Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
Comments 27551 to 27600:
-
dudo39 at 01:47 AM on 13 September 2015The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
Tom Curtis @ 27,
Please note that I mentioned that the relatively high CO2 concentration in exhaled air as an indication that CO2 in ambient air is not harmful or toxic to humans.
While the inspired air currently has about 400 ppm of CO2, the residual air in the lungs has about 4% of CO2: as the inspired and residual air volumes readily mix the resulting CO2 concentration may be in excess of 1%.
I did not say, nor imply, that the anthropogenic CO2 has something to do with direct physiological impacts. -
PluviAL at 18:03 PM on 12 September 2015The Exception Extinction
Beautiful article, one of the best I have seen here or anywhere. Al along reading I was groping about the pendulum swings and stabilizing mechanics which was the conclusion.
One of the stabilizing factors I was groping for is the increasing masses of both carbon in storage factors, and in the capacity of the biome to reach plane adjusting scale.
Finally, the one point that very little attention is given to, is the possibility that CO2 affects cryosphere dynamics and inertial mass, and potentially volcanism. If so, then mechanisms that adjust CO2, also adjust volcanism. The mechanics are enhanced by direct and indirect effects on storage systems. For example: CO2 to temperature, to clathrates and permafrost, to temperature, to volcanism, to temperature, to greater clathrate releases, etc. This is just a guess, but it sure seems plausible in the clear and colorful light of this article.
The other thing is that we are working these mechanics by ignorance and so, we can work them by knowledge too: We can adjust climate, and subclimates, if we chose to.
-
Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
The agenda is clear. Ignaz, in a monumentally simplistic move, reveals that government is evil because of the flawed design of one section of a Corps levee project. I'm surprised Ignaz hasn't mentioned Obama.
Moderator Response:[DB] Ignaz has recused himself from further participation in this venue, finding compliance with this site's Comments Policy a too-onerous burden.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
I have responded to Ignaz' first point @46 above where it is on topic. I cannot help but observe that I already made a detailed rebutal of his point on that page, showing Ignaz to have clearly misrepresented the situation. Ignaz appears unable to counter that rebutal, and has certainly avoided doing so. Instead he merely repeats his refuted claim elsewhere, where he can hope some have not read the rebuttal. Again (and typically) he provides neither citation nor link in support of his claims.
Moderator Response:[DB] Ignaz has recused himself from further participation in this venue, finding compliance with this site's Comments Policy a too-onerous burden.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 12 September 2015Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
Elsewhere, Ignaz has again asserted that "As per the Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans flooded because of flawed levee design". I think his refusal to discuss the topic here, where my response to his nonsense is immediately available is telling. Typically for Ignaz, he provides no citation and no link for his claim. I presume, therefore, that he is again rellying on the testimony of Lt General Karl Strock that he reffers to above. The only direct report of that testimony that I can find states:
"In the closest thing yet to a mea culpa, the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged Wednesday that a "design failure" led to the breach of the 17th Street Canal levee that flooded much of the city during Hurricane Katrina. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock told a Senate committee that the corps neglected to consider the possibility that floodwalls atop the 17th Street Canal levee would lurch away from their footings under significant water pressure and eat away at the earthen barriers below. "We did not account for that occurring," Strock said after the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "It could be called a design failure.""
The report makes it very clear that Strock reffers only to the 17th street canal failures, not to all levee failures.
His restricted admission is appropriate, as the USGS discussion of the levee failures makes quite clear. That is because the majority of levee "failures" were the result of the levees being overtopped - ie, of "storm induced" failures in the wording of the legend of the first map @7 above.
Yet again it is very plain that Ignaz is taking restricted evidence applicable to only a few of the levee failures, and explicitly stated in connection to the 17th street Canal failures only, and treating them as an admission regarding all failures, contrary to the facts.
Moderator Response:[RH] Yes. Ignaz is quickly running out of rope and is trying the patience of moderators.
-
mancan18 at 08:42 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
The experience of dioxin, the toxic waste by-product from the manufacture of chlorine products, is relevant when discussing the toxic by-products from manufacturing renewables. It is true that dioxin is a toxic waste product that has had a global impact, as it has been found in the food chain and associated with some cancers in humans. There is no doubt that the unfetted production of solar panels would no doubt lead to an accumulation of toxic substances in the environment if there were no effort to control them. Due to the unforeseen problems that dioxins have caused in the global ecosystem, dioxins are now treated in a highly regulated manner, i.e. Governments have intervened in the market to ensure that dixoins do not accumulate any further in the environment and cause any significant future harm. The toxic by-products from manufacturing renewables could be treated in the same manner making it mandatory for manufacturers to expidite proper disposal or seek alternative methods. Also, this is likely to be much more viable than any of the so called CO2 sequestration or geoenginnering schemes where the CO2 storage problems are immense and unintended environmental consequences are unkown and likely to be detrimental. Simply, toxic waste from widespread solar panel manufacture is unlikely to have the global impact that CO2 is currently having if a proper regulatory framework is in place.
-
Ignaz at 07:17 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Tom Curtis
1) As per the Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans flooded because of flawed levee design, i.e., govenrment incompetence, not because of a category 3 hurricane. Dance around it all you want, that is essentially what they reported.
2) The reason for including buckballs, and "organic," is to piont out the fact you seem to studiously ignore, that the extraction of carbon is still part of the mix. (See graphene as well)
3) Asserting that these toxic substances can be used safely is mere opinion. Thousands of so-called Superfund sites around the country, including ones which occurred after 1968 and the EPA's creation, belie your confidence. Moreover, assserting solar and wind "will probably require far less mining and toxic waste than the normal mining processes," is an absurd, unsupported specualtion, not a fact. You clearly have not looked into the envirionmental impacts of China's rare earth industry.
4) You ignore the supply side of economics. Carbon fuels have increased in efficeincy as they have dropped in price. Remember when "peak oil" was a thing? I was a thing precisely because government created a shortage by edict. Now Obama tries to take credit for the innovation of private industry and the exploration and extraction that has occurred on prvate land. The inconvenient fact is that innovation and progress are agnostic. It is happening just as fast in the carbon-based economy as it is in the alternative fuel economy. No alternative fuel, except nuclear, can keep up with the energy denisty of carbon.5) You ignore the so-called "energy sprawl" problem, as well as the environemental impact of sprawling solar and wind energy projects, which yield orders of magnitude less energy per acre. Solar and wind have an outsized land use footprint, which includes mining and generation, compared to any other energy source.
6) On a personal note, if trailings from copper and cobalt mines were not a health hazard, then why would the government, let alone environmentists, be so concerned with their clean up? Silly boy, clearly you're using a personal anecdote to dispel concerns. The EPA evidently doesn't have as cavalier an attitude as you do.7) Again you make a disingenous, unscientific statement by assertind, "If the mere presence of these items had massive toxic effects, then we would all have died out alread for they are present (except for the few artificial compounds) in massive quantities at the Earth's surface already." I is obvious, and I should have to address this nonsense, that the prescence of the elements in TRACE AMOUNTS in the earth is qualitatively different than their industrial aggregation and refinement. If that is the best you have to dispell concerns about externalities, than you make a pathetic case for their safety.
-
Tom Dayton at 07:05 AM on 12 September 2015Republican leaders should take their own advice and listen to climate scientists
mdenison, related is Tamino's showing of the trend of RATPAC radiosonde data from 850 to 300 hPa.
-
mdenison at 03:53 AM on 12 September 2015Republican leaders should take their own advice and listen to climate scientists
RSS provides an interesting discussion of satellite and radiosonde comparisons at www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation. In section 'Sub-Sampling Satellite Data to Match Radiosonde Locations' they give trends of
'HadAT Trend 0.189 K/decade' (radiosonde)
'Sampled RSS trend 0.181 K/decade' -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:59 AM on 12 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @28 states, "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 just went to the Youtube link you provided and watched. He's not at all saying what you think he said. The question posed to him was, "If funds collected from a carbon tax were directly allocated to carbon capture, instead of being redistributed to the people, would you still support it?"
The question pre-supposes his support for a carbon tax and dividend system, but he's saying he wouldn't support having the funds diverted.
-
howardlee at 00:33 AM on 12 September 2015The Exception Extinction
Tom @ 3 makes many good points. I just have to correct the tropical temperatures/greenhouse forcing point: Recent literature supports Gondwanan ice from the mid-Ordovician on, and the CO2 levels coupled with the polar continent and weaker sunlight are compatible with this coolhouse scenario. The temperatures in the figures are tropical, not global. It's not clear to me that if there was also northern sea ice. Without substantial northern landmasses it's not clear if that northern sea ice was sustainable. That might be a factor in reducing ocean turnover.
Given the geochemistry and sediments it's clear the oceans were indeed anoxic, but why they were so is a key question. The literature explains it with nutrient load and low atmoshperic oxygen, but sluggish turnover was probably also a factor.
The ACC is a much later phenomenon, arriving at the Eocene-Oligocene transition. As Tom notes, Ordovician land configuration does not support an Ordovician equivalent, perhaps clearer on this image from Colorado Plateau Geosystems:
-
Tom Curtis at 22:14 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @36:
1) Hansen supports not picking winners with the dividend fee. He explicitly supports picking a loser with regard to coal power plants. As with your misrepresentation of reports on the flooding in New Orleans, you misrepresent by taking an opinion about part of the topic, and representing it as the whole opinion on the topic. I should note (for completeness) that favouring a carbon tax over an emissions trading scheme and using a flat per capita dividend rather than (for example) a dividend scaled with taxable income both increase the economic distortion of his preferred policy relative to alternatives and can therefore be described as "picking winners". None of that in anyway contradicts that his reason for preferring a dividend structure rather than direct funding of emissions reduction schemes with the revenue from the carbon tax is a desire to not pick winners, but neither does that restricted application of that principle imply that he supports "not picking winners" unequivocally, or across the range of policies he supports as you implied.
2) You misrepresent me as denying the toxicity of items on your list when I explicitly stated (several times) that all substances are toxic in sufficient dosage. Some of the items on your list are highly toxic, and some are included even though they are hardly toxic at all except at extreme doses. In one instance (buckyballs) you include it on the list even though only toxic (LD50) at 0.5% of total body mass. The reason you use such a laundry list is that, first, you are unable to show that the toxic substances cannot be safely used, and second, you are unable to show that manufacture of renewable plants involves more release of toxicity into the environment. You are even unable to show (because it is not true) that the toxic elements are even necessary for the renewable industry (as opposed to being used in particular products).
3)
"More over, this futher claim you make, "Some evidence suggests that nickel may be an essential trace element for mammals", and Cobalt is "... is a very small part of our environment and very small amounts are needed for many animals and humans to stay healthy," is another example of intellectual dishonesty, because we both not that to fullfill the world's need of ~25TWh and growing, massive amount of these substances will have to be mined and process. So the impact to the envirionment is unlikely to be "small doses" needed for animal health."
If the mere presence of these items had massive toxic effects, then we would all have died out alread for they are present (except for the few artificial compounds) in massive quantities at the Earth's surface already. To be toxic, the substances need to by ingested or respired in circumstances normally only found during manufacturing processes.
On a personal basis, if it were not so the amount of time I spent playing on tailings dams in Kitwe (contaminated with copper and cobalt) in my youth would have killed me of.
I disagree with mancan18 (@43) that toxicity from manufacture of solar cells cannot become a problem with scale up of the solar industry, but it need not become one; and will probably require far less mining and toxic waste than the normal mining processes associated with modern industry. That is particularly the case as all of the technologies used in solar and wind have alternatives that do not use noxious or rare compounds.
4) It is a well known fact of economics that high demand for a substance increases the price. The greatest demand for carbon is currently for standing power, and for fuels. If those uses can be replaced due to a carbon tax, then the price of carbon in chemical uses will fall. Particularly as many of those uses will not result in emissions (the compounds are chemically stable) and hence will not attract the tax.
-
mancan18 at 17:22 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @29
As many other commentators have already indicated, Governments do pick winners and losers. In fact every time they support a piece of new military technology they pick what they think are winners all the time. In fact, historically, many of the products and the science that gave rise to those products were a direct result of the research paid for by Governments (and a few wealthy individuals - not the Koch brothers) who were more interested in studying the science and what can be done than actually developing saleable products. The LHC and the Human Genome Project are cases in point. They are supported by Governments from many nations, and would not be possible if they had to rely purely on the operation of the market.
As regard the operation of markets, I would have thought that if Governments did ensure that companies paid for the negative externalities of the products they produced then that would not be the Government intervening in the market as you seem to see it. It would ensure that the market operated properly. In fact, Governments already do enforce taxes upon some products that have a negative externality involved in their consumption. The car market is such an industry. It requires car owners to pay a premium to an insurance company to ensure that any third party damage that arises from your use of your car will be covered, not by the taxpayer, but by the industry and consumers. We are all required to pay a premium each year based on the ascertained risk and the possible damage cost so that we can all drive our cars without taxpayers having to foot any damages bills. If it can be done with the car market, then it can certainly be done with the risk and potential damage that comes from using fossil fuels.
As regard James Hansen and his views. I agree with Tom Curtis @32. You have misrepresented Hansen's views.
Also, you miss Tom Curtis's point @35 regarding the toxic by-products of producing renewables. Those toxic by-products are not being produced in sufficient quantity in the manufacture of renewables to have a huge impact on the environment and can be easily contained if disposed of properly. This is quite unlike the CO2 by-product from energy produced using fossil fuels which is changing the very composition of the atmosphere in a remarkably short time, warming the planet and changing the climate to one not seen since humans first walked the savannah.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this particular line of discussion with Ignaz is closed. No more please.
Oh, and transcript of relevant part of the video with Hansen:
Questioner: (Directed to Jim)
"If funds allocated from a carbon tax were directly allocated to carbon capture instead of being redistributed to the American people as you outlined in your remarks, would you still support it?
Hansen: No, because we should not decide what the winning technologies are. Give the money to the public and let the market decide on what is the best way to reduce the carbon emissions. ....
-
Ignaz at 15:22 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Moderator The politics is precisely appropraite, because Citigroup is making an argument for the biggest government intervention in the economy in our entire history! The whole purpose for the "green lobby's" existence is getting government to intervene in the economy and impose artificial conditions. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss historical examples of govenment economic intervention.
Moderator Response:[PS] I repeat politics is expressly forbidden. Politicians on all side defend their stance by appeals to history. Argue it somewhere else. Try Thinkprogress.
Note also: "Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted."
Your attacks on citibank run periously close. Discuss content and science or dont bother.
-
Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz: "you are implicitly assuming that governments fully understands long-range outcomes, and furhter assuming that they have the best interests of all stake holders in mind."
Strawman, Ayn. Show me how you constructed the implication from my text. I will say this, though: governments have the potential to collect and organize information to an extent far, far beyond that of any individual. At this point, individual cases need to be assessed. Social organizations, whether governments or businesses, all have the potential to be both beneficial and destructive. Governments have proven extremely useful in organizing the response to large-scale disasters. A response by private enterprise on the same scale would be chaotic to the point of amplifying the disaster. If private enterprise was organized in its response, it would be nothing more than a government. When one fails to recognize what would happen in the absence of government, it's easy to criticize government. It's also an error in thinking to assess and evaluate a government without considering the development of that government within the broader context of the economic mode.
I'll wager this conversation will now disappear.Moderator Response:[PS] Any further politics and slides into offtopic conversation will indeed vanish.
-
Ignaz at 14:30 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
For those that missed them, here are the links describing Citigroups investment psotions and scope of their world wide operations.
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/opportunities.htmhttp://www.citigroup.com/citi/environment/operations.htm
And keep in mind that this is only one investment bank. It would amont to professional malpractice for other investment banks - public and private - to not be positioning themselves to take advantage of forthcoming regulation and industry subsidies.
And Mr. Al Gore, who has already become the first "green billionaire" on the back of his well publizied hyperbole, is doing the same. (See below)https://www.generationim.com
Moderator Response:[PS] Skip the politics and the posturing.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Ignaz at 14:21 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
DSL Although this is not a political tread, I have to respond. In your statement, "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..." you are implicitly assuming that governments fully understands long-range outcomes, and furhter assuming that they have the best interests of all stake holders in mind. There's enormous amounts of historical evidence that belie both your implied assumptions. They are not so much statements of fact as they are statemenst of leftwing dogma.
Moderator Response:[PS] Correct, it is not a political thread. If your interest is climate politics, then there are plenty of other web sites for your amusement. This is not one of them.
-
Ignaz at 14:04 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Hansen explicity says that the government should not be picking winners and losers, that Democrats are prone to that error, and that he supports the market operating to find optimal solutions.
Are you all denying he said that in the video I posted?Moderator Response:[PS] Hansen explicitly supports tax and dividend. (which means government is not picking a winner like CCS). That is what other commentators are telling you but you seem to fail to understand. The video in no way contradicts this.
-
Ignaz at 12:38 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
By the way, Tom Curtis, I don't like people who lie about the opinions of others either, as you seem to have done regarding what I heard from Dr. Hansen's own mouth. But perhaps you're just that good. You know his mind better than he knows his own
Moderator Response:[PS] Nothing but inflammatory comment.
-
Ignaz at 12:36 PM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Tom Curtis see video at 40:22 to 41:54 for what Dr. Hansen believes about the economics. Evidently, Dr. Hansen, at least in this symposium, does not agree with out interpretation of his position on the economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGY2cjSfsRA&ab_channel=UyrekaNante
As for the toxicity of the list of elements I list, which are taken from abstracts linked to the Nocera Lab and NAS website, a simple goolge seach with bring up each and every one of them as being toxic and/or carcinogenic. I guess I incorrectly thought that a person with and open and inquiring mind as your purport yourself to have, would take the ten minutes or so that it would take to google these elements or ask a chemist you may know. To even question that cadmium, lead, cobalt and phosphine are toxic, or that ruthenium is a know carcinogenic, just says that you ought to spend less time pandentical correcting others, and inform yourself instead.
And the point of highlighting "organic," which obviously went right over your head, is to point out that carbon mined from somewhere is still part of the "renewables" picture. Moreover, a technology that I didn't include, but which may interest you, is the work being done with graphene. It may very well turn out that the electric future of your dreams will be based on the near-supercondutivity at room temperature of this allotrope of carbon. Is it's a well known economic fact that one tends to get less of something that's taxed, it would be shooting oursleves in the foot to tax carbon and thus disincentivize this technology.
You continue by saying about me, "In short, he does not show whether switching to renewables will increase or decrease the risk of toxicity in the environment; nor whether any risk involved is intrinsic or can be controlled by proper manufacture." However, I believe you are confused about you had the onus to show such evidence. I am not the one claiming that these are "clean green" technologies, thus implying to the general public that they are without externalities. To the contrary, failing to expose data that you know undermines the claim of "clean energy," is intellectually dishonest.
More over, this futher claim you make, "Some evidence suggests that nickel may be an essential trace element for mammals", and Cobalt is "... is a very small part of our environment and very small amounts are needed for many animals and humans to stay healthy," is another example of intellectual dishonesty, because we both not that to fullfill the world's need of ~25TWh and growing, massive amount of these substances will have to be mined and process. So the impact to the envirionment is unlikely to be "small doses" needed for animal health.
You also studiously ignore that fact that the majority of lanthanide production is control by China, which has imposed export controls. Lanthanides, as you may or may not know, are not only vital to the "clean" energy industry but they are also vital to any modern weapon of war worth building. Again, are you ready to come out in support of a massive increase in open pit mining in this country? Or, would you rather keep the externalities in China and give them a trump card over our armed forces?Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Note that in that video, the question Hansen is answering is whether he supports carbon tax money going to CCS instead of redistribution to public. His reply reiterates the position claimed here by Rob and Tom. As with Nordhaus it seems you are not understanding video that you are putting forth in support of your own arguments.
[PS] Please step back, take a deep breath and stick to arguing the facts. Skip the rhetoric and sloganeering. If you make a claim, back it up with references. (eg the "vital" to clean energy).
This discussion is going off the rails. Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Fruitful discussion happens when participants acknowledge points where they agree and state why they disagree with references and without the rhetoric.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:17 AM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz @25, for want of an actual argument, gives a laundry list of supposedly toxic components used in manufacturing renewable energy sources. He does not show that components on the list are particularly toxic, relying instead on rhetorical questions and the hope that our ignorance matches his own. Thus, he lists cobalt and nickel, asking "Between cobalt and nickel, which is the non-toxic one?" Well, obviously both are toxic, as is everything in sufficient dose. But "Some evidence suggests that nickel may be an essential trace element for mammals", and Cobalt is "... is a very small part of our environment and very small amounts are needed for many animals and humans to stay healthy" (in the form of vitamin B12 as it happens). So, in small doses both appear to be necessary for good health. In large doses they are not, but Ignaz provides no information to suggest the use of Nickel or Cobalt in artificial photosynthesis will lead to exposures to large doses.
The desperation of Ignaz' rhetorical tripe is shown when he lists "organic electrodes" and writes "... the word "ORGANIC" of course related to CARBON" to explain the toxicity issue. Well, yes. Organic relates to carbon. But that does not show organic electrodes to be anymore toxic than chlorophyll, vitamin C, or even glucose. All of them are also organic compounds, consumed in high volumes (chlorophyll) or manufactured by the body (vitamin C except in great apes including humans; and glucose); and with sufficient dose, all also are toxic (as is everything).
This is not do deny that some of the items on his list are toxic in small doses, or pernicious so that it is difficult prevent harm either in manufacture or from waste products. But Ignaz does not discuss those cases only. Nor does he compare with the toxicity issues from normal manufacture of other products, or other forms of energy (where coal in particular is very pernicious). Most importantly, he does nothing to show that with appropriate techniques, these substances cannot be used safely in the manufacture of renewable energy plants. In short, he does not show whether switching to renewables will increase or decrease the risk of toxicity in the environment; nor whether any risk involved is intrinsic or can be controlled by proper manufacture.
Instead of a proper argument, he merely vomits forth a list of words in hopes of evoking an emotional response from the non-thinking.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is clearly over the line on "Inflammatory comments" as per comments policy as you should know.
Please step back and stick to arguing the facts.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:45 AM on 11 September 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Ignaz @13, the point of physical precision is that anybody who knew how to derive the basic mechanics of general relativity would know that E=mc2 and F=ma are incompatible. (General Relativity, by the way, because of the involvement of acceleration.) Even if you have just an informed intuition on the topic, you would have suspected a problem about simply accepting both at face value. Ergo, that you chose these as your examples shows that you, at least, accept these not because you know their derivation, and the observational tests they have faced, but because you understand them to have been accepted as part of the scientific consensus (without apparently realizing that the second is only accepted as a usefull approximation in non-relativisitic contexts).
Ergo, we have this paradox. You are citing as examples of scientific truths not accepted because of consensus, scientific expressions you only accept because you understand them to be accepted by the conensus of relevant physicists.
If you do not recognize how that undercuts your case, well I have come to expect sloppy reasoning from you in any event. If you think pointing these facts out is condescending, that again only reflects (poorly) on you.
With regard to Nordhaus, the chicken and egg problem only relates to the particular technique Nordhaus uses to explore those issues. We can use additional data from other sources to break out of that problem. Indeed, that is just what Nordhaus does for one side of the equation.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:33 AM on 11 September 2015The Exception Extinction
mitch @1, cooling at winter will make polar water more oxygen rich, but absent freezing of surface waters to increase salinity, that oxygen rich water will not be carried to the ocean depths. This is particularly the case absent strong north (or south) flowing surface currents from the tropics (which also contribute to high salinity in polar seas). If you look at figure one, it is evident that without any analog of the North Atlantic, ocean water transport to poles would have been much less at the end Ordovician. Further, the much larger south polar land mass would (I think) have greatly weakened the Antarctic Circumpolar Current System, thereby weakening the flow of surface water to the deeps in the south. On top of that, figure 2 above clearly indicates greenhouse forcing and tropical temperatures inconsistent with polar ice in the Ordovician. Thus it is highly likely that prior to the start of glaciation deep waters would have been anoxic. Whether glaciation (and the return of one of the pumps that drives the thermo-haline circulation) would have been enough to generate substantial abyssal circulation is an open question, and if it had, whether it would have been sustained long enough to re-oxygenate the deep ocean another. These are questions that would need to be settled empirically, and apparently have been settled in the negative (although resolution and timing of geological data is always an issue). Given how different the Ordovican ocean is to ours, however, we certainly cannot simply assume anoxic conditions to be prima facie improbable.
-
howardlee at 04:47 AM on 11 September 2015The Exception Extinction
That the deep waters were anoxic is not so much interpretation as what is recorded in the geochemistry and geology. According to Armstrong & Harper: "The fact that a large reservoir of anoxic deep water persisted below the storm- and wave-influenced mixed layer is corroborated by a number of geochemical and sedimentary proxies." See also Zhou et al.
We also have to bear in mind that atmoshperic oxygen levels were much lower back then.
Marine sulfate concentrations reduced, indicating increased pyrite burial in the Hirnantian. "together these proxies indicate that as global sea level fell, increased nutrient flux and photic zone bioproductivity intensified and widewpread anoxic, and in places euxinic, conditions prevailed or expanded as the chemocline rose through the water column" (Armstrong & Harper).
The extraordinary release of nutrients from a non-ocean reservoir is essentially Lenton et als' argument.
-
mitch at 01:22 AM on 11 September 2015The Exception Extinction
One of the problems with the extinction interpretation presented here is that it is very difficult to make deep water anoxic. Any cooling in winter/at the poles will make a dense water mass loaded with oxygen, while tides will mix and pump up the existing deep water. Since nutrients go down with the organic matter that drives oxygen down, there is a steady state deep ocean that typically contains oxygen. In the present oceans, about 50% to 2/3 of the oxygen in deep waters is used.
One needs to have an extraordinary release of additional nutrients from a non-ocean reservoir to drive the deep waters anoxic. If only the deepwater exchange with the surface drops, so do the upwelling nutrients, which lowers productivity and lowers the transfer of organic matter to the deep, lowering deep oxygen consumption.
-
Ignaz at 00:25 AM on 11 September 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Tom Curtis With all that verbiage on physics which you so enjoyed showing off, you still don't refute that whatever the approxiamtion to truth those formulas may or may not provide, nonetheless it is not by a poll amongst scientists that those answers are given. No one has to depend on a scientist's opinion on the matter.
Moderator Response:[RH] Empty assertions. If you want to continue to post here you're going to have to find some way to support the statements you make. Thus far you've been incapable of doing so.
-
2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
Ignaz - I strongly suggest that you take discussions of Cook et al to one of the relevant threads, where your rather poor attempt to reframe the data has already been discussed and (correctly) dismissed. I will in passing note that the abstract survey ratings were in fact more than supported by querying the authors of the full papers. Bzzzt.
Your claim that projections have been lowered is, in fact, not correct, see the discussion of the 1990 FAR projections here, versus AR5 here (in particular, Fig. SPM 6), which projects 2C by 2100 for RCP6.0, just the median value seen in FAR. Your claim is therefore unsupportably wrong.
---
You've posted quite a bit of nonsense on SkS over the last few weeks, on multiple threads and in multiple directions, echoing many of the climate change denial blogs - none of which seems to hold up under examination. IMO your comments are just noise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:19 AM on 11 September 2015Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
Ignaz... "He supports that the so-called fossil fuel externality price be redistributed back to the public on a per capita basis..."
You're describing a tax and dividend system, just the same as Democrats are trying to get enacted, and which Republicans are blocking. A tax or "fee" is the "external price" and the dividend is a tax credit on individual tax returns thus returned "to the public on a per capita basis."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:13 AM on 11 September 2015Citi 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.
-
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:
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.
-
Ignaz at 23:47 PM on 10 September 20152015 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.) -
Tom Curtis at 23:34 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
-
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. -
CBDunkerson at 23:07 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
-
Ignaz at 23:01 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
-
ryland at 23:01 PM on 10 September 2015Europe 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
-
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).
-
Ignaz at 22:55 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
-
Philip64 at 22:50 PM on 10 September 2015Europe 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.
-
Ignaz at 22:28 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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. -
Ignaz at 21:59 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
-
Ignaz at 21:49 PM on 10 September 2015Citi 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
-
Ignaz at 20:14 PM on 10 September 2015Europe 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.
-
Ignaz at 19:50 PM on 10 September 2015Europe 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? -
Ignaz at 18:52 PM on 10 September 2015Volcanic 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. -
denisaf at 15:42 PM on 10 September 2015Volcanic 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?
-
Tom Curtis at 12:01 PM on 10 September 2015Europe 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.
-
Firgoose at 10:36 AM on 10 September 2015Europe 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. :-)
-
ryland at 09:57 AM on 10 September 2015Europe 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.
-
mancan18 at 09:27 AM on 10 September 2015Citi 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.
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
