertain what parties even stand for in America, and often its rather an arbitray vote, based mostly on instincts and personalities of leaders more than policies or world view.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 4 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
tcflood @7
www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/06/the-heated-politics-of-renewable-energy/530766/
I havent read any of the research, but the articles above are good commentary on the Jacobsen versus Clack debate.
They have now also engaged in a heated and detailed internet exchange of criticisms of each others work. It's not clear who is correct, and nobody has done to total review of their debate as yet that I'm aware of. Doing this would be a big task.
But certain things do stand out already:
Jacobsen proposes a 100% renewable grid. His work is very respected and detailed, and has been thoroughly checked, so I would not be too quick to dismiss any of it.
Clack acknowledges a 100% renewable grid is technically possible. His real criticism is cost and practicality, and that Jacobsen has some assumptions too optimistic etc. But Clack accepts a need for a large renewable component anyway, and simply wants more nuclear, biofuels and carbon capture etc. This is the key point in his research.
But people on his team have vested commercial interests in this technology.
The main point is they both agree on a large role for renewable energy, so the debate does not undermine renewable energy in principle. Therefore theres no particular reason not to proceed. Its about the ultimate mix of things.
I suspect that getting a grid 75% renewable grid would be easy enough, but the last 25% will get harder due to intermittency issues. It may be that for the last 20% nuclear is cheaper than a large surplus of wind power to cope with intermiitency problems, but this is just a guess on my poart. I dont particularly like nuclear and it has its own issues, but I cant absolutely rule it out either.
But its very hard to generalise about ideal solutions because every country has different resources. My country already has over 80% renewable and we have been told getting to 100% is feasible and affordable, but we are fortunate to have a big range of renewable options. For countries with poor sunlight and not much wind, and isolated from neighbours, or not wanting to be dependent on them, what do you do? You have to consider nuclear, carbon capture, or biofuels, etc. So Clack may have a point.
-
Doug_C at 01:51 AM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
nigelj @22
I can agree with much of that with the caveat that any economic and political policies must ultimately fit within the physical limits of the environment.
We don't want anarchy as a result of policies intended to create environmental sustainability, but the worst kind of anarchy is the likely outcome if the natural systems that make such a diverse and rich biosphere exist here in the first place are continuously degraded by human activity.
The biosphere acts as a whole to create such beneficial conditions that as far as we know only exist here. By treating the oceans purely as a source of "cheap" protein and a waste dump for instance we are already heading for very serious problems. Burning billions of tons of fossil fuels a year make this much worse as the acidity levels of the oceans rise as does the average temperature forcing some of the most diverse and important ecosystems like coral reef systems further and further to the brink of elimination.
How do you get government that is supposed to represent society in general and the private sector to cooperate to protect the basic integrity of the planet we all depend on for survival when the clear imperative in many cases is to have the greatest benefit for the private sector no matter the cost to us all.
The fact that fossil fuels are still used on the level they are now is an indication of how strong private sector controlled market forces can be in holding us on clearly unsustainable courses no matter what evidence is presented of the risk.
I don't know what the answer is, all I know is the current system isn't working and consequences are already very serious.
Here in Canada we had the city most closely associated with the Athabasca tar sands bitument projects that is this country's largest source of GHG emissions mostly burn up as a result of a "freak" early spring heat wave. This was still not enough to wake up our politicians both locally and federally or the people who want to drive policy that will make this and worse a common occurance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 4 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
A different presentation of my comment @23 would be:
Global society needs to re-establish the value of Good Actions based on Rational Consideration of Distant Motives, a culture of Independently Verifiable Good Helpful Character winning over the culture of Created Perceptions Unjustifiably Boosting Impressions of Personality.
The objective is to get everyone to understand the importance of participating in helping to improve the future for all of humanity: being good to yourself personally (eating a balanced diet and getting a variety of exercise), helping (not harming) locally and globally, in the short and long term. And that means understanding that a person does not deserve admiration or respect just because they appear to be wealthy or impressive (and understanding that some wealthy powerful people do not deserve their wealth or power).A related understanding is that the marketplace/money games need monitoring and correction to ensure that genuinely helpful actions are the valued activities, and harmful activities are effectively deterred. People need to grow up wanting to be helpful and being rewarded for the help they can deliver, rather than growing up focused on 'Making Money and Putting on Shows of Wealth and Grandeur (including taking on debt, or stealing, or doing something understandably unsustainable or harmful - things that would be counter-productive if everybody else decide to try to get away with them like those drivers who try to cut in near the front of a long line of traffic waiting to make a turn.)'. Leaders/Winners need to be held accountable to act to achieve that result.
I disagree with Stephen Hawking's thoughts in a recent BBC interview that “... aggression was "inbuilt" in humans and that our best hope of survival was to live on other planets.”
Humanity collectively can learn how to work to improve the future for all of humanity, a robust diversity of it, fitting in sustainably as part of a robust diversity of other life 'on this or any other planet'. Until humanity learns how to do that, stops allowing too many people to grow up mere children, it has no future anywhere.
The establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals is evidence that humanity can figure out how to be more certain that it has a future.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:28 PM on 3 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #26
@LRDT:
I have responded to you on this topic on this more appropriate thread.
If you have similar question on that topic, place them there, and not here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:26 PM on 3 July 2017A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
User LRDT has asked about the human attribution of the causes of global warming and climate change. Given this:
And this:
Yields this, from the OP above:
-
LRDT at 23:03 PM on 3 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #26
I would prefer that the 5 key points say that 'humans have accelerated the process' instead of 'caused by' because there are so many factors that fluctuate. Finding the middle ground might dilute the extremes.
-
tcflood at 16:18 PM on 3 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Sorry if this is not the right place to ask this. A recent WaPo article by Chris Mooney (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/19/a-bitter-scientific-debate-just-erupted-over-the-future-of-the-u-s-electric-grid/?utm_term=.a7a28986bd37) discusses a recent PNAS paper by Christopher Clack and 20 other scientists that take Mark Jacobson to task on his water-wind-solar 100% energy generation by 2055. Do you have anyone who can do a post on this debate that can evaluate the arguments in detail?
Jacobson's papers always seemed too optimistic to me, but I can't properly evaluate the details of the arguments. It seems to me that the outcomeof this debate is immensely important for the credibility of the renewable energy community as it tries to influence the course of US/world energy decarbonization.
-
Ger at 14:36 PM on 3 July 2017SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets
If your body temperature goes over 42 C, you die. If it goes under 32 C you die as well. The Earth as a system doesn't die, all life , as we know it will as life isn't capable of adapting that fast to changes.
Source of the heat is outside this earth, the sun. The blanket analogy goes wrong by taking the source of the heat on earth. (you under the blanket). Sun does inject a dense ( much kW/m2) form of energy whilst on Earth there are not such hot sources.
As said, the CO2 blanket is transparant for short wave radiation, but much less for the longer wave radiation. Adding CO2 will make it rapidly less transparant, even in little bits as the swings in environmental conditions will be bigger than before and go over/under the limits of what life forms can stand. (+50 degrees C and -45 degrees C)
P.S. if you want to keep ice frozen, you can wrap it in blankets as well. Most of the heat condition is, with the blankets, through heat conduction, not radiation.
Try the glass greenhouse: transparant for (most) short wave radiation, Double layer glass with vacuum in between the panes passes far less energy out than it lets in short wave radiation.
Change the CO2 concentration (short wave does get converted into long wave radiation by CO2) and the temperature inside goes up rapidly.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:31 PM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
nigelj@22,
I am a fan of the marketplace. But I also recognise that the games of the marketplace do not always produce a good result, primarily because of the distortions of misleading marketing and the powerful temptation for people to care more about themselves and their Tribe than they do about Others, and to fail to care much about the long-term.
Diligent observers of the 'games people play' are required. And they need to be able to rapidly act to curtail any activity that is likely to be damaging to others (especially to future generations) or is unlikely to be sustainable are required. That helps sports be better comeptitions (no matter how much the ones who want to benefit from behaving less acceptably complain about refereeing interfering with the 'play of the game'.
No referees or rules are required if, and only if: All the participants in the game are fully aware of everything related to what they are doing and its influence beyond the moment and beyond their personal interest/desire (and will seek increased improved awareness and understanding and change their ways accordingly). And they also are all self-governed by an overpowering desire to help others and sustainably improve the future for all of humanity.
As John Stuart Mill warns in "On Liberty", society must strive to not let people grow up to be mere children, unable to be moved by rational consideration of distant motives. Achieving that end, everyone being caring helpful and considerate, is likely impossible. So all Leaders have an obligation to Lead by Example and deal effectively with those who manage to grow up mere children. That has to become the expectation of everyone who Wins in the games people play, even though at the moment many of the current Winners would bitterly resist being required to behave better.
The unfortunate change of attitude that started in the mid-1800s must be reversed. As presented in Susan Cain's book “Quiet - The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking”, historian Warren Sussman identified a shift of admiration and recognition of deserving people from the substantive 'Culture of Character: Citizenship, Duty, Work, Golden deeds, Honour, Reputation, Morals, Manners, Integrity' to the current potentially vacuous 'Culture of Personality: Magnetic, Fascinating, Stunning, Attractive, Glowing, Dominant, Forceful, Energetic'.
I personally believe Marketing, particualrly political marketing, should become a Profession with all of its members accountable to ensure that none of its members get away with behaving deliberately misleading in any way. Some may say that restriction and in-fighting would ruin Marketing, but they are the ones who enjoy getting away with behaving less acceptably.
-
nigelj at 12:10 PM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
The comments on inflation and money are very good, but I dont see what inflation, or money creation has to do with the environment. Inflation is low anyway, and the larger problem is levels of global debt.
It's more about how we put a workable value on sustainability. There is value in sustaining certain resources, an obvious example is fisheries by having fishing quota, and then it's a question of policing this and deciding who pays for this, probably the fishing industry. Many metals are already recycled by private markets, but there may be value in legislating to ensure rare metals are as easy to recycle as possible, and conserved going forwards, rather than just fingers crossed hoping there is no problem. With climate change the consensus is wisely moving towards a carbon tax.
We already know what has to be done. The problem is the will to do it, and the toxic influence of vested interests and lobby groups opposing change, and general parania in some quarters about nanny state government.
However I think convincing the public and politicians, and everyone really of sustainability issues requires a careful distinction that some of these problems are best solved by the market forces, and some by government with a careful explanation of exactly why. You dont want to come across as either socialist, or alternatively as pandering to the corporate sector.
The idea could be a partnership approach based on an economic understanding of which issues are best dealt with by market forces, and which by government or community input. The distinction is logical, sound, and important. And to all but the fanatics both private sector and government have their place.
So you have a partnership of private sector and government but based strictly on transparent goals, criteria, and evidence based understanding of the issues. You can have bipartisan scrutiny of cost effectiveness of rules etc. I'm absolutely certain this will happen anyway, and it already is to some extent. Trump is just a temporary backwards looking, ignorant road block.
-
Eclectic at 11:00 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
NorrisM @16 ,
certainly I would be very interested to hear your views on "what can be done" with the present U.S's Republican Party. Can you suggest any ways that would persuade them (in a timely manner) to actively tackle the AGW problem?
Alex Epstein's book the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels was based on "green energy" costs of 4 or more years ago — indeed, his whole line of argument rests on the now very outdated idea that Fossil Fuels-based electricity generation is & will be cheaper than solar & wind.
Worse, Epstein skirts past the important point that a great percentage of the very poor do live in tiny groupings/villages, where traditional FF centralized generation (to grid distribution) is withheld from them by high costs of distribution. Rural dwellers certainly desire to use refrigeration, LED lighting, and electronic communication — but many will miss out gaining that in future, if they need wait on grid connection to coal-fired generators. And it is the world's poor who will suffer most, from the ongoing increase of global warming. Mr Epstein fails to acknowledge that it is time to stop digging the hole deeper.
Few would care to deny how useful Fossil Fuel energy has been in powering our advancing technology during the past 200 years. But the future obviously needs to be different in its power-sourcing. And the future is not the past — yet Mr Epstein argues from the past. He does not present an argument which is fair & balanced (and realistic for the future!).
-
ubrew12 at 10:45 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
chriskoz@10: Somewhat late to explain my cryptic remark, revertheless: the $3 trillion for the Iraq War I'm getting from Joseph Stiglitz, and he's including the cost of a lifetime of medical attention to those wounded in the war (on the American side, a significant caveat). And I'm declaring that to be lost money because, imho, nothing was gained by it. Similarly the $1 trillion cost of the Afghan War (with the singular exception of expelling Al Qaeda from Afghanistan). As someone once said, "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money".
Compared to this, Trumps overinflated 'cost' of going green is a walk in the park. He will need to overinflate his overinflation, which he seems perfectly capable of doing. Trump lives in the Big Rock Candy Mountains. Where, as the lyrics admit:
"All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall
The winds don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains." -
DPiepgrass at 10:35 AM on 3 July 2017There's no tropospheric hot spot
The first two images are broken. They should be:
2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)
Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)
-
scaddenp at 09:55 AM on 3 July 2017Dropped stations introduce warming bias
Some link to the allegations would be useful because this doesnt make any sense. Sea water temperature changed around WW2 from canvas bucket to engine inlet. Unadjusted, this make warming trend look higher than actual so NASA has adjusted data to account for that which reduces the warming trend. SST is certainly used before WW2. And yes, it surface sea temperature. Defining 1m above sea on surface in motion would be tricky. Sea doesnt have same temperature issues close to surface as land.
You might want to look at this article and comment further there as your question is offtopic here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:58 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Doug_C and others,
Regarding Zero-Sum games:
It is important to recognize that everyone competing to be the biggest beneficiary of getting away with activity that creates more GHGs is playing a Negative-Sum Game. Though they may perceive themselves to be Winning relative to Others the end result is a reduction of total value, a negative. It is in the form of reduced access to buried ancient hydrocarbons as well as the increased costs and challenges of the rapid climate changes, and other impacts of the activity “They personally perceive a benefit from getting away with” (which is why they have claimed that restricting their ability to Win that way is a restriction of personal freedom, their Liberty. Which is why I use the quote from “On Liberty” to point out that what they try to get away with is contrary to a Good Understanding of the proper pursuit of Liberty for all).
Regarding the Environment:
An important distinction is the practically eternally renewable environment vs. the non-renewable parts of the planet. Use of renewable aspects of the environment in a truly sustainable way is the only clearly 'sustainable economic activity'. And it is the only type of activity that has the potential to sustain growth of the activity. Extracting and using non-renewable elements can only approach sustainability by careful management of the material to prolong its initial use and efforts to maximize the recycling for reuse. Clearly, expanding the amount of that type of material use by extracting more of it faces higher costs per additional unit, especially as it is learned that other impacts of the extraction/production process have to be reduce.
Burning non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons only becomes more and more difficult and produces other damaging impacts. It is a real Loser way to try to Get Ahead.
Regarding money:
As Tom Curtis has implied, money is an 'exchange' device to simplify barter/trade opportunities. Money is used to get a product or service in a multitude of simple deals that all happen concurrently with other exchanges of money, instead of having to put together complicated multi-way barters of 'This - for That - For This - For That - ...' with each This and That being a service or product from different people.
International finance exchanges attempt to establish relative values of the various currency options. It can be very complex. But in spite of the complexities, the purpose of money is to facilitate trade. And it can be thought of in the short-term without caring about or relating it to the environment (each exchange can be made without having to consider the environmental or social sustainability of the exchange, and pursuers of profit deliberately hide or mislead about the negatives of what they are offering), and that is one of the many flaws in the ways of economic game play that humans have made-up, along with other serious flaws like the beliefs that popularity and profitability driven results in the games are legitimate indications of merit, or that everyone freer to believe and do as they please will produce a better result.
-
nigelj at 07:47 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Correction to my post 17 above. The source I looked at said cost is three trillion between now and 2035 in total adding together all years. Another source says three trillion per year going forwards. Does anyone have clarity on this?
Its still a low figure if put in context, and if you also consider benefits.
-
nigelj at 07:20 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
The article states "The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP [gross domestic product].”
Firstly my understanding is the alleged three trillion is between now and 2035, so around 18 years.
Iraq is a tempting comparison but probably too uncertain and divisive. It was certainly an expensive blunder.
A better comparison could be with Americas total gdp over 18 years. . Americas total gdp per year (value of all goods and services produced) is approximately currently 18 trillion per year (see link below) Over 18 years that is 324 trillion at least, because of course it grows each year.
The so called alleged loss of gdp of three trillion, or cost of combatting climate change, is barely even significant when put in context of 324 trillion.
Of course its also a dubious and likely exaggerated claim, and this is also without any consideration of benefits.
www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table
Context is everything.
-
NorrisM at 07:01 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
Doug_C and Tom Curtis,
Tom, I am still reading the thread on Climate Models so I will keep quiet about that topic.
Doug_C, I am also a Canadian and Trudeau has not helped his cause by his honest mistake in skipping Alberta in his July 1 address (our Independence Day). [Sorry, how to you reverse italics?]But here is my point on this thread. Yes, economics do matter a lot. But so do politics.
After listening to many Sam Harris podcasts, my general sense is that there is NO chance of impeaching Donald Trump. I will not get into the reasons in detail, but listen to the David Frum and Anne Appelbaum interviews for starters. By the way, David Frum (a Canadian and former speech writer for George W. Bush) is one of the most out-spoken Republican critics of Trump.
The underlying reason for this conclusion is that the Republicans see the chance to get a lot of their agenda through during his presidency. As well, he has a "core" 35% of the electorate (mainly white non-college educated) who have been hurt by globalization who represent his underlying base.
So ...., given no impeachment of Trump and a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, is it not time to discuss what CAN be done given this political reality, making the assumption that it is better to be safe than sorry regarding CO2? I personally am not convinced of this yet but I would like to make that assumption.
We have 3 and half years left of Trump and the first '"by-election" has found the Republican candidate winning over the Democratic candidate in an election in which both national parties were heavily invested. Given this we may have close to 8 years.
With this reality, is it not incumbent on those who wish to push for changes to push for changes that could also meet the Republican agenda and not waste time arguing for things that just will not happen while Trump is in power?
The obvious one is the Climate Leadership Council agenda. What is the use of convincing the "convinced" that his "cost/benefit" analysis is wrong? What is the relevance of this?
What I would also like to see is some relevant discussion of whether any realistic changes can be made without the US onside. I highly suspect that China and the EU will not come to some "grand bargain". I think China will use this as an excuse to back off on things other than matters of pollution. Pollution is clearly a different issue. They can adopt strict measures in the cities without impoverishing their rural areas.
If SkepticalScience begins a thread on the Climate Leadership Council or similar measures, I would be interested in making some comments on that page.
What really troubles me after reading some of the comments of Nigel Lawson and others but especially after reading Alex Epstein's book the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is the massive cost to life, agricultural output, and economic well being that could be imposed on the underdeveloped peoples of this world many of whom who have, over the last 20 years, thanks to "cheap energy", pulled themselves out of poverty and may even now own a refridgerator. How many of us would give up a refridgerator to solve AGW?
But that is for another thread.
Moderator Response:[PS] While Sks frequently reposts climate articles from other sources, it does have a very specific focus -"Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation". Its seems what you want to discuss is done by other forums. eg here
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 3 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Trump and Pruit will be burning climate science text books next. People come up with convoluted analysis of Trump's ideas and policies, but just apply occams razor and you are left with pure idiocy.
-
Doug_C at 03:02 AM on 3 July 2017Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs
bjchip @13
Ultimately that money represents physical resources available in the natural world. Whether it's the free oxygen we breath, the fresh water we can't survive without or the food that in many cases requires complex interactions between many species and essential elements that need to be availabe in precise states. Everything beyond that in a sense can be considered a luxury in purely survival terms.
There is real no separation between the economy and the environment and the economy is a subset of the environment. Knock away all environmental supports and all our economies are coming crashing down.
This is the problem that I think exists with the focus on economic imperatives over environmental, it obscures what the genuine realtionship is at a time when we need to be very clear about them.
We can live without money. We can not live without oxygen, fresh water and food.
As reported here there is growing evidence that what we're doing with regards to fossil fuel use alone is entering the same scale as the changes that caused things like the Permian Extinction Events.
Skeptical Science- Permian Extinction and Fossil Fuel use
During events like this only the species with the lowest oxygen and nutritional requirements survive, we don't fit in that paradigm.
Which means that focusing almost exclusively on economics while recreating what we are in fact in the process of recreating is going to cause the worst economic outcome possible. No economy when there are no people left.
-
HK at 02:00 AM on 3 July 2017It's the sun
The first sentence in this article by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert debunks any arguments about cumulative TSI:
"In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it."
(my emphasis)
-
Mal Adapted at 01:41 AM on 3 July 2017What Does Statistically Significant Actually Mean?
WRT allegations of a statistically-significant 'hiatus', during the interval from about 2000 to about 2014, in the long-term (30+ years) trend of GMST: according to Tamino, because a significant long-term trend had already been shown, the correct null hypothesis isn't that the slope of the GMST trend was zero during the alleged hiatus, but that there was no change in the long-term trend. There wasn't, as it turns out; statistically speaking, no change from either the trend from 1970 - 2000, or the current 30-yr trend, emerges from the noise.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/testing-for-change/
-
NoctambulantJoycean at 01:40 AM on 3 July 2017It's the sun
John Christy recently used a cumulative total solar irradiance (TSI) index to argue that the Sun, not CO2, caused most of the recent global warming. This cumulative-TSI-based approach is flawed, though explaining why is beyond the scope of this post. I instead want to point out how Christy contradicted himself in his defense of his claim.
In the 1st edition of his hotspot blogpost/"report", Christy claims that 150mb is the tropical upper troposphere:
"On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot" & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding" (page pages 23, 25, and 59)But in the 2nd edition of his blogpost/"report", he claims that 150mb is the tropical stratosphere:
"On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Second Edition" (pages 24, 25, and 70)So in the transition from the 1st to the 2nd edition, Christy re-labelled upper tropospheric temperature as stratospheric temperature, with the effect of making it look like the stratosphere warmed. He did this despite the fact that the stratosphere actually cooled (as shown in a source Christy cited in his "report"; see the Sherwood paper cited on page 23 of the "report's" first edition). Christy's re-labeling is convenient for his position, because Christy's solar warming hypothesis implies stratospheric warming. Furthermore, CO2-induced global warming would result in stratospheric cooling, and Christy's "report" is committed to saying that CO2 has had no significant impact on temperature records.
So Christy's self-contradiction on atmospheric temperature, allowed him to claim that CO2 had no significant effect on temperature and that the Sun caused most of the recent global warming. I'm surprised that Christy would cite such a distorted blogpost/"report" to the US Congress:
"U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 29 Mar 2017, Testimony of John R. Christy" (pages 10 and 11). -
HK at 01:39 AM on 3 July 2017Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
A little background info about the updated TLT data from RSS.
The temperature trend now matches the surface records pretty well.
-
Eclectic at 01:25 AM on 3 July 2017It's not bad
Banbrotam @375 , you seem to be applying selective vision to the situation.
First, you should clarify to readers (and to yourself) how much precisely of present-day rapid global warming is caused by human activity. If you hold that rather less than 50% of warming is anthropogenic, then you might well have a point that it would be a struggle to halt or reverse the global warming process. However, the facts are against you there — in actuality, the human causation is very close to 100% (as you will discover if you educate yourself about the issue). And therefore your denial of reversibility carries no weight.
Secondly, what are the "positives" of climate change (i.e. global warming) that you would wish to mention? Sure, you can point to some small areas, such as southern Patagonia and northern Russia, which would (from a human perspective) benefit from a few degrees of global warming. But — taken as a whole, the planet would be 95+% worse off. Especially for the human race in total, and also for most marine life [re temperature for the coral reef systems, and re acidification for much of the rest of the marine biosystem].
If you stop and think it through, Banbrotam, it will occur to you that the present-day plants and animals have evolved to suit the world temperatures (typified by the climate of approx 100 years ago) of the Holocene period. And so you would expect major disruption from very rapid rise in global surface temperature — and so you would be hard-put to find any definite "positives" arising from AGW. And so you would not be surprised that such "positives" [should they exist] are rarely mentioned in discussions.
Remember too, that the present large size of world human population is already pushing the limits of sustainabilty. Any small advantages to AGW (e.g. in northern Russia) are enormously outweighed by more general disadvantages — and particularly so in the Tropics.
Banbrotam, the only real debate that remains, is how to expeditiously tackle climate change. A scientist (for instance: yourself) will of course realise that denial of reality is not "debate" but is simply slogan shouting [which here on SkS is named sloganeering].
Prev 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 Next
