Recent Comments

Prev  488  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  Next

Comments 24751 to 24800:

24751. sidd at 13:30 PM on 7 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       doi:10.1038/nature17174 indicates 8 Pg CO2 eq./yr soil sequestration is possible as compared to global anthro CO2 emission of 35Pg/yr . That last figure does not include noncondensing GHG other than CO2, while the first does.
24752. tonychachere at 12:28 PM on 7 April 2016
       The similarities between Trump support and climate denial
       

       Since when did being an "old, white, male" become a perjorative, and why?  It totally precludes any validity an OWM might have based on experience and education.  Why is it okay to even bring it up?  
       
       I assume I fall into the OWM category.  How dare anyone label me becauseof that?  Does the opposite label "young, black, female" automatically imply the opposite?

24753. Mal Adapted at 12:21 PM on 7 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis@54

       I am pointing out that a neologism is based on an historically inaccurate account of what actually happened to commons in England, and probably much of Europe in such a way that the historical tragedy of the commons which resulted in the impoverishment and deaths of 100s of thousands of people over several centuries is concealed, and worse, repeated under the rubric of avoiding the "tragedy of the commons".

       Tom, I'm not disputing the historical facts of enclosure, nor the injustice of its impacts on the land-poor agrarian classes who lost their traditional shared pasturage. What I'm disputing is this:

       In current usage, the term "tragedy of the commons" is used to justify the seizure of customary rights of access to land/and or fisherys and giving them a simple property rights to the wealthy. It is in fact, a modern enclosure movement. Nothing more, and nothing less.

       My point is that while Hardin's coinage of the phrase may very well have been intended to justify enclosure, "Tragedy of the Commons" entered the public domain at the time he published his explosive article in Science. It was immediately adopted by academic sub-disciplines of Ecology and Economics as a metaphor, that is, an abstraction of the economic and social forces (or lack thereof) that encourage individuals to maximize their exploitation of common-property resources for private benefit, at aggregate rates that lead to the destruction of the resource. I first encountered that usage of it as an undergraduate in the late 1970s, and frequently again in an MS program in Environmental Science in the early 1980s.

       In the term of art, "commons" refers not just to shared pasturage but to commercial fish stocks, groundwater aquifers and even the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb "greenhouse" (another metaphor) gases without causing GMST to increase; and "tragedy" means "driven by forces beyond the control of the individual exploiters acting on their own", an allusion to the ancient Greek dramatic form of the tragoidea wherein the protagonists could only enact the fates ordained for them by the gods. 

       The examples from the refereed literature I provided were to show wide current usage of "TotC" as a term of academic art.  A few minutes with Google Scholar turns up hundreds more, but one in particular stood out for me.  My understanding is that you are Australian, but I presume you know of the US National Academy, whose members collectively represent the most rigorous scientific standards. The NAS publication The drama of the commons, edited by Ostrom et al., is free to download at the link. Its preface begins with:

       “The commons” has long been a pivotal idea in environmental studies, and the resources and institutions described by that term have long been recognized as central to many environmental problems, especially problems of global environmental change.

       That leads me to your assertion that:

       No amount of take up of the term, the 'tragedy of slavery', in fringe cases would justify the use of such a term so defined. It would be an insult to the millions of victims of slavery, but quite apart from that, the sloppiness of thought about its primary subject induced would be intolerable.

       Moral outrage at the historical injustice of enclosure is appropriate, but do you really presume to accuse the late Elinor Ostrom, who was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics for her work on ways that common property resources may be cooperatively managed by their stakeholders to avert tragedy (in the conventional meaning), of intolerable sloppiness of thought or of insulting the millions of victims of enclosure?

       If so, you presume much. Without getting into all the ways that your claims regarding "TotC" are like or unlike the claim that calling someone an "AGW-denier" is an insult to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust, I'll just point out that you don't own that phrase anymore than a notorious other Tom owns "denier".

24754. wili at 09:45 AM on 7 April 2016
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       

       Ljungqvist seesm to be up to variations on his old tricks again: in.news.yahoo.com/climate-forecasts-may-flawed-says-170007812.html

24755. mark bofill at 22:35 PM on 6 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis,

       I'm turning into a regular cheerleader over here.  Who'da thunk.

       I found your discussion with OPOF invaluable if for no other reason than it has allowed me to clearly differentiate your points of view.  I hope that your perspective is the dominant one among people on your side of the debate.

       Thanks also for the Bandura link, that was interesting.

24756. RedBaron at 15:49 PM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       You are dividing each into individual parts. I am using examples. I don't claim it is needed to only do 1 crop. But agriculture in general is easily large enough. For example plugging in arable land that number above would sequester 256 Gt CO2, grasslands even much more, because the land area is much larger. Our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. About 40% of the land surface is in agriculture of some form or another, including nearly all the prime bits. Change the agricultural models to those that sequester carbon instead of a net carbon emissions source and we do both, reduce emissions, and drawdown what is already there. It is by far and away the largest proposed solution going right now at our current technology level......by far.

       But one would need to be very very serious about this. No fiddle farting around with only changing this or that. It would need to be done world wide. Completely change agriculture to regenerative systems, and even some wild ecosystem recovery projects as well. 

       But the scale most certainly is large enough, especially with what is already being done with solar etc... to reduce emissions.

24757. One Planet Only Forever at 13:17 PM on 6 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom,

       I would support whatever measures will actually advance humanity to a lasting better future for all. Helping those who would choose to pursue personal reward in ways that can be understood to be harmful to change their minds can be expected to require actions those people would consider unfair and unjustified limits on 'their freedom' or unjustified removal of what they consider to be their deserved personal gains. Hopefully they would not violently try to defend their position, but it is clear that some people are indoctrinated in the 'value of freedom to the point of violently defending the right to behave as they wish'.

       In addition to constantly creating damaging economic developments (because they are the more rewarding actions if they can be gotten away with), the competition to be the ones to benefit the most from the opportunities that must be fought over (because they are not sustainable activities) has clearly produced massive amounts of tragic suffering (for others, including bigger challenges for today's generation of humanity).

       As far as the specifics of what will need to happen, the recent exposure of the less unacceptable financial wheeling and dealing pursued by some among the global wealthy is a good step. If it results in one less place on this planet for unacceptable people to get away with what they can understand does not advance humanity to a lasting better future then change in the right direction has occurred. If Panama maintains its 'freedom' to make up rules that suit such people and prolong unsustainable damaging perceptions of prosperity for those types of undeserving people then humanity will continue to fail to advance.

       My return questions to you are: Do you understand that the belief that 'freedom of people to do as they please' has failed because some people can get away with unacceptable behaviour (behavour which is totally unacceptable for a person who is considered to be among the most fortunate, supposedly a leader)? And that it will continue to fail to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all unless such people are kept from personally succeeding in ways that are understood to be detrimental to the life circumstances others will face (which will require laws and penalties related to deliberately misleading political marketing like the laws already established regarding misleading commercial marketing)?

       I am all for freedom (and marketing), as long as it actually advances humanity to a lasting better future for all.

       Back to the climate change issue. It is clearly unacceptable for already very fortunate people to continue to be even more fortunate by prolonging their ability to win their bets on getting away with activity that is understood to create problems that others, especially future generations, will have to deal with.

       The most fortunate and the leaders of a current generation should be leading by example and living the way it is understood that future humanity will be able to enjoy living. That will motivate 'all of them, not just the responsibvle considerate ones' to actually strive to create legitimately sustainable better ways of living rather than claiming confidence that future generations will advance in spite of the added challenges thrown their way by the undeserving successes of the less responsible and less considerate.

       I am justifiably skeptical of the actual progress that will be made by humanity unless changes occur that make more of the most fortunate behave more considerately and responsibly. The ideal would be for every wealthy powerful person to be responsible and considerate. That would most rapidly advance humanity. Anything would be better than continuing the creation of 'temporary unsustainable appearances of prosperity for some' that are aspired to by others and are unjustifiably claimed to be legitimate advancements of humanity.

24758. Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       RedBaron @9, the only relevant section of your first link I can find states:

       "Well-managed grazing systems can cause dramatic improvements to soil quality from organic matter or soil carbon accumulation. This contrasts with row crops, especially such crops as corn silage that return little in the way of root or aboveground biomass to the soil. In the southeastern United States, converting tilled cropland back to grassland increased soil carbon about 3.5 percent per year for up to 40 years until a higher soil carbon stability level was reached (Conant et al. 2000). Owens and Hothem (2000) found higher levels of soil carbon in pastures than in no-till cropland on the same soil types after 20 years."

       There is no indication that I can see that pastures are no-till seeded with grains for cropping while continuing to be used as pastures in other seasons.  The paper cited regarding soil carbon for no-till cropping of corn (Owens and Hothem 2000) shows a decline of soil carbon content of 300 tonnes per km^3 over ten years from the base condition.  That is hardly convincing support for your case that soil carbon can be increased by pasture cropping of corn.  Indeed, it is no support as it does not discuss the case at all.

       For your second link, I could not find the link to the video itself, but the pdf of the planting and grazing guide shows the corn is planted to be grazed, not harvested.  From the "manual", it states that it is planted in rotation with alfalfa (lucerne), a C3 plant.  However, growing lucerne does not increase soil organic carbon in the same way that growing grass does.  Therefore I stand by my claim.  The no-till pasture cropping of grass and a grain will not work with corn; and it is only for the grass/grain case that you have evidence of significant increase in soil organic carbon.

       Further, even if I was wrong on that point, I included land given over to corn and other C4 cereals in my estimate above, so at worst, if I am wrong about the grain, my conclusion stands.

24759. RedBaron at 09:21 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       Tom,

       So you hypothesis is that this won't work for corn (maize). Have you tested that hypothesis? I have. You simply flip the c4 c3 backwards from the way you do wheat. Got the idea from this guy's USDA case study where he claims to be able to grow pretty much any  month, just a matter of timing and species. Now he grows it for forage. I let it mature. Same principle though.

       Profitable grazing based dairy systems.

       Sustainable 12 Aprils Dairy Grazing

       How much grain that is a net CO2 emissions source is grown to feed confinement dairies and feedlots? How much would it change the net balance if all of them were converted to either pasture cropping of even just grazing?

24760. Tom Curtis at 08:25 AM on 6 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Somewhat relevant to the discussion between OPOF and me:

24761. chriskoz at 08:14 AM on 6 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom@52,

       Now I have about clear undestanding of your points, thank you. I agree with lots of your observations, in particular I share your opinion that 'free market' as you defined it can in theory fix the AGW problem.

       Unfortunately, in practice, as of today, we are far away from that ideal model. Influence of FF interests is very strong. That influence is driven primarily by money because FF exploration is still one of the most profitable business activity (more  profitable are illegal activities such as selling illicit drugs) backed by strong political lobbying, therefore all politicians are biased or under strong pressure from the lobbyists. Ordinary citizens who vote those politicians into power, are also biased by such lobbying, "coal is good for humanity" campaigns, etc. The examples at all levels abound. E.g. the ignorance, willful or not, of current federal env minister Greg Hunt about climate science who sources his knowledge about climate change from Wikipedia rather than from the advice of many scientific bodies assigned to do so. E.g. Malcolm Turnball, who when became PM, changed his mind about the efficiency of carbon tax/emission trading policy that he used to back up few years back. Now be does not want to talk about it and continues an ineffective nonsense "direct action" policy of his predecessor. I can only guess because the party lines backed by strong FF lobbyists force him to do so. Finally, Annastacia Palaszczuk, QLD premier, agaisnt her acceptance of climate science and the problem of AGW that she strongly expressed during her campaign, approved the damaging mega-coalmine, while the result of it - degrfqadation of Great Barrier Reef, is happenning in her backyard. Such decision by Ms Palaszczuk can only be described as madness. The saddest aspectt of it is: the alternative premier at the election 1 year ago (Newmann) would've made the same decision even more light hearted because he denies climate science.

       My bottom line is: in current political situation, we don't have govs that are able to succesfully provide market correction required to fix the FF externalities. Would the political reforms you're proposing (e.g. essential elimination of political donations by corporations) fix that situation? I don't know how realistic such reforms are in the first place: this is not the area I've been researching.

       It can aslo be argued that the monetary value of FF externalities calculated by the economists will always be undervaluated. That's because they take into account the damage to the monetary goods and services to the human population only. They don't take into account non monetary environmental services such as biodiversity and the beauty of the environment. That's because a price cannot be put on it. Depending on your ethical stance, you can even argue, that a loss of many homo sapiens individuals (due to inevitable stress & ensuing wars such as the one currently in Syria) is of lesser importance than a loss of an endangered species with the resulting "hole" in previously occupied ecological niche. From the pure sustainability perspective, homo sapiens species, including all its racial heritage, is very safe, even its civilisation will survive in a coming strong stress of 2K+ of GW. Any losses can be reuilt quickly once the planet's climate is stabilised. However any species loss cannot be rebuilt. From that point of view, immediate and strong action is required: e.g. an authoritarian world gov, that would impose all regulations we've been discussing here, that have failed. Sadly, I must agree with you, that such imposition is less realistic than the slow free market evolution as you describe.

24762. Tom Curtis at 08:00 AM on 6 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       OPOF @55, you have avoided answering my question.  To make it more specific, if democratic countries refuse to impliment your tall poppy policy, what is the limit on actions you will take or recommend that others take to ensure that it becomes law?

24763. Tom Curtis at 07:51 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       RedBaron @6 pasture cropping is not suitable for Corn (maize).  Specifically, from your link it says:

       "The key to how pasture cropping works is the relationship between cool season (C3) plants and warm season (C4) plants—the difference being the number of carbon molecules and how they affect the process by which glucose is produced in a plant. C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, oats, and barley, grow early in the season and then become less active or go dormant as temperatures rise and light intensity increases. In contrast, C4 plants, such as corn, sorghum, sugarcane, and millet, remain dormant until temperatures become warm enough to switch on and begin growing.

       Pasture cropping utilizes the niche created by C3 and C4 plants. When a C4 is dormant (during winter), a C3 plant seed is sown by no-till drilling into the C4 pasture. With the onset of spring, the C3 plants begin to grow. If managed properly, plus the right amount of rain, the C3 crop can be harvested before the C4 plants begin the vigorous part of their growth cycle. The removal of the C3 crop will then stimulate C4 plant growth (due to reduced competition). The mix of shallow- and deep-rooted plants also access water resources in the soil differently, which can reduce competition and increase overall productivity."

       Corn, as a C4 plant, will remain dormant and grow at the same time as the grasses in the pasture, thereby eliminating the advantage of pasture cropping.  Nor will the process necessarilly be advantagious in all croplands.  Differences in rainfall periods, and annual temperature cycles may well make the method unsuitable.

       Even so, applying that value to the total land area under cerial production (including C4 cereals, so an obvious overestimate) yields the capacity to sequester 3 years of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  A useful contribution, but not a genuine replacement to more standard carbon sequestration schemes if they become necessary.

24764. Tom Curtis at 07:28 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       dklyer @5:

       "Isn’t it true that if we capture all the CO2 we produce and compress it to a liquid, we would fill Lake Erie in 6 years?"

       Close enough.

       Taking the density of liquid CO2 at 30^oC (598 kg/m³), the volume of Lake Erie (480 Km³, or 480 x 109 m³), and 2014 combined emissions of 40 GtCO2 per annum, it would take 7.18 years to fill Lake Erie.

       A figure of 6 years may be accurate if we include BAU increases of emissions over coming years.

24765. RedBaron at 07:16 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       Biochar (Terra preta) is one way but by no means the only way to store carbon in the soil.

       Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under

        

       "Jones calculates that 171 tons of CO2 per hectare has been sequestered to a depth of half a meter on Winona.

       Calculate that for all the wheat we produce.  Then calculate it again adding other crops like corn. The number will astonish you. Easily big enough. And istead of costly unproven technologies, it actually increases profits. Or maybe you have a problem with farmers making a profit?

24766. dklyer at 07:00 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       As I’m sure has been posted here somewhere, bio fuel capture where the bio fuel is converted to charcoal and the charcoal is turned into farm land, is something people have talked about. If you use the heat from the charcoal burning you are creating energy from the hydrogen and leaving the carbon to be sequestered or used as a soil amendment. Things like that are great but I don’t think they scale up well.

       The magnitude of the problem is staggering. Isn’t it true that if we capture all the CO2 we produce and compress it to a liquid, we would fill Lake Erie in 6 years? At the same time, liquid CO2 is a commercially viable product. Isn’t the firm that was supposed to be capturing carbon from Alberta being sued because they can’t deliver promised amounts to other firms?

       So CCS is a necessary part of the picture, just not one we seem to have made much progress on.

24767. RedBaron at 05:54 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       John,

       Anything to avoid storing the carbon in the soil where it belongs? Sorry but as important as CO2 sequestration is needed, why spend "massive" investments in unproven technologies when actually the soil needs the carbon, and it actually is profitable instead of costing massively?

       Who wants to spend massively to pump CO2 in caves when the majority of agricultural soils worldwide are in miserable shape and desperately need that carbon? Meanwhile spending even more massive subsidies to ensure we don't  make the changes needed to get this done.? Insanity.

       You wonder why some people scoff at climate scientists and deny everything they say? It's because of ridiculous expensive unproven mitigation proposals like that.

24768. John Hartz at 05:42 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       Supplemental reading:

       Carbon disposal technologies are needed because incremental emissions cuts are not enough to fight climate change, says Oxford University climate scientist.

       Massive carbon capture investment 'needed to slow global warming' by Fiona Harvey & Kylie Noble, Guardian, Apr 4, 2016

24769. Cooper13 at 03:37 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       SRM does virtually nothing to address the problem of ocean acidification (and actually could end up making that problem worse by justifying delayed actions on carbon emissions). 

       Ocean acidification may end up having a much worse impact on our global food supplies and food chains than warming of the globe.

24770. ranyl at 01:19 AM on 6 April 2016
       To meet the Paris climate goals, do we need to engineer the climate?
       

       Maybe we could settle Mars?

24771. RedBaron at 01:17 AM on 6 April 2016
       A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
       

       Tom BTW

       I just found this over at Real Climate. Might be an interesting read for you The early anthropocene hypothesis an update

24772. One Planet Only Forever at 11:37 AM on 5 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom,

       I will remain consistent about the need to measure acceptability by the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all. Than end is always justified (any other end is suspect).

       As for the means, I am fond of "Trickle-Down Ethics". Everyone at the top (in accumulated wealthy or leadership level) is the first group to be tested rigorously on deserving their high position based on it being proven they consistently have acted to develop better understanding and use that better understanding to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all. The people promoting the development or dissemination of misleading marketing that impedes the advancement of humanity would clearly fail the test.

       Anyone at the top failing to meet that high ethical standard needs to be brought down a notch.

       After the highest level is sorted out the ethical requirement would step down as well, so someone who didn't pass muster at the highest level is retested to determine if they have changed their ways.

       This would make everyone ina position of leadership more legitimate, because they would understand that they have no other choice.

       I understand there would be powerful resistance to this, but everyone who resists would sort of know they are setting themselves up for being taken down a notch.

       By the way, this is a business-minded approach to the issue. Any business that does not measure the behaviour of their highest levels to the highest level risks not having a future.

24773. chriskoz at 10:51 AM on 5 April 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #14
       

       Very good article in smh about the "silence" of the media about climate change:

       Tony Abbott's harmful legacy lives on in climate silence

       I fear whatever baby steps Obama has taken in his term (EPA regulations) will be ruined if any republican replaces him, just like Abbott ruined the carbon tax step introduced by Labor in Australia in 2012. Denial persits despite more than obvious symptoms, like bad health of GBR.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thank you for the heads-up. I am posting a link to the article on the SkS Facebook page today.

24774. Bob Loblaw at 10:45 AM on 5 April 2016
       The similarities between Trump support and climate denial
       

       Before I was half way through this story, I was also thinking of Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. I second the recommendation, although it is a long read. Many useful examples, and also download and read the supplements.

       For those that want to know more, the link to the web page is http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

24775. tcflood at 10:37 AM on 5 April 2016
       The similarities between Trump support and climate denial
       

       This is a nice post.

       Opposition to a carbon tax by economic libertarians is not too mysterious if you just consider that *any* government intervention that adversely affects their bottom line is anathema, and any selective tax is, of course, government intervention. (Those that are not true purists (which it seems to me is most of them) don’t seem to mind government subsidies for themselves or taxes on competitors.) A carbon tax, as far as I can tell, is a free-market mechanism only to those who want a carbon tax.

       Free-market-ism seems to attract true believers as fanatical as any I‘ve seen in any fundamentalist religious sect.

24776. Tom Curtis at 08:44 AM on 5 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Mal Adapted @53:

       1)  First, my objection to Hardin's use of the term "Tragedy of the Commons" is not comparable to denier objections to the term 'denier' as applied to them.  To begin with, the term 'denier' has been an attested part of the English language since 1532 (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  The AGW deniers have taken an ancient English word formed by standard construction rules from an even more ancient word in common usage that describes what they do, and insisted that henceforth its meaning be radically contracted to apply uniquely to a particular group.

       In contrast, I am pointing out that a neologism is based on an historically inaccurate account of what actually happened to commons in England, and probably much of Europe in such a way that the historical tragedy of the commons which resulted in the impoverishment and deaths of 100s of thousands of people over several centuries is concealed, and worse, repeated under the rubric of avoiding the "tragedy of the commons".

       I would similarly object to a neologism of the "tragedy of slavery" whose primary rhetorical use was the justification of capturing people and, against their will, shipping them to a foreign nation where they and their children were forced by torture and the threat of death into bonded, uncompensated labour.

       No amount of take up of the term, the 'tragedy of slavery', in fringe cases would justify the use of such a term so defined.  It would be an insult to the millions of victims of slavery, but quite apart from that, the sloppiness of thought about its primary subject induced would be intolerable.

       Similarly, an approach to the modern commons that does not proceed by first identifying customary rights of usage, and preserving them as far as possible (thereby forcing the customary users into poverty) should not be accepted, but the economic analysis of the commons under the rubric "the tragedy of the commons" encourages just such an approach.

       2)  In your first example of the use of "the tragedy of the commons" by an ecologist, that by Berger-Tal et al, they get the use wrong even by Hardin's sense.  In Hardin's sense, the 'tragedy of the commons' involves over exploitation of a resource due to common ownership.  Berger-Tal et al write:

       "Competition reduced the amount of time the gerbils spent foraging, as well as foraging efficiency since part of the foragers' attention was directed toward detecting competitors (apparent predation risk). Single gerbils harvested significantly more food than the combined efforts of two gerbils foraging together. Competition reduced the success of both individuals within a pair by more than 50%, making this a case of the tragedy of the commons where each individual's investment in competition reduces the success of all individuals within the group, including its own."

       As competition here leads to more than a 50% reduction in foraging for each member of a competing pair, the resource is actually exploited less than it would be with just one gerbil present, and hence no competition.

       Because the term has been used incorrectly in this article, it decreases the clarity of reasoning in the article.  That is a good argument for not using the term rather than for retaining it.

       As an aside, it is not even clear that the gerbil foraging pattern represents a prisoner's dilemma as it may be the case that if one gerbil attempted to forage without interfering with the other, it would gain more sustenance than the gerbil attempting to interfere.

       Unfortunately the other examples you provide are behind paywalls, so I cannot comment on whether this misuse of the term (in Hardin's sense) is widespread in ecology.

24777. dklyer at 01:10 AM on 5 April 2016
       The similarities between Trump support and climate denial
       

       It is enlightening to read a free on line book 'The Authroitarians' by Bob Altemeyer. It was written in 2006. Altemeyer is a psychologist. Psychologists have been studying authoritarian followers for some time. The idea is that people who desire power will always arise but they cannot realize their ambition unless they gather a following. Authoritarian followers tend to believe their idol regardless of whether what their idol says makes any sense or is easily refuted. Altemeyer has an authoritarian scale or index, applied from pschological testing. Conservatives score high on the authoritarian scale. Tea party members score particularily high on the scale and his web site has a comment on tea party members. I'd recommend spending a little time with Bob. It will help explain the Trump phenomenon.

24778. Mal Adapted at 11:35 AM on 4 April 2016
       Six burning questions for climate science to answer post-Paris
       

       TomR:

       Burning biofuels for energy would hurt food production as it already is with corn ethanol, and soy and palm oil diesel.

       Not necessarily.  Biofuels from algae could be produced in offshore marine facilities with tight recycling of nutrients, and careful management of wastes.  Of course, there are lots of wrong ways to to it, too.

24779. Mal Adapted at 09:52 AM on 4 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis:

       In current usage, the term "tragedy of the commons" is used to justify the seizure of customary rights of access to land/and or fisherys and giving them a simple property rights to the wealthy. It is in fact, a modern enclosure movement. Nothing more, and nothing less.

       Your assertion that "Tragedy of the Commons" is "nothing more, and nothing less" than a justification for a modern enclosure movement is equivalent to the insistence by some AGW-deniers that "denier" must always imply "holocaust-denier": just because some self-interested parties have co-opted a term for their own rhetorical purposes, no one is obligated to abandon other well-established usages.  While the example Hardin chose in his original paper may be problematic (Hardin later said his biggest mistake was in not calling it "the tragedy of the unmanaged commons"), as a metaphor "Tragedy of the Commons" is too broadly useful to be reflexively proscribed as a trigger phrase.

       And in fact, TotC is in current usage in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, as well as in Environmental Studies, as an evocative term for real phenomena.  For an example from Biology, see Everybody loses: intraspecific competition induces tragedy of the commons in Allenby's gerbils in Ecology the flagship journal of the Ecological Society of America.  From the abstract:

       Interference competition may lead to a tragedy of the commons in which individuals driven by self-interest reduce the fitness of the entire group.

       Applications to Environmental issues abound, see Tragedy of the Commons?, a Special Issue of Science; or The drama of the commons, edited by Ostrom et al.  From the abstract to the latter:

       The "tragedy of the commons" is a central concept in human ecology and the study of the environment...

       But drama is always there. That is why we have chosen to call this book The Drama of the Commons— because the commons entails history, comedy, and tragedy.

       Your mileage may vary, Tom, but if "tragedy of the commons" was a good enough phrase for Ostrom it's good enough for me.

24780. Tom Curtis at 09:42 AM on 4 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       chriskoz @51, my comments about the 'free market' @41 were supposed to be read in light of my discussion @20 where I give a mored comprehensive list of the assumptions of a 'free market'.  Specifically:

       A 'free market' "requires:

       1. No coercion, including no coercion resulting from the pressure to make trade on disadvantaged terms due to declining economic circumstances;
       2. Perfect knowledge of the outcomes;
       3. Perfect competition, in the sense that anybody making a trade has at the time of the trade an infinite number of alternate trades with marginally different properties in respect to all aspects of the trade; and
       4. No negative externalities."

       To that I should add

            5. No transaction costs

       for completeness, a point I mentioned in my discussion @41.

       While it may be possible to reduce any one of these factors effectively to zero at a given time, it is not possible to do so with all of them.  Successful government regulations, including the examples you provide, do not "come meet that ideal model" of a 'free market' except imperfectly, but they can do so far better than an unregulated market in many cases.

       Nor is the market problem with regard to GHG totally unique as you indicate.  Ozone and acid rain had negative externalities that extended beyond national borders, and in both cases the negative effects were more strongly experienced by nations that contributed less to the problem (your point 1).  With ozone there has been (and was expected to be) a substantial delay between the implimentation of a solution and an actual responce of that system in terms of a reduced ozone hole (your point 2).  And both the responses to to ozone and acid rain required regulating, and hence adding significant costs to, major components of the economy (your point 3).  You are, however, correct to point to those difficulties, for they are far more intense with regard to the response to global warming then to anything that has gone before.

       This does not mean a response based on how the unregulated market of fossil fuels fails to be a 'free market' of energy is not appropriate.  Those failures are specifically, a failure of knowledge of outcomes (2), and a failure to price and compensate for negative externalities (4).  To that we should improve our knowledge of expected outcomes (IPCC process), and communicate it (SkS and others), and price the externalities in a way that results in compensation for those that experience the negative effects (4).  That strongly suggests the correct policy response is a global cap and trade scheme operated between nations, with national permits proportional to population, and the earnings from the cap and trade scheme used for mitigation and adaption programs.  However, as we wish to minimize transaction costs (5), the majority of the earnings should be returned as a dividend to the population.  Further, to minimize transaction costs we may be required to fall back to a carbon tax regime on a national basis.

       None of this is new, and none of it depends uniquely on my political views or analysis of the 'free market' (and nor have I claimed it does).

       Further, I cannot disagree with your pessimistic analysis of the problems securing meaningful international agreement.  There are reasons for optimism based on the rapid development of renewable energy technology, and that fact that many nations are implimenting significant (if not yet adequate) policies to tackle global warming.  But I would agree the odds of the world cooperating sufficiently to keep the global temperature rise below 2 C above the preindustrial average currently look slim.

       The question is what should we do about it.  My view is that we should do all that we can do within the constraints of constitutional and democratic measures.  I even agree that we should push for significant reform in national and international governance.  However, we should only do the later on its own merits.  Tying the reforms to the response to AGW, IMO, hurts both causes rhetorically - loosing potential allies for both while feeding into a counter narrative about AGW science and policy.  Thus, in any democratic nation I think that reforms should be implemented such that:

       1)  Donations to political parties and/or political advertisements can only be made by citizens (which should exclude corporate donations);

       2)  Donations above 10% of the mode of weekly income in the nation should not be anonymous; and

       3)  Donations above 20% of the mode of weekly income should preclude the donator from being the recipient of government contracts, or special funding other than standard welfare measures.

       Such a measure would help implement policy on global warming by breaking the power of fossil fuel companies by donations to legislatures.  Giving that as the reason for the measures, however, would greatly reduce or prevent likely support from right wing political groups (which are not themselves fronts for corporate money).

       Further, within democratic nations, resort to non-democratic and non-constitutional means would tend to break down civil society leading to substantial suffering and possibly civil war.  Doing it internationally will lead to either a refusal of cooperation or outright war.  In either case it is ineffective, and potentially brings on the worst harm that is a probable consequence of low level global warming. 

24781. Kiwiiano at 05:00 AM on 4 April 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #14
       

       "A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week."

       The link just loops around back to this page, not to Facebook.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link fixed. Thanks for bring this to our attention.

24782. barry1487 at 22:34 PM on 3 April 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       Tsk, reading that back it's so garbled. I wish I'd been drunk when I wrote it so I'd have some kind of excuse. Now with added clarity...

       Transient sensitivity is the response of a modeled climate system to a doubling of CO2 at the time of doubling,  with a 1% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations year to year. Expressed as the resulting change in global surface temperature, the estimated Transient Climate Response (TCR) value is 1.8 C for a doubling of CO2, at the time of doubling.

       Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is the response to forcing after the system has equlibrated, which can take several decades. A GCM may be be run with a starting climate that is steady, and then the atmospheric CO2 content in the model is doubled instantly. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is expressed as the resulting change in surface temperature after the system has equilibrated. This is the canonical 3 C per doubling CO2.

       Both sensitivity estimates are useful for different applications. TCR is a more proximate estimate for 'real time' snapshots of climate response to forcing. ECS estimates include the feedbacks that take longer to play out (several decades at least).

24783. chriskoz at 19:40 PM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom@41,

       I understand your points better now, thanks for the clarification.

       As you mention, your 'free market' is "an idealized but never realized condition that is defined by, among other conditions, the lack of negative externalities". Then, in practice: "a key role of government is to regulate the market so that it more closely approximates to a 'free market'".

       It would seem that practice can come meet that ideal model. Examples of successful gov regulations from the past, such as against CFC emisions and SO2 emissions, eliminated externalities of ozone hole & acid rains.

       However, AGW is a unique type of problem, never encountered before, on at least three grounds:

       1) its international character and its unequal consequences. I mean fossil fuels burned in one (predominantly Western) countries, result in largest and most unsuitable climate changes in other (predominantly african, low island) countries.

       2) its length of time to develop: the climate consequences we experience today are results of coal burning by our fathers, what we burn today will influence the climate of our children

       3) the economies of almost all countries so dependent on FF energy, that any action to curb FF usage, taken by those countires, would result (as they say) in their economy slowdown, and being overtaken by the neighbouring countries.

       Due to 1), the model of CO2 externalities at intrernational scale, is not as simple as your 'prisoners dilemma' model, or Hardin's TOC model. In fact PD model is not realistic at all here. Polluting countries who don't face the direst consequences of climate change (e.g. Canada re tar sand exploits) do not have the slightest incentive to take cooperative action unlike the players in your PD model.

       Due to 2) (and also partially due to 1), AGW problem is often seen as not an environmental but as inter-generational ethical problem. The govs rarely go try to go with their goals beyond dozen or so years. In fact gov lifecycles are 3-4 years in most democratic countries. To data, I don't know of any policies that would be taken with such long forsight as AGW policy demands.

       Due to 3) we have a virtual lockdown, that no county wants to engage in a binding agreement, for fear that their economy will be "ruined". Paris COP agreement is just a wishful thinking, nothing that anyone wants to take responsibility for.

       
       These are jusat examples, that your ideal 'free market', is currently unachievable in today's world. I cannot see how such market would create the forces/incentives able to overcome the perversive current trends to burn even more FF as of today.

24784. barry1487 at 19:23 PM on 3 April 2016
       Why is 2016 smashing heat records?
       

       TomR,

       The IPCC only used a Transient Climate Sensitivity of 1.8C instead of the more scientific estimate of 3.0C+

       
       Transient Climate Response is roughly the response to forcing at the present (it's more technical than that*, but this explanation will suffice to make the point). The value is currently around 1.8C as you said.

       Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is the response to forcing after the system has equlibrated to the forcing, which can take several decades. This is the canonical 3C per doubling CO2 you refer to.

       Policy makers are interested in short and long term response, which is one reason for the two values. TCR is also a handy metric for testing sensitivity against recent observations (eg, since 1850 or 1900 or more recently). Instrumental record is a little short to test ECS.

       * Transient sensitivity is the response of climate system to a doubling of CO2 at the time of doubling, assuming a 1% increase in atmos CO2 concentrations year to year. It ignores feedbacks that will happen after the time the climate system is measured for any change.

       Some GCMs are run with a steady starting climate state, and then 2X atmos CO2 is introduced immediately. Model is run to see the change from that large inititating pulse, equilibrating decades later. Equlibrium Climate Sensitivity is deduced from model response after equlibrium is reached. That kind of model can't be used to compare with observations for any given time inside the equilibrating process.

       Both sensitivity estimates are useful for different applications.

24785. Tom Curtis at 15:37 PM on 3 April 2016
       Great Barrier Reef is in good shape
       

       The Queensland Government has just approved the Carmichael Coal Mine.  As James Hansen has long pointed out, continuing mining of coal will push as well beyond the 2 C target.  On a related note, the Great Barrier Reef this year is suffering just its eigth ever mass coral bleaching, the first having been in 1981.  This is part of just the third global mass coral bleaching, the first having been in 1998.

       

       This is unquestionably the result of global warming.  The three global events have all occurred in years when Global Mean Surface Temperature has approximated 1 C above preindustrial levels, yet as a best case we will allow global temperatures to rise by another 0.5 C above that level, and the international target is another 1 C above that level.  To keep temperatures below 2 C we need to phase out the use of coal.   Phasing out the use of coal means approving no more coal fired power plants, and above all, no more coal mines.

       That means the Queensland Government have just, in effect, approved the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.  I ask that you, as I did earlier, contact the Queensland Premier to register your disgust at that short sighted decission.

24786. Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       OPOF @48, until you specify the limits you will not transcend in the pursuit of your goals, there is not point in conversation between us.  And if you will not specify those limits, you are as much an enemy of humanity as the Koch brothers.

       I will leave you with a thought:

       "So far is it not true that the means are justified by the ends, that rather ends are only ever justified by the means used to pursue them."

24787. mark bofill at 09:26 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom Curtis,

       
       When someone I disagree with strongly on an issue stands up for the civilized principles our country rests on that defend us all, I believe I incur the obligation to let that person know I agree with them, support them, and appreciate their effort in that regard.

       So, there you have it.  Thank you.

24788. One Planet Only Forever at 08:51 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom,

       You appear to be deliberately unable to grasp that I distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable attitudes and actions based on the evaluation of the simple rule 'does it advance or impede the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all'. I have been very clear that 'specific people' need to be targeted and for good reason. You have chosen to misunderstand and misrepresent that.

       As a final point of fact I will remind you that global wealth and global GDP and many other global preceptions of prosperity have grown faster than the global population and yet a significant percentage of humanity continues to suffer brutish short existences (not lives, just an existence). That is not because rich people are kept from helping others, it is because some will try to get as much personal reward as they can no matter what damage their actions can be shown to have created. Those are the people who can be identified and should be removed from positions of influence and wealth accumulation, until they change their minds and choose to behave better.

       By the way, there is plenty of evidence that most of the most horrific violence that is going on is due to fighting to get away with acquiring the most possible reward from known to be unsustainable and damaging actions. That violence would fade away if the specific type of people I am referring to could not succeed. Sure, they would still be angry mean-spirited people, but at least they could no longer be national leaders or significantly influencing leaders.

24789. Tom Curtis at 08:10 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       OPOF @46:

       1)  That future generations can deal with 2.5 C is (or should be) beyond question.  It will not lift the temperature of any area of the planet to unlivable conditions, nor for the majority of the planet will it lift temperature and climate levels beyond those are not already experienced and lived in today in some part of the world.  This is not a great comfort.  London becoming a new Manilla will not be a pleasant experience for the British.  But it means that 2.5 C is still in the realm of cost/benefit analysis in how we deal with it.

       Further, while costs will likely increment exponentially (or some near approximation), the cost differential we should be looking at is not the full cost of 2.5 C, but the cost difference between the Global Mean Surface Temperature we can no longer avoid, and 2.5 C.  As 1 C is no locked in, even if we end all net GHG emissions instantaneoudly, and 2 C is probably locked in for any realistic pathway to emissions reductions, the cost we should compare when choosing two strategies to achieve zero emissions is the difference between 2 C and (assuming that is the likely outcome for the democratic/constitutional approach) 2.5 C.  And abandoning the rule of law, and constitutional government is far to high a cost to achieve the cost differential between 2 and 2.5 C.

       2)  The analysis at point (1) above takes your program on its face value.  In fact, your program is disasterous in itself.  The biggest threat of global warming for small to medium increases in GMST (<7 C) will come from the threat of famine, of war, and of the break-down of civil society.  Your program makes all three certainties.  It is analogous to proposing the amputation of an arm with an infected wound on the hand because it may, if neglected, require the amputation of the arm.

       This is made very clear by your uses of such phrases as "making it clear that a rich and popular person can be declared to be absolutely unacceptable and need to be dealt with accordingly".  Granted you quote that phrase (from where?) but certainly appear to endorse it; but its implication is that all means to rid the world of "rich and popular" people are appropriate, including murder.  That is what 'absolutely unacceptable means".  Specifically it means that no condition can make their situation (or them, it is not clear) acceptable, which in turn means that at as a last resort, even murder can be resorted to to make sure that no person is both rich and popular.

       More generally, your program means eliminating the market economy which in turn means implimenting a command economy, with all of the corruption and inefficiency thereby implied.  It means as a matter of practical fact, the imposition of the command economy by force over much of the world (who will not accept it voluntarilly).  It means the institution of a secret police to maintain the forcibly emplaced government that will impliment the program.

       3)  I am glad in one way that I continued this conversation with you.  I have made a number of (to my mind) obvious inferences about the level of violence that your program will (and certainly may) require and you have not ojbected, nor placed any limit on what you would do to get rid of the "unacceptable people" that you "will not condone" (which apparently now includes me).  That refusal to place a limit, to reject the use of force, even of lethal force reveals your true colours to anybody interested.

       It also, to my mind, puts you beyond the pale of rational conversation. 

24790. Tom Curtis at 07:07 AM on 3 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       KR @69, it always stuns me when climate change deniers makes statements such as:

       "All the above is true and accepted by all, but embarrassingly, what has been
       forgotten is that radiation is but one method of transferring energy, the other two
       being conduction and convection, and it is principally using these processes that
       Earth heats its atmosphere."

       (From pjcarsons Chapter 1B, emphasis in original)

       That was a fair criticism of climate science prior to 1964.  In 1964, however, Manabe and Strickland published their landmark paper, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment.  We are less than a fortnight from the 52nd anniversary of the acceptance of that paper, and 3 month from the 52nd anniversary of its publication - so to say that climate science has "forgotten is that radiation is but one method of transferring energy" is to forget nearly all the history of climate science.  Manabe and Strickland used a specified, convection induced lapse rate, but certainly by 1981 models were determining the lapse rate by analyzing the combined radiative and convective energy flux.  Modern models also include latent heat, and have for decades.  All of that science is just scrubbed from the record for deniers, at best, because they are two lazy to read the actual science.

       From the earliest such analysis it was shown that the effect of convection was to cool the atmosphere relative to the temperature it would have been with radiative heat transfers alone:

          

       Thus while convection dominates in determing the thermal structure of the lower atmosphere (troposphere), it is untrue to say that "conduction and convection" are the principle means of heating the atmosphere.  

       PJCarson goes on to say:

       "Radiation does transfer energy by far the quickest – equilibrium is achieved in tiny fractions of a second – compared to convection and conduction which vary considerably depending on the circumstances. "

       Contrary to pjcarsons supposition convective equilibrium is achieved much more rapidly (within hours) than radiative equilibrium, which as can be seen above takes almost a year to achieve equilibrium.  That is why convection dominates the troposphere's thermal structure. 

       Of course, fundamentally, the greenhouse effect does not depend on how the thermal gradient in the atmosphere is established, only that it exist.

       In the end, that pjcarson and his like get the minor details wrong is immaterial.  The fundamental claim is what is extraordinary.  It is comparable to criticizing Newton's theory of gravity for not taking into account the inverse square law.

24791. One Planet Only Forever at 06:24 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom, on a separate point, your faith that future generations will be able to deal with the challenges of a 2.5 C increase is something I cannot share or condone.

       I have shared my opinion on this point many times. Common Sense says that is not acceptable for any already very fortunate person of this current generation to continue to obtain any additional personal benefit from the burning of fossil fuels.

       I understand the reluctance to 'making it clear that a rich and popular person can be declared to be absolutely unacceptable and need to be dealt with accordingly'. But there are no excuses for defending the ability of such people to continue to have influence. They need to become 'spectators unable to influence anything' until they choose to become decent particpants in the advancement of humanity.

       Until they are effectively kept from getting away with making bigger problems that decent peopel try to deal with the problems will continue to become unacceptably bigger, just like the current climate challenge is unacceptably bigger because of what some rich and powerful people were able to get away with through the past 30 years, and continue to be excused and allowed to make even bigger challenges that 'others will have to deal with'.

       Making problems others have to deal with is indeed an easier and potentially very popular way to develop personal perceptions of prosperity and success that are ultimately damaging and unsustainable (for those others who have no power to stop the challenge they will face that is being created by people who are confident, or at least declare, that the amount of trouble they are making is no big deal).

       1.5 C increase is achievable. It will be hard work. And some people will need to be very disappointed. But that is what leadership is all about, deciding who deserves to be disappointed and seeing to it that they are. Anyone in a position of social, political or business leaderhip who is unwilling to do that hard work deserves to become a spectator (even against their will or the will of their supporters, no matter what type of hooliganism they might potentially resort to).

24792. Tom Curtis at 06:09 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       OPOF @44:

       1)  While I agree that in the end the solution to climate change will devolve down to the actions of individuals, institutional settings (such as a carbon tax) can greatly influence those actions.  Further, peoples choices are such, as is illustrated by the variant of the prisoners dilemma you describe, that without those institutional settings, and without some measure of transparency of action, they will act in a way that is not in their own long term interest because it will give a slightly better outcome than if they act in the best interest of all while others default.

       2)  While I agree that greedy people acting in their own interests at the expense of others create a major problem, we are restricted in how we can ethically gain compliance to methods that strengthen democratic approaches including persuasion and regulation achieved by democratic (or at least constitutional) means.  People fighting wars, including civil wars, do not restrict CO2 emissions.  They have higher priorities.  And if we step outside democratic and constitutional means that is what we invite - particularly if we do so as external powers.

       3)  Further, "the by any means necessary" doctrine for resolving climate issues is counter productive.  Climate change deniers have implausibly cloaked themselves in a mantle as defenders of freedom.  The "by any means necessary" doctrine gives them rhetorical teeth for that charade, without which they would be revealed as defending naked self interest.  By not being emphatic defenders of democratic and constitutional means only, we feed the ranks of the tea partiers and other right wing groups opposed to action on climate change. Even where I not committed to the democratic and constitutional means only as a matter of principle, this would be sufficient for me to oppose your approach.

       4)  Within the strictures of democratic and constitutional means only, I am in favour of pushing for action on global warming as strongly as possible, both individual, in state/provincial and national regulations (including carbon prices) and through international agreements.

24793. KR at 04:43 AM on 3 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       I took a quick look at pjcarson2015's blog - in his screed on CO2 there is no mention of the lapse rate, the tropopause, 'top of the atmosphere', pressure, effective radiating altitude, etc. A word search of his 'Chapter 1' fails to find any of those terms. 

       As a result it's clear that pjcarson doesn't understand how increasing CO2 raises the altitude where emitted IR can escape, the altitude of effective emission to space, which due to the lapse rate means radiating from a cooler parcel of gas. This reduces the rate of radiation with respect to the ground temperature, requiring a warmer surface to balance energy flows - the very core of the radiative greenhouse effect. Failing to understand the basics, pjcarsons blog is simply D-K nonsense, and a waste of time and mental energy. 

       Pjcarson - educate yourself.  Until you learn some of the basics you have no chance of relevance. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You and other responder to pjcarson2015 are now skating on the thin ice of dogpiling, which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. 

       Since most of what pjcarson2015 has posted to date is unsubstantiated personal opinion, there is no need for more than one or two people to respond to his/her future posts.

24794. One Planet Only Forever at 01:42 AM on 3 April 2016
       Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
       

       Tom,

       The focus needs to be on individuals, not nations or even corporations. The trouble-makers need to be identified and be kept from success. And the measure of acceptability needs to be that “a person's attitude and resulting actions must not impeded the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this or any other planet”. That means surgically removing the appropriate people from positions of influence, including removing wealth from them if they would abuse that wealth to promote or prolong actions that impede the advancement of humanity. I do not care how it is accomplished. My point is that 'it must be accomplished'. I would be thrilled to see global freedom for all to do as they please as long as no trouble-maker gets away with spoiling things for everyone else.

       Interesting discussion about which Game Theory example best explains what is going on in global politics and economics related to climate change (and many other issues where damaging ultimately unsustainable activities develop popularity and profitability).

       The obvious answer is that, like any specialized field of science, each Game Theory is only evaluating a small part of the bigger picture. That detailed understanding of each part of the big picture is important, but it is the understanding of the much more complex integrated bigger picture that is needed.

       There actually is a Game Theory example that I learned about in my MBA course in the early 1980s that is quite relevant. I will describe the game, even if not exactly the way it was “officially presented by the game maker”, rather than try to find the proper name for it.
       - The participants are divided into 5 groups (an uneven number of sub-groups is important for the game to more clearly lead to understanding of the fundamental controllable human choice behaviour it is meant to identify).
       - The game is played through several rounds, with each round having discussion between the groups about how they plan to vote (Yes or No) followed by privately cast votes by each group that are then shared each round to determine how many points each team gets as a result of that round of private votes.
       - The points obtained by each group are structured in the following way and this is fully understood by all participants in the game at the start of the game: If all teams vote the same way then each team gets 25 points (125 total points); If one team votes different from the other 4 teams, that team gets 30 points and the other teams get 20 points (110 total points); If two teams vote one way and three the other way then the two teams each get 20 points and the three teams each get 15 points (85 total points).

       It is obvious to all participants that the best play of the game is for all teams to vote the same in every round. However, there is bound to be a competitor who sees an opportunity to 'win compared to the others' by being deceptive.

       Of course the point of the game is to show the potential appeal of getting a competitive advantage by being deliberately deceptive. The facilitator wraps up the session by pointing how the total points of all teams was far below the potential. They are also almost certain to be able to point out that the total number of points gotten by the team that 'won the most points' was invariably less than that team would have gotten if none of the teams had ever 'chosen to deliberately deceived the other teams'. And they can also have people connect with their 'new-found distrust of others' because of the game they were in.

       What the game cannot represent is the accumulating damage done by people who choose to pursue personal reward in ways that can be understood to not advance humanity. One of my favourite small scale examples of that behaviour is the driver who deliberately chooses to go as far up a line of 'other drivers who have politely accepted their position at the back of the line' then expects to be able to force their way into the line delaying everyone else that they passed - some I have talked to about this even try to defend that they 'must be let in because of a rule of the road' - they are referring to rules for merging traffic which do not apply to the case they try to defend. What they are really doing is preying on the polite helpfulness of most others to the detriment of all others, just like the competitive predator spoils the Game Theory example I have shared.

       That Game Theory example nicely highlights the real issue of the way that those among humanity who choose to try to get away with obtaining personal reward in ways they can understand are less acceptable, chosen actions that can be understood to not be part of the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all, actions that clearly only provide more personal reward for a person in their lifetime. That problem was very well described in the quote from the 1987 UN report “Our Common Future” that I shared in my comment @13.

       What that example Game and the astute observation of reality it highlights point out is that humanity is unlikely to be advanced by the total freedom of all people to do as they please (and certainly cannot be expected to be obtained by discussion that ends with what sounds like everyone understanding the problem and what is required collectively to address it), unless those who would choose to 'win unacceptably' are effectively kept from 'winning undeserving', even having them removed from positions of influence they got away with getting into.

       Some people will clearly need to have their ability to influence things restricted. And the current game based on popularity and profitability clearly fails to properly identify and effectively limit the trouble-makers who would choose to try to get away with actions that clearly cannot be part of the future of humanity and actions that would be impediments to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all.
       And other things I learned from my MBA education were:
       - misleading marketing can be a very powerful and damaging weapon.
       - case studies of truly ethical business success are very difficult to find (the ones getting away with behaving less acceptably are more likely to be the 'winners').

       Putting it all together it is clear that the way the US (and a few others) played the Kyoto game, 'refusing to reduce the global trade competitive benefit that could be gotten from continuing to keep costs down by burning massive amounts of coal and oil', was to the temporary advantage of the portion of humanity who benefited from that being gotten away with. It was the expected behaviour from the group that had also deliberately delayed reducing sulphur in diesel fuel to gain a global trade cost advantage while also keeping newer better diesel technology that needed the better fuel quality from 'gaining any traction within the US mass consumption economy'. I know that US total impacts are not as bad as they could have been, but that is because of the efforts of a portion of Americans who tried to behave better. One sad reality I am aware of is that even California is not a total leader in behaving better. They may lead in some areas but they also have some of the worst oil extraction processes still going on, hidden by the truly commendable efforts of others in California who strive to behave better.

       What is going on is easy to understand, as long as you understand that the only valid measure of acceptability is that 'an attitude or action will not impeded the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this or any other planet', and you are honestly skeptical of the belief that the freedom of all to do as they please will advance humanity to that better future.

24795. MA Rodger at 21:00 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       The publication date of pjcarson's latest efforts, his Chapter 1B, was April Fool's Day. If it had any other author, it would be treated as an April Fool wheeze. But for somebody who has exhibited such egregious stupidity as pjcarson, I feel this is for real.

       pjcrson's latest contribution to the blog-o-sphere turns on its head his previous assertion that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2 (but no AGW) and makes the following incredible pronouncements. (Excuse my while I stifle a guffaw.)

       (1) CO2 can only contribute to the usually accepted GHG effect of +33°C in proportion to its concentration within the atmosphere, that is 0.04% of it. (2) The thermal mass of air tells us that N2 & O2 are "the real Greenhouse molecules" . (3) "The size of Greenhouse heating (blanketing) is constant" and determined by the number of molecules within the atmosphere. So burning FF which converts O2 into CO2 has zero effect. (4) The greenhouse effect is constant over 100,000s of years and is "degrees less" than +33°C.

       All this remains off-topic on this thread. I do not see pjcarson clearing the bar suggested by Tom Curtis @68. Moderators please moderate away to restore the sanity.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.  Please, all participants, keep it clean.

24796. Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       I note that pjcarson having been comprehensively proved wrong on one lie (that I could not derive his simplistic equation) immediately launches another.  IMO, his latest comment, as many before it, contains no substantive argument and should be considered sloganeering only.  Given the absurd nature of his claims, and his repeated failure to present substantive argument in favour of his views, I further suggest a high bar be set to establish that he is not sloganeering.  

24797. RedBaron at 20:24 PM on 2 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       Ger,

       Don't confuse the active fraction with the stable fraction of soil carbon. Your claim that soil CO2 is at most 100years old and that it is in almost perfect balance is a bit simplistic and factually incorrect. Those stats you are addressing refer to the active fraction, not the stable fraction of soil carbon.

       The rest of your post is true  in so much as it does apply to the majority of agricultural systems today, but not necessarily so, because there are alternative agricultural systems that function with respect to the carbon and nitrogen cycles quite differently.

24798. pjcarson2015 at 20:20 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       And you spent all that time getting everything wrong!?

       My simple equation is correct, as shown such diverse atmospheres as Earth Venus and Mars. The equation simply shows how much energy is re-radiated from any planet’s surface to a point at a height h in its sky. It’s independent of sensors as it only deals with energy flows. Each satellite has different sensors.

       The dip is supposed by St P to represent an extra amount that CO2 can absorb (because it is “unsaturated”). But one can easily see, for a species such as CO2 that’s already absorbed all Earth’s re-radiated IR in its wavelength and then re-radiates it in all directions, that there must be a dip of at least 50% (because at least 50% is directed away from the satellite).

       Your analysis of the derivation of my equation fails. You worry about the Earth surface bending the wrong way, ie bends towards the satellite, however, from the satellite’s perspective, it makes no difference which way the surface bends as the area “cut out” from the sphere centred on the satellite is the same.

       I’d be interested in seeing what you get wrong with Chapter 1B newly on my site.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Multiple instances of sloganeering snipped.  Simply declaring a dog's tail to be a 5th leg does not make it so.  Similarly, handwaving away the explicit analysis of another that demonstrates your specific errors as being "wrong" without any subsequent analysis of your own to rebut it is also wrong and is sloganeering.
       
       Either step up, do the hard work and analysis to support your position, replete with citations to credible sources, or cede the point and move on.
       
       That is what an actual skeptic would do.

24799. Tom Curtis at 20:18 PM on 2 April 2016
       Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
       

       Correction to my post @65.

       I made an error in my spreadsheet that resulted in a significant error in calculating the ratio (planet sector area exposed to satellite) / (satellite-centred sphere area).  Correcting that error gives a correct value of approximately 0.214.  That is much greater than the incorrect value of 0.035 cited above, and means pjcarson's incorrect formula overstates the value by about 66%.

       In double checking the formula, I noticed that, counter-intuitively the ratio approaches 0.25 as you approach 0 Km altitude.  That is not a mistake, and is a consequence of the fact that the visible area of the surface approaches the shape of a circle (area = pi*r^2) rather than a sphere (area = 4*pi*r^2).  It does mean that pjcarson would probably prefer to state his ratio in terms of the area of the occluded part of the sphere with radius d centered on the satellite relative to the area of the full sphere.  So calculated, the value for the satellite bearing the airs instrument is approximatly 0.283.  Even thus reduced, pjcarson's formula overstates the value by about 26%.

24800. chriskoz at 20:14 PM on 2 April 2016
       Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change
       

       Tom & michael, thanks.

       Now I undesratand the red bars are CO2 "balance sheet" and they all add up to 0.

Prev  488  489  490  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  Next