Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 Next
Comments 26301 to 26350:
-
scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 21 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
I dont think there is one contrarian hypothesis. For a huge no. the contrarian hypothesis is "The apparent global warming is caused by scientific fraud". Slightly saner is "The warming some of us are experiencing is due to a natural cycle/natural forcing". The most sophisticated would be "Global warming is happening slowly enough for it to be cheaper to adapt than mitigate".
It is only an argument to have with the rational. Those for whom judgement is based on ideology/identity/values are immune to data-based hypothesis testing anyway. I dont see how you can discuss evidence with someone who blames say, Texas drought, on same-sex marriage laws. How many deniers have you met that took their position on AGW after careful consideration of the science? The more normal bent would be look at AGW as something invented by Al Gore/requiring action incompatible with ideological beliefs/not something my group accepts, and then trawling contrarian sites for things to bolster that predetermined bias.
-
Richard Lawson at 09:46 AM on 21 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
This discussion began with a piece titled Why Climate Sceptics Are Wrong. The piece offers Whewellian multiple lines of induction, and which then moved to a broadly Kuhnian discussion of consensus in the scientific community.
Kuhn said consensus was important in establishing a scientific truth, but he did emphasise other criteria for choosing one scientific theory over another: accuracy, consistency, broad scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness. Popperian falsifiability is implied by Kuhn’s first criterion – accuracy - and falsifiability is still the touchstone of scientific statements. We make observations, create hypotheses, and then try to test the hypothesis to destruction.The contrarian statement or hypothesis is "The changes to atmospheric greenhouse gases that we humans are causing will not have a serious impact on human well-being in the future."
How is this hypothesis to be falsified?
The first job is to set parameters. What temperature levels will have a "serious impact"?
The consensus (that word again) answer to that question is : +2*C above pre-industrial levels. For the avoidance of quibbling, let us say +3*C.
Is it impossible that continued BAU could not get us up to +3*C?
Because that is what the contrarian hypothesis requires.
Clearly it is not at all impossible for us to get to 3*C. (In fact, we may be booking up for a 3*C experience in 5 or 6 decades' time, unless we do some pretty rapid global decarbonisation.)
Therefore the climate deniers' hypothesis is false.
This is the essence of our case. There are some parts to be filled in, not so much in terms of temperature projections as in the science of attribution, but in examining the deniers' hypothesis and applying falsification to that, the picture becomes much clearer.
For the past few decades, the contrarians have been testing the AGW hypothesis (increasing the GHG composition of the atmosphere will have serious effects on global climate), and the hypothesis remains firm. Now it is time to test their hypothesis.
-
michael sweet at 09:15 AM on 21 December 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51
The LA Times had an interesting Op-Ed piece on the relationship of Climate Chamge and social unrest like the war in Syria. It might be good for an OP here at Skeptical science.
The authors, who study violence in society, suggest that climate change increases the chance of social unrest but are usually not the only cause of unrest.
-
BBHY at 06:32 AM on 21 December 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51
'Now comes the tough part"
I don't think it's going to be all that difficult, at least for the next 15 to 20 years when the reductions in CO2 emissions won't be that big. Getting all the way down to zero will be tough, but that's not until what, 2070?
I just looked at my latest electric bill. Only 1.95% came from wind, and solar was only 0.05%. Both of those could easily be upped by a factor of ten over the next 5 to 10 years. Add in 10% efficiency improvements with better appliances and better insulated houses and buildings and you already have a significant reduction, without any new inventions or noticable financial pain.
I've seen these articles that CO2 reductions will be very difficult, but I would argue that we don't really know that because we haven't really tried in any serious way.
-
BaerbelW at 03:10 AM on 21 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
@Robert Test - as a follow-up to Tom Curtis' suggestion (@8) to check out our Denial101x-MOOC, take a look at the first videos of week 1 covering the scientific consensus. You can find the video links in this Full list of videos and references. Also helpful might be the list of accompanying references.
-
DSL at 00:22 AM on 21 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
9200+ references, Tom, per the WG1 Fact Sheet.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:14 PM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
Alun @11, IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 on Radiative Forcing has approximately 450 references. Excluding the introduction, there are 13 chapters in the WG1 report. There will undoubtedly be overlaps between chapters, but that means there are certainly a thousand, and probably several thousand distinct references use by WG1 all up. You don't compress that to seven or eight pages with any sort of comprehensiveness. You would be doing well to get it down to one 7-8 page article per chapter.
In contrast, it is dubious you would need more than 4 pages to expound in depth any of the alternate 'skeptical' "theories".
-
Alun at 16:12 PM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
I think it is also worth bearing in mind that the article in SciAm is the Skeptic column. It is one page long. The forum does not provide sufficient space to fully argue any topic. Given the narrow contraints, I think that Michael Schermer provided more than sufficient evidence to support his specific premise that the consensus on AGW is a proper scientific consensus derived in a proper scientific way and that the contrarian arguments are neither.
Maybe the SciAm editors can give him the run of a full article with seven or eight pages and he can then dot all i's and cross all t's.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
Paul @7. There have been various studies and polls of what climate scientists think is causing climate change. Some are less than ideal, however they all show about 95% of climate scientists think we are warming the climate.
I have yet to see a study or poll of climate scientists showing anything remotely different. There is nothing stopping climate sceptics doing a poll of some sort, but they havent published anything.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Im sure you do. Theres obviously a big majority consensus that we are warming the climate. We wont be certain if its exactly 95%, but its big.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:21 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
PaulG @7, While "You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion", neither can you assume disagreement. Therefore, if no opinion was expressed in a particular abstract, it is statistically irrelevant.
That is not a hard concept to understand in statistics. Routinely political polls of a few hundred people are taken in democracies around the world, and the intentions expressed by that few hundred are projected onto the entire population. Somebody who objected that opinion polls are worthless because "You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion" would merely demonstrate that they have no understanding of statistics (or a strong bias blindsiding them to the implications).
You might object that the 2/3rds were expressing some opinion on global warming, but did not express an opinion on the attribution question, and that is somehow different. But, if they expressed no opinion on attribution, they expressed no opinion on attribution. Similarly, a survey of abstracts in Physics would find about of 65,100 of 1,520,000 papers (possibly including duplicates), ie, roughly 4.3% of papers discuss General Relativity. To suggest that therefore, there is not, or we cannot know that there is a scientific concensus accepting General Relativity would be absurd. The 95% plus of papers not mentioning General Relativity do so simply because they discuss something else. Yet your argument regarding the 97% is equally absurd. The two thirds of papers not expressing an opinion did exactly that. They expressed no opinion on attribution - which is afterall a small part of climate science.
The true question of interest is, out of those papers that expressed an opinion on attribution, including those whose opinion was that attribution was uncertain, how many endorsed the IPCC position on attribution. And the answer to that is, 97%.
-
scaddenp at 06:40 AM on 20 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
Paul, "Adaptation is critical, and that we can do."
I am fascinated to know what your adaptation options for Bangladesh, with its population within 7m of sealevel and an awful lot of that right on the delta front. Before you suggest Dutch dykes, consider the pumping system to be able to move the monsoon rainfall over the dyke, and building it to withstand cyclones. Neither of these are problems for the Dutch. I would also note that the Bangladeshi contribute almost nothing to climate change compared to the West so I assume you would be happy to share in the cost of building such a project?
The other obvious adaptation that humans are fond of is just migrating away. Since the west is largely responsible for the problem, I assume you would be comfortable with accepting your countries share of immigrants? (Say in proportion to about of CO2 your country has added to the atmosphere).
Humans have adapted but often by dying out in large numbers. Since settled agriculture began, we have not had to face climate change on a global scale at such a rapid pace.
Humans are far from be able to change or control the weather, but climate is another story. The surface of the earth is receiving more IR radiation. We can measure the increase directly. We know it is coming from GHG from the change in the spectral signature of the radiation. Do really think that there is reasonable doubt (as opposed to ideological/value or identity based denial) that adding heat will not change the climate?
-
Tom Curtis at 05:48 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
robert test @1 and 4, thankyou for your comments.
Let me first note that at SkS we are frequently plagued by deniers (initially) concealing their true beliefs or motives to get the opportunity to present denier memes in the mistaken belief that it will help them avoid moderation (or sometimes, I think, to deliberately court it). That tactic is frustrating for regular commentors because the lack of forthrightness distorts the dicussion, preventing coherent rational response by the deniers. It is also ironic in that forthright presentation would better enable actually escaping moderation.
I mention this because regular commentors do get oversensitized to the possibility of such tactics. As a result they run the risk of inappropriately responding to genuine, forthright enquiry. As a result you may cop some sourness that you do not deserve (although I hope not). I also mention it so I can unequivocally state for my fellow regulars that I do not believe you are flying any false flag here. You raise a valid, and perspicious point.
Your fundamental point is (I believe):
"Certainly the author is right to point to a convergence of evidence for human causation and I believe there is such a convergence. And the author is right in saying that opponents of AGW need to display a convergence of evidence supporting a different, better, and more coherent theory that explains the data.
Opponents of AGW have utterly failed. But so has the author of this piece."
Given that Shermer's enumeration of convergent lines of evidence states that "... there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion", your point that it is inadequate, cursory even, is well made. It is, however, unfair.
The reason for that is that the amount of convergent evidence is so extensive that it cannot be adequately summarized in a single page, or article. After all, the IPCC reports are, in part, an attempt to summarize the convergent evidence and it is unreasonable to expect that what takes the IPCC Working Group 1 a volume should be rendered into a few paragraphs.
Shermer is aware of that, and merely points to the fact of convergence in support of AGW vs the wild divergence of theories (let alone evidence) from the skeptics. He hopes that his readers, their eyes opened by Whewell, will notice this fact in the debate and be less prone to be decieved by the skeptics.
If I were to criticize Shermer, it would be on different grounds. Specifically, AGW, they theory that global temperatures are currently rapidly warming and that we are responsible, is really just a corrollary of two more specific theories:
- That major temperature changes on the Earth at greater than decadal timescales are primarilly driven by changes in forcing; and
- That the largest current forcing is the change of strength of the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases.
It is these theories supported by the consilience of inductions. AGW is supported by consilience indirectly by these theories, but attempting to enumerate the concilience directly in terms of AGW sometimes obscures the relevance of particular forms of evidence.
For those who want to see the concilience of the evidence, I highly recommend that you read the IPCC AR5 WG1 report, or at least its technical summary. That suffers from the fact that they do not cover some things already comprehensively dealt with in prior reports, so to do it fully through the IPCC you would need to read all reports (or at least the Third Assessment Report forward) and note the differences.
As a less strenuous alternative, I would recommend 'Earth, the operators manual' by Richard Alley, or 'Global Warming, understanding the forecast' by David Archer. I would supplement either by 'The Warming Papers' by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert. I believe (though I have not yet personally audited it), that the MOOC course offered by SkS is also useful in this regard. David Archer has an upcoming MOOC that will, no doubt, also be excellent.
I will not pretend that I can point you to a single webpage that enumerates the conscillience in favour of the concensus position in climate science. I have contributed an enumeration of the evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, and a basic explanation of the greenhouse effect that avoids some common misrepresentations. Unfortunately I never expanded it to anything more comprehensive.
May I suggest that other respondents to robert test point to webpages that expand on those two to provide a more comprehensive enumeration.
-
PaulG at 05:32 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
I find the methods of scientific reasoning fascinating, and I confess I don't have a strong opinion as to how much evidence is needed to prove a theory. I do agree that a valid theory is going to have convergent lines of evidence to support it.
But I do take issue with what I perceive as obvious "overstatements," claims of near-unanimity that don't appear to be justified.
Example- The author states: "The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real."
That is preposterous. The author states this is the unanimous opinion of all of the tens of thousands of scientists who belong to those various organizations. I don't have to conduct a poll to know that is not true.
The author also states: "Of those papers that stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of studies?"
What he doesn't mention is highly significant: that roughly 2/3 of the papers examined, and 2/3 of the scientists whose articles were examined, expressed no position on whether AGW is real.
You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion, just like you can't claim 100% support from the members of various organizations that may have taken a public position on AGW.
Most climate scientists may well agree that AGW is real, but that does not mean that there is a consensus amont climate scientists as to how serious an issue it is, or may become, or as to what, if anything can be done, or should be attempted, to deal with it, or as to what other factors may significantly contribute to GW, etc.
In other words, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the science.
-
Rob Painting at 05:28 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
I agree with Robert Test that the writer could have made a much stronger scientific case, but that certainly is some elegant prose
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:40 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
robert test,
Perhaps the author including "increasing CO2" but not including "increasing surface temperature" in the list of interrelated apsects investigated is the 'presentation problem'.
Obviously, there is a longer list of areas of investigation that collectively strongly indicate that:
- CO2 levels are increasing rapidly recently
- the energy being kept in the earth (as measured by things like surface temperatue and ocean heat energy) is also rapidly recently increasing
- human activity (particularly the very recent massive increase in burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of the rapid recent increases of CO2 and global energy.
-
robert test at 03:35 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
criordon,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your passion for the topic but
I think you totally misunderstood me. This is my fault. I failed to make myself clear.I am the type that is more interested in the reasoning and the evidence for one's conclusion than in the conclusion itself. Not that it is important but I accept AGW in that I believe it is a true theory. That AGW is true is not enough. Only reason and evidence warrants our belief that it is true.
So, I am interested in seeing the reasoning and the evidence for that theory layed out as clearly, precisely and eloquently as humanly possible – a Whelwellian narrative displaying the convergence of evidence if you will.
Any such narrative will include a reference to the carbon isotope analysis you mention.But it will be much more than you acknowledged that the author of the Scientific American piece gave us, namely “some of the most commonly known indicators which have helped us construct a climate record and allow us to compare our present epoch with prior ones."
I don't think it is circular logic to say (1) I believe that multiple lines of evidence for AGW exist and (2) I would like to see an elegantly constructed narrative account of all those multiple lines of evidence.
The Scientific American piece was eloquent in a literary sense but neither philosophically nor scientifically cogent.
I think this website is the place to expect an account that qualifies on all three counts.
Moderator Response:Duplicate response removed as per request
-
richardPauli at 03:04 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
And we might refer to the work of Dylan, 1968 "You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows"
-
TheCabbage at 02:55 AM on 20 December 2015It's the ocean
At least that is my understanding. I think the cause is high atmospheric partial pressure of CO2.
-
TheCabbage at 02:51 AM on 20 December 2015It's the ocean
I think there's a basic point that a lot of people are missing here. If the ocean was causing the warming, it would release excess CO2. This is the case during natural warming cycles. However, atmospheric CO2 is observed to be increasing while the ocean is becoming more acidic (i.e. still absorbing CO2). This obviously points to a terrestrial CO2 source, but more importantly, it is evidence that the ocean is not the warming cause since oceanic CO2 is not decreasing.
-
criordon at 02:16 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
Robert Test writes: "Let me emphasize my position: AGW is well-supported by a convergence of multiple lines of evidence - just not the evidence that the author of the above piece provides."
The author of the piece is not actually providing evidence. He is referring to fields of study which have found evidence which undeniably supports AGW, not only from the sources cited by the author of the piece, but also from a host of other sources which all indicate the same conclusion - AGW.
Robert Test needs to insert this denial of validity of the lines of evidence cited by the author, in order to logically construct an argument denying the validity of this evidence as proof of AGW.
As Mr. Test summarizes: "In short, is there anything like a Whewellian convergence of evidence showing multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory that that (sic) carbon dioxide is causing the warming? I would like to see this narrative better developed than it was here."
Mr. Test, did you not say just above this:"First, I completely accept the fact that we are causing global warming by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The evidence is abundant."? This is known as circular logic, and such arguments are untenable.
While only 97% to 98% of scientists accept AGW as essentially fact, and the IPCC concensus is that the probability that the warming is human caused is greater than 99% based on dozens of indicators (the vast majority of which are in fact referred to in the most recent IPCC report).
I would just like to iterate here that the author of this piece is not attempting to give an exhaustive analysis of all the underlying lines of evidence used to reach the conclusion that AGW is an undeniable reality, but merely referring to some of the most commonly known indicators which have helped us construct a climate record and allow us to compare our present epoch with prior ones. Perhaps one of the lines of evidence you wished to see referred to here is the carbon isotope analyses wherein the fossil fuel signature is stamped into our modern air? In all but the most theoretical sense, AGW is an undeniable fact, so ipso facto, climate contrarians are wrong.
-
robert test at 01:39 AM on 20 December 2015Why climate contrarians are wrong
Thank you for reprinting excerpts of the piece published in Scientific American. It is leading me to reread Whewell.
Unfortunately, the author here seems to me to completely misread Whewell treating his theory of rationality as much less important than it actually is and getting his essential ideas completely wrong. Whewell uses the term 'induction' but it means something other than our usual notion of inductive inference. It's closer to Pierce's notion of abduction.
The author has Whelwell sounding like an old Cartesian – to believe a theory it must be supported by a consilience of inductions. No, – Whelwell's claim is the opposite of this: a consilience of inductions is sufficient to warrant belief in the theory. Consilience is sufficient to verify a theory. Whewell makes a much stronger claim and offers a much more sophisticated analysis of scientific rationality than the author suggests.
But Whewell aside, the author makes a more egregious error. First, I completely accept the fact that we are causing global warming by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The evidence is abundant.
The author of this piece seems to conflate the evidence for warming with the evidence of the human cause of this warming.
He cites “multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion.”
But the conclusion is global warming. Only the last two "lines of evidence" i.e., increase in CO2 emission and unprecedented rate of warming are causally related to anthropological global warming.
Certainly the author is right to point to a convergence of evidence for human causation and I believe there is such a convergence. And the author is right in saying that opponents of AGW need to display a convergence of evidence supporting a different, better, and more coherent theory that explains the data.
Opponents of AGW have utterly failed. But so has the author of this piece.
Let me emphasize my position: AGW is well-supported by a convergence of multiple lines of evidence - just not the evidence that the author of the above piece provides.
The author of the above piece shows in the end that he understands the problem. Opponents of AGW have no coherent opposing theory – its the sun, its natural cycles, its cherry picking here and there. This is important
I know that there are many who write for this site that are capable of writing a piece, as eloquent as the one above, excerpted from Scientific American, but do a better job with the science and the evidence for human causation.
In short, is there anything like a Whewellian convergence of evidence showing multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory that that carbon dioxide is causing the warming? I would like to see this narrative better developed than it was here.
-
wili at 15:07 PM on 19 December 2015Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
A nice piece on abrupt change: www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156259630160335&set=o.595155763929949&type=3&theater
-
John Mason at 12:47 PM on 19 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
No proofs in science, Paul, just (as #9 inferred) an overwhelming weight of converging lines of evidence.
The "climate's always changed" approach, as used by the likes of Donald Trump among others - well perhaps "myth" is not the best term to use. "Massive cop-out" may be more accurate. On that basis, one could suggest disbanding the Police Force, because "there's always been crime".
But when structures that have stood for centuries get severely compromised by a weather event in 2015, we ought rightly to ask, "why now??". It's a fair question.
-
Mal Adapted at 07:38 AM on 19 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
PaulG:
The idea that humans can predict, or control, climate change, isn't new, but I regard that as still unproven.
You're apparently not a scientist, but presumably you're aware that scientists never speak of proof, only of levels of confidence.
For those of us who aren't specialists in climate science, and thus aren't qualified to rigorously evaluate the multiple, converging lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, the existence of a lop-sided consensus of qualified experts (defined as those who have published peer-reviewed research on climate change) ought to be persuasive. Those experts are highly confident that:
1. Humans are changing the climate, principally by burning fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere; and
2. That leaving the remaining fossil carbon in the ground will largely avert more severe climate change.
If you're not a specialist in climate science, and the existence of the consensus doesn't persuade you, one suspects that nothing ever will.
-
PaulG at 05:21 AM on 19 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information.
I can't think of a reason, though, why you describe "climate's always changed" as a myth.
I know you can't really mean that, but I don't know why you would put that statement in your article. Seems totally out of place.
You describe the recent destruction of centuries-old bridges as evidence that "floods have always occurred" is another myth. I don't see your logic. I would surmise that there is plenty of evidence that severe floods have occurred throughout the globe for millions of years, and I expect the evidence -where it exists - would also show that each flood event is unique, with unique consequences.
If you are saying that floods in some parts of the UK seem to be more severe recently, I think that is a fair observation.
The idea that humans can predict, or control, climate change, isn't new, but I regard that as still unproven.
Adaptation is critical, and that we can do.
-
wili at 04:17 AM on 19 December 2015Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?
Thanks, Tom.
So do you rule out the possibility of a 'step change' or discontinuity happening at sometime?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 19 December 2015The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
william and CBDunkerson,
The real problem in the US is not the GOP. The real problem is the power of undeserving people to gather popular support for policy and action that they can understand is unacceptable (but hope to keep their misled supporters from better understanding), policy that will temporarily benefit a portion of humanity to the detriment of the rest of humanity because that is what 'socioeconomic competitors ' do if they can get away with it - try to build the perception thta they are winners in comparison to others (the extremist of this group are criminals and terrorists but the callous fundamantalists of the group are cheaters who can create consequences that are far worse than an individual criminal or terrorist, they actually crashed the entire global economy once and won't mind if it happens again as long as they get away with what they want to get away with).
Developing better understand and applying that action to advance humanity toward a lasting better future for all is fundamentally contrary to 'their' interests, because they will be effectively blocked from 'the freedom to compete and get what they want in the manner they would like to get away with'.
And those throuble-making competitors are not 'the GOP' (and not even the Tea Party). They are represented by the House Freedom Caucus which is a group of about 40 members of Congress who can collectively control what the GOP does.
And the real trouble-makers are not the elected members who are in the House Freedom Caucus. The real trouble-makers are all the people in the American population who are tempted to like the understood to be greedy and intolerant claims that are carefully packaged to sound 'reasonable', like nonsense claims that 'Freedom is under fire if there are any limits on gun ownership'. And the ring-leaders of that group (the biggest trouble-makers) hide in the shadows. They fund the attack ads and promotional ads that are used to motivate people who are interested in getting elected to 'do the bidding of the undeserving wealthy string-pullers in the shadows' because of their ability to mobilize easily impressed voter support through carefully crafted misleading messages (messages created abusing the very well-developed science of misleading marketing).
Simply claiming that the GOP is the problem can generate 'a distraction, or pointless debate' that delays the ability of collective humanity to properly identify the real trouble-makers and threats to its advancement, which is exactly what the callous greedy will try to abuse to prolong or expand their undeserved run of 'winning', even in ways they know are unjustified and will almost certainly be to the detriment of others (because all they care about is being seen as winning more than others any way they can get away with for as long as possible).
-
bratisla at 00:19 AM on 19 December 2015Haitians are noticing climate change impacts on extreme weather and agriculture
I happened to have spent one year in the Carribean for some projects (related to regional seismicity and the production of a website including a new seismicity catalog). Although this is not my main area of expertise, I may add some points :
- drought conditions this year were experienced throughout the entire Carribean islands. It rained while it should have been dry, and the next months were very dry while it should have rained (even in July or August). My fellow hydrogeologist colleagues were actually worried about the river levels, and the state representative in Guadeloupe actually declared a drought state and forbade car cleaning and similar actions. These islands usually have several meters/year of rain, and the deficit until September was quite noticeable.
- about seaweed, it appeared first in 2011 and arrived in large amounts in 2012. People from the french DEAL (Environment direction) in GUadeloupe tracked the seaweed back to its birth zone using satellite images ; it appears that a second seaweed zone is appearing near Brazil, where it is fueled by all the nutriments carried by the rivers since the forests are cut and the soil is washed away, by the Sahara sand carried by winds, and - more to the point of this blog - increasing water temperatures. It is a real plague : the beaches are covered with huge amounts of rotting seaweed whose stench is unbearable (you can easily imagine the effect on tourism) ...
The only source I have is in french (unfortunately) :
but at the end of the document some other sources are listed
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 18 December 2015The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
william, actually due to GOP obstruction Obama has needed to go it alone on restricting US emissions. Everything he has done has been within the bounds of applying existing laws. Which means there is nothing congress can do to stop him - other than beg the Supreme Court to pretend that it is unconstitutional. Which is probably a stretch even for the five geniuses who ruled that corporations are 'persons' with religious rights. Nor would Bernie Sanders (or Hillary Clinton, who has also said that she would continue and extend Obama's actions) require congressional majorities.
On the other hand, a GOP president could equally reverse those actions. That said, coal was dying in the US even before Obama's EPA actions. He's really taking credit (or blame from the GOP) for the already inevitable collapse of that industry. Further, much of the US is moving on emissions without the federal government... state and even city governments have gone much further in pushing reductions than the federal government has.
Thus, I think the US will continue to make progress on emissions (per capita emissions have been declining since 1973) regardless of who is in congress or the presidency... just faster if democrats are running things.
As to "leadership" vs agreeing to "stop dragging the chain"... the difference is largely semantic. The Paris agreement was possible because the two most powerful countries / biggest GHG emitters got together and agreed to take action the year before. Essentially, the US & China are 'leaders' by default... until last year they were leading us to catastrophe because the rest of the world stopping emissions wouldn't matter (or happen) if those two countries didn't. Now that they are belatedly on board with what most (not all) of the rest of the world had been trying to do, every country on the planet has signed on to the agreement.
-
wili at 22:50 PM on 18 December 2015Wind energy is a key climate change solution
This piece presents a grimly realistic view of how far we have to go and how far we haven't come: www.vox.com/2015/12/14/10121638/fossil-fuel-dominance
"Oil, gas, and coal still make up about 86 percent of the world's energy supply — a fraction that has barely budged since 1997"
-
adskankster at 20:06 PM on 18 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
Thanks John.
Re-the afforestation at height and rewilding, I was under the impression was that the general idea was to plant trees lower down and let nature take its course. If this leaves barer tops in the higher areas, that's how it would be. I could of course be misinterpreting and, like most things, I expect there's a range of ideas/opinions, etc. amongst them.
I think, should things get going, then the very nature of it would mean that the plans would (have to) adapt to what the climate allows.
At Kinder Scout in the Peaks (my parochial area of interest), there's an idea to plant the cloughs, and let the top stay as peat bog. The Eastern end though would probably tree up if it was allowed to, with mainly the Western end to remain largely clear, or populated by only sparse, small trees. IIRC, there have been larger trees up there (as evidenced by pollen studies), but they may have been in warmer climes.
-
william5331 at 16:14 PM on 18 December 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #49
The sign of whether or not politicians are taking their COP21 commitments seriously will be whether or not they pick the low hanging fruit; the easily legislated measures which will begin to make a difference. For instance they could tip the playing field in favour of electric cars. This is a particularly gentle measure since Electric cars are not yet quite there for a large porportion of the driving public. Taking these measures now will signal the players in the market of what is coming and be much easier than doing it when the third generation Tesla is in full production. Doing it now allows car dealers, mechanics, oil companies and so forth to prepare. A second easy measure would be to impliment Hansen's Tax and Dividend. No need for a large tax but only a legislated tax increasing year by year by a predetermined amount. This would also be a very gentle measure also in terms of it's speed of disruption. Cap and trade measures have conclusively been shown not to work, to be easil scammed and to only make the banks and traders richer instead of the people.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/legislation-for-electric-cars.html
-
william5331 at 15:50 PM on 18 December 2015The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
What incredible self serving twadle. A result of American leadership??? I don't think so. If Obama has his way, America will stop dragging the chain but he probably won't be able to take the Senate and Congress along with him so back to America dragging the chain. The only chance to get America on board is to elect Bernie with a majority in both houses. Even then he will have his work cut out for him. The Dems are only marginally less blinkered than the GOP.
-
bozzza at 11:18 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
MDP said: Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands. Planes will only fly by jet engines, and electric cars, trucks, trains, all get their kilowatts from some form of enegy generation, which right now is mostly from burning things. Logically we should be jumping all over 4th generation nuclear plant designs and funding research into fusion hugely, but somehow most of the people who are enthusiastic about reducing CO2 output reject any such ideas.
No one ever rejected nuclear power as a reality: it just isn't the solution to global warming. Nuclear Power exists because Nuclear Weapons exist.
If you are suggesting Nuclear Power is the solution to global warming then you are in effect suggesting the legitimacy of a pseudo-plutonium economy which has already been rejected globally a very long time ago.
Don't tell me you want to mine moon-rock for fusion, btw: that wasn't even laughed at globally by youtube!!
-
mancan18 at 08:08 AM on 18 December 2015The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
Following this thread, there seems to be different interpretations of the success in Paris. Ryland, it is not surprising that despite Paris, the Australian still wants to follow the "coal is good for humanity" editorial line. It is consistent with their political stance and the attitude that the whole Murdoch press has had regarding the climate change debate since it first came to prominence in the 1990s. It will also be the stance that some Republicans in the US will continue to take.
What is different about Paris is that it has sent a clear message to fossil fuel companies. First, that the world needs to be weened off fossil fuels as the main source of energy. And, second, that fossil fuel companies have to change if they are to have any long term viability. Rather than repeating the same tired old argument that we need coal to take people out of poverty, Ryland, you should be looking at the big picture. If poorer countries, who have historically had lower emissions per capita, are going to generate some of their power with a mix of fossil fuels and renewables, then that means that the 1st world countries have the responsibility to develop the technology to make renewables more efficient. First, they have the technical exertise where poorer countries don't. Second, in their development over the last century, the 1st world has been responsible for 80% of the emissions so far. Third, third world nations cannot develop their economies using the same old polluting technology that the 1st world used over the last century. This is because, in a little over 100 years, this will send the CO2 levels on the planet to levels unprecedented in recent geological history and this will trigger the catastrophic global warming and climate change that Paris is trying to avoid. Fourth, if this climate change happens, then it is likely to severely impact the 3rd world and would also disrupt the prosperity of the 1st. In other words the 1st world needs to back off on using fossil fuels and transition to renewables much sooner so that the 3rd world can use some fossil fuels and have access to more efficient renewables (developed by the 1st world) in order to gain the necessary economic momentum to develop their economies to the point where the complete transition to renewables becomes economically viable for them.
In 2015 after Paris, the world does not need the "old world" thinking that the Murdoch press and the fossil fuel companies want to continue to promote for their own personal benefit at the expense of everyone else on the planet. Paris, while not perfect, does send that message. It is a message that should have been sent after Kyoto except for the obfrustcation of the fossil fuel companies and their supporters whose self interested and blinkered thinking have prevented the 1st world from taking effective action in reducing emissions over the last 18 years.
If we are to have a chance of keeping to 1.5/2 degrees, then the 1st world needs to rapidly transition to renewables so that the 3rd world can have a little of the so called cheaper fossil fuel power generation in their energy mix to help in their development. (Mind you, the cost of building the power grids to use fossil fuel power generation never seems to enter the argument. A community based renewable solution seems to make more sense). Arguing to just simply burn more coal to alleviate poverty and have the 1st world do nothing to transition to renewables is just deceptive hubris.
The agreement in Paris regarding emissions is similar to the situation around 1800 regarding slavery. It took another 30 years for Britain to ban slavery throughout its Empire. It took a Civil War in the 1860s to ban slavery throughout the US. Some other colonial empires took until the turn of the 20th century to ban slavery. Yet, today, there is still an illicit hidden slave trade, but at least those invloved are treated as criminals. Whether the world has another 100 years to reduce the use of fossil fuels to the levels needed is of course another question. At least Paris is a start.
-
Eclectic at 07:35 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Very true, Michael sweet.
And let me add: Very well said, Philippe @391. I have been attending SkS for a far shorter time than you ~ so please correct me if my observations are faulty ~ but in that time of mine, I have generally noted that all [posting] newcomers have been treated with welcome & respect, wherever they have raised questions / objections / problems in a skeptical way (a genuinely skeptically scientific way, I mean).
And appropriately: the polite "kid gloves" treatment is sometimes not used, on those new posters who angrily insist that 2+2=3 . . . and whose tone and/or statements show an arrogant Dunning-Krugerism ( or, where more intelligent than that, nevertheless exhibit a self-crippling Motivated Reasoning so severe that they can't/won't see the wood for the trees).
The latter ones very often also exhibit a gigantic hubris or chutzpah . . . which might just be tolerable in an eminent scientist who is demonstrably & totally in the right . . . but which is a tiny bit tiresome otherwise, in the self-appointed Galileos who manage to be 99% in the wrong. Doubtless the hubris/chutzpah is some sort of over-compensation for inner anxiety [having noticed that all other scientists are "driving the other way"].
-
John Mason at 07:30 AM on 18 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
#5: yes I mentioned some of the same points in the above post. I don't entirely agree with all of George's thoughts about the uplands, but we are a lot closer in agreement than the official opposition!
-
michael sweet at 06:06 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
For those who missed it this SkS post described how wind and solar (with a few additions) can power the entire economy. That is all power, not all electricity. There are a lot of wind generators but most land is unaffected. Bird life is not significantly affected. The objections of MDP are addressed.
As far as waiting another 5, 10 or 15 years, we already have. The world finally came around and agreed to start action in Paris. If you do not look for data and refuse to read what you are presented with you will never be convinced there is a need for action.
-
Kiwiiano at 05:38 AM on 18 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
For a glimpse of the political angles to this on-going disaster, check out George Monbiot's story from the Guardian.
http://www.monbiot.com/2015/12/08/a-storm-of-ignorance/
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:37 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
I can only smile too, when I see MDP refering to MA Rodger's initial response as an "attack." Perhaps that is because I have formed my opinion about attacks from perusing WUWT or CA, where physical threats or calls to hang people were not unusual. In my early days at SkS, I also endured all sorts of verbal abuse, in comparison to which MA Rodger's remarks would be considered pleasant conversation.
MDP is trying to use self rightneousness and indignation to distract from the following facts: his initial arguments were wrong, and ample evidence has been provided to show they were. His interpretation of Dr. Mears' point was also in error. Once evidence was provided, MDP tried to use rethorical talking points to dismiss it, none of which so far stands up to scrutiny.
Ignoring all other temperature records and using only the satellite measurements to argue that warming is not happening is not a scientific way to look at the problem. The weight of the evidence indicates that the satellite measurements are to be considered with skepticism. I see no skeptical mindset from MDP toward them, while he is eager to dismiss all other sources that are far more reliable. Where is the scientific skepticism?
He also attempted to argue beside the point with the nuclear thing. Rational people are not afraid of nuclear, they simply see how it is not practical on the necessary scale. Besides the waste aspect, the costs are enormous and the plants have limited life spans. These are not trivial problems. France is facing the very serious hurdle of aging nuclear power plants, while the next generation has shown to be 10 years behind schedule, billions of euros over budget and has not yet powered a light bulb. Some "experimental" technologies do way better than that.
The only reasons mankind would have to not eradicate completely coal burning in the next 50 years are political. They have to do with how much influence the barons of the coal industry have on policy making, not with the physical realities.
Plenty of unjustified self rightneousness and misplaced indignation, but nothing convincing for evidence and references.
-
CBDunkerson at 04:07 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
MDP: "Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands."
True, but nearly meaningless. After all, 9999/10000 is "a fraction". Thus, so long as we generate any amount of energy by any means other than sun and wind, those two sources will remain "a fraction". Thus, all you have really said is that we will never get 100% of our power from those two sources. Which no one disputes.
Your 'logic' on nuclear doesn't make much sense either. Given that nuclear costs are rising, and already higher than solar/wind, there isn't any economic reason to be 'jumping all over' the technology. Rather, it seems inevitable that nuclear power will continue to decline while solar and wind continue to grow. Even the IEA now projects solar and wind becoming dominant by 2050.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:51 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Though this is veering off topic, coming from a manufacturing background, I can promise MDP that some of us here actually do understand the statistical process control (SPC) methods used by Toyota. But, you have to remember the "C" means "control." SPC is method by which you identify when a process if drifting outside control limits so you can take action. This is completely different from, and immensely more simple than, the statistical processes used in climate research. There are certainly related elements but I've worked with SPC for a long time and I can tell you, climate scientists are operating on an entirely different level of sophistication.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:02 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
MarDivPhoto @387 "can only smile" at the fact that just 2% of land area (not global area) can provide 2.8 times our power needs at 10% efficiency (or 1% of wind energy provid all our needs) but can provide no counter-argument except the rhetorical "Actually tapping it all is the challenge" before suggesting we must "build forests of wind turbines across most of the world and watch the bird populations wither" when the specific proposal he is rejecting involves airbourne turbines at 4600 meters altitude in the jets stream (and hence above almost all bird strikes) and involves power densities such that would require much less than 2% of land area to provide all the power we need.
This proves, if nothing else, that MDP's idea of scientific debate does not involve reading references.
As that is the only counter argument of mine MDP even adresses, I will leave it at that, save to note that:
1) Scientific debate occurs in scientific journals not in blogs. What occurs in blogs when you raise issues of science without becoming expert in the debate, without a comprehensive review of the literature, and the confident view that the great multitude of studies that do apply those rigours to their participation are wrong, is denial - not scientific debate.
2) It appears that leaving, "shaking the dust of your feet" is absolutely different to leaving with your tail between your legs, even though both involved leaving without properly responding to (or even properly reading and/or checking references of) the counter arguments that devestate their own.
3) Whatever MDP has been indulging in, it has no ressemblance to reasoned discourse, which of course requires critically looking at evidence, not just cherry picking tropes to confirm your prejudices.
-
MarDivPhoto at 02:28 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
"Tail between his legs" Really? Being a combat veteran I have to laugh at such childish phrasings, but it simply reinforces what none of so many distinguished people seem to comprehend, that tolerance and courtesy used to be and should have remained central to reasoned discourse.
The US gov't agency just announced we've had 117 months of lowered hurricane activity here, which is anecdotal, just as the spate of typhoons in the Orient is. So whoever wishes to argue for their point of view can pick such data and go with it.
Someone asked, reasonably, what data I would find really compelling about warming occurring. The first answer would be if Dr. Mears' graph had shown a much clearer incline in temperatures for the last 15 years. If people don't happen to understand what SPC statistical practice is, I'm sorry, it's too long to go into here, but it's been a critical tool in industries since the 1930s and was one of the major tools that enabled Japanese auto manufacturers to produce much higher quality autos in the 1970s than we were making here. US industries have since re-adopted use of SPC broadly.
The second answer would be when the retreat of both Artic and Antartic ice becomes pronounced and continues every years for at least 4-5 years.
A third answer would be a very discernible change in coastlines throughout the world, with all of them moving inland.
All that said, if and when a steady increase in global temperture becomes unmistakeable to all, then proving it is only the result of CO2 increase from 300 to 500 ppm is still a huge question. As already stated, the models assume ppm changes in CO2 somehow bring on large changes in atmospheric humidity, but I know of no actual evidence of any such interaction.
I can only smile when someone points out that total wind energy in the world is enormous. So is tidal energy, so is solar energy. Actually tapping it all is the challenge. Will will build forests of wind turbines across most of the world, and watch the bird populations wither? A firm two years ago wanted to build a solar farm in the vast Southwest desert of the USA. They were stopped by an environmental group that filed a suit about the possible damage to the local ecology.
India and China are still building more coal fired plants, so no matter what the recent data say about less CO2 generation, it is guaranteed to keep going up for decades to come.
Worried about nuclear plants? France gets 75% of its power from a network of standardized and very safe nuclear plants, and even recycles some forms of nuclear leftovers. Thorium reactors are great technology that aren't being built. The actual dangerous nuclear waste is a nonproblem, buried deep underground in tectonically stable regions is as safe as can be. The Russians put it into dispersed liquid form and pump it down into dry oil well formations that were stable for millions of years, also a reasonable solution and it would sure be hard for anyone to get the stuff back from there.
Should we try to use energy more efficiently? Absolutely, energy wastage is a scandal in too many places. Should we explore as much practical use of hydro energy, solar energy, wind energy, and energy from the heat of the earth as possible? Absolutely. Should we recycle as much materials as possible, and get rid of the floating masses of plastic in the oceans, etc, replant forests, use water resources more carefully, etc.? Absolutely, all these are not just good ideas but necessary ones for the future. But should we jump into creating "carbon credit" exchanges that will make some brokers billionaires and raise the cost of living for everyone else? I think not.
Now I will apologize to all for thinking that perhaps I might be able to just introduce some contrasting thoughts about both science and how people, scientists especially, should be able to deal with each other. I should have realized right away that this forum is solely for people whose minds are made up very firmly already, and that the seemingly beloved practice of denigrating anyone not in the group by the deliberately negative term "denialist" (a term directly relating to true nefarious denial of horrific historical events by the Nazis) demonstrates a sad frame of mind that truly reasonable, courteous people would avoid.
In five years, or ten, or maybe 15, the facts will reveal themselves. Hopefully there won't be extreme warming after all, or if there is, we'll have been smart enough to prepare well for it. With that, I bid you adieu, and shake the dust of this place from my sandals.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:11 AM on 18 December 2015The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
It is important to ensure that the real issues do not get hidden by 'generalizations open to interpretation' especially unspecific statements like 'over-popuation is the problem'.
Even when population is listed among other issues like the comment by Wyoming @11 (quoted below), the points are not specific enough.
"We will not be making progress until there are 'actions' which implement a dialogue on the need to drastically reduce population numbers (not just the growth rate), reduce affluence (not raise it), reduce consumption (not raise it), ban burning coal (and use force to make it happen), etc."
A more detailed presentation regarding each point are:
- Population - The number of people with high-consuming and high-impact ways of getting personal profit and pleasure is what needs to be dramatically reduced. And the number of people who focus on their personal benefit during their lifetime to the point of dismissing or attacking 'any developing better understanding of the changes required to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all' needs to be brought as near to zero as possible.
- Affluence - This term is a 'loaded term open to many interpretations'. What really needs to be reduced is undeserved perceptions of affluence developed by people who are willing to pursue their benefit in ways that can be understood to be damaging and ulimately unsustainable (burning fossil fuels, wasteful consumption). Affluence in ways that are a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet actually needs to be increased.
- Consumption - As mentioned above the highest consuming people need to reduce their consumption and be willing to assist the least fortunate to develop sustainably better lives. Global GDP has grown faster than global population yet billions of people remain in 'desperate poverty'. The developed socioeconomic systems that produced that result need to be changed, not be considered to be essential to maintain as part of the solution.
- Banning coal burning - The objective needs to be maximizing the end user energy obtained for the impacts of the way the energy is generated. Regarding CO2 generation, the total impacts of burning high-quality easy to obtain coal may be better than oil from fracking or oil sands that includes export impacts. And coal burning with CO2 capture and storage can be significantly better than natural gas burning without CO2 capture and storage. And all negative impacts, not just CO2 generation, need to be considered which may make fracking an even less beneficial way of obtaining fossil fuels for burning.
Simplified statements may have more appeal but cliams that "population" or "Coal Burning" are the problem, or that "Affluence" needs to be reduced can easily be seen to lead to more misunderstanding and 'pointless debate'. And the people who have obtained the most undeserved perceptions of prosperity (currently having undeserved real personal wealth and real personal power) can continue to thrive through the 'generation of pointless debate'.
Be sure you are not assisting people with those callous greedy attitudes, because those type of people are the ones whose numbers need to be most rapidly reduced, ideally to 'zero' (that is an ideal, and as with all ideals, they are great objectives but must eternally be diligently pursued). A side benefit of reducing the number of undesrevingly wealthy and powerful people will be the reduction of influence of intolerant people. In many nations the undeserving wealthy and powerful callous greedy have learned to appeal for the support of the intolerant because people who are inclined tobe greedy and intolerant people are easily impressed and the more 'inclined - enraged' they are the surer they are to vote.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:32 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
MarDivPhoto @376 objects to the description "denialist". For the record, he introduced it twice before it was used by anybody else, and the single person that used it did not apply it to him. It appears that his condition for staying for the debate he started is that we not only not call him a "denier" or "denialist", but that we pretend that nowhere in the blogosphere are there people suitably so called - not even in the 2nd law of thermodynamics thread. If somebody cannot even admit that a common sort of behaviour can occur, it means, rather straightforwardly that they are in denial. In this case it is not hard to see why. As shown by me @378, 380 and 344 above, and by other commentors, MDP's arguments are radically disconnected from science. Indeed, they are disconnected in such a way that the label "denier" seems well deserved as applied to them in particular. It is no wonder then, that he launched his gish gallop then scurried away with his tail between his legs. He must know in his heart he has no hope of defending his absurd claims.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:22 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
CBDunkerson @383, indeed. I was not trying to indicate that we would not peak now, but that the data is insufficient for that call which is likely optimistic given known development goals for India and China. I live in hope that the optimism is warranted.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 18 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
What MarDivPhoto @376 said:
"Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands."
What the science says:
a) Wind:
"High power densities would be uninteresting if only a small amount of total power were available. However, wind power is roughly 100 times the power used by all human civilization.Total power dissipated in winds is about10^15 W. Total humanthermal power consumption is about10^13 W. Removing 1% of high-altitude winds’ available energy is not expected to have adverse environmental consequences."
b) Solar:
After adjustment for albedo and atmospheric absorption, the total power of surface falling solar energy is 161 (154-166) W/m^2:
Of that, just 30% falls on land, giving a global landfalling solar power resource of 24,633 (23,562-25,398) x 10^12 Watts. Of course, not all the land it falls on is suitable for solar power, and we will want to retain some solar energy for photosynthesis. That leads to estimates of a total available solar resource of from 50 - 1,565 x 10^12 Watts, ie, 2.8 to 88 times the total anthropogenic energy use. Those values represent in turn 0.2 to 6.6% of the total landfalling solar energy. Even taking the lowest value, and at 10% efficiency of energy conversion, that represents just 2% of land area to power 2.8 times our current energy use.
Quite patently from these figure, MDP's claim about the potential of solar and wind energy is absurd. We must therefore look for a non-absurd interpretation. The most likely of those is an assumption that solar and wind power technologies will not advance significantly from current capacities. At best such an assumption is dubious. However, in the discussion on solar and wind power, he advances as a solution increased research on fusion. If he does not allow the possibility of technological advancement for solar and wind, he ought also not to allow that possibility for fusion. Otherwise his argument comes down to special pleading. Indeed, worse than that, current photovoltaic energy efficiencies are significantly better than the 10% I assumed for the land area calculation, and prototypes for turbines accessing jetstream winds are already flying - and whats more than nuclear, producing power at better returns than current pylon based wind power. So he is not excluding the development of future technology at all, but excluding the deployment of below best practise current technology for solar and wind, while apealling to future fusion technology as an alternative. Brazen, I believe is the best description for his argument.
-
John Mason at 23:52 PM on 17 December 2015December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
#1 - I ought to get in touch with them because this subject has a lot of relevance in the western UK, where it's quite a hot topic, a) because of the crazy floods of recent years and b) via the rewilding lobby. I don't agree with everything that comes from the latter, but the principle is nevertheless sound in many aspects. Puddings are prone to get over egged at times.
Some of the most interesting areas of the Central Wales uplands are those where there was coniferous forestry which has been clear-felled and left be. It has re-wooded with willow, birch etc - trees that can handle a cool (at 400-500m ASL) climate and wet climate. I would hope that such areas can be left be, so that we can see what happens in the long term.
The same almost certainly applies to the Lake District. The one thing I take issue with WRT the rewilders is that the higher parts of these western hills have not been supportive of forest at height for several thousand years, since the climatic optimum in the early Bronze Age. At over about 550m ASL, if you go and look, you will find a tundra-type flora of clubmosses, dwarf sedges and bilberry/crowberry. This they never mention. In the 1980s, when afforestation received ridiculous tax-breaks, the south side of Plynlimon was ploughed and planted-up. The trees, above 550m, never grew to any size better than you would put in a room and cover with tinsel for Christmas. I'll go and have a look next year to see if things have changed, and report back! -
CBDunkerson at 22:55 PM on 17 December 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Tom wrote: "Indeed, globally CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014. This has lead to some, probably premature, speculation that CO2 emissions have reached their peak. More probably they will tend to rise slowly over the coming decade,"
There have been recent reports (e.g. SkyNews) that emissions for 2015 could be down from last year. Thus, we shouldn't take the possibility that they have peaked off the table. It is certainly possible that developing countries will push up emissions in upcoming years faster than developed countries draw them down, but there is also a chance that it will go the other way. How much China and India invest in renewables deployment will probably be the biggest determinant.
Prev 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 Next
