Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 Next
Comments 23001 to 23050:
-
John Hartz at 23:50 PM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
RedBaron:
My bad - I had inserted the wrong url into my post #15. The correct url has now been inserted in that post.
The U of Birmingham article is a news release with the following appended to it:
About the study:
- Pugh et al. ‘Climate analogues suggest limited potential for intensification of production on current croplands under climate change’ Nature Communications (2016). DOI:10.1038/ncomms12608
- Previous assessments of future food production under climate change have been based on process-based and empirical models, leading to a wide variation in both the magnitude and direction of effects. This research uses a data-driven approach instead, based on current estimates of maximum-attainable yields with existing technology, and climate analogues.
- Between 1960 and 2000, global cereal production doubled, primarily through intensification of agriculture on current croplands and by the breeding of more productive crop varieties. It is projected that global food production needs to increase by another 60-110% by 2050; to keep up with anticipated increases in human population and changes in diet.
- Current expectations are that changes in climate over the next century will tend to decrease yields at lower latitudes and increase yields at northern latitudes.
-
MA Rodger at 23:15 PM on 22 September 2016Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
I see that Kiwithinker has adopted "the line indicating benchmark" in his latest posting, as per Tom Curtis @6.
His latest posting is perhaps less optimistic than his June posting when he said "I’m guessing the green line will cross back under the red in five or six months as El Nino fades out and La Nina arrives." Including August's data, the 2010s are now further ahead than the 2000s have ever been since the start of the bet. And all indicators are suggesting that lead will increase in the short term. Indeed, to manage a 'crossing' by the end of the year to put the 2000s back in the front would now require 4 months averaging a negative anomaly. That's actually a pretty rare event these days. It has happened this century only in 2011 and 2008.
-
RedBaron at 14:40 PM on 22 September 2016375 top scientists warn of 'real, serious, immediate' climate threat
Unfortunately the solution isn't to attack the Republican party, but rather for the constituents of the Republican party to say enough is enough.
There are rumblings. But so far no leader to rally behind. When your choices are bad, worse, terrible, or insanely ridiculous, you are forced to simply vote according to other aspects of a platform.
A Crunchy Con Manifesto
By Rod Dreher1 We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.
2 Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.
3 Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.
4 Culture is more important than politics and economics.
5 A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.
6 Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.
7 Beauty is more important than efficiency.
8 The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.
9 We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.
10 Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.Now if there actually was a crunchy conservative in the presidential race, he would likely win the election hands down. Personally I don't even think it would be close. Might even surpass Reagan's landslide. But a candidate that would give up the huge campaign money they would surely lose out on? Not going to happen. It would take someone as rich as Trump but about 100 IQ points smarter and actually sane.
-
chriskoz at 13:55 PM on 22 September 2016375 top scientists warn of 'real, serious, immediate' climate threat
It's simply impossible for us scientists to stay politically neutral (as James Hansen always wanted to stay) in such a farcical evironment as GOP & their 2016 presidential candidate have created.
-
RedBaron at 11:54 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
@15 John,
I wish I could find the link to the actual study and/or hypothesis and/or model they used. I have a whole lot of issues with statement like what that team of researchers made, but without actually seeing the assumptions that they made first, difficult to really comment. About 1/2 of what they base their conclusion on I agree with. About 1/2 is complete bollocks. For example:
Efforts to increase food production usually focus on closing the yield gap, i.e. minimising the difference between what could potentially be grown on a given area of land and what is actually harvested. Highly-developed countries already have a very small yield gap, so the negative effects of climate change on potential yield are likely to be felt more acutely in these areas.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-climate-global-food-demand.html#jCp
This is completely wrong. Industrialized countries have a huge yield gap of at least 50% or more simply due to the way we raise commodity grains to feed animals. It is a highly inefficient use of land. A forage/integrated system far outproduces the monocrop/CAFO model of production. It's not even close really. What often happens is conversion rates are used, and commodity grains do produce a high feed conversion rate. However the amount yields is a tiny % of total biomass produced, and that monocrop total biomass produced is a tiny % compared to perennial biomass production when comparing same to same. It is maybe 500 to 1000% difference or more. It's not even close. Since about 1/2 the cropland in highly developed countries is devoted to this very inefficient production model, and the rest of the land is not much better, the claim is completely false. So any conclusions drawn from that false premise also have no basis.
Now some of their claims are spot on to be sure. However, that's a big enough flaw to ruin the whole thing.
There is another flaw too.
By the time you subtract out mountains, swamps, rainforests and deserts etc. That doesn't leave much at all. Are we going to clear and plant the last few wilderness areas and national parks we have left? Will we subject them to mass "cides" like we already have on almost 1/2 the planets land surface too? That's a huge huge disaster in the making. You think it's bad now. That really could literally collapse the entire biosphere irreversably.
That definately needs to be the road not taken.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:28 AM on 22 September 2016Climate inertia
Climate Noob:
In the middle of the menu bar, just below the Skeptical Science masthead, is a link to "Comments". That will load a page that has all new comments on all threads/topics. Easy to see what people have been saying regardless of where it is. The number of new comments here each day is fairly small, so you should find what you want on the first page (or two, at most).
-
Climate Noob at 10:21 AM on 22 September 2016Climate inertia
Thanks TD, I'll take a look at those sources and see how his claims hold up.
A question about posts: Is there a web location to go to so I can keep track of comments I post in comment sections? It took me a while to find this page again. I've bookmarked it now, but is there something that directs me to my comments which have received replies? I'm new to the site and I just don't know.
Thanks again.
-
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 22 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Mal Adapted - this discussion arose around the question of whether a carbon tax would encourage drilling. Tom's use of "wholesale" is really short hand for "1st point on the chain" which in your terminology is "producer". The point here is that producer gets no more income than before, so has no incentive to drill.
-
John Hartz at 10:05 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Recommended supplemental reading:
A team of researchers led by the University of Birmingham warns that without significant improvements in technology, global crop yields are likely to fall in the areas currently used for production of the world’s three major cereal crops, forcing production to move to new areas.
Climate change means land use will need to change to keep up with global food demand, say scientists, University of Birmingham News, Sep 20, 2016
-
Mal Adapted at 10:04 AM on 22 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Tom Curtis #11, yes, there is more to say about appropriate design of a carbon tax. I was narrowly addressing Michael Sweet's claim "The point of a carbon tax is to raise retail prices while wholesale prices remain the same." A carbon tax on fossil fuel producers at the source is intended to raise wholesale prices, which would raise retail prices as well.
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Martin, the Song paper suggests the recent "slowdown" is due to lots of la nina events since about 1998, and this has led to less cloud cover and thus a reduced greenhouse effect. This will swing to the opposite phase and may have already done this given the big el nino last year. Its a natural cycle influencing the underlying trend from CO2.
-
ubrew12 at 05:17 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
RedBaron@12. One might expect that if an atmospheric heating deceleration since 1992 was caused by an ocean heating acceleration, we might see such a thing occurring in a graph of ocean heating:
I don't know if this is conclusive but it supports the argument.
-
RedBaron at 02:41 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Martin,
You really have to read your own quotes a little better. Your own quote says quite clearly the rate of increase has slowed. It does not say "the trend is flat". It does not say "CO2 has had only an imperceptible effect". It also says surface temps and the whole paper discusses why the surface temp rate of increase has slowed, ie in this case they conclude it has warmed the ocean. Warming the ocean is not an imperceptable effect. I hate to put this to you bluntly. But the ocean is part of the globe. Thus while the rate of warming surface temps has not increased as much as the previous trends, global warming has continued to accelorate as expected.
-
martin3818 at 01:32 AM on 22 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
In response to the moderator's questions, I would like to add a quote and also somewhat modify one of my statements.
Regarding the term Hiatus
“Introduction
The rate at which the global average surface air temperature (Ts) increases has slowed down during the past few decades. This so-called hiatus, pause, or slowdown of global warming has inspired investigations into its potential causes worldwide. Although some researches doubted the existence of a global warming hiatus because of coverage bias, artificial inconsistency, and a change point analysis of instrumental Ts records, it is now accepted that a recent warming deceleration can be clearly observed.”
Regarding "CO2 has had only an imperceptible effect on global warming"
I would like to modify my statement to "has hardly influenced the greenhouse effect - as described in this paper - since 1992"
The paper describes two greenhouse effect parameters Ga (atmosphere) and Gs (surface). Figure 2 shows the atmospheric greenhouse effect anomaly Gaa and the surface greenhouse effect anomaly Gsa. The trend is flat since 1992, although CO2 has increased since then.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please clarify which paper(s) you are quoting from. If it is not the paper cited in the OP, please provide links to the paper(s) you are referencing.
-
RedBaron at 22:25 PM on 21 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
@9 Christian
Correct, the CO2 fertilization effect is a valid observable empirically confirmed phenomenum. It is in fact what we term a stabilizing feedback in the labile (short) carbon cycle. The problem of course is that this stabilizing feedback is not large enough to offset emissions. Every climate model I have seen includes this feedback already. Climate deniers like to misuse this sort of data by cherry picking only feedbacks that appear to stabilize and ignore reinforcing feedbacks. Climate alarmists often do the opposite to claim we are all doomed.
Reality is there are many reinforcing feedbacks and stabilizing feedbacks all interconnected in highly nuanced complex ways. But the NET result is increased atmospheric CO2 and manmade global warming.
I have a problem with the study only because they failed to outright awknowledge that this particular grassland is already showing severe signs of degradation that have nothing to do with AGW. As it turns out this extremely degraded grassland is stressed even worse by AGW than a healthy grassland would. You have a dieing patient that shows signs of dieing faster when subjected to further stress. Is this news? Is this science? Do we learn anything new from it? Does it inform us in any way as to how a healthy grassland will respond?
And BTW no, it does not have increased drought resistance. Quite the contrary. Those native perennial C4 grasses that were extirpated all have extremely deep and large root systems combined with heavy mycorrhizal symbiosis compared to the relatively shallow rooted invasive annual C3 grasses that are filling the niche. All these are far more important to drought resistance than any CO2 fert effect. That grassland undoubtably will have very poor drought resistance unlike a healthy grassland which is quite drought resistant. I personally think they used a very poor example to try and counter Rupert Murdock's ridiculous cherry picking.
-
Dennis Horne at 18:28 PM on 21 September 2016Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column
PS. The purpose of the Delingpole quote was to show his mentality. I didn't think it needed an explanation. I still don't think it does, actually.
Moderator Response:[GT]
Dennis. Accepted that was the intention of your comment, but I failed reading-tea-leaves 101. So adding some context to show whether you were supportive of Delingpole's position or not would have been helpful in understanding where you were coming from :-) -
Christian Moe at 17:56 PM on 21 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
In defense of CO2, the paper does say that plants at Jasper Ridge appear less sensitive to CO2 than reported for other grasslands. So this study by itself reaffirms that CO2 doesn't always benefit grasslands growth, but leaves open the possibility that it mostly does so. Elevated CO2 also lowers the precipitation requirement for maximum NPP at Jasper Ridge, which should contribute to drought resilience.
On a different note, isn't "CO2 is animal poop" about as biologically accurate as "CO2 is plant food"? :-)
-
Dennis Horne at 13:40 PM on 21 September 2016Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/
JAMES DELINGPOLE14 Sep 2016
"Scientization is, of course, what climate alarmists do all the time in order to support their bankrupt (but highly lucrative) thesis. Such is their brazen shamelessness, indeed, that you can’t help wondering whether – along with a worthless degree in something like environmental sciences from somewhere like the University of East Anglia – the main requirement for thriving in the world of climate science is the personality of a psychopath."
Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
With respect to your comment, a quote from a far-right media source citing complete baloney is simply sloganeering. Try a little skepticism about the article. It is also completely off-topic. Use the Search button on top left to find suitable articles. Review "They predicted an ice age in the 70s". What your source fails to do is look at what science said in 70s versus the media.
[GT]
Comment reinstated. Poster clarified their intent (which would have been preferable from the start) -
Climate Noob at 11:18 AM on 21 September 2016Climate inertia
Hi friends, I'm a noob when it comes to climate science, but I know enough to challenge "deniers" 99% of the time. Recently I was talking with someone and they mentioned ECS, which I never heard of until now. This is the only page I can find with ECS. Based on talks with them, the overall argument is that "there are credible scientists who debate the ECS values. The IPCC best guess is around 3.2, but 'Deniers' see the ECS as being significantly lower than 3.2. Likely 2.0 or under."
It seems this person is claiming that whether AGW is dangerous or not, depends on this value, and this value is what credible skeptics are debating against. I received this message from him and I cannot seem to find info to verify/reject what it asserts:
(begin message)
ECS science from what I know comes from 3 sources. Paleoclimatology, Modelling and observations. Observations seems to provide the lower end results, the others higher.ECS is basic physics of 1.1 and feedbacks which are estimated to be 0.4 to 3.4. The most important feedback is water vapor.
This basic information has been the same for 60 years. So a low ECS has been around from the start and still persists.
One link about low ECS is Link they provided to Judith Curry
Your point about time is correct. Projections are based on 2 inputs. ECS and RCPs (CO2 estimations) Much of the new articles assume high for RCP (8.5), but that is extremely improbable.
Correct about IPCC's estimation and the rationale for supporting it. However, observations are significantly lower than model means. It is hard to justify this after so long, and the divergence is getting worse not better (depending on data sets). This, plus failed basic tests of the hypothesis are the evidence deniers have. This evidence suggests that nature is playing a bigger role than most people think.
Failed tests
- lack of tropical hotspot, expected from warming
- no warming in the antarctic (both poles should warm a lot more than other places)
(You can find all sorts of rebuttal material, but the facts are pretty basic, these are traits that will happen is a warming world..... unless nature can overcome it).
(end message)
Any help on analyzing this, or sources to help a noob like me understand what it's all about and how to verify its claimes is much appreciated.
During our discussions, I couldn't shake the feeling that there was something deceptive about this, so I want to learn more to make sure I'm not being taken for a ride.Moderator Response:[TD] Regarding the "tropic hotspot," see "There's no tropospheric hotspot." After reading the Intermediate tabbed pane, you might want to read the Advanced one.
Regarding Antarctic warming, see "Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming."
There is a lot on SkS about ECS, but here is a recent one: "Climate sensitivity is unlikely to be less than 2C, say scientists."
[PS] You might also like to consider that to prove science wrong, you have to show observations contradict a projection that the science actually made. You might think Antarctica is "basic" but science doesnt. Please cite published predictions of equal warming. Ditto for your expectations of surface warming. Dont trust what deniers tell you about what science predicts - check it yourself.
-
ubrew12 at 10:14 AM on 21 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
martin@6: from your paper: "Our planet has become increasingly warm since the Industrial Revolution because of the increased GHG emissions... [but this]... rate... has slowed... in recent years... this hiatus is very likely a result of the occurrence of more La Niña events after 1992." La Nina just means Earth is being more effective in pumping excess heat into her oceans. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the excess heat 'go away' (1st law of thermo). This graph shows that the IPCC climate models do, in some sense, expect this since 1992 (obviously with a little help from Pinatubo). Again, the heat doesn't disappear: it may reappear Not as 'warming' but as 'melting' (of polar ice sheets). If it does, I hardly think you will welcome the distinction.
-
New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
martin @6 quick reply: the journal is "Scientific Reports", not "Nature". Your #1 and #2 statements do not appear to be supported by the paper.
-
martin3818 at 23:04 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Only slightly off-topic: A new paper published in Nature by Song, Wang and Tang shows that
- There has been a warming hiatus since 1992
- CO2 has had only an imperceptible effect on global warming
Perhaps some comments from the experts?
Moderator Response:[PS] Have you actually read the paper? I cant see anything in the conclusions that challenge the consensus opinion - rather it reinforces it. Perhaps you could quote the sections that you think constitutes an issue.
-
Ogemaniac at 21:56 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
CO2 may or may not be "plant food" depending on the circumstances, but it it certainly is a "people poison". More and more evidence is gathering that indicates that CO2 has meaningful negative physiological effects at real-world levels. I am not sure why the climate hawk crowd is not making more hay out of studies like this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/
While more work and analysis needs to be done, my gut feeling is that these effects are on a similar order of magnitude in terms of cost to society as climate change and ocean acidification. We are effectly slowly smothering ourselves in "stuffy" air, and feeling like crap because of it. However, we don't notice the change because it is so gradual and we may just be assigning it to getting old.
-
RedBaron at 21:38 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Most importantly from the study, "Of 54 annual plant
taxa in the JRGCE, 81% are nonnative to California, including
all of the annual grasses; of 20 perennial taxa, 55% are native,
including all perennial grass species except one. All of the plant
species have the C3 photosynthesis pathway"You might miss this if you didn't know that as a rule perennial C4 grasses are your warm season grasses and perennial C3 grasses are your cool season grasses. No C4 species means of course warmer temps will have a more negative effect. That mix of non native C3 annuals filling the niche where C4 perennials should be present is a symptom of a very unhealthy grassland that will continue to degrade even worse under AGW.
Seems the study came to the right conclusion that "it's more complicated that that" but for the wrong reasons because they really haven't understood very basic things about a grassland's complexity!
All in all when science reaches a good conclusion but for the wrong reasons, it is junk science. This because it really doesn't inform us, add to our knowledge, or effectively predict anything.
-
ubrew12 at 21:34 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
At first, the 'carbon dioxide is plant food' argument seemed nonsensical to me. I first ran across it with the infamous 'Oregon Petition'. That's the one where 30,000 'scientists' claim CC is not a big deal because 'carbon dioxide is plant food'. It seemed to me that something is a big deal if it buries Florida, so why the unusual comfort at the greening of an already green planet? I finally realized what was going on: deniers think that those of us worried about CC are 'greenies', that is, tree-huggers. They think we live in a Tee-Pee, commune with nature, and make beaded ornaments to sell at Farmers Markets where we buy our non-GMO, organic food. Seen this way, its actually kind of cute: they are trying to 'meet us halfway' at where their propaganda insists we live: barefoot in a jungle or forest smoking pipe-weed with Gandalf.
-
scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
Um, if you look at the Stanford paper, it seems to me that they did extend the growing season (look at the winter temps) and still got lower yields. This is 17 years worth of data covering the entire year.
The above study is only for California grasslands but in terms of yield per acre, warmer winters are only going to be relevant to crops with multiple yields per season. Personally (ie I dont have a paper to back my uninformed opinion), I suspect impacts from hydrological cycle changes will dwarf effects of temperature and CO2 for many areas of the world.
-
Art Vandelay at 13:56 PM on 20 September 2016New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
I seem to recall that 25-28C is the optimum range for photosynthesis, so it makes sense that yeilds decrease at higher temperatrures above 30C.
Obviously, sunlight is essential for photosynthesis but I wonder to what extent the warmer winters will offset lower yeilds - by extending the growing season. This is something that isn't apparently adressed in the study.
-
nigelj at 11:06 AM on 19 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Michael Sweet @18, yes people in America seem very anti tax, although the congress seem more opposed to tax than the population at large. There seems this strange divergence of views betweeen the population and republican congress in particular.
I have never had this visceral dislike of taxation, although obviously I don't want astronomical taxes either. I come from a small country and it's hard to provide sufficient services without taxation, because the private sector is just small.
It's amazing the euphemisms people ahve to use to describe a tax. I partly agree with your dumping fee analogy and its quite a good way to promote a carbon tax, however strictly speaking the idea is to stop the dumping completely rather than charge for it, and use the dividend for good works, presumably climate related.
My ideal preference is that we should require companies to leave fossil fuels in the ground or firmly regulate these companies and other emitters. Of course this is probably not politically sellable, so it leaves carbon taxes or an ets.
A carbon tax just seems the most practical option.
Another thing about emissions trading schemes. In theory these market driven schemes should encourage innovative solutions, but markets are notoriously slow to respond to price signals and change behaviour. I'm not sure we have the luxury of a slow system like this given the current global warming situation. A carbon tax combined with some selective regulation may provide faster results.
-
michael sweet at 10:26 AM on 19 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Nigelj,
Sometimes people use the term "fee and dividend" instead of "tax" because so many people in the USA oppose any tax. These two terms are equivalent (as long as the tax is accompanied by a dividend). There is a fee at the dump to leave your trash, why shouldn't there be a fee to dump your trash in the atmosphere?
-
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 19 September 2016Humidity is falling
Specific humidity is increasing, relative humidity is expected to be approximately constant. The processes are somewhat complex however and are discussed in considerable detail with measurements in sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 of the AR5 WG1.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 19 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Tom Curtis @16,
I agree public perceptions are important. The public may see a carbon tax as easy enough to understand, and reasonably transparent and upfront. They may see an ETS as complicated and involving some sort of rort by the corporate sector.
It’s interesting as my initial reaction was that a carbon tax might be unpopular as people are wary of new taxes, and that an ETS may be more publicly acceptable as its a market mechanism. Things often don’t turn out as expected.
However I still see other more practical problems with an ETS. An ETS relies on trust, that companies have reduced emissions, met obligations, and forests are in fact planted. All this requires complex monitoring by government. A carbon tax is right upfront. Use of fossil fuels either decreases or it doesn’t. It all just seems easier to verify, or at least in a way that is easy for the public to comprehend.
Of course an ETS could in theory lead to carbon sequestration rather than reducing fossil fuels. The scheme is kind of market driven and we cannot fully predict the ultimate solution or direction, only guess it. However I ‘m a born sceptic of market mechanisms ( I declare a bias there) and it just seems to me the obvious goal has to be to reduce fossil fuel use as directly as possible.
However I’m not opposed to either scheme in principle, and the devil is in the detail of either approach.
-
Marty Weirick at 23:39 PM on 18 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
Congratulations, John. Seems to me you are stepping into the lion's den. I can't think of anyone better to help tame the deniers.
Best Wishes and have Great Success.
Marty Weirick
-
michael sweet at 23:00 PM on 18 September 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38
The front page headline (on-line, I do not receive a hard copy) in the Los Angeles Times (one of the biggest newspapers in the USA) today was Trump's climate science denial clashes with reality of rising seas in Florida. (link to article ) On-line it was accompanied by a large picture of a street in Florida submerged by high tide. The article said that the biggest tides of the year are always in the fall. Perhaps Trump will be required to explain the flooding.
Headlines like this can only mean time for the deniers is running out. We must hope that Trump does not get elected to continue the farce for four more years.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thnk you for highlighting the LA Times article. I will post a link to it on the SkS Facebook page today.
-
BilB at 20:57 PM on 18 September 2016Climate change doubled the chances of Louisiana heavy rains, scientists warn
I think that statements such as
"Understanding all the ways we humans are altering the weather is important"
....are missleading because they imply that understanding climate change is complicated, when it is in fact quite simple. The experience of climate is complicated, but why it is changing is very straight forward.
There is one dirty little secret that cliamate science takes for granted, but form the dozens of people that I have asked no-one else knows. And they don't know this because they generally don't need to know, and because it is counter intuitive. I frame this in the question, " which is heavier, moist air or dry air?" Invariably the answer is "Well Moist air of course".
My doctor was the first to get it right off the cuff but a geologist friend took the damp appraoch, and I only discovered this fact a while ago.
Climate scientists please step in here if I have actually got this all wrong.
So what is going on. It is beyond dispute that CO2 is retaining back scatter radiation and the retained energy is largely going into our oceans which are slowly warming. This warming of the ocean surface and the drying of land is increasing the moisture content of the air near the surface.
That is the Global Warming part of the process.
The Climate Change is what happens next. We all grew up knowing that warm air rises to form clouds, which it does. But what we were not taught is that moist air rises also. In fact the density difference between moist air with 10% moisture and dry air at the same temperature is 4%. It takes 35 deg C temperature difference in dry air for their to be a 10% difference in the density. So a body of warm very moist air has two causes to make it begin to rise to form a rain storm. There is nothing new about humid air, what is different in our lifetimes is the amount of moisture available to drive storms once they form, and where these bodies of moist air are forming and the volume of rain they create over short periods of time. That is the first part of the climate change effect, the second is in the amount of air that is being driven around by these increased energy flows, and that is the second part we experience as climate change in the form of weather.
Science must focus on the complexity of the process of climate, but the rest of us simply need to know the fundamental principle which is that more heat means more moisture which means more atmospheric circulation which means more intense rain, more wind, more heat and for a time more cold.
The two primary mechanisms are CO2 absorbs back scatter radiation and re-emits it, and moist air rises.
I puzzled for a long time over why Low pressure systems (rising air) would form in Arctic regions, the knowledge that moist air rises answers that.
So I argue that understanding Global Warming and Climate Change should not be shrouded in technical mystery, when it is in fact the product of several straight forward robust physical principles.
-
wili at 20:36 PM on 18 September 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38
Thanks, again, for these. There is a typo in the title: "Blame Global Warming for Your Bad Attixtude"
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you, "Eagle Eye." :)
-
Art Vandelay at 13:59 PM on 18 September 2016BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly
Tom Curtis @18, "Ergo the requirement to be impartial does not supercede the requirement to by truthful and accurate."
News isn't the same thing as an editorial, which is a considered opinion. Shukman's corresponsence article (as linked by Dana) is a news story, not an editorial, so if he's reporting as news what someone has said then he's definitely not obligated to pass judgement, and indeed it would be in violation of BBC standards to do so.
4.4.12
News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.
There is however plenty of scope to fully scrutinise Trump's views on climate and coal etc through editorials, so I don't personally see this as an obstacle to the preservation of truth and dissemination of facts.
-
juanmarch at 13:32 PM on 18 September 2016Humidity is falling
My understanding is that specific (or absolute? I always get those confused) humidity is increasing. Because this would neccessarily capture heat, the atmosphere should warm — thereby increasing its capacity to absorb water. This increase in capacity would result in a lower measurement of relative humidity. You can see then how an H2O positive feedback loop would operate, even in the absence of CO2. I don't personally have any instruments to measure it! The prediction would be rising temperatures, rising absolute (or specific? U guys figure it out) humidity and decreasing relative humity as the planet goes to hell.
-
denisaf at 12:42 PM on 18 September 2016Climate change doubled the chances of Louisiana heavy rains, scientists warn
This study just adds to the understanding that irreversible climate disruption and ocean acidification and warming is under way. Sea level rise, more frequent storms, floods and droughts are just some of the predicaments that societies from farmers to urban dwellers will have to try to deal with as the available natural resources irrevocably decline. This will limit what engineers attempt to do.
-
william5331 at 11:50 AM on 18 September 2016Climate change doubled the chances of Louisiana heavy rains, scientists warn
So the question is what to do about it. We are unlikely to reduce our carbon dioxide output any time soon and even if we achieved zero C tomorrow, there is some more warming in the pipe line. Some measures that come to mind are:
1/ Legislate against the construction of any more buildings within, say, 10 meters vertical elevation above sea level.
2/ Begin to put houses below this level on pilings or similar to get them above the flood zone.
3/ Make sure there are beavers in every possible stream in Florida.
4/ Get the army core of engineers out of the mississippi catchment and tear down levis which protect farm land upstream. The Mississippi must be allowed to flood its flood plane and it must be able to start depositing silt where it originally did.
5/ Plant and protect mangroves everywhere possible. Floods from the sea will begin to be more and more common and when combined with a dump of fresh water, will have huge effects.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 18 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
nigelj @15, the link you provide at the end is indeed informative. Thanks.
With regard to governments not operating in good faith, as appears to be the case with the NZ government, and is definitely the case with the Australian government - no policy is immune to being sabotaged by such a government. As a result, I don't think that is a consideration. Rather, we must see which policy operates best when practised in good faith, and which can secure the most public support in order to make it politically costly to sabotage it. I believe carbon taxes are an easier sell in that regard than emission trading schemes; so in political reality I expect carbon tax regimes to be more frequent in the future than ETS schemes.
-
nigelj at 09:44 AM on 18 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
Tom Curtis @14
Thank's for that very detailed reply. It does clarify some things although I just didn't expect such detail and its appreciated.
I do broadly understand how the ETS works with permits etc. As I said the idea makes lots of sense in theory and a textbook. Its the application in the real world that seems less convincing. However a carbon tax would have some challenges as well.
I think the problem is also partly my countries specific version of an ETS. There have been free allocations, unfortunately, and the government doesn't like using income generated as subsidies. I hear what you say about not needing subsidies in an ideal world, but surely its obvious governments should subsidise recharging stations for electric cars?
Our government also wants all reliance to be put on the ETS and generally opposes add on"measures" or regulations, with a few small exceptions. I agree with the regulatory measures in your final paragraphs, but our government has ruled those out, unfortunately. They have even let a coal fired plant stay in use for no compelling reason.
However my gut feeling (not very scientific I know) is that its easier for governments to produce a weak ETS than a weak carbon tax! I just think the ETS idea smells a bit wrong, when it comes to trying to make it work in the "real world".
The following link gives an interesting, balanced comparison of carbon taxes and ETS schemes. You will be aware of all this and certainly better than me, but other readers may be interested.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade
-
Tom Curtis at 08:22 AM on 18 September 2016BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly
Art vandelay @16, the requirement to be impartial is not to be found in the BBC Charter. Rather it is to be found in the editorial standards, which state, in part:
"1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts."
Ergo the requirement to be impartial does not supercede the requirement to by truthful and accurate. Nor do they even conflict, given that to be impartial means to be unswayed by partisan positions, not to have a position intermediate between whatever partisan positions are dominating the current discourse.
Given that, and given the clear contradiction between Trump's position and the science, Trump's position cannot be truthfully and accurately described unless the clearly relevant fact that it is in clear contradiction of the science is also mentioned. Nor would it be partisan to do so. The requirement is to state the facts regardless of whether or not they are helpful or harmful to the positions of particular parties. To not state the facts because they would be harmful to the position of a particular party is in fact not to be impartial, but to become partisan by default.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:12 AM on 18 September 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
C Sheen @157:
1) The TSI is 1370 W/m^2, not 1370 Watts.
2) The formula for the volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3, not 4/3*pi*r^2.
3) That means the units of TSI/volume/volume (which is your purported formula) is W/m^2/m^3/m^3 which is W/m^8, ie, not the formula for power density at all. Ergo your formula is in error, and the near coincidence between the purported value of your formula (385 W/m^8) and the surface upward IR flux (390 W/m^2) is coincidental and irrelevant. It provides no evidentiary support for your strange physics at all.
4) Further, even were we dividing the solar flux by the volume of two spheres, the formula would not be Solar Flux/Volume1/Volume2 but Solar Flux/(Volume1+Volume2). Preserving your other assumptions that would have a value of 513.75 W/m^5, not 770.625 W/m^8 as is given by your formula. That value is, of course, coincidental to nothing of any note relating to surface flux, so your conclusion that your formula delivers a result "...is in line with observations" is entirely the result of the use of the wrong formula, even if we ignore the disparity of units.
5) The only way to make the units to come out correctly is if we assume that you are determining the power density for a column, with a cross section of 1 meter squared at the solar zenith angle, and that the relevant volume is that of two spheres having a radius equal to (1/pi)^(1/3), or approx 0.683 meters. That radius is necessary for the volume to come out as being 4/3 m^3. Even so you will have used the wrong formula as per (4) above. Given this assumption,
a) Your formula is for the column at solar zenith angle only, and in not way represents the power density of insolation over the sunlit half of the atmosphere, let alone the entire atmosphere;
b) The volume of two spheres of radius 0.683 meters does not equal the volume of a column of atmosphere 1 m^3, and so is entirely unmotivated, and irrelevant to the value you purport to calculate; and
c) You entirely neglect the impact of the albedo of the atmosphere including high cloud.
6) Were we, despite all these flaws, actually motivated to calculate the power density of insolation in the atmosphere, the relevant volume would be the volume of a sphere with the radius of the Earth plus the height of the atmosphere minus the volume of a sphere with the radius of the Earth. Your two sphere approach is entirely wrong (as should have been evident by now in any event). Further the insolation would be 1370 W/m^2 times the area of a circle with the radius of the Earth.
Given that no climate scientist in the history of the science including several of the founders of the theory of thermodynamics has considered this approach, however, and that you have made such a dogs breakfast of attempting to do so, I see no reason to consider the approach further.
Contrary to the moderator, I see no reason why we should wish onto Science of Doom the refutation of a discussion so jam packed with fundamental errors of geometry.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
John Hartz at 03:12 AM on 18 September 2016BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly
Art Vandelay:
Pronouncements of psuedo-science poppycock by climate science deniers does not constitute news!
-
Art Vandelay at 23:37 PM on 17 September 2016BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly
In fairness to BBC, what needs to be considered is that the BBC is constrained by charter to present news with impartiality, and the examples above by Dana181 all appear to be in compliance with the charter. The BBC is not offering 'opinion' here but rather is presenting 'news'.
If Dana is arguing that the BBC should be an arbiter or censor of news, it would likely be in violation of the charter.
-
C.Sheen at 22:16 PM on 17 September 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
https://scienceofdoom.com/156. Tom Curtis at 07:01 AM on 25 July, 2016
You are right, it is correct to divide by four for an approximation of earth temperature as a blackbody. If one uses the irradiation combined with albedo, you get a correct energy balance.
That´s how we calculate what a body radiates to space. But I agree with fake reality that it should not be used as a surface temperature for solid mass. It is the temperature that a blackbody had when it is totally isentropic, the same temperature throughout it´s whole body, It should also be absorbing and emitting all radiation at it´s surface, which would be at the top of the atmosphere, or the point where 1370W-albedo is the mean flux.
Since we are dealing with a sphere, and it is only irradiated on half the surface area, and we know that convection and conduction dominates the surface exchange, we should use radiant energy density instead. It has the units J/m^3 and for a sphere we get that by dividing the fluxdensity with 4/3pi*r^2 instead of 4pi*r^2. It is done for all volumes in contact via surfaces, so for the earth surface it is done twice, once for the atmosphere and once for the solid surface.
In wikipedia we can read:This article is about energy per unit volume.
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or mass, though the latter is more accurately termed specific energy. Often only the useful or extractable energy is measured, which is to say that chemically inaccessible energy such as rest mass energy is ignored.[1] In cosmological and other general relativistic contexts, however, the energy densities considered are those that correspond to the elements of the stress–energy tensor and therefore do include mass energy as well as energy densities associated with the pressures described in the next paragraph.
Energy per unit volume has the same physical units as pressure, and in many circumstances is a synonym: for example, the energy density of a magnetic field may be expressed as (and behaves as) a physical pressure, and the energy required to compress a compressed gas a little more may be determined by multiplying the difference between the gas pressure and the external pressure by the change in volume. In short, pressure is a measure of the enthalpy per unit volume of a system. A pressure gradient has a potential to perform work on the surroundings by converting enthalpy until equilibrium is reached."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
When circumstances is that the energy exchange is dominated by conduction and convection at a surface, this is the preferred way to address the energycontent of the solid surface, which is the cause of the surface temperature.When dividing 1370W by 4/3 two times we get an absorbed amount of 770W/m^3. Like I pointed out earlier, earth only gets energy on half the surface, we need to distribute the energy absorbed to twice the volume of the sphere. That can be done in several ways, but dividing by two works good. Half the surfacemass is excited to a level equal to the mean total surface mass constantly. 2m^3 will radiate what is absorbed in 1m^3. That gives us 385W/m^3 radiated through 1m^2. Which is in line with observations.
Then we can find out what earth radiate to it´s outer shell from dividing by four, then we get the atmospheric window of 96W/m^2.
The effective temperature, the energy balance, is then 342W/m^2 for TOA-radiation. And the balance for the surface and atmosphere is 256W/m^2. The TOA-temperature we get from substracting 256W/m^2 from 385W/m^2, which becomes 128W/m^2. This is all done with simple geometry and such a simple solution seems to be correct. Especially considering what my wiki-link says, that it can be connected easily to pressure, magnetic field, enhtalpy etc. as well as W/m^2 and Kelvin. It accounts for mass, volume and the relative energy.
It seems that weather and climate are only products of geometrical functions and solar radiation.
I think your model of radiation, energy and the earth is lacking quite a bit.Moderator Response:[DB] For those wishing to do so, one can also delve into the nitty-gritty details of the mathematics of the physics and chemistry of climate change at the website, The Science of Doom.
-
BBHY at 21:55 PM on 17 September 2016BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly
Personally, I would be fairly happy if they just made this one simple change:
" It releases carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming because it readily absorbs infrared heat energy."
That way the reader does't just write-off the statement as, oh well, some blame CO2 and some don't. The reader understands immediately that there is an established physical link between CO2 and heat. If it absorbs heat, then even the most casual reader can see right away that it is entirely reasonable to expect CO2 to cause warming.
It also makes the reader question; if it absorbs heat then why does Trump think it doesn't cause warming? It puts the doubt on Trump's (and the other deniers) position, since they offer no explaination as why something that absorbs heat would not have the obvious effect of causing heating.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:34 PM on 17 September 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Richard @18:
1) In the words of the IPCC AR5:
"Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated. Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely1 be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to
4.8°C (RCP8.5)."So, the projection is for the average over the two final decades of the century, and depends on assumptions about future changes in forcings. For the scenario which has the best claim to be a BAU scenario (RCP 8.5) the projected temperature increase is 2.6 to 4.8 C, but depending no how robustly we reduce emissions it may be a lot less than that.
2) David Archer has said that as a rule of thumb, ""The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever." The processes are illustrated by this graphic showing the draw down from the addition of a large quantity of CO2 in one pulse:
(Source)
The "few centuries" is represented by the blue shaded portion of the graph, after which comes the long, slow drawn down (extending to about a million years or so to get rid of the last few ppmv increase). The 25% is a rough figure, and depends on how much we emit in total. The greater the amount the greater that value, with a full fledged BAU scenario pushing the value up closer to a third.
3) If we eliminate all anthropogenic emissions, the slow increase of temperature to equilibrium approximately matches in pace the slow draw down in CO2 concentration, with the consequences that temperatures remain approximately at the value to which they had risen when you eliminated all emissions. This is an approximate projection, with mismatches in the paces possibly resulting in small fluctuations on either side of that, and overall uncertatinty meaning it may be a slow rise or slow fall overall. This has been shown in simulations (to anwer your fifth question), but I cannot remember the relevant links at the moment, for which I apologize. Your question (4) also appears redundant.
-
Richard13791 at 14:51 PM on 17 September 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
I am brand new to this site.
Here are some observations from the current literature, as I understand them, and questions:1. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2100 by from 1.1 to 5.4 deg C. (Is this accurate?)
2. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere it stays there for a long time (How long?), and presumably continues to contribute to rising temperatures while it is there.
3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?
4. Are my statements/assumptions accurate?
5. Has anyone run the simulation I describe in (3)?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 17 September 2016The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
nigelj @12, your desciption of an ETS is foreign to my experience. As I understand it, in an ETS a government sets a value for the maximum permitted emissions in its territory over a certain period. Permits to emit up to that amount are then auctioned of to the public, being mostly bought by major emitters such as power stations, cement works and the like.
The revenue from the auction is then available to the government for whatever purposes it desires. These should include compensation to low income earners and subsidies of renewables, but in a properly designed scheme, such subsidies are redundant if not counterproductive. Consequently, ideally the revenue will be returned to the population on an equal per capita basis, or a floor plus pro rata on taxable income basis (or some other reasonable, equitable basis). It should not be used for general revenue, as by design the take of am ETS (or carbon tax) will fall to zero within a few decades; and using the income from it as general revenue will build future deficits and probably reduction of services into the budget.
The advantages of an ETS over a Carbon Tax are that companies that can more cheaply reduce their emissions will bid less for emission permits, and buy less permits. That keeps down the cost of emission permits for those for whom the shift is more expensive, so the total economic cost (in reduced GDP growth) for a given reduction in emissions will be less for the ETS than for a Carbon Tax. In addition, an ETS makes it easier to coordinate emission reduction policies internationally than does a Carbon Tax as noted above. The advantages of a Carbon Tax are conceptual simplicity and ease of implimentation, although you still need to document emissions to tax them, so the advantage of a Carbon Tax in that regard is not as large as is often claimed.
In both instances, revenue to the government can potentially be reduced by buying carbon credits from companies or individuals who earn them by negative emissions. That can be avoided in a Carbon Tax by not allowing such credits, but that then means there is no economic advantage in sequestering carbon. In the case of an ETS, the credits generated in this form are more likely to be used to allow more positive emissions by pairing them with negative emissions, thereby maintaining net emissions at the government prescribed level. In Australia's briefly existing scheme, companies making emissions without emission credits from some source were forced to purchase them by law (which transaction because it was mandatory and on a short term, would probably result in a price premium). The credits thus purchased were either subtracted from future total allowable annual emissions, or offset by credits from sequestration from other sources.
I notice that the NZ ETS has an all free allocation, which is bad policy IMO. That requires that allocation to industry be done on the basis of past emissions, and/or bureaucratic decisions, with neither basis likely to be economically efficient. The only way to do an all free allocation is if it is done to all residents on an equal per capita basis; but even then, that requires all residents to become knowledgeable about the emissions market to be efficient (a big ask, IMO).
With regard to subsidies for renewables, in a mature ETS or Carbon Tax system, they are at best redundant, and more likely counterproductive. Any ETS or Carbon Tax should be introduced at a low pricing point (for an ETS that means total credits issued close to current emissions), and then ramped up gradually to minimize economic disruption. Renewable energy subsidies should phased out durring that process such that they are eliminated when the ETS or Carbon Tax imposes a price close to current best estimates of the social cost of carbon.
I agree, however, that further regulation in addition to the ETS or Carbon Tax is desirable. Specifically, the building of new coal fired power stations, and the expansion and/or refitting of new ones should be prohibited unless the employ (or are refitted to employ) CCS that reduces their CO2 emissions per unit energy to the direct CO2 emissions per unit energy of Natural Gas powered plants. Further, the development of new, or expansion of existing coal mines should also be prohibited. Non-conventional oil and gas fields should also be subject to the same limits unless the newly developed fields sequester sufficient carbon to bring total fuel lifetime emissions down to those of conventional natural gas.
Just the burning of currently commercially available coal will put us well past the 2 C limit, and the burning of all currently available and likely exploitable conventional oil and gas reserves will leave us well under. Therefore the regulations above provide a usefull backup to the ETS at minimal economic cost.
Prev 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 Next
