Recent Comments

Prev  382  383  384  385  386  387  388  389  390  391  392  393  394  395  396  397  Next

Comments 19451 to 19500:

19451. MA Rodger at 19:13 PM on 15 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too @56.
       The position you set out for yourself is in part difficult to grasp.

       Your third point seems to be saying that you have doubts about AGW. The IPCC use of the word "likely" to mean 66% to 100% certain and “very likely” to mean 90% to 100%. Is it thus correct to consider your doubts as being 33% to 10% (ie no-less-than-10% as you appear unable to sign up to “very likely”)?
       With this in mind, my own position would be that AGW is “virtually certain” and I consider the UN IPCC rather pulls its punches when it sets out its assessment by stating “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (that is 95%-100% certain) and that “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is … likely to exceed 2°C for ... RCP8.5." (ie RCP8.5 = unmitigated BAU).

       At your fourth point, you say the scientific consensus on AGW refers to your Point 3. Are you saying the scientific consensus applies only to AGW being “likely”? And then at your fifth point you say you don't see the scientific consensus on the likely-or-actual existence of AGW “proves this”. What is the “this” you refer to?

       Unlike Digby Scorgie @63, I will venture beyond point 5 (but unlike nigelj @58, not beyond point 9).

       Your sixth & seventh points are a matched pair. Obviously it would be a tiny bit lacking to prove some great calamity is about to occur if that knowledge is not used to prevent the calamity in some way. I would suggest that it is questionable whether it is useful to consider there being a 'solution' to AGW. Surely it is more a matter of how much AGW is sensibly acceptable and how much sensibly preventable.
       Your eighth point is entirely controversial. You are saying that you do not truly believe that a debate on the likelihood of AGW being the result of CO2 is “legitimate”. Do you then consider the work of the UN IPCC and its attribution of climate change quoted above to be “illegitimate”? Perhaps you need to chose a different word.

       This leads to your ninth point where you believe that it is “legitimate” to debate policy response to AGW even when there is evidently significant dispute that AGW even exists! How can such debate not become bogged down in the dispute over the exisetence of AGW?

       I would add that the [PS] Response @50 strongly asserts that there are “two sides” with a policy debate. I would agree. The Paris agreement had/has “sides” which could be divided into “two”. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 has “sides”. An individual country could be seen as having “sides” in AGW policy debates. And within the IPCC process there are also discernable “sides”. But to ascribe the confusion of all national and international policy decisions/non-decisions as collectively having “sides” is many steps too far for me.

       That said, there exists in particular circumstances “sides” whose positions and  whose impact on policymaking is worthy of discussion, but such discussion would require an understanding of where you are coming from. As I set out here, that is not yet nearly clear enough.

19452. Digby Scorgie at 11:50 AM on 15 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too @56

       I got no further than your point (5).  Fossil fuels contribute about two-thirds of warming.  The consensus on this is based on hard data.  In essence, the ratio of atmospheric carbon 13 to carbon 12 is decreasing.  For the full story behind this you'll find an article on the topic at RealClimate.org.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] read it carefully. I am not aware of anyone seriously considering that "consensus" = "proof". Proof belongs in maths not science.

19453. Tom Curtis at 09:59 AM on 15 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       michael sweet @61, Rhodes et al (2017) with regard to solar:

       "Capacity factor values for utility and residential-scale solar PV plants were calculated using the capacity factor maps found in Drury et al. (2013). Because these maps were at a finer granularity than county-level, the average value per county was calculated. Utility-scale PV was assumed to be single-axis tracking and residential PV was assumed to be south-facing fixed-tilt at the local latitude (see Figs. 46, 47). Capacity factor values for solar CSP were calculated using NREL's System Advisory Model (SAM) (NREL, 2015). Weather data from over 1000 locations across the US were used with the SAM model of a generic concentrating solar plant with 6 h of thermal energy storage. The resulting capacity factors for the plants were then used to give each county in the US a CSP capacity factor based on similar meteorological conditions (Fig. 48)."

       That is, with respect to each county, they used average insolation and meteorological data for that county to determine solar capacity.  In contrast, Lazard (2016) state, with regard to solar:

       "Low end represents single-axis tracking system. High end represents fixed-tilt design. Assumes 30 MW system in a high insolation jurisdiction (e.g., Southwest U.S.). Does not account for differences in heat coefficients within technologies, balance-of-system costs or other potential factors which may differ across select solar technologies or more specific geographies."

       That is, they assume the best case regional insolation available within the US across the entire US, making their solar costs to those in low insolation, high cloud regions equivalent to those in high insolation, low cloud regions. 

       Rhodes et al state with regard to wind:

       " Capacity factor values for on-shore wind were obtained from 3Tier at a 5 km×5 km resolution (3Tier, 2015) and were averaged at the county level. Wind capacity factors would be higher and thus the LCOE lower if the best locations in each county (rather than merely average conditions) were chosen for siting the wind turbine.  The capacity factor values were for a generic turbine with a hub height of 80 m (Fig. 45)."

       That is, they use the average wind speed across specific counties rather than for the entire country.  Lazard does not give that information, but are likely to have followed their practise with solar, by using the best case region for determining costs across the US.  Lazard also do not give information on tower height, with increased tower height reducing costs.

       With regard to these methodological choices, it is not the case that each county in the US generates its own power.  With a sufficient distribution system, it would make sense for nearly all utility solar in the USA to be located in the SW, and even more sense for a substantial portion to be located in Mexico.  It would similarly make sense for onshore wind to be located in the mid-west which has the highest wind capacity factors.  Rhodes et al, however, adress the issue of more local generation forced on suppliers by current distribution capacity and state based marketing regulations.  It also provides information as to the best location of energy sources within a national distribution grid, if such should be sufficiently developed.

       With regard to nuclear, Lazard states:

       "Key sensitivities examined included fuel costs and tax subsidies.  Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis.  These additional factors, among others, could include: capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission or congestion costs; integration costs; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets, emissions control systems).  The analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, environmental impacts, etc.)."

       Given that the US already has several operating nuclear plants, not taking into account the cost of stranded assets will inflate the relative cost of no longer using nuclear power.  I think you will find that Rhodes et al only show nuclear as being the cheapest option where such nuclear power plants are already operational, and not always there.

       For what it is worth, Rhodes et al show levelized costs by county showing, Min-Max, (Mean) in dollars per MWh as:

       Nuclear: 120-190 (124)

       NG (Combined Cycle): 40-230 (111)

       Onshore Wind: 40-1090 (155)

       Solar PV (Utility): 90-270 (199)

       The the low end county costs are therefore commensurate with those from Lazard, consistent with their different methodologies.  The exception is for Solar PV, where the difference may be due to Rhodes et al using a 2013 paper for information on county level capacity factors.

19454. nigelj at 07:40 AM on 15 June 2017
       New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization
       

       Good  article, that resolves a long standing mystery. It shows the considerable power of climate models, but this message will be lost on the sceptics.

       The following graph may be useful, and was posted on RC some time ago. It covers the last 12,000 years and includes the temperature data from Marcott, plus various model temperature estimates, plus CO2 levels, all on the same graph, so the divergence is clear. Be warned, it appears to be from a sceptics blog, but does appear accurate. 

       tofspot.blogspot.co.nz/2017/06/a-glance-at-holocene.html

19455. Susan Anderson at 04:56 AM on 15 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Thanks, that's some nice additional information. I think the caption should be fixed above. Also, here is a more recent and specific item: A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Is 8 Miles From Creating an Iceberg the Size of Delaware. They're confused over there, so busy providing clickbait on Trump and "balancing" in Opinion that there is not enough front page coverage of some of their potential for excellent climate reporting.

19456. michael sweet at 04:52 AM on 15 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Tom Curtis at 34 and 36,

       While the paper that you linked was recent and detailed, I wonder about many of their conclusions.  

       This table from Lazard (not peer reviewed but up to date)

       (source: CleanTechnica) shows wind and utility solar as cheaper than fossil fuels annd nuclear.

       Westinghouse has declared bankruptcy because of their comittment building the nuclear reactors in the USA and Toshiba looks like it will also go under.  The nuclear builds in Europe are far behind schedule and way over budget also.  In the USA nulcear plants are closing because the O&M costs are more than wind and solar including the mortgage on wind and solar (nuclear has paid off their mortgages).  I wonder how Rhodes et al can find nulcear economic anywhere considering this.

       In their analysis, Rhodes et al used the average wind speed over the entire county to estimate the efficiency of wind power.  In almost all counties there are locations where the wind is much better than the county average so they are strongly underestimating the wind potential (they discusss this problem in their paper).  

       While Rhodes et al have some interesting data, I think their analysis is just a first try.  With more data and analysis their method will probably be useful, but the first pass is incomplete.  

       I am not expert in these matters so perhaps I make a mistake.  Energy analysis are very complicated.  Because Lazard appears to use actual prices and is more up to date, it seems to me that that data is more accurate.  Energy prices change rapidly so data from a few years ago is often not accurate.

19457. michael sweet at 04:25 AM on 15 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too,

       This SkS post discusses Jacobson's plan to use 100% renewable energy to power the entire economy (the entire economy, not just electricity).  He shows this will be cheaper than using fossil fuels.  He shows in other papers that there are enough materials (like steel and rare earth metals) to build out the wind generators and solar panels needed.  He shows in other papers that renewables can generate 100% of all power used as reliably as fossil fuels.  His group gives a lot more data by state (in the USA) and for most other coutries in the world on their web site the solutions project (a good name since you want a solution.  You will have to consider that the cost of wind and solar have decreased dramatically since those papers were written so the cost for Wind and solar will be less than he projects.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Jakobson's group have paper in press discussing path to 100% renewables for 139 countries.

19458. Wol at 04:12 AM on 15 June 2017
       The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
       

       One thing that's worried me for some time is the lack of a date in the rebuttal listings.

       Given that one of the ways that deniers attempt to win arguments is to cherrypick data, relying on an out-of date rebuttal can inadvertently lose the discussion.

       It would be a big job to make sure each is actually up to current knowledge, but useful.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your concern about the currency of the SkS rebuttal articles is shared by the SkS author team. If you, and others, would like to help out in the task of updating the articles, please send us a note using the the "Contact Us" button on the bottom of this webpage. 

19459. too at 14:13 PM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Appreciate the tip [JH]. The efficacy of these discussions, at least in terms of the US, seems...self apparent.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] A look at the average commentators at WUWT or this set of beauties   would suggest attempts at communication with a portion of population is futile.

19460. nigelj at 14:10 PM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @56

       Points 1-10, ok fair enough in the main.

       I accepted from the start that you accept the science. However I think you are wrong on costs of renewable energy like wind being too high. Just have another look at all those tables on costs of renewable energy from various sources and think more about all the various factors.

       On the consensus. I would just point out nobody is claiming this "proves" climate change, so its a strawman really to claim this. A consensus just demonstrates a strong majority position that has developed over a decent time period so become very tested (time is important). It's a measure of strength of a theory to some extent. But governments have to respond to issues and one hopes they listen to the consensus position, as opposed to fringe beliefs of the minority, and Im thinking here of climate science, vaccines, flouride etc. Its not always going to be the right choice, but the alternative of listening to eccentrics is crazy. Its worth pointing out climate science has a huge body of research more so than other issues.

       On malthus. His theory was really that exponential human population growth would lead to disaster. He based this on animal populations and the end result of exhausting basic resources, and fouling environments, etc. And it could be a general problem for humanity obviously. Climate change is a little different, because we are not exhausting a resource as we have a choice between oil and renewable energy. If fusion power works this will never become a mathus type of problem, but other things might.

       So the climate problem has some characteritics of malthus, but I'm not sure its strictly comparable. But reducing rates of population growth will help the climate problem to some extent, and it becomes a question of quantifying this and having a plan. Therefore agonising about the "definition" issue seems odd to me, and calling the climate issue a population problem is certainly deceptive.

       On your solar analogy of the sun eventually changing and obliterating life on earth, this is pretty extreme, because it would never be possible to solve that problem barring some miracle technology in the far future. The climate problem is easier to tackle. But I take your point that people struggle with problems that seem rather distant. In fact I recent research in psychology has found human brains are simply not wired up that well to respond to distant problems, as compared to immediate concerns, and the reasons are obvious, to do with evolution and history and immediate survival. But this varies with different people to some extent.

       So while we conceptualise the future we dont always have the same visceral adrenalin reaction, and powerful motivation that short term threats create.

       Unfortunately a lot of people who have day to day financial challenges and cant see into the future, are also very sceptical about the science, and it becomes inter mingled. It's not possible to simply ignore the way they perceive the science, and it needs to be corrected, but obviously name calling doesn't help.

       One of the main problems is politicians that are strongly driven by ideological modes of thought, and that are captive to business lobby groups and very obsessed with short term interests and immediate goals or pleasures that they have become used to. This is particularly the case in America, so despite the majority wanting more action on climate change, you get a sort of stalemate situation. This is therefore all very much a political problem, and relies on politicans having the courage to take the high ground, and don't hold your breath on that.

       However lack of long term thinking is an issue for many. We have to better develop a longer term perspective that considers something more than tomorrows profit account or bills to pay. These are obviously very important, but with nothing more, humanity is going nowehere and will get into big trouble sooner than we think. As others have pointed out, sustainable development goals are a first step and clearly required to ensure our future over generations. They are a first step that provides a logical and achievable longer term framework, and which could unite people. I sense this is all inevitable anyway, but there are forces trying to obfusticate and delay this process.

19461. One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too@56,

       I see the problem as a failure of Leadership in business and government to be responsible adults who use sensible rational consideration of the best understaning of what is going on to help improve the future for all of humanity.

       John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" presented a good understanding and gave a warning in 1859: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

       The problem today is that many "Mere Children" are being allowed to become leaders of business and be repeatedly elected to government positions.

       Effective communication of climate science is an essential part of correcting the problem. But it is obvious that "All of the Other Responsible Adult Leaders" in business and government need to collectively act in ways that will effectively correct for the regional temporary ability of pursuers of support from easily impressed mere children to Win.

       The majority of the USA population understands that burning of fossil fuels has to be curtailed much more rapidly than the games of popularity and profitability will curtail them. Yet the Leadership of the USA is currently controlled by the opposite type of people.

       More people need to understand that an investment or job that depends on a lack of awareness of its unsustainablility or the damage that it causes is not really a valuable investment or job (regardless of its potential regional temporary popularity and profitability). Those types of investments or jobs have no future, just the potential to over-develop illusions/delusions of prosperity or opportunity. Leaders need to help everyone understand that, or face external actions to change their minds or be remove from their leadership role if they will not 'allow rational consideration of distant motives to be the basis for their thoughts and actions'.

       International sanctions against those types of leaders in business and governments already happen for a variety of other Bad Behavour. It may not be long before that type of effort is used to limit the impacts of Bad Climate Leaders. The Paris Agreement is certainly set up to head in that direction (hence the likes of Team Trump disliking it loudly and passionately in ways that would appeal to other 'grown up mere children')

19462. too at 12:00 PM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       First, thank-you moderators and I wish to clarify my positions for the record.

       1. Do I believe the Earth is warming?: Yes
       2. Do I believe that humans are the likely cause?: Yes
       3. Do I believe that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the likely cause?: Yes
       4. Do I believe that there is scientific consensus for 3?: Yes
       5. Do I believe that scientific consensus for 3 proves this?: No
       6. Do I believe that proving scientific consensus is the most important thing?: No
       7. Do I believe that actually solving the problem is the most important thing?: Yes
       8. Do I believe that legitimate debate on 3 can exist? No, not really, but I can also understand why some might be skeptical.
       9. Do I believe that legitimate debate can exist on the most efficient and effective means of addressing 3?: Yes
       10. Do I believe that climate change is a Malthusian Catastrophe?: Yes. It is a pet theory of mine. And before I get flogged, while that concept has received wide criticism, that criticism is based upon factors not considered by Malthus that mitigated his conclusion, not the underlying concept, which is obviously true.
       11. Am I a concern troll?: No idea, first time I have heard that term, I do not believe so.

       My concern is a path towards a solution is what is most important. Tom Curtis' generous explanations were very enlightening to me at least. What it said to me is that the economics argument from both sides can be taken as right and wrong simultaneously. It is all dependent upon what factors one considers. If one only considers LCoE then one will come to one conclusion on this. If one considers other factors like the EPA SCC then one will come to a very different conclusion. The link to the paper he supplied actually specified this, they provided an app where one could plug in one's own numbers for various different factors and stated that depending on these factors one will get different results.

       Let me attempt to explain my concerns and this is a bit unconventional. Imagine if a group of individuals came out and said. "In 5 billion years the Earth will expand into a red giant star and destroy all life on Earth. This science is undeniable. Therefore, as our first priority before all other priorities, we must invest trillions of dollars to reduce the amount of hydrogen consumed by the sun. Climate change is trivial compared with the extinction of humanity. Anyone that does not agree 100% with our position is a moron and a Solar Change Denier."

       Now, I don't mean to stereotype, but the members of this community would probably have the following reactions:

       • These guys are utter lunatics
       • You would be angry and become more entrenched in your beliefs

       Here is the issue. There is a large segment of the population that views climate change in exactly the same way as you would view those individuals. These people that I am referring to do not necessarily refute the science but they have other concerns like jobs, paying the bills, etc. that are more important to them than something that is, from their perspective, far, far into the future. That is a huge barrier and problem to actually addressing climate change. If, as is my opinion, the only thing that is important is actually solving the problem then that barrier needs to be addressed. That is what I am concerned with. These people, while they do not necessarily refute the science, if you call them idiots and "Climate Change Deniers" all that is happening is that you are entrenching them in their current beliefs. Thus, it is not only about the science, it is more importantly about this large percentage of the electorate that votes.

       My desire is to learn about all the various sides of this and understand how to make progress on actually solving the problem.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Type the word "communication" in this website's search engine and hit the "Go" button. Then start reading the numerous articles on this topic that have been posted on SkS over the years.

19463. BC at 11:55 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Trump Tower is 202m (Google) and the ice shelf is around 600m (Tom Curtis @9). So re Nigelj @4, Trump Tower is one third the height of Larson C.

19464. nigelj at 11:33 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Moderator:  Too says @45 "  I do not believe in AGW based upon scientific consensus but rather from the aspect of the Earth essentially being a closed thermodynamic system and thus it is reasonable that significant carbon release into the atmosphere by humans likely has some degree of impact."

       On you other point further above on moderation policy, I accept virtually everything you say. The only quibble I have is crossing out leaves an impression of censorship even though it isn't.  A bold and explicit warning seems enough to me. But I respect you want to go with crossing out, and I do get where you are generally coming from.

19465. Digby Scorgie at 11:17 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       I should add to my comment @53 that four degrees of warming is of course the typical estimate of where we'll be in 2100 with little, if any, action on climate change.

19466. Digby Scorgie at 11:12 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too

       I find your arguments somewhat baffling.  The bottom line for me is that climate change is happening now, humans are largely responsible, if left unchecked the habitability of the planet will be threatened, and therefore we need to do something about it.

       If everything comes down to cost, well then there is another way to look at it.  Let me quote the eminent scientist Kevin Anderson:  "There is a widespread view that four degrees Celsius [of warming] is incompatible with an organized global community, is beyond adaptation, is devastating to eco-systems, and is unlikely to be stable."  [Reykjavik lecture, February 2016]

       The reference to "unlikely to be stable" means that, if we get to four degrees, it won't stop there but just get worse and worse.

       One needs to reflect on those words.  They paint a pretty scary picture.  A world with no "organized global community"?  How much should humans be willing to pay to avoid such a scenario?

19467. One Planet Only Forever at 08:14 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @ 7
       I agree that something that is half the cost to the current generation and provides twice the benefit for future generations is better. However, as an engineer with and MBA, I understand the fallacy of believing we understand how to technologically manipulate the global environment in a way that is guaranteed to produce a desired result. An Engineering fundamental is that nothing gets produced for public use until thoughtful thorough actual (not artificial) experimentation has been performed to ensure its safety. My MBA courses in Organizational Change made it clear that a desired change cannot be created by implementing a theoretical adjustment on the organization. Implementing changes will result in changes, but because of complexities that are not well understood the actual change is different from what may theoretically be hoped for.
       Massive experiments in imposing changes on the global environment to be performed by future generations at their risk, the sort of irresponsible impositions on Others that the likes of Lomborg try to justify, are extremely dangerous propositions.

       Reducing human impact emissions that are causing change is not the same type of change. Reducing the imposition of such a change to the global environment is “Guaranteed” to reduce the magnitude and uncertainty of the resulting consequences.

       In line with my previous comment, it is not even appropriate to compare the costs for avoiding different levels of temperature increase. Comparisons of different approaches to reducing the total CO2 impact that would achieve the same levels of global impact are valid to determine the more effective options. But trying to justify the creation of a larger future problem because “it would be less expensive for the current generation” cannot be allowed to be considered to be sensible or responsible (and it is worse to claim that the future generations can gamble their futures on massive experiments in global environmental manipulation). That type of thinking can lead to unjustified excusing of less acceptable behaviour because less acceptable behaviour will always be easier, quicker or cheaper even though it causes a bigger problem.
       A justified evaluation would be to determine the level of global temperature increase that would create very little chance of any future costs or challenges to any regions humanity currently has developed in. I am fairly certain that that has been reasonably determined, and we have already likely exceeded that level of temperature increase because of the lack of responsible action by the “Winners” among our predecessors since 1972 (1972 Stockholm Conference made it clear what changes of development direction would be required).

       If we continue to allow “Winning” by people who consider it OK to create costs and challenges for 'Others because the Others have no equity of influence over what is gotten away with, especially future generations' then indeed the matter is a Mathusian one in the sense of the “Less Sensibly/Responsibly Justified More Damaging Winners” encouraging others to compete to be Less Sensibly Responsible and More Damaging (A potential result of the Winners-of-the-moment in the USA excusing themselves from the responsibility to participate in the Paris agreement). The growth of unjustified pursuits of personal interests could indeed destroy humanity, even without population growth.

       Basing “Winning” purely on Popularity and Profitability with everyone “freer to think and do as they please” is indeed a fundamental threat to the future of humanity.

       But humanity has a history of only allowing trouble-makers to go “So Far” before their actions are effectively curtailed. Regrettably, humanity does appear to struggle to retain that learning. It seems to repeatedly have to be relearned. In too many cases the trouble-makers are permitted to go too far because of reluctance or inability to limit the Sovereign Liberty of people or nations (like the recent Sudanese, Bosnia, Rwandan atrocities).

       Supposedly already advanced Nations that did the least improvement of CO2/GDP, CO2/capita since 1972 definitely have a “Disadvantage” today. Claiming the situation they are in, facing more rapid and significant correction of their economic activity (ways of living) than others, as “Unfair” is incredibly unjustified, but understandably popular in the population of such a nation. When G.W. Bush announced that the USA would not ratify Kyoto he declared that Americans did not have to change the way they lived. That “Big Lie” created a delusion among many members of the population, and the current generation in the USA is suffering the consequences. John Stuart Mill (a formative thinker regarding the pursuit of Liberty) would blame the society for failing to properly raise and educate its population. To Quote Mill, “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.” Mill would probably expect international action to attempt to “correct the failing of the USA” so that all of humanity does not fail. Hopefully, thinking like Mills will prevail in the USA before international intervention is required (because history shows that international intervention is usually too late, after significant damage is done).

       It is undeniable that the USA today faces a much larger challenge than it would have to face if the leadership since the 1972 understanding of the Stockholm Conference had done more to encourage responsible development and discourage irresponsible development. But instead of striving to change as much as possible to a sustainable economic path, the USA leadership was influenced into trying to maintain a temporary perception of global competitive superiority by behaving less acceptably than it could have. Currently faced with the reality of the bigger correction of the over-development in the wrong direction, it is understandable why irrational inexcusable unjustified arguing to get away with less acceptable behaviour is popular in the USA population (and other nations). But it is also clear that the population of the USA is justifiably divided on this matter. In spite of some groups “Winning unjustified advantage by deliberately behaving less acceptably” others in the USA (and Canada, and Australia, China, and many other nations) have pursued better behaviour and the development of economic activity that does not face the undeniably dead-end destiny of activity that over-developed in the wrong direction. So the current USA (and many other nations) is understandably divided Good vs. Evil from the perspective of the future of humanity, regardless of attempts to claim that some other Good vs. Evil is more important and get attention misdirected.

       Therefore, to avoid future massive damaging developments the international collective of leaders in business and government have to develop the will to be closely monitored and have quicker action taken to limit the “Winning” by any of “Their Peers” who try to gain advantage from a large portion of the population growing up mere children - selfish/greedy and/or with tribal xenophobic fear based intolerance of “Others”.

       The Paris Agreement has the potential to effectively be that type of international mechanism. That is probably why it is so passionately disliked by many “Intelligent and Knowledgable but Misguiding/Misdirecting” people.

19468. nigelj at 08:13 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Come on guys (and gals)

       I have written hundreds of posts critical of climate sceptics and deniers,  mainly on other websites, often quoting articles from SkSc.

       However even I think you are being a little hard on Too, in part. It's probably climate denier fatigue, these sceptical guys can be very frustrating at times.

       But read what Too has said: He has accepted humans are altering the climate. Maybe its concern trolling but we dont know.

       However he has grumbled about whether there is a "consensus". Well too, there is a consensus, clearly shown in numerous polls, and ultimately while this does not prove a theory is correct, as humans we have to really follow what the majority of scientists are saying as opposed to some eccentric.

       There are two general sides in the debate. Although I dont know where too  is really going with that remark.

       The malthus thing is about definitions, and a more commonsense approach is to accept population increase is a factor and just discuss this.

       Too is right the two sides need to avoid shouting. But he blew this with his condesending remark about calm down. This is exactly the sort of remark which gets my back up and starts  to get personal.

       Too has mainly carried on about renewable energy, and the costs of this. But he has not even remotely proven his case on this. So on his main point he has not persuaded me.

       By the way Too, this website has discussed renewable energy from time to time, but is basically primarily a website about causes of global warming and reasons for scepticism. Its entitled to take this form and I think we need information like that.

       We get a little frustrated with deniers or sceptics or whatever term you prefer, particularly because of all the dodgy cherrypicking ,strawman arguments, lies by ommission, red herrings and sophistry and so we get defensive. We have a right to be a little defensive. Michael Mann gets death threats.

       Of course some warmists can be annoying, but frankly the warmists seem a bit more rational.

       All I ask is for people to be upfront on where they are really going with some post, acknowldege points raised and provide evidence based arguments.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] too has acknowledged that there is a scientific consensus and I think he/she may have implied that they agree with it, but  not sure on that. In early posts, too showed a penchant for rhetoric and sophistry. Provided posts keep that in check and stick to evidence, they should be fine.

19469. Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Susan Anderson @8, interestingly, google images credits the photo of being of the rift in the Larson B ice shelf, a fact given credence by its also being found in a search limited to images available prior to January 1st, 2010, ie, prior to the formation of the current rift on the Larson C.  Having said that, google search time attributions are not always reliable, and I could not find a specific attribution of the photo at NSIDC.

       Here is a November 2016 image of the Larson C rift from NASA:

       

       In February 2017, the New York Times reported on the rift, showing this graphic:

       

       In the original, the graphic indicates rift widths of (from left to right of the indicated locations), 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 1.8 and 2 miles.  It also reported an ice sheet height above sea level of 190 feet (58 meters), and a depth below sea level of 1,750 feet (533 meters).  So the estimates by chriskoz @2 based on the photo are underestimates of the dimensions of the potential iceberg breaking of as a result of this rift.

19470. nigelj at 07:17 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
       

       You are right Trump's actions may inspire greater awareness of climate science, and greater efforts by other countries to reduce emissions, and this would be one positive outcome among the general mess. But I think this is what Trump wants, although he clearly largely thinks climate change is a scam and hasn't got much grasp of science.

       I think Trump has pulled out of Paris because he is looking for a free ride. It would be in character with his loans and inheritance from his parents, and his history of unusually brutal business  deals, and the harsh way he treated his sub contractors. There's a pattern there.

       There's always someone that wont participate in group efforts to solve some problem, but is happy to benefit. It's parastical behaviour, and immensely hypocritical given Trump accuses other countries of relying on America.

19471. Susan Anderson at 07:02 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Tthat expanse of water in the gap cannot be a current photograph, taken during their warm sunlit season. It's dramatic but a mite misleading.

       British Antarctic Survey 1:11 video

19472. MA Rodger at 06:32 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @various.

       Perhaps we should examine your comments down this thread in the round.

       
       Your first position down this thread (@4 & @7) is that the Paris agreement will cost a fortune and achieve effectively zero. This is perhaps the conclusion you would reach if you only relied on a climate-change denier like Lomborg.

       You next suggest (@9, @14, @15 & @16) that food à la Thomas Malthus is equivalent to GHG emissions à la AGW and so, bizarrely, AGW could be tackled by making people poorer (which interestingly is the exact opposite of the fix mankind has effected to escape the Malthusian delemma). Then you decide (@21) this was not a line of discussion you wanted to pursue.

       There follows (@25/26 & @32/33) your not-untroubled assessment on renewable electricity production.

       This leads to your redolent but ambiguous statement @37 "I am beginning to get a sense of why the two sides in this debate cannot seem to have productive discussions," followed @40 by your first mention of Trump and his fake reasons for rejecting Paris.
       Concerning the existence of "two sides," your argument @45 is poor. If a 'second side' does exist as you say, perhaps you could find your way to setting out who it comprises and what it's position is and on what basis it has established such a position.
       I would suggest that there is in truth no such 'second side' and that you are simply alluding to a bunch of nay-saying climate-change deniers who collectively hold any number of incompatable and unscientific beliefs. This cannot in any way constitute a 'second side' with any equivalence to the UN IPCC.
       That you further set out your position (@44/45) in which you see no reason for either "side" to be proved right or wrong but instead that they have to be reconciled to properly address AGW - this is illogical nonsense. It is nonsense even if there were "two sides," which there aren't, because the positions you paint as "sides" cannot be reconciled without proving one to be correct and the other wrong. And this proof has already been established à la IPCC. Thus you must appreciate that your approach to fixing AGW and your desire for learning in that regard is pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] too acknowledges the science consensus. I believe his/her two sides refer to the political debate where there certainly are two sides. 

19473. michael sweet at 05:23 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too ,

       You are coming across as a concern troll who claims to agree with the facts of AGW but raises "questions" that make it appear that you really want to challenge the scientific consensus.  If you have anything you want to learn about use the search button in the corner to find an appropriate thread, virtually anything relating to AGW can be found on SkS.  When I review your posts I see a lot of complaints and little content.  "I want to learn about and help fix AGW" is a general platitude that is not answerable.  You could look at threads that discuss renewable energy as a solution to AGW.

       If you continue to complain about the moderators your posts will be deleted.

19474. too at 03:57 AM on 14 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Why would I supply evidence that there is no global warming when I, in fact, concur that there is? Since we are here to point to facts, where did I say that scientists are wrong about AGW? Please help me understand where this is coming from because to the best of my knowledge I said no such thing. And if you want to point to the Malthusian Catastrophe comment, but definition, AGW would have to be occuring for it to be a Malthusian Catastrophe.

       Can some moderator show me some mercy and explain how "I want to learn about and help fix AGW" is sloganeering? The Comments policy reads:

       "No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans."

       I have looked through all 195 myths I can't find a reference to I want to learn about and help fix AGW" being in one of the myths.

       Moderator Response:

        JH] To find what you are looking for, type in a key word or phrase ("clean energy" for example) into the website Search box and hit "Go".

       The vast majority of articles posted on SkS over the years are not directly tied to the denier myths — especially those addressing potential mitigation and adaptation measures.

       You should also explore other websites that focus on the policy responses to manmade climate change. The World Resources Institute would be a good place to start. 

19475. Hank11198 at 03:40 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Trump Effect - Making Lemonade from Lemons
       

       I think this is the same phenomenon as when gun sales went up after Obama was elected because the rhetoric from the right was that Obama was going to take guns from people. As long as global warming was a side issue that was being worked on, though at a snail’s pace, it was a low priority in most people’s lives. When it’s being made worse or not being addressed at best, a lot of people start to worry even if it is a low priority for them.

19476. Jim Eager at 01:28 AM on 14 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Blatz, true, the calving of the floating ice shelf will have a negligible* direct effect on sea level, but it will have a long term positive secondary effect. Ice shelves like Larson act as “corks in a bottle,” holding back and slowing the flow of land based glacial ice into the sea. Once the floating ice shelf “cork” is removed the flow of that land based ice will then accelerate, and that increase in flow will add to sea level.
       (*Although negligable, the direct effect is slightly positive because the floating ice is composed of fresh water, which is not as dense as sea water, so when it melts it will increase sea level *very* slightly.)

19477. knaugle at 23:46 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Well, considering what happened to Larsen A & B?  It's pretty clear the most consistent prediction is that C will disintegrate in the near future as well. 

19478. Eclectic at 23:19 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @45 , on the contrary , whether (or not) the climate scientists are all wrong about rapid Global Warming — is one of the most seriously important issues of this modern age.

       If all the scientists are wrong ..... then we should all put our feet up and do nothing to alter the old (Twentieth Century) methods of energy production from fossil fuel burning.   And SkS website need not exist.   And you yourself would feel no urge to come posting here.

       But unfortunately, all the scientists are very much in the right about AGW.   And it is noticeable how you have deflected away from supplying any (repeat: any) evidence or genuine arguments that could counter what the scientists are saying.   Mr Too, you are making a complete Fail.

       Just as in the Round-Earth / Flat-Earth analogy, where the scientists are completely right and the Flat-Earthers [despite their alleged "arguments" and their description of themselves as "skeptics"] are simply science-deniers.   And the Flat-Earthers don't have a Turtle to stand on  ;-)

       Admittedly the Flat-Earther analogy does break down somewhat.   The Flat Earth issue is too trivial, to have any necessity for an "SkS Round Earth Website" to exist to counter Flat-Earther propaganda & Myths.   Also the Flat-Earthers are not strident and self-righteous as Climate Deniers are.   Nor do they receive big money from the Oil Industry (Exxon / Koch / Murdoch et alia).   Nor do the "Flatties" exert any harm on present and future humanity.

       The Flat-Earthers do have similar Conspiracy Theories to many of the climate-science-deniers ..... but AFAICT, the Flatties don't get butthurt about their denier label, and furthermore some of them seem to have a humorous twinkle in their eye — and they don't have the deep anger motivation possessed by the Climate Deniers.   So there are significant differences  ;-)

       Nor, Mr Too , have you explained your self-contradicting assertion that the scientists are wrong about the AGW problem yet at the same time we need to find "how to best implement and address fixing the problem" [your quote].   Altogether, you thinking seems quite confused.

19479. blatz at 22:40 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Being that Larsen C is already on water, wouldn't its impact to sea level rise be minimal?  Only thermal expansion would be a factor.

19480. too at 22:23 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       So, there is no interest in solving the problem of climate change, which needs the other side to cooperate to actually implement something meaningful which means that everyone needs to have productive dialogue? There is only the science and whether it is right or wrong? That seems counter-productive. We have proven climate change, but we don't care about fixing it?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       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, as no further warnings shall be given.

19481. too at 21:34 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       @44 On the subject of two sides to the science of AGW. I point to the existence of this website in support of my position that there are two sides. If there were not two sides, everyone would agree and this site would have no need to exist. Now, whether or not you give the other side credence does not negate its existence or the barriers it imposes to solving AGW, which I presume is the end goal of AGW and not a purse of gold from the solar and wind industry (you see, those kinds of things can work both ways so they should be avoided in my opinion). I will refrain from making my point about recent examples of scientific consensus being wrong in the past. I do not believe in AGW based upon scientific consensus but rather from the aspect of the Earth essentially being a closed thermodynamic system and thus it is reasonable that significant carbon release into the atmosphere by humans likely has some degree of impact.

       Now, there are certainly many sides when it comes to the true impact of and how to address AGW. As a side note, the use of pejorative terms like "Climate Change Denier" and other mockery are harmful to the resolution, which I again assume to be the goal state. Whoever invented the term "Climate Change Denier" has likely done the most of any human to harm to the climate through impeding proper discussions around the subject and having discussions end up being name calling contests.

       Summing this up, unless the two sides of this topic can engage in proper dialogue to come to a resolution on addressing AGW then simply proving the science is absolutely meaningless and has been a complete and utter waste of time because it has done nothing to actually solve the problem. Hence, a listing of Climate Myths, to be honest, is absurd to me because I haven't come across one that does anything to actually address the true issue, which is how to best implement and address fixing the problem.

       My interest is understanding where the dialogue has gone wrong and how to make the sides talk in a common language that is not demeaning to one side or the other. I probably seem to come at this in a rather unconventional way but that is simply because I deeply and truly do not care about who is right or wrong or who is the supposed "idiot" or who is to blame. Now, I say this and you still have no idea the depths to which I do not care.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Science is not a game! Do your "research" elsewhere!

       [PS] Sites like ThinkProgress engage in the political debate. SkS has the narrower focus of addressing climate myths with science. You can assume the people are interested in fixing but that does not make this the appropriate forum for political questions.

       Also, it is extremely difficult to have meaningful dialogue with those whose position is based on ideology/group identity and who even openly acknowledges that no evidence would change their mind. Meaningful debate means giving up on misinformation, strawmen, cherry-picking, and preferring blog rhetoric to the crucible of peer-reviewed research. You cannot expect dialogue when you engage in sophistry instead of evidence. If you think you have a cure, then state it.

19482. nigelj at 19:00 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       The photo of the crack in the Larson C ice shelf in the article does lack scale. It needs something digitally added near the edge of the ice shelf to give it scale. Trump Tower perhaps?

19483. Eclectic at 18:09 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @40 , if I may, I can add something on top of the comment by Nigelj and the Moderator.

       ( I speak only for myself, since I am a newcomer to SkS and am definitely not a Moderator or long-time inhabitant or anyone entitled to represent SkS. )

       Too @40 , if you are genuinely wishing to engage constructively with this website (and are not merely a troll amusing himself) then you will have little trouble learning the standards set by SkS.   As a website addressing the "controversial" topic of AGW, this SkS website is in that very small minority of websites which demand intelligent and civil discussion.

       SkS is all about science & scientific thinking, regarding the problems associated with AGW.   So there is no room for the gutter level of Partisan Politics [especially of the American sort].

       You will notice in the Comments Guidelines, that Ad Hominems [in the sense of a logical fallacy] and accusations of dishonesty are verboten (both in relation to other posters and in relation to public figures such as research-scientists / media-commentators / and yes even those deplorable politicians!!! ].   The best we can offer, is some gentle snide irony/sarcasm of a rather indirect sort  ;-)

       Too @40 , simply comport yourself in a civilized way, and your innate gentlemanliness will keep you out of danger!!

       A couple of points :- when Moderators "strike out / cross out" parts of a post, it provides a useful educational feedback to newcomers [rather than simply "snipping" the lot].   Secondly, if anyone wishes to avoid being "snipped" or banned as a troll [and then being put to the nuisance of constructing more sock-puppet accounts! ] then it is wise to restrict one's questioning to one or two topics/threads rather than use a shotgun/machine-gun assault on multiple threads.  And this also requires one to engage genuinely & attentively to points made in the OP or in other posters' comments/replies.  "Sloganeering" is the SkS term for mindless assertions which are unsupported / unscientific / and have (long ago) been debunked.

       Anyone is entitled to bring up (in a non-trollish way) an idea or concept which is "contrarian" — provided that the poster can make a good case for it (and usually this requires some reference to and support from valid scientific research papers.  I need hardly add, that well-supported contrarian ideas are rare as hens' teeth!! ).

       Too @40 , when I say that AGW is "controversial", I mean that the topic itself receives much controversy, even though the science of AGW is not at all controversial (since it is well-demonstrated and accepted by virtually all climate scientists . . . with the inevitable exception of a few characters possessing a perverse personality and/or a purse of gold from the Oil Industry).  And please note that such description by me is not an Ad Hom but merely a factual description!

        

       Too @40 , you seem to be hinting that there are "two sides" to AGW.   Perhaps it would be best if you explained yourself there — and you could do this by briefly listing 3 or 4 points which support the consensus science position, and then specifying a few points [ if you can find any valid points ] which would support the "opposite" position.  But just before you list the "contrarian" points, please check that they haven't already been debunked (check through the Climate Myths, found in the top left corner of the Home Page).

19484. Tom Curtis at 16:50 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       Project Midas gives a far more informative image of the crack, showing the position as of May 31st:

       

       It is not entirely clear here, but apparently the shorter section of the split end (white in the inset) occured on February 12th, with the larger section occuring over the months of April and May.

       Robert Scribbler discussed the crack in February of 2015, and showed to possible scenarios:

       

       Apparently scenario II is being followed, resulting in more ice calving from the ice shelf.  The calving fronts of prior events shown by Scribbler are interesting, both in showing the progressive retreat of the ice shelf, and that at least part of the ice calving of this time was added since the 1988 event.

19485. Tom Curtis at 16:00 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Trump dumped Paris because, first and foremost, he is a complete scientific ignoramus.  I saw that yesterday in video of him claiming that aerosols cannot effect the ozone layer because his apartment, where he sprays the hair spray, "is all sealed", and goes on to suggest safety regulations in coal mines are also without basis.

       It is clear that, first, Trump has no basic scientific understanding, given that he equates a shut door with an air tight seal; and second, that based on his complete ignorance he rejects any science that results in regulations that he or his business friends might find convenient.  If Trump has his way, if nothing else, he will cut down on unemployment one mining disaster at a time.

19486. Tom Curtis at 15:38 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       nigelj @39, I agree about the political stability of North Africa.  I consider the plan likely to be technically feasible, but not likely to be politically feasible in the near to mid-term.  Having said that, the area required to power the EU alone is not so large that it could not be located in Spain alone, or perhaps Spain, Mauretania, Morroco and Algiers (which are more stable than nations further east).

       With regard to winter nights, the proposal is for concentrated solar thermal power plants.  Solar thermal power plants have a large thermal inertia which allows the delay of use of the power by up to six hours with current technology, and with unlimited duration with supplemental gas heating.  The later, in turn, can be provided by hydrogen gas seperated from H2O by electrolysis using excess power production in the day time.

       On top of that, heat itself can be readilly stored in domestic situations by heating large containers of water, and or large stones while power is cheap in the daytime, and using that heat to warm the house over the following night.  I do not see night time usage being a problem with this scheme.

19487. chriskoz at 15:37 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       The picture does not give a proper sense of scale and neither does the text explain anything.

       First you need to know that Larsen C is on average 350m thick. So, assuming the ice in the vicinity of such large crack is fully floating, the lips visible above water level are about 35m (i.e. 10% of floating ice volume is above water). It's a big chunk of ice, way beyond the horizon, of DE state size as mentioned, more precisely it's ca 5000km² roughly 50kmx100km. Due to Earth curvature, it's not completely flat. The actual curvature at its most distant points can be calculated as ca 35m, so it's only 10% of its thickness.

       The water channel in the crask is surprisingly wide - I eyeball it as ca 200m.

19488. nigelj at 14:03 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @40, I dont have a huge problem with your tone. You are pretty polite, - and its always a tough one balancing being polite, and not being so polite its painfull, if you know what I mean.

       And yeah I get you are just trying to figure things out. I will go with that for now. We are all trying to do that really.

       However I would just say that "calm down" is condescending. One thing I like about this website is it is more a facts based website, with some sophisticated views. I read some websites and its nothing more than insults, sarcasm, accusations and slogans and arguments about who is the most intelligent poster! This can all be cleverly put and amusing, but for me it gets boring after about five posts, and a bit deadening.

       Remember websites can set whatever rules they like and nobody is forcing anyone to participate. I value freedom of speech, but you need some moderation or it becomes a shouting match.

       Remember sociopathy is a mental condition and not simply an insult. It exists on a sort of spectrum.

       Thank's for clarifying your basic concerns about Paris etc. Personally I think most of the reason Trump dumped Paris was to do something more to humiliate Obama. Even if you argue it economically, he could have stayed in Paris and then done nothing, so why leave?

       And you think the Paris accord doesn't stack up economically. I disagree. The thing is you have to prove your scepticism. A lot of research going back to the Stern report finds the benefits of reducing emissions, outweigh the costs.

       Although the sceptic Bjorn Lomberg claims Paris will have a neglegible effect on global temperatures, numerous other reputable studies find otherwise. Lombergs assumptions are also clearly excessively pessimistic, and in conflict with the success of other historical environmental improvements that have worked, like reducing the Ozone problem.

       It's a difficult issue to resolove in a few blog posts, and you would have to prove in detail why the people supporting Paris are wrong.

       Your own information on renewable energy tends to show its economic, so goes against your own scepticism! There are numerous studies showing costs of wind power etc are looking good (at least on land), its beyond doubt now. The thing is will you accept such evidence, or desperately search for something otherwise? 

       Regarding feedback, and moderation, and tolerance of different points of view. The moderator has only really asked you to address certain issues clearly before moving on, and provide sources to back claims. This seems fair to me. The website does set quite high standards compared to many but they want a constructive debate not a shouting match. Whats wrong with that?

       In all farness you have provided sources quite well.  I have been guilty of not backing things up. Its all a learning experience.

       But personally I dont like comments crossed out. This is rather like being humiliated at school. 

       I think you commented on the no politics thing somewhere? Basically I have found what works for me is if articles are science focussed, stick to science, if articles clearly have a political component then I make political comments sometimes, but I try and keep them "measured". What else can we do?

       However this website certainly allows alternative points of view, provided its more than simple empty assertions.

       And you cannot expect other people to just agree with you. You have to persuade, people and this goes for me and everyone.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Let's make this clearer. The comments policy exists to foster calm and fact-based discussion of the science around climate change. Plenty of sites  tolerate/welcome wide-ranging flame wars - this site isnt one of them. Prohibitions on politics etc are there to prevent discussions veering down value-based, volatile paths with little connection to climate science.

       As moderators, we deal daily with rabid deniers more used to WUWT et al style, who are not interested in data, logic and have no intention of conforming to comments policy here. The concept of letting data define your opinions is also foreign. We try education, but someone only intent on trouble not learning usually attracts minute attention from moderators and is kicked off asap.

       That said, "too" did not make a great start and so is certainly getting moderator attention. Unlike many we deal with however, he/she has clearly made an effort to understand the policy. We welcome discussion where participants are prepared to cite sources, argue logically and let the data speak rather just motivate reasoning. Please carry on.

       We would rather have conformance than exclusion so cross-outs are a form of education. You may find them intrusive, but the alternative (before moderators had this tool) was simply deleting the whole comment with not even an indication of why.

19489. too at 13:18 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       @nigelj - I'm new to the community and still learning that phrases like "calm down" are inflammatory. Which...wow. So please have a little patience while I get the gist of things here, every community is extremely different.

       I stand by my original point that there is an economic reason for Trump to pull out of the Paris accords and that it is not simply the stereotypical partisan view that he is a complete and utter sociopath. And my other point but that is topic verboten apparently.

       The problem is that the average American does not view the economics the same way that you guys view the economics. Frankly, it isn't even close. The two sides aren't even speaking the same language when they refer to things like economics. So, I'm trying to understand where, fundamentally, the disconnect is by better understanding things from this point of view. I get the other point of view already and I equally do not agree with it. I honestly don't have a horse in this race but I like to observe and understand and learn. But, what I realized was that I can't make a point about "the economics" in this discussion unless I understand what you guys refer to as "the economics" from your perspective. So, I'm not making the case until I feel that I grasp this community's view of this topic because otherwise I have a feeling it will be tossed away as nonsensical (even though many others would see it as absolutely sensible) because it is not speaking in your language. I'm sure that this will be censored in some way and I honestly mean no offense it is an honest observation, but this community is highly, as in astronomically, intolerant of alternative points of view and points made that do not speak in the correct voice and language.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] if you reference and use the language of professional economists, you should be fine. Arguments an economist would laugh at won't work. 

19490. nigelj at 13:01 PM on 13 June 2017
       The Larsen C ice shelf collapse hammers home the reality of climate change
       

       The cracks in the ice shelf and rapid warming on the peninsular are obviously a concern, but I dont have enough specialist knowledge to comment much more than the article already says. I can say something about the implications of sea level rise, as I have done infrastructure design consultancy work in the past.

       We know the experts calculate if all the land based ice on the planet melted sea levels would rise by 216 feet (about 70 metres). The maps below show this impact on global coastlines, continent by continent, and its pretty dramatic, with a lot of rich coastal agricultural land gone and obviously many cities gone as well.

       www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

       This is obviously the worst case scenario, but I find it useful to consider this, and work back from there.

       And we are at some risk of causing at least 30 metres of sea level rise, if we continue to burn fossil fuels unabated. This alone is a disturbing scenario, because of the extent of land loss alone.

       The other concern is rates of change. How fast will this process occur, because ability to adapt is the prime factor to consider. In fact it will be hard to adapt to even half to 1 metre per century, repeating for many centuries.

       It "should" take thousands of years for 30 - 70 metres of sea level rise, but nobody is 100% sure. We know there have been past periods where sea level rise has been several metres per century, for a couple of centuries, and nobody can totally rule this out from happening in our futures. The impacts of several metres per century of sea level rise would be horrendous, so even if probabilities are small, it is still such a dangerous scenario that it should be absolutely avoided.

       Sea level rise has been virtually non existent until recently, and generally buildings were built with this in mind, and reach the end of their lives before it becomes an issue, in the main. Things have been gradual and predictable.

       But this is changing already in recent years, and already impacting places like Florida where flooding has become a real problem.

       Faster rates of sea level rise this century will put existing communities at risk, and buildings and drainage networks will be replaced, rebuilt or relocated well before the end of their useful lives.

       Planning for the future will then become very difficult. You will have to assume some level of sea level rise, and have some land off limits and / or special building code requirements.

       Its not just a case of lifting up buildings on higher foundations. Drains and roads all stop functioning properly with sea level rise, or more frequent floods, or both.

       This is all going to have several consequences:

       Some land is going to either be put off limits for future development by law, or it will be identified as at risk by law, or it will become known as being at risk. Either way at risk land is going to start plumetting in value.

       It will be hard to plan infrastructure when we are dealing with a process that could continually accelerate, and is not able to be predicted with high accuracy, and  rates are going to only be intelligent estimates somewhere in the middle, and could be worse than expected.

       Nobody is going to want to insure coastal property against these sorts of problems, and calls will be put on governments to either build barriers, or bail home owners out financially. This will cause government spending and debt problems, and consequent political problems.

       This could all go on for centuries, as communities gradually relocate further inland in a stepwise fashion.

       These are just some of the consequences of failing to reduce emissions.

19491. nigelj at 12:34 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Tom Curtis @30 that plan to power Europe with solar power from deserts in northern africa is absolutely amazing, and quite jaw dropping.

       But just looking at it a bit critically, a few things jump out at me. Northern africa is not the most politically stable place, to be so fully reliant on.

        

       And Europe has high winter nightime heating requirements, so how does this  square with a gigantic solar panel array or solar thermal array? They are going to need substantial storage, and / or backup from alternative generation sources. 

       A solar system would need significant water for cleaning, and this is going to put serious pressure on local resources.

       But the very fact the scheme is being seriously considered tells me these things are likely to have answers, and the world is about to change radically in our lifetimes. I  mean its pretty amazing.

19492. nigelj at 12:24 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Too @32, 33, 35, where are you going with this? What are your trying to argue? 

       Are you trying to claim wind is not an economic source and promote nuclear? Please just say what you are going on about, because I can respect someone who wants to argue in favour of nuclear power (even if Im a bit cautious about this power source), or has some specific doubts about the costs of something specific,  but I have no respect or patience for people who just quote tables of numbers without making it plain what their real point is. Its like they are hiding something.

       The wikipedia article on costs by source is consistent with other sources I have seen. The obvious fact is that onshore wind and photovoltaic has become very cost competitive as a full lifetimes cost measure. Its fair to assume costs of offshore wind will drop a bit and costs of solar thermal are likely to drop considerably. In other words renewable energy (and I include nuclear in that) is economic even without factoring in costs of agw as such.

       I would have thought the more important question is making the grid reliable (I dont mean transmission lines as such, but resolving intermittency problems, and substation problems to deal with more fluctuating loads than normal). But the law of large numbers applies, and the more the grid is renewable as in dispersed solar and wind power etc, the smaller these sorts of problems become. 

19493. too at 12:14 PM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       It is very helful Tom Curtis, I am beginning to get a sense of why the two sides in this debate cannot seem to have productive discussions.

19494. Tom Curtis at 11:36 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too @35, yes the Social Cost of Carbon is considered.  The alternative is that the adverse direct health effects from the combustion of coal be neglected, not to mention the costs of AGW.  If, however, you want to ignore these factors you need only look at Figure 4, which shows the cheapest source of electricity with out consideration of availability or externalities:

       

       You will notice that coal is cheapest in just 29 counties.

       Factoring in availability but not externalities, you need to look at figure 5 of the Supplemental Information, which shows coal is cheapest in just 89 counties, a long way behind solar (482 counties) and wind (1,125 counties).  Natural Gas (1344 counties) and Nuclear (70 counties) rounds out the list.

       The SI also shows the LCOE for each power source by county, along with the national mean.

19495. DPiepgrass at 11:19 AM on 13 June 2017
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       

       "the 130-year near-linear trend is 0.6C / century"

       The trend is certainly not near-linear since 1887.

       

       As for why global warming is predicted to accelerate, see here.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Fixed image width. Please limit images to 500px.

19496. too at 10:24 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       So, if I understand the cost differences in this paper versus pure LCoE one of the cost factors this report considers is the EPA's SCC?

19497. too at 09:30 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
       

       Calm down. Just trying to understand the mores here. I appreciate the eduction on personal versus political mockery. That's a very fine line that is being threaded.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

19498. Tom Curtis at 08:32 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       too @33, the cost of electricity by particular sources varies by location.  This 2017 paper takes that into account, and provides a map of the cheapest source of electricity by county in the US:

       

       As you can see, wind is the cheapest power source across the majority of the US.  In the south west, utility scale solar PV becomes very important, and residential solar PV is cheapest in a scattering of counties across the country.  Other than that, the dominant player is combined cycle Natural Gas, followed by nuclear.  Coal is not cheapest in any county.

19499. too at 08:12 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       Right you are [RH]. Thanks. The Wikipedia article on this looks like it repeats much of the same information although has some nice graphs and a breakdown by country. Appreciate turning me on to that.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

       I found this for land use but you have to pay for it ($38 US). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032108001354

       I guess the Arkansas article does cite some decent sources that you could cobble together:

       http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html *3 American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html *4 U.S. Energy Information Association. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/assumption/renewable.html *5 American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html. *6 Sun power® Tracker Solar Systems: http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=18882 http://www.sunpowercorp.com/

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed links. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.

       And thank you too for a refreshing conformance to our comments policy.

19500. too at 07:03 AM on 13 June 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
       

       @Eclectic, yes I made an error, which I was clear about making in @25 and @26. It was an honest mistake that I performed on each of those calculations. I was actually jumping through hoops using a different source where I had to convert the cost per MW (not MWh) of a facility and then found the nei source and I totally screwed up. The correct numbers are billions, not trillions. I am not yet magical enough to have never made a mistake.

       I would like to know if the nei stats on cost per MWh in @21 are good or if there are better sources out there. Similar with the entergy-arkansas stats for land use in @26. Surely there are better sources than entergy-arkansas??

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] You might want to read up on Levelized Cost of Electricity. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Prev  382  383  384  385  386  387  388  389  390  391  392  393  394  395  396  397  Next