Recent Comments

Prev  430  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  Next

Comments 21851 to 21900:

21851. nigelj at 07:24 AM on 7 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       As far as I'm aware one of the few remaining uncertainties about climate change is the exact nature of some of the positive and negative feedbacks. It does appear on the best evidence available that positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks. Given periods of warming in the past last a long time this is evidence positive feedbacks dominate over negative ones.

       It appears that positive feedbacks may be dominant in the short to medium term (we are already seeing positive feedbacks from the Arctic) but periods of warming do not seem to be permanent. Perhaps negative feedbacks like elements of the carbon cycle may kick in much longer term (over millenia). This is too long term to benefit humanity.

21852. MA Rodger at 07:02 AM on 7 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       john warner @23.

       If you wonderful regression was anything more than the result of a curve-fitting exercise, you could, say, use it with HadCRUT4 (suitably re-based) to calculate CO2 levels back into the 1800s. Alternatively, you could use it with CO2 data obtained from ice cores to back-calculate a temperature record.

       I have to say that the results of such calculations do suggest your regression is nothing but curve-fitting.

21853. nigelj at 06:50 AM on 7 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       ELIofVA @7, I think you are totally correct about Vietnam, The Sandinistas, and Iraqs so called weapons of mass destruction. However this was all politicians not getting things right or not being honest, or just indulging in a twisted ideology. The media can only report what they say.

       Fake news is different as it means the news itself becomes infiltrated with basic factual errors about routine news stories, and these are hard to spot. Its insidious and by the time its corrected nobody notices, and the fake news has spread like a virus and becomes accepted wisdom.

       It also becomes hard to know what are genuine news organisations with some sort of regulatory standards over them , and what are pretend organisations that are unaccountable. The internet means anyone can call themselves a news organisation, but they may be operating from a country that has no control over them or regulatory requirements, yet the organisation effectively has global reach. Of course people should check the credentials of the website they are looking at, but many people dont.

       Plus you get people like O'reiley on Fox news. Of course he isn't presenting the news as such, its his opinions and general commentary, so a different issue, however much of what he says seems totally unsupportable to me and very misleading. However this is the price we pay for free speech, so its a sort of paradox.

21854. william5331 at 04:56 AM on 7 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       I apologize.  This is a political comment and probably ad hominem but certainly not off topic.  But then, the whole problem with not mitigating our carbon output is political. Any year 12 science student could lay out what we need to do.  The politicians simply won't do it because they are in the pocket of vested fossil fuel interests. 

       Complaining about false news is all the flavor of the week but it is hardly surprising.  The neigh sayers (mis-spelling intended) have had an example from the best.  Would, for instance,  anyone except a dyed-in-the-wool bible belt thumper consider O'Riley of Fox news a journalist.  The America media has provided a constant diet of false news for decades.

       We, the rational few, can but try our best but  In the end it is economics that will carry the day.  When, for instance, a truly affordable electric car is produced and the public realizes that they can drive about 6 times as far on a dollar's worth of electricity than on a dollar's worth of petrol, the speed of the shift will rival the shift from horses to cars.  One hopes the economic factors will be in time to save us from ourselves.

       If this year is a harbinger of things to come, we don't have all that much time.

21855. john warner at 03:31 AM on 7 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       KR @ 19  My regression was dCppm/yr = 1.70ppm/yr + 1.94ppm/^oK * T^oK 

       T is the temperature anomaly around the 1981 to 2010 baseline. For example if T is 0 the carbon dioxide increases 1.7ppm/yr.   In 1998, an El Nino, year the temperature anomaly T is 0.5^oK        dC = 1.7ppm/yr + 0.97ppm/yr = 2.67ppm/yr

21856. barneyfife303 at 03:21 AM on 7 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       How does the Ocean fight acidification? 

21857. ELIofVA at 01:42 AM on 7 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       The problem of repeated lies gaining credibility in the political discussion has been with us for a long time.  North Vietnam's attack on US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie that resulted in an escalation of the war (Johnson).  Nixon has a secret plan to end the war.  Sandinista Nicaraugua has communist expansionist goals (Reagon).  These are only a few examples of lies that had political weight.  Suddahm Hussein had weapons of mass distruction and was involved with 911 attacks (GW Bush).  In the US, we are threatened, not by terrorist, but by our polorization and our retreat to communities that support our biases.  The internet has exasperated that trend.  Of course, I have learned a lot that I believe is objective such as on this web site.  If the human tendency is to avoid objective truths and their implications, then we will appropriately pass so the the world (never really threatened) can reevolve without us.  Our only hope with respect to climate change is for the culture at large to recognize that we must limit our emissions to what can be sequestered to avoid adding to the carbon concentration in the atmosphere.  This includes the recognition that that is the source of global warming.  With that recognition, we can build an economy that understands that limit.  We know every year exactly how much over net zero emissions we contribute to co2 buildup by comparing air samples, commonly measure in part per million.  I want people to think of this as a debt.  When we achieve net zero carbon emissions, we will no longer be adding to the debt.  However, the carbon already emitted will continue to cause global warming (reduced ice reflection, increased dark blue ocean heat absorption, melting tundra adding methane GHG, et).  To pay down the debt, we must emit less than can be sequestered by natural or other means.  To pay back this carbon in atmosphere debt, we need to imagine an economy the is net sequestration of carbon (humans emit less than can be sequestered).  Achieving the recognition that carbon buildup in the atmosphere is the source of the problem is a huge cultural we are looking for.  For those that do recognize this, we need to measure our carbon emissions to see how we need to change.  I used figures from IPCC 07 report, https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm posted on this website to determine net sequestration by nature and divided by world population.  To share this fairly, I divided this net sequestration by nature by the world's population to come up with 2.57 tons/person/year to achieve net zero co2 emissions. With this understanding, we have a chance to structure support localling and globally to achieve this standard. Keeping it vauge works for the interest of procrastination and denial.  

21858. bvangerven at 00:28 AM on 7 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       I have a theory that natural evolution has stopped for mankind. Natural evolution makes sure that only the strongest and smartest individuals of a species survive, creating stronger and smarter offspring. Our civilization however makes it possible for everyone to survive, no matter how stupid they are. Take a primitive society. Any farmer who doesn’t observe the weather and the time of year will sow at the wrong moment and his crops will fail. Any hunter-gatherer who eats the wrong - poisonous - plants will die. Facts are rock-solid for such people. It is ironic that it is our scientifically advanced, highly technological society that allows people to blindly deny basic facts without being “punished” for it by nature.

21859. john warner at 23:11 PM on 6 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       Tom Curtis @ 15 I like to get to the heart of the matter and I don't feel like typing pages of notes to justifying my petty technical criticisms. I realize the incredible scientific inferences about reality from the summary statistics you report will easily survive my petty criticisms. I looked at how you calculated your independent variable and the scale on the x axis. Carbon dioxide concentration increased 1.7wpsm in 163 years. Carbon dioxide added 0.01 watt per square meter of radiative forcing every year and controlled 81.1% of the of the earth's air temperature variation for 163 years. And just one watt per square meter of infrared radiation absorbed by this gas can raise the earth's air temperature 0.58oK. None of these inferences conformed to reality. [mod. - Are you suggesting here that every PhD level researcher, every National Academies, and all the most prestigious scientific institutions around the world, all don't understand the basic science on climate change? It's a stunningly audacious statement!] My understanding of the global warming controversy is that the earth controls its own temperature [How? By what mechanism or process does this happen?] and there should not be a correlation between forcing factors and air temperature. That is why in comment 9 I showed how the earth mitigates a 23.5wpsm change in solar radiation power every year. In the comment at 17 I regressed change in carbon dioxide against air temperature and found that temperature explained 58% of the variation in carbon dioxide. But I also regressed air temperature against the change in carbon dioxide and also got an R² of 58% but the regression results did conform to reality. Returning to your regression the challenge was to figure out how you could you get such a high correlation with annual air temperatures born of chaos with a de dimimus forcing factor and a carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient 2.951 times higher than the theoretical scientific value. And the answer was obvious. A proxy measure for air temperature was being regressed against another proxy measure for air temperature. But since proxy measures are so bad, why the high correlation. When the ocean temperature is higher less atmospheric CO2 is sequestered from the CO2 created from burning fossil fuel and the parts per million increase for the year is higher than average. This would result in a higher annual increase in carbon dioxide radiative forcing for that year. If the ocean temperature is lower more atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in the ocean and the parts per million increase in the air for the year is lower than average. The result is a decrease in radiative forcing for that year. The physical connection between the two variables could not be closer because the dependent variable is the Global Mean Surface Temperature and 70% of the GMST is sea surface temperatures measured by ship logs and recently by satellites. Finally, why is the sensitivity so high. In a linear regression if I enter the data for the independent variable by one decimal place to small the coefficient will be one decimal place to high. By entering a too low forcing factor for the independent variable you got a too high carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient. As currently generated it has no scientific meaning. Whatever it is, it shows a relationship between carbon dioxide in the air and sea surface temperatures, which we already know. In order to have the moral force of science for public policy, a quantitative scientific study has to have a rigorous scientific explanation and the summary statistics have to conform to reality.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] These last two posts read as little more than indecipherable ramblings. Maybe Tom can make sense of it but this activity is very much trying the patience of moderators.

       We encourage substantive discussion on climate matters. Perhaps you can endeavor to organize and present your thoughts in a more coherent manner so that people here can better understand the points you're trying to make.

21860. john warner at 22:30 PM on 6 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       Tom be patient with me. I have been working hard on your regression. I have pages of notes to justify my petty criticism of your mistakes. I only sent you those two comments to let you know I was interested. I apologize for not telling you the first note was a comment I sent to an Economist post commenter November 24, and I was not being critical of him. I was just saying I can get the facts. Neither of us knew anything about the annual temperature effect. And it was not until I finished my comment that I realized the magnitude of the annual temperature effect made carbon dioxide less believable. In the comment at 17 using temperatures I calculated that carbon dioxide only accounted for 24.17% of the current temperature trend of 0.0120K per year. Converting to air temperature equivalent radiative forcing to heat both the air and the surface as you introduced adds up to 0.7612wpsm per year. 0.0148wpsm per year divided by 0.7612wpsm per year equals 1.94%. You were trying to augment the carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient with the heat coming out of the surface that you forgot to put in. Maybe you can give up on this one and credit the other 199.7852watts per square meter attributable to the other forcing factors with heating the surface. The second was a comment I sent to Dan Lashof at the National Resource Defense Council in November of 2012.

21861. rugbyguy59 at 14:11 PM on 6 December 2016
       Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
       

       jzk,

       While the paper summary says the findings support the idea of a global MWP, this only means the data here is consistent with it. This isn't real evidence of a global anything because it is simply of one area. There are many valid studies in that list of "Studies supporting a MWP" on that other website of ill repute, which say their findings support the idea of a global MWP. However, those studies are not put together by anyone I'm aware of. When people do put all the data together (PAGES2K for example) there doesn't seem to be one. Even the MWP that seems to appear in the Northern Hemisphere studies is a pale shadow of what deniers want it to be.

       When I look at the graph of OHC this study presents, it seems to be quite analogous to the same period in Marcott. Although the beginning of the lang slow cool down begins earlier. Granted I'm no scientist but that seems to me to not really support a global MWP or LIA as described by denialists. There is no sudden or pronounced warming or cooling in either period there is just the long term trend (Milankovitch Cycles?) plus noise.

21862. nigelj at 08:24 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       JW Rebel @4, yes some news stories or other internet claims are pretty obviously fake, but during the election reputable looking organisations were saying Hilary Clinton had been arrested by the feds over the email issue. This has a little more credibility, and other fake news accusations were made about her financial situation that were subtle and sophisticated, and plausible sounding, and many people would get sucked in.

       The internet has lifted it all to a completely new level as numerous organisations exist a mouse click away that have plausible sounding, pleasant names that hide hidden agendas. Or they sound like traditional news media but arent really, and just re-hash information. It is much harder for ordinary people to sort fact from fiction, and this is leading to some people saying truth is whatever you want it to be.

21863. JWRebel at 07:54 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       There has always been a lot of fake news and propaganda. Most of it is easily discernible as a category all of its own, featuring Hillary Clinton's new pregnancy or extra-terrestial influences, or the enemy engaging in perversions and eating babies, etc. It only becomes a problem when the genres start to run. Well do I remember my children of 4-5 being confused by a televized royal wedding, confused by the fact that it was like a fairy tale but presented as news. With a little good will people quickly learn to distinguish — it's mainly the good will that is the problem.

       On the bright side, Delingpole seems to embrace the fruits of climate science research, throwing around 'El Nina' and the 'decadal oscillation' as if they have become as familiar as the words we use for kitchen utensils.

21864. nigelj at 07:38 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       I can see an increasing temperature trend in the graph above, and individual peaks from el nino. In fact squinting my eyes down it appears the el nino peaks are getting larger with time, with the 2015 peak being very high. This suggests the warming atmosphere may be altering el nino itself. I would be interested if there is evidence of that.

       I read the shooting incident just an hour ago. This shows the real danger of the world view of the alternative right in America. The internet is providing an easy platorm for fake news that is enabling naturally paranoid people to join up. Its almost like society in America is developing a case of mass schizophrenia, in the same way you sometimes get outbursts of group hysteria.

21865. knaugle at 05:14 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       Topal #5

       Actually the answer to your question is "mostly no".  The fire was likely caused by a careless human, or a malicious one.  Global warming could have contributed to making the conditions of the fire worse.

       Besides real scientists rarely answer with an unqualified "Yes!" or "No!" to any question of contemporary science.

21866. John Hartz at 05:01 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       For more details about the story ubrew addressed in his comment, see:

       Son of Trump security adviser spread baseless 'pizza gate' conspiracy by Tai Kopan, CNN, Dec 5, 2016

21867. ubrew12 at 03:58 AM on 6 December 2016
       Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
       

       Here in America, a man shot up a DC pizzeria.  A fake news article said Hillary Clinton and her chief of staff, John Podesta, were running a child sex ring in the back.  Gullible people were broadcasting this and death threats were being issued to the restaurants owners and workers.  Ordinarily, this could be identified as a new National Security Threat, worthy of direct action by the incoming National Security Advisor, John Flynn.  The only problem is: Flynn was one of those people rebroadcasting this fake news segment.  So, this is the context for this latest, wildly fact-free cherry pick by the climate disinformation artists, who know their audience doesn't read, or even want to see, the 'fine print'.

21868. Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 5 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       John Warner @17, your style of writing verges on inchorence, making it difficult to determine your argument, when you even have one.  A major contribution to that effect is your tendency to take up distinct arguments within the same paragraph; but to also scatter the discussion of any given argument across multiple, not necessarilly consecutive paragraphs.  You appear, however, to be raising three major arguments, and a minor one:

       1. That I did not cite my sources of data (the minor point);
       2. That the TLT satellite temperature record, and the UAH version of that record in particular is, is the only temperature record that should be used for climate analysis;
       3. That in any event, discussion should focus on energy levels, rather than on temperature per se; and
       4. That any correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature is a consequence of outgassing of the ocean induced by the rise in global temperature.

       If I have missed, or mistated an argument, please specify the argument clearly by explicitly stating the claim then in sequential paragraphs, with a separate paragraph for each line of evidence in favour of the claim, state the evidence for each claim; before then stating the next claim and so on.  Your thoughts are not so brilliant that we should be required to wade through "word salad" to try and garner them.

       Taking the identified points consecutively on the list above:

       1)  You claim, "Since you did not cite the sources I have to gather my own facts."  In fact, I did better than cite sources, I provided active links to the data (except for Mauna Loa which I thought sufficiently well known to not require such a link).  Consequently, you did not need to "gather your own facts" because I did not provide you with the appropriate citations.  Further, you did not "gather your own data".  The data you use was gathered by (mostly) NOAA and NASA and processed by Spencer and Christy.  You merely cherry picked the data most suitable to your narrative, ignoring approximately 80% (by time) of available temperature data to do so.

       2)  Your preferred temperature data is not temperature data specically.  Rather it is the microwave signal from Earth as detected by a series of different units from a series of different platforms.  These platforms in turn have had decaying orbits and orbits not in tune with the day night cycle such that different locations are observed at different local times on consecutive orbits.  On top of this, the quality of the instruments themselves are known to decay in space, and the altitude weighting profile of the observed signal changes with the altitude of the surface, and depending on wether the signal processed is over land or sea.  On top of that, each data point represents an average of signals across a wide swathe so that all TLT data is "homogenized" automatically, despite the major objection to the instrument record mounted by AGW deniers being that homogenization.

       Because of these difficulties, the processing of the microwave signal data required to generate a temperature record is far more extensive than that required for the instrumental records.  The difficulty of the process has resulted in a number of major corrections over time, partly listed below:

       

       These corrections have continued, and Spencer and Christy are in the process of introducing a major new correction at the moment.  Curiously at the same time as they are introducing a correction that will reduce the trend, the rival RSS product (which produces a different record from essentially the same data) is introducing a correction that increases the trend.  Also at the same time, Spencer and Christy are ignoring a peer reviewed correction to their own product which would also increase the trend.  It should be noted that (unlike the case with the instrumental record), the corrections are large relative to the "observed" trend.  Worse, there are at least four independent analysis of the microwave data to determine a TLT temperature, all of which come up with different trends, with the differences being large relative to the observed trend.

       In contrast, with the instrumental record, using partially overlaping data sets, 5 major institutional records using different techniques all come up with essentially the same result.  One of those, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) was headed by people noted for their criticism of climate scientists, and funded by leading climate denier funders, the Koch brothers.  It would rightly have been regarded as the denier's temperture record until the deniers repudiated the result (having earlier affirmed that the method was appropriate and adequate).  Further, at least 4 independent private citizens have processed the data and also come up with essentially the same result.

       The upshot is that we know fairly well what the instrument record tells us about GMST, whereas we do not know what the satellite temperature record tells us because we do not yet know the correct means of processing it.  Therefore, if anything we should prefer the instrumental record.  We certainly should not truncate 80% of the data because we refuse to use any record other just one satellite record.

       [PS] Further details of satellite versus thermometers discussed here and a good place for any further discussion, before this goes too much further offtopic.

       3)  You write:

       "Adding ocean and land absorption of heat diminishes the role of carbon dioxide when your consider air, land and oceah heat versus only air heat. You logically increase the role of natural heating forces."

       However, when you get around to discussing it, you do not discuss the energy involved, but restrict the discussion to temperature trends (degrees K per year).  You give rough energy conversion factors but no data.

       Instead, I the 0-700 Meter Ocean Heat Content data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, and regressed it against the CO2 forcing as determined from Mauna Loa.  The result is a correlation of 0.917, and R-squared of 0.841, and a regression of 13.55 (+/- 0.445) x 10^22 Joules /(W/m^2).  The 0-700 OHC data represents sufficient of the Earth's total surface heat content anomaly to be considered representative over the long term.  That regressing the OHC against CO2 forcing provides as much support as does regressing surface temperatures means that your objection (for which you provide no relevant data) is merely a smoke screen.

       4)  Finally, with regard to cause and effect, it is a matter of simple physics that increasing CO2 concentration will increase surface temperature, and that increasing temperature will increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  The question is, what is the relative magnitude of each effect.  If we look at the record over the recent glacials, we see (according to this graph) a change of 100 ppmv for a 10 C temperature increase:

       

       That represents 10 ppmv/C meaning the 120 ppmv increase in CO2 since the preindustrial era, if caused by the temperature increase, must have required a 12 C increase in GMST to match it.  That is somewhat exagerated.  GMST are widely thought to have represented just 50% of the Vostok variation, which would reduce the required temperature increase to 6 C, but again that is way to much.  Using your formula, dC=1.70+1.94*T, a 120 ppmv change in CO2 concentration requires a 61.85 C change in temperature to drive it.  Taken seriously, if you actually think that is the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature, you must think the Earth to be ice free and uninhabitable, with a GMST of 76 C.

       Your formula is, of course, in error, having been taken from too small a data set.  But a variety of estimates show that the rise in temperature can have contributed no more than 10% to the increase in CO2 concentration.  That is consistent with the ten lines of evidence that show conclusively that the recent increase in CO2 concentration was driven by anthropogenic emissions.  Disagreeing on this point is intellectually as unsuportable, given the evidence, as geocentrism.

       From the fact that the vast majority of the increase in CO2 over the 20th century was anthropogenic in origin, it follows that the strong correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature, and the statistically significant regression demonstrate a major impact of CO2 on GMST.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Also should note (amplified in Tom's last link) that rising ocean temperature releases CO2 over long term (with ocean mixing). In short term ocean is net absorber of CO2 not a source. See Tom's last link for evidence.

21869. KR at 10:04 AM on 5 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       john warner - You have shown a great love of very exact numbers, but have not IMO demonstrated an understanding of the science. 

       For but one example: "I statistically proved that the earth’s air temperature determines the growth rate of carbon dioxide in the air" - CO2 levels over the last half million years of Earths history varied between ~190 to ~280ppm over the glacial cycle, with a temperature response of perhaps 10-15ppm per degree C global temperature change. Yet over the last 100 years with about 1C in global temperature change there has been a rise in CO2 of over 100ppm, more than 6X the thermal response. And that is without looking at the isotopic evidence, increasing ocean CO2 (your claim would seem to require decreasing levels there as CO2 moved to the atmosphere), or our excellent knowledge of just how much carbon we've burned since the Industrial Revolution. Your assertion of temperatures forcing CO2 rise is simply incorrect - it's human action.

       I would suggest that instead of pulling data from the most convenient internet sources and running a calculator, producing numbers with no attention to significant digits, that you instead look into the actual science behind our understanding of climage science - The Discovery of Global Warming by S. Weart would be an excellent starting point for you. 

21870. Eclectic at 09:51 AM on 5 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       John warner, you would clarify things enormously

       (a) if you specified which part of air temperature you are referring to. Stratosphere?  Upper troposphere?  Mid-troposphere?

       (b) if you discussed how your idea of rising planetary temperature (as cause of CO2 rise by out-gassing from the oceans) does differ from the similar ideas of Murray Salby et alii.   [Perhaps you are unaware that Salby's ideas have already been thoroughly debunked.]

       (c) if you specified the actual mechanism/s by which the past century's rapid global warming occurs [in the alleged absence of CO2 greenhouse effect].   So far, you have failed to do so.

       (d) if you indicated how the well-understood and well-measured greenhouse effect of CO2 comes (in your eyes) to be null and void.

        

       There is a very real problem here - since the world is a real physical entity, and not an abstract mathematical construct.   John warner, you need to need to address the physical realities.

21871. One Planet Only Forever at 08:00 AM on 5 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       Andy Skuce, your comment@20 includes the following statement in the quote from Jason MacLean's counterpoint "Models of the social cost of carbon depend on modellers’ assumptions, including how much to discount future damages."

       It is very important to make sure that such thinking is limited to setting a price in an attempt to stop something that needs to be stopped (not just slowed). It cannot be allowed to be used to excuse the damage that is being done by the activity. Paying a price does not make such an activity acceptable.

       It is unacceptable for anyone to believe it is acceptable to calculate the costs being created that future generations of humanity (or other current day members of humanity) have to deal with and compare that cost to the reduced wealth and opportunity for those people if they had to stop creating trouble others have to deal with. It is even less than unacceptable, bordering on criminally insane, to deliberately "discount" the estimated impact others have to suffer or deal with, especially when those evaluations may miss major impacts.

       A business investor who will gain any benefit and suffer any and all impacts and consequences of their investment choice/gamble can use that method to compare 'their options for action that they will solely suffer any consequences of'. However, that type of thinking is irrelevant when humans other than the ones benefiting will be potentially suffering some consequences.

       It is simply unacceptable for a portion of any generation of humanity to benefit from an activity that can be understood to be creating costs or challenges or limitations or damages or risk of damage that other humans have to deal with, particularly future humans who have no voice today. That should be repeated at the start of any discussion of how this type of problem will be addressed, openly admitting the unacceptability of perceptions and activities that have developed.

       In a nut-shell, it is common sense that it is nonsense to claim that developed economies need to be protected from the changes and undoing that are required by better understanding of the unacceptability of what got away with developing popularity and profitability.

21872. john warner at 06:13 AM on 5 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       Tom Curtis @ 15 I am working on a response. Here are two things to consider in the mean time. Adding ocean and land absorption of heat diminishes the role of carbon dioxide when your consider air, land and oceah heat versus only air heat. You logically increase the role of natural heating forces. Second, if you misspecify the cause effect relationship between Temperature and CO₂ growth you get inexpected public policy implications. As you can see I have already done the calculations and the y axis intercept is crucial for interpreting the results.

       Since you did not cite the sources I have to gather my own facts. Paste the IP address for NASA’s 2010 Earth Energy Budget into IP address for your Browser. Paste the IP address for the complete satellite temperature record from 1979 to 2016. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Under Global and in the Trend row notice 0.12. This is the temperature trend. 0.12 degrees Kelvin per decade This is also 0.012 degrees Kelvin per year. Just a bonus note before we proceed. Multiply 0.012 times 37 years. This informs us that conditional mean temperature around which the earth’s average annual global air temperature varies has increased 0.444 degrees Kelvin between 1979 and 2016. My argument is that the earth’s air temperature is increasing but carbon dioxide in the air is not the cause.

       You said the increase in the earth’s air temperature is only 1% of the global temperature effect. 0.012 degrees per year is the only defensible metric of the increase in the earth’s air temperature. Dividing 0.012oK/yr by 0.01 yields 1.2oK/yr. Your statement translated into reality is that for a representative one square meter of air at the elevation of one kilometer the average annual global air temperature increases 0.012oK/yr. The air equivalent increase in kinetic energy in the ocean is 1.128oK/yr. And I assume the other 5% is land, 0.06oK/yr. The earth’s surface air radiates at 358.2 watts per square meter. Google the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator and enter 1.0 for A and e. How much does the rate of energy absorption have to increase to maintain the increased land and ocean temperature measured in terms of our representative air. Add 1.188oK/yr to 281.92oK and enter 283.108 for T. Enter x for P and click Calculate x. P =364.24335wpsm Subtract 358.2wpsm. The change in Radiation Power per area absorbed by the surface is 6.04335wpsm.

       Now look at the 2010 NASA Earth Energy Budget. Notice net absorbed by surface, 0.6wpwm. And there is more. The Earth Energy Budget does not reconcile. Therefore, change net absorbed to 0.5wpsm, incoming solar radiation to 340.3wpsm and emitted by surface to 398.3wpsm. 6.04335wpsm exceeds 0.5wpsm by more than 12 times. To find the correct values add 0.012oK/yr to 281.92oK, enter 281.932 into the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator for T and x for P. Click Calculate x. P equals 358.2288408wpsm. Add 0.5wpsm and enter 358.7288408wpsm for P and x for T. Click calculate x. T equals 282.0303256oK. Subtract 281.92oK. 0.110325609oK/yr is the net absorbed kinetic energy by air, land and ocean. 0.012/0.110325609=0.108768944 The annual air temperature increase is 10.9% of the global temperature effect. 1-0.108768944=0.891231056 The annual air temperature increase equivalent to the kinetic energy absorbed by land and ocean is 89.1% of the global temperature effect. The ocean is 84.6% of the global temperature effect. The land is 4.5% of the global temperature effect.

       I calculated that carbon dioxide’s annual contribution to temperature is 0.0029oK/yr. 0.0029oK/yr divided by the current trend 0.012oK/yr is only 24.17%. In terms of the last 4.75 years it is only 2.76%, 0.013775oK/0.5oK=0.02755. How low can you go! Now that you have forced me to calculate the annual temperature effect it is only 2.63%, 0.0029oK/yr divided by/0.110325609oK/yr=0.0263.

       I statistically proved that the earth’s air temperature determines the growth rate of carbon dioxide in the air by regressing annual changes in carbon dioxide against channel 5 AMSU annual global air temperature anomalies between 1979 and 2011. The equation is dC=1.70+1.94*T. r=0.76434 r squared = 58.42% This equation estimates that if the temperature anomaly is plus 0.5 degrees Celsius the increase in carbon dioxide for that year will be 2.67 parts per million. Mis-specifying cause and effect is an intellectually dishonest trick to deceive the technically challenged. But if the Global Warming Believers want to insist that the direction of cause and effect is the other way around I can do that also. The equation is T=-0.514+0.302*dC r=0.7643492 r squared = 58.42% Both equations have the same level of attained statistical significance but only the first equation has any correspondence with reality. The mis-specified equation infers that in reality the earth's air temperature anomaly decreases 0.514 degrees per year unless there is a 1.7 part per million increase in carbon dioxide per year. In fact the coefficient overestimates the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature by 37.67 times. The average annual temperature at which the earth’s air radiates to space actually increased 0.4393 degrees Celsius between 1979 and 2011. Since carbon dioxide increased 54.8ppm the temperature anomaly according to the mis-specified equation should have increased 16.5496 degrees Celsius. 0.302*54.8=16.5496 degrees Celsius 16.5496/0.4393=37.67 This is a textbook perfect example that the public policy inference from a mis-specified equation of reality might be different than you expected. For example between 1979 and 2011 the carbon dioxide concentration increased 1.702 parts per million per year. If you plug 1.702ppm of carbon dioxide per year into the mis-specified equation the answer is 0.0 degrees Celsius increase in the earth’s annual air temperature anomaly. The Public Policy Inference is that you can increase carbon dioxide 1.7 ppm per year forever and never increase the earth's average annual global air temperature. The point is that if you try to use phony science to deceive, somebody like me can use your mis-specification of reality to draw a public policy inference that is not what you expected. All you have to know is that since 1979 the earth's average annual global air temperature has increased 0.80 degrees Fahrenheit and this was not caused by carbon dioxide.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This is a naive approach considering only one line of evidence. Please see "CO2 lags temperature", "Warming causes CO2 rise" and "CO2 rise is natural". Comments should go there.

21873. John Mason at 22:40 PM on 4 December 2016
       Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
       

       Just a second point in response to feedback regarding ice ages. Yes they would present problems due to ice sheets gradually spreading over northern continents over many tens of thousands of years (although many areas that would be affected are at present sparsely populated). However, there's something else to think about. Sea level fall. During the last glaciation, sea-levels fell by approximately 125 metres and remained around that lowstand for many thousands of years - long enough for the continental shelves of the world to - in part at least - become fertile plains. Look up Doggerland, as but one example - where people lived, hunted and forage and now the sea-bed of the North Sea.

21874. curiousd at 19:19 PM on 4 December 2016
       Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest
       

       Some time ago, I was encouraged by a poster on Skeptical Science to look at a climate modeling program that was simple enough to run on a P.C., and originated at some university in Australia. I pointed out a couple of glitches in the displays but it looked like an interesting and useful project. If you ran it, a predicted climate change consequence that was imminent enough to strike within my lifetime was the desetification of the American Southwest.

       But I have now forgotten the University and the name of this program. Can anyone remind me?

       Curiousd

21875. Eclectic at 13:33 PM on 4 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       John warner @13, you give the impression you have misunderstood the importance of climate being assessed over a 30 year period.

       You have implied that a 30 year period means that [any] climate change can therefore only be assessed retrospectively 3.33 times per century - and that this somehow "reinforces the point" you were trying to make. (Your point, whatever it was, has become lost in a jungle of words and semantic confusions. Best if you concisely restate the point you wish to make!)

       In practice, John warner, it is perfectly acceptable to assess climate changes over rolling 30 year periods (i.e. overlapping periods), if you wish to do so. Which may (or may not?) castrate your unexplained point.

21876. gmg at 11:06 AM on 4 December 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       I have read through most of the SkS posts, but I have seen no mention of the very limited bandwidth of the CO2 absorption spectrum in the region of 250 K radiation. It seems that CO2 will be transparent to most of the outward radiation from water at the top of the troposphere. Comment, please.

21877. Tom Curtis at 10:31 AM on 4 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       john warner @various:

       Using the Law Dome combined CO2 data plus the BEST Land Ocean Temperature Index over the period of their overlap (1850-2013), we find a correlation between CO2 forcing (calculated as 5.35 x ln(CO2_current/CO2_initial)) of 0.900, an R-squared of 0.811, with a linear regression of 0.58 +/- 0.044 C/(W/m^2).  This is the scatter plot of the data:

       

       You may object that because of the infilled values in the Law Dome data set, that artificially inflates the correlation.  Using just the raw Law Dome data (with no Cape Grim), however, we achieve a correlation of 0.711, and R-squared of 0.505, and a regression of 0.59 +/- 0.164 C/(W/m^2).  Using forcings calculated from the Mauna Loa montly values from March 1958 to July 2016, the correlation is 0.854, the R-squared is 0.729, and the linear regression is 0.62 +/- 0.28 C/(W/m^2).

       In short, it is a robust feature of the data that the temperature response to CO2 forcing is approximately 0.6 C/(W/m^2).  That translates to a Transient Climate Response of approximately 2.2 C per doubling of CO2.  

       As the Earth's energy imbalance is currently, approximately 0.7 W/m^2.  That means we would currently expect a further increase of Global Mean Surface Temperature of up to 0.4 C based on CO2 emissions to date.  Taking the Law Dome data, the increase of 1.7 W/m^2 has left 0.7 W/m^2 that has yet to contribute to the Earth's warming, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.87 C to be explained by the remaining 1 W/m^2.  That yields a back of the envelope estimate of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 0.87 C/(W/m^2) or 3.2 C per doubling of CO2 based on CO2 and temperature data alone.

       Against this robust evidence, you can only provide evidence from a truncated data set, with no estimates of the uncertainties, and employing an absurd estimate of future increase in CO2 forcing with Business As Usual which assumes a linear rate of increase from non-linear data.

21878. michael sweet at 09:16 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       Nigelj,

       Keep in mind that the majority of scientific opinion is towards more damage from AGW than the IPCC reports.  The IPCC reports the minimum consensus that scientists agree on.  Most scientists think there will be more damage than reported by the IPCC.

       For example, this Real Climate post reviews expert opinion on sea level rise and compares it to the IPCC report.  The majority of scientists think sea level rise will exceed the IPCC projections.  If we are going to consider the "saner" skeptical reports we need to also cover Hansen's projection of 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100. Hansen has more scientific support than the skeptical reports.

       I teach High School (and college) in the USA.  If you want schools to cover AGW you must accept that probably half of Science teachers do not understand the problem and will think the sketical arguments make sense.  We used to have an AP Physics teacher (the highest level of Physics in High School) who taught his students that AGW could not occur because the absorbtion spectrum was saturated.  He is no longer at our school but teaches at another school nearby.

21879. chriskoz at 08:37 AM on 4 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       john warner@13,

       Please note that dana1981 is a man. Everyone on this site knows Dana because of his invaluable contributions as science communicator and scientist with growing resume of peer reviewed publications.

       If you don't know Dana yet, you can easily get to know him by looking here or his numerous photos. And please avoid the pitfalls of English language & never again refer to him as "she".

21880. nigelj at 08:36 AM on 4 December 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
       

       Trump keeps saying he wants to make America great again. Going back to coal wont make America great again. This is yesterdays technology.

       Why doesn't Trump make America a leader in green technology and efforts to combat climate change? That would be making America great again in terms of global perceptions, climate change, and even energy economics. Right now Trump is at risk of being remembered as yesterdays man, who was out of touch with global realities.

       You help blue collar workers by really helping them with meaningful assistance,  and taking them along with a changing world. You dont help them by going back to dubious policies from the past.

21881. nigelj at 08:10 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       Topal @5, you want to know where is the evidence we are changing the climate? Why dont you do a google search or read the IPCC reports or articles on this website. You are presumably familiar with search engines. Its just annoying that you expect people to repeat all this on this comments box and waste their time when the information is already out there and easy to find.

       Your post was also pure rhetorical questions. This becomes annoying when there are just purely rhetorical questions. This is not a teacher / student website. This is a discussion, news posting and debate forum like many others, and Im interested in peoples opinions or genuine questions if they dont know something and have already tried google. I ask a few myself.

21882. nigelj at 07:59 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       JW Rebel @2. I hear you and you may ultimately be right. However I still think theres a case for examining both the IPCC conclusions and the saner sceptical positions.  We are having this educational debate in my country on how to strike the right balance between rote learning, creative thought, and critical analysis. Im convinced it needs a mixture of all three. Its not an "either / or" thing.

       This is where I was coming from, and its hard to see why some student critical analysis should not be applied to the big issuess of the day. However it would have to be in the final year of school as younger students can only really absorb basic information. Critical analysis would bamboozle them.

       And special emphasis needs to be placed on the evidence based approach of mainstream science as opposed to the less rigorous thinking around something like "creationism" and the sophistry or appeals to emotion you get in some climate denialist positions.

21883. chriskoz at 07:56 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       topal@5,

       This is just a trivial (or maybe sarcastic on your part?) question on this site. Just look for any argument among 150+ argument in the myth debunking "thermometer" on the top left. Or look at this post for a comprehensive summary of AGW indicators. That's why 97% of people who have the undestanding of these facts (incl. climate scientists) do accepts them.

21884. john warner at 07:03 AM on 4 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       Ubrew 12 @ 10 Thank you for your response to my comment at 2 which I admit was incomplete.To be ontopic I was responding to the dana 1981 post we were commenting under. In paragraph 8 she [mod. - he] injected that 2014,2015, and 2016 were record breaking temperature years in an attempt to expose Bob Walker as a global warming denier. I was only pointing out that it was natural and not man-made forces that were the scienfific explanation for the 4.75 year increase. I did not have the time to document how I calculated the theoretical scientific effect that increases in carbon dioxide has on the air temperature, (0.0029^oK)/yr. I presented the documentation in comment 9 the next day. (4.75yr)*(0.0029^oK)/yr = (0.013775^oK)  (0.05^oK/0.013775^oK) = (36.3) I subtracted 1 for carbon dioxide and left 35 for nature.

       The IPCC had a problem with publishing the TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. The Framework Convention in 1992 defined climate change to include only changes as a result of human activity. [mod. - The roles and purposes of the IPCC and the UNFCCC are different. They're respective definitions have no relevance.] I cited footnote 1 to see if Skeptical Science would verify my explanation of what it meant. The, "This is why" beginning to my statement refers to the discrepency in the magnitudes of the man-made and natural causes that I illlustrating in comment 2.. "This is why the IPCC scientists insisted on this disclaimer that human activity caused climate change and redefined climate change to include natural variability." [mod. - Again, wrong. And note that this is a very serious accusation that we do not take lightly here at SkS.] The moderator did not bother to read footnote 1, crossed out my statememt and gave me a Warning. Then she accused me of fraud and sloganneering. Then a mini-lecture that to prove science wrong I had to cite and quote dana 1981's Post. [moderation complaint snipped.] [...] [Accusations of dishonesty snipped]I wasn't trying to prove science was wrong. I was trying to show that dana 1981 was dishonestly disinforming Skeptical Science viewers that 3 consequtive years of record temperatures was scientific proof that human activity was the cause of climate change.. Then a note that you can't make claims of climate change under IPCC rules before you have the average temperature for a period of 30 years. Which reinforces the point I was trying to make. She [mod. - he] concludes with, that no climate scientist after FAR ever claimed temperatures would keep rising year after year. [mod. - No climate scientists has ever claimed that temperature would be warmer year after year] That is the acceptance that natural forces cause the air temperature to change and that the IPCC had to change the definition of climate change. [mod. - Nope. You're naively trying to attribute internal variation with attribution.] Your graph is a good example of how quickly simple facts reveal the defenders of the indefencible. 

       john warner @ 7 does not make any sense because the moderator deleted the top half. [mod. - For clear stated reasons.] Enthymeme is a debating trick to get a misinformed person to supply a false first premise for an argument to get him to draw the wrong conclusion. I was commenting on dana 1981's post but the moderator said, offtopic gets deleted. [moderation complaint snipped] I self idenitfied as a, "CAGW critic" and said that unlike other deniers I believe the air temperature is increasing. The whole sentence gets deleted because she did not like acronym CAGW. [mod. - False. That's not what was stated to you.] The last part of my deleted statement was. "...the incorrect unspoken premise is that science has proved man-made carbon dioxide is the cause." Now 7 makes sense. Essentially, I said if you have the proof show it to me now. Nobody at Skeptical Science has put up the proof yet. You can read the rest  of the comment. The moderator snips the url address, says were not your advertising firm and calls me bubba. [moderation complaint snipped] My son set up Moraleconomist's in 2011. Nobody ever visited the site. No comments. No recommends. I deleted 5 brief posts and published the list of sources on November 28, 2016 for my argument on Skeptical Science. I did not know that I was allowed to submit it as a comment. Apparently my assumption was not too far off. See last Moderator Response. But I did submit my list as comment 9. Further more the moderator agrees with me that sub decadal (2014-2016) is not long enough period to prove climate change. Then she [mod. - he] says [moderation complaint snipped] as an acceptable comment, I can't formulate my own argument or the already discredited denier skeptical science reports (strawmen), but only global warming consensus science reports as evidence against the global warming concensus science. Talk about defining the bounds of an argument to get the conclusion you are assuming.

       I am going to open a new comment to respond to the moderator at 9. I only chose 4.7 years to be on topic for dana 1981's Post. My real intent for the scientific reasoning power contained in 9 is to debunk the claim that real science has been used to prove that man-made carbon dioxide causes the earth's air temperature to increase. The Moderator's comments alone provide more than  enough instances to inject real science to debunk the anthropogenic global warming theory. I am a teacher, agreeing with is not enough. You have to know why you are agreeing with me. Even before I make the argument, Ubrew12 already sees enough scientific fire power sitting on the battle field to win and he is scolding me for not using it wisely. Ubrew already knows why he agrees with me and if I make a mistake he wiil be the first to point it out.

        [moderation complaints snipped]

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] You're going to have to try a little harder to focus on specific points on specific science and leave out all the rambling rhetoric. If you can manage that I think you'll find SkS to be a good place to have a substantive discussion.

       [PS] You also cannot have a reasonable discussion about truth when you constantly misrepresent what the science actually says and make unsubstatiated accusations about people involved. Read the science at source not some misrepresentation constructed by some denier source. Quote the original sources, provide links to your data and above all take the time to understand what the science says instead of what you would imagine it does. You have yet to provide any evidence that any climate scientist ever asserted that that temperature would rise year on year. To me, this implies that you have never bothered to investigate a modern (post 1970) understanding of climate preferring an imaginary construct that you can disagree with instead.

21885. topal at 05:47 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       "Was this fire caused by climate change? The answer is yes. "

       Simple as that! And then ask: Is this climate change caused by human activity?

       Where is the evidence?

21886. william5331 at 04:43 AM on 4 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       It is a bit like allowing the teaching of creationism.  Yes, let it be taught but in the next or the same lesson, take the kids to a carbon dating laboratory and have the head honcho in the lab explain how it is done and what the results say about a minimal estimate of the age of the earth (50,000 years just from carbon dating).  Then let him explain how longer term dating is done with other isotopes and to what extent this provides a much longer minimal estamate of the age of the earth.  nothing wrong with letting these alternative world views be taught but then take off the kid gloves and give the kids the true story and the evidence on which the scientists base their world view.  A great teaching oportunity.

21887. crandles57 at 02:00 AM on 4 December 2016
       It's not bad
       

       Winter deaths will decline as temperatures warm (HPA 2007)

       may need an update partly because the link no longer works. You might want to use refs 4 through 8 from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2121.html

       and you may want to note that the above link disputes this for England and Wales.

21888. sciencepolice at 23:50 PM on 3 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       @1 nigelj - I know that myself and other astronomers that teach college general education-level astro courses, when we touch on planetary atmospheres and greenhouse gases we include AGW in our courses. It's nice that the textbook (Bennett et al.) also touches on it explicitly.

       A lot of us consider it an obligation! And I do expose as I go through it each time the skeptics use a blatant falsehood.

       But having been exposed to that earlier, for e.g. in a high school earth science course, I imagine would be better, and tougher to achieve :(

21889. MA Rodger at 23:32 PM on 3 December 2016
       Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
       

       jifqam,

       I think it might be useful to to emphasis the point made by michael sweet @65 paragraph 2.

       The graphic from Gruber et al (2009) 'Oceanic sources, sinks, and transport of atmospheric CO2' presented @64 shows various annual CO2 flux for various ocean regions. These are net fluxes per region. Add them up and they total to about 2.2Pg(C) flux into the ocean and 0.5Pg(C) out of the ocean. The paper tells us global net figure includes " an uptake flux of anthropogenic carbon of 2.2 ± 0.3 Pg C/y(inversion) and 1.9 ± 0.7 Pg C/y(pCO2-climatology)."  This represents about a quarter of our anthropogenic CO2 emissions which today total about 10Pg(C)/year and so it is our anthropogenic emissions that are truly "the largest source of CO2 of the planet." Your interpretation of the Gruber et al graphic is based on a flux from the Pacific of just 0.3Pg(C)/year.

       Yet the carbon cycle shows the gross fluxes to be far higher than the net fluxes.  This is not controversial.

       

       Annually, the gross flux is about 92Pg(C) flux into the ocean and 90Pg(C) out of the ocean. Any discussion of Δ¹⁸O must take account of these gross fluxes.

21890. John Mason at 13:34 PM on 3 December 2016
       Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
       

       The main point Nigel - that most of us have mentioned - does not involve the next tens of thousands of years. Substantial sea level rise comes a lot quicker. Whatever follows that just rearranges the mess.

21891. JWRebel at 13:24 PM on 3 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       Let those kids sweat! In addition to teaching them about various aspects of climate change (physics, geology, carbon cycle, carbon isotopes, weathering chemistry, etc), double burden them with sceptics' points and how these have been debunked.

21892. Andy Skuce at 12:44 PM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       Further to Trevor Tombe's article, here is a counterpoint by Jason MacLean

       An excerpt:

       Tombe’s argument is just the kind of economic thinking best left to classroom chalkboards. As a basis for Canada’s climate policy, it falls short in three ways.

       First, Tombe assumes without justification that Alberta oil producers’ implied costs—purely notional costs not actually borne by anyone—are relevant to a public policy whose purpose is to reduce emissions and the very real costs we’ll all actually have to bear if we fail to stabilize our climate.

       Second, the government’s estimated social cost of carbon might vastly underestimate the true cost. While most economists agree that pricing carbon is the ideal way to reduce emissions, economists also appear to agree that economic models seriously underestimate the future costs of climate change. Models of the social cost of carbon depend on modellers’ assumptions, including how much to discount future damages. Estimates vary, but many economists think the true cost is closer to $200 than Tombe’s $50.

       Think of it this way: if Canada’s proposed price of $50 by 2022 were really high enough to reduce emissions and stimulate “clean growth” by sending a clear signal to the market to shift production from fossil fuels to renewable energy, we wouldn’t even be having this debate! In a world where carbon is properly priced and not substantially subsidized, building new pipelines would be economically unthinkable. Which is kind of the point.

       But because $50 is almost assuredly too low, we can’t rely on it alone, no matter how economically ideal it may seem. Instead, we must pursue a mix of policies, including one Tombe agrees will work – blocking pipelines.

       The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change gets this—mostly—when she explained that “some people say just have a price on carbon. If you were to do that, the price would be so high it wouldn’t make any sense. So that’s why you have to have a variety of different measures.” Minister McKenna’s absolutely right, of course, if what she means is that a full carbon price wouldn’t make sense politically.

21893. One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       william@17, I hope that true leaders in business and politics will understand that in spite of 'legal approval' these pipelines, and their obvious boost to the success of attempts to expand an activity that needs to be rapidly curtailed, deserve to be losing bets for those who chooose to gamble on benefiting from them.

       Sadly, there are many unleaders in business and politics. And those are the type of people who will declare that once something gets started it has to be allowed to be as beneficial as possible for the ones who wanted to benefit from it (the push for new and larger pipelines is because of the unjustified recent expansion of oil sands extraction operations). Those type of unleaders are the reason that future Albertan's owe $1.1 Billion to those who gambled on building new coal burners in Alberta to let Albertans in the past undeservingly get some of the cheapest electricity in North America, attempts to profit that were understood to be unacceptable at the time they were pursued and are now needing to be curtailed by 2030.

       The investors in these pipelines and the extraction of tar sands that they support need to be told in no uncertain terms that real leaders will be fighting to make these activities losing propositions, with no public bail-out for the gamblers.

       The real problem is the way that these things get justified.

       • Some will say building a pipeline won't reduce global burning. However, they have to ignore the fact that reducing the rate of product delivered to the market definitely would help achieve that objective. And less ability to cheaply move the product for profit will knee-cap future interest in expanding these unacceptable pursuits of profit.
       • Some will say pipelines are safer than rail. The truth is that the safety of pipepline or rail transport is a function of the effort put into making it safer. There is no default superiority from a safety perspective. Higher safety can be achieved in either system. THe real problem is the way that globalized competition has resulted in 'reduction of standards for safety to be comepetive with the lower standards others can get away with'. That unnecessary reduction of rail safety, allowed for reasons of competitive profitability, was the reason for the Lac Megantic tragedy, a totally avoidable rail disaster that something as simple as full-time responsible observation of the train would have kept from happening.
21894. Andy Skuce at 08:29 AM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       Stephen, I don't really have that much argument with Tombe's economic analysis: I accept that stopping infrastructure is a blunt and expensive way of slowing production. As I said in comment#6 earlier, it is all very well to run the numbers that show that a carbon tax is the best policy, but it needs to be set at a level of $200 per tonne to be effective, but that is politically impossible, at least until Canada's trading partners start to price carbon at those levels. So, Tombe is right in theory, but his ideas fail any practical test. Economists are not strangers to failing practicality tests.

       I find it frustrating that Tombe rather patronizingly calls for cooler heads on policy, all the while showing graphs that predict eternal growth in oilsands production, as if that were some ineluctible law of nature. Instead, many of us see those trends as Canada digging itself deeper into an emissions hole that we won't easily get out of. I would rather use a policy scalpel than a blunt instrument, but if that's all we have, that's what we'll have to use.

       Let me repeat, Alberta is producing more oil than at any time in its history. Production is still growing due to projects under construction. That the province is suffering an economic crisis now is not because of a lack of infrastructure. It is because even projects with sunk costs are barely making money at today's commodity prices and because the provincial economy needs to keep production growing quickly just to maintain employment and balance the books. Emissions aside, this rapid growth is not sustainable. Better to adjust to the consequences of slower or zero production growth now, rather than later, when the problem will be bigger and the fall harder.

       Let me say this, if Canada adopts a carbon price above $100, I promise to shut up about banning new pipelines for climate policy reasons. 

21895. nigelj at 07:54 AM on 3 December 2016
       Fires and drought cook Tennessee - a state represented by climate deniers
       

       There could be a case for teaching some sceptical climate science ideas in schools, along with the basic consensus, but it depends how its done. School children are not dumb, they know science is very certain about some things, but is a work in progress. They will hear climate sceptic ideas from various people and cant be insulated from this.

       Maybe schools should teach the basic IPCC consensus, but also include the more credible sceptical arguments, but also point out the flaws in those arguments. That is the important thing, showing the flaws. If anything it would become a lesson in the poor logic and rhetorical fallacies you get in many denialist positions. It would lead to a better educated generation.

       I decided we are warming the climate after a close look at both sides of the debate. I take nothing for granted. Children in the final two years of secondary school are mature enough for this approach.

       But of course the problem is getting schools to teach the flaws in sceptical climate  opinions, and not promote them as equally valid alternatives. And that would not be easy, judging by the opinions of some of those legislators in the article above.

21896. nigelj at 07:15 AM on 3 December 2016
       Dear Mr President-elect: a message from across the Pond
       

       Chriskoz @20, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. You wont reply so I make this comment for the benefit of others: You, John Mason, Glenn Tamblyn and Michael Sweet have all given different versions of how long elevated temperatures would last, and the implications, and I have read other versions as well myself, so its hard for me to know. 

       While your version is compelling you yourself acknowledge uncertainties in it.

       But if global warming essentially cancels the next 5 ice ages over such an extended period does this not have an upside? Ice ages are killer events. Its a valid question.

       Or are uncontrolled experiments with the planet by injecting so much CO2 just uncertain and high risk?

21897. william5331 at 07:13 AM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       I don't know what is sadder.  A politician we thought would do the right thing or a politician that can't read the tea leaves sufficiently far into the future to know that oil from tar sands will be amongst the first to have to be abandoned as we make the rapid transition away from fossil fuel.

21898. nigelj at 06:28 AM on 3 December 2016
       Trump and the GOP may be trying to kneecap climate research
       

       "This is an invitation to a, Frank Knight type, free discussion of reasonable men to discover whatever truth emerges that we can agree upon."

       Reasonable but unqualified men will be of little use. You would need a discussion of reasonable and qualified climate scientists, but haven't we done that already? At least five studies show a consensus that humans are altering the climate.

       I also agree with the point that 4 years is too short to determine whats happening with the climate. As Ubrew says la nina and el nino can cause small sudden temperature changes independent of underlying longer term changes. It was a longer term change from the 1970s that got climate scientists seriously concerned that a new factor in the climate had emerged.

       I also dont see how John Warner concludes that because solar changes cause a fairly immediate climate response (which is intuitively obvious) that C02 would act at the same rate. An increasing greenhouse effect is like putting on a jumper, you heat up slowly if you can excuse the rough analogy. In fact it has a lot do do with how the ocean responds.

       John knows more science than the average person perhaps, but there is an old saying in computing that is relevant called "gigo".

21899. Stephen Leahy at 06:07 AM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       Andy, you might want to weigh in on this piece by U of Calgary economist in Macleans today 

       Policy, not pipelines, will determine if we meet our goals

       "...climate concerns around pipeline approvals should be off the table."

21900. One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 3 December 2016
       Justin Trudeau approves two big oil sands pipeline expansions
       

       It is clear that there is a long history of incorrect business and political decisions being made, if the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all is the desired result of human endeavours. These decisions are the result of the development of unjustified perceptions of prosperity and opportunity, “winning any way that can be gotten away with”.

       And current leaders in democracies require popular support that is difficult to obtain by justifiably shattering the developed delusions of prosperity and opportunity. Defending unjustifiable perceptions is easier to do. Clearly, it is possible to get support through an unjustifiable excuse like 'the importance of balancing economic interests of a portion of current day humanity with consequences faced by others who will not benefit, particularly future generation'.

       It is common sense that it is unacceptable for anyone to benefit in a way that creates potential negative consequences for another person, including future people. The root cause of that lack of common sense in developed and developing societies needs to be addressed. It is almost certain to be an expected consequence of systems that allow a person to get away with actions that are clearly contrary to the advancement of humanity.

       And it is clear that an issue like climate change cannot be adequately addressed be 'those who choose to care' while those who deliberately try to get more benefit and any possible competitive advantage by caring less can get away with their deliberately less responsible behaviour.

       There is an escalating global war on climate change. It is part of the bigger escalating global war against pursuits that are understandably not going to sustainable advance global humanity to a lasting better future for all. And an aspect of any war is the propaganda war waged by those who actually understand how unacceptable their desires and interests are, but know how to temporarily Trump-up support. And like all activities that have to rely on propaganda (because they actually are understandably unacceptable), they can be tragically disastrously successful for as long as they are able to be gotten away with.

Prev  430  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  Next