Recent Comments

Prev  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  458  459  Next

Comments 22551 to 22600:

22551. Mochan at 15:55 PM on 17 November 2016
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Sorry, I have two eyes, and the data clearly shows me it's closer to Scenario C, not Scenario B. 

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] It is not clear to me that you have read the article that carefully. Read the comment policy- you are risking sloganeering .Scenario B is about an emission scenario. Hansen considered what would happen for 3 different emission scenarios. What we actually emitted is closer to Scenario B, so should compare his prediction for scenario B to actual temperatures for B. His prediction is too high for reasons the articles discusses.

22552. Mochan at 15:53 PM on 17 November 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       This rebuttal is missing something. It says that people arguing that breathing causes CO2 are missing the other half of the cycle.

       By that very same logic, those who are saying we should cut down on fossil fuel use are missing the other half of the cycle — those plants that created the fossil fuels also took that CO2 out of the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is all a cycle and if it happens, it happens. You can't stop it. 

22553. chriskoz at 13:18 PM on 17 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       scaddenp@14,

       Indeed, note how the tip of the average green curve just "touches" the freezing blue line in summertime, which indicates how sensitive this region is changes in ice accumulation/melting in response to even small warming that shifts the green curve up and down. The simulation of such shifts (or rather changes in green curve in response to Milankovic forcings) can lead the explanation of iceage cycles. But with that model in mind, the departure of red line from green line in wintertime does not make any difference to arctic ice stability as long as it stays below freezing. The relevant summertime part or red curve follows green curve closely. So I don't understand what's a big buzz in this mistery, policy violating bozzza@112 post.

       And above all, I don't understande how this graph is relevant to the topic at hand about demographic of climate science acceptance in America.

22554. scaddenp at 05:59 AM on 17 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       I am pretty sure it is Arctic temperatures north of 80N. See here.

22555. JWRebel at 05:55 AM on 17 November 2016
       What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
       

       Trump may be susceptible to the idea that the US is going to lose its role as a leader in emergent technologies, such as solar and renewables. His views on climate amount to a few goofy one-offs ("Where is global warming when you need it" –- everybody in Russia and Canada has said that sometime in their life) and ignorance: He thinks that if the weather breaks a record that was last set in 1896 it proves that there is nothing novel about weather extremes (which is true — but not germane). If not completely beholden to fossil fuel interests or campaign promises there is some hope for a learning curve if he runs into advisors with an educational streak. He's also likely to be in for a surprise when calculating how many "hundreds of billions" can actually be squeezed from subsidies (and coal substitution). Further hope can be garnered from the fact that he is likely to favor States' and local autonomy, which means a lot of initiatives will carry on despite new policy. Just saying, the cause has not yet been completely lost.

22556. rkrolph at 05:13 AM on 17 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       The chart @12 needs some explanation.  As in, what is it?

22557. shastatodd at 04:38 AM on 17 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       "But given Trump’s comments on the campaign trail, the US’s recent reputation under Barack Obama as a nation serious about tackling climate change now looks to be in peril."
       
       im sorry, but donald trump does not dicate my energy consuption/ carbon footprint choices.

22558. One Planet Only Forever at 04:29 AM on 17 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Trump's plans for coal is likely to stop any transition of existing coal burners in the US and motivate utilities to maximize their use by ending laws and enforcement that make coal burning less profitable. However, his main plan would likely be to maximize exports of coal and us US influence to keep buyers of US coal from reducing their burning-blaming them and excusing the US.

       Bottom line is Trump is bottom line popularity and profit guy who has a history of not caring how popularity gets drummed up or how unsustainable or damaging a pursuit of profit is understood to be. He has proven that popularity for nationalism can override any better understanding that what is being promoted will not advance humanity to a lasting better future. Tragically in Germany White Nationalists were twice proven to respond even more as the damaging absurdity of the Weimar and Nazi Regimes claims were ramped up.

22559. Lionel A at 01:37 AM on 17 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       Visiting the original article at Carbon Brief I note that somebody using the name 'monckton' has opened the comments batting with long debunked disinformation for which his Lordship is so well known.

22560. bozzza at 20:24 PM on 16 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       Enough, it's time to do something!

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Adjusted image size. Please keep image limited to 500px.

22561. John Hartz at 11:53 AM on 16 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       nigelj: You state:

       Somebody needs to talk to Trump about climate change, but it needs to be kept to just a few key points. He will not have time for a massive lecture.

       According to the following article, President Barak Obama is doing just that.

       Here's how Obama's trying to persuade Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal by Brad Plumer, Energy & Environment, Vox, Nov 15, 2016

22562. nigelj at 08:11 AM on 16 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       Trump does indeed have a history of unusually flexible views on most things. It all makes Trump hard to predict.

       Somebody needs to talk to Trump about climate change, but it needs to be kept to just a few key points. He will not have time for a massive lecture.

       Two main things convinced me fossil fuels are causing global warming. Firstly a graph showed that over the warming period since 1975,solar irradiance has been falling slightly. Secondly the warming is stronger and increasing more at night which suggests an increasing greenhouse effect. I don't have a physics degree, but I could easily relate to these issues.

22563. nigelj at 07:19 AM on 16 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Michael Sweet @ 12, I didn't realise there was such a strong consensus on global warming in the 1960s, but I accept your evidence.

       I was really just reacting to Driving By. He made an initial claim that warnings about warming made in the 1960s were ignored by the Democrats, as they were more interested in their progressive agenda. This annoyed me.

       But it shows an important point. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in denial about climate change at various times. The elite become tied up in their own narrow agendas, whatever they may be.

22564. perseus at 05:15 AM on 16 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       Trump won in areas with less educated, older, whiter populations with fewer immigrants.

       It was exactly the same with Brexit in the UK.  No wonder he's such buddies with Nigel Farage.  

       Interestingly UKIP, the neo-fascist party he used to head, obtained only one Member of Parliament (one MP is allocated per seat or region) out of 650 in the last general election despite receiving 13% of the vote (he has never won a seat).  This is due to their votes being diluted across many regions and MPs being elected by a first past the post voting system in each region. The Greens only have one MP for the same reason.

       In contrast, the Scottish Nationalists obtained 56 seats with only 8.6% of the popular vote, because their vote is concentrated enough in Scotland to overcome the other parties contesting those seats.

22565. william5331 at 05:02 AM on 16 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       On the bright side, what politician in the rest of the world wants to be associated with Trump in the eyes of his support.  Imagine some politician making some sceptical comment about climate change and the next question by a reporter.  "Are we to understand Mr Minister", he asks, "that you agree with President Trump".  Perhaps the law of unexpected consequensis will act in our favor for a change.

22566. Eric Grimsrud at 03:07 AM on 16 November 2016
       US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
       

       In spite of the more pessimistic view most of us climate scientists now have, there is, nevertheless, the possibility that President-elect Trump will change many of his views abruptly, even before he becomes President Trump. This thought is consistent with Trump’s behavior in the past. He is a self-absorbed operator who doesn’t think he owes anything to anyone. Thus, when he gets into the oval office next January, I doubt that he will feel a strong obligation to honor any of the commitments he has made to others so far. Donald Trump is clearly not a stupid person himself - he has simply shown himself to be a master at getting the votes of those who are. He might more appropriately be labelled an uneducated person. As unlikely as this somewhat more progressive view of Trump might be, there’s no harm in crossing one’s fingers and trying very hard to educate him on the issue of climate change. Of all of the issues on the table, only this one needs to be addressed immediately. All of the others can be addressed and solved in due or even overdue time – if our life sustaining physical environment doesn’t slip away. Who knows – maybe Trump will also start learning a bit about the Father of his party and be inspired by how Lincoln saved the United States of America in the nick of time. The fact that he has so little regard for what’s left of today’s Republican Party is encouraging.

22567. BBHY at 23:27 PM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       I tried to warn people that Clinton was trying to buck a strong hitorical trend and her chances were slim.

       America very rarely elects two different Democratic presidents back-to-back. Exceptions since WWII are when Johnson followed JFK, but JFK had died in office so LBJ was able to run as an incumbent. Incumbents have an significant advantage in our elections; that's why we have the 22nd Amendment, and why Senators and Congressmen with low approval ratings stay in office for decades. The same thing happened when Truman followed FDR, he was able to run as an incumbent after FDR died in office.

       To find an example that didn't involve the advantage of incumbency you have to go back over 150 years, to James Buchanon followed Franklin Pierce in the election of 1856. So this is a very strong historical trend that is extremely hard to break. Still, I thought Clinton had a chance because Trump was so bad.

       What does this have to do with Climate Change, and am I about to get flagged for being off-topic? The point is, we can't wait for the perfect president, the perfect congress, or the perfect political climate. It is up to us, the people, to mobilize and move forward on fighting climate change. Where the people lead, the politicians will follow. (or "Lead from the rear" as someone put it.)

       One small consulation, Trump should be the absolute last of the climate denier presidents. Sea level rise is/has accelerated and in another 8 years, (maybe only four, but don't count on it), millions of people who don't now beleive in climate change will be changing their minds. Yes, we will be in very bad shape by then, really we already are just that many people can't/won't see it.

22568. Haze at 23:26 PM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       Thank you for so effectively but, I suspect, unintentionally, reinforcing my point.

22569. DrivingBy at 22:15 PM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       "Perhaps a little less derision and outright snobbery..."

       Quite so. Artisinal, focus group tested, artfully concealed derision and snobbery will be right up.  Would you like seltzer with that? 

22570. michael sweet at 20:46 PM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Nigelj,

       The report was from the National Academy of Science not "a couple of scientists".  They warned strongly that AGW would be a big problem in the future.  It reported the consensus of scientists at the time.

       It has been over 50 years since that reort was delivered to the President.  Unfortunately, we are making the same argument now.

22571. nigelj at 17:23 PM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Driving by @9, yes a couple of scientists in the 1960s predicted global warming but there was no consensus in  the science community. Maybe there should have been.

       Trump is possibly a pragmatist. So am I, but his changeability is so large it's not normal

22572. Imran520 at 16:55 PM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       The urban/rural divide was the third-strongest determining factor in the presidential election. Clinton won urban voters by 24 points; Trump won rural voters by 28 points. In many cases, cities are leading the way in taking action to curb global warming.

       http://cnn.mobiletv.com.pk/

22573. Art Vandelay at 11:39 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       Trump fell slightly short of winning the popular vote but the election result itself still shows that 'climate change' as an issue is less important than other social and economic issues of today, as far as Americans are concerned.  

       My gut feeling is that Trump will be a 4 year President and will have little if any effect on global climate hange mitigation efforts. 

22574. michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Wol,

       In many locations, including Texas, WWS are the cheapest form of energy.  In that case if Trump delays the buildout of WWS it will hurt international competitiveness.  If WWS continue to go down in price they will be built out more and more.  

       Unfortunately, even a few years delay in installing more WWS will result in a lot more carbon in the atmosphere.

22575. Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       chriskoz @4, based on this poll, it is likely that a majority of Trump voters accept the reality of AGW, but that those that do are on average less worried about it than Clinton voters (or than is consistent with the evidence).  I base that claim on the party affiliation results along with the fact that around 91% of Democrats voted for Clinton, 93% of Republicans voted for Trump, and 53% of independents voted for Trump (based on exit polls here, excluding "other/no answer").

22576. DrivingBy at 09:41 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       @nigelJ

       - In the mid-60s, a presentation by a noted scientist (someone here recall the name?) to LBJ included the advisory that over the next century, the increase in atmospheric C02 would change the world's climate, with destabilizing effects, and that it would not be a temporary, reversible problem like smog.  C02's greenhouse effect was discovered in the 19th century and confirmed (by Arhennious) around 1900.  There's even a reference to it in the old educational film "Our Mr Sun", a suprisingly well-produced piece from our grandparent's day. 

       My point about the other items, wall-fence, ACA-ACA-lite is that DT really has few fixed positions; he's a combo real estate developer/reality show host. Someone called him Quantum Trump, as he seems to simultaneously hold multiple, opposing positions on a subject.  That is not always a bad thing, because in politics there's often no right answer. 

       @JohnH:

       We can hope that trade implications will enter the new Administration's calculus. If abandoning Paris turns out to be bad for business, Trump will probably change his tune.  Democrats should have been helping those coal miners get jobs in the oil & gas fields or whatever emergent industry arises (wind turbine contstruction & upkeep). If Trump's administration is smart, they will offer new jobs that exist instead of old ones that aren't coming back.  Trump couldn't care less about coal itself, he's looking at the communities which were formerly sustained by it, they are part of his support base.  While he also couldn't care less about climate change, if ignoring CC turns out to be a drag on the economy I suspect he'll adjust. 

22577. chriskoz at 09:38 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       I wonder why detailed exit polls pointed by Dana at the very top, does not specifically include the acceptance of climate science vs voting data. There are dozen (if not hundreds I'm bored to read) miniscule questions that will annoy any reader as they did myself, but the central question of climate mitigation, our central concern herein, where the new president will do most damage, is absent. That proves this poll, like the whole coverage of this election, is only about sensationalism, a reality show, or even better said a farcical comedy, rather than a serious contest of responsibility that POTUS office requires. Climate change mitigation is a number one challenge of that office but has been totally forgotten in the campaign and not even mentioned in this post-campain poll. Absurd.

22578. Wol at 07:17 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Part of any boom in the US economy under Trump would be the use of much "cheap" coal, gas and oil. The rest of the world would be somewhat shackled to increasing use of renewables, which are still presently more expensive partly because the hidden public costs of fossil fuels isn't adequately taken into account.

       Having just had yet another online "discussion" with several deniers, who in the usual manner brought up all the oft-rebutted arguments, slipping from one to another at will, I see no chance that the Trump machine is in any way amenable to logical and scientific debate.

22579. nigelj at 07:06 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       Thanks for some interesting data and a good analysis, and you are broadly correct. There are clearly huge partisan divisions that are becoming worse and worse. The days of sensible consensus seem to be evaporating.

       However you miss a point that the immediate cause of Clinton’s loss was James Comey, head of the FBI. Two weeks ago Clinton was ahead by 8 points and would almost certainly have also won the electoral college. After Comey’s dropping the email bomb in the final week her vote lead dropped to about 2% in the polls. (In reality the polls were also wrong and she was only ahead 1%). Yes obviously several factors contributed to Clintons loss, and she was not a great canditate, but Comey has to be the factor that clinched things. Personally I question his motives for acting the way he did, and consider them very dubious, and they should be questioned. The trouble is the Liberals (and I lean liberal) are too nice and won’t want to rock the boat.

       I agree with the comment posted above. The world needs to signal its displeasure about Trump being elected and do so forcefully and especially so over climate change. The days of playing nice should be over. These Trump supporters don’t play nice so why should anyone else? The only thing that seems to get through to them is shouting and some harsh financial consequences.

       Yes blue collar workers have been hurt and free trade plays some part, but mostly its automation and robotics. Trump can’t change these things. Tariffs will do more harm than good.

       The only real way to help low income, low skilled people is some government financial help with retraining allowances and relocation allowances, etc. However this requires taxation and state help, so won’t be on the republican agenda.

       It’s a huge mess and blue collar workers cant seem to work out its more the Republican Party ideology thats hurt them for decades. They consistently vote against their own financial self interest. But you can only lead a horse to water and I’m beyond caring on that issue.

       However climate change is a global concern, and America is a big player and its ideological world view can be influential on other countries. This really therefore concerns everyone.

22580. nigelj at 06:15 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Michael Sweet @4.

       I agree. I'm aware of some of those things, and thanks for the ones I wasn't aware of. And I hope you are right in your interpretation. It's just the election of Trump put my in such a foul mood that I just didn't care to try to find any positives!

       At heart the Republicans believe in free markets (at least within America) So with renewable energy and gas having fallen in price it makes sense on this alone, and will hopefully prevail.

       But watch the more vindictive people in Congress try to put a spanner in the works somehow. Unfortunately emotion and settling scores as they see it against The Green Movement counts with some people.

22581. chriskoz at 05:58 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Jonbo69,

       Chinese are already doing it:

       China Threatens to Cut iPhone Sales Over Trump Rhetoric

       Maybe not in response to climate ravaging by the irresponsible con man, as you suggest, rather to his ravaging of trade agrements; but still along the lines you suggest.

22582. Jonbo69 at 05:36 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       After having just listened to William Yeatman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the UK's Channel Four news emphasising the non-binding and voluntary nature of the Paris agreement and the ease with which the US can take a position of non-compliance, I would just like to add a few more words.

       What Trump and co need is something radical, bold and unexpected coming at them from out of leftfield. They will have anticipated and prepared for the international criticism and the battle with internal climate activists. I think it highly unlikely they are prepared for people from countries all over the world taking it upon themselves to boycott some of the big US corporations - it may just get them on the ropes and could be a game changer.

       Let's face it, those of us who worry and care about climate change tend to be wish washy liberal types and moderate conservatives who don't like conflict, much prefer to work in co-operation with others, look to find common ground, want to be reasonable and play fair. Anyone thinking that approach is going to work with Trump and co needs to get off their unicorn.

       The gloves need to come off and the fight taken to Trump. Trump didn’t realise his revolution through nice words and fair play, and any counter revolution won't achieve results by those methods. There will be those who will claim that it's unfair to target the US; after all, it's not as if other countries are doing what needs to be done on climate. Tough! It's fair enough! The US is about to become climate enemy number one and they need to be dealt with before the contagion spreads.

       A boycott can also serve as a warning to other countries who decide their short term interests are more important than the long term survival of the planet.

22583. One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 15 November 2016
       Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
       

       The leadership of many nations (and businesses) have been reluctant to behave better on climate change. And some leadership (political and business) have behaved deliberately, knowingly unacceptable on that account.

       The USA and many of its business leaders have consistently been an impediment regarding climate change. Clinton did not ratify Kyoto, and it is not clear that Gore would have been able to ratify it either.

       Though many in America (possibly the majority of Americans) have tried to move humanity forward they are stuck in the muck that is America, a muck of wealthy powerful people gleefully viciously striving to be the ones to gain unjustified advantage from any situation in a game of popularity and profitability that is rigged to be damaging (rigged by what laws get made-up and how they are enforced). And Trump is one of those people.

       The USA dragged its heels for more than a decade on reducing the sulphur in diesel. It did it because of the internal popularity and power of attempting to get a competitive advantage against other nations that actually did what could be done. It also did it as trade protectionism since machines design for lower diesel can't function on the dirtier stuff the Americans still consider "good enough" (As said by the Simpson's character Crusty the Clown on his quality seal of approval "It isn't just good - it's good enough").

       And the Trump promotion of having America profit as much as possible from its coal is just another example. He will also probably support the export for burning of the Petroleum coke waste product from the upgrading of heavy oils and bitumen, something far worse than coal. Doing so is profitable and it also does not count on America's CO2 emissions report. That needs to change. Exports of fossil fuels for burning should be counted against the nation that exported them as well as in the nation that burns them. Restricting the trade would be a very difficult transition for the global economy, but the burning needs to end so the trade of the stuff should end first, then the nations still burning their resources could more easily be pressured by other trade measures.

       This careful playing of the game by American leadership to maximize benefit for some in ways understood to be unacceptable and clearly to the detriment of others is nothing new. During the early parts of WWII many wealthy Americans were doing 'good' business with the Germans as well as with the groups the Germans were fighting to take control over. It was only when it became clear that the Germans would likely lose that the American leadership decided to drum up the popular support to finally put its national efforts towards being seen to be opposed to the Germans.

       Many other nations have failed to act more vigorously on climate change because they are trying to "Compete with the others - like the consistently deliberately damaging leadership of the USA that has deliberately failed to properly change the minds of its population because it is easier for people to deliberately drum up opposition to behaving better when behaving better would be more expensive and harder work. Obama tried to get America to be better but the House Republicans particularly the House Freedom Caucus refused to behave better. That is why Obama could not have the Paris Accord include any legal obligations, he would not have been able to sign on if it did because it would have required House and Senate apporoval. Trudeau in Canada would like to have Canadians be better, but the argument is "don't do anything unless the Americans do it" and it is very popular in support of profitability.

       The presumption that the basis of acceptability and leadership is regional popularity and profitability and the "need to compete with those who get away with less acceptable behaviour" is clearly a fatal flaw in the current socio-economic games that threatens the advancement of humanity.

       Deliberately deceptive appeals to greed or intolerance can easily tempt people to choose to support bad behaviour in the hopes of being part of the "winning group". Getting away with understandably unacceptable behaviour is clearly a competitive advantage. That is how groups like ISIS get support and temporarily win. And it is also how the Trump Republicans got their damaging undeserved "Win".

22584. Jonbo69 at 01:57 AM on 15 November 2016
       On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
       

       I hope you will excuse me as I have already posted this comment on a previous thread, but it is still entirely relevent to this one.

       We outside America need to act now, before Trump opens a single coal mine, drills a single well. or withdraws a single cent from renewable development projects. It doesn't matter that the economics lean towards renewables and away from fossil fules. Trump & co are tools of the fossil fuel indistry and that it what they will pronote, regardless

       350 degrees, Greenpeace and FOE have their hands tied because they operate inside the US and so it would be pretty hard for them to call for a boycott of US corporations; therefore there needs to be a new campaign group set up in countries outside the US promoting such a boycott. It doesn't have to be all encompassing; just a handful of the big names - Coca Cola, Starbucks, McDonalds etc, will do to start with.

       But it needs to be done quickly, ideally before Trump has even taken office. We need to deliver the first blow, or at least make the threat clear to Trump and the Republicans. To wait until Trump takes charge is to give the advantage, and we can’t afford to allow that. We need him on the defensive and on the back foot.

       
       The sooner people realise that there is absolutely zero chance of the UN or our governments doing anything that will get Trump and co to change course, the quicker we can get together and do something ourselves. The wait and see approach is the dumb ass approach and we’ll take a severe beating.

       
       The only way Trump and the Republicans can be brought to see reason is to hit them in their wallet; our governments won’t do it; we can. We need to be the ones shaping events and controlling them, not the other way around. Action needs to be swift and uncompromising.

22585. Jonbo69 at 01:49 AM on 15 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       We outside America need to act now, before Trump opens a single coal mine, drills a single well. or withdraws a single cent from renewable development projects.

       It doesn't matter that the economics lean towards renewables and away from fossil fules. Trump & co are tools of the fossil fuel indistry and that it what they will pronote, regardless

       
       350 degrees, Greenpeace and FOE have their hands tied because they operate inside the US and so it would be pretty hard for them to call for a boycott of US corporations; therefore there needs to be a new campaign group set up in countries outside the US promoting such a boycott. It doesn't have to be all encompassing; just a handful of the big names - Coca Cola, Starbucks, McDonalds etc, will do to start with. 

       
       But it needs to be done quickly, ideally before Trump has even taken office. We need to deliver the first blow, or at least make the threat clear to Trump and the Republicans. To wait until Trump takes charge is to give the advantage, and we can’t afford to allow that. We need him on the defensive and on the back foot.

       The sooner people realise that there is absolutely zero chance of the UN or our governments doing anything that will get Trump and co to change course, the quicker we can get together and do something ourselves. The wait and see approach is the dumb ass approach and we’ll take a severe beating.

       The only way Trump and the Republicans can be brought to see reason is to hit them in their wallet; our governments won’t do it; we can. We need to be the ones shaping events and controlling them, not the other way around. Action needs to be swift and uncompromising.

       .

22586. ELIofVA at 23:56 PM on 14 November 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 4
       

       The Trump election is certainly a setback for efforts to address climate change. However, the key epiphany that will make effective action possible is the wide spread recognition that to keep co2 concentration in the atmosphere from rising, we need to limit our human caused emissions to the net amount that nature sequesters. This is what the COP21 treaty referred to as a net zero carbon emissions economy. Nature sequesters most of our human emissions that are safely in the carbon cycle. However, the emissions that can not be sequestered are dumped into the atmosphere adding to the previous inbalances causing the concentration to rise. This is a debt. The ultimate difficulty will be determined by how high this carbon concentration (debt) gets. When we achieve net zero, we will no longer be adding to the carbon debt. However, to reduce the carbon concentration we will need to have a net sequester economy where our emissions are less than what can be sequestered. This we firmly understand. It is the only way to do it. If you do not believe we will ever go there, then you are assuming we will destroy the life resilience on our planet and the opportunity for our proginy to have healthy happy lives. The only way for there to be political will to acheive a net sequester economy is for the main stream to understand these limitations. Since this is our only hope, I will assume it will eventually occur and act in such a way that will make it more likely to happen. I am not sure Hillary Clinton had that recognition. However, she did recognize the rising carbon concentration was a problem and was postured to promote clean energy jobs, Trump is headed for that bridge back to the 20th Century where burn baby burn is the modow for economic growth.

       This is a graphic I created that attempts to summarize the business as usual, net zero and net sequester economies.  

       Since our ability to sequester co2 is limited, should we share the capacity to emit co2 fairly?

        https://2050story.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fair-share-carbon-emissions161030.pdf

22587. michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 14 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Nigelj,

       I think that the time for coal is past, even if the Trump presidency tries to revive it.

       The biggest coal compaies in the USA have recently declared bankruptcy.  If regulations are eased for emissions (which I expect), they will not be able to raise the capitol to reopen closed mines.  Who will finance new coal burning generators with the writing on the wall for 4-8 years from now?  There may be less coal shutdown for 4 years but the economics of coal argue for no more than a stalling in the shutting down of current facilities.

       If the Saudi's keep pumping, fracking is not econnomic.  It appears that the Sauds do not want to compete with fracking.  Even if the pipelines are built, Trump cannot raise the price of oil enough to make those wells economic.  Oil sands also require high prices to be profitable.  The Saudi's might want to pump as much as they can before oil is no longer used.  They make money at current prices.

       WInd and solar have gotten much bigger under Obama.  Will Trump really ignore the jobs created by WWS?  Those jobs already exceed the old jobs under coal.  Trump can hold back expansion but since wind and solar are cheaper they cannot be shut down once they are built.  Perhaps Trump will waste a lot of money on nuclear, but that will lower CO2 in the end also.

22588. John Hartz at 14:50 PM on 14 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       DrivingBy: I suspect that just about everyone attending the ongoing Cop 22 Conference in Marakesh, Morocco considers Trump's promise to withdraw from the Paris Accord to be a "Blow to the gut".

       Here's an example of how diplomats are reacting:

       The United States would become "a kind of rogue country" if it pulls out of an international agreement to combat global warming, leaving the world more vulnerable to droughts and other climate extremes, warned Mary Robinson, a former Irish president and human rights advocate.

       "It would be a tragedy for the United States and the people of the United States if the U.S. becomes a kind of rogue country, the only country in the world that is somehow not going to go ahead with the Paris Agreement," Robinson said in an interview with the Thomson Reuters Foundation on Sunday.

       INTERVIEW-U.S. will be 'rogue' state if it ditches climate accord - UN envoy by Laurie Goering, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Reuters, Nov 13, 2016

22589. John Hartz at 13:16 PM on 14 November 2016
       Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
       

       Synapsid: There are multiple reasons why the election turned out the way it did.

22590. Tom Curtis at 12:41 PM on 14 November 2016
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       David Thorn @425, the specific absorption frequencies for different isotopologues of CO2 are available at Hitran (requires registration to download data).  The difference in isotopes will make a difference, if only because the different isotopes will have a different velocity distribution at different temperatures due to differences in mass, and hence different doppler broadening patterns.  This can be illustrated by this listing of relevant frequencies of a particular transition for different isotopologues:

       

       Note that the transition in question is at too high a frequency to be relevant to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, but the small differences shown are likely to be typical at lower frequencies as well, although I have not specifically checked.

       In any event, Hitran allows the downloading of a composite absorption spectrum for all isotopologues of CO2 at relative concentrations as found in the atmosphere; and it is likely that this is the data used in LBL models of radiation.  Broad band models of radiation, and Global Circulation Models typically use lower resolution data in which the differences are not likely to be significant.

22591. Rob Honeycutt at 12:21 PM on 14 November 2016
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I understand you're saturation point now. Just be aware of your phrasing because this is often used by climate deniers to suggest there is no greenhouse effect. Relative to your questions about other bands outside of the 667cm-1 range, I think most of the other bands are overwhelmed by WV. It's that 667 window which has the primary scattering effect. 

22592. Tom Curtis at 10:45 AM on 14 November 2016
       It's the sun
       

       Jc @1198, the paper uses four of surface temperature over the last 1000 years to determine independent values for climate sensitivity for CO2, solar activity and volcanoes.  In determining independent values, it assumes that a factors impact on temperatures is not a function of alteration of the energy balance, which is unphysical.  Using the contrary assumption, based on conservation of energy, that a factors impact is a function of its alteration of the energy balance, you would generate a combined proxy of the factors altering that value and scale it against the temperature proxies.  Because of this, I consider the approach of the paper physically invalid regardless of the mathematical validity of the techniques used.

       Ignoring that, the uncertainties of the reconstructions of temperatures and forcings over the last 1000 years are very large relative to the uncertainties over the last 136 years.  Given this, we would expect the uncertainties to be large relative to climate sensitivity estimates over the instrumental period, wheras de Larminat claims a smaller uncertainty.  I would also expect the model(s) obtained over the period of the reconstruction to be tested against the more accurate data, something de Larminat fails to do.

       Beyond these more general points, de Laminat uses four temperature proxies, none of which are global.  Moberg 2005 is a Northern Hemisphere only proxy, as was Mann 1999.  Ljungqvist 2010 reconstructs Northern Hemisphere extratropical temperatures only (30-90 North), and thus covers less than a third of the Earth's surface.  Only Loehle 2007 claims to be a global temperature reconstruction, but it takes a simple mean of its (unusually small number of) proxies, and as they are not evenly distributed across the globe, that leads to a very biased coverage.  Indeed, 56% of his proxies come from the North Atlantic region (just 22% of the globe), and only two come from the Southern Hemisphere extratropics (both from South Africa).  Given that the proxy is generated by taking a simple mean, this is better regarded as a slightly tweaked North Atlantic temperature reconstruction than a truly global one.

       Oddly, de Laminat shows a penchant for dated sources.  That is clear enough from his use of Loehle 2007 rather than the corrected version, Loehle 2008.  It is most obvious in his use of Mann 1999.  He defends his choice "there is no reason to discard the reconstruction of Mann: scientific truth does not determine by majority"; but Mann 1999 suffers from a number of minor methodological flaws (some discovered by the original author) and uses a small number of proxies compared to modern reconstructions (other than Loehle).  There can be no justification for using it rather than, for example, Mann 2008, which includes a global temperture reconstruction as well.  There is even less reason for not using the PAGES 2K reconstruction, the most comprehensive global temperature reconstruction of the last 2000 years.

       de Laminat's use of dated, and geographically biased data sets results in regional, particularly North Atlantic temperature variations dominating his results; and is by itself sufficient reason to discount his work.

       de Laminat shows his results for what is the best of the reconstructions he uses:

       

       Although he does not directly compare with the recent period, it can be seen his model performs poorly in resolving the 20th century.  Out of interest, he also shows a version in which the response to TSI is limited to be no greater than the upper bound of IPCC climate sensitivity (1.62 C/(W/m^2))  As can be seen, so constrained the model works much better in the 20th century (when uncertainties are low), and not appreciably worse in prior periods:

       

       On top of this, he states that for his model, "It can be seen that the output error is large, but comparable with the millennial simulations of IPCC".  If comparible, then his model has no claim to superiority even on the geographically biased, uncertain data on which he bases it.  It certainly performs much worse on the global, accurate data of the 20th century.

22593. nigelj at 10:13 AM on 14 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Driving by, ok nobody knows exactly what Trump will push for, but we can be 99% certain of one thing: Trump and the Republicans have enormous opposition to climate science and reductions in emissions, and will have the power to decimate existing legislation. Are you seriously saying its likely or even possible that they are going to keep what Obama put in place?  Even as Trump has already put several climate sceptics in his cabinet? I dont think so.

       You are right, gas is cheaper, but these Republicans will promote coal out of sheer hatred of liberals. They have obstructed Obama for 8 years on virtually everything so why would they change their ideology now?

       And what has 1960 got to do with climate? Climate change was not really a proven threat back then. The science at that time suggested warming was possible, but there was no evidence of warming happening back then. It was only the warming trend from about 1980 - 1990 that strongly suggested the science was correct. 

       And take Obamacare. Its not as simple as keeping the "good bits". Obamacare is an integrated package, and cant be fragmented up. I dont have time to explain but a google search might help you.

       Yes the wall may become a fence. Who knows. But every Trump policy has huge problems, and softened versions will still be problems.

       Obviously I hope I'm wrong, sanity prevails, and Trump changes tack, because if he doesn't this beautiful planet is in genuine danger in so many ways.

22594. chriskoz at 09:50 AM on 14 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
       

       One Planet@3,

       Very sadly, maybe sadder than this election, your opinion and prediction about the bias of future Supreme Court is true. So cases like Juliana et al. versus the United States have very small chance of ultimate success.

22595. Synapsid at 08:07 AM on 14 November 2016
       Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
       

       John Hartz:

       Your point?

22596. DavidThorn at 08:06 AM on 14 November 2016
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Following up my earlier question regarding CO2 isotopomers and absorption saturation, I get the idea that IR absorption is saturated from, among other sources, the article above "Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure."  This is not saying the CO2 effect is saturated - there are good arguments and evidence that it isn't - but I am wondering if the minor isotopomers' IR and lower-energy absorption fall within or outside the spectrally-saturated bands.  Or perhaps I should use "opaque" instead of "saturation" when asking about absorption spectral lines/bands?

22597. DavidThorn at 07:56 AM on 14 November 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Posting answer to "where do you get.." on the suggested thread.  Appreciate the response -

22598. DrivingBy at 07:48 AM on 14 November 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
       

       Mr. Trump's expressed views on global warming are opposite mine and probably everyone reading here.  They're also not the end of the world, and the hysterics detract from our credibility. 

       The US is only 15% of world C02 output and falling, and President Trump's actual actions regarding it will be much milder than expressed on the campaign trail.  The wall is becoming a fence, the Obamacare repeal will retain it's most expensive element, there will be no particular effort for mass deportation of illegals (meaning it won't happen).  Not a few seem to have forgotten that he is a New York Democrat who contributed to the Clintons three times and whose kids are friends with Clinton/CGI's sole heir.   One thing is certain: He'll be great for ratings.

       Coal is not coming back, because natural gas is cheaper and easier to handle. Once a power plant is fully converted to gas, going back to coal means lower efficiency and re-installing huge, maintenance-heavy exhaust scrubbers. 

       Yes, we should have started dealing with this in the 1960s, when Johnson was originally told about it. But Lyndon Johnson's first, middle and last concerns were ramming through his progressive agenda and having the country "voting Democrat for 200 years".  

       A small but critical course correction 50 years ago could have made us the world leader on this issue at a small cost, even a $$ gain if we instead of China had become the solar and wind tech manufacturer. (It would help even more if we'd started with solar for hot water preheating, rather than expensive, low-yeild solar electric panels).   The course was set then, and can only be adjusted in increments now. 

22599. nigelj at 06:46 AM on 14 November 2016
       Conservatives elected Trump; now they own climate change
       

       Honestly many conservatives are clueless about science, and seem to have some deep distrust of science. I suppose it relates to religious convictions, and a preference for gut reactions over scientific data or ideas.

       Trump did support Obamas early efforts to combat climate change,  but has clearly changed his mind. I suspect he has been persuaded by some clever climate denialist. Trump has no patience for detail, and is not a big reader, so would be easy to fool over a complex issue like climate science.

22600. scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 14 November 2016
       It's the sun
       

       Jc, rebuttal takes a bit of effort and a paper published by forecaster in an non-climate journal isnt going to get a lot of attention. A quick glance would suggest it certainly wasnt reviewed by any physicist. Would appear to be advanced curve-fitting (mathturbation) and highly questionable reconstructions. For this kind of study to be convincing, you need to develop your model with first half of the data and then show that it correctly predicts the remaining half. (For example of a model that does this well, see here.) There are numerous papers linking global warming to celestial orbits, solar cycles, etc. "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" was Von Neumann's comment.

Prev  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  458  459  Next