Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 Next
Comments 25901 to 25950:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:12 AM on 10 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Just a brief note re the IPCC chart I showed @157, the indirect emissions shown are for heat and electricity only. That reduces total transport emissions to 7.007 GtCO2e per annum rather than the 7.1 indicated in the report - the difference no doubt coming from indirect emissions in manufacture (industry) and possibly other areas. Likewise, indirect emissions from transport and processing (20%, FAO 2013), and from LUC (9.2% according to FAO 2013) are not included. Further, emissions for feed (24.5%, FAO 2013) will be attributed to horticulture in the IPCC (though not shown seperately on the chart). That brings the FAO direct emissions down to 5 GtCO2eq/yr, compared to the 6.4 GtCO2eq/yr for total direct emissions from the agricultural sector according to the IPCC. The IPCC states:
"If all emission categories are disaggregated, both EDGAR and FAOSTAT agree that the largest emitting categories after enteric fermentation (32–40% of total agriculture emissions) are manure deposited on pasture (15%) and synthetic fertilizer (12%), both contributing to emissions from agricultural soils. Paddy rice cultivation (11%) is a major source of global CH4 emissions, which in 2010 were estimated to be 493–723 MtCO2eq/yr."
Combining the 36 (32-40)% from enteric fermentation with the 15% from manure leads to an estimate of 51% of direct agricultural emissions being from livestock, leading to a 3.3 GtCO2eq/yr estimate from the IPCC compared to the 5 GtCO2eq/yr equivalent estimate from FAO 2013. Unless I have made a major error in tracking down equivalencies, the FAO 2013 estimate is significantly higher - a surprising fact given that the IPCC 2013 is based primarilly on FAO statistics.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:23 AM on 10 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
ryland @156, a seminal paper is one that first expresses a key idea. There is nothing about being 'seminal' that guarantees geting the numbers right, particularly when the numbers can change through time. Despite this you quote the 2006 paper as indicating "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport". As it happens, the 2013 paper says:
"With emissions estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2 -eq per annum, representing 14.5 percent
of human-induced GHG emissions, the livestock sector plays an important role in climate change."(My emphasis)
As I have already shown, the 7.1 gigatonnes, at best, equals the transport sectors 7.1 gigatonnes including indirect emissions, and even that most favourable comparison to your argument double counts 1.4 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent transport emissions from the livestock sector. Further, that 14.5% is as clear cut as the 2006 18%, and clearly supercedes it. You ask why I ignore the 2006 values? Because they have been superceded. You, on the other hand, have no good reason for treating them as still current, but still want to do so.
It is also superceded by the IPCC AR5 WG 3 report, published concurrently with FAO 2013, which shows:
(Modified from AR5 WG 3 Figure TS.3)
That shows transport sector contributions to be 14.3% of emissions when indirect emissions are included. AFOLU includes emissions from agriculture, forestry and land use change, and as previously noted:
"Annual GHG emissions from agricultural production in 2000–2010 were estimated at 5.0–5.8 GtCO2eq/yr while annual GHG flux from land use and land-use change activities accounted for approximately 4.3–5.5 GtCO2eq/yr"
That means the entire agricultural sector generates 13.1% of human emissions (indirect emissions included). It should not need saying that if the entire agricultural sector emits 13.1% of human emissions (including indirect emissions), that portion of the agricultural sector which constitutes the livestock sector emits less. The difference between IPCC AR5 and FAO 2013 may be due to the difference in reference period (2000-2010 for the IPCC, 2005 for FAO 2013), but in that case use of the IPCC figures on transport, which share the 2000-2010 reference period, makes for a very inexact comparison. It is more likely due to the fact that the IPCC does not double count emissions from transport and LUC.
To recap, you used three references. The first has been superceded by the second, and therefore its figures are out of date and irrelevant, despite the reliance you place on them. The third is an absurd work which treats CO2 from respiration as emissions, and (apparently) uses different Global Warming Potentials for CH4 emitted from livestock to that which they use for other industries. I have comprehensively discussed the second, and only relevant reference that you cited; along with the equally relevant IPCC AR5.
Finally, a slightly bowdlerised definition of LMAO.
-
swampfoxh at 05:47 AM on 10 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Exxon is practicing the classic marketing philosophy of Playboy Magazine: bottle up your smut with an article written by a person generally respected by a large segment of the public (e.g. Ronald Reagan) and "nice people" will buy it with the justification that they must read Reagans' article while hiding their true motive to view the centerfold. Supporters for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exhibit this distinctly human behavioral trait: Trump makes his money off the moral weaknesses and compulsiveness of people who gamble, but his supporters point out that he, "sells real estate". Clinton's checkered past and present conduct is ignored because, "she is an intelligent and experienced woman". Playboy, Trump and Clinton are not too different from the Baptist Church deacon and pillar of the community who molests little girls in the sunday school restroom. Exxon shares these characteristics, as do countless numbers of persons and institutions around the world. Can AGU be condemned for pandering to Exxon while seeking scientific facts with which to conserve the planet, all the while knowing that Exxon is digging under their back fence? Sure they can. Instead of it being all about the money, it could be all about the morals.
-
swampfoxh at 04:59 AM on 10 January 2016Carbon Brief’s 15 numbers for 2015
This site states that "balanc(ing) greenhouse gas emissions and sinks is zero to you and me." But is it a zero we use to ignore the damage already caused or will be caused by the 400 ppmv world we now live in? 400 ppmv does not return the oceans to proper pH, unmelt the glaciers, bring back the multitudes of creature and plants already extinct, undo the peat fire in Indonesia, the drought in the midlatitudes, etc, etc, etc. Making it back to balance zero is not my idea of a desirable future for any living organism. ..especially we humans. What is your view?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:58 AM on 10 January 2016AGU’s Sharing Science is helping scientists talk to the rest of us
PaulG, for the purpose of ecosystem consideration, anything in the order of 5 million years without a major departure from a mean would be enough for me to consider equilibrium. There are longer periods in the record without major departures. I think you should substantiate your statement by first looking up what constitutes equilibrium when the term is used by climate science and then examining geological ages for periods that would be considered equilibrium. Did you do that? References?
If there isn't any, then I guess you may be right, although, from the human civilization point of view, the horizon of 2 to 5 thousand years is more relevant. Then again it's not because climate has changed naturally that it is not now changing because of human activity. To visualize the effect of what we're doing now, one should imagine the current volcanic activity on Earth, then multiply it by 100. Sure, it could happen naturally. If it did, would we be concerned?
-
Elmwood at 04:35 AM on 10 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
i brought this issue up at a GSA section meeting last year to someone at their booth, that it's inconsistent to on one hand support science and the conclusions of climate scientists concerning AGW and on the other take funds from a corporation that actively has undermined climate change solutions and science.
exxon name is mud up here and I wish people care but they largely don't, not even among many earth scientists. it's all about $$.
-
PaulG at 03:27 AM on 10 January 2016AGU’s Sharing Science is helping scientists talk to the rest of us
I'm not sure what you mean by GW denial. Most geologists I know would agree that either (1) the earth is warming, or (2) the earth is cooling, as it always has. Many do accept Option (1).
However, geologists are also familiar with earth's history. They have studied the evidence of past changes in earth's climate, and observed that often major climate change occurs quite rapidly. And drastic (by human standards) climate change is the norm, it is natural. Climate equilibrium has never existed.
-
RobH at 01:13 AM on 10 January 2016AGU’s Sharing Science is helping scientists talk to the rest of us
Geophysical Union? Whenever I meet a scientifically educated person that is in GW denial, he (always a he) turn out to be a geologist. This leaves me wondering what is going on with geologists. Any comment?
-
ryland at 21:35 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
No I don't think the 2006 report superseded the report of 2013. No idea what LMAO means. Perhaps if you had read what I wrote rather more carefully you might have noted I did refer to and quoted from FAO 2013. I wrote "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates emissions attributable to the livestock sector amount to 7.1 GtCO2e per annum. This includes emissions associated with activities along the value chain, including feed production, livestock production, slaughter, processing and retail; see FAO (2013)".
I also wrote The IPCC estimates direct emissions from global transport amounted to 7.0 GtCO2e in 2010; see IPCC (2014).
And perhaps the term "seminal" as applied to a paper or a report, is one with which you are not familiar. To dismiss the 2006 FAO as obsolete is to belittle its importance.in noting emissions by the livestock sector were greater than emissions from global transport.
I do regret that I did not use the term Livestock Sector rather than Livestock. I had assumed my use of the term Livestock would be taken as encompassing the totality of the sector. Clearly I was in error.
However, despite the shortcomings of my comment the fact remains that the livestock sector is responsible for a very significant part of total GHG emissions and I re-iterate I am surprised this was not overtly recognised by the economists. I have no more to say
-
Eclectic at 21:22 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Ryland, you are wrong to use the UN FAO's figures at face value ~ i.e. without relating the livestock sector GHG-generation's impact on the Global Warming process that we ( you and I ) are so rightly concerned about.
As Tom Curtis has pointed out, we must be careful to discount any double-counting of transport sector emissions of CO2 on the world scene.
Next, we must separate that margin of transport/infrastructure CO2 emission (relating to livestock) which is over-and-above what would otherwise have been generated in the comparative (hypothetical) world where every human is Vegan-vegetarian. I suspect (as you would also) that an "omnivore" world requires more transport & infrastructure, than would a purely vegetarian world society. But how big is that margin? I have not seen any analysis of that ~ yet it seems likely that such margin would be a minor fraction of the total emissions of CO2 deriving from fossil-carbon fuelling of that transport/infrastructure sector which feeds us humans. Yet it is only that margin which can be realistically counted against the livestock industry. And as we may expect, UN FAO has not quantified that margin of emissions.
We should also very largely discount the livestock GHG emissions ~ they certainly exist but are very nearly in a plateau and are not cumulative (unlike the fossil-fuel CO2 emission of transport etc.). The livestock emits "recycled" organic CO2, to which we should add the other GHG methane emission ~ which has a steady-state or plateau level because there is only minor alteration of total livestock numbers worldwide. Yes, there is some further deforestation-for-grazing, but again that has only limited scope to accumulate in the future before reaching a plateau level.
To summarize : the ongoing impact on global warming, from "total picture" livestock sector, is far from comparable to the impact of general world transport. The UN FAO figures are misleading, because they are taken out of context.
What hope for improvement in the future? As I mentioned in the other thread :- I reckon it will be very much easier to phase out carbon pollution from transport & agricultural machinery over coming decades, than it would be to change human dietary desires into the (almost) purely Vegan vegetarian.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:01 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
ryland @153, are you suggesting that I consider FAO 2006 to supercede FAO 2013 (which I in fact rellied upon) rather than the reverse? Or do obsolete references cease to be obsolete, in your opinion, if only they support your opinion more than the more up to date reference? LMAO
-
ryland at 19:42 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Tom Curtis You ignore the inital paper fron the UN FAO which states
Did you read the reference from the UN FAO which states “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport"? That seems fairly clear cut I'd have thought.
-
tmbtx at 19:35 PM on 9 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
David Sanger - we talk about forcing values of around 2-4 W/m^2. Wouldn't then putting the solar irradiance plot on a scale with that level of variation make sense?
-
Tom Curtis at 19:18 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
ryland @15, FAO 2013, the source of the Chatham House data, states:
"Feed production and processing, and enteric fermentation from ruminants are the two main sources of emissions, representing 45 and 39 percent of sector emissions, respectively.
Manure storage and processing represent 10 percent. The remainder is attributable to the processing and transportation of animal products.
Included in feed production, the expansion of pasture and feed crops into forests accounts for about 9 percent of the sector’s emissions.
Cutting across categories, the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply chains accounts for about 20 percent of sector emissions."
(My emphasis)
That makes it very clear that the emissions are not just direct emissions. Indeed, direct livestock emissions account for just 65% of total emissions by the FAO estimate, or 4.6 GtCO2e/annum. For comparison, the IPCC AR5 (WG 3 Chapter 11) reports 5-5.8 GtCO2e/annum for direct emissions from total agriculture, not just livestock.
That is significant because the comparison used is to direct transport emissions, ie, emissions from fuel use on the road (or rail etc). That is, it excludes the "...the indirect GHG emissions arising during the construction of infrastructure; manufacture of vehicles; and extraction, processing, and delivery of fuels." (IPCC AR5 WG 3, Chapter 8) That is, the inflated value for livestock emissions relative to transport emissions is only accomplished by not comparing direct emissions to direct emissions, but rather, by including 1.4 GtCO2eq/annum of transport emissions in the "livestock emissions", along with other indirect emissions while excluding indirect emissions from transport.
It follows that the best that you can claim, in an apples to apples comparison, is that livestock and transport have the same total emissions (direct plus indirect) emissions of 7.1 GtCO2eq/annum (see figure 8.1 of Chapter 8). Even that, however, double counts 1.4 GtCO2eq/annum of emissions from transport in the livestock sector (most of which from the transport of feed). So more properly we should compare the 5.7 GtCO2eq/annum from the livestock sector excluding transport to the 7.1 GtCO2eq/annum from direct and indirect transport costs.
With regard to your third reference, do you truly wish to relly on a non-peer reviewed paper that insists respired CO2 should be counted as an emission for GHG accounting? Or were you just adding that reference on for decoration?
-
ryland at 17:08 PM on 9 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
As suggested @6 I have posted to the appropriate thread giving references to support my comment @4. The post on that thread is @151
-
ryland at 17:03 PM on 9 January 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
This comment is posted in response to a comment from Moderator DB (@6) about a post (@4) I made to the thread “95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution"
I expressed surprise that the economists had not commented on agriculture and stated that livestock are responsible for a bigger share of total global GHG emissions than is the whole of global transport. The moderator’s comment was:
“This claim of yours is unsupported sloganeering and off-topic on this post:
"livestock are responsible for a bigger share of total global GHG emissions than is the whole of global transport".
If you wish to pursue that topic, bring credible evidence for your claims and present them on this thread."
The following addresses those comments from the moderator.
A report in 2006 (Livestocks Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options) from the UN Food and Agriculture Division stated inter alia:
“the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation. Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report also stated ““Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.” The reference is here
A report in December 2014 from Chatham House The Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs, reference here noted
• Greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector are estimated to account for 14.5 per cent of the global total, more than direct emissions from the transport sector.
In that report the following were referred to. 1 The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates emissions attributable to the livestock sector amount to 7.1 GtCO2e per annum. This includes emissions associated with activities along the value chain, including feed production, livestock production, slaughter, processing and retail; see FAO (2013). The IPCC estimates direct emissions from global transport amounted to 7.0 GtCO2e in 2010; see IPCC (2014).
More sensationally, the UK newspaper The Independent reported in November 2009 under the headline-"Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases" on a, non-peer reviewed, report from The World Watch Institute. This claimed that the UN figure of 18% of global emissions from livestock was a severe underestimate and that the true figure is 51%. The reference is here
There are other references supporting the comments I made but I trust those given will both suffice and be accepted as “credible”
Moderator Response:[GT] Cleaned up what appeared to be duplicated pastes in the comment.
-
jipspagoda at 13:42 PM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
wili,
which posters do you believe are "Agents of Exxon"
-
Big Oil at 13:35 PM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Too late. 415 ppm CO2 causes 3 to 4 C increase in temperature.
scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/
Global warming only became an issue in 1992 after the Cold War. By then it was too late. Too late. Too late.
Moderator Response:[GT]
Big Oil.Scattering so many comments over multiple threads so quickly isn't very helpful to the conversations. Each of your comments are reasonably on topic but perhaps confining yourself to one or two threads and elaborating a bit more might be more fruitful.
-
Big Oil at 13:32 PM on 9 January 2016Carbon Brief’s 15 numbers for 2015
The 1.5 C target might have been possible if global warming became in issue in the early 1900s. Only in 1992 after the Cold War did global warming become an issue. By then it was too late.
Moderator Response:[GT]
Big Oil.Scattering so many comments over multiple threads so quickly isn't very helpful to the conversations. Each of your comments are reasonably on topic but perhaps confining yourself to one or two threads and elaborating a bit more might be more fruitful.
-
Big Oil at 13:31 PM on 9 January 2016Carbon Brief’s 15 numbers for 2015
Too late. CO2 at 415 ppm causes 3 to 4 C increase in temperature.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/ -
Big Oil at 13:27 PM on 9 January 2016Why we need the next-to-impossible 1.5°C temperature target
Actually, back in the Pliocene CO2 reached 415 ppm and caused 3 to 4 C higher temperature.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/
-
Big Oil at 13:26 PM on 9 January 2016Why we need the next-to-impossible 1.5°C temperature target
Too late. Already passed 400 ppm. 3 C is locked in.
-
Big Oil at 13:19 PM on 9 January 2016Carbon Brief’s 15 numbers for 2015
Not a single signed the Paris agreement. It is a paper tiger.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:54 PM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
angusmac @17:
2a) The simplest climate effect of warm periods is to expand the Hadley Cells that exist on either side of the intertropical convergence zone. That has the effect of causing tropical wet conditions to expand poleward, but also for the arid regions on either side of the tropical region to also expand poleward. In European longitudes, that means nations bordering the mediterrainian become more arid. Much of the middle east including Peria/Iran would also become more arid. For Australia it means the southern states become more arid while the northern states become wetter. This is not a beneficial change.
Secondary effects can be more complicated. The MWP was associated with megadroughts In eastern Africa (around Kenya), the South Western United States, Peru, and Northern Europe:
The Northern European drought was complicated in that it was primarilly a reduction in summer rainfall, and was compensated for regions close to the Atlantic by increased winter rainfall. That may explain why slavic populations (far from the Atlantic, and therefore significantly impacted) were less able to resist germanic invaders, who durring the time of the MWP pushed into formerly slavic areas in what is now Poland. In either event, while the MWP was beneficial for germanic people in general, it was not beneficial for slavs.
In short, there is solid evidence that the MWP was not beneficial for a large number of people, across the world, while being beneficial for others. What does not exist is evidence tying together the sum of the effects. We don't know whether or not the gains of the germanic people outweighed the losses of the slavs and italians. Nor do we know whether gains by american plains indians compensated or exceeded the losses by the pueblo dwelling indians of what is now the SW USA. And nobody has integrated the effect globally. I doubt the information to do so exists.
In short, your insistence that we know the MWP was beneficial amounts to an insistence either that only germanic people and their descendants matter (they being the only ones of which we can say this with confidence) or a fairly blind faith beneficial effects for those germanic peoples were universal.
2b) With regard to the CO2 fertilization effect, logically if it is beneficial (as seems likely), then the temperature which is most beneficial from Global Mean Surface Temperature alone will be less than the temperature which is most beneficial given GMST plus the CO2 fertilization effect. The later is probably somewhere between 0.8 and 1.1 C above the preindustrial average for our current civilization. The figure will differ with different technologies and population distributions. If the CO2 fertilization effect is significant, that implies the ideal temperature for current populations and technologies absent the CO2 fertilization effect has already been exceeded, and my have been exceeded early in the 20th century.
1) First, choosing as a baseline the most recent period prior to major rapid human climate influence is not arbitrary. It is certainly not a cherry pick. It fixes a useful baseline without the question of the absolute peak of benefit from warming needing to be determined.
In contrast, your baseline requires the unproven assumption that MWP warmth was net beneficial for humans, and the dubious assumption that without anthropogenic influence current temperatures would be equivalent to MWP temperatures (the mid-century solar maximum has gone, which together with recent volcanism suggests natural forcings would be back at early 20th century values) to justify it. Of course, you give away the real justification when you write "this does not sound nearly as bad as 2 °C".
In response to your final question, we are 1.095 C above the baseline used above, and probabily 1.3 C above the preindustrial baseline. That puts us 0.905 C below the guideline used above, but probably 0.7 C below the 2 C above preindustrial guideline. Adopting your convention, we would be 0.764 C above the baseline, and 0.905 C below the guideline used above, but probably 0.7 C below the preindustrial guideline. The current twelve month running average is more than 1 C over the baseline used above.
-
denisaf at 11:26 AM on 9 January 2016Why we need the next-to-impossible 1.5°C temperature target
Reducing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions means closing down many of the current high emitters and providing sound alternatives. This can only be a slow process for practical reasons regardless of the policies adopted by governments. And carbon capture and storage systems can, at best, only slow down the global rate of emissions slightly.
There should be more focus on measures to cope with the irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming that is under way. Proposed amelioration measures can only slow down the unintended deleterious consequences of using fossil fuels to provide energy to power technolgical systesm.
-
angusmac at 08:17 AM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Tom@12
3) Thank you for supplying the reference. I only looked at the references at the end of the Huang et al paper, not in-text. I also agree that land-only temperatures have greater variation than land-ocean but this does not change the logic of my post.
2) I disagree that MWP was beneficial is a "statement of faith" – it is my perception that it is well-documented history.
I am an avid reader of history and this shows that, since the last ice age, warm periods have usually been beneficial to the human race and cold periods are usually accompanied by crop failures and famine. Indeed, civilization occurred during the Climatic Optimum shown in Figure 2 (Kaufman et al, 2013) in my response to the Moderator@13.
I make no comment on post-1980 CO2 fertilisation effects, I neither mentioned this subject nor alluded to it.
1) Regarding pedantry, if people wish to use a pre-industrial temperature of 1750 and thus ignore warmer times in the past then they are entitled to their opinion. However, this ignores the fact that temperatures similar to the 1961-1990 mean did occur in the past without any documented dangerous effects on humanity. Consequently, “dangerous” should be measured from this or a similar baseline and not a very low period in the temperature history.
My opinion is that the 1750 baseline is arbitrary and is akin to cherry picking as stated in my response to Eclectic@14 regarding the Dark Ages temperature minimum.Referring to your adjustment to the guideline of “1.669 °C” above the 1961-1990 mean, this does not sound nearly as bad as 2 °C. Additionally, does this adjustment mean that we are currently ≈ 0.67 °C above the guideline and not ≈ 1 °C ?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:08 AM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Angusmac... I think the faulty point of your thinking is assuming that current global mean temperature today would be similar to the MWP without the assistance of man-made CO2. But when researchers have attempted to estimate what would have happened without human forcings they come up with results that show the climate would likely have slightly cooled.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:02 AM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Angusmac @14... But the peak of the last glacial period was also "preindustrial" so why not use that?
-
mancan18 at 07:43 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Perhaps the tax arrangements that Exxon uses to sponsor the AGU are to their advantage. Considering that such contributions would be listed as a cost in their accounts and would reduce their reported profits for tax purposes, then this means that the tax payer is actually subsidising such contributions at the current company tax rate. Exxon are not doing it out of goodwill.
Exxon, like many companies, employ some very highly paid accountancy firms, law firms and marketing firms to protect their corporate interests. It must be to their financial advantage to pay huge amounts of money to these people to minimise tax, make litigation difficult when they've done the wrong thing, and to continually spin their corporate image, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much. It is not likely that they do such things because they are moral corporate citizens motivated to protect the environment, improve society and to make the world a better place. They do it to protect the huge salaries of their top executives, and to maximise their profits, dividends and share price.
-
angusmac at 07:32 AM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Eclectic@11
I suggest that we should compare similar temperatures cycle, namely, warm periods with warm periods and cold periods with cold periods.If we use the lowest temperatures of the LIA or the Dark Ages as the baseline we could be guilty of cherry picking – in a similar manner to some web sites comparing current warming with the 1998 El Nino peak to state that no warming has occurred since 1998.
Regarding hard evidence of the modern warm period, it is not the purpose of my post to discuss the efficacy of modern temperature measurements. I am only questioning the baseline from which “dangerous” is measured.
-
angusmac at 07:29 AM on 9 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Moderator@10
I enclose documentation that casts doubt on your assertion that I was using “factually incorrect statements.”Regarding the MWP and the LIA not being “globally synchronized events”, it is evident that temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions. However, the PAGES 2k summary presented by Kaufman et al (2013) does show a distinct global MWP and LIA as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 (Kaufman et al, 2013)
Additionally, Section 5.3.5.1 of AR5 also states that, “The timing and spatial structure of the MCA [MWP] and LIA are complex…with different reconstructions exhibiting warm and cold conditions at different times for different regions and seasons.” However, Figure 5.7(c) of AR5 shows that the MWP was global and (a) and (b) show overlapping periods of warmth during the MWP and cold during LIA for the NH and SH.
Perhaps you may wish to consider updating your SkS references to include the AR5 information on the global extent of the MWP.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:07 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
cs41y,
Popularity, profitability, perceptions of prosperity and any other side-benefits thought to be obtained like tax revenue ...
None of that excuses any group of people who actually try to keep others from fully better understanding what is going on.
The fact that an organization as big as Exxon has developed and allowed its leadership to be controlled by such attitudes and resulting actions is unacceptable and damaging. There is no 'kind non-passionate' way to refer to what my better understanding of what is going on has made me aware of.
And the belief that this type of group should be 'negotiated with or have its selfish interests balanced with the advancement of humanity' would be laughable if it wasn't for the tragic consequences of any success obtained by these type of people through their efforts to get away with what they can understand is unacceptable.
The real trouble-makers in every organization or society are fairly well known by powerful wealthy people (because they illigitimately got away with becoming part of the powerful and wealthy). Too many people like that succeeding is a serious detriment to the advancement of humanity (and advancement of humanity to a lasting better future through better understandinga nd awareness has to be the objective of science, not temporarily unsustainably increasing profits, employment or taxes)
That understanding is the best explanation of the damaging developments that have kept humanity from advancing to a lasting better future for all. I do not care what major global problem you choose to look into, that understanding explains it as well or better than beliefs that something else like 'religion' or 'race' is the root cause (because in almost every one of those cases callous greedy people have chosen to allow, support or promote intolerance to gain more undeserved advantage).
So the 'science issue' of Exxon is not 'just science' and should not be considered without passion. There is too much at stake to prolong the success of callous greed and intolerance defying and fighting against the developing better understanding of who they are and how unacceptable their attitudes and actions are.
The focus needs to be kept on the important matters being investigated and better understood. That is what scientists, engineers, any other professionals and all other 'responsible adults' are supposed to responsibly and conscientiously do. That is the only path to a better future for humanity (it is actually the only viable path to any future for humanity).
So what has been done by people through Exxon has to be called out for what it is, regardless of any other interests. The advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all life on this or any other amazing planet has to trump any other considerations.
-
wili at 06:16 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Readers should be aware that there is no guarantee that some posters here are not in the pay of Exxon.
-
cs41y at 05:03 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I have a separate opinion that I think is perfectly on topic but feel free to not agree with me on that. The more emotional and passionate anyone appears to be when it comes to a science issue that is highly polarized the more they can be erroneously accused of being the "liberal left". That whole conspiracy nonsense used to turn the issue into college elitists versus the working class. I am not saying it is wrong to have emotion or passion. It is an issue with very disturbing consequences for not taking action. But we should not take actions or include language in articles which would make us appear to no longer be impartial scientists (which most of us are impartial and approach this appropriately). So unless there's a valid reason to reject funding, such as being required to withhold any unfavorable conclusions, then it does more harm to exclude them.
-
cs41y at 04:45 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I understand the initial emotional reaction some might have when they see or are told something like this. There are no compelling reasons to exclude funding from Exxon. The AGU has been by upfront about its position on climate change which is in direct opposition to some of Exxon's interests and claims. Take away those funds from Exxon and the only thing that will change is the budget has now been reduced for scientists which support measures to combat climate changes caused by people. So Exxon will attempt the same strategy of disinformation only it may be more successful as scientists who are in direct opposition to Exxon's disinformation now have less funds to get their own findings out there. I would say it's puzzling why Exxon would fund it as there appears to be no benefit to them for it.
But if you look up the organizational structure of Exxon Mobil it is an incredibly huge corporation. Somewhere in the ballpark of 75000-100000 employees. Dozens of departments or affiliate companies. Most don't interact with each other. They only seem to tie in through the corporate headquarters itself. So there are very legitimate sciences going on within Exxon. Unfortunately the corporate level is the face and brains of the company with respect policies and the need to squeeze out every drop of revenue possible. So they simply ignore their scientists or even worse try to think of ways to discredit their own scientists findings.
So take into account all that. Also take into account how difficult and competitive it can be to getting any type of funding in science programs/research or even a job and it quickly becomes clear why someone would accept a job with them or accept funds from them. The scientist is typically not doing anything unethical, although some could do so at times. But if you can get funded and there are no restrictions on what you can publish. You can't control what the marketing, accounting, lawyers, etc do with it at the corporate level. You only know they will do the same thing to the science of climates no matter how you get your funding. You may potentially make a positive impact at the company or within the energy production industries, even if it's only very small. Then why reject those funds. There are no logical or ethical reasons to reject it. The only argument against it would be fairly weak and mostly ideological reasoning. But rejecting it based on those ideological reasons will not actually achieve very much (if anything) towards those ideals.
-
davidsanger at 04:34 AM on 9 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
please correct to: "note the text does not say that at all"
-
davidsanger at 04:33 AM on 9 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Although the text of this posts is fine I believe the way the graph is presented can be misleading. The choice of the Y-axis units for total solar irradiance (1360-1363) give the impression that until roughly the 1970's changes in irradiance led ot temperature changes, and that after that there was "divergence." (note the text does say that at all).
If TSI were plotted with Y-axis units from 1350 to 1375 it woudl give a different visual impression. 1300-1400 would be different again.
I know you have to make some choice of units, and making both graphs fill the visual space makes some sort of sense, but it can lead people to make the wrong conclusion about how the two sets of values are related.
Here's another version (scaled to show actual contribution) from a Bloomberg animated graphic :
-
tmbtx at 17:48 PM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Regarding plastics, of course they have their own problems although mass extinction is probably not one them. Plastic has revolutionized many industries. Has it been a net positive? I don't know. That's not a question I can answer really. There are days I regret industrialization, not that dwelling on it accomplishes anything. It's done.
I would like to see society in general stop externalizing all its costs. This would include, for example, companies being responsible for the disposal of their products when they are used/broken etc. If Sony had to take back all their TV's once they were obselete I imagine we'd see a lot less planned obselescence. Some of that is accomplished by recycling now, but it seems pretty marginal compared to the size of the problem. But I digress.
Back on topic, I think they are correct overall to push AGU to reconsider its sponsorship policies. I would just ask the people pushing it to also allow the organization to be deliberate about it and take the time to mitigate any financial consequences. Maybe they can afford to quit cold turkey with the corporate funding, but I kind of doubt it. Then again if they decided to just drop them and let the chips fall where they may I'd support that too.
-
ryland at 17:21 PM on 8 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
DB I have read the comments policy and cannot see where my post @4 contravenes. I didn't make anything up or post graphs or make offensive comments and thought the emissions from agriculture could have been considered by the economists. Is that off topic? I understand that moderation is not open to discussion but if a commenter does not understand why a post is considered unacceptable then it woiuld be most helpful if the reasons for this are made clear.
Moderator Response:[DB] This claim of yours is unsupported sloganeering and off-topic on this post:
"livestock are responsible for a bigger share of total global GHG emissions than is the whole of global transport"
If you wish to pursue that topic, bring credible evidence for your claims and present them on this thread.
-
SirCharles at 15:04 PM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
"No more than one third"? We have to leave 75% of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we want to have a chance to stay under 2°C warming by the end of this century, not just 67%.
=> Scientists warn 75% of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground
-
cs41y at 10:48 AM on 8 January 2016Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
I study physics and statistical analysis. An easy analogy to explain concepts like chaos would be the random processes involved by individual atoms or molecules in an object. That would be like weather. Much more complex then weather. Weather is at least predictable with confidence. It tends to normalize fairly quickly so a butterfly flapping its wings in China does not have any effect on a weather event in the future. That's a part of chaos theory. You have to show that the dynamic system is actually sensitive to minor changes in initial conditions. I would not consider weather let alone climate to be that sensitive to minor fluctuations.
Statistical mechanics makes use of all the individual random probabilities associated with each particle (a very crude definition but the best one in simple terms I can think up). When you include all the probabilities everything normalizes so you can't do a good job of describing the individual particles but you can define the entire object, region, whatever your calculating. That could be kind of like climate.
I believe this was attempted to be explained earlier. In physics and statistics stochastic processes have been validated in great depth and high degree of confidence. I am not a climatologist but the concept applies to a broad range of sciences so when they use some of these methods I generally accept the results if there were no errors in their calculations. I am not sure what the relevance of a lot of the statements on chaos being made so I did not get the best impression that chaos theory and statistical mechanics was well understood by some of the commenters. I'm not naming anyone and some people do grasp it here. But in the future a good guideline to use is if you understand something you then you can generally explain it without having to take the explanations straight out of a book. You also would not take a small part of a science theory in this case statistics or thermodynamics and try to make it sound more important to the overall results then it really would be.
I have an undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics. And I'm currently studying to be a statistician. So I am only commenting on specific instances here. I won't pretend to know climate models very well but I can assure you the methods being applied as far as the physics and math is not in question. if anyone would wish to argue against anthropogenic climate change these are not the areas you want to try and dispute.
-
wili at 06:33 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Sooo, plastics are not an evironmental problem???
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:05 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
tmbtx, I assume you are talking about plastics. If so that is indeed a pertinent remark. I would add that, in fact, we should be concerned about preserving oil reserves for that very purpose instead of burning them. Plastics have innumerable applications that have become vital in medecine/surgery as well as countless other areas. We're not as close as replacing oil as a primary material for these as we are to produce electricity by other means than burning fossil carbon.
I'd say it is also not a problem to use petroleum for plastic production, so long as the energy for the processes comes from something else than burning carbon. The medical field has yet to solve the problem of single use item that are bio contaminated since, as of now, disposal is mostly by incineration. So, not only the material is lost, but the fossil carbon is released in the atmosphere as well. I'm sure it is a small contribution compared to coal and oil burning, which should be addressed in priority, especially coal.
-
wili at 02:18 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Exxon gets huge benefits of international legitimacy from sponsoring this high-profile event. We have to make it clear to the world that the basic 'business model' of Exxon and its ilk--profiting from baking the planet--is not only illegitimate, but morally repugnant.
Their sponsorship of AGU is like medical conferences being sponsered by tobacco companies--not only does it legitimize the sponsor, but it tends to delegitimize the good work of conference itself.
-
Yvan Dutil at 01:39 AM on 8 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Note that the sunspot number and group sunspot number have been completely revised recentely. Accordingly, the XXth century solar maximum is now inexistant.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:55 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I disagree with suggestions that the actions of Exxon that delayed the development of global better understanding of what is going on regarding the impacts of burning fosil fuels can be excused because of 'other things Exxon does'. Exxon's actions are particularly unaccepable becasue 'they actually did know better'.
The actions of Exxon regarding the development and acceptance of climayte science were clearly contrary to proper science. That needs to be understood and acted upon, or there is little hope for humanity to have a better future on this or any other planet.
If the power players in control of what Exxon did were (does are) willing to try to delay or discredit the developing better understanding of climate science because of interests in maximizing 'profit, employment, tax revenue' or any other temporary regional 'perception of benefit for a portion of humanity', what other developing better understanding regarding the potential unacceptability of their pursuits would they also be 'interested in carefully but deliberately fighting against'?
The advancement of humanity can only occur through the constant improvement of the understanding of what is going on with the objective of sustainably improving the conditions for all life on this amazing planet (the only viable future for humanity is a robust diversity living in a diversity of ways that are a sustainable and locally adapted appropriate parts of the robust diversity of life on this or any other amazing planet). Any 'effort to understand how to temporarily profit more in ways contrary to the true advancement of humanity' need to simply be understood to be unacceptable.
Advancement requires efforts to effectively and rapidly undo damaging developments regardless of the perceptions of prosperity that have regionally temporarily been created through the deliberate efforts to generate poular support for activity and attitudes that can be understood to be unacceptable and unsustainable.
It is irrational and unacceptable to pursue a 'balance' between the 'benefits obtained by a portion of the totality of humanity through time' with 'the reduced opportunity and consequences faced by others (particularly the reduction of opportunity and the increasing of challenges for future global generations)'.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:08 PM on 7 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Angusmac @10:
1) Even if it would be convenient to state the increase in global temperature relative to the 1961-1990 average, the 2 C guideline for dangerous global warming is currently stated relative to preindustrial (approx 1750) temperatures. If you adjust the baseline for this series to 1961-1960, you ought also to adjust the guideline for dangerous global warming to the same baseline. Adopting the convention that preindustrial temperatures equal the 1880-1809 mean, that means adjusting the guideline down from 2 C to 1.669 C. Similarly adjusting the figure in the OP, we obtain 0.764 C above the 1961-1990 mean. Importantly, the result is that there is no change in the 0.905 C estimate remaining relative to the guideline.
In sum, even if we allow that your pedantry has a reasonable basis, it makes not substantive difference.
2) It is far from clear that MWP temperatures were globally beneficial. Yes, anecdotal evidence suggests they were beneficial in Greenland, and Western Europe but the data to claim it was globally beneficial does not exist, despite your statement of faith.
What we can be fairly confident about is that the warming to 1980 plus the accompanying CO2 fertilization effect was economically beneficial in the global average. Since 1980 the combined effect has possibly continued to be beneficial in Western nations, but has likely been harmful in poorer, particularly tropical nations. From the relevant community of experts, 41% think the global gains to 1980 have already been wiped out. A further 22% think it will be wiped out within the next 10 years, with a further 26% thinking it will be wiped out within 35 years. In all, that makes 89% of relevant experts who think impacts will be net negative by approximately 2 C above preindustrial temperatures
3)
"...but Huang et al do not state explicitly in the paper if they are comparing their land-only proxies with land-only instrumental temperatures"
"The variance-adjusted version of the global land only surface air temperature anomaly time series we used was retrieved from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit web site on November 1, 2007 (CRU, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3vgl.txt, 2007)"
(My emphasis)
Note, as a land only temperature series, temperature variations will be overstated relative to global (land plus ocean) temperature variations in both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature histories.
-
tmbtx at 21:31 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Oh I forgot my only technical disagreement - as for careers, oil and gas are used for more than just burning. There will be demand for hydrocarbons even after the eventual shift to renewables for energy. Not as much demand as now, obviously, but it's not zero.
-
tmbtx at 21:30 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I have a very mixed reaction to this article, probably because I have ties to AGU, find the evidence for AGW blindingly obvious, and I also work in oil and gas as a geophysicist. The sentiment I understand completely, but it seems a bit naive and black and white. Big Oil supports a substantial number of earth science programs (not just petroleum programs) around the world with lots of money. I personally benefitted from their scholarship funding while doing research that had nothing to do with oil and gas. On the other hand, it would be fascinating (and admittedly fun in a way) to watch it play out if organizations like AGU and GSA started refusing industry funding as a matter of principle. They can certainly justify it to some extent given the behavior they've cited. Although I do wonder how big of a funding hole that would leave.
-
Eclectic at 20:06 PM on 7 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Unfortunately, Angusmac, the Huang paper is currently off-line at the link you gave.
My memory is sketchy, since it is some 2 years since I was reading on the NOAA website that the Medieval Warm Period . . . was more a North Atlantic phenomenon ~ during which, the Andean and West-Canadian glaciers were still advancing (plus some other Southern Hemispheric evidence). The gist of it was that the MWP was greatly overrated as an event of global importance.
Whether the (so-called) MWP should be discounted 50% or 75% (or not at all! ) in the discourse about "climate baseline" . . . there still remains the question of why you yourself should not equally favour the use of the Dark Ages Cold Period as the criterion baseline for AGW consequences. And like the MWP, the DACP is also susceptible to criticism !
In reality, neither Period is worthy of much consideration, because the vast amount of hard evidence we have about the Modern Period, is entirely superior as a basis for making important decisions (about climate).
Prev 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 Next
