Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 Next
Comments 21601 to 21650:
-
Tom Curtis at 21:27 PM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo_Alpha_Zulu, I have discussed your views on cosmic rays on a more appropriate thread. I also recommend you read the advanced version of the main article on that thread, in addition to the first link by Tom Dalton @11.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:21 PM on 7 January 2017It's cosmic rays
Elsewhere Echo_Alpha_Zulu is arguing that cosmic rays "...play more of a role in climate than anything else". He attributes that view to unnamed "CERN scientists", and provides no links or citations so we can confirm that that is indeed what "CERN scientists" are saying. Curiously Echo_Alpha_Zulu says, "I am a real scientist I study the data itself. I dont rely on some 'Expert' to interpret the data for me". Despite this claim, he provided no relevant evidence with regard to cosmic rays, instead rellying on the authority of "experts" who are carefully kept of page and uncited.
Echo_Alpha_Zulu may consider that characterization unfair, given that he linked to this graph, which is a truncated version of Figure 1 from Kirkby (2008):
However, that graph shows nothing interesting because, the temperature proxies do not agree among themselves about the temperature pattern over the last 1000 years, let alone with the cosmic ray proxies.
That lack of correlation can be seen in modern records where, if the theory had any substance, the more accurate records should make the connection obvious. Instead, taking the montly values of the OULU neutron record and the Berkeley Earth Land Ocean Temperature Index, a regression analysis shows a positive trend of 7.4 (+/- 6) x 10^-5 C/(Count/Min). That is the opposite of the negative trend predicted by the theory. Worse, the correlation is just 0.097 with an R^2 of 0.009 indicating cosmic rays to be a negligible causal factor with regard to global temperatures, if relevant at all.
It becomes a little more interesting when we look at the timeseries of the BEST LOTI and the inverted OULU Neutron count:
Here we see that where there may have been some slight justification for the theory in data up to circa1995 (Regression: -1.9 (+/-0.47) x 10^-4; correlation: -0.388; R^2: 0.15), thereafter temperature continues to increase steadilly while the inverted cosmic ray count plummets. The complete breakdown of the relationship post 1995 shows the weak statistical relationship apparent beforehand to have been largely coincidental.A simple linear regression is not the only test that could be applied to the data, but no theory which claims cosmic rays "...play more of a role in climate than anything else" survives the data shown. At best, the relationship is that found by Tsonis et al (2015), who write:
"Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT. They resonate with the physical and chemical evidence emerging from laboratory studies suggesting a theoretical dynamic link between galactic CR and GT. However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed (by first-differencing). Thus, it is important to stress that they do not suggest that CR influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC. Indeed, the opposite is true: we show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability."
(My emphasis)
-
KGB at 18:03 PM on 7 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
humans fear factor, everyone just seems take it for granted that nothing can change, what would cause a ice age, if earth is warming don't the core warm also? Maybe a super volcano soon, maybe someone will make a simple spray released from aircraft that break CO2 down, maybe we could just vent it into space just run some long pipes lol
-
KGB at 17:17 PM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
You state that the old data has a cold bias so scientists data was off, how could the scientific community make this mistake and how are we suppose to know they haven't made another mistake?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:13 PM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo_Alpha_Zulu
Aside from generally following Tom Dayton's advice and looking at the various rebuttals, here is some actual data relating to your claim about volanoes and CO2. From the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases, run by the Japanese Meteorological Agency here.
Measurements of CO2 from Cape Grim in Tasmania. 1992 was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions this century - Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines.
Spot the huge volcanic spike EOZ? No trace, nada of a volcanic component. -
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo Alpha Zulu @7 says:
"According to borehole samples collected from Greenland only temperature anomolies still have not increased to what they were 2000 years ago. I am not invalidating your data as it is correct, it is just misleading."
Echo, Greenland is just one place, and could be an anomaly as different places change at different rates. You have to look at a wide selection of countries, and reach an average. Many studies of the medieval warm period do this, and find it was a weak event, eg Briffa, Esper, Jones. Unfortunately it is your post that is misleading.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:34 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, for global temperatures extending far earlier than the previous 2,000 years, see the post on "the wheelchair" graph.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:16 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, for information about the Sun's role in recent warming (not just how a grand solar minimum would affect temperature), see the post about that--Basic, then Intermediate, then Advanced tabbed panes. Comment on that topic there, not here.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:11 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, you wrote "CERN found that cosmic rays play more of a roll [sic] in climate than anything else."
You are incorrect. See the post about that, both Basic and Intermediate tabbed panes. For more thorough and more up to date information about cosmic rays' influence on climate (not just CERN results in particular), see the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes on the post about that. And if you want to discuss those topics, do so in the comments on those posts, not this one.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:04 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, you wrote "A single major Volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than humanity has done it's entire existance this is a fact."
But no, that is not a fact, it is a myth. See the post about that (Basic tabbed pane, then Intermediate one), and if you want to comment on that topic, do so there, not here.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:01 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, you wrote "Just like the upcoming mini ice age....The sun is now just exiting one of the most violent maximums ever recorded in history. Fewer sun spots but the amount of energy released from CME's and solar flares was something we have never seen. Now we are entering a solar minimum. Which is expected to be one of the weakest since the maunder minimum or last mini ice age."
In fact, the amount of cooling that would result even if there is a reduction in solar output similar to that of the Maunder Minimum would be zero--no cooling, because the rise in warming from greenhouse gases would swamp the cooling from lower insulation. All it would do is temporarily and slightly reduce the rate of warming. See the post on the effect of a grand solar minimum. If you want to discuss that topic, do so in the comments on that post where it is on topic, not this one.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:56 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo, you wrote "I will ask you to provide us with a chart of temperature records over the past 2000 years." Okay--see the post on the Medieval Warm Period. After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one. For more information about the PAGES 2K study that is cited and graphed there, see a post on that. If you want to discuss those topics, do so in the comments on those or similar posts, where your comments will be on topic.
-
Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 02:47 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
First off let me start off by saying this graph was provided by the scientists at CERN. Im not invalidating your data because it is correct. According to borehole samples collected from Greenland only temperature anomolies still have not increased to what they were 2000 years ago. I am not invalidating your data as it is correct it is just misleading. Even the past 400 years temperatures have been at a steady incline. I do not argue that. The point I am making is that this warming period has little to do with us. It would have happened even if humanity didnt exist. Just like the upcoming mini ice age. There are multiple naturalally occuring events that directly impact our climate. The sun, Cosmic Rays, Volcanic and seismic activity and Pole instability. A single major Volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than humanity has done it's entire existance this is a fact. The sun is now just exiting one of the most violent maximums ever recorded in history. Fewer sun spots but the amount of energy released from CME's and solar flares was something we have never seen. Now we are entering a solar minimum. Which is expected to be one of the weakest since the maunder minimum or last mini ice age.
Prior to the maunder minumim we see an increase in Volcanic activity paired with a decrease in solar activity. This is the exact scenario we are facing now.
Nothing I said was contradictary. I have done a significant amount of research on the topic and my data even though provided by CERN is apparently not satisfactory so I will ask you to provide us with a chart of temperature records over the past 2000 years. This way you can not blame me for not having peer reviewed material. I will be more than happy to elaborate on any of the points I just made.Moderator Response:[JH] The many assertions contined in your post lack proper references and supporting documentation. Your personal beliefs carry little weight on this site.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:31 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Echo_Alpha_Zulu @4 claims, "I am a real scientist I study the data itself"; but he does not present us with this data, only a graph from a non-peer reviewed paper from 2008. Of that graph he says, "This is a link showing the data for the past 2000 years", but the data only covers the period 1000 to 2000 AD, ie, the last one thousand years, not the last 2000 as he would have it.
Further, on the basis of that graph, he then claims, "We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago". The graph, however, compares three proxy series to the instrumental record (red), and of those three series, the most recent date on the instrumental series is greater than any value over the last 1000 years. His claim is only valid, therefore, if the strictly regional Greenland ice sheet data gives a better presentation of hemispheric temperatures than do proxies from across the hemisphere. What is worse, the instrumental series used (HadCRU Nothern Hemisphere) shows an anomaly of 1.041 C for 2016, with all annual anomalies from 2001 forward being 0.554 C or higher. That is, for the last 16 years NH temperatures have been 0.2 C or more higher than the greenland ice core data peak around 1000 AD. Indeed, you have to go back 20 years to 1996 to get a NH temperature as low as the peak shown by the Greenland data. So when Echo_Alpha_Zulu says "We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago" he is contradicting the data he presents.
Of course, he may well not be aware of that, given that he bases his analysis on eyeballing graphs rather than the actual data itself.
Of couse, a real scientist, ie, somebody with an advanced degree in science who works professionally in the field, and actively publishes in the literature, would know not to make that mistake. Echo_Alpha_Zulu's claim to be a "real scientist" is therefore revealed as a falsehood used (ironically) to plump up his authority lest we should look at the data ourselves.
-
Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 00:33 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Zeke, Kevin this is why your charts only go back the past 20 years. Because thats the only way your "Evidence" shows any credibility at all. Amateurs
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflamatory statements of deception snipped.
You are already on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting on this website. Three strikes and you are out.
Warning #2
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 or off-topic posts. 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.
-
Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 00:30 AM on 7 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
The earth is warming but its about to stop and start cooling. Actual science suggests that earth is headed for a mini ice age. CERN found that cosmic rays play more of a roll in climate than anything else. The sun was at its maximum and is now entering the minimum. Volcanic activity is higher than it ever has been.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2009/11/16/sven_northernhemi.jpg
This is a link showing the data for the past 2000 years. We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago. Humans had 0 effect on climate then. If you are going to promote global warming you need to think of better lies than that. I am a real scientist I study the data itself. I dont rely on some 'Expert' to interpret the data for me.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated. Inflamatory accusation of deception snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:06 PM on 6 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Glenn... Totally right. And not only that, often companies, and even entire industries, become resistant to change. Keeping things the same is easy. Changing is hard. The auto industry is a perfect example.
Back in the 1970's the US auto industry would swear up and down, and until the cows came home, that "Americans love big cars!" Truth was, they couldn't efficiently produce a small car profitably. But rather than try to learn how they merely relied on this "big cars" rhetoric.
The Japanese auto companies did figure out how to make small cars efficiently and as a result they ate the US auto industry's lunch.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:55 AM on 6 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Daniel Mocsny
"even though the goal of all the high-level actions is to nudge individuals to burn less fossil fuel"
I disagree somewhat. That is one of the goals. Individual changes contribute, but there are limits to what an individual can do to burn less. Smaller car, better insulated house, walk more etc. But they can't individually drive the bigger changes, and certainly not quickly.
Take for example their car. They can buy a smaller car, they maybe can buy a more fuel efficient car. But the best they can do is buy the best that is available on the market. If car companies aren't investing in the design of seriously more efficient cars, the consumer can't buy them. So taxes and other policies need to pressure the companies as much as targeting consumers. So too electricity generation, will a utility build a coal plant, a gas plant or a wind farm. Its all electrons to the consumer.
Policy is aimed at a mix of influencing individuals and influencing organisations and companies. And a broader range of policies can be employed against the organisations than individuals. -
Tom Curtis at 11:18 AM on 6 January 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
Daniel Mocsny @18, one point you are missing is that the price of an item gives a signal as to the amount of resources, including energy and labour resources, used in manufacturing the item. Currently that signal does not include any information about carbon pollution generated by the item. A carbon tax changes that. It means that, all else being equal, an equivalent product with a lower price also generates a lower carbon foot print.
Given the complexity of the manufactoring process of most modern items; and the contradictory claims made about what goes into their manufacture; it takes substantial research to determine which of two otherwise equivalent products has the lower carbon footprint. You need to research the sources of material, transport methods and distances, energy mix at point of manufacture, energy source at point of production of raw materials, and so on. These problems apply even if you are not avaricious, and own relatively few goods. They are excacerbated in that manufacturers often try to conceal this data so as to avoid being excluded from consideration by ethical purchasers.
A carbon tax, however, would introduce a signal on carbon production in manufacture and transport that could not be concealed. It would be imperfect because of other price inputs, but it would be there. It follows that a carbon tax is helpful for those who are interested in doing the right thing ethically. Indeed, even if 100% of consumers were determined to act ethically, a carbon tax would still be a good thing. That it would also shape the behaviour of those who had no interest in ethical consumption is a bonus.
-
timeforarks at 10:29 AM on 6 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Developers in South Fla are already having trouble with financing coastal development with out requiring overly large pre-construction down payments ! The Federal Flood Insurance is already deep in debt and only meeting current needs by using private reinsurance ! These private rates are rapidly increasing and I believe the Fed Ins is up for renewal this year and they had a hard time passing the previous legislation ! Our Coastal Condo dropped its flood ins policy last year due to cost increase ! The Coastal Cities tax base are going to crash as values drop and these properties become tax liabilitys !
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 6 January 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
Daniel Mocsny @ 18, ok I concede taxation relates to self interest and weighing costs and benefits.
However I'm a pragmatist, and carbon taxes are highly likely to work at least to some extent! Remember rates of smoking have declined from almost 50% of the population in the 1960s to 15% (in my country), and theres strong evidence tobacco taxes form a large part of that drop.
Humans are indeed self interested creatures. I just think this is pretty deeply coded in our genes, and won't be changing fast. Therefore we might as well target this with something like a carbon tax.
However we also have evolved to have an altruistic tendency that helps us make moral choices. However you give no indication of how you would promote this. So far appeals to consider the third world or future generations "fall on deaf ears" with some people.
I dont think its an "either or" situation where we must go with self interest or altruism. It is more likely to be a combination of both. They are not mutually exclusive and history shows they have co-existed for a long time. However right now we probaly have the balance a bit too tilted to self interest.
I think the air travel argument is wearing very thin. This is the only option to attend multinational conferences. I also know for a fact plenty of greenies do take personal responsibility and have voluntarily made some better lifestyle choices.
Of course there are also hypocrites who talk about the need for climate action but do precisely nothing, but not everyone is like this.
A big factor in the climate issue is renewable energy generation, and practically speaking only governments can really push this. Polls show popular support even if it does introduce some costs in the short term (and studies are showing these costs are very small or near break even). Governments however are ignoring the will of the people in some countries, maybe because they are captive to campaign donors.
My point is things are complicated.
But coming back to your moral values point, you offer no indication of how you change peoples moral values. At least a carbon tax sends the signal that fossil fuel use is considered a problem. This at least provides the information people need in order to make moral choices.
Hopefully people learn to do the right thing and rather fast! Sometimes it takes a while for people to make these sorts of decisions but if you look at history, many things in life reach "tipping points" and suddenly there is quite rapid mass change in attitudes, actions and laws.
-
nigelj at 06:31 AM on 6 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
EliofVA @13, I think as a general rule people mentally calculate the odds of some problem, and rank that against the advantages of living in some fashionable area, or one that may also have jobs. I would do this. Psychological and economic research has found we mentally calculate the odds and trade offs, and its totally normal.
Floods have some level of predictability: For example maybe once a year on average in locations near where I live. This makes it easier to make a mental risk and cost assessment, and many people decide to live with flood prone environments. ( Not eagerly, but having considered the costs and benefits)
I would suggest sea level rise is different. It is an increasing phenomenon and harder to quantify costs and effects, other than to say it's not looking good. As you say people are ignoring the vulnerabilities. We also have people claiming global warming is a scam. People are thus likely to be making poor quality decisions, and not doing well informed mental calculations, or taking sufficient precautions.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:52 AM on 6 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Cooper13, anything and everything will be seized by some as opportunities to claim that the data are unreliable, regrdless of the vacuity of the argument. We live in a post reality, post information world that is no better connected to reality than the melanesian cargo cults. There is nothing that can be done to prevent some to make noise about the unreliability of this or that; the noise itself is their goal and achievement.
-
Cooper13 at 03:54 AM on 6 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
One concern I have with how these studies are communicated in the press and in blogs, is the use of the terms 'cooling bias' in previous NOAA datasets. This basically tees up the ball for the denial crew to use those quotes and words in claiming 'funny business' with the data.
I think it is more clear to the layperson and to the press to simply explain that older ship-based engine room data imposed an 'artificial warming' bias on the older data, by a small amount. When datasets were shifted over to buoys, that older 'artificial warm' bias disappears, which is the reason things 'looked cooler', because that superimposed warmer data was no longer used. We went from a dataset which should have had a small temperature correction subtracted from it, to one that did not need that correction. Almost like an LP record 'skipping back a track' when the data were switched from one source to another.
Thus, for decades prior to buoy use, we were unknowingly and slightly overestimating the warming, up until the late 1990s, because the engine room data were not corrected properly. With the new correction, "the LP record no longer skips" and ALL of the datasets are better harmonized. And you can easily see with the updated corrections, the 'LP record skip is now gone'.
So, this is really more a correction to the 'older' datasets (in absolute temperatures) than to the 'new' datasets. Maybe explaining the data in 'absolute' temperature measurements instead of 'deltas' would help, too....
-
enSKog at 03:50 AM on 6 January 2017NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
Nice way to start the new year, with some proper science.
Why are there 3 Argo records and why are they different?
-
ELIofVA at 02:05 AM on 6 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
I do not know James Lovelocks ideas on the reversal of Climate Change? However, this is more than pure science. Scientest examine the physical world to determine the truth. However, as new truth's are revealed, it is important for creative people learn how to adapt to live within the truths that are revealed. This is a very important role for non scientist. What is clear to me and needs to be considered in our culture is that when we emit more carbon than can be sequestered atmospheric concentrations go up. If you discern that is the problem, the only solution is to limit human carbon emissions to what can be sequestered. All emissions below the net zero line are within the carbon cycle and do not add to carbon concentration. Net Zero is an important reference that needs to be understood. The only way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is to develop a net sequestration economy where human emissions are less than what cana be sequestered. Imagining how we can achieve a net sequestration economy moves us toward a vision of how to build a place for the human community that protects the life resilience we are blessed to live among.
-
ELIofVA at 01:23 AM on 6 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
My cousin and his husband live in a high rise condominium a few blocks from the ocean in Fort Lauderdale. They are on the ground floor. I encouraged them to consider how they would respond to a major hurricane. A month later, Hurricane Mathew came by. They hunkered down. Fortunately the storm's eye did not follow the coast line as predicted. The eye was 20 miles out in the ocean. Therefore they were spared a Sandy scale storm surge. They got away with it. They are only leasing the apartment, therefore are not as at risk financially. If a significant storm surge put them under, they can take the stairwell to upper floors to protect themselves. However, it is a personal example a couple that is comitted to being in a hip location by ignoring the vulnerabilities.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:25 PM on 5 January 2017Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Spaded Ace @60, the argument is not whether the melting of glacial ice will, or will not, raise sea level; but whether the melting of sea ice, ie, the ice that forms on the surface of the sea at low temperatures, will (or will not) raise sea levels.
-
Spaded Ace at 16:03 PM on 5 January 2017Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I'm following this but I have to say it appears as though the lab experiments have been conducted in error. Glaciel ice does not solely precipitate from beneath, when ocean levels reach tempuratures below 28.8f - the tempurature at which water with a salinity content of 35ppt will freeze. Most glacial ice precipitates from above, and is compacted by its own weight, coupled with occasional rainfall and warmer air tempuratures. With all this is mind, it is time to do the "melt test".
If you fill a 5 gallon bucket with snow and melt it, you will get approximately 10%wbv. If you fill the same bucket with glaciel ice, melting results in 30%wbv, on average. Glacial ice, or compacted snow, can be as much as 70%wbv if it is trapped in a valley on a hard surface, with no exit, and low air tempuratures. Glacial ice which flows, melts underneath, or forms above water seldom reaches 50%wbv. On average, 35%wbv.
Understanding these factors, realize that clear ice cubes are clear because they are more than 90%wbv, while glacial ice or snowpack is not clear becuase its composition includes more oxygen than water due to its crystaline structure. To conduct an accurate lab test, scrape the snowy sides of your freezer and compact it into an ice tray. Drop your snowballs into a glass of 35ppt NaCl (salt) and record the level. Melt the snowballs, and record the level. Be surprised. The displacement of glacial ice, which floats 90% below surface and 10% above surface, is a definite factor. With warmer ocean tempuratures due to sea ice dissipation, evaporation increases resulting in heavier precipitation.Legend:
ppt: parts per thousand, or 35grams of salt per 1000grams of water
wbv: water-by-volume, or 1gallon of water per 10gallons of snow
-
Daniel Mocsny at 10:54 AM on 5 January 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
nigelj@17:
"I don't think such a tax is playing quite to self interest, as much as it would just be sending a signal."
Sending a signal to what? To the self-interest-maximizing brains of market players. Prices and taxes send signals to buyers and sellers who use the information as they seek to maximize their individual self-interest. You're not going to spend $300 on a banana when you can buy one for $0.30. That's a basis for economic theory, that individuals are selfish and we use money to keep score of how many benefits to self we manage to gouge out of other people and avoid giving away to other people. Adam Smith's concept of The Invisible Hand is how economists transformed the individual moral vices of greed and selfishness into public virtues. (Free market fundamentalists go too far, by ignoring the negative externalities that can wipe out the unintended public benefits from individual greed.)
A carbon tax is a type of Pigovian tax which internalizes a negative externality - it forces a greenhouse gas emitter to pay for some or all of the damage his or her emissions will inflict on other people or the natural world. But only an immoral selfish person needs to be forced to take responsibility for the harm he or she inflicts on others. Inflicting external costs on other people is a form of theft, and moral people don't steal. If people weren't selfish, they would already be treating fossil fuels as if their real prices were much higher than the selling prices. Morally responsible people would already be behaving the way the carbon tax signals the selfish people to behave.
By analogy, consider a person who only refrains from committing crime because he thinks he'll be caught and punished. That's why we have police and jails - because a fraction of people lack the moral integrity to behave civilly.
Criminals try to resist and undermine the justice system. Every form of coercion has its limits. We tax tobacco, but we are far from eliminating tobacco, even after decades of taxing it. Tobacco still kills over 400,000 Americans every year, and vast numbers of children still take up the habit.
There are limits to coercion - if you push people harder than they want to be pushed, they push back. If tobacco taxes go too high, you get more tobacco smuggling and black market activity to circumvent the tax. You have to spend more resources on enforcement. Similarly with income taxes - the higher the tax rate, the more you stimulate an industry of tax evasion.
There is really no substitute for changing people's moral values. A person who actually wants to do something will do it better than someone you have to coerce.
But merely telling people the facts about climate change doesn't cause them to stop contributing to climate change. Just look at all the climate meetings filled with activists who burned jet fuel to get there. The problem is that no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. When people take an interest in climate change, their first response is usually to think about grandiose government action rather than their own action - even though the goal of all the high-level actions is to nudge individuals to burn less fossil fuel. Almost all of the official messaging on climate change contributes to this denial of individual responsibility. This is because almost every influential person is in the top few centiles of the carbon footprint distribution. Politicians, journalists, prominent activists, etc. - they all ply their trade with jet fuel. This is an enormous barrier to getting honest discussion and real action on climate change. Imagine trying to get rid of heroin if everybody in government, the press, etc. was a heroin addict. No politician is going to propose that we limit everyone to their individual fair share of greenhouse gas emissions, because you can't have a political career on a fair share. Most people have no idea there is such a thing as an individual fair share of greenhouse gas emissions - that's one of the best-kept secrets in the whole climate issue.
-
nigelj at 10:47 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Daniel Mocsny @10, what you say applies to floods. In my country we are going further with information on sea level rise trends tailored to specific cities. It may not alter behaviour, but at least people would be informed and have nobody else to blame, and can make informed choices.
"My advice to anyone living within a vertical meter of high tide: sell now while there are still climate science deniers or ignorers dumb enough to buy."
Totally agree. And if people must build on very low land at least think about foundation heights. The cost of this may be small compared to preserving good resale value, especially if you intend to live in one place for a lengthy time. Sea level rise is expected to follow an accelerating trend and may catch unwary people out.
However I admit good foundation height would be of limited value if other infrastructure is vulnerable.
-
nigelj at 10:36 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
People are probably continuing to build in these low lying areas for several reasons. It's probably partly ignorance about sea level rise, and part hoping it will be the next owners probem, and as someone says assuming the government will bail out the insurance companies, or otherwise fix the problem for "free".
But nothing is free. This is kicking the can down the road, and putting the costs on tax payers or future generations, somewhat unfairly. It's the same issue as Americas ever growing public (government) debt, a problem many other countries have as well.
At the very least people need good information from local governments so they can make informed choices. Those occasional "nuisance"floods will get worse and dumb buyers probably don't realsie the water can be contaminated with sewerage and cause severe damage and take weeks to repair.
It leaves the question of whether local government should have building laws banning developement in very low lying areas, or at least require higher than normal foundations. Anyone with any sense should push for this. Slightly higher foundations wont add much cost.
Don't count on local bodies building barriers to protect things.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 10:12 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
nigelj@3: in the USA every flood zone has been mapped by FEMA for decades, yet every time the designated flood zones do what they're predicted to do - flood - there are always victims acting surprised.
In October 2001, a few years before Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a paper in Scientific American described what a major hurricane strike could do to New Orleans. Of course it was largely ignored at the time. Only after the 1000-plus deaths and billions in property damage occurred did priorities shift to free up the billions needed to improve the flood defenses of New Orleans. But they're flushing money away on a lost cause, as future costs will rise geometrically as sea levels go up.
My advice to anyone living within a vertical meter of high tide: sell now while there are still climate science deniers or ignorers dumb enough to buy.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 10:02 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
knaugle@1: In real estate development the rent-to-value ratio is important. If demand from renters is high enough in a particular area, rents can go high enough to justify building temporary structures.
An extreme example was the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 which featured 200 new buildings that were mostly demolished after one year of use. But those buildings were purposely designed to be temporary, so they were cheaper to build than permanent structures.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:46 AM on 5 January 2017New study confirms NOAA finding of faster global warming
Well done to all.
And for those who haven't spotted it, 4 of the authors are SkS regulars - Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs and Mark Richardson.
I hope Lamar Smith is enjoying his morning coffee and reading the paper :-) -
Wol at 09:11 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
>>I've read, in the news, maybe last Summer?, that developers calculate that by 2040, many Miami oceanfront buildings today will be in trouble, but figure they will have made back their investments with profit by 2030, so who cares? Of course I could just be making this up?<<
It's (to misquote the economists' phrase) the "Buyer of last resort" problem.
Not only does the house owner have to consider his own tenancy term but also whether the NEXT owner would buy at the end of his ownership.
Then of course whether the potential buyer would himself make the same assumption. How far down the chain of ownership is it sensible to go?
-
Kiwiiano at 05:32 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
What worries me it that Miami's problems are carbon copied to Christchurch NZ, except that we are built on equally porous alluvial gravels. We delight in the thought that beautifully fresh & clean water can percolate through the gravels from mountain snowfall but steadfastly ignore the fact that rising sea water can reverse the flow. With the present day high tide mark on our Avon river barely a km from the center of ChCh, the predicted 5m SLR from the optimistic 2°C temperature increase will leave much of the city underwater.
No doubt the same or similar problems will occur world-wide.
-
william5331 at 05:12 AM on 5 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Clearly the insurance companies are still giving insurance for these buildings and they don't give insurance if they are going to loose money. They are therefore, most likely depending on the government (taxpayer) to bail them out and in the mean time they are pocketing big premiums. It boils down to the root of most of our truly serious problems today. We have to get vested interest money out of politics. As long as the insurance companies can finance the politicians, they will carry on using our money to bail out the insurance companies. At least with zero financing of politicians by vested interests we would have a chance of sorting out the mess.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:05 AM on 5 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
That's how science works. It may seem ruthless to those not acquainted with it, but science advances, remorselessly, as better evidence brings improved understandings to light.
-
jacktar at 01:42 AM on 5 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Fair enough; if a bit harsh.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:27 AM on 5 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
"What is everyones opinion on James Lovelocks reversal on Climate Change?"
No one cares about opinions in this venue. In a science-based venue such as this, all that matters is domain-level command of the science and being able to support your position with citations to the relevant credible literature.
-
jacktar at 01:15 AM on 5 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
What is everyones opinion on James Lovelocks reversal on Climate Change?
-
michael sweet at 21:08 PM on 4 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
Driving by,
They currently are spending several hundred million dollars to raise streets in Miami. Someone has to pay those increased fees now. The pictures of businesses two steps down from the road don't make you feel very welcome. That can't be good for business. Tourists wading to their apartments do not look good either.
When they get the next hurricane it will be a foot deeper. That will cause a lot more flooding. When the hurricane hits it might be the last straw for the Federal flood insurance.
If the Feds get out of insurance most of the homes in Miami will not be insurable. What will that do to housing values? Once insurance rates reflect current risk billions of dollars of real estate value will vanish. After Sandy they talked about raising rates and property became unsellable. Insurance costs were as high as mortgages for properties. That faded as the Feds backed down. I think that after the next big hurricane, wherever it strikes, the Feds will finally raise rates. If not the first hurricane than the second. A big hurricane hits the US every 5 or 10 years.
There is a good chance the bottom will drop out of the market all at once when insurance goes up. I do not think we will have to wait until 2040 for that to happen.
-
DrivingBy at 14:02 PM on 4 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
So?
If you're planning to live there for 15 years, what will probably happen in 2040 is not your issue. If you're now 70 and are buying property, you'll be somewhere else well before 2040. The nasty effects of SLR on South Florida beyond nuisance flooding will be after 2050. By then perhaps they'll have problems with no technical solution, but nobody buying now cares.
Yeah, it's stupid, but stupid is usually the rule. Then again, when smart people bravely invent a new world, it's usually far worse than the work of the 'stupid' folks.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:28 AM on 4 January 2017Record-breaking Arctic warmth ‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change
Kuni @11, according to Rogelj et al's Probability Density Function (PDF) of the IPCC statements on the Equilibrium Climate Response, there is up to a 5% chance, based on all the evidence, that the temperature response from a doubling of CO2 after feedbacks will be less than that expected with no feedbacks. There is a near one in three chance that the temperature response will be 2 C or less, and a 50% chance it will be less than 2.5 C. Indeed the most likely single value (mode of the PDF) is around 1.7 C.
The IPCC do not commit to a specific PDF, and alternate PDFs consistent with their statement give different but similar values for low temperature responses. Any reasonable PDF for their statements will give a modal temperature of 2 C or less. It follows that "luke warmers", the most rational camp within the agw "skeptic" community, are not wrong to think that a low temperature response has a reasonably high probability. Where they tend to be wrong is in downplaying or rejecting the low (25% or less, depending on PDF) risk of an ECS above 3 C; generally by restricting the data they will accept. They are guilty of unreasonably high certainty, based on undully restricted evidence - ie, of dogmatism.
The IPCC uncertainty about impacts is greater than it uncertainty about ECS, with a corresponding higher probability of low impacts from significant temperature increases. Again, the expectation of such low impacts is not entirely unreasonable. What is unreasonable about the "skeptic" position is the unwarranted exclusion of the probability of high impacts. Not certainty, of, but probability of.
The upshot is that your position, which unreasonably excludes the probability of low temperature responses and low impacts is (at best) at least as dogmatic and irrational as that of the AGW "skeptics". Indeed, any position that neglects the low probability of a soft landing from AGW and expresses dogmatism that the impacts will be high if we do nothing is contrary to the science. What is the case is that the probability of such a soft landing is low, being the product of two probabilities already less than 50%. And ignoring that for rhetorical reasons merely makes us easy to ignore.
-
nigelj at 08:44 AM on 4 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Michael Sweet, 1.5 degrees Celsius could well be true if you take it wider from 1750 right to this year. I personally have no argument with that.
However regardless of exact numbers and start and end points, studies like Marcott going back over 10,000 years show just how unprecedented recent temperatures are. I remain optimistic that if the public are made aware numerous studies keep duplicating the original hockey stick the facts will eventually sink in.
Debates are eventually won on the facts. Even Trump is going to find that out the hard way because right now all his policies (climate change, foreign policy, and economic etc) are all based on fallacies of various kinds, and are therefore very foolish policies. They are foolish for other reasons as well.
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 4 January 2017Facts matter, and on climate change, Trump's picks get them wrong
One Planet Only @20, by climate change being perceived as a future issue and a difficult one to get to grips with mentally, I meant humans are genetically and psychologically hardwired to think short term. Psychology has done a lot of research on this.
Not everyone is like this, but its dominant in many people. We have to overcome this somehow.
I agree we should be considering future generations and aiming for a lasting and better future, otherwise life just seems pointless and totally hedonistic.
The difficultly is convincing people because opinions clearly vary. Some people are short sighted in their values by nature, others more altruistic.
I think the issue is we probably have to acknowledge the value of self interest and economic competition, but also emphasise the value of altruism. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I think evolution has generated both instincts so they both seem to have survival value.
But we need to emphasise altruism more than we are currently doing. I think the neoliberal economic revolution since the mid 1980's has over emphasised selfishness. I'm talking the "greed is good" mentality. This has made it very hard to reduce carbon emissions. The values system has become out of balance or skewed towards greed.
It has made some people sceptical about climate science and wilfully ignorant, as they try to justify continuing to use fossil fuels and take a generally self centred attitude, and one that is fixated on the present.
This is of course unsustainable, and we need some boundaries as a society to stop this.
-
nigelj at 07:30 AM on 4 January 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
Daniel Mocsny @16, your comments are perceptive, and I agree with much of what you say, in general terms. Here are a few thoughts:
One of the problems with religious doctrine is indeed its fixed nature. This is one reason I'm an athiest, along with the singular lack of hard evidence for religious belief. However, looking at it positively at least some churches have recognised the difficulty and have a mechanism for "new revelations" that allow some flexibility of doctrine. It's a contortionist exercise of course but I do admire The Popes repositioning on at least some things, including climate change and this could ultimately be quite influential.
I take your point about the problems of prohibition. I'm not a great believer in prohibition, and you would need a compelling case and wide public support. Forcing fossil fuel companies to keep fossil fuels in the ground may be unlikely to gain public support.
I disagree somewhat about a carbon tax. I think such a thing can change behaviour and also provide an income that can be directed as we choose. The proof is reductions in tobacoo use due to tobacco taxes. Rates of use have dropped immediately taxes have been introduced or increased. Clearly other things have helped as well.
I don't think such a tax is playing quite to self interest, as much as it would just be sending a signal.
Clearly government regulation of electricity companies has also led to some real gains in promoting renewable energy. Subsidies have also helped kick start things.
However most people clearly do support some degree of taxation, and / or regulatory control of unsafe activities. Mainstream economics accepts markets sometimes fail to self regulate and require government regulation or taxation as appropriate, but the case needs to be strong.
However clearly for the public to support such things as regulations or taxes, they must be convinced they need supporting. We are a democracy and regulation or prohibition (if it was to go that far) need quite substantial public support.
Perhaps this is where I agree with you that it becomes a values or moral decision by the public. Right now everyone is confused and a bit scared about costs of reducing climate change, and about giving up the oil addiction etc. Theres still a lot of climate scepticism of various types and the variety of scepticism makes it a confounding sort of issue, although a lot of it is ultimately rooted in ideological beliefs about role of government.
However I'm inclined to think changes in public perception tend to be generated by good knowledge about climate change and the foolish nature of climate scepticism. In the end, "facts" matter and they matter a lot in ultimately winning debates. Europe is more enlightened on climate change than America for example. It's a question of whether the debate can be won in time to convince governments and individuals to take firmer actions.
You make the comment that WW2 was won not on self intererst but more on abstract notions of national interest and doing the right thing. One could argue the British took an altruistic view of doing things for the good of the country. It's an interesting thought. One could appeal to peoples concern for the welfare of future generations, however I dont think this alone would be enoughand we probably need a range of things to motivate people.
In fact I think self interest is taken sort of the flip side of altruism but both things are actually more closely related than we think.
The other possibility that may galvanise people to demand strong action on climate change, and also to take it themselves could simply be physical reality. Last years temperature record will slowly sink in. Things reach tipping points, including human beleifs and behaviour and can suddenly and dramatically change.
You may find this book interesting: "The Moral Arc", by Michael Shermer, which argues morality is improving and its largely due to science. He provides a lot of hard evidence.
-
michael sweet at 07:18 AM on 4 January 2017Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Nigelj,
According to GISS monthly data December 2015- November 2016 was 1.02C above baseline (1950-1979). 1880-1890 was about -.17C. Add a little for 1750-1880 and you are very close to 1.5C for the year. If you take the peak monthly anomaly (Feburary 1.33C) and add the .17 to 1880 and you get 1.50C for that month even without the adjustment to 1750. 1.5C over baseline was observed during at least February and March 2016. Average Oct '15-Apr '16 is 1.15C + .17 to 1880 + .2 to 1750 = 1.51C. Cowtan and Way February 2016 1.134C + .399 (average of 1850, high error) = 1.53C
I think the claim that 1.5C has been observed is sustainable. It probably has not been observed for a whole year average yet, but it certainly has been observed for two consecutive months.
-
nigelj at 06:31 AM on 4 January 2017As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
I think the key to this sea level rise issue is people having good information, and governments making sure this is provided by appropriate bodies. For example in New Zealand we have a document called a Lim (land information memorandum) that local government have to provide to anyone contemplating building or significantly altering a house. It warns of known problems or hazards.
This Lim is going to now include sea level rise estimates for all low lying properties and related information, but in simple concise form. It's being developed right now.
It will give people information relevant to local conditions in specific cities, but without automatically dictating where they can build or how they build. It will be based on IPCC middle range estimates, and also considers local geology (erosion, uplift and subsidence etc) and for NZ this equates to about 1 metre by the end of the century. It will be upgraded as estimates change.
This is at least a start. Nobody will be able to say they weren't warned.
Prev 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 Next
