Recent Comments

Prev  541  542  543  544  545  546  547  548  549  550  551  552  553  554  555  556  Next

Comments 27401 to 27450:

27401. Rob Honeycutt at 00:13 AM on 11 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Ignaz @29...  I don't want to dogpile here, but governments do, constantly, intervene in markets. In fact, markets cannot operate without some form of government. The SEC is a government agency. The US Treasury is a government agency. The Federal Reserve was instituted by the government and acts as a governing system. The IRS is clearly a government system.

       All of these can, and do, have influence on the marketplace on a constant and ongoing basis. Markets cannot function effectively and reliably without these governmental systems. 

       And to back up Tom Curtis, Dr. Hansen has long been a strong supporter of a revenue neutral carbon tax and dividend system.

27402. KR at 00:09 AM on 11 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Ignaz - As stated in the opening post, volcanic emissions are less than 1% those of anthropogenic emissions. That also holds for SO₂, as major emitters of SO₂ are power plants, industrial facilities, extraction of ore, and burning of high sulfur fuels (diesel). 

       Volcanic contributions to GHGs are minimal, and they have not changed significantly (relative to anthropogenic contributions) over the course of the Industrial Revolution. Certainly those are far outweighed by the volcanic contributions to stratospheric aerosols due to major eruptions, as seen in the data thereof:

       

       [Source]

       It seems a bit disingenuous to (as you are apparently doing) overemphasize volcanic contributions to climate change relative to anthropogenic activity. The numbers just don't support that. 

27403. Ignaz at 23:47 PM on 10 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       Tom Curtis bozzza Cutting and pasting notion from Wikipedia aside, are you saying you know something Einstein did not? Or are you just playing games because I picked the wrong example for the point you know I was making?  Perhaps I used the wrong notation; perhaps the finer points are... whoopdy-doo! The point is that the veracity of the laws of physics, chemical reactions, etc., are not dependent on the number of scientist who accept them. In any case, I will run it by a physicist friend who is happy to answer questions without sarcasm and condescension.
       
       

       In any case, a consensus of opinion is exactly what the 97% trope is not. It is a disingenous attempt to create consensus where it is not clear one exists, since Cook threw out the abstracts that did not express an opinion and it is not unreasonable to speculate that the reason those scientists did not express an opinion as to AGW is because they felt the data didn't support expressing one. However, to remove that doubt would be fairly simple. Instead of throwing out all the abstracts that did not express an opinion, those scientist can be poll now. Moreover, care has to be taken how the questions are formulated. It is fairly easy, no pun intended, to force the statistical outcome of any poll by the way the questions and range of accepted responses is formulated. 
       
       In addition, in regard to Nordhaus, in his own words he expresses the trouble with "chicken and egg" problem in making definitive statments about temperature sensitivity to CO2 in the atmosphere, when the CO2/temperature dependency is not isolated. Incidently, it does happen to be true that every succeeding IPCC report since 1990 has lowered the range of predicted temperatures.
       
       And finally, and this is just a general question, is their anything like a double-blind study standard being imposed on climate studies? If so, what are they? (Links would be fine - no need to trouble yourself with a long condescending explanation.) If not, then what keeps the biases present in evey other scientific enterprise from creeping into this one? (Here feel free to by all means explain away - again, no pun intended.)

        

27404. Tom Curtis at 23:34 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Ignaz @28:

       "Another bit if interesting information. Dr. James Hansen has stated that he does not support a carbon tax and he does not support the government picking winners and losers."

       I was going to leave responding to Ignaz's nonsense until tomorrow, but I dislike people who (apparently) lie about the opinions of others inorder to bolster their arguments.  In this case, the fact is that James Hansen is a vociferous and determined supporter of carbon taxes.  It is cap and trade (ie, emissions trading schemes) that he opposes.  See, for example, his detailed discussion here.  It should be noted that of the two, a carbon tax represents a more interventionist approach by government than does cap and trade.

       Further, Hansen is vociferous also in calling for a moratorium on all future coal power stations that do not capture and store their emitted CO2.  In a letter to the Obama's in 2008, he wrote of a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2" that it was the "...sine qua non for solving the climate problem."  Such a moratorium would represent a clear regulatory intervention by the government to obviate a market failure.  It would represent the government picking a loser (coal) in favour of winners (nuclear and renewables).

       In short, what Ignaz claims to be the opinion of Hansen is directly contradictory to Hansen's actual opinion.

       This is not the only example of such egregious misrepresentation by Ignaz.  I have previously discussed his misrepresentation of William Nordhaus, and his misrepresentation of the findings of inquiries into flooding in New Orleans.  This is developing into a pattern which is very hard to attribute to innocent error.

27405. DSL at 23:29 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Ignaz, I don't want to derail the thread, but governments have always intervened in markets.  There has never been--and there will never be--a general, unregulated, large-scale market economy.  The fact that the global market exists and that economic growth continues is one measure of the success of government intervention.  You may have different criteria for "success." The problem with free markets is the same as the problem with democracy: these processes only work in their participants' best interests when the participants fully understand the long-range outcomes of their actions.  That's not working out so well, especially as the emphasis seems to be on dumbing down the participants and allowing the privileged representatives (capitalists and politicians, respectively) free rei(g)n to determine what is right for the participants.  
       
       A portion of every dollar spent on fossil energy goes to organizations that are dedicated to misinforming the public on the issue of climate change. The narrative (or "memes" really, as there is no coherent narrative and, for their purpose, doesn't need to be) produced by these organizations is strongly anti-regulation. The bottom line is that corporations and companies (and their shills) speak with forked tongues as they complain about government regulation but also attempt to regulate the market by controlling public discourse and altering the politics of market participants.
       
       Do wind and solar companies also attempt to misinform the public in order to gain an edge?  I'm sure they do, but this action has nothing to do with the drive toward a more sustainable energy platform.  It has everything to do with the essential culture of the economic mode in which they are engaged (or as the shills say, "it's just human nature"). The mode encourages confusion.

27406. CBDunkerson at 23:07 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Huge estimates of wind turbine land use are derived by pretending that all of the area between individual turbines in a wind farm is being 'used' by them. This is, of course, false.

       Huge estimates of solar land use are derived by pretending that solar power cannot be deployed in areas already being 'used' (e.g. on building rooftops or over parking lots) and thus take up no additional space. This is, of course, false.

       The 'kill rate' for birds from wind power is less than that from fossil fuel power... and both are tiny compared to cats and collision with windows.

       In short, you are spouting a whole lot of nonsense.

27407. Ignaz at 23:01 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       mancan18 Governments are hesitant to intervene in markest, because there is a long history of unintended consequences when they do so. It is difficult to find examples of successful government market interventions. They tend to create shortages when they were aiming at stimulus, and creating overages where they intended throttling. Economies are non-linear dynamic, chaotic systems. No easier to predict than the weather. If it weren't so, then no one would be caught in financial crises. No one would be caught nakes when the tide went out, sort of speak.

27408. ryland at 23:01 PM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       A paper by Benjamin Lloyd-Hughes and Mark Saunders published in 2002 inthe International Journal of Climatology and examining drought on a pan-European basis (http://tinyurl.com/qcvmyvm) states inter alia

       "Drought is a recurrent feature of the European climate that is not restricted to the Mediterranean region: it can occur in high and low rainfall areas and in any season (European Environment Agency, 2001). Large areas of Europe have been affected by drought during the 20th century. Recent severe and prolonged droughts have highlighted Europe’s vulnerability to this natural hazard and alerted the public, governments, and operational agencies to the many socio-economic problems accompanying water shortage and to the need for drought mitigation measures."
       "The mean duration of extreme and moderate European drought events, on a time scale of 12 months, is 27 ± 8 months and 21 ± 3 months respectively. There is an indication that the mean duration has shortened during the 20th century".

       
       "For drought, we conclude that the proportion of Europe experiencing extreme and/or moderate drought conditions has changed insignificantly during the 20th century. Decadal trends in drought extent (Figure 6) are apparent, however, with greater pan-European drought incidence in the 1940s, early 1950s, and the 1990s, and lesser drought incidence in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1980s."

       A paper by Spinoni et al published in 2015 in the Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies entitled " The biggest droughtn events in Europe from 1950 to 2012 looked at European drought on a regional basis (http://tinyurl.com/oq6veko) conclude:
       We computed time series of the combined indicators for each region and country to determine the twenty-two biggest drought events in 1950–2012. Northern Europe and Russia show the highest drought frequency, duration, and severity in the 1950s and 1960s, where this is for the 1970s in Central Europe and the British Islands, and the 1990s and 2000s for the Mediterranean area and Baltic Republics.

       Europe experienced a decrease of drought affected areas until the early 1980s, followed by a small but continuous increase in the last three decades. The North-Eastern regions (ICE, FEN, RUS, and ex-USR) show a decrease, the South-Western ones (IBE, ITA, BLK, and AEG) an increase, and Central and Eastern Europe (FBLX, CEN, EAST, and BLC) act like transition areas showing no clear tendencies. These findings are consistent with the conclusions made by Willems, 2013a and Willems, 2013b that precipitation extremes show oscillatory behaviour over multi-decadal time scales, and that the oscillation phases shift across Europe.

       These papers are not entirely in agreement with the assertions of John Abraham

27409. DSL at 22:58 PM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Ignaz: "Therefore, it is quite clear that in addition to direct volcanic CO2 emmissions, SO2 is an indirect contributor to CO2 formation and is also implicated in global climate change. However, the exact proportions in which they form during and after volcanic emmission are not know at this time. It seems a bit disingenuous to write and article minimizing the effects of volcanic activity's contribution to climate change, when the magnitude such ancillary effects is unknown."
       
       

       Actually, SO2, regardless of the magnitude of the contribution, is not an indirect contributor to climate change unless volcanic activity producing SO2 is riding a non-zero trend to the extent that climate is shifted.  Certainly SO2 is an indirect contributor to the greenhouse effect in general, but it always has been.  There's no evidence to support the claim that SO2 is playing a role in the current climate change. Perhaps you can show that the SO2 to CO2 process just started occurring 150 years ago (rather than billions of years ago).

27410. Ignaz at 22:55 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Another bit if interesting information. Dr. James Hansen has stated that he does not support a carbon tax and he does not support the government picking winners and losers. He supports that the so-called fossil fuel externality price be redistributed back to the public on a per capita basis and letting the market decide what alternative technologies will win. He even said, and I'll find the clip from the symposium in which he said it and post it, he said, "The Democrats are really bad at this..." He was referring precisely of the penchant liberals have for using the government to intervene in markest when they can't possibly know ahead of time which technologies, or combination of technologies, will serve our needs best.

27411. Philip64 at 22:50 PM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       @ Ignaz

       "some argue that the so-called Little Ice Age was localized to Europe and therefore average global temperatures and conditions during that period cannot be extrrapolated."

       You are comparing apples and pears here. There are multiple proxies for temperature around the world contemporaneous with the Little Ice Age; these indicate that the phenomenon was largely confine to Northern Europe. To 'extrapolate' from what is largely anecdotal evidence anyway (the Thames freezing and so forth) rather than hard tempertaure data, would be simply be to ignore the bulk of the data available from around the world.

       The drought indicators for Europe need no extrapolation because we have data on rainfall from all over the planet right now (which obviously was not the case with rainfall or temperatures in the 17th Century).

       This article is simply pointing out the statistical fact that periods of low rainfall are becoming more frequent in Europe, and that this is consistent with higher temperatures at these latitudes. If temperatures continue to rise (which they surely will), it is likely that this trend will continue. So this year is indeed a taste of things to come, in that such dry years are likiely to become more and more the norm, rather than the exception.

27412. Ignaz at 22:28 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Another issue almost completely ignored by alternative energy advocates here, but which to their credit the IPCC warns, is "energy sprawl." Alternative energy is a land use hog! Estimates vary, but I have heard solar panels, wind turbines, and storage batteries needing to cover an area equivalent to Connecticut just to supply the eastern seaboard! We also know of the tremendous slaughter of birds - some of them endangered - from wind farms. And while some reports have attempted to disingenuously minimize this effect by claiming cats kill more birds than windmills, cats generally kill small urban birds that are plentiful. They generally don't kill hawks, eagles, whooping cranes, herons, etc.
       
       So, to recap and stay on topic, we have toxicity costs; land use costs; wildlife costs. Where are Citigroup's actuarial analyses on their pseudo-renewables projects, accounting for these costs?
       
       And again, there is still the unanswered issue of Citigroup's clairvoyance in coming up with these $190 and $192 TRILLION dollar figures, when they couldn't even predict the real costs of the risk they were exposing themselves to when they actually had all the data in hand! I thnk one has to be fairly credulous to accept their findings at face value. Particularly, when the have a conflict of interest as I outlined previously.

27413. Ignaz at 21:59 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Tom Curtis By the way, insurers are just as liable for the externalities from the pseudo-renewables projects they underwrite as they are from any effects of climate change. The blade cuts both ways.

27414. Ignaz at 21:49 PM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Kevin C Tom Curtis As you know, Citigroup provides a plethora of services. In regard to the subject at hand, see links below outlining a $100 billion, ten year plan for investment, and scope of operation representing varying income streams in the sector. In addition, Citigroup, or any ohter insurer, would not sell insuruance unless their actuarials show them they can make a profit - contrary to apparent belief, insurance companies are not in the business of lossing money. The fact that insurance companies epose themselve to losses is not evidence of their magnanimity. I am also fairly certain you understand the tremendous political lobbying power that not only Citigroup but of other public and private equity firms have to influence - to put it mildly - government policy and regulations.
       
       The problem, Kevin, is that if Citigroup is lobbying the govenrment to impose regulations that help those investments gain value and help expand their insurance portfolio into a heretofore non-existant industrial sector, while at the same time knowing that there is little hope of non-fossil fuels replacing the ~25 TWh consumed in the U.S. today and the growing energy demands tomorrow, then that represents a tremendous conflict of interests. It smacks of cronism, not "saving the planet." Moreover, for the $150+ billion spent so far, and the ~$39 billion yearly subsidy, renewables are only 8% of the U.S. energy portfolio, and not a relieable 8% - that number is a yearly average. It is unlikely to grow much further, since innovation is agnostic and is happening just as fast in the fossil fuel energy industry as it is in the non-fossil energy industry.
       
       In addition, the word "renewable" as applied to alternatives to fossil energy sources is misleading. The only thing that is renewable is the sunshine and the wind. Neodynium, for example, while abundant, is not renewable and has a limited effective lifespan, with electricity generation efficiency falling thoughout its life cylce. The same is true of solar panels. Moreover, there is a host of elements and compounds used in the generation, storage and transmission of so-called renewables, which are not present on this planet in limitless supply. And as you know, China produces 95% of the world's lanthanides and South Africa is the exclusive source of other vital components in the renewable supply chain. Therefore, there is also a foreign dependency component to the sector as presently envisioned. Is the American environmental movement ready to support a massive exapansion in U.S. open pit mining? (For a primer on this subject, see the history of Molycorp, the ONLY U.S. based rare earth mining company, which incidently the Chinese own a controlling interest! http://www.molycorp.com/about-us/our-history/ )
       
       Furthermore, the AGW lobby demands that externalities be taken in to account in the price of energy from fossil fuels. However, they completely ignore the cost of toxic and carcinogenic externalities present in renewable energy sources. Below is a brief but not exhaustive list of some those externalities garnered from the Nocera Lab at Harvard University. All of these elements have to be mined and process somewhere, and eventually some will have to be disposed while others will be reprocessed, i.e., recycled. (Recycling is not without its own externalities.) Has anyone in the renewable energy sector calculated these costs and included them in the already high price of fossil fuel alternatives? (If anyone know of such cost calculations, I would appreciate an article or at least a link.)

       The inconvenient truth is solar and wind require lots and lots of mining and processing of toxic and carcinogenic elements and compounds. As you may know, Daniel Nocera runs the Nocera Lab: The Chemistry of Renewable Energy, at Harvard University. This non-exhaustive list of elements and chemicals is taken from study abstracts linked to the Nocera Lab site for 2015. Abstract from previous years expand the list of toxic and carcinogenic materials under study. (Links follow at the end.)

       POLYPHENYLENE-VINLENE
       BUCKBALL-based materials
       (Buckyballs are carbon and PPV is toxic.)

       COBALT and NICKEL catalysts for artificial photosynthesis.

       Between cobalt and nickel, which is the non-toxic one? (Sorry for the snark, but it is difficult to not be flippant when such obvious issues are studiously ignored and avoided by the green lobby.)

       PHOSPHINE mediator and NICKEL metal catalyst.

       Phosphine is highly toxic and potentially fatal if inhaled.

       Co phosphate oxide (CoPi)"
       
       Cobalt - that was the non-toxic one, right? 

       CADMIUM TELLURIDE (CdTe)
       CADMIUM SULFIDE
       COPPER INDIUM GALLIIUM SELENIUM (CuInGaSe2; CIGS)

       More toxic chemicals that someone has to mining and process.

       RUTHENIUM [Ru(II)]
       BIPYRIDYL
       TITANIUM OXIDE (TiO2)"

       BIPYRIDYL is highly toxic. RUTHENIUM is highly toxic and carcinogenic, and extremely rare being only the 74th most abundant element in Earth's crust. Incidently, solar panels employing RUTHENIUM are currently the highest in energy conversion efficiency in the lab.

       HYDROCARBONS
       CARBON nanotube matrix
       ORGANIC electrodes."

       Hydrocarbons should not need explaining. And the word "ORGANIC" of course related to CARBON.

       LEAD SULFIDE (PbS), and LEAD SELENIDE (PbSe)"

       More brain damaging poisons.

       STRONTIUM TITANATE (SrTiO3), doped TiO2
       PLATINUM (Pt)
       RUTHENIUM(IV) oxide (RuO2) IRIDIUM(IV) oxide (IrO2)
       CADMIUM SULFIDE (CdS)
       INDIUM PHOSPHIDE (InP)... TANTALUM (oxy)NITRIDE (TaON) CHROMIUM(III) oxide (Cr2O3)
       
       Again, more toxic compounds.

       Furthermore, the newest RNA/DNA-based electricity generating technology produces its own set of toxic externalities. Moreover, if you think environmentalists are upset of GMOs, wait until this information wafts into their general consciousness. Hold on tight, we are in for a bumpy ride.

       http://nocera.harvard.edu/Home

       http://nocera.harvard.edu/Publications2015

       https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/140630/140646.aspx

       http://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/opportunities.htm

       http://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/operations.htm

27415. Ignaz at 20:14 PM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       To the Moderator: The title of the article is, "Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come." in addition, the first paragraph states, "This drought, like the one in 2012 in the United States, are a sign of what our future holds in a warming world." Then the artcle ends with a quote from Dr. Jürgen Vogt: "Extreme temperatures and dry conditions as observed this year are likely to increase in frequency and severity over the coming decades..."

       Therefore, I think scolding anyone by claiming that this artilce makes no "claims that the drought itself is climate change" is unwarranted and disingenous. In fact, to make such an assertion is to obfuscate the main thrust the of the article, which was not written merely to inform the public about European drought condition pervailing in the summer of 2015 but to tie these conditions to future climate change.

27416. Ignaz at 19:50 PM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       On the one hand, some argue that the so-called Little Ice Age was localized to Europe and therefore average global temperatures and conditions during that period cannot be extrrapolated. On the other hand, one summer of drought in Europe is a harbinger of global conditions for the century to come?
       
       Exactly how are these two perspectives be reconciled?

27417. Ignaz at 18:52 PM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Volcanoes also emit carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen flouride (HF), boron, hydrogen bromine (HBr), mercury (Hg) vapor, and organic compounds. It seems at least incomplete to not address the interaction of these compounds in the atmosphere and their effect on average atmospheric temperature.
       
       Momentarily putting aside the effects of other volcanic emmissions, a complete picture cannot emerge without addressing the following interactions concerning volcanic activity's contribution to global warming:
       1) Chemical interaction of CS2 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at high temperatures, resulting in CO2 formation;
       
       2) Combustion of CS2 in the presence of oxygen producing SO2 and CO2;
       
       3) Photolysis of CS2 leading to the formation of COS, CO, and SO2, which are indirect contributors to CO2 formation;
       
       4) One-step hydrolysis of CS2, producing reactive intermediates and ultimately forming H2S and CO2;
       
       5) Two-step hydrolysis of CS2 forming the reactive COS intermediate that reacts with an additional water molecule, ultimately forming H2S and CO2. CS2 and COS additionally are implicated in the formation of SO2 in the stratosphere and/or troposphere.
       
       Therefore, it is quite clear that in addition to direct volcanic CO2 emmissions, SO2 is an indirect contributor to CO2 formation and is also implicated in global climate change. However, the exact proportions in which they form during and after volcanic emmission are not know at this time. It seems a bit disingenuous to write and article minimizing the effects of volcanic activity's contribution to climate change, when the magnitude such ancillary effects is unknown.

27418. denisaf at 15:42 PM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       This discussion of the contribution to climate change is very interesting. But the associated ocean warming, toxicity and acidification should also be brought into the discussions as their influence on the operations of society will also be profound.

       New York, London and the Netherlands are carrying out measures to cope with the expected sea level rise. How many other major adaption measures are under way aroung the globe?

27419. Tom Curtis at 12:01 PM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       ryland @1 asks if the hot, dry weather in Europe this summer may have been an ENSO impact.  As can be seen, the June-August impacts of El Nino's do not impact Europe:

       

       Wikipedia says:

       "El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe. The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season."

       So not only is it the wrong season for the drought to be an ENSO impact, but El Nino's lead to wetter weather in Southern Europe, and colder weather in Northern Europe, so that hot, dry weather across both is very unlikely to be an ENSO impact.

       ryland also gives an an anecdotal account of his stay in France, but does not mention where in France.  As can be seen from the maps, the mediterainian coast (particularly near Monaco) was largely spared the impacts of heat and drought.  Nor does he give a precise time period.  Anecdotes are poor evidence relative to measured data, but when they are so vague as Ryland's they are worthless.

       Finally, Ryland draws attention to the fact that the current drought and heatwave is only the worst in over a decade.  That is probably because just over a decade ago, Europe suffered the 2003 heatwave, described as " the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540", and of which it is further said:

       "The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peer-reviewed analysis places the European death toll at more than 70,000."

       Since then Europe was hit by a further heatwave in 2010, which also set record temperatures in the areas impacted by the 2003 and 2015 heatwaves, a fact often missed due to the appropriate attention to the astonishing impacts in Russia.  The July 2015 heatwave has also broken several temperature records.

       So, in the space of 13 years, Europe has been hit by an (approx) 1:500 year heatwave event with two follow up heat waves almost as bad (and much worse in other parts of Europe for one of them).  It would be interesting to see precise statistics, but a succession of such previously rare or unprecedented events in so short a space of time is an issue about climate change.  It is not just a matter of weather.  John Abraham may reasonably be criticized for not giving sufficient note to the fact that the 2015 event is the worst in just over a decade; but the criticism is that he did not set this heat wave in the context of other recent events - not the spurious argument by Ryland.

27420. Firgoose at 10:36 AM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       That's a fine collection of irrelevancies that you're offering there, ryland. Keep it up. I hope that you'll continue to go to France over the coming decades and report back how it seems okay  to you. It's invaluable data, I can assure you, and by far the most important part of your post. :-)

27421. ryland at 09:57 AM on 10 September 2015
       Europe is parched, in a sign of times to come
       

       This article is making much of very little.  As has been the case for the last 10 years, I was in France in June and July and where I was  it was warm to hot but temperatures were not abnormally high and there was some rain.  But personal experience of the weather aside this piece by John Abraham starts with the comment the worst drought in over a decade.  Surely this is just weather as climate has to be considered in periods of not less than 30 years. Or am I mistaken and 10 years is now the new norm?  On the other hand the weather in the UK this year was cool and damp with rainfall slightly above the norm so is this what we can expect in the UK with climzte change?

       Paul Homewood in Not a lot of people know that said "It all rather goes to show just how variable British weather is in summer."  I think that comment applies equally to Europe

       Perhaps more significantly Chief Scientist at the Met Office Julia Slgo commenting on the poor UK summer had this to say (http://tinyurl.com/omcjc9f):

       "If we look beyond our shores there have been some big changes in the global climate this year. El Niño is in full flight, disturbing weather patterns around the world. The low pressure that has dominated our weather is part of a pattern of waves in the jet stream around the world that has brought crippling heat waves to places like Poland and Japan. And, looking back over past El Niños, you could have expected that a more unsettled summer might be on the cards for the UK. Closer to home the North Atlantic is more than 2 degrees colder than normal. It seems quite likely that the unusually cold North Atlantic has strengthened and pushed our jet stream south, also contributing to the low pressure systems that have dominated our weather."

       So how much has the weather in Europe been affected by El Nino rather than by human induced climate change?   

        

        

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This is bordering on cheap sloganeering. The article presents drought severity data for Europe not anecdote nor local conditions. Nor claims that the drought itself is climate change. It notes that higher temperatures (that is climate change) will worsen low rainfall conditions. If you wish to contest the drought severity, then present alternative data. I doubt you can contest that warmer temperatures will not worsen drought nor that Europe is getting warmer over 30 years.

27422. mancan18 at 09:27 AM on 10 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       I have been following this thread for a few days now. I am surprised that there has been no mention of "negative externalities" in the debate. As I understand it "negative externalities" are costs that aren't paid for by the company or consumers but are paid for by others, like taxpayers and insurance companies when alleviating the health, social and environmental costs associated with the consumption of a product. In other words "negative externalities" are costs of production/use where the cost burden has been been transferred from the company to others outside the company. If fossil fuel companies had to account for all their "negative externalities" then the economic viability of fossil fuels would make their consumption questionable. The trouble is no-one at the corporate level or in Government seems to be interested in determining the real and expected "negative externality" costs associated with the production of fossil fuels. Now I would have thought that this should be possible if there was a will to do so. Insurance companies do it all the time when assessing future risk. Companies make expected cost projections all the time when they are tendering for contracts. Governments do it all the time when determining future infrastructure needs. There should be enough historical cost data held by Governments and insurance companies to determine expected future "negative externalities" associated with the production of fossil fuels. Introducing levies and tax surcharges by Governments related to "negative externalites" would go a long way towards addressing the detrimental imacts of using fossil fuels. To determine what to charge could be done using the same methods that insurance companies use to determine premiums. Future expected external costs (negative externalities) associated with using fossil fuels could be determined using historical data and growth projections; and the exact tax for each company could be based on their turnover. The main problem is finding politicians who have the political wherewithall to introduce such a controversial scheme. If developed it could also be used in the tobacco industry and other socially and environmentally detrimental industries. I guess it is much simpler to gain the necessary political bipartisanship to introduce carbon taxes or ETS's rather than schemes to account for negative externalities.

       Just an observation related to transferring from fossil fuels to renewables. It would seem that the costs of using fossil fuels is initially cheaper with the long term costs being more expensive but hidden and paid for by others (us all) at a later date. Whereas, the initial costs of using renewables is expensive but the long term costs/benefits are cheaper but are paid for by and benefit the consumer. Now since operation of modern corporations revolve around short term profits and current rates of return it does mean that long term investments are not considered with the same importance as the short term bottom line. Governments, if they are doing there job properly, should always be concerned with the long term, with the world a generation from now. Unfortunately, many in Government have their thinking based around the short term business model.

       Also, another observation, just transferring from the use of oil to renewables for transport is not quite so simple as introducing carbon taxes and ETS's. At the moment there are petrol/gas stations everywhere and people can just fill their car or truck up whenever and whereever they want. To have electrical charging stations and hydrogen fuel stations everywhere requires a certain market saturation to make it viable. That is not going to be a simple process. It will require the intervention of Governments for a while, and they seem to be reticent to intervene in the market when it doesn't suit them.

27423. PluviAL at 07:02 AM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Volcanism did cause great extinctions, via the Russian steps. So volcanism can be a great contributor. Further, volcanism might be able to destabilize clathrate, CH4 also causing great GHG effects. So, we should not discount itds potential.
       This is not to disagree with the premise of the article, anthropomorphic effects to date are 131 times greater. What I am concerned with is that isostatic adjustment of the planet’s surface as ice loads change might induce greater activity in volcanism and clathrate destabilization.

       When mentioned before some one recommended Bill McGuire's "Waking the Giant", which I read, thanks for the lead. This work however undercounts this potential in an effort not to seem to out there. My fear, and it is just a feeling based on energy flows on the planet, is that the potential is much greater than we know.

27424. Kiwiiano at 05:52 AM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Yellowstone Park has more thermal features (geysers, steam vents, mud pools, etc) that the rest of the world combined, over 10,000, yet I bet it's out-numbered by the LA Freeway system alone, let alone every other city on the planet. Sure, volcanoes can be spectacular, but they only erupt in decadal or century intervals, the streams of vehicles are relentless, day after day, year after year.

27425. KR at 05:52 AM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       r.pauli - This has not been overlooked, see Judd et al 2002 for an example. Their estimate is that geological sources add up to perhaps 4% of the atmospheric methane budget. 

27426. r.pauli at 03:20 AM on 10 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       I just learned of another eruption - like a giant pimple - are "methane pockmarks"  on the sea floor and open tundra - a few studies done.    Might be another type of geological eruption.  Lots of visualizations from a search on that term.   I have to wonder, has this been overlooked, or underestimated?

27427. One Planet Only Forever at 01:41 AM on 10 September 2015
       Denial101x MOOC - Full list of videos and references at your fingertips
       

       Digby Scorgie and scaddenp,

       I support the pursuit of enjoyment in life ... limited by behaving thoughtfully, responsibly and considerately so that your actions do not contradict or confound or challenge the development of a lasting better future for a robust diversty of life on this amazig planet.

       The fudamental problem is that not everyone will responsibly limit their pursuits. The developed socio-political-economic systems which measure success through personal perceptions of power, popularity and profitability encourage people to pursue the freedom to behave as thoughlessly, callously and irresponsibly as possible because that allows them to perceive to have 'won compared to others'.

       Live lightly and as helpfully as you are able. And if you are able, point out the unacceptability of those other percieved to be desireable ways of 'spending' a lifetime.

27428. CBDunkerson at 22:49 PM on 9 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       bvangerven, I'm not sure where you are going with your first point. I agree that fracking is a temporary phenomenon and US natural gas prices will rise again (indeed, they already are)... but if anything that makes the case for stranded assets due to renewables taking over stronger than if natural gas prices had remained low. We're now moving from natural gas killing off coal power to wind & solar killing off both coal and natural gas. You seem to be assuming that higher fossil fuel prices = more investment in fossil fuels. That was true when they didn't have any competition and higher prices just meant higher profits. However, the equation has changed for fuels other than 'oil'. Now high coal and natural gas (electricity generating fossil fuels) prices means more investment in less expensive (and thus more profitable) wind and solar.

       As to tar sands, no they aren't comparable in any meaningful way. It's an almost entirely separate industry... tar sands go almost entirely to power the transportation industry while wind & solar power go almost entirely to electricity production. Thus, there is virtually no overlap... the technologies aren't currently in competition with each other. I doubt there has ever been such a thing as a tar sands driven electrical power plant.. they wouldn't be even remotely cost competitive. Conversely, wind & solar can't make in-roads on transportation because battery costs for electric vehicles are still too high. However, that separation of markets does not mean that tar sands enjoy the same 'free fuel' effect as wind and sunlight... tar sands have to be processed and transported. That costs money. They inherently can't make a profit unless they can charge more than their costs... which they can only do because all of their competitor fuel sources have similar limitations. If that changes (e.g. electric car batteries become cheap) then truly free fuel sources like solar could undercut all fossil fuels in the transportation industry as well. Imagine a hybrid that can run on electricity or gasoline... given that electricty costs less per mile than gasoline (and independently generated solar electricity costs nothing) why would anyone pay for gasoline when they didn't have to? They'd plug in and/or solar charging as much as they could... greatly decreasing the amount of gasoline purchased. The fuel source would be undercut... just as we are seeing with electricity generation. Also, I don't expect to see high 'oil' prices again. At this point, everyone is in full scale production mode to grab as much profit as they can before oil joins coal and natural gas on the obsolete list. That means over-supply and low prices. The only way to drive prices up would be to cut back on production... but that would just hasten the day when the balance of costs make battery electric vehicles a better choice.

       Finally, I think you are still phrasing your question wrong. Yes, unless displaced by some new technology, renewables will definitely allow us "to stop climate change and attain a low carbon society"... the uncertainty is in how bad climate change will get before that happens. I'd say the 2 C limit is all but impossible to achieve at this point (i.e. world governments would have to make a real meaningful effort), but we should stop short of 3 C even with governments continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industries.

27429. bvangerven at 19:32 PM on 9 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       @Bozzza: I would appreciate it if you would respond to my arguments, instead of just calling them “simplistic”.

       
       And, yes, I know what Jevon’s paradox is, and what price elasticity is.

       
       One example of Jevon’s paradox: When renewables are deployed on a large scale, this could give the economy such a boost that the consumption of fossil fuels goes UP, not down.

27430. bvangerven at 19:30 PM on 9 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       @CBDunkerson: 

       You make valid points (thanks), but I am having the following reservations:

       
       1. I am having serious doubts how long the low fossil fuel prices are going to last. You mention that coal companies are struggling. What about the losses fracking companies are making ?
       One of the reasons the fossil fuel prices became so low is the shale investment boom. Investors put hundreds of millions of dollars into fracking companies that make big losses, something they wouldn’t dream of doing in any other industry.
       See a.o.: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill
       One company is spending $4 for every dollar of income from shale gas (figures from 2014). I.e. oil and gas are cheap because they are heavily “subsidized” by investors. This is going to implode some day.

       
       2. You wrote: “the cost to run a renewable power plant is essentially the same whether the power is being used or not”. That logic also applies f.i. for tar sand companies. They suffer from the low fossil fuel prices, but the huge up front investment is already made. They are not making enough profit to cover their total cost, but they are still making enough profit to cover their running costs, so they will continue their business.

       
       3. Global CO2 emissions are still growing, close to the worst case scenario modelled by the IPCC. By now I would expect to see renewables make a dent in this graph. Let me rephrase my question: Do you think that renewables will become so cheap and deployed so quickly and on such a scale that a significant quantity of fossil fuel assets become stranded ? (a significant quantity meaning: enough to stop climate change and to attain a low carbon society). I don’t know the answer to that question, but I think it is a big gamble. Right now the evolution seems positive because of the low FF prices, but these prices are going to rise again. And the FF investors will be back.

27431. bozzza at 14:57 PM on 9 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       @ Tom, cool!

        

       I'm not that in the know it would seem, lol!

27432. bozzza at 14:55 PM on 9 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Volcanoes are "like a pimple": you can quote me on that as that is how the scientists themselves regard their input to climate change if you are in the know.

27433. bozzza at 14:51 PM on 9 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       I think you've actually unfairly assessed what Emma said in the very fist instance.

       What she said wasn't well worded or explained so an article looking at it as a mistake really should ask her to explain what she really meant.

       Did she mean if they burnt everything the wanted to burn immediately??

        

       ^{She is guilty of exaggeration yet her thought experiment may have relied on numbers we aren't privy too... did anyone ask her for her sources?}

27434. bozzza at 14:42 PM on 9 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       @18, look up a concept called "Jevons Paradox" and see if you can figure out what the word "elasticity" means?

        

       Your simplistic arguments are only fooling yourself.

        

       In regards to Government intervention into the non-existant free-market: they don't lead- the people lead. Governments follow!!

        

       The concept of "Elasticity" starts to get a bit weird/fun/too-big-to-fail now...

27435. Rolf Jander at 13:03 PM on 9 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Thanks Tom, that is good to know.

27436. Tom Curtis at 12:39 PM on 9 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       Rolf Jander:

       1)  Fossil Fuel has the same C14 (radiocarbon) signature as volcanic erruptions, but a very different C13 signature.

       2)  Emmissions from the biosphere (respiration of animals, combustion or decomposition of plants) has the same C13 signature as fossil fuel emissions, but a very different C14 signature.

       3)  Between the two signatures, it is possible to possitively exclude both volcanic and biosphere emissions as the primary source of the recent in increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentration, thereby positively identifying anthropogenic emissions as the only possible cause.

       This is discussed in more detail here, along with other relevant lines of evidence.

27437. Rolf Jander at 12:09 PM on 9 September 2015
       Volcanic vs. Human-Caused CO2 Emissions - Updated Graphic
       

       I was wondering if co2 from volcanoes has the same raidiocarbon signature as that from burning fossilfuel.

27438. Treesong2 at 09:33 AM on 9 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       I don't think purity matters as much as you think. They don't shout 'you too' because to do so would be admitting that they get things wrong, and they shout about as loud when we get things right. Accuracy is of course very desirable, but irrelevant to dealing with denialists.

27439. r.pauli at 08:13 AM on 9 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       The Proven Thing is the central tenet of Apocalyptic Cornucopianism  -  the fastest growing cult religion of all future times. 

27440. Dcrickett at 04:36 AM on 9 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       The specific Δ°C/year is largely irrelevant as concerns the urgency of implementing appropriate and aggressive action. However, when it comes to people speaking out or writing on this urgency, the need for getting the numbers right is every bit as important: we must be purer than Cæsar’s wife. The denialist legions are always ready to shout out “tu quoque” even when we get all the detail right.

27441. Jim Eager at 03:45 AM on 9 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       All shastatodd offers up is a different kind of head-in-the-sand denial.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] You might like to check the comments policy.

27442. shastatodd at 00:58 AM on 9 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       who cares? no one is willing or interested in changing their (supposed) non-negotiable lifestyles, so just enjoy these remaining good days, because this will not end well.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Borderline sloganeering and flame bait. No more responses to this please.

27443. CBDunkerson at 23:00 PM on 8 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       bvangerven wrote: "Hoping that renewables will become so cheap and deployed so quickly and on such a scale that fossil fuel assets become stranded ... is a big gamble."

       It really isn't. Indeed, in some parts of the world this is already happening... and it seems all but inevitable on a global scale.

       Look at the coal industry in the United States. Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, has become a penny stock. The second largest and several others have filed for bankruptcy. Coal has gone from generating 53% of US electricity in 1997 to 37% in 2012. There hasn't been any new coal power built in years, and old plants are shutting down early because they cost more to operate than they can make in profits.

       Those early shuttered coal plants are 'stranded assets'. The reason no new coal plants are being built is that they'd all be stranded assets. Now, this is a special case because the collapse of coal has largely been driven by cheap natural gas from 'fracking'. However, solar and wind power costs in some parts of the country are now even lower than natural gas costs. Basically, the U.S. got a head start on the death of coal due to the natural gas boom, but low renewable power costs will have the same impact.

       Many areas in Africa which have never had electricity at all are now skipping fossil fuels entirely and going directly to solar power. The same is true in other developing areas, including formerly off grid portions of India and China. That doesn't create stranded assets but it means the fossil fuel plants never get built at all... because if they were they would have become stranded assets.

       As to fossil fuels being 'basically free'... even with your caveats there is a problem with that analysis. Here in the United States many areas 'bid' on power in distinct blocks (e.g. X kilowatts for 15 minutes). In the northeast, some of the big fossil fuel companies got the bright idea of taking a loss to underbid renewables and drive them out of the market. Small problem... the cost to run a renewable power plant is essentially the same whether the power is being used or not. So the renewable plants could bid zero and be no worse off than if they had been outbid. Indeed, some of them that were being subsidized could even bid negative (we will pay you to take our electricity), and still make a profit! In short, fossil fuel plants will never be able to compete because their fuel costs are not zero. Wind and sunlight really are "free". There is absolutely no reason for wind/solar plants not to bid as low as they have to in order for them to sell every electron they produce. Thus, once a renewable energy plant is built it will always be able to underbid a fossil fuel plant... thereby effectively turning that fossil fuel plant into a stranded asset.

27444. bvangerven at 21:07 PM on 8 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       @bozzza: 

       I don’t know how it is where you live. But in Europe the public has been encouraged to reduce its energy use for the last 20 years at least. I estimate that perhaps 5% of the people reduced their energy consumption by a significant amount. Having a “Thick Sweaters Day” once a year (on this day people are asked to turn down the heating and to wear a thick sweater instead) will not lead to a low carbon society.

       
       Hoping that renewables will become so cheap and deployed so quickly and on such a scale that fossil fuel assets become stranded ... is a big gamble. (By the way, this is not the scenario the Carbon Tracker Initiative warns about. The Carbon Tracker Initiative predicts that at a certain point in the future the government will intervene and restrict the burning of fossil fuels somehow, rendering a lot of the current fossil fuel reserves worthless).

       
       Fossil fuels are basically free. The law of supply and demand dictates that a product will be consumed at the price and in the amount determined by the intersection of the supply curve and demand curve. If a product is free, the supply curve is a horizontal line at 0 (see picture below). As a consequence, the equilibrium point shifts to the far right which means: the product will be consumed until exhaustion of that product.

       

       Yes I know. Fossil fuels are not really free, there is an extraction and refinement cost. But it illustrates the principle. At some point in the future, perhaps, renewables will replace fossil fuels. Electric cars will replace fossil fuel powered cars. But will it happen in time to prevent the worst ? Or will it happen only after most of the current fossil fuel reserves have been burnt ? In my opinion, without a price on carbon it will be too little too late.

27445. Wizzy at 19:29 PM on 8 September 2015
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Ok, reading more carefully I got the answer: The land net flux was just negative in parts of the past in between pre-industrial and now; in the graph however everything is shown for recent time.

27446. Wizzy at 19:22 PM on 8 September 2015
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Maybe its because the 'soil' stock change isn't displayed? However, it almost looks like the -30 +/ 45 PgC number refers to both Vegetation and Soil. In this case, if I didn't misread the graph otherwise, I lack any explanatory approach :)

27447. Wizzy at 19:12 PM on 8 September 2015
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       I have a slightly off-topic, but to me pressing question about the IPCC graph displayed in #36: The net land flux is shown to be increased by 2.6 +/- 1.2 PgC(arrow downwards), however the Vegetation reservoir became de(!)creased ( -30 +/- 45 PgC). I can't see were the additional 'land' Carbon is ending up. This seems inconsistent. Is there a missing number in the graph?

        

27448. bozzza at 18:42 PM on 8 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       wrong- they will be stranded assets because the public stops demanding them and competitive products come to the marketplace to make them unviable.

27449. bvangerven at 17:41 PM on 8 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Hi Rob #4, I know about the stranded assets and the Carbon Tracker Initiative (very interesting stuff) But these assets will only become stranded if our political leaders have the nerve to act against climate change. See also ExxonMobil’s answer to the question: what do you intend to do to mitigate the risk of stranded assets ? Answer: NOTHING, we don’t think this is a risk because we don’t believe that our politicians will do anything against climate change.

       
       http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/Files/Other/2014/Report%20-%20Energy%20and%20Climate

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. Please use the link button to create link.

27450. bozzza at 16:51 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       It would seem I am a pedant without a cause...

Prev  541  542  543  544  545  546  547  548  549  550  551  552  553  554  555  556  Next