Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 Next
Comments 19651 to 19700:
-
MA Rodger at 00:57 AM on 25 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
In the discourse above, the paper Haile et al (2017) is discussed but the work it is being compared with, that of Paul Ehrlich has not been described.
I note @8 I managed to provide a broken link to the Paul Ehrlich Wiki page. His work was entirely unknown to me but the idea that the world is heading for an overpopulated and miserable future is not something that hasn't been projected by many others at various times. Yet I was surprised to find that Ehrlich's most famous work "The Population Bomb" (1968) is less a proper study and more an opinion piece with little substance running through its two-hundred pages of chat. (This PDF of its Chapter 1 describes his 'Population Bomb' in twenty-five tiresome pages.) His prediction of "massive famine" within a decade or two didn't fail due to him overestimating population growth (a growth he fails to set out clearly but which can be surmised from his discussion of the various growth rates). Rather, his decadal prediction failed due to increases in agricultural output. However, over a longer timespan, Ehrlich failed to spot the dramatic drop in the global population growth rate. The growth he describes would have yielded a world population of ~10bn for 2017, 25% greater than actually now exists.
As of 2009 Ehrlich doesn't see any problem in predicting in 1968 that the wheels would fall off and humanity would be facing "massive famines" in (pessimistically) a decade or (optimistically) two. He just doubles down and asserts that his "basic message is even more important today than it was forty years ago."
-
Xulonn at 00:25 AM on 25 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
My favorite meme on this subject, based on the words of the late Professor Al Bartlett:
-
Larry E at 20:34 PM on 24 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
SauerJ, first I didn't propose a tax, but declining cap (with no trade).
But to address some of what you wrote: The CCL proposal starts out at $10/ton and won't reach the $100/ton in your calculation until a decade out. Due to inflation (e.g. at current rates) and the economy's adjustments to inflation over that period, the situation will be much different then than portrayed in your calculations.
Also, I believe your calculation for cost to an "average" household of your $100/ton tax doesn't mean much. Because the direct and indirect carbon emissions of the wealthy and moderately wealthy are extraordinarily high, using the average for all households is a distortion. You need to look at the tax impact by "bins" that are determined by household income and the typical carbon emissions for each bin. I think that will give a much different result for households in the bins of average income and lower. (And of course the result will vary by region for various reasons, so the analysis gets complicated.)
Concerning industries, the time for a soft landing for many of them is rapidly evaporating because global society has delayed so long in effectively addressing climate changing emissions. We need to ratchet down emissions sharply, year-on-year for a prolonged period — much more so than the CCL proposal could accomplish. For many industries the kind or quantity of production will have to change. Some won't survive (and who makes typewriters anymore). That is the pickle we are in, due to past inaction. Other industries will grow or arise.
You ask how would cap with no trade work. The cap would be on fuel (solid, liquid, gas) production and imports, so indirectly on emissions. The allowed fuel-carbon production/imports would decline year-on-year, moderately for a short period and then sharply. Increases in renewable energy would make up some of the difference, but demand for energy use (for electricity, transport, etc.) will also need to decline (as it must for any real climate solution). The marketplace may play some role in how fuel-carbon is allocated among uses, but regulation will be key in managing that in managing allocation for an orderly ramp-down of FF use. Some taxation on carbon would be used to relieve price impact on low-income households, but the cap would be the instrument for reducing FF use and not particularly the tax. As Digby suggests, ceasing the search for more fossil fuel should be part of this.
It is a bitter pill, but is what the climate emergency demands. Perhaps a decade and a half ago the CCL proposal would have been worth a go, but it is not up to the present task and will distract from a real solution. Despite wishful thinking, including by some experts. Do we have the will to survive?
-
Tom Curtis at 18:18 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Evan, I have several problems with your graph, and your explanation of it. Starting with the most trivial, when you call 3oC "...the average IPCC estimate..." for the equilibrium temperature response to x2CO2, it is unclear which 'average' you are talking about. To be precise, it is closest to the mean climate sensitivity estimate from the IPCC AR5, which there is good reason to think lies somewhere between 3 and 3.1oC. It is, of course, never explicitly identified by the IPCC. It is significantly higher than the modal (approx 1.8oC) or median (approx 2.55oC) estimates.
That is probably for the good in that if the technique of determining the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity at x2CO2 illustrated by your graph was valid, then it is essential that your estimate be that which generates the same trend as the observed temperature trend over the period. Your graph does not show that. Indeed, the best fit to the current observed temperature trend since 1970 is for a climate sensitivity of 2.85oC per doubling of CO2.
More troubling is that that value generates a 'lag' of 21 years, although the precise value is sensitive to how you baseline the "preindustrial" temperature. I used the mean of the first 30 years of the temperature record. Had I added the best estimate 0.2oC for the difference between the 1736-1765 mean and the 1880-1909 mean, the lag would have reduced to 10 years.
Further, the lag can only properly be interpreted for a climate sensitivity that exactly generates the observed temperature trend. For other climate sensitivities, because of the difference in trends the lag will differ at different time intervals. Taken at 1970, the IPCC likeley (ie, 67% confidence interval) range of climate sensitivities generates lags from 6 to more than 39 years using the 1880-1909 baseline. The lower bound of a hypothetical 90% confidence interval (1oC) generates a lag of -3 years using your method of determination. (Note, it is a hypothetical 90% confidence interval because the IPCC do not give the upper bound, instead giving the upper bound of a hypothetical 80% confidence interval, ie, 6oC.)
These problems arise because the temperature response is not just a response to the forcing a given number of years ago, no matter what the interval. If the forcing changed in a single pulse, and remained constant after that change, then indeed the temperature would change over time as a response to that pulse. It would increase rapidly at first, with the temperature increase slowing over time until equilibrium was reached. With the actual, gradual increase in forcing, the temperature change in a given year being a consequence of the change in forcing in all preceding years out to a time horizon of potentially several centuries. This is well illustrated by Kevin Cowtan's two box model (see also And Then There's Physics.)
This means that the implicit physics of your graph is wrong. It does not indicate (ie, demonstrate) either the time lag or the equilibrium climate sensitivity. And taken as an analogy, it confuses rather than illuminates.
-
chriskoz at 18:17 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Geometric series model applied to the real world always has the flaw that it does not consider the limitted amount of resources to draw the series. E.g.: consider repetitively folding a 0.1mm thick piece of paper as many times as you can. How "thick" does your piece becomes when you fold it, say 50 times (in theory of course)? Answer: from the Earth to the Moon. An obviously absurd outcome, because a simple model of geometric time series representing the process of parer folding did not consider the very limitted physical resources (a piece of paper).
In case of melting ice sheets, the resources are large but limitted to 70m of SLR-equiv. And when we're talking about an SLR of "many meters" we already are within said limit. We can approximate the current icesheet melting rate with geometric series doubling every 10 or so years (as we do here and as Jim does in Hansen 2016) when dSLR is few mm/y. But our model cannot be accurate at dSLR much higher. Not Jim nor any other researchers, estimated at what dSLR the inflexion point is when such model becomes inaccurate (overestimating) and SLR must slow down, then definitely stop at ca70m.
-
chriskoz at 16:30 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
The last sentence is is a winner in this article, Evan. It encompasses the punishment for those greedy developers, who would like to cash out of waterfront property values and who deny AGW precisely for that reason.
In that respect, I only regret that SLR does not progress fast enough (or in a big burst similar to a biblical Yahweh punishment) but unfortunately, SLR is a problem developping in more than one generation timeframe, so our children are about to receive most of the ensuing mess.
-
Digby Scorgie at 15:06 PM on 24 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Never mind methods of pricing carbon, should a first step not be global agreement to abandon all searches for new sources of fossil fuel?
-
Evan at 14:28 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Thanks for finding and pointing out this typo. Fixed.
-
sauerj at 14:27 PM on 24 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Larry E: A few more points to consider:
1) %Increase of Power & Nat-Gas will much higher than Petro increase: A $100/ton fee would raise 95%coal/5%gas mix generated power (typical US midwest power) by $0.10/kwh (1.9x above current residental rates $0.112/kwh, and 2.45x above current industrial rates $0.07/kwh). Nat-Gas heat would increase from $9.00/dth to $16.0/dth (1.8x increase). These are not minor increases. I agree that the petroleum increase is not significantly substantial (this lower %increase is because its cost/btu is already much higher than that for power & nat-gas), but even a $1/gal will have a noticeable impact on shipping (& its technologies). This higher cost will trickle-down to impact those markets w/ higher % dependency on shipping, resulting in definite impacts on their future market growth. But, for the power & gas energies, as pointed out above, their significant higher increases in cost (almost double for residential power, 2.45x for industrial power), will have significant impact on the future market share for these FF laden products, services & processes.
2) Summary of Household Costs: Avg US per capita annum CO2 emission is 18tonsCO2/yr; so $100/ton translates to $1800/person, or x 4 = $7200/yr increase for avg household of 4. This injects sizeable incentive to shift market choices to those products & services that will be competitively more attractive (toward lower C footprint choices) while providing the dividend to finance these transitions. As some people start to transition, then the financial incentive on the others, who delay, will increase as their household costs will stay high while their dividend will start to drop as total net FF consumption drops. Investors will definitely shift to RE technologies, R/D will grow because of these new investments, production & installation cost for RE will drop as market share & volume increases & more efficient stds are developed, further reducing transitional costs & giving more incentive to transition to lower C footprint products & services.
3) Impact on the High Footprint Industries: Industries, who do life & breathe on rational financial terms, and would get no dividend, will be forced to make huge changes or else fail.
Let me give a real-life transitional scenario for our plant: The impact to the industrial plant where I work would be significant: A) Product Mix: Those products that have a higher FF energy input would have a higher % of cost impact. Customers for these product would likely shift to alternate/lower cost ingredients (lower in cost due to a lower FF footprint), or else shift to more efficient suppliers. Final result: lower net C footprint. B) Process/Technology Changes: Our purchased power cost is currently $15m/yr. W/ $100/ton, power cost will rise 2.45x or rise to $37m w/tax. To reduce costs, we would immediately install CCGT (combined cycle gas turbines), w/ HRSG for 100% cogeneration, so to transition away from the new very high cost of purchasing power. The cogeneration means that the 2.5x of wasted energy from the power plant rankine cycle would seize. Counting this power wasted energy in our total energy usage (i.e. our primary energy), this CCGT project would cut our total C footprint by 27% (yes, this isn't what is ultimately required, but it is a huge first step). ... Today, we don't do this because the $10m/yr payback (based on $20/mmbtu coal+gas purchased power vs gas at $5/mmbtu and 80% ineff) would take ~8-10 years (DCF) to pay off the $65m investment. Change that power cost to $37m, and now the payback is $32m/yr for a 2-3 year (DCF) payoff. Huge increase in financial incentive! Many other cost reduction measure would then be financially justifiable, reaping further reductions in C emissions. ... To think that a $100/ton tax would yield no net reduction in carbon emission does not hold up to standard engineering & economic incentive principles.
4) Think thru your approach of "Cap w/ No Trade": How exactly would this approach logistically work? Would Duke Energy be given a max quota coal or gas they can burn? One option: they would start using spot brown-outs here & there to curtail consumption to meet these max quotas. Contracts for continuous supply, at a higher cost, would be the immediate business reaction. These increased costs would have to continue to increase until some business could not afford reaching an equilibrium where demand shrank enough to equal the curtailed supply. These higher costs would be passed onto the products. Markets would shift toward lower C footprint products, but the lack of dividend would result in recession. True, such an approach, would cause sharp reductions in FF consumption, but the poor would suffer the most (even though their per capita footprint is the lowest, their energy costs as a percentage of total income is higher than avg). The backlash to the recessionary impact would not be political durable (listen to the @11 Brookings podcast above, which is extremely informative) and thus this approach would not survive into the long-term & thus would not fulfill its ultimate goal of a durable approach to achieve lasting carbon emission reductions.
Expert Endorsements: It is unlikely that my points will change your mind, but consider the list of endorsements from James Hansen, Katharine Hayhoe, Jerry Taylor (Niskanen Center, read its Case for Carbon Tax), George Shultz & James Baker (Climate Leadership Council, see @14 above for informational link), the Carbon Tax Center, read Shi-Ling Hsu book (the Case for a Carbon Tax). I invite other readers to submit their known list of other expert endorsers. ... These experts recognize the efficacy of a carbon tax & especially the non-regressive revenue-neutral variety. These endorsements should carry some weight in your deliberations. ... Lastly, if $100/ton is too slow, and the economy is holding together OK, then there is nothing to say to stop at $100/ton. But, per the Brookings podcast, a well forecasted rise in the tax is vital so that business can prepare so to avoid recessionary collapse. So, any change in the rate-of-rise of the tax needs to be laid out w/ advance notice and not too-quickly tinkered with, o/w business will be caught off-guard and political durability may collapse. The Brookings podcase explains all of this. ... Take care!
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:05 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Um, it's "icicle". Please fix. No spell-checker will fault "ice-cycle" unfortunately.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:50 PM on 24 May 2017Trump's Fox News deputy national security adviser fooled him with climate fake news
What I find amusing is that penguins hold their wings like that when they're hot and trying to cool off!
-
nigelj at 12:43 PM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Evan @4, I understand your point. Your article was basically just explaining linear versus accelerating / exponenential/ curvilinear using various analogies. It made some good points.
Here's a very simple analogy. The car washing analogy. Turn the tap on and leave it and you have a linear water flow. My car was really dirty last week, and I found myself turing the tap up, and up over time, which is an accelerating water flow over time. Sea level will be a smoother acceleration than this, but maybe also a bit jerky at times.
I just recall that this website had a graph of sea level rise over the last 150 years which had a curve fitted that looked like a quadratic or was described as a quadratic, and sea level forward projections until 2100 for my country are a quadratic. We have been arguing about this projection recently, as to how valid it would be. I'm not even really a maths person, but when reading the article those things were on my mind. But yes, it's a bit beside the point of the article.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:22 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
"I thought we were looking at a quadratic sort of curve as opposed to exponential..."
With a noisy data set like sea level, which shows short term (a few years) ups and downs due to various factors, it can even be hard to tell whether the change is linear or not. Telling the difference between exponential or quadratic would be even more difficult!
We could go all mathy and talk about first and second derivatives, etc., but that would detract from Evan's simple analogy. If the reader really wants to get into this more seriously, then I suggest they wander over to Tamino's where he has some good posts on sea level rise, including this one on acceleration.
-
Evan at 08:19 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Thank you Nigel for your observations and writing about your own experiences.
I thought we were looking at a quadratic sort of curve as opposed to exponential...
The original point of this analogy was to educate people about the difference between linear and non-linear trends. For many readers of SkS this is obvious, but is likely a new concept to non-technical readers. I simply chose sea-level rise to illustrate this, so that when they read/hear/see the concept of non-linear being used elsewhere, they have some familiarity with how it differs from linear. The analogy morphed into what it is, but I was not intentending to to write an authoritative essay on expected sea-level rise.
-
nigelj at 07:49 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Humanity is used to stable and slow rates of sea level rise, and I think we undersetimate the problems of accelerating sea level rise, and humanity is in for a rude multi generational shock.
Consider for the past couple of centuries, sea level rise has been pretty slow around 100 - 200 mm century, until later last century anyway. In my city buildings have been designed with this slow trend in mind, and its been assumed it would be a roughly linear trend, and also on the basis of general storm flooding in mind, with certain floor levels above ground level, and a building life of somewhere from 50-80 years. By the time sea level has risen significantly by 180 mm over a century or so, buildings have been protected by their floor levels, and reached the end of their natural lives, in the vast majority of cases.
Flood frequencies have also been predicatable and constant over time.The slow rate of change in sea level and flood events has made planning predictable, and problems have been generally limited. Floods are of course terrible, but have generally been one big one per 100 years and now this is all changing.
This has all now changed with the understanding sea level rise is going to accelerate. It is of course already changing in places like Florida which are low lying and experiencing significant accelerating sea level rise combined with flood events etc. With 500mm sea level rise by end of this century plenty of buildings will need to be replaced before they reach the end of their natural lives. With 1000 mm the problem increases.
Increasing numbers of floods due to other facets of climate change adds to this problem and also interacts with sea level rise itself making things worse. Florida and Miami in particular are good examples.
But that is just the first stage of sea level rise, affecting existing buildings this century. New buildings will then presumably be planned with some sort of accelerating sea level rise trend in mind. I thought we were looking at a quadratic sort of curve as opposed to exponential, by the way, but the analogy of compound interest is still a good.
But nobody is sure exactly what the longer term rate of sea level change will be, so how high do you design buildings above ground level? This is not so easy to say, and will have to be based on a guess at the most likely trend over the life of the building probably the middle IPCC estimates. It will lead to complex planning zones with certain requirements.
But its not just buildings as you have to plan roads and drains and drains generally have longer lives than buildings and stop functioning when water levels rise. So it gets hard to work out how to plan.
And how far inland do communities retreat to in an uncertain changing sea level rise scenario? My government has already ruled out governments building barriers, so it's a question of organised retreat, apparently. Again it will require an assessment of building life, and infrastructure life against a guesstimate at the most likely rate of sea level rise (probably taking the middle scenario). And who is going to want to calculate and enforce all this? It will be politically contentions, and full of mistaken judgements. The process could go on for centuries, in some sort of staged retreat one part of a city at a time gradually hopping inland, or alternatively building barriers that themselves will not last forever.
And do cities plan for sea level rise a century ahead leading to a multiple staged retreat, or do they look at several centuries and put larger areas of land off limits?
It will dislocate and cost communities physically, economically, and will have all sorts of socio- economic implications as land prices collapse, and people loose major assets. Nobody is going to want to buy low lying properties, or insure against sea level rise, and governments (tax payers) will as usual end up bailing people out. I think they will have to. It will however become politically contentious, and a drain on government resources for many centuries.
-
Evan at 02:07 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
Thank you for the comments JWR. Your points are well taken. These analogies will be evolving as we get feedback, so when I rework this I will consider your input. I also understand that the sea-level analysis is overly simplistic.
That said, I still maintain that salaries exhibit the effect I was looking for: the increase is proportional to the thing itself, whether the driving force is inflation, promotion, or something else. By contrast, aging is a constant for everytone. This basic differentiation is likely new to many people. You are obviously very well educated on these matters, but the main goal of the analogies is to introduce scientific concepts to the lay person.
Thanks for your input and suggestions.
-
JWRebel at 01:32 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 5 - Linear, Non-linear, and Coastal Flooding
A better example of exponential growth would have been body weight from conception to puberty, set off against age. Salaries rise mostly with inflation, and are not a real example of growth. There are lots of good explanations of exponential growth floating around. Defining 0% growth as 3mm/annum does not seem to me very good practice. Discussions around GDP growth also exhibit tendency, to talk about 0% GDP when they mean %0 growth, or even worse, decreasing GDP when they mean the second order derivative is decreasing down from 2.5% to 1.7%.
Note also that thermal water expansion is (almost) linear for the relevant temperature ranges.
Omitted from the complicating sea-level effects: stronger (c.q. weaker) currents; stronger tidal action (more water); gravity (less ice mass pulls water elsewhere); crustal rebounding (displacing water).
By the way, in the ancient world (Babylonia, Sumer) they also expressed interest and exponential growth in terms of doubling time. Most agricultural debts were annulled after the first doubling, regardless of how much principle remained. Doubling time is actually a more natural way to think, because it also gives an intuitive grasp of the limits to infinite doubling, the magic of compound interest, etc.
-
Evan at 00:56 AM on 24 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Thanks HK for the info and the education. I have a lot of studying to do.
-
John Hartz at 23:07 PM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Chriskoz:
More "hot-off-the-press" news about SLR...
Scientists say the pace of sea level rise has nearly tripled since 1990 by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, May 22, 2017
PS - If you have not already done so, you may want to communicate your concerns about Peter Hannam's article directly to him.
-
chriskoz at 22:42 PM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
NOAA SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS recently published is a nice easy-to-read yet very comprehensive SLR summary and prediction until y2200.
Jump staraight to page 22 - Figure 8 & Table 4 - to learn the precis of their projections. Only a bit higher than IPCC for RCP2.5 but more than twice higher for higher emission scenarios, esp. RCP8.5.
But their 6 scenarios in table 4 have very sharply defined upper bounds. E.g.: middle range Intermediate scenario (1.0 m SLR by 2100) hasd only 17% hance of excceeding in RCP8.5 emissions. Extreme scenario (2.5 m) is very unlikely - only 0.1% chance of at least such SLR in RCP8.5. I feel like they underestimated the uncertainties in icesheet stability in that scenarion.
Nonetheless higher SLR than IOPCC, even though somewhat conservative IMO. So, I don't understand the alarming and somewhat exaggerated news about it, like this one by Peter Hannam in smh. Peter quotes the SLR values 2.7 metres as "plausible". I don't even understand where that number came from as I cannot find it in the study in question. But I see the number 2.8m as the central estimate of Intermediate scenario by y2200 (table 5) which is the first such estimate AFAIK.
-
HK at 22:32 PM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Evan:
The behaviour of other greenhouse gases doesn’t matter if you know their forcings beforehand and want to convert them to CO2eq. If the net forcing increases by, say, 1 watt/m2, that can be translated to a ~20% increase of CO2eq regardless of which GHG or combination of GHGs that actually causes this forcing. Therefore, calculating the CO2eq should be relatively straight forward if you know what forcings to include.
Translating a certain forcing to another GHGeq is harder because it requires data about the behaviour of that particular GHG, and they are all different.BTW, the forcing data I used are available via links on James Hansens site. There you can find both graphs and tables of the forcings as well as concentration data for CO2, CH4, N2O and much more.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:33 PM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
PS inline@11, Joe's argument is worse than that. Haile et al make specific predictions about the impact of climate change in three crops. They allow that "...some farming changes—such as improved irrigation or genetically modified crops, or more sustainable practices like increased organic production or tilling less—could help offset some climate-induced losses" (from article linked above). Without specific quantification, it is consistent with Haile et al that those offsets could more than compensate for the climate related losses. As such, Haile et al represents a prediction about a specific difficulty, without a claim that we will be ruined by it - let alone that it will lead to a catastrophe. Consequently, when Joe says that Haile et al's conclusions "... have a striking similarity to the Paul Ehrlich et al conclusions", he is guilty of massive exaggeration.
Taking that into account, his argument form is really, "x predicted negative consequences in the future, that did not arise, therefore, any predictions of negative consequences in the future of any nature, and no matter how well supported are false". It is likely, although we have no specific evidence of that, that he makes a specific exception for economic predictions of ruination premised on action to mitigate climate change. That is, like many climate change deniers he may subscribe to the principle that a free market economy is so robust that it can generate growth regardless of adverse circumstances except for the adverse circumstances of any spefic policy they happen to disagree with.
Moderator Response:[PS] Give him chance please.
-
dieharder at 13:24 PM on 23 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
No, Tom Curtis. Your graphs do not satisfy my "quibbles" — not in the slightest. What I am looking for are the "corrections" that were applied to the original data (which clearly showed a warming hiatus) in order to eliminate the warming hiatus. These data adjustments, as I stated in a previous posting, totally eliminated the warming pause and about doubled the warming rate. Now, before negating me again on this claim and being too quick to delete this posting, be advised that this was part of the introductory statement made by Zeke Hausfather on the video Recent Ocean Warming has been Underestimated. In his words, "... they increased the amounts of warming that we have experienced pretty significantly. They roughly doubled the temperature trend since 1998 compared to the old versions of the datasets." So who am I supposed to believe, you or him!?
Now from the email newsletters I get from the "denier" community along with a few online news articles about whistleblowers and NASA and NOAA fighting the Congressional investigation, I believe I have some insight as to why you can't come up with the dataset showing the adjustments that did away with the warming hiatus. NOAA simply refused to cooperate with the investigation and witheld the subpeonad email communications and scientific data. Since this was still during the Obama administration, the Whitehouse would not enforce their compliance. Therefore, the world may never know just what killed the hiatus at NOAA, and I'm supposed to accept their "data" as "overwhelming evidence with 97% consensus". — Give me a break! If this is your version of science, you can keep it!
Finally, I would like an apology from you for your statement "Rather than admit that gross error, he quibbles about the data source, and about the change in the NOAA temperature data set detailed in Karl et al (2015)." We know now that my claim was not erroneous at all. Either that or Zeke Hausfather made the same "gross error". Also, I resent your use of the term "quibbles" as it gives readers the impression that my concerns are over trivia as opposed to the primary issue of assessing the amount of global warming we are experiencing.
Moderator Response:[PS] More gross violations of policy from already banned user. No responses please.
Update - this latest incarnation now removed. Why someone who has no intention of abiding by comments policy post here is mystery.
-
nigelj at 12:15 PM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
So according to "Joe" science gets some environmental things wrong, so all environmental things must be wrong. On that basis we might as well give up on all fields of science.
Some people are just plain frustrating and childish.
-
ubrew12 at 11:27 AM on 23 May 2017Trump's Fox News deputy national security adviser fooled him with climate fake news
Fifty years ago, the Oval Office told the rest of America that Climate Change was a threat we needed to take seriously. Now Fox News can drop a faux-pamphlet into the Oval Office in-box, and they are ready to pronounce it to the rest of us as the 'new truth'? It's the same office! We heard them the first them, did they hear them? I'm certain the Science community did not change its mind, so what's going on?
Bret Stephens (he of infamy) suggested in the NY Times that the blind fear the 9/11 hijackers gave birth to grew, it enveloped Iraq and Afghanistan, and last Fall enveloped the White House. And the 'crater' they left there doesn't know Climate Change, or Climate Science, or any Science at all.
Stephens: "Maybe 2016 was the Flight 93 election... Maybe the pilots are dead. Maybe the passengers failed to storm the cockpit. Maybe the hijackers reached their target by landing on the White House after all."
-
John Hartz at 10:41 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: You state:
Haile is using a different methodology and assumptions, etc., yet the conclusions have a striking similarity to the Paul Ehrlich et al conclusions. Why is a re-hash of those failed studies and predictions any more valid?
If Haile uses a different methodology and assumptions than Erlich did, Haile's study cannot, by definition, be a rehash of Erlich's work.
-
joe - at 09:42 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
"someone once made a bad prediction, therefore all predictions are wrong". Can you show that Haile et al are using the same methodology and assumptions that have proved erroneous in the past? This would be a useful contribution to the discussion which is otherwise a bit handwavy.
Rob - True - Haile is using a different methodology and assumptions, etc., yet the conclusions have a striking similarity to the Paul Ehrlich et al conclusions. Why is a re-hash of those failed studies and predictions any more valid?
Moderator Response:[PS] Different methodologies and assumptions means that it is not a rehash. You argument remains that because it produces predictions like Ehrlich, it must be wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Demonstrating problems with Hailes method or assumption would more constructive.
-
Evan at 09:14 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Thanks for the sample HK. So in summary, you are using the same, simple logarithmic relationship that holds for CO2, even though some of the other GHGs have different behavior.
Ravenken, I hope you've learned something from this inquiry and also see why I have not yet woven CO2-eq into any of my plots. I will work on doing that in the future.
-
HK at 08:47 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
My calculation of CO2eq from the total man-made forcing in 2015 (excluding sun and volcanoes) was done like this:
Forcing relative to 1850: 2.155 w/m2 (sum of columns 2-7) Number of CO2-doublings: 2.155 / 3.96 = 0.544 Rel. increase of CO2eq since 1850: 2 0.544 = 1.458 CO2eq in 2015: 285.2 ppm x 1.458 = 415.8 ppm Same approach without aerosols and albedo, but the starting point was 3.354 w/m2.
I assumed a constant logarithmic relationship of 3.96 w/m2 per doubling of CO2, but there are probably some very minor changes over that range. The relationship between concentration and forcing for other GHGs are different because they unlike CO2 haven’t achieved band-saturation in the central part of their absorption bands. The forcings of some CFCs are almost linear to their concentrations because they are so rare compared to CO2. There is also a rather complex relationship between CH4 and N2O because their absorption bands partly overlap.
-
joe - at 08:00 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
[Rob P] How can projections for future decades be proven wrong now? The study authors used global production data from 1961–2013 to reach their conclusion.
Your comment does seem to be sloganeering (a violation of the comments policy) but if you can provide some examples/details of the prior studies you claim are wrong a genuine discussion with others can ensue.
And please note that sloganeering may result in comments being deleted.
Rob - This study is simply a variation of the numerous paul elrich predictions which have been demostratively wrong - My point and question is why does this study have any greater predictive value when it only a rehash of the multiple prior studies.
Its a fair and valid question
Moderator Response:[PS] This is still heading into "someone once made a bad prediction, therefore all predictions are wrong". Can you show that Haile et al are using the same methodology and assumptions that have proved erroneous in the past? This would be a useful contribution to the discussion which is otherwise a bit handwavy.
-
joe - at 07:54 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Or, if this isn't correct, could you explain what it is specifically that makes you question the validity of Haile et al (2017)?
What makes me question the validity of the Haile study - Its the similarity of conclusions with the Paul Ehrlich predictions, et al. Simply put, numerous studies have predicted the same and/or similar results, yet all have been wrong to date.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 23 May 2017Trump's Fox News deputy national security adviser fooled him with climate fake news
Excellent, thorough analysis.The trouble is many people like Trump in particular are too proud to admit they were wrong, or fooled. The fate of the planet hangs on the fact many people just can't re-process information rationally, and move on.
-
Evan at 06:55 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Thanks HK for the reference. This is great. Just one clarification. I am assuming that the forcings listed in this table increase logarithmicly with CO2 concentration (assuming same relationship between CO2 concentration and ultimate warming). Because this table gives forcings, to convert back to CO2 equivalent I assume that I have to use exponential functions of the ratio of current forcings relative to the forcing at 1850, the date for which we have the reference CO2 concentration.
-
MA Rodger at 06:00 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
joe,
You ask what is different with the study-under-discussion (Haile et al 2017) that makes it valid when the pedictions of Paul Ehrlich and other doom-mongers of the past have proved to be invalid.
I would assume your question is not uniquely aimed at Haile et al (2017) but that you would likely question the validity of many other papers in an identical manner. If this assumption is correct, could you set out the characteristics of this broader work that leads you to question its validity?
Or, if this isn't correct, could you explain what it is specifically that makes you question the validity of Haile et al (2017)?
-
HK at 05:38 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Evan:
This table shows how the most important forcings have changed with time.
If you add all the GHGs, tropospheric aerosols and surface albedo (TA+SA) for each year you will get a time series of man-made forcings from 1850 to 2015. Convert those numbers to "CO2-doublings" by dividing them by 3.96 (the forcing from 2 x CO2 used here) and you can calculate the CO2eq for each year relative to 1850, which had 285.2 ppm CO2 according to this table.
With this approach, I get CO2eq = 416 ppm in 2015 if aerosols and albedo are included, and 513 ppm with GHGs alone. -
Larry E at 05:06 AM on 23 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
I appreciate the dialog. Here are further thoughts.
1. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good ... a meaningful price on carbon sooner rather than later."
I see this a question of workability rather than perfection, and believe Fee & Dividend won't work out as promoted, for reasons already explained.
If a carbon price is the way to go, just put on a price but without the dividend. The Canadian federal government is moving that way with a plan that does not have a dividend: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/pan-canadian-framework.html
2. "Once implemented [fee and dividend] can be improved upon as needed."
Obviously back-sliding as well as improvement could occur. The "dividend" part of the arrangement seems to me make backsliding more likely. We need to get to zero fossil fuel carbon emissions, which means zero dividend. Early on, people will become dependent on the dividend, and won't want it cut off. Politically, that can be expected to maintain a continuing carbon "fix," a continuing addiction at some level. Alaska's permanent fund dividend (PFD) (essentially a negative tax) is an example such pressures. The state has been in a severe fiscal crisis for several years and cannot balance its budget, yet cutting back or eliminating the PFD is a political third-rail that has proven untouchable.
3. "Fee and Dividend is well worth a try as it beats not having anything (as in the U.S.) or just having something inadequate (as the ETS in the EU)."
We need a complete solution, even if it is a combination of things. If Fee & Dividend is muscled through by itself it is likely to be perceived as "the" solution and either greatly delay or block more effective measures. (Apart from the fact that I don't think F&D will perform as promoted.)
4. As said in my last comment, the target we need to hit is changing year-by-year as we have continued with high emissions. We need zero FF emissions by 2035-2040 (actually should have been by now, really) as Anderson has well demonstrated (see URL in my last comment). CCL needs to lead the target, not aim at where it appears to be or was.
-
John Hartz at 04:25 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: Unless you can precisely define what you mean by "valid" and answer the questions that I have posed, your global assertions disguised as questions are nothing more than sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. If I weren't conversing with you, I would come down hard on you as a Moderator.
-
joe - at 04:12 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
I will repeat my question - What makes this study any different from the similar & previous studies and predictions. Simply cloaking the predictions in "science" doenst make it any more valid.
-
John Hartz at 03:35 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: You state:
John - yes the study should be judged based on its one merits - yet it is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong,
How did you arrive at your assertion that the paper Climate Change, Weather Extremes, and Price Risk on Global Food Supply is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong?
Please list the studies that you are referring to and provide links to them. Have you personally read all of the studies that you are referring to? How do you know that these studies have been proved wrong? Please document the source(s) of your conclusions.
-
michael sweet at 03:20 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe,
And yet we have sent men to the moon and built computers. Since scientists have made many millions of predictions it is easy to find some that were incorrect. As John says, you have to evaluate this prediction on the merits of the data they provide to support their claims.
You have not even commented on the merits of the article, you just make this ad hominum claim that all scientific predictions are incorrect. Your second post is sloganeering and against the comments policy.
I will note that Ehrlich's claims were never scientific consensus. This article is not consensus yet, but there are many dangers from warming (like sea level rise and extended drought) that are.
-
joe - at 00:35 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
John - yes the study should be judged based on its one merits - yet it is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong, In fact, just the opposite has occurred based on advancements in real science.
my question remains - What makes this study any more valid that all the other previous studies that have been proved wrong, such as Ehrlich frequent predictions.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] How can projections for future decades be proven wrong now? The study authors used global production data from 1961–2013 to reach their conclusion.
Your comment does seem to be sloganeering (a violation of the comments policy) but if you can provide some examples/details of the prior studies you claim are wrong a genuine discussion with others can ensue.
And please note that sloganeering may result in comments being deleted.
-
John Hartz at 00:12 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: The study that you are referring to is cited below. It should and will be judged on its own merits.
Impact of Climate Change, Weather Extremes, and Price Risk on Global Food Supply by Mekbib G. Haile, Tesfamicheal Wossen, Kindie Tesfaye, and Joachim von Braun, Journal of Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, May 6, 2017
Abstract
We analyze the determinants of global crop production for maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans over the period 1961–2013. Using seasonal production data and price change and price volatility information at country level, as well as future climate data from 32 global circulation models, we project that climate change could reduce global crop production by 9% in the 2030s and by 23% in the 2050s. Climate change leads to 1–3% higher annual fluctuations of global crop production over the next four decades. We find strong, positive and statistically significant supply response to changing prices for all four crops. However, output price volatility, which signals risk to producers, reduces the supply of these key global agricultural staple crops—especially for wheat and maize. We find that climate change has significant adverse effects on production of the world’s key staple crops. Especially, weather extremes— in terms of shocks in both temperature and precipitation— during crop growing months have detrimental impacts on the production of the abovementioned food crops. Weather extremes also exacerbate the year-to-year fluctuations of food availability, and thus may further increase price volatility with its adverse impacts on production and poor consumers. Combating climate change using both mitigation and adaptation technologies is therefore crucial for global production and hence food security. -
joe - at 23:43 PM on 22 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Climate change, and its impacts on extreme weather and temperature swings, is projected to reduce global production of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans by 23 percent in the 2050s, according to a new analysis.
What makes this study any more valid that the the numerous studies and predictions put forth by Paul Ehrlich and others with similar predictions
-
BaerbelW at 21:28 PM on 22 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Larry - for me this is a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Which is why I think that CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend is well worth a try as it beats not having anything (as in the U.S.) or just having something inadequate (as the ETS in the EU). Once implemented it can be improved upon as needed. Not having anything cannot really be the best path forward in my opinion.
As mentioned in the article, I'm active with CCL in Germany and thereby Europe. So, we are having discussions of how something like and as close to Carbon Fee and Dividend could be made to work within or alongside the ETS. Overall, solutions will most likely differ per region and country, but I really hope that we'll get a meaningful price on carbon sooner rather than later. We "simply" have to stop using our shared atmosphere as a free dumping ground for our CO2 emissions.
Just my 2 cents.
-
grindupBaker at 16:16 PM on 22 May 2017Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating?
The incorrect comment #2 RSVP and responses of John Cross both miss the most overwhelming piece of science regarding this fallacy of melting ice cooling the ocean's well-mixed layer and this is ironic because the piece ignored is the mechanism of Earth's Energy Balance and the massively overwhelming quantity of the Sun's input and Earth's cooling output to all other energy sources and sinks in the ecosphere, the very essence of "global warming" that this site and discussion everywhere is all about. The details (but unquantified) in this case are:
1) Ice melts and, lets say, spreads over a surface ocean layer of several hundred thousand square kilometres that is colder than it would have been had the ice not melted onto and into it.
2) So now (Stefan Boltzmann t**4 and all that) that ocean layer transmits less LWR up than it would have been had the ice not melted onto and into it. I should think less evaporation and sensible also.
3) None of this affects the solar radiation input so the ice melting and this spreading over a much vaster area than if it had stayed as ice mostly hidden from the Sun by other ice above simply increases Earth's energy imbalance at TOA over that ocean area. The sun warms that colder water back to whatever average temperature was the balanced average temperature for that region, as though ice had not melted and ocean surface not cooled.To put it simply, melting the ice simply spreads it out thinly over an enormous area and makes it vulnerable to the overpowering energy of the Sun, no sustained cooling occurs. That concept is a fallacy. First point of quantification is how long it takes Sun to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature. Obviously, if it takes the Sun 10 years, or even 2 years, to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature then I am incorrect and there is sustained cooling. However, I did a quick calculation a few months ago by spreading the annual Greenland ice loss over that famous Cold Blob (rather arbitrary I know) and found that it takes Sun 7 months to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature. Therefore there cannot be any cooling of the ocean's well-mixed layer by melting of ice at a rate less than about double the present rate. It isn't just a matter of the cooling being a tiny portion of OHC +ve anomaly, the cooling is not happening at all.
Second point of quantification is how deep the ice melt mixes. I didn't mix it at all and I only computed it for whatever depth (175 mm) matches 350 Gt / yr ice loss ans a 2,000,000 km**2 spreading area, which gives 175 mm depth of non-mixed ice water. I can see that mixing to various depths would slow the rate at which Sun re-heats it but I didn't do a selection of semple computations. Somebody might want to do that some time.
If the melt water from ice plummeted down into the thermocline in the North Atlantic where temperature is >0 degrees then I can see it cooling the ocean but I seriously doubt that fresh water does that.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:51 PM on 22 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
cosmoswarrior/coolearth/diehard appears to not like my pointing out @406 the gross error in his claim that "...the temperature history during the last two decades of the 20th century was rewritten to double the rate of temperature increase". Rather than admit that gross error, he quibbles about the data source, and about the change in the NOAA temperature data set detailed in Karl et al (2015). To deal with his quibbles, here is a comparison of raw and adjusted data in the new data set in figure 2 of Rove et al (2015):
The top panel shows the difference between prior adjusted data set, and the new adjusted data set. It is very clear that use of the new data sets make almost no difference to the trend. In the bottom panel is a comparison of the new adjusted data set to the raw data set. Post 1945 there is almost no difference, and in particular it is clear that claims that "...the temperature history during the last two decades of the 20th century was rewritten to double the rate of temperature increase" are at best massively misinformed, and at its source, a lie.
With regard to the disappearing of the "hiatus", that comes about in Karl et al (2015) not because they use a new method of adjustments, but because they use two new data sets. Specifically, they switch from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4 for marine temperatures, and from GHCNv3 to the ISTI database for land temperatures. The later represents a switch to a larger database with a more extensive coverage. It represents more data. The change in ERSST versions involves, "...updated and substantially more complete input data from the International Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) release 2.5; revised empirical orthogonal teleconnections (EOTs) and EOT acceptance criterion; updated sea surface temperature (SST) quality control procedures; revised SST anomaly (SSTA) evaluation methods;
updated bias adjustments of ship SSTs using the Hadley Centre Nighttime Marine Air Temperature dataset version 2 (HadNMAT2); and buoy SST bias adjustment not previously made in v3b." It's effect on the NOAA temperature record is discussed in detail by Kevin Cowtan here. It has also been discussed by Zeke Hausfather as part of a more comprehensive discussion of the NOAA updates.Finally, the "hiatus" is not defined as a period of zero or negative trend in Global Means Surface Temperature (GMST). Rather, it is defined as a period in which the zero trend is within the error margin of the observed trend. As it happens, the long term trend has been within the error margin of the observed trend through out all periods considered to be part of the hiatus. That means, logically, there is no more reason to consider the trend to be zero than there is to consider it to have continued unabated. Indeed, given that all purported periods of the "hiatus" are parts of periods in which there is a statistically significant positive trend, there is more reason in those periods to consider them to be periods or warming rather than stasis. In short, the "hiatus" was at best only a statistical artifact such that a small change in the observed trend (approximately one standard error) over the period of the "hiatus" makes it transparently an artifact. That so small a change can make it "disappear" shows it to have been, at best, an artifact all along.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this serial spammer is data-resistant but thanks for clarifying the matter for the benefit of other readers.
-
nigelj at 12:09 PM on 22 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Dcrickett @6, yes people are complex, but as humans we look for patterns. There's a correlation between religious fundamentalism and climate science denial. There are of course exceptions, but the question is why the correlation, and I have taken a stab at it above.
I agree it's important climate denial is looked at from various different points of view, and nothing is simply assumed. There are many reasons for climate denialism discussed on this website, and all seem compelling,so it may just be a combination of things. I would add it's an important decision whether to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and it takes time for people to mentally work this through, and all the time there is a campaign of lies against the science hanging over us as a distraction.
Doctrinaire single minded workaholics. I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the issue, but having suffered from this, and severe burnout, I'm now a fan of balance and moderation. But many great achievers are doctrinaire single minded workaholics, so is it entirely wrong? People are complex, and life is complex as well.
-
Dcrickett at 11:20 AM on 22 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
I have a grandniece who is a young-earth-believing fundamentalist Christian, a recently degreed MD, an ardent feminist and a climate activist (activism limited by demands of a medical internship).
People can be complex. I prefer complex people to doctrinaire whatevers.
Regarding climate matters, I am glad that denialism is being seriously studied from a variety of approaches. The road to Hell is paved by doctrinaire single-minded workaholics.
-
Larry E at 10:40 AM on 22 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
BaerbelW, thanks for your replies and the link to the REMI study.
1. The first part of your #16 presumes rational behavior, but it is well established that people don't behave rationally concerning consumption.
2. The second part of #16 and #17.1 regard "cap and trade," but my comment was explicitly that what we need is a "cap WITHOUT trade."
3. Regarding #17.2, a rapidly rising fee also results in rapidly rising dividends. It seems likely that the economy and behaviors will adjust to that, just as they do to other inflation. The dividend facilitates that. It is a huge gamble (at best) that this mechanism will adequately change behavior.
4. Regarding #17.3, the rebound effect should be casually dismissed. Also, I find the REMI report to be non-transparent concerning whatever assumptions (e.g. rational consumer behavior?) are inherent in it, through the three models that were employed. Also, how the economic feedbacks for both the fee and the dividend are handled for the various segments of society is critical, but is not disclosed.
5. Regarding #17.4, will the FF companies end up selling _enough_ less to solve the problem? That is a crux. It could be that they would end up selling about the same or somewhat (but not enough) less, or fall far short. From the REMI report example on gasoline prices, the 90-cent per gallon increase by the end of the first decade is relatively minor, as is the $1.80 increase after two decades. That would still leave US prices far lower than in Europe, for comparison, and the steady $10 per year increase in the CCL plan gets eaten away by inflation to a significant degree.
As a final point, the REMI study shows a 52% CO2 emissions decline (if correct) by 2035. However, the CCL plan and the study date back a few years and BAU year-on-year since then has made the climate change challenge. In looking at the remaining carbon budget for either a 1.5 or 2.0 oC increase, we need to be at essentially zero emission by 2035-2040. (See Kevin Anderson's "Laggards or Leaders" presentation, https://play.kth.se/media/28+mars/0_aej506wl, as one recent example.) Fee & Dividend doesn't get us there for this budget reason, as well as the ones above.
-
Evan at 07:46 AM on 22 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
I agree with you that CO2eq is the appropriate data to use. However, I have not been able to identify a source to use that melds all of the GHGs together into CO2eq, so for now I am using CO2. Once I identify such a source, I will update the plot in the analogy and begin using CO2eq. I don't think it will change the message, and at most make a small adjustment to the time delay. But I do agree that CO2eq is the appropriate metric to use.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Prev 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 Next
